The incomplete idea

So, you ask, what was it specifically about the "thesis" that was causing me so much trouble? Let me see if I can recreate the basic concept (bear with me... this was 7 years ago).

Essentially, the major focus was an analysis of the social construction of American political attitudes towards unemployment, and how it should be dealt with from a policy perspective. The basic theoretical framework from which I was operating was a critique of the American culture of individualism.

Essentially, the idea was that the very idea which drives the "American Dream," that a person who works hard enough should be able to become successful ends up with some nasty side effects. If one assumes that hard work produces success, conversely one could easily come to the conclusion that someone who is not successful must therefore suffer from some form of inadequacy.

This is the case from both "conservative" and "liberal" sides of the American political spectrum. While the conservative assumes that failure is the result of some moral turpitude (i.e. laziness), the liberal assumes it has to do with the lack of adequate skills or training. Neither side acknowledges that that there may be structural problems which may prevent success (for instance, international economic competition which would provide cheaper labor than is available in the US could lead to increases in unemployment). Though both sides may give lip service to larger macroeconomic issues, essentially, due to our cultural framework, the assumption is that whether a person is able to work is more dependent on the individual.

Sure, it may be tough to find a job, but you just have to "try harder" or "get more education." Essentially all policy discussion must reside within a framework between these two perspectives. (For more information on this concept, see The Culture of Inequality by Michael Lewis.)

This, by the way, was in stark contrast to many European cultures that basically see individuals as members of a social class which was problematic in itself, as for many years it was difficult to move between different social strata (but this is a different point, so I will not digress at this time).

As for the thesis itself, the basic source was the congressional record. I was looking at discussions of a two major pieces of legislation which had to do with unemployment policy (The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1986 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which though mostly known for its limitations of the power of labor unions, affected unemployment policy as well). This is extremely dense stuff, and reading the masked political statements of various political blowhards became increasingly depressing.

However, regardless of all the evidence I was finding confirming my basic point, it was doing a number on my own sense of identity. See... I have never been what one would call a "joiner." I've never really been either a follower or a leader, but more of a friendly outsider watching from the sidelines. I've never felt very comfortable in groups, neither accepting the group-think mentality nor feeling particularly accepted by these groups either.

It was specifically the tenets of individualism that enabled me to get by from day to day. As I found myself critizing individualism, I found myself eliminating the only identity-space where I actually found comfortable. As a result, I found myself unable to continue from this perspective. Though halfway through this thesis and with the near-ability to have at least something to show from all these years of school, I found myself unable to continue...

so I ventured off on my own... more about this later.