This isn't me being a luddite. Machinery has massive potential benefit to giving humans more free time to pursue things that fulfill them and the internet is an amazing tool for disseminating knowledge and increasing communication, whether it's about art, science, or philosophy.
But I realized today, this person is just kneading different textures of dough and this person is just whittling. How many bakers and carvers loved what they did because it stimulated their senses in ways that humans have evolved to be fulfilled by?
I have another theory (that probably aligns with disability theory in some way or other) that people with autism aren't actually more common now, it's just that they're sensitive to bright artificial light and loud noises and weird smells and foreign textures the world we live in is FULL of those. And what's more, we have ever increasing attentional expectations in the midst of all that!
You used to just have a weird uncle Joe who doesn't talk a whole lot but man he can knead dough aaaalll day or thresh wheat or maybe he just makes cute little wooden toy horses all weekend and we sell them at the market on Monday. And it's weird how aunt sally hums like that but damn her lace embroidery is WILD. (we can discuss antiquated gender expectations at a different time).
This isn't saying savantism/special abilities should be expected of neurodivergent people either, just that a looot of people probably flew entirely under the radar that way for a huge portion of human history and we're only noticing them now because we're progressively putting people in more and more noxious environments where even people who could've coped in those environments can no longer cope in this one.
And now we have a whole industry of creating stimulation for people who never would have needed it if we just hadn't created an entire world without naturally occurring stimulation that they're "expected" to live in after humans spent hundreds of thousands of years learning to make tools out of wood and stone and cook over open fires, and crush and mix their own grain to make breads.
And because all these things occur on a spectrum, we're seeing more people everyday who would have had no need for the stim industry now suddenly require it because we're progressively pushing more and more people who could previously have claimed one of those coveted "normal" labels into being "different" as we steadily push them to accept less and less stimulation in their daily lives and steadily push them to stretch their attention span more and more beyond what it ever evolved to do.
TLDR; the ASMR/Stimming industry is only necessary because we created a world where those stimuli no longer occur naturally that people who need them have to live in. The concept of a "disability" is very intimately intertwined with expectations as to what environment any given person "should" be able to thrive in.
I like it. You've stumbled upon a concept that I think closely parallels that of a particularly notorious critic of modern society, Ted Kaczynski, though his is more generalized and expansive. I am going to quote from Tim Luke's paper "Re-reading the Unabomber Manifesto."
There's a lot TK wrote that's pretty... welll... crazy, but I find the concept of surrogates to be persuasive. Luke in this paper points out that TK's writing on this often parallels that of Marcuse, whose writing I quite like but I've never done a real deep dive, and who is less terroristy and a bit more palatable.
On a way less controversial note, you might enjoy the book "Mad in America," and its sequel "Anatomy of an Epidemic." They're both a parade of horrors, so be warned, but Whitaker gives a comprehensive and unapologetically critical history of what it means to be mad in the US, how we've treated them, and, in the second book, how we've come to view mental health as a biological deviation from normal that can and should be cured with with a pill. Whitaker also runs the blog madinamerica.org. From their mission statement:
Oh, and finally, you should be a luddite. Luddites were great ;)
I find it fascinating how the Unabomber and, to an extent, anyone who advocates weird, “every society not built on killing and eating is bad” worldviews, they can see this concept of surrogate goals but immediately jump to invalidating them. What makes the desire to become the best rock thrower in the world any more valid than the desire to survive? More people certainly want the latter, but in the absence of a god or higher power to give us some sort of direction, these surrogate goals are as equally valid as any human endeavor ever ventured upon.
What I suggest seems superficially preposterous, I mean, anyone can tell that not starving is more important than becoming the best rock thrower. But that’s the thing- we only think that because the majority of people do not want to starve. Both the desire to throw rocks and the desire to eat are rooted in our biology, one is just more popular and therefore well supported (and, to be clear, should be supported, I think not starving is more important than rock throwing too)
In fact, most of this is pretty much just nonsense. Most “surrogate” desires never reach the level of toxicity or self harm that exists today in corporate culture or even religion.
Also art is not a fake desire ffs
I would go as far as suggesting that these supposedly fake desires only exist or become truly fake when people are forced to submit to them. When someone is pursuing a “surrogate” or supposedly fake desire without being forced to by conditions or the current mode of production, they’re usually pretty content with it, or experience it as an enjoyable vibe rather than a painful goal, therefore something that can be truly satisfied, like eating or sleep. See art communities for this. There are examples of toxic behavior and attitudes in art communities but they always seem to coincide with a desire to commodify one’s art or as a side effect or the idea of productivity.
Haha yes, I totally agree. TK definitely takes the concept of surrogates to a ridiculous place, but then again, that's kind of his thing. He starts with a nugget of insight and turns it into something unhinged and scary.
I still think there's a little something to the concept, though. Marcuse's parallel ideas of subordinating autonomy to the industrial society seem a lot less “every society not built on killing and eating is bad," as you delightfully put it lol. I'm not really that knowledgeable on his writing, but I've added it to my list because Luke's paper made me curious about it.
I looked up Marcuse and on a really primitive reading of his Wikipedia article, while I disagree with his negative views of the USSR, his views seem to be way more in line with reality than Ted's
Persuasive.
Do you think there's a line between a 'surrogate' activity and a real activity. Like a paint-by-numbers set that the consumer never finishes and creating something from scratch? Or would the pre-packaged version still be worthwhile?
I don't think there's any meaningful distinction that's reliable. The most fucked up goals do seem to be mostly external, though. Toxic things like success aren't things people chase because they've developed an irrational love of being successful, but because they're physically punished and socially ostracized for not being that.
In other words, the most harmful desires aren't desires anyone actually has, but impossible goals they think they should want but don't even pretend to want in reality.
People want to do art. Nobody actually wants to be a successful businessman, though. They want all the stuff that comes from being a successful businessman but being a successful businessman is actually universally perceived as quite shitty and unenjoyable in reality.