Homeostasis Writ Large

Adaptability. It is often mentioned as one of the traits employers look for in potential employees. Flexibility is desirable- after all, the only constant thing in this world is change. Flexibility may as well be the slogan of globalization. Interconnectedness allows variety and discourse, which may lead to change that ultimately forces people to adapt.

The French, after fighting so hard to keep their language from the infiltration of English, are now giving up the fight. The Education Minister increased English-language teaching in the curriculum because according to him, the French not learning English is a big disadvantage to international competition. China has embraced capitalism after decades of living free from want and bereft of individual possessions. A magazine article mentioned something to the effect that speaking English need not make the French less French and buying designer bags does not make the Chinese less Chinese. Adapt or die, read one of the headlines in the same magazine.

My friend and I had a discussion about whether we are willing to adapt to how (in)justice is run in the country and how some law firms operate to win their cases. This friend said that hirability is increased by one's willingness to somewhat bend principles. Although adaptability may be desirable and at most times highly useful, where do you draw the line? When it comes to principles, how far can one adapt and not lose herself in the process? Do you simply adapt or do you help in creating the change that people can try adapting to?

"Man's chief moral deficiency appears to be not his indiscretions but his reticence."
- Hannah Arendt