Fear and Anxiety in the U.S.

If anyone on the verge of action should judge himself according to the outcome, he would never begin.
            Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling

Recently, I was thinking of the role that fear plays in our society.  When you ask people why they do what they do, eventually, fear creeps into the conversation.  Given how often people speak of fear, my next thought was what were the consequences of this thinking and obsessing about fear.  For millennium, philosophers and writers have considered this point.  Even though we live in one of the safest periods in U.S. history, our fear has inversely grown to absurd and mystifying proportions.  Its consequences to us and our way of life could be damaging and irreversible.  

When I speak of fear, I don’t speak of the fear of things from without.  We have traditionally been an isolationist country (some say we are returning to that) but such fears have tangible qualities that make the fear more understandable, more concrete.  When I speak of fear, I mean to say the fear around us.  I speak of the fear to act, the fear to explore, the fear implanted into us by politicians and the media.  What does this dread do to us?  How does our society change with consistent, pervasive fear?  More interestingly, why are we so fearful? 

A friend once told me that when a worrier has nothing to worry about, they turn on themselves.  We are a people who have vanquished our enemies and cured our diseases.  While terrorism lurks in the distance, it has not taken the place of the threat of the Soviet Union and communist world domination.  So, with the fears from without shrinking, we have decided that the real threat lies in our neighbors and our environment.  Lurking gunmen or pedophiles or the threat of being alone has spurred our fears.  To make matters worse, politicians make hay of these fears and industries sell our fear back to us.  Consequently, we are prodded and prompted to continually look around us and our anxiety grows and we became more irrational.   

So, how does it change our society?  It first makes us wary of the mundane and the innocent.  I want to go on a hike without my cell phone.  My wife, as sold to her by cell phone companies who extolled its products based on emergencies, tells me I must bring it because what if something happens and I’m trapped.  Parents worry about having their kids walk to school or down to the corner for some groceries because of lurking molesters waiting for the careless parent who sent their innocent child in harm’s way.  Obsessive-compulsive mothers follow their children around with anti-bacterial lotion, bathing them in it every five minutes or so.  A potential entrepreneur is scared to take the leap to own her own business because of regular news reports saying small businesses are collapsing each day.   

The fear makes us timid, it turns us inward and eventually, it could impact our way of life.  The more frighten we become, the less choices we make – the more we depend on the government to make those decisions.  The more we empower government, the more we lose our voice.  In general, we pass on our fears to our children and the cycle continues.  As an expectant parent, I worry about the parts of me that are not good and passing it on to our future daughter.  She should be aware but not scared.  Yet, our children are.  When we find ourselves surrendering to our fear, we have to ask what it is doing to us.  We have to ask questions about the decisions we make and whether there is truly anything about which to be concern.   

The Danish existentialist Søren Kierkegaard once said, “Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.”  Our fear is robbing us of a chance to experience.  Yes, bad things happen but living in constant vigilance against the worst case scenarios is no protection.  We each have a fate and it makes little difference if we spend our lives worrying about it.  Instead, as Kierkegaard said, we have to spend our lives embracing and soaking in that which is around us.  Perhaps, we will be happier.  It might be enough to not be so miserable and anxious.

 

Struggling With Fat

I’m fat.  It does not make me less of a person, as with anyone like me but there you are.  I work out often and can do various active and demanding things.  However, I’m fat.  I’m seeking a way to be less so.  However, it would not serve my purpose to deny the truth or otherwise, try to explain it in another way.  There has been a recent discussion on the notion of being fat and even a new concept – fat-shaming.  It is an interesting look at a culture trying to address something but trying to do so without specifically naming the problem or the condition.

I’ve hired a trainer and have recently tried to make a more serious effort to lose weight.  My problem is two-fold – I eat horribly unhealthy and delicious food and I don’t work out enough.  The problem clearly lies with me.  I was once healthy and in shape but that was some time ago.  So, I seek a way to drop the pounds for health and family reasons.  In short, I’d like to be with my family well into the future and at present, I’m one steak dinner away from a full coronary.  I have no excuse and there is little that anyone can say to tell me otherwise.  However, in the last year or so, there has been a growing furor over the nature of being fat and what to do about it.   

Were you aware there are a group of people who are trying to convince fat people that it is ok to be so?  They have attacked others for actions they call fat-shaming.  Most of what I’ve seen as examples of fat-shaming seems more about the perpetrator being a jerk.  What that has led to is a movement to have people proudly love and accept their size.  Even the word “fat” is starting to take on the connotation of other words directed at people for their race or ethnicity.  What is being accomplished here?  Are people mean?  Sure and for many other reasons in addition to seeing someone who is fat.  Are people well-intentionally ignorant?  Yes and particularly when confronted with something that is hurting someone they love.  So, if you take away the jerks and the well-meaning friends or family, what are we talking about?   

We need an honest and frank discussion about size in this country, without the hyperbole.  Calls for healthier living and weight levels are not calls for anorexia or bulimia or any other chase for unhealthy weight standards.  These aforementioned activists have even attacked those who are making general calls for healthier living, such as Maria Kang – the mother of three who seeks to encourage others to get in shape.  First Lady Michelle Obama said that her push for healthier lunch items in school is not about weight but about feeling better and healthier.  Sure but if we cannot even say the condition for fear of hurting feelings, we are not addressing the issues.   

When Amy Chua – Tiger Mom extraordinaire – called her daughter fat and lazy, I can’t imagine that young lady ending up in therapy wondering about how others see her and whether they respect her.  She was told upfront and there was never a doubt about it.  Compare that to the teen who has been told, “No, you are not fat.  You are beautiful and wonderful and people who don’t see that are not worth your time.”  Deep down, however, the teen knows they are fat but they are surrounded by people who won’t say it.  Is there any wonder that emotional issues develop?   

Part of the reaction by these activists is defensiveness.  Some of the reaction is from well-meaning people who worry about others being hurt.  However, you cannot fix a problem without first addressing it.  I know some will find my attitude callous or unsympathetic.  However, it is coming from one who is dealing with the same thing.  I’m worse than some and not nearly as bad as others.  Yet, the challenge is the same even if the scale is not.  Shakespeare said that a rose is still a rose no matter what you call it.  So it is with the concept of being fat.  It does not help to run from a name.

Carte Blanche?

Sometimes we do a thing in order to find out the reason for it.  Sometimes our actions are questions not answers.
            John Le Carre, A Perfect Spy 

Over the last few days, it has been revealed that the National Security Administration was monitoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone (as well as Americans’ phone and internet purchasing activities).  The NSA explained away its action by saying one, everyone does it and two, it was not collecting specific details.  While some Americans are outraged, Germans are more appropriately angry and Ms. Merkel, who was raised in the surveillance state of East Germany, understands all too well the implications.  From the American point of view however, the cries of injustice ring a little hollow.  The idea of government espionage and the protesting Americans’ accusations have technological, societal and moral components and implications.

First, the issue of U.S. government espionage is a product of technological advancements that Americans have increasingly demanded.  Over the last couple of decades, we have required from technology greater power and access to our normal lives and previously considered private domains.  We incessantly and without thinking give our information over at the drop of a hat so that credit card companies and grocery stores can monitor our purchasing and food consumption habits.  Yet, we are outraged by our government’s ability and willingness to use technology to monitor the behavior of foreign leaders (or us) – be they friendly or not.  We demand our lives be open books for our own benefit and feign shock and dismay that others are also benefiting.

Second, this is a societal issue.  We demand that our government know everything.  When the September 11^th attacks happened, some called for answers and wondered why our government did not know.  When Americans are killed overseas, we want to know when the chain of command broke down, why and what the government plans to do about it.  As a society, we are constantly amping up our expectations of government and then wonder why they are listening to or recording everything.  We cannot have both concepts.  We have, over the decades, created a myth that a government can and should be capable of all matter of things and there is a price for that knowledge. 

Lastly, there is a moral implication to the American outrage.  Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and others of that ilk have used various methods not dissimilar to our government to hack into and dispense information in such a way as to compromise the United States and, at least initially, get away with it.  Some American protestors hail them as “heroes.”  It would seem, at the least, there is a certain moral relativism that makes the charges as it relates to the government’s actions.  It’s legitimate to question the morality of the U.S. government and its efforts to monitor as much as possible but what are Americans doing to encourage this behavior?  By our acceptance of one, do we not accept the other?  Those who point to the actions of the government leading to the response are suggesting that the end justifies the means.  Such arguments are on shaky moral ground.   

It is not surprising that our intelligence efforts are so pervasive.  I don’t prescribe to the attitude that “those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.”  That argument is ambiguous and diverting.  The answer lies with Abraham Lincoln.  When he describes a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” he is not speaking of just the liberties we enjoy as citizens of this democracy.  He is also speaking to the responsibilities of American citizens.  We are not casual observers of the things that transpire in our government and in our society.  We allow it and in doing so, bad things happen.  I do believe that our government should have secrets in order for it to do its job and espionage is essential.  It’s also evident that our expectations and demands of government are not realistic.  A traditional liberal approach requires a paternalistic government.  I think that is dangerous and it might be what we have.

The Road Less Taken

In the aftermath of September 11, I heard stories of people who, once they realized they were assumed dead, set out to live a different life – one free from the obligations and responsibilities of the present life.  When I first heard those stories, I considered the motivations and emotions behind that kind of decision.  I considered a person who felt trapped – by a wife, by kids, by a job that never appealed to them, by bills that piled high and by the friends, family and expectations that are part of a life with 30 or 40 years of experience.  As I considered the motivations of such a drastic, draconian behavior, I must admit that there is something alluring, enticing about dropping “off the grid” as it were. 

My next thought was if something like would even be possible nowadays.  Do you think it is really possible for a person to disappear but still exist?  Could one avoid cameras?  Could one avoid the police and various other agencies, as well as pictures on milk cartons and the like?  One would have to live by cash and would have to earn cash in a way that would not require identification.  We have an entire underclass in the United States who does this out of necessity but the subterfuge is more concentrated with work.  Imagine ducking the ubiquitous cameras and other technological trappings that surround us and remain anonymous, hidden.  It would seem to be a near Herculean task – so much so, it forces one to wonder if it is even possible.  It is just the U.S. or could someone drop off the map easier in England, Japan, Germany or Greece?  Does our technology and all-encompassing society create the desire to leave it all behind?

In the 1800s, Americans could escape easy enough because of our existence along the wilderness frontier.  Indeed, one theorist suggested that the frontier served as our cultural and societal outlet.  The people who went west were not just running towards fortune but also running away from the law, a wife with kids or from oneself.  As our frontiers have closed, we have turned upon ourselves in some ways and in doing so, we have made our lives more challenging and potentially more suffocating.  Most other countries might not understand stand this but our cultural wanderlust has characterized us and our inability to do it now without creating a true fresh start can be frustrating. 

Last week, a woman who left her family in Pennsylvania and disappeared in 2002 re-emerged in Florida.  For all those years, she had managed what many think is impossible and a few consider desirable.  She initially left her family upon feeling a sense of dread and helplessness at a pending divorce and losing her home by joining up with some caring didicots who were hitchhiking to Florida and asked her to join them.  She did and was spending the last seven years of her life with a man who, together, did odd jobs and worked only in cash.  She now has to face her family after giving up a life that she had clearly not envisioned.   

I’ve grown frustrated with technology and the seemingly comprehensive nature of the world around us.  I escape it by going camping and trying to remove myself from the phone my boss forced me into a few years ago.  Reading over this, it sounds like, in a few years, I’m going to be in a cabin in Montana, writing my manifesto and I’m very cognizant that it is something that needs to be avoided.  I’m not seeking to remove myself from people but from our inventions – like laptops, the internet, etc.  I have a beautiful wife and a wonderful life and have little to want or need.  Still, from time to time, I wonder about the liberating sense of leaving everything behind, hitting the open road and, as Bob Dylan said, “go out and see what others need.” 

A Post-Postman World

Ever heard of Neil Postman? If not, your cultural education is not complete. For that matter, reading Postman might not complete it but you’ll be closer. One of his most powerful books was entitled, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Most of the essays found within deal with the detrimental impact of television but the same arguments could be applied to computers and the modern craze for all things technological.

It is easy to write off such musings and subjects as the product of a master’s study reading list and true, I first came across Postman while in graduate school. However, reading his thoughts on the impact of technology on our society has forced me to reconsider everything I do in the classroom and in my daily life. Much of the “progress” in the educational field is equated with the level of technology in the classroom. However, I’m not sure what I’m doing with my students (or more to the point, “to my students”) by allowing them access to computers and other media within the arena of knowledge is helping or furthering my goals for the students.

If I tell a kid to research something, the computer trains them to type in a generic question, press enter, click on a link, read a quick sentence with the keyword within and voila – the student has been educated. That is – educated by modern definitions. I would say the kid knows only the surface information and today’s culture suggest that is all that is necessary. Today, I heard a mathematician on NPR talk about the lack of need for students to have a strong command of handwritten mathematical abilities because computers and its programs are capable of doing the same. What kind of position is that for an educator to take? Hell, not even an educator – what kind of position is that for a learned individual to take? A most recent study by Columbia University suggested that students who rely on the internet to gather information remember less because, in their minds, they can always go back to the internet and refresh. There is no reason to learn.

I’ve had the experience – as I’m sure you have as well – of a teller with a “down” computer and unable to calculate correct change. I have to do that for them. If a student in my class learns that the ramifications of the Spanish-American War for the U.S. was, in part, that it acquired Puerto Rico and Guam as territories, what does the student really know? They know the equivalent of the mathematical skills to input numbers into a computer program. What do they really know about the meaning of having Puerto Rico or Guam as a territory? What do they know about the implications for the inhabitants of those islands in the wake of America’s governance? What do they know about how possession of these islands changed U.S. foreign policy? My suggestion is, not much.

What creates this short-cut minded approach to knowledge? It is the medium by which we seek knowledge. The book, today, remains the single most important and effective way to gather and gain information and knowledge. However, our generation has not the patience for such time-consuming activities. The students scream for a website that breaks it down for them or the abbreviated notes on the same. Meanwhile, I’m screaming for a child with the intellectual stamina to endure a book. The numbers capable of taking up that banner are dwindling at an alarming rate.