This is the third and final meeting of the autumn 2024 reading group (see
first post, and
second post).
Part
IV: Society
Chapter 10
The chapter begins
with the story of a young boy named Jorge who loved elephants and, when visiting
a circus, was puzzled by how a large elephant could be restrained by a chain
fastened to only a small stake in the ground. Surely the elephant was strong enough
to pull that stake out of the ground, but why did it not do so? This question stayed with Jorge for many
decades, as no one seemed to have a good answer to this question. One day Jorge met a man who had the answer. When the elephant was only a baby it was first
chained to the stake, and it quickly learned that its struggles to free itself
were pointless. So it accepted this fate. When it grew larger and stronger, it continued
to habituate to this limitation, despite the reality that it could free
itself. This parable has significance for human societies and how oppressed
groups and persons habituate to their situation rather than striving for emancipation.
The authors
contend that unhappiness arises when there is a gap between what you expect
(e.g. equality) and what you get (e.g. discrimination). This is known as the negative prediction
error. If all that mattered was
happiness, one might conclude that it is better for an individual to simply habituate
to their circumstances, molding their “expectations” to match their circumstances. But the authors argue that this perspective
misses the long-term benefits of the progress discontents can bring about.
I felt the
authors were somewhat sweeping and cavalier in their conclusions in this
chapter. The themes of the chapter
brought my mind back to the issues the reading group explored in Man’s
Search for Meaning. In that book Frankel emphasized how habituation to his captivity, and his
finding meaning and purpose in those dire circumstances, were crucial to both his
survival and his wellbeing. He underwent
“adaptative preference formation”. The prisoners
that despaired and died could not bring themselves to align their “expectations”
to their “circumstances”. Rather than
retreating into an internal world of meaning and purpose, shouldn’t Frankel and
the other prisoner’s have plotted their escape (resistance)? In other words, when is resistance vs adaptation
the wiser/better strategy to pursue? I
don’t think this is can be answered in the abstract. A lot hinges on the nature of the oppression/injustice
in question, and the prospects for real success (and what one takes to
constitute “success”). And there is often
significant uncertainty about the latter.
In hindsight,
after making substantive progress against various types of societal inequality
and oppression, it is easy to assume that abating such injustice was always feasible,
but for every successful example of a “moral entrepreneur” we might point to,
how many people lived less satisfactory lives than they might have otherwise
lived that did not make a meaningful change to the circumstances they faced?
Consider the
following, complex, contemporary example. Climate anxiety and distress, especially among
younger persons (ages 16-25), is correlated with a perception of inadequate
government response and feelings of betrayal. (see this).
One could construct two, diametrically opposing, stances to take on this.
One stance would be to prioritizes the happiness (including mental health) of
younger persons, and the other stance is to prioritize action to combat climate change. Applying the reasoning of the authors of the
book to this example, one might be inclined to say that the additional sadness,
anger, powerlessness, and guilt younger persons feel about the situation is an
acceptable cost for the future societal progress their anguish (presumably when
coupled with social activism) will generate.
This stance would re-frame the diminished wellbeing of the young as a necessary
cost of them being “moral entrepreneurs”.
But another
frame would be one which emphasizes instead the happiness and mental health of
the young, something that may impact their long-term physical and mental health
for decades to come (perhaps more than climate change will). Rather than living their daily lives worried
about the future of a warmer planet, and seeing themselves as the self-legislated
moral agents charged with swaying global governments to alter their energy policies,
they should instead prioritize actions, habits, etc. that will help them find personal
happiness and meaning “in the here and now”.
Fixating their attention and aspirations on changing public policy in
countries they do not even live in, let alone know much about or have any influence
over, is not a healthy mindset to adopt.
I think both
sides of this polarized characterization of the issues makes some good points,
but both sides are too extreme. What is
the judicious middle ground? I think we
should have some concern for the long-term prospects of both planetary and
human health, but I also think people should be able to live their own
individual lives (with personal hobbies, goals and ambitions) free from the
guilt and despair fuelled by burdensome moralized ideals. I would have liked the authors to have
devoted some attention to these types of real-world complexities.
Group
discussion: one thing I would like to explore is what the
insights from the book have for more mundane habituation examples, such as
relationships and work. Is it desirable to
have “low expectations” in one’s relationships and career? Or is it better to strife for more rewarding
romantic connections and employment? What
is the healthy balance between adaptation/appreciation and striving for better? Any thoughts you want to contribute on these
topics?
Chapter
11: Discrimination
This chapter
addresses why victims of discrimination are less likely to habituate to
discrimination than the perpetrators:
because this discrimination violates the image of the self they have internalized.
The civil
rights activist Rose Parks is an example of a moral entrepreneur who, in 1955,
refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus. She was willing to face a fine rather than
simply accept the discrimination and inequality of the culture norms of the Southern
states at the time.
Group
exercise: Which discriminatory attitudes and biases have
you noticed you have been dishabituated to over your lifetime? And what do you think helped changed your perspective
(e.g. the media, education, greater diversity in the workplace and society,
etc.)? A lot of my own work research focuses
on ageism and the stereotypes people have about older persons. It is still a serious problem that persists to
this day.
I was too pressed
for time to offer details on the last few chapters, but feel free to bring up
any points from those chapters in our discussion on the weekend.
Cheers,
Colin
