Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Daniel's avatar

Brink talks about "comfort" as one of the chief promises of consumerism today, and he also speaks a couple of times about the "will-to-comfort". I thought about which undergrad English lit class I took decades ago in which we read a dramatic work in which "comfort" played a significant role in the plot and character development, and then I had it: G B Shaw's "Heartbreak House"!

One of the more interesting characters in the work is Captain Shotover, the salty old sea captain who stands aloof from his family members as they plot and scheme about how to gain more affluence and comfort. In one particular passage, Captain Shotover says to his granddaughter:

"I see my daughters and their men living foolish lives of romance and sentiment and snobbery. I see you, the younger generation, turning from their romance and sentiment and snobbery to money and comfort and hard common sense. I was ten times happier on the bridge in the typhoon, or frozen into Arctic ice for months in darkness, than you or they have ever been. You are looking for a rich husband. At your age I looked for hardship, danger, horror, and death, that I might feel the life in me more intensely. I did not let the fear of death govern my life; and my reward was, I had my life. You are going to let the fear of poverty govern your life; and your reward will be that you will eat, but you will not live."

I don't remember much about Shaw's others plays we read that term, but this particular passage stuck out to me (particularly the last 4 lines). I don't sympathize with many of Shaw's political sentiments, but I do agree with him that if we're overly concerned with being comfortable, we won't really live. While most people would understandably prefer to lie their head on a pillow rather than on a log, I don't consider it much of a life if our main preoccupation is the seeking of comfort. The Stoics, among others, understood the value of adversity in shaping our personalities. In short, they believed that we can't really flourish as human beings unless we contend with some kind of adversity, or discomfort, that tests us and causes us to refine how we think and act. I think there's truth in that.

But I don't think the general trend is heading in that direction; I think that most of us are perpetually enthralled with the idea of the will-to-comfort, and that as time goes by, many people will become even more isolated from other people and therefore lacking in real relationships even as they may live more of their "real lives" in their VR goggles. Screens, screens, everywhere. Lots of comforting images, but then this reminds me of another literary work, "The Glass Menagerie", in which one of the characters, Tom, says:

"People go to the movies instead of moving! Hollywood characters are supposed to have all the adventures for everybody in America, while everybody in America sits in a dark room and watches them have them! Yes, until there's a war. That's when adventure becomes available to the masses."

And that was written in the early 1940's!

I don't wish to be on a bridge in a typhoon nor in a war, per se, but again, I am all for building personal resilience and flourishing as we tangle with adversity, and spending too much time mesmerized by the idea of comfort and how much additional comfort we can seek is a recipe for self-indulgence and non-flourishing.

Expand full comment
Priscilla L Biddle's avatar

I heard the word "producerism" on some BBC radio talk show and it caught my ear. As the opposite of "consumerism," it is a very attractive concept/word. A bit of Googling, however, the concept weighted down with political baggage. A lovely word/idea, sadly associated with nativism, populism, and Trumpism -- all anti-intellectual, nearly anarchical if they weren't fascist movements. So, that word has a bit of stink to it, but I trust you will coin an even better one.

For community/family being a source if learning, in addition to academic pursuits: As a veteran teacher, I have long wondered what families thought families were for (like preparing children for adulthood) if schools are supposed to do everything. "We shouldn't learn algebra/read Shakespeare because you cant use it in real life. Why not teach filling out tax forms and reading laptop instruction manuals and how you change a flat tire?" The application of consumerism to education is a source of our current woes. Learning becomes a commodity, students become both product and customer, and certification(regardless of whether adequate skills are present) is the goods. So rather than the feeding and training of a human mind, teaching has become a formula to gain an outcome, with outcomes posted on our whiteboards so that admin can do drive-thru evals, making sure everyone is on task.

I am a big believer in public education, like the press, as a mainstay of democracy. I devoted my 40 year professional life to it. Sadly, it has also been under attack from the financial elite for decades. If we could have schools foster community on the smaller scale you describe while still providing equity and access, it would be a dream come true. Just dont want us to return to the frontier "schoolhouse" that our grandfather attended, Joe-Dick Stovall and his butcher knife aside.

Thanks for your good thinking and work, Brother. I am enjoying the challenge of this journey!

Expand full comment
34 more comments...

No posts