name from consideration. Had I taken that job, it would
have been very bad for me and a disaster for the school.
The ecological theory of life, the theory of limits, works
wonderfully well with situations like this: my nature makes
me unfit to be president of anything, and therefore-if I stay
true to what I know about myself-I will die having avoided a
fate that for me would be worse than death.
But what happens to the theory of limits when what I
want to do is not to get my picture in the paper but to meet
some human need? What happens to that theory when my
vocational motive is virtuous, not egotistical: to be a teacher
from whom students can learn or a counselor who helps
people find themselves or an activist who sets injustice
right? Unfortunately, the theory of limits can work as
powerfully in these cases as it does with my presidential
prospects. There are some things I "ought" to do or be that
are simply beyond my reach.
If I try to be or do something noble that has nothing to do
with who I am, I may look good to others and to myself for
a while. But the fact that I am exceeding my limits will
eventually have consequences. I will distort myself, the
other, and our relationship-and may end up doing more
damage than if I had never set out to do this particular
"good." When I try to do something that is not in my nature
or the nature of the relationship, way will close behind me.
Here is one example of what I mean. Over the years, I
have met people who have made a very human claim on me