Of course there are real problems and real dangers. Nonetheless, most Americans are happy with their own lives. This reflects the fact that there are many, many things right with our society. Moreover, we solve problems all the time. We have a strong tradition of improving, which is as active at this moment as it ever has been.
It is a psychological quirk of human beings that we pay more attention to threats than to blessings. This makes us think that a large proportion of our life conditions are dangerous. Yet a calm inventory of each of the people and institutions that we rely on each day would clearly show that most of what we depend on is actually working.
In my judgment, the people who spread fear are a greater danger to the happiness of society than are the people and circumstances they are afraid of.
Friday, October 07, 2011
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
The Close Parallel in the Sociology of the Virtues and of Religion
I was struck by a helpful analogy between two literatures that I have been reading.
Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, says that the main end of life is happiness. Happiness, he says, is an action of the soul in accordance with virtue. The whole middle of the book is a detailed consideration of the action involved in cultivating each of the main virtues.
And then in the last chapter he throws a curveball. He says that there is a virtue that is different from all these active virtues. It is higher, and ultimately makes those who can achieve it the happiest of all. This is the virtue of contemplation. Contemplation is what the gods do often, and in contemplating we come as close to being like the gods as human beings can.
The sociology of religion finds over and over again that the religion has many good effects for religious people. The main good effects come to those who participate in religious institutions, becoming part of a network who help one another and who spur each other to help others, as well. This leads some people to say that religious institutions are really just social clubs, and the same benefit could be had from all kinds of secular social clubs.
However, in the last chapter, as it were, the sociologists of religion find that there is a kind of religious experience that is different from all this social relationship practice. It is higher, and ultimately makes those who achieve it the most fulfilled of all. This is the practice of contemplating and experiencing God.
Nearly everyone contemplates sometimes. Nearly everyone contemplates God and experiences the transcendent sometimes. However, only what Max Weber calls the virtuosi make a habit of contemplation (like the gods) and make a habit of contemplating God.
Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, says that the main end of life is happiness. Happiness, he says, is an action of the soul in accordance with virtue. The whole middle of the book is a detailed consideration of the action involved in cultivating each of the main virtues.
And then in the last chapter he throws a curveball. He says that there is a virtue that is different from all these active virtues. It is higher, and ultimately makes those who can achieve it the happiest of all. This is the virtue of contemplation. Contemplation is what the gods do often, and in contemplating we come as close to being like the gods as human beings can.
The sociology of religion finds over and over again that the religion has many good effects for religious people. The main good effects come to those who participate in religious institutions, becoming part of a network who help one another and who spur each other to help others, as well. This leads some people to say that religious institutions are really just social clubs, and the same benefit could be had from all kinds of secular social clubs.
However, in the last chapter, as it were, the sociologists of religion find that there is a kind of religious experience that is different from all this social relationship practice. It is higher, and ultimately makes those who achieve it the most fulfilled of all. This is the practice of contemplating and experiencing God.
Nearly everyone contemplates sometimes. Nearly everyone contemplates God and experiences the transcendent sometimes. However, only what Max Weber calls the virtuosi make a habit of contemplation (like the gods) and make a habit of contemplating God.
Monday, October 03, 2011
Is Marriage for White People? Is a Pretty Good Analysis
The black marriage rate has declined precipitously in the past half century. A gap has opened between black and white marriage rates which was not true two generations ago. Similarly, a gap has opened between the out-marriage rate (that is, marrying outside their race) of black women and black men, which was not true two generations ago.
Banks' main conclusion is that the imbalance in the relationship market is the main culprit. There are many more black women ready for marriage than there are black men. This lets black men, as a group, get the benefits of marriage, including children, without the obligations.
Banks concludes that if black women were more willing to marry out, the power balance would become more even. In the end, more black men and women would marry each other.
Banks' main conclusion is that the imbalance in the relationship market is the main culprit. There are many more black women ready for marriage than there are black men. This lets black men, as a group, get the benefits of marriage, including children, without the obligations.
Banks concludes that if black women were more willing to marry out, the power balance would become more even. In the end, more black men and women would marry each other.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
The Two Parties Agree: Democrats Care More About the Poor, Republicans Care More About the Rich
There is a kind of balance in this division of labor, with each party holding down their end of the seesaw.
People of both parties and no party agree that millionaires should be taxed more. Even about half of Republicans agree on this point.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Csikszentmihalyi's Disappointing "Flow"
One of the most cited works in the positive psychology canon is Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi's Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. I think the main idea is sound and helpful. But the book itself is surprisingly and unnecessarily negative.
"Flow" is what we feel when we are having what he calls an optimal experience. He describes these as “when a person’s body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile.” The flow channel is an optimal path between anxiety and boredom, where your skills and your challenges meet. The result of experiencing flow is that your own consciousness becomes more complex.
Most of Csikszentmihalyi's examples come from avocations - music, art, athletics, crafts. He says that we can experience flow in our jobs as well, though most of his examples are drawn from the white collar professions. It was surprising to me that he did not treat marriage or childrearing as common settings for flow - the social relationships at the core of positive psychology. Instead, the social relationships chapter was mostly about friendship.
Most of positive psychology treats religion as the most reliable setting, outside of family life, for positive relations, for serving others and feeling that your life is a meaningful part of a larger whole.
Csikszentmihalyi, on the other hand, pronounces religion false, and worse. He simply declares at the outset that the universe has no meaning, that there is no God or any other kind of creating or superintending power. The meaning we find in our lives we put there ourselves. And this polemic against religion and any form of meaningful universe is not confined to the opening ideological chapters, but is shot through the book. Moreover, he takes it for granted that "people today" can't believe that old religion. He cites Muslims from the Gulf States as the kind of people he has met who come from cultures where traditional faith still seems plausible.
I had the feeling at the World Congress of Positive Psychology, where Csikszentmihalyi was honored along with the other Founding Fathers of the movement, that his position was somewhat outside or askew the main stream of positivity. I now have a better sense of why.
"Flow" is what we feel when we are having what he calls an optimal experience. He describes these as “when a person’s body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile.” The flow channel is an optimal path between anxiety and boredom, where your skills and your challenges meet. The result of experiencing flow is that your own consciousness becomes more complex.
Most of Csikszentmihalyi's examples come from avocations - music, art, athletics, crafts. He says that we can experience flow in our jobs as well, though most of his examples are drawn from the white collar professions. It was surprising to me that he did not treat marriage or childrearing as common settings for flow - the social relationships at the core of positive psychology. Instead, the social relationships chapter was mostly about friendship.
Most of positive psychology treats religion as the most reliable setting, outside of family life, for positive relations, for serving others and feeling that your life is a meaningful part of a larger whole.
Csikszentmihalyi, on the other hand, pronounces religion false, and worse. He simply declares at the outset that the universe has no meaning, that there is no God or any other kind of creating or superintending power. The meaning we find in our lives we put there ourselves. And this polemic against religion and any form of meaningful universe is not confined to the opening ideological chapters, but is shot through the book. Moreover, he takes it for granted that "people today" can't believe that old religion. He cites Muslims from the Gulf States as the kind of people he has met who come from cultures where traditional faith still seems plausible.
I had the feeling at the World Congress of Positive Psychology, where Csikszentmihalyi was honored along with the other Founding Fathers of the movement, that his position was somewhat outside or askew the main stream of positivity. I now have a better sense of why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
