There are many striking statements in this little survey of the meanings of "giving up," but to me the most striking was in the aside concerning religion:
"This is why I find religion(s) intellectually appealing even when I don’t think they’re true — they are ways of structuring choice and committing ourselves to present and future sacrifices. In this sense, they are statements about the kinds of people we think we should be and might actually become. Sacrifice, in this sense, is “a form of prediction.”
WoC has been flirting with this idea that religion is not so much true as beneficial and -- to me this is the really interesting corollary -- that it's not religious beliefs that benefit us so much as practicing a religion, and religious or spiritual practice has always been associated with "giving up" something for a greater good. One word for such giver-uppers was "ascetic," which comes from the ancient Greek word for athletic training, a goal-directed, self-denying practice. (Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises" were a direct riff on this idea.)
But if it's the practice that counts, need it be linked to religion? And do the beliefs motivating a practice eo ipso count as a religion? I was hoping for a deeper dive into these questions -- of liberalism as a practice -- in the podcast with Alex Lefebvre, but the siren-song of liberalism as a belief system was just too strong on that occasion. But there is WoC subscriber, David DeSteno, whose book "How God Works" really delves into the evidence of benefit of religious practice (prayer, meditation, sacrifice, etc.) and I would recommend the book to those interested and DeSteno, if WoC is serious about this theme, as a possible podcast guest.
But since Shadi is in a giving-up mood, what should he give up? Hot takes, obviously. :-)
Glad the piece resonated, Tom! You're right to point to this recurring theme in the WoC universe (although I suppose I'm mostly the culprit). To your question of whether practice must be linked to religion, I think the answer is yes. In Lefebvre's attempt to make liberalism into a belief system, it still lacked regular ritual and it's not clear to me how secular ideologies can sustain ritual among enough people. The gruel is too thin, ultimately. All the alternatives to religion: yoga, wokeness, Elks clubs just haven't been as successful. Thanks for the rec on David DeSteno. He reached out to me about my recent Foreign Affairs article on "secular stagnation" (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/secular-stagnation-hamid-divine-economy) so hopefully we'll get to talk more.
Shadi: I think you would find de Steno's "How God Works" interesting. It's claims are empirical, like your claims based polls and voting cross-sections, but in a different way. He builds his case on studies.
Along those line, I like the Foreign Affairs piece, but I would counsel some caution on the "deaths of despair" theme. We all find good lines hard to resist. But there are researchers who think that Angus Deaton and Anna Case's characterization of their research was a case of grabbing for headlines. Myself, I wonder whether the fentanyl epidemic is a reprise of the methamphetamine wave of a few years back, a far-deadlier drug ripping through much the same population. And "Methland" was still highly churched.
And I think you underestimate the network of "practices" that make people nostalgic for small-town America. There was church, yes. But also church bingo, service clubs, little league, bowling leagues, scouts -- even the Elks and Polish clubs and the VFW and American Legion. Many of these supports have declined in parallel, perhaps because the towns themselves are declining relative to the urban/suburban/exurban mass. The megachurches of the exurbs attempt to cover almost all of these support modalities. They sell connection and involvement, not just meaning. How well this works for people, compared to the good old days, I'm not sure -- but the churches themselves are hugely successful with this model.
I think about giving up a lot. I’m so tired of trying to steer our course, our destiny toward what we believe is the good outcome. I am so sick and tired of hearing and reading about trump. I despise the guy, no question about it but I’ve heard enough for a lifetime of anguish.
Leave it alone; let the chips fall where they may. I feel done with it. And in 10 years will I even be here? Or will trump??
But alas, I get stirred up again and again.
It’s in my nature.
One of the best and one of the worst things about Americans is our undying hope. We can’t conceive history going any other way except toward the “good”. Even though we have plenty examples of horror and miserable choices leading to terror and death for many
We still believe in the goodness of our mission here on this planet. We believe we’re the best, the most caring and benevolent people.
That’s ideal. That’s who we are and when danger threatens us (trump and his cronies) battering down our gates, we still don’t believe we’ll fall down
I’ve had this conversation with many people who are not American. They don’t share our feelings because their history tells them something very different. They have been conquered, enslaved, wiped out, destroyed
They know it can happen again.
While we feel invincible
So I guess I’ll stay on the edge and keep hoping even if things go really bad
On the other hand, my true hope is in our people, that there are enough right thinking Americans who won’t let the worst happen
Our motto “ in God we trust” is like passing the buck but this is a joint effort. I remind myself on days when I can’t stand another word about trump, I’m not in this alone
Thanks Virginia for sharing your thoughts. This is really important: Our understanding of progress is context-dependent, and we can still believe the arc bends towards justice because, in our case, in generally has. In this sense, there's nothing unreasonable about our beliefs about who we are. They make sense, but that doesn't mean that they always will. And that's the frightening part.
I think there is a way to give up that reflects wisdom and is not a collapse. For instance, perhaps my way of viewing matters and my efforts are repeatedly at odds with reality or with what can happen in this moment given multiple other things at play. In these cases, when I can bring myself to do it, I like to get quiet and pray or otherwise ask internally to be in alignment with some sort of deeper current or movement of Life that seems positive, to try to find and move with that wave. Can I put my energy and attention into something beyond my personal will at the moment? Separately, I had such a chuckle hearing you were listening to Adyashanti. I happened to be present when he asked a teacher in the Advaita Vedanta tradition if he should be teaching (this was maybe around '94) and then I went to a number of his in-person "sittings" before he became a much more big name. Sometimes there were even fewer than ten of us there. I dropped that particular dharma path as I found Advaita Vedanta too disembodied and potentially not the healthiest path for people who might struggle with feeling real. (Statements like "you are not the body" or "you are not real" can really set some people back who have a habit of dissociating or are going through some sort of nihilistic crisis.) This doesn't mean one can't get insight or even have profound spiritual experiences being around such people, but I needed something more connected to the body, human messiness, etc. I haven't tracked Adya's work in some time, but I know at one point he was bringing in a Christian flavor at an extremely essential level. And as far as I know, unlike a lot of Western teachers, I don't think he ended up with any scandal around him. He seemed rather squeaky clean back in the day.
Trump is not a Nazi, but definitely has fascistic leanings, see the most recent episode of John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, this one examines the dangers of a second Trump term. Also, look at the "Project 2025" playbook his allies have crafted for Trump's second term.
The question is when do we really give up? It strikes me that this is the most difficult question rather than coming to terms with the prospect of giving up. Giving up as a thing to do is something we all do at some point in some aspect of our lives. Indeed, even growing up and acknowledging our responsibilities is giving up the pleasure of infancy without its pleasurable conditions of no responsibility and all the time in the world to explore and simply have fun.
But it strikes me knowing when to give up can only truly be achieved with hindsight. Thus doesn't it make sense we would resist it until there is no other way? In the example of de-nazification that is a classic historical case of giving up far too early and easily. Rather than prosecuting many of the senior and secondary tiers of the leadership we gave up, allowed Nazis who knew about and participated in the Holocaust to return to their lives and failed to achieve a wider justice for the victims and their families.
On the opposite side of the coin you can point to the war on terror as withdrawing too late. In reality the Bush administration should have realised their strategy was doomed to failure by 2005-2006 rather than keep it going for another couple of years. This arguably had other kinds of impacts from giving up too early.
So, surely the question is really knowing about when to give up and acknowledge the signs? But even this is difficult given the sheer amount of stories of successful people who perhaps most would say should have given up earlier. Think of the works (like Harry Potter) which have faced constant rejection until eventually someone says 'yes'. In some ways not knowing when to give in allows us the spirit and determination to break new boundaries and shows us the essence of being human.
Really good points, Sam! There's some utility in at least *some* people not knowing when to give up, however obdurate and irrational they may seem in the moment.
I concur with the value of not knowing. Though Shadi and I are on opposite sides regarding Gaza, I've developed a similar appreciation for not paying too much attention. The more media I consume, the more likely I am to fly off the handle in my arguments.
I don't know if anyone on either side (of this or any issue) is like this, but only by limiting my media consumption to pro-Israel outlets can I bring myself to critique Israel. Listening only to Israel-friendly voices makes my pro-Israel stance more moderate (and I'm more likely to raise an eyebrow at, say, some articles in Tablet). When I try to consume a more balanced media diet regarding Gaza, my stance becomes more extreme, and I find myself wanting to shout, "screw the hostages, exterminate Hamas once and for all," or "I don't care how many Gazans die."
This is partly because I can get bored quite easily, so hearing an argument I agree with over and over makes me want to argue against it just for fun. But I think it's also an example (one of many out there) of how paying less attention, even to an important issue a person cares about, is better, and not just for that one person. A person losing their sanity can't be of any help to any of their fellow human beings.
Mike, this part is fascinating, and I can't say I've heard it quite like this before:
"I don't know if anyone on either side (of this or any issue) is like this, but only by limiting my media consumption to pro-Israel outlets can I bring myself to critique Israel. Listening only to Israel-friendly voices makes my pro-Israel stance more moderate."
I am reminded of a question often used by psychotherapists: "Would you rather be right or be happy?" Spoiler alert: most of us (particularly males) would choose to be 'right."
Growth demands change and change will likely trigger grief and a sense of loss. I remember decades ago listening to Elizabeth Kubler-Ross describe the myriad of "mini-griefs" we encounter each day - the death of a hope, loss of an opportunity, end of a relationship, loss of a job, diminishing vigor due to disease or aging, etc. To live in the present is to have the ability to grieve and let go.
Elizabeth provided us with a general roadmap of this process: denial, bargaining, anger, surrender, and acceptance. It is her "surrender" stage that correlates to your concept of "defeat." This is a difficult and important shift that often is labelled "depression." I would contend it is a critical step to self empowerment and sacred purpose as you eluded to in your mention of the role of religion in supporting this dynamic.
The first three grieving stages are 'victim' stances resisting the power of outside forces. Our sense of security and power is challenged so we automatically deny it happening, try to strike a bargain with our oppressor, and then rise up in anger to destroy the threat. All of these are assertive, yang energies targeted outward ignoring our deeper, inclusive yin energies. We are naturally outward focused creating a polarized 'us against them' relationship. (Apply this to the Israeli - Palestinian situation which has festered in a loop of denial, bargaining, and murderous anger for nearly a century).
By "accepting defeat" or surrendering, we shift from a victim mode to one of self-reflection and soul searching. William Bridges in his book "Transitions" describes three stages of growth and change: ending - separation, dying, loss; neutral zone - chaos, confusion; and renewal - rebirth and new beginning.
We tend to cycle around in denial, bargaining, and anger for as long as it takes to experience a realization of an ending. It is this acceptance of 'defeat' which strips away all our previous coping mechanisms leaving us adrift in rudderless stage of surrender and seeking some deeper meaning and purpose to living. Bridges says the job of being in the neutral zone is to do nothing and relinquish conscious control. This is why religious organizations throughout history have created cloistered monastic groups and strict rituals. If we simmer in our embrace of chaos long enough, we will become aware of "deep callings" summoning us toward a new path and renewal. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159615.Transitions
Your statement that the concept of democracy is "change driven" is critical. The rate of change has far surpassed our sociological and psychological structures. Change is happening far more rapidly than our ability to grieve our way into acceptance. "Disruptive technology" is the mantra of modern society and we are not skilled in the dynamics of defeat of our beloved habits and, being secular, we have few rituals to ease our transition to a new "promised land." This leaves us looping in denial, bargaining and anger which likely will fester into hate as you point out.
An interesting question is: "Is secular liberal democracy the 'cure' or the 'disease?' Have we painted ourselves into a corner denying the growing frustrations of feeling stuck in despair and hopelessness? What changes are required to continue to embrace the chaos of disruptive technologies and to surrender, to give up our cherished institutions? If we don't learn to gracefully "give up" we will collectively suffer the consequences.
There are many striking statements in this little survey of the meanings of "giving up," but to me the most striking was in the aside concerning religion:
"This is why I find religion(s) intellectually appealing even when I don’t think they’re true — they are ways of structuring choice and committing ourselves to present and future sacrifices. In this sense, they are statements about the kinds of people we think we should be and might actually become. Sacrifice, in this sense, is “a form of prediction.”
WoC has been flirting with this idea that religion is not so much true as beneficial and -- to me this is the really interesting corollary -- that it's not religious beliefs that benefit us so much as practicing a religion, and religious or spiritual practice has always been associated with "giving up" something for a greater good. One word for such giver-uppers was "ascetic," which comes from the ancient Greek word for athletic training, a goal-directed, self-denying practice. (Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises" were a direct riff on this idea.)
But if it's the practice that counts, need it be linked to religion? And do the beliefs motivating a practice eo ipso count as a religion? I was hoping for a deeper dive into these questions -- of liberalism as a practice -- in the podcast with Alex Lefebvre, but the siren-song of liberalism as a belief system was just too strong on that occasion. But there is WoC subscriber, David DeSteno, whose book "How God Works" really delves into the evidence of benefit of religious practice (prayer, meditation, sacrifice, etc.) and I would recommend the book to those interested and DeSteno, if WoC is serious about this theme, as a possible podcast guest.
But since Shadi is in a giving-up mood, what should he give up? Hot takes, obviously. :-)
Fascinating post, thanks.
Glad the piece resonated, Tom! You're right to point to this recurring theme in the WoC universe (although I suppose I'm mostly the culprit). To your question of whether practice must be linked to religion, I think the answer is yes. In Lefebvre's attempt to make liberalism into a belief system, it still lacked regular ritual and it's not clear to me how secular ideologies can sustain ritual among enough people. The gruel is too thin, ultimately. All the alternatives to religion: yoga, wokeness, Elks clubs just haven't been as successful. Thanks for the rec on David DeSteno. He reached out to me about my recent Foreign Affairs article on "secular stagnation" (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/secular-stagnation-hamid-divine-economy) so hopefully we'll get to talk more.
Shadi: I think you would find de Steno's "How God Works" interesting. It's claims are empirical, like your claims based polls and voting cross-sections, but in a different way. He builds his case on studies.
Along those line, I like the Foreign Affairs piece, but I would counsel some caution on the "deaths of despair" theme. We all find good lines hard to resist. But there are researchers who think that Angus Deaton and Anna Case's characterization of their research was a case of grabbing for headlines. Myself, I wonder whether the fentanyl epidemic is a reprise of the methamphetamine wave of a few years back, a far-deadlier drug ripping through much the same population. And "Methland" was still highly churched.
And I think you underestimate the network of "practices" that make people nostalgic for small-town America. There was church, yes. But also church bingo, service clubs, little league, bowling leagues, scouts -- even the Elks and Polish clubs and the VFW and American Legion. Many of these supports have declined in parallel, perhaps because the towns themselves are declining relative to the urban/suburban/exurban mass. The megachurches of the exurbs attempt to cover almost all of these support modalities. They sell connection and involvement, not just meaning. How well this works for people, compared to the good old days, I'm not sure -- but the churches themselves are hugely successful with this model.
I think about giving up a lot. I’m so tired of trying to steer our course, our destiny toward what we believe is the good outcome. I am so sick and tired of hearing and reading about trump. I despise the guy, no question about it but I’ve heard enough for a lifetime of anguish.
Leave it alone; let the chips fall where they may. I feel done with it. And in 10 years will I even be here? Or will trump??
But alas, I get stirred up again and again.
It’s in my nature.
One of the best and one of the worst things about Americans is our undying hope. We can’t conceive history going any other way except toward the “good”. Even though we have plenty examples of horror and miserable choices leading to terror and death for many
We still believe in the goodness of our mission here on this planet. We believe we’re the best, the most caring and benevolent people.
That’s ideal. That’s who we are and when danger threatens us (trump and his cronies) battering down our gates, we still don’t believe we’ll fall down
I’ve had this conversation with many people who are not American. They don’t share our feelings because their history tells them something very different. They have been conquered, enslaved, wiped out, destroyed
They know it can happen again.
While we feel invincible
So I guess I’ll stay on the edge and keep hoping even if things go really bad
On the other hand, my true hope is in our people, that there are enough right thinking Americans who won’t let the worst happen
Our motto “ in God we trust” is like passing the buck but this is a joint effort. I remind myself on days when I can’t stand another word about trump, I’m not in this alone
Thanks Virginia for sharing your thoughts. This is really important: Our understanding of progress is context-dependent, and we can still believe the arc bends towards justice because, in our case, in generally has. In this sense, there's nothing unreasonable about our beliefs about who we are. They make sense, but that doesn't mean that they always will. And that's the frightening part.
I think there is a way to give up that reflects wisdom and is not a collapse. For instance, perhaps my way of viewing matters and my efforts are repeatedly at odds with reality or with what can happen in this moment given multiple other things at play. In these cases, when I can bring myself to do it, I like to get quiet and pray or otherwise ask internally to be in alignment with some sort of deeper current or movement of Life that seems positive, to try to find and move with that wave. Can I put my energy and attention into something beyond my personal will at the moment? Separately, I had such a chuckle hearing you were listening to Adyashanti. I happened to be present when he asked a teacher in the Advaita Vedanta tradition if he should be teaching (this was maybe around '94) and then I went to a number of his in-person "sittings" before he became a much more big name. Sometimes there were even fewer than ten of us there. I dropped that particular dharma path as I found Advaita Vedanta too disembodied and potentially not the healthiest path for people who might struggle with feeling real. (Statements like "you are not the body" or "you are not real" can really set some people back who have a habit of dissociating or are going through some sort of nihilistic crisis.) This doesn't mean one can't get insight or even have profound spiritual experiences being around such people, but I needed something more connected to the body, human messiness, etc. I haven't tracked Adya's work in some time, but I know at one point he was bringing in a Christian flavor at an extremely essential level. And as far as I know, unlike a lot of Western teachers, I don't think he ended up with any scandal around him. He seemed rather squeaky clean back in the day.
Trump is not a Nazi, but definitely has fascistic leanings, see the most recent episode of John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, this one examines the dangers of a second Trump term. Also, look at the "Project 2025" playbook his allies have crafted for Trump's second term.
The question is when do we really give up? It strikes me that this is the most difficult question rather than coming to terms with the prospect of giving up. Giving up as a thing to do is something we all do at some point in some aspect of our lives. Indeed, even growing up and acknowledging our responsibilities is giving up the pleasure of infancy without its pleasurable conditions of no responsibility and all the time in the world to explore and simply have fun.
But it strikes me knowing when to give up can only truly be achieved with hindsight. Thus doesn't it make sense we would resist it until there is no other way? In the example of de-nazification that is a classic historical case of giving up far too early and easily. Rather than prosecuting many of the senior and secondary tiers of the leadership we gave up, allowed Nazis who knew about and participated in the Holocaust to return to their lives and failed to achieve a wider justice for the victims and their families.
On the opposite side of the coin you can point to the war on terror as withdrawing too late. In reality the Bush administration should have realised their strategy was doomed to failure by 2005-2006 rather than keep it going for another couple of years. This arguably had other kinds of impacts from giving up too early.
So, surely the question is really knowing about when to give up and acknowledge the signs? But even this is difficult given the sheer amount of stories of successful people who perhaps most would say should have given up earlier. Think of the works (like Harry Potter) which have faced constant rejection until eventually someone says 'yes'. In some ways not knowing when to give in allows us the spirit and determination to break new boundaries and shows us the essence of being human.
Really good points, Sam! There's some utility in at least *some* people not knowing when to give up, however obdurate and irrational they may seem in the moment.
Thanks Shadi! It's a fascinating question and definitely all kinds of things you can talk about in relation to it :)
I concur with the value of not knowing. Though Shadi and I are on opposite sides regarding Gaza, I've developed a similar appreciation for not paying too much attention. The more media I consume, the more likely I am to fly off the handle in my arguments.
I don't know if anyone on either side (of this or any issue) is like this, but only by limiting my media consumption to pro-Israel outlets can I bring myself to critique Israel. Listening only to Israel-friendly voices makes my pro-Israel stance more moderate (and I'm more likely to raise an eyebrow at, say, some articles in Tablet). When I try to consume a more balanced media diet regarding Gaza, my stance becomes more extreme, and I find myself wanting to shout, "screw the hostages, exterminate Hamas once and for all," or "I don't care how many Gazans die."
This is partly because I can get bored quite easily, so hearing an argument I agree with over and over makes me want to argue against it just for fun. But I think it's also an example (one of many out there) of how paying less attention, even to an important issue a person cares about, is better, and not just for that one person. A person losing their sanity can't be of any help to any of their fellow human beings.
Mike, this part is fascinating, and I can't say I've heard it quite like this before:
"I don't know if anyone on either side (of this or any issue) is like this, but only by limiting my media consumption to pro-Israel outlets can I bring myself to critique Israel. Listening only to Israel-friendly voices makes my pro-Israel stance more moderate."
I am reminded of a question often used by psychotherapists: "Would you rather be right or be happy?" Spoiler alert: most of us (particularly males) would choose to be 'right."
Growth demands change and change will likely trigger grief and a sense of loss. I remember decades ago listening to Elizabeth Kubler-Ross describe the myriad of "mini-griefs" we encounter each day - the death of a hope, loss of an opportunity, end of a relationship, loss of a job, diminishing vigor due to disease or aging, etc. To live in the present is to have the ability to grieve and let go.
Elizabeth provided us with a general roadmap of this process: denial, bargaining, anger, surrender, and acceptance. It is her "surrender" stage that correlates to your concept of "defeat." This is a difficult and important shift that often is labelled "depression." I would contend it is a critical step to self empowerment and sacred purpose as you eluded to in your mention of the role of religion in supporting this dynamic.
The first three grieving stages are 'victim' stances resisting the power of outside forces. Our sense of security and power is challenged so we automatically deny it happening, try to strike a bargain with our oppressor, and then rise up in anger to destroy the threat. All of these are assertive, yang energies targeted outward ignoring our deeper, inclusive yin energies. We are naturally outward focused creating a polarized 'us against them' relationship. (Apply this to the Israeli - Palestinian situation which has festered in a loop of denial, bargaining, and murderous anger for nearly a century).
By "accepting defeat" or surrendering, we shift from a victim mode to one of self-reflection and soul searching. William Bridges in his book "Transitions" describes three stages of growth and change: ending - separation, dying, loss; neutral zone - chaos, confusion; and renewal - rebirth and new beginning.
We tend to cycle around in denial, bargaining, and anger for as long as it takes to experience a realization of an ending. It is this acceptance of 'defeat' which strips away all our previous coping mechanisms leaving us adrift in rudderless stage of surrender and seeking some deeper meaning and purpose to living. Bridges says the job of being in the neutral zone is to do nothing and relinquish conscious control. This is why religious organizations throughout history have created cloistered monastic groups and strict rituals. If we simmer in our embrace of chaos long enough, we will become aware of "deep callings" summoning us toward a new path and renewal. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159615.Transitions
Your statement that the concept of democracy is "change driven" is critical. The rate of change has far surpassed our sociological and psychological structures. Change is happening far more rapidly than our ability to grieve our way into acceptance. "Disruptive technology" is the mantra of modern society and we are not skilled in the dynamics of defeat of our beloved habits and, being secular, we have few rituals to ease our transition to a new "promised land." This leaves us looping in denial, bargaining and anger which likely will fester into hate as you point out.
An interesting question is: "Is secular liberal democracy the 'cure' or the 'disease?' Have we painted ourselves into a corner denying the growing frustrations of feeling stuck in despair and hopelessness? What changes are required to continue to embrace the chaos of disruptive technologies and to surrender, to give up our cherished institutions? If we don't learn to gracefully "give up" we will collectively suffer the consequences.
https://johnhardman.substack.com/p/pandoras-box
Love this engagement with Phillips. He needs more attention from commentators than he gets.
Yes!