February 27, 2003
THE DESERVING BORED:
Is boredom bad?: Forget novelty. Trying to escape monotony makes it worse. (Roy Rivenburg, February 22, 2003, LA Times)Curiously, boredom seems to be a modern ailment. The word didn't even exist in the English language until after 1750, says Patricia M. Spacks, author of "Boredom: The Literary History of a State of Mind" (University of Chicago Press, 1995). "If people felt bored before the late 18th century, they didn't know it," she writes.Once the concept had a name, it became universal. Philosophers ruminated over it. Teenagers whined about it. And psychologists churned out a blizzard of research.
"When we are bored," one scholar concluded, "our attitude toward time is altered, as it is in some dreamlike states. Time is endless, there is no distinction between past, present and future. There seems to be only an endless present." [...]
If TV isn't driving the boredom boom, what is? Theories abound. The alleged culprits include capitalist conspiracies, the decline of Christianity, repressed emotions and the Declaration of Independence (apparently, that nonsense about the pursuit of happiness has inspired the masses to seek constant pleasure and grow restless in its absence).
A more plausible hypothesis involves the rise of leisure time. For most of history, daily survival took so much effort that people didn't have the luxury of being bored, Beaber says.
Another crucial factor was a shift from people believing boredom was their own shortcoming to believing it was caused by outside forces. The transition began in the 1800s, says Spacks, who analyzed books, letters and other literature of the period. Boredom mutated from a personal failure ("It is our own fault if we ever know what ennui is," Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1787 letter to his daughter) to something that was inflicted by teachers, pastors, small-town life or other external influences. [...]
One way out of the trap was suggested by the late poet Joseph Brodsky in a 1989 college commencement address on the virtues of monotony. "When hit by boredom, let yourself be crushed by it; submerge, hit bottom," he said. "The sooner you hit bottom, the faster you surface."
That's what happened to Kristen Brooks. As part of the PBS series "Frontier House," she spent several months living like an Old West pioneer in Montana -- without TV, radio, telephone or Internet.
She compares the experience to that of a drug addict going sober. "During the first month, I felt almost a craving for diversions and excitement," she says. "I think the boredom was like going through withdrawals."
Once she got past it, an amazing calm and fulfillment settled over her. "I felt like I've never felt in my life," she says. "The clutter in my mind cleared out."
She adds: "The best part was after the show ended, because I still had all that calm and tranquillity from the frontier, but now with the luxuries of the modern world -- like hot showers and being able to go out to dinner."
Brooks, 29, was so enthralled by the experience that she has become a life coach, trying to steer others toward inner harmony "without them having to sell their possessions and go live in nature."
Riding out monotony long enough to reach "the other side of boredom" isn't easy, but it can be enlightening, according to psychologists, monks, Broadway actors and others who've done it.
Instead of rushing to fill the void with a new DVD or other distraction, people should "stop and reflect on the true reason for their boredom and then take appropriate action," psychiatrist Winter writes. "We can learn and grow from it."
Anthropologist Bateson says the constant quest for novelty means people miss out on the world around them: "It's a mistake to assume things are only stimulating if they're new. If you're in a meadow filled with birds singing and plants and insects, that's a stimulating place to be even though it'll be the same tomorrow." The trick is learning to experience familiar things in new ways, she says. The person who channel-surfs through life is "like the guy who goes from one woman to another. He's never going to learn to have a sustained relationship."
I'm with Jefferson on this one though for reasons that include leisure time. It does seem likely that in the past, when subsistence required maximum effort, folks presumably worked hard enough or were exhausted enough that they had little time to contemplate themselves. We, on the other hand, don't have much to do and are stuck with ourselves most of the time. For many (most?) people that must be a disheartening experience because, as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, there's no there there. They're unlikely ever to have thought deeply about anything, nor are they likely equipped to do so, neither intellectually nor educationally.
Why shouldn't it be terrifying to realize how shallow you are, how little you're made up of beyond your desires? And so folk glut themselves with drugs, alcohol, tv, the internet, whatever--anything to avoid thinking and avoid, especially, the thought of themselves.
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 27, 2003 9:41 PMThis is very interesting.
I, recently, learned how to breathe myself into an inner calm, focusing, in the end, on the art of breathing. Pretty soon I can feel my heart rate dramatically drop, the air smoothes out and my mind wanders very little. I become extremely focused. It's during this time when I don't want to sleep and I don't want to do anything except continue the meditation. Being in this state permanently would be great.
The problem is that having the patience to put myself in that state of mind requires discipline. I, too, have to put down the computer and turn the tv off, which are certainly somewhat unsubstantial yet entertaining stimulants worthy of this article's analysis.
I would suggest that much of boredom is caused by the information age and the constant craving driven by advertising and the media. We are bombarded with images and suggestions designed to make us want what we don't have, be where we don't live and be happy and having "fun" at all times. Who was it that referred to "fun" as the most trivial of human endeavors? I have forgotten his name, but I agree with the statement.
Posted by: Pat H at February 27, 2003 11:48 PMPatH:
The author Todd Gitlin very much agrees with you.
JFK once commented (almost certainly quoting somebody else) that, "The life of leisure is the hardest life of all." That has given me comfort for 20 years now.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at February 28, 2003 6:48 AMPresuming, of course, this boredom plague actually exists.
I am never bored, nor is my wife, nor any
adult I know. My kids occasionally whine about being bored because they have nothing to do--but that is hardly the same thing. And, in any event, fifteen minutes later they have forgotten to be bored.
I suspect this is really another case of, in the words of that great philospher, David Byrne, "the same as it ever was."
Regards,
Jeff Guinn
Actually, since I got a high-speed Internet connection I've never been bored. Curiously, my wife become more bored starting at that time.
Posted by: pj at February 28, 2003 8:05 AMFun fact for the Judds, the 1989 Brodsky speech mentioned was at my graduation from Dartmouth. The speech was fantastic, unlike any other graduation speech I have ever heard.
Posted by: Thom at February 28, 2003 9:22 AMJeff:
There's certainly been a change in how inner focused people have become--as witness the rise of psychology, y'all atheists, etc.. When men measured themselves against the Eternal and the World it must have been humbling and awe-inspiring. Measured against himself how can Man help but despair?
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
[but never boring]."
OJ:
That I am an atheist has nothing to do with my ability to ponder the world, or the universe, or existence.
I am just constitutionally disinclined to create a myth when faced with the unknowable.
For example, I would love nothing more than to be able to look forward to continued existence after my time on this planet is over. But just wanting it isn't sufficient for its existence.
Regards,
Jeff Guinn
Jeff - (1) If it's unknowable, how do you know it's a myth? (2) Agreed that if people just created religious beliefs themselves, perhaps out of wishful thinking, then those beliefs would be worthless. But few religious believers have created their religious ideas. Most believe their religious ideas were revealed by God
, not created by men.
Thus, your statements don't argue against Christians.
Jeff:
Nor is there any evidence that you've discarded myth--only certain myths.
OJ:
How many religions have there been? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? For Christianity to be true, then all the others have to be false.
And your basis for deciding (other than choosing were you where born) was?
Regards,
Jeff Guinn
Jeff -- for atheism to be true, all those other religions have to be false, too. So what's your point?
Posted by: pj at March 1, 2003 1:41 AMAh, yes, the prentices of London, always thinking
on the awesome ultimate. They never found
occasion to shove hot pokers up the rectums
of stray dogs, did they?
What a crock.
Harry:
There's always time for a good pig-sticking.
OJ:
My point is that theistic believers have concluded their particular belief is exclusive God-revealed fact, in the utter absence of any evidence, and often despite glaring contradictions. Especially the mutual contradiction the various sects and religions pose to each other. All religions have each decided their beliefs come directly from God; where they are mutually exclusive, how do you decide which one came from God, and which was made up?
The difference in atheism is not the absence of contradictions. Rather, it is the recognition that conclusions from ignorance (How did the universe come about? Don't know, therefore God did it. How did life start? Don't know, therefore God did it. What is that strange light in the sky? Don't know, must be extraterrestrials.) are beliefs and may not masquerade as fact.
At the existential level, atheism is a belief
that replaces conclusions from ignorance with a whole bunch of "don't knows." Does that mean atheism is the one right religious belief? Don't know. Are any
of the religious beliefs yet tried right? Don't know. I don't think that constitutes substituting one set of myths for another.
I don't think there has been much of a rise in atheism, nor will there ever be--humanity's understandable wish to ameliorate the awareness of mortality ensures that. (Contd...)
(Contd...)
Atheism's, no rational inquiry's--contribution has been to reveal certain claims of religious truth to be utterly false. (e.g., age of the earth, earth's position in the universe) The secularism that resulted has, in the Western world anyway, put pretty much put paid to the ability of certain revealed-by-God believers to impose upon revealed-by-God other believers.
So my point is: it is impossible to know which religion--including atheism--is true; it is equally impossible to know (with the odd rare exception, Communism, for instance) which religion is false. In this regard, atheism is a superior belief solely because acknowleding unknowability is not a particularly likely path to sectarian slaughter.
My statements don't argue against Christians, but they do argue against the ability to assert any particular philosophical truth value to Christianity. I do not deny for a moment that religions can have a utilitarian
truth value. In this respect, Christianity is far superior to, say, Islam. There is plenty of evidence for this conclusion.
And your basis for deciding on Christianity (other than choosing were you where born) was?
Apologies for rambling--on my computer the comment window is too small, and I don't have the intellectual horsepower this morning (Your response: particularly this morning...
) to keep that thought train on the tracks.
Regards,
Jeff Guinn
Jeff:
My argument is from reason rather than faith. Never mind God: the question is do you believe in morality? If yes, and the only way we've been able to find to ground a morality is in the absolute, whicvh no philosopher denies, then it's necessary to believe in an Absolute.
Now, you don't believe in morality (no impostion, random definitions of humanity, etc.) which is fine, especially in a society where you imbibed morality with mother's milk. But as Europe demonstrates, we do seem to reach a tipping point where folks, having lost anything in which to ground morality do in fact proceed to lose it and the freedoms it provides.
That's why I reserve the right of society to persecute those who fail to believe in those things which make that society possible.
Morality predates conscious philosophy by at
least thousands of years, so the philosophers'
unanimous agreement that morality requires
an Absolute is meaningless.
Where is the evidence that primitive morality
was based on an Absolute? That's not how
primitive people thought, yet they were
capable of moral behavior.
They had no morality but merelyt social codes and the dictates of overlords. We can have that too if you're willing to surrender to the state. It's unAmerican, but it brings peace and quiet.
Posted by: oj at March 1, 2003 9:20 PMOJ,
You can't reserve the right to persecute thought-crimes, our society puts that power far beyond your or anyone else's grasp. That "right" was left in the dustbin of history at this nation's founding, and if you think otherwise, you are truly clueless.
America's religiosity is purely a vountary phenomenon. Barring a cultural meltdown of truly massive proportions, our soil will never again bear the fruit of any religiously based authoritariabn regime. Give up on your Kraynack-ian fantasies of Christian overlordship, it is as likely to happen as the return of the 8-track tape.
RobertD:
Tell it to the Klan, the militias, the Hollywood blacklisted, Trent Lott, etc., etc., etc.--we'll always persecute thoughts, it's just an issue of which ones.