I am on a flight to Chicago and considering an article in the Globe about a recent narcissistic tendency among our (American) youth. I suppose it's easy to condemn the current generation's non-chalance about our consumerism, but this article drove home some specific points about expectations of happiness versus misery generated by this narcissism.
The article highlights a study conducted by a team lead by Jean Twenge at San Diego State University: "The researchers describe their study as the largest ever of its type and say students' inventory scores have risen steadily since the test was introduced in 1982. By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores, 30 percent more than in 1982."
I am also in the middle of Bill McKibben's new book on the Deep Economy, which also tries to weigh materialism and happiness. McKibben talks about consumption models that allows the following equation: "the most economically productive citizen is a cancer patient who totals his car on the way to meet with his divorce lawyer". Though I gotta think there's a cheaper way to remove oneself as an economic burden than destroying a car and holding up traffic, I take his point: our society values things on their economic merits.
And, of course, our nation's materialism is built on the labor of others; others who are paid a pittance of the money we actually spend. Another example referenced by McKibben (from "Not on the Label" by Felicity Lawrence) describes a Ugandan coffee worker who was told the cost of Starbuck's coffee: his eyes welled with tears when he realized people willingly paid the equivalent of 5,000 Ugandan shillings per cup, and he made about 200 shillings -- per kilo!
I think these two memes intersect at some dark point where the set of items that define our 'self' is so large, that we loose ourselves in that crowd. For example, McKibben compares a young Chinese factory worker's intense reaction to receiving one plush toy, to his own daughter's bland satisfaction in having another to add to her pile.
The implication of the Globe article is that the constant reinforcement of "specialness" creates a kind of needy, compulsive behavior that I think of as an addiction. And I've been pondering solutions, assuming 'cold turkey' is not a viable option.
Unexpectedly, I flash to the reaction of our students to our school's dress code -- at every opportunity they stretch it, do a lawyer-act on it, loophole it, and otherwise ignore it. There are two topics we cannot escape at Admin Team meetings: parking and dress code. The kids really hate being told what to wear (and where to park their increasingly large vehicles).
But I'm starting to see this as an addict's dysfunction. An addict's behavior, our psychologist friends tell us, is marked by an inability to establish boundaries. I understand the concept as: if you can't deny yourself some random thing or behavior (fill in the blank), you can't break your dependance.
So it really bothers me when I have to explain or justify the dress code, because the reason to enforce it is basically existential. If I can't trust the kids to follow a simple, clear dress code, how far can I trust them?
In fact, the general experience of air travel provides example after example of people not paying attention to simple requests. People don't wait for their seating number to be called, they crowd the jetway door. People don't turn off their cell phones when asked, they squeeze in one more minute. I've been watching them all day. It's astounding.
Where does all this mental wandering get us? For me, this is about a generational justice: that we have squandered the earth's bounty, imperiled the earth's future, and taught our kids how to fiddle while the planet burns for the next 100 years. Yeah, that's about as dark as it could possibly get.
Well, but if we get this right, we will have basically stared down and solved the most incredibly large and daunting world problem, ever. What kind of world would be on the other side of "done"? Imagine a world all fixed up, sustainable, with power and food and water -- and justice. What else is there? I think we start building the Starship Enterprise and looking for Vulcans at that point.
The first step to recovery is recognition. And, of course, I'm not immune to the addiction. I'm flying over the New York farms described in McKibben's book, adding to the CO2, thumb-typing this blog post into my Palm Treo.
Hi, my name is Winston, and I love my car.
2 comments:
So much to say as a member of Gen-Narcissism, but realizing a textual analysis would be overwhelming to formulate.
Couple quick thoughts:
1) If the dress code is so "clear" then how is it that students are able to "lawyer" around it? Is it a case of bad-faith arguments on there part, or is it rather that they employ the legalistic regulations to defeat the "spirit" of the code?
2) What's wrong with thinking "If I ruled the world, it would be a better place," "I think I am a special person," and "I can live my life any way I want to." Anyone involved in politics thinks the first, the second is embedded with notions of diversity, uniqueness, and the very essence of humanity, and the last is a restatement of the American dream.
3) You seem to place the blame on youth, but it seems to me the real lesson is that parents are the one's who screwed it up.
4) You'll notice the "narcissism" score has been going up every year since the study began. How is it that those damn 1980's narcissists managed to create the internet revolution?
Again, why are these tendencies BAD for society? Saying they don't appreciate getting an extra toy or want a bigger car is just Economics 101. People want to maximize their utility, and the marginal utility of something decreases as you get more of it.
5) In Starbuck's defense I would only say that if they hadn't built a global supply chain and thousands of stores I doubt anyone would be buying his coffee (perhaps some locals who would be paying far less than 200/kg). He sells a commoditized raw material without any value added that has to be shipped to the other side of the world to be worth anything.
Running now. Hope your West Coast trip went well.
-David
David -- Thanks as always for the feedback.
First, let me say, I'm not blaming anyone, just commenting on ideas that are floating around and trying to tie them together. I blame myself for being just as narcissistic as anyone, and am not trying to judge a person or a generation.
The dress code at school is very clear, but very unpopular. While it's easy to erode the edges of it (you can wear black jeans, just not bue jeans), there are some things that are crystal: you can't wear a hats indoors. Several things have intersected to make the indoor wearing of hats common-place: lack of enforcement, defiance in the face of enforcement (and the fear of confrontation that follows the defiance), and disdain for the code. And the loophole becomes the new code.
In any case, like the old Mass Blue Laws, they are often ignored and one wonders why we have a dress code, or bother to discuss the dress code any more. And that's the confluence of "narcissism" and "The Deep Economy": the code was created within a community with a different set of values. For me, I want to rediscover the value rather than run holes thru the code: I'm at the school, I value the community that is the school, the community has a code, I will follow the code. The community means more to me than a hat.
But I don't want to be simply nostalgic, if you read McKibben's book, you'll undestand the angle -- I think this may be the point at which we can start to rebuild a communal infrastructure that's, for the moment, full of (loop) holes.
It may be a bolt from outta the blue: you take off your hat becasue you *want* to show respect to others.
Ka-pow!
I do agree that narcissism and self-centeredness are, basically, extreme expressions of our instinct for self-survival. Sure, there is something positive to be said about *surviving* (ahem), but beyond that, there is a general loss of any sense of scale, and in that loss of scale, a loss of some sense of justice -- justice in that we value each other, too.
That justice also starts with each individual being able to say: I'm going to do something, or stop doing this something, so that others may benefit in some meaningful way. McKibben would argue that it's not just about maximizing *utility*, but about maximizing *happiness*, that happiness is a shared thing and that there have to be some boundaries there. Beyond some point there are diminishing returns.
One plush toy makes me really happy; but, twenty plush toys does not make me twenty times happier.
I'd encourge you to *read McKibben's book*. It's right up your alley.
The west coast trip went very well -- it looks like we're moving to Berkeley!
Go Hoyas!
--Winston
Post a Comment