David Brooks, The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement (New York: Random House, 2012).
I’m not normally a fan of mixing fiction and non-fiction into whatever hybrid Frankenstein genre that is. I like to get lost in a fiction world or dig into a non-fiction book for nuggets of interesting truth. However, The Social Animal actually combines both very well, and it surprised me. In fact, I think it was a stronger book because of this approach.
Brooks’ main point is similar to what I’ve seen from psychologists like Jonathan Haidt (The Happiness Hypothesis) and Daniel Kahneman (Thinking Fast and Slow), as well as philosophers like James K. A. Smith (You Are What You Love). Namely, that we are driven by our inner emotions/desires/loves more than our intellect/reason/logic. There is a whole lot going on beneath the surface of our conscious mind. We usually don’t even recognize it, but it is driving us to act the way we do. “We are primarily the products of thinking that happen below the level of awareness” (viii). This does not mean we don’t also make rational conscious decisions. However, these are greatly influenced by our interpretation of the world, brought to us through our senses as we experience it. “These signals don’t control our lives, but they shape our interpretation of the world and they guide us, like a spiritual GPS, as we chart our courses. If the general thinks in data and speaks in prose, the scouts crystalize with emotion, and their work is best expressed in stories, poetry, music, image, prayer, and myth” (x).
Over the course of the book, the author tells the fictional tale of two individuals and their journey through birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc., as well as milestones like education, marriage (to each other), and career opportunities. What makes things interesting is that he’ll pause along the way to explain what is going on “beneath the surface.” What might seem like a fairly typical first date is actually hundreds of things happening that the two love-birds are not consciously aware of. It was fascinating to see the various conclusions from psychological research play out in the lives of this fictional couple.
Here are some interesting quotes I pulled out along the way…
“People who lack emotion don’t lead well-planned lives in the manner of cooly rational Mr. Spocks. They lead foolish lives.” (19)
“Marital satisfaction generally follows a U-shaped curve. Couples are deliriously happy during the first years of marriage. Their self-reported satisfaction declines and bottoms out when their children hit adolescence, then it climbs again as they enter retirement.” (26)
“People are thirty times more likely to laugh when they are with other people than when they are alone. When people are in bonding situations, laughter flows. Surprisingly, people who are speaking are 46 percent more likely to laugh during conversation than people who are listening.” (42)
“That is to say, people don’t develop first and create relationships. People are born into relationships—with parents, with ancestors—and those relationships create people. Or, to put it a different way, a brain is something that is contained within a single skull. A mind only exists within a network.” (43)
“The next clear finding from research is that people are pretty bad at judging what will make them happy. People vastly overvalue work, money, and real estate. They vastly undervalue intimate bonds and the importance of arduous challenges.” (196)
“People who have one recurrent sexual partner in a year are happier than people who have multiple partners in a year.” (196)
“If you have a successful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many professional setbacks you endure, you will be reasonably happy. If you have an unsuccessful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many career triumphs you record, you will remain significantly unfulfilled.” (197)
“Memory doesn’t actually retrieve information. It reweaves it. Things that happen later can transform your memory of something that happened before. For these and many other reasons, your unconscious data-retrieval system is notoriously unreliable.” (236)
“Marriage expert John Gottman argues that in a healthy relationship the partners make five positive comments to each other for every one negative one.” (265)
“Once they have formed an affiliation, people bend their philosophies and their perceptions of reality so they become more and more aligned with members of their political tribe […] Party affiliation often shapes values, not the other way around.” (303)
“If you get married before having children, graduate from high school, and work full-time, there is a 98 percent chance that you will not live in poverty.” (329)
“We work harder to avoid losses than to achieve gains.” (378)
David Brooks brings a boat-load of insights pulled from piles of research, and summarizes it in a full “circle of life” story. He often does so in a slyly witty way, which makes his writing highly enjoyable (even if he can get a little too raw in his language sometimes). Whenever you’re drawing conclusions from scientific and social research, it is likely to get dated. I’m sure that is the case with some of the studies he draws on here. However, his overall conclusions seem to be continually affirmed in our current times.
This book was one of the most influential books for me this past year, and contributed greatly to my own book I co-authored with my brother, due out next year (Straight To The Heart). Although I do not know what Brooks’ spiritual beliefs are, I also appreciated the importance and respect he gave faith along the way, while not diving too deep into the details of it.
This book will inform and challenge you; it will make sense of things you intuitively already know, and will challenge common perceptions that have become oft-repeated myths in our culture. Along the way, the fictional couple will act as a sort of mirror into your own life. We may not see everything going on beneath the surface in our own head, but we can see it more clearly in others. And we’re not so different from them.
Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz
How do surveyors know they are collecting accurate data? When your primary mode of gathering information is by asking people questions, there is much room for error, especially when you’re dealing with subjects that are private or taboo. It turns out, people are not very willing to divulge the worst of themselves to another individual! Everybody lies.
To get around this problem, the author looks to “Big Data.” Specifically, what Google searches reveal about ourselves that we might never share publicly. Google functions as a sort of online diary for many people in our current culture. They confess to Google private matters that they may not be truthful about in conversations with real people. There are many reasons to lie to others, but most people see no reason to lie to their computer.
With access to data collected through Google, researchers can find out what it is people are really thinking. This provides a fascinating look into controversial questions. For example, the common narrative that racism is most heavily concentrated in the American South and among the Republican party is challenged by the findings of Big Data. Racist Google searches (using racial slurs, looking up racist jokes, etc.) are often highest in places such as upstate New York, western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, industrial Michigan and rural Illinois (7). The author argues that the true racism divide is not between North and South, but between East and West. “You don’t get this sort of thing much west of Mississippi” (8). Also, “Racist searches were no higher in places with a high percentage of republicans than in places with a high percentage of Democrats” (8)
Researchers can specify certain word combinations, and pair that with geographical location to get more specific information. For example, the author explores what people typically search when they find out their wife is pregnant. What most often follows “My wife is pregnant…”? Well, it varies depending on where you live. American’s making the search are typically more worried (“…what do I do?”) while Latin countries seem to be more thoughtful towards their wives (“…how do I help her feel beautiful?”).
You can also learn a lot about age demographics by the words they use most frequently on the internet, which differ between generations. He summarizes a graphic displaying all these words as “Drink. Work. Pray. In people’s teens, they’re drinking. In their twenties, they are working. In their thirties onward, they are praying” (86).
We can also peek into the minds of those who have children vs. those who do not. As it turns out, “People are seven times more likely to ask Google whether they will regret not having children than whether they will regret having children” (111). However, “Adults with children are 3.6 times more likely to tell Google they regret their decision than are adults without children” (111).
The questions to ask are endless. What do people most often search during the coldest days of the year? What do people search after a terrorist attack? What are the most common questions teenagers are asking Google? What are the common questions senior adults are asking? For that matter, one question I had (that never got answered) was, What are the most common demographics to even use Google? To me, it seems that the whole data set used for any of these questions are going to be limited to those who are using Google the most.
The author believes that this new way of using data will usher in a revolution in research method. He may overstate his case (the whole book has the air of someone who is really excited to have his first book published). But he may also be on to something. Methods like “A/B Testing” allow endless pairs to be tested against each other in order to discover which is more likely to get clicks from an audience. This is then used to target consumers, much as casinos have developed a precise science of how to get the most money out of their clients. He notes how both Romney and Obama used such methods to determine which words, pictures, etc. led to more donations on their websites.
This all brings up some ethical questions. The methods used by researchers to better personalize ads also capitalize on the same behaviors that drive addiction. We see this already with our phones and the constant scrolling and clicking they elicit from us. Similar discoveries have led streaming services like Netflix to leverage our attention for “binge watching” (ever wondering why the next episode just starts, rather than making you physically click on it?).
I enjoyed this book in some ways, but not in others. It can be fascinating in the same way as Malcolm Gladwell books are fascinating, by looking at interesting (and sometimes quirky) questions and finding unexpected answers. However, Gladwell he is not. The author, while not uninteresting, seems to lack the storytelling ability of Gladwell or the “Explain it to me like I’m 6” ability of Steven Pinker.
Additionally, he spends a lot of time talking about porn. While he brings up some interesting discoveries, he also drags you through some muck that feels a bit gratuitous. It’s understandable, since porn presents some of the largest data available online from the sheer volume of traffic. That being said, those who are easily offended by sexual material and racist words will want to skip large sections of the book.
In the end, I’m always fascinated by books that help us better understand human behavior. The big take-away—that humans lie to everyone except Google—is a good one. For me as a pastor, it makes me ask, “What is it about human nature that causes us to lie so easily to each other?” We can see that right from the very beginning in Genesis, with Adam and Eve hiding from God after falling into sin. Lies often cling to shame. The author also left me with some great pieces of info that challenge common assumptions. I think he’s definitely on to something when he declares that this new way of doing research will be a turning point for how we handle information in our bloated “Information Age.” How we will ultimately navigate the ethical issues is yet to be seen.
I love fantasy books, and have for a long time. I’ve only read “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy once, when I was a teenager, so it is my goal to revisit all three this year. With all the hype and praise given to these books, and a trilogy of extremely successful movies imbedded into the “greatest hits” of pop culture, do these books still hold up? Does a hobbit have hairy feet? (answer: YES)
Tolkien created a richly crafted world like no other. Things that get a passing mention in The Fellowship of the Ring have entire histories behind them (found elsewhere in Tolkien’s writings) that rival the classic Greek myths in their epicness. While C.S. Lewis loved to throw every kind of fantastical creature imaginable into his Narnia books, each of the many characters in Tolkien’s work seems to have an important reason for being there. From elves to trolls to dwarfs to hobbits to whatever Tom Bombadil is, Middle Earth is a richly imaginative world brought about by the care and attention of a nerd to rival all other nerds.
It’s impossible not to see the influence this work has had on other notable fantasy series, and books like The Eye of the World (first in wildly successful “The Wheel of Time” series) borrow from it almost beat-for-beat. It is at once a classic road trip story, coming of age tale, clash of civilizations war epic, Greek heroic tragedy, and many other things all at once (not to mention a collection of original songs and poetry that are better than 99.99999999% of modern pop music). For me, it’s also a great example of the famous “Hero’s Journey” by Joseph Campbell of a “nobody” who is called out of the comfort of their familiar home into the dangerous unknown for an adventure, facing trials alongside mentors and allies, that will forever change them for their journey home (and that’s just Bill the Pony!).
The writing style is older, and you can see where (and why) certain changes were made for the movie adaptation. However, it’s incredibly refreshing to have these characters speak with a sense of gravitas. I can’t express how much I hate the trend of adding “modern” (read: sarcastic, MCU-style, cynical,etc.) language into high fantasy stories to try and draw in a wider audience. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the “it” factor that makes these stories “timeless” in the first place. No amount of petty high-school banter is going to add to what an imaginatively rich story brings (Willow tv series, I will never forgive you).
In a modern age that feels as though everything has to be “gritty” and “grounded in realism” and “speak to modern issues,” it’s nice to know that the greatest fantasy series of all time transcends all that. Was Tolkien influenced by issues in his own day? Well, World Wars are no joke, and certainly lodged into his brain and life, so it’s inevitable that parallels come out, however subconsciously the author weaved them into his story. However, the heart of the book speaks to human issues that all can relate to, no matter what moment in history we’re living in. How do I “live well” within the time allotted me? What will I sacrifice of myself so that others (friends and strangers alike) may be saved? Is it “fair” that grave responsibilities be entrusted to me and not others? What is the value of true friendship and how do I recognize it (and its opposite)? When and how do we discover our courage? What inner strength drives us forward for good when all other senses tell us to turn back?
One could critique how many details are alluded to in passing that may add richness to the story for the fantasy nerd, but could be confusing for the casual reader. One could desire to have more female characters in what is predominantly a story populated by men. There are other criticisms that can (and have) been made. Luckily for all those people, there are million lesser works they can go read to get their fill of whatever it is they’re looking for. If you want to read the GOAT of high fantasy, give this one a read (and a watch) and see what you think.
I, for one, can’t wait to revisit the The Two Towers next.
Os Guinness is greatly influenced by the late Francis Schaeffer and is well-respected by those of us who are into “Worldview” studies. In this book, he compares and contrasts two revolutions: The American and the French. His main point is that America, if it wants to preserve any sense of freedom, would be wise to draw from the wisdom of a third revolution: The covenant between God and the Israelites made at Mount Sinai and recorded in the book of Exodus.
Guinness notes that “…the present crisis stems from the fact that over the last fifty years, major spheres of American society have shifted their loyalties and now support ideas that are closer to the French Revolution and its heirs rather than the American Revolution.” (3) The main issues he addresses in the book can be summarized by this shift, which he presents as this: “America cannot endure permanently half ‘1776’ and half ‘1789.’” I’m not a fan of big declarative statements of finality, in which someone pronounces eternal judgement on a nation if they don’t heed the advice found in their book. I also understand that this is often the best way to get the attention of an audience today, and pretty much anyone who speaks with nuance is subsequently ignored. So, Guinness sets himself up with a tall order to prove. Does he do so convincingly?
Guinness points to God as the “true revolutionary” who “turns the world right way up” when we are prone to “turn the world upside down.” (12) God creates order but we create disorder. He believes this is clearly seen in the Sinai covenant, and spends a good amount of time unpacking why. The type of freedom that society needs is “ordered freedom”; a balance between the extremes of authoritarianism and anarchy. Historically, not all revolutions are created equal.
In the Exodus story, the Bible clearly values freedom while standing in firm opposition to the abuse of power. It is a picture of both valuing the past as well as looking to the future. In this sense, Guinness claims, “True conservatism and true liberalism are blood brothers, not enemies.” (25) To walk this careful tightrope is not easy, but necessary, for “…freedom pursued in the wrong way all too often ends in serfdom rather than liberty.” (26)
Compared to the religious foundations of Sinai, the French Revolution stands in stark contrast, establishing a “Cult of Reason” that was every bit as “religious” as that which it sought to tear down. It seems that the religious fervor of any revolution is unavoidable; it just comes in different flavors. To better understand the theological underpinnings of Sinai, Guinness borrows much from the works of two contemporary rabbis, and offers valuable insight into a Jewish interpretation of the great Exodus story. He notes that secular ideologies always try to understand humanity by starting with ourselves, which inevitably leads to understanding us “downward,” reducing us “…to the level of nature or an animal or a machine.” (49) Starting with God, however, raises us up, understanding humanity “upward,” as made in the image of God.
Another interesting point that Guinness makes is on the importance of words. He notes that God revealed Himself to us through words, and even created the world using words. In our culture, however, words have often been cheapened. “In the Babel of our media and social media, words have been hyped, worn out, and left threadbare.” (56) He says, “There is ceaseless deconstruction, but not reconstruction. The dismantling is never followed by rebuilding.” (56) He begins to criticize the political left more and more, and likely wherever you fall on the political spectrum will determine how much you agree/disagree with what he says. This is not to say that he doesn’t offer words of critique against the right too, but he mostly see the echo of the French Revolution in the approach used by the progressive Left today.
There is much else that he says, but here are a few quotes that stood out to me.
“The people of God are to be an eternal critique of all that is wrong and a signal of transcendence pointing to a better and brighter way. They are called to be revolutionary, not reactionary, and a revolution that repairs and restores the world, turning its upside down to be the right way up.” (97)
“The first component in the cultural dynamics of sin is the temptation to suspicion of God and by implication a temptation to a deeper, wider suspicion of others and everything outside us as a threat to our freedom.” (108) He notes this suspicion is often directed against three things: boundaries, others, and the past.
“Under the philosophy of postmodernism, might always makes right. If power is the sole umpire in the game, how can ‘abuse’ be flagged as abuse when the powerful are simply being powerful and the weak are simply being weak?” (113) He notes how something like the #metoo movement can begin as an opposition to the abuse of power, but be coopted into an abuse of power itself by going on witch-hunts to ruin the lives and careers of every person that has ever made a mistake in their life. When the lines are blurred and the standards of today are retroactively applied to culture decades ago, it can create a culture of fear rather than reform.
“Liberation may take no more than a moment, but freedom is a way of life that takes longer and requires patience and persistence.” (141)
Postmodernism operates using the method of suspicion, “…because suspicion is the best way to protect against the power moves of others […] The result is that postmodernism can never create anything other than a low-trust society.” (146)
“Freedom is a gift and an inheritance, but it is also an art that requires practice, discipline, and perseverance.” (158)
Guinness notes the importance of history. One might critique him at this point and ask, “History…according to who?” But his issue is with the focus of condemning the historical sins of others rather than looking at ourselves; a sort of historical scapegoating. He says, “Never in history have so many archives been ransacked, so many witnesses deposed, so many hearings held, so many testimonies plumbed, and so many statues torn down—all on behalf of exposing ‘the sins of fathers’ rather than our own.” (195)
This can also be seen in a shift to elevate “image” over “character.” When a celebrity is caught in some sort of violation of the cultural moral rule book, they are forced to make a canned “confession” to save face (and career). He says, “The modern apology is not really an apology from the abuser to the victim. It is for public consumption, a plea bargain with fans, supporters, and critics and a required step on the path back to social rehabilitation. Whatever passes for repentance is an early move in the healing process. The happy ending is ‘achieving closure,’ capped by the announcement that it is time to move on and time for the tabloids and paparazzi to stalk someone else.” (195) I’m reminded of comedian Adam Corolla who famously has refused to grovel before any mob, and has been able to avoid “cancelation” because the wolves who are looking for blood always move quickly on to their next victim. Of course, as Christians, true repentance is a must. That’s Guinness’s point: what our culture demands is not true repentance, but often mere moral theatre.
In the end, I think this book has some good stuff to say. My biggest critique would be that Guinness often throws too much on the page to consider. He is obviously well-read, but many times fails to drill down and unpack an idea when he can get away with just mentioning it in passing. The chapters are long, and he perhaps could have benefited from dividing his many ideas into more manageable chapters. However, for someone wishing to engage the political and social climate from the perspective of the Old Testament, this book offers an interesting perspective.
Sacks, Jonathan. Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times. New York: Basic Books, 2020.
It all comes down to a loss of community. That pretty much sums up this final book from noted rabbi Jonathan Sacks before he passed away last year. However, don’t let that simple summary dissuade you from diving into this highly rewarding read! In fact, for anyone wanting a thoughtful guide to help understand the state of western culture right now, this is a good place to begin.
Sacks starts by noting how the “cultural climate” has changed. We intuitively know that cultures evolve over time (just look at pictures of yourself from when you were a teenager to see the change in fashion!), but he helps us to understand some of the more alarming trends (besides, you know, the mercifully short-lived “man bun” hair phase). Specifically, he addresses the theme of “morality.” He describes it this way: “There are times when we seek to get other people to do something we want or need them to do: that is politics. We can pay them to do so: that is economics. Or we can persuade them to do so because they and we are part of the same framework of virtues and values, rules and responsibilities, codes and customs, conventions and constraints: that is morality.” (12) What happens when society loses a sense of shared morality?
It might be questioned how long it’s been (if ever) since western culture “shared” a moral compass at all. An easy example is the political split between conservatives and liberals, the Right and the Left, Republicans and Democrats. Although there are many who identify closer to the centre, populations are often broadly divided between these two sides. It can feel as if they have nothing in common! Passionate divisions occur regarding everything from economics, to sexual morality, to immigration, etc. Works by Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) and George Lakoff (Moral Politics) have attempted to address the psychology behind the split, while political commentators such as Ben Sasse (Them), Ezra Klein (Why We’re Polarized), and Yuval Levin (The Fractured Republic) have sought to explain the sociology of why we can’t seem to understand each other. Is a common morality even a realistic goal to aim for? C.S. Lewis famously noted the common threads of morality found in very different cultures around the world. There may not be much we agree on, but perhaps there are some basic “first principles” that we share, even if our application of those principles result in different answers to the problems we see around us? If we can at least agree on the problems, is that a place to start?
Sacks sees all of this resulting in a division of shared community. “In the absence of shared ideals, many conclude that the best way of campaigning is to damage your opponent by ad hominem attack. The result is division, cynicism, and a breakdown of trust. The world is divided into the people like us and the people not like us, and what is lost is the notion of the common good.” (17) Anyone who has a social media account knows this to be true! Just watch how the comment section of any YouTube video almost immediately degenerates into a fight, and it’s hard to imagine people ever finding important common ground. However, as I keep reminding myself, “Twitter is not real life.” The internet seems to be a bitter pill that turns even the most stable Dr. Jekyll into a monstrous Mr. Hyde. The result isn’t just that we have divided ourselves into tribes, but that we are experiencing an even greater increase in loneliness (see Robert Putnam’s magnificent Bowling Alone). This book was published at the very beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and I imagine the sense of loneliness has certainly increased over the past year. Zoom has been a poor substitute for your neighbourhood cafe. Isolation cannot help us for the same reason that “self help” strategies are limited:: “A leader’s strengths are his or her own, but it takes someone else to protect them from their weaknesses.” (41)
What about social media? Sacks notes a 2015 study that claims people check their phones, on average, every six and a half minutes (49). Has our technological connectedness through “social” media been a blessing or a curse? Perhaps a bit of both, although I’m becoming less and less convinced of its value at all. Here’s a thought experiment: What is one positive thing that social media has given us that could not have been gained through some other means (for example, independent chat rooms, email, Dropbox, etc.)? In the end, do the positives outweigh the negatives? I think the burden of proof is likely on the one who says “yes” to this (for an interesting take on this, check out the Social Dilemma documentary on Netflix).
Division has also struck families. Sacks says that marriage is “…fundamental to the moral enterprise because it is the supreme example of the transformation of two ‘I’s’ into a collective ‘We’.” (61) It’s more than a contract (transaction); it’s a covenant (relationship). (62) Marriage is a bedrock of society because it helps us see the world in terms of “we” instead of just “I.” (63) There is a strong case to be made that as goes the family, so goes society. I believe this is ultimately at the heart of elevating “family values.” It assumes there are social virtues learned within the family that are vitally important to the greater culture. This could manifest itself in various ways, from learning how to work together through personality differences as well as taking long-term responsibility for the children created through your sexual union. Sacks states, “The family…is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations and enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love.” (72) Agreed. We should be hesitant to turn over the responsibilities of the family to any other institution, except in the most desperate circumstances.
Sacks also addresses the dangers of taking a “market mentality” into places it does not belong. This is seen most vividly in a consumer society where “…we act to be envied rather than admired.” (105) He gives the example of a day care in Israel that began charging a fine to parents who came late to pick up their children at the end of the day. Rather than improving the behavior, parents got worse. In their minds, the fine became a transaction for services rendered (in this case, overtime childcare). When they removed the fine, the behavior didn’t change back. It seems that a consumer mindset it hard to uproot once it’s been established (109).
Sacks goes on to address what many see as a crisis most amplified on college campuses. He warns, “In the new dispensation, there are only victims and oppressors, and if you are not on the side of the victims, you must be an oppressor. That is the moral blackmail currently used to curtail freedom of speech.” (179) Rather than unifying people together through what we have in common, this approach vilifies “the other” and drives us more and more into our own ghettoes, or , “safe spaces.” The problem, as Sacks sees it, is “Our safe space is created by confining someone else to the ghetto, or worse…because safe space to some is very unsafe space to others.” (178) Here he is echoing concerns that others have also noted with increasing alarm (see Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay or The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff). In a society where speech is our primary way of exchanging ideas, we must guard its freedom, even (and perhaps especially) when it means hearing speech we disagree with. What is the other option? The internet has given everyone a microphone, and woe to those who attempt to suppress the exchange of ideas by force. As I saw one Twitter post put it recently, “Name one instance in history when those suppressing freedom of speech were the ‘good guys.'” While blanket statements like this, by their very nature, fail to account for exceptions, it causes one to ask questions like, “Who decides what speech can and cannot be uttered?” and “Are you willing to give that power to someone that may see your speech as problematic?”
Freedom of speech also has profound implications for how we work through our differences. Indeed, as our primary way of communicating, it seems to be the only way we can do this! Sacks draws on his Jewish heritage to champion the art of “argument for the sake of heaven,” in which two opposing sides, each coming from a certain perspective, can come closer to the truth through their dialogue. This assumes both sides are willing to listen to each other, rather than turn a deaf ear after their own monologue concludes. When disagreements are approached rightly, then even if you “lose” the argument, you still “win” by learning the truth (191).
Our society seems to be exchanging a “guilt culture” for a “shame culture.” In a guilt culture, morality comes from a “voice within,” and can be remedied by confession and repentance. In a shame culture, however, morality is an “external demand” placed on us by others. As we see when public celebrities “step out of line” and are viciously attacked by haters on social media, no amount of public groveling and/or flagellation will free them from the weight of the guilt they must now bear. This, as one would expect in an age of technological connectedness, has led to alarming incivility. After all, we seem to be far “braver” in confronting people when sitting safely anonymous behind our computer screen than if we were to be face-to-face with the victim of our disapproval.
All of this may simply be the symptoms of something much more tragic: the loss of meaning. What do we have that grounds our sense of self? Quoting David Brooks, Sacks says, “When everything is available, every lifestyle on offer, when all you have is freedom, but nothing to guide you in that freedom, ‘it’s not so much that you lose the thread of meaning of your life, you have trouble even staying focused on the question.'” (244) Having just read Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl last week, this theme is still vividly fresh in my mind. As Frankl recounts, it was those who could ground their suffering in a sense of meaning that survived the brutalities of the concentration camp where otherwise “stronger” men could not. Without a unifying story of what our lives mean, it’ll be hard to make sense of everything else coming at us. As Nietzsche put it, “He who has a why to live can face almost any how.” Sacks writes, “We are, in large measure, the story we tell about ourselves, which means that we are always a work in process.” (246) It’s well-known that humans are story-telling beings at our core. We’re been telling stories for a long time, and this is a primary way we come to understand ourselves. It helps us connect seemingly unrelated parts into a greater whole. In fact, understanding the place of suffering within our “life story” has been found to produce physical health benefits up to a year after a tragedy occurs. Or, as the writer of Hebrews put it, “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” (Hebrews 10:14) In other words, we are “unfinished masterpieces,” both presently valuable and a work in progress. What will the next chapter of our life story tell?
In the end, Sacks believes we need to regain a sense of community, centered around relationships, and established through covenant. He notes, “A contract is a transaction. A covenant is a relationship. A contract is about interests. A covenant is about identity. That is why contracts benefit, but covenants transform.” (313) Rather than viewing the world as a series of transactions, asking, “What can this person do for me?”, individuals must move from the “I” mindset to the “we.” We must seek to focus on those commonalities that bind us together, which we all have a vested interest in. The ethical teachings of Jesus seem to have this common thread: move your eyes off yourself to see the needs of others. It is this kind of others-focused community that should be found within the Kingdom of God He established.
All of this does not mean that we will automatically see eye-to-eye on the solutions, but perhaps a good start is to get back to literally seeing people “eye-to-eye.” Covid has undoubtedly made this difficult, and has certainly highlighted the importance of what Sacks writes. Is there an easy fix to the ills that plague us (as well as the actual plague that plagues us)? No, and Sacks does not pretend there is. However, this book is a timely collection of wisdom and insight, and a seemingly appropriate message for Sacks to put out at the end of his life. I think his words are worth heeding. Morality, in the end, is about how we treat each other. True community cannot be sustained where morality fails, and when community has been eroded, society teeters on the edge of a dangerous cliff. Jesus Himself told us to “Love one another as I have loved you.” (John 13:34) For the Christian, this sounds like a good place to start.
Mike Blackaby's Blog 