#people used them to undermine my desire to pursue a career in physics

[235uranium]

perhaps im just a little fucked up from the fact that people consistently assume that bc i like traditionally feminine clothing, i must be a gentle and delicate person

and like, a lot of my old hobbies (ballet, flute, drawing, vintage collecting, theater) are very traditionally feminine

but my gender Is Not Feminine and my personality sure as fuck isnt. ive had so many bad reactions over the years to the fact that i love science, love debate, struggle with empathy, and tend to seek leadership positions. like despite what ppl on tumblr seem to think misogyny is alive and well! plenty of men do, in fact, feel threatened when someone wears makeup and feminine clothing but wants to work in STEM and will argue with them.

[nerdygaymormon]

Reaction to “Truth and the Plan” by Dallin H. Oaks

I finally read the talk from October 2018 General Conference that has everyone worked up. I’m not surprised that Elder Oaks talked about the Family Proclamation and gender, those seem to be favorites of his. I’m also not surprised he spares no words of sympathy or love for LGBT individuals. I am upset that Elder Oaks essentially said anyone who disagrees with him is confused and under the influence of the devil.

—————————————————————

Elder Oaks begins his talk by saying we have access to a lot of information and we need to think critically about the source of that information. What expertise or qualification does that individual have in that subject area? What is their motivation?

This is a valid point. Not all opinions are equal and some people misconstrue or selectively choose facts to support a particular point of view.

—————————————————————

Part I

Elder Oaks teaches that spiritual truths and non-spiritual truths are separate, we should not look to “secular” sources for spiritual truth. Mentions that people who rely on scientific truth risk losing their faith.

In the temple it’s taught “all truth may be circumscribed unto one great whole.” In other words, scientific knowledge is valid and goes together with spiritual truths, they inform each other.  

He teaches that spiritual truths help us understand who we are, the meaning of life and what happens after death, things which can’t be learned by scientific or secular methods.

I agree with Elder Oaks on the purpose of spiritual truths, which is to give meaning to life, not to undermine the truths we learn from other sources.

—————————————————————

Part II 

God is the father of our spirits.

Gender is eternal, we all lived as male or female spirits before being born.

God created a Plan for us to receive a physical body and make choices between good and evil.

The Savior provided an atonement, making it possible for all people to be saved.

Most of my trans friends speak of their gender being eternal but not matching their biological sex, but Elder Oaks uses these words to mean the opposite of that. He gives no credence to the truths shared by transgender, genderfluid and nonbinary individuals about their reality. 

Elder Oaks says that exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom can only be obtained by an eternal marriage between a man & a woman.

The purpose of the Church is to “qualify” God’s children to be exalted. For people who don’t desire that or don’t qualify, God provides other lesser kingdoms of glory.

Given the purpose of the Church is to help people become exalted, it seems as a gay man I’m not wanted because even if I live the rest of my life celibate and do the best I can to keep within the Church’s rules, I won’t qualify for exaltation. My presence is a distraction from the Church’s purpose.  

—————————————————————

Part III 

We honor individual agency and we promote religious freedom around the world.

Individual agency is good. I largely support the idea of religious freedom for individuals but too often “religious freedom” is code for discriminating in public against LGBT individuals, and that I have a problem with.  

The church sends missionaries to the world to teach our spiritual truths. The church also gives money to humanitarian aid to help people regardless of their religious affiliation, we don’t tie it to our missionary efforts.

We do send missionaries around the world. And I’m pleased we contribute to humanitarian causes.

Life is sacred so we’re required to oppose abortion and euthanasia.

Opposing all abortion goes further than the Church’s official position. This change means the life of the baby is worth more than the life of the mother in all circumstances. I’d like if the opposition to abortion included support for things shown to reduce the number of abortions including providing teenagers with comprehensive sex ed, easy & affordable access to effective contraception and for the pregnant woman to feel she can afford to raise the child.

He didn’t specify these restrictions on abortion or euthanasia are specific to humans, so can pets be euthanized? Given all mortal life is sacred, why no comment about war or murder? 

The paragraph about marriage and children says the church cannot retreat from traditional marriage or make changes that confuses gender or homogenizes men & women.

The church will fight the legal and social acceptance of marriages it doesn’t approve of. This seems much in conflict with his idea that people have individual agency.

People who don’t agree with their assigned gender or conform to their gender norms are “confused.” Here’s an instance of scientific/secular knowledge being disregarded. Rather than accepting this is a proven reality and finding a spiritual meaning for it, he dismisses trans, non-binary and genderfluid individuals as “confused” because they don’t match his theology. 

I don’t even know what he means by the homogenization of men & women. I can think of a number possible meanings, most of which I find problematic. People deserve the ability to pursue opportunities and have legal protections regardless of which sex they are. There are biological differences among people that should be noted and accommodated, but not serve as disqualifiers. 

Having children is a duty of “those given power to participate in it.” Children are the ultimate treasure on earth and heaven. We must provide the best conditions for the development & happiness of all children.

WOW. I think he just implied only people who can create children via sex should have children. What do his words mean for Infertile straight couples, single individuals and gay couples who use artificial insemination, surrogate pregnancy, or adoption?

The best conditions for children, I presume he means they should have a mother & a father. Studies show that children raised by same-sex couples do no worse than those raised by straight couples, and actually often do better. Having two moms seems to be optimal for children. Two gay men also works well. Actually, research is showing family situations with straight men are often the least advantageous for children as those men tend to focus on careers and let it distract them from nurturing their children. Straight men are prone to be more violent or abusive than other types of individuals. But recognizing this reality would mean accepting secular truths. 

The church’s positions on these topics provokes opposition. Opposition is Satan’s part of The Plan as he seeks to destroy God’s work. Satan operates by discrediting the Savior and his authority, discourages repentance, gives counterfeit revelation, opposes individual accountability. Satan seeks to confuse gender, distort marriage and discourage child bearing.

He just said any concerns or doubts about what he taught are from the devil. I think this also means people who are gay or trans are doing Satan’s work or are under his influence. Under this logic, when LGBT people point out that we’re excluded from the Plan, ask if there’s any accommodation for us or share our experience and realities, we are seeking to destroy God’s work. The revelations that many LGBT people have received confirming their orientations and gender and that they should pursue loving relationships – all are counterfeit by definition.

—————————————————————

Part IV

Being repentant would mean not trying to change the church. If you have issues with what was taught, hold on to what teachings you can believe and stay strong until you get more knowledge.

Once again, the Church is not wrong, it is inerrant. If you have disagreements or other understandings, don’t leave and hopefully you’ll come to see it our way.

The purpose of our creation is joy and is to be obtained by the “covenant path.” 

Except that whole groups of people have been excluded from this covenant path unless they deny essential characteristics about who they are and how God created them.

I don’t believe that loving Heavenly Parents created people to have these alternate ways of experiencing life and not allow them to express it, in fact, even if they keep quiet and deny themselves of much joy & happiness in this life they are not good enough to be exalted in the next.

[rosinapowrie-blog]

The Teacher Dichotomy: the problem with hero teachers.

“The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing at all, for sure” – Socrates

Learning isn't just about passing exams.  Since starting a career in teaching four years ago, I have struggled to remember this myself, let alone show pupils what they could be missing out on.  In response, I set up a school society mimicking TEDx Talks, giving kids the chance to listen to in interesting lecture at lunchtime with no hidden agenda: simply to try to show them that academia goes beyond mark schemes and box ticks.  This was my opening address entitled 'The Teacher Dichotomy: the problem with hero teachers.'

_______________________________________________________________________In my first fortnight of teaching at a prestigious new school, once we got over that slightly awkward unsure phase of ‘nu teacher who dis,’ a student asked me where I’d been to university and what I’d studied...

‘St Andrews, in Scotland... where Prince William went’ (I added after only a minuscule pause which I have become accustomed to when speaking of the tiny town on the East Fife coast). ‘I read English Literature, but did loads of modules in Philosophy, Classics, Art History... it was good.’ ‘Wow’ the student replied, ‘that’s like really good isn’t it? You must be... like... really clever..!’ And then the student said the 10 words that have shocked me the most in my haggering career as an educator... ‘So why did you end up as a teacher then?’ Now I am not so naive as to think that this is simply one view held by one teenager in that particular moment... What this delightful girl had uttered was probably the ultimate Freudian slip of today’s youth... you lot just don’t see the value in education for its own sake... you think that school is just something you have to get through, preferably do well at, then you can start living your best life. But this must be challenged: if we know and accept that gaining knowledge is a vital crevasse to conquer whilst mountaineering the Range of Success, why do we see it merely as a means to an end? Why can we not enjoy the ride, live in the moment, and value our opportunity to learn new stuff? Why is it that, still in 2018, when teaching is known to be one of the most draining and stringently trained professions, requiring the skill and discipline of an artist, athlete and jail warden simultaneously all before 9am 5 days a week, do our very target audience view our profession as a sort of embarrassing accident that losers happen to fall into? Perhaps you are already outraged by my cynicism. I am aware I am currently preaching to the converted - you guys have chosen to spend your lunch time in this room pursuing knowledge and discussion. But I vehemently believe that this modern apathy to education is due largely to the portrayal of teachers in the media and popular culture. I don’t solely mean the ludicrous click bait that floods your newsfeeds every day (I’m thinking headlines such as ‘boy of 1 wins Nobel peace prize for finding cure to cancer despite failing all GCSEs - who needs em anyway’ or even just the multitude of distracting cat videos you’d much rather be watching), I mean those subliminal messages in books, TV and film that have been drip fed to my generation and yours in our formative years. I’m talking about The Teacher Dichotomy: heroes vs villains. By this, I mean that teachers are firmly type cast into two roles: the sickening sycophant who inspires their flock with their unconventional quirks and flagrant disregard for any sort of teaching standard... that one who really gets down to da youf’s level. Or, worse, the maniacal villain who struts around with a cape and cane doling out detentions and appearing entirely inhumane. The inability to portray teachers as warm blooded mammals with the same instincts, desires and fears as the rest of the world has not only devalued the joy of education, it actually undermines the incredible passion and hard work that goes into just the average, unmemorable bog standard Mr or Mrs Bloggs’ daily job as a teacher. On demand, could anyone name an example of just a regular teacher that a) exists in a book/film etc and b) fulfils meaningful purpose in the plot purely in his or her role as educator and not for any other reason? Three examples analysed... Firstly, our heroes: I’ll start with that that ever hilarious, ever chaotic excuse for a school teacher portrayed by loveable comedian Jack Whitehall in popular BBC3 series ‘Bad Education.’ Alfie Wickers, the History NQT at Abbey Grove School, prefers to befriend students rather than enable them responsibly to achieve their potential. His typical pedagogy includes such escapades as practical re-enactments of battles, or ‘Class Wars’, where any Ofsted inspector would literally have a fit at the flagrant violation for safeguarding an 'ealf and safety. Yet Mr Wickers is respected by Form K – they even like him and learn from him – but do we see any assessment, formative or summative? Do we see him planning or marking? Do we see him tracking progress and planning interventions? While it may be a TV show, and art does not need to imitate life, the point is that Mr Wickers is seen as a fun, likeable teacher.  If he did anything that he was actually supposed to, he would be seen as boring.  And what sort of message is that sending a young audience – that the people who dedicate their lives to ensuring their progress in a conventional way are not heroes.  Only those who offer them fun and entertainment, and no actual learning, are.

At the other end of the positive spectrum, there are those sorts of hero teachers who move students emotionally, yet still wouldn’t actually pass an observation. The epitome is John Keating – the maverick English master portrayed by Robin Williams in the classic ‘80s film, ‘Dead Poets Society.’  Keating encourages his vulnerable student, Anderson, to come out of his shell by joining the eponymous banned extracurricular club.  Here, he forges friendships with unlikely characters and experiences true life and love by looking at poetry differently and forgetting the pressures and requirements of school.  Professor Keating is eventually called out for his disregard for school standards and duly sacked, leaving the boys chanting a heart-wrenching chorus of Whitman’s ‘O Captain, my Captain’ whilst standing on desks.  It’s the ultimate bildungsroman: the boys have come of age, and Keating helped them get there.  Yet again, his inspiring nature is not at all borne of his skill in traditional education methods, but rather the fact that he ignores them completely.  Yet another example of the hero teacher, shaming regular teachers into the background of mediocrity.

And now the other end of the spectrum – the villains.  Who better to analyse than Rowling’s malevolent Professor Umbridge, who swans into Hogwarts in The Order of the Phoenix with the sole aim of making monumental, ‘Ministry approved’ changes to the school curriculum and generally shaking the status quo.  Fans of the series, let’s forget the reasons behind our negative view of Umbridge’s changes for now (the government’s refusal to believe that Voldemort has returned, etc) and read this simply as a teacher trying to raise standards by reviewing current practice and attempting to embed systemic change.  We see this when she addresses the school for the first time: ‘some old habits will be retained, and rightly so, whereas others, outmoded and outworn, must be abandoned. Let us move forward, then, into a new era of openness, effectiveness and accountability, intent on preserving what ought to be preserved, perfecting what needs to be perfected, and pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited." This sounds rather like a forward-thinking teacher, school leader or governor wanting to make improvements, yet she is completely slated and seen as evil.  For example, what are her actual crimes: conducting lesson observations of fellow staff?  Holding staff accountable for their performance and the progress of pupils, and removing them from post if they are not up to scratch? Ensuring that the curriculum is standardized? Essentially, all things that normal teachers do in normal schools to meet the teachers’ standards and provide robust education systems.  However, she is utterly vilified for doing so: so much so that Rowling chooses to portray her as committing the ultimate teacher-sin – failing to safeguard students and actually physically assaulting them in her detentions.  This is a choice the author has made: to show traditional schooling and education standards as petty compared to the great, heroic things that the rest of the Hogwarts teachers inspire the heard with.  The irony is that Umbridge is certainly the only member of staff who would even pass a PGCE, let alone be promoted to senior leadership, in real life.  Yet again, we see the dichotomy in action, reinforcing that subliminal message that traditional education is nasty, negative and pointless.

The glass ceiling must be broken and education needs to be esteemed once more.  The conditioning we’ve been subjected to through popular culture has not helped, but now we have been enlightened to our ignorance. The great irony is that if we enjoy the ride, stop seeing education as a means to end, but rather an end in itself, then you will get further in life if you have become a fully rounded person with a broad cultural capital.  Take umbrage with Umbridge: value your current opportunities and enjoy learning your subjects even if you never need to use that information again.

[crayonlead2-blog]

The overlooked essentials of employee well-being

If you really want to increase employees’ health and well-being, focus on job control and social support.

Workplace stress is exacting an ever-higher physical and psychological toll. It adversely affects productivity, drives up voluntary turnover, and costs US employers nearly $200 billion every year in healthcare costs. Many companies are aware of these negative effects, and some have gotten busy devising ways to counteract them. Efforts range from initiatives to encourage sleep, exercise, and meditation to perks such as nap pods and snack bars.

In the midst of all this activity, it’s easy to overlook something fundamental: the work environment, starting with the work itself. For many years, a number of researchers, including myself, have touted the benefits of better work practices for performance and productivity. In my new book, Dying for a Paycheck (HarperCollins, 2018), I’ve tried to show how two critical contributors to employee engagement—job control and social support—also improve employee health, potentially reducing healthcare costs and strengthening the case for them as a top management priority.

In this article, I’ll explore the research that connects these two elements to employee health, and describe some examples of organizations that are succeeding at providing the autonomy, control, social connections, and support that foster physical and mental well-being. Any company, in any industry, can pull these levers without breaking the bank. Today, though, too few do.

Job control

Studies going back decades have shown that job control—the amount of discretion employees have to determine what they do and how they do it—has a major impact on their physical health. Recent research also indicates that limited job control has ill effects that extend beyond the physical, imposing a burden on employees’ mental health, too. Organizations can guard against these dangers by creating roles with more fluidity and autonomy, and by erecting barriers to micromanagement.

Physical and mental health

One of the most notable research efforts in this area was the Whitehall Studies, conducted by British epidemiologist Michael Marmot and his team, which examined employees within the British Civil Service. Marmot’s team discovered that the higher someone’s rank, the lower the incidence of and mortality from cardiovascular disease. Controlling for other factors, it turned out that differences in job control, which were correlated with job rank, most accounted for this phenomenon. Higher-ranked British employees, like higher-ranked employees in most organizations, enjoyed more control over their jobs and had more discretion over what they did, how they did it, and when—even though they often faced greater job demands.

Additional Whitehall data related work stress, measured as the co-occurrence of high job demands and low job control, to the presence of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors that predict the likelihood of getting heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Employees who faced chronic stress at work were more than twice as likely to have metabolic syndrome compared with those without work stress.

Other research has also found a relationship between measures of job control and health. A study of 8,500 white-collar workers in Sweden who had gone through reorganizations found that the people who had a higher level of influence and task control in the reorganization process had lower levels of illness symptoms for 11 out of 12 health indicators, were absent less frequently, and experienced less depression. And that’s far from the only example of job control affecting mental- as well as physical-health outcomes. For example, a study of individuals at 72 diverse organizations in the northeastern United States reported statistically significant, negative relationships between job control and self-reported anxiety and depression.

Learning, motivation, and performance

During my research, peoples’ stories painted a vivid picture of how low job control is all too common in many offices today. I heard much about the ever-evolving performance-evaluation criteria that made it tough to know how to succeed; the business trips rearranged without explanation; and even about a workplace “scout” who had to discern the boss’s mood and alert the others.

The picture isn’t pretty, and it can be costly. A chaotic workplace environment of frequent, uncontrollable events adversely affects people’s motivation, their cognition and learning, and their emotional state. If, through their actions, people cannot predictably and significantly affect what happens to them, they are going to stop trying. Why expend effort when the results of that effort are uncontrollable, rendering the effort fruitless?

That’s why research shows that severing the connection between actions and their consequences—leaving people with little or no control over what happens to them at work—decreases motivation and effort. It significantly hampers learning on the job, too. People’s ability to learn by observing the connection between actions and their consequences normally permits them to attain some degree of mastery over their environment—an understanding of what they must do to achieve the desired results. In a condition of low job control, on the other hand, people have less responsibility and discretion, which undermines their feelings of competence and accomplishment and ultimately contributes to stress, anxiety, and depression.

The hidden value of organizational health—and how to capture it

Simple steps toward control and autonomy

When you’re a child, the people in your life—teachers, parents—tell you what to do. As you get older, you begin to make your own life choices. And then one day, you get a job. Depending on your boss, your employer, and the design of your work, your choices about what to do and how to do it, at least while at work, can disappear—leaving you more stressed, more vulnerable to ill health, and, sometimes, less than yourself. There are some straightforward actions companies can take to avoid creating such an environment.

Guard against micromanagement

Micromanaging is all too common at work, simply because many managers are poor at coaching and facilitating others to do their jobs better. When managers micromanage their subordinates, those individuals lose their autonomy and sense of control to the bosses who won’t delegate.

Work doesn’t have to be this way. The founder of Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, thought of the company as a place where “everyone kind of knows the role that they need to do, and does that work independent of extreme management.” He leads using a principle he calls “management by absence.” The company reduces the risk of micromanagement by having a flat organizational structure, with more people than any manager could possibly micromanage even if he or she wanted to. Similarly, at Zillow, as a learning-and-development person there put it, “the manager’s role is to support the team and be there to help remove roadblocks, not to be the dictator.” The head of human resources at Landmark Health agreed, saying, “If somebody feels like the work that they’re doing is not valued, if they personally don’t feel like they have a voice at the table, if they feel like they’re dictated to or micromanaged, they’re going to feel less fulfilled and more tired.”

Incorporate more autonomy and fluidity into every role

People often believe that providing job control is possible only for some jobs, and for some people. But that is not the case—all people can be given more decision-making discretion in their jobs and latitude to control their work. San Francisco–based Collective Health designed the jobs of its “patient advocates”—who answer the phones to resolve customer issues that aren’t readily solved—with a simple goal in mind: create a more empowered, highly skilled call-center staff, drawing graduates from top universities. As Andrew Halpert, senior director of clinical and network solutions, explains, “The typical profile is someone who majored in human biology and maybe wants to pursue a medical career, but meanwhile wants a job and to work for an interesting start-up. Then you say, ‘How are you going to keep smart people engaged and happy and not burnt out and dissatisfied?’”

Collective Health trains its hires thoroughly on key technical tools, while regularly rotating their physical locations and assigned tasks: one week they may be coordinating benefit issues, and the next solving larger issues outside their department, giving them an overall picture of how everything works. They are continually empowered to solve problems on the floor as they discover them, connecting with other teams in the company. The system has not only increased employee retention by providing people with more interesting and impactful work, it has also proven more efficient at resolving problems. Halpert says the benefits outweigh the extra costs for the company and the customer: “On the ‘how much did I pay?’ criterion, it looks more expensive. . . . The Collective Health call costs more because it’s being handled by someone who is better qualified and better paid who is also spending more time resolving the issue. But we solve problems, unlike other systems where claims and problems just go on with a life of their own.”

The Collective Health experience shows how roles can be designed both to improve people’s health and increase effectiveness for the benefit of employers—in fact, the two can be mutually reinforcing. Jobs that provide individuals more autonomy and control serve to increase their motivation, job satisfaction, and performance—while at the same time making employees healthier and helping them to live longer.

Social support

If job control is one important aspect of a healthy workplace, social support is another. Research going back to the 1970s consistently demonstrates a connection between social support and health. Having friends protects “your health as much as quitting smoking and a great deal more than exercising,” even though survey evidence suggests that the “number of Americans who say they have no close friends has roughly tripled in recent decades.”

The evidence shows that social support—family and friends you can count on, as well as close relationships—can have a direct effect on health and buffers the effects of various psychosocial stresses, including workplace stress, that can compromise health. For instance, one review noted that “people who were less socially integrated” and “people with low levels of social support” had higher mortality rates.

Unfortunately, workplaces sometimes have characteristics that make it harder to build relationships and provide support. Consider, for example, practices that foster internal competition such as forced curve ranking, which reduces collaboration and teamwork. In fact, anything that pits people against one another weakens social ties among employees and reduces the social support that produces healthier workplaces. Equally destructive are transactional workplace approaches in which people are seen as factors of production and where the emphasis is on trading money for work, without much emotional connection between people and their place of work.

Rooting out practices like these is a good starting point for leaders seeking to build environments with stronger social support. Also invaluable are actions such as the ones described below. These sound straightforward and are already practiced by a number of companies, but nonetheless are easy to overlook.

Demonstrate commitment to offering help

SAS Institute, often found near the top of “best places to work” lists, is a company whose business strategy is premised on long-term relationships with its customers—and its employees. The company signals in ways large and small that it cares about its employees’ well-being. For instance, when a SAS employee died in a boating accident one weekend, a question arose: What would happen to his children, currently enrolled in company-subsidized day care? How long would they be permitted to stay? The answer: as long as they wanted to and were age-eligible, regardless of the fact that they no longer had a parent employed by the company. And perhaps nothing signifies SAS’s commitment to its employees’ well-being more than its investment in a chief health officer whose job entails not just running the on-site health facility but ensuring that SAS employees can access the medical care they need to remain healthy and to be fully cared for if they get sick.

Encourage people to care for one another

The large healthcare and dialysis company DaVita created the DaVita Village Network to give employees the opportunity, through optional payroll contributions, to help each other during times of crisis—such as a natural disaster, an accident, or an illness. The company provides funding to match employee contributions of up to $250,000 per year. When southwest Florida was hit by a series of hurricanes in 2004, a dialysis administrator noted, “The DaVita Village Network provided our housing while our homes were uninhabitable, and provided funding for food until we were able to get back on our feet.”

Fix the language

People are more likely to like and help others with whom they share some sort of unit relationship, to whom they feel similar, and with whom they feel connected. Language in the workplace that emphasizes divisions between leadership and employees can further alienate people and erode any sense of shared community or identity. Ensure that people are less separated by title, and use language that is consistent with the idea of community. DaVita sometimes refers to itself as a “village.” The company’s CEO often calls himself the “mayor.” Employees are constantly referred to as “teammates” and certainly never as “workers,” a term that denotes both a somewhat lower status and also people who are distinct from the “managers” and “leaders.”

Support shared connections

Almost anything that brings people into contact in a pleasant and meaningful context—from holidays to community service to events that celebrate employee tenure or shared successes such as product launches—helps build a sense of common identity and strengthens social bonds. Southwest Airlines is famous for its Halloween parties. Other organizations offer their employees volunteer opportunities to help local nonprofits. A 2013 UnitedHealth survey found that 81 percent of employees who volunteered through their workplace “agreed that volunteering together strengthens relationships among colleagues.”

Giving people more control over their work life and providing them with social support fosters higher levels of physical and mental health. A culture of social support also reinforces for employees that they are valued, and thus helps in a company’s efforts to attract and retain people. Job control, meanwhile, has a positive impact on individual performance and is one of the most important predictors of job satisfaction and work motivation, frequently ranking as more important even than pay. Management practices that strengthen job control and social support are often overlooked but relatively straightforward—and they provide a payoff to employees and employers alike.

About the author(s)

Jeffrey Pfeffer is the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business and the author of 15 books. This article is adapted from his most recent book, Dying for a Paycheck: How Modern Management Harms Employee Health and Company Performance—and What We Can Do About It (HarperCollins, 2018).

Article Actions

Source: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-overlooked-essentials-of-employee-well-being

[comebeforegod]

Perception of Life: Pursuing Fame Is Not the Road to Happiness

By Ziyi, Italy

When I was in elementary school, every summer or winter vacation my cousins would come home in their cars, bringing back various presents.

 All the relatives, friends and neighbors would come over and our house would be full of people. Seeing how they all cast admiring gazes at my cousins, I felt very envious. At that time, I made a resolution to myself: “I must strive hard to achieve something in the future so that I can be outstanding like my cousins. I want to bring honor and glory to my ancestors, and lead an aristocratic lifestyle.”

After working hard, I achieved modest success.

After graduating from technical school, I was very lucky to find a job as an office clerk in a foreign company. In the beginning, I was secretly happy with myself: “No matter what, I now work in an office, so no one can deny that I’m a white-collar worker.” But I didn’t expect that because I had a low position and poor qualifications everyone else could boss me around in the office. My self-esteem was severely damaged, but my ambition was stimulated. I resolved to make other people look at me with new eyes through my own efforts. Therefore, I worked harder and spent all my spare time learning the company procedures and all about the products, and generally gaining professional proficiency. Every day, I worked from dawn to dusk, and I hardly took time off all year round. In five years, I practically went nowhere but the dormitory, canteen and office. Finally, my years of hard work paid off: I was promoted from ordinary office clerk to salesperson, then manufacturing manager, then purchasing supervisor, then imports and exports supervisor, and in the end I became an executive in the company and was admired and looked up to by others. Those who once despised me nodded and bowed in front of me. Such an achievement made me feel glorious and proud.

But as I came into contact with more and more people, I saw that there were a great number of successful people who were richer and more powerful than me. Thus, my sense of satisfaction gradually faded. I thought: “Although I have gained a high position and the support and admiration of my colleagues, I’m still working for other people. As they say: ‘You have to be crazy to be highly successful.’ I’m still young; why don’t I start a business by myself? As the old saying goes: ‘People struggle to go upward, but water flows downward.’ I shouldn’t be content with my current situation, but should seek to progress.” Several years of work experience had given me enough faith and courage, so I quit the high-paying job as an executive to start my own business.

Later on, I opened a store selling cosmetics of a famous brand. To fulfill the high performance targets I set for my company every month, I had to work out various marketing plans besides managing the store. No matter how many customers there were during the day, I always stayed in the store all the time and didn’t go home until very late at night. I had no holidays of my own. Sometimes I felt very tired, but at the thought of the success that was just around the corner, I would exert myself again and keep persisting. After a few years, I achieved a fair amount of success and made some money. Then I expanded my store, and bought a car and a house. All my relatives, classmates and neighbors around me cast gazes of admiration at me, and my parents were also proud of me.

Sudden diseases left me in unbearable pain.

Just when I was tirelessly busy with my business and enjoying a sense of achievement, I started to have some health problems. I often felt faint and had numbness in my hands. After having an examination in the hospital, I was surprised to learn that I actually had cervical spondylosis and periarthritis. The doctor said to me in a serious voice: “These diseases cannot be eradicated. The treatment can only help you relieve your pain. You must take good care of yourself, take more rest and avoid overworking. Otherwise, your diseases will get worse and worse. Though these diseases aren’t deadly, they will influence your quality of life if they get serious. You are still young, so you must pay more attention to your health. If your condition goes on like this, you might get muscular atrophy, or even quadriplegia.” The doctor’s words made me think of those people I knew who suffered from cervical spondylosis or lumbar diseases. Both their work and quality of life were negatively influenced; some of them even seemed to be half- paralyzed and could do nothing. Thinking of all this, I felt very disheartened. I had never expected that I, who was barely 30, could get diseases which occur mainly among people in their 50s or 60s.

When I was driving home, I couldn’t stop the tears from flowing down my face. Thinking back on all those years, I felt I was like a wound clock that ticked round and round and couldn’t stop.

In the following days, I went to the hospital for treatment every few days. I tried all kinds of treatments to treat my cervical spondylosis and periarthritis, such as physical therapy, massage, cupping, acupuncture, traction and small needle-scalpel therapy. These treatments cost me a lot of money, but were of no help to me. On the contrary, they left a shadow on my mind: The sound of the acupuncture needles going in kept echoing in my head. Every time I went into the hospital, my heart would start pounding; when I thought of the pain brought by traction and acupuncture, my legs felt weak. Many times I thought: “I’ve built up my career and gained money and reputation through hard work, but my health is now ruined. I spent nearly half of my life striving to fulfill my ambition of building a successful career. How come my hard effort has resulted in this?” I lived in extreme depression and pain, but I didn’t know how to get rid of them.

After believing in God, I reflected upon my life.

When my agony was at its greatest, God’s gospel of the kingdom came upon me. I saw these words of God: “Born into such a filthy land, man has been severely blighted by society, he has been influenced by feudal ethics, and he has been taught at ‘institutes of higher learning.’ The backward thinking, corrupt morality, mean view on life, despicable philosophy, utterly worthless existence, and depraved lifestyle and customs—all of these things have severely intruded upon man’s heart, and severely undermined and attacked his conscience.”

Through reading God’s words and listening to the fellowshiping of some brothers and sisters, I found the root of my pain. I remembered that when I was little I saw my cousins succeeding in their careers, and that all the relatives and friends admired them, so I secretly became determined to become an outstanding person. When I began my career, controlled by notions such as “rising above others,” “bringing honor to the ancestors,” “People struggle to go upward, but water flows downward,” I was not content with being an ordinary white-collar worker. In order to satisfy my desire to be outstanding and be admired by others, I worked like crazy. I got so absorbed in studying as to forget food and sleep. After I became an executive in the foreign company, I still wasn’t satisfied and so I worked hard to build up my own business. I didn’t cease to pursue fame and wealth until I’d ruined my health. In modern society, the majority of people admire the rich and powerful, and are eager to be one of them. They do their utmost to struggle for fame and wealth, but little do they know that fame and wealth are Satan’s tricks to tempt and harm mankind. Satan uses these erroneous ways of thinking to control us, and make us turn away from God; bound by fame, wealth and status, we live in pain. Many people have achieved success, won recognition and have great wealth, yet they actually feel even more empty and depressed than before. Some of them get depression because of their great mental suffering. Some of them indulge themselves in lives of pleasure and lust, and even get addicted to drugs to numb themselves and relieve their pain; some even choose suicide to end their lives. Through the revelation of God’s words and examining all these facts, I came to realize that pursuing being an outstanding person was not true happiness, and that success and fame couldn’t bring true satisfaction or sureness to me.

Ecclesiastes 1:14 in the Bible says: “I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.” In Matthew 16:26, the Lord Jesus said: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” That’s true. No matter what we gain in the world, we cannot take anything with us when leaving the world, and in the end, everything is empty. If we struggle for money, fame and status and sacrifice our lives, then we are very ignorant and stupid. In those years, I strived hard in order to be outstanding and live an aristocratic life, but now I’ve ruined my health and live with the suffering of illness. Thinking of this, I realized I was so ignorant.

Later, I saw these God’s words: “From the moment you come crying into this world, you begin to perform your duty. You assume your role in the plan of God and in the ordination of God. You begin the journey of life. Whatever your background and whatever the journey ahead of you, none can escape the orchestration and arrangement that Heaven has in store, and none are in control of their destiny, for only He who rules over all things is capable of such work. Since the day man came into existence, God has been steady in His work, managing this universe and directing the change and movement of all things. Like all things, man quietly and unknowingly receives the nourishment of the sweetness and rain and dew from God. Like all things, man unknowingly lives under the orchestration of God’s hand.” “I believe that it is best for us to find the simplest way to satisfy Him, that is, to obey all of His arrangements, and if you can truly achieve this you will be perfected. Isn’t this an easy, joyful thing? Take the path that you should take without paying any mind to what others say or thinking too much. Do you have your future and your fate in your own hands?”

Through the guidance of God’s words, I came to realize that our fate is in God’s hands and only by obeying God’s ordination and arrangements can we gain the blessings of God and enjoy true happiness and ease. However, I originally didn’t see God’s sovereignty and so obstinately lived in accordance with Satan’s philosophy, regardless of how bitter or tired I felt. Not until I fell ill did I stop to reflect upon myself. I realized that all that I pursued brought me only pain, and that only when I come before God to obey His sovereignty and arrangements, let go of fame and status and no longer rush around for them, can I stay away from Satan’s temptation and harm and live freely without restraints. When I realized this, I knew how to walk my future path.

When my viewpoint was transformed, I regained my freedom.

Later on, the cosmetic company changed their marketing strategy and wanted to select some stores to be model stores. Those stores had to have good locations, a steady stream of customers and high sales volumes. When the executive told me about this plan in detail, I was kind of tempted to apply. I thought: “Once my store becomes one of the first group of model stores, not only can I derive a variety of support and good discounts from the company, but there will also be a constant stream of customers when my store is redecorated. Then the sales figures will surely keep improving.” Just when I was picturing this beautiful future, God’s words flashed into my mind: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). “If you were asked to choose again, what then would be your position? Would it be the former still?” Pondering God’s words, I started reflecting upon myself: “What on earth should I choose? Money, fame, status, or my life? After hearing the company’s new strategy, I still want to take this opportunity to gain money, fame and status regardless of my health. Won’t I be repeating my former mistake? If I was to end up paralyzed in bed, then no matter how much wealth I possess and how much admiration I win, what use would they be? My life is the most important thing.” Thank God. Under the enlightenment and guidance of God, I knew how to choose the right way. Later, I went to the executive and told her: “I’m in poor health. If I expand my store, my health will break down. So I’ve decided, I don’t want to be selected.” The moment I made my decision, I felt as if I had rid myself of shackles that I had borne for a long time, and I gained relaxation, freedom and relief that I had never felt before.

After that, I no longer spent all my time managing my store. I started to fulfill my duties to the best of my abilities in the church. When it came time for meetings, I would go; and when it was time to work, I would go to my store. Surprisingly, sales didn’t decrease because of my attending gatherings and fulfilling duties. From this, I clearly saw that all of this wasn’t decided by my own efforts but depended on God’s blessings and control, as all things are in God’s hands.

I thank God for selecting and saving me. Through living the church life, reading God’s words with my brothers and sisters, and sharing our individual experiences, my depression was gradually alleviated and my condition took a favorable turn. Thank God. I’m willing to pursue the truth according to the direction God has pointed me in, and walk on the right path of life—obeying God and revering God. All the glory be to God.

[love-god-forever]

My Joys and Sorrows After Achieving Success

By Ziyi, Italy

When I was in elementary school, every summer or winter vacation my cousins would come home in their cars, bringing back various presents. All the relatives, friends and neighbors would come over and our house would be full of people. Seeing how they all cast admiring gazes at my cousins, I felt very envious. At that time, I made a resolution to myself: “I must strive hard to achieve something in the future so that I can be outstanding like my cousins. I want to bring honor and glory to my ancestors, and lead an aristocratic lifestyle.”

After working hard, I achieved modest success.

After graduating from technical school, I was very lucky to find a job as an office clerk in a foreign company. In the beginning, I was secretly happy with myself: “No matter what, I now work in an office, so no one can deny that I’m a white-collar worker.” But I didn’t expect that because I had a low position and poor qualifications everyone else could boss me around in the office. My self-esteem was severely damaged, but my ambition was stimulated. I resolved to make other people look at me with new eyes through my own efforts. Therefore, I worked harder and spent all my spare time learning the company procedures and all about the products, and generally gaining professional proficiency. Every day, I worked from dawn to dusk, and I hardly took time off all year round. In five years, I practically went nowhere but the dormitory, canteen and office. Finally, my years of hard work paid off: I was promoted from ordinary office clerk to salesperson, then manufacturing manager, then purchasing supervisor, then imports and exports supervisor, and in the end I became an executive in the company and was admired and looked up to by others. Those who once despised me nodded and bowed in front of me. Such an achievement made me feel glorious and proud.

But as I came into contact with more and more people, I saw that there were a great number of successful people who were richer and more powerful than me. Thus, my sense of satisfaction gradually faded. I thought: “Although I have gained a high position and the support and admiration of my colleagues, I’m still working for other people. As they say: ‘You have to be crazy to be highly successful.’ I’m still young; why don’t I start a business by myself? As the old saying goes: ‘People struggle to go upward, but water flows downward.’ I shouldn’t be content with my current situation, but should seek to progress.” Several years of work experience had given me enough faith and courage, so I quit the high-paying job as an executive to start my own business.

Later on, I opened a store selling cosmetics of a famous brand. To fulfill the high performance targets I set for my company every month, I had to work out various marketing plans besides managing the store. No matter how many customers there were during the day, I always stayed in the store all the time and didn’t go home until very late at night. I had no holidays of my own. Sometimes I felt very tired, but at the thought of the success that was just around the corner, I would exert myself again and keep persisting. After a few years, I achieved a fair amount of success and made some money. Then I expanded my store, and bought a car and a house. All my relatives, classmates and neighbors around me cast gazes of admiration at me, and my parents were also proud of me.

Sudden diseases left me in unbearable pain.

Just when I was tirelessly busy with my business and enjoying a sense of achievement, I started to have some health problems. I often felt faint and had numbness in my hands. After having an examination in the hospital, I was surprised to learn that I actually had cervical spondylosis and periarthritis. The doctor said to me in a serious voice: “These diseases cannot be eradicated. The treatment can only help you relieve your pain. You must take good care of yourself, take more rest and avoid overworking. Otherwise, your diseases will get worse and worse. Though these diseasesaren’t deadly, they will influence your quality of life if they get serious. You are still young, so you must pay more attention to your health. If yourcondition goes on like this, you might get muscular atrophy, or even quadriplegia.” The doctor’s words made me think of those people I knew who suffered from cervical spondylosis or lumbar diseases. Both their work and quality of life were negatively influenced; some of them even seemed to be half- paralyzed and could do nothing. Thinking of all this, I felt very disheartened. I had never expected that I, who was barely 30, could get diseases which occur mainly among people in their 50s or 60s.

When I was driving home, I couldn’t stop the tears from flowing down my face. Thinking back on all those years, I felt I was like a wound clock that ticked round and round and couldn’t stop.

In the following days, I went to the hospital for treatment every few days. I tried all kinds of treatments to treat my cervical spondylosis and periarthritis, such as physical therapy, massage, cupping, acupuncture, traction and small needle-scalpel therapy. These treatments cost me a lot of money, but were of no help to me. On the contrary, they left a shadow on my mind: The sound of the acupuncture needles going in kept echoing in my head. Every time I went into the hospital, my heart would start pounding; when I thought of the pain brought by traction and acupuncture, my legs felt weak. Many times I thought: “I’ve built up my career and gained money and reputation through hard work, but my health is now ruined. I spent nearly half of my life striving to fulfill my ambition of building a successful career. How come my hard effort has resulted in this?” I lived in extreme depression and pain, but I didn’t know how to get rid of them.

After believing in God, I reflected upon my life.

When my agony was at its greatest, God’s gospel of the kingdom came upon me. I saw these words of God: “Born into such a filthy land, man has been severely blighted by society, he has been influenced by feudal ethics, and he has been taught at ‘institutes of higher learning.’ The backward thinking, corrupt morality, mean view on life, despicable philosophy, utterly worthless existence, and depraved lifestyle and customs—all of these things have severely intruded upon man’s heart, and severely undermined and attacked his conscience.”

Through reading God’s words and listening to the fellowshiping of some brothers and sisters, I found the root of my pain. I remembered that when I was little I saw my cousins succeeding in their careers, and that all the relatives and friends admired them, so I secretly became determined to become an outstanding person. When I began my career, controlled by notions such as “rising above others,” “bringing honor to the ancestors,” “People struggle to go upward, but water flows downward,” I was not content with being an ordinary white-collar worker. In order to satisfy my desire to be outstanding and be admired by others, I worked like crazy. I got so absorbed in studying as to forget food and sleep. After I became an executive in the foreign company, I still wasn’t satisfied and so I worked hard to build up my own business. I didn’t cease to pursue fame and wealth until I’d ruined my health. In modern society, the majority of people admire the rich and powerful, and are eager to be one of them. They do their utmost to struggle for fame and wealth, but little do they know that fame and wealth are Satan’s tricks to tempt and harm mankind. Satan uses these erroneous ways of thinking to control us, and make us turn away from God; bound by fame, wealth and status, we live in pain. Many people have achieved success, won recognition and have great wealth, yet they actually feel even more empty and depressed than before. Some of them get depression because of their great mental suffering. Some of them indulge themselves in lives of pleasure and lust, and even get addicted to drugs to numb themselves and relieve their pain; some even choose suicide to end their lives. Through the revelation of God’s words and examining all these facts, I came to realize that pursuing being an outstanding person was not true happiness, and that success and fame couldn’t bring true satisfaction or sureness to me.

Ecclesiastes 1:14 in the Bible says: “I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.” In Matthew 16:26, the Lord Jesus said: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” That’s true. No matter what we gain in the world, we cannot take anything with us when leaving the world, and in the end, everything is empty. If we struggle for money, fame and status and sacrifice our lives, then we are very ignorant and stupid. In those years, I strived hard in order to be outstanding and live an aristocratic life, but now I’ve ruined my health and live with the suffering of illness. Thinking of this, I realized I was so ignorant.

Later, I saw these God’s words: “From the moment you come crying into this world, you begin to perform your duty. You assume your role in the plan of God and in the ordination of God. You begin the journey of life. Whatever your background and whatever the journey ahead of you, none can escape the orchestration and arrangement that Heaven has in store, and none are in control of their destiny, for only He who rules over all things is capable of such work. Since the day man came into existence, God has been steady in His work, managing this universe and directing the change and movement of all things. Like all things, man quietly and unknowingly receives the nourishment of the sweetness and rain and dew from God. Like all things, man unknowingly lives under the orchestration of God’s hand.” “I believe that it is best for us to find the simplest way to satisfy Him, that is, to obey all of His arrangements, and if you can truly achieve this you will be perfected. Isn’t this an easy, joyful thing? Take the path that you should take without paying any mind to what others say or thinking too much. Do you have your future and your fate in your own hands?”

Through the guidance of God’s words, I came to realize that our fate is in God’s hands and only by obeying God’s ordination and arrangements can we gain the blessings of God and enjoy true happiness and ease. However, I originally didn’t see God’s sovereignty and so obstinately lived in accordance with Satan’s philosophy, regardless of how bitter or tired I felt. Not until I fell ill did I stop to reflect upon myself. I realized that all that I pursued brought me only pain, and that only when I come before God to obey His sovereignty and arrangements, let go of fame and status and no longer rush around for them, can I stay away from Satan’s temptation and harm and live freely without restraints. When I realized this, I knew how to walk my future path.

When my viewpoint was transformed, I regained my freedom.

Later on, the cosmetic company changed their marketing strategy and wanted to select some stores to be model stores. Those stores had to have good locations, a steady stream of customers and high sales volumes. When the executive told me about this plan in detail, I was kind of tempted to apply. I thought: “Once my store becomes one of the first group of model stores, not only can I derive a variety of support and good discounts from the company, but there will also be a constant stream of customers when my store is redecorated. Then the sales figures will surely keep improving.” Just when I was picturing this beautiful future, God’s words flashed into my mind: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). “If you were asked to choose again, what then would be your position? Would it be the former still?” Pondering God’s words, I started reflecting upon myself: “What on earth should I choose? Money, fame, status, or my life? After hearing the company’s new strategy, I still want to take this opportunity to gain money, fame and status regardless of my health. Won’t I be repeating my former mistake? If I was to end up paralyzed in bed, then no matter how much wealth I possess and how much admiration I win, what use would they be? My life is the most important thing.” Thank God. Under the enlightenment and guidance of God, I knew how to choose the right way. Later, I went to the executive and told her: “I’m in poor health. If I expand my store, my health will break down. So I’ve decided, I don’t want to be selected.” The moment I made my decision, I felt as if I had rid myself of shackles that I had borne for a long time, and I gained relaxation, freedom and relief that I had never felt before.

After that, I no longer spent all my time managing my store. I started to fulfill my duties to the best of my abilities in the church. When it came time for meetings, I would go; and when it was time to work, I would go to my store. Surprisingly, sales didn’t decrease because of my attending gatherings and fulfilling duties. From this, I clearly saw that all of this wasn’t decided by my own efforts but depended on God’s blessings and control, as all things are in God’s hands.

I thank God for selecting and saving me. Through living the church life, reading God’s words with my brothers and sisters, and sharing our individual experiences, my depression was gradually alleviated and my condition took a favorable turn. Thank God. I’m willing to pursue the truth according to the direction God has pointed me in, and walk on the right path of life—obeying God and revering God. All the glory be to God.

[panoramicdiary]

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will

But we’re better off believing in it anyway.

For centuries, philosophers and theologians have almost unanimously held that civilization as we know it depends on a widespread belief in free will—and that losing this belief could be calamitous. Our codes of ethics, for example, assume that we can freely choose between right and wrong. In the Christian tradition, this is known as “moral liberty”—the capacity to discern and pursue the good, instead of merely being compelled by appetites and desires. The great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant reaffirmed this link between freedom and goodness. If we are not free to choose, he argued, then it would make no sense to say we ought to choose the path of righteousness.

Today, the assumption of free will runs through every aspect of American politics, from welfare provision to criminal law. It permeates the popular culture and underpins the American dream—the belief that anyone can make something of themselves no matter what their start in life. As Barack Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, American “values are rooted in a basic optimism about life and a faith in free will.”

So what happens if this faith erodes?

The sciences have grown steadily bolder in their claim that all human behavior can be explained through the clockwork laws of cause and effect. This shift in perception is the continuation of an intellectual revolution that began about 150 years ago, when Charles Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. Shortly after Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, his cousin Sir Francis Galton began to draw out the implications: If we have evolved, then mental faculties like intelligence must be hereditary. But we use those faculties—which some people have to a greater degree than others—to make decisions. So our ability to choose our fate is not free, but depends on our biological inheritance.

Galton launched a debate that raged throughout the 20th century over nature versus nurture. Are our actions the unfolding effect of our genetics? Or the outcome of what has been imprinted on us by the environment? Impressive evidence accumulated for the importance of each factor. Whether scientists supported one, the other, or a mix of both, they increasingly assumed that our deeds must be determined by something.

In recent decades, research on the inner workings of the brain has helped to resolve the nature-nurture debate—and has dealt a further blow to the idea of free will. Brain scanners have enabled us to peer inside a living person’s skull, revealing intricate networks of neurons and allowing scientists to reach broad agreement that these networks are shaped by both genes and environment. But there is also agreement in the scientific community that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams.

We know that changes to brain chemistry can alter behavior—otherwise neither alcohol nor antipsychotics would have their desired effects. The same holds true for brain structure: Cases of ordinary adults becoming murderers or pedophiles after developing a brain tumor demonstrate how dependent we are on the physical properties of our gray stuff.

Many scientists say that the American physiologist Benjamin Libet demonstrated in the 1980s that we have no free will. It was already known that electrical activity builds up in a person’s brain before she, for example, moves her hand; Libet showed that this buildup occurs before the person consciously makes a decision to move. The conscious experience of deciding to act, which we usually associate with free will, appears to be an add-on, a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.

The 20th-century nature-nurture debate prepared us to think of ourselves as shaped by influences beyond our control. But it left some room, at least in the popular imagination, for the possibility that we could overcome our circumstances or our genes to become the author of our own destiny. The challenge posed by neuroscience is more radical: It describes the brain as a physical system like any other, and suggests that we no more will it to operate in a particular way than we will our heart to beat. The contemporary scientific image of human behavior is one of neurons firing, causing other neurons to fire, causing our thoughts and deeds, in an unbroken chain that stretches back to our birth and beyond. In principle, we are therefore completely predictable. If we could understand any individual’s brain architecture and chemistry well enough, we could, in theory, predict that individual’s response to any given stimulus with 100 percent accuracy.

This research and its implications are not new. What is new, though, is the spread of free-will skepticism beyond the laboratories and into the mainstream. The number of court cases, for example, that use evidence from neuroscience has more than doubled in the past decade—mostly in the context of defendants arguing that their brain made them do it. And many people are absorbing this message in other contexts, too, at least judging by the number of books and articles purporting to explain “your brain on” everything from music to magic. Determinism, to one degree or another, is gaining popular currency. The skeptics are in ascendance.

This development raises uncomfortable—and increasingly non-theoretical—questions: If moral responsibility depends on faith in our own agency, then as belief in determinism spreads, will we become morally irresponsible? And if we increasingly see belief in free will as a delusion, what will happen to all those institutions that are based on it?

In 2002, two psychologists had a simple but brilliant idea: Instead of speculating about what might happen if people lost belief in their capacity to choose, they could run an experiment to find out. Kathleen Vohs, then at the University of Utah, and Jonathan Schooler, of the University of Pittsburgh, asked one group of participants to read a passage arguing that free will was an illusion, and another group to read a passage that was neutral on the topic. Then they subjected the members of each group to a variety of temptations and observed their behavior. Would differences in abstract philosophical beliefs influence people’s decisions?

Yes, indeed. When asked to take a math test, with cheating made easy, the group primed to see free will as illusory proved more likely to take an illicit peek at the answers. When given an opportunity to steal—to take more money than they were due from an envelope of $1 coins—those whose belief in free will had been undermined pilfered more. On a range of measures, Vohs told me, she and Schooler found that “people who are induced to believe less in free will are more likely to behave immorally.”

It seems that when people stop believing they are free agents, they stop seeing themselves as blameworthy for their actions. Consequently, they act less responsibly and give in to their baser instincts. Vohs emphasized that this result is not limited to the contrived conditions of a lab experiment. “You see the same effects with people who naturally believe more or less in free will,” she said.

In another study, for instance, Vohs and colleagues measured the extent to which a group of day laborers believed in free will, then examined their performance on the job by looking at their supervisor’s ratings. Those who believed more strongly that they were in control of their own actions showed up on time for work more frequently and were rated by supervisors as more capable. In fact, belief in free will turned out to be a better predictor of job performance than established measures such as self-professed work ethic.

Another pioneer of research into the psychology of free will, Roy Baumeister of Florida State University, has extended these findings. For example, he and colleagues found that students with a weaker belief in free will were less likely to volunteer their time to help a classmate than were those whose belief in free will was stronger. Likewise, those primed to hold a deterministic view by reading statements like “Science has demonstrated that free will is an illusion” were less likely to give money to a homeless person or lend someone a cellphone.

Further studies by Baumeister and colleagues have linked a diminished belief in free will to stress, unhappiness, and a lesser commitment to relationships. They found that when subjects were induced to believe that “all human actions follow from prior events and ultimately can be understood in terms of the movement of molecules,” those subjects came away with a lower sense of life’s meaningfulness. Early this year, other researchers published a study showing that a weaker belief in free will correlates with poor academic performance.

The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

few scholars are comfortable suggesting that people ought to believe an outright lie. Advocating the perpetuation of untruths would breach their integrity and violate a principle that philosophers have long held dear: the Platonic hope that the true and the good go hand in hand. Saul Smilansky, a philosophy professor at the University of Haifa, in Israel, has wrestled with this dilemma throughout his career and come to a painful conclusion: “We cannot afford for people to internalize the truth” about free will.

Smilansky is convinced that free will does not exist in the traditional sense—and that it would be very bad if most people realized this. “Imagine,” he told me, “that I’m deliberating whether to do my duty, such as to parachute into enemy territory, or something more mundane like to risk my job by reporting on some wrongdoing. If everyone accepts that there is no free will, then I’ll know that people will say, ‘Whatever he did, he had no choice—we can’t blame him.’ So I know I’m not going to be condemned for taking the selfish option.” This, he believes, is very dangerous for society, and “the more people accept the determinist picture, the worse things will get.”

Determinism not only undermines blame, Smilansky argues; it also undermines praise. Imagine I do risk my life by jumping into enemy territory to perform a daring mission. Afterward, people will say that I had no choice, that my feats were merely, in Smilansky’s phrase, “an unfolding of the given,” and therefore hardly praiseworthy. And just as undermining blame would remove an obstacle to acting wickedly, so undermining praise would remove an incentive to do good. Our heroes would seem less inspiring, he argues, our achievements less noteworthy, and soon we would sink into decadence and despondency.

Smilansky advocates a view he calls illusionism—the belief that free will is indeed an illusion, but one that society must defend. The idea of determinism, and the facts supporting it, must be kept confined within the ivory tower. Only the initiated, behind those walls, should dare to, as he put it to me, “look the dark truth in the face.” Smilansky says he realizes that there is something drastic, even terrible, about this idea—but if the choice is between the true and the good, then for the sake of society, the true must go.

When people stop believing they are free agents, they stop seeing themselves as blameworthy for their actions.

Smilansky’s arguments may sound odd at first, given his contention that the world is devoid of free will: If we are not really deciding anything, who cares what information is let loose? But new information, of course, is a sensory input like any other; it can change our behavior, even if we are not the conscious agents of that change. In the language of cause and effect, a belief in free will may not inspire us to make the best of ourselves, but it does stimulate us to do so.

Illusionism is a minority position among academic philosophers, most of whom still hope that the good and the true can be reconciled. But it represents an ancient strand of thought among intellectual elites. Nietzsche called free will “a theologians’ artifice” that permits us to “judge and punish.” And many thinkers have believed, as Smilansky does, that institutions of judgment and punishment are necessary if we are to avoid a fall into barbarism.

Smilansky is not advocating policies of Orwellian thought control. Luckily, he argues, we don’t need them. Belief in free will comes naturally to us. Scientists and commentators merely need to exercise some self-restraint, instead of gleefully disabusing people of the illusions that undergird all they hold dear. Most scientists “don’t realize what effect these ideas can have,” Smilansky told me. “Promoting determinism is complacent and dangerous.”

yet not all scholars who argue publicly against free will are blind to the social and psychological consequences. Some simply don’t agree that these consequences might include the collapse of civilization. One of the most prominent is the neuroscientist and writer Sam Harris, who, in his 2012 book, Free Will, set out to bring down the fantasy of conscious choice. Like Smilansky, he believes that there is no such thing as free will. But Harris thinks we are better off without the whole notion of it.

“We need our beliefs to track what is true,” Harris told me. Illusions, no matter how well intentioned, will always hold us back. For example, we currently use the threat of imprisonment as a crude tool to persuade people not to do bad things. But if we instead accept that “human behavior arises from neurophysiology,” he argued, then we can better understand what is really causing people to do bad things despite this threat of punishment—and how to stop them. “We need,” Harris told me, “to know what are the levers we can pull as a society to encourage people to be the best version of themselves they can be.”

According to Harris, we should acknowledge that even the worst criminals—murderous psychopaths, for example—are in a sense unlucky. “They didn’t pick their genes. They didn’t pick their parents. They didn’t make their brains, yet their brains are the source of their intentions and actions.” In a deep sense, their crimes are not their fault. Recognizing this, we can dispassionately consider how to manage offenders in order to rehabilitate them, protect society, and reduce future offending. Harris thinks that, in time, “it might be possible to cure something like psychopathy,” but only if we accept that the brain, and not some airy-fairy free will, is the source of the deviancy.

Accepting this would also free us from hatred. Holding people responsible for their actions might sound like a keystone of civilized life, but we pay a high price for it: Blaming people makes us angry and vengeful, and that clouds our judgment.

“Compare the response to Hurricane Katrina,” Harris suggested, with “the response to the 9/11 act of terrorism.” For many Americans, the men who hijacked those planes are the embodiment of criminals who freely choose to do evil. But if we give up our notion of free will, then their behavior must be viewed like any other natural phenomenon—and this, Harris believes, would make us much more rational in our response.

Although the scale of the two catastrophes was similar, the reactions were wildly different. Nobody was striving to exact revenge on tropical storms or declare a War on Weather, so responses to Katrina could simply focus on rebuilding and preventing future disasters. The response to 9/11, Harris argues, was clouded by outrage and the desire for vengeance, and has led to the unnecessary loss of countless more lives. Harris is not saying that we shouldn’t have reacted at all to 9/11, only that a coolheaded response would have looked very different and likely been much less wasteful. “Hatred is toxic,” he told me, “and can destabilize individual lives and whole societies. Losing belief in free will undercuts the rationale for ever hating anyone.”

whereas the evidence from Kathleen Vohs and her colleagues suggests that social problems may arise from seeing our own actions as determined by forces beyond our control—weakening our morals, our motivation, and our sense of the meaningfulness of life—Harris thinks that social benefits will result from seeing other people’s behavior in the very same light. From that vantage point, the moral implications of determinism look very different, and quite a lot better.

What’s more, Harris argues, as ordinary people come to better understand how their brains work, many of the problems documented by Vohs and others will dissipate. Determinism, he writes in his book, does not mean “that conscious awareness and deliberative thinking serve no purpose.” Certain kinds of action require us to become conscious of a choice—to weigh arguments and appraise evidence. True, if we were put in exactly the same situation again, then 100 times out of 100 we would make the same decision, “just like rewinding a movie and playing it again.” But the act of deliberation—the wrestling with facts and emotions that we feel is essential to our nature—is nonetheless real.

The big problem, in Harris’s view, is that people often confuse determinism with fatalism. Determinism is the belief that our decisions are part of an unbreakable chain of cause and effect. Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that our decisions don’t really matter, because whatever is destined to happen will happen—like Oedipus’s marriage to his mother, despite his efforts to avoid that fate.

Most scientists “don’t realize what effect these ideas can have,” Smilansky told me. It is “complacent and dangerous” to air them.

When people hear there is no free will, they wrongly become fatalistic; they think their efforts will make no difference. But this is a mistake. People are not moving toward an inevitable destiny; given a different stimulus (like a different idea about free will), they will behave differently and so have different lives. If people better understood these fine distinctions, Harris believes, the consequences of losing faith in free will would be much less negative than Vohs’s and Baumeister’s experiments suggest.

Can one go further still? Is there a way forward that preserves both the inspiring power of belief in free will and the compassionate understanding that comes with determinism?

Philosophers and theologians are used to talking about free will as if it is either on or off; as if our consciousness floats, like a ghost, entirely above the causal chain, or as if we roll through life like a rock down a hill. But there might be another way of looking at human agency.

Some scholars argue that we should think about freedom of choice in terms of our very real and sophisticated abilities to map out multiple potential responses to a particular situation. One of these is Bruce Waller, a philosophy professor at Youngstown State University. In his new book, Restorative Free Will, he writes that we should focus on our ability, in any given setting, to generate a wide range of options for ourselves, and to decide among them without external constraint.

For Waller, it simply doesn’t matter that these processes are underpinned by a causal chain of firing neurons. In his view, free will and determinism are not the opposites they are often taken to be; they simply describe our behavior at different levels.

Waller believes his account fits with a scientific understanding of how we evolved: Foraging animals—humans, but also mice, or bears, or crows—need to be able to generate options for themselves and make decisions in a complex and changing environment. Humans, with our massive brains, are much better at thinking up and weighing options than other animals are. Our range of options is much wider, and we are, in a meaningful way, freer as a result.

Waller’s definition of free will is in keeping with how a lot of ordinary people see it. One 2010 study found that people mostly thought of free will in terms of following their desires, free of coercion (such as someone holding a gun to your head). As long as we continue to believe in this kind of practical free will, that should be enough to preserve the sorts of ideals and ethical standards examined by Vohs and Baumeister.

Yet Waller’s account of free will still leads to a very different view of justice and responsibility than most people hold today. No one has caused himself: No one chose his genes or the environment into which he was born. Therefore no one bears ultimate responsibility for who he is and what he does. Waller told me he supported the sentiment of Barack Obama’s 2012 “You didn’t build that” speech, in which the president called attention to the external factors that help bring about success. He was also not surprised that it drew such a sharp reaction from those who want to believe that they were the sole architects of their achievements. But he argues that we must accept that life outcomes are determined by disparities in nature and nurture, “so we can take practical measures to remedy misfortune and help everyone to fulfill their potential.”

Understanding how will be the work of decades, as we slowly unravel the nature of our own minds. In many areas, that work will likely yield more compassion: offering more (and more precise) help to those who find themselves in a bad place. And when the threat of punishment is necessary as a deterrent, it will in many cases be balanced with efforts to strengthen, rather than undermine, the capacities for autonomy that are essential for anyone to lead a decent life. The kind of will that leads to success—seeing positive options for oneself, making good decisions and sticking to them—can be cultivated, and those at the bottom of society are most in need of that cultivation.

To some people, this may sound like a gratuitous attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too. And in a way it is. It is an attempt to retain the best parts of the free-will belief system while ditching the worst. President Obama—who has both defended “a faith in free will” and argued that we are not the sole architects of our fortune—has had to learn what a fine line this is to tread. Yet it might be what we need to rescue the American dream—and indeed, many of our ideas about civilization, the world over—in the scientific age.

[projectshakespearia]

Two Gentlemen of Verona: World of the Play Part III

Valentine rescuing Sylvia from Proteus depicted by Angelica Kauffmann in 1789.

Introduction While it may be easy to dwell upon some of the inherent weaknesses in Two Gentlemen of Verona, there are also many merits in this comic caper. Multiple devices, plot strands, and character personalities seem to be templates for Shakespeare’s later (and greater) works. In the oft disputed timeline of the Shakespeare canon, this may have well been his first play. Examining the text as the work of a budding writer experimenting with this craft (I’m imagining my beginning playwriting students here) I can see a talented kid with a lot of great ideas, but not always a strong sense of how to put them together. I’ll say it again, even Shakespeare had to start somewhere! This post will explore some of the stronger attributes of Two Gents and suggest where creative seeds were sown only to bloom fully later in his career.

What Characters! It’s difficult to quantify exactly why Shakespeare remains so adored, so produced, so revered centuries after his death. As a director, I love the possibilities in a Shakespeare play. His plays are playful. The fact that they were initially written to be performed in relatively minimalist conditions with language used to describe setting provides limitless open worlds to interpret and conceptualize. Shakespeare is demanding of actors and demanding of his audiences to imagine and embrace the “theatrical” rather than consume naturalistic representations of “life” as we do in watching film or television. But within these highly fantastical spaces that knit together history, mythology, folk stories, poetry, and romances live characters that breathe. Shakespeare’s characters range from the lowliest of “foolish fools” to the loftiest Kings and Sorcerers from magical sprites to abandoned princesses, but they all share a common thread of humanity and humor. Shakespeare’s characters all possess some spark of the universal which makes them intriguing companions for audiences to join on a two hour journey. (Or, in many cases, four hours.)

In Harold Bloom’s Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, he posits that in writing before Shakespeare, literary character was relatively unchanging. The likes of Classical figures such as Agamemnon or Oedipus might encounter a revelation for which they suffer and die, but their change occurs due to their relationship to fate or the gods. “In Shakespeare, characters develop rather than unfold, and they develop because they recognize themselves.” He asserts in his collection of essays that Shakespeare essentially “invents” the human in a very humanist sense. Shakespearean characters are capable of growth, change, self-discovery, and self-reflection. This is perhaps one reason actors enjoy playing Shakespeare so much - even when the sense of reality is heightened and theatrical, characters respond to each other and the world around them in relatable ways.

Proteus and Valentine Shakespeare reveals truth about human character and foibles, and heightens these quirks to comic effect. Consider the way in which Proteus instantly shifts his affections from one woman to the next and back again. Proteus draws attention to his own fickle failings: “O heaven, were man but constant, he were perfect!” After everything that Proteus has done at this late point in the play including lying, manipulation, trickery, abandonment, breaking promises, and attempted rape, this underwhelming self-assessment is very funny. Proteus’ journey is one of being repeatedly “metamorphosed” each time he encounters something new: losing Valentine, his journey to Milan, encountering Sylvia, his re-discovery of Julia. Proteus lives up to his name embodying a “protean” man, elastic and possessing many dimensions. While he may represent an extreme plastic and pliable personality, he is nonetheless, perfectly human: flawed, resilient, and capable of change.

Proteus’ absurdly lovesick behaviors are echoed and more developed in later comic and dramatic works. Consider Romeo’s painful infatuation with Rosalind, instantly transformed the moment we sets eyes upon Juliet: “Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight! For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.” Even Romeo and Juliet’s first “tender kiss” is reminiscent of Julia and Proteus’ pledge to “seal the bargain with a holy kiss.” Proteus is a first draft of the besotted Orsino being taught the very nature of love and devotion by a page in disguise or the naively charming Orlando undergoing a similar transformation under the tutelage of Rosalind. Shakespeare loves depicting foolish young men blundering their way in and out of relationships with less foolish young women.

Valentine, too, undergoes great change throughout the play. In the first scene, he eschews the idea of love and chides Proteus: “Love is your master, for he masters you; and he that is so yoked by a fool, methinks should not be chronicled for wise.” But, as his cleverly observant servant, Speed, points out that he, too, has transformed because of love. Valentine admits to Proteus when their reunite in Milan his, “life is altered now.”

Love causes the deeply-rooted friendship to completely alter the objectives of the nascent young lovers. While Valentine turns his newly discovered romantic vigor towards wooing and wedding Sylvia, most of Proteus’ energy goes into undermining both Valentine and Thurio for the sake of winning Sylvia’s heart. Valentine’s sole purpose becomes Sylvia, so much that when he thinks he has lost her, he is no longer “Valentine” but has been reduced to “nothing.” 

Neither of these young men are sophisticated enough to understand love or women and Shakespeare pokes fun at their inability to figure it out without the prodding of those around them, whether it be their servants or the objects of their affection.

Syliva and Julia The female counterparts to the male protagonists are typical of many of other Shakespearean heroines in their cleverness, grit, and maturity. Shakespeare writes his females, whether they are sisters, cousins, or devoted friends in pairs; one wide-eyed and plucky and one slightly sadder and wiser. This template is evident in duos including Helena/Hermia, Rosalind/Celia, Beatrice/Hero, and even Kate/Bianca. In every case, the young female lovers possess wisdom and determination in matters of love and devotion where the male lovers lack these qualities. Even more often do the women teach the likes of Orlando, Orsino, and Claudio how to properly woo a woman and love a woman.

Sylvia and Julia are both delightful constructs of Shakespeare’s imagination, and in many ways better developed that Valentine or Proteus. Both are proactive, although Julia more so, and exercise their own agency to either get what they want or avoid something they don’t want. Both, in her own way, teaches her love interest lessons on love.

Both women are constrained by their social structure not to actively pursue men they are interested in and both, at times, use letters as a means of expressing emotion. In the Elizabethan world, and as Shakespeare points out through Helena in Midsummer, that the idea of a woman wooing a man was against nature and that women were “not made to woo.” In Julia’s first scene with Lucetta, she tries to get around vocally expressing her interest in Proteus, by subtly prodding Lucetta to talk about his qualities instead. When Lucetta delivers a letter from Proteus, Julia denies that she wants to see it. But she, of course, does want the letter. She chides Lucetta in hopes that she will “for the letter to [her] view” because she is a maid. Here Shakespeare emphasizes the complexities of love games and how everyone must play their part appropriately. Lucetta should know better that Julia’s status prevents her from overtly expressing attraction and Julia should know enough to find a way around social convention to get what she wants. In the end, after some teasing and clever wordplay, Lucetta delivers the letter and expresses her approval of Proteus over Julia’s other potential suitors.

Julia is very preoccupied with her status and modesty, which is at odds with her attraction to Proteus. She is the one, after all, who asks to seal their bond physically upon his parting. After Proteus’ prolonged absence, Julia decides to take matters into her own hands and asks Lucetta: “fit me with such weeds as may beseem some well-reputed page.” She knows she has to cast off her gender in order to enter the world of men and she speaks of Proteus using language echoing Speed’s regard of Valentine as a “hot lover.” Julia, being denied Proteus, only wants him more:

O, know’st though not his looks are my soul’s food? Pity the dearth that I have pined in, By longing for that food so long a time. Didst thou but know the inly touch of love, Thou wouldst as soon go kindle fire with snow As seek to quench the fire of love with words.

Julia, to put it bluntly, is hot for Proteus, and is willing to risk her reputation in order to see him again. Desire wins out over social convention and thus she departs to Milan where she finds herself part of a complex love triangle. As part of Proteus’ convoluted plot to win over Sylvia by outwitting his two rivals, he has Thurio perform a romantic song for Sylvia and then claim the credit for himself. Julia, now donning the identity of Sebastian, watches the performance, heartbroken at the notion that Proteus is now actively pursing another woman. To add insult to injury, Proteus then enlists the help of Sebastian to deliver a letter and ring, the very ring that Julia had given Proteus back in Verona, to the hands of Sylvia. Julia, tormented by the decision to aid Proteus in getting what he wants even if it is at odds with her desires, soliloquizes in a manner echoing Proteus’ self-assessment earlier in the play. When first confronted with the decision to betray Valentine and pursue Sylvia, Proteus laments:

I cannot leave to love, and yet I do; But there I have to love where I should love. Julia I lose and Valentine I lose: If I keep them, I needs must lost myself; If I lose them, thus find I by their loss For Valentine myself, for Julia, Sylvia. I to myself am dearer than a friend, For love it still most precious in itself.

Proteus, once again, has been transformed by love to identify himself only by the love he feels. There is nothing else. He cannot be friend to Valentine and true to himself. He cannot be devoted to Julia and true to himself. Valuing his own self more than Valentine or Julia, he chooses this Proteus over previous iterations.

Julia responds differently to a similar romantically-charged identity crisis:

How many women would do such a message? Alas, poor Proteus, thou has entertained A fox to be the shepherd of thy lambs! Alas, poor fool, why do I pity him That with his heart despiseth me? Because he loves her, he despiseth me. Because I love him, I must pity him. This ring I gave him when he parted from me To bind him to remember my good will; And now am I, unhappy messenger, To plead for that which I would not obtain, To carry that which I would have refused, To praise his faith which I would have dispraised. I am my master’s true-confirmed love, But cannot be true servant to my master Unless I prove false traitor to myself. Yet I will woo for him, yet so coldly As, heaven it knows, I would not have him speed.

In this passage, rich with imagery, Julia grapples with which persona to embrace. She is simultaneously all of these things, a fox, an unhappy messenger, a servant, and none of these things as she has layered disguise upon disguise in her pursuit of Proteus. Underneath the page’s clothing, she is a young woman in love with a man and in order to fulfill her duty as servant to her unwitting master, she must betray her true self. In the end, both she and Proteus choose to honor the power of love, but in different ways. Proteus does so by honoring the love that will please himself and Julia honors to love that will please the one she loves.

Luckily for Julia, Sylvia remains steadfastly devoted to Valentine. Sylvia’s behavior towards her beloved, while perhaps slightly more restrained than Julia’s, bears certain similarities. Julia has Lucetta serving as go-between, but Sylvia relies on her own crafty device to express her interest in Valentine. Rather than tell him directly, which would be unseemly for a woman of her station, she enlists Valentine as servant to write letters in her name for a supposed lover. Valentine, as Julia later does for Proteus, agrees to aid the one he loves and composes letters and delivers them to Sylvia for her to distribute. Sylvia then hands the letters back to an extremely befuddled Valentine.

VALENTINE: Madam, they are for you. SYLVIA: Ay, ay, you writ them, sir, at my request; But I will none of them; they are for you; I would have had them writ more movingly.

It takes Valentine the witty explanation of Speed to understand Sylvia’s meaning. I want to write you romantic letters, get it? Eventually, of course Valentine does get it and the pair of lovers finds themselves on the happy path towards a union, but for the Duke’s disapproval and Proteus’ meddling.

Love in the Space Between When Valentine is banished by the Duke, Sylvia takes a familiar proactive course of action by following him into the wilderness. While Julia literally changes herself into a male form to protect her virtue, Sylvia shields herself by enlisting the honorable Sir Eglamour to guide her to Mantua. This begins a series of “chases” of one lover in pursuit of another, in a way prefiguring the chaotic and comic quartet that ventures into the woods outside of Athens in Midsummer. Sylvia pursues Valentine for love. The Duke pursues Sylvia in a rage. Thurio pursues Sylvia for the sake of proving his honor. Proteus then pursues to win Sylvia for love. Finally, Julia chases after Proteus chasing after Sylvia.

Once all the characters enter the green space, outside the strictures of city society, all hell breaks loose and subversions are allowed to play out. The Duke is captured by a ragtag group of banished men, Proteus “rescues” Sylvia from the same bandits only to attempt to “love [her] ‘gainst the nature of love,” and Julia is finally free to reveal her true identity, honor be damned. Only once every “rule” is essentially broken, are things allowed to be repaired to a “happy close.” Valentine admonishes Proteus for his betrayal of friendship and Julia, in her final courageous act holds Proteus accountable for what he put her through:

O Proteus, let this habit make thee blush! Be thou ashamed that I have took upon me Such an immodest rainment, it shame live In a disguise of love: It is the lesser blot, modesty finds, Women to change their shapes than men their minds.

Proteus, thoroughly shamed, begs forgiveness all around. And, of course, it is granted. In addition, the bandits are forgiven by the Duke and allowed to return to civilized life, Thurio gives up his claim to Sylvia, the Duke recognizes Valentine’s worthiness and approves the match to his daughter, and Proteus and Julia are reconciled. In this scene of “mutual happiness,” the one much-maligned seemingly strange point is Valentine’s initial forgiveness of Proteus where he essentially “gives” Sylvia away to his friend. Granted, it is weirdly misogynistic and difficult to rationalize in a modern world. But, considered within the context of the green space, it may make more sense as a first attempt to “right” the subverted world. Proteus has upended their friendship, Valentine calls him out, Proteus begs for forgiveness, and joyously because of his own love for Proteus, Valentine acts as Julia does - putting the desires of the person he loves most (in this case, Proteus) before his own desires.

This arrangement, is of course, very short-lived as it serves as catalyst for Julia’s reveal and Proteus’ final realization: “What is in Sylvia’s face, but I may spy more fresh in Julia’s with a constant eye?” Proteus has, chameleon-like, altered himself repeatedly in this play, and not yet found happiness. In observing the devotion and love Sylvia, Julia, and Valentine perform for him (even Sylvia warns him multiple times to rediscover his “first best love” in Julia Proteus) realizes that perhaps he would do best to be a devoted lover.

While by no means a perfect play and certainly not progressive in terms of gender roles, Two Gents is rich with humor and complex characterizations. In essence, this is an exploration of a common Shakespearean theme he revisits countless times: the tension between the devotion of women and the inconstancy of men in matters of the heart. In the end, the clever and passionate women succeed where the men fail by temporarily upending convention in order to become active wooers. The men learn from this experience and the “natural” order restored.

Two Gents is not without its charms and while some transitions and motivations may have been improved by the addition of a couple lines of dialogue, it does overall contain the essential elements for a crowd-pleasing romantic comedy: misunderstandings, conflict, music, chase scenes, and ultimately happiness for all involved.