Balance is good. I have heard this message for years, and for years I believed it. Our generations are all screaming for balance as if it is a solution to every problem. Balance is not making choices, but doing a little of everything. Why choose between having a family and a busy job? If you are balanced you don’t need to choose. Balance keeps you from taking unnecessary risks by hedging your bets. Why should you just teach your children piano, when you can also have them learn ballet, and soccer and Latin?
This leads to “well-roundedness”. In this worldview, extremes are seen as bad. You shouldn’t be “right-wing” or “left-wing”. You shouldn’t care about your job to the detriment of your family. You should balance your work life, social life, family life and spiritual life. You should read a little bit from every perspective, you should know a little bit about every subject, you should try new restaurants, try every exercise machine in the gym, get to know people from different cultures, learn new languages, hang out with people who think differently than you and never be too passionate about one thing to the detriment of your other passions.
I don’t know if I disagree with any of these things. This seems like a very rational argument for the need of balance. Even my field of study, psychology, puts great value on removing extremes, balancing and perspective. Often it seems to me that the pinnacle of mental health is seeing oneself as “not that bad” and “good, but not the greatest thing ever.”
But something about all this balancing seems not quite right to me. I am not sure I want to be rational and balanced. I only get to live once, and I am afraid a little too much of hedging my bets and choosing a little of everything will not only keep me “well-rounded"” but also mediocre. There is a proverb that says “there are no rational men at the top of the mountain.” Many of the biographies I have read of great men and women where far from balanced people. They were poor parents, tough on co-workers, incredibly inefficient, bad at attention to detail and often very willing to bend the rules.
Whenever the discussion comes up about great men in the past and their lack of paying attention to their children, it is always said that they should have balanced their lives more, and this would have made everything better. What if there is another option? What if they balanced their lives less? Instead of not spending time with their wives and kids, what if they didn’t have a family? Then they wouldn’t have to balance work life with family life. What if we encouraged our passionate missionaries, visionaries and luminaries to make hard choices? What if the answer isn’t always balancing everything, but balancing fewer things?
I don’t know what to do with this subject. I don’t want to go crazy, or be a poor family man, or push others away with too much extreme. But I also want to be great, not mediocre. Tell me what you think? Am I wrong in having such a hard time with being “well-rounded", or is there something to being a little extreme?
10 comments:
i am having a hard time submitting a comment that is not "balanced" so obviously i need to think about the "risk-free" way i interact with my world. way to make me think, peach.
shannon has a quote, here it is, not shannon's quote.
A person needs a little madness, or else they never dare cut the rope and be free.
It seems to me that balance and extremity are concepts of differing orders. Balance refers to maintaining an awareness of and attendance to the various areas in one’s life. These “areas” are well described by Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences and Ken Wilder’s lines of development. They may include emotional, cognitive, ethical, physical, spiritual, relational, vocational, sexual, etc. I think it has less to do with time spend in each “line” and more maintaining comparable levels of development and the avoidance of neglect. Things such as raising children, creating and nurturing friendships or practicing social skills could all be examples of attending to one’s relational development. There is no need to participate in one or the other in order to undergo growth or excel, however some activities will obviously push and stretch you more than others.
Extremity has more to do with an abnormally high level of development along one of these lines. Or perhaps, another kind of extremity would take the form of an eccentric or unheard of practice within one of the lines.
So although an entity (individual, group, government, etc.) may have an extremely developed line, which is no doubt admirable, to have other lines brought up to a comparable level would be a preferred condition. Remember, the development of one “line” doesn’t require the sacrifice of another. Consider the guru with an incredible sense of awareness but can’t walk due to physical neglect, or the capitalist society that has accomplished great technological achievements but lacks the moral aptitude to use these developments responsibly. Both could be more effective in their extreme practices, and in my opinion more healthy as well, if they possessed a balanced existence.
It seems we will have things to talk about at the next West Wing party....
Good stuff Jeremy. Maybe we could even listen to the CD together?
Nick, excellent thoughts. I think you spoke to the other side that I can't account for. It does seem that their is benefit from balance in all "areas" of thought, and it does make sense that improving an obvious weakness should exponentially help one's great strengths.
My problem is that many "great" people, or at least very accomplished people, don't have balanced lives emotionally, cognitively, relationally, sexually and physically. Many accomplished people are worse off in these areas than most unaccomplished people I know. that is what I don't know what to do about
I know what you mean. It reminds me of a course I took back in college where we discussed culture in the American south. It was a common theme that every single noteworthy author from the region had traumatic childhoods. Similarly, so many of the great artists and musicians struggled with depression. In creative matters at least, it seems that brokenness is a more conducive state for producing pieces that are gripping and notable. Could it be that in other fields, certain deficiencies or hardships are a catalyst towards greatness? Would they set their bearers at an advantage?
Nick, that is amazing, and it brings us to a whole new convesation. What do we thing of as disadvantages that really can become advantages in our chosen profession or even life in general? excellent ideas, I will probably write about it very soon
A book I’m currently reading has some applicable insights. According to Brian Tracy, every field has 5 or 6 essential factors. For example, the key factors in sales might be: prospecting, building relationships, asking key questions, overcoming sales resistance (product and industry knowledge, etc.) and closing. Perhaps the factors in painting are technique, composition, perceptivity, creativity and self-expression. (I’m just speculate what the factors might be.) In order to be successful in any field, one must be proficient at every factor. One’s productivity is a function of the individual’s weakest skill set. Thus, a “balance” among factors must be obtained and to excel at all factors is to excel in the field. All other unrelated lines of development are irrelevant.
However, this begs the question, what is unrelated? Very little it seems. Let’s take an extreme example. Is sexual development relevant in sales. It could be argued that it leads to a fuller contentedness and comfort with one’s self, influencing the building of relationships, as well as increased confidence resulting in the overcoming of sales resistance. So sexual development could contribute however it is quite possible to achieve proficiency in these factors without it. Thus sexual progress is not necessary, but it wouldn’t hurt. Similarly, a detriment such as a painful childhood may have a two-fold effect on a painter. It could stunt relational development (retarding a major overarching “line,”) which does not directly affect any essential factors. At the same time it could have a significant influence on the need for and means of self expression, and also the way he makes connections (perceptivity.) This may explain why so many artistic geniuses have experienced intense suffering but why not all sufferers are artistic geniuses.
So in order to reach extreme achievement, one must excel at the key factors. Other aspects (lines) of a person’s life, whether advanced or delayed, have a direct (significant, noticeable) or indirect (more subtle, can be overcome) influence on the development of these factors.
I think you got it, nick. It is really hard to know the effect of anything on someones life. one person might be held back by an abusive childhood. oprah, on the other hand, seems to have used this to empower herself. The key seems to be not the circumstance, but what you do with it
what I still don't know is priority of time. time is limited and some things take time. like you said sexual development might not directly help a salesman, but it can't hurt. but what if we imagined sexual development takes ten hours a week. or 10% of his energy level. then this would leave him less time and energy to focus on sales.
Interesting thoughts. We had a lively discussion on this topic Sunday night during a community dinner. Specifically around a sermon Sunday on idols and determining when a good thing can be an idol. One person stated that "it's all about balance." It was interesting that almost instantly the group jumped on that idea and collectively decided that balance is bad/undisired. The consensus was that there's a lot of things that shouldn't be 'balanced.'
I've been contemplating this whole idea recently and admit that there's some level of balance in my time/life that helps maintain my sanity. But at the same time there's a small handful of passions that I think are worth tossing balance and sanity to the wind for.
A couple years ago I read Nelson Madela's autobiography and was struck by his reflections on his life and the havoc that it caused for his family. He gave his children a phenomenal example of passion and sacrifice, but relationship with them and his wife was one of his many sacrifices. One could say he failed at his role as husband and father for much of his life, but succeeded impressively in being a catalyst for change in South Africa. I'd say he definitely hasn't led a balanced life.
I've been thinking about the things in my life that are out of balance. That I give either huge amounts of my time, effort, money and thought to or invest nothing in. This provides insight into the things/issues/people I'm passionate about or don't care for. It's an interesting glimpse into the things I'd give my life for that I think deserve that or maybe the things that should shift and are maybe closer aligned to being my personal idols.
Post a Comment