The Europeanization of the US

Much has been said about Gen Y's reluctance to sacrifice their personal lives to achieve career success. But with a declining competitive position in the Global economy and traditional, competitive corporate career paths being stripped of their formerly luxurious vermeer faster than an aging former Melrose Place actress, it feels as if a broader range of young US professionals (including Gen X) are "done" with the notion of making work and professional competition their priority (and strongest source of self-identity). Can anyone that worked 50+ hours a week at Goldman or a myriad of other investment banks possibly feel vindicated when the real estate crash has thrown their firm into bankruptcy - and negated the bonus they were counting on? Many young (or young at heart) professionals are growing jaded and instead setting their sites on a more traditionally European focus on quality of life - and looking into leaving their office gigs for more creative, lower paying, and less traditionally structured jobs. Some are even strongly considering moving to Europe altogether (which, ironically, seems to be Americanizing).

Is the US priming itself to enter into its own psuedo-Renaissance period - with a large wave of young professionals leaving their classic office jobs and instead taking up with a more creatively-focused (and lower paying) profession, pursuing their passions and taking more time to enjoy their personal lives? Are we looking at a busier Starbucks or local coffee shop on random afternoons - simply because it's nice out? More people working from home - or at least leaving the office at 5PM so they can make it in time to their Photography or Playwriting class? More cigarrettes being smoked to fuel our writing (and reading) more books, plays and scripts, taking (and selling) more photographs and attending more museums?

I certainly hope so. It's quarter to 2 on a Friday afternoon - I gotta run so I can wrap up and head out by 4PM to meet friends. And drink coffee. And wine. And take photographs outdoors. On a gorgeous Friday afternoon.

Black Sheep

I've always found unconventional people fascinating - the common thread that seems to tie them (us) all together is some degree of irreverence and an ability to relish in the confounded looks that their opinions, behavior or attire evokes from people. A little black sheep (or at least grey) in a mob of white is a surprisingly comforting reminder that we're not all interested in following a common schedule or plan in life that we had little do with establishing.

Taking unconventionality to an extreme, perhaps the most amusing and studied of the bunch are true eccentrics - not just those that question and defy particular conventions (most of us do to some degree), but those individuals that commit to their eccentricity and oddball ways as more than just a "phase", but a lifestyle. Someone who only wears one color, head to toe, every day of their adult life. The ancient man (or Imelda Marcos) that leaves his fortune to his dog. Howard Hughes. Joan Crawford. Karl Lagerfeld. Michael Jackson.

Two common denominators among eccentrics seem to be money and age. Christopher Hitchens' article on British eccentrics in January's Vanity Fair arguably says it best; "true eccentricity requires some leisure time, and some money, for its cultivation". If you're rich or old enough to afford not needing to be industrious and work to maintain a lifestyle, it's easy to see yourself getting bored. And if you get bored, you easily get into trouble. You start to think too much. Question too much, observe too much. Perceive that everything and everyone around you feels mundane, and that you need to develop an identity. So you begin to dress only in yellow, talk to your dog or pet cow (the only being that truly understands and loves you for who you are). Arrive at public events dressed in a tutu (particularly impressive if you're a man), ride a crocodile bareback, or spend an inordinate amount of time observing clouds (see Vanity Fair article).

Eccentrics keep the world around them interesting (and interested) - particularly when it's a wealthy circle with time, expectations, norms, an implicit code of conduct, and few responsibilities in their hands. You rarely hear about poor or middle-class eccentrics. Instead, they're condemned as crazy, senile, or tacky. It's mostly only the rich (or onetime wealthy) that become eccentric. They have the luxury of time, resources and imagination - and use it very comically (and vainly) to avoid becoming the cliched old, rich man/woman - only to ironically become the cliched eccentric, old, rich man/woman. Only the context for the eccentricity itself seems to differ.

Cheers to the eccentric, bizarre, quirky and original that keep the world colorful and offbeat - but here's to hoping that they'll leave their money to a good, charitable cause and not to their pet parrot.

Muse

If ever there was a muse for bloggers, I think Diablo Cody just might be it. A stripper and phone sex operator in a former life, she's now a noted Hollywood screenplay writer, working with the likes of Spielberg and Jason Reitman. So what formula does one follow to attempt to replicate this success? How much of it is wit and raw talent? Or a pre-destined alignment to be in the right place (online) at the right time? A colorful (and marketable) past that yielded some rich experiences ripe for writing and reading about? For all of these reasons - Diablo Cody, you're my hero.

"Success is a science - if you have the conditions, you get the result".
- Oscar Wilde

Arrested Development

The media has been dedicating alot of copy lately to some macro-level observations on Gen X and Gen Y. I've also noticed this in discussions on the Planning side at work, where we're convinced that the next big insight is going to arise out of the researched differences between Gen X and Gen Y - and I'm sure that we're not the only ones having that conversation. One frequent discussion has been about how Gen X and Gen Y have delayed the process of "growing up" and reaching adulthood - or how we've found a way to redefine it.

I understand questioning what "responsible adulthood" means, and concluding that conforming to certain standards - a conservative attitude dressed in a button-down shirt, accompanied by a traditional office or managerial job, a wife/husband and a mortgage - are not the only ways to validate adulthood. I'm a big proponent for delaying certain decisions - like marriage, or committing to a city for more than 2 years - until you're good and ready. Some of us might ultimately decide that we don't ever want either of those two and would be miserable (and make someone else miserable) succombing to it (marriage and/or a permanent address).

The recent media deluge of Gen Y observations focus on some generalized positive and negative traits. Pundits have waxed rhapsodically about Gen Yers' hypothesized sense of entitlement at work (where the term "paying your dues" or "climbing the ladder" seem to be outdated), their reliance on parents to fund their mistakes and decisions, and their ingrained sense of "I can do no wrong" after being coddled by parents afraid of shattering their self-esteem. Yes, they're generalizations, and I recognize that there's plenty of individuals with these same traits that are not part of Gen Y - they're personality traits, not strictly generational. Despite that, I recognize a grain of truth in those generalizations - and what alarms me most about them is that they imply the absense of a backbone.

Are Gen Y, some of Gen X, and future generations progressively developing weaker spines? Afraid to fall down, pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off (vs. having someone else do the cleaning up for us)? Incapable of recognizing that we're not always going to be right - and accepting responsibility when we're wrong without having it invalidate our self-esteem? Paralyzed at the thought of confronting someone when they did something that irked or hurt us - and instead blogging about it or broadcasting it on MySpace? Hesitant to work for something (like a position at work, or even a person) that might require an investment of time and effort - vs. an immediate pay-off?

Is this generational? Did recessions, weaker economies, World Wars, the absence of social networks/mobile phones/internet, and a world before the women's lib movement make the Baby Boomers and previous generations any more thick-skinned than we've become? Or is my actual experience and view too limited to that of my generation to realize that other generations (which I've only mostly been able to assess through film, literature, and my parents) grappled with the same self-critique?

Young New York?

There's a great article in New York magazine about Gawker (blog about media hounds in NYC). Might not be as relevant to those of us outside of NYC, but the sentiment/observations are pretty universal. In addition to some equally interesting and sad commentary on the petty, snarky judgements and criticism made by these bloggers - and the author's theories on what their motivation is for writing this - the piece makes an alarming observation on the overall attitude of young New York. While it's only 1 person's opinion - there's something about it that just feels close to reality. Makes Carrie Bradshaw feel like an even more far-fetched fairy tale character...


"No other form has lent itself so perfectly to capturing the current ethos of young New York, which is overwhelmingly tipped toward anger, envy, and resentment at those who control the culture and apartments. “New York is a city for the rich by the rich, and all of us work at the mercy of rich people and their projects,” says Choire Sicha, Gawker’s top editor (he currently employs a staff of five full-time writers). “If you work at any publication in this town, you work for a millionaire or billionaire. In some ways, that’s functional, and it works as a feudal society. But what’s happened now, related to that, is that culture has dried up and blown away: The Weimar-resurgence baloney is hideous; the rock-band scene is completely unexciting; the young artists have a little more juice, but they’re just bleak intellectual kids; and I am really dissatisfied with young fiction writers.” Sicha, a handsome ex-gallerist who spends his downtime gardening on Fire Island, is generally warm and even-tempered, but on this last point, he looks truly disgusted. “Not a week goes by I don’t want to quit this job,” he says, “because staring at New York this way makes me sick.”

Visionaries (?)

I read an article about the former founder and Editor of this teen-oriented magazine, and her endeavors since (reportedly voluntarily) leaving the post. It started me thinking about visionaries and the self-initiative that drives many entrepreneurs and artists to pursue and ultimately profit from unconventional, forward-thinking ideas. Specifically - the passion for their ideas, drive to get it done, and unrelenting faith in seeing that idea come to (profitable) fruition.

Atoosa Rubinstein, left her post to pursue her passion in youth-oriented new media, collaborating with artists to develop these YouTube (arguably informative) videos. She's doing this with no profit target or particular business model in mind - for the time being - stating that this particular venture is currently purely an outlet for her creativity, and a means to continue to engage with the legions of young (aged and/or spirited) readers she's accrued since her time with CosmoGirl. Granted - she's got the financial freedom to be able to take some time off without focusing on a profit - and I'm sure she continues to get paid for her substantial insight into the collective and viable youth demographic - until her next digital media business model doubtlessly forms. But until it does, she has her sights on substantiating her creative ideas somehow (like these videos), and trusting that the way to profit from these will materialize itself during the process.

I love studying visionaries; their passion for a particular idea. The process of surrounding oneself with others with complementary interests, turning others onto your idea, and persuading them to become collaborators or investors. That moment when the idea and a way to generate revenue from it align. But most fascinating to me is the much-written and discussed reality that many of these visionaries have zero idea how their passion or idea will be profitable - they just focus on the end goal of substantiating that idea - and trust that the way to develop a profitable business model to support it will be revealed along the way.

That passion and vision is inspring to me...now I just need the discipline to concentrate on at least one single idea/vision for long enough to be able to do something about it...

Bloated: A rant on arrogance and competing self-identities

Arrogance is nothing new, and as such should have no particular reason for bothering me now more than...say...5 years ago. It's probably been around since shortly after the first social, political and academic organizations formed. Nix that - the trait likely first emerged as soon as there were sufficient people around to impress. Cockiness, conceit, and (oftentimes false) bravado - while these descriptions have traditionally and more heavily been associated with (or socialized into) men, they still occur in the female variety. Sometimes arrogance is founded - though it would more effectively be left alone as self-confidence. But more often than not, it's without substance. Despite its varying forms and age-old existence, why is arrogance a trait that publicly gets a bad rep, but still seems to be encouraged behind closed doors? And more tellingly, why is its source often left unquestioned?

One of the richest (and most comical) places to see this dynamic at play is in the workplace. With all that's been written in the press lately about the sense of entitlement that generally characterizes Gen Y at work, it's likely that we all know at least one of "that guy or girl". The one that states opinion as fact. The one that answers questions about issues he/she has had little involvement in - ones that are better answered by someone else. The one that recounts client expectations, reactions, and discussions with the assumed tone and delivery of a first-hand participant - even when he/she wasn't involved. Even when he/she has been on the job for a matter of weeks. (I also wrote about this guy/gal in my last posting - see "Archetypes at Work").

What misguided management book - or mentor from the school of seagull management - encouraged this person to use this self-assumed level of authority as a persuasion strategy and power play? Yes, human nature and common sense indicate that people tend to listen when you speak with confidence and authority - no surprises there - but authority on a subject is gained through experience and research - not by assumed tone and perception. Someone is bound to eventually question what the source of this person's presumed authority is - if not because they possess some intelligence and discernment, at least because the perpetrator of this ultimately annoying "authority" will likely begin to irritate the hell out of most colleagues within a few weeks. Common sense and ancient advice tell us that confidence, doing your research, taking calculated risks, and trusting your gut are effective strategies, but they don't preclude actually doing the research and gaining the experience that serves as the foundation for that confidence. At the expense of sounding crude - this "perception is reality" attitude takes on the swagger, demeanor and voice of someone that's full of s--t. And that particular scent will always give you away.

Of course, arrogance isn't limited to the office. Socially, arrogance is oftentimes dressed up, tarted up, and allowed to sneak in unchecked if it makes up the right backstory. Perhaps it's our American tendency to supersize everything that encourages what would otherwise be a healthy self-confidence to push moderation aside, indulge and bloat up into full-blown arrogance. There are several examples of exagerated, bloated confidence and authority in the social realm - the cruel but popular high school kids that govern by fear (of your being the object of their mean-spirited jokes), the proverbial "bad boy" that's adulated for his me-first carelessness, the cheeky tees that let everyone within eyeshot know "I'm kind of a big deal". Much more subtle and passive than these, it's one-upmanship that I find the most fascinating and amusing. Because sadly, at one point or another, we've mostly all gotten caught up in it before realizing what we're doing (and why).

Who got invited to or learned about a promising shindig first. Name dropping, who-knows-who, and how well. How many obscure indie rock bands or film references you know. What artsy publications you cite as your sources. Who's first to wear a new designer or style. Drawing the line between a conversation that is sincerely based on the open, sincere exchange of opinions, ideas, and personal interests - and one that turns into a very subtle competition or comparison of who is better-informed or connected - can be an extremely vague exercise. The subsequent inquisition on who told you, or how/where you learned of it. The look of unease and discomfort at not having an equally informed response or reaction. It's not exactly something you can define or prove, other than describe it as a distinct impression that you're being evaluated or compared against someone else's self-identity.

What makes most of us susceptible to letting what should be an open, honest exchange of ideas turn competitive? Is it the feeble, transient nature of the criteria we're often using to define our identities? Is it our well-veiled insecurity and fear of no longer being interesting or desirable company if we aren't always uniquely-dressed, well-versed on emerging talent or quick with an obscure literary or film reference? Is this sense of competition and arrogance over ultimately incomplete factors in our identity really masking our insecurity?

Before I get any more critical with my observation or hypothetical with my questions, let me add that I know I'm guilty of it, too. After all, it might be a tad trite, but applicable - noone can make you feel inferior unless you let them (or yourself). My concluding comment on what I recognize was a rather "dynamic" subject (for those of you still following, it was originally arrogance, but ended as insecurity and competing self-identities) is just how ultimately ineffective and incomplete certain criteria are in developing our self-identity. There will always be someone better connected in a particular circle, more experienced in a particular field, better informed in a particular subject, more stylish or even smarter than you. I can't believe that to be the worst thing ever, or a challenge to my self-identity - particularly not when what's the most difficult to replicate are the collective characteristics that make someone so unique. A seeming contradiction of Barbie-doll looks and witty intelligence. A consistently positive outlook on life, despite some otherwise skin-thickening experiences. A penchant for dirty jokes and foul language, but a virginal-till-marriage existence. That's much tougher to compare or compete on, vs. an encyclopedic knowledge of anything you can devise a Top 10 list of.