Some thoughts about suffering.
I first started thinking about the concept of suffering within the context of A Most Uncommon Degree ofPopularity (hereafter to be denoted as AMUDOP) when Lydia, in describing her neighborhood, launched into a lengthy complaint about the number of embassies in her neighborhood, and how their gatherings often caused traffic problems. And my first thought was: You poor thing. You sometimes get stopped by valets and orange safety cones while driving your nice SUV through an affluent neighborhood in a peaceful nation to get to your expensive home where your two healthy children left their name-brand cleats? Oh, the agony!
So I was thinking about that when she, later in the book, very kindly supplied a name for me to describe this type of pain: "white suffering."
Which made me think about what suffering is, and about degrees or levels of suffering, and the validity of these different types of suffering.
And as I sit to write this, I find myself thinking about several different scenarios that might contain what some people could term "suffering," and realizing just how complex this subject is and how impossible it will be to even touch in a hasty blog post.
For example, I sometimes feel like I'm "suffering" because I don't get as much sleep as I want and because my kids are tiresome and we hardly ever have a hot dinner and I don't get enough time to pursue my own interests. But then I consider the woman I read about recently whose husband died while she was expecting her 6th child-- she had to work full time, deal with a newborn, and care for her other children all alone. But after her I think about, say, an Afghani woman who is abused by her husband, oppressed by her government, and afraid that her children might be killed in the next bombing. But what about the woman in Africa who was raped repeatedly, has AIDS, and is unable to provide adequate food and water for her children?
I've realized that I think about this a lot in terms of altruism. When I'm looking for ways to make a positive impact on the world around me, I think: "Well, I suppose I could just find someone in the neighborhood who might be feeling lonely and pay them a visit." And then I think, "But, you know, even more important than that is the fact that there are homeless people in Idaho Falls. Maybe I should go help out at the soup kitchen." But that's followed by, "Well, really, there are people really suffering overseas. Maybe I should donate money to the Christian Children's Network." Which all begs the question: Are some times of suffering more important than others? Is hunger worse than loneliness? If I need to pick between (1) spending an extra couple of hours at work to earn money to send to Starving Children in Africa or (2) spending a couple hours visiting with a lonely neighbor, should I hands-down pick option 1?
I love/hate those stories that you hear in church about God alleviating "white suffering" ("I really needed to get to my kid's basketball game on time, because it meant a lot to her, but I couldn't find the keys to the car, so I stopped and said a prayer, and before I'd even said 'Amen', the doorbell rang. It was my neighbor, who said, 'I felt prompted to stop and ask if you needed a ride to the basketball game.'" ). I love them because these stories imply that God cares about us and our little desires, our little suffering. I hate them, though, because they make me wonder why God isn't doing more about the big suffering. I'm like, "Why didn't You prompt somebody to notice that little girl being chloroformed and stuffed in the back of a van hours before she was tortured to death?"
So anyway, to tie this all back in with the novel, I guess I would ask: Is Erin's adolescent suffering important, even in light of the fact that there are adolescents in much worse situations (abandoned by parents, orphaned, terminally ill, hungry, homeless, etc.) My instinct is to say: yes. But I'm not sure why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteGreat first post :D I think you make some excellent points, some I've often wondered about myself. Especially the part about situations where God helps someone with a trivial problem like finding their keys, but doesn't intervene in a situation of extreme abuse. I doesn't make any sense to me either.
I can also relate to your question of how far to go in helping others. You know, feed the starving children in Africa or visit a lonely woman down the street. There seems to be a huge gap in importance doesn't there? I think you're right in acknowledging the importance of things like "white suffering" and suffering that includes unimagineable atrocities.
I believe at different times of our lives we are better to suited to help with different types of suffering. In our younger years, we might be able to do more good by helping those closer to us i.e. the lonely lady down the street. It doesn't cost anything and if you think about it, the world changes one person at a time. If everyone would do these little things, the overall quality of life on Earth would be much better. We need to improve the world around us just as much as the world we don't see.
Maybe later in life, or when we're in better circumstances, we'd be better able to help people across the world by giving monetarily. That's why there's people like Oprah. She's better suited to giving large sums of money and raising awareness and building schools. Not that we can't help these people now, I just think in our own personal circumstances, we can more easily and more effectively help those around us.
When you ask about Erin's adolescent suffering, I think it's a valid concern. Maybe not in the dramatic sense that the women in the book make it, but circumstances like this mold people into the person they will become. If we don't learn from tough social situations or learn to deal with disappointments or successes in a healthy way, we go on to become adults who don't deal with things very well. I think we tend to forget that the little things add up.
As a last little note, it does seem off-balance sometimes that we consider things like sitting in traffic "suffering" when there are much worse things in the world. But you have to understand that in our lives, it's all we know. It's all we have experienced. Some of us may end up going through some tougher times, but for the most part, we can only compare our situations to the things we've already experienced. In our minds we think things like, "oh traffic today sucks, but at least it's not as bad as that time when I was stuck on the freeway for 3 hours."
Well, I'm not sure if any of that made sense, I'm kind of rambling. This is just what jumped in my head.
I'M glad that what I said made enough sense to illicit a response. Here are some thoughts that came to mind as I was reading your comment:
ReplyDeleteI read somewhere that the brain doesn't differentiate between physical and emotional pain; for the brain, getting into a car accident and dealing with the loss of an intimate relationship are experienced in the same way.
I've also read that children growing up in violent homes fail to develop the parts of their brain necessary for empathy. So it's like the body sets up a defense system against experiencing too much pain.
These two concepts seem to me to validate the experience of "white suffering" as both meaningful and important enough to care about-- in addition to being concerned with what we might traditionally think of as more "real" suffering.
Rach, Kay,
ReplyDeleteI'm utterly moved by your words and thoughts.
And I'm feeling pinpricks of guilt all over. But I'll come back to that in a second.
I have to admit to experiencing a similar cringing, myself, when hearing people attributing God's intervention to the resolution of "white suffering" (or--my favorite--to Him curing Ballplayer Suffering--i.e. when God "blesses" one team with victory). Especially when there's so much intense, unnecessary suffering going around. (And not just female tennis players not getting paid as much as the guys, either.)
I don't mean to treat this lightly. It's such a serious thing to me, it's hard not to release some of the tension through joking. I have a hard time facing how much suffering there is, in our world; and like you two, I'm inclined to try to respond through compassionate ACTION. And I am swamped at the mere thought, all too often.
Alexander McCall Smith, in one of the Sunday Philosophy Club books, has his protagonist reflect on "moral philosophy" and the protagonist (named Isabel Dalhousie) says that, in terms of ethics, we are responsible for the lives that are nearest us, that overlap ours. I'm not sure I put that in the right way. But, it intuitively makes sense to me that we are more responsible for lives that are, even peripherally, connected to ours... Our friend who's a drug addict, the family member in need of shelter... But, in addition to that, I've felt that there are "causes" that, for various reasons, seem to speak to us more strongly than others... So, that, if each of us were to address what most concerned us and what we felt we could make the most productive effort for... well, that, presumably, in the end, most causes would get taken care of. Sounds kind of Lenin-ish--"To each according to their need, and from each, according to their ability." But, if we're good at something, and can make a difference by doing it, and, are motivated to continue doing it... doing that thing makes sense, right? (Like, I enjoy making music, and, as soon as Bono invites me to do one of his tours, I'm THERE.)
Except... well--before the Bono thing-- the way I expressed that, about making a difference individually, is politically naive. Because, a lot of suffering is caused by violence and injustice that is a result of choices we make in the political sphere, and just making charitable efforts isn't enough. But, as individuals, in terms of taking action in charitable ways--I'm just so drawn to the idea of, acting where we're most "moved." BUT WHEN I LOOK AT MYSELF, MY CONCERN OUTWEIGHS MY ACTIONS BY... A ZILLIONFOLD. I've been so indecisive about what charities to give to, the money has just gotten lost in stocks while I pussyfoot. And, I'm so overwhelmed by the suffering I hear about, I mostly just AVOID learning about more. Maybe that overstates it. I'm not closed off, by a long shot. I can't make myself oblivious, and I don't want to be oblivious--but, if I were to watch the news (or PBS) every day, I'd be an emotional wreck all the time. But, I do want to make a difference, I've been meaning to volunteer... have for a long time... and have not acted on that want very much. My own other needs and wants keep seeming more urgent.
Thus the pinpricks of guilt...