Log in

11 August 2005 @ 11:53 am
This morning i am wondering about sensitivity, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Being "too sensitive" can make it difficult or impossible to operate in society. I've gone through phases in my life where i was so sensitive i had to restrict what news, television, and movies i was exposed to. During those phases i felt as though i had a better understanding of what was going on the the world around me. But that understanding came at the price of being more affected by what it was that i was perceiving.

It's natural to turn to the "cruelty" of nature and suggest that being sensitive is a vice or decadence in a world where all around us predators are eating prey and survival favors the fittest. The hole in that argument though is that we as "observers" of "nature" view the world through the lens of our cultural values and so it is difficult to know how "cruel" nature truly is and how much of that is anthropomorphizing. This view of nature overlooks a large amount of cooperation that goes on which belies the "selfish gene" view. For example, animals will often adopt the orphaned young of another species.

A key point that i want to focus on is the popular notion that people have a choice about how sensitive they are. People who are "too sensitive" are blamed for taking offense or being hurt as if they can control these reactions. A modern strategy for coping with sensitivity is medicating anyone who complains -- medicalizing sensitivity as if it were a physical abrogation.

What this attitude really indicates is the degree to which people are willing and/or able to use strategies designed to desensitize themselves. Our culture bears many memetic stratgies for doing this: the conscious censor, deprecating and dehumanizing "humor", religious and philosophical ideologies that lend support to dehumanization, conceptual "othering" of people directly invovled with oppression, language and "common sense" that normalizes and thus renders invisible certain unjust agendas. Those of us who can apply these strategies of self-censorship and modify our behavior accordingly are those who fare best in our cannibalistic society.

Lemma. The degree to which we have to desensitize ourselves just to function in society is directly indicative of the level of injustice in our society.

The strategies that i mentioned above would not be necessary if nature afforded most of us the right level of sensitivity. My belief is that most of us start out "overly sensitive" and are socialized to berate ourselves for it or edit it from our awareness using various strategies. We do this because it is what we must do to survive in a society that traumatizes and oppresses us.

Emancipation begins with sensitivity, with the rebirth of naive awareness that our existence in the society we have constructed is filled with suffering.

At the same time, each of us as afflicted members of our society might have no choice but to participate in desensitization to some degree just to keep up our own individual sanity. Is a "happy medium" possible?

crossposted to my journal and crossposted to kyriarchy
wonderwiccanwonderwiccan on August 11th, 2005 11:02 pm (UTC)
I, too, have had times where it was necessary to restrict my access to the world around me in order to operate. I have found that I have a much better time coping with injustice and such when I am being active in trying to change it, as opposed to just blocking it out. I think it is a bad idea to participate willingly in your own desensitization once you are aware of it. To do this is the same as basically saying that the injustices you are desensitizing yourself too are acceptable, which they aren't. If they weren't acceptable then there would be nothing to get sensitive over.

I think that people that blame others for their sensitivity, or those that advocate for medicating sensitivity, are engaged in the conspiracy of silence (I think I got that idea from you actually). It's like this: If I "show" my sensitivity about an injustice to someone, they have to decide if they believe me. If they believe me, then they may become sensitized as well, which is no fun. It is much safer to decide I am being TOO sensitive, and then downplay what I have said so that life can go on as normal.

I think that desensitizing ourselves is necessary to function, but the goal should be to become aware of what it is that is making that desensitization necessary, then work to destroy it.

Also, what does "memetic" mean? And Lemma?

shae_maileshae_maile on December 8th, 2008 04:36 am (UTC)
im glad you shared your thoughts on this. I can relate, i feel, to experiencing that sensitivity and the subsequent battle of "shutting off" or desensitizing myself...this is my two cents

i think that you must also consider the effect that oppression has on one who belongs to a marginalized group located within a bigger hierarchical power structure that doesn't value members of that marginalized group for x,y,z reason thereby restricting the access, and degree of equality and happiness those who belong in the dominant/oppressor group enjoy. This effect, this oppression, compounds to inflict the individual over time.

"At the same time, each of us as afflicted members of our society might have no choice but to participate in desensitization to some degree just to keep up our own individual sanity. Is a "happy medium" possible?"

i don't believe that a happy medium is truly possible because of the causal relationship to what is is i'm finding a medium to deals with inequality. We must find a balance to the oppression we experience in our lives or else suffer the consequences of substance abuse or whatever form coping takes. If we are successful in find a balance, I do not believe this balance is a happy medium even when it may be healthy and productive for the cessation of the oppression that brings one here (this community) in the first place.
schroederdip: pic#113351111schroederdip on July 22nd, 2012 12:38 am (UTC)