Trying to Be a Better Person: and Hopefully Contributing to Greater Peace in the Process

This is an introduction to some ideas I've had kicking around for over a decade. I hope to continue writing and expand on them over the coming weeks. Many of the particulars in this piece were solidified in my reading of E.O. Wilson's book The Social Conquest of Earth.

As human beings it is our nature to create constructs for understanding the world perceived through our senses. It is the foundation of language to be able to categorize objects and events and to put them in their proper place in our minds. This necessary process leads however to binary thinking – either this is or is not a dog; it cannot be partially a dog. Binary thinking can become problematic though, as most people are aware. Another aspect of our nature is that we are tribal. We identify ourselves with a group of individuals (usually beginning with our families) and we closely ally with these people, often to the detriment of anyone outside of our “tribe.” Most humans in the world go to the extent of defining their own tribe as “the people” (fully human) and everyone else as “other” (at least partially sub-human.) To understand this as anything other than completely normal human psychology is a huge mistake. To think that you personally are immune is an even bigger mistake.

So now we come to the “us” vs “them” mentality. This is a combination of our tribal nature and our tendency toward binary thinking. If you are not one of “us,” you are obviously one of “them.”  “They” are always greeted with suspicion upon first introduction. Their motivations are given sinister interpretation first. Any transgressions are punished (if possible) in the heaviest possible way. “We” are greeted with trust from the beginning. “Our” motivations are given the benefit of the doubt. Any transgressions are treated as lightly as possible, and second chances are frequently forthcoming. Such behaviors have led us to our remarkable ability to thrive in small groups of extremely cooperative individuals.

Obviously this (natural, normal) state of human interaction is problematic in a world where peace and global cooperation is the ideal. The best we’ve been able to do, so far, as a species has been to expand this feeling of tribalism (belonging) to larger groups which encompass individuals who are not known personally to us but who do share our values. Examples of this are sports fandom, religion and nationalism.

Most people believe that it is not possible to move beyond this stage in our development without some kind of external attack (such as from an alien race, or an asteroid heading toward the earth to obliterate us all) and that even if we did, it would be only a temporary ceasing of conflict. I have every reason to believe that such predictions are correct. History and current events seem to show us the truth behind this idea. But I can’t help but wonder what steps we might take toward a more peaceful, inclusive, pluralistic, tolerant world. Obviously you need buy in from everyone, which is the first problem, because many people are committed to violently exploiting others to get what they want for themselves and their “tribe.” However, I believe the vast majority of human beings would like nothing better than a comfortable place to call home, clean air, clean drinking water, enough to eat, access to the natural environment, and the freedom to live unmolested by others.

So, again, the question is how. How can we create more unity and peace? I think the place to start is at home with ourselves and expand these principals to our children and then on outward to every member of our “tribe” and indeed everyone we come into contact with. We do this by engaging in prosocial (positive, unifying) behaviors and refraining from antisocial (negative, divisive) behaviors. Despite the fact that most of us are right now thinking, “yes of course, I do this all the time,” we are incorrect. It is challenging to do this uniformly and to extend prosocial, inclusive behaviors or thinking to our “enemies.” Think about a group for whom you have great distaste (perhaps Republicans, or Liberals, or the Westboro Baptist church, or terrorists) and ask yourself how much good feeling you can muster toward them, how much genuine understanding you can show. It’s much easier to think of them negatively and it is second nature to say that you are nothing like them. But I assure you, you are – because we are all fully human.

One of the habits of mind that helps to reduce conflict is to assume positive intent.  That is, when you feel angry at someone (or a group of people), you should ask yourself, “How might I understand this behavior in a light that makes me feel less angry? How might I better appreciate where they are coming from?” When you do this consistently, you begin to feel a greater sense of magnanimity. At minimum, this exercise will make you a better person, and the world could use one more better person. As an ideal, this attitude will begin to rub off on others, and it will spread out into the world at large.

I feel it’s important here to add the caveat that clearly, some people are sociopaths, sadists, narcissists or are simply too damaged to have more than the basest possible motivations. I am not asking people to be doormats and allow themselves to be exploited. You may understand where a person is coming from but still reject their position. In fact a healthy respect for your own boundaries is essential for lasting relationships. Allowing yourself to be used badly by other does nothing for the betterment of yourself or the world.

It is imperative to the cause of peace and unity that we recognize that all human beings have agency in the world, and all mentally competent adults have full agency. Full agency means that you are completely responsible for your actions. You get full kudos for your prosocial behaviors and full sanctions for your antisocial behaviors. While we must all appreciate the struggles that each individual or group has had to face, we must never allow violent behavior to go unsanctioned. To do so is to deny a person her full humanity, her agency in the world. There must always be a balance between magnanimity and empathy on the one hand and an intolerance for violence on the other. Telling people that they have a good reason to be violent is a terrible idea. We can say, “While I can understand and sympathize with your anger, I cannot condone your violent response. Perhaps we can figure out a way to work together to solve your problem in a constructive way.”

Lastly there is the issue of “provoking” violence. While it is antisocial to deliberately provoke someone, to deliberately hurt you brother’s feelings, it is far, far worse to retaliate with violence. As thoughtful, peace-loving humans, we should not go around trying to wound people emotionally. However, we cannot be expected to know the sensitivities of everyone we might encounter. If we inadvertently offend, we should apologize. But no one should ever be allowed to commit acts of violence in response to a real or imagined insult to feelings.  I also want to add the caveat here that certain people in a pluralistic society must be given free rein to insult people and hurt the feelings of others (as a matter of principle) – these are journalists, philosophers, artists, bloggers, etc. whose duty it is to inform, provoke and enlighten. Sometimes the best way to do this is through satire or harsh critiques.  It is never the government’s place to adjudicate the wounding of feelings in any case.

Breaking up with Facebook

I recently quit Facebook. It was a pretty big part of my life for quite a long time, so I’m feeling the loss. Unsurprisingly, I miss keeping in touch with friends and relatives in one convenient location. I also miss the buzz of social interaction, even if I’m only observing from the sidelines. I think these two factors are the biggest draws for most people to social media in general, but to Facebook in particular. It has done a tremendously good job of creating an environment of participation and interconnecting social worlds. I have friends who range from mildly introverted to fully agoraphobic who have found this medium to be tremendously useful for being active and involved with other human beings (a universal need). I also know people who suffer from various illnesses who find tremendous comfort in having an opportunity for online community.

A more surprising loss for me has been having an outlet for my random little thoughts throughout the day. I’m an external processor—I feel the need to share my ideas before they seem complete to me. Facebook was a great way to get this done without annoying my husband and friends with frequent interruptions during the day. Truthfully, I also crave external validation. I have a hard time completing even the most trivial task without receiving some kind of affirmation. Should I be able to do this for myself? Absolutely, but I guess I still have some growing up to do, because I still want other people to pat me on the back for a job well done. This is especially true for tasks that I find boring, but necessary, or very challenging. I also miss having a one-stop posting venue for updates about the kids and their witticisms.

So why did I leave? I found that Facebook was distorting my perceptions of reality in a number of ways—primarily through repeated online interactions with friends of varying degrees of real life intimacy and through the reinforcement of preconceptions. Both of these are huge issues which I will treat separately, but I’d also like to mention the usual issues such as the lack of privacy and the aggressive advertising. Pretty much everyone acknowledges the need for Facebook to make money through advertising; what people object to is the way it’s done. Do they really have to own everyone’s personal photographs in order to make money?

The distortion of friendship via social media is something that I think is underappreciated, if acknowledged at all. While there are absolutely genuine and important functions for these media to play (see above) it is also true that repeatedly interacting with folks tends to raise their importance in our minds (and also to move them to the top of our news feeds.) I have been thrilled to reconnect with dear old friends as well as high school buddies and former coworkers. I had a policy of only accepting (or issuing) friend requests from/to folks that I actually had met in real life, so I didn’t have the disturbing issue of phony persons interacting with me. (My husband went through quite a dramatic encounter with one such entity, who was part of a political forum that he helped moderate.) Facebook facilitated the deepening of some of these relationships for me, and for that I am truly grateful.  However it also had the unsettling and largely unconscious effect of overemphasizing relationships based on frequency.  Some of these popular apps would tell you who your “best friends” were based on Facebook interactions, but clearly someone who was not part of the community could never be seen as such, nor could someone who simply doesn’t use the medium that often. The cynical, paranoid part of me sort of believes that that’s exactly the intended consequence—that the powers that be in this company would like for us to use our real world influence to pressure our friends and relatives to “join the borg”. Such a science-fictionesque reading is not necessary though to be troubled that my brain is being subtly influenced (through frequency of contact and placement in my feed) to think that my long, lost, high school buddy is actually a more important “friend” than my mother (who was, until very recently, not on Facebook at all, and still is an infrequent user.) Many of my favorite people are not a part of the Facebook community, and some people that I don’t even really get along with that well were constant contributors to my “news feed”. Folks were also disproportionately represented by the amount of time they had to dedicate to the project. Independent contractors, retirees, stay-at-home parents, and the unemployed made up a large proportion of the posters in my personal FB world. That left all of those other folks, who just didn’t have the time, out of the loop, but of course they aren’t less important to me because they have work that precludes their access to a computer during the day. It was a lot easier to keep in touch with everyone in one place, but some people weren’t there. Now everyone is on an equal footing again.

Which brings me to the second big issue for me—reinforcement of preconceptions, homogeneity of thought and/or overreaction to dissent. It turns out that folks on Facebook, by and large, only want affirmation for their already accepted beliefs. I found this out the hard way. I tried to engage in dialogue, but I was clearly told that it was not desired. Unfortunately for me and my friends, it took me a few spectacular failures before I finally accepted that this was a deep truth that I could not change. One of the big differences between the written word and the spoken word is emotional context. I have no doubt that with the majority of these friends, I could have easily and relatively calmly expressed my objections to their viewpoint without any great acrimony, but the written word does not as readily convey the underlying empathy and connection that a personal conversation does. In fact, one thoughtful and mature friend took the time to stop an online debate in midstream to pick up the phone and give me a call. We had a very nice, civil discussion, which had the effect of driving home for me the preference for a voice conversation over a written one. Another important contributor to the inherent difficulties Facebook communications is the fact that it is a public forum, and as such we have the additional aspect of individuals feeling the need to “save face” or avoid embarrassment. Generally people are more receptive to changing their views if they have time to process the conflicting or new information in private, and they don’t want to feel publicly chastised or corrected. While I understand and appreciate these dynamics, I think they end up accentuating a growing problem in our nation—polarization. This was really made clear to me during the recent election cycle. I believe on the one hand that people feel bombarded by oppositional points of view. With the tacit understanding that it’s not polite to disagree, we’re left with feeling that the “other side” is “pushing” their ideas on us. This feeling creates a reactionary feeling where we end up, on the other hand, pushing our own views out there, again with the clear understanding that we are only looking for sympathy and agreement. I think this creates a vicious cycle of feeling aggrieved and being unwilling to engage. In real life, we largely avoid these more hostile feelings by concentrating on our connections, such as our belonging to the same family during a holiday meal or being members of the same church or club. When our connection is narrowed to the types of interactions that are possible in cyberspace, and when our ability to disengage is as easy as one click, we leave ourselves vulnerable to increasing intolerance.

So I am done, at least for now, I want to go back to something more authentic and traditional, you know like email and texting—only partly kidding. But seriously, even with these other forms of new technology, there is a more level playing field—no one can “promote” themselves, nor do they get moved to the top of the heap just because of the frequency of interaction. I’m also going to try to spend some time on the blog and Twitter. I like Twitter, because for me, it’s a non-stop stream of fascinating articles, which was one of the big draws to Facebook in the first place. People seem to be posting fewer of them on FB these days too, which is another disincentive for me. So I’m not forgetting about social media altogether, but I’m taking my time to do other things.

How to be a Better Facebook Friend

I’ve seen a lot of advice on etiquette and also how to avoid embarrassing ourselves and others on Facebook, especially in terms of how our work colleagues might view us. But I haven’t seen much advice on how to be a better friend—how to be more considerate and encourage more connection. Because there are almost always at least two sides to every issue, I’m presenting a “flipside” too—a way of looking at the irritating behavior that might soften our perceptions. 

1) Do make a comment or click “like” if you’ve read and been touched by a status update or link. Sometimes we read something, but we’re not really sure about our reactions, or in fact we disagree. You don’t have to go into a long discourse, you can just say something like, “interesting” or “thought-provoking” or “not sure if I agree; have to think more on this”. Making a very short comment takes little time, but gives your friend positive feedback that she is posting information that you relevant.

The flipside: Don’t assume people didn’t read or weren’t interested in something, just because they failed to comment. A lot of people are rushed or don’t know what to say, but they were touched or influenced all the same.

2) Do take a moment to offer condolences or sympathy to a friend going through a difficult time. I think many people fail to do this, because they feel awkward or don’t know what to say. This is a time when repeating the words of others is completely fine. There are no points for originality—just showing support is the important thing. A few quick ideas, “My sympathies are with you.” “My condolences to you.” “My heart goes out to you.” “My thoughts are with you.” Or if you are religious, “I am praying for you.” I was very hurt and angry that most of my “friends” and even some of my family, failed to offer sympathy when my sister was on the brink of death in the ICU. The comments I did receive gave me great comfort during those long, lonely night hours at her side.

The flipside:  Don’t assume that people have seen your status update, or that they know what’s going on in your life, just because you posted it on Facebook. I have missed many important notifications, simply as a result of not being logged on when they came through. If it’s important, consider tagging the most relevant people when you post, or better yet send them a private email or text or make a phone call.

3) Don’t post links to articles or videos (or graphs, cartoons, etc.) that can be perceived as controversial, if you cannot tolerate disagreement on your wall. This should be obvious, but it is not. People want to post things that are meant to be persuasive to bring “other people” around to their point of view, and then they get irate that someone disagrees with them. However much you want your wall to be your own private relaxation space, it is nevertheless a public forum. You know you have friends that don’t agree with your every view (in fact you were almost certainly targeting them with your link) so don’t act shocked when they let you know.

The flipside: Don’t offer your dissenting opinion to “friends” you don’t know well. It is clearly the case that many people do not like others to disagree with them on Facebook . If you see that a friend is often engaged in debate, it is probably fair to offer your two cents, but even then you can be surprised.

4) Do avoid vaguebooking. This has been much-discussed, but needs to be said again. Do not post random song lyrics, passages from books or quotes from movies without attribution. At best, this makes many people feel lost.  At worst, they could feel deliberately excluded. Similarly do not post tantrums about unnamed individuals.  It’s just rude and not productive.  Example: “I hate nasty bitches!” At best people are thinking, “No shit. Who doesn’t?” At worst they’re thinking you are thoughtless and cruel or they might feel anxious that they are the targets of your rant. If you have a problem with someone, address him directly, like a grown-up, or choose to let it go, truly.

The flipside: Don’t make assumptions about the meaning behind a vague post. When you see examples of this, just ignore it. We all have bad days, and sometimes we need to vent or we haven’t really thought out the implications of our actions. If someone does this repeatedly, and it gets under your skin, you can hide her updates.

5) Don’t announce that you are deleting friends. At best, no one cares. At worst, you will provoke anxiety. Just do it, and keep quiet. Also, think before you decide to include or exile someone from your Facebook circle. We should always be thinking about how to maintain and strengthen connections. If you’re not sure about someone, don’t add her to your friends’ list in the first place. If you are annoyed at someone, think long and hard about the reasons why. It is too easy to drop a friend for simple disagreement. This can lead to real world awkwardness and be damaging to personal growth.

The flipside: Don’t obsess about someone’s post that they’re purging. Ignore it. If you don’t survive the cut, ask yourself: So what? A person you barely knew chose to delete you from his friends list. It is not in any way a reflection on your value as a human being. Also, you do not know their reasons. Often times it has less to do with you than with them. It might sound cliché, but it’s true. On the other hand, if you find that many people are dropping you from their list of friends, you might ask yourself if you are falling short in your responsibilities.

6) Don’t post multiple links in a row. Keep it to two or three maximum per session. I have a few friends and organizations that I really value, who have great things to contribute, so I don’t want to hide them. But, I get overwhelmed when they post link after link. I’ve had to wade through two pages of Youtube video links to get to the next status update by another friend. This is not fair. I’m pretty sure no one wants to do that.

The flipside: Don’t assume negative intent. Most likely people who do this are caught up in their thing, and haven’t noticed that the links are piling up. Also, I know that some folks don’t post regularly, but kind of “dump” when they do get on. If this really bugs you, you can hide the person. Of course, the standard “ignore it” applies, as always.

Why I Love a Conservative (Even Though I'm a Liberal)

He's extraordinarily handsome, which is the first thing I noticed about him when I walked into a Saturday morning mythology course at my university.  But that's not terribly relevant.  The next thing I noticed, as class got underway, was that he is exceptionally articulate, sensitive, observant and intelligent.  Now I went to a state school, so in these elective courses it was unusual to meet up with another intense, passionate and engaged individual of any stripe.  As we got to know each other over the semester and during the holiday break, I saw that he was open-minded, generous, thoughtful and tolerant.  I discovered that he was a philosophy major, a musician, a soccer player, and a U.S. green card holder but a European citizen, which in my mind, added to his cachet.  I was a good little liberal at the time, who knew that conservatives were scumbag, racist, greedy, ignorant, jingoistic, religious fanatics.  So you can imagine my shock when one day, after having many lovely discussions over the previous months, talk turned to politics, and I discovered that this gorgeous hunk of Renaissance manhood, this sweet, sensitive, kind-hearted human being was, dunh, dunh, dunh...a conservative.

My new friend was bemused by my reaction.  He told me that people often got the impression that he was liberal in his political ideas, and we speculated as to why.  He certainly defied some of the gross stereotypes, but he was also a good and compassionate listener, so the speaker could find herself believing she saw agreement, where she was merely observing understanding (which of course, conservatives don't have either).  Meanwhile, I was reeling.  I was really starting to fall for this guy in a big way, but a conservative?  How could I possibly?  I mean, how could I introduce a guy like this to my father?  to my friends?

I think it was around this time that we had some discussions about tolerance, inclusiveness and open-mindedness and what these concepts really mean.  You know, that you actually listen to what someone is saying before you jump to conclusions about their ideas, that you judge someone by the content of their character rather than the newspaper they read, that you accept superficial differences as a normal part of the human condition, and perhaps most radically of all, that two well-educated and thoughtful human beings can research and discuss a controversial concept and reach different conclusions.

Well, being half in love, and always open to a well-reasoned argument, I came to see his points.  Conservatives are people too.  Once in a while (not often mind you) they might even be correct! I didn't start listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I made room in my mind for some truly new ideas.  I allowed myself to fall deeply in love with and eventually marry this wonderful man with his nearly imperceptible but tragic flaw.  I consoled myself with the fact that, as a permanent resident, he's not allowed to vote.

After a couple of years of marriage, we had a baby (how quaint, no?).  The love-of-my-life arranged things at his company so he could work from home, to have more time with his family (he saved himself from three hours on the road each weekday).  After a couple of years, we concluded that staying in that part of the country was no longer necessary for his career, and we were free to return to my home state, where most of my relatives still live.  This sweetheart willingly gave up close contact with his family and friends, so I could be closer to mine.  There was one other problem, my home state is much more liberal.  
 
I have noticed, since we have moved this more liberal land, that my husband is frequently the target of just the sort of ignorant bigotry I displayed so many years ago.  This troubles me, because I don't like to see my dear one attacked, but also because the attackers think of themselves as being oh so open-minded and inclusive.  If they limited themselves to the issues at hand and savaged his well-thought-out, but ultimately incorrect, conclusions, I would be all for it. But they often resort to nasty name-calling, ridiculous presumptions, or conviction and sentence without trial.  In short, they use the very tactics that they claim to revile.

Why do they do it?  Of course, it's not just Liberals who are guilty of this kind of thing.  Our country is very polarized, and we are encouraged to assimilate into one of only two legitimate camps.  My belief is that we are not accustomed to actually thinking about problems, and that we align ourselves with one party or another, based on ideas we already have.  Once we've made our choice, it's easy to swallow the whole line without taking the time to really analyze many of the bigger questions.  After that, it's a short step to demonizing those rotten people in the "other" party.  In my experience, the most ideological in either camp are those most prone to bigotry.  Personally I just have a harder time taking the overzealous nastiness of people who are preaching tolerance, a value that I happen to truly embrace, thanks at least in part, to the lessons I learned from loving a member of the opposition.  I wish other ideologues would take notice and do the same.

Human Attachment

Eons ago, when I was in college, I had a discussion with a post-modern philosophy professor about the possible biological underpinnings of morality. His view, of course, was that there was no such thing, that all we had were more or less persuasive arguments that people believed or didn't. I had decided to study anthropology because I believed I might discover universal human truths through understanding the wide variety of cultural adaptations that were known to science.  My professor was intrigued by my idea, though skeptical. I remember him asking me, "You mean that your view is based on something like health?"  He had understood completely, but neither of us had heard, at the time, about the emerging fields of evolutionary psychology or experimental philosophy or other interdisciplinary studies of all sorts that were just beginning to take off. Since then these disciplines have come into their own, and many current thinkers are confirming what I intuited back then--we are biologically adapted to certain kinds of behaviors, and when we act in accordance with our biology, we are actually happier as human beings.

One of the obvious standouts of human behavior is that we are social creatures. We cannot survive in isolation. We do not lay eggs in a hole in the sand and take off to let our babies fend for themselves. Our post-industrial society has led to a bit of a conundrum in this area. We are simultaneously less able than ever before to forage and fend for ourselves in the most basic ways. Most people I meet wouldn't know an edible wild plant, if it jumped into their salad bowl. On the other hand, people *feel* less dependent in a mechanized world where human beings are treated as "resources" that are used for specific functions and are easily replaceable. How many people notice when their favorite cashier at the local grocery store moves away, gets fired or dies? Even if we notice they're missing, it doesn't change our lives in any significant way. Contrast this with the loss of the best hunter or the "medicine woman" in a band of foragers. These losses would have deep and significant impact on day-to-day realities of survival compounded by the emotional stress of losing a beloved family/community member.

Bands of foragers (hunter-gatherers) tend to be biologically and/or matrimonially related. Groups tend not to get larger than 60 people. Everyone is known intimately, for a lifetime. New members come in through marriage and birth, and members leave through marriage or death. Marriages tend to take place between groups that are well-known to each other and have kinship and language ties. All of this is to say, relationships are extremely close, probably to an extent we cannot really even grasp in a modern context. In our world, it is not at all unusual for a baby to be born, be fed with a bottle of artificial milk and placed in the care of virtual strangers within six weeks. The caregivers will change within the given institution, even if the parents strive to maintain continuity of place. Within a couple of years, the child will be transferred to a "school" type setting, where her peers and teachers will change every year until she graduates and moves into a world that is even less stable. There is a 50% chance that her parents will split up (if they were ever married) during her childhood, and she will lose even that stability. There is also a good chance that she will not live near her extended family, that she will not stay in one neighborhood for the duration, that if she does, she will not really know her neighbors, etc.

I remember watching a PBS reality show called "Frontier House" a few years ago. People were selected to live in conditions that were similar to those of the settlers of the American West, and were filmed doing their daily chores and having interactions with their peers. The challenges, as you can imagine, were formidable. Though people understood that their survival did not depend on their abilities, there was still a lot at stake. No one wanted to be seen as a failure on national TV, plus their actual comfort was very much on the line. One of the things that really struck me about the follow-up interviews was how everyone, when back in their comfortable homes, seemed so much unhappier. They recalled their time on the show as being some of the most satisfying weeks of their lives. When surveys of happiness are conducted, we in the "modern world" are always at the bottom, people in traditional societies are at the top. I have heard people conclude that "stuff does not bring us pleasure", which I believe is only partly true. I have no desire to live without indoor plumbing or electricity. I do not believe for a minute that giving those things up will add to my or my family's happiness. It seems obvious that it is the human connection, the real interdependence, that makes the difference.

In fact these ideas are not even very controversial within the psychological community.  For instance, there is almost no debate about the critical importance of childhood attachment to one's primary caregiver, the data on divorce are clear (it is detrimental to kids in every measurable way, in almost all cases), people who report more close relationships with friends and family members also report being happier (and healthier!).  Yet when these studies are published, we hear a tremendous amount of debate.  Though these ideas are understood by science, our current cultural adaptations are at odds with our more basic needs.  So we hear people rationalizing by citing the "resilience" of children, the importance of economic success, and the primacy of one's own "fulfillment". It seems that we are terribly ill-equipped to manage worthwhile relationships and especially to stay committed (whence our examples?) and since we feel so cheated ourselves, we have a difficult time giving to others (we are so needy) and breaking the cycle of disconnection and selfishness.

So how can we live in a more connected way without giving up the comforts of technology, without overturning our current cultural practices in one fell swoop (which could never work anyway)? I believe that technology, in fact, holds part of the answer. People can now work from home in a way that was simply not possible a generation ago. My husband does. He is in the house most days, but with the aid of a computer, an internet connection and a telephone, he can interview people all over the world, write articles, blogs and tweets, edit and publish without needing to go to his office in New York (we live on the West Coast). There are dozens of other ways to increase our closeness with one another, and improving connection with our fellows, in any way, will benefit us as individuals and as a society. Some examples that will be explored in future posts are: knowing oneself in order to make wiser personal and career decisions; choosing one's life partner carefully in order to stay committed; bonding with one's children and maintaining a safe and loving home; staying connected with one's extended family, especially by living nearby; choosing a neighborhood and community and settling down; actively participating in the local community, through recreational activities, politics, religious affiliation, volunteering, and/or economic activities.

Further Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
http://www.livescience.com/14402-divorce-plagues-kids-social-academic.html
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/christakis_happiness.html
http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/12/religions-secret-to-happiness-its-friends-not-faith/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704243904575630541486290052.html

I Really Don't Hate Christmas

Phineas and Ferb's Dr. Doofenshmirtz gives us his take

Unlike the bad doctor, I in fact love Christmas.  So what?  Millions of people love Christmas.  It is true, but most of them are religious to one degree or another.  I on the other hand, am a committed atheist.  I do not believe in God, or gods, or soul, or spirit, or astrology, or the power of crystals.  Most atheists hate Christmas, and at this time of year, you will find them expounding on various aspects of the holiday that disturb them, from the fact that it is an amalgam of various pagan holidays, to the fact that it's not really the date of Jesus's birth, to the fact that some Christians choose this opportunity to become aggressive about their beliefs, or to the fact that the U.S. is supposed to be a pluralistic and secular culture.  Again, so what?  Just because all of these things are true, is no reason to chuck one of the funnest set of rituals we have.

Full disclosure, I was not raised in a religious household, though both of my parents came from a protestant background, and my mother clearly retained those beliefs.  We did not attend church as a family, but my mom read us Bible stories and told us they were true.  We celebrated all of the major Christian holidays with gusto, and most of my relatives are practicing Christians of the low church, protestant variety.  We were taught that Santa Claus was real, and I believed in Rudolph, Frosty the Snowman, toy-making elves, and practically anything else you can think of.  And I thought it was magical and wonderful!  I was not in any way traumatized when I discovered that these things were imaginary.  In fact, I continued to pretend to believe for a number of years after I stopped actually believing.  I can remember lying in bed at night, getting myself all psyched up for Santa's visit, and being delighted at the full stockings and presents under the tree on Christmas morning, despite my complete understanding that my mom did all of the work.  It was still transformative--a beautiful day of light and plenty at the darkest time of the year.  And that was only the beginning!  Later in the day, the house would fill with family and feasting.  There would be tons of laughter and special treats and game time after dinner, with multiple generations sharing in the fun.

So my particular psychological circumstances lead me to continue to embrace Christmas, but I also have cultural grounds.  I love tradition, and I don't see the need to reject a harmless practice, based on a lack of religious belief.  I'm pretty sure nobody still believes that one's soul flies out the mouth during a sneeze, and yet countless people continue to say "Bless you" as a means of expressing concern for the health of our loved ones.  One of the best ways to look at celebrations is to conduct a thought experiment.  Imagine yourself visiting a foreign culture, and finding yourself in the midst of joyous holiday preparations.  Everything is completely unfamiliar to you, but your hosts graciously invite you to join in the festivities, promising delicious foods, singing, decorations, games, drinks, and a generally raucous good time.  You are welcomed as a guest and treated as an esteemed friend.  I cannot believe that there are many atheists who would turn down such an opportunity to celebrate Diwali, say, in India, yet they resentfully refuse to participate in their own culture's festive time.  If you truly reject religion, then you are free to embrace the secular aspects of Christmas, and the fact that so many pagan traditions are woven into our celebration makes it all the more fun and interesting to me.

So Jesus wasn't even born on December 25?  And?  Maybe he never even existed at all as a historical personage.  The non-literal nature of myth does not lessen its power.  We don't cease to study the powerful stories of the ancients, because we doubt Zeus's supremacy.  Jesus wasn't truly the son of God, but the story of His divine birth is arguably the very best part of Christianity.  It is the story of the mundane miracle of human life.  Every birth is remarkable, even those that take place in the most humble of circumstances.  Every human being, pauper or king, comes into the world in the same way.  We begin our lives as equals, and we are all in possession of a little bit of the eternal, the transcendent, simply by taking part in the beauty and the terror that is conscious existence.

Christmas is the way generations of people have decided to take a stand against the cyclical darkness and chill.  So we blaze up our windows and lawns, we grab a little greenery and bring it inside, we toss in anything with color or shimmer, we celebrate the birth of a baby when confronted with the death of our trees and crops, we feast while our stores are high in preparation for the lean months ahead, we sing into the silence, we announce our presence and we assert our will before the overwhelming power of nature.

N.B.  Even though it should go without saying, I will still say that we need to always respect the stories and traditions of others (including practicing Christians in our own nation) and shouldn't make assumptions about people's beliefs or lack thereof.  Offering a hearty "Season's Greetings!" should cover all the bases without offense, and graciously accepting a "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Blessed Kwanzaa" or "Happy Diwali" should be the obvious response when wished well by a practitioner of another faith.