Archive for December, 2009

Posted on December 30, 2009 - by David

Busyness in America

In the “busy” spirit of the season, I share with you this essay by Liah Greenfeld, published in 2005 in Social Research, on busyness in contemporary American society. By comparing the lives of Americans today with life in other historical and some contemporary societies, she argues that the sense of busyness we experience is not actually caused by how much we have to do:

We are busy not because our physical and economic survival requires constant exertion on our part, leaving us little opportunity for spiritual restoration–relaxing, getting rid of the sense of busyness–but because we are incapable of perceiving and taking advantage of the opportunities for repose. We are restless. And our busyness is an expression of this inability to rest, rather than its cause. Much of our busyness comes from our leisure activities, in fact: preparations for and participation in family gatherings, holiday shopping (how often every one of us heard–or exclaimed–the desperate “Oh my! It is December 15, and I have not yet done my Christmas shopping!”), visits to the hairdresser and the gym; the phrase itself, “leisure activities,” is telling. We regard all these occasions for relaxation as duties and external pressures: we exercise not because we like it and can afford to indulge ourselves, but because one must keep in shape. We read New York Times over breakfast because one must be informed; go to concerts, movies, and dinners with friends because it is important to be culturally au currant and sociable. We are veritably torn into pieces by all these simultaneous and necessarily conflicting demands that oppress us every minute of our waking life and eventually invade our sleep.

So, if work conditions have improved and hours have gotten shorter, if quality of live has risen steadily and our options for relaxation and entertainment are constantly expanding, why do so many of us feel busy to the point of anxiety and exhaustion? Greenfeld claims that in distinction to past societies:

Americans who suffer from busyness today do not prioritize. They treat all their occupations– work, family, and even leisure–as equally important…

This disturbing inability to prioritize, which is the direct, proximate, cause of our oppressive sense of busyness, is undoubtedly related to the difficulty modern men and women, Americans above all, have forming their identities.

As in her other work, Greenfeld states here that the problem of identity formation stems from the anomie which comes as a built-in feature of modern culture, which is organized around the principles of popular sovereignty and egalitarianism. These principles, which open wide a world of possibilities, also fundamentally change the way identity is formed, because we must now create for ourselves what was once provided to us by culture:

Modern culture cannot provide us with a sense of order because its constitutive beliefs and attitudes, its supreme values and norms, consistently undermine order…

To insist on the fundamental equality of members in a community is to leave them fundamentally undefined vis-à-vis each other, to leave them without an identity. To proclaim and defend popular sovereignty and the individual’s freedom to make oneself is to demand that each one construct one’s identity on one’s own. Lifting limits from our desires, paradoxically, places very heavy burdens on our shoulders.

For me, this explanation rings true. I seem to feel busy all of the time, whether working, in the car with a junior bacon cheeseburger in one hand and my cell phone in the other, or just sitting on the couch in sweatpants with a book and a cup of coffee. I’ve asked myself again and again recently, how can I possibly be so busy and have so little to show for it? While I haven’t pinned down one identity for myself yet, I know that I can do a better job of prioritizing and actually relaxing when that’s what the moment calls for.

So, take a break from this sensation of busyness, enjoy the long weekend, and have a happy new year.

Posted on December 24, 2009 - by David

A Very Merry American Christmas

Since some of my recent posts have dealt with religion in America, and considering that tomorrow is Christmas, I was curious to see how this holiday has been officially represented in recent years. I found these “messages on the observance of Christmas” from 1984-2008 on the American Presidency Project website.

Ronald Reagan: 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988

George H. Bush: 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992

Bill Clinton: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

George W. Bush: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008

Honestly, I was surprised at the explicitly Christian content of most of the messages. I guess I was expecting a more general message emphasizing tradition, family, and some of those “Christmas values” – peace, love, goodwill, etc.- with the religious aspect slightly toned down.

Of course, the Christmas story is always connected to the story of the nation. Most of messages are structured similarly, with something about the birth of Jesus as a gift from God and the message Jesus brought to the world, followed by some statement about how America continues to work for the ideals of peace on earth and freedom for all mankind.

It wasn’t until 2000, Clinton’s last Christmas in the White House, that any mention of other religion’s holidays was made:

For Americans of many faiths, this is a season of renewal–of light shining through the darkness, of despair transformed to hope. This year, Christmas is celebrated during the same week as Jews celebrate Hanukkah and Muslims celebrate the Eid Al-Fitr–a powerful and moving reminder that followers of the three Abrahamic faiths share fundamental values: a reverence for our Creator, a belief in human dignity, and a conviction that we must love our neighbors as ourselves. By building on these shared values, we can create a future where all God’s children live together in peace and understanding.

In 2001, George W. Bush, perhaps hesitant to offend or exclude anyone only a few months after 9/11, spoke only of what “Christians believe,” lacking the confident, matter-of-fact tone of Reagan and his father:

According to the Gospel of Luke, two thousand years ago, the savior of mankind came into the world. Christians believe that Jesus’ birth was the incarnation of God on earth, opening the door to new hope and eternal life. At Christmastime, Christians celebrate God’s love revealed to the world through Christ. And the message of Jesus is one that all Americans can embrace this holiday season–to love one another.

There are these kind of occasional qualifications. Clinton, began most of his messages with “warm greetings to everyone celebrating Christmas,” which reads to me like a kind of disclaimer against offending Americans who don’t celebrate Christmas.

Earlier today, Barack and Michelle Obama gave a Christmas message which was much lighter on religious content, focusing more on the sacrifices of U.S military personnel and what we can do to help.  Still, he did mention among the reasons to celebrate this Christmas, “a message of peace and brotherhood that continues to inspire more than 2,000 after Jesus’ birth.”

I don’t know. It seems to me that 364 days of the year, and even on Christmas day, most of the nation pays no mind to the story of Jesus’s birth, so this has left me scratching my head.

I guess I’ll just echo the words of George W. Bush: “I send greetings to those celebrating Christmas.”

Posted on December 22, 2009 - by David

Is ‘Postmodernity’ a Reality?

It seems that any time I come across the word ‘postmodern’ in my reading, I wind up stopping for a minute to try to figure out what it actually means. I guess I’ve been conditioned to react this way ever since I began studying with Liah Greenfeld and the word ‘modern’ took on some real significance for me. Still, (out of laziness), I always wound up shrugging the question off without trying to answer it.

Yesterday, I finally went to the dictionary in hopes of finding some commonly agreed upon definitions.

From Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: ¹mod·ern

Pronunciation: \ˈmä-dərn, ÷ˈmä-d(ə-)rən\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Late Latin modernus, from Latin modo just now, from modus measure — more at mete

Date: 1585

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time
2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date
3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language
4 : of or relating to modernism : modernist

Main Entry: post·mod·ern

Pronunciation: \ˌpōs(t)-ˈmä-dərn, ÷-ˈmä-d(ə-)rən\

Function: adjective

Date: 1925

1 : of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one <postmodern times> <a postmodern metropolis>
2 a : of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature) b : of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language <postmodern feminism>

Main Entry: mod·ern·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈmä-dər-ˌni-zəm\

Function: noun

Date: 1737

1 : a practice, usage, or expression peculiar to modern times
2 often capitalized : a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements
3 : modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression

From Oxford College Dictionary, 2^nd Ed:

modern history- n. history up to the present day, from some arbitrary point taken to represent the end of the middle ages

postmodernism- n. a late 20^th century style in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism.

The two main causes of confusion are revealed in these definitions. First, there are no distinctive characteristics, and no clear time frame given to tell us what modernity is or when it takes place. Webster’s ambiguously refers to a “relevant remote past,” and the Oxford College Dictionary gives us “some arbitrary point taken to represent the end of the middle ages.” Another definition makes it more or less a synonym for ‘contemporary.’ Also, the definitions contain no distinction between contemporary societies that are modern and those that are not (i.e traditional societies).

Modernism and postmodernism refer to artistic movements and philosophies. The two definitions of postmodernism refer to it as “a reaction to modernism” and “a departure from modernism.” The question then becomes, if postmodernism is in fact a coherent movement or philosophy, does it correspond to an actual change in culture such that we should consider the period we are living in now as distinct from modernity? Is ‘postmodernity’ a reality?

Liah Greenfeld, in a chapter titled ‘Is Modernity Possible without Nationalism?’ in Michel Seymour’s book, The Fate of the Nation State, addresses the problem of modernity’s various meaningless or contradictory definitions. According to Greenfeld, modernity is a quality or characteristic of certain societies- what she calls “a species of society” (39). In general, modern societies have three distinctive features: an open class structure, “the impersonal and abstract, or state, form of government,” and an economy oriented to sustained growth (39) These features are not fully developed in all modern societies, but in all cases, she claims, their development is made possible by nationalism- a fundamentally secular and humanistic consciousness based on the principles of popular sovereignty and egalitarianism.

Now this definition of modernity is certainly not universally accepted, but it is nevertheless a definition which means something. [Rather than get into a more detailed description of different types of nationalism and modern societies, I encourage you to read the chapter in this free google books preview (p.38-50), as well as her essay, ‘Nationalism and the Mind’]. If we consider the term ‘postmodernity’ in light of Greenfeld’s definition, it would have to mean a fundamental change in the organization and consciousness of society. From everything I see, this has not happened.

I am not claiming to have said all there is to say about the modern vs. postmodern question, and I am not dismissing all postmodern theory out of hand. What I am saying is that it is important to have some definition of modernity, Greenfeld gives us this, and if we accept it, then the phenomena which some have characterized as postmodern can be considered as either new or modified developments in culture that are still consistent with nationalism and modernity.

Posted on December 18, 2009 - by David

The Happiest States?

A study published this week in the journal Science found ‘objective’ confirmation that self-reported levels of happiness for U.S states are accurate. According to this overview of the findings,  the “objective indicators” of happiness were drawn from a 2003 study published by Stuart Gabriel which included data from each state on factors such as “precipitation; temperature; wind speed; sunshine; coastal land; inland water; public land; National Parks; hazardous waste sites; environmental ‘greenness’; commuting time; violent crime; air quality; student-teacher ratio; local taxes; local spending on education and highways; cost of living.”

Here is the list of the top ten happiest states. I’ve added a few things to think about for some of them.

1. Lousiana- #1 murder rate (excluding D.C) # 4 violent crime rate (2007).  #2 infant mortality rate (2005) #45 median household income (2007). #2 persons below poverty level (2007) #46 in education (2006-2007)
2. Hawaii- #49 in education (2006-2007)
3. Florida- #5 violent crime rate (excluding D.C)(2007)
4. Tennessee- #2 violent crime rate (excluding D.C)(2007)
5. Arizona- #1 property crime rate (excluding D.C)(2007)
6. Mississippi- #1 infant mortality rate (2005) #2 Unemployment rate (2007) #50 median household income (2007). # 1 persons below poverty level (2007) #50 in education (2006-2007)
7. Montana
8. South Carolina- # 1 violent crime rate(2007). #3 infant mortality rate (2005)
9. Alabama- #47 in education (2006-2007)
10. Maine

Andrew Oswald, author of the report, “expressed some caution in how the results should be interpreted for the state of Louisiana in the survey following the disruption caused by Hurricane Katrina,” but I’m pretty sure the statistics I’ve included are consistent with the rankings before Katrina.  I quickly gathered my data here:

crime: FBI Uniform Crime Report 2007

education: ALEC Report Card on American Education

infant mortality, unemployment, persons below poverty level, median household income: U.S Census Bureau 2010 Statistical Abstract

Posted on December 17, 2009 - by David

Egoistic vs. Anomic Suicide: What Did Durkheim Say?

In a previous post, I commented on the confusion caused by the lack of clear distinction between Durkheim’s concepts of egoistic and anomic suicide. In an effort to come up with evidence to make this argument, I spent several more hours poring over my notes on Suicide than I had originally intended. I feel a bit lazy doing this, but I believe it’s worth letting these quotes speak for themselves.

“Both [egoistic and anomic suicide] spring from society’s insufficient presence in individuals. But the sphere of its absence is not the same in both cases. In egoistic suicide it is deficient in truly collective activity, thus depriving the latter of object and meaning. In anomic suicide, society’s influence is lacking in the basically individual passions, thus leaving them without a check-rein. In spite of their relationship, therefore, the two types are independent of each other. We may offer society everything social in us, and still be unable to control our desires; one may live in an anomic state without being egoistic, and vice versa. These two sorts of suicide therefore do not draw their chief recruits from the same social environments; one has its principal field among intellectual careers, the world of thought – the other, the industrial or commercial world.” (258)

“Suicides of both types suffer from what has been called the disease of the infinite. But the disease does not assume the same form in both cases. In one, reflective intelligence is affected and immoderately overnourished; in the other, emotion is over-excited and freed from all restraint. In one, thought, by dint of falling back upon itself, has no object left; in the other, passion, no longer recognizing bounds, has no goal left. The former is lost in the infinity of dreams, the second in the infinity of desires.” (287)

“They [types of suicide ] are very often combined with one another, giving rise to composite varieties; characteristic of several types will be united in a single suicide.” (287)

“We know that they [egoism and anomy] are usually merely two different aspects of one social state; thus it is not surprising that they should be found in the same individual. It is, indeed, almost inevitable that the egoist should have some tendency to non-regulation; for, since he is detached from society, it has not sufficient hold upon him to regulate him.” (288)

“The obstacle, for example, against which the victim of insatiate desires dashes may cause him to fall back upon himself and seek an outlet for disappointed passions in an inner life. Finding there nothing to which he can attach himself, however, the melancholy inspired by this thought can only drive him to new self-escape, thus increasing his uneasiness and discontent. Thus are produced mixed suicides where depression alternates with agitation, dream with action, transports of desire with reflective sadness.” (288)

Durkheim seems to be saying, “They’re the same, but they’re also different.” He basically states that the two types have the same cause, and in the end of the book proposes one solution, (corporations or occupational groups), for both:

“But not only egoistic suicide would be combatted in this way. Anomic suicide, closely related to it, might be dealt with by the same treatment.” (382)

“In both cases the remedy is therefore the same.”

So, are these two types really variations of one type, and is there any value in attempting to distinguish between them?

I’ll try to answer this question when I consider Greenfeld’s concept of anomie and look at its manifestations in American society.

Posted on December 15, 2009 - by David

Remember the depressed bouncing egg commercials?

Note the narration:

“While the cause is unknown, depression may be related to an imbalance of natural chemicals between nerve cells in the brain.”

and then…

“Zoloft: when you know more about what’s wrong, you can help make it right.”

I’m left amused and a bit confused.

Posted on December 14, 2009 - by David

13% of U.S Kids Have a Mental Disorder

An article was published online today in the journal Pediatrics, reporting the findings of a study conducted from 2001-2004 on the prevalence and treatment of mental disorders among U.S children. Unfortunately, the full text of the article is only available with a subscription, but you can read the abstract, and the National Institute of Mental Health website issued a press release which summarized the findings. I also found this page, which looks at some of the data in more detail.

In short, the study found that 13% of the 3,042 eight to fifteen year olds surveyed met the criteria for at least one of the six disorders included in the study. By far the highest percentage was ADHD, with 8.6%, followed by depression with 3.7%. The other four disorders included in the study were generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, eating disorders, and conduct disorder.

The lead author of the study, Kathleen Merikangas, Ph.D., of NIMH noted that “with the exception of ADHD, the prevalence rates reported here are generally lower than those reported in other published findings of mental disorders in children, but they are comparable to other studies that employed similar methods and criteria.”

Still 13% seems like a significant portion of America’s youth. I really wish I could read (for free) the rest of the report, because maybe it would answer some of my questions…

• Why weren’t bipolar and schizophrenia included in the study?
• If ADHD is the most prevalent mental disorder among 8 to 15 year olds, what is its prevalence among older adolescents and adults? Does something happen to cause it to fade, or does its prevalence actually increase with age? Or does ADHD turn into another disorder like bipolar or schizophrenia?
• What was the rationale for choosing this age group?
• Why weren’t substance abuse disorders included?

I would imagine (and hope) that the report includes data on the prevalence of the disorders within a smaller age range, because the life concerns and experiences of a child change dramatically from age 8 to 15. It would seem more appropriate to me to at split this group in half, and give the statistics separately from 8 to 11, say, and 12 to 15.

Hopefully I’ll find a way to access the full article so I can give it closer consideration.

Posted on December 11, 2009 - by David

It’s the least suicidal time of the year

There seems to be a common misconception that more suicides occur around Christmas than during the rest of the year.  This USA Today article points to the research of Dan Romer of UPenn’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, which suggests that newspaper coverage of suicide around the holidays may be partly responsible for the perpetuation of this myth.

The data gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that suicide is actually less frequent around the holidays. In 2005, for the 16 states surveyed in the CDC report, December had the lowest suicide rate of any month. In 2006, only February and September had fewer suicides. In both years, November’s suicide rate was only slightly higher than December’s.  January was ranked 7^th in 2005 and 3^rd in 2006.

The prevalence of this holiday suicide myth may be reflective of the fact that, for many Americans, this time of year brings increased stress. For college students, December marks the end of the semester, meaning most likely a greater workload and anxiety about grades. Others are struggling to work with limited resources to come in under the company budget for the year. And for many trades, December marks the beginning of widespread unemployment as the winter weather causes a slowdown in construction. Add to this increased spending for holidays, and it does sound like a recipe for stress.

Despite this, there may be elements of the holiday season which serve as protective measures against suicide.  Though Christmas has become an almost entirely secular holiday, the practice of certain traditions may mean that each December, American society is at its most integrated. Decorating, shopping, gift-giving, time off of work and school, family gatherings, special meals, and still, for some, a heightened religious sense- these may all combine to counteract the other factors which make this time of year particularly hard.

Emile Durkheim’s findings regarding suicide and time of year are very similar, but his explanation for the decrease differs. He found that more suicides occur during the day, and hypothesized that in the months when the days are longer, (spring and summer), the suicide rate is higher not because of any direct effect of the weather, but because the longer days and milder weather are more conducive to social activity. In short, he believed there is a direct correlation between the number of suicides and the intensity of “the collective life” of the society.

It seems to me, though, that technology has allowed the “intensity of collective life” to become less dependent upon weather and length of day than it was over a hundred years ago when Durkheim was writing. Because the holiday season is obviously a time when social activity, (as well as economic stress), is very high, I believe that a greater level of social integration may be responsible for the slight dip in the suicide rate.

Posted on December 9, 2009 - by David

Greenfeld talk at Bates College

A few weeks ago at Bates College, Liah Greenfeld gave a lecture on her theory of mental illness. This article in the Sun Journal seems to give a decent overview of that theory as she presented it. Here is a (very) brief summary:

The functioning of the human mind (which is an individualized cultural process dependent upon, but not determined by, biological brain functions) is impaired because modern culture is so open that it fails to provide sufficient guidance in the formation of identity. Greenfeld considers Identity to be one of the central structures of the mind, providing a kind of cultural map by which the individual locates himself and others.  She believes that problems with Identity result in problems with the other mental structures and processes, and in extreme cases, Identity problems are manifested in mental illnesses like depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

I was excited to see that other institutions like Bates College are inviting Greenfeld to share her controversial theory.  Unfortunately, the few comments posted after the article reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what Greenfeld believes about mental illness. Let me try to clear things up.

• She has never said that medication should not be part of treatment; she only said that it cannot be a cure.
• She maintains that these diseases are biologically and chemically real. She has never said otherwise. The claim she is making is that these diseases have a cultural cause. Because the mind is essentially “culture in the brain,” if that individualized culture process is not healthy, or at least orderly, it will result in an unhealthy, disordered brain. It is a reversal of the sick brain- sick mind idea.
• While it is not made clear in this article, Greenfeld does not deny the likelihood of genetic susceptibilities to mental illness. However, a predisposition or susceptibility is not a predetermination, nor is it a disease itself. The argument is that problems of identity caused by culture are what trigger these illnesses.
• While she believes that preparing children to be ready for “the burden of choice” will be an important part of preventing the rates of mental illness from continuing to rise, she does not actually address treatment strategies for those already afflicted with mental illness.

Now there really wasn’t that much discussion following this article, so I’m reacting to the thoughts of just a few individuals. Still, I felt the need to address this, because the resistance to consider new perspectives that challenge the current understanding of mental illness is so common. The faith that people place in medicine and science should not be so dogmatic as to preclude any other method of inquiry. As Greenfeld points out, we have been studying these diseases for centuries and they are still not understood. The phrase “chemical imbalance” does not amount to a scientific explanation of the behavior or thought patterns of the individuals who are suffering. Their suffering is real, it is widespread, and so Greenfeld wants to pool all available resources together to do something about it. The success of cognitive therapy already suggests that changing thought patterns (i.e changing the mind) can have a real impact on the progression of these diseases, so it is unclear to me why Greenfeld’s idea that mental illness is caused by culture, (which shapes these thought patterns to begin with), should be considered laughable or offensive.

So before you laugh, or get angry, or just dismiss these ideas out of hand, please, do a little more reading on Greenfeld’s theories, think about the world around you, consider the position of supremacy that science has been granted in this realm, and consider the millions of individuals that are still suffering.

Who knows, you may just change your mind.

Posted on December 8, 2009 - by David

19th Century New England Suicide Stats match Durkheim’s Findings

This New York Times article from January 22, 1893, summarizes the findings of the American Statistical Association regarding the rates of suicide in the New England states. It’s an interesting addition to Durkheim’s study, (which largely neglects U.S statistics), since the years covered are nearly the same (the study begins in 1860). Not surprisingly, they find that the rates of suicide increased steadily over this thirty-year period, though with some strange variations in Connecticut. Also, like Durkheim, they find that older males have the highest rate of suicide of any group.

There’s not really a wealth of information here, but the pdf is pretty cool to look at. I’ll be looking for more articles like this one, not for the quality of the information (especially since I can’t even look at the sources), but to gain a better understanding of how subjects like suicide have been represented to the public.