The Coddling of the American Mind: A review and reflection.

The Book
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. N.Y.: Penguin Press.

Changes
As recent as 2015 and up till the present there have been powerful and disruptive forces at work in Western society typified by widespread unrest, the depth of which has not been seen since the 60s. During this period we have witnessed the fragmentation of society as formerly shared core beliefs are challenged and discarded, institutional child abuse,  Black Lives Matter,  #MeToo, Terrorism, Trump, Far right protests, and the progressive left's disruption of free speech on campuses. For the young, future economic prospects are uncertain with many changes brought about by globalisation, wage stagnation, high University fees, and artificial intelligence. These changes have meant that many of the jobs that exist today will be automated and redundant.

Overprotection
Against this backdrop is the modern obsession of parents in overprotecting their children. Lukiaoff and Haidt believe that this obsession with the overprotection of children is one cause contributing to a  rapid rise in the number of adolescents suffering from depression, anxiety, and suicide. Nietzsche once said that "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger." However, the children of the iGeneration are not getting this message. The message that iGens have been reared to believe is "What doesn't kill me makes me weaker." This is an unconscious slogan that reinforces the concept of safetyism: the widespread notion that children need to be protected from the harmful effects of unsafe spaces, bullying, child abuse, and hurtful words. Instead of producing a generation of healthy young adults our society has nurtured a generation of young adults who are susceptible to depression, anxiety and, in some cases are more prone to suicide than previous generations. The unrealistic hyper-concern for safety promotes emotionally fragile young people who exhibit traits of unreasonable fear and a tendency for a lack of sufficient resilience to ward off mental distress.

Victimhood
Students today, for example,  are more likely to believe that misogyny and rape culture are endemic on college and university campuses. They are more likely to be immersed in an academic culture that propagates the notion of masculine toxicity and the poisoning effect of white male privilege. This heightened cultural perspective assumes that a person's privileged upbringing or tribal identity may prevent them from empathising with those that are viewed as belonging to a victimised group or groups. Often the so called people of privilege may inadvertently say things that are commonly referred to as microagressions that hurt others (see previous blog: Victimhood culture ). Universities in many Western countries foster a culture of safetyism that seeks to protect students from ideas that may challenge their beliefs and attitudes. Many of these campuses provide safe spaces where students can go to feel protected from harmful ideas. Another common strategy is to de-platform speakers with dangerous ideas that could be upsetting to students. This protected culture is so sanitising that it provides the conditions that enable a form of emotional bracket creep. Such a situation as this fosters the notion that almost anything can be perceived as harmful or violent.

Social media
'Those ascribing to victimhood culture see themselves as individuals or as disenfranchised group members who often take offence to opposing views of some privileged person or persons who use their position to disenfranchise their supposed victim or victims' (see a previous blog - Victimhood Culture). Anything that can be considered as an attack on student groups or as being offensive in any way may be an opportunity to exercise collective punishment by ostracising or stigmatising, often by labelling someone as being racist, or cis white males, for example. Social media has become an effective tool used to appeal to and influence group-think (or mob) mentality (see Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's harrowing experiences at Evergreen State College - PART THREE: The hunted individual).

The digital social behaviours are often confrontational, adherents are inclined to be less inhibited in saying what they think about social issues. Those with opposing views are often shamed by using unsavoury language or specified derogatory labels. Those that are shamed in this way can incur the wrath of the mob and suffer an avalanche of citiscism for the perceived offence. Not only does this promote a group think mentality but also an intersectional reality whereby groups or tribes of victims intersect and support one another against the perceived oppressive opinions or violent ideas. The premise is that the more intersectional that you are the more social prestige you gain, for example, a trans person who is black will have more social and tribal credit that say a white, conservative male. The perception is those who are considered as belonging to more than one intersectional tribe may need more protection, affirmation and affirmative action by some compensatory process.

Over-parenting
The ME generation were fed on a diet of Dr Spock who emphasised that children should be permitted to develop at their own pace. This was often executed in a protected and scheduled fishbowl environment. However, when their children left home they would often feel like fish out of water and  not cope with the diversity of ideas in the real world. 'Always trust your feelings' is a typical phrase that iGenners would have heard time-and-again. The focus on feeling rather than reasoned thought makes this generation susceptible to conflicting emotions and an intolerance to the ideas of others.  

Expanded view
Lukianoff and Haidt give some suggestions as to how this situation can be alleviated with some creative thinking from parents, educators, schools and university administrators. We need to foster a sense of adventure and resilience by gradually giving our children freedom to venture beyond the over protective environment of the home. More opportunities to play with others rather than just through organised play dates. Schools need to have plenty of recess time so that children can learn how to socialise with diverse individuals. Parents and teachers need to limit the amount of time spent on screens and increase the child's experience of the outside environment; they should be taught how to manage risk. In terms of coping with others is the notion that when they draw a circle to exclude them they should draw a wider circle that includes them.

Links that you may find of interest:

Listening at the Great Awakening: Areo

PART THREE: The hunted individual

The Scruton tapes: an anatomy of a modern hit job: The Spectator

Interview by Brendan O'Neill with Johnathan Haidt: Fragility and Division: Sound Cloud

The mess we are in: A review and reflection.

Keane, B. (2018). The mess we're in: How our politics went to hell and dragged us with it. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

The mess
Most of Bernard Keane's book is devoted to the current political and cultural 'mess' that Australian liberal democracy is finding itself in during this transitional period of history. Due to the reach of globalisation and the influence of the internet the rest of the world is also mired in one way or another. Some of my previous book reviews have addressed these cultural issues that have arisen over the last couple of decades so I will focus more on Keane's last couple of chapters where he examines some of the underlying ideas and meanings that have filtered through Western thought, particularly in relation to the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment.

Emotion versus reason
Keane believes that Western modernity emphasised the role of the individual and there has been a long tradition of using scientific reasoning since the Enlightenment.  He goes on to say that the Reformation was probably the most important movement in Western civilisation as it focussed on the direct relationship between man and God. It overturned the idea that we need a priest as an intermediary but, instead, places the responsibility for the important decisions on the individual (see previous blog: Inventing the Individual). As a consequence, individualism was embedded  into the "very fabric of European life" and gave impetus to Democracy and individual creativity. The Enlightenment took reason and science to a new level but in so doing it made the error of separating its foundation of faith from reason. The danger is that reason without faith can lead to a mechanistic and materialistic world devoid of human feeling.

Rousseau and the rise of emotion
Keane claimed that the French philosopher, Rousseau thought that mankind would be far better off without reason. This view was essentially anti-Enlightenment because, instead of celebrating reason, Rousseau believed  that the path to knowledge was through examining one's own feelings. Rousseau's philosophy of suppressing reason in the name of the emotional truth of the masses places him at the start of an intellectual tradition that leads deep into twentieth-century (and twenty-first-century). This philosophical perspective inspired Romanticism and resonated with many people in today's society experiencing fear, confusion, loneliness and loss of meaning. Rousseau provided a feelings foundation for the rise of notions of victimhood, tribalism and rage within our post-modern culture. It would seem that many people in our contemporary world are not only experiencing feelings of alienation but also envy as they are confronted with flagrant displays of wealth and power through the electronic media. These are the kinds of sentiments that Trump exploited so effectively in his bid for the Whitehouse with his passionate rejection of reason and the deliberate blurring of the factual information (see How Rousseau Predicted Trump).

Renaissance and homogenous thinking
Keane echoes Marshall McLuan's argument that the invention of the printing press inevitably led to nationalism by homogenising national languages and thereby minimising the notion of the tribe within states. Thus, the consolidation of a national language brought people together and consolidated the nation state. The printed book is also viewed as an extension of the visual faculty that intensifies perspective and the fixed points of view. Thus, the moveable type reinforced the notion that space is "visual, uniform and continuous". This provided a stable platform that provided a shared grand narrative that gave impetus to industrial growth, capitalism, and economic prosperity.

Postmodernism and the internet
Just as the printing press had a profound effect on Western civilisation during Renaisance the internet is now having an even greater impact on human knowing, memory and meaning. In our present postmodern situation the grand narrative has been replaced along with reason itself. Truth is no longer seen as absolute but all truth is considered as being relative. Today's digital citizens tend to read less even though they may spend a lot of time on the internet. They are able to multitask more easily and more effectively than the previous generation. They are likely to be more concerned with knowing how and where to find information rather than remembering important facts. On social media they are constantly rewarded with 'likes' and being linked with those that are more inclined to agree with their own thoughts and feelings. Social media users are more inclined to provoke outrage and the venting of anger as it elicits more rewards in the form of likes, sympathetic responses, and repostings. Keane believes that digital users are spending more time alone with their devices and are more likely to develop a lack of empathy for those with differing viewpoints. This narrowing social interaction allows the user to express ideas with some degree of anonymity without having to explain or justify ideas. Often the intent of the user is to stir up rage and elicit shared emotional reactions.

Political dissociation
Even though humanity as a whole is doing better than at any other time in the history of the world social media constantly bombards users with a supply of social issues to worry about. "The internet is the great dislocator of our time, disrupting us psychologically, socially and economically." For many, this situation has lead to the distrust of politicians and feelings of alienation, anxiety, and outrage.

Other useful links:

Post-truth in an age of Authenticity

How should we read Rousseau

Kindly Inquisitors: Book review

Rauch, J. (2013). Kindly inquisitors. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Fundamentalism
Rauch contends ..."A very dangerous principle is now being established as a social right: Thou shalt not hurt others with words. This principle is a menace - and not just to civil liberties. At bottom it threatens liberal inquiry - that is, science itself." In America, France, Austria and Australia and elsewhere, the notion of the inquisition is being resurrected to  punish people who are perceived to hold opinons that are hurtful to others (see previous book review - Springtime for Snowflakes). This situation is a type of intellectual authoritarianism, once the province of the religious and the political right, that is being promulgated by the progressive  political left. It is a new type of fundamentalism that is not about religion but it is a righteousness (see previous book review - The Righteous Mind) based on the premise that they hold the moral high ground and there is no possibility that their views might be wrong.

The enlightened few
What is being advanced is a type of society, similar to Plato's Republic, whereby the masses are governed by a humane and enlightened few. The founding principle of the Republic is an absolute devotion and submission of the individual to a utopia that is based on an intellectual authoritarianism. Plato believed that knowledge comes from wisdom and that governance should be exercised by those who are wise. This view holds that the enlightened few will govern the masses in a more humane and sensitive manner. The new progressive fundamentalists, likewise, see themselves as being the arbiters of pubic discourse and morality.  In doing so they seek to criminalise open criticism and regulate thought. This situation is currently being played out in the public sphere: a rising form of authoritarianism in disguise and it is just as insidious as what Plato was proposing for ancient civilisation.

Meaning and knowledge
Here, questions are raised about meaning and knowledge. Can a chosen few have the knowledge and truth to make decisions for the rest of the population? This may, on the one hand, seem to make life easier because it would save us from having to make moral decisions and we could go about living without having to make too many difficult choices. Who will make the wise decisions? Who can we trust? Good men are liable to make mistakes and are sometimes unwilling to be open to criticism. This may sound rather sceptical but is it appropriate? "A society which has accepted skeptical principles will accept that sincere criticism is always legitimate." In other words, knowledge can only stand until it is debunked. Liberal science is not just for scientists it is a cultural process of inquiry that seeks to test ideas.

Reason and faith
Universities are the guardians of free thought and knowledge through criticism. Every one has different opinions about what constitutes prejudice. If universities endeavour to enforce what they perceive as 'correct opinions' they become bigoted and self-righteous. This then becomes a type of stubborn orthodoxy and another form of injustice. Can reason be the arbiter of knowledge?  Reason itself relies on faith, in this case, faith in liberal science. This is why liberal science must be open to criticism and not dogma. Reasoning can be responsible or irresponsible but if diversity of ideas is not allowed then it follows that knowledge cannot be tested and verified. However, when free speech is perceived as being offensive it leads to fundamentalist principles and outrage. Rauch contends, "A no-offence society is a no-knowledge society."

Authoritarianism
"Whenever the believers in the Fundamentalist Principle get the upper hand, they strive restlessly and untiringly to suppress diversity of opinion, and they do so not simply out of cynicism or power lust, but, on the contrary, out of the purist and most principled of motives." The threat is that the fundamentalists embrace authoritarianism and in the name of fairness and compassion, are capable of committing atrocities (as the Marxist did during the last century).

Liberal scientific and democratic ideals
Liberal democratic ideals (see previous book review - Inventing the Individual) presuppose the right to offend in the pursuit of truth. In doing so it has a responsibility to allow criticism to check for the accuracy of knowledge. Offensive words are just words, they are not violence. What should be done to placate the feelings of those that are offended (see recent blog - The mess we are in)? Nothing at all! The history of science is full of criticism and hurt feelings. No one likes to have their cherished ideas debunked. If this were not so then our society would make little progress. Rauch makes it very clear with this statement, "The inquisition failed to keep Copernicanism down. All it did was slow the progress of knowledge and kill people."


Other links of interest:

Professor's legal victory for free speech: The Australian