if....

Many things have happened of late, least of which is graduating from law school. In a retrospective analysis, I think most of my goals have been met from the process.

I came in because I wanted to change the world - to make it a better place. I've definitely left with a deeper understanding of that goal. The most difficult lesson I've learned is that change is slow and difficult. Why? Because most people believe it has to be slow and difficult.

Part of facing the daunting task of change is figuring out where to start and what to end up with. There are many people out there with a clear picture, but the goal starts to look bigger and bigger each time one looks at it. The end result is a behemoth that some tackle with zeal.

However, most people look at the monster in front of them and start to slow down because they think change must be slower because they've always been told change is slow. Then, various side issues in life start to come into play, and tackling that monster seems to be more of a long term goal rather than something that delves into it.

The problem is that so many people think that this is okay, so not much gets done. This goes back a bit towards what one of my friends refers to as micro-change. He views change as being something that takes place on the individual and community level, eventually resulting in a global, aggregate shift towards some positive end.

I don't think the world is that simple. Change can be made on the individual and local level, but not everyone follows in that path. The result is a termination by some physical or social boundary.

Change must be drastic and breaking. It has to jar people from their traditional mindset and challenge their views. They must analyze and reconcile.

Strangely enough, this has melded well with a film I just saw. I've recently delved back into film a bit more seriously now that I force myself to stop studying at a certain point each day since I need to retain information for the California bar.

I just finished watching if...., which has Malcom McDowell. It delves into some issues of rebellion and revolution, but in a much more destructive way that is necessary. However, it highlights a key misconception of revolution needing to be purely destructive and violent.

Especially in figuring out what step to take now that I have another degree as a tool, I've come to understand that change doesn't have to destroy everything or even most things. Instead, change simply needs to come from outside of the system.

That right there - change from outside of the system - is where I think most people fail. In trying to prepare themselves for the next step, people find themselves as part of the system, continually preparing themselves for that revolutionary moment. Others believe in working within the system to make the micro-change that eventually has a macro-effect.

But aren't both of these failings? A system usually has a difficult time reforming itself. History has few, if any, examples of a contained culture that internally regulated. There has always been some external catalyst that pushed everything to a completely new level.

I'm left with a variety of career options that I've got to explore with the understanding that the people I will most likely work for will assign me a role in the system. Do I play along as a prepare myself for the next step? Or do stick to some "pure act" and stay outside the system to maximize my impact?

Leaving law school, I'm definitely more idealistic, but I'm also more pragmatic. I'm definitely not the same person I was when entering school. The changes have magnified those core philosophies in my life. The result is that each of those sides produce a stronger battle in each big decision I make.

Options, experience, and passion don't make choices easier. They make them more difficult because there is a deeper understanding of what those choices mean and bring. These days, an uprising of any sort doesn't seem so grand.