I refuse to believe there is no escape. I feel a need to escape but I recognize my need for a paycheck as a greater need. So I must think this through, carefully. This recent line of thought has had me wrestling with these two questions:

• Escape from what? And
• Flee to where?

I have been thinking I've had a good idea of the what, but I am struggling with the where. If I flee to a where that is essentially the same what I am working to extricate myself from, a new desire to escape will again begin to build; and I am finding most wheres I have considered, eerily similar. The only advantage to new scenery is that it might provide a small reprieve in which (for a little while) I can pretend. A need to escape implies a confinement of some sort which begs the question, in what (if any) circumstance is an individual today not restrained or held in check by some greater power? With all this in mind, I can still answer (in broad strokes and specifically) what I want to escape from, but as I am beginning to realize, it severely limits my options when I consider where to flee to. So of course if I flee regardless, the what when I get there will likely not be the Ideal opposite I was hoping for, but likely will include kindred power struggles providing only that aforementioned small reprieve. Some have the wealth/power to create a personal what that they perceive as fulfilling their desires, (I don't), so instead of feeling a need to escape, these lucky individuals work to maintain. It is this systematized power dynamic that ultimately, successfully implores many of us to embrace our place; to stay put; to pretend. For most of us, it appears that our only choices are 1) this oppressive acquiescence or 2) the shuffle-step-sit-shuffle dance-of-1000-paper-cuts that we do so well. Yet I began these thoughts saying I refuse to believe there is no escape.

I am looking for a where, (somewhere – anywhere), that provides the what I desire. I have heard of such employers who hire people, not titles. And if you asked, I suspect near 100% of all organizations would claim to prioritize people over titles, yet in the hiring process, what comes first? Again, I suspect near 100% of all organizations begin with a title often followed by job classifications and categories and grades followed by applications followed by applicants followed by a few applicants upgraded to candidates followed by (one-sided) interviews all before this regimented process actually produces any semblance of a people. Damn the bureaucracy! Perhaps I don't want to be a title or an applicant or an interview. Perhaps I just want to be recognized as a people and considered for my overall knowledge, skills and abilities. This is (a significant part of) the what that I want. If an organization were to consider people first, I can't imagine results being any worse than the shuffle-step-sit-shuffle dance that all this consensus procedural pretense produces. Doesn't it make more sense to form the mold to the contours of the person than to stuff or drop the person into an uncomfortable, ill-fitting preformed mold?

So that's it. Moving forward I will not apply for positions, I will apply only as a whole person to organizations that purport to lack pretense. I have two years before I can retire. I don't really need to retire in two years and of course I will not quit working in two years. So if I am able to find an organization brave enough to mold a job to a person, perhaps they will in return receive 10 - 20 years of productive, efficient, thoughtful, creative value. Pretty good deal. And if I am unable to find such an employer? Then I suppose I will retire sooner and poorer, which in my mind would be a sad waste. We will see if anyone steps up.