This May, my good friend Mike Meaney had the privilege of delivering a convocation address at Georgetown University’s commencement (starting at 1 hour 19 minutes into this video), and I, in my now decade-plus role as his in-house editor, had the pleasure of a providing an assist. Mike makes an art of both real talk and lingering quips, and his take that “a pretty good indicator of what you are truly into is what you are looking up on Wikipedia at midnight when you should be doing something else” has wormed its way into my brain ever since.
Though I am a voracious Wikipedia consumer and think that the open-source pursuit to catalogue human knowledge is a rare, clear triumph of the internet era, I will confess this is not a helpful heuristic for me. This is in part because I am one of those Luddites who takes research on sleep and mental health seriously and turns his phone off at night, and in part just because I am old now and rarely make it to midnight anymore. Pedantry aside, however, Mike’s question pulled me back to the topics that are surefire ways to distract me from more immediate needs: what it means to live in community, what it means to come of age and find connection in a world where norms have shifted rapidly, what it means to find anchors in a fluid world. This question permeates so many lives, and yet there is such a stunning disconnect in contemporary discourse around what it means to do well that few people seem to have the right frames to talk about it.
Three recent Ezra Klein podcasts dip into this soup of topics. The first, with Richard Reeves, interrogates the array of indicators that suggest boys and men are struggling in contemporary society. The question of masculinity in the twenty-first century is the one topic I have been trying and utterly failing to write about in essay form on this blog for ten years, though I have interrogated it relentlessly through fiction. (A companion piece to this essay, whose genesis long predates it, will appear tomorrow.) The other two focus on teenage mental health, albeit with much broader applications to all of us: in one, Jean Twenge systematically swats down any doubts that it is indeed staring at phones (often at night when one should be in bed) that is the lead culprit in a whole host of negative trends, and in the next, clinical psychologist Lisa Damour claws at the nuance of micro-level mental health and the heightened challenges to life in an era of breakneck change in media and how humans socialize, and its resulting effects on the cultural infrastructure and ways of being we all inhabit.
We live in a time of hyper-focus on mental health. In many ways this is a vast improvement over prior eras of swallowed feelings and dismissal of genuine traumas; at its best, this new language has injected necessary nuance and given many people the tools they need to unravel the forces that hold them back. It is also, I think, a natural outcome of a world in which fewer and fewer people work with their hands or tackle the physical world at all, and are instead left to sort through an endless web of relationships and human-generated content in almost every waking moment. But as the court contrarian, I was gratified to hear Damour say that psychologists are “surprisingly agnostic about emotions.” The existence of negative emotion is a natural reaction to certain things in life, and is not in and of itself a crisis; it is instead “data coming across the transom that can be put to good use.”
I wish I could say I am a model of stability who methodically and dispassionately analyzes any negative emotion that floats into my brain. As a kid I had some social anxieties that certainly kept me from living as fully as I very much wanted to, a fact as painfully obvious to my teenage self as it is to the adult pondering how I’d handle my own hypothetical kids. (The fact that they are still hypothetical probably has its roots in these very struggles.) Upon my college graduation I had a crisis of purpose that, while ultimately clarifying, probably involved more wallowing than it needed to; last year, as my work life hit a nadir, I plowed forward with a stubborn and rather manic resolve that did my blood pressure no favors. At no point has my state come anywhere close to resembling a checklist for depression, and even the more diagnosable stints of anxiety always seem rooted in some genuine, real stressors, which Damour tells us are in fact healthy reactions that we can learn to understand and address. Never has any malaise drifted into the sort of vague vibe that makes anxiety clinical.
I diagnose in all of this a certain tunnel-visioned bullheadedness; one that has no doubt held me back in certain ways, but also gifts me with a deep sense of loyalty and commitment and a refusal to quit, all of which present as virtues. Lying beneath much of this is a hyper-sensitivity, at times crippling but also endowing me with perceptiveness and an ability to adapt to a complex world. I have my coping mechanisms down pat, and I know what to do when the low moods come; while my solution may not always address the underlying problems, they stabilize situations with relative ease. I never stay in the dark for long, and I can bury most outward signs of struggle, which is a helpful model when one tends to surround oneself by other type-A achievers who run the risk of feeding off a collective anxiety. I know myself, in success and in failure and in all blurred stages in between, all with a healthy respect for what I do not know, too.
And so I conclude that I am fine. But the more I hear this word issue from my own lips, the more it grates on me. ‘Fine’ is a detail-free baseline, a binary in which the two choices appear to be ‘acceptable’ and ‘bad,’ as if the goal of a life should be to cut out the bad without focusing on what comprises the good. As if emotions that drag us down are the only ones worthy of attention, a lassiez faire life of crisis management followed by one great big shrug about what comes at the end of the dark night of the soul.
I am more and more convinced that the great and perhaps potentially fatal flaw of the evolution of a modern liberal society is the collapse of a view of the human condition. The Richard Reeves interview on the state of men is brilliant in its diagnosis but a bit flaccid in its ultimate recommendations, and while I am on board many of his proposals, this disconnect is emblematic of the deeper issues with modern society: in the face of crises around the very question of what it means to live a good human life, the proposed answers are all technocratic fixes around the margins. Obsessed with harm reduction and scared to even use the language of questions of the human soul, it resorts to life hacks.
And so, in the pursuit of more of them, I acknowledge the moments when I have been more than fine. When my high school self, defined against loss, set forth on an unerring pursuit; when my college-age self transcended a single lens and learned to swim in different seas. When, after graduation, I appreciated that those pursuits alone wouldn’t cut it, and that I could pour out hundreds of thousands of words that would allow me to make something approximating sense of my world. When, in graduate school, I applied those early lessons and sought to build a thick network, both broad and deep, and chased a career that tackles at least one aspect of the malaise I diagnosed. When, as a pandemic set in, I resolved not simply to get by but to thrive, healthier than ever and, if anything, emerge as more of an extrovert, more dependent on sharing thoughts with people than before. When, upon hearing of the unthinkable, I immediately sat down to write because I had a quasi-religious belief in my ability to find the right words that would help others begin to heal.
As we pursue those questions that we read about on Wikipedia at midnight, may we all think about how doing so can make us more than fine. May we surround ourselves with other people who challenge us to be that, if it’s what we desire. And may we willingly engage on questions of what a good life is for and center that in our discussions about well-being, not just the minimization of harm, or the postponement of the good life as some higher-order good to be ignored until the rest is all in order. (It probably won’t ever be, not totally.) The questions in here are the ones we need to ask, and the rest will follow from that.