Liberals Arts United: shedding some guilt

Ugh, it drives me crazy that there are so many articles that are like “social sciences aren’t important” and “literature isn’t important” and always emphasizing STEM STEM STEM!

I totally think STEM is important too. In fact, I wish that I had taken way more STEM classes. I wish I retook calculus in college, and that I’d taken a statistics class. I regret my dismissal of science and my assumption that a greater understanding of science is irrelevant to my life. I wish that I’d taken more basic computer classes in high school, and maybe some handy electives like automotive tech. As a liberal arts major who has struggled off and on with unemployment and underemployment since graduating two years ago, I know very well the value of these “hard skills” and technical knowledge.

But reading between the lines of this recent article continuing the drum beat of STEM STEM STEM, the simple STEM solution is not as simple as it seems. One of the most telling lines is this:

“Hans-Herbert Jagla, executive vice president for human resources at Volkswagen in Chattanooga, said finding workers with both technical skills and people skills was proving more difficult than predicted… [Jagla says,] “In manufacturing, you have to be able to calculate things — and express yourself."”

I have found that despite my “unemployability” as a nearly skill-less, non-technical worker, I actually have invaluable skill set—my people skills and communication skills, particularly interpersonal communication. And where did I get that? From reading books! From taking sociology and psychology classes. From going on “useless and frivolous” study abroad programs. These are some of the things that the social sciences and liberal arts have to offer, and their contributions to the workforce should not be ignored. They have been soundly blasted for nearly a century now as being useless, baseless skills, but that is simply not true. The above article quotes an economist say “It’s better to get a C in chemistry than an A in literature.” This is an awful pithy statement, but it is a frivolous and irresponsible thing to say, especially because it sounds like just the kind of latchkey phrase that a politician would cling to when trying to get rid of liberal art and social sciences and replace them with engineering.

I mean, I love engineers. Some of my best friends of engineers! But the thing is, every engineer thinks that if they and their engineer friends ran the world, everything would be perfect. This is clearly not true, because Herbert Hoover is the only engineer president and everyone agrees that that guy was no good. I don’t deny that engineers are smart and that they have really good, logical answers and solutions to many of todays problems. An engineer would probably make a great VP, actually. But there are many, many other skills that make up the world of useful skills, and as a proponent of the liberal arts, I am tired of their contribution being marginalized.

That being said, I do agree with many of these alarmist STEM articles that it is a growing and worrisome problem that so many jobs are going overseas, not just for the cheaper labor but also because there are just not enough qualified workers  in the US (I think that biggest illustration of this was in This American Life’s Retraction episode, where Ira is talking to the reporter about Apple’s supply chain in China? In the US, it would take 9 months to find all the industrial engineers they need. In China, it only took 15 days—and they were working slow. That’s crazy!!!!). But, I don’t think it is a simple matter of valuing STEM over all the other subjects. I think that this problem reflects definite cultural shifts in America. And culture is an unwieldy, multi-faceted thing that is hard to figure out, solve, define, or change. So we have our work cut out for us. 

And, just as a further disclaimer and caveat, I would never say that all you need are soft skills and a liberal arts background and you are prepared for the job market. That is untrue as well, and anyone who says otherwise does not have your best interest in mind. But to say that liberal arts or social sciences is a death knell for your future professional life is just as wrong as saying that STEM careers are the way to professional fulfillment and jobs for everybody. Both of these assertions only tell part of the story. 

Advice that I am trying to follow

"One, I would take some classes at the UCB. Two, the secret to the success of The State was we never waited for anyone to ask us to do anything, or for anyone’s approval to do anything. We just fucking did stuff. We were shooting all the time, writing all the time. We would put up a live show every couple of months. We were aggressive. If you wait around for an opportunity to come up, it’s not coming. It isn’t, ever. Opportunities are not coming. The only opportunities that are coming are the ones you create. Otherwise you are just waiting around. "

Thomas Lennon’s advice for people who want to break into sketch comedy.

Not that I want to do sketch comedy, but you know. Other stuff. 

Ralph Nader, please show me my purpose in life

I've spent a lot of time thinking about "my purpose in life." And yes, I have to put it in scare quotes. Because, I'm a cynic, naturally, and there is no getting around that.

I know that I'm a cynic and a skeptic because when I was in high school, I didn't believe in Great Works of Literature. Someone would say "Shakespeare is really a genius" or "Heart of darkness changed by life" (okay, bad example) and I would smile but secretly think, "they are surely overrated, like everything else." Much to my surprise, after reading one of these books I would invariable thing, "oh, that was actually good." And then I realized that, though a cynic and better than most people (or so I thought), i am not in fact the smartest person who ever lived, and Shakespeare may in fact have been a genius, and not only that, but someone might have realized that before I did.

So, in an effort to apply these facts to my life, I have attempted to follow other peoples' advice on a wide variety of things. I have often failed.

One thing I am trying now but failing at is to forget myself and go to work. However, the (more advanced) cynic in me suggests that this is impossible--that by doing service in such a self-serving manner as trying to fix myself and find my own life's purpose, I am disrupting the quiet selfless nature of true service.

Ironically, while reading one of the great works of literature that my cynicism caused me to spurn in my (younger) youth, my later cynicism has been vindicated. I'm reading Anna Karenina (sent to me by mystery person), and in it, one of the main characters is in a slump. Depressed, unsure of her life's direction, she goes abroad, meets some wonderful people, and takes after their do-gooder ways (sound familiar, eh? peace corps or service year, anyone?). However, she realizes that while one do-gooder is totally earnest, the other one goes about building others up for the hidden purpose of building herself up. The difference? Earnest do-gooder was born and raised like that and has always done it. It is truly nothing to her, it is second nature. The character realizes that unlike her, she will never be a true do-gooder.

And nor, to a certain extent, will I.

In the church (and in many other places besides), there are always a lot of statements like, "if everyone was like X then everything would be perfect," and those of us not like the ideal are supposed to feel bad for bringing everyone else down. But the truth is, some of us are meant to do things and others of us aren't. God made me who I am for a reasons. If he wanted us all to be X, he could have done that really easily. But he didn't.

Some of us are already going to have the ability to be charitable to everyone. And others of us, we might be better to leave well enough alone. Like Kitty in Anna Karenina, we will realize that sometimes, bad things may come of our good intent, because we are not playing to our real strengths.

I was reminded of this again when I was watching Ralph Nader: An Un reasonable Man. (Good doc, but i'm already a Nader lover so I don't know if my opinion counts). The guy didn't set out to say "i'm going to change everything about America." No doubt he is and became aware of that destiny, but he didn't pursue it outright like that. Instead, he was just trying to do the right thing and be the best and follow his heart, and he ended up on the path he was on because of that.

I don't know if it's true anymore for artists, I feel like all of them are influence by Andy Warholian/factory-ness or advertising, but here is a quote from that weekend moral dilemma book that also backs up this notion:

"[Artists] are sensible enough to conceive of art as the by-product of a job of work done. The opposite effort to capture the by-products first (the self-conscious pursuit of beauty, the pursuit of art for art's sake to the exclusion of jobs of work and other pedestrian beginnings), was always a reflection of selfish wealth, selfish leisure and aesthetic decadence." -John Grierson, 1st Principles of Documentary

In other words, it is selfish to work towards these 'by-products'--such as beauty, or in the case of Nader or do-gooders, changing the world for the better--rather than just working period and getting stuff done, and letting these by-products come as they will.

So...I can't "find my purpose." That's vain. And I can't abandon myself in the care of others, because that selflessness is secretly selfish. Or change myself, because then I'm not following my true gifts. Instead, I need to pursue what my real talents are, and my destiny will come to me. Like in a Paolo Cuelho book, I imagine (see, i like Paolo Cuelho, I'm not that cynical).

The problem now is, what are these talents and how do I pursue them?