American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Dan Rowden »

In past discussions I have occasionally asserted the neurotic nature of American culture. Both Matt and Anna have quizzed me on this so I present here an attempt at a more fullsome analysis of my reasons for doing so:
Anna wrote:Your hatred of Americans is unbecoming. Am I to believe Australians are less neurotic?
Firstly, I do not hate Americans, though aspects of American culture and the extreme nature of their expression disturb me. Americans themselves only disturb me to the extent that they embrace such things. One thing that I will note in passing on this point is that when Americans start to talk about Anti-American sentiments and people hating them they essentially manifest a vanity that itself gives cause to finding America distasteful. This vanity is not confined to America, of course, but it is nevertheless an ugly aspect of culture and national identity.

Now, as to the question of whether Australia is less neurotic than America. The short answer might be: Doh, there is no place on Earth more neurotic than America, but that's not very helpful so I'll only state it for the sake of emphasis and gratuitous sarcasm.

Australia has a different developmental history and dynamic than America. Australia has all the various neuroses observable in western cultures, mitigated, dissipated and diluted by an important factor: our more laconic, even sardonic cultural ethos. The reason these things mitigate what might otherwise make us just like America will become clearer as I attempt to explain what as I see as the essential reasons America is so messed up. Or, maybe not:

Despite the rhetoric of urban myth and even the highest formulations of political, philosophical and literary expression and romance, freedoms do not necessarily make us free. Physical, political and economic freedoms do not necessarily free the mind from its most basic and deleterious movements and instincts. They do not free us from the chains of our own egotistical follies. Indeed, freedoms can even create such chains because they place us in circumstances where social dynamics cause different values and goals, different senses of loss and gain and different challenges and scope for failure. The superficially noble and outwardly egalitarian sentiments expressed in the literature of the Founding Fathers bespoke a certain naiveté regarding human nature. Egalitarian principles juxtaposed with freedom and striving for achievements and a "you can be what you dream of being and indeed should be" social ethos is a recipe for the very neuroses that now constitutes the fabric of American culture. One of the problems with a free, egalitarian society where most of the inhabitants have more or less the same living standard available to them is that where social sameness exists, the smallest of differences stand out. People don't envy those from a bygone era, however wealthy they may have been - they envy their neighbours, those with whom they can compare themselves here and now. Every difference, every fashion, every seeming improvement in the condition of another is a thing to be envied, coveted, desired beyond content because the social ethos is that of improvement and freedom to not be left behind. To not have what one's neighbour has is to be a social failure, or, worse, to be a social dissident. At the very least lack of distaste for not having what others have makes one such a dissident. One must conform in soul, not merely in action and expression.

Equality highlights its own absence. Difference is more palpable. Whatever the injustices inherent in Aristocratic systems, they nonetheless allow people to more comfortably accept their life without the constant burden of covetous dreams. You don't envy those with more because you can't aspire to their station, it being a birthright rather than a status attained within a system of achievement theoretically available to all who would embrace it.

In a modern society in which we have so much but which promises so much more, we are struck by a certain psychological irony: the more we have and can have the more deprived we naturally feel. This is because the contrast between what we have and what is available is more stark. It's presented to us at every possible opportunity. Thus we find poverty in our riches. A simple trip to the local supermarket or homegoods store immerses us in this reality. We see our neighbour buying a second TV and we feel deprived because we don't have one or possibly can't yet afford it. In the 70's no more than 3% of Americans considered a second TV to be a household necessity. By the 90's it was over 75%. Today it is probably nearer 90%. Even our logistical inability to experience all that the average supermarket has to offer in terms of variety of goods is, itself, enough to make us anxious that we are lacking. Industrial, material commerce survives on desires and the very dynamic being addressed here. Advertising is specifically designed to prey on our psychological frailties and anxieties, to heighten our desire and our sense of lacking. Choice and ability to acquire enslave rather than free us when we are unconscious to the psychological forces driving us. This is part of western neuroses generally, but exhibited more completely in America, the land of choice and ability to acquire for no other reason than the social ethos says you should - indeed, must.


The birth of neurosis

When the Founding Fathers declared, wrongly, that they find self-evident that all people are created equal, they barely knew the nature of the genie they were conjuring. The establishment of the American nation brought forth a new social paradigm, one freed from the caste-like structure of Aristocracy, but oblivious to the downside of the materialist Meritocracy is was to become. People could now aspire to be anything they wanted, to have anything they wanted. But, so could their kinsmen....

It wasn't long before the [theoretical] ability to be and have what one wanted became an expectation that you did just that. This dynamic must be seen within the overall context of the exponential growth of material comfort and resources which had by now become the primary measure for "success" in most people's thinking and lives. Expectations and therefore pressure to succeed, tied inexorably to one's sense of fulfillment and therefore self worth and esteem, have conspired to bring about what is a primary cause and manifestation of social anxiety and neuroses in America. This all-encompassing feature of American society declares itself in every aspect of its culture.

The corollary of success driven self-esteem and personal worth is the lack of acceptance, even demonisation of failure or "mediocrity". For all its improvements over Aristocracy, Meritocracy - which is the prevailing social system evidenced in America - yet has it weaknesses. Meritocracy is not built on objectively calculated standards, but rather on simple comparison with others. Equality of opportunity, such that it can even be said to exist in practical terms, had a dark side - it means you have no excuse other than your own incapacities or lack of will for your failures or inability to sublimate your desires. Those that make it, those that stand at the pinnacle of the measure for success are those that have not only made the best of this equality of opportunity, but also by definition those that deserve their success and subsequent social status. Again, the natural corollary of this is that those that fail or fall by the wayside equally deserve their circumstances. If winners deserve their fate, then losers must also. If winners make their own luck, then so too must it be that way for failures. Thus the poor or underprivileged in American society slide into self-loathing, assisted by the sense that such a mentality is a just response to things. One of the reasons that America is so able to blithely tolerate the extraordinary juxtaposition of wealth and poverty and homelessness that exists there is that to militate against such social inequity would be to militate against the very ethos of a nation. The poor cannot militate against the indulgences and excesses and injustices of the wealthy because this would be to militate against their own goals and aspirations, the very source of the sense of esteem and worth they crave. Thus a great many Americans are stuck in a crazed world of impractical and mostly shattered hopes and dreams, self-loathing, envy, despair and ultimately a festering hatred for life and fate. Even those dimensions of society that might ordinary mitigate these dynamics have become a substantial and perhaps unwitting part of them.....

Xianity in America is ostensibly Protestant. Most forms of Protestantism are more worldly in their nature than Catholicism, which has less of a hold on the mind of America. But even Xianity, with its otherworldly ideals and sympathies has aligned itself with the material values and notions of success of the American ethos. American preachers are symbols of this ethos, sometimes vaingloriously so. God rewards goodness by affording those who accept his grace with a place of significance in the social structure - i.e. with wealth and security and social status. Those that acquire such things are automatically deemed beneficiaries of that grace and therefore good persons in themselves. Catholic sympathies are more able to accommodate the idea that a person's social status is not, of itself, a measure of a person's goodness. In this way American Xianity has become an accomplice in the growth of a neurotic nation.

American architecture is also an interesting symbol of this mentality. In Europe one will often see churches and cathedrals towering above the landscape asserting their significance in the psychology of the people, even if only in their sense of history. In America such edifices cower amidst the shadows of the grand cathedrals of commerce. The subliminal effect of this on the psyche of a people can't be ignored and should not be underestimated.

Secularisation has undeniable advantages over societies driven by religious sentiment, but when mixed with the material/success ethos that is the American way, it presents its own dark-side: that of heightened pressure to succeed and make what one can of oneself in this life, because this life is all there is - succeed now or be a failure for all of eternity! Americans cannot relax. Not only must they succeed but they must be seen to be succeeding, for not to be is to be a nobody and a failure; it is to be rejected by your society. This all adds up the most notable form of American neurosis:

Status Anxiety

Ever been to a school or class reunion? How did the prospect make you feel? Be honest! You were terrified about how you'd be perceived, right? Well, even if you weren't, most people are. The person who attends such a gathering is highly unlikely, unless already bathing in the light of significant social success, to be the person who goes about his/her ordinary daily business. It's all a game of pretend where everyone jostles for a place in the acceptance and respect stakes. The sources for status anxiety among Americans (and members of western society generally) are manifold - potential job loss or redundancy, being passed over for promotion, kept waiting for anything one feels entitled to, the envy (and possibly shame) of others doing better, people owning household goods we don't etc, etc. A significant problem people face with this dynamic, even though it is inherently absurd, is that what grants status in specific terms is not a static thing; it is subject to the whims of fashion and commercial fluidity. One may have attained what one wants and needs to be and appear successful only to find that those things are no longer the fashion. One potentially goes from being a status symbol to a source of mirth and derision. The distance between success and failure is difficult to measure. How long is a piece of whim?

One of the more salient features of American culture, which is intimately tied to what I've been speaking about, is the constant seeking for rewards and attention. Americans have an obsession not only with winning but with being noticed and being perceived as a winner (a success). Just about every American feels that if they appear on television, even as part of an audience, that they have somehow increased their social status just by being noticed. "I saw you on telly" is the equivalent statement of "I will treat you with the respect you deserve."

Rich people don't keep working because they are addicted to work, but generally for reasons of respect and esteem; they certainly don't keep working for the money. Success makes you respectable; people treat you better because you deserve to be, even if you happen to be an arsehole. Men do not buy fancy cars to impress and attract women - that is simply a by-product of the real reason - which is the respect they gain from the appearance of wealth and success. Women are attracted to that appearance. Everyone wants to be treated well, to be respected and noticed, to be listed to. In American culture there's only one way to afford oneself that social luxury, and that is to be a success within the parameters of how that is measured in that culture. And that is the trappings of material acquisition. Consumption is not a pragmatic endeavor; people don't shop and purchase for reasons of genuine material need, they do so for purely psychological reasons - to be seen as able to do so, to be seen as successful and thereby gain respect and be treated well. People tend to look down on "window shoppers" for a reason.

One also notices a difference between the way the celebrity cult manifests in Britain and America. In Britain it still contains an aristocratic air, a sense of the famous being born to their station and naturally above all others. There's a certain otherworldliness to their version of this social insipidity. Brits don't necessarily aspire to be like their celebrities, they simply look up to them. In America celebrity is more closely tied to wealth and status. Celebrity in America is a thing to which one can and ought aspire. Celebrities are the epitome of what one ought be. When British celebs screw up, it's simple entertainment; when American celebs screw up, it's an injustice perpetrated on the community itself. If you fall you damage the dream. This is unacceptable.

American culture is full of the fruits of this cultural ethos, from its commerce, to its architecture to its literature - biographies of self made social heroes (millionaires) litter bookstore shelves, likewise lifestyle and culture magazines outlining all the various ways in which one can and must make a success of one's life.

Social status is by no means a new phenomenon; it has existed in various forms forever. There was a time when men would engage in deadly duels over simple matters of status. These days litigation has taken its place; duels are fought in courtrooms under the watchful eye of Judge Judy. But make no mistake! When you watch an episode of Judge Judy you are not watching a legal proceeding. Law is almost peripheral to the real dynamic going on, which is all about a person's acceptability within the parameters of materialistic measure of success and status.

There are others reasons that I often assert the neurotic nature of American culture, but this outlines the main ones. Hopefully this has made my viewpoint a little more clear.

I hereby acknowledge some inspiration for the above from Allain de Botton's documentary on Status Anxiety and also Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", which I highly recommend as an insightful, sometimes prescient analysis of American society.

Democracy in America
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Nick »

Victor is pissed.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Dan Rowden »

Oh? Has he been swigging from his keg of Moral Outrage again? Actually, I think he would agree with the above at least to some degree. I mean, how could one not?
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Shahrazad »

Unfortunately, it is not just North America that has this neurotic problem, but all the gringo wanna-be countries. My own included.

Nicely written, Dan.

-
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by daybrown »

Since ancient times, both Oriental and Occidental sages agreed that cities were cesspools of depravity and the pagans were hardworking, honest, and sane. Both recommended that tending a rural garden was the best that life had to offer.

Well, there's something to that. The urban diet does not promote maximal mental development. Rural people still gathered wild foods, as uncounted hominids always had, and doing so got the trace minerals and micronutrients that neurotransmitters use in laying down new neural pathways. Neurosis is one of the results of not getting what is needed at the right time during development.
Goddess made sex for company.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Iolaus »

One thing that I will note in passing on this point is that when Americans start to talk about Anti-American sentiments and people hating them they essentially manifest a vanity
Oh, please. Translation: your criticism is invalid because I say so. I hardly go around defending Americans, but I was struck by at least three really negative comments you had made.
Doh, there is no place on Earth more neurotic than America,
I hope you're right!
freedoms do not necessarily make us free. Physical, political and economic freedoms do not necessarily free the mind from its most basic and deleterious movements and instincts. They do not free us from the chains of our own egotistical follies.
And etc.

Yes, true. The whole topic of freedom is a big one. I look at human bondage as a many layered thing. But, are we politically free?

You go on at great length about people envying other people who have more. I don't really see this as a big problem or a common reaction at all. Some people are aware, however, of the exploitation of average and poor people. Just the other day, I read in Readers Digest about how credit card companies screw people over in ways that I would never have thought would be legal.

People who can work for more material things than they absolutely need do often do it, however, which mystifies me. Especially young mothers who leave their babies.
In the 70's no more than 3% of Americans considered a second TV to be a household necessity. By the 90's it was over 75%. Today it is probably nearer 90%.
Only two TVs? You've got to be kidding man. A lot of homes have a TV in every bedroom, plus at least one in the living room or family room.
Advertising is specifically designed to prey on our psychological frailties and anxieties, to heighten our desire and our sense of lacking.
You know what amazes me? The damned drug commercials. They're schizohrenic. First, the idyllic scene, then the disclaimers. The disclaimers are so horrible, you'd think it would cure Americans of their drug addictions, and their whole investment in the absurd medical scheme.

Oh, God, I'm living in a funny farm.

the founding fathers didn't say all people are equal in ability, but in the natural rights of man.
Thus the poor or underprivileged in American society slide into self-loathing, assisted by the sense that such a mentality is a just response to things. One of the reasons that America is so able to blithely tolerate the extraordinary juxtaposition of wealth and poverty and homelessness that exists there is that to militate against such social inequity would be to militate against the very ethos of a nation. The poor cannot militate against the indulgences and excesses and injustices of the wealthy because this would be to militate against their own goals and aspirations, the very source of the sense of esteem and worth they crave. Thus a great many Americans are stuck in a crazed world of impractical and mostly shattered hopes and dreams, self-loathing, envy, despair and ultimately a festering hatred for life and fate.
Oh, I don't know about all that...most people are more visceral than to analyze it that far...is the poverty in America so much greater than elsewhere?

I agree in your analysis of xtianity and protestantism. I'm not sure if it affects the black churches, however. It's a good question and I'll look into it.

As to our lack of cathedrals, I think we just don't have huge cathedrals, and the ones we do are already in big cities and not more rural towns.

Big wealthy protestant churches, by the way, are ugly, barren and devoid of inspiration. And that, I think, is a reflection of the American neurosis - that of being emotionally repressed and not open.

Now, my impression from just general gossip, is that people in other countries, esp England, are more concerned with social status and standing than Americans, and more judgemental about it, too.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by vicdan »

Nick Treklis wrote:Victor is pissed.
Why would I be? I think Dan is overstating it on many accounts, but his essay is also largely right.

Whether it's a bigger problem than the alternatives (oligarchy?), all things considered, is a different question.

I think a bigger problem than his criticism of american 'neuroses' is the framework from within which he criticizes it. He seems to be assuming, as a fundamental mos, that since failing might hurt your feelings and self-esteem, it's better to not try in the first place. In short, the article is written from the perspective of extreme risk-aversion -- the criticisms are largely accurate, but many of them count as important, largely, only if you are as risk-averse as Dan, or more so.

It's the same type of problem Rawlsian political philosophy suffers from, only not quite as extreme -- Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance' model entails infinite risk-aversion.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Carl G »

daybrown wrote:Since ancient times, both Oriental and Occidental sages agreed that cities were cesspools of depravity and the pagans were hardworking, honest, and sane. Both recommended that tending a rural garden was the best that life had to offer.

Well, there's something to that. The urban diet does not promote maximal mental development. Rural people still gathered wild foods, as uncounted hominids always had, and doing so got the trace minerals and micronutrients that neurotransmitters use in laying down new neural pathways. Neurosis is one of the results of not getting what is needed at the right time during development.
I'm starting to get a little tired of you lionizing the rural knight in shining armor. Maybe in your neck of the woods the hicks still gather wild roots and berries, but in most of America the rurals seem to be LESS healthy, more lazy, and more obese than their city cousins. In the city one must hustle -- it's damned expensive to live there, and a lot more fast paced. As for foods, the freshest and best foods are delivered to the cities, and then the poorer quality produce is trucked back out to the sticks -- I've lived in both places and have seen this. Except for the annual ritual of Bambi-blasting, if one is lucky, and the rarer and rarer tomato garden, there is nothing promoting "maximum mental development" among most country couch potatoes these days.

Or maybe you were talking about Slovenia.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by vicdan »

The world is full of people lionizing what they have no clue about, because the grass seems always greener on the other side. This is why we see obsession with agrarian lifestyle, ancient times, etc.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Carl G »

Dan wrote:
Firstly, I do not hate Americans, though aspects of American culture and the extreme nature of their expression disturb me. Americans themselves only disturb me to the extent that they embrace such things.
Why would a sage who advocates transcending one's emotions begin a writing with several emotional statements?
I do not hate Americans
aspects...of their expression disturb me
Americans...disturb me
Even if a sage feels negative emotions -- sometimes these are unavoidable -- why would he blame them on others, they disturb me? Where is the logic?
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Nick »

vicdan wrote:
Nick Treklis wrote:Victor is pissed.
Why would I be?
I was mostly just poking fun.
vicdan wrote:Whether it's a bigger problem than the alternatives (oligarchy?), all things considered, is a different question.
I really don't draw a distinction between the guiding forces of western culture and that of older European civlizations from the middles ages. Where they had Royal Famalies guiding the direction of civilization, we have Corporations and Banks. The only difference is that our oligarchy rules behind the sceens rather that in plan view for everyone to see.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Unidian »

The essay is very insightful, although perhaps a bit hyperbolic at times. I'm not counting that as a flaw, though. An essayist's goal should be to support or compel some conclusion, and one can rarely do that with dry, "objective" language.
American architecture is also an interesting symbol of this mentality. In Europe one will often see churches and cathedrals towering above the landscape asserting their significance in the psychology of the people, even if only in their sense of history. In America such edifices cower amidst the shadows of the grand cathedrals of commerce. The subliminal effect of this on the psyche of a people can't be ignored and should not be underestimated.
Excellent point which is rarely raised, although Joseph Campbell gave it a pretty good treatment in The Power of Myth (which I highly recommend).

For this reason, it is no surprise that the Twin Towers were attacked on 9/11. Alternative theories aside, it's clear that the terrorists wanted to strike at the heart of America - our true "religious centers," so to speak. The WTC (commerce) and the Pentagon (military) were ideal targets in this regard, and the very fact that they were targeted is a point in favor of the the "official" version of events in my mind. Religious-minded people would have more motivation to think of these targets than insiders would.
Social status is by no means a new phenomenon; it has existed in various forms forever. There was a time when men would engage in deadly duels over simple matters of status. These days litigation has taken its place; duels are fought in courtrooms under the watchful eye of Judge Judy. But make no mistake! When you watch an episode of Judge Judy you are not watching a legal proceeding. Law is almost peripheral to the real dynamic going on, which is all about a person's acceptability within the parameters of materialistic measure of success and status.
Absolutely, which is the precise reason I hate Judge Judy and often have to either put on headphones or flee the room when it comes on. Such shows have practically nothing to do with law and justice and just about everything to do with providing yet another venue to shout, browbeat, and hoot various "undesirables" into the margins for popular entertainment. It's the tamer (but no less effective) version of the Roman Colosseum.

Anyhow, style-wise, you might do well to replace "Xianity" with "Christianity," since shorthand of that sort has the potential to degrade a piece of this nature. And there is a typo here:
but oblivious to the downside of the materialist Meritocracy is was to become
As for the contemporary version of the "American Dream" as you present it, I think George Carlin put it best when he said "they call it a dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Dan Rowden »

vicdan wrote:I think a bigger problem than his criticism of american 'neuroses' is the framework from within which he criticizes it.
It's not so much a critique as an explanation of what I see as its reality and causes.
He seems to be assuming, as a fundamental mos, that since failing might hurt your feelings and self-esteem, it's better to not try in the first place. In short, the article is written from the perspective of extreme risk-aversion -- the criticisms are largely accurate, but many of them count as important, largely, only if you are as risk-averse as Dan, or more so.
Suggesting I am risk averse is the most absurd thing anyone has ever said about me. And the essay is not in the slightest about such a thing.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Dan Rowden »

Unidian wrote:The essay is very insightful, although perhaps a bit hyperbolic at times.
Damn, I as actually trying to avoid hyperbole.
Anyhow, style-wise, you might do well to replace "Xianity" with "Christianity," since shorthand of that sort has the potential to degrade a piece of this nature.
Well, it wasn't written for posterity purposes. It was just a larger explanation I cobbled together for people here who have queried my claims about these matters. If at any point I use it in a different context I'll make those changes you mention.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Dan Rowden »

Carl G wrote:Even if a sage feels negative emotions -- sometimes these are unavoidable -- why would he blame them on others, they disturb me? Where is the logic?
What term would you use for something you think is bad, Carl?
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Unidian »

Damn, I as actually trying to avoid hyperbole.
I guess it was primarily this sentence that sent up a flag for me:
Thus a great many Americans are stuck in a crazed world of impractical and mostly shattered hopes and dreams, self-loathing, envy, despair and ultimately a festering hatred for life and fate.
It's largely accurate in principle, but I rather doubt most Americans actually feel all of that. For the most part, they are pretty well insulated from actually experiencing the full subjective force of it by the very cultural framework which ostensibly produces such results.

Americans, despite media claims, are actually a reasonably "happy" bunch in most regards. The prevalence of antidepressants and such actually confirms this rather than refuting it, in my view. Americans face so few real problems requiring substantial action that they tend to manufacture various dramas of the sort that can be potentially mitigated by Paxil, Chicken Soup for the Soul, bubble baths, etc...
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Dan Rowden »

Iolaus wrote:
One thing that I will note in passing on this point is that when Americans start to talk about Anti-American sentiments and people hating them they essentially manifest a vanity
Oh, please. Translation: your criticism is invalid because I say so. I hardly go around defending Americans, but I was struck by at least three really negative comments you had made.
The claims happen down ideological lines and almost never concern themselves with the content of any given critique of America. Even Americans who criticise their own nation are subject to claims of being unpatriotic. You say you noticed 3 negative statements by me and yet you leapt straight to the ol' "why do you hate Americans" bandwagon. It's bogus, Anna.
Anna wrote:
Dan wrote:freedoms do not necessarily make us free. Physical, political and economic freedoms do not necessarily free the mind from its most basic and deleterious movements and instincts. They do not free us from the chains of our own egotistical follies.
Yes, true. The whole topic of freedom is a big one. I look at human bondage as a many layered thing. But, are we politically free?
I don't know. What does it mean, to you, to be politically "free"? And why would we automatically think, as we seem to do, that political freedoms grant us greater happiness and comfort? They clearly do not automatically do so. What does political freedom mean and what are its benefits?
You go on at great length about people envying other people who have more.
I used that term 5 times. I think I also explained the dynamic.
I don't really see this as a big problem or a common reaction at all.
Not a big problem? It makes people miserable, Anna, miserable and bitter and messed up in all sorts of associated ways. And in western societies it is more than just common, it is endemic.
Some people are aware, however, of the exploitation of average and poor people. Just the other day, I read in Readers Digest about how credit card companies screw people over in ways that I would never have thought would be legal.
Well, yeah, that's related and a big issue of itself. The injustices and exploitations of the sort of capitalist template America operates within is a whole other world of pain. America needs to bite the bullet and introduce some greater - gasp! - socialistic controls of corporate excess and greed. But the general social ethos I outlined in that post has to change first.
People who can work for more material things than they absolutely need do often do it, however, which mystifies me.
Um, did you read my post? Didn't I demystify it somewhat?
Especially young mothers who leave their babies.
Whoa, whole other issue again. The whole childcare industry and its wholesale utilisation says something about the standing social myth of women as devoted carers and also about the incredible power of social mores.
Anna wrote:
Dan wrote:In the 70's no more than 3% of Americans considered a second TV to be a household necessity. By the 90's it was over 75%. Today it is probably nearer 90%.
Only two TVs? You've got to be kidding man. A lot of homes have a TV in every bedroom, plus at least one in the living room or family room.
Sure, I know all that, but my point was specifically about what was deemed a necessity. As you imply, it's grown somewhat exponentially. Most Americans will suffer a sense of lacking every time they walk into a Best Buy store, and certainly every time they see someone purchase something they don't have.
Anna wrote:
Dan wrote:Advertising is specifically designed to prey on our psychological frailties and anxieties, to heighten our desire and our sense of lacking.
You know what amazes me? The damned drug commercials. They're schizohrenic. First, the idyllic scene, then the disclaimers. The disclaimers are so horrible, you'd think it would cure Americans of their drug addictions, and their whole investment in the absurd medical scheme.
I've not seen those, obviously, but I can well imagine. Almost all commercial advertising is mind numbingly idiotic. Guess why it works so well?
Oh, God, I'm living in a funny farm.
Good guess.
the founding fathers didn't say all people are equal in ability, but in the natural rights of man.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Not bad for a guy who kept slaves and probably knocked one of them up.
I agree in your analysis of xtianity and protestantism. I'm not sure if it affects the black churches, however. It's a good question and I'll look into it.
It does effect them, but the extent to which it does probably depends on the geographical and socio-economic location of the congregation. I wonder if these good folk fit the profile: Let me pontificate on idols in my fancy suit
Now, my impression from just general gossip, is that people in other countries, esp England, are more concerned with social status and standing than Americans, and more judgemental about it, too.
England is a complex issue. They are still emerging from an aristocratic system into the meritocracy instituted by America. I'd need a whole new essay to look at the British scenarios, but the core points would remain.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Dan Rowden »

Unidian wrote:
Damn, I as actually trying to avoid hyperbole.
I guess it was primarily this sentence that sent up a flag for me:
Thus a great many Americans are stuck in a crazed world of impractical and mostly shattered hopes and dreams, self-loathing, envy, despair and ultimately a festering hatred for life and fate.
It's largely accurate in principle, but I rather doubt most Americans actually feel all of that. For the most part, they are pretty well insulated from actually experiencing the full subjective force of it by the very cultural framework which ostensibly produces such results.
You're probably right. I did consider re-writing that particular paragraph. My hatred of Americans probably got in the way :) Plus, I did say a "great many", not "most". I have the wonders of ambiguity on my side.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Matt Gregory »

Dan Rowden wrote:In past discussions I have occasionally asserted the neurotic nature of American culture. Both Matt and Anna have quizzed me on this so I present here an attempt at a more fullsome analysis of my reasons for doing so:
Your hatred of Americans is unbecoming. Am I to believe Australians are less neurotic?
Hey, I didn't quiz you like THAT! I hate this fucking country! I want to move to Canada or Norway or Ireland.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Dan Rowden »

Oops, yeah, I need to put "Anna" in that quote box. Thanks for pointing that out.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by David Quinn »

Unidian,
Absolutely, which is the precise reason I hate Judge Judy and often have to either put on headphones or flee the room when it comes on.
Doesn't your TV have an off-button?

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Shahrazad »

Dan,
I don't know. What does it mean, to you, to be politically "free"? And why would we automatically think, as we seem to do, that political freedoms grant us greater happiness and comfort? They clearly do not automatically do so.
It is true that political freedom won't free you of your internal struggles and limitations, but at least we are not adding to those bonds those imposed by outside sources or persons. For example, I'd much rather not be free to leave my house because I'm too lazy to do it, than because the authorities have arrested me in my own house and will keep me from doing it at gun point. It is not the same thing, just as it is not the same to be persuaded to do something than to be coerced.
What does political freedom mean and what are its benefits?
It means that I am sovereign over my own life. The benefits are that we get to make our own mistakes and not those of others, and to keep our dignity. Being someone else's slave is the worst humiliation I can think of.

But I do agree that freedom is not sufficient for happiness. In a few specific situations, it might not even be necessary.

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Shahrazad »

Doesn't your TV have an off-button?
David, I think he's implying that someone else in his room wants to watch it.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by vicdan »

Dan Rowden wrote:Suggesting I am risk averse is the most absurd thing anyone has ever said about me. And the essay is not in the slightest about such a thing.
Actually it is. i suspect you do not understand what risk aversion and risk seeking are in this context.

i am talking about decision theory. Consider two possible outcomes: a 50% chance of winning $40, and a 100% chance of winning $20. The expected winning (a sum of probability-weighed outcomes) is the same -- $20. However, if you are risk-averse, you place a penalty on the high-outcome, low-probability decision (e.g. the high-risk decision's expected utility might actually be $15 rather than $20 for you), and if you are risk-seeking, you place a premium on high-risk options (e.g. the expected high-risk outcome might be worth $25 to you).

Now all humans are somewhat risk-averse when plotted against nominal outcomes, at least in part because the marginal utility of virtually any good diminishes. Adjusted for the drop in marginal utility, the most rational decision model is to be risk-neutral. The model implied in your essay (the dangers of not winning outweigh the gains of winning) is risk-averse.

Which is to say, having made a partially accurate critique is not enough; you have to show that it's actually relevant, and you haven't. All you have noted so far is point out that there will be people who win, and those who don't might suffer. That does not mean that this is a bad thing. Establishing the suboptimality of this distribution model is a very different question from actually observing its existence.

And yes, you are risk-averse -- risk-averse with regard to the socioeconomic competition; or at least your essay suggests risk-aversion on your part. This is not the same as being willing to take a risk by bungee jumping, swimming with sharks, or dedicating yourself to philosophy on the dole (the latter being the grandest, most daring risk of them all of course) -- just as, say, moral courage is not the same as physical courage.

You are risk-averse AFAICT.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

Post by Unidian »

Doesn't your TV have an off-button?
I don't live alone. But you know that, so I'll assume this question is an attempt to make a point.
I live in a tub.
Locked