Psychology


The wind is still on top of Machu Picchu today. I look down at this strange mix of wonders of both men and god(s), where stones are set upon rocks which build up to homes, together making a place for the movements of men, women and children now long gone

I walk from terrace to temple to terrace as guides rattle on like broken records about major battles and archeological discoveries– the capital H History lying within the ruins in the sky.

But I feel that the stories which truly give this place depth are left untold, palpable but hidden. These are the tales of men and women falling in love, of jealousy between friends, of families formed, flourishing and dissolved. If you listen closely enough, you can hear the true heartbeat of Machu Picchu.

*          *          *

Fall back to the summer of 1943 to hear the words of the poet Pablo Neruda anew, penned from this same mountaintop. Listen to his moment of transformation in “La Altura de Machu Picchu” (XII):

Look at me from the depths of the earth,
tiller of fields, weaver, reticent shepherd,
groom of totemic guanacos,
mason high on your treacherous scaffolding,
iceman of Andean tears,
jeweler with crushed fingers,
farmer anxious among his seedlings,
potter wasted among his clays–
bring to the cup of this new life
your ancient buried sorrows.
Show me your blood and your furrow;

Is it not the echoes of everyday from these men and everyday that frame our own stories—be they of love, ambition, hopes, and fears– into some larger (insignificant?) context?

*          *          *

My friend Max and I shelve ourselves onto an agricultural terrace overlooking the ruins with some bread and water, and I pull out Annie Dillard’s book “For the time being.” Dillard’s writing contains power in the way it holds in tension the seeming insignificance and prominence of the experience of being human. She notes the irony in which lives can be abstracted into statistics (230,000 dead in a Haitian earthquake) while still holding such singular importance to our experience (like the love-stricken Romeo and his inability to see life beyond Juliet). So which is it? Is Juliet one, or is she one of two-hundred thirty thousand?

Dillard writes:

Are we ready to think of all humanity as a living tree, carrying on splendidly without us? We easily regard a beehive or an ant colony as a single organism, and even a school of fish, a flock of dunlin, a herd of elk. And we easily and correctly regard an aggregate of individuals, a sponge or coral or lichen or slime mold, as one creature– but us? When we people differ, and know our consciousness, and love? Even lovers, even twins, are strangers who will love and die alone. And we like it this way, at least in the West; we prefer to endure any agony of isolation rather than to merge and extinguish our selves in an abstract ‘humanity’ whose fate we should hold dearer than our own. Who could say, I’m in agony because my child died, but that’s all right: Mankind as a whole has abundant children?

The words ring poignant on this mountain. The similarity of my stories with those long gone make me wonder whether this resonance makes my world important or insignificant. I see the stories of men long-gone stand together with those of my present—my own feelings of love tenuously held and lost, of evolving hopes and fears, of the ambiguity of my story mid-writing. Similarly, I sense the resonance of my present with those lives of future others who will till the land on this side of Eden. I strain to hear their wisdom, cringe to hear their critique.

How terrifying, this similarity, as though we are but a pixel on a painting, a spec of sand in a desert! “What meaning does anything have” we protest in the trek towards nihilism, “if my (love/life/journey) is not in some fashion different, if I am not in some fashion different?”

Or is it perhaps freeing, this notion of you and me as a hive of bees? For can I really handle the pressure that comes with an over-prominent story? Poet and essayist Christian Wiman recently writes, “Anxiety comes from the self as ultimate concern, from the fact that the self cannot bear this ultimate concern: it buckles and wavers under the strain, and eventually, inevitably, it breaks.”

Time is strangely held together in these moments, on these mountains. It is as if the past, present and future cannot be authentically separated. It is almost as if they move together by way of dance in the air– memory’s melody allowing the past to inform the present, the harmony of dreaming as the sound of the future calling the present into action.

*          *          *

I hear the echoes of Machu Picchu, for to be conscious of these stories is to see my own stories, in both triviality and beauty, in a different light. Maybe to feel my own anxieties in context is to know, but for a moment, the way we are all a part of this harmonious time. It is to know that we are bit players nestled among larger stories, which will be told again and again, around fires, and in novels and on stages. Perhaps this is what it is to feel as a flock of humanity.

In writing on our modern state of anxiety, Wiman points to James Joyce’s “Ulysses,” suggesting its greatness, “is partly in the way it reveals the interior chaos of a single mind during a single day, and partly in the way it makes that idiosyncratic clamor universal. However different the textures of our own lives may be, Bloom’s mind is our mind; the welter of impressions he suffers and savors is a storm we all know.”

Likewise, on this particular day, in this particular moment, the whisper of Machu Picchu is that while we are all containers of the same stories, they are still worth telling, that they are all worth living. Perhaps our moments are meaningful, despite their triviality, in that we are all children of god. Or, if you must, consider this same sentiment with less conventionally religious language… a necessity if our language must sometimes be, “stripped of (its) religious meaning… (in the same way that) faith itself sometimes needs to be stripped of its social and historical incrustations and returned to its first, churchless incarnation in the human heart” (Wiman).

The wind is still today on Machu Pichhu. It is as though the trees were asked to remain motionless while they receive a painting from the rising sun. We should be grateful for this silence. For it is in here, among these ‘ancient buried sorrows,’ and amidst the tales of “blood and… furrow,” that Machu Picchu truly begins to speak in its pregnant silence.

I am not one for bold moves, or vocal statements against technology and how its dooming our society (leaving aside my choice to make the group “Facebook wall-posting is kind of like having a private conversation with megaphones“). I like to think of myself as the guy who is on the cutting edge of technology, the early adopter, a maven of sorts. After all, why should I trust some unknown CNET reviewer or a friend with different tastes when it comes to new technology (Answer: because I am poor).

One technology wave that I hopped on in abandonment was internet social networking: I have a blog, I have a website, I have Gmail account and I use gchat with regularity, I have a synced Google calendar, I have used Google wave, I work on shared Google docs, I ‘tweet,’ and I have a Facebook account with far too many ‘friends.’

But, having crossed to the other side of the early adoption wave, I say with some confidence that I might have crested the peak of benefits from this world and am now reaping its dark-side.

And so, Facebook… while I hate to say this after all we have gone through… I am sorry, but I think we need a break. And though it may be hard for you to believe me on this, its really not you, it’s me!

(Ok… extended footnote…. That may be harsh, but I don’t think I am being too outlandish here. I know no one really buys the whole, “it’s not you, its me” line… but let me try to clarify. I want to make it MORE THAN clear that my analysis of Facebook is not applicable to everyone and that my concerns come in large part out of my own personality and the situations I find myself within. In other words, if I wasn’t so damn quirky, if I was a bit less socially needy, if my yet-undiagnosed OCD was a tad less extreme, or if I didn’t have a job that puts me in charge of my own time with a significant amount of flexibility taking place in front of a computer, Facebook and I might still have a future).

But, it is what it is. So, here we go.

Facebook,

I want to start this out by saying I really love you for the way you help me connect with people. I have been able to better stay in touch those who otherwise would be off my grid. You help me stay connected with people I meet on the fly. Even friends from my past who I otherwise would have forgotten I can now FB chat, direct message or even gift with a witty wall post. You have made me seem like a better friend when I remember birthdays. For that I will be forever grateful. Facebook, I love you… in theory.

But, I can’t lie… I really struggle with you in practice. Too often, I find myself starving by trying to feed on other people’s digital crumb traces. Lives of friends, ex-friends, acquaintances, girlfriends, interests, ex-girlfriends, colleagues, and friends of friends are constantly updated in my newsfeed. Picture updates of these lives flood me with a sense that I ‘know’ them more than I do, and often leave me with a sense that I am missing out on something. It’s like watching The Bachelor… alone!  Too often, I feel like staying in touch this way is a worthy supplement to real communication…. I know you didn’t tell me to do this, but it is who I have become!

Facebook, I want you to know that I don’t think you are evil. You are a GREAT technology, and I know there is the right match out there for you (probably billions of great matches, you player you). You are an amazing technological advancement, and it’s possible to develop healthy or destructive relationships with you. You are like today’s nuclear energy—on one side, making possible the nuclear bomb (oops), while also being a potential way around problems of energy dependence, and the decreasing supply of easy-to-reach oil. Ok, that might be extreme, but you get the idea.

I know that many people have found the way to reap your benefits, all the while avoiding the problems of being too seamlessly integrated into our lives. Many people like how you are an awesome, fluidly updating address book (I am one of those), and don’t feel too pulled into your digital hurricane. I envy these people because they get to use you for what you can be in all your potential: a social technology that makes us a small step away from almost anyone else in the world.

But I also fear there are others just like me, people who have been shaped by this technology in ways that they might not see as ideal. I wonder if anyone else feels too dependent on being “in the know,” of needing the affirmation of wall posts or message responses, and not liking the way that it takes so little effort to stay in touch with friends. I wonder if there are others who feel like something might have been lost in the gain of accessibility.

I am sorry Facebook, but, I just need a break.

I guess I have learned that I am too easily and unintentionally shaped by my daily actions. I am not some floating mind that gets to decide who I am, what I value, what resonates with my sensibilities, and then act accordingly. I am embodied as a creature, and my day-to-day practices shape who I am and what I want to be. I might be in part a mind who thinks and chooses how to act apart from external stimuli, but even that is shaped by my thinking’s deep embedding in a physical, neurological system, connected by synapses to a body that moves, eats, sees, touches, feels and is seen. My actions matter in that I cannot stay unchanged and stay on the straight and narrow. And that has implications, whether those actions be on the internet, in the sports I play, how I approach eating and playing, or how I physically interact with friends, lovers, enemies and strangers.

Facebook, I need you to know that you have done everything right. I saw your note the other day, about the changes that you made to privacy for me. That was really sweet of you… but know it was never about that for me. Its not that I need my information to be secret, it’s just that I just need a little space from everyone else’s day-to-day. But … please please please don’t change anything about yourself… you are wonderful and I need you to know that.

I guess I have just realized that there is a future Peter out there that I really want to grow into — a thoughtful, social, engaged person who lives with just enough simplicity. And this is in tension with the ways I am being shaped and molded by my hanging out with you in the day-to-day. Facebook, you have become a daily ritual of a quasi-religious form, and I think I am becoming a bit too fundamentalist for my own good. I want to be less in need of affirmation, more genuine in social interactions, and a bit less voyeuristic… and I’m going to need your support in giving me some space. I really hope you understand.

And so with that, I say goodbye, for now. Maybe I’ll see you when I am a bit more able to resist your charm.

Always your friend, just not currently in a Facebook variety,

Peter

Before I add some final thoughts in the next installment, I want to clarify some terminology from my last post on beauty and ethics. This is cued in part by my lawyer friend Stacey who sent me the following Facebook:

in the latest entry, you have phrases like “the ethical life,” “the artist,” and “the legalist”… I know this may seem rather silly, but your article caused me much confusion. First, because I have a (traditional? conservative?) concept of the definition of “ethical” – meaning pursuit of what is fair/ just/ right, etc. Second, because I always thought pursuit of beauty was something different (termed “aesthetic” or “vanity” or…beauty leading to pleasure being “hedonism”). And finally, because if the terms “artist” and “legalist” mean ‘ artist’ and ‘lawyer,” I interpret your entry as presupposing that the lawyer never does anything based on emotion, but rather blindly follows laws….but I don’t want to delve into a discussion of the legal system because I’m not even sure if I’m interpreting this correctly.

Because of this criticism, I decided to defriend her on facebook. However, after stewing in it a bit more, I thought better and decided to clarify some terminology and concepts.

Let me start by staying that, at the core, I am really wondering whether our concepts of beauty (or an intuition of what is involved in living a beautiful life) might have something to say when the law fails to be normative. I wonder whether this intuition might be a reliable guide when the law is not clear about how to act, or in some cases appears to be advocating for a less beautiful (ugly?) way of being?

Let me identify three situations where these questions might become salient.

Let’s start by taking the top photo of the montage on this post– a beautiful scene of Patagonia in the South of Chile. Let’s assume for a moment that this part of Patagonia is not legally protected by the Chilean government. In addition, you come to find out there is a gigantic supply of oil which could satisfy that natural resource need for the entire world for the next 50 years. From an ethical standpoint, the question here is whether your conception of this land as ‘beuatiful’ should factor into how you see this land and whether you end up drilling?

Now, take the second photo down of a couple in love– in this case an engagement photo of my brother John and future sister-in-law Ashley. The legal system clearly has something to say about how they should behave towards each other from a contractual standpoint– the binding nature of the marriage contract and/or plans for how to deal with resource allocation in the  case of a breach. In addition, the law dictates how they should or should not treat each other just by virtue of bering human, such as is the case with laws against physical abuse. But what should they do with regards to the nuance of their relationship with each other– how they interact when they really don’t want to be around each other, what it looks like in practice to see and treat another person as fully human, or ‘little’ things like how and when they should forgive.

Finally, take a look at the third photo. Here we have a picture of a Haitian man following this year’s earthquake. What does the law say about how one should treat this man? Does he deserve medical treatment? What about if he does not have health insurance, as is the case with the majority of Haitians? From a personal standpoint, should we, in a quasi- ‘good Samaritan‘ decision moment, go out of our way to treat this man… or possibly text in money to support the cause? What if we know that no one would ever know if we walked by (or texted)… or if we know that our treatment would not be effective… would our answers differ?  In this situation — very much like the other two– there is little in the way of legal constraint to guide our behavior, yet action is still possible and choices are still made. How should our conception of beauty, and specifically the nature of a beautiful/ ethical life shape our behavior?

Thus, to answer Stacey’s question, what I am trying to get at is how we act ethically either in lieu of the law… and whether this system (whatever it is, ethical, aesthetic, religious, intuitive) ever warrant taking behavior explicitly opposed to the law? In other words, when our conceptions of ‘fair/ just/ right’ are often muddier than we would like, how should we act?

I’ll try to flesh this out a bit this weekend…

ciao

James Cameron’s Avatar has garnered a lot of attention of late, most recently with its impressive 9 academy award nominations.

Outside of these accolades, one of the more intriguing phenomenon associated with the film has been the relatively large number of individuals experiencing depression and/or suicidal thoughts following the film. In general, some people seem to be captured by the beauty of this world that ‘earth’ as we know it feels drab, and something only worthy of escape.

One viewer, Ivar Hill, wrote of this experience on a Avatar message board saying:

“When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed … gray. It was like my whole life, everything I’ve done and worked for, lost its meaning. It just seems so … meaningless. I still don’t really see any reason to keep … doing things at all. I live in a dying world.”

We are all drawn towards the beautiful in some fashion or another. No doubt, we all pursue this beauty… whether that be in romantic relationships, in the work or life we find appealing, or even in a draw towards music that resonates with our sense of what is true. But can beauty be a way to orient the ethical life? Can one seek after beauty and call this ethical?

In other words, is the ethical life best pursued by a legalist or an artist?

Part of me hopes that the answer to my question is the artist. I tend to think that the person who does something because they think it is a beautiful way to act conveys a more appealing picture of ethics than the tactician following a set of laws. But is this just a personal pipe-dream?

To be honest, I don’t know the answer to this question, but I want to try to flesh something out in the next post. Three question that might start the discussion… chime in as you feel appropriate.

  1. Does our experience of beauty make our experience of the ugly depressing and leave us with a posture of an escapist (e.g. Avatar), or might it spur us on to create beauty when it is lacking?
  2. How are our senses of what is beautiful conditioned by things which might make this intuition unethical or untrustworthy (e.g. Nazi’s perceiving the beauty of a pure Arian race, and thus the ethical act becoming genocide)?
  3. In what ways is the subjectivity of beauty a benefit and a drawback from the rigidness or objectivity of a ‘law’ based morality?

There are several interesting things that happen as people move from the college years to their professional 20s.

Let me start with the premise that college is the Mecca of idealism, and in many ways, idealism of a somewhat selfish variety. People dream big in learning environments that reward asking big questions with little in the way of personal set-backs. By saying selfish, I am not trying to say that people don’t have genuine dreams of wanting good things to happen (e.g. “I want international public health projects to flourish”), rather, I am arguing that such goals are often rooted in the self-reference (e.g. “I want a job at Partners in Health”). These pursuits give us meaning, and we’d like to think in our heart of hearts that their success is dependent on our involvement.

For example, while this might be a cynical way of looking at the following statistic, I have a hard time explaining the record enrollment in Teach for America from the 2009 graduating class (16+% of Yale’s 2009 graduating seniors for example) solely as a function of a massive increase in the number of people deeply concerned with education. Rather, I start by assuming people are interested in living a PERSONALLY meaningful life, and TFA has grown in exposure as a route that meets those criterion. This idealism is optimistic in college in that such needs can be partly fulfilled when one envisions one’s future life in these roles, apart from any actual involvement.

Fast forward a few years. Recent graduates are now neck-deep in their first or second job, and along with this often come some feeling of misalignment between reality with the past’s idealistic expectations. Not everyone will be the rock-star investment banker that they thought they would be… nor will everyone get to marry the cutest girl in their high school because that girl gets to choose only one spouse (usually)… and not everyone will have the salary or leadership opportunities they envisioned. Others feel a similar misalignment between their idealist goals (e.g. educational reform) and the resulting desired outcome. To use the previous example, TFA teachers, many of whom are my close friends (and family), begin to see the way in which the systems undergirding problems like educational inequality are difficult to move, and thus their individual pursuit of meaning/ purpose a bit blocked. At the very least, their agency in accomplishing this goal seems minimal.

So what happens to this group psychologically/ existentially, and how is this same world experienced differently? Though depressing for me to admit, I believe these experiences tend to push people from hopeful idealism to negative cynicism. To ease the tension between goals and outcomes, we lower expectations so our small contributions don’t feel so meager, or sometimes stop pursuing a goal all together. I can’t help but wonder if these reactions– let’s call them naïve optimism and negative realism– are the only ways forward, or if there might be a third way.

Let’s first consider if these two options are really that different at their core. I would argue that, though very different in behavioral manifestations, these ways of viewing the world share quite a bit in common in terms of motivation. Specifically, at the center of each impulse is a radical centering on one’s self, a radical sense of the necessity of finding PERSONAL meaning, achieving PERSONAL enlightenment, living with a tangible personal purpose. In his fascinating book “Saving God: Religion after idolatry,” Princeton philosoher Mark Johnson argues this self-oriented worldview emerges primarly from the structure of our consciousness:

Constantly finding oneself at the center, one finds oneself to be privileged– as something to be protected, as something to be prized. Thanks for our extended self-consciousness and our capacity to articulate what we find, what we in the higher animals merely an organizing form of animal self-protectiveness now becomes something more. It becomes a more or less explicit deliberative theme, a default starting point in one’s practical reasoning: one’s own interests just seem paramount (2009: 86)

When the self is radically important, optimism reigns when these goals seem achievable (college), and pessimism takes the stage when obstacles emerge (the professional 20s). I can almost hear Ernst Becker screaming out from the grave… “Can’t you see what I have been saying all along… your life is often a work in self-promotion, a project emerging out of your deep down fear of death, the death of all meaning.” The ancient sages roll over in their tombs, “Why didn’t you listen” asks the writer of Ecclesiastes, “when I said vanity of vanity, ALL is vanity!”

But hold up, before all seems lost. Might there be another way? Might there be a way to live between the tension of idealism and realism? Do we have to close our eyes to reality in order to dream? Johnson continues later in the book:

There is an experience– some would say it is a metaphysical experience; some would say it is inchoately religious- of being, as Ludwig Wittgenstein once put it, absolutely safe. (Wittgenstein appears to have had experiences of this sort when, as a medical orderly in the trenches in WWI, he was in danger of being shot, gassed, or blown up. Marcus Aurelius, another man of the trenches, describes a similar experience in his Meditations). Part of the content of this experience, as opposed to the content of its subsequent interpretation, is that no matter what happens, everything that is fundamentally precious will remain intact (p. 110).

Is not this the way forward, between the false forced dichotomy of idealism and realism? Specifically, it is not by achieving everything we expect for ourselves that we break free of this tension, but rather we grow by a fading of the self from the forefront, where we can finally stumble upon this realization that ‘everything precious’ often includes things outside the self, and thus is worth pursuing apart from our potential personal gain.  Is it not only with this posture that the TFA teacher can sit back and passionately engage rigid structures of educational injustice, even though their role in that change might be small? Is not this the only way to have the mind of the realist, and the heart and soul of a romantic?

“we moderns not only continue to be animals who make stories but also animals who are made by our stories.”

-Christian Smith “Moral, Believing Animals

In a recent op-ed in the Georgetown Hoya, Professor Patrick Deneen makes the following claims about the personal impact of studying economics:

Much of the explanatory strength of economics rests on a narrow and even unrealistic understanding of human behavior, particularly an understanding of the human creature as a utility-maximizing rational actor. Stripped of conflicting devotions, shorn of history and culture, reduced to a few basic motives (especially fear and greed), economic man became highly analyzable data point, but arguably only insofar as he has ceased to be truly human.

Far from being merely “descriptive,” the basic assumptions of economics – that human beings are acquisitive individual utility-maximizers living in a world of scarcity – deeply shape modern humanity’s view of itself.

Stories and theories do shape us, and they profoundly shape our action by making certain actions more plausible, or certain routes more appealing. Such stories shape what type of work we want to pursue, the priority we give to relationships, what we see as the value of place, or whether we primarily see necessity or limitations in rootedness of various forms. A student who studies political science, or literature, or philosophy might arrive at a different set of assumptions about the ‘goods’ of life than those who study economics. To fit in with a certain guiding narrative, we often homogenize, muting aspects of ourselves which do not as easily cohere.

But if we acknowledge the problems of this, and desire to be ‘authentic’ to something deep in ourselves, how do we live into different narratives, build into our lives a different set of stories?  I deeply believe that such changes only happen when we root ourselves in certain traditions and routines, and cultivate a sense of awareness of the ways in which our actions and stories do not leave us untouched.

Take cell phones as an example. I love having my blackberry, and especially the way in which it adds convenience to my life in being connected with, and connecting with others. But what are my actual physical behaviors with this phone? I constantly check my pocket for emails. I wait patiently for text affirmation, often sending out a note and judging its worth (my worth to others), by the speed and content of their response.

Consider as well the pursuit of self-development in education. How does buying into the notion of building a brand to distinguish oneself on the market shape the way I see and interact with the world. For the past several years, I have been trying to pursue the  right set of activities in high school, the right set of leadership opportunities in college, being at the ‘right school,’  pursuing the ‘right graduate degree at the right institution. And while this has obviously set me up to do interesting things, can I really claim being untouched with regards to what I deem as interesting and worthy of pursuit?

I agree wholeheartedly with the quote from Christian Smith on the way the stories we tell shape us and our understanding of the world. I doubtlessly clap my hands in approval of Deneen’s assertion that certain stories, namely economics, radically simplify the complex and conflicting set of desires that we hold, making us self-improve frameworks that conceivably limit such our ability to see what is worth experiencing in life. But I know from personal experience that ‘ratioal-emotive’ therapical approaches have sometimes fallen short with me. Telling myself to be a better person, or to pursue things that matter, or to be more vulnerable in relationships (or any other number of things), often leaves me feeling the post New Years Resolution of failed goals and similar behavior.

But stories are deeper than words we embody them within. Being different and living different narratives requires rooting oneself not only in certain tales, about also concrete sets of behavior which help cultivate in us a posture towards the world that is deeper than theoretical knowledge. In my previous post on Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road,” I noted philosopher Jamie Smith’s characterization of humans as needing and being formed by such quasi-litergies. I then brought up one such moment in the book where the father physically pursues keeping his son safe:

He kicked holes in the sand for the

boy’s hips and shoulders where he would sleep and he sat

holding him while he tousled his hair before the fire to dry it.

All of this like some ancient anointing.

It is these actions which shape us, these behaviors which orient us desired ends, and cultivate in us a posture towards what matters. These behaviors, these rituals are more forming than reading a book about how ‘parenting is important,’ or conceptually realizing that “love is difficult.’ It is a deeper kind of knowing/feeling which, though potentially spoken or theorized about, must be felt, must be lived, must be embodied in routines. To use McCarthy’s words, we must “construct ceremonies out of the air and breathe upon them,” a breath which acknowledges the transcendence of the everyday, of the profane, of the mundane.

This past weekend’s Wall Street Journal has a fascinating interview with Cormac McCarthy, the author most recently known for his book “No Country for Old Men” made in the award-winning film by the Coen Brothers. Among other things, McCarthy also wrote “The Road,” set for release in film version of November 25th. If you are not familiar with “The Road,” it is a post-apocalypic story of a father and son journeying towards the coast, their only potential place of survival in a world nearly destroyed by some past, yet rarely spoken of cataclysmic act.

The Road is a poignant, heart-wrenching tale.  It pulls out emotion that are severely unpleasant in experience: specifically, the dull sense of loneliness and the profound experience of potential loss. While these are not emotions we actively seek out, it’s fair to say we are better from their experience. Recalling a recent conversation with Krista Tippet of NPR’s “Speaking of Faith,” my good friend Dave expressed that one of the most important things Tippet expressed was the sentiment that we are limiting ourselves when we seek a narrow version of ‘happiness.’ Rather, she suggested that we ought to seek a type of flourishing that encompasses a wider set of emotions and experiences, all which speak to the varied experience of humanity in both its good and bad forms. Cormac pulls you into these moments, highlighting the importance of relationships and the ways in which we often experience them most profoundly with the potential of their loss.

In the interview, McCarthy suggests that the story comes in large part out of his own attachment to his young son. And yet, the love between father and son in the book is different than often portrayed in traditional Hollywood love stories. For example, in The Road, the father and son never explicitly say “I love you.” About this, McCarthy states:

“A lot of the lines that are in there are verbatim conversations my son John and I had. I mean just that when I say he’s the co-author of the book. A lot of the things that the kid says are things that John said. John said, “Papa, what would you do if I died?” I said, “I’d want to die, too,” and he says, “So you could be with me?” I said, “Yes, so I could be with you.” Just a conversation than two guys would have.”

Similarly, McCarthy’s complex relationship with religion comes out in the the way his characters wrestle with the notion of god the seeking of transcendence, even while not ‘stating’ religious words, or calling to mind a ‘religious’ book or film. But like the love never stated, religious imagery and themes pervade his work. For example, near the end of The Road, the narrator states that the father, “knew only that the child was his warrant. He said: If he is not the word of God God never spoke.’” While not traditional religion in the sense of sitting in mass, reciting creeds, or experiencing prayer, there is something spiritual in how the father feels a certain duty to his son’s protection, and acknowledges of the beauty in the world admidst the ugliness of the post-apocalytic setting of the novel.

Cormac’s own religious committment has seemingly adjusted over time, even if it appears his connection to religious orthodoxy was never very very strong. In the interview, speaking about his Irish Catholic upbringing, and religion in his life today, McCarthy summarizes:

I have a great sympathy for the spiritual view of life, and I think that it’s meaningful. But am I a spiritual person? I would like to be. Not that I am thinking about some afterlife that I want to go to, but just in terms of being a better person.

It seems that the type of spirituality that interests McCarthy is profoundly about an existential commitment to living out love in the world, all the while acknowledging his own impotence in this matter. Cormac, like the father in the novel, feels a certain pull of duty, and desires to see the transcendent in the profane. For McCarthy, this duty and transcendent comes in relationships and his desire to find in narration transcendent relationships in contexts typically narrated devoid of them. This posture towards life commits McCarthy to writing novels that, “take years of your life and drive you to suicide.”

It is this existential relationship to all things religious that ultimately makes McCarthy’s novels so profoundly gripping. He calls up religious questions, but doesn’t feel confident in the traditional institutionalized answers. To use the words of philosopher/ theologian Miroslav Volf, McCarthy is reacting against the ‘thin’ view of religion that often rely on cliches, acknowledging the importance of a thick meaningful framework, all the while simultanously doubting its existence.

But isn’t this in itself a TYPE of thick religious understanding, even if not orthodox in the traditional sense? In a review of the book, philosopher Jamie K.A. Smith weaves together the actual practices of father and son and what the mean for the characters, ultimately suggesting that they participate in a form of world-building through the nearly litergical nature of their interaction. Smith writes that, “the book is suffused with ritual and thus a kind of sacramentality. Quasi-liturgies both make and hold together the remnants of a “world” for father and son.” For two men depending on each other in a severely broken world, they needed a way to construct meaning, and live into a ‘reality’ not yet present. Smith highlights one such moment of life re-narration, recast in liturgical form:

The boy sat tottering. The man watched him that he not

topple into the flames. He kicked holes in the sand for the

boy’s hips and shoulders where he would sleep and he sat

holding him while he tousled his hair before the fire to dry it.

All of this like some ancient anointing. So be it. Evoke the

forms. Where you’ve nothing else construct ceremonies out

of the air and breathe upon them

Perhaps it is such ‘quasi-liturgies’ that we, as the religious and non-religious alike, need more than anything.

David Brooks recent op-ed in the NYTimes is provocative in arguing for a link between the growth of text-messaging and the decline of committed love. Specifically:

Technology, especially cellphone and texting technology, dissolves obstacles. Suitors now contact each other in an instantaneous, frictionless sphere separated from larger social institutions and commitments.

People are thus thrown back on themselves. They are free agents in a competitive arena marked by ambiguous relationships. Social life comes to resemble economics, with people enmeshed in blizzards of supply and demand signals amidst a universe of potential partners.

The opportunity to contact many people at once seems to encourage compartmentalization, as people try to establish different kinds of romantic attachments with different people at the same time.

It seems to encourage an attitude of contingency. If you have several options perpetually before you, and if technology makes it easier to jump from one option to another, you will naturally adopt the mentality of a comparison shopper.

A few bloggers have taken issue with Brook’s analysis. Matthew Yglesias writes that love really hasn’t changed that much, and in the ways it has changed has not necessarily been for the worse (cue reference to love and relationship in Mad Men). He also cites the attached visual on the growth of cell-phone use and sarcastically points to the absurdity of arguing for a direct relationship between love’s decline and technological growth (0 bad relationships -> 95% over the last 15 years?). Screen shot 2009-11-04 at 10.34.31 AM

Ezra Klein takes a different rebuttal approach in pointing to how technology played a role in the development of a committed relationship with his current girlfriend:

Columns like Brooks’s irk me because they demean not only my lived experiences, but those of everyone I know. To offer a slightly more modern rebuttal, Sunday was my one-year anniversary with my girlfriend. A bit more than a year ago, we first met, the sort of short encounter that could easily have slipped by without follow-up. A year and a week ago, she sent me a friend request on Facebook, which makes it easy to reach out after chance meetings. A year and five days ago, we were sending tentative jokes back-and-forth. A year and four days ago, I was steeling myself to step things up to instant messages. A year and three days ago, we were both watching the “Iron Chef” offal episode, and IMing offal puns back-and-forth, which led to our first date. A year ago today, I was anxiously waiting to leave the office for our second date.

In general, I like Brook’s article, but don’t have to take it the whole way to see its general point. Technology does allow us to connect with a greater quantity of people (send out mass twitters, be followed by a multitude of people on facebook, text multiple people at the same time), but along with such potential comes less accountability between our digital profile and the actual way we interact with people. Technologies like texting and twitter create a potential to navigate multiple budding relationships at once in a way that was more difficult in previous years.

At the same time, taking Yglesias’ point the actual correspondence between technology and relational decline will obviously not be linear, and to Klein’s point, technology is somewhat neutral in that it might be used for either good or bad (see: Einstein’s role in the development of nuclear technology…)

The kernel of truth in Brook’s article is his assertion that cultivating a posture of openness to options, in this case enabled by technology, can be detrimental to investing in a particular person. Think of it with careers… leaving oneself open to multiple options is a great hedge strategy, but at a certain point one has to open a specific door, move through it at the expense of others, with all the risk that comes along with such choice. Brooks is right that these technologies allow people to hedge in relationships for a longer period of time. In reality, this might be a good thing seen by lower rates of divorce for people who marry later. Nevertheless, its more than fair to ask whether hedge strategies are ineffective for building commitment once one is in a relationship, and whether such approaches carry-on with inertia from singleness to the time when one is in a relationship. In other words, can the guy who spends years texting to hedge in the relational market quickly drop such habits when he enters into a committed relationship?

 

ADDENDUM- For the nerds among us, there might be a few questions that would be relevant to this debate from a sociological perspective:

  1. Does the availability of texting lead to increased a) hedging strategies/ behavior, and/or b) hedging mentality in relationships
  2. Do hedging strategies prior to relationships correspond with greater hedging mentality once in a relationship (e.g. does this mentality hold with inertia)?
  3. Does a hedging mentality negatively influence relationship development/ lead to destructive relationship outcomes (e.g. divorce)?

Screen shot 2009-10-06 at 12.24.55 PM

“Isolated? I’m surrounded!” George Clooney’s character defiantly states in the trailer of the upcoming film “Up in the Air.” In this, Clooney highlights one answer to the dilemma of the modern individualistic global citizen… in becoming citizen of the world (pursuers of ambition), do we become strangers to all things particular (relationships, community, home)? When it comes to jobs and relationships, the movie sets itself as a reflection on what it takes to live with meaning? If it’s work, then what what does one do and why? If it’s people, then who is the audience and how many admirations does this require?

One of the more poignant moments of the trailer (yes, I know, I am reviewing a trailer) is when George’s character argues the following: ”If you think about it, your relationships are the heaviest components of your life: your husband, your wife, your home. We weigh ourselves down until we can’t even move. Make no mistake, moving is living…”

Contrast this to the following quote from CS Lewis, recently sent to me by my good friend Dave Ellis: “My happiest hours are spent with three or four old friends in old clothes tramping together and putting up in small pubs—or else sitting up till the small hours [of the morning] in someone’s college room, talking nonsense, poetry, theology, metaphysics over beer, tea, and pipes. There’s no sound I like better than laughter…friendship is the greatest of worldly goods. Certainly to me it is the chief happiness of life. If I had to give a piece of advice to a young man about a place to live, I think I should say, ‘Sacrifice almost everything to live where you can be near your friends.’”

The contrast is stark, and it’s one that many of us feel acutely. Where is significance found, we wonder? Do our strivings for meaning lead us to pursue the needs of the generalized other and the significance driven self (push for health care reform, desires to influence policy, wanting to ‘make’ it in business, attempts to gain recognition and influence), or do they usher us into the arms of others? We feel both desires, and often live in the tension, evidenced by the father who goes to his son’s baseball games (living the particular) while simultaneously attempting to live vicariously through his success and thus enter his unrealized dream of doing something on the big stage (desiring universal recognition). Or likewise, the opposite side can be seen when the most powerful people in the world (universal recognition earned) yearn for relationships, desire significance IN THE EYES OF A FEW OTHERS, rather than the generalized other (desiring particular). I personally find it hard to live into one desire without the other… as Walt Whitman says “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”

“Up in the Air” takes on hard questions on the location of significance, and whether at the end of the day, commitments to the particular (one person, one location, one seemingly universally insignificant life) tie us down or free us to act.

Screen shot 2009-09-20 at 1.08.24 PM

In my last post, I pointed to a blog by psychologist Paul Bloom in which he tried to make a psychologically supported case for indulging the simple pleasures of life more, and retraining less (an obviously version of his argument). And yet, I (and a few of the commentors) felt a little underwhelmed by his argument, even though we liked the general project. Before going onto my own response to his argument, I want to lay out a quick hypothetical, and get your thoughts.

Recent evidence on car purchasing from Haper’s Index shows the interesting fact that 1/3rd of all individuals who own a full hybrid Toyota Prius also own a gas guzzling SUV. Tyler Cowen calls this portfolio theory. Ryan Sager calls it moral self-regulation.

So here is the hypothetical. You have a friend at work who drives a Prius. Over the course of the year, you two have become quite close friends and you are especially drawn to his/her ecological responsibility.

One Saturday night, he invites you and your boy/girlfriend over for dinner. When you arrive at his house, you see parked next to his mini-Prius a 10 mpg Hummer H2. You are shocked that your ‘green auto’ friend also owns one of the least fuel-efficient cars on the market.

Over the course of drinks, he mentions one of four explanations for the combo of vehicles in his garage:

  1. “It is my spouse’s car, and I really don’t like how s/he owns it.”
  2. “We used to have 2 SUV’s, but are making an effort to be more green and replaced our other SUV last year. Our carbon footprint dropped so much!”
  3. “We really like both cars… so different, but they fit such different aspects of our personalities”
  4. “I am really into off-road riding and the Hummer is great for getting around in the trecherous driving up in the mountains.”

My question is, which of these things is most likely to quell your astonishment at this purchase? Would you, or would you not pass judgment regardless of their explanation? Is there something else s/he could say besides these? Does s/he need to say anything?