on passion

[ursula]

In a conversation about SCA recognition, ayeshadream wrote:

I had a deep discussion with a friend about this the other weekend who was visibly upset about how a competition turned out. I said so long as they do what they're passionate about then nothing else matters.

"Follow your passion" is fairly common advice in the SCA, in any small-liberal-artsy context, in life. I find it mildly alienating. I am never that certain about my emotions, nor that focused in my enthusiasms. Of course there are broad themes (playing into my SCA activities are affinities for grammar, for checking out too many library books, for teaching, writing, repetitive crafts), but I know full well that there are all sorts of ways to satisfy my interests. There's an alternate world where I quilt, run the website for a small literary journal, and study classical Chinese poetry, and I'm perfectly happy there.

I use the SCA like a lens. I'm motivated by conversation, by the gaps in conversation, and sometimes (I admit) by the wish to show off. I enjoy formal competitions, because they provide structure, deadlines, concrete goals. And you know what? I do want to be a Laurel when I grow up. I don't want to be a Laurel to the exclusion of sanity, or a real job, or rereading Jane Austen and petting the cats. But sometimes a little bit of ambition can be useful.

Comments

[otherwind.livejournal.com]

I also find the platitude "follow your passion" to be less useful than I once did. I have many passions (most everything I do I am passionate about) but I think that in my family, that directive carried an unintended message--as in, 'do something you love, something artsy, something that comes easy, don't worry about doing things that are really hard, they might be too hard--do something fun.' It took me until recently to realize, hey, I've got more in me than that--I can be more than an artsy-fartsy English major (would you like fries with that?). I _can_ do math, (or statistics anyway), I don't need to settle for being a teacher at a little private school with crap pay, I can reach much higher. I can even be a PhD.

Also, speaking as a laurel, I think ambition is definitely a good thing. I love it when people come right out and say they want to be a laurel and are humble enough at the same time to recognize the areas where they need to grow (both before and after the acolade--laurel is just a threshold, not a destination, as any real artist knows). A real desire for the rank and realistic self-assesment are both critical (and for me, that self-awareness has less to do with craft skills than with PLQs--graciousness, leadership, non-reactivity, having little to prove, ability to give loving and non-judgemental feedback).

For me showing an unconflicted desire for the laurel is just part of the job interview--why on earth would you give a job to someone who thinks they should claim not to want it?

(And by the way, I second glasseye--all we do is recommend--we live in one of the most royalist kingdoms around, and even though the laurels try to be bossier than the other councils, in the end, our only real power is persuasion.)

[ursula]

I've very much enjoyed your accounts of your studies-- especially because my little sister is also planning a psychology Ph.D. & an eventual practice, and it's interesting to me to see the different ways to travel the same path.

Definitely thinking about balance vs. out-of-balance vs. stasis is more useful for me personally.

(glasseye and I like our online snark, but I don't think we're actually in disagreement. I'm more inclined to focus on the process of persuasion, and to see the means by which the council persuades itself as an integral part of the process rather than a black box emitting proposals, and to hope that Their Majesties and the council are in agreement *before* a formal recommendation is made, and, heck, to believe Their Majesties' greatest power is persuasion too. But this is mere philosophy. ;) )