We have a tendency in our society to equate SUFFERING with GOODNESS.
I know. Saying it in that bald way, it seems obvious. We shouldn't do this. But we do.
It takes this form: We take the extent to which we fuss or feel angst about something as a direct measure of our own personal goodness. We often reassure ourselves and others, "But I CARE," as if our caring is just as important as doing the right thing. Moreover, this itself becomes an excuse not to act, in two ways: As long as we're suffering, we're doing SOMETHING, and it's easier than acting to change it. And, if we act to change it, we won't have the opportunity to suffer and demonstrate our obvious goodness any more.
I know, this in no way seems profound to some of you. But I recently dropped this observation casually into a conversation with two different friends, smart people I love and respect. To them, it was literally jaw-dropping.
Obviously, this springs directly from the Judeo-Christian influence on our culture. It's definitely there in Catholicism, but despite the obvious Christian equation of suffering with divinity, my Jewish friend heartily affirmed that it's a big part of Jewish culture, too. When I brought it up to her this way, she understood in a flash just how unhealthful this is: She's the type that "takes things to heart" -- literally -- which has actually caused her some cardiac stress. How much better to calmly deal with life than to ruminate about it!
The second friend was raised Catholic, and it really resonated with her as well. She reflected that our culture actually places angst on the same level of ethics with action.
It seems to me that so often people use this psychologically as a free pass not to act: "At least I'm *stressed out* about it! It's causing me a lot of grief, so that must mean I'm a good person."
I jettisoned this sense of life a long time ago, mostly thanks to Rand. But I hadn't grasped, at the time, how very important it is to reject this attitude, or the variety of ways in which society reinforces the idea. I certainly hadn't understood how good it would be for my physical, not just psychological, health.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's not just the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's in Buddhism and Islam, too. Which leads us to the question, "What is it in the human experience that caused this phenomenon to be central to so many religious traditions?" An off-the-cuff answer is that early on humans realized that excess of all sorts often causes harm. Thus, they thought, refraining as an act must be the anti-harm. But refraining is hard (if it were easy, there would be no diet industry). It requires concentration and focus and persistence, and even then we often fail at it. But, if we're concentrating and focusing, even if we're not being effective, then perhaps we're in the neighborhood of "good."
Like I said, it was "off the cuff." Hope you have a great Easter, wherever you celebrate. We'll be coloring eggs tomorrow, and NOT going to church. When Max asked me why they didn't have school today and I gave him a capsule explanation of the Easter story I was struck by how absurd it sounded. People believe this stuff?
This really resonates with me. I vastly prefer ACTION, and sometimes it's really hard for me to understand why people don't act and try to change things when they're unhappy.
Good post and good discussion. I often wonder why some people who were raised basically the same and have the same general intelligence never fall prey to equating suffering with goodness, whereas their peers live it. It is simply a matter of never having thought critically about it?
Post a Comment