ISSUE 3
FAKED EDITION
“Moral” Anxieties No. 1 Nostalgia & Longing for the Past “Victorian smut at least had a sense of decency to it”:-
Next ! Week
“In my day criminals had respect for law and order” “They don’t make films like they used to..”
“..when you have decent acting and a decent story, you don’t need gratuitous sex scenes”
we work hard...to make ourselves suffer...we work hard...to make ourselves suffer...we work hard...to make ourselves suffer...
Our unique tape set, “Business Comes First” will really change your employees’ minds..
At last your company can benefit from state-of-the-art subliminal recordings! Play our subliminal tapes as background noise in your offices. The subliminals are hidden under pleasant sounds of the ocean surf. These hypnotic suggestions are carefully designed to ‘condition’ staff for optimum performance. Tape 1 (Puritan Work Ethic) is for use with frivolous or talkative employees who aren’t taking their work seriously enough (see left sidebar for actual suggestions). Tape 2 can then be used to balance the effects of long exposure to tape 1 (customers don’t like to see frowning employees). The suggestion loop for tape 2 is shown on the right sidebar. You can also install the system on your internal telephone network (effective on staff who waste time chatting on the phone). No other employee control system is more cost effective. BUSINESS SUBLIMINALS
I can’t help smiling...I can’t help smiling...I can’t help smiling...I can’t help smiling...I can’t help smiling...I can’t help smiling...
BUSINESS SUBLIMINALS
YOU MUST ATTEND YOUR APPRAISAL
YOU REALLY DON’T HAVE A CHOICE
AFTERNOON BREAKS NO LONGER ALLOWED
IT IS FOR YOUR BENEFIT CUTTING COSTS FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS
ISSUE 3 This issue of Anxiety Culture could increase your prosperity.*
The traditional way to create prosperity is to be hard-working, tough, and unnaturally fetishistic in your approval of terms like “challenge” and “competition.” As the review pages (14 & 15) in this issue illustrate, there are less depressing ways than this to create wealth. In fact, the tough, competitive approach is probably more suited to taking wealth than creating it. Some business gurus have predicted a future with wealth creation depending more on high intelligence than adversarial struggle or hard slog. Since most hard work (especially paid employment) is mindlessly unintelligent, the old saying, “most people are too busy earning a living to make any money”, might be restated/expanded as follows: You don’t have to earn money; you deserve to be paid for enjoying yourself; the idea that you should work full-time for 40 years of your life is insane and sadistic; the idea that the universe, or God, wants you to struggle for a living, implies that the universe, or God, is meaner and less benevolent than most people – which is difficult to believe; hard work is not necessary – most of it doesn’t create real wealth or contribute to human well-being in any way. Intelligence, enthusiasm, purpose and pleasure are sufficient. *Subject to an estimated fifteen billion billion other factors which you have absolutely no control over.
We welcome feedback and suggestions (send with an SAE for extra stickers). Issues 1 & 2 still available. Subscriptions for 4 issues of Anxiety Culture are £7.50. Single issues are £2.00 (inc. P&P). Cheques/PO’s payable to B.Dean. Send all correspondence to: Anxiety Culture, PO Box 1332, Chester, CH4 7WF Editing and artwork – Brian Dean. Thanks to Mark Selby and Mina Hull for contributions, and to everyone who sent press clippings and other useful data.
4
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
COERCION WITH A SMILE
Within corporate culture and government agency PR, Orwellian ‘doublespeak’ has become a common way of disguising coercion. Can a “benefit” be beneficial if it’s compulsory? Does an “incentive” do any good if it’s actually a threat? Employees may not be able to refuse the “offer” of overtime, or the “aid” of close monitoring of every small action. The unemployed have mandatory “assistance” and “incentives”, including termination of their payments if they don’t conduct their ‘jobseeking’ in the prescribed way. Many long-standing compulsory benefits (eg free compulsory education and the TV licence) have a benign appearance, and are largely accepted and unquestioned. This must indicate, to those who use doublespeak, that it’s a highly effective public relations strategy. Marketing and PR people are aware of the western cultural bias towards ‘self-determination’ (ie individualist self-control). They know we’re more likely to yield to their demands if we believe we’re personally in control and not being coerced – when we sense coercion we respond with resentment and resistance. Corporations and government thus make frequent use of self-determining words (eg ‘opportunity’, ‘incentive’ and ‘challenge’) as tools of resentment management. For example: “giving you the opportunity” probably means: “do as we say, or suffer disadvantageous consequences” “take on the challenge” means, in a work context: “choose between stress-related illness resulting from overwork, or unemployment” The technique is to let you believe you have a free choice – when, in fact, all you have is a dilemma (a “free choice” implies at least one favourable option; a dilemma means each option is unfavourable). The language of the typical nineties workplace is saturated with self-determining words, which hide coercion by disguising dilemmas as choices. In such environments, employees may actually come to believe they are performing repetitive, mindless tasks eight hours a day, out of personal choice, rather than economic dilemma. Resentment management is a subset of ‘damage limitation’. Damage limitation plays a massive role in advertising – many large organisations use commercials, not for selling products, but for deflecting some of the hostility, suspicion and anxiety the public feels towards them. For example, surveys continually show that people are hostile towards banks and other financial institutions. Nice, friendly ‘family’ adverts are used to counteract this tendency, often with no attempt to sell any specific services or products.
COMMERCIAL WATCH A well-known insurance company recently used TV commercials to advertise an insurance policy which guarantees that customers won’t “subsidise dishonest claimants”. They ensure this by closely checking each applicant’s insurance history. The implication is that insurance fraud is so common it makes a big difference to your premiums. This commercial uses language similar to that of politicians who froth over “dishonest claimants” of welfare benefits. In both cases the message seems to be: “you are being robbed – not by nice, friendly government or caring corporations, but by uncouth, cheating criminals who are everywhere.” This appears to be an example of damage limitation. Insurance companies are widely regarded with cynicism. Deflecting this public hostility onto “dishonest claimants” is a tactic learnt from politics and tabloid journalism. Another example is the TV licence ‘commercials’. Previously, the message from these was: “people without a licence can’t escape our omnipresent detector vans”. This ‘Big Brother’ approach must have been counterproductive, because the most recent ones convey the message: “people without a licence are obnoxious, loathsome and antisocial – everyone hates them”.
POLITICAL ADVICE “You want to use value words. You connect midbrain, subcortical – you want to hit them down under, in their lizard brains...where they don’t think – where they just, y’know, react..” Primary Colors – A Novel of Politics (Anonymous).
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
5
HAVE ANOTHER COFFEE A technique commonly used by interrogators is to give the victim of the interrogation plenty of coffee. Caffeine tends to over-activate the verbalising areas of the brain – you’re more likely to say something you’ll regret with caffeine in your bloodstream. Bonnie Edwards’ book, America’s Favourite Drug – Coffee and Your Health (Odonian Press 1992), has a whole chapter devoted to the alleged anxiety-inducing effects of coffee. Apparently, heavy coffee drinkers are occasionally misdiagnosed with anxiety disorders, when in fact they’re only suffering from caffeinism (high caffeine intake syndrome). Caffeine combined with stress raises adrenaline levels higher than stress alone. It also interferes with adenosine, a neural chemical that has a calming action. Studies (reported in Edwards’ book) have shown that caffeine has an effect on brainwave activity likely to make people more emotionally volatile and predisposed to anxiety. A link has also been found between coffee drinking and “restless legs” – a common condition, often caused by anxiety. (Coffee also has beneficial effects such as relieving the symptoms of asthma, control of body weight etc). Medium strength tea contains about half the caffeine of medium strength coffee. Herbal drinks are often recommended as a calming alternative to caffeine. Most of these aren’t noticeably any more calming than water, but we have discovered one exception – “Blend no. 260” from Culpeper Ltd, 21 Bruton St, London. It tastes bitter, but has a definite effect on the nervous system (it contains valerian root and scullcap, the two most potent natural legal sedatives). Just the thing to take before going into a meeting.
6
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
STRESS CONTAGION
“Think back to how people in an office behave when one of their group returns from four weeks’ vacation and tries to catch up on business. Often, that person’s slowed speech and breathing rhythms will actually aggravate the stressed people in the group” Instant Calm, Paul Wilson, Penguin 1995 You can become anxious simply by being with anxious or stressed people. One factor making anxiety contagious is a psychological phenomenon called pacing – stressed people breathe shallow, rapid breaths, and speak fast/ frenetically; if you talk with them, you increasingly match these breathing and speech patterns. This works like yawning infectiousness – it’s not usually conscious. Unintentional hypnotism occurs between people all the time. In addition to physical suggestibility such as pacing, belief systems are involved. Stress carries certain distorted beliefs of what is important (“business has to come first”, “the deadline must be met”, etc) – workplaces clearly encourage these notions of ‘importance’. You can picture two employees, one stressed and one calm, as two opposing hypnotists, each trying to resist the other’s hypnotism. The work setting gives the stressed person a territorial advantage – he may not have a bigger stick but he has a more ‘important’ concern, making him the more potent hypnotist in that setting. In most workplaces, to be carefree is seen as a negation of commitment, ie stress/anxiety is tacitly encouraged. Working full-time tends to desensitise you to low-level chronic stress (many don’t notice until their health suffers). It takes a long holiday (not just a weekend) to bleach out the ‘invisible’ stress – 20 days annual leave doesn’t leave much room for experimentation. The best way to avoid stress infection is to literally avoid it, ie not go to work. As this isn’t an option for most people, you could instead try the following measures: i) spend the least amount of time possible at work; ii) get away from colleagues (especially stressed ones) at every opportunity; iii) go to extremes to avoid meetings; iv) never try to reason with stressed/emotional people – leave the room instead; v) don’t speak unless absolutely necessary (95% of workplace conversation is stressinducing bovine excreta). None of these measures are antisocial; work and stress are antisocial. Stressed people may attempt to make you feel antisocial for not joining in (they’re not to blame – it’s normal behaviour when you’re stressed). Beware those who hide their anxiety under forced joviality and excessive verbalisation.
ANXIETY CULTURE MORALS & VALUES Appointed recently by the government, The Committee for Public Morals publishes its official campaign leaflet, “How to Live Your Life Correctly” to coincide with national Respect for Authority day. The committee consists of distinguished church and parliament members, all of whom have many years experience of knowing what is right for everyone. In the interests of the economy, Respect for Authority day will not be declared a national holiday. The BBC is to transmit a 24 hr Crimewatch UK special, which will continuously alternate dramatic reconstructions of particularly horrendous crimes* with tearful press conferences for relatives of victims. Moral Aid charity donation hotlines will be open all day. *Since this year saw relatively few truly sickening crimes, reconstructions of some crimes may be repeated and re-repeated within the 24 hour period.
ARE YOU MORAL? Try our fun quiz and find out if you’re as moral as you think. Just answer the question below, then check your result against our “moral correctness” ratings. Question: You have been made redundant from a wellpaid job, and to be eligible for Jobseeker’s Allowance payments, you’re obliged to apply for humiliating and underpaid work. One dead-end job, which you apply for, has a question on the application form asking: “what interests you in this position?” Do you respond with: a) The truth (ie you’re actually uninterested in the job), thereby benefiting the employer by not misleading him/her about your motivations. or: b) A lie (eg you’ve always had a great ambition to work in the field of appallingly underpaid mind-numbing drudgery), thereby avoiding the DSS’s accusation that you aren’t trying hard enough to find work. Moral Correctness Ratings: Space intentionally left blank
Singapore has recently experienced economic success, with a per capita income nearly 50% higher than the UK, but its government isn’t happy. The problem is the citizens, who aren’t being ‘moral’ enough. To correct this, the Singapore government has a publicity campaign promoting family values, morality and good behaviour. The government’s message can be seen on billboards, TV, taxis, buses, etc. Accompanying the campaign is a government-sponsored handbook called Our Family Book, complete with pull-out ‘family-member-of-themonth’ certificates and Waltons-style dialogue showing how good families behave. As part of the drive to strengthen moral values, Singaporeans have been told to smile more, give up smoking, respect authority and obey rules. (Financial Times, 4/5/96).
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
7
POLITICIANS ENDORSE MASOCHISM AGAIN (Article sponsored by the Hedonist Party, 1997)
“YES, IT HURT. YES, IT WORKED” (recent political campaign slogan) “Formation of the masochistic response: a child helplessly anticipates some unavoidable pain (eg from an angry adult). Since the expected pain is unavoidable, the only way to respond to the feeling of helplessness (ie the only way to exercise any control) is to hasten the arrival of the pain – to get it over with. Thus, control is equated with bringing pain to oneself. Contrary to popular belief, this self-infliction of pain isn’t experienced as pleasure – in fact, pleasure is rejected as it negates the control mechanism.” From Mass Masochism by Rev. E. C. Leigh-Hurt Mass masochism is promoted in two ways: i) Encouragement of the belief in unavoidably painful realities of life, and the consequent inevitability of suffering. ii) Emphasis on social responsibilities such as discipline, obedience, hard work and taxes, which are “necessary” for the state’s management (ie control) of public suffering (pleasure becomes a brief, guilty respite from our main function, which is endless toil and payment of tax). Opposing all this, the Hedonists believe that happiness is our central function. Hedonists regard attempts to control suffering as futile and costly. Suffering shouldn’t be controlled or managed, it should be replaced – with pleasure. Use your vote for Uncontrolled Happiness, not Controlled Unhappiness. (© Hedonist Party)
8
Anxiety Culture/Issue Culture/Issue 33 Anxiety
MOTIVATION THEORY PART 1 The behaviourist ‘rat maze’ still looks the best metaphor for employee ‘motivation’. Rats have to go down the right tubes and press all the right buttons, to get the reward of food at the end. Employees have to travel the correct route to work, perform all the assigned tasks and make the right noises, just to get the reward of money at the end of the month. In fact, behaviourism (the study of the conditioning of a person’s responses through reinforcements of reward and punishment) has been very influential in industry – eg “rewards” such as stock options and bonuses for behaviour favoured by management. Behaviourism is not so much concerned with personal motivation, as with finding a universally applicable method of modifying behaviour.
MOTIVATION THEORY PART 2 We are motivated to pursue what we value, so a conflict of values results in apathy. A common value conflict is between imposed (‘false’) social values and (‘true’) personal values. Social value is usually attached to limited supply commodities and limited duration social status. These values motivate people to struggle and hurry (before someone else snatches the thing of value). Conditioned motivation results from long exposure to imposed social values, and is often based on fear. ‘Success’ and ‘failure’, as socially defined, tend to be motivations of ‘false’ value. Motivation resulting from ‘true’ personal values rarely contains any fear, because the things that are valued tend to exist in unlimited supply.
1,001 NON-USES FOR ANXIETY It’s a good idea to distinguish the fight-orflight response (our inherited animal reaction to danger) from the human trait of psychological fear (anxiety and worry). By making this distinction, it’s less likely that the survival value of either will be overrated. The fight-or-flight response is useful on rare occasions of serious danger, but most of the time it interferes with our ability to think straight (clear thinking is probably the best survival asset in modern civilisation). Psychological fear/anxiety serves us even less, and maybe not at all. It’s helpful to be clear about this, because if these mental states are thought to have survival value, we won’t want to be free of them. At a subconscious level, fear might then be equated with safety. The anxiety conditioning aspect of our upbringing trains us to think in the following way: Difficult problem = possible threat to safety Difficult problem + worry = less of a threat Therefore, worrying increases safety Problems are so often resolved after a period of worrying, that it’s assumed there is a causal link between the worrying and the problem’s resolution. We mistakenly believe that to stop worrying would be to fail to deal with the problem. If you face serious difficulties, but show no signs of worry, people will assume you’re ‘in denial’ or irresponsible. If you never worry about anything, they’ll suspect mental illness. When people say “don’t worry”, it’s not usually intended as serious advice. ‘Family values’ contain the idea that worrying is necessary and morally good. This is demonstrated by our use of the word ‘concern’, which is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as ‘(feeling of) anxiety or worry’. In effect, ‘family values’ say: “in order for children to be safe, their parents need to be concerned” – this expresses the belief that worrying is a major factor in safety. Concerned parents are loving parents – by continually worrying we protect ourselves and our children, and show how loving and responsible we are.
“Help conquer the IQ shortage: worry less and think more” (Robert Anton Wilson) Our worrying reveals to us that we’re not as rational as we think, as there’s no rational justification for it. In fact, worry and anxiety tend to sabotage any rational precautions we take to minimise risks. The notion that anxiety serves a useful purpose is probably a rationalisation hiding the fact that it can’t easily be controlled. We have little control of it because our whole education succeeded in making us worry, rather than making us worry-free (it’s easier to discipline people when they’re worried about the consequences of disobeying). Once the young have completed this anxiety conditioning, they can be responsible adults and raise a family. Someone who never worries about anything is obviously unfit to raise children (and is probably also a threat to national security and common decency). It’s possible that psychological fear is just a transitional phase in cognitive evolution – when we’ve learnt how to operate our brains properly, we’ll have no further use for it. What we now regard as commonplace worrying may in future generations be regarded as a serious mental dysfunction.
YOU CAN NEVER GET ENOUGH SECURITY
STOP PRESS A woman has lost her sense of fear, according to the Times (17/1/97). The 56 year old woman had her amygdalas (small parts of the brain found behind the ears) removed 18 years ago, to control her epilepsy, and it left her with “a greatly reduced sense of danger and an inability to recognise fear and anger in the faces and voices of others”. The woman lost interest in many television programmes – they seemed pointless as she couldn’t relate to plots conveying danger. Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
9
TOP DOGS ARE LESS STRESSED You dare to tell me you’re over-stressed? You're a junior clerk...what do you know about stress?
DANGEROUS WORK ETHIC A businessman was spotted reading a book while driving at 70mph down the busy M4 motorway. The book was propped on his steering wheel, lit by the car’s interior light (it was after dark). His car was drifting from lane to lane. The driver was reported and later pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. Dangerous driving usually carries a minimum 12-month ban, but the judge reduced the sentence to three months in this case because the defendant, a company executive, was not reading for fun, but trying to catch up on work. “Modern working life means many people catch up on work and I believe you were trying to catch up on paperwork,” the judge said. This implies that a harsher penalty would have resulted if the defendant had been trying to catch up on leisure reading, ie if he was so hardworked that he never had a chance to read for pleasure – except while driving. Apparently it’s more acceptable to be a danger to the public when you’re working than when you’re relaxing. (Guardian 5/11/96) 10
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
When somebody rises in seniority within an organisation, it’s normally thought their stress increases with the greater responsibility. In fact, the opposite appears to be true – those on the lowest rungs of the ladder suffer most from stress; those at the top suffer least. A long-running study, supported by the Medical Research Council, has correlated employee seniority with health for civil servants working in London. Employees were found to age faster and have poorer health with descending levels of rank. The lowest grades (messengers and support staff) are three times more likely to die over a 10-year period than senior administrators. This effect still remains after the data has been adjusted for obvious lifestyle differences (eg higher status employees have access to better medical care and tend to eat healthier diets). Senior roles have more responsibility, but they also have greater control and predictability. Low-level employees can’t predict the sources of stress, and have little control – their stress hormone (adrenaline/cortisol) levels are typically much higher than their bosses’. These hormones prepare the body for short term emergency – they turn off long term bodyhealing functions like tissue repair, hence the decline in health of the chronically stressed. For animals, this stress response lasts for about 3 minutes while they escape danger; for humans it can last 30 years while they worry about work. It’s true that pay tends to increase with rank, but income was shown be a relatively unimportant factor in health compared to the direct behavioural causes of stress mentioned above. Although the rich tend to live longer than the poor in a given society, rich countries often have a lower average life expectancy than poorer nations. The degree of inequality within a society is a more important factor. Societies with steep social hierarchies were found to be less physically healthy than egalitarian populations. These findings are supported by two other areas of research. The same effect of low status leading to poor health has been confirmed in other hierarchical mammals, most noticeably baboons (diet as a factor was carefully ruled out – the effect was behavioural). Also, research into human happiness found that countries with the happiest citizens were those with low social inequality, rather than economic success alone. Meanwhile, inequality is perceived to be rising in the UK. In the latest BSA (British Social Attitudes) survey, 87% of the population were found to be unhappy with the gap between high and low incomes (compared with 72% in 1983). (Refs: Channel 4’s Equinox 15/9/96, The Independent 15/12/94, The Guardian 21/11/96)
BELIEF MANIPULATION AND BEING SAFE (PART 2) A basic technique of psychological analysis – whether classical psychoanalysis or casual selfanalysis – consists of asking yourself the question, “What have I been thinking during my life to make my reality appear the way it does?” Thoughts comfort or frighten us more than things. To believe that the universe is unsafe, is to be in a constant state of anxiety. But to believe that the universe supports your prosperity, is to program your emotions into states of comfort and contentment. Anybody brought up in a society which, for centuries, has emphasised the so-called ‘Punishing Father’ aspect of God, will probably regard worry, depression, guilt and resentment as normal everyday states, to be punctuated by transitory pleasure. Any belief system reversing this emotional programming (ie giving continual pleasure, with only occasional discord) would probably seem alien. Consider, for example, the following passage from The Kybalion: A Study of the Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece (1912): So, do not feel insecure or afraid – we are all held firmly in the Infinite Mind of The ALL, and there is naught to hurt us or for us to fear. There is no Power outside of The ALL to affect us. So we may rest calm and secure. There is a world of comfort and security in this realization when once attained. Then “calm and peaceful do we sleep, rocked in the Cradle of the Deep” – resting safely on the bosom of the Ocean of Infinite Mind, which is The ALL. The emotional security expressed in this passage seems to result from altering certain parameters of mainstream religious beliefs (for example, the implied ‘loving female’ aspects of divinity replace the ‘punishing’ aspects). Cultural biases resulting from dominant religious beliefs affect everyone within the culture, even those who don’t believe. For example, our punishing work ethic can be traced back to beliefs from our Puritan heritage. In the 1990’s, seven out of ten office staff work more than 40 hours per week, yet few of them are practising Puritans. How many overworked employees realise their lives are being
constrained by 17th century religious beliefs? Beliefs that dominate a society for generations are absorbed into the culture as ‘common sense’, despite often being proved wrong over time. Down-to-earth, commonsense viewpoints are usually seen as more realistic than optimistic idealistic outlooks, but both arise from belief systems, and as such represent philosophical gambles, not certainty. Beliefs also tend to function as ‘self-fulfilling prophesies’ – for example, the body becomes ill from the stress induced by a “life is hard” mentality, thus ‘proving’ that mentality correct. It’s a good idea, therefore, to gamble on beliefs that make you feel safe and comfortable. Placing your bets on a universe which is essentially unthreatening gives you much better odds. It’s easy to experiment with belief systems once you’ve overcome naive realism. This is an extremely common philosophical outlook which pretends to have nothing to do with philosophy. It theorises that people experience reality directly as it is, and that intangible things like beliefs don’t affect your direct perception. This is similar to anti-intellectualism, the view that complex ideas are something separate from (and useless for) ‘real life.’ Naive realists are commonsense people who regard themselves as uncontaminated by intellectual influences, without perceiving how enslaved they are to a depressing philosophy. They don’t realise that their negative emotions (anxiety, low self-esteem, insecurity, etc) result from what they’ve been thinking – the only remedy they recognise is to change external reality (buy some furniture, go on a diet, or whatever advertisers say will dispel the negativity). Since nobody can change the outside world enough to completely erase their emotional insecurities, naive realists inevitably suffer chronic helplessness and hopelessness (ie depression). Common sense may prevent you realising you can change your thoughts to instil enthusiasm rather than depression. Enthusiasm results from understanding that thoughts program your reality, and that everything is permitted in the realm of thought. (Part 1 of this article appeared in Anxiety Culture issue 1).
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
11
The following idea is from a TV show, but is worth repeating in case you haven’t already heard it. If you substitute the word “club” for the word “ring” whenever you hear sensationalised news coverage of “drug rings”, “satanic ritual abuse rings”, etc, you get amusing results. You can also try it the other way around, for example “book club” transforms into “book ring”, “youth club” becomes “youth ring”, etc.
PHILOSOPHY GIMMICK Obscure philosophy sometimes leads to very useful practical gimmicks. For example, self-condemnation (shame, guilt, embarrassment, etc.) always involves philosophical miscalculations of what we mean by ‘self’. While it’s generally understood that our perceptions of ‘outside’ things and events result from internal models of reality created by our brains, we rarely apply this insight to the set of perceptions which constitutes our model of ‘self’ – ie we don’t normally think of having both a ‘real self’ and a ‘perceived self’. The perceived self can be seen as the set of mental contents that one currently identifies oneself with – ie what you think you are. The gimmick here is that all dysfunctions of self – guilt, jealousy, feelings of inadequacy or pride, etc, are functions of the social conditioning that programs much of the perceived self. Since the real self isn’t the programming that makes up the perceived self, the dysfunctions you experience don’t reflect on who you are. “..we learn to distinguish between who we are and the program we’re following by knowing how to suspend judgement.. If there is anything to judge, it is information and not our being or anyone elses” Antero Alli 12
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
Clare Voyens~Anxiety Aunt® Dear Clare, I’ve noticed that I react emotionally to television commercials whenever I’m starting a relationship (or after just ending one). I normally don’t react to these commercials. Is something wrong with me? Clare replies: This is a common problem, but the causes are fairly complex. The favourite pastime in competitive societies tends to be social comparison. Comparing oneself to others starts at school, where your worth as a person is measured in categories not chosen by you – categories applied uniformly to everyone. Although personal worth ought to be seen as a measure of uniqueness, it’s never actually viewed this way in respectable society (unless you become a celebrity, like me). Social comparisons therefore become an obsession, leading to one of two feelings: inferiority or superiority. The former feels awful; the latter is vastly overrated – neither are recommended. Addiction to social comparison really takes hold during romantic (ie sexual) relationships. Hormonal changes can emotionally sensitise perceptions of socio-sexual status. This explains why car advertisements feature babies or tantalising glimpses of female thigh. Advertisers juxtapose social-comparison anxieties with suggestion of sex-bonding for maximum emotional insecurity button-pressing. Social comparers (winners and losers) make good consumers, but sad individuals. There are two ways to escape this trap: i) don’t have romantic relationships, or ii) don’t watch TV (if you can avoid both, you’ll achieve enlightenment within a year). Clare Voyens is an unregistered practitioner of neoReichian gland therapy, and runs an aura alignment telephone service for stressed executives.
HOW TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITIES WARNING: ON NO ACCOUNT SHOULD RESPONSIBLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY READ THIS ARTICLE
Social Commandment No. 13: Thou shalt not avoid problems or responsibilities. An unfortunate result of this commandment is that by the time we become adults, our avoidance and evasion skills are badly underdeveloped. When we finally get high blood pressure or ulcers, we need to drop social duties and quit work, but nothing in our upbringing tells us how to make this escape. “There isn’t one fibre of quitter in me” (Kevin Maxwell) A mind that sees “avoiding responsibility” as cowardly and dishonourable will never achieve full relaxation (ie letting go of all concerns). It’s impossible to be duty-bound and happy at the same time, which is why those who obey social commandments usually look unsatisfied. The more we dwell on responsibilities, the more we get. Preoccupation with work, obligations and duties is a potent form of negative selfhypnosis. For example, every time a compulsively house-proud person tidies up, he/she becomes more sensitive to the onset of untidiness. Eventually it becomes a necessary duty to vacuum every thirty minutes, which does nothing but annoy the neighbours. The ‘required amount’ of work is arbitrarily determined. How often does the car need washing; how much of our work is necessary? More to the point, how little could we get away with? People who talk a lot about duty and responsibility probably never know how much they depress everybody else. The ‘responsibility’ function of an adult’s brain is to receive the cornucopia of rich sensory impressions from the environment – colour, taste, touch, movement, sound – and then translate it all into problems we feel responsible for. We find burdens wherever we look because that’s what we’re educated to do.
Social roles such as ‘hard worker’, ‘responsible parent’, ‘devout follower’, etc, merely allow us a choice of burdens to identity with. If we detach ourselves from these burdens, it’s regarded as a moral breakdown. The irritation/anxiety reaction to a sudden problem is caused not by the problem itself, but by the thought that we must do something about it (ie that we’re responsible for it). This is a conditioned response which can be reprogrammed with a psychological gimmick. The technique is to do nothing when you notice a problem – or rather, suspend judgement for a few days. Problems often disappear by themselves if they get the chance (especially if they appeared by themselves). In settings tinged with urgency or guilt (eg work or family) they don’t usually get the chance. (If you’re not convinced by this, and you remain attached to solving problems, there’s always the comforting thought that as long as you focus on problems, there’ll be an endless supply of them – which conveniently justifies the need to solve them). The cliché, “never put off until tomorrow..”, can be reversed for people who worry about problems. It’s always better to postpone worrying. An effective postponement device is the ‘worry sheet’, which is a piece of paper for writing down your problem/worry as it occurs – so you can forget it now, and deal with it at some later date. Minor worries can be postponed indefinitely. Rather than putting off life’s pleasures until after you’ve solved all your problems (ie after you’re dead), you postpone all the worrying until after you’ve finished having a good time. Often (and probably subconsciously), the unpleasant effort ‘required’ to solve a problem is just ritualised self-punishment. This results from the dubious belief that we deserve our problems (and thus require punishing). When this notion is replaced with the understanding that you deserve nothing but effortless bliss and happiness, many problems seem to vanish.
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
13
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
REVIEW: ECONOMIC ANXIETY
The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, a recent book by Charles Hampden-Turner & Fons Trompenaars (Piatkus; 1994), argues that economic performance can’t be adequately explained by ‘impersonal’ market forces. The authors criticise the way the market is revered as some kind of neutral arbiter ‘out there’. They describe the classical economic doctrine of profitable self-interest within such a ‘free market’, as “perhaps the world’s leading example of cultural bias and historical circumstance disguised as a principle of science”. To “leave it to market forces” doesn’t mean letting an impersonal mechanism of allocation operate; it means letting cultural preferences operate. The authors accordingly focus on the cultural biases of the countries they review (UK, USA, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, and Holland). This cultural analysis is very fruitful in economic insights. For example: •“Competitiveness” means something different in each culture. The book argues that, in Britain, competitiveness currently means short-term profit (which is increased by screwing everyone except the shareholders). However, obsession with profit is not a common factor in successful economies. German, Swedish and Dutch companies compete at least partly to benefit customers, employees and community, and, “the Japanese see capitalism as a system in which communities serve customers, rather than one in which individuals extract profits.” •In Holland, Sweden and Japan, business success is seen as a choice for idealists and those dedicated to aesthetics. It’s viewed as something integral to the community. In the UK and US, idealists are put off by the emphasis on making a quick profit regardless of larger visions. •In US and UK companies, people seem to be in a hurry. The “don’t waste time”, race-againstthe-clock attitude leads to short-termism and widespread anxiety among employees. This tendency can be traced back to the Puritan ethic: “The Puritans were not, like those of other religious persuasions, awaiting the afterlife in quiet contemplation. They had God’s earthly kingdom to build and, given seventeenth and eighteenth-century life expectancies, a perilously short time in which to build it.”
14
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
•Sweden is an enigma to classical economists. If business is necessarily a ruthless struggle between self-interested competitors, how has Sweden’s “softness” (social equality, humanitarianism, welfare and environmental concern) led to such a strong economy? Economists rationalised that Sweden was a small insulated exception to universal rules of economic struggle, and wouldn’t hold out much longer, but, “..this will hardly do. (Sweden) is, and has been since the late nineteenth century, a world economy highly exposed to trends in international trade.” Such is the arrogance, apparently, of British economic commentators, that The Financial Times and The Economist congratulated Sweden on ridding itself of its Social Democratic government (which had ruled almost continuously since 1932). The Swedes were assured that their economy would now improve. But GDP per person in Sweden, at the time, was $29,770 compared to $17,700 in the UK, ie the Swedes were already $12,000 per head better off than UK citizens. •Monetarism (the Thatcherite economic orthodoxy) may have been adopted more for its appeal to certain cultural preferences than for its practical effectiveness. Monetarism models the economy on clean, precise mechanistic metaphors. Governments can pull certain levers (eg inflation rate) to get predictable effects, without actually having to get their hands dirty in the real (and complex) world of commerce. “Through it all is revealed an extraordinary ignorance about, and disinterest in, ‘the Real Economy’ as it is now being called to distinguish those losing their jobs and going bankrupt from the official figures and Treasury Models.” •Japanese business metaphors are “organic” and “holistic” compared to western mechanistic pulllever models. This bias favours Japan’s involvement in high technology, as the feedback loops between consumer and supplier are more complex with electronics, than with, say, cutlery. In fact, knowledge intensive markets cannot be modelled adequately with classical economic metaphors. “The knowledge revolution has destroyed many of the assumptions of scarcity that sustained the dismal science (classical economics) in its pecksniffery.”
REVIEW: HOW TO GET RICHER WITHOUT MAKING OTHERS POORER
The scientifically established way to create wealth and develop economic stability
“We, in the English-speaking economies, are still at war with each other, fighting for scraps of wealth in a scarcity contrived by our own beliefs. Value can be created only by many of us working together to create syntheses from which all wealth derives.” Charles Hampden-Turner & Fons Trompenaars, in The Seven Cultures of Capitalism
“in terms of real wealth, defined as the capacity to nurture and accommodate human life, everybody on this planet could have a standard of living as high as that of any billionaire” R. Buckminster Fuller
Some ‘Get Rich In Your Sleep’ books can help you suspend disbelief – especially disbelief about the likelihood of quitting your job. One such book, The Science of Getting Rich, by W. D. Wattles, takes an unusual look at our obsession with competition, which Wattles sees as petty conflict over things that already exist – caused by a belief in the limited supply of wealth. He says the way to get rich is by shifting our attention from competitive activities to creation, in a general (not just artistic) sense. Competition means getting rich at someone else’s expense, whereas creation produces new resources (material or otherwise), which benefit everybody and negate the idea of scarcity. Wattles takes this further by saying that creation is safe and competition dangerous. Since competition involves a belief in scarcity, it’s linked to fear, and fearful people tend to be dangerous (or at least inconsiderate). Real wealth creation results from the recognition that everyone can win in an abundant universe. If there’s enough to go around for everyone (which there is, according to some scientific authorities), the politically dominant Darwinian “survival of the fittest only” belief looks somewhat dubious. The economic argument used to defend competition (“excellence and high performance result only from healthy competition”) doesn’t seem to apply to the most beneficial discoveries in science, medicine, art etc, which manifested in non-competitive contexts. Competition does lead to excellence at being competitive, but it’s not conducive to the kind of innovation which continually increases the supply of wealth. In a belief system of abundance, competition is only really meaningful as a recreational activity (sport, games, ‘competitions’ etc). Wattles’ response to the common worry of economic domination by private near-monopolies is: if you’re creating new wealth rather than competing for a share of existing wealth, how can competition worry you? And if you are competing, you’re already part of the greed/fear mindset which produces monopolies in the first place. He suggests, therefore, that you become prosperous by avoiding corporate competitiveness and not worrying about it. From this perspective, real prosperity begins the moment you quit your job to do what you really want. Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
15
THE UNTHINKABLE The Observer (21/7/96) quotes James Fulbright addressing the US Senate in March 1964: “We must dare to think about unthinkable things, because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless”. The Observer columnist, Andrew Rawnsley, says politicians aren’t capable of thinking anything but the most predictable and conventional thoughts. He then describes some perspectives which he claims they would really find unthinkable, such as moving the House of Commons out of London (siting it in the capital is an expensive and recent development – up to the 18th century Parliament met at a variety of locations around the country). His ‘unthinkable thought’ which most caught our eye was: “Crime is not a terrible problem. By historical standards Britain is a remarkably well-ordered society. In so much as it is a problem, we are devoting a disproportionate amount of our limited resources to combating it. In the next year only 0.00142% of the population will be unlawfully killed in Britain. Much less money should be spent on the police and prisons.” Advertisement Available now, direct from manufacturer, burglar alarms made from genuine W.W.II air raid sirens. Make sure the whole district knows you have burglars. Telecommunication link to police station unnecessary – they will hear it. Complete with 20 minute cut-out for false triggerings. Unsuitable for pet owners. Box 342.
16
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
CRIME FIXATION WATCH “Although crime is only a small part of life, we have always been disproportionately fascinated with it... But that fascination is starting to run riot. Reasonable concern is turning into a moral panic that obscures any real understanding of the society we live in... Moral hysteria breeds paralysis or, worse, it generates the sort of useless punitive remedies prescribed...to please the frightened crowds.” Polly Toynbee Recent Statistics on Violent Crime •The murder rate is the same now as it was in 1857 (roughly 13 per million of the population per year). •Only 6% of crime is violent, and only 0.6% of that is serious. •Crime is highly concentrated in certain trouble spots – many other areas have virtually none. In fact, 70% of crime happens to people who have already suffered from crime that same year. •Serious assault rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe – Germany and Holland are nearly twice as high. Yet fear of crime is higher in Britain than most of Europe. •Elderly women are more afraid of attack than any other group, but are least at risk. One in three elderly women feels very unsafe, but fewer than one in 4,000 will be assaulted. •Meanwhile in the US, fewer murders were recorded in New York in 1996 than in any year since 1968. The decrease in random murders by strangers has been particularly dramatic. Murders committed by acquaintances of victims outnumbered killings by strangers by 4 to 1. Crime rate increases not caused by increase in crime: •The “crime waves” of the eighties coincided with a massive rise in the number of people with insurance policies (those without insurance rarely report theft). •At the same time, telephone ownership also rapidly increased (making the reporting of crime easier). •New laws are continually being created. For example, when you criminalise squatting, you create a new criminal class overnight – the crime rate figures rise accordingly. •People are increasingly encouraged to report domestic crime (assault, child abuse, rape, etc). A quarter of serious assaults are domestic. Other variables affecting crime rates (without affecting real level of crime): •Police bidding for more manpower tend to increase their recording of unsolvable crimes, whereas police trying to improve their clear-up rate attempt to reduce them. •Political & sociological factors, eg demonisation of the unemployed (government posters aimed at welfare fraud: “Know a benefit rip-off? Give us a telephone tip-off”). •Advanced technology enables police to detect a greater proportion of crimes committed. It also has a crime prevention effect – so it’s theoretically possible that actual crime decreases whilst detected crime (ie official crime rate) increases. (Independent 25/9/96, 30/12/96, Times 11/9/96,)
rW e o v lw u o th d a m k sn y i? h
ro a n u e w rl? o Ih m s v W td k y in h t k
ANGER VS. ANXIETY Psychologists have demonstrated that beliefs are the main cause of anger and anxiety. For example, the belief that people must not treat you badly – you get angry when people won’t conform to this belief. Our demands about how the world treats us make us angry, not the world itself. This idea is often explained by adults to angry children (eg “you can’t have everything you demand”). Anxiety, on the other hand, results from the mistaken belief that demands can be made on you; that you must do certain things – ie work hard, achieve what’s expected by society, take on responsibilities, etc – because it’s demanded of you. The belief that people can make demands on you is just as irrational as the idea that you can make demands on people. People don’t meet your demands – you get angry You don’t meet people’s demands – you get anxious Not surprisingly, society’s education of children gives frequent advice about anger (irrationality of making demands on society), but little advice on anxiety (irrationality of society making demands on you). The consequences of this can be seen in sociological data – extreme forms of anxiety are much more common than extreme manifestations
of anger. According to a major survey commissioned by the government, over 10% of the population suffer symptoms of neurotic anxiety disorder (source: Independent 15/12/94). (Although the news media give more prominence to anger – ie violence – than anxiety, only 1% of people ever experience violent crime, and less than 1% of that is serious. The media depiction of violence as a national crisis isn’t statistically supported, but statistics do reveal a national epidemic of anxiety and insecurity.) Individuals who make demands (rather than requests) are regarded as overbearing, yet it’s seen as perfectly normal for institutions to make demands upon individuals (“you have to complete this form”, “you must get permission”, “you must pay the administration fee”, etc). Surprisingly few people raise objections when bureaucracies make obnoxious demands. Perhaps a sensible long-term solution to public insecurity would be to include certain anxietyalleviating ideas in education. Very important lessons could be taught, for example: “you don’t have to do anything”, “nothing is demanded of you”, “you’re not obliged to do what you’re told”, “you don’t need permission” etc.
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
17
WORLDWIDE ANXIETY
A survey quoted by the Sunday Times shows war to be the current biggest fear of children. In contrast, the main fear parents have for their children is attack by strangers. Judging from global statistics, children’s perceptions of risk are more on target than adults’. For example, the child murder rates (per million children, age 5-14 years) in 1991, for various countries, were as follows: England and Wales (3), France (4), Germany (4), Italy (4), America (15), Canada (7), Japan (4). The war receiving most attention at that time (the Gulf War) was depicted by the British media as a relatively ‘bloodless’ war, yet the International Red Cross/Red Crescent gave the number of Iraqi child casualties from that conflict as 70,000. Another ‘charmingly naive’ trait of children is their idealistic hopes for the planet (non-polluting energy, end to starvation, end to deforestation and global warming etc). However, a study by the World Game Institute has shown these hopes to be fairly realistic. The WGI researchers calculated the total cost of a major package of measures to sort out the world’s problems (including all the above, plus others such as decent health care for all humans, ending of soil erosion and abolishment of illiteracy). The total needed for all this: $252 billion, ie roughly one quarter of the $1 trillion (1000 billion) spent worldwide on weaponry each year. The single biggest cause of anxiety globally is not crime or war, but infectious diseases. The World Health Organisation forecasts, however, that by year 2020, diseases will be ousted as the biggest worry. They will be replaced, says the UN agency, not by violence or social breakdown, but by heart problems, depression and car crashes. (Times 16/9/96, Sunday Times 6/8/96, Trajectories Autumn 1991). 18
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
LONG WORKING HOURS REVISITED In issue 2 we reported on a Department of Health study which found that people working more than 48 hours per week have double the risk of coronary heart disease. Since then we’ve been closely following the media coverage of British reaction to the European Court of Justice ruling, “imposing a maximum 48-hour week on British workers” (as the Times described it). In fact, the ruling doesn’t impose anything on workers – it doesn’t stop anybody working over 48 hrs if they want to, or volunteer to. The purpose of the ruling is to prevent employers forcing or pressurising staff to work excessive hours which might endanger their health. (Had this directive been classified under ‘employment’ rather than ‘health and safety’, Britain wouldn’t be affected by it, as it would have come under the Social Chapter of the Maastricht treaty, covered by the British opt-out). We have seen no mention of the Dept. of Health findings in newspaper or TV coverage of the EU ruling. In fact, the health and safety aspect has been played down by the British media in favour of the ‘competitiveness’ angle. For example, the Telegraph and Times are certain that the 48-hour directive will reduce the “flexibility” of our workforce and thereby blunt the competitive edge this flexibility gives us. The EU ruling, we are told, “could cost the Treasury and industry hundreds of millions of pounds, according to British businessmen” (Times 8/7/96). Our interpretation of this is that hundreds of millions of pounds are currently being made from forcing employees, against their will, to work hours with potentially serious health risks. According to a 1995 NOP poll, 58% of British workers live in fear of losing their jobs, and 46% of workers say their employers take advantage of this fear to pressurise them into working longer hours than contracted. This is presumably what is meant by the success of Britain’s “flexible” labour market.
A new era of close cooperation between senior management and their staff
I
Paradoxes of Competitive The conviction that the individual can always successfully overcome external obstacles isn’t universal – it’s mostly a tendency of Englishspeaking countries. In corporate UK and USA, it’s believed that any individual can gain success with enough hard work, regardless of initial circumstances – if you don’t succeed it’s because you haven’t tried hard enough. The flip side of this is the complete lack of mercy shown to people who ‘fail’ and the deep hostility towards those who blame their problems on circumstances. This individualistic bias has recently been questioned by some western business commentators – partly because of the economic success of Japan, a culture which regards belief in the irresistible power of the individual as totally insane. The myth of the Lone Hero, as depicted in Hollywood westerns, requires a whole town of mediocre, conformist cowards to enable one John Wayne to function heroically. Anglo-American individualist entrepreneurs create corporations which, paradoxically, employ thousands of interchangeable (ie nonindividual) human drones in anonymous office or production slots. Menial staff aren’t regarded as individuals because they’re not ‘individual’ successes. Communal Japanese corporations value individual contributions (eg suggestions and ideas) of lower-level employees more than UK and US companies. “the ethos of competitive individualism, persons displaying themselves with the purpose of beating other individuals, is negatively correlated with economic development. We found no exceptions to this trend.” The Seven Cultures of Capitalism (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars) The manufacturing of individualist countries appears to be in decline (from 1979 to 1991, British manufacturing grew only 4.9%, compared with 60.4% in Japan and 33.3% in Germany), and the shift towards knowledgeintensive markets (eg advanced technology) will probably benefit communally-biased corporate
ndividualism
cultures, because the utilization of complex knowledge requires integrated group activity, not a lone CEO telling everyone what to do. Extreme economic individualism results in resentment of the poor for their ‘lack of individual initiative’. Also, well-off people live in fear of losing their grip on success, which would be regarded as personal failure – even if not the fault of the individual. Paradoxically, ruthless competition between isolated individuals is usually for the kind of “success” that is socially, not individually, defined. In fact, it’s difficult in respectable society to justify pursuing any kind of success that doesn’t include financial reward. Competitive individualism has a tendency to produce more ‘losers’ than ‘winners’, since success is, by definition, what those at the top achieve. The majority who don’t make it to the top are subject to a double bind: they’re labelled “failure” by a social system which defines success and failure, and then they’re told their “failure” is their own fault, and not a responsibility of the social system. There’s always the option, however, to relieve this double anxiety by purchasing expensive success/status symbols, using credit. The stand-out success of credit card companies can probably be explained by this anxious need of people to at least appear successful, even when they can’t afford it. And when credit isn’t available, ‘losers’ under that social system at least have the choice of drifting into alternative social systems where they can be ‘winners’ – crime, drugs, prostitution, etc. Competitive individualism isn’t restricted to respectable arenas. The usual rationalisation for showing no mercy to unsuccessful people is that helping them will only make them more dependent, ie weaker individuals. But, in a society where ‘losers’ inevitably receive hostility and blame instead of support, “failure anxiety” will be epidemic, infecting everyone with paranoia and greed, thus probably leading to a weaker society. Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
19
INFORMATION ANXIETY & INFORMATION HOLIDAYS Saul Wurman, the American guru, who coined the phrase “information anxiety,” says it’s caused by “the ever widening gap between what we understand and what we think we should understand.” But what makes us think we ‘should’ understand anything? There are two common notions about “being informed”: i) it’s irresponsible not to be, and ii) it’s unsafe not to be. In other words, social pressures (which define “irresponsible”) and basic survival anxieties (which define “unsafe”) lead to information anxiety – so it probably shouldn’t be underestimated as a social influence. In fact, it has led to a phenomenon known as ‘Oprahfying’, ie pressurising people to have knowledge or opinions about everything the media defines as important. According to a recent report (Guardian 22/10/96), nearly half the population fear being left behind in the information revolution. This fear is probably due to good marketing (a major UK company’s marketing chief once said his profession was concerned entirely with consumer fear and greed). The advertisers’ constant drip, drip of things you “should” know about is designed to raise your anxiety, so that you have to spend money to relieve it. As a selling strategy, “fear of being left out” has no limits when applied to knowledge-based products (there’s a limit to how many three-piece suites you need, but there’s no limit to what you “should” know about). The ‘information anxiety’ theory suggests that we find more effective ways to review and structure information, so we can absorb more without being overwhelmed. A better short-term approach, however, might be to simply filter out the 99.9% of information that doesn’t serve you personally. Information is a good thing, but much of it consists of people making a noise to avoid listening to themselves think. Media personalities tend not to be quietly reflective. The over-representation of loud personalities on TV probably contributes to the increasingly accepted notion that ‘quiet introspection’ is a mental illness. In fact, one of the most difficult commodities to find these days is peaceful isolation – it’s very difficult to find a way to escape from human extroversion and media noise. Fortunately, you don’t need a cave to escape to – you can take a holiday from information and noise without going anywhere – simply by changing a few parameters of your mental processes. This technique has existed in various forms for centuries – used by ‘eccentrics’ who wanted to revive their faculty of thinking, as opposed to having people’s thoughts. A beneficial side effect was increased concentration and reduced distraction. It requires intense determination. For a set period (eg 2 weeks), completely avoid TV, newspapers, magazines, radio, browsing in newsagents, topical chatter etc. This is done by refusing such stimuli any admittance to your mind. Media information is mostly non-useful, vaguely entertaining distraction. Of the non-trivial, non-amusement content, nearly all concerns things you’re powerless to influence. Why clutter your brain with things you can do nothing about? How can it be irresponsible or unsafe to ignore it, if it’s of no personal use to you?
20
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
LETTERS
Some figures from the Employment Policy Institute (EPI), an independent monitoring organisation, may be of interest to you. They quote the number of unemployed in Britain as over 4 million – more than double the official figure (1.9 million at the end of 1996). The official figure only counts those receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance, which a large number of unemployed people are not eligible for. Over 50% of unemployed people under the age of 25 are omitted from the official jobless statistics. Nationally, 23% of the young (who are not in education) are out of work. Another figure quoted by EPI shows that one in five British households is jobless. Twenty years ago the figure was well below one in ten. In fact, unemployment has doubled since 1979. Nine million people have experienced unemployment since 1992 (an average of 5000 jobs lost each day). But high unemployment isn’t necessarily a bad thing in itself. It only seems that way when politicians view it as something to be conquered (or denied) rather than accepted and properly accommodated. Currently, instead of being accepted, unemployed people are regarded as an embarrassing statistic, to be removed at all costs. It’s fashionable to believe that unemployment can be conquered by sustained economic growth, but there isn’t much evidence to support this claim. In the last 25 years Europe’s economy grew by 70%, but only 10% new jobs were created. In the UK, nine out of ten jobs created since 1992 have been temporary or part-time. Everyone knows that industries must increase efficiency and productivity, often by rationalising the workforce (ie job losses), in order to compete. In theory the wealth created from this increased productivity leads to growth, which creates new jobs. This is fine so long as productivity and growth rates stay in line. Unfortunately, competition nowadays requires productivity to improve by approximately 5-10% per annum. No developed country can sustain overall growth rates that high, so inevitably we’ll lose more jobs than we can replace. Technology is shedding jobs faster than markets can expand to create new jobs, but companies have no choice but to use more technology – it’s the only way they can remain competitive and stay in business. In light of this, it’s irresponsible of politicians to keep reciting the mantra, “economic growth reduces unemployment” as if verbal repetition will make uncomfortable facts magically disappear. Massaging unemployment statistics and pointing to countries with even worse unemployment isn’t really a solution. Neither is the veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) hostility shown towards the unemployed. Professor Steven Forder, Richmond
SUPERMARKET TROLLEY JOBS Shopping trolleys are providing a good indication of employment trends. For example, one major supermarket chain has installed simple devices on its trolleys, which require you to insert a pound coin to detach the trolley (the device returns your pound when you bring the trolley back). This has two benefits: i) there are less stray trolleys clogging up the environment; ii) there is no need to employ someone in the dehumanising task of collecting trolleys. At a branch of a competing supermarket chain, we noticed an opposing trend – somebody was employed full-time merely to stand at the entrance and give shopping baskets to customers – clearly a redundant task (for years shoppers have picked up baskets from stacks, without any inconvenience). We would probably all be better served if these employees were instead paid to go home and enjoy themselves.
POINTLESS JOB WATCH UK
Let us know if you spot any jobs that seem pointless and redundant to you. If we receive enough good examples we’ll list them in future issues.
Laziness & Full Employment “The economic goal of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the greatest results with the least effort.” “Hitler provided full employment... prisons and chain gangs have full employment. Coercion can always provide full employment.” Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson
Anxiety Culture/Issue 3
21
BBC1 7.30 Crimewatch UK 8.00 Not So Softly, Softly – New series of the vintage police drama, updated for the rougher, tougher nineties. Episode 1: ‘Pure Evil’ – A drug-abusing adolescent goes on a violent rampage. 9.00 News followed by regional news – local murder and rape round-up. 9.30 Panorama – part 9 of the investigation into evil paedophile networks. (Rpt) 10.15 Talk to Auntie Beeb – Viewers complain that there’s not enough focus on crime. Plus: is the licence fee too low? 10.30 Moral Question Time – Hosted by David Dimbleby. Panel members are asked questions on morals which they pretend they don’t know in advance. 11.30 Crimewatch UK update 11.45 The Crime Files – Documentary. Is there an organised gang of child-abusing pornographers on your street? (Rpt) 12.25 Bedtime Story – An escaped convict burgles 15 houses in one night, in peaceful suburbia. (Rpt) 12.55 Close + Reminder to set the burglar alarm. “The headlines again: Millions of people once again got up early to spend 8 hours in an unpleasant environment, in activities they dislike, just to earn enough money to pay the bills. Most had no concerns about crime before watching this programme..”
SPECIAL FEATURE
A NEW WAY TO WATCH TV If you want to add novelty to your television viewing, try the ‘Technical Events Test’. This may open your eyes to the amount of editing required to produce watchable TV. Examples of technical events include TV camera zooming in or out, or sudden cuts to a different viewpoint (often from one person to another, during a scene of dialogue). Use of voice-overs, fade in/outs, superimpositions, special effects, words appearing on the screen, atmospheric or dramatic music, etc, all count as technical events. The test is to simply count the number of technical events that occur during a 10 minute chunk of television. You can test drama, news, documentaries, anything. Expert TV editors produce technical events that seem natural and realistic – a good cut is one you don’t notice. The usual intention is to produce a programme that feels seamless and non-produced. This would be a difficult illusion to create if it weren’t for the fact that most viewers have been desensitised to technical events due to the thousands of hours they’ve spent watching TV (in the UK, the average person watches more than 1000 hours of TV each year). Technical events only seem discordant or manipulative when new camera or editing techniques are being tried out in innovative programs. Over time the brain stops noticing them.
COMMERCIAL WATCH 2 Next time you watch a slick TV commercial, spare a thought for the pathetic individuals who produced it. A recent survey of advertising executives reveals them to be “plagued by self-doubt and insecurity” and “weary from overwork”. Drug dependency is common. Less than a third of them believe their campaigns help to sell products (which shows a neurotic lack of confidence, considering that Britain’s leading 100 companies increased their advertising spending by 15% this year). Ref: Times 22/11/96.
ABILITY TO PROJECT AUTHORITATIVE PERSONAE VIA PRINTED (OR OTHER) MEDIA DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY SIGNIFY HIGH INTELLIGENCE OR MORAL RECTITUDE Chief Media Officers’ Warning PRINTED TO COMPLY WITH GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION (LNI215.6) FOR INDEPENDENT MEDIA – PRINTED SECTN. 287 (C)