I took part in a conversation a few days ago with two friends. One was complaining about his job as an accountant - the stress of the long hours and the unrealistic expectations demanded of him were too overwhelming. That, paired with a sense of fruitlessness in his cold, hard, money-grubbing sector, compelled him to express his frustrations with the directionless of his post-school life. He exclaimed that he would much rather teach snowboarding in Chile for the rest of his life.
My other friend asked him why he didn't just do it. Why didn't he just pick up and leave? Not only was friend number 1 in his early-mid twenties, a prime time for irrational and impulsive behaviour, but if he hated his job so much what was the point? My second friend has been on exchange and she has since been advocating these kinds of opportunities.
Frankly, I didn't say much during this conversation. But I've had some time to process what was said and I have some thoughts about what it means to be radical and, conversely, what it means to be reckless. What is the difference? Are these two things mutually exclusive? If my friend were seriously contemplating quitting his job and doing "whatever he felt moved to do" would I encourage him to do it and herald him as someone who was bold? Would I aspire to be like him because he was not content to live in a bubble?
Being moderate in every single aspect of my life, I see both sides of the coin. Of course, being type B I am unable to come to a definitive conclusion, even regarding something as simple as my personal opinion, about whether someone should go where the wind takes them just because.
Let's lay down the cons.
Being stuck in a job that you hate:
- you don't feel fulfilled. You feel directionless
- you will always fantasize about the what ifs and if onlys
- you are not living life to the "fullest" (whatever that means)
- you are knowingly sheltering yourself from bigger opportunities
Going to hypothetical "Chile"
Although "going to Chile" would mean that you're "free" and "experiencing the world" and "becoming cultured" and "doing what means something to you" red flags start to fly in my mind. I am all about opportunity, but in this context and others like it, I feel as though we are ALL bought by the idea of experiencing the world; immersing yourself in other viewpoints and other cultures and beliefsystems, casting down all things that tie you down and living life to the fullest. However, I feel as though the rejection of bureaucratic tendencies and the embracing of a new kind of radical, whimsical living is completely ironic because we then become slaves to a new kind of ideology. We assume that those who have seen more are necessarily more cultured, more fulfilled. Those of us who have never strayed outside Canada are seen as sheltered, ignorant, held down. Because one has seen more and experienced more, they are living more fulfilled lives and their lives are, in essence, better than the guy who works in an office. I have major qualms about this. "Going to Chile," to me, seems so self-indulgent, selfish, worldly. We're lusting after things and we assume that it's fine because what we're lusting after isn't material. We're not lusting after things but experience which is totally different, right? Not even. It's the same damn thing. Worldiness is worldiness. Materialism just fits under the umbrella.
So how do you find the balance? How do you not get tied down by your daily menial tasks but not become self-indulgent? Is it simply about being more realistic? How much calculation and thought and reasoning should go into a decision before you make it? Do we only do things that make sense? Or do we jump first and figure the rest out later?
I've deliberately left out the notion of God's will in all of this. Just think; what would change if that notion was incorporated into your thought process?
