Distinguishing

In this course, we have encountered a recurring proposition: that we should seek meaningful work in addition to adequate compensation. I have, at times, erroneously equated this proposition with a second: that we have a responsibility to improve social justice. But these propositions are importantly distinct. The first is an observation, and a seemingly uncontroversial one, even though it is one to which not many young lawyers adhere. The second, of course, is a personal conviction.

Re: Proposition One

Meaningful Work: What is it? Who does it? Is it worth pursuing?

“Meaning” is difficult to define. In some contexts, it means what is intended (ex. what is the meaning of this?). In others, it hints at significance (i.e. a meaningful wink implies an understanding between the parties of something underlying the wink). This usage is most similar to how we are using the term in class, where we seem to be defining meaning as “the end, purpose, or significance.” Pursuing meaningful work seems to mean pursuing work for which there is an end outside of remuneration.

Our mothers always told us, “Do what you love.” And we said, of course, of course, we would. But now we find ourselves here at CLS, on the cusp of interviewing for jobs which we are fairly certain we will not love, and on the cusp of undertaking work for which we could not care less.

In response to this tension, we admirably have been discussing, and figuring out ways, to do meaningful work. The thought is, if we make a thing that has value, people will pay us for it. We thus should pursue a line of work that is meaningful to us and within that framework produce value; adequate compensation will follow.

Many big firms have the formula backwards. They pursue money first, then profess to inject meaning into their firm’s work through pro-bono activities. But this somehow feels false; indeed the transparency of the arrangement was aptly described in class: pro-bono is like a piano in a whorehouse.

So, from this foundation, we seem to have answered the first two questions from above. The third, which was the focus of the first draft of this paper, is still on the table though. Is meaningful work worth pursuing? Since I have defined meaningful work above as work for which the purpose is something other than earning money, that definition needs refining here. If a person is not concerned with money, but just wants to harm others, that might fit my definition of meaningful work. So, to refine: let meaningful work be that which, outside of being a path to money, one finds personally significant and worthy of pursuit. For example, say I work to improve living conditions for immigrants. I also get paid to do this. Is this work more worthy of my doing than a job where I do pretty much whatever I am told in return for getting paid?

We have been presented with some information in class showing that corporate lawyers, in the long run, suffer from a high prevalence of alcoholism, depression, career dissatisfaction, and so on. Are there some lawyers (who are pursuing money and money alone), that will not fall victim to such things? Certainly. I have friends who are on a money-driven path but do not seem to be heading towards such negative outcomes. However, these people are still young, and the results of their choices are not yet fully manifest.

Moreover, many of them find meaning in their hobbies or in their family-lives. Is it possible, then, to separate career and extra-career activities? Can one pursue solely money at work, then solely meaning outside of work? I don’t have the answer to this question, but the information given in class seems to suggest that the answer is no. Even if a separation of work/meaningful pursuits is possible, it still seems that a better route, a route that will lead to greater personal satisfaction, is one in which meaning is the focus of all of one’s activities, and adequate compensation just a positive (and necessary) outcropping of those activities.

Re: Proposition Two

Is the work of improving social justice meaningful?

For many, I think the answer is a resounding yes. It is tempting, as I did in my first draft, to explore possible “tainted” motivations. Perhaps a lawyer who is pursuing social justice is motivated by the same few ends as the corporate lawyer: wealth, recognition, power, etc. The lawyer pursuing social justice is doing work that “society” respects. He is given recognition and is considered a good person. That gives him influence and power.

That might all be true, but it isn’t worth speculation. If social justice gives a person meaning, then that is enough. If some are ultimately motivated by wealth and power, and simply use social justice as a means of gaining these things, that is of no consequence. It is the others, those whose end is to improve social justice, that matter here – these people will find meaning in their work.

Now, are there other paths that give meaning? Sure. Many philosophy professors find meaning in contributing to human knowledge. Many psychiatrists find meaning in helping others to find meaning. But, for a lawyer, social justice seems a natural fit. Lawyers have the training and the positioning to influence the societal framework, and that cries out for justice-motivated change.

Final Thought on Paper One

While my conclusion in this second draft is certainly not radical, or even close to interestingly original, it is vastly different from the one I professed in my first draft. And, more importantly, I think it leaves me with a firmer foundation from which to progress.

• Though you say so, in the end your writing doesn't seem to have convinced you. It reads more as though it's supposed to convince me. "Is the work of improving social justice meaningful?" On your account, that depends on the exogenous preference schedule in meanings maintained by whatever internally autonomous process it is that determines what we find meaning in. (The possibility that meaning is not a synonym for consumer preference is not really considered in your argument. Looking into that might help.)

Stepping Outside of the Swindle

A Question

• Is this the question? One would think that question had a comparatively simple answer: help those who suffer.

Perpetuating Inequality

• What has Leff got to do with it? If his conclusion, so far as it concerns you, is that one cannot easily tell the difference between acceptably fair and abusively unfair exchanges--I don't think that's really what interests him, but never mind--then your proposition, that inequality results from exchange, doesn't require Leff. Whether it is correct that inequality results from exchange is a different matter, and perhaps the one to which you should have addressed the paragraph. I disagree, at any rate, that it's what has been said in class, if you mean by me.

• That's all been true for a generation. There's only exposure going on if you mean that for the first time in your life you are paying attention to what has always been there.

• This seems to me a cartoon. Perhaps you are claiming that the conversation has been this flat-footed and cartoonish, or perhaps you are deliberately simplifying rather than misunderstanding. If the first, I think you are wrong: the conversation has avoided this oversimplistic idea that if you do jobs that bring meaning to your lives the lion will lie down with the lamb and justice will be done. If the second, what is the benefit of creating a strawman to argue against. If the third, I think you need to reinterrogate the sources to differentiate between the idea that most lawyers do not do work that as meaning to them, and the idea that the work of doing social justice is meaningful. The first is a sociological observation with personally psychologically relevant consequences, while the second is a proposition of personal conviction with which any given individual might or might not agree.

• The first, fairly put, is: why should I want meaningful work? The second is a purely straw question that cannot have a useful as opposed to merely rhetorical answer.

Why Break Free?

• "Extremely"? Did you need to boost the thing with an adjective in order to convince yourself you were making an argument? You are trying to use short-term evidence to counter an argument about long-run consequences. You know that's not logically compelling, so you attempt to make it work by adding an intensifier. Is this actually intended as an effective counter to the long-term data? Does it speak to the issue of meaning?

• You do not even purport to offer a factual basis for this absurd statement.

It has been argued in class that we should do what we want to do, produce something of value, and money will then come to us. But if what we desire is not to do certain things but instead to do any of a class of things while making a certain amount of money, then it only makes sense to pursue money directly.

• This isn't logic.

Perhaps, though, the con is preventing me from pursuing justice. The argument I’ve heard is this: BigLaw, certainly, undoubtedly, surely, is not a just pursuit; Public interest law (or, say, selecting one’s own clients; or working in a boutique firm) is more likely to be a just pursuit. I am prone to thinking, though, that everyone is motivated by the same few ends: wealth, recognition, power, etc. The public interest lawyer is doing work that “society” respects. He is given recognition and is considered a good person. That gives him influence and power. The Corporate attorney, on the other hand, takes a more direct route. He pursues money, which can be used to buy power. (For some insight into this, see Albert Camus’ The Fall.) Thus, no one is really pursuing justice (where, say, we define ‘justice’ as the title character in “Robinson’s Metamorphosis” would: equality). So BigLaw is just an equally efficient route to what we want.

• This is an illogical refutation of a nonsensical argument. This division between "the public interest lawyer" and "the corporate lawyer" wasn't made by any intelligent observer: it's bullshit you picked up in the street, like sexual information conveyed to one another by nine-year-olds. The issue of meaning is here obscured, as in the preceding graf, by the assumption that meaning is fungible with money, which is at best unexamined and most likely just obviously wrong.

Of course, thinking like this is what Leff predicts: the victim always thinks that he is an active participant in the con. Perhaps I have fallen prey to that trap; more likely, I have simply fallen prey to clever semantics by Leff.

• This graf conveys no relevant meaning for the reason given above.

A Just Society, Or Just Another Unjust Society?

I think that the notion of stepping outside of the con and pursuing something just and valuable is inspiring. However, given that we all have different conceptions of what is just, and given that I’m not sure anyone is genuinely motivated to promote equality, I fear that empowering us to step outside of the con will not result in a “better” society, but simply in a society that mirrors the current one.

• This is not a valuable point outside the debating society, because it responds to a straw proposition. There is a weak proposition inferrable from the real point, which asserts that there would be a general social improvement from everybody's having meaningful work. This is a weak proposition because, though not quite tautological, it is so universally accepted that there's not much point debating it under almost all circumstances.

Say we develop the confidence to step outside of the swindle and create something, on our own, of value. Our own process of creation will likely require us to become, in a way, conmen. We will build a framework; we will create value; we will con/sell. Inevitably, we will become a new ruling class.

• This is purely verbal. It has nothing to do with the life span or personal choices of any individual. As an argument against meaningful work, it gains no purchase whatever.

And from this position, it is hoped that we will be able to institute equality and justice. However, this seems terribly unlikely. Just as has always happened throughout history, those who reach the ruling class will likely attempt to hold onto their wealth and power. The new swindles, no matter how “justice”-oriented at the start, will simply become iterations of the cons that are currently being exposed. The world will be no better off. There will be no increase in equality or “justice”. We will have spun our wheels, hustled, sweated, strived, conned – and for what? For power? For wealth? For a vague notion of justice? If equality were really something that people want, if it were really something that can be had, then I think we would already have it. Thus, and with regret, I must conclude that I’m not sure we can make a meaningful difference.

• So you conflate the relevant proposition, should I have meaning in my work, with an absurdity, like "should I become a failed messiah?" and proceed to a supposedly resounding but actually silly conclusion.

• Okay, you win. If I spend a good deal of time showing all the ways in which you have misstated me for a debater's advantage, or created your own facts, or taken some other shortcut to a rhetorical victory in which no intellectual confidence could be reposed, I am merely defending my own point of view, most likely in a biased fashion. So you have chosen one of the class of subjects on which I have to refrain from exercising the full breadth of necessary criticism. You have full marks for the expenditure of effort, and whether it represents commitment to the enterprise I leave to be decided by your own conscience. Improvement we can both judge in the future.