COLUMN: Trying to see the forest, not the trees

From Ron Lin's, "Intellectual Pornography," Fall '99 From Ron Lin's, "Intellectual Pornography," Fall '99Month after month, I've been where you are. There might be a professor somewhere in front of you, explaining the finer points of partial derivatives or perhaps engaging you in a less-than-fascinating slide on diminishing marginal product. But there are greater truths and far grander trivialities to tackle out there. And that's why every morning, above the drone of higher education, we rudely ruffle through the most recent edition of The Daily Pennsylvanian to read the opinion columns. In fact, I'm admittedly irritated with hearing people weakly label this student body as a veritable black sheep in the company of righteous Ivy League freedom fighters. A small but vocal rebellion against apathy has emerged, an attempt to define a clear purpose for the student body at large. The ultimate and depressing truth is that this era is neither more nor less purposeful than any preceding era. Furthermore, just having a purpose does not entitle you to having any meaning. Purpose isn't necessarily picket lines, or even blindly deciding that every issue encountered is black and white. Becoming an "activist" might in the end be as shallow and inane as the less-explicit demonstration of more apathy. Consider Julia "Butterfly" Hill, the environmental activist who has gained fame for a two-year "tree-sit." For two years this woman was sitting in a tree, protesting lumbering practices in the Pacific Northwest and metaphorically "fighting" for the survival of a 600-year-old redwood. For two years she was sitting in a tree like an Ewok. Now, undoubtedly her cause is noble if not dramatic, and in no way do I intend to diminish her feat, which appears to have been quite a success. Nonetheless, her means of expression represent one avenue for vocalizing an opinion. Large posterboards glued to popsicle sticks represent another. The fact that few people choose these means does not mean they are apathetic. The Apathy Police are keen on reflecting upon the turbulence of the 1960s, a time when it seems everyone was involved in sit-ins and united in a crusade for the common good. But the truth of the matter is that even then most people probably weren't instigators or revolutionaries. In fact, most people were probably just along for the ride, unconsciously immersed in a common culture of dissent. It was perhaps just today's equivalent of getting a tongue ring -- just another trendy, bad-ass thing to do. Every time someone accuses Penn students of apathy, they're attempting to impose their conception of purpose onto the entire student body. The last thing I think students at Penn want is to have a meaning stamped on their foreheads. And this is nothing new. Beginning late in the 19th century, existentialist philosophy emerged, devoted to explaining that life is absurd and devoid of meaning. Before that, this country rigorously adhered to isolationist principles that dissociated the U.S. from the rest of the world. These were in themselves demonstrations against a necessary declaration of purpose. It wasn't apathy. It's just that purpose is not an entirely conspicuous phenomenon. I guess I perceive there as being nothing more pathetic than pointing fingers at this entire University, calling students apathetic because they aren't picketing against the unusually high doses of saccharin fed to lab rats. Julia Hill found purpose in a redwood tree; fortunately, most students at Penn don't. Instead, we explore those alternative mechanisms for discovering meaning. We study hard and graduate to productive jobs as doctors, lawyers, CEOs and engineers. We will contribute to this nation's gross domestic product; we will innovate; and in fact, many of us will even immerse ourselves in social and political causes without shrouding ourselves in the plush cloth of social righteousness. Popular social causes aren't the only way to contribute to the world around us, nor are they always a contribution at all; just because something is popular does not necessarily mean it's good. For example, anti-Semitism, Jim Crow laws and the Backstreet Boys are or were popular at some point in time; however, we can all agree that none of them are or ever were good. Julia Hill's world consisted of a single tree for two years; are the rest of us so wrong for seeing the forest?