There's a commercial for Sprint making
the rounds that begins with the phrase “The miraculous is
everywhere, in our homes, in our minds. We can share every second in
data dressed as pixels.” It continues, brim full of optimism, a
tiny hymn of praise to the power invested in every human being (with
an iphone) to capture “every second” of their lives in
photographs and upload them all onto the internet. This kind of
democratic photojournalism is proof, it declares, of progress and the
power of human spirit and ingenuity. It concludes by saying, “I
need to upload all of me. I need, no, I
have the right to be unlimited.” How dare any phone company limit
how many bits and bites of data I can funnel to the world wide web?
The very idea that I could be charged extra money for the privilege
is an affront to human decency!
I'll
set aside my concerns with the dubious (or maybe downright
disturbing?) wisdom of sharing every second of our lives in “data
dressed as pixels” with the world at large for the moment. Ever
since I saw this commercial, it's been that last phrase that I've had
phrase repeating round and round in my head: “I need, no, I
have the right to be unlimited.”
It seems to me a particularly American sentiment, this idea that
limits are evil and ultimate freedom is the ultimate good. And in a
way, I can identify with that. We're in the process of buying a
house, and let me tell you, the number of limits and rules and
regulations that have been imposed since the last time we did this
can be downright maddening at times. The same goes for
homeschooling. The Mr. and I have a libertarian streak, after all,
and the idea that I have to be accountable to the state to tell them
what health curriculum I am using with my second grader is more than
a little irritating. In my day-to-day life, I bump up against limits
all the time, some of them imposed from the outside, some of them
self-imposed, many of them frustrating and even painful. I hate
facing the limit of a budget. I hate facing the limit of time, most
of which is already spent before the day even begins. I hate facing
the limit of space which prevents me from being close to people I
love. I hate facing the limits of my own will and many days have to
admit that most of my failures are the direct result of my own apathy
and laziness.
On the
other hand, I am not of the school of parenting which believes that
“no” is the worst word a child can hear. I think that the limits
I put on them actually are for their good and give them a feeling of
comfort and security. If nothing is off limits, then nothing is
certain. I do my best to make sure that the limitations I put on
them aren't random or arbitrary, but are rather for their good, for
their safety, and to help them grow into the people that they were
designed to be. I love them, therefore, I limit them. I can't see
that life without limits results in anything but chaos for them.
And, if I believe that for my kids, don't I have to accept that for
myself too? Certainly I am capable of far more than I produce on any
given day, and certainly I allow myself to be more limited than I
need to be in many areas. But is “having it all” really what I
want? Really what's best for me?
Anne-Marie
Slaughter caused a bit of a ruckus in some feminist circles when she
published an article in The Atlantic entitled“Why Women Still Can't Have it All” in which she asserted that it
frankly wasn't possible for her to hold a high-powered job in
Washington D.C. and fulfill all of her obligations to her family in
New Jersey, and that this was not just true of her, but of women
generally. It's an interesting read, and I agree with many of her
points. Her ultimate conclusion, however, still makes me a bit
uneasy. She says, “I
still strongly believe that women can 'have it all' (and that men can
too). I believe that we can 'have it all at the same time.' But not
today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently
structured.” In other words, it's the system's fault, and if we
could just fix this male-designed and dominated system, we'd all be
good to go: “If women are ever to achieve real equality as leaders,
then we have to stop accepting male behavior and male choices as the
default and the ideal. We must insist on changing social policies and
bending career tracks to accommodate our
choices,
too. We have the power to do it if we decide to, and we have many men
standing beside us.” She's
probably right. The kinds of changes she suggests probably would
make our society more humane, more flexible, more accommodating to
more people. But, she never even asks the more basic question: “Is
'having it all' even something that is good and healthy for me? For
anyone?”
Perhaps
it all comes down to a question of trust. Do you trust the
limit-setter or don't you? I think we are right to strain against
the limits that come from forces more interested in economic gain,
political power, and the maintenance of a cultural status quo than in
the welfare of human beings. Any limit that comes with a “because
this is the way it is” or “because this is what will make me rich
or powerful or happy” or “because this will give us more control
over you” deserves to be at least questioned, possibly stretched,
and perhaps eliminated entirely. But a limit that comes with a
“because I love you” is a different thing entirely. My choice to
give up teaching, a job I loved, and focus on being a stay-at-home
parent had little to do with traditional notions of womanhood and
absolutely nothing to do with the demands of a domineering husband,
but everything to do with the fact that I realized I was up against a
limit that I simply couldn't, and shouldn't, hurdle. It was and
continues to be a limit that I clearly feel was placed there by
someone who really loves me, someone who has searched me and known
me, someone who knows when I sit down and when I stand up, someone
who knows all my thoughts and understands them even better than I do
myself, someone who is familiar with all my ways, someone who has
literally “hem[ed] me in behind and before” (Psalm 139:1-5). It
doesn't make living with these limits easy,
but it can, at times, make it easier. And there are even grace-ful moments when I can delight in my limits, saying with the Psalmist: "The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;/surely I have a delightful inheritance" (16:6).
Well-said, as usual.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing to add to the substance of this post, so I'll comment on the intro: I told my husband you were ranting about that Sprint ad, particularly "I have the RIGHT to be unlimited," and he said,
"Separated at birth?"
Maybe...well, actually, maybe not. But you know, we actually do live in the same general neck of the woods now...maybe we should try to get together sometime??
Delete