The Onion is one of the best sites on the internet. For a while at the turn of the decade, it pretty much defined online satire, which was odd, in a way, as it was very traditional in approach, essentially an online weekly newspaper. Except hilarious.
This is a particularly funny story, from 2000, about a wholly useless new consumer product that has not, somehow, managed to "fill the void–a vast, soul-crushing spiritual vacuum Americans of all ages helplessly face on a daily basis, with nowhere to turn and no way to escape".
I thought about this story at the weekend, after I'd spent Saturday afternoon in some of London's finest department stores, hours of my life I will never see again but have taught me something important: I really hate shopping. I used to love it. At school, I would go out at lunchtime to the record shop and never come back empty handed. As a student I would spend my spare time dodging between Brighton's many trainer retailers, often clutching a bag of newly purchased records. Now, though, I download mp3s and only buy new shoes when my old ones have holes. And maybe not even then.
The feeling I got on Saturday was an intense boredom but mainly a disappointment. I kind of wanted to be enjoying myself, buying some jeans (I need some new jeans. I think) or maybe...maybe some mugs. But I liked none of it. The jeans were too dull, too identikit, and the homeware was someone else's aesthetic and I couldn't see why I'd want to fill my flat with it. I have real trouble with the idea that goods, designed by someone else, mass produced by someone else and sold by someone else again should somehow express who I am. For another time, perhaps...
So far, so ranty, and so what. But here's the tenuous link. Shopping is supposed to be one of our comforts. Our lives are busy and stressful and we hate our jobs but! we can go out and buy stuff that's make us feel better when we get it home and, weirdly, the whole process is supposed to be enjoyable in and of itself. Of course it's not, though. Schlepping across rainy streets, dodging crowds, waiting in in queues - all rubbish. I was around Oxford Circus a year or so ago, squeezed up against the crowds, trudging slowly nowhere. There used to be a rather maverick evengelical scouse preacher there, his regular patch, with a megaphone and a frequently repeated catchphrase. He was feeling slightly more discursive that morning. "Turn to the word of Jesus", he said. "You've tried consumerism, and look at you. You're all miserable!". It was impossible to disagree.
So that's the link. Why is everyone so unhappy? Well, at least one of the reasons is that the very things that are supposed to cheer us up simply don't deliver.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The trap
I haven't blogged here for ages. I got a bit confused as to what the point was, as I have no particular expertise, so all I can offer are observations. I'm over that now, though. So, here is another observation.
Adam Curtis is an awesome documentary maker. His last series, "The Power of Nightmares" explored the links between the Neocons and Islamic fundamentalism, going a lot further than the obvious CIA FUNDED BIN LADEN IN AFGHANISTAN!!!!! stuff. His previous series , "The Century of the Self" traced how Freud's ideas have been used in the public sphere, via PR (itself an invention of Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew), to cold war propoganda and finally focus groups, giving a hefty and deserved kicking to hippies en route.
His new series kicked off at the weekend. Again it's looking at the "self", and, if I understood this correctly, how we've been taught to recognise a particular kind of self -individualistic, but also paranoid, uncooperative and self-serving. This makes us unhappy, unsurprisingly, and hopefully at some stage he'll tell us that there is another way! and another world is possible! and so on. That would be great.
Anyhow, this stuff was interesting, and will be commented on at greater length after epsiode 2, but there was a facsinating bit about mental ill health and its treatment. David Rosenhan was a psychiatrist inspired by the unorthodox ideas of RD Laing , the leader of the "anti psychiatry" movement. He believed the psychiatric establishment to be wholly unscientific, based on a social construct of what was normal. He conducted an experiment, whereby he and 7 others committed themselves to mental institutions saying they heard voices in their heads (all saying no more than "thump"). Beyond this, they were all to act normally. All were committed, and some stayed in the institutions for months, diagnosed with a range of conditions they did not have. In order to get out, they had to pretend they actually were ill, but getting better. The report of this experiment shocked the mental health establishment, and obviously caused real embarrassment to the instituions invlolved.
So much so, that, accusing Rosenhan of underhand tactics, the institutions requested he send more, anonymous fakes, and this time the would definitely spot them. He agreed, and, over the next few weeks, they proudly reported that they had spotted over 40 imposters, with a similar number of probables. Rosenhan had sent no imposters.
The obvious upshot of this is that extant methods for diagnosing the sane and the insane were exposed as, at the very least, incredibly error ridden, both in terms of sensitivity (spotting those who were mentally ill) and sensitivity (spotting those who weren't). The next bit of the documentary was, in a sense, even more interesting. Curtis explains the response of the psychiatric profession was essentially to redefine their role. Rather than looking at causes - bipolar disorder, schizophrenia etc - they moved to sypmtoms and behaviours. Taking the latter approach means that by ticking certain boxes a person can be called, for example, "Obsessive Compulsive" by definition.
And this is interesting to me because, as Curts points out, the result is that certain behaviours are normal, and desirable, and others, well, others are obsessive compulsive and weird. So checking your e-mail too often is weird, as it washing your hands too much, or constantly looking toward the door to see if anyone you know has just entered. Less flippantly, the permitted set of behaviors it is OK to exhibit is restricted by these definitions.
All of which makes me wonder - does this extend to depression as well? Curtis talked more of OCD and ADHD, with depression being better classed wiith schizophrenia as one of the illnesses old style psychiatry couldn't cure so no longer bothered with. But a common thread among the friends of mine who've beeen depressed, or anxious, was that they felt that this behaviour was not normal. Might it actually be OK to be anxious, or sad, at times? And would knowing that it was OK make it easier to take?
Adam Curtis is an awesome documentary maker. His last series, "The Power of Nightmares" explored the links between the Neocons and Islamic fundamentalism, going a lot further than the obvious CIA FUNDED BIN LADEN IN AFGHANISTAN!!!!! stuff. His previous series , "The Century of the Self" traced how Freud's ideas have been used in the public sphere, via PR (itself an invention of Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew), to cold war propoganda and finally focus groups, giving a hefty and deserved kicking to hippies en route.
His new series kicked off at the weekend. Again it's looking at the "self", and, if I understood this correctly, how we've been taught to recognise a particular kind of self -individualistic, but also paranoid, uncooperative and self-serving. This makes us unhappy, unsurprisingly, and hopefully at some stage he'll tell us that there is another way! and another world is possible! and so on. That would be great.
Anyhow, this stuff was interesting, and will be commented on at greater length after epsiode 2, but there was a facsinating bit about mental ill health and its treatment. David Rosenhan was a psychiatrist inspired by the unorthodox ideas of RD Laing , the leader of the "anti psychiatry" movement. He believed the psychiatric establishment to be wholly unscientific, based on a social construct of what was normal. He conducted an experiment, whereby he and 7 others committed themselves to mental institutions saying they heard voices in their heads (all saying no more than "thump"). Beyond this, they were all to act normally. All were committed, and some stayed in the institutions for months, diagnosed with a range of conditions they did not have. In order to get out, they had to pretend they actually were ill, but getting better. The report of this experiment shocked the mental health establishment, and obviously caused real embarrassment to the instituions invlolved.
So much so, that, accusing Rosenhan of underhand tactics, the institutions requested he send more, anonymous fakes, and this time the would definitely spot them. He agreed, and, over the next few weeks, they proudly reported that they had spotted over 40 imposters, with a similar number of probables. Rosenhan had sent no imposters.
The obvious upshot of this is that extant methods for diagnosing the sane and the insane were exposed as, at the very least, incredibly error ridden, both in terms of sensitivity (spotting those who were mentally ill) and sensitivity (spotting those who weren't). The next bit of the documentary was, in a sense, even more interesting. Curtis explains the response of the psychiatric profession was essentially to redefine their role. Rather than looking at causes - bipolar disorder, schizophrenia etc - they moved to sypmtoms and behaviours. Taking the latter approach means that by ticking certain boxes a person can be called, for example, "Obsessive Compulsive" by definition.
And this is interesting to me because, as Curts points out, the result is that certain behaviours are normal, and desirable, and others, well, others are obsessive compulsive and weird. So checking your e-mail too often is weird, as it washing your hands too much, or constantly looking toward the door to see if anyone you know has just entered. Less flippantly, the permitted set of behaviors it is OK to exhibit is restricted by these definitions.
All of which makes me wonder - does this extend to depression as well? Curtis talked more of OCD and ADHD, with depression being better classed wiith schizophrenia as one of the illnesses old style psychiatry couldn't cure so no longer bothered with. But a common thread among the friends of mine who've beeen depressed, or anxious, was that they felt that this behaviour was not normal. Might it actually be OK to be anxious, or sad, at times? And would knowing that it was OK make it easier to take?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
The intro
Hello. This is the start of the blog. Welcome.
This blog is going to be about happiness and unhappiness, as the subtitle above states somewhat prosaically. It's kind of motivated by two thoughts. Firstly, I am increasingly noticing that people (generally) appear not to be very happy. Get on a tube, or a bus, or go into a shop, and you will see largely miserable faces. If you catch a snippet of a stranger's after work mobile phone call, it will almost certainly be unhappy in tone - complaining maybe, downright upset, possibly. A lot of my friends have, at one time or other, been unhappy. Secondly, all of this is in spite of the fact that all of our basic needs and more are catered to. No one's starving, are they? The whole country is undoubtedly better off than it was 50 years ago. The miserable mobile phone call is as likely as not into a new camera phone, possibly with personal organiser and GPS. So it can't be that.
So what is it, then?
This blog is going to be about happiness and unhappiness, as the subtitle above states somewhat prosaically. It's kind of motivated by two thoughts. Firstly, I am increasingly noticing that people (generally) appear not to be very happy. Get on a tube, or a bus, or go into a shop, and you will see largely miserable faces. If you catch a snippet of a stranger's after work mobile phone call, it will almost certainly be unhappy in tone - complaining maybe, downright upset, possibly. A lot of my friends have, at one time or other, been unhappy. Secondly, all of this is in spite of the fact that all of our basic needs and more are catered to. No one's starving, are they? The whole country is undoubtedly better off than it was 50 years ago. The miserable mobile phone call is as likely as not into a new camera phone, possibly with personal organiser and GPS. So it can't be that.
So what is it, then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)