Essays

Why Genetically Modified Foods are Nothing to Fear and Should be Explored to the Full Extent

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Ramizah Tayiba, October 21, 2023

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that over 795 million people are malnourished globally, 98% of whom are from developing countries. With the global population expected to rise to 9.7 billion by 2050 (UN), it will be challenging to produce enough food for the current population, let alone the expected growth in population (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 

It is also worth mentioning that food production has become increasingly complicated with the decrease in arable land and crop yield. The FAO found that the amount of arable land available for food production per person is expected to decrease from 0.242 hectares to 0.18 hectares. Furthermore, a 2016 study found that the current rate of increase in crop yield is 1.7% when it needs to be 2.4% to meet the demands of population growth (Oliver.) 

With such damming numbers, it is clear that agriculture and food production need to develop in order to meet expected demands and make up for losses due to climate change-induced disasters and a decrease in soil fertility. Several promising technologies have been developed in order to remedy the situation but none are perhaps more controversial than genetically modified organisms. 

Genetically modified foods, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are organisms whose genetic material is engineered in a laboratory to express a certain trait obtained and transferred from another organism. An example of this is when antifreeze protein genes found in winter flounder fish are transferred to tomato crops to increase the plant’s frost tolerance.

With such control over the outcome of crop yields, GM foods certainly have great potential. Genetically modified foods hit the market in 1994 and their ethics and safety have been fiercely debated ever since. Opinions about GMOs range from believing such technology is the cure to world hunger, malnourishment, and the impending threat of climate change to believing such technology can lead to long-term health consequences. 

Interestingly, according to a Pew Research study, the debate on GMOs seems to have a wider gap between the public and scientific sentiment than any other controversial topics such as vaccines and nuclear power. Surprisingly, only 37% of the American public are of the opinion that GMOs are safe to eat compared to 88% of AAAS scientists who think GMOs are safe to eat (Pew Research Center). Such a range of opinions demonstrates the conversation surrounding this technology is distorted and misleading. 

Despite the fact that genetically modified foods are not the silver bullet to all of the world’s food problems, the research and the application of this technology are incredibly important as it has the potential to aid in the very necessary fight to revolutionize farming, aid in the fight to end malnutrition, and contrary to popular belief, there is sufficient research stating it is not dangerous to humans health and harbors no long term consequences. 

The biggest objections to GM foods stem from the fear of their long-term health effects. The process of genetically modifying foods can seem mystifying and even sinister to some as the technique is thought to be playing against nature and the natural order. Anti-GMO advocates have voiced their fears of potential long-term diseases for humans and animals from GMOs. 

Such a lack of awareness regarding the biological techniques involved in genetic engineering breeds uncertainty and fear in this technology which is then reflected in polls. The Pew Research Center found that Americans who believe that GM crops are safe for consumption are in the minority (37%). Fears surrounding the health effects of GM foods exist in large amounts and extend beyond the United States. A 2016 survey conducted in China found that 47% of respondents viewed GM foods as a form of bioterrorism and a threat to safety. Furthermore, an overwhelming 60% of survey respondents in Poland opposed the production and distribution of genetically modified foods (Evanega et al). 

It is understandable that new technology will be questioned due to concerns regarding health, however, research conducted over the past decades has confirmed that genetically modified foods pose no more health risks than their non-GM counterparts. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which subjects all foodstuffs through rigorous safety inspections, has officially stated that a genetically modified crop poses the same level of health threats as any traditionally grown crop (Rudolph). 

GM crops can also be engineered to be more nutritious. One promising project developed by Swiss and German researchers, “Golden Rice,” involves transferring specific genes from corn and harmless bacteria to increase the amount of beta carotene, a key ingredient to make vitamin A in the human body, in rice crops. Such a crop would be greatly beneficial in a world where, according to the World Health Organization, a vitamin A deficiency causes a quarter to half a million cases of childhood blindness, especially in Southeast Asia and Africa. This GM product which has been made available, partly due to Biotech companies waiving the patent rights, is economically effective and efficient for mass distribution as it enhances the specific nutrients lacking in the consumer, resulting in more nutrients in less volume (Jamil). “Golden Rice” is one of several GM foods that are in development that have the potential to enhance the nutritional value of food without increasing the quantity, further demonstrating the usefulness of this technology and supporting the belief that research and investments in this field should continue. 

Another advantage of genetically modifying crops in a laboratory is having the capability to engineer the crop to be repellent to certain pests eliminating the need for pesticide use. According to a study published by the National Library of Medicine, GM foods and biotechnological techniques have reduced the use of chemical pesticides by 37% (Klümper et al). Research has shown that some pesticides have negative health effects on humans with a greater effect on farmers and pesticide applicators due to greater exposure. Short-term effects of pesticides can include rashes, blisters, nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea. Long-term or chronic effects can include cancer, birth defects, neurological and development toxicity, and reproductive harm (Californians for Pesticide Reform). Additionally, the pesticide has adverse effects on the environment as its use can contaminate surrounding bodies of water, soil, and vegetation while also posing a threat to non-target wildlife and plants such as fish, birds, and insects, that are crucial for a functioning ecosystem (Aktar et al). While pesticides do repel pests from crops, it is still imperative that an alternative method of crop protection is adopted to protect consumers from the health effects of pesticides. GM foods provide such a solution as biotechnological techniques can engineer crops to repel incoming pests without the use of pesticides. 

One such widespread example is the utilization of BT, or Bacillus thuringiensis. These crops include the common corn, cotton, potato, and tobacco. Such crops are engineered to carry the genes of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis which is found in soil and is toxic to certain harmful insects, specifically, insects from the Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera, and Nematoda order upon ingestion. The genetic modification of crops to include the BT bacteria within its DNA sequence eliminates the need for pesticide use, minimizing pesticide exposure to farmers (Abbas). Such success stories demonstrate the great potential of GM foods, which help to ameliorate fears and further strengthen the argument that such technology should be explored to the full extent. 

It is also worth noting that more realistic voices from the fight to end world hunger correctly point out that global malnutrition is not necessarily caused by a lack of food, but rather not being able to afford food. Most of the world’s malnourished reside in developing countries with unstable or weak economies where being able to afford nutritious food is beyond the economic capabilities of most. Such a problem requires an economic solution not agro-technical As mentioned, the world doesn’t suffer from a lack of food. In fact, global grain production alone can provide 4.3 pounds of food per person, per day (Jamil). While this food exists, it does not mean that it is secure. The decrease in nutrient-rich soil and the constant threat of climate change have led to farming irregularities, disrupting food production in many parts of the world. 

According to the UN Environment Programme, 23 hectares of arable land is lost to drought or desertification, not including the land lost to urbanization. In Georgia for example, 60% of the nation’s arable land has been rated as low or middle quality for food production, while 35% is rated as too degraded to produce food (UNEP.) In addition to losing land for agriculture, food production is also threatened by climate change. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, climate change threatens global agricultural productivity as it causes irregular precipitation patterns, warmer temperatures, and water shortages which complicates farming (US EPA). 

While it is important to acknowledge that poverty is the main cause of world hunger and not lack of food, it is equally important to acknowledge the current food supply is under threat by climate change, desertification, and urbanization, and therefore new methods of farming need to be adopted to withstand climate change induced consequences and to maximize crop yields in smaller farming areas. GM foods can be a promising tool to ameliorate some of these problems. 

According to a study published by the National Library of Medicine, GM technology has increased crop yields by 22%, with most of its concentration based in developing countries (Klümper et al). Another study that lists the agricultural benefits of GM foods, states that between 1992-2012, there was an increase of more than 370 million tons of crops in the United States, one-seventh of which has been attributed to genetically modified foods. The study goes on to state that between 1996-2013, an estimated additional 138 million tons of soybeans, 274 million tons of corn, 21.7 million tons of cotton lint, and 8 million canola have been produced through biotechnology. To produce equivalent amounts of this food without the use of biotechnology would require an increase of 11% of arable land, further demonstrating the efficiency of GM foods (Zhang et al). This example demonstrates that GM technology has the potential to withstand the threat of arable land loss as it can produce larger crop yields in a smaller farming area without adding additional stress to the environment. 

In addition to being engineered to produce larger crop yields, GM technology can also create drought-resistant plants. Droughts have become increasingly prevalent due to climate change which threatens current and future agricultural productivity. Genetically engineering crops to be more resistant to water shortage and drought can protect crop yields from dry seasons. Researchers have developed a method of creating drought-resistant crops that involves inserting genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus Subtillis, which activates a protein that alleviates the damaging effects of drought into crop DNA. These genetically modified crops are more tolerant to water shortages than non-GM foods which ensures their ability to grow despite potential threats of droughts (USDA). 

Given the immense possibilities of genetically modified foods, it is imperative that research and application of this technology continue to overcome the challenges surrounding the food supply and world hunger. All technology has limitations. In the case of GM food, it is by far not the quick fix to all the world’s food problems and cannot alleviate the economic obstacles that exist between people and food. Despite its limitations, GM foods still remain an invaluable tool in the very necessary fight to revolutionize farming and agriculture as it results in more nutritional foods in smaller quantities. It is unfortunate that GM technology is still viewed by the public as unsafe despite the fact that the overwhelming scientific consensus not only agrees on its safety but champions its widespread use. Given the plethora of benefits that this technology provides, it is important that acceptance and development of GM become commonplace and that it is paired with other new and sustainable practices to protect the world’s current and future food stock.

Bibliography 

1. Klümper, Wilhelm, and Qaim, Matin. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. 

2. Zhang, Chen, et al. “Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems.” Food Science and Human Wellness, vol. 5, no. 3, 2016, pp. 116-123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2016.04.002. 

3. Aktar, Md., et al. “Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards.” Interdisciplinary Toxicology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7. 

4. Abbas, Mohamed. “Genetically engineered (modified) crops (Bacillus thuringiensis crops) and the world controversy on their safety.” Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, vol. 28, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-018-0051-2. 

5. Klümper, Wilhelm, and Qaim, Matin. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. 

6. Russell, A. “GMOs and their contexts: A comparison of the potential and actual performance of GM crops in a local agricultural setting.” Geoforum, vol. 39, no. 1, 2008, pp. 213-222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.04.001. 

7. Evanega, Sarah, et al. “The state of the ‘GMO’ debate – toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?” GM Crops & Food, vol. 13, no. 1, 2021, pp. 38-49, https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243.

8. Jamil, Kaiser. “Biotechnology – A Solution to Hunger?” UN Chronicle, https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/biotechnology-solution-hunger. 9. Rudolph, Cameron. “Are GMOs Safe?” Michigan State University, 15 Aug. 2018, https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/are-gmos-safe. 

10. “World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100.” Department of Economic and Social Affairs, https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-b illion-2100. 

11. Bent, Elizabeth. “Not All GMO Plants Are Created Equally: It’s the Trait, Not the Method, That’s Important.” Phys Org, https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gmo-equally-trait-method-important.html#:~:text=The%2 0so%2Dcalled%20%22fish%20tomato,present%20in%20the%20fish%20genome. 

12. “Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food supply#:~:text=Climate%20change%20can%20disrupt%20food,result%20in%20reduced %20agricultural%20productivity. 

13. “Every Minute, We Lose 23 Hectares of Arable Land Worldwide to Drought and Desertification.” UN Environmental Programme, 12 Feb. 2018, 

14. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/fridayfact-every-minute-we-lose-23-hectare s-arable-land-worldwide-drought. 

15. Oliver MJ. Why we need GMO crops in agriculture. Mo Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;111(6):492-507. PMID: 25665234; PMCID: PMC6173531. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173531/

16. “Pesticides and Human Health.” Californians for Pesticide Reform, https://www.pesticidereform.org/pesticides-human-health/#:~:text=Examples%20of%20a cute%20health%20effects,disruption%20of%20the%20endocrine%20system. 

17. “Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Foods and Trust in Scientists Connected with These Foods.” Pew Research Center, 1 Dec. 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modif ied-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/. 

18. Mcfadden, Johnathan. “Drought-Tolerant Corn in the United States: Research, Commercialization, and Related Crop Production Practices.” Economic Research Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 13 Mar. 2019, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/march/drought-tolerant-corn-in-the-united-s tates-research-commercialization-and-related-crop-production-practices/.

Food Insecurity in Jewish Communities

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Brian Hakimi, October 7, 2023

The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis which had a profound impact on the contemporary world. We have all witnessed the lingering effects of the pandemic on the United States; many stores and restaurants were forced to close their doors, and the cost of basic necessities has dramatically increased—especially for that of food. Naturally, this resulted in an exponential rise regarding the rate of food insecurity in the United States (Kakaei). Although the worst of the pandemic is said to be behind us, its effects on society remain extremely prevalent; many people are still struggling to make ends meet, as the cost of living remains at the elevated state it was placed in by the pandemic. This is reflected in the consumer price index, a principal measure for inflation rates in the United States, which increased exponentially from 2020 to 2021; the CPI skyrocketed from 1.4% to 7.0% in just this one year and it has remained at that level ever since (Hicks). 

Fortunately, the United States government has programs in place to assist people who are struggling with food insecurity. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently runs a federally funded program known as TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance Program), which was designed to provide low-income households with food at no additional cost. TEFAP, along with other government sponsored programs, certainly help many families across the United States put food on the table. However, TEFAP has not been able to help everyone in need of food security assistance as the food they provide cannot be consumed by everyone.

One particular group of people which this applies to are religiously observant Jewish people, who are an ethnoreligious group of people located all around the world. One prominent belief held by Jewish people is that the food they eat must be deemed  “kosher,” which restricts the types of food they are allowed to consume. Unfortunately, TEFAP does not provide many food options that are compliant with Jewish laws, meaning that impoverished Jews struggle to receive the necessary assistance from TEFAP. An article published by the Met Council—a New York based, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing kosher food for families in need—outlines why Jewish communities, as well as other communities that follow dietary restrictions, are in the situation they are currently in; “Our nation’s emergency feeding system is not designed to meet the needs of kosher and halal observant households” (4). The fact that food insecure Jewish communities are unable to receive the proper assistance because the USDA does not provide enough kosher food options is unjust, and it is essential that the USDA provides more kosher food options; not only are Jewish people struggling just as much as everyone else during these unprecedented times, but eating kosher food is extremely important to their cultural identity and an integral aspect of Judaism.

As mentioned before, people who are observant of Judaism are only allowed to eat food that falls under the category of being kosher. In order for a given food item to be considered kosher, it must follow a certain set of dietary regulations. A peer reviewed research paper published by Nature goes into depth on the requirements for food to be considered kosher; this includes the fact that the animal in question must be kosher, the animal must be killed in a certain manner, among other requirements (Mortas et. al). Additionally, it is prohibited under Judaism to consume any food that contains pork or any pig derivatives; any food that is even suspected to have traces of pork or pig derivatives cannot be deemed as kosher, even if every other aspect of the food follows the proper regulations (Mortas et. al). This process is extremely deliberate, and it is of utmost importance to religiously observant people that the food they consume follows these guidelines. In addition to this, a supervising process must take place during the production of kosher food, which contributes to its higher cost; this supervision is conducted by a certified Rabbi, who must be associated with a kosher supervising agency (Mandel). The manner in which the animals are raised and killed also contributes to the escalated cost of kosher food. In order for the animal to be kosher, it must be healthy and treated with care while it is being raised. Furthermore, the blade that is used to kill the animal must be as sharp as possible in order to ensure that the animal is inflicted with the least amount of pain possible (Moshe). These aspects of the production of kosher food naturally result in it being more costly overall, as these supervision and nurturing processes are reflected in the final price of kosher products.

This problem has hit closer to home than ever, as it is something that I am experiencing first-hand in my own life. Over the past couple of years, I have witnessed the price of food in the kosher restaurants in my area skyrocket to levels that I would have never thought were possible. This increased cost is likely due to supply chain issues, meaning that, overall, Jewish people have much less access to kosher food (Hanoka). I feel very fortunate that my family has been able to withstand this extreme rise in the cost of kosher food. However, other families are not as fortunate as mine, as I am seeing first-hand other people in my town feel the effects of this inflation on their cost of living. When taking this into consideration, I can only imagine the difficulties Jewish people in even more impoverished areas must be going through during these difficult times.

Not only is kosher food generally more expensive than non-kosher food, but the pandemic has affected the cost of kosher products to a significantly greater degree than non-kosher products. An article published by The Jewish Chronicle (a Jewish newspaper) estimated that the price of kosher food had increased by roughly 25% in 2022, which is around four times greater than the price increase of non-kosher food. Additionally, the Jewish charity GIFT (Give It Forward Today) has noticed a remarkable increase in the number of Jewish families that require support since the pandemic began, which certainly makes sense when taking the drastic inflation into account (Doherty). The fact that the cost of living for Jewish people has increased to such a ridiculously high degree indicates that food insecure Jewish people require support more than ever, which further proves why the USDA needs to implement more programs and policies that will cater to their needs.

Fortunately, organizations such as the Met Council and GIFT are able to provide a good number of impoverished Jewish families with the support  they need. However, these organizations can only do so much—whether or not this issue can be solved is ultimately up to the federal and state governments since they have the necessary funds and resources to provide food security support to all of the impoverished Jewish families and communities across the nation. If the proper measures are taken by the USDA to cater to the needs of all these people, then the support they provide, along with the support that is provided by these organizations, can help so many struggling Jewish Americans.

Overall, food insecure Jewish people are in desperate need of support. Although the assistance of other organizations would help tremendously, gaining more aid from the USDA would be especially impactful since they are directly linked to the federal government. Since keeping kosher is a fundamental aspect of the cultural and religious identity of Jewish people, for them to disregard this belief would be a major violation of Judaic principles; therefore, eating non-kosher food is simply not an option for the religiously observant families and communities. Additionally, the effect of the pandemic on the general price of kosher food does not make it any easier for these people. On top of the inherently greater costs of kosher food incurred by the supervising process and the fostering of the animals, the price of kosher food was inflated by the pandemic to a far greater degree than non-kosher food; due to this, the cost of living for religiously observant Jews has generally become far more expensive than for non-observant people.

The previously mentioned article published by the Met Council does suggest some potential solutions to this problem. One of the main resolutions suggested by the Met Council is that the USDA should establish an office which is specifically geared towards addressing the dietary needs of these communities. More specifically, the purpose of this office would be to oversee the process of making sure that healthy, culturally compliant food reaches these communities (14). This is an excellent idea, as dedicating a specific subsection of the USDA to address how kosher (or other dietary restricted food) can be made available to low-income families seems to be a very effective and efficient way of helping the problem. The Met Council also revealed that the USDA are simply not familiar enough with the dietary restrictions that are associated with religions such as Judaism, so they typically do not have the right programs to address the needs of these communities (4). Ultimately, the best way to address this crisis on a large scale would be to spread awareness of this issue. This can be accomplished if we all come together as a community and further educate ourselves and others on the beliefs of not just Jewish communities, but all other communities of people who observe some sort of dietary restriction.

Works Cited

Doherty, Rosa. “Jewish Children Going to Bed Hungry in Kosher Cost of Living Crisis.” The Jewish Chronicle, 26 May 2022, https://www.thejc.com/news/news/jewish-children-going-to-bed-hungry-in-kosher-cost-of-living-crisis-4FCckFZ76BNLT5d11POR4K.

Hanoka, Yitzchak. “How Changes to the Supply Chain Affect Kosher Certification.” OK Kosher, 5 Apr. 2022, www.ok.org/article/how-changes-to-the-supply-chain-affect-kosher-certification/.

Hicks, Coryanne. “How Inflation Affects Your Cost of Living.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 7 Feb. 2023, https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/inflation-cost-of-living/#:~:text=After%20spending%20more%20than%20two,to%206.5%25%2C%20in%202022.

Kakaei, Hojatollah, et al. “Effect of Covid-19 on Food Security, Hunger, and Food Crisis.” COVID-19 and the Sustainable Development Goals, 22 July 2022, pp. 3–29., https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-91307-2.00005-5.

Mandel, Bethany. “Kosher Food Is Already Expensive and Inconvenient. Now Thanks to Covid, There’s a Lot Less of It.” The Forward, 18 May 2020, https://forward.com/life/446702/kosher-food-is-expensive-and-inconvenient-thanks-to-covid-theres-going-to/.

Mortas, Mustafa, et al. “Adulteration Detection Technologies Used for Halal/Kosher Food Products: An Overview.” Discover Food, vol. 2, no. 1, 20 Apr. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00015-7.

Moshe, Jordan. “Why Kosher Meat Is so Expensive.” Jewish Report, 4 July 2019, https://www.sajr.co.za/why-kosher-meat-is-so-expensive/.Virtual Listening Session on Food Insecurity in Kosher- and Halal-Observant Communities. Met Council, July 2022, https://sbubrooklogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/40df5-whvlreportonfoodinsecurityinkosher-andhalal-observantcommunities.pdf.

A Brief Analysis of Ennui in Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Namal Fiaz, September 29, 2023

The term ennui, a French loanword, describes a state of boredom induced by a lack of purpose and feelings of dissatisfaction with life. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, the narrative captures the reflections of an embittered, reclusive man whose thoughts are tightly chained by that very state. Several philosophical revolutions were simultaneously developing throughout Europe in the 19th century – namely nihilism, a glaring threat in Dostoevsky’s eyes. Published in 1864, Dostoevsky’s novella was a polemic against the Russian nihilist movement gaining traction in the nineteenth century.  In Notes from Underground, the relationship between the narrator’s ennui and consciousness lead him to live a dreadful existence, one that rises directly from his nihilist mindset.

Nihilism is the supreme catalyst of the underground man’s ennui. In order to effectively analyze the role of ennui in the narrator’s consciousness, it is necessary to establish a brief philosophical definition of nihilism. The term was popularized following Ivan Turgenev’s 1862 novel Fathers and Children, in which it was contextually defined as someone who rejects authority and principles of all faiths. It follows the Latin nihil – “nothing” – implying the nihilist is ultimately “pursuing nothingness.”1 Additionally, this philosophy asserts a lack of an objective meaning to human life. Existential nihilism, a more developed concept, states that existence itself is ultimately pointless given that all action and suffering does not have a meaning.2 Efforts to create meaning are therefore impractical in their futility. 

The unnamed narrator in the novella, the underground man, is an extreme nihilist. He eponymously lives underground alone in St. Petersburg after retiring from his work as a civil service officer, though his isolation is entirely self-imposed. His contempt for other human beings, skepticism of society, spiteful attitude, and eventual retreat to a life of seclusion are key influences of his nihilistic mindset. The character expounds on his beliefs in a series of confessional diary entries. His pessimistic outlook on life is derived from his intense self-awareness and critical nature, which naturally leads to – or rather intensifies – feelings of ennui. The underground man personally attributes his ennui to acute consciousness, claiming that “to be too conscious is an illness – a real thorough-going illness.”3 He explains the difference between men of consciousness – like himself – and the “stupid,”4 or direct men. Those who act on their thoughts and beliefs – direct men – are able to do so because their minds are at ease. In contrast, the underground man’s habit of dwelling on each thought, event, and emotion through deep analysis causes him to have an overactive and restless mind. He believes he is therefore burdened by his superior intellect. 

“There in its nasty, stinking, underground home our insulted, crushed and ridiculed mouse promptly becomes absorbed in cold, malignant and, above all, everlasting spite. For forty years together it will remember its injury down to the smallest, most ignominious details, and every time will add, of itself, details still more ignominious, spitefully teasing and tormenting itself with its own imagination. It will itself be ashamed of its imaginings, but yet it will recall it all, it will go over and over every detail, it will invent unheard of things against itself, pretending that those things might happen, and will forgive nothing.”5

The acutely conscious man ruminates and dissects his thoughts to the extent of dehumanizing himself; he calls himself a mouse.6 Though it is of course a metaphorical statement, the lively imagery created by the underground man’s descriptions provide crucial insight into his self-perceptions: by shrinking such a person to the size of a small rodent – one that is known for its tendency to flee at the shadows of the slightest danger – the narrator characterizes himself as timid, self-conscious, and withdrawn. According to the underground man’s further commentary, the direct man, when seeking revenge, uses justice as a motive to commit the action. Meanwhile, the “mouse” is unable to do the same as his acute consciousness diminishes the emotion by dissecting it. He will overthink and create doubt in his own mind, and then rework it with other details and possibilities, all of which make his mind relentlessly spiral. The conscious man’s tendencies can be equated to thinking oneself to death. The narrator mentally torments himself out of boredom since his mental state renders him incapable of having a meaningful life and intimate human connection. By convincing himself that he is limited in his actions, the narrator remains stationary in the place he rents underground.

This inaction – called inertia7 – is another consequence of possessing an acute consciousness along with ennui. As a result of the narrator’s isolation, his existing ennui greatly reinforces itself through a melancholic, repetitive mechanism. With very little to keep him occupied, he traps himself in a cycle of rumination — an idle dweller in his self-constructed prison cell.The fight against ennui is very much a continuous and lifelong struggle. As exemplified by the character’s situation in Notes from Underground, nihilistic thoughts promote a swift resignation to even attempting to live a fulfilling life. The prevalence of this feeling of ennui, especially in current times, is largely due to the way many naturally begin to find comfort in its presence after a prolonged period of despair. The underground man has lived in his depraved hole for nearly two decades during the time of his writings, and he is thoroughly comfortable in his position; he finds solace in idleness. Breaking through the fog of ennui may bring about bouts of discomfort and anxiety that may discourage many people – avoidance is simply a more bearable response. However, in order to live a meaningful and authentic life, ennui requires direct confrontation. The act of acknowledging that one exists in a state of ennui itself is daunting, it may rouse uneasiness in an individual’s pride, among other things, but it is a necessary step towards a fruitful existence.

There  is also a necessity, perhaps above all else, for conscious effort. Allowing ennui and nihilism to take over the conscious mind is akin to digging one’s own grave – while still alive – convinced that the only thing left to do is lie in it. In the face of absurdity –  “an unfulfillable desire for complete fulfillment,”8 as defined by existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre – the happenings of daily life can appear bleak and devoid of meaning. An individual must therefore exercise conscious effort and recognize that they have the ability to construct personal meaning in life. Dostoevsky’s allegorical Notes from Underground serves as the first, and arguably the most profound, existential novel. His exploration of the human condition through the cynical underground man character conveys life in the depths of nihilism where free will is used to choose a path of misery. Unlike the underground man, people can use their abilities to take control of their situations, such as the hopelessness that ennui brings, and make decisions that lead to personal contentment. After all, knowing that we possess the power to make conscious decisions towards fulfillment, such as finding pleasure in the mundane, is the tide that washes us of misery.

Footnotes

1 Petrov, Kristian. “‘Strike out, Right and Left!’: A Conceptual-Historical Analysis of 1860s Russian Nihilism and Its Notion of Negation.” Studies in East European Thought 71, no. 2 (2019): 73–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09319-4.

2 Pratt, Alan. “Nihilism.” Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed October 15, 2022. https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H3.

3 Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. “Dostoevsky: Notes from Underground.” Essay. In Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Edited, Selected, and Introduced by W. Kaufmann, 56. Thames & Hudson

4 Kaufmann, 59.

5 Kaufmann, 60.

6 Kaufmann, 60.

7 Kaufmann, 64.

8 Irvine, Andrew. “Existentialism,” 1998. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme20.htm. 

Bibliography

Irvine, Andrew. “Existentialism,” 1998. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme20.htm. 

Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. “Dostoevsky: Notes from Underground.” Essay. In Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Edited, Selected, and Introduced by W. Kaufmann, 52–82. Thames & Hudson: London; printed in U.S.A., 1957. 

Petrov, Kristian. “‘Strike out, Right and Left!’: A Conceptual-Historical Analysis of 1860s Russian Nihilism and Its Notion of Negation.” Studies in East European Thought 71, no. 2 (2019): 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09319-4. 

Pratt, Alan. “Nihilism.” Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed October 15, 2022. https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H3.

The Power of Social Influences

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Joshua Isakharov, September 29, 2023

Ever wonder why a person is suddenly motivated to do something that they know is wrong? Incredibly,  psychological influences have more power over people than they might believe. Oftentimes, good people commit deviant behaviors. A good person is a person who otherwise displays actions and qualities that are intended to promote the welfare of society. A deviant behavior is an action done by an individual that breaks or defies social norms. A social norm is the behavior typically expected by an individual from the society they live in during that time period. Thus, a good person committing a deviant act can be defined as a typically moral individual who generally promotes social welfare through their actions but at times commits actions that violate the morals and norms of society. While the greed factor is often touted as an explanation for deviance, neutralization theory and the pressure to conform are far superior explanations for why good people commit deviant behaviors.

Neutralization theory is a theory stating that people (or in this case good people committing deviant behaviors) will make use of one or multiple justifications in order to neutralize their actions (Bernard). According to this theory, a good person will cognitively justify their deviance in their mind through a train of thought. A neutralization, or rationalization, is a thought process that a person will undergo to explain or justify their action. In fact, neutralizations are considered to be one of the most, if not the “most important explanation of deviant behavior” (Kaptein and van Helvoort 1261). The theory can therefore be used to explain why a good person will “do bad” as “they did not know it was bad” (Sampson 123). The reason why the otherwise good person failed to acknowledge their action as bad is because they neutralized the action in their mind. 

In this context, the usage of the word “bad” is used interchangeably with deviant. For example, if an otherwise upstanding citizen steals a little bit of money from someone else, they can rationalize the action in their mind by telling themselves that it’s not a bad thing since other people do it or that the person they stole from did not really need the money. This rationalization has the effect of cognitively convincing a person that their action was not bad and did not defy standard social norms. This justification is indeed how “a good deal of ethical misbehavior starts [as] a small misstep at the beginning, a recognition that it doesn’t do much harm, and a continuance, until one has developed behavior that is habitually perverse” (Duska 23). This neutralization is exactly how the infamous swindler Bernie Madoff justified his Ponzi scheme, as “he cheated a little bit at the beginning, got away with it, and fell into a pattern or habit of taking from one person and giving it to another” (Duska 23). Although Bernie Madoff may not be an example of a star citizen, one can argue that he was not such a deviant person before he started his Ponzi scheme. There are many other Bernie Madoffs in this world; otherwise good people who neutralized one deviant action before that one deviant action became a habit that made them into a monster.

Neutralizations are a critical component of explaining deviant behavior. A popular saying in society that exemplifies neutralizations is “the ends justify the means.” According to one psychologist, “if an outcome is important, [people] begin to believe that the ‘ends justify the means’” (Riggio). When a person begins to believe that their actions are okay in context, then they can engage in ego protection and can freely commit acts of deviance, especially if their actions result in something meaningful to them. If a person’s end goal is to make as much money as possible, they may not care who they trample on in the process as that end goal is so important that any and all actions leading up to their end goal will be justified even if deviant. Through their studies, two psychologists named Cressey and Matza argue “that delinquents possess a system of rationalizations that allow them to (temporarily) view crime as acceptable in particular situations” (Thomas 7). The work of Cressey and Matza illustrates the very concept of “the ends justify the means” as the delinquents studied neutralized their behavior situationally in order to justify the means to their end goal. 

Furthermore, “prior work has shown that situational rationalizations and general moral beliefs are not strongly correlated and are distinct constructs” (Thomas 7). An otherwise good, moral person can thus situationally exonerate themselves of any deviant behaviors as their morals are not really related to their system of justification. The fact that these two systems are not connected only reaffirms the idea that good people can commit deviant behavior. The idea that morals and situational rationalizations are distinct explains why “among U.S. adolescents, 93 percent report disapproval for hitting another person and 97 percent report disapproval for stealing, while the prevalence of such behaviors is substantially higher” (Thomas 8). Many otherwise moral youth are good people who have strong beliefs and know what is morally right and wrong based on societal norms, yet many still engage in behaviors that defy societal norms such as hitting others and stealing. Once again, “the concept of situational rationalizations addresses this” phenomenon “because it denies that delinquents must outright approve of delinquency and holds instead that they temporarily approve of it given certain circumstances—that is, they are able to sidestep their abstract disapproval of delinquency by applying a rationalization” (Thomas 8). In order to free themselves from society’s bounds, people will rationalize their behavior based on the situation they are in so that they do not have to break any moral beliefs they might hold. Through this strategy, a person can fully believe that their behavior was not in any way morally incorrect, offering a straightforward explanation as to why a person can commit a deviant act in one moment and then carry on with their lives as if they are a good, not deviant, person in the next.

Most acts of deviance are internally justified. One popular justification of deviancy is “‘Everybody does it’” (Duska 24). This popular saying is a form of ego protection as it allows an individual to neutralize unpleasant feelings that may arise from their actions. After all, “the maintenance of self-esteem and self work [are] among [the] strongest and most persistent human goals” (Bersoff 28). Ego protection is an extremely integral part of human existence and allows for neutralizations to occur. An example of this would be an underage individual engaging in illegal alcohol and drug consumption and then telling themselves it is okay because “everybody does it.” Although the underage individual may know that it is wrong to drink alcohol and take illegal drugs, they will utilize this saying in an attempt to neutralize any unpleasant feelings associated with their deviant behavior. However, it is important to note that “there are situational differences in the difficulty of applying a rationalization” (Thomas 11). An individual may not be able to hit an elderly man and steal his money as easily as taking illicit drugs, as it might be harder to say that “everybody does it” to hitting an elderly man than it would be for taking illicit drugs.

Additionally, a study conducted by David Matza suggests that part of the reason why people commit deviant acts is social (Thomas 7). Humans are social beings. As a result of being social beings, “people learn to behave in accordance with the wishes or habits of those who lead their tribes” (Duska 23). Since people will often follow their leaders, their actions can often be attributed to social pressures. It is why a person will commit deviant behavior based on the wish or command of a boss as they are socialized in a manner that teaches them to follow the leader. Despite an individual’s belief of being “autonomous and self-ruling,” studies such as Milgram’s experiment illustrate the “large extent [to] [which] people are likely to respond to authority” (Duska 24). Milgram’s study involved participants being told to administer a shock to another person if they got an answer to a question wrong, with each successive shock being higher in voltage, and thus more fatal. Even when the participants did not want to administer the shock, an authority figure strongly encouraged obedience (McLeod). The fact that most people were obedient to authority elucidates how Nazi soldiers carried out terrible atrocities, even if they did not want to. Therefore, a big reason why otherwise good people commit deviant behavior is because most people are socialized into believing that they need to be obedient to authority and need not question it. Consequently, most people justify their actions as being of those in authority instead of their own.

Besides possessing a strong obedience to an authoritative  figure, people are most often loyal to their group and feel the need to go with the group rather than against it. Oftentimes, when members of “a group [engage] in unethical behavior, individuals are far more likely to participate in or condone that behavior rather than risk standing out” (Bradberry). Due to the need for approval and acceptance, an individual would rather let members of their group commit unethical actions or even join in on the deviant behavior than go against the grain and condemn the deviance. People dislike confrontation, and going against the group you are a part of risks confrontation and possible expulsion from the group. Therefore, since “people have a tendency to keep their heads down”,  “ethical behavior at times requires heroic effort” (Duska 23). Rather than be a hero and risk standing out for their morality, an otherwise good person will commit deviance for the sake of conformity and group cohesion, which they can later neutralize in order to protect their ego. 

Although there may be additional reasons for why otherwise good people commit deviant behaviors, the neutralization theory as well as the feeling of needing to conform are the most influential. Some may argue that money is a largely influential factor in deviant behavior. However, in the case of stealing, “research on employee theft does not support the theory that workers steal, in general, because they need the money” (Bersoff 29). In fact, “three out of four shoplifters can afford to buy the merchandise they have taken, and many are even caught carrying enough money to pay for the lifted items” (Bersoff 29). Money may very well play a pivotal role in why good people do deviant things, but it is not the most influential. As shown by the aforementioned research, it is more likely those who shoplifted did so as a consequence of social pressure or as a rationalization of the action as “not bad,” allowing them to protect their ego and steal despite possessing the capacity to pay.

It is abundantly clear that people will justify their deviant actions in some manner in order to protect their egos. However, not all hope is lost as there are ways to combat our own deviancy, as we are all capable of committing some degree of deviancy. One such way a person can do this is by strengthening their mind and increasing their willpower (Duska 24). In his book, Can’t Hurt Me: Master Your Mind and Defy the Odds, David Goggins relays many techniques he has used to increase willpower and offers practical solutions to help others increase their own willpower. Although mastery of such a technique may not come easy, it can be very effective and can improve a person’s lives in various ways besides simply preventing deviance. A solution against group influences would be to “recall what your mother said when you asserted that everybody does it. Your mother would say, ‘I don’t care if everybody does it (jump off the bridge, jump off the cliff ), that doesn’t make it right’” (Duska 24). According to Duska, this popular saying was found to be universal among students of different cultures in some form or another (24). This conveys how although a person can be influenced by social pressures, they can still resist and do not have to take part in deviancy. Therefore, through the use of anti-rationalization techniques, a person can protect themselves against committing potential acts of deviancy and can thus contribute to a stronger moral character of not just themselves, but those around them as well.

Works Cited

Bernard, Thomas J.. “Gresham M. Sykes”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 Oct. 2022 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gresham-M-Sykes. Accessed 24 February 2023.

Bersoff, David M. “Why Good People Sometimes Do Bad Things: Motivated Reasoning and Unethical Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 1, Jan. 1999, pp. 28–9., https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001003. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023. 

Bradberry, Travis. “14 Psychological Forces That Make Good People Do Bad Things.” Inc.com, https://www.inc.com/travis-bradberry/14-psychological-forces-that-make-good-people-do-bad-things.html. 

Duska, Ronald. “Why Good People Do Bad Things: Applications to Financial Advisors—The ‘WIZARD.’” Journal of Financial Service Professionals, Sept. 2013, pp. 23–24. 

Kaptein, Muel, and Martien Van Helvoort. “A Model of Neutralization Techniques.” Deviant Behavior, vol. 40, no. 10, 1 Dec. 2018, p. 1261., https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1491696. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023.

Mcleod, Saul. “The Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, Results, & Ethics.” Simply Psychology, 8 Mar. 2023, https://simplypsychology.org/milgram.html. Accessed 18 Mar. 2023

Riggio, Ronald E. “The Science of Why Good People Do Bad Things.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 1 Nov. 2014, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201411/the-science-why-good-people-do-bad-things. 

Sampson, Steven. “Good People Doing Bad Things.” Journal of Legal Anthropology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021, p. 123., https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2021.050105. 

Thomas, Kyle J. “Rationalizing Delinquency: Understanding the Person-Situation Interaction through Item Response Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 56, no. 1, 26 July 2018, pp. 7–11., https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818789752. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023. 

What should we do about suffering? Jean-Paul Sartre on human responsibility

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Zelalem Amera, September 29, 2022

There is so much suffering in the world. Fyodor Dostoevsky explores this suffering in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov, where he tells the story of three brothers, Ivan, Alyosha, and Dimitri. They each symbolize philosophically distinct ideas, and Ivan Karamazov, who embodies the voice of creeping nihilism, has a memorable conversation with his monk brother Alyosha (whom he considers naive). He goes on an animated rant, telling Alyosha the story of a five-year-old girl who is locked up in a shed by her parents covered in excrement; Turk soldiers who ripped out a baby from the mother’s womb and impaled it with their spears for sport; parents who physically abused their seven-year-old girl and were acquitted by a jury to continue their horrific antics; and a man who let loose a pack of dogs on a young boy and forced his mother to watch because the boy had hurt one of his hounds (Dostoevsky). 

This is only a small excerpt of the accounts of human suffering that Ivan describes. His speech on the problem of evil is one of the most moving sections in Dostoyevsky’s novel. By the end of Ivan’s tirade, we have a bleak depressing picture of what human suffering is about. Even Alyosha, the ever optimistic and faithful character, seems to doubt his own beliefs by the end. 

The world is full of injustices that offend us in ways that other things don’t. This kind of injustice is personal. It puts a void in our peace and makes us see the brutality of life. Perhaps for the sufferers it’s normal, but we cannot ignore this reality in good conscience. Turning a blind eye won’t make this fact go away. What are we to do with human suffering?

The French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre tries to address this question in his book Being and Nothingness, where he lays out an entire ontological framework for human reality. In the end, all Sartre says to conclude is, “All of these questions refer us to a pure, and not complicit, reflection. They can be answered only within the domain of morality, to which we will devote a future work” (Being and Nothingness 811). What an anticlimactic way to end such a profound work! Despite the immense scope of his book, which covers everything from consciousness and bad faith, to love, relationships, and society in general, we will try to simplify and explore one common theme which runs throughout, the relationship between freedom and facticity. Sartre argues in his book that human reality is structured in such a way that we are all free even in the midst of terrible circumstances. We must be free even when we don’t get to choose our reality. 

To get our readers on the same page with some of the jargon used here, freedom is simply the fact of being responsible for a choice. Sartre defines humans as fundamentally free beings. Consciousness is always consciousness of a choice. We all live in the context of a possible future, and it is through our projecting of our own possibilities that we bring a new reality, or being, into the world. You plan an action in your mind before it becomes a reality. You think about eating a sandwich before you actually get to the task of eating it. This is an example of your freedom in action. Naturally, freedom is what allows you to be happy. Happiness is being able to do what you want. To be free is to be happy. 

Facticity is what someone or thing is. It is essentially the meaning we associate with the physical manifestation of reality. “Black hair” is the facticity of the thing on your head.  

For Sartre, the idea of freedom coincides with the concept of nothingness. It is only because humans are nothing that they can bring about being. It’s a rather cryptic concept to understand, but it is not important for our discussion.

What we are interested in answering is the above mentioned question, how do we deal with suffering? We live in a time when we are hypersensitive to injustice. We are trying to create a world where everybody has an equal chance at happiness and success, but this often leads to an overwhelming amount of conflict between political parties, countries, and even among family members. In a way, we are all vulnerable to the implications of this question.

Actually, we must first take a few moments to examine why this question matters to us so much. Why does suffering matter so much? How does it affect you personally? 

Have you ever looked at someone else and wondered to yourself how it was unfair that they are prettier, taller, wealthier, or smarter than you are? It’s not like they deserved to have these things more than you did. How are you to blame for your genetics or your family? Not only that but it seems like these things ultimately affect where they end up in life. For example, if you are born to a rich family, your odds of living a more successful life are higher. If you are attractive, people will probably pay more attention to you, and it’s going to be easier for you to find friendship and love. If you are a citizen of a powerful country, it is easier for you to find employment, education, and build a life. We can even take this a step further and say that these people with natural advantages can solidify and secure their position in society, ultimately making it so that other members of society can’t be happy even when the natural conditions are leveled out. However, that is another discussion.  

This unfairness is at the essence of being in a minority group. You want to have the same fighting chance as someone else, but you are limited by your situation. If you’re from an immigrant family, you want to get into Harvard just as much as everybody else. But if due to factors outside of your control this is not possible, then obviously this would make you frustrated! Why should you be punished for something that is not your fault? How are you to blame for your financial or social circumstances? Whether or not we are on the privileged side, we can relate to the frustration of not being able to get what we want despite all our efforts. We all want to be free to pursue our happiness, but are we all free? 

We cannot choose what we are. We don’t choose our race, sex, parents, economic and social background, and country of origin. From the moment we are born, we are labeled with meaning that doesn’t come from us. How can any of us be responsible for all of it? We can’t even hold the people in power responsible for the fact that they were born to it. This is why the question matters. Are we still responsible for our happiness even though we don’t get to choose our circumstances? Can we hold people who are born in terrible conditions and live short lives accountable? Are they still free to choose? Jean-Paul Sartre would definitely argue yes. In fact, he would say that we have no choice! We will use a simple example to explore his answer.      

Imagine a tall man and a short man. They both want to be good at playing basketball. Obviously, the rules of the game discriminate against shorter people. We can all agree that from the start that the tall guy has a natural advantage over the short guy, because he has a better vantage in relation to the hoop. Neither of these two men are responsible for the facticity of their height. The tall man is not responsible for the fact that he is tall, and the short man is not responsible for his shortness. However, if we put both of them in an arena with zero experience and all other factors accounted for, we should expect to see the tall person outperform the short one.

Now, you may object to that and say, “what if the short person has better eyesight?” or “better hand eye coordination?” Well, let us assume for the moment that all these other traits have been accounted for and the short and tall person are both equal on all levels except their natural height. Besides, if height was not an important selecting factor for prowess in basketball, the NBA would not be so full of tall people. Over a period of a few months, one would expect the tall person to vastly outperform the short one, given the same amount of practice and training. The game would be significantly easier for him simply because he is taller.

But let us digress here and say that somehow that doesn’t happen. Actually, from the moment those two are put in the arena, the short man seems to perform way better than the tall person. And a few days later, the short person is even better than the taller person, to the extent where he is making most of the shots he attempts and is humiliating his opposition. So how do we explain this counterintuitive situation? 

We must imagine that when the short person went into the arena, he was thinking to himself, “I know I’m at a natural disadvantage, so I must try harder to win this game. I can’t afford to make mistakes.” Whereas the tall person was thinking to himself, “well, I’m taller than him so how hard can it be to beat him? Really, I don’t have to be that worried.” Of course, he could have thought to himself, “I should probably use my natural advantage to win against him,” but he didn’t have a reason to.  

The short man, knowing that he must try harder, plays less carelessly; he doesn’t attempt shots that don’t work; he second guesses himself more; he thinks about the best path to winning; he is more devoted to the task of winning; he finds more options; more possibilities open up to him and he exploits these possibilities. An observer might conclude that he is a “natural,” but that is not the case. He is just much more devoted to the task of winning than his competition. He is more desperate. So, the short man practices for longer hours. He works harder at getting better than the tall man and that is why he is unexpectedly better at the game than his naturally gifted competitor. It’s the classic “The Tortoise and the Hare” story we heard as children. 

So what? Have we answered the question then? Can we conclude from this that despite your natural advantages, if you don’t work hard you will lose, and despite your natural disadvantages, you can still win if you bridge the gap through your commitment and hard work? No, there is still something off.

What if we weren’t dealing with a tall person and a short person. What if that is too fair? “The Tortoise and Hare” story suggests that our freedom can bridge the gap between our natural differences. Presumably, we are all free to pursue happiness and able to get it at least in theory. If you are born in a poor country, then all you have to do is work extremely hard and you will be just as successful as someone from a wealthy country. If you are short, just make up for it by being smart or strong or something else. But this seems a bit naive, doesn’t it? 

What if the tall man was competing with a cripple? 

Ah! You might balk. Life would never be so unreasonable! Actually, life is exactly this unreasonable. A person who is born from a poor dysfunctional family in an obscure country is not just a short man, he is a crippled man. We must emphasize this point for some members of our audience who have not been outside the country. There are places in the world where people live in abysmal conditions. There are kids who are born in the middle of civil wars, who live very short, miserable lives. Surely, they can’t be expected to compete and win, right? What about people who are born with serious medical conditions that prevent them from moving or talking? And what about the people Dostoyevsky described in Ivan’s speech? No, we must hold the position that some people are indeed born cripples. 

But doesn’t this mean that we are not all free? “The Tortoise and the Hare” story does not hold up to scrutiny. Sometimes, hardwork and commitment are not enough to bridge the gap between our circumstances. Sometimes, we can’t get what we want no matter how hard we try.  

So what now? Is freedom a lie? Is it an arbitrary thing that only the privileged have? The question is now even harder to answer; how does a cripple compete in a basketball competition and expect to win? How is he responsible for his inevitable failure? How are you responsible for your happiness even though you aren’t responsible for your circumstances? 

This is where Jean Paul Sartre breaks the bad news: “We should not confuse my freedom to choose with my freedom to obtain” (Being and Nothingness 658). What does this mean? Is he trying to dodge the question with some sort of sophism? What is the use of a freedom that is stripped of its content? What’s the use of being free if you can’t be happy?

What Sartre tries to emphasize in his book is the absolute necessity of freedom for being. Nowhere in the description of his idea of freedom does he permit that a freedom necessarily has to get what it wants. In fact, the absurdity of freedom is that it’s not even free to choose itself. 

To bring it down to a practical level. What he is saying is that when it comes to happiness, nobody can get away from responsibility. Being born with advantages is not enough. You must act. It might be easier for you to get what you want, but you still need to do something. You are not free from challenges. If you are born a cripple, you will probably never beat someone at basketball (and yes, we can talk about how the modern world allows the possibility for prosthetics, but that is another arena with the same sort of problems to play out). You are still forced to play, and even if you refuse to play, that is still a choice you must be completely responsible for. 

Even if you never reach your goals because of your situation, even if you are in a position where you can’t because you are oppressed, you are still responsible for your happiness. Perhaps the absurdity in Sartre’s argument is that he suggests that a person is free to punch a brick wall continuously until his knuckles bleed. He is free to act towards a goal which he knows is impossible. If he quits, he is still free. There is nobody to blame but himself. There is no god to complain to. This is just the way it is. In fact, his oppression only makes his freedom more apparent to him. What an absurd thing to suggest! This is probably what Sartre means when he says, “nowhere were we freer than under the German occupation” (“The Republic of Silence” 1).

We cannot hide in our facticity and say, “this is my destiny.” Even the best of us need to act in order to make our goals happen. Facticity will not save you from choices. You can’t say, “I lost the game because I was short.” No, you lost the game because on a certain level, you chose to lose the game. 

Even if you lost the game because you couldn’t compete with someone taller than you, you were still responsible for winning it. Even if you have no chance at getting what you want, that still does not absolve you from the responsibility of acting. Who are you going to complain to? Who is going to fix this unfair and absurd situation? If you want to be happy, you have to try anyway. You could try to change the circumstances of course, but not every inequality can be leveled out. You don’t always have the power to level the playing field. But you always have a choice. Even if you give up on your happiness and commit suicide, it is a choice you are fully responsible for. There is no escape from freedom. As Jean Paul Sartre would put it, “I am condemned to be free” (Being and Nothingness 577).

This doesn’t sound very appealing of course! We started out with hopes of a reassuring solution to the problem of inequality but what have we concluded? That it doesn’t matter either way! Whether or not we are equal does not save us from this burden. We are all responsible for our happiness even if we don’t get to choose the playing field or what tools we have at our disposal. We are not responsible for our circumstances, but we have to be completely responsible for the outcome. This is the absurdity of life. We all must be free. Sometimes, we must be free even when our freedom is useless.

Now that we have established this conclusion, we must go off on a tangent and ask one more question: do the weak deserve to suffer then? If it’s true that human beings are completely responsible for their happiness and nobody is going to save them from choosing, doesn’t that mean people are responsible for their suffering? If you lose the game, make a mistake, or mess up your life, doesn’t that mean you deserve the outcome you chose? If you can’t blame your circumstances or your nature for your failure, and if you can’t blame God, then who else is there to blame but yourself?

The implications of this conclusion are obvious. We are not morally obligated to do anything about suffering. Everybody, even the most needy people, are responsible for their circumstances. Complaining is pointless. One must suck it up and make it work anyway. 

But isn’t this depressing?

This is the image that you get when you look at human reality from the perspective of the individual: an abandoned, lonely person, who is completely responsible for his life and must face forces way beyond his capacity to survive and be happy. Perhaps the implication of this conclusion is that to focus so heavily on the individual is unnatural. 

Human beings are social animals.We are always surrounded by people, and we will never escape from them. It seems absurd to construct a philosophy dealing exclusively with the individual. The individual is never alone in the world. He is not abandoned, he is abandoned together with the rest of human reality. It is not an I that defines human reality, it is a we. 

No, the weak do not deserve to suffer because if the individual is not powerful enough to fix his circumstances, and if there is no god who will make everything right, then that is more reason for us to take up the mantle. We did not choose to be here, so we must roll up our sleeves and get to the task of building the kind of world we want. 

But who is this “we” in all of this? Is it America? China? Russia? Is it the West or the East? Are women included in this “we?” We must refer to every conscious individual. We must somehow find a way to make a connection with everybody. You can see how this makes our task so much more difficult. Every human being working together under the same flag? That seems absurd doesn’t it? When “mankind” conquered the moon, whose flag was it that was planted on the surface? Was it really one small step for mankind? Does anything we do have this humanism in mind or are we all selfish on some level?

This is what we have concluded from our discussion on human suffering. On a fundamental level, we are all facing the same problem. We are all trying to be happy in a world we do not choose. Literally and metaphorically, we are in the same boat. There is camaraderie in that, and the injunction is to be kind to one another; not just some people, but everyone. We may never get to this utopia, but we must try, and to accept our radical freedom and responsibility is the first step. 

Works Cited

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Routledge books, 1943.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. 1880. 

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “The Republic of Silence.” Lettres françaises, 1944.

Empathy: Why its Facilitation is So Important and How to Foster it in Our Youth

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Grace Sargent, April 22, 2022

Introduction

Humans as a species are empathetic by nature, though modern society seems to hinder its widespread development. Surrounded by technological advancements and automated machines, we have become immersed in a robotic world that fails to illustrate the countless emotions we experience daily. This is quite prevalent among children, who are incredibly susceptible to the mindless behaviors associated with technology. It is extremely common for parents to immediately produce an electronic tablet for their crying child instead of taking more lasting measures. In this digital age, it is increasingly important for children to maintain a healthy relationship with books, as they provide an authentic way to facilitate empathy and to ensure that such important characteristics are nurtured instead of lost or forgotten.

What is empathy?

In order to argue for the value of empathy to individuals and society, a definition of empathy itself must first be understood. American cognitive scientist and author J.D. Trout explains that “empathy is the capacity to accurately understand the other’s position, the feeling that ‘this could happen to me’” (Pohoată 9). As humans, we have a multitude of emotions that we are subject to, not only throughout our lives but fluctuating during our days as well. However, the fascinating thing about these emotions is that we all experience them, whether it be at the same time over the same things, or at different times over different things. It is through these experiences that we can come together and empathize with each other; we know what it feels like to be sad, happy, anxious, or excited, and so we are, consequently, able to gather a general idea of what someone else is currently feeling. Another crucial part of the definition of empathy is the involvement of cognitive comprehension and emotional reactions. To be fully empathetic, both of these characteristics must be developed for long periods of time (Good 1).

Why is empathy important?

Following the comprehension of empathy as a concept, we need to also understand its importance, which has been illustrated through a study conducted by Ph.D. student of Psychology Greg Depow. This study involved questioning 246 participants from the United States seven times a day for one week regarding their levels of happiness, sense of purpose, and overall well-being. The purpose of the study was to track the frequency of participation in situations where empathy could be called upon, whether that meant offering or receiving it. Once the study was completed and the collected data was analyzed, encouraging conclusions were drawn. Firstly, the study found that we empathize often in our everyday lives, as we frequently find ourselves in situations that could benefit from it. On average, over a span of twelve hours, people found nine opportunities to empathize and six opportunities to receive empathy. More notably, the analysis concluded that those who recognized more empathy opportunities and empathized more reported greater happiness and well-being. It is important to remember that empathy does not need to always involve the experience of negative emotions. In fact, according to Depow, we experience positive emotions three times more often than negative ones, which could contribute to why participants reported empathizing more with positive emotions during the study. Relating to the study, Depow reported that at the times when people in the study experienced more empathy, they practiced more kindness towards others (“How Small Moments”). This study demonstrates empathy’s cyclical nature: the more empathetic we are, the better we feel, and the more we want to be empathetic towards others. If we as a society can maintain this healthy cycle, the empathy we share is central to our humanity and can allow us to live in a decent society, characterized by citizens that willingly and voluntarily understand and take care of each other (Pohoată 15).

The development of empathy

One last important note about empathy is that although it is an innate characteristic of humans, it can be improved upon through education about what it is made up of and how those parts relate to one another. Empathy heavily relies on the parts of our brains that deal with an emotional connection with others (“Why the World Needs an Empathy Revolution”). We experience arousal in our pain pathways when witnessing someone else in pain. Psychiatrist Helen Reiss explains that our neurological systems allow us to observe the hurting of others while also giving us a fraction of that pain as motivation to help them out (“Why the World Needs an Empathy Revolution”). However, empathy also involves a level of concern, which complicates its effectiveness in each individual; while we are all “programmed” to empathize with others, not all of us will necessarily empathize to the same extent. Thus, the behavior of people directly correlates with education and self-education (Pohoată 11). It is important to recognize that empathy has multiple parts, and, therefore, it develops over time rather than all at once. Additionally, it is during our adolescent years that our empathy develops the most, given our impressionability. It is understood that children as young as two-years-old can comprehend and talk about specific emotions along with the actions that accompany them (Good 2). This is why attempts at facilitating empathy in children must be made as early as possible and with lots of consideration and thought.

How to effectively cultivate empathy in children

One of the most important parts of teaching children empathy is firstly emphasizing understanding the emotions they and those around them can face, as well as explaining the actions that accompany them. Fortunately, a common thread throughout children’s literature is the discussion of emotions and the ways they are displayed (Berliner). A wonderful way to foster these ideas is to allocate reading time during school, thereby encouraging storytime as a method of enhancing empathy in children. 

Another useful aspect of literature involves the characters that make up the stories. Characters provide a space for emotions to be felt and displayed for children to digest while reading. A useful technique for teachers is to first explicitly explain the events of the story and then circle back to the children themselves. For example, teachers can ask questions in the following format: “This child was angry when his toy was taken away from him. How do you feel when someone takes your toy?” (Berliner). The value of this question lies in how it encompasses multiple important learning points. The child who was asked this question can now understand what anger is, associate it with a certain situation, and even identify that emotion within their own life. This example relates to psychiatrist Helen Reiss’s explanation that better perception of others’ emotions is associated with a strengthened sense of empathy (“Why the World Needs an Empathy Revolution”). They can then take this newfound knowledge and apply it to situations that may arise, ultimately allowing them to be more empathetic. 

These kinds of techniques have proven very effective within a classroom setting, and teachers have shared their approaches and experiences in incorporating them into their curriculums. High school English teacher Jennifer Ansbach discusses how she brought these kinds of methods into her classroom in an attempt to combat bullying and its harmful, long-lasting effects. She called upon the collection of personal essays called “Dear Bully: 70 Authors Tell Their Stories.” The essays come from the perspective of bullies, victims, and even witnesses to bullying. All of them are written in the first person, which is important because first-person writing allows for the explicit expression of specific emotions and feelings during relatable situations. Following the conclusion of these readings, Ansbach asked her students if, before the essays, they would recognize the discussed situations as bullying. Only a handful raised their hands. She then inquired if they now understood those actions as bullying and reported that every student raised their hand. Ansbach continued speaking about this over a few weeks, and by the end, there were positive results seen in the actions of students. After the conclusion of this teaching plan, she explains that it successfully raised awareness on the matter, created empathy in the students, and created “a desire to change their own behavior” (Ansbach 92). Ansbach noticed her students discussing ideas of damage control for bullying victims more often, as well as how they can play a part in ameliorating this ongoing issue. This simple exercise alone demonstrates the empathetic nature of first-person narrative stories and how it can challenge preconceived notions of students.

Emotional transportation and how it relates to empathy

Another idea surrounding the importance of characters in stories deals with empathy facilitation, and it is called emotional transportation. Emotional transportation involves the reader of a story and allows their emotions to truly dive into a story and, therefore, form a more thoughtful connection with the content they are consuming (Bal). When an individual reads a story, their emotions are triggered in a way that can be reflected upon. One of the best ways to relate this reflection to empathy is through emotional transportation, which works most efficiently with relatable characters. When a reader indulges in a story and can identify with a character, they can take it a step further and vicariously experience the events in the story as if they were happening to them in real life. The valuable takeaway of these processes is that the reader practices empathy through reading a story (Bal). The reason emotional transportation carries such importance is because of the individual benefits: the higher the emotional transportation into a story is, the higher the probability of personal change is (Bal). 

As previously mentioned, the best way to encourage emotional transportation is by creating relatable characters. This sense of familiarity allows readers to venture into unfamiliar situations with greater ease and ultimately helps improve their empathetic capabilities. A 2013 study by Matthijs Bal and Martijn Veltkamp was conducted at Erasmus University Rotterdam where students read stories in their free time for a few hours each week and subsequently answered questions about their emotional transportation and empathetic measure. Following the completion of the study, the conclusions supported the idea that emotional transportation plays a valuable role in facilitating empathy. The main verdict of the experiment was that highly transported individuals had increased empathy over the weeks, and those who reported low transportation experienced a decrease in empathy (Bal). This is because low transportation is associated with “defamiliarization,” which is when a reader fails to connect emotionally with a story and its characters, and therefore is unable to relate to the people and situations presented to them. This not only prevents transportation, but it inhibits their ability to empathize (Junker). Thus, children need to have access to books that not only offer situations that pertain to their lives but books that also contain relatable characters.

Conclusion

In closing, empathy and the way it is brought into the lives of children is invaluable. Our society seems to be straying away from the colorful emotions we have to offer and is instead creating a more monotonous lifestyle ridden by the robotic automation of the digital age. It is up to us, however, to ensure that these innate, important characteristics we share don’t disappear. Empathy is central to our humanity and maintains the power to cultivate a healthier, more humane world (Pohoată 10). It is therefore important to instill these ideals into the minds of children and begin intervention as early as possible. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize the most effective method: reading. Through the consumption of novels and narratives, children gain helpful insight into not only what emotions are, but what they look and feel like. Education on these topics early in childhood can be carried into adulthood, and consequently spread throughout our society.

Works Cited

Ansbach, Jennifer. “Long-Term Effects of Bullying: Promoting Empathy with Nonfiction.” The English Journal, vol. 101, no. 6, National Council of Teachers of English, 2012, pp. 87–92, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23269416. 

Bal, Matthijs and Martijn Veltkamp. “How Does Fiction Reading Influence Empathy? An Experimental Investigation on the Role of Emotional Transportation.” PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, 2013, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055341. 

Berliner, Rebecca and Tracy Loye Masterson. “Review of Research: Promoting Empathy Development in the Early Childhood and Elementary Classroom.” Taylor & Francis, 2015, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00094056.2015.1001675. 

Good, Jasmine S., et al. Fostering the Development of Empathy in the Classroom. https://research.avondale.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context= teach. 

Junker, Christine R. and Stephen J. Jaquemin. “How Does Literature Affect Empathy in Students?” Taylor & Francis, 2017, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/87567555.2016.1255583?scroll=top&needAcces s=true.

Pohoată, Gabriela and Iulia Waniek. “Do We Need Empathy Today?” Euromentor Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, 2017, pp. 7-16, http://proxy.library.stonybrook.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journ als / do-we-need-empathy-today/docview/1986130844/se-2?accountid=14172. 

Suttie, Jill. “How Small Moments of Empathy Affect Your Life.” Greater Good, 2021, https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_small_moments_of_empathy_affect_y o u r_life. 

Suttie, Jill. “Why the World Needs an Empathy Revolution.” Greater Good, 2019, https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/%E2%80%8Bitem/why_the_world_needs_an_e mpathy _revolution.

What Does it Mean to be Free: Sartre’s Take On Human Freedom in the Face of the Nazi Regime

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Gina Koch, April 15, 2022

Jean-Paul Sartre is undeniably one of the most prominent philosophers of the twentieth century and the chief founder of existentialism. The works he published influenced various ideologies spanning philosophy, politics, literature, and cultural studies. Sartre, like most philosophers, had his moments of being subject to public disappointment and outrage. After living through World War II as a French prisoner of war, he sparked outrage when he published the essay, “The Republic of Silence,” which he started with the infamous line “Never were we freer than under the German Occupation” (Sartre, 1).

In  “The Republic of Silence,” Jean-Paul Sartre explores the concept of true freedom amid the Nazi German occupation of France. Extreme conditions often breed unique schools of thought for many thinkers, and Sartre was no different. Being a witness and victim of the brutal Nazi regime resulted in profound ideologies coming to light, especially regarding the concept of freedom as evidenced by his essay “The Republic of Silence.” Sartre explains that the essence of true freedom materialized during times of oppression. When people are condemned to extreme conditions of suffering, the sanctity of every thought and every right becomes apparent, and they are faced with the question of their freedom. There exists no force or authority that is capable of taking away one’s freedom because it is inherent and essential to the human condition. However, some forces can place physical limitations on one’s freedom, and it becomes a grave situation when these limitations go so far beyond as to attack one’s rights, beliefs, and principles. Under such an attack, people have the choice to exercise their freedom and resist such oppressive forces or partake in bad faith and give up on such beliefs and principles. This concept of freedom was different from other ideologies circulating at the time. For example, French philosopher Albert Camus, known for his contributions to the absurdist movement, maintained that human freedom is not inherent to humans but rather a state of mind achieved when people understand the absurdity and meaninglessness of life; thereby stopping themselves from constructing some greater meaning from it (Camus). Many differing ideologies regarding human freedom circulated during this war-torn era, but Sartre’s ideas managed to stand out among them. 

During the Nazi era in Germany, which lasted from 1933 to 1945,  particular groups of people such as the Jewish, gypsies, homosexuals, and any other groups not considered a part of the superior Aryan race were targeted as part of the ethnic cleansing scheme initiated by political leader Adolf Hitler. These groups faced oppression, suffering beyond imagination, and witnessed their inherent and basic rights being stripped away from them. They were stripped of their citizenship, denied interactions with those considered part of the Aryan race, and sent to concentration camps, often to be killed. Sartre, being a philosopher who means to seek meaning in everything that happens around him, found hope among the brutality that surrounded him. In his essay, he claims, “never were we freer than under the German Occupation” (Sartre, 1). It is quite a wonder that Sartre was able to find such freedom when the majority of people around him were arrested, sent to concentration camps, or killed. He is not talking about physical freedom, but inherent freedom; the freedom that governs the human condition and is an essential part of existence. He compares the manner people think in during peaceful times and during atrocious ones, similar to that of Nazi occupation. 

As Sartre says, “In this way, the very question of freedom was posed, and we were on the verge of the deepest knowledge human beings can have of themselves” (Sartre, 5). During times of oppression, people tend to question the limits of their freedom and their character questions that were neglected during peaceful times. Would they resist the torture and hold on to secrets and information about the resistance movement or would they give in to the pain and reveal secrets that can lead to numerous arrests and deaths? It is during moments like these that people question their freedom and existence because the choices they make can have profound effects, many times concerning life or death. Sartre also discussed “resistance was a true democracy” (Sartre, 6). There was solidarity in how they resisted the Nazi regime. During such difficult times, there is a sense of equality and responsibility among the people that is not palpable in society during peaceful times. Sartre claims he witnessed the strengthening of the Republic because everyone shared the same freedom regardless of their rank or position within the movement. The freedom they experienced while under the ironclad rule of the Nazi regime was one that was true, absolute, and equal. 

The freedom that Sartre discusses in his essay is distinct from the conventional idea of freedom that many may have. The freedom to do anything one wants is separate from the true and absolute freedom that Sartre refers to. True personal freedom is one’s ability to express their beliefs and principles regardless of the forces that govern them. It is the ability to make choices regardless of any rewards or material possessions one may obtain as a consequence of their choice. In an oppressive society, personal beliefs often start to take precedence over any material possessions and sometimes, over their own life. In other words, people are willing to die at the hands of their oppressors rather than give up on what they believe in. In his essay, Sartre explains that people often made the authentic choice in the presence of death, and it was through this act that they were able to exercise true freedom. Many of those who were tortured at the hands of the Nazis resisted revealing any information they had on the resistance movement because they stayed true to believing that their people should be freed from the oppressors. This choice may have cost them their lives but they did so as part of exercising their freedom. If they had instead chosen to spill information as a means to keep themselves alive, they would have continued living a limited life; one in which they sacrificed their freedom and lacked any meaning or purpose because they abandoned any beliefs they had. People are more than their situation so they should be able to transcend the situation and stay committed to their beliefs. 

The attitudes that Sartre shared in his essay forces us to think about the manner in which we live. Initially, society seems to be guilty of stripping freedom away from the people, and then forcing them to obey laws in order to keep their freedom. In fact, it may seem quite ironic how we are rewarded with freedom, which is something inherently ours, for giving up a certain level of our autonomy. However, this outlook on society in freedom is not accurate. Since freedom is something that is inherently ours and essential to our existence; it cannot be stripped away from us by external forces or authority. However, as members of society, we agree to accept some limitations placed on our freedom. For example, we agree to obey the laws of society as a means to maintain order in our lives and fulfill our potential as social creatures. However, we do not lose our freedom because everyone has the ability to break the law. The fact that we are still capable of committing terrible acts but choose not to proves that we still maintain our freedom. 

However, one would have to face the consequences of committing any terrible and unlawful acts. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the consequences of an act and freedom. People have the freedom to commit any acts but they may not be successful or satisfied with the consequences, but this does not mean they do not have the freedom to commit an act. The German occupation placed limitations on people’s freedom that conflicted with their rights and beliefs. At this point, it becomes a clear case of oppression as opposed to society maintaining order. During peaceful times, it is not obvious if something is lacking in the manner they live their lives but during oppressive circumstances, it becomes very apparent. Once, it becomes apparent that their lives are not to be lived in the way that it is supposed to be, the urge to fight for their lives materializes and it results in a strength that ultimately empowers them to exercise their freedom. The absolute freedom that they experience under the regime is one that was born out of the shackles that they were bound to. 

Works Cited

Camus, Albert. “The Myth of Sisyphus.” The Myth of Sisyphus, and Other Essays. Translated by Justin O’Brien, Hamish Hamilton, 1955, pp. 3-119.  

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “The Republic of Silence.” Lettres françaises, 1944, pp. 1-7.

Hidden Costs, Dirty Lies, and The Illusion of Choice: The Worst of American Healthcare

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Vignesh Subramanian, April 12, 2022

The headlines are the same every year, and have been so for the last half-century: U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World (TIME, 2014); US health spending twice other countries’ with worse results (Reuters, 2018); U.S. health-care system ranks last among 11 high-income countries (Washington Post, 2021). The United States spends more on health care expenditures – both as a proportion of its gross domestic product and on a per capita basis – than any other developed nation, with annual accelerated growth rates in health spending exceeding those of OECD counterparts (Tikkanen and Abrams, Schneider). It is increasingly being understood that the U.S.’s outlier status is the result of higher prices and cost barriers rather than comparatively greater service utilization, with higher payments to hospitals and physicians as well as administrative overheads largely driving the outsized differences in spending (Kurani and Cox). Exactly how egregious the bills sent to American patients can be, however, is hidden in the fine print – an abusive doctrine formulated by medical bureaucracies and providers alike to obscure the truth about how far they are willing to go for profit.

Among the most obvious and decried examples of deceptive charging practices by providers are the various forms of surprise billing that often follow already costly care. Patients who unknowingly receive treatment from physicians who are not in their insurance network are prime targets for additional charges that may amount to tens of thousands of dollars (Kliff and Sanger-Katz). These patients typically do not choose the treating doctors themselves and are not made aware in advance of their out-of-network statuses (usually because of the urgency of required treatment or the availability of specialized providers, as is the case with emergency care or complex surgeries); some may have even sought care at an in-network hospital or urgent care center, reasonably assuming that these facilities employed providers that were similarly covered by their insurance. Nevertheless, these patients end up faced with the prospect of their insurance company refusing to pay an out-of-network balance bill, while collection agencies abandon good-faith protocols as they move to seize debt (Weber). Surprise billing often involves high initial reimbursements demanded by providers, procedures intentionally being redirected to more expensive ‘affiliated’ or ‘consolidated’ sites, and separate facility fees being tacked on; it can also affect non-emergency routine or scheduled care, making the issue a common woe for patients who cannot ‘shop’ for more affordable provider options while under any degree of duress.

The contributions of such bills to soaring healthcare spending cannot be overstated, but represent just the tip of a larger iceberg of unnecessary and inexplicable costs to the average American patient. Surprise bills would not be possible if not for deliberate schemes characterized by so-called “chargemasters” – the comprehensive, hospital-specific compendiums of all services said hospitals may charge for – to keep the realized costs of care hidden until after delivery. Such measures work to withhold, clutter, or bury procedure price lists from or on hospitals’ public sites and web search queries, while selectively publishing ‘starting point’ and ‘prospective’ rates far below those used for Medicare reimbursements and private insurance payments with little basis in market transactions (McGinty). They quietly tuck arbitrarily applied fees, such as those for basic consultation, testing, and diagnostic procedures (e.g. blood draws) or for care that was ‘seriously considered’ or ‘activated’ but not ultimately provided (e.g. trauma response fees), into final bills without patient notification (Gold and Kliff). They enshrine refusals to bring sticker prices for the use of certain technologies (e.g. MRIs) or operative procedures (e.g. hip replacements) in line with those of lower-tier doctor’s offices or otherwise justify or address variation and make comparison feasible across emergency departments, trauma centers, and surgery centers in a given geographic area (Pflanzer). Hospital systems are even willing to charge patients for minimal labor costs (fees charged to new mothers who have just given birth for “skin-to-skin contact” with their newborns are an infamous example), for basic health products like over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, toiletries, and first aid supplies that cost far less at neighboring pharmacies, and for services supporting other parts of the continuum of care at exorbitant levels (e.g. transport services like ambulance rides, despite the fact that EMS crews themselves are not reimbursed for patients not transported to emergency rooms) (Earl, Reed). Collectively, these ‘grab-every-last-dollar’ tactics take gross advantage of the necessity of critical care to bleed American patients dry, making every step into treating facilities as financially punishing as possible while denying them even the fundamental privilege of foresight to predict the final bill.

In a legitimately free market – indeed, of the kind defenders of the U.S. healthcare model contend it is and must remain – the ‘consumer’ is assumed to be able to make choices of free will, with the most accurate information possible on the prices of the goods and services available to them. This premise holds that such informed decisions will in turn guarantee a higher quality of service provided, improving consumer satisfaction while reducing costs as providers compete in a ‘race to the bottom.’ Yet neither that transparency of information nor that freedom of choice are available for U.S. healthcare’s consumer, the American patient. Deliberate and disingenuous attempts by hospital associations and physicians’ groups to bury costs and coerce acceptance of their terms instead take options away from the average American while triggering even more adverse reactions from elsewhere in the market. Insurers, supposedly the representatives of patients’ financial interests, have felt compelled to respond to providers’ effective price gouging by abruptly terminating physician contracts and leaving marketplaces (leaving many patients out in the cold with smaller networks), or else by secretly negotiating with hospitals to establish ‘adjusted payment rates’ and so-called “anti-steering clauses” (long-term agreements to avoid moving policyholders to other providers with lower costs), all without providing adequate notice to policyholders (Miller, Allen, Mathews). Governmental interventions, meanwhile, leave a lot to be desired in substance; recently enacted federal legislation that bans surprise billing and mandates that out-of-network cost sharing must match in-network provider rates, for example, only covers emergency services (and even then does not cover ground ambulances), meaning surprise billing is still possible in a large range of healthcare settings (Mensik). Other promulgated rules requiring hospitals to post price lists and insurers to inform members of discounted rates upfront fail to establish guidelines on making the provided information decipherable, while coming under sustained legal assault by healthcare and business groups seeking to shield their dealings from public view (Chiwaya and Kimelman, Weixel).

The hidden costs and false illusions of choice of service perpetuated by U.S. healthcare providers amount to a dirty lie – one that paints the patient’s inability to find affordable care as a personal failing rather than a carefully constructed outcome. The American system is not broken, but rather working perfectly as designed: to maximize profits by harassing and charging patients to the point of bankruptcy, by any and all means. It is despicable that those means have come to include openly deceiving patients about the true value of costs incurred, rendering them less willing consumers and more cash cows on which any number of charges may be whimsically levied. As our white coat-adorned saviors in operating rooms and I.C.U.s become existential threats to the pocketbook, it becomes extraordinarily difficult not to ask the question: was I, the patient, really the priority?

Works Cited

Allen, Marshall. “Why Your Health Insurer Doesn’t Care About Your Big Bills.” ProPublica, 25 May 2018, propublica.org/article/why-your-health-insurer-does-not-care-about-your-big-bills. 

Chiwaya, Nigel, and Jeremia Kimelman. “You Can Now Get Your Hospital’s Price List. Good Luck Making Sense of It.” NBC News, 15 Jan. 2019, nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hospital-price-list-chargemaster-rules-trump-mandate-2019-n959006.

Earl, Jennifer. “Doula Explains Why Hospital Charged Parents $39 to Hold Newborn in Viral Post.” CBS News, 13 Oct. 2016, cbsnews.com/news/doula-explains-why-hospital-charged-parents-39-to-hold-newborn-baby-in-viral-post/.

Gold, Jenny, and Sarah Kliff. “ER Bills: A Baby Was Treated with a Nap and a Bottle of Formula. His Parents Received an $18,000 Bill.” Vox, 28 June 2018, vox.com/2018/6/28/17506232/emergency-room-bill-fees-health-insurance-baby.

Kliff, Sarah, and Margot Sanger-Katz. “Surprise Medical Bills Cost Americans Millions. Congress Finally Banned Most of Them.” The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2020, nytimes.com/2020/12/20/upshot/surprise-medical-bills-congress-ban.html.

Kurani, Nisha, and Cynthia Cox. “What Drives Health Spending in the U.S. Compared to Other Countries.” Health Spending, 20 July 2021, healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

Mathews, Anna Wilde. “Behind Your Rising Health-Care Bills: Secret Hospital Deals That Squelch Competition.” The Wall Street Journal, 3 Oct. 2018, wsj.com/articles/behind-your-rising-health-care-bills-secret-hospital-deals-that-squelch-competition-1537281963.

McGinty, Tom, et al. “Hospitals Hide Pricing Data From Search Results.” The Wall Street Journal, 22 Mar. 2021, wsj.com/articles/hospitals-hide-pricing-data-from-search-results-11616405402.

Mensik, Hailey. “Ground Ambulances, Excluded from Surprise Billing Ban, to Get Scrutiny from Federal Committee.” Healthcare Dive, 22 Nov. 2021, healthcaredive.com/news/federal-committee-ground-ambulances-no-surprises-act/610451/.

Miller, Andy. “Patients Are Getting Stuck out-of-Network Due to Rifts between Insurers and Hospitals.” Fortune, 16 Nov. 2021, fortune.com/2021/11/16/out-of-network-insurance-companies-health-care-systems-hospitals-contracts/.

Pflanzer, Lydia Ramsey. “The Cost of an MRI Can Vary by Thousands of Dollars Depending on Where You Go.” Business Insider, 28 Mar. 2017, businessinsider.com/how-much-an-mri-costs-by-state-2017-3.

Reed, Tina. “Ambulance Rides Are Getting a Lot More Expensive.” Axios, 22 Feb. 2022, axios.com/ambulance-rides-are-getting-a-lot-more-expensive-cee897fe-63b7-4412-aa67-718109773e79.html.

Schneider, Eric C., et al. “Mirror, Mirror 2021: Reflecting Poorly | Health Care in the U.S. Compared to Other High-Income Countries.” Improving Health Care Quality, Commonwealth Fund, 4 Aug. 2021, commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly.

Tikkanen, Roosa, and Melinda K. Abrams. “U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?” U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019, Commonwealth Fund, 30 Jan. 2020, commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019.

Weber, Lauren. “Patients Stuck With Bills After Insurers Don’t Pay As Promised.” Kaiser Health News, USA Today, 11 Feb. 2020, khn.org/news/prior-authorization-revoked-patients-stuck-with-bills-after-insurers-dont-pay-as-promised/.

Weixel, Nathaniel. “New Trump Policy Will Force Insurers to Disclose Prices up Front.” The Hill, 29 Oct. 2020, thehill.com/policy/healthcare/523328-new-trump-policy-will-force-insurers-to-disclose-prices-upfront/.

Silly Rabbit, Trix Aren’t for Kids!: How General Mills’ Trix Cereal Targets Young Audience

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Divya Jagnarain, April 5, 2022

It’s 7:15 AM on a Monday morning. Your bus will arrive outside your house in fifteen minutes. Half asleep, you reach into your cabinet and grab a vibrantly colored box of General Mills’ Trix cereal. The nutrition label sticks out, but as usual, you don’t care to read it. It’s colorful, grabs your attention, is easy to prepare and tasty. Many of the cereal boxes advertised on the shelves of grocery stores are designed in such a way to grab the attention of loud, demanding children. While making parents out to be the bad guys, who can say “no” to this brightly colored box of sugar?

What is it about the color of the box and the details of the illustrations that draw children in? According to Leatrice Eiseman, director of Eiseman Center for Color Information and Training and executive director of Pantone Color Institute, “Children are inevitably fascinated by brighter colors from early infancy” (Parpis, 4). Studies have shown that the eyes of growing children will be attracted to the primary colors, red, blue, and yellow (Parpis, 4). Marketing companies, such as those of General Mills’ Trix use this to their advantage. 

Since their eyes are not fully developed yet, from an early age children have a preference for bright colors. These colors are much easier to perceive than faint shades. The bright colors typically used by companies targeting children stand out more in their field of vision (Pancare, 3). On Trix cereal boxes, one can find an abundance of reds, greens, yellows, purples, etc. The combination of these contrasting colors is inviting to a bored child strolling through the aisles of a grocery store. 

Plastered on cereal boxes all over America, the Trix Rabbit, illustrated by Joe Harris has captivated the minds of youths. The Trix Rabbit, commonly referred to as Tricks, has a way of connecting to children. “And, of course, what we feel connected to—which happens when someone, even a cartoon character, makes eyes at us—we’re more likely to buy,” states Alice G. Walton of Forbes Magazine (Walton, para 1). Having a character representing one’s brand that is inviting and entertaining bodes well to grab the attention to young minds. 

The Trix Rabbit is more than meets the eye, however. In the Journal of Popular Culture, author Thomas Green contends that Trix the Rabbit bears more than a passing resemblance to a “trickster” (Eisenberg, 118). Green writes, “Tricksters are often depicted as participating in some kind of trick, theft, or sacrifice that results in the gift of the useful technology or plant to humanity” (Eisenberg, 118). Similarly, on television commercials, Trix the Rabbit is willing to cheat or deceive to acquire the toothsome cereal from unsuspecting children. That’s where the famous slogan, “Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids,” comes into play. 

From the 1970s to the present day, this harmless rabbit has been trying to get a taste of the eye-catching cereal but has failed to do so due to “selfish children” refusing to share. Trix the Rabbit has to resort to concealing his identity in costumes in order to trick the children. From disguising himself as an astronaut to a breakdancer, Trix the Rabbit takes on the costume of whatever advertisers perceive as popular with children at that time (Eisenberg, 120). In doing so, advertisers succeed in their goal to captivate young audiences. On the contrary, Trix the Rabbit, when he is nearing his goal of acquiring the delicious fruity goodness, his ears always spring free, exposing his true identity (Taylor, para 2). This iconic, well-known television commercial has been planted in the memories of many generations. 

To understand how television companies advertise to specific consumer segments such as children, teenagers, and adults, one must assess the nutritional quality, packaging, and co-branding of the product (Berning et al., para 4). In other words, a cereal’s nutritional profile, package attributes, and co-branding correspond to television advertising targeted at specific audiences. Often, breakfast cereal packaging is “covered in brand characters, promotional opportunities, nutritional claims, and other engaging marketing strategies” (Berning et al., para 13). As mentioned beforehand, Trix the Rabbit is an identifiable character which entices young consumers. In other popular brands, children are drawn to Toucan Sam and Cap’n Crunch in the same light. 

The attractiveness of brand profiles are heightened with the addition of “games on the box, toys in the box, and other forms of brand enhancements” (Berning et al., para 14). On the rear of a General Mills’ Trix™ Cereal box, one can find an abundance of enticing activities. Such activities include “Tumblin’ in Trix,” “Name the Rabbit,” “Hurray for Fruity Shapes,” and so on and so forth. These activities can range from short, adventurous stories to mini puzzle games to full-blown challenges. By putting different activities on these boxes, it begs consumers to buy often to complete the next set. 

Furthermore, breakfast cereal packaging is used to promote product co-branding. For instance, a child walking down the cereal aisle in a grocery store would be drawn to the cereal box with a famous athlete or character from a movie. According to Qu Rao et al, “co-branding can help gain increased access to new markets and can signal reputation and quality” (Berning et al.,  para 15). Television or movie themes, athlete endorsements, or cartoon endorsements are effective ways of targeting new consumers. 

In order for the product to be picked up from the shelves, taken to the register, bagged, taken home, and consumed, advertisers must be able to win over the hearts of both the child and parent. In regards to breakfast cereals, manufacturers are aware that sugar appeals to children. According to statistics, “a third of U.S. consumers buy one box of cereal per trip, 41% buy two and 19% buy three or more” (Sherred, para 3). Chief marketing officer of Shopkick, Kristy Stromberg says “We’ve seen that people are loyal to the brands and tastes they love, and despite a movement towards incorporating healthier options, consumers will always love classic favorites” (Sherred, para 15). At the end of the day, taste is the deciding factor when it comes to choosing breakfast cereals. 

Of the millions of Americans that shop every day, only 18% of consumers look at the nutritional values before purchasing. On the side of a box of General Mills’ Trix is the “Nutrition Facts.” The nutrition facts are clearly visible with the mass and percentage of its ingredients. Many consumers overlook this nutrition label as it is hard to understand. Having it written very plain and simple, one chooses not to question the “healthiness” of the cereal. Additionally, right below the concentrations of cholesterol, sodium, potassium, carbohydrate, and proteins are the percentage of vitamins, irons and calcium listed. It’s general knowledge that these minerals are pivotal to one’s diet. Minerals help our bodies develop and function. For instance, iron is important for cell growth, development, and normal body functions. According to Robert Earl et al, “the prevalence of iron deficiency anemia among young children has been declining, and the decline is attributed to the use of iron-fortified formula and cereal, appropriate supplementation of breastfed infants, and later introduction of cow’s milk to infants’ diets than had been typical in the past” (Earl, 3). Having these minerals listed on the boxes of cereal in clear and readable font further persuades one to purchase said cereal, whether they read it or not. 

As insignificant as it seems, the font displayed on these cereal boxes do make a difference. A brand’s chosen typeface reflects the personality of the brand. Trix™ cereal utilizes fonts such as Franklin Gothic Heavy, Helvetica Regular, Helvetica Black, and other plain fonts. In accordance to UX design student Liz Fu of University of Michigan, “The typefaces were categorized according to their personality traits and typographical features such as x-height proportion, ascender and descender proportion, font weight, stroke design, and counter design, as well as the kerning of the letter pairs. These typographical features give typefaces their personality” (Fu, para 6). These fonts are characterized with the personality traits of directness, gentleness, cheerfulness, and fearfulness. Using fonts of such that have a very familiar, legible, plain, and straightforward personality is agreeable to consumers. 

How can advertisers get this sugary goodness into the household of roughly all Americans? The answer is simple: Box Tops. Popular among cereal boxes are the inclusion of “Box Tops,” which are used for educational purposes. Trix™ cereal is in participation with the “Box Tops for Education” program. Not only on Trix™ cereals, but many popular cereal brands have the words “Every valid Box Tops clip is worth 10¢ for your school” printed on their products as well. In collecting box tops to raise funds for one’s school, children are taught the importance of giving back and how small actions can impact others in a fun way. By doing so, they earn the school’s funds that can be used towards things like school supplies, books, and field trips (Hanawalt, para 2). This characteristic on cereal boxes is appealing to parents along with their children. Many parents want to contribute to their children’s education in one way, shape, or form—whether that is through the donations of box tops or staying up late at the dinner table to complete their child’s science project on time. 

By understanding how the minds of their target audience works, marketing companies are able to play to their advantage. Through the usage of vibrant colors, large fonts, simple words, and enticing games, General Mills’ Trix™ Cereal has stolen the hearts and money of Americans all across the country. Many companies recognize that children are easy targets to sell to. The demanding voices of children bodes well for their products to sell. Where nagging children go, frustrated parents follow.

Works Cited

Berning, Joshua, and Adam N. Rabinowitz. “Targeted Advertising In The Breakfast Cereal Industry.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, vol. 49, no. 3, 2017, pp. 382–399. doi:10.1017/aae.2017.1. 

Earl, Robert O., et al. Iron Deficiency Anemia Recommended Guidelines for the Prevention, Detection, and Management Among U.S. Children and Women of Childbearing Age. National Academy Press, 1993.

Fu, Liz. “How Typefaces Affect Consumer Perception of Brand Personality.” Medium, 15 Dec. 2017, medium.com/@lizfu/how-typefaces-affect-consumer-perception-of-brand-personality-a8ba928fbad4.

Hanawalt, Zara. “Parents Can Now ‘Clip’ Box Tops Using an App.” Motherly, 30 July 2019, mother.ly/news/box-tops-program-is-going-digital.

Pancare, Rachel. “How Do Bright Colors Appeal to Kids?” Sciencing, 2 Mar. 2019, sciencing.com/do-bright-colors-appeal-kids-5476948.html.

Parpis, Eleftheria. “The Color of Money: The Art, Science and Psychological Appeal of Bright colors.” Brandweek, vol. 51, no. 17, Apr. 2010.

Sherred, Kristine. “Shopkick Survey: 96% of US Consumers Buy Cereal Every Time They Shop, Sweet Brands Still #1.” Bakeryandsnacks.com, 5 Mar. 2019, bakeryandsnacks.com/Article/2019/03/05/96-of-US-consumers-buy-cereal-every-time-they-shop-survey-reveals. 

Eisenberg, Lee. Shoptimism: Why the American Consumer Will Keep on Buying No Matter What. Free Press, 2009.

Taylor, Heather. “Silly Rabbit! The Trix Rabbit Celebrates His 60th Anniversary.” POPICON, 5 Aug. 2019, popicon.life/silly-rabbit-the-trix-rabbit-celebrates-his-60th-anniversary/.

Walton, Alice G. “The Sticky Methods Of Marketing Cereal To Kids.” Forbes, 4 Apr. 2014, forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/04/04/the-sticky-world-of-marketing-cereal-to-kids/#18a7bdac7562.

What is (And Isn’t) Positive Psychology?

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Marie Yamamoto, April 1, 2022

Positive psychology is a branch of psychology that focuses on the nurturing of human
virtue and mental strengths as well as the fostering of wellbeing (“Positive Psychology”).
Founded by Martin E. P. Seligman in the late 1990’s, this field aims to combine the core goals of
its predecessor, humanistic psychology, through quantitative methods. Despite common
misconceptions, positive psychology is a multifaceted, empirical field dealing with more than
simple positive emotion.

Part of what made positive psychology so revolutionary was that it steered away from
psychology’s shift towards the examination and treatment of human anguish. Seligman notes that
after World War II, the demand to study mental illnesses and trauma was so pressing and
lucrative that “the other two fundamental missions of psychology— making the lives of all
people better and nurturing genius—were all but forgotten” (“Positive Psychology: An
Introduction”). This heavy emphasis on these aspects of the mind gave psychologists the skillset
to repair mental damage, but without a solid understanding of resilience, it did not necessarily
give them the tools to prevent this pain. Using an empirical lens, positive psychologists presently
conduct research in order to fill this gap. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, another influential positive
psychologist, asserts that “[positive psychology] tries to adapt what is best in the scientific
method to the unique problems that human behavior presents to those who wish to understand it
in all its complexity” (“Positive Psychology: An Introduction”).

However, positive psychology is not meant solely for those who wish to protect their
mental state; rather, it studies how one can flourish even when conditions are satisfactory.
Seligman defined this satisfaction as wellbeing or authentic happiness, which goes beyond
simply being in a constant happy mood (Flourish). For example, this field has produced a
plethora of “happiness interventions,” exercises meant to strengthen core values and habits that
make life meaningful and thereby fulfill one’s psychological needs (Walton). Although the
effectiveness of these practices may vary from person to person based on their comfort level and
life circumstances, happiness interventions are backed with empirical evidence and extensive
research that denotes their accessibility and the reasons why they are successful.

It must be noted that the field of positive psychology cannot be conflated with the self-help
community. Those that “decry positive psychology’s commodification and commercial
cheapening by the thousands of coaches, consultants, and therapists who have jumped on the
bandwagon with wild claims for their lucrative products” are criticizing the people that exploit
positive psychology’s name and principles for their own gains (Smith). Likewise, those that
speculate positive psychology’s “replicability, its dependence on unreliable self-reports, and the
sense that it can be used to prescribe one thing and also its opposite” are describing both what
makes positive psychology a science and what makes positive psychology—and perhaps
psychology as a whole—distinctive from other fields (Smith). This field, like other social
sciences, aims to make generalizations about populations or humanity as a whole through the
research procedures and the scientific method. It cannot remain a completely empirical science
as it must account for differences between people and between populations, but the process in
which abstract concepts like gratitude, happiness, and strength are empiricized and the process in
which studies are performed are no different than the natural or applied sciences.

For those interested in exploring this field, the podcast The Science of Happiness, run in
conjunction with UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, is a great place to start. It can be
found here.

Works Cited

“Positive Psychology.” Psychology Today, psychologytoday.com/us/basics/positive-psychology. Accessed 30 Mar. 2022.

Seligman, Martin E.P. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. Atria Books, 2012. 

Seligman, Martin E.P. and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. “Positive Psychology: An Introduction.” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, 2000, pp. 5–14. 

Smith, Joseph. “Is Positive Psychology All It’s Cracked up to Be?” Vox, 20 Nov. 2019, vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/13/20955328/positive-psychology-martin-seligman-happiness-religion-secularism.

Walton, Gregory M., and Alia J. Crum. (2021). Handbook of Wise Interventions: How Social Psychology can help people change. The Guilford Press, 2020.