"Trauma," "Harm," "Abuse," "PTSD." What do these words mean now? I know what they meant to my dad's generation. (Hint: World War II.) For my dad, the emotional resilience you exhibit he expected from himself and from me, his son. You know who you are, so why should you care about the words or opinions of others who don't? This was simply…
"Trauma," "Harm," "Abuse," "PTSD." What do these words mean now? I know what they meant to my dad's generation. (Hint: World War II.) For my dad, the emotional resilience you exhibit he expected from himself and from me, his son. You know who you are, so why should you care about the words or opinions of others who don't? This was simply "understood."
Julia does not reveal what these words mean to her. What is clear, however, is that the cultural incentives have been reversed. Resilience no longer has social currency in much of the West. Being "harmed," or "marginalized," does. So, it should not be a surprise that the words in quotes above now encompass "trauma" like "microaggressions." Your law school exam containing "n....." is a risible example.
I think one reason why is because the social currency of victimhood confers power on victims. So, no surprise that the definition of who is a "victim" explodes. It's almost a competition now.
And what does this do to us as individuals and as a culture? We are more "anxious." There is more "trauma." "Harm" lurks around every corner. "PTSD" is now a weapon.
This is not healthy. (See Jonathan Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind.")
"social currency of victimhood confers power on victims. So, no surprise that the definition of who is a "victim" explodes. It's almost a competition now."
Right. And it offers an ever-present excuse for bad behaviour that few people will be willing to challenge. After all, who wants to be the jerk questioning somebody's trauma reaction? Even if they're obviously being disingenuous.
Resilience, I think, has been one of the casualties of the war on masculinity. And it's a fine line. Too much resilience *can* look a lot like the stoic, don't talk about your feelings, bottle everything up brand of manliness that breeds school shooters and wife-beaters. It's important for the manliest of men to know when and how to talk about their feelings.
But too little resilience gives us the fragile, self-obsessed, everything that doesn't make me feel "validated" is hate, mindset we're seeing today.
As Haidt put it, what doesn't kill you makes you weaker.
You’re right, it’s a fine line. We’re way over it.
Stoicism gets a bad rap. The mental approach you expressed in the post is stoic--focus on what you can control versus what you can’t. I am a huge fan of Epictetus. Stoicism has little to do with suppressing your emotions. To the contrary, it’s the one thing you CAN control. And yes, people should control their emotions. That doesn’t mean don’t express them, only that they are not an excuse for selfishness or bad behavior. That is Epictetus’ message.
Nor do I think that stoicism, properly understood, has anything to do with school shooters, who are usually emotionally stunted cowards, not stoics. Ditto wife beaters. They are the opposite of stoics.
Nor do I think that stoicism is necessarily masculine. I agree with second wave feminism that that is a harmful stereotype.
Resilience is a virtue that has no gender. Other than that, I fully agree with what you say, Steve.
I strongly believe Julia was using words like 'trauma' in a real and meaningful context — the machinations of a trigger disabling your higher cognitive functions, so that you are left acting on pure (and irrational given the trauma is in the past) counterproductive emotion, is almost like a brain injury and it absolutely needs to be taken into account for those whose trauma has left them frozen in a certain emotional time and place. We need more treatment options for these people. Of course the concept of trauma has been trivialised and over used, but in this conversation I think it is represented accurately as a big stumbling block in the way of the forward direction Steve QJ rightly points towards.
"We need more treatment options for these people."
Absolutely true. I think the question is also the degree to which society encourages people to lean into their feelings of pain and trauma, rather than pulling themselves out of them.
As you say, there need to be more and better options to help people to pull themselves out, but society also needs to stop incentivising people to find and exaggerate examples of trauma for virtue/victimhood points.
I've had countless conversations, for example, where I've called somebody out for exaggerating or lying about the "traumas" inherent in being a black person. But people try these lies and exaggerations because they can be used as justifications for all kinds of bad behaviour. And garner sympathy and defence from onlookers.
This isn't a "black' problem, of course. It's a human problem. We all learn, right from the time we're babies, that there are advantages to gaming people's sympathy. But it's become a bit of an epidemic lately. And ultimately, hurts the people doing it the most .
"Trauma," "Harm," "Abuse," "PTSD." What do these words mean now? I know what they meant to my dad's generation. (Hint: World War II.) For my dad, the emotional resilience you exhibit he expected from himself and from me, his son. You know who you are, so why should you care about the words or opinions of others who don't? This was simply "understood."
Julia does not reveal what these words mean to her. What is clear, however, is that the cultural incentives have been reversed. Resilience no longer has social currency in much of the West. Being "harmed," or "marginalized," does. So, it should not be a surprise that the words in quotes above now encompass "trauma" like "microaggressions." Your law school exam containing "n....." is a risible example.
I think one reason why is because the social currency of victimhood confers power on victims. So, no surprise that the definition of who is a "victim" explodes. It's almost a competition now.
And what does this do to us as individuals and as a culture? We are more "anxious." There is more "trauma." "Harm" lurks around every corner. "PTSD" is now a weapon.
This is not healthy. (See Jonathan Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind.")
"social currency of victimhood confers power on victims. So, no surprise that the definition of who is a "victim" explodes. It's almost a competition now."
Right. And it offers an ever-present excuse for bad behaviour that few people will be willing to challenge. After all, who wants to be the jerk questioning somebody's trauma reaction? Even if they're obviously being disingenuous.
Resilience, I think, has been one of the casualties of the war on masculinity. And it's a fine line. Too much resilience *can* look a lot like the stoic, don't talk about your feelings, bottle everything up brand of manliness that breeds school shooters and wife-beaters. It's important for the manliest of men to know when and how to talk about their feelings.
But too little resilience gives us the fragile, self-obsessed, everything that doesn't make me feel "validated" is hate, mindset we're seeing today.
As Haidt put it, what doesn't kill you makes you weaker.
You’re right, it’s a fine line. We’re way over it.
Stoicism gets a bad rap. The mental approach you expressed in the post is stoic--focus on what you can control versus what you can’t. I am a huge fan of Epictetus. Stoicism has little to do with suppressing your emotions. To the contrary, it’s the one thing you CAN control. And yes, people should control their emotions. That doesn’t mean don’t express them, only that they are not an excuse for selfishness or bad behavior. That is Epictetus’ message.
Nor do I think that stoicism, properly understood, has anything to do with school shooters, who are usually emotionally stunted cowards, not stoics. Ditto wife beaters. They are the opposite of stoics.
Nor do I think that stoicism is necessarily masculine. I agree with second wave feminism that that is a harmful stereotype.
Resilience is a virtue that has no gender. Other than that, I fully agree with what you say, Steve.
I strongly believe Julia was using words like 'trauma' in a real and meaningful context — the machinations of a trigger disabling your higher cognitive functions, so that you are left acting on pure (and irrational given the trauma is in the past) counterproductive emotion, is almost like a brain injury and it absolutely needs to be taken into account for those whose trauma has left them frozen in a certain emotional time and place. We need more treatment options for these people. Of course the concept of trauma has been trivialised and over used, but in this conversation I think it is represented accurately as a big stumbling block in the way of the forward direction Steve QJ rightly points towards.
Great convo all up.
"We need more treatment options for these people."
Absolutely true. I think the question is also the degree to which society encourages people to lean into their feelings of pain and trauma, rather than pulling themselves out of them.
As you say, there need to be more and better options to help people to pull themselves out, but society also needs to stop incentivising people to find and exaggerate examples of trauma for virtue/victimhood points.
I've had countless conversations, for example, where I've called somebody out for exaggerating or lying about the "traumas" inherent in being a black person. But people try these lies and exaggerations because they can be used as justifications for all kinds of bad behaviour. And garner sympathy and defence from onlookers.
This isn't a "black' problem, of course. It's a human problem. We all learn, right from the time we're babies, that there are advantages to gaming people's sympathy. But it's become a bit of an epidemic lately. And ultimately, hurts the people doing it the most .
This is golden Miguelitro. Not healthy indeed