This post is sort of about my favourite book (The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand), and why it's my favourite book. It's a bit of an apologist's treatise, hence the title.
I'll start by saying that, yes, I absolutely hate-hate-HATE the rape scene in the book. The scene is (justifiably) almost universally maligned, and I won't try to justify its existence, much in the same way I wouldn't try to justify the Bible story where Lot's daughters (not just one! all of them!) get him drunk and rape him so they can get pregnant with their father's babies.
(As an aside, I do think it's weird that the same God who killed Lot's wife for...looking over her shoulder?....was totally cool with incestuous rape. I'm an atheist because of the absolute failure of religion in my life, personally....but wild moral inconstancies like this in religious texts don't exactly make me question my life choice.)
There's a lot of sickness in lots of literature, and none of it can be justified. Yet we do find ways to ignore the sick parts when we find greater good in the rest of the text. So, in the same way that I ignore the rape scene when reading The Fountainhead, and the same way people ignore the wild inconsistencies of the Bible, I'll ignore it in my post about The Fountainhead. If that seems like a cop out, I apologize.
The thing that draws me to The Fountainhead is it's emphasis on the importance of finding work that a person truly loves and throwing ones self completely into that work. I can't speak on how people approached choosing a job/career in generations prior to my birth, but in my lifetime I've definitely noticed how work is less about the job itself and more about the pay of the job (and what that pay can afford).
As with most my non-math posts, I won't really be giving an in-depth analysis with references and such. This is just an opinion piece. I'll be splitting this post into 3 sections (as I tend to do): Section 1 will be devoted to my personal views on work, Section 2 will be devoted to (my perception and understanding of) the modern world's view of work and my critique of that view, and Section 3 will compare the subjects of section 1 and 2 with the view of work as presented in The Fountainhead.
Section 1: Work, On A Personal Level
I've worked in a lot of different fields, at a lot of different places. In grade school, I was a subcontracted lawn maintenance worker from grade school until high school (working to pay for rent, food, or whatever else Claudia Evenboer needed, but was to lazy to work for herself.... not for any lesson in financial responsibility or whatever). I worked in grocery stores in my teens. I worked in food service. I worked in sales and customer service. I've worked in a plastics injection molding factory. I've been a janitor. I moved furniture for a furniture rental company. I worked a day as a plumber's assistant. I've even sold a couple of paintings and made money from playing in a band, so technically I've been a working artist. Most recently, I worked in a parking garage in Portland (and do you ever see some shit working in a place like that, let me tell you). And even though I don't get paid for it, I have written a few math papers and given some talks, so technically I'm a mathematician, even if I'm only working in a voluntary/amateur capacity. I've held jobs from coast to coast, and places in between. By the time I was 29, I had worked 20 years of my life (give or take a few months) I think I can say I'm qualified to have an opinion on work, and a breadth of experience that gives me an idea of what does and doesn't "do it for me" in terms of happiness in my work.
I found, and chose, mathematics at a late stage in my life. In a weird way, I'm sort of glad I found math so late in life. It helped me appreciate the work that truly gave my life a light I couldn't find in anything else that I appreciated like mathematics. I had a lot of jobs that helped me survive (and even accumulate some substantial savings, when coupled with cheap living). Mathematics has been the only work that's made me feel really alive.
In my opinion, there's a huge difference between surviving and really living. It's hard to describe. I don't have much of a vocabulary for happiness. By the time I developed an ability to feel what I can identify as happiness, I was in my late 30's. I can feel it, but I can't really describe it. I suppose the closest I can approximate, in words, is that... when I do mathematics, I feel a drive that I can't stop until I just can't go on any more. As someone who was (and always will be, remission or not) an alcoholic, I know what addiction is. As an admitted cigarette addict who's under no delusions, I know what addiction is. The drive I feel with mathematics has nothing to do with any kind of addictive personality. It's the joy or happiness or whatever that I feel when doing the work. When I start on a practice problem or a research problem, it's the feeling of wonder of the exploration and the building of knowledge and of perfecting my craft by addressing gaps in knowledge and filling those gaps. There's no higher purpose other than my happiness doing the work. I can go for hours without noticing hours have passed, but it's all lucid and happy (even when it's frustrating and hopeless). In any other work I've had, if I don't notice hours passing it was either because (a) I was wasted on the job/activity, or (b) I was totally dissociated from myself due to my loathing of the job..
Unlike any other job/endeavour that I've ever undertaken (undertook?), I derived a true pleasure from my work. It was (and is) the only work I enjoyed in and of itself. It doesn't matter how much money I make doing the work. It doesn't matter how much vacation time or benefits I get from the work. The accolades and/or recognition by peers doesn't matter. Status and power that could be derived from the work don't matter. It's just the work itself. That's the part that brings me happiness and pleasure and, for lack of a better term, meaning.
To me, the happiness I feel doing the work I love is the foundation I build everything else off of. I can't imagine thinking "I'll build the rest of my life around this romantic partner" or "I need a job so that I can afford the hobby I like" or "I just need some job to pay for all this entertainment that I need to numb/pacify myself and make the job I don't want worth it". Relationships, friendships, hobbies, entertainment...I can't be happy in those things without being happy in myself. For me, the work is where I most feel like myself, and when I do the work I'm happy doing, everything else has a meaning. Cooking, hiking in the hills/mountains, long wilderness trips, working out, watching movies., going to modern art exhibits...I've enjoyed all those hobbies before math and with math...but they were never as sweet without math.
For me, at least, real happiness in other things is only possible when I'm happy in my work. It took finding a work that I love (mathematics) to address a lot of the abuses I experienced at the hands of the family that raised me, and to address my alcoholism, and to find healthy habits, and to...just finally feel... alive. I think all of that qualifies as evidence that the work I found, and the happiness I found doing the work, were the foundation I needed, and will always need, to build my best possible life upon.
I had a meeting with a professor to talk about my grade situation at Stony Brook, and in that convo I said that I wasn't trying to be a martyr just to get a degree. But the more I think about what that work means to me, and the (better) person it's helped me become, the more I disagree with my statement. My happiness in every and any other facet of my life is dependent on doing mathematics as my actual work, saying that in the healthiest possible sense.
Section2: Work, On A Societal Level (As I Perceive It, Anyway).
I don't make a secret of the fact that, for various reasons, I live a really solitary life. The guy who hasn't so much as gone to coffee with another human being in well over a decade is never mistaken for a social animal. But it doesn't mean I don't pay attention. And I've had co-workers, I've been raised (if you want to call it that) by a family, I've had classmates, I've had significant others, I've had acquaintances, I pay attention to the news and social trends....basically, I've existed long enough to interact with the world, to one degree or another. While I admit there's probably some pretty heavy limits to my understanding of the motivations of other individuals or groups of various sizes, I feel pretty confident in my ability to form a not-completely-baseless opinion of how society views, and chooses, work.
I'll also acknowledge the fact that I've had a few lucky breaks that most don't get, so at least in terms of opportunity to find work I love, I've had a special privilege unavailable to a lot of people.. I've also made life choices that make cheap living easier for me (I don't have or want kids, I don't have pets, I don't drink, I always cook at home, I don't hang out, etc.).
I'll also acknowledge that not everyone has the same outlook (or experiences) in life as me, and our motivations at a fundamental level may be different. Some people, for instance, believe that getting married and having kids is what the rest of their life should be built around, and choice of work is just a means to make that possible. I wouldn't sacrifice my choice in work for that, but they might not sacrifice that for choice of work. Do what works for you. I'm mostly painting in broad strokes in this section, and I'm acknowledging that here.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that most people aren't very happy with their jobs. And of the small fraction that DO consider themselves happy in their jobs, the majority would probably be happy because of something they derive from their work (money, hobbies, entertainment, possessions, power/status) more-so than the work itself.
I don't think it was any different historically. I think we build this false ideal that somehow people were more happy with just having any old job that paid well in the past. The "nobility of work" trope, that says just working to make money is in and of itself, some noble aspiration of humans. But people were still coming home from their noble jobs, trying to numb themselves after spending a whole day working to afford the things that numb them. The only difference, as I see it, between the past and the present, is the drive for self-determination. In the past, and through out human history, a newly independent or freed people will work for a goal of self-determination. But when that degree of autonomy is achieved, the drive to attain it goes with it.
In my opinion, America (and probably the rest of the world) traded the desire for self-determination for comfort and convenience. It's about motivation. For example, if power and status are your motivation, it probably doesn't matter so much what you do, it's just about finding the work that finds you the easiest path to the power and status you desire and/or are content with. Listen to how most people describe a "good job". Usually, they say "I have a good job, it pays well." or "I have a good job, I get a lot of time off." or some such. These statements don't imply the work itself is satisfying. It implies the work is something they tolerate for the benefits of the job. You rarely hear "I have a good job, the work itself inspires me to push boundaries and advance the field.." or "I have a good job, the work brings out the best in me."
There's more I can (and probably will, in an edit) say here, but I'll move on to the last section.
Section 3: Work, according to the philosophy of the Fountainhead.
Finally, right? You were like :"So where's the pro-Fountainhead content?". Here it be.
So, first I'll explain the title.
Usually, the common (mis)interpretation of the Fountainhead is...confusing it with Atlas Shrugged. I, personally, think Atlas Shrugged is an inferiour work. I read it once, and was like..."Ok. I read it.", and that was it. If the Fountainhead is a bit ham-fisted in its philosophizing, Atlas Shrugged undertakes the task like a wrecking ball attached to a tank on the deck of a battleship. It's too much. The Fountainhead is less explicit about its political and economic philosophies, in my opinion. The Fountainhead is more concerned with the motivations of an individual (as a an archetype for the individual to aspire to). Atlas Shrugged takes place on a much bigger stage.. It's the global to the Fountainhead's local. I think that sort of defeats the point of individualism as Ayn Rand herself defines it.
(Digression: If anything, Atlas Shrugged made a great case for libertarian socialism. John Galt's little community of genius individualists was basically a really high functioning commune that people chose to join. It's a kind of fascinating left-libertarian thought experiment, if you think about it.)
Another common misinterpretation of the Fountainhead is that it's anti-collaboration. That Howard Roark is, for example, so anti-others that he blows up the housing project building site (spoilers!) out of some wild anti-social desire to be the only name associated with the building. People who think that haven't read the book, or went into it with a pre-existing judgement based on someone else's negative opinion. If you even half-read the book, it's hard to miss that Howard Roark didn't want his name associated with the building. He didn't want the money, or the press, or status, or some professional benefit. He writes a contract saying his only compensation for his design is that it is built exactly as designed. No more, no less. The terms of the contract aren't met, so he blows the building up (before its inhabited). This is where people seem to miss the point completely; this is where they usually argue that, regardless of his contract, he just blew up housing for impoverished people. And there's validity to the argument. But I think it's taking things too literal, and misses the point that the building was meant to be built as cheaply, but expertly, as possible to provide the greatest value on quality housing. The additions drove the cost of construction up, and wastes time and money and resources. The use of the imagery of a housing project as the work created by someone who loved their work and wanted to solve a problem and push boundaries to improve lives and spoiled by people who craved money and status and populism and such...and having that housing project blown up....I feel that choice of imagery was intentional for the sake of being as provocative as possible. The point isn't what type of building it is (housing project, office building, sports arena, whatever), the point is seeing the difference between people who love the work itself (personified by Howard Roark), and people who are only in it for the money, power, etc...people with no real passion for the work itself (personified by Peter Keating, Gail Wynand, and others).
And that's sort of the point of the whole book. It's not a pro-greed novel (in fact the novel explicitly rebukes people who have no motivation beyond accumulating wealth) like some right-wing nuts think. It's not about imposing power on others (which the novel also explicitly condemns...aside form the unfortunate rape scene). It's not anti-government (although it does have anti-inefficient-government undertones). It's just about finding work you love, and doing that. Work that's worth sacrifice of comforts. Work that has meaning. Work that one feels a passion for (not to be confused with this jackass's definition of passion...which is entirely materialistic)
From section 1, it might be (and hopefully is) obvious that I agree with the novel's view of work. From section 2, it should be (and hopefully is) obvious I think the average person does not agree with the novel's view of work. Of course, I believe that not everyone is "the average person".
Conclusion
I suppose there's not much more to add here. I think what needed to be said was said above. But I do think it's worth noting the effect of viewing work as described in section 2 has an effect on education. Most people, when asked why they go to college, simply reply "To get a good/better paying job". Rarely is it about passion for a subject. It feeds into the commodification of education; university education has just become a few extra years of high school that you pay for. You take some stuff in, regurgitate it for tests and papers, and (if you're lucky and/or care at all) maybe you remember some of it and use the knowledge at your job. But mostly an undergraduate university education (and even some grad programmes) has become a job recruitment centre, as opposed to a place where knowledge is disseminated to people who have true passion for a subject and who want to push boundaries. It's sad. And, to someone like myself who went to university to chase a real passion in hopes of becoming a real contributor in my chosen field regardless of pay or prestige or whatever, it's disenchanting and frustrating. I would rather scrape by being a career post-doc researching cutting edge mathematics than be better paid for work I have no interest in.
It's up to everyone to (honestly) assess where they stand on this issue. Are you motivated by the work itself? Are you motivated by power over others? Are you motivated strictly by money?
I might add more to this post later. It feels a bit half-baked, tbh. I wrote it in chunks over the course of two or three months. But I think the main points have been made.
Update 6 Aug.:
I think what it comes down to is, there's not really anything substantial to motivate people any more. Nothing beyond the dollar, making ends meet, and just existing. There was a time in America when science and technology were inspirational to the general public because of the subject themselves, not with how the subjects could be monetized. Kids wanted to be engineers because it was exciting and was about pushing boundaries and advancing frontiers of knowledge and application. That still exists, for sure. But I think (at least from my personal experience) you're more likely to hear "I'm getting a degree (grad or undergrad) in engineering because engineering jobs start at $100k.". I personally believe that shift is why we're more focused developing ways to entertain ourselves than we are on pushing to new frontiers. I mean...take Elon Musk for example. Personally, I liked him when he was just a sort of eccentric guy who was mostly focused on making rockets and electric cars. Then he sort of shifted his priorities to being a public figure (read: entertainer) and...this is just personal opinion, mind you....he just became less inspiring. To me. It was sort of gut-wrenching to watch him go from being someone who projected as a person who lived a spartan lifestyle in a quest to improve the environment and space exploration to....whatever it is he is now. Meme-lord? Social media personality? Fodder for populist, reactionary journalism? And it's just kind of sad to see people like..."I want to be billionaire mid-life crisis pop-star Elon!" and not "I want to be Elon who lives in a small house and works to advance his given fields". I think it's just a good example of what I was trying to get across in this post. What we value, what motivates us to work, why we choose our jobs, and what inspires us. II'm outspoken in my belief in peoples; right to chose their own life and path, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy with what they choose.