Health Care Reform, Climate Change, and the Evasion of Our Mortality

In my book, Trauma and Human Existence (Routledge, 2007), I offered an account of the essence of emotional trauma: In shattering the tranquilizing illusions of everyday life, trauma requires us to own up to what these illusions have been evading -- human finiteness (i.e., limitedness, vulnerability, mortality, etc.) In virtue of our finitude and the finitude of all those with whom we are deeply connected, the possibility of emotional trauma is ever present and always impends as a constant threat. In previous blogs, I have written about how the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 inflicted a massive collective trauma, shattering the illusions of invincibility that had long been central to our historical identity, and how right-wing ideologues have been exploiting our dread of retraumatization ever since then.

Because authentic (non-evasively owned) existing, stripped of its sheltering illusions, is inherently potentially traumatizing, human beings typically evade owning up to their mortality -- for example, by seeing death as an event that only happens to others or to the very elderly. Philosopher Martin Heidegger referred to the mode of discourse that evades mortality and existential anxiety as "idle talk." A good example of such talk is found in the very language we use to denote life and health insurance. "Life insurance," in truth, is really death insurance. Similarly, "health insurance" is actually sickness and injury insurance -- ultimately a form of death insurance too. In a recent telecast, Keith Olbermann aptly commented that much of the right-wing rhetoric about health care reform -- focusing on such non-issues as socialism, government control, and higher taxes -- has been obscuring what health care reform is really about: our mortality! The preoccupation with political and economic details is an attempt to distract us from having to look into the impending abyss.

And, similarly, why has it taken so long for America to take seriously the threat of catastrophic climate change, which has brought us to the brink of species annihilation -- if not during our lifetime, then in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren? The idle talk that evades this threat often takes the form of metaphysical or theological sunshine: We needn't worry about catastrophic climate change because, after all, God is looking out for us. And besides, our finite this-worldly existence is just a prelude to the eternal happiness to be enjoyed in the next world.

The time for squarely facing our mortality and existential vulnerability -- and for facing them together -- is long overdue!

 

 

Comments

[Tasies]

The US has turned into a country where attachments to the material and physical procures an irrational fear of losing the material so intensely worked for. And that's where the dissonance occurs. The US has been a country which has "thrived" due to material attachments, yet remains highly superstitious (religion). An individual who has very little in life in way of attachments is less likely to have an irrational fear of death, or will have less fear of a rational chance of death.

[wblack]

The flaw in your thinking, and indeed the author's thinking, is one and the same: you cannot generalize from the individual to the society. Society is merely an aggregate of individuals -- it is not an entity. Men are not a collective entity -- we share no common or connected sensory organs and no connected collective brain, and no connected collective body.

The moral flaw in collectivist (or read: socialist) thinking is contained in the arrogance of making choices for others without their consent -- the only outcome of this is a tyranny where men are treated as chattel with no right to self determination and are used and disposed of at the whim of a central authority. Sanction of any such system, even on a limited scale, is a sanction of slavery.

[joebaggadonuts]

You have never read Jung, eh? Or even JH Clippinger, right? There are others who recognize that we are really all in this together. Collectivist? We are not the Borg (Star Trek, TNG) and the word "socialist" is IMHO, just another label by the fools who value ideology over persons.

Society shares the same roads, the same air, the same water, the same governments, the same risk of annihilation by asteroid, etc.

Do us a favor and recognize the truth. Or can't you handle it?

[Tasies]

Dude, what a lame lesson in the perils of generalization. At least you could be more entertaining. Not that your argument carries any weight or has any relevance to mine.

You foolishly invoke collectivism with a predictable and erred definition. Obviously, your golden standard, as a faithful Capitalist is monetary or material. As if monopolistic and anti-indiv­idualistic capitalist system carry no threat of tyranny.

I'll give you my definition of collectivism:

A structure where as frivolity is essential to the well being of the economy, by means of indoctrinating the populace into believing that frivolity is essential. All the while exploiting the collective consciousness (patriotism, freedom, religion,c­onsumerism­) of the populace by offering a virtual standard of living based on debt and credit. Once there is no credit or liquidity to be offered the virtual will begin eroding.

[PlaceboStudman]

The preoccupation with political and economic details is an attempt to distract us from having to look into the impending abyss.

This is the most striking sentence for me. And I thank you for this. You are right, the focus of attention, almost to the point of obsession with the cost of our insurance is merely a diversion from the real issue of sickness and death.

It may simply be the direction that the debate and discussion has gone, but from a historical context, the debate and discussion has *always* followed a path of lowering costs, not improving quality. The faulty logic in this is that, if quality was improved, people would endure less medical issues in the long term, thus reducing the need for insurance, thus reducing over all costs. Insurance can't create administrative waste (which seems to be people's biggest concern) or deny a claim that is never filed because no injury occurred.

Why anyone would even think of paying for something ie "health care" ie medicine and technology without a thorough examination of what we are receiving is way beyond me