Ying's profile猪的精神家园PhotosBlogLists Tools Help

Blog


    February 12

    <转载> I know it's sentimental, but...

     
     
    ... from a friend's blog - can't help to paste it here. Very sentimental, but very good article...
     
     
    沈园的陆游和唐琬
     
    一怀愁绪 几年离索
     
      红酥手、黄藤酒,
      满城春色宫墙柳。
      东风恶,欢情薄,
      一怀愁绪,几年离索,
      错,错,错!
     
      写到《钗头凤》,突然就卡住了,觉得太多人知道陆游、唐婉、沈园。故事我是烂熟,却不知打哪儿说起,也喜欢自虐,压根就不愿毫无新意地复述别人说过的话。
     
      在没有引进西方遗传概念之前,中国传统信奉“亲上加亲”,表兄娶表妹是天经地义的。穷困人家之间这种换亲,省得许多彩礼;富裕家庭则更增添一些喜庆。民间有许多表兄妹间的爱情故事,譬如嫌贫爱富、撕毁婚约,譬如私相授受,暗订终身……由于表兄妹也分所谓姑表、舅表,戏文中常常出现的是舅母嫌弃外甥。
     
      而陆游、唐婉也是表兄妹,却是姑母嫌弃外甥女。唐婉怎么做也“不获上意”,丈夫又是个事母至孝的人,这便种下了悲剧的种子。我看《二十四孝》的故事总觉得惊怕,怎么世间还有这样愚孝的人?这样残酷的事还时时被后世人拿来做榜样,京剧《三娘教子》唱的即是。都说帝王家无情,其实中国的堂堂皇道,到了民间也一样是清冷残酷的。因为权力变小、责任变重的缘故,有时,礼教反而更显得变态压抑。
     
      陆游原不是一个软弱怯懦的男子。“三万里河东入海,五千仞岳上摩天”,“当年万里觅封侯,匹马戍梁州”,“夜来卧听风吹雨,铁马冰河入梦来”。他诗里的慷慨义气,教人耸眉动容。“上马击狂胡,下马草军书”,他的诗剑生涯,一样激扬从容。可是,在母亲面前,在最爱的女人面前,他都做了懦弱的人。
     
      或许这样去指摘他是不对的。他不能不孝。毕竟是那个时代的人,礼教驯养出来的标准好男儿,如孙悟空挣不脱那个金箍咒。所以只能一次次地哀求,最后低头,休了自己至爱的妻。
     
      原本属于两人的情爱中,添入了太多的情感纠葛。纠葛是沉重的,繁杂的,无法使人释然。
     
      他另娶王氏淑女,她另嫁赵家好男。没缘法,转眼分离乍。翻覆间生离如死别。时光又轮回了。事件重演……“孔雀东南飞,五里一徘徊。……举身赴清池,自挂东南枝。”你可看见,东汉的杳缈水烟里,刘兰芝和焦仲卿隐约的身影?
      
        时间慢慢地流过去了,那些曾经鲜活的人,他们血流成河的哀伤,渐渐变成了戏文里的皮囊,单单的,薄薄的,哪个人都可以套到身上来演;书页之间的黑白文字,轻薄,谁都可以谈起。他们成了故事,成了神话。
     
      以为一切已经过去了。可是,走过三国魏晋,南北朝,隋唐北宋,到了南宋,焦母陆母们仍可以为了儿子的前程考量,举起“孝”的大棒逼散鸳鸯。做小官的儿子,敢怒不敢言,不懂得孝而不顺的道理。贤惠美貌的儿媳含冤受屈被遣送回家——依旧是同样的悲剧,连戏码都没有变,只是主角上场时换了一副面具。
     
      “多谢后世人,戒之慎勿忘。”孔雀东南飞,千年的期盼还是落了空。
     
      十年后,他回到家乡,独自去了沈园。应是心底的一缕难解的情愫引领他去的。那里是他与唐婉相恋的地方。沈园的青葱岁月是他稔多年来藏在心里的秘密花园,秘而不宣。
     
      他黯黯地在沈园里凭吊,想着世事如水不可回转,大宋江山如是,自己的爱情亦如是。转身之间却又遇见她了。这如画的春天里,杨柳揉碎了一池碧水。曾经与他十指交缠,分花拂柳踏步而来的人,已嫁作他人妻。
     
      为什么还要遇见呢?
     
      此时唐婉已由家人作主改嫁名士赵士程。春光和煦的一日,夫妇相偕游园。
     
      她分花拂柳而来。阔别十年后,又看见他了,依旧是分花拂柳间抬眼望见的弱冠少年,他好像从年少时就站在那里,未曾离别。
     
      为什么一定要是十年呢?
     
      这个数字仿佛一个魔咒,撺掇着人把时间当成坟墓,把什么都往里面埋。等你,以为已经事过境迁,风平浪静了,再一股脑地倒腾出来,看你受不受得了。
     
      一个眼神,就知道彼此根本未曾离别。十年之前,我们分手,十年之后,我在你身后。仍是朋友,还可以轻声问候。只是,那种温柔再也找不到拥抱的理由。
     
      她遣人送来黄藤酒一杯。红酥手,黄藤酒,请君满饮此杯。这或许是你我最亲密的接触了。情人最后难免沦为朋友。
     
      她退回小轩里,与丈夫共进小食。隔着摇曳柳树,她知道他就在不远处,可是再也不敢抬头,不能再看他一眼。往事不堪回首,纵有千种愁绪也只能埋在心里,烂在心上。已是他人妇,虽然赵士程足够绅士,给了他们叙旧的机会,只是他不敢过来,她不敢请。谁不怕?这抑制不住如海的相思!
     
      她只送过一杯酒。以妾红酥手,赠君黄藤酒。相逢无语君应笑,各自春风慰寂寥。
     
      她和夫君在轩间小酌,依稀望见黛眉轻蹙,红袖玉手,为他轻轻斟酒。隔着摇曳柳树,轩上的她,好比云间月,禁宫柳。
     
      曾以为,我们是一生一世一双人。
     
      他在墙上题了一阕“钗头凤”。为了逃开这宿命般的挫败感和遗憾,陆游远远离开了故乡山阴,手持三尺青锋北上抗金,又转川蜀任职。一年后,唐婉重游沈园,走到与陆游相逢的地方,看见粉笔上字迹犹新的词,恰如看见两人的心血斑斑。她伤心饮泣,在词后和了一阕——
     
      世情薄,人情恶 ,雨送黄昏花易落。晓风干,泪痕残,欲笺心事、独语斜栏。难、难、难。
      人成各,今非昨,病魂常似秋千索。 角声寒,夜阑珊,怕人寻问、咽泪装欢。瞒、瞒、瞒 。
     
      春如旧,人空瘦。 你何必再题什么《钗头凤》?桃花落,闲池阁。你我别后,已是武陵胜景又一春,何必再叹什么“山盟虽在,锦书难托”?
     
      表兄妹的恋情似少年梦境,恍恍惚惚的,一个一个的节气过去了,作为亲戚的往来,却显得更沉默,更羞怯。只是侧身从堂前掠过的身影,卧塌前俯耳侧听的脚步,只是父母谈笑的话题。青春在想象和期盼中簌簌地过去了。
     
      那一年,他终于以一只钗头凤为聘礼,将她迎娶回家。那是一只钗,钗头是一只小小的凤——凤嘴小小,以为衔紧了一世的爱情。
     
      以为一夕的相拥而眠,是终生的厮守。我太眷恋你了呀,无心去做别的事,天天谈诗论赋,耳鬓厮磨,不知今夕何夕,把什么功名利禄都抛到九霄云外。得到这样兰心蕙质的妻,谁舍得只顾追名逐利,冷落了你?何况我屡试不第,是因为性情耿直而得罪权贵,是血脉里流淌着诗人的梦魂;不是你的过错。
     
      谁说世代望族,子弟就必得做官才不坠家风,才对得起祖先?若不是生逢乱世,谁不想效李太白“且放白鹿青崖间,须行即骑访名山”?在山水之间,赌书泼茶,琴瑟相和,“船前一壶酒,船尾一卷书,钓得紫鳜鱼,旋洗白莲藕。”足教世人从此不羡鸳鸯只羡仙。
     
      不料却恼了母亲,一来唐婉不能生育,二来使陆游沉溺儿女情长,耽误了丈夫功名,是那不贤的妇。去占卜,说两人八字不合,母闻言大惊失色,逼儿子写休书,又赶着为他另娶贤妻。陆游毕竟是陆游啊,只可以做国家的栋梁,从科甲正途入仕,不可以做那儿女情长的贾宝玉。
     
      也是因为爱儿子吧,为了他的功名前程计,更为了私心里那一点不可明言的“恋子情结”。就像焦仲卿的母亲一样,媳妇怎么做,也讨不得婆婆欢心去。因为我的儿子太爱你了,这本身就是一种罪。
     
      女人的妒忌是嫉忿狠毒的根苗里开出来的妖花,却常常拿爱做幌子。
     
      和了一阕《钗头凤》不久,唐婉便因悲痛过度,抑郁而死。她对得起陆游了!唯一辜负的,只是赵士程吧?一个清雅豁达的谦谦君子。史书上不提他的深情宽厚,可也应该是不输放翁的,如果不是“曾经沧海难为水”,如果不是沈园一遇,那一阕伤筋动骨的《钗头凤》,他和唐婉安然到老,应该不是神话吧?
     
      唐婉说“怕人寻问,咽泪装欢”,难道他真的一无所觉吗?沈园那一遇,她和他的未尽情愫,他真的看不出来吗?只是他选择隐忍,沉默罢了。他爱她,也尊重她。
     
      她别去,用死亡在两个爱她的男人中间划下一道不可逾越的银河。没有鹊桥暗渡,此生此世再不复见。死亡,有时反而是最轻易的割舍。
     
      用破一生心,也无法让你爱我。夜半阑珊时,他又该有怎样的痛?
     
      这一切的哀讯陆游并不知道。他刻意的远走他乡,忙于他的抗金大业。只有夜里挑灯看剑,梦回吹角连营的军旅生活,塞上关楼的风刀霜剑,才能消磨他心底那属于江南的一缕缠绵隐痛。
     
      人生如白驹过隙,一蹉跎,便是两鬓苍苍。直到四十年后,陆游重回沈园,才看到唐婉的和词。可是,伊人何在?他们错过了四十年!本该厮守却仳离的四十年……
     
      像咬破舌尖般刺痛,我轻曼地想起“古诗十九首”里的句子:“同心而离居,忧伤以终老。” 一霎的轻别,换来半生的凄凉孤单;生命中无法填补的空洞,只是一错手而已。相爱太深是错,没有恶意也可以导演出无法遏止的悲剧。爱的本身无分对错,所以也可以是错。
     
      他的一生,写了九千多首诗词,却没有一首是给自己的母亲和续弦的妻子的。心里不是不怨吧,只是不能明说。他终究还是有怨,还是有恨。母亲扼杀了他一生的幸福,逼死了他最爱的女人。
     
      对母亲的孝,应该是心甘情愿,若心生怨艾,已是不孝了。其实他如此地悔,还不如当初反了,拼着不做什么孝顺儿子,忠于自己,省得一生长恨。可惜已经错了,一错手,是天长地远,相见无期。
     
      金戈铁马的陆游,一生中最柔软的伤口该是这“沈园”了吧,不能触碰,一动,就有汹涌的泪流出。他偶然看见别人做的菊花枕,想起她曾经把采下的野菊放在太阳底下晒干,细细地缝成菊枕。为他做的枕头。那幽谧的菊花香,使他感伤地叹——“唤回四十三年梦,灯暗无人说断肠。”
     
      他只能移情沈园。最后一次见到心上人的地方。 “每入城,必登寺眺望,不能胜情。”那时,垂垂老矣的陆游,总是老泪纵横,苦不堪言。一次次的重游沈园,哪怕是梦游,他也有诗做。
     
      “沈家园里花如锦,半是当年识放翁”,沈园里的花会记得;“沈园柳老不吹绵”,沈园里的柳会记得;“春波桥下伤心绿,曾是惊鸿照影来”,沈园里的水会记得。沈园里的一草一木都会记得,他自己也记得。心里到老到死的遗憾。
     
      “此身行作稽山土,犹吊遗踪一泫然。”
     
      今我来时,杨柳依依,沈园里,不见宋时明月宋时人。影壁上后人刻的两阕词,遥遥相看,黑的碑,白的字,叫人凄然。心意相通却无缘牵手。山长水阔,梦魂杳杳,再相逢,惟有来生了。这堵墙,被哀重的词剜了筋脉,虽然被修葺得光洁了,仍是“墨痕犹锁壁间尘”。
     
      夏末游园,园里展眼看去都是绿。这园不及苏州的园林多矣,但仍惹人眷恋,就像北京上海的大观园,明知是假,爱着《红楼梦》的人还是要进去看看。
     
      这树静静地陪他一起老了,这水还青碧着,仿佛一低头就可以看见她的倩影。我滞留沈园,不为亭台楼阁之胜,为的是那份千年情殇。
     
      不禁想,若当日两人放舟江湖,南山携隐又如何?没有牛郎织女式的离散,不要这千古传唱的《钗头凤》,只要他们是一生一世一双人。
     
     
    September 16

    <转载> 活着

    《活着》:活着……

    以哭的方式笑,在死亡的伴随下活着。

    作者余华这样解释活着:活着,在我们中国的语言里充满了力量,它的力量不是来自于叫喊,也不是来自于进攻,而是忍受,去忍受生命赋予我们的责任,去忍受现实给予我们的幸福和苦难、无聊和平庸。


    所以《活着》的主人公徐福贵在谈到死去的亲人的时候,眼睛里流出了奇妙的神色,分不清是悲伤,还是欣慰。徐福贵活着,好像就是为了看着身边的人一个个死去。在这出关于残亡的戏剧上演之前,他夜以继日地吃喝嫖赌,终于在一夜之间由阔少爷变成一文不名的穷光蛋,而他的父亲,在亲手处理掉所有的田产之后,死于由老宅迁到茅屋的当天。破败前的少爷不懂得伤心而破败后的福贵没资格伤心,因为他已经成了佃农,佃种着曾经属于自己的五亩田地。此后的日子里,他亲手埋葬了自己的儿子、女儿、妻子、女婿和年仅7岁的外孙苦根。他身边的人一个个死去了,而他却没有这种幸运,他只能活着,因为这是他的命运,一头牛在犁完所有该犁的地之前,一个人在挑足他应挑的担子之前,上天是不会让他的生命提前逃离的。


    在失去了其他的亲人之后,福贵与苦根相依为命,他们共同的心愿就是攒钱买一头牛。钱终于攒够的时候,苦根却已经死了。福贵一人买回了牛。那本来是一头正要被宰杀的濒死的老牛,它已经干了很多活受了很多罪,就算不杀它恐怕也活不长了,但是,因为不愿看着老牛在哭,早已不再会哭的福贵买下了它。起个名字也叫福贵。


    一过10年,两个老不死的”———徐福贵和老牛福贵———居然都没有死,他们活着。福贵赶着福贵去犁田,在吆喝福贵的时候嘴里也喊着所有死去亲人的名字,好像他们也都是些驾着轭正在埋头犁田的牛。


    生活就是人生的田地,每一个被播种的苦难都会成长为一个希望。他们就是我们自己的驭手,不管身上承受着什么,不管脖子上套着什么,不管肩上负载着什么。
     

    February 28

    <转载>现代人的精神救赎

     
    陈晓旭的林黛玉随着王扶林版的《红楼梦》成就了一代人的银屏经典、青春偶像,当年的人气和痴迷是要让眼下的各色粉丝集合都要羞愧死的。最新的消息让人大跌眼镜、舆论哗然:近日,陈晓旭的爱人郝彤向记者证实:陈晓旭已于日前在长春百国兴隆寺剃度出家。剃度后的陈晓旭已不再接手公司管理工作,她接下来将"云游四海,潜心修佛。"(2月26日《现代金报》) 
        这不单单是一则娱乐新闻,尽管,明星出家未必算得上什么新鲜话题。如果我们把"陈晓旭出家"放在一个宏大的时代语境下去观照:个人的宗教皈依、富人集体的精神缺席、现代人的精神焦虑……一应地都暧昧纠结起来。我们在创造财富,我们却不知道如何精神救赎。《论语o述而篇》里子曰:"志于道,据于德,依于仁,游于艺。"大致是说,一个人应该立志于修为世间的"大道",对于用以谋生的技能或工作要能够跳离出来,反观自己,然后游刃有余。游弋在商场的"陈晓旭"和我们一样规避不了现代生存焦虑,这种焦虑是生存性和本体性的:时间危机、自我空间危机、风险忧虑、判断和选择疲劳、自我认同危机、生存意义的迷失等等,于是构建"本体安全"就成了一道难题:坚持的结果可能是更虚妄更迷惑,退后的选择就是寻求另外的精神皈依--譬如宗教。但问题恰恰在于:不是所有的人都愿意、或能够选择退守。 

        2006年有则新闻可能我们还记忆犹新:"北京大学国学班开学,私企老板趋之若骛。"但,后续的部分可能我们不甚明了--报了名的很多老板因为这样或者那样的原因并没有出席。渴望寻找心灵的宁静,又无法重返内心的和平:这一对矛盾就是现代财富话语执掌者救与自救复杂博弈的"形象代言",值得我们玩味。"陈晓旭出家"终究是个人民主权利,宗教信仰自由,但坊间对"出家事件"的热议和舆论反射已然超越了对一个明星命运的猎奇心态,这点,只要问问我们自己揣测其出家因由的逻辑就可窥知一二了--或者说,无论"是"与"不是","陈晓旭出家"似乎都为现代人的精神救赎臆造了一个小众化的出口。 

        所谓精神救赎,就是灵魂、道德、审美的救赎。遗憾的是,当社会竭力平衡着物质与精神的天平的时候,我们个体的天平在社会规则下还是事实地倾斜了。据说,西方的富人拥有一个"优良传统":即暴发户永远是小丑。于是一种强大的附庸风雅的力量催动着富人向绅士风度、艺术鉴赏者和宗教生活层面滚动,子子孙孙后,粗俗的、偷羊卖肉的暴发户就也成了园林古堡中做派有度的先生,所以有人说"欧洲的文化历史或者说风情史实际就是由这种精雅诉求推动的历史"--而我们的现状恰恰是:不知道如何做一个创造物质财富的市场人、不知道如何救赎自己的精神--其悖论就是,满足于物质财富的单维欲望追逐,得到后才发现自己空无一物。 

        陈晓旭曾经很专注于赚钱,"直到有一天,我突然发现,父亲母亲不知何时开始衰老、虚弱了,好像随时都有离开我的可能。而我给了他们什么呢?这一切他们又能带走什么呢?……"这些疑惑,不正是我们、或将来的我们所无法规避的命题吗?而这些命题不正和文德尔班、罗素等西方哲学领域的"精神救赎"殊途同归吗,只不过,陈晓旭把答案行而上地归结到宗教信仰而已。其实,在宗教信仰之外,我们还有更美好的精神救赎之路:给予、求知、博爱、寻美……
    May 23

    On success

    On success

     

    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/1451.cfm

     

    Knowledge@Wharton: You interviewed a number of remarkable people -- or 'builders,' as you call them -- for your book. What were your initial findings and how did these individuals think about success?

     

    Thompson: We found that three fundamental principles drive lasting success; these need to interact with one another and also to be integrated and aligned. We describe them in our first chapter in a diagram with three intersecting circles -- meaning, thought and action -- and the bull's eye is where they all come together. We found that individuals across the spectrum of professions were striving to find something that mattered to them in a very fundamental way. This prompted them to drive their thoughts to frame a way of producing those results -- and then acting on those results.

     

    If you take any one of those principles away -- for example, if you take meaning away from thought and action -- you might be successful in the short term. This is because you have a plan in your head and execute against it. But if your plan is disassociated from meaning, it might not matter. And it wouldn't have the meaning which sustains you through the inevitable challenges and difficulties of trying to create a career. That fundamental step of finding meaning, finding the passion that matters to you and that drives your behavior, is often skipped.

     

    When we interviewed people for our book, we learned that whether you are Jack Welch or the Dalai Lama, it is dangerous not to do what you love. If you don't have a level of passion that drives your thinking about what you're doing day in and day out, there will be others out there who are passionate who will overtake and outrun you. People who care will take the initiative away from those who are half-hearted. So loving what you do is a competitive imperative, not simply a nice thing to have.

     

    Knowledge@Wharton: Loving what you do and being passionate about it is certainly a necessary condition for success. But don't you think that timing and chance also play a part? For example, what about people whose ideas are too far ahead of their times?

     

    Thompson: You earn your luck in those circumstances. In other words, if you are willing to invest in going deep into developing your skill set and knowledge, and you are passionate about what you do, then when circumstances work in your favor or against you, you're better prepared for opportunities that present themselves.

     

    There is one thing that we discovered consistently about people who were enduringly successful. If you ask them about their careers, they will say, "Well, it was a bit of a serendipitous journey. I started out with a focus area that I cared about and became an expert at, and then the opportunities started to present themselves." And yes, many of them stayed with their chosen area when the timing wasn't right and when the circumstances did not work in their favor. If you ask them about it, they will describe the pain that they went through, and how difficult that was, and how they stuck with it and eventually prevailed.

     

    We have a chapter in the book that's called "Wounded Wisdom." It deals with people who found that they were better off taking advantage of a later opportunity than an earlier one. Now, it's hard to say whether they are re-framing that question after the fact in an optimistic fashion. But people describe their journey as one where they had many setbacks and difficulties, but because they had the courage of their convictions, they were able to prevail and have lasting impact.

     

    Emery: The question you asked earlier was about how these people think about success. The answer is that they don't. People don't start out to be successful -- they start out to be very good at what matters to them. And when timing and circumstances come together, then they end up with success.

     

    One of the issues we are very clear about is that success needs to be redefined. This is because if you read the definition of success in the dictionary, it sounds like it was written for sociopaths. If you go to Oxford or Webster -- whether you take a dictionary from either side of the Atlantic -- they define success in the same way, as the accumulation of influence, power, wealth and accolades. We see a lot of people chasing that kind of success. What's remarkable is that a few people whom we talked to have achieved that kind of success, but it was never their goal.

     

    A lot of people are experiencing incredible success. Although they don't think about it per se, they have rich lives and they are having an impact that will probably benefit the world way beyond their lifetime. The traditional definition of success doesn't fit their lives at all. What we have here is an historic opportunity to start a global dialogue about success. That's our intention -- to challenge Webster to alter its dictionary definition. That is why we decided to do a global success survey.

     

    Knowledge@Wharton: Do people think about success in the same way over time or does that definition change? For example, do people think about success in the same way in the beginning of their careers as they do at the end?

     

    Thompson: That's very interesting, because the definition might shift over time. We've spoken to CEOs who, for example, learned from earlier experiences that perhaps they were too focused on getting into the corner office, and they might feel about it differently later in terms of what their priorities should be. But in terms of the overarching focus in their lives, it wasn't the traditional definition of success.

     

    Emery: I'd say what appears to be constant is that the principles don't change over time. What defines these people's lives is their commitment to doing something that is meaningful to them. If they're pursuing a cause of public service, certainly they are living a life of service, but they are also clear that this life serves them. So it's not an either/or situation. They never talk about it as a sacrifice, and so that principle of having an anchor to what is meaningful to them never changes.

     

    And another thing we noticed in our research is that when you talk to these people, after a while you feel something is missing from the conversation. Mark and I have explored this, and we realized that what is missing is that they never blame anybody for their circumstances or their mishaps.

     

    They also never hold themselves to be victims of anything. It was astonishing to be with Senator John McCain in his office in Washington. Regardless of your politics, it's astonishing to listen to a man who is a true hero, who went through extraordinary physical pain and deprivation, and who talks about being grateful for the transformational experience he had in Vietnam.

     

    Knowledge@Wharton: One of the most interesting ideas in your book is that successful people harvest their failures. How do successful people stay successful?

     

    Thompson: The chapter we spoke about earlier focuses on people who take their wounds and turn them into wisdom. For example, Charles Schwab, the founder of the successful investment bank, is a lifelong dyslexic. John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco Systems, and Richard Branson, CEO of Virgin, also had learning disabilities. Even though some of these difficulties were intractable, they chose to see them as an opportunity.

     

    Some people have enormous setbacks in their lives, or they make mistakes, but you have to learn from your mistakes. As Quincy Jones, the musician, asked us, when was the last time you actually did that? When did you take the lessons from a setback and put them to use? These people were very consistent about looking to success and failure as feedback. In other words, it's all input. Sometimes, success can make you sloppy, just as a setback can make you [understand] more clearly what works and what doesn't. They're disciplined about looking at how things had good or bad results and seeing them as opportunities for improvement.

    February 25

    Extended adolescence - on our life

    Tribal workers

    Today's generation of high-earning professionals maintain that their personal fulfillment
    comes from their jobs and the hours they work. They should grow up, says Thomas Barlow.

    Copyright The Financial Times Limited

    A friend of mine recently met a young American woman who was studying on a
    Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford. She already had two degrees from top US universities, had worked as a lawyer and as a social worker in the US, and somewhere along the way had acquired a black belt in kung fu.

    Now, however, her course at Oxford was coming to an end and she was thoroughly angst-ridden about what to do next. Her problem was no ordinary one. She couldn't decide whether she should make a lot of money as a corporate lawyer/management consultant, devote herself to charity work helping battered wives in disadvantaged communities, or go to Hollywood to work as a stunt double in kung fu films.

    What most struck my friend was not the disparity of this  woman's choices, but the earnestness and bad grace with which she ruminated on them. It was almost as though she begrudged her own talents, opportunities and freedom - as though the world had treated her unkindly by forcing her to make such a hard choice.

    Her case is symptomatic of our times. In recent years, there has grown up a culture of discontent among the highly educated young, something that seems to flare up, especially, when people reach their late 20s and early 30s.
    It arises not from frustration caused by lack of opportunity, as may have been true in the past, but from an excess of possibilities.

    Most theories of adult developmental psychology have a special category for those in their late 20s and early 30s. Whereas the early to mid-20s are
    seen as a time to establish one's mode of living, the late 20s to early 30s
    are often considered a period of reappraisal.

    In a society where people marry and have children young, where financial
    burdens accumulate early, and where job markets are inflexible, such
    reappraisals may not last long. But when people manage to remain free of
    financial or family burdens , and where the perceived opportunities for
    alternative careers are many, the reappraisal is likely to be angst-ridden and long lasting.

    Among no social group is this more true than the modern, international,
    professional elite: that tribe of young bankers, lawyers, consultants
    and managers for whom financial, familial, personal, corporate and
    (increasingly) national ties have become irrelevant.

    Often they grew up in one country, were educated in another, and are now
    working in a third. They are independent, well paid, and enriched by
    experiences that many of their parents could only dream of. Yet, by
    their late 20s, many carry a sense of disappointment: that for all their
    opportunities, freedoms and achievements, life has not delivered quite
    what they had hoped.

    At the heart of this disillusionment lies a new attitude towards work.
    The idea has grown up, in recent years, that work should not be just a means
    to an end a way to make money, support a family, or gain social prestige -
    but should provide a rich and fulfilling experience in and of itself.

    Jobs are no longer just jobs; they are lifestyle options.

    Recruiters at financial companies, consultancies and law firms have
    promoted this conception of work. Job advertisements promise challenge, wide experiences, opportunities for travel and relentless personal
    development.

    Michael is a 33-year-old management consultant who has bought into this
    vision of late-20th century work. Intelligent and well-educated - with
    three degrees, including a doctorate - he works in Munich, and has a "stable,
    long-distance relationship" with a woman living in California. He takes
    140 flights a year and works an average of 80 hours a week. Some weeks he works more than 100 hours.

    When asked if he likes his job, he will say: "I enjoy what I'm doing in terms of the intellectual challenges."

    Although he earns a lot , he doesn't spend much. He rents a small apartment, though he is rarely there, and has accumulated very few possessions. He justifies the long hours not in terms of wealth-acquisition, but solely as part of a "learning experience". This attitude to work has several interesting implications, mostly to do with the shifting balance between work and non-work, employment and leisure.

    Because fulfilling and engrossing work - the sort that is thought to provide the most intense learning experience - often requires long hours or captivates the imagination for long periods of time, it is easy to slip into the idea that the converse is also true: that just by working long hours, one is also engaging in fulfilling and engrossing work.

    This leads to the popular fallacy that you can measure the value of your job and, therefore, the amount you are learning from it) by the amount of time you spend on it. And, incidentally, when a premium is placed on learning rather than earning, people are particularly susceptible to this form of self-deceit.

    Thus, whereas in the past, when people in their 20s or 30s spoke disparagingly about nine-to-five jobs it was invariably because they were seen as too routine, too unimaginative, or too bourgeois. Now, it is simply because they don't contain enough hours.


    Young professionals have not suddenly developed a distaste for leisure,
    but they have solidly bought into the belief that a 45-hour week necessarily
    signifies an unfulfilling job.

    Jane, a 29-year-old corporate lawyer who works in the City of London,
    tells a story about working on a deal with another lawyer, a young man in his
    early 30s. At about 3am, he leant over the boardroom desk and said:
    Isn't this great? This is when I really love my job."

    What most struck her about the remark was that the work was irrelevant
    (she says it was actually rather boring); her colleague simply liked the idea
    of working late. "It's as though he was validated, or making his life important by this," she says.

    Unfortunately, when people can convince themselves that all they need do
    in order to lead fulfilled and happy lives is to work long hours, they can
    quickly start to lose reasons for their existence.

    As they start to think of their employment as a lifestyle, fulfilling and rewarding of itself - and in which the reward is proportional to hours worked - people rapidly begin to substitute work for other aspects of their lives.

    Michael, the management consultant, is a good example of this phenomenon. He is prepared to trade (his word) not just goods and time for the experience afforded by his work, but also a substantial measure of commitment in his personal relationships. In a few months, he is bei ng transferred to San Francisco, where he will move in with his girlfriend. But he's not sure that living in the same house is actually going to change the amount of time he spends on his relationship. "Once I move over, my time involvement on my relationship will not change significantly. My job takes up most of my time and pretty much dominates what I do, when, where and how I do it," he says.

    Moreover, the reluctance to commit time to a relationship because they
    are learning so much, and having such an intense and fulfilling time at work
    is compounded, for some young professionals, by a reluctance to have a
    long-term relationship at all. Today, by the time someone reaches 30,
    they could easily have had three or four jobs in as many different cities -
    which is not, as it is often portrayed, a function of an insecure global
    job-market, but of choice.

    Robert is 30 years old. He has three degrees and has worked on three
    continent s. He is currently working for the United Nations in Geneva.
    For him, the most significant deterrent when deciding whether to enter into
    a relationship is the likely transient nature of the rest of his life. "What is the point in investing all this emotional energy and exposing myself in a relationship, if I am leaving in two months, or if I do not know what I am doing next year?" he says.

    Such is the character of the modern, international professional, at least throughout his or her 20s. Spare time, goods and relatinships, these are
    all willingly traded for the exigencies of work.
    Nothing is valued so highly
    as accumulated experience. Nothing is neglected so much as commitment.

    With this work ethic - or perhaps one should call it a professional development ethic" - becoming so powerful, the globally mobile generation now in its late 20s and early 30s has garnered considerable professional success.

    At what point, though, does the experience-seeking end? Kathryn is a
    successful American academic, 29, who bucked the trend of her generation: she recently turned her life round for someone else. She moved to the UK, specifically, to be with a man, a decision that she says few of her ontemporaries understood.

    "We're not meant to say: 'I made this decision for this person. Today,
    you're meant to do things for yourself. If you're willing to make sacrifices for others - especially if you're a woman - that's seen as a kind of weakness. I wonder, though,
    is doing things for yourself really empowerment, or is liberty a kind of trap?" she says.

    For many, it is a trap that is difficult to break out of, not least because they are so caught up in a culture of professional development. And spoilt for choice, some like the American Rhodes Scholar no doubt become paralyzed by their opportunities, unable to do much else in their lives, because they are so determined no t to let a single one of their chances slip.

    If that means minimal personal commitments well into their 30s, so be it. "Loneliness is better than boredom" is Jane's philosophy. And, although
    she knows "a lot of professional single women who would give it all up if
    they met a "rich man to marry", she remains far more concerned herself about finding fulfillment at work.

    "I am constantly questioning whether I am doing the right thing here,"
    she says. "There's an eternal search for a more challenging and satisfying option, a better lifestyle. You always feel you're not doing the right thing, always feel as if you should be striving for another goal," she says.


    Jane, Michael, Robert and Kathryn grew up as part of a generation with
    fewer social constraints determining their futures than has been true for
    probably any other generation i n history. They were taught at school that when they grew up they could "do anything", "be anything". It was an idea that was reinforced by popular culture, in films, books and television.

    The notion that one can do anything is clearly liberating. But
    life without constraints has also proved a recipe for endless searching, endless questioning of aspirations. It has made this generation obsessed with self-development and determined, for as long as possible, to minimize
    personal commitments in order to maximize the options open to them.

    One might see this as a sign of extended adolescence.
    Eventually, they
    will be forced to realize that living is as much about closing possibilities as it is about creating them.


    Copyright The Financial Times Limited