All Work and No Play?

"[T]he pursuit of the difficult makes men strong."
-Mitt Romney's Father (No Apology, p. 5)

We find pleasure in activities which are just on the verge of the achievable; for all our daily griping about work, we love to be challenged, to 'push the envelope' of our own capabilities.

Nothing has illustrated these truths to me more than my own conduct over the past month. Finals for me are just about over (only one left to go, originally scheduled for today, but pushed back to tomorrow on account of... yes, flooding) but I find that I have not, at least not yet, slipped into a state of summer torpor. On the contrary, I am just as intellectually active as I was before, perhaps even more so. This past month I have read several books in addition to my regular coursework: No Apology: The Case for American Greatness ; The World Turned Inside Out: American Thought and Culture at the End of the 20th Century ; Love, Friendship, and the Self ; The Prince ; The Slave Next Door ; The Hidden Brain ; Pride and Prejudice ; A Passage to India ; Swann's Way ; Pamela ; and The Multiplicities of Internet Addiction (which inspired me to write this little essay).

Each day of the week, I would bring in my reading in to exhibit during my dinners at the International Hall table of McTyeire. I would calmly explain the key findings of the books, and we would have a discussion. While my friends from dinner didn't think anything too out of the ordinary at first, they became gradually more astonished as the month wore on and finals began to dig in their heels. One night I, in typical asshole form, bragged that I "would have gone along with them to get a massage at the campus 'Stress-fest,' but I just wasn't feeling stressed enough" to justify a trip. They wonder how I "do it": make good grades, see all sorts of random campus events, enrich my life with extracurricular reading and writing, and get a healthy amount of sleep each night. Sometimes I wonder, too, with many of my friends working fiendishly at the last minute, pulling all-nighters, and generally falling off the map right right around finals time, at the point when I finally seem to have some free time open up on the schedule. They are "swimming to the wall," as my dad would say. I'm not!

At least, not as far as actual studying goes. Well, this essay partially explains it - here I am, reading and writing in my dorm room on a Friday night, when by all accounts I should be either studying or out getting 'schwasted,' or 'laid,' or any one of a number of culturally enriching, quintessentially collegiate pastimes. But here I am, in my dorm on (now) a Monday night, writing purely for my own enjoyment, and, perhaps, for yours as well, if you are in fact reading (which you must be) and enjoying (perhaps not). Like my friend Clay Scandlyn, I sometimes wonder if I'm not "an old person in a young person's body." I quote our Facebook dialogue:

Clay Scandlyn
definitely knows that I am an old person in a young person's body after today.

Jimmy Ferrell
what happened?

Clay Scandlyn
I went to vote in the Knox County Republican Primary, and I was the only young person there. Also, when Chris Black and I went to the Gubernatorial debate in Dollywood, we were the only young people there besides the staffers.

Jesse Jones
lol Clay that's exactly what i've been thinking this weekend, what with all the drunken revelry around campus surrounding Rites of Spring

Clay Scandlyn
Oh good, I am not the only one surrounded by those people at college (the supposed "institution of learning"). It makes me proud to be an honorary old person. We don't get involved with stuff like that. We just like to sit back in our lawn chairs (or comfy recliners) and talk politics all day. The Glenn Beck quote of "We surround them" is inaccurate.

Jimmy Ferrell
clay one day when ur old ur really gona be sad that u missed out on this kind of stuff

Jesse Jones
Frannie Boyle, editor in chief of the conservative newspaper at Vandy, got quoted on CNN last monday talking about such issues. It had campus in quite a stir. http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/19/college.anti.hookup.culture/index.html

Clay Scandlyn
I have never valued it up until now, and I don't see that changing.

Clay Scandlyn
Mr. Jones, that was a very interesting article. I believe that there are very practical components of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that there are worldly consequences to most sinful acts (even though I also believe that these values should not be forced on the public by government decree). Besides, who wants the diseases? I don't identify at all... See More with the drunken orgies crowd as described by that article, but I am a little scared of the fanatics on the other side. I am in one of the biggest minorities that exist, and I can get really old-fashioned about some of this stuff. There is a reason why I have never had a girlfriend. What attractive girl (or just girl) can relate with my position? I feel out of place at UT, but maybe it is just with the college experience in general.

Clay Scandlyn
...or I should say the smallest minority group. I was born in the wrong generation. It would be worse if I were going to college in the '60s or '70s though. What happened to a time when people were moral, polite, and well-mannered?

Jesse Jones
Meh, I don't think you need to be so pessimistic. There are plenty of girls like you and me who aren't into the party culture (it's the same way at Vandy). They're just not as visible (just like we're not as visible). I've never had a girlfriend either, but I prefer to think that's because I have high standards. Nice guys don't finish last ... See Morewith nice girls! (At least, I hope not.) One day we'll be rewarded for our patience.
by the way, if you're interested, here is a continuation of the discussion in our Friday campus newspaper
Frannie's clarification: http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/14148
A rebuttal from a partier: http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/14145

In our lives, we are all - Jimmy, Clay, myself, you, everyone tagged in this note, and even other people - committed to finding our own pleasure; if not, what would be the point? Clay and I have committed ourselves to a life of comparatively 'unique' and 'enriching' experiences - working on political campaigns with old people, reading and writing for fun - while Jimmy has cast his lot in with the lion's share of our peers, swept up in a mad stampede in search of catharsis, under the roofs of American colleges' modern-day pleasure-domes, the Greek houses.

Though all humans necessarily exercise judgment in their recreational choices. I do not mean to imply that my leisurely pursuits are somehow more 'valuable' or 'noble' from an objective standpoint. Indeed, I can think of at least one example where I most certainly enjoy wasting my time.

Nearly two months after running out of game time, I continue to struggle daily with an impulse to return to a highly 'addicting' online game called World of Warcraft. To do anything in World of Warcraft requires that you spend massive amounts of time slaying dragons, dueling peers, leveling up, seeking better gear, and making money on the auction houses - and it's fun. Too fun. Despite Jane McGonigal's protestations to the contrary, (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html), World of Warcraft remains, by and large, a way of escaping from the 'real' world, not a way to engage its challenges head-on or improve oneself. So far I have resisted the impulse to renew my account, which would necessitate that I drop $14.99 per month's worth of game-time, yet I still 'get my fix' by occasionally browsing through an article on the WoW-Wiki as a relatively short and harmless form of procrastination, to which I'm sure all reading this essay can relate (isn't that exactly what you're doing right now?).

This is why a book titled "The Multiplicities of Internet Addiction: the Misrecognition of Leisure and Learning" (by Nicola F. Johnson) jumped out at me as I was browsing through the section of recently added titles at Central Library (I highly recommend this section to all Vandy students - it can be found directly in front of your person when you walk in the library doors, to the left of the main circulation desk. The titles to be found there feature recent scholarship on all subjects, and can cost up to $100, were you to purchase them from Amazon.com!)

The gist of this book is: Unlike a drug addiction, internet use is not, in and of itself, harmful. The internet is a 'space' where many things can happen, e.g. social interaction (with friends and family, or routine correspondence with co-workers), leisure (gaming, music), education, or even crime. It is only when a person's use of the internet interferes with, as opposed to facilitating, his or her life-goals - work, relationships, pleasure - that use becomes "problematic." Even then, the user's (ab)use of the internet may or may not indicate an "addiction." Internet 'addiction' only merits the weighty terminology if a user experiences painful 'withdrawal' symptoms during its absence. If, during a power outage, a heavy internet user doesn't mind busting out a flashlight and doing a bit of novel-reading, then signs are that he or she is not addicted, but merely choosing the internet as a more pleasurable form of entertainment than other options.

I believe that the ultimate goal of life is to find personal satisfaction and that all our actions are, either consciously or subconsciously, driven towards this end. If you share this belief, then you can see that it makes little sense to worry about what you do during your spare time. After all, stress is for work, not for play!

But what if (by fortune) you find a job which you love so much that the boundaries separating work and play seem to erode? (This 'problem' is, I believe, a real opportunity for highly educated individuals like you and me.) In these cases, wouldn't the more crucial distinction in our activities be, not between work and play, but between challenging and non-challenging activities? The categories of challenging and non-challenging correspond to some degree with the notions of active and passive effort. Active effort is, for example, the crush of final exams, what we've just been through (or are going through currently); passive effort is more like reading a book, or watching TV, or listening to a lecture - stimulating, but relaxing. Active effort is the expression, or performance, of your own expertise; passive effort is the accumulation of said expertise. And civil society hangs together precisely because each person knows and expresses a unique type of expertise, exchangeable in the open market through the medium of money.

My majors are English and Asian Studies. I have consciously chosen (or, perhaps, been subconsciously pushed) towards majors which align with my loves of reading and writing. I find my English and Asian Studies classes fascinating, and my professors inspiring. But I these are Liberal Arts majors, which by definition don't prepare you for any specific career, and indeed at times I have been plagued by doubts as to the real-world 'usefulness' of my majors (though, with the economy turning up, I'm not as worried about having to move back in with my parents after graduation).

But then I think about Malcolm Gladwell, and I think there's a lot of truth in his formulation of expertise. In his book "Outliers: The Story of Success," Gladwell presented what he called the "10,000 hour" rule of success. He claimed that 10,000 hours of practice would be necessary to achieve expertise in any given field - he then cites a number of examples of successful individuals, most memorably Bill Gates, who spent thousands of hours during high school programming computers (back when programmers were practically nonexistent). Bill Gates wasn't necessarily a 'genius,' he just happened to be doing the right thing at the right time (and, subsequently, having the wherewithal to capitalize on his built-up knowledge). That's great, but you wonder: how does your average person achieve even a fraction of Bill Gates' success? Well, if you spend 7 hours per day during your college years studying (or reading, or attending class), then that is 365 * 7 * 4 = 10,220 hours. So after spending four years of our prime years and (up to) $200,000, we'll end up being experts in...

What exactly? What do we actually learn in college? To be an expert student in general? To be an expert student in your chosen field? Or something else?

Obviously, everyone learns different things at college, depending on: where you go to school, what classes you take, who you make friends with, and what you do in your spare time. Whatever that knowledge ends up being - after it has been filtered through the fine sieves of memory and stored away for the long-term - it is important that we don't neglect that we learn SOMETHING. Certain subjects naturally kindle your interests more than others, and more than likely one will stand above all others in your regard. This subject will probably seem 'easier' than others, but whether of not this subject comes 'easily' to you is not the point - you still stand to profit from hard work in the area, and you will fall behind if you do not work. And here's the kicker: the subjects which you LIKE, you will naturally work HARDER in. And because our civil society is so blessedly advanced (and, despite the at-times insane political discourse, still remarkably civil), our division of labor is such that we have a place for (in order of decreasing 'usefulness') farmers, and doctors, and lawyers, and engineers, and politicians, and artists, and (Praise the Lord!) teaching and book-writing English majors.

This is not to guarantee that, after you graduate, you will find the perfect job in the area of your passion, but if you look hard, play your cards right - and refuse to do anything you don't enjoy - then chances are you can find something fairly close to what you were imagining. Once again, there seems to be no cause to worry, unless you're dead set upon living in an uncertain future and ignoring your all-too-present circumstances.

So we have options. We can choose to become slaves during our 'free' time - to slaughter the competition, ascend even further up the 'Ziggurat' of human achievement, and perhaps even enter the history books - or we can goof off and be in no danger of unwanted fortune and fame (I'm sure of my choice). But one thing is certain (unless you've been born into wealth): if you don't work hard during your work time, you won't even be able to provide for yourself.

If I were to run for office, I'd probably make my slogan something like "WORK SETS YOU FREE." (jk, that'd be too Nazi-ish). It'd be more like "You get what you work for" - simple, meritocratic, capitalist, free, future-oriented, opportunistic, favoring social mobility, non-judgmental, and true for the most part here in America. As Mitt Romney paraphrased his father during his speech at IMPACT: "Work doesn't make people weaker. Work makes you stronger." While we may not all be bourgeois, all-American Republicans, we shouldn't disparage this formulation of the "Protestant work-ethic" too much. And we also shouldn't fail to appreciate work as a kind of play, or play as a kind of work, that can both enhance our lives and offer us pleasure in our leisure hours. Devoting ourselves fully to work or to play, there is no way we will end up like "Jack, a dull boy."

---

P.S. In my opening and penultimate paragraphs I quoted phrases liberally from Tom Wolfe, possibly the greatest American writer of the later 20th-century (right up there with Rand, Kerouac, Updike). Everyone should read a Tom Wolfe book this summer. See if you can spot the offending phrases. Winner gets a free conversation with yours truly on any subject, as long as it's Tom Wolfe.