Among the ideas that stayed with me from my applied psychology student days are those I encountered and formed through discussions that sought to distinguish the "normal" from the "pathological." It's one of those philosophical problems without a definitive solution—like i believe all important philosophical (or human) problems are.
I remember two French thinkers in particular, though from different generations. The first is Émile Durkheim, one of sociology's giants, who lived from the second half of the 19th century into the early decades of the 20th. Durkheim left us with the idea that in society, crime is "normal, necessary, and useful." Without crime, a society would have no way to evolve its morals, laws, and rules. To support this postulate, he argued that pain and suffering are often viewed as signs of disease despite the existence of serious painless pathologies. Conversely, some medically insignificant conditions cause extreme pain, and in other cases, the absence of pain or the presence of pleasure can be symptoms of illness. For Durkheim, disease might even represent a phase of adaptation to changing external conditions. The pathological state, therefore, can be useful in some cases. When we're vaccinated, for instance, we inject a small "quantity of disease" so our bodies become capable of fighting it, yet this isn't abnormal since getting vaccinated is part of normality (at least for some, or in its statistical sense).
The second French thinker is Georges Canguilhem, a physician and philosopher born in the early 20th century. He was a schoolmate of Sartre and doctoral advisor to Michel Foucault—thinkers who surpassed him in notoriety. Canguilhem was also a rebel and activist, participating in various pacifist movements, counter-power initiatives, and even the Resistance during World War II. He defended his doctoral thesis in Medicine on "The Normal and the Pathological." Following Durkheim's line of thought, he advocated that "pathology is part of normality"; that pathology exists within normality and normality within pathology. Do you know anyone who has never been sick? Being sick occasionally is part of normality. The plot thickens when disease becomes normality. It's normal to have muscle pain after an intense exercise session. It wouldn't be normal if that same pain persisted for weeks, months, or years. The longer the pain lasts, the more likely you are to become accustomed to living in that state, leading to another state: resignation.
I fear this is the state in which the world—and the world of work—finds itself: normally sick, to the point where it's very difficult to distinguish between health and pathology. Pain is no longer just part of normality. Pain is the normal. What diseases afflict the world? And the world of work? Many. It doesn't take extraordinary attention or insight to name a few: the obsession with growth, everything must "scale"; the galloping increase in cases of burnout and other psychopathologies; the erosion of ecological and ethical consciousness; evident climate changes; extremes of economic inequality; the constantly postponed or frustrated desire to have a life beyond work; the constant pressure resulting from all this and much more. These are just some of the ailments of our time. Is it correct to say "of our time"? How long have we lived like this? Long enough for this to be normality? Perhaps. It seems so.
There also appear to be signs of a real desire or, better yet, need for change. Phenomena like the Great Resignation or quiet quitting seem to emerge from a foundation of protest. The "Great Resignation," curiously, doesn't strike me as a movement of resigned people. On the contrary, it appears to be a kind of rebellion against toxic organizational cultures. The "quiet quitters" aren't new, despite what trends suggest. It's an old phenomenon[1] and well documented[2], but the novelty lies in its resurgence with rebellious intent.
Such expressions go viral, multiplying uncontrollably through LinkedIn posts, heavyweight business media, and everyday conversations. There's also much talk and writing about mental health and people's well-being at work. It's one of the great diseases of this world: chatter.
Philosophy considers chatter a very difficult disease to cure. Its cure, conversation, requires listeners: but chatterers hear nothing because they are chattering. The first evil this inability to remain silent produces is the inability to listen. (...) Because the ears (of chatterers) certainly don't have a passage that leads to the brain but only to the tongue.
Plutarch
Suddenly, everyone has something special to say about these important matters, and what needs to be said must be said quickly, to be first. Haste is the enemy of listening, observation, introspection, and reflection—the ingredients of deliberation, wisdom, and consideration. Good conversations also happen without rush.
Everyone has the right to speak as they wish. That's not what I question. What's at issue is whether what is said contributes to maintaining this sick normality. I believe it's important to discover or contact a rebellious, even activist facet of ourselves to contribute to and influence desired changes. However, activism is often close to fundamentalism which, like chatter, also suffers from haste. In this case, the hurry is to have and maintain certainties and reject any idea outside the followed doctrine.
To avoid absurdity, activism must be well-founded rather than fundamentalist. In these times, courage and innovation don't lie in the need to keep pace with the high velocity at which almost all of us are moving. Let's create spaces to converse, to observe, to reflect, and to build together, without being obsessed with the results of these initiatives, with the solutions we need. It's difficult, certainly, to counter the "spirit of the times." I think it’s best if we start from a place of humility and curiosity: we don't know the best answers beforehand, but we know how to search for them, together. Let's write and talk about these important issues, yes, but calmly.
The times are urgent; let's slow down.[3]
Bayo Akomolafe
Footnotes
- Why the fuss over quiet quitting?
- Quiet Quitting Is a Fake Trend
- The Times are Urgent: Let's Slow Down