Nov 032017
 

 

Back when I was writing about my experience as a grieving widow in the public eye, I described a phenomenon called the “circles of affectedness.” I noted how after 9/11, many of us organized ourselves (or were herded) into groups or categories according to how directly we were impacted by the terrorist attack. “The closer to 9/11 one was, either by geography or personal loss,” I wrote, “the more special one seemed to become.” At the same time, I picked up on a perhaps unconscious competition taking place among the survivors and family members, egged on by a media machine hell-bent on finding and promoting the most tear-jerking stories possible. Who was most affected, a widow with small children, a mother who’d lost two sons?

This competition offended me. I hurt and in my grief, I sometimes imagined no one could understand how deeply. But that meant I couldn’t fully understand how someone else might grieve either — a survivor, an observer, a citizen. Who compares levels of sorrow anyway?

Humans, it would seem.

Americans in particular are all about comparing and contrasting the good, the bad, and anything in between. Size, shape, age, education, financial status/situation, upbringing, gender (traditional or atypical), achievement, social media presence, your mom’s meatloaf recipe must be measured: You name it and we will hold it up next to something similar and assess its comparative (and often highly subjective) value.

Product promotion is dependent on comparison. Advertising routinely points out the flaws in the competition along with the benefits of the promoted product. Entertainment pitches for books, TV scripts and film concepts high and low often reference what succeeded before but with a twist (“like ‘The Good Wife’ but set in a hospital”). More and more publishers and agents ask authors to suggest five titles their new book most resembles.

The man in the White House thrives on comparison. He appears to favor superlatives; whatever he references is the “biggest,” “tallest,” “smartest,” “highest,” “most,” or, “worst,” or, conversely, the “meanest,” “tiniest” or “least.” It doesn’t matter whether his frame of reference is a policy, a television show, an individual, or an insult, and it never matters whether his claim is true. This is the new reality in which we find ourselves.

The great job, the superior child, the perfect body and the ideal marriage may be media inventions, but they don’t keep us from staring at our friend’s Instagram pictures and wondering why our lives are so dull? We are doomed to fall short.

Which brings me back to comparisons of suffering.

It seems most people who share their stories of despair are looking to instruct or connect or reach out to others going through something similar. Some seek to gather strength in shared experiences. The #MeToo hashtag is meant to demonstrate how wide-reaching harassment is and how easily women and men have accepted such behavior as acceptable. In fact, many women I know are hesitant to share their stories because they aren’t as horrendous as someone else’s. “I was followed but I wasn’t attacked.” “Catcalls aren’t as bad as groping.” Here too, the need to compare affects what we admit, even to ourselves.

Some who post their stories seek sympathy or attention. Some want advice; others really don’t. Still others seek self-expression or catharsis. For some, typing the words on a screen seems easier and more immediate than talking to a person, assuming there’s anyone to talk with. For others, posting is the only option. Let’s face it; we’re confronting a retreating government and reduced support in real life. Where can we turn except to our virtual community?

Social media allows us to share our sorrows as well as our triumphs. In that respect, it can provide a valuable service. But misfortune doesn’t need to be a competition any more than accomplishment does. It’s not about who does it best or feels it most. It’s about our shared humanity.

Feb 232016
 

Relevance is in. It’s how we measure everything. What’s trending? What’s hot? What earns the clicks, the comments, or the buzz? How does that translate into currency?

I admit I struggle with the concept. Have for years. Who is listening to me? Who is reading what I write? How do I extend my reach? How will I know if I’ve achieved relevance?

The dictionary definition of relevance is “being connected to the matter at hand.” That’s vague enough to induce an anxiety attack. What is the matter at hand? How do we know? How often does it change? Who decides?

We do, “we” being an aggregate. Our impulses, our needs and our desires are reflected in circles of relevanceour comments as well as our purchases. We affect and are affected by everyone else. We participate in and succumb to group-think. Everything we like, buy, rate or consume is quantified and measured. The results are used to determine what is offered to us, whether it’s commentary or the latest must-have thing.

Relevance breaks us out of the pack. Without it, we’re in the back row, out of the loop, powerless, maybe even voiceless.

Products and ideas struggle to be relevant. So do people. Irrelevance feels like invisibility. How many of us have tried to give a speech or teach a class to a roomful of people looking at their smart phones? I played piano bar for many years, which is only marginally less deflating. The job entails soothing without disrupting. The goal is to be ignored. It’s a profoundly disappointing way to entertain.

As Google helpfully points out, “artists and politicians are always worried about their relevance. If they are no longer relevant, they may not keep their job.”

So true. Ask any writer trying to come up with the perfect post-Harry Potter/Divergent/Hunger Games young adult novel. Ask any songwriter trying to come up with the next “Hello”, “Happy” or “Uptown Funk.” Ask any politician in 2016.

It’s not just artists and politicians who feel the pull of relevancy. Everyone worries about being important. At work, relevance becomes all about keeping the company at the leading edge of its field. At home, parents compete with the latest app or social media meme for significance in their children’s lives. It’s hard to be a knowing role model when the Internet provides all the answers.

Although relevancy (like everything else) seems amplified, it’s not a new concept. We want to be connected. We want to feel important. We want to stand up and shout, “Hey, I’m here!” The wealthy often insist on naming rights to buildings. Perhaps they hope their money can help them stay eternally connected. Legacy establishes immortality. The donor is relevant every time someone enters the [Your Name Here] Science Center.

erasing relevanceThe older we get, the less clear we are about how to be relevant or even how or where we might connect to what matters. Children grow up and move away. Spouses and siblings die. We are eased out of jobs and into a life of enforced leisure marked by secret struggles or stretches of isolation.

At some point, it may seem meaningless to think about being relevant. We can’t all be insiders. If our goal is to cast a really wide net of influence, we’re up against impossible odds. Some of us give up. Others continue to push back against obsolescence. What are we doing?

do-i-matterWe’re trying to connect. We want to count or be counted. That’s what it’s all about. Somebody cares, somebody needs us, somebody is listening to us. We want to influence something, no matter how small that something is. That’s what floats our boat, gets us up in the morning, and makes us smile. I matter, you matter; we matter.

I argued in Hope in Small Doses that a life of purpose can just as easily involve sharing information as curing cancer. It’s not the scale; it’s the intent. We can be relevant by being a best-selling author or by being a damn good storyteller. We can shape change by running for office or by spending time with a friend in need. Relevance doesn’t require we compete for prominence unless our goal is to have an effect on the greatest number of people. In which case, we’re out of luck. There’ll always be someone with more followers or more money or more power. The next day or week or year, another person will come along to claim the influence crown.

I’ll be honest: I don’t always find it easy to embrace a more intimate definition of relevance. I’m a writer and I want to reach as many people as possible. That puts me in competition with others also vying for the attention of a public we’re trying to influence, enlighten, educate or entertain. We can’t all be relevant, can we?

Yes, we can: maybe to one or ten instead of a thousand or a million. The challenge is to acknowledge that we are all connected to the matter at hand by virtue of being alive.

Feb 022016
 

Insdie Out Anger

I have a temper. I suspect it’s inherited; I offer a tip of the hat to dear old dad.

Being uncomfortable with confrontation, I try to control the impulse to explode. This isn’t always helpful as it produces a surly muttering version of me. So when I need to yell, I yell—in my room or in the car. In private.

As someone whose temper sometimes flares, I work very hard not to employ anger as a weapon. Mine is more about frustration anyway. Common irritants include lousy customer service, my aching back, challenging bureaucracy, bouts of loneliness and the rise of dis- and misinformation. Hard to blame any one person for all those feelings.

I’ve been reading about American anger, especially as it applies to the electorate. You know the mantra: We feel insecure. We live in unpredictable, scary times. Oh, and don’t try telling anyone it’s always been this way. People have short memories as well as short fuses.

What bothers me is so much voter anger is fueled by massive quantities of misinformation and significant misdirection. Too many people are led to believe “X” is both important and true or, maybe worse, they don’t care if it’s true because it feels significant. They are willing to direct their fury at identified bogeymen because it’s both easier and emotionally satisfying.

Look: Politics in America have always been nasty and voters have often fallen for dirty tricks. Nothing new. During the 1828 Presidential campaign, the accusations about John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson (mostly Jackson) included murder, adultery, corruption and sex for hire. Adams was horrified at the tenor of the stories and avoided the dirt. Jackson, angered by charges against him, eagerly participated. Jackson won.

Anger in politics? Also not new. Hitler’s rise to power was built on his ability to foment anger by identifying the supposed villains who had robbed the German people of greatness. Mideast politics seem to be a cycle of repression, anger, change and repression.

Not new but still depressing in America in 2016. Those of us who believe in evolution keep hoping human beings have progressed. Imagine a world where people demonstrate a willingness to come together to create practical solutions to difficult problems. Now imagine a world where the worst of humankind keeps triumphing over the best. Which world do you want?

Anger can unite. It can encourage action. It can bring about change. It can also incite violence or bring people under the sway of a charismatic demagogue. Public anger can turn on a dime, which is why we must take care to manage it carefully.

angry bird