I do not accept Smith’s “pursue your passion” (or, more precisely, his “you will not pursue your passion”) lecture uncritically. The implied premise that eternal passion alone can lead to practical application is tenuous. I wish to reference two popular works of fiction, The Great Gatsby and Man Men, to suggest that true eternal passion (as distinguished from an interest) is an intellectual idea that can only be borne into practical application with favorable circumstance.

The gist of The Great Gatsby is that Jay Gatsby directs his entire life towards recreating the romantic passion between himself and Daisy Buchanan. Born as James Gatz to a poor Midwest family, the protagonist spends his early life recreating himself into a man who can appear a part of high society. He unites with the debutante Daisy and experiences a romantic encounter with her that he spends the rest of his life trying to recreate. He sacrifices his morals (gambling on the 1919 World Series) and relationships (he has no friends, only the guests at his home who do not come to his funeral) only to discover that even Daisy does not match up to his memory. I interpret the work as suggesting that there was no interpersonal passion between Daisy and Gatsby. Instead, there was only Gatsby’s intellectual passion for the feeling of being included, by a beautiful young woman, into a high society into which he was not born.

A popular contemporary take on fading passion within relationships is illustrated in Mad Men. The show depicts the experiences of agents working for a high powered, 1960s NYC ad agency. Infidelity plays a prominent theme. The show has depicted personal relationships (marriages) as perfect, only to reveal in a future episode dissatisfaction and infidelity (Don Draper’s second marriage, Pete Campbell’s first). I interpret the work as suggesting that the male characters are not truly passionate about their wives. They are passionate about the presence of a woman that “fits” into their lives. Don is originally passionate about his third-wife Megan when she works at his agency because she caters to both his professional and personal needs. When that circumstance changes, his passion no longer corresponds to the actual relationship.

I interpret these works as suggesting that passion is abstract and only corresponds to practical application when circumstance allows. Sanjay’s point that passion does not necessarily lead to a specific career choice is well stated and captures my critique of Smith’s lecture. The type of passion that lasts for a lifetime, in my understanding, is not an idea that can be pursued on daily routine. I am passionate about the intellectual idea of cooking (using your hands to create something that another individual may savor at his most primal, vulnerable level). But that idea does not correspond to a career. A head chef may never witness his patrons enjoying his creations on a day-to-day basis.

Similarly, one may be passionate about the intellectual idea about immigration law, but I do not think that this may be pursued on a day to day basis. The passion for immigration law likely stems from its potential to be used to improve the lives of immigrants. It’s an extremely worthy passion and an immigration lawyer likely derives a great deal of satisfaction from her work that contributes to human welfare. But whether this passion is activated on a daily basis depends on the attorney’s circumstance. Does she meet any of the individuals she helps? Does her work directly affect their well-being? Will her policy work benefit future immigrants? The answers to these questions, which depend on circumstance rather than “passion,” will largely determine her professional satisfaction.

Perhaps Professor Moglen’s point about being creative towards the law operates at the level of circumstance. We should discover our passion (labor law), what circumstances are needed to activate the passion as frequently as possible (meeting with the impoverished and witnessing their satisfaction when I can improve their lives), and then what we have to do in our careers to make those circumstances occur. Perhaps Gatsby’s problem was that he pursued passion rather than circumstance. He chased the girl, rather than the circumstances (her being single, her being close with her wealthy family, her being young, her being X Y or Z) that actually activated his passion and made him happy. Perhaps many attorney’s fail to achieve great careers because they pursue their passion (labor, immigration, X) and stop asking. Perhaps they also have to figure out the circumstances that make their passion worthwhile in the first place.

So, after an hour and a half of thinking, writing, and editing, I realize I am simply offering support to Sherie’s advice that we should focus on what we want to “do” rather than on what we want to “be”. Perhaps a minor contribution could be my conclusion that there are (1) ideas that make us happy (passion), and (2) circumstances that allow us to explore those ideas (circumstance). My suggestion to, well, myself, is to try to discover both and then work towards having both in my life.

Note on framing: I appreciate and wish to note Professor’s Smith’s framing in the lecture. He argues that we will not have a great career because we will find excuses not to pursue our passions. Using the word “excuse” already puts dissenters on the defensive, because it frames any critical response as an “excuse”. Given Professor Moglen’s commentary in class that framing should not be necessary for the most insightful analysis, I’d be curious to his response to the framing.