Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
August 25, 2024
This is about more than a self-help switch – it will take structural changes to reject capitalism’s productivity obsession
https://psyche.co/ideas/the-achievement-society-is-burning-us-out-we-need-more-play
We are obsessed with work. It shapes our identities, gives our lives structure, and guides us towards our purpose in life. As Americans, work is who we are. We believe that our achievements and productivity not only define us but also pave the way for success and happiness. For the Korean German philosopher Byung-Chul Han, contemporary capitalist society has become an ‘achievement society’ and we, as its subjects, have become ‘achievement-subjects’. In the achievement society, we suffer from an internalised pressure to achieve – to do more, to be more, to have more. Whether we are aware of it or not, we have internalised the capitalist work ethic to the degree that our successes and failures weigh heavily on our individual shoulders. The primary result of the achievement society is burnout – the emotional, cognitive and physical exhaustion that comes from the pressure to constantly achieve. And so, for Han, in the contemporary world, the self is no longer a subject but a project. The self is something to be optimised, to be maximised, to be made efficient, cultivated for its capacity for productive output. The worry is that all life activities become viewed as lines on a résumé. Knowingly or otherwise, we risk being constantly governed by the question How is what I’m doing right now impacting my maximally productive self? This mindset infiltrates even our personal and seemingly private moments, turning every choice and action into a strategic move in the game of self-improvement and advancement.
I think Han is on to something here, even if he is painting in broad strokes. In our contemporary economy, our work is increasingly personalised. We take it with us everywhere we go in our smartphones. Our constant potential connectivity to our work means that all moments of our lives are potentially time for work. Those who work in the gig economy are asked to be their own bosses, even while feeling the pressures of the algorithm to get to work. Our social media profiles are reflections of our most optimised selves, curated to project an image of success and achievement. But it’s not hard to see that the achievement society is a sham. Since the 1970s, productivity has grown at 3.5 times the rate of pay for American workers. Precarious employment has risen by 9 per cent since the late 1980s, and we have seen extraordinarily high levels of burnout in the workforce. In short, we are underpaid, insecure, and burned out. And yet the achievement society – with its injunction to be more productive, to be more efficient, to self-optimise – retains its gravitational pull. The problem is, as achievement-subjects, not only do we burn ourselves out, but the meaning and value of our lives is always deferred. Once we have our dream job, the perfect home, a perfectly optimised life – once we are productive enough, efficient enough, successful enough – only then will we arrive at meaning. But just like the fruit that eludes Tanatalus’ grasp in Tartarus, meaning remains just outside our reach.
The German philosopher Moritz Schlick (1882-1936) shows us that this approach to life is a mistake. In his work ‘On the Meaning of Life’ (1927), Schlick writes: ‘[T]he deification of work as such, the great gospel of our industrial age, has been exposed as idolatry.’ He argues that true meaning in life can be found only in those things that ‘exist for their own sake and carry their satisfaction in themselves,’ only in ‘free, purposeless action … which in fact carries its purpose within itself’. For Schlick, the true meaning of our lives can be found only in play. Play is activity that we do for its own sake. It is what we call an autotelic activity – it has itself as its own goal, and it seeks no further purpose outside of itself. When we play, we are guided by the spirit of passion and joy found in the activity. In play, we are not motivated by external rewards or instrumentality. We are not driven by performance and external purpose. We don’t play to be productive or to self-optimise. We play purely for the sake of itself. In short, when we play, if it is true play, we cannot be achievement-subjects. The spontaneous play of children helps us see this clearly. The child has no use for their play. The rigid expectations of productivity and efficiency are nothing to them. The child sees nothing before them other than their own presence in the world.
The play of the child is the purest form of joy not merely because they are a child, but because they are wholly enthralled by their moment-to-moment experience. The child has not yet fallen victim to the crucial mistake that most of us make in adulthood, that ‘man in general is inclined always to regard every state, since none of them is wholly perfect, as a mere preparation for a more perfect one.’ And yet, we still experience the joy of play in adulthood, but only in moments that are few and far between. And even when we do play, it is seen as unserious or frivolous. In adulthood, play is taken to be nothing more than a short respite from work, a sojourn that helps us pass the time between periods of intense productivity. But crucially, for Schlick, it is possible for our work to become play. If work can take on the creative and self-sufficient character of play, then the distinction collapses: ‘Human action is work, not because it bears fruit, but only when it proceeds from, and is governed by, the thought of its fruit … It is the joy in sheer creation, the dedication to the activity, the absorption in the movement, which transforms work into play.’ And so our work can become play only if the gospel of the work-ethic – whose teachings enjoin us to become maximally productive – is supplanted by the knowledge that we’ve had since childhood but have lost.
snip
The achievement society is burning us out, we need more play
This is about more than a self-help switch – it will take structural changes to reject capitalism’s productivity obsession
https://psyche.co/ideas/the-achievement-society-is-burning-us-out-we-need-more-play
We are obsessed with work. It shapes our identities, gives our lives structure, and guides us towards our purpose in life. As Americans, work is who we are. We believe that our achievements and productivity not only define us but also pave the way for success and happiness. For the Korean German philosopher Byung-Chul Han, contemporary capitalist society has become an ‘achievement society’ and we, as its subjects, have become ‘achievement-subjects’. In the achievement society, we suffer from an internalised pressure to achieve – to do more, to be more, to have more. Whether we are aware of it or not, we have internalised the capitalist work ethic to the degree that our successes and failures weigh heavily on our individual shoulders. The primary result of the achievement society is burnout – the emotional, cognitive and physical exhaustion that comes from the pressure to constantly achieve. And so, for Han, in the contemporary world, the self is no longer a subject but a project. The self is something to be optimised, to be maximised, to be made efficient, cultivated for its capacity for productive output. The worry is that all life activities become viewed as lines on a résumé. Knowingly or otherwise, we risk being constantly governed by the question How is what I’m doing right now impacting my maximally productive self? This mindset infiltrates even our personal and seemingly private moments, turning every choice and action into a strategic move in the game of self-improvement and advancement.
I think Han is on to something here, even if he is painting in broad strokes. In our contemporary economy, our work is increasingly personalised. We take it with us everywhere we go in our smartphones. Our constant potential connectivity to our work means that all moments of our lives are potentially time for work. Those who work in the gig economy are asked to be their own bosses, even while feeling the pressures of the algorithm to get to work. Our social media profiles are reflections of our most optimised selves, curated to project an image of success and achievement. But it’s not hard to see that the achievement society is a sham. Since the 1970s, productivity has grown at 3.5 times the rate of pay for American workers. Precarious employment has risen by 9 per cent since the late 1980s, and we have seen extraordinarily high levels of burnout in the workforce. In short, we are underpaid, insecure, and burned out. And yet the achievement society – with its injunction to be more productive, to be more efficient, to self-optimise – retains its gravitational pull. The problem is, as achievement-subjects, not only do we burn ourselves out, but the meaning and value of our lives is always deferred. Once we have our dream job, the perfect home, a perfectly optimised life – once we are productive enough, efficient enough, successful enough – only then will we arrive at meaning. But just like the fruit that eludes Tanatalus’ grasp in Tartarus, meaning remains just outside our reach.
The German philosopher Moritz Schlick (1882-1936) shows us that this approach to life is a mistake. In his work ‘On the Meaning of Life’ (1927), Schlick writes: ‘[T]he deification of work as such, the great gospel of our industrial age, has been exposed as idolatry.’ He argues that true meaning in life can be found only in those things that ‘exist for their own sake and carry their satisfaction in themselves,’ only in ‘free, purposeless action … which in fact carries its purpose within itself’. For Schlick, the true meaning of our lives can be found only in play. Play is activity that we do for its own sake. It is what we call an autotelic activity – it has itself as its own goal, and it seeks no further purpose outside of itself. When we play, we are guided by the spirit of passion and joy found in the activity. In play, we are not motivated by external rewards or instrumentality. We are not driven by performance and external purpose. We don’t play to be productive or to self-optimise. We play purely for the sake of itself. In short, when we play, if it is true play, we cannot be achievement-subjects. The spontaneous play of children helps us see this clearly. The child has no use for their play. The rigid expectations of productivity and efficiency are nothing to them. The child sees nothing before them other than their own presence in the world.
The play of the child is the purest form of joy not merely because they are a child, but because they are wholly enthralled by their moment-to-moment experience. The child has not yet fallen victim to the crucial mistake that most of us make in adulthood, that ‘man in general is inclined always to regard every state, since none of them is wholly perfect, as a mere preparation for a more perfect one.’ And yet, we still experience the joy of play in adulthood, but only in moments that are few and far between. And even when we do play, it is seen as unserious or frivolous. In adulthood, play is taken to be nothing more than a short respite from work, a sojourn that helps us pass the time between periods of intense productivity. But crucially, for Schlick, it is possible for our work to become play. If work can take on the creative and self-sufficient character of play, then the distinction collapses: ‘Human action is work, not because it bears fruit, but only when it proceeds from, and is governed by, the thought of its fruit … It is the joy in sheer creation, the dedication to the activity, the absorption in the movement, which transforms work into play.’ And so our work can become play only if the gospel of the work-ethic – whose teachings enjoin us to become maximally productive – is supplanted by the knowledge that we’ve had since childhood but have lost.
snip
August 23, 2024
Best convention by far I've ever seen, & to put it together on such short notice (in terms of nominee) is just bonkers
August 22, 2024
This fuckstick is absolutely a MAGAt false flag op, he screams incel nazi, cosplaying as a protester
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1826734898998378687
August 22, 2024
Our Party's cup runneth over with talented and good leaders, talented and GOOD PEOPLE.
August 21, 2024
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/jennifer-lopez-ben-affleck-divorce-1236020852/
Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are divorcing after just over two years of marriage. Lopez filed on Tuesday, August 20, in L.A. County Superior Court, Variety confirms. The official separation date is listed as April 26. Lopez, 55, and Affleck, 52, married in Las Vegas in July 2022 after re-sparking their relationship from two decades prior, which was dubbed “Bennifer” by tabloid publications at the time and was a fixation of their coverage in the early 2000s. The two tied the knot again in a large ceremony in Georgia on August 20, 2022 — exactly two years ago.
Lopez and Affleck made two films together: Martin Brest’s largely reviled romantic caper “Gigli” in 2003 and Kevin Smith’s comedy “Jersey Girl” in 2004. By the time the latter feature hit theaters, Lopez and Affleck had called off their engagement and gone their separate ways. Both got married and divorced in the intervening years — Lopez to Marc Anthony, Affleck to Jennifer Garner. Then the two began a public relationship once again roughly three years ago. Lopez provided frequent updates on her engagement, and eventual marriage, to her fans through her social media presence and newsletter.
Lopez also explicitly addressed the relationship in her most recent album, “This Is Me … Now,” a sequel to her 2002 album “This Is Me … Then,” which also discussed her then-relationship with Affleck. Affleck appeared in Lopez’s “This Is Me … Now: A Love Story,” a celebrity cameo-studded 65-minute fantasia centered on music from the new album. Released to Prime Video in February, the film features Affleck in prosthetic make-up playing a wizened but jaded anchorman.
During their second relationship and marriage, Affleck and Lopez made regular appearances on the promotional circuit for each others’ projects, walking the carpets for “This Is Me … Now: A Love Story,” “The Mother,” “Air,” “The Last Duel” and “Marry Me” together. The pair attended the Golden Globes earlier this year. In May, Lopez canceled her summer “This Is Me… Now” tour, with a statement that read, “Jennifer is taking time off to be with her children, family and close friends.”
snip
Jennifer Lopez Files for Divorce From Ben Affleck
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/jennifer-lopez-ben-affleck-divorce-1236020852/
Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are divorcing after just over two years of marriage. Lopez filed on Tuesday, August 20, in L.A. County Superior Court, Variety confirms. The official separation date is listed as April 26. Lopez, 55, and Affleck, 52, married in Las Vegas in July 2022 after re-sparking their relationship from two decades prior, which was dubbed “Bennifer” by tabloid publications at the time and was a fixation of their coverage in the early 2000s. The two tied the knot again in a large ceremony in Georgia on August 20, 2022 — exactly two years ago.
Lopez and Affleck made two films together: Martin Brest’s largely reviled romantic caper “Gigli” in 2003 and Kevin Smith’s comedy “Jersey Girl” in 2004. By the time the latter feature hit theaters, Lopez and Affleck had called off their engagement and gone their separate ways. Both got married and divorced in the intervening years — Lopez to Marc Anthony, Affleck to Jennifer Garner. Then the two began a public relationship once again roughly three years ago. Lopez provided frequent updates on her engagement, and eventual marriage, to her fans through her social media presence and newsletter.
Lopez also explicitly addressed the relationship in her most recent album, “This Is Me … Now,” a sequel to her 2002 album “This Is Me … Then,” which also discussed her then-relationship with Affleck. Affleck appeared in Lopez’s “This Is Me … Now: A Love Story,” a celebrity cameo-studded 65-minute fantasia centered on music from the new album. Released to Prime Video in February, the film features Affleck in prosthetic make-up playing a wizened but jaded anchorman.
During their second relationship and marriage, Affleck and Lopez made regular appearances on the promotional circuit for each others’ projects, walking the carpets for “This Is Me … Now: A Love Story,” “The Mother,” “Air,” “The Last Duel” and “Marry Me” together. The pair attended the Golden Globes earlier this year. In May, Lopez canceled her summer “This Is Me… Now” tour, with a statement that read, “Jennifer is taking time off to be with her children, family and close friends.”
snip
August 21, 2024
https://www.advocate.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-lgbtq-victory-honor
U.S. Transportation SecretaryPete Buttigieg will receive one of the highest honors inLGBTQ+ political advocacy next week. On Tuesday, during the Democratic National Convention inChicago, Buttigieg will be inducted into the LGBTQ+ Political Hall of Fame at the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute’s “Victory at the DNC” event. He is expected to speak in his personal capacity. The recognition celebrates Buttigieg’s trailblazing public service career, which has broken barriers and paved the way for greater LGBTQ+ visibility in American politics.
The event will feature prominent LGBTQ+ figures and allies, including actor Zachary Quinto, comedian and activist Dana Goldberg, and actor Wilson Cruz. It will celebrate LGBTQ+ representation across all levels of government and highlight the historic level of LGBTQ+ representation among DNC delegates — 17 percent of delegates identify as LGBTQ+, a significant increase from 11.5 percent in 2020, according to convention officials.
“Pete is one of our most prominent leaders and it is an honor and privilege to induct him into the LGBTQ+ Political Hall of Fame. His long public service career is commendable and groundbreaking, and we are proud to commemorate his legacy of achievement and advocacy for the visibility of our community in this historic moment in our history,” LGBTQ+ Victory Institute president and CEO Annise Parker told The Advocate in a statement.
Executive director of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute Elliot Imse echoed Parker’s sentiments, emphasizing Buttigieg’s impact on American politics. “Pete’s run for the presidency transformed our nation’s politics and proved Americans are ready for a qualified LGBTQ+ person to sit in the Oval Office. His induction into the LGBTQ+ Political Hall of Fame is a testament to that historic moment, but also to his continued commitment to public service,” Imse said in a statement, adding, “We are thrilled our beloved and much-deserving ‘Mayor Pete’ will join this esteemed group of international LGBTQ+ trailblazers and changemakers.”
snip
Pete Buttigieg will be inducted into LGBTQ+ Political Hall of Fame at DNC (exclusive)
https://www.advocate.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-lgbtq-victory-honor
U.S. Transportation SecretaryPete Buttigieg will receive one of the highest honors inLGBTQ+ political advocacy next week. On Tuesday, during the Democratic National Convention inChicago, Buttigieg will be inducted into the LGBTQ+ Political Hall of Fame at the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute’s “Victory at the DNC” event. He is expected to speak in his personal capacity. The recognition celebrates Buttigieg’s trailblazing public service career, which has broken barriers and paved the way for greater LGBTQ+ visibility in American politics.
The event will feature prominent LGBTQ+ figures and allies, including actor Zachary Quinto, comedian and activist Dana Goldberg, and actor Wilson Cruz. It will celebrate LGBTQ+ representation across all levels of government and highlight the historic level of LGBTQ+ representation among DNC delegates — 17 percent of delegates identify as LGBTQ+, a significant increase from 11.5 percent in 2020, according to convention officials.
“Pete is one of our most prominent leaders and it is an honor and privilege to induct him into the LGBTQ+ Political Hall of Fame. His long public service career is commendable and groundbreaking, and we are proud to commemorate his legacy of achievement and advocacy for the visibility of our community in this historic moment in our history,” LGBTQ+ Victory Institute president and CEO Annise Parker told The Advocate in a statement.
Executive director of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute Elliot Imse echoed Parker’s sentiments, emphasizing Buttigieg’s impact on American politics. “Pete’s run for the presidency transformed our nation’s politics and proved Americans are ready for a qualified LGBTQ+ person to sit in the Oval Office. His induction into the LGBTQ+ Political Hall of Fame is a testament to that historic moment, but also to his continued commitment to public service,” Imse said in a statement, adding, “We are thrilled our beloved and much-deserving ‘Mayor Pete’ will join this esteemed group of international LGBTQ+ trailblazers and changemakers.”
snip
August 20, 2024
Nicole Shanahan says she and independent 2024 candidate could ‘walk away and join forces with Donald Trump’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/20/rfk-jr-dropping-out-help-trump-election
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering abandoning his campaign as an insurgent independent presidential candidate in order to help the election of Donald Trump, his running mate has said. The startling disclosure was made by Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy’s vice-presidential candidate, who said the pair were considering dropping their campaign over fears it might help elect Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, as president. Shanahan’s remarks, made on the Impact Theory With Tim Bilyeau podcast, were close to an all-out admission that Kennedy’s campaign had more in common with Trump than Harris. Kennedy was a member of the Democratic party and attempted to run as its nominee before choosing to stand as an independent.
“There’s two options that we’re looking at, and one is staying in, forming that new party, but we run the risk of a Kamala Harris and [Tim] Walz presidency because we draw votes from Trump,” said Shanahan, a wealthy Silicon Valley attorney, reportedly worth $1bn as a result of her former marriage to Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google. “[Or] we walk away right now and join forces with Donald Trump … and we explain to our base why we’re making this decision.” Shanahan said the conundrum was “not an easy decision” but added that her sympathies lay more with Trump and his wealthy backers than with Harris’s campaign, which has its own moneyed supporters.
“If we are splitting hairs, I would say that I trust the future of this county more under the leadership of Trump and the [Peter] Thiels [the founder of PayPal and a leading Trump backer] and the JD Vances [the Republican vice-presidential nominee] than I do right now under Harris and the Reid Hoffmans [a Democratic-supporting mega-donor],” she said. Not long after Shanahan’s comments were made public, Trump told CNN’s Kristen Holmes in Michigan he would “certainly” be open to giving Kennedy a role in a future Trump administration. “I like him, and I respect him,” Trump said. “He’s a brilliant guy. He’s a very smart guy. I’ve known him for a very long time. I didn’t know he was thinking about getting out, but if he is thinking about getting out, certainly I’d be open to it.”
Shanahan’s comments followed recent polls indicating that Kennedy – who has traded in anti-vaccination conspiracy theories that tend to have greater currency on the right than among Democratic-leaning voters – was drawing more support from Trump than from Harris. Kennedy’s potential to act as a spoiler has long been a source of political guesswork. Commentators have expressed uncertainty whether the Democrats or Republicans stand to lose more from his candidacy. Kennedy is currently running at about 5% in many surveys. The revelation that he is considering standing aside comes after he met Trump at last month’s Republican national convention in Milwaukee. At that time, Trump reportedly sought his endorsement, and the two discussed the possibility of Kennedy being given a job in a future Trump administration.
snip
RFK Jr considers dropping out to help Trump, running mate says
Nicole Shanahan says she and independent 2024 candidate could ‘walk away and join forces with Donald Trump’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/20/rfk-jr-dropping-out-help-trump-election
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering abandoning his campaign as an insurgent independent presidential candidate in order to help the election of Donald Trump, his running mate has said. The startling disclosure was made by Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy’s vice-presidential candidate, who said the pair were considering dropping their campaign over fears it might help elect Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, as president. Shanahan’s remarks, made on the Impact Theory With Tim Bilyeau podcast, were close to an all-out admission that Kennedy’s campaign had more in common with Trump than Harris. Kennedy was a member of the Democratic party and attempted to run as its nominee before choosing to stand as an independent.
“There’s two options that we’re looking at, and one is staying in, forming that new party, but we run the risk of a Kamala Harris and [Tim] Walz presidency because we draw votes from Trump,” said Shanahan, a wealthy Silicon Valley attorney, reportedly worth $1bn as a result of her former marriage to Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google. “[Or] we walk away right now and join forces with Donald Trump … and we explain to our base why we’re making this decision.” Shanahan said the conundrum was “not an easy decision” but added that her sympathies lay more with Trump and his wealthy backers than with Harris’s campaign, which has its own moneyed supporters.
“If we are splitting hairs, I would say that I trust the future of this county more under the leadership of Trump and the [Peter] Thiels [the founder of PayPal and a leading Trump backer] and the JD Vances [the Republican vice-presidential nominee] than I do right now under Harris and the Reid Hoffmans [a Democratic-supporting mega-donor],” she said. Not long after Shanahan’s comments were made public, Trump told CNN’s Kristen Holmes in Michigan he would “certainly” be open to giving Kennedy a role in a future Trump administration. “I like him, and I respect him,” Trump said. “He’s a brilliant guy. He’s a very smart guy. I’ve known him for a very long time. I didn’t know he was thinking about getting out, but if he is thinking about getting out, certainly I’d be open to it.”
Shanahan’s comments followed recent polls indicating that Kennedy – who has traded in anti-vaccination conspiracy theories that tend to have greater currency on the right than among Democratic-leaning voters – was drawing more support from Trump than from Harris. Kennedy’s potential to act as a spoiler has long been a source of political guesswork. Commentators have expressed uncertainty whether the Democrats or Republicans stand to lose more from his candidacy. Kennedy is currently running at about 5% in many surveys. The revelation that he is considering standing aside comes after he met Trump at last month’s Republican national convention in Milwaukee. At that time, Trump reportedly sought his endorsement, and the two discussed the possibility of Kennedy being given a job in a future Trump administration.
snip
August 19, 2024
Maintaining a long and happy relationship requires a specific skillset. Learning to laugh at yourself and together is key
https://psyche.co/ideas/why-it-takes-humour-to-sustain-a-long-term-relationship
Nowadays, the average age of first marriage in many countries around the world is in the 20s. Assuming these newlyweds live into their 70s or 80s (thanks to advances in modern medicine), and bullishly aspire to a life-long commitment, this would put their projected marriage length close to the 60-year range – far longer than the relationships experienced by the majority of humans for most of history.
These days, for loving couples to coexist under the same roof for such extended periods of time, they must – among other pressures – undergo a challenging domestication process: whether the toilet seat should be left up or down; mail left sitting, or immediately opened; tinfoil placed in the recycle bin or in regular trash; dirty dishes left in the sink overnight, or cleaned off and stacked in the dishwasher before bedtime; the use of subtitles during TV shows, or not. The list is endless. And for many relationships, this is enough to upend them.
Relational boredom is another challenge – this is when a person’s marital or cohabiting situation goes through longer-than-expected phases of being unexciting and monotonous, while also seeming extraordinarily inconvenient and stressful to end. Battling the fear of missing out, taking flight, obsessively thinking about reinventing oneself, and going on a perennial odyssey to find one’s true soulmate are classic ways vulnerable people respond to ordinary relational boredom. No matter that realistically minded, conscientious, caring individuals do not abdicate intimate ties so impetuously. Having it in our psychological toolkit to somehow find a way to accept and adapt to the humdrum aspects of domestic life with significant others is imperative.
What is the most important tool in that box? Humour, irony and an appreciation for the absurd are often overlooked by marriage scholars as mindsets conducive to success at love. Yet I believe they provide the best way for intimate partners to adapt to all the mundane annoyances baked into marriage and long-term romantic partnerships.
snip
Why it takes humour to sustain a long-term relationship
Maintaining a long and happy relationship requires a specific skillset. Learning to laugh at yourself and together is key
https://psyche.co/ideas/why-it-takes-humour-to-sustain-a-long-term-relationship
Nowadays, the average age of first marriage in many countries around the world is in the 20s. Assuming these newlyweds live into their 70s or 80s (thanks to advances in modern medicine), and bullishly aspire to a life-long commitment, this would put their projected marriage length close to the 60-year range – far longer than the relationships experienced by the majority of humans for most of history.
The comedian Wanda Sykes put it less academically:
These days, for loving couples to coexist under the same roof for such extended periods of time, they must – among other pressures – undergo a challenging domestication process: whether the toilet seat should be left up or down; mail left sitting, or immediately opened; tinfoil placed in the recycle bin or in regular trash; dirty dishes left in the sink overnight, or cleaned off and stacked in the dishwasher before bedtime; the use of subtitles during TV shows, or not. The list is endless. And for many relationships, this is enough to upend them.
Relational boredom is another challenge – this is when a person’s marital or cohabiting situation goes through longer-than-expected phases of being unexciting and monotonous, while also seeming extraordinarily inconvenient and stressful to end. Battling the fear of missing out, taking flight, obsessively thinking about reinventing oneself, and going on a perennial odyssey to find one’s true soulmate are classic ways vulnerable people respond to ordinary relational boredom. No matter that realistically minded, conscientious, caring individuals do not abdicate intimate ties so impetuously. Having it in our psychological toolkit to somehow find a way to accept and adapt to the humdrum aspects of domestic life with significant others is imperative.
What is the most important tool in that box? Humour, irony and an appreciation for the absurd are often overlooked by marriage scholars as mindsets conducive to success at love. Yet I believe they provide the best way for intimate partners to adapt to all the mundane annoyances baked into marriage and long-term romantic partnerships.
snip
August 17, 2024
https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article/123/3/463/389984/A-Time-to-Kill-Third-World-Assassinations-and-the
The decades between 1960s and 1980s were punctuated by intense anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles (Algeria, Vietnam, Cuba, and Palestine, to name just a few), the rise of Third World internationalism (both in terms of formal and informal connections), and the articulation of viable economic alternatives to those imposed by the West, but also by a massive wave of counterrevolution with bloody coups, assassinations, and interventions. Symbolically, the long 1960s started with Patrice Lumumba's assassination and ended in 1980 with Walter Rodney's assassination and the defeat of the NIEO (New International Economic Order). While numerous analyses (Prashad 2007, 2020; Brittain 2006; Persaud 2016, 2019) have engaged with these assassinations as historical events, this article seeks to provide a theoretical engagement with the phenomenon of Third World assassinations. My engagement with this phenomenon aims to broaden the idea, put forth by Quynh Pham and Himadeep Muppidi (2012), of the “anxiety of domination.” Examining the psycho-affective mechanisms through which unfathomable violence and savagery was unleashed onto Vietnam and Afghanistan, Pham and Muppidi (2012: 106) wonder: “But what if the order of the other is uncontainable, was never really contained? What if their orders exceed the framers’ controlling grasp?”
Pham and Muppidi indicate that colonial anxiety emerges when the other (the dominated, the abused, the mutilated) does not provide the recognition and validation which colonial power so desperately needs and desires: that of its overwhelming and irresistible will to dominate. Drawing on Edward Said, James Baldwin, and Eqbal Ahmad, I seek to situate theoretically Third World assassinations within a larger paradigm of colonial/imperial anxiety: these acts of annihilation happened not simply because these individuals were on the opposite ideological divide, but because their political vision exceeded the grasp of domination and intelligibility of imperial/colonial power and challenged in fundamental ways the imperially sanctioned “epistemic conformity” (see Murrey 2019: 1326). While these assassinations took place during the Cold War, what this article explicitly avoids is framing them within a Cold War framework. To be sure, the Cold War dynamics were important and (even) crucial to understanding the mechanics behind these assassinations. However, I am inspired by recent arguments in the scholarship on the interaction between the Cold War and decolonization, which seek to articulate a “Cold War studies . . . [as] a subfield of colonial studies” (Munro 2018) (and not vice versa).1
The discussion frames the issue of Third World assassinations in two registers: the narcissism of origins emerges in the construction of the Western self as an obsession with its own purity and as the “will to dominate” all that is not same (see Asad 2015: 406); the second register is the material domination via a political economy of imperial/colonial exploitation, on the one hand, and the claim to sovereignty and self-determination by dissident anti-colonial voices, on the other.2 “Assassinating anti-imperial development options” (Murrey 2019: 1323) speaks then to the anxiety of the killers who see any serious contestation of their episteme of domination and exploitation as an existential threat. Said's lecture on “Freud and the Non-European” (one of his last pieces of writing)3 provides some of the parameters and lenses through which difference is engaged either as threat (“knowing” difference as the will to dominate) or as an enriching resource. It is not accidental that Said begins his lecture with both a contemporary definition of the non-European and with Frantz Fanon's (2004: 235) injunction, articulated in his conclusion to The Wretched of the Earth, to leave a Europe that “never stops talking about man yet massacres him at every one of its street corners, at every corner of the world.” It is the contemporaneity of (post)colonial violence that both grounds and triggers his analysis of Sigmund Freud's reading of Moses as an Egyptian, and thus challenges the story of the (European/Western) self as beginning with itself. As the discussion clarifies, it is this narcissism of origins (of the European/Western self) that becomes an important pivot from which to understand Third World assassinations. I should clarify here that I understand the Western self as a “self-designation fabricated out of the anxiety to dominate when a coherent, monolithic entity of ‘the West’ as such did not/does not exist in the first place.”4
snip
South Atlantic Quarterly: A Time to Kill: Third World Assassinations and the Anxiety of Domination
https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article/123/3/463/389984/A-Time-to-Kill-Third-World-Assassinations-and-the
The decades between 1960s and 1980s were punctuated by intense anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, the rise of Third World internationalism (both in terms of formal and informal connections), the articulation of viable economic alternatives to those imposed by the West, but also a massive wave of counterrevolution with bloody coups, assassinations, and interventions. Symbolically, the long 1960s started with Patrice Lumumba's assassination and ended in 1980 with Walter Rodney's assassination, and the defeat of the NIEO (New International Economic Order). While numerous analyses have engaged with these assassinations as historical events, this article seeks to provide a theoretical engagement with the phenomenon of Third World assassinations. The author's engagement with this phenomenon aims to broaden the idea, put forth by Quynh Pham and Himadeep Muppidi, of the “anxiety of domination.” Drawing on Edward Said, James Baldwin, and Eqbal Ahmad, the article seeks to situate theoretically Third World assassinations within a larger paradigm of colonial/imperial anxiety: these acts of annihilation happened not simply because these individuals were on the opposite ideological divide but because their political vision exceeded the grasp of domination and intelligibility of imperial/colonial power and challenged in fundamental ways the imperially sanctioned “epistemic conformity.”
The decades between 1960s and 1980s were punctuated by intense anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles (Algeria, Vietnam, Cuba, and Palestine, to name just a few), the rise of Third World internationalism (both in terms of formal and informal connections), and the articulation of viable economic alternatives to those imposed by the West, but also by a massive wave of counterrevolution with bloody coups, assassinations, and interventions. Symbolically, the long 1960s started with Patrice Lumumba's assassination and ended in 1980 with Walter Rodney's assassination and the defeat of the NIEO (New International Economic Order). While numerous analyses (Prashad 2007, 2020; Brittain 2006; Persaud 2016, 2019) have engaged with these assassinations as historical events, this article seeks to provide a theoretical engagement with the phenomenon of Third World assassinations. My engagement with this phenomenon aims to broaden the idea, put forth by Quynh Pham and Himadeep Muppidi (2012), of the “anxiety of domination.” Examining the psycho-affective mechanisms through which unfathomable violence and savagery was unleashed onto Vietnam and Afghanistan, Pham and Muppidi (2012: 106) wonder: “But what if the order of the other is uncontainable, was never really contained? What if their orders exceed the framers’ controlling grasp?”
Pham and Muppidi indicate that colonial anxiety emerges when the other (the dominated, the abused, the mutilated) does not provide the recognition and validation which colonial power so desperately needs and desires: that of its overwhelming and irresistible will to dominate. Drawing on Edward Said, James Baldwin, and Eqbal Ahmad, I seek to situate theoretically Third World assassinations within a larger paradigm of colonial/imperial anxiety: these acts of annihilation happened not simply because these individuals were on the opposite ideological divide, but because their political vision exceeded the grasp of domination and intelligibility of imperial/colonial power and challenged in fundamental ways the imperially sanctioned “epistemic conformity” (see Murrey 2019: 1326). While these assassinations took place during the Cold War, what this article explicitly avoids is framing them within a Cold War framework. To be sure, the Cold War dynamics were important and (even) crucial to understanding the mechanics behind these assassinations. However, I am inspired by recent arguments in the scholarship on the interaction between the Cold War and decolonization, which seek to articulate a “Cold War studies . . . [as] a subfield of colonial studies” (Munro 2018) (and not vice versa).1
The discussion frames the issue of Third World assassinations in two registers: the narcissism of origins emerges in the construction of the Western self as an obsession with its own purity and as the “will to dominate” all that is not same (see Asad 2015: 406); the second register is the material domination via a political economy of imperial/colonial exploitation, on the one hand, and the claim to sovereignty and self-determination by dissident anti-colonial voices, on the other.2 “Assassinating anti-imperial development options” (Murrey 2019: 1323) speaks then to the anxiety of the killers who see any serious contestation of their episteme of domination and exploitation as an existential threat. Said's lecture on “Freud and the Non-European” (one of his last pieces of writing)3 provides some of the parameters and lenses through which difference is engaged either as threat (“knowing” difference as the will to dominate) or as an enriching resource. It is not accidental that Said begins his lecture with both a contemporary definition of the non-European and with Frantz Fanon's (2004: 235) injunction, articulated in his conclusion to The Wretched of the Earth, to leave a Europe that “never stops talking about man yet massacres him at every one of its street corners, at every corner of the world.” It is the contemporaneity of (post)colonial violence that both grounds and triggers his analysis of Sigmund Freud's reading of Moses as an Egyptian, and thus challenges the story of the (European/Western) self as beginning with itself. As the discussion clarifies, it is this narcissism of origins (of the European/Western self) that becomes an important pivot from which to understand Third World assassinations. I should clarify here that I understand the Western self as a “self-designation fabricated out of the anxiety to dominate when a coherent, monolithic entity of ‘the West’ as such did not/does not exist in the first place.”4
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 46,154