the tyranny of "healthy"

[firecat]

Originally posted as a comment in this entry of the very thoughtful journal of keryx. Somewhat edited and expanded here.


keryx writes:

Is the way our culture beats people with the healthy stick really about [an entirely demented concept of] what's good for you? Or is it about conformity?

It's definitely about conformity, but even more than that, it's about control, and moral judgement of others.

Even though this is supposedly a scientific information age, people still feel on some level that being not healthy means you did something wrong and you're being punished for it.

Health is in fact mostly a matter of luck (chance, genes, environment). One can have some influence on one's health conditions through behavior and environment, but one cannot absolutely control them and one cannot pick which health problems one is going to have to deal with. But people desperately want to believe that their health is entirely in their control, and part of sustaining that myth is to look down on people who are farther away from the health norm than they are, and believe "they did it to themselves." The other part is to look at their own health status, largely influenced by chance, and believe "I made this, I am this healthy entirely because of my own choices."

People do the same sort of thing with poverty. Even though there are enormous social and economic forces keeping poor people poor and rich people rich, people look at poor people and want to believe "They're there because they're lazy." And people look at themselves, if they aren't poor, and want to believe "I am a self-made success through hard work and sacrifice."

Note: I see this has come out implying that everybody always thinks this way. I don't really think so. But I do think these are general trends and attitudes that are part of the social fabric, and everybody who is part of the social fabric is influenced in some way by these beliefs.

Comments

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

Well, yes -- self-help books are a great example. I shouldn't have used the universal. I don't think becoming comfortable with yourself lends itself to as *much* sales, and most of them (aside from perhaps therapy) aren't of the stuck-for-life variety.

[firecat]

I don't think becoming comfortable with yourself lends itself to as *much* sales

It's too bad we can't set up a controlled experiment about this. I think people who are comfortable with themselves, in a culture that promotes comfort with oneself, probably would buy tons of stuff if they had they money, although it would be different stuff.

However, I think people who are comfortable with themselves aren't so driven to produce more more more.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I think that question would be whether they'd buy as much stuff in the pursuit of becoming happy with themselves. It seems to me that the unhappiness cycle is so full of conflicting messages that people are chasing a spectre (to say nothing of the number of supposed goals which are impossible for most to achieve). As such, they can never *get there*, and they can always be sold goods to help them on that journey.

[firecat]

Yes, I agree. In my experience, contented people spend money helping and celebrating other people, and in creative pursuits. I don't know if it would add up to more than what discontented people buy, though.

IM Marketing O

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

One of the primary memes in modern marketing is "More is never enough." Much of the focus in advertising is on "getting more" which is deviously open-ended; one can never stop buying stuff if the goals is to have more stuff.

To make a food analogy, it is as if the only way to enjoy a meal were to never stop eating.

I think that the radical shift occurs when folks move away from this notion of more-ness and the focus is placed upon sufficiency. "I have enough stuff; more stuff would detract from my enjoyment of what I already have."