Do what you love, love what you do

It just sucks that real life is just so non-dramatic. A dream run of an underdog team in the football world cup does not end with a spectacular goal by the opposing team, but rather with a set piece goal; a gruesome world cup final does not end with the goal of the tournament, but rather a pretty ugly goal which can be contested to be because of a lack of an offside call (well I still believe that); a country is not rid of apartheid by one inspirational speech/service of a single individual (not withstanding that it does point the country in the right direction). Real life is just normal (for the lack of another word).

After certain discussions with a good friend of mine (more regularly than my friend would actually like), I have realized that a lot of change in this world are a process rather than certain key incidents that we see in our history book (or rather the way I have perceived history). In retrospect, these said incidents appear to be the most crucial, the cause of the change - whereas, I have come to realize and believe that these incidents are rather an effect of the whole social process that brought about that change. These incidents are just inevitable part of that process and I have confused the effect of the process as the cause of the process.

I would like to cite historic incidents to validate my hypothesis but I do not have my historic facts straight and leave it to people who actually know them. Much of my hypotheses is based on my own discussions and a science fiction series written by Isaac Asimov called the Foundation Series. Having said this, I certainly realize that my hypothesis just appears to be part of a science fiction, but I feel the point raised in those books make a lot of sense - or at least provide a justifiable perspective of viewing the world.

The main theme is the fact that social change is a juggernaut - albeit a slow one, and a single normal individual (stress on normal) can rarely change its course. The greatest leaders of history are rather individuals who were at the right place at the right time and managed to realize this fact, and at best let the change run its course. So with that analogy, you would think that Mahatma Gandhi wasn't necessarily the reason for India's independence, but rather that he was that individual (among others, I am not trying to demean the contributions of others by just picking M.K.G.) who said that the change is happening, that a country is ready to demand its independence back - he was not the reason for the independence, rather someone that the process picked up to be the face of it - if it weren't MKG, it could have been anybody else. In a similar fashion can I pose the whole case of segregation and its abolition thereof in the USA and M. L. King just being that one individual who the process picked out as the person history looks back to. The social change was bound to happen.

That brings me to that great point that my friend keeps making. We grow up to these achievements of these chosen ones. This makes people like me (with a big ego) aspire to be "great" individuals. But we forget the fact that individuals do not make a whole lot of a difference to the social process - especially if you spend all your time aspiring to be great. The important thing is doing what you are passionate about - much like the Blackberry ad campaign - Do what you love, love what you do. Only then will you do great at your work and a lot of times that work is ground breaking (for lack of better words, since I hate using such extreme rhetorics). As my friend said "Charles Darwin did make a big contribution as an individual, but he did not go to the Galapagos Islands to change the world, rather he was passionate about learning and seeking knowledge".