The goal-seeking life
Goals permeate and shape our lives. We’re all supposed to have goals to guide us; to give us “purpose.” We’re supposed to “aim high,” yet almost any goal seems to be thought worthy of working toward.
Purposefulness is not only the norm; we project it upon the natural world. That’s part of our apparent difficulty in fully-accepting evolutionary theory, which tells us that the natural world is what it is by chance, not purpose. The theory tells us how living things evolve, but entails no intent, no aim, no goals fulfilled. Yet we invent supernatural accounts of a purposeful creation. We ask ourselves questions like: ‘Why am I here?' and think there’s an answer. Christians say to themselves: “God surely had something in mind when he created me. I must be here to do something, but what is it?”
In any case, we are addicted to inventing goals for ourselves. We grow up accepting goals set for us by others, especially our parents, and eventually we manufacture our own. Setting and achieving those goals is important to us. We appraise our own lives by our “accomplishments” and assume that other people assess us in the same way. As we age, we look back upon our lives and comfort ourselves by remembering the goals we fulfilled.
Reaching goals is, I think, something of a cultural obsession. Think of common expressions that praise doing so, like “do whatever it takes” or “do whatever will get the job done.” They convey our admiration for achieving goals; for doing what we set out to do; for displaying stick-to-itiveness and determination. Someone might even say, of some young fellow seeking to become rich via the drug trade. ”Well, at least he has a goal.”
But obviously not all goals are worthy. Some are trivial. Some are extremely harmful. And, just as importantly, the means we may choose to reach a goal, no matter how noble that goal may be, can be unacceptable.
That means that doing “whatever works” is often unjustifiable. We are taught, and tend to forget, that the “end” never justifies the “means,” and, even though sometimes it does, most means are judged on their own merits. Our legal system and our systems of government regulations are essentially lists of forbidden means. Unfortunately, each is incomplete and inadequate. People still achieve goals by lying, threatening, flattering, bribing, and using unfair psychological persuasion tactics. Companies still lie about their products and services, use production processes that contribute to global warming, and allow their salespeople to manipulate a customers’ feelings so they can make sales.
As for goals, we mustn’t assume that the goals we’ve inherited and been taught are benign. They vary in origin, importance, appropriate level of commitment, and they change over time. We need to evaluate them regularly. Many goals are societal in origin, and we should ask ourselves: “What purpose does this goal serve? Who benefits from my pursuing it? How does it shape who I am?"
Consider the goals our parents instilled that enable us to restrain ourselves, to repress our emotions, and to be self-disciplined in our pursuit of other goals. It’s indisputable that we need to acquire such abilities, but to what extent should we use them, and when?
There’s an inherent cost to mental self-discipline. It suppresses spontaneity, daydreams, urges, whims, impulses, and other quite
normal kinds of “distracting” thoughts. That may not seem undesirable, but its consequences go well beyond that.
I’m reminded of that well-known admonition to “be your own boss,” which is usually taken as a metaphor for individual freedom. But consider what, in real life, a boss demands of an employee: uninterrupted effort, focus on the job at all times, obedience to orders, and productivity. Is that freedom? Isn’t it self-imposed servility? Isn’t it essentially a straitjacket work ethic?
And what do we mentally “set aside” in being “our own boss”? Doesn’t the average worker set aside regretful reflections about the aims and consequences of the disciplined labor that he or she is engaged in, like the social and environmental impacts of that labor? Doesn’t that worker, to stave off such troubling thoughts, bracket the public as “customers”, not as fellow-humans? Doesn’t he or she set aside resentment at the boring and repetitive tasks that must be performed, squelching the thought that work might be more than just a means of survival?
My overall question is this: aren’t we overdoing our current forms of goal-seeking, and aren’t those goals divisive rather than unifying? Haven’t we abandoned the goals we were born with -- our instinctual goals common to all animals – that are pleasurable to satisfy and conducive to group living? When we were young, we took in the world with awe and wonder. We cared about and enjoyed each other. We played, we laughed, we relished living. We did things just because they were fun. Then we “grew up.” We learned to suppress such pleasures in order to “accomplish things.” Activities that we once valued in and for themselves became goal-directed. Games that were once just fun, we now “played to win.” School-room learning, once simply absorbing and
enlightening, was now received with the thought “I better remember that for the next test.”
Occasionally we do advise someone to “live in the present,” or “live for the moment” rather than relentlessly pursue goals, but that’s only when we think someone is a workaholic. We still look with disdain upon “idlers,” upon those who won’t “better themselves,” upon those who lack “ambition” and are “under-achievers.”
Haven’t we bought into a goal-oriented lifestyle that disconnects us from “simple pleasures”, from our innate sociability, and our capacity to be satisfied with the pleasures that the world offers to everyone?
We’re a species with conflicting instincts. We have an instinct to get along with one another and enjoy our lives together, but we also have instincts that produce selfishness, intolerance, aggressiveness, and a desire to control others. Our current set of life-goals – at least those that require continual personal “progress” -- seem to activate the latter. Why not adopt personal goals that unite rather than divide us? Why not abandon goals that define personal “achievement” as being able to engage in an ever-greater consumption of goods, and an ever-greater authority over others? Ask yourself: who convinced us that those goals represent what life is all about, and who profits from our acceptance of them?