For me they normally happen, these career crises, often, actually, on a Sunday evening, just as the sun is starting to set, and the gap between my hopes for myself and the reality of my life starts to diverge so painfully that I normally end up weeping into a pillow.
Minul juhtuvad need karjäärikriisid sageli, tegelikult, pühapäeva õhtuti, just siis kui päike loojumas on, ja vahe minu ootuste ja reaalsuse vahel hakkab nii valusalt lainema, et tavaliselt ma lõpuks nutan patja.
I'm mentioning all this -- I'm mentioning all this because I think this is not merely a personal problem; you may think I'm wrong in this, but I think we live in an age when our lives are regularly punctuated by career crises, by moments when what we thought we knew -- about our lives, about our careers -- comes into contact with a threatening sort of reality.
Ma räägin sellest, sest ma arvan et see pole mitte ainult isiklik probleem. Te võite arvate, et ma eksin. Aga ma usun, et me elame ajastul, kus meie elusid tabavad iga natukese aja tagant karjäärikriisid, hetked kus see, mida me uskusime oma elude, karjääride kohta teadvat, puutub kokku ähvardava reaalsusega.
It's perhaps easier now than ever before to make a good living. It's perhaps harder than ever before to stay calm, to be free of career anxiety. I want to look now, if I may, at some of the reasons why we might be feeling anxiety about our careers. Why we might be victims of these career crises, as we're weeping softly into our pillows. One of the reasons why we might be suffering is that we are surrounded by snobs.
Tänapäeval on võibolla lihtsam kui kunagi varem ennast normaalselt ära elatada. Võibolla on raskem kui kunagi varem olla rahulik, karjäärimuredest vaba. Nüüd ma tahaksin uurida, kui tohib, neid põhjuseid, miks töö ja karjäär meid närviliseks ajavad. Miks me oleme nende karjäärikriiside ohvrid, kui me vaikselt oma patjadesse nutame. Üks põhjus, miks me kannatame, on see, et meid ümbritsevad snoobid.
In a way, I've got some bad news, particularly to anybody who's come to Oxford from abroad. There's a real problem with snobbery, because sometimes people from outside the U.K. imagine that snobbery is a distinctively U.K. phenomenon, fixated on country houses and titles. The bad news is that's not true. Snobbery is a global phenomenon; we are a global organization, this is a global phenomenon. What is a snob? A snob is anybody who takes a small part of you, and uses that to come to a complete vision of who you are. That is snobbery.
Mõnes mõttes on mul halbu uudiseid, eriti neile, kes on Oxfordi välismaalt tulnud. Snooblus on tõeline probleem. Sest mõnikord inimesed väljaspool Inglismaalt arvavad, et snooblus ongi ainult Inglismaa fenomen, klammerdudes maamajade ja tiitlide külge. Halb uudis on see, et see ei vasta tõele. Snooblus on ülemaailmne nähtus. Me oleme ülemaailmne organisatsioon. See on ülemaailmne nähtus. See on olemas. Mis on snoob? Snoob on keegi, kes võtab pisikese osa sinust, ja konstrueerib sellest terve nägemuse, mis inimene sa oled. See ongi snooblus.
The dominant kind of snobbery that exists nowadays is job snobbery. You encounter it within minutes at a party, when you get asked that famous iconic question of the early 21st century, "What do you do?" According to how you answer that question, people are either incredibly delighted to see you, or look at their watch and make their excuses.
Ja põhiline snoobluse liik tänapäeval on töösnooblus. Peol näed sa seda kohe mõne minuti jooksul, kui sulle esitatakse see kuulus ikooniline varase 21. sajandi küsimus: "Millega sa tegeled?" Ja sõltuvalt sellest, mida sa vastad, on inimestel kas äärmiselt hea meel sinuga tutvuda, või vaatavad nad kella ja eemalduvad vabandades.
(Laughter)
(Naer)
Now, the opposite of a snob is your mother.
Aga snoobi vastand on su ema.
(Laughter)
(Naer)
Not necessarily your mother, or indeed mine, but, as it were, the ideal mother, somebody who doesn't care about your achievements. Unfortunately, most people are not our mothers. Most people make a strict correlation between how much time, and if you like, love -- not romantic love, though that may be something -- but love in general, respect -- they are willing to accord us, that will be strictly defined by our position in the social hierarchy.
Mitte tingimata sinu ema, või ka minu. Aga noh, ideaalne ema. Keegi, kes su saavutustest ei hooli. Aga kahjuks enamik inimesi ei ole meie emad. Enamus inimesi otsustab, kui palju aega, ja võiks öelda armastust, mitte romantilist armastust, kuigi võibolla ka seda, aga üldiselt armastust, austust, nad meile pakuvad, lähtuvalt
And that's a lot of the reason why we care so much about our careers
meie positsioonist sotsiaalses hierarhias.
and indeed start caring so much about material goods. You know, we're often told that we live in very materialistic times, that we're all greedy people. I don't think we are particularly materialistic. I think we live in a society which has simply pegged certain emotional rewards to the acquisition of material goods. It's not the material goods we want; it's the rewards we want. It's a new way of looking at luxury goods. The next time you see somebody driving a Ferrari, don't think, "This is somebody who's greedy." Think, "This is somebody who is incredibly vulnerable and in need of love."
Ja see on peamine põhjus, miks me oma karjääre nii tähtsaks peame. Ja tegelikult, miks me hoolime materiaalsetest asjadest nii palju. Sageli öeldakse, et me elame materiaalsel ajajärgul, et me oleme kõik ahned. Ma ei arva, et me oleme eriti materiaalsed. Ma arvan, et me elame ühiskonnas, mis on lihtsalt sidunud teatud emotsionaalsed preemiad materiaalsete asjade omamise külge. Me ei taha neid materiaalseid asju, vaid neid preemiaid. Ja see on uus viis mõista luksuskaupu. Järgmine kord, kui te näete kedagi Ferrari roolis, ärge mõelge: "See on üks ahne inimene." Mõelge: "See on üks äärmiselt haavatav ning armastust vajav inimene."
(Laughter)
Teisisõnu -- (Naer)
Feel sympathy, rather than contempt.
tunne haletsust, mitte põlgust.
There are other reasons --
On ka teisi põhjuseid --
(Laughter)
(Naer)
There are other reasons why it's perhaps harder now to feel calm than ever before. One of these, and it's paradoxical, because it's linked to something that's rather nice, is the hope we all have for our careers. Never before have expectations been so high about what human beings can achieve with their lifespan. We're told, from many sources, that anyone can achieve anything. We've done away with the caste system, we are now in a system where anyone can rise to any position they please. And it's a beautiful idea. Along with that is a kind of spirit of equality; we're all basically equal. There are no strictly defined hierarchies. There is one really big problem with this,
On teisi põhjuseid, miks on võibolla praegu raskem olla rahulik kui varem. Üks, ja see on paradoks kuna see on seotud millegi üsna toredaga, on meie ootused oma karjäärile. Mitte kunagi varem pole ootused olnud nii kõrged, mida inimolendid oma elu jooksul saavutada suudavad. Meile öeldakse, mitmest allikast, et igaüks võib saavutada ükskõik mida. Me oleme kastisüsteemi kaotanud. Meil on nüüd süsteem, kus igaüks võib tõusta nii kõrgele positsioonile kui tahab. Ja see on kaunis idee. Selle kõrval on võrdsust pooldav meelsus. Me kõik oleme üldiselt võrdsed. Igasugused piiritletud hierarhiad puuduvad.
and that problem is envy. Envy, it's a real taboo to mention envy, but if there's one dominant emotion in modern society, that is envy. And it's linked to the spirit of equality.
Sellega on üks suur probleem Ja see probleem on kadedus. Kadeduse mainimine on tabu, aga kui kaasaegses ühiskonnas on üks domineeriv tunne, siis on see kadedus. ja see on seotud võrdsusega. Las ma seletan.
Let me explain. I think it would be very unusual for anyone here, or anyone watching, to be envious of the Queen of England. Even though she is much richer than any of you are, and she's got a very large house, the reason why we don't envy her is because she's too weird.
Ma ei usu, et keegi siin, või keegi vaatajatest, kadestab Inglise kuningannat. Kuigi ta on palju rikkam kui keegi teist. Ja tal on väga suur maja. Põhjus, miks me teda ei kadesta, on see, et ta on liiga imelik.
(Laughter)
Ta on lihtsalt liiga kummaline.
She's simply too strange. We can't relate to her, she speaks in a funny way, she comes from an odd place. So we can't relate to her, and when you can't relate to somebody, you don't envy them.
Me ei seosta ennast temaga. Ta räägib naljakalt. Ta on imelikku päritolu. Nii et me ei samasta ennast temaga. Ja kui sa ennast kellegagi ei samasta, siis sa ei kadesta teda. Mida lähemal kaks inimest teineteisele on, vanuselt, taustalt,
The closer two people are -- in age, in background, in the process of identification -- the more there's a danger of envy, which is incidentally why none of you should ever go to a school reunion, because there is no stronger reference point than people one was at school with. The problem of modern society is it turns the whole world into a school. Everybody's wearing jeans, everybody's the same. And yet, they're not. So there's a spirit of equality combined with deep inequality, which can make for a very stressful situation.
identiteedilt, seda suurem on kadeduse oht. Nii et muideks ärge keegi kunagi kooli kokkutulekule minge. Sest pole olemas tugevamat võrdlusobjekti, kui inimesed, kellega sa koos koolis käisid. Aga kaasaegse ühiskonna häda on üldiselt see, et tervest maailmast saab kool. Kõik kannavad teksaseid, kõik on ühesugused. Aga ometi, nad ei ole. Nii et on võrdsuse tunne, aga koos sügava ebavõrdsusega. Mis loob -- võib luua väga stressirohke olukorra.
It's probably as unlikely that you would nowadays become as rich and famous as Bill Gates, as it was unlikely in the 17th century that you would accede to the ranks of the French aristocracy. But the point is, it doesn't feel that way. It's made to feel, by magazines and other media outlets, that if you've got energy, a few bright ideas about technology, a garage -- you, too, could start a major thing.
Tänapäeval on ilmselt sama ebatõenäoline, et sa saad sama rikkaks ja kuulsaks nagu Bill Gates, kui oli ebatõenäoline 17. sajandil, et sa pääsed Prantsuse aristokraatide sekka. Aga iva on selles, et see ei tundu nii. Ajakirjad ja muu meedia tekitavad tunde, et kui sul on energiat, mõned head tehnoloogilised ideed, garaazh, siis võid sina ka asutada suure firma.
(Laughter)
(Naer)
The consequences of this problem make themselves felt in bookshops. When you go to a large bookshop and look at the self-help sections, as I sometimes do -- if you analyze self-help books produced in the world today, there are basically two kinds. The first kind tells you, "You can do it! You can make it! Anything's possible!" The other kind tells you how to cope with what we politely call "low self-esteem," or impolitely call, "feeling very bad about yourself."
Ja selle tagajärgi on tunda raamatupoodides. Kui minna suurde raamatupoodi ja vaadata eneseabi riiuleid, mida ma vahel teen, kui sa uurid neid eneseabi raamatuid, mida tänapäeval toodetakse, siis on neid peamiselt kahte sorti. Esimene neist ütleb: "Sa suudad! Kõik on võimalik!" Ja teine sort räägib sulle, kuidas toime tulla nii-nimetatud "madala enesehinnanguga" ehk kui sa haletsed ennast.
There's a real correlation between a society that tells people that they can do anything, and the existence of low self-esteem. So that's another way in which something quite positive can have a nasty kickback. There is another reason why we might be feeling more anxious -- about our careers, about our status in the world today, than ever before. And it's, again, linked to something nice. And that nice thing is called meritocracy.
On selge seos, et kui ühiskond ütleb inimestele et nad suudavad kõike teha, siis esineb madalat enesehinnangut rohkem. Nii et see on jällegi näide, kuidas ühel heal asjal võib olla vastik varjukülg. On veel üks põhjus, miks me täna närveldame oma karjääride, oma staatuse pärast rohkem kui kunagi varem. Ja see on jällegi seotud millegi kenaga. Ja selle kena asja nimi on meritokraatia.
Everybody, all politicians on Left and Right, agree that meritocracy is a great thing, and we should all be trying to make our societies really, really meritocratic. In other words -- what is a meritocratic society? A meritocratic society is one in which, if you've got talent and energy and skill, you will get to the top, nothing should hold you back. It's a beautiful idea. The problem is, if you really believe in a society where those who merit to get to the top, get to the top, you'll also, by implication, and in a far more nasty way, believe in a society where those who deserve to get to the bottom also get to the bottom and stay there. In other words, your position in life comes to seem not accidental, but merited and deserved. And that makes failure seem much more crushing.
Kõik inimesed ja parem- ja vasakpoolsed poliitikud on ühel meelel, et meritokraatia on suurepärane asi, ja me kõik peaksime püüdma muuta oma ühiskonnad väga väga meritokraatlikuks. Teisisõnu, mis on meritokraatlik ühiskond? Meritokraatlikus ühiskonnas, kui sul on annet ja energiat ja oskust, siis jõuad sa tippu. Miski ei tohiks sind tagasi hoida. See on kaunis idee. Probleem on see, et kui sa usud ühiskonda, kus need, kes väärivad tippu jõudmist, jõuavad tippu, siis samuti, vaikimisi ja palju vastikumalt, usud sa ühiskonda, kus need kes väärivad põhjakihti, jõuavadki põhja ning jäävad sinna. Teisisõnu, su elustaatus ei tundu mitte juhuslik, vaid sa vääridki seda. Ja tulemusena tunduvad läbikukkumised palju valusamad.
You know, in the Middle Ages, in England, when you met a very poor person, that person would be described as an "unfortunate" -- literally, somebody who had not been blessed by fortune, an unfortunate. Nowadays, particularly in the United States, if you meet someone at the bottom of society, they may unkindly be described as a "loser." There's a real difference between an unfortunate and a loser, and that shows 400 years of evolution in society and our belief in who is responsible for our lives. It's no longer the gods, it's us. We're in the driving seat.
Keskaegsel Inglismaal, kui sa kohtasid väga vaest inimest, siis seda inimest kirjeldati kui "õnnetut". Sõna-sõnalt, keegi kellel polnud õnne, õnnetu. Tänapäeval, eriti USA-s, kui sa kohtad kedagi ühiskonna põhjakihist, siis tema kohta öeldakse, julmalt, "luuser" -- kaotaja. Õnnetu ja kaotaja vahel on oluline erinevus. Ja see näitab, kuidas on 400 aastaga muutunud nii ühiskond kui ka meie arusaam, kes meie elude eest vastutab. Mitte enam jumalad, vaid meie. Juhiistmel oleme meie.
That's exhilarating if you're doing well, and very crushing if you're not. It leads, in the worst cases -- in the analysis of a sociologist like Emil Durkheim -- it leads to increased rates of suicide. There are more suicides in developed, individualistic countries than in any other part of the world. And some of the reason for that is that people take what happens to them extremely personally -- they own their success, but they also own their failure.
See on fantastiline, kui sul läheb hästi, ja väga rusuv, kui sul läheb halvasti. Halvimatel juhtudel viib see enesetappude sagenemiseni, nagu leidis sotsioloog Emil Durkheim. Arenenud individualistlikes riikides on rohkem enesetappe kui kusagil mujal maailmas. Ja osa põhjusest on see, et inimesed võtavad kõike, mis nendega juhtub, äärmiselt isiklikult. Nende edu on nende oma. Aga läbikukkumised samuti.
Is there any relief from some of these pressures that I've been outlining? I think there is. I just want to turn to a few of them. Let's take meritocracy. This idea that everybody deserves to get where they get to, I think it's a crazy idea, completely crazy. I will support any politician of Left and Right, with any halfway-decent meritocratic idea; I am a meritocrat in that sense. But I think it's insane to believe that we will ever make a society that is genuinely meritocratic; it's an impossible dream.
Kas nende survete alt, mida ma olen kirjeldanud, on üldse pääsu? Ma arvan et on, ja mainin nüüd mõnda. Võtame meritokraatia. See idee, et kõik on seda väärt, kuhu nad elus jõuavad. Ma arvan et see on hull idee, täiesti hullumeelne. Ma toetan iga vasak- või parempoolset poliitikut, kellel oleks poolenistigi mõistlik meritokraatlik idee. Ma olen meritokraat ja kõik. Aga minu arvates on ebamõistlik loota, et me kunagigi loome ühiskonna, mis oleks täiesti meritokraatlik. See on võimatu unelm. Idee, et me loome ühiskonna
The idea that we will make a society where literally everybody is graded, the good at the top, bad at the bottom, exactly done as it should be, is impossible. There are simply too many random factors: accidents, accidents of birth, accidents of things dropping on people's heads, illnesses, etc. We will never get to grade them, never get to grade people as they should.
kus absoluutselt igaüks on täpselt hinnatud, head tipus, kehvad põhjas, ja seda tehakse täpselt õigesti, on võimatu. Suvalisi tegureid on lihtsalt liiga palju. Juhused, sünnijuhused, õnnetused kus mingi asi kukub inimesele pähe, haigused, jne. Me ei suuda neid kunagi hinnata. Kunagi hinnata inimesi just nii nagu peab.
I'm drawn to a lovely quote by St. Augustine in "The City of God," where he says, "It's a sin to judge any man by his post." In modern English that would mean it's a sin to come to any view of who you should talk to, dependent on their business card. It's not the post that should count. According to St. Augustine, only God can really put everybody in their place; he's going to do that on the Day of Judgment, with angels and trumpets, and the skies will open. Insane idea, if you're a secularist person, like me. But something very valuable in that idea, nevertheless.
Mulle meeldib üks Püha Augustini tsitaat "Jumala linnast", kus ta ütleb, "Mehe üle tema ameti järgi kohut mõista on patt." Kaasaegses keeles tähendaks see, on patt otsustada, kellega vestelda, lähtuvalt inimeste visiitkaartidest. Amet ei tohiks lugeda. Ja Püha Augustini sõnul suudab ainult jumal kõik inimesed õigesse kohta paigustada. Ning seda teeb ta Viimasel Kohtupäeval inglite ja trompetitega, ja taevas avaneb. Hull mõte, kui sa oled ilmalik inimene nagu mina. Aga selles mõttes sisaldub ikkagi midagi väärtuslikku.
In other words, hold your horses when you're coming to judge people. You don't necessarily know what someone's true value is. That is an unknown part of them, and we shouldn't behave as though it is known. There is another source of solace and comfort for all this. When we think about failing in life, when we think about failure, one of the reasons why we fear failing is not just a loss of income, a loss of status. What we fear is the judgment and ridicule of others. And it exists.
Teisisõnu, pea hoogu kui sa teistele inimestele hinnangut annad. Sa ei pruugi teada, mida keegi tõeliselt väärt on. Seda ei saa kunagi kellegi kohta teada. Ja me ei tohiks teeselda, nagu me seda teaksime. See on lohutav ka ühel teisel põhjusel. Kui me mõtleme elus läbi kukkumisele, siis üks põhjus, miks me läbikukkumist kardame, pole mitte ainult sissetuleku ja staatuse kaotus. Mida me kardame on teiste kohtumõistmine ja naeruvääristamine. Ja see on olemas. Naeruvääristamise organ number üks
The number one organ of ridicule, nowadays, is the newspaper. If you open the newspaper any day of the week, it's full of people who've messed up their lives. They've slept with the wrong person, taken the wrong substance, passed the wrong piece of legislation -- whatever it is, and then are fit for ridicule. In other words, they have failed. And they are described as "losers." Now, is there any alternative to this? I think the Western tradition shows us one glorious alternative, which is tragedy.
on tänapäeval ajaleht. Kui avada ajaleht ükskõik mis päeval, on see tulvil inimesi, kes oma elud tuksi keerasid. Nad magasid vale inimesega. Nad manustasid valet ainet. Nad kehtestasid vale seaduse. Mida iganes. Ja siis on nad naeruvääristamiseks sobilikud. Teisisõnu, nad kukkusid läbi ning neid nimetatakse luuseriteks. Kas sellele on alternatiivi? Ma arvan, et Lääne traditsioon pakub meile ühte hiilgavat alternatiivi.
Tragic art, as it developed in the theaters of ancient Greece, in the fifth century B.C., was essentially an art form devoted to tracing how people fail, and also according them a level of sympathy, which ordinary life would not necessarily accord them. A few years ago, I was thinking about this, and I went to "The Sunday Sport," a tabloid newspaper I don't recommend you start reading if you're not familiar with it already.
Selleks on tragöödia. Traagiline kunst, mis arenes Vana-Kreeka teatrites 5. sajandil e.Kr., oli põhimõtteliselt kunstivorm pühendatud sellele, et näidata kuidas inimesed läbi kukuvad. Ja samuti pakkuda neile mingil määral kaastunnet, mida tavaelu neile võibolla ei pakkunud. Ma mäletan, kuidas ma paar aastat tagasi sellele mõtlesin, ja külastasin "Pühapäevaspordi" toimetust, mis on kollane ajaleht mida ma kellelegi ei soovita, kui te sellest juba kuulnud pole.
(Laughter)
Ma läksin nendega rääkima
And I went to talk to them about certain of the great tragedies of Western art. I wanted to see how they would seize the bare bones of certain stories, if they came in as a news item at the news desk on a Saturday afternoon.
Lääne kunsti suurtest tragöödiatest ja tahtsin näha, kuidas nad mõnede lugude kondikavast kinni haarasid, kui neid uudistena serveeriti
I mentioned Othello; they'd not heard of it but were fascinated.
uudisteosakonnas laupäeva pärastlõunal.
Ma rääkisin neile Othellost. Nad polnud sellest kuulnud, aga olid vapustatud.
(Laughter)
(Naer)
I asked them to write a headline for the story. They came up with "Love-Crazed Immigrant Kills Senator's Daughter." Splashed across the headline. I gave them the plotline of Madame Bovary. Again, a book they were enchanted to discover. And they wrote "Shopaholic Adulteress Swallows Arsenic After Credit Fraud."
Ja ma palusin neil kirjutada Othello loole pealkiri. Nad pakkusid "Armuhull immigrant tapab senaatori tütre" pritsitud esielehele. Ma esitasin neile Madame Bovary süzhee. Jällegi, raamat millest nad võlutult esimest korda kuulsid. Ja nad kirjutasid "Shopahoolikust abielurikkuja neelab pärast laenupettust arseeni".
(Laughter)
(Naer)
And then my favorite -- they really do have a kind of genius of their own, these guys -- my favorite is Sophocles' Oedipus the King: "Sex With Mum Was Blinding."
Ning mu lemmik. Need tüübid on tõesti omamoodi geeniused. Mu lemmik on Sophoklese "Kuningas Oidipus". "Seks emaga oli pimestav"
(Laughter)
(Naer)
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
In a way, if you like, at one end of the spectrum of sympathy, you've got the tabloid newspaper. At the other end of the spectrum, you've got tragedy and tragic art. And I suppose I'm arguing that we should learn a little bit about what's happening in tragic art. It would be insane to call Hamlet a loser. He is not a loser, though he has lost. And I think that is the message of tragedy to us, and why it's so very, very important, I think.
Mõnes mõttes, kaastundespektri ühes otsas on kollane ajakirjandus. Ja spektri teises otsas on tragöödia ja traagiline kunst. Ja ma üritan vist väita, et me peaksime õppust võtma, sellest mis toimub traagilises kunstis. Kutsuda Hamletit luuseriks oleks hull. Ta ei ole kaotaja, kuigi ta on kaotanud. Ja see on tragöödia sõnum meile kõigile, ja miks see on minu arvates nii tähtis.
The other thing about modern society and why it causes this anxiety, is that we have nothing at its center that is non-human. We are the first society to be living in a world where we don't worship anything other than ourselves. We think very highly of ourselves, and so we should; we've put people on the Moon, done all sorts of extraordinary things. And so we tend to worship ourselves. Our heroes are human heroes.
Teine asi kaasaegses ühiskonnas, ja miks see närvilisust tekitab, on see, et ühiskonna keskmes pole midagi ebainimlikku. Me oleme esimene ühiskond, kes ei jumalda midagi peale iseendi. Me arvame endast väga hästi. Ja õigustatult. Me saatsime inimesed Kuule. Me oleme teinud igasuguseid vägevaid asju. Ja nii me kipume endid jumaldama.
That's a very new situation. Most other societies have had, right at their center, the worship of something transcendent: a god, a spirit, a natural force, the universe, whatever it is -- something else that is being worshiped. We've slightly lost the habit of doing that, which is, I think, why we're particularly drawn to nature. Not for the sake of our health, though it's often presented that way, but because it's an escape from the human anthill. It's an escape from our own competition, and our own dramas. And that's why we enjoy looking at glaciers and oceans, and contemplating the Earth from outside its perimeters, etc. We like to feel in contact with something that is non-human, and that is so deeply important to us.
Meie kangelased on inimkangelased. See on väga uus olukord. Enamikul ühiskondadel oli keskmes mingi üleva olendi jumaldamine. Jumal, vaim, loodusjõud, universum. Mis iganes see ka pole, jumaldati midagi muud. Me oleme selle harjumuse kaotanud. Mis on põhjus, miks loodus meid eriti meelitab. Mitte tervise huvides, kuigi seda sageli nii esitletakse. Vaid sest see on väljapääs inimeste sipelgapesast. Väljapääs meie oma konkurentsist ja draamadest. Sellepärast meile meeldibki vaadata liustikke ja ookeane, ja mõtiskleda selle üle, mis on väljaspool Maad, jne. Me tahaksime tunda kontakte millegi mitte-inimlikuga. Ja see on meile sügavalt oluline.
What I think I've been talking about really is success and failure. And one of the interesting things about success is that we think we know what it means. If I said that there's somebody behind the screen who's very successful, certain ideas would immediately come to mind. You'd think that person might have made a lot of money, achieved renown in some field. My own theory of success -- I'm somebody who's very interested in success, I really want to be successful, always thinking, how can I be more successful? But as I get older, I'm also very nuanced about what that word "success" might mean.
Ma rääkisin edust ja läbikukkumisest. Ja on huvitav, et me arvame et teame, mida "edu" tähendab. Kui ma ütleksin, et sirmi taga seidab üks väga edukas inimene, siis tuleksid kohe teatud ettekujutused pähe. Te arvaksite, et ta on teinud palju raha, saavutanud mingil alal kuulsuse. Minu oma eduteooria, ja ma olen edust väga huvitatud. Ma tõesti tahan edukas olla. Ma mõtlen alati: "Kuidas ma saaksin edukam olla?" Aga vanemaks saades olen ma täpsem, mida sõna "edu" tähendada võib.
Here's an insight that I've had about success: You can't be successful at everything. We hear a lot of talk about work-life balance. Nonsense. You can't have it all. You can't. So any vision of success has to admit what it's losing out on, where the element of loss is. And I think any wise life will accept, as I say, that there is going to be an element where we're not succeeding.
Siin on üks minu tõdemusi edu kohta. Sa ei saa olla kõiges edukas. Palju räägitakse töö ja eraelu tasakaalust. Lora. Kõike ei saa. Sa ei saa. Nii et iga edunägemus peab tunnistama, millest ta ilma jääb, mida ta kaotab. Ja iga arukas elu peab leppima, nagu ma ütlen, et alati on mingi element, kus me pole edukad.
And the thing about a successful life is that a lot of the time, our ideas of what it would mean to live successfully are not our own. They're sucked in from other people; chiefly, if you're a man, your father, and if you're a woman, your mother. Psychoanalysis has been drumming home this message for about 80 years. No one's quite listening hard enough, but I very much believe it's true.
Ja eduka elu iva on see, et sageli, meie arusaam eduka elu tähendusest pole meie enda oma. See arusaam on teistelt imetud. Põhiliselt, mehe puhul, isalt. Ja naise puhul, emalt. Psühhoanalüüs on seda sõnumit 80 aastat kuulutanud. Keegi ei kuula eriti. Aga ma väga usun, et see on tõsi.
And we also suck in messages from everything from the television, to advertising, to marketing, etc. These are hugely powerful forces that define what we want and how we view ourselves. When we're told that banking is a very respectable profession, a lot of us want to go into banking. When banking is no longer so respectable, we lose interest in banking. We are highly open to suggestion.
Aga me imeme endasse ka teisi sõnumeid, telekast, reklaamidest, turundusest ja nii edasi. Need on äärmiselt võimsad jõud. Need määravad, mida me tahame ja kuidas me ennast näeme. Kui meile öeldakse, et pangandus on väga auväärne amet, siis paljud meist tahavad pankuriks saada. Kui pangandus pole enam nii auväärne, siis kaotame huvi. Me oleme soovitustele väga avatud.
So what I want to argue for is not that we should give up on our ideas of success, but we should make sure that they are our own. We should focus in on our ideas, and make sure that we own them; that we are truly the authors of our own ambitions. Because it's bad enough not getting what you want, but it's even worse to have an idea of what it is you want, and find out, at the end of the journey, that it isn't, in fact, what you wanted all along.
Nii et ma ei ürita väita, et me peaksime oma arusaamadest edust lahti ütlema. Aga olgem kindlad, et need arusaamad on meie endi omad. Keskendume oma enda ideedele. Et nad on kindlasti meie omad, et me oleme ise oma ambitsioonide autorid. Sest on niigi halb, kui sa ei saa, mida tahad. Aga on isegi hullem, kui sa arvad, et tead mida tahad, aga teekonna lõpus avastad, et tegelikult see polegi, mida sa tahtsid.
So, I'm going to end it there. But what I really want to stress is: by all means, success, yes. But let's accept the strangeness of some of our ideas. Let's probe away at our notions of success. Let's make sure our ideas of success are truly our own.
Nüüd ma lõpetan. Aga ma tahan rõhutada, igal juhul, edu, jah. Aga leppigem, et mõned meie arusaamad on imelikud. Uurime oma arusaami edust lähemalt. Olgem kindlad, et meie arusaamad edust on tõesti meie omad.
Thank you very much.
Aitäh.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
Chris Anderson: That was fascinating. But how do you reconcile this idea of it being bad to think of someone as a "loser," with the idea that a lot of people like, of seizing control of your life, and that a society that encourages that, perhaps has to have some winners and losers?
Chris Anderson: See oli imeline. Kuidas ühitada idee, et keegi on -- kuna on halb pidada kedagi luuseriks, ideega mis paljudele meeldib, et oma elu tuleb kontrollida suuta. Ja ühiskonnas, mis seda soodustab, võibolla peavadki olema võitjad ja kaotajad.
Alain De Botton: Yes, I think it's merely the randomness of the winning and losing process that I want to stress, because the emphasis nowadays is so much on the justice of everything, and politicians always talk about justice. Now I'm a firm believer in justice, I just think that it's impossible. So we should do everything we can to pursue it, but we should always remember that whoever is facing us, whatever has happened in their lives, there will be a strong element of the haphazard. That's what I'm trying to leave room for; otherwise, it can get quite claustrophobic.
Alain de Botton: Jah. Ma tahtsin rõhutada, et võitmine ja kaotamine on lihtsalt juhuslikud. Sest tänapäeval rõhutatakse nii väga, kuidas kõik olevat õiglane. Ja poliitikud räägivad aina õiglusest. Ma usun õiglusesse, aga ma lihtsalt arvan, et see on võimatu. Nii et me peaksime tegema kõik, kõik, et selle poole püüelda. Aga lõpuks peaksime meeles pidama, et kes iganes meie ees seisab, mis iganes tema elus on juhtunud, on olemas suur juhuslik tegur. Ning ma tahan selle jaoks ruumi jätta. Sest muidu läheb asi klaustrofoobseks.
CA: I mean, do you believe that you can combine your kind of kinder, gentler philosophy of work with a successful economy? Or do you think that you can't, but it doesn't matter that much that we're putting too much emphasis on that?
Chris Anderson: Kas sa usud, et su lahkem, leebem tööfilosoofia saab eduka majandusega ühilduda? Või ei saa? Aga pole oluline, et me seda nii palju rõhutame?
AB: The nightmare thought is that frightening people is the best way to get work out of them, and that somehow the crueler the environment, the more people will rise to the challenge. You want to think, who would you like as your ideal dad? And your ideal dad is somebody who is tough but gentle. And it's a very hard line to make. We need fathers, as it were, the exemplary father figures in society, avoiding the two extremes, which is the authoritarian disciplinarian on the one hand, and on the other, the lax, no-rules option.
Alain de Botton: Õudne mõte on see, et inimeste hirmutamine on parim viis neid tööle saada. Ja et mida julmem keskkond, seda paremini inimesed väljakutsele vastu astuvad. Mõtle, milline oleks ideaalne isa? Ja ideaalne isa on keegi, kes on range aga õrn. Ja see on keeruline piir. Meil on vaja niiöelda isasid, näidis isafiguure ühiskonnas, kes ei oleks kummaski äärmuses. Nimelt ühest küljest autoritaarne. Ja teisest küljest vaba, täiesti reegliteta variant.
CA: Alain De Botton.
Christ Anderson: Alain de Botton.
AB: Thank you very much.
Alain de Botton: Tänan teid väga!
(Applause)
(Aplaus)