Albert Einstein Writes the 1949 Essay “Why Socialism?” and Attempts to Find a Solution to the “Grave Evils of Capitalism”

Image by Fer­di­nand Schmutzer, via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

Albert Ein­stein was a com­pli­cat­ed human being, with a wide range of inter­ests. His per­son­al­i­ty seemed bal­anced between a cer­tain chill­i­ness when it came to per­son­al mat­ters, and a great deal of warmth and com­pas­sion when it came to the wider human fam­i­ly. The physi­cist struck up friend­ships with famed Amer­i­can activists Paul Robe­son, Mar­i­an Ander­son, and W.E.B. Du Bois, and he cham­pi­oned the cause of Civ­il Rights in the U.S. He pro­fessed a deep admi­ra­tion for Gand­hi, and praised him sev­er­al times in let­ters and speech­es. And in 1955, just days before his death, Ein­stein col­lab­o­rat­ed with anoth­er out­spo­ken pub­lic intel­lec­tu­al, Bertrand Rus­sell, on a peace man­i­festo, which was signed by six oth­er sci­en­tists.

Ein­stein saw a pub­lic role for sci­en­tists in mat­ters social, polit­i­cal, and even eco­nom­ic. In 1949, he pub­lished an arti­cle in the Month­ly Review titled “Why Social­ism?” Antic­i­pat­ing his crit­ics, he begins by ask­ing “is it advis­able for one who is not an expert on eco­nom­ic and social issues to express views on the sub­ject of social­ism?” To which he replies, “I believe for a num­ber of rea­sons that it is.”

Ein­stein goes on, sound­ing some­thing like a com­bi­na­tion of Karl Marx and E.O. Wil­son, to elab­o­rate the the­o­ret­i­cal basis for social­ism as he sees it, first describ­ing what Marx called “prim­i­tive accu­mu­la­tion” and what the social­ist econ­o­mist Thorstein Veblen called “’the preda­to­ry phase’ of human devel­op­ment.”

…most of the major states of his­to­ry owed their exis­tence to con­quest. The con­quer­ing peo­ples estab­lished them­selves, legal­ly and eco­nom­i­cal­ly, as the priv­i­leged class of the con­quered coun­try. They seized for them­selves a monop­oly of the land own­er­ship and appoint­ed a priest­hood from among their own ranks. The priests, in con­trol of edu­ca­tion, made the class divi­sion of soci­ety into a per­ma­nent insti­tu­tion and cre­at­ed a sys­tem of val­ues by which the peo­ple were thence­forth, to a large extent uncon­scious­ly, guid­ed in their social behav­ior.

The sci­ence of eco­nom­ics, as it stands, writes Ein­stein, still belongs “to that phase.” Such “laws as we can derive” from “the observ­able eco­nom­ic facts… are not applic­a­ble to oth­er phas­es.” These facts sim­ply describe the preda­to­ry state of affairs, and Ein­stein implies that not even econ­o­mists have suf­fi­cient meth­ods to defin­i­tive­ly answer the ques­tion “why socialism?”—“economic sci­ence in its present state can throw lit­tle light on the social­ist soci­ety of the future.” We should not assume, then, he goes on, “that experts are the only ones who have a right to express them­selves on ques­tions affect­ing the orga­ni­za­tion of soci­ety.” Ein­stein him­self doesn’t pre­tend to have all the answers. He ends his essay, in fact, with a few ques­tions address­ing “some extreme­ly dif­fi­cult socio-polit­i­cal prob­lems,” of the kind that attend every debate about social­ism:

…how is it pos­si­ble, in view of the far-reach­ing cen­tral­iza­tion of polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic pow­er, to pre­vent bureau­cra­cy from becom­ing all-pow­er­ful and over­ween­ing? How can the rights of the indi­vid­ual be pro­tect­ed and there­with a demo­c­ra­t­ic coun­ter­weight to the pow­er of bureau­cra­cy be assured?

Nev­er­the­less, Ein­stein is “con­vinced” that the only way to elim­i­nate the “grave evils” of cap­i­tal­ism is “through the estab­lish­ment of a social­ist econ­o­my, accom­pa­nied by an edu­ca­tion­al sys­tem which would be ori­ent­ed toward social goals.” For Ein­stein, the “worst evil” of preda­to­ry cap­i­tal­ism is the “crip­pling of indi­vid­u­als” through an edu­ca­tion­al sys­tem that empha­sizes an “exag­ger­at­ed com­pet­i­tive atti­tude” and trains stu­dents “to wor­ship acquis­i­tive suc­cess.” But the prob­lems extend far beyond the indi­vid­ual and into the very nature of the polit­i­cal order.

Pri­vate cap­i­tal tends to become con­cen­trat­ed in few hands… The result of these devel­op­ments is an oli­garchy of pri­vate cap­i­tal the enor­mous pow­er of which can­not be effec­tive­ly checked even by a demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly orga­nized polit­i­cal soci­ety. This is true since the mem­bers of leg­isla­tive bod­ies are select­ed by polit­i­cal par­ties, large­ly financed or oth­er­wise influ­enced by pri­vate cap­i­tal­ists who, for all prac­ti­cal pur­pos­es, sep­a­rate the elec­torate from the leg­is­la­ture. The con­se­quence is that the rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the peo­ple do not in fact suf­fi­cient­ly pro­tect the inter­ests of the under­priv­i­leged sec­tions of the pop­u­la­tion. More­over, under exist­ing con­di­tions, pri­vate cap­i­tal­ists inevitably con­trol, direct­ly or indi­rect­ly, the main sources of infor­ma­tion (press, radio, edu­ca­tion). It is thus extreme­ly dif­fi­cult, and indeed in most cas­es quite impos­si­ble, for the indi­vid­ual cit­i­zen to come to objec­tive con­clu­sions and to make intel­li­gent use of his polit­i­cal rights.

The polit­i­cal econ­o­my Ein­stein describes is one often lam­bast­ed by right lib­er­tar­i­ans as an impure vari­ety of crony cap­i­tal­ism, one not wor­thy of the name, but the physi­cist is skep­ti­cal of the claim, writ­ing “there is no such thing as a pure cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety.” Pri­vate own­ers always secure their priv­i­leges through the manip­u­la­tion of the polit­i­cal and edu­ca­tion­al sys­tems and the mass media.

The preda­to­ry sit­u­a­tion Ein­stein observes is one of extreme alien­ation among all class­es; “All human beings, what­ev­er their posi­tion in soci­ety, are suf­fer­ing from this process of dete­ri­o­ra­tion. Unknow­ing­ly pris­on­ers of their own ego­tism, they feel inse­cure, lone­ly, and deprived of the naïve, sim­ple, and unso­phis­ti­cat­ed enjoy­ment of life. Man can find mean­ing in life, short and per­ilous as it is, only through devot­ing him­self to soci­ety.” Ein­stein believed that devo­tion should take the form of a social­ist econ­o­my that pro­motes both the phys­i­cal well­be­ing and the polit­i­cal rights of every­one. But he did not pre­sume to know exact­ly what such an eco­nom­ic future would look like, nor how it might come into being. Read his full essay, “Why Social­ism?” here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Albert Ein­stein Explains How Slav­ery Has Crip­pled Everyone’s Abil­i­ty (Even Aristotle’s) to Think Clear­ly About Racism

Albert Ein­stein Express­es His Admi­ra­tion for Mahat­ma Gand­hi, in Let­ter and Audio

Albert Ein­stein Impos­es on His First Wife a Cru­el List of Mar­i­tal Demands

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

A Lecture About the History of the Scots Language … in Scots: How Much Can You Comprehend?

Dau­vit Hors­broch has served as the Lan­guage and Infor­ma­tion Offi­cer of the Scots Lan­guage Cen­tre since 2007, and has spent con­sid­er­able time liv­ing in North East Scot­land. Above, watch him give a 19-minute lec­ture on the his­to­ry of the Scots lan­guage … in Scots. For the first 20 sec­onds, you might think, no sweat, I can hang with it. Then sud­den­ly your com­pre­hen­sions fades out, only to return moments lat­er, before dis­ap­pear­ing again. And on it goes.

As you lis­ten, you can enter­tain the long-sim­mer­ing debate: Is Scots a dis­tant dialect of Eng­lish? Or is it its own dis­tinct Ger­man­ic lan­guage? Writes Slate: “Both mod­ern Eng­lish and Scots descend­ed from Old Eng­lish in the 1100s, and devel­oped sep­a­rate­ly for hun­dreds of years. When Scot­land and Eng­land joined to form the Unit­ed King­dom of Great Britain in 1707, Scots was wide­ly regard­ed as its own lan­guage, dis­tinct from Eng­lish. It is still one of Scot­land’s three offi­cial lan­guages (the oth­er two are Eng­lish and Scot­tish Gael­ic), but because it is most­ly mutu­al­ly intel­li­gi­ble with Eng­lish, it’s some­times regard­ed as a dialect of Eng­lish or slang.” If you’d like to see Scots writ­ten, as opposed to just spo­ken, spend time over at the Wikipedia Scots page.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book and BlueSky.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear Beowulf Read In the Orig­i­nal Old Eng­lish: How Many Words Do You Rec­og­nize? 

Hear What Shake­speare Sound­ed Like in the Orig­i­nal Pro­nun­ci­a­tion

Learn 48 Lan­guages Online for Free: Span­ish, Chi­nese, Eng­lish & More

Neil Young Busk­ing in Glas­gow, 1976: The Sto­ry Behind the Footage

The Sound of Avant Garde Jazz: Stream 35 Hours of Experimental Jazz by Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane & More

Jazz has become insti­tu­tion­al­ized, for both good and ill. On the upside, it has found a per­ma­nent home in pres­ti­gious per­form­ing arts cen­ters like Jazz at Lin­coln Cen­ter, where its mem­o­ry will be pre­served for gen­er­a­tions. High priests like Wayne Short­er, Wyn­ton Marsalis, and Her­bie Han­cock pass on the tra­di­tions to young jazz acolytes at uni­ver­si­ties. The Amer­i­can art form has achieved the lev­el of respectabil­i­ty that some of its most inno­v­a­tive prac­ti­tion­ers, such as Duke Elling­ton and Charles Min­gus, had always sought, the recog­ni­tion of the high art world.

On the oth­er hand, we too eas­i­ly for­get how dan­ger­ous jazz used to be—how thor­ough­ly cut­ting edge and dis­turb­ing to mid­dle­brow sen­si­bil­i­ties. But of course, jazz has passed through many cul­tur­al cycles, with each gen­er­a­tion of artists shock­ing its elders by push­ing against musi­cal deco­rum. Late 40s and 50s bebop gave us the lean, mean com­bo as a chal­lenge to the big band swing era, and pro­duced super­star impro­vis­ers who veered thrilling­ly off script in every per­for­mance. But this incar­na­tion of jazz, too, threat­ened to become staid as the six­ties neared.

And so a hand­ful of artists cre­at­ed, to take the title of Ornette Coleman’s ground­break­ing 1959 album, “the shape of jazz to come,” free jazz, which rep­re­sent­ed, writes Chris Kelsey, “a final break with the music’s roots as a pop­u­lar art form, cast­ing it in an alter­na­tive role as an exper­i­men­tal art music.” The six­ties saw pro­found inno­va­tion in jazz, as artists like Cole­man, Coltrane, Eric Dol­phy, Sun Ra, Pharoah Sanders, and oth­ers expand­ed its pos­si­bil­i­ties. But to read this music as sole­ly exper­i­ment­ing “along the lines of the Euro­pean ‘clas­si­cal’ avant-garde” is to ignore the deep cul­tur­al well­spring from which it came.

As Amiri Bara­ka wrote in the lin­er notes for a 1965 com­pi­la­tion, The New Wave in Jazz, avant-garde jazz was a “touch stone of the new world,” a form that tran­scend­ed the con­di­tions of slav­ery, mise­d­u­ca­tion, and social con­trol; it was the “music of con­tem­po­rary black cul­ture.”

The peo­ple who make this music are intel­lec­tu­als or mys­tics or both. The black rhythm ener­gy blues feel­ing (sen­si­bil­i­ty) is pro­ject­ed into the area of reflec­tion, inten­tion­al­ly. As Expression…where each term is (equal­ly) co-respon­dent.

     Pro­jec­tion over sus­tained peri­ods (more time giv­en, and time pro­pos­es a his­to­ry for expres­sion, hence it becomes reflec­tive pro­jec­tion.

     Arbi­trari­ness of Form (vari­ety in nature)

     Inten­tion of per­for­mance as a Learn­ing expe­ri­ence

These were the dis­tinc­tive “new world” qual­i­ties of exper­i­men­tal jazz. Its hip sig­ni­fiers, Bara­ka wrote, mark it as “an inven­tion of Black Lives”; it is not music to lull and soothe but to instruct, with force, if nec­es­sary. “Get­ting hit in the head with a stick,” he writes with a wink, “can do you as much good as med­i­tat­ing.” It might be hard for us to hear, now that the music has been so thor­ough­ly enshrined in aca­d­e­m­ic depart­ments and con­ser­va­to­ries, but avant-garde jazz once had the pow­er to thor­ough­ly shock and sur­prise, as the state­ment of a cul­ture both in dia­logue with and revolt against oppres­sive tra­di­tion­al forms.

In the playlist above, The Sound of Avant-Garde Jazz, you recov­er a sense of the music’s edgi­ness with record­ings from some of its most exper­i­men­tal gurus, includ­ing Cole­man, Sun Ra, McCoy Tyn­er, Yusef Lateef, Alice Coltrane, and many, many more. The playlist spans the last 60 years or so, fea­tur­ing lat­er white adopters like Pat Methe­ny, John Zorn, and Bill Frisell, and includ­ing rock­ing elec­tric jazz from diverse, eclec­tic bands like Tony Williams’ Life­time, whose “Pro­to-Cos­mos,” at the top, epit­o­mizes the expan­sive range of 70s fusion. The over­all expe­ri­ence of this com­pre­hen­sive playlist may not only shake up your pre­con­cep­tions of jazz, but may, as Bara­ka writes, change your pre­con­di­tioned sense of “the nor­mal feel­ing of adven­ture.”

The playlist offers up 350 tracks, and runs 35 hours. If you need Spo­ti­fy’s free soft­ware, down­load it here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear 2,000 Record­ings of the Most Essen­tial Jazz Songs: A Huge Playlist for Your Jazz Edu­ca­tion

Langston Hugh­es Cre­ates a List of His 100 Favorite Jazz Record­ings: Hear 80+ of Them in a Big Playlist

The His­to­ry of Spir­i­tu­al Jazz: Hear a Tran­scen­dent 12-Hour Mix Fea­tur­ing John Coltrane, Sun Ra, Her­bie Han­cock & More

Her­bie Han­cock to Teach His First Online Course on Jazz 

The Night When Char­lie Park­er Played for Igor Stravin­sky (1951) 

Hear Ornette Cole­man Col­lab­o­rate with Lou Reed, Which Lou Called “One of My Great­est Moments”

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Charles Darwin & Charles Dickens’ Four-Hour Work Day: The Case for Why Less Work Can Mean More Productivity

We all oper­ate at dif­fer­ent lev­els of ambi­tion: some just want to get by and enjoy them­selves, while oth­ers strive to make achieve­ments with as long-last­ing an impact on human­i­ty as pos­si­ble. If we think of can­di­dates for the lat­ter cat­e­go­ry, Charles Dar­win may well come to mind, at least in the sense that the work he did as a nat­u­ral­ist, and more so the the­o­ry of evo­lu­tion that came out of it, has ensured that we remem­ber his name well over a cen­tu­ry after his death and will sure­ly con­tin­ue to do so cen­turies hence. But research into Dar­win’s work­ing life sug­gests some­thing less than worka­holism — and indeed, that he put in a frac­tion of the num­ber of hours we asso­ciate with seri­ous ambi­tion.

“After his morn­ing walk and break­fast, Dar­win was in his study by 8 and worked a steady hour and a half,” writes Nau­tilus’ Alex Soo­jung-kim Pang. “At 9:30 he would read the morn­ing mail and write let­ters. At 10:30, Dar­win returned to more seri­ous work, some­times mov­ing to his aviary, green­house, or one of sev­er­al oth­er build­ings where he con­duct­ed his exper­i­ments. By noon, he would declare, ‘I’ve done a good day’s work,’ and set out on a long walk.” After this walk he would answer let­ters, take a nap, take anoth­er walk, go back to his study, and then have din­ner with the fam­i­ly. Dar­win typ­i­cal­ly got to bed, accord­ing to a dai­ly sched­ule drawn from his son Fran­cis’ rem­i­nis­cences of his father, by 10:30.

“On this sched­ule he wrote 19 books, includ­ing tech­ni­cal vol­umes on climb­ing plants, bar­na­cles, and oth­er sub­jects,” writes Pang, and of course not fail­ing to men­tion “The Ori­gin of Species, prob­a­bly the sin­gle most famous book in the his­to­ry of sci­ence, and a book that still affects the way we think about nature and our­selves.” Anoth­er tex­tu­al­ly pro­lif­ic Vic­to­ri­an Eng­lish­man named Charles, adher­ing to a sim­i­lar­ly non-life-con­sum­ing work rou­tine, man­aged to pro­duce — in addi­tion to tire­less let­ter-writ­ing and cam­paign­ing for social reform — hun­dreds of short sto­ries and arti­cles, five novel­las, and fif­teen nov­els includ­ing Oliv­er Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, and Great Expec­ta­tions

“After an ear­ly life burn­ing the mid­night oil,” writes Pang, Charles Dick­ens “set­tled into a sched­ule as ‘method­i­cal or order­ly’ as a ‘city clerk,’ his son Charley said. Dick­ens shut him­self in his study from 9 until 2, with a break for lunch. Most of his nov­els were seri­al­ized in mag­a­zines, and Dick­ens was rarely more than a chap­ter or two ahead of the illus­tra­tors and print­er. Nonethe­less, after five hours, Dick­ens was done for the day.” Pang finds that may oth­er suc­cess­ful writ­ers have kept sim­i­lar­ly restrained work sched­ules, from Antho­ny Trol­lope to Alice Munro, Som­er­set Maugh­am to Gabriel Gar­cía Márquez, Saul Bel­low to Stephen King. He notes sim­i­lar habits in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics as well, includ­ing Hen­ri Poin­caré and G.H. Hardy.

Research by Pang and oth­ers into work habits and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty have recent­ly drawn a great deal of atten­tion, point­ing as it does to the ques­tion of whether we might all con­sid­er work­ing less in order to work bet­ter. “Even if you enjoy your job and work long hours vol­un­tar­i­ly, you’re sim­ply more like­ly to make mis­takes when you’re tired,” writes the Har­vard Busi­ness Review’s Sarah Green Carmichael. What’s more, “work too hard and you also lose sight of the big­ger pic­ture. Research has sug­gest­ed that as we burn out, we have a greater ten­den­cy to get lost in the weeds.” This dis­cov­ery actu­al­ly dates back to Dar­win and Dick­ens’ 19th cen­tu­ry: “When orga­nized labor first com­pelled fac­to­ry own­ers to lim­it work­days to 10 (and then eight) hours, man­age­ment was sur­prised to dis­cov­er that out­put actu­al­ly increased – and that expen­sive mis­takes and acci­dents decreased.”

This goes just as much for aca­d­e­mics, whose work­weeks, “as long as they are, are not near­ly as lengthy as those on Wall Street (yet),” writes Times High­er Edu­ca­tion’s David Matthews in a piece on the research of Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia pro­fes­sor (and ex-Gold­man Sachs banker) Alexan­dra Michel. “Four hours a day is prob­a­bly the lim­it for those look­ing to do gen­uine­ly orig­i­nal research, she says. In her expe­ri­ence, the only peo­ple who have avoid­ed burnout and achieved some sort of bal­ance in their lives are those stick­ing to this kind of sched­ule.” Michel finds that “because aca­d­e­mics do not have their hours strict­ly defined and reg­u­lat­ed (as man­u­al work­ers do), ‘oth­er con­trols take over. These con­trols are peer pres­sure.’ ” So at least we know the first step on the jour­ney toward viable work habits: regard­ing the likes of Dar­win and Dick­ens as your peers.

via Nau­tilus

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Dai­ly Habits of High­ly Pro­duc­tive Philoso­phers: Niet­zsche, Marx & Immanuel Kant

The Dai­ly Habits of Famous Writ­ers: Franz Kaf­ka, Haru­ki Muraka­mi, Stephen King & More

John Updike’s Advice to Young Writ­ers: ‘Reserve an Hour a Day’

Thomas Edison’s Huge­ly Ambi­tious “To-Do” List from 1888

Leonar­do Da Vinci’s To Do List (Cir­ca 1490) Is Much Cool­er Than Yours

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Franz Kafka Agonized, Too, Over Writer’s Block: “Tried to Write, Virtually Useless;” “Complete Standstill. Unending Torments” (1915)

No one sings as pure­ly as those who inhab­it the deep­est hell—what we take to be the song of angels is their song.

- Franz Kaf­ka, 1920

Poor Kaf­ka, born too ear­ly to blame his writer’s block on 21st-cen­tu­ry dig­i­tal excus­es:  social media addic­tion, cell phone addic­tion, stream­ing video… 

Would The Meta­mor­pho­sis have turned out dif­fer­ent­ly had its author had access to a machine that would have allowed him to self-pub­lish, com­mu­ni­cate face­less­ly, and dis­pense entire­ly with typ­ists, pens and paper? 

Had Kaf­ka had his way, his friend and fel­low writer, Max Brod, would have car­ried out instruc­tions to burn his unpub­lished work—including let­ters and jour­nal entries—upon his death

Instead Brod pub­lished them.

How hor­ri­fied would their author be to read The New Yorker’s opin­ion that his jour­nals should be regard­ed as one of his major lit­er­ary achieve­ments? A Kaf­ka-esque response might be the mildest reac­tion war­rant­ed by the sit­u­a­tion:

His life and per­son­al­i­ty were per­fect­ly suit­ed to the diary form, and in these pages he reveals what he cus­tom­ar­i­ly hid from the world.

These once-pri­vate pages (avail­able in book for­mat here) reveal a not-unfa­mil­iar writer­ly ten­den­cy to ago­nize over a per­ceived lack of out­put:

JANUARY 20, 1915: The end of writ­ing. When will it take me up again?

JANUARY 29, 1915: Again tried to write, vir­tu­al­ly use­less.

JANUARY 30, 1915: The old inca­pac­i­ty. Inter­rupt­ed my writ­ing for bare­ly ten days and already cast out. Once again prodi­gious efforts stand before me. You have to dive down, as it were, and sink more rapid­ly than that which sinks in advance of you.

FEBRUARY 7, 1915: Com­plete stand­still. Unend­ing tor­ments.

MARCH 11, 1915: How time flies; anoth­er ten days and I have achieved noth­ing. It doesn’t come off. A page now and then is suc­cess­ful, but I can’t keep it up, the next day I am pow­er­less.

MARCH 13, 1915: Lack of appetite, fear of get­ting back late in the evening; but above all the thought that I wrote noth­ing yes­ter­day, that I keep get­ting far­ther and far­ther from it, and am in dan­ger of los­ing every­thing I have labo­ri­ous­ly achieved these past six months. Pro­vid­ed proof of this by writ­ing one and a half wretched pages of a new sto­ry that I have already decid­ed to dis­card…. Occa­sion­al­ly I feel an unhap­pi­ness that almost dis­mem­bers me, and at the same time am con­vinced of its neces­si­ty and of the exis­tence of a goal to which one makes one’s way by under­go­ing every kind of unhap­pi­ness.

Psy­chol­o­gy Today iden­ti­fies five pos­si­ble under­ly­ing caus­es for such inac­tiv­i­ty, and tips for sur­mount­ing them. It seems like­ly the fas­tid­i­ous, self-absorbed Kaf­ka would have reject­ed them on their breezy tone alone, but per­haps oth­er less per­snick­ety indi­vid­u­als will find some­thing of use: 

1. You’ve Lost Your Way

If you’re stalled because you lost your way, try the oppo­site of what you usu­al­ly do—if you’re a plot­ter, give your imag­i­na­tion free rein for a day; if you’re a freewriter or a pantser, spend a day cre­at­ing a list of the next 10 scenes that need to hap­pen. This gives your brain a chal­lenge, and for this rea­son you can take heart, because your bil­lions of neu­rons love a chal­lenge and are in search of synaps­es they can form.

2. Your Pas­sion Has Waned

Remem­ber, your writ­ing brain looks for and responds to pat­terns, so be care­ful that you don’t make suc­cumb­ing to bore­dom or sur­ren­der­ing projects with­out a fight into a habit. Do your best to work through the rea­sons you got stalled and to fin­ish what you start­ed. This will lay down a neu­ronal path­way that your writ­ing brain will mer­ri­ly trav­el along in future work.

3. Your Expec­ta­tions Are Too High

Instead of set­ting your sights too high, give your­self per­mis­sion to write any­thing, on top­ic or off top­ic, mean­ing­ful or trite, use­ful or fol­ly. The point is that by attach­ing so much impor­tance to the work you’re about to do, you make it hard­er to get into the flow. Also, if your inner crit­ic sticks her nose in (which often hap­pens), tell her that her role is very impor­tant to you (and it is!) and that you will sum­mon her when you have some­thing wor­thy of her atten­tion.

4. You Are Burned Out

You aren’t blocked; you’re exhaust­ed. Give your­self a few days to real­ly rest. Lie on a sofa and watch movies, take long walks in the hour just before dusk, go out to din­ner with friends, or take a mini-vaca­tion some­where rest­ful. Do so with the inten­tion to give yourself—and your brain—a rest. No think­ing about your nov­el for a week! In fact, no heavy think­ing for a week. Lie back, have a mar­gari­ta, and chill.

5. You’re Too Dis­tract­ed

Take note that, unless you’re just one of those rare birds who always write no mat­ter what, you will expe­ri­ence times in your life when it’s impos­si­ble to keep to a writ­ing sched­ule. Peo­ple get sick, peo­ple have to take a sec­ond job, chil­dren need extra atten­tion, par­ents need extra atten­tion, and so on. If you’re in one of those emer­gency sit­u­a­tions (rais­ing small chil­dren counts), by all means, don’t berate your­self. Some­times it’s sim­ply nec­es­sary to put the actu­al writ­ing on hold. It is good, how­ev­er, to keep your hands in the water. For instance, in lieu of writ­ing your nov­el:

Read works sim­i­lar to what you hope to write.

Read books relat­ed to the sub­ject you’re writ­ing about.

Keep a des­ig­nat­ed jour­nal where you jot down ideas for the book (and oth­er works).

Write small vignettes or sketch­es relat­ed to the book

When­ev­er you find time to med­i­tate, envi­sion your­self writ­ing the book, bring­ing it to full com­ple­tion.

Make writ­ing the book a pri­or­i­ty.

Addi­tion­al­ly, you may find some mer­it in enlist­ing a friend to pub­lish, I mean, burn the above-men­tioned jour­nals posthu­mous­ly. Just don’t write any­thing you would­n’t want the pub­lic to see.

Read author Susan Reynolds’ com­plete Psy­chol­o­gy Today advice for blocked writ­ers here.

Have a peek at Kafka’s Diaries: 1910–1923 here.

via Austin Kleon

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Franz Kafka’s Kafkaesque Love Let­ters

Franz Kaf­ka: An Ani­mat­ed Intro­duc­tion to His Lit­er­ary Genius

Meta­mor­fo­s­is: Franz Kafka’s Best-Known Short Sto­ry Gets Adapt­ed Into a Tim Bur­tonesque Span­ish Short Film

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, the­ater mak­er and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine, cur­rent­ly appear­ing onstage in New York City in Paul David Young’s Faust 3. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday.

Google Uses Artificial Intelligence to Map Thousands of Bird Sounds Into an Interactive Visualization

If you were around in 2013, you may recall that we told you about Cor­nel­l’s Archive of 150,000 Bird Calls and Ani­mal Sounds, with Record­ings Going Back to 1929. It’s a splen­did place for ornithol­o­gists and bird lovers to spend time. And, it turns out, the same also applies to com­put­er pro­gram­mers.

Late last year, Google launched an exper­i­ment where, draw­ing on Cor­nel­l’s sound archive, they used machine learn­ing (arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence that lets com­put­ers learn and do tasks on their own) to orga­nize thou­sands of bird sounds into a map where sim­i­lar sounds are placed clos­er togeth­er. And it result­ed in this impres­sive inter­ac­tive visu­al­iza­tion. Check it out. Or head into Cor­nel­l’s archive and do your own old-fash­ioned explo­rations.

Note: You can find free cours­es on machine learn­ing and arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence in the Relat­eds below.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book and BlueSky.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Cor­nell Launch­es Archive of 150,000 Bird Calls and Ani­mal Sounds, with Record­ings Going Back to 1929 

Neur­al Net­works for Machine Learn­ing: A Free Online Course 

A Free Course on Machine Learn­ing & Data Sci­ence from Cal­tech

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Going to Concerts and Experiencing Live Music Can Make Us Healthier & Happier, a New Psychology Study Confirms

Image by Niels Ept­ing, via Flickr Com­mons

It can some­times seem like so much qual­i­ta­tive sci­ence con­firms what we already know through expe­ri­ence and folk wis­dom. But that does not make such research redun­dant. Instead, it sets the stage for more detailed inves­ti­ga­tions into spe­cif­ic caus­es and effects, and can lead to more refined under­stand­ing of gen­er­al phe­nom­e­na. For exam­ple, “a new study out of Aus­tralia,” reports CNN, “con­firms what we prob­a­bly already knew,” by con­clud­ing that if you want to be hap­pi­er, you should get out more.

Specif­i­cal­ly, you should get out to con­certs and music fes­ti­vals and dance your you-know-what off. The Aus­tralian researchers found that “peo­ple who active­ly engaged with music through danc­ing and attend­ing events like con­certs and musi­cals report­ed a high­er lev­el of sub­jec­tive well­be­ing.” The March, 2017 study, cheek­i­ly titled “If You’re Hap­py and You Know It: Music Engage­ment and Sub­jec­tive Well­be­ing,” defines the lat­ter phrase as “the sci­en­tif­ic psy­cho­log­i­cal term for gen­er­al mood ‘hap­pi­ness,’ which is pos­i­tive, sta­ble, and con­sis­tent over time.”

Sub­jec­tive well­be­ing (SWB), although a self-report­ed mea­sure, helps psy­chol­o­gists iden­ti­fy effec­tive ther­a­pies for depres­sion and mood dis­or­ders. Engag­ing mean­ing­ful­ly with music is one of them, and one needn’t be a musi­cian to reap the ben­e­fits. While “pro­duc­ing music and per­form­ing encour­age self-explo­ration, emo­tion­al expres­sion, self-esteem and con­fi­dence,” the study’s authors write, inter­act­ing with music as a fan is also “asso­ci­at­ed with high­er mood when con­sid­ered in terms of acti­va­tion and valence.”

Sim­ply con­sum­ing record­ed music, how­ev­er, will not have the same ben­e­fits. While “recent tech­no­log­i­cal advances” and stream­ing ser­vices have “increased the avail­abil­i­ty of and acces­si­bil­i­ty to music… engag­ing with music extends beyond just pas­sive lis­ten­ing.” In large part, the active par­tic­i­pa­tion in a music scene—as part of a fan com­mu­ni­ty or fes­ti­val audi­ence, for example—shows pos­i­tive out­comes because of the “social com­po­nent of music engage­ment.” Lis­ten­ing by one­self “may improve phys­i­cal health and emo­tion­al well­be­ing.” Lis­ten­ing “in the com­pa­ny of oth­ers is asso­ci­at­ed with stronger pos­i­tive expe­ri­ences.”

As the site Live for Live Music puts it, “live music uni­ver­sal­ly low­ers stress lev­elsincreas­es social bonds while decreas­ing lev­els of pain, and can even phys­i­o­log­i­cal­ly cause peo­ple to get “skin-gasms.” And if that’s not rea­son enough to get tick­ets to see your favs, I don’t know what is. One would also hope the study makes a con­vinc­ing case for fund­ing live music as a men­tal health ini­tia­tive. Unless you live in a city with lots of free con­certs, the expense of such events can be pro­hib­i­tive. At least in Aus­tralia, the researchers note, “attend­ing musi­cal events is cost­ly, and may be a priv­i­lege afford­ed to those who earn a high­er income.”

Susan Per­ry at Min­npost sums up a few oth­er lim­i­ta­tions of the study, such as its lack of data on fre­quen­cy of atten­dance, and that it does not “dif­fer­en­ti­ate between peo­ple who are musi­cal­ly tal­ent­ed and those who aren’t.” Nonethe­less, one par­tic­u­lar find­ing should have you shed­ding inhi­bi­tions to increase your SWB. “Dancers,” Per­ry sum­ma­rizes, were “more like­ly than non-dancers to be hap­py,” as were those who sing along.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Punk & Heavy Met­al Music Makes Lis­ten­ers Hap­py and Calm, Not Aggres­sive, Accord­ing to New Aus­tralian Study

Play­ing an Instru­ment Is a Great Work­out For Your Brain: New Ani­ma­tion Explains Why

Music in the Brain: Sci­en­tists Final­ly Reveal the Parts of Our Brain That Are Ded­i­cat­ed to Music

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

A Light Show on The Empire State Building Gets Synced to the Dead’s Live Performance of “Touch of Grey” (6/24/2017)

Some of my favorite things come togeth­er…

Last night, Dead & Com­pa­ny played a huge show at Citi Field in New York City. And when they per­formed “Touch of Grey” dur­ing their encore, a light show on the Empire State Build­ing got under­way, com­plete­ly syn­chro­nized with the song. Accord­ing to Jam Band, the lights were “con­trolled by vet­er­an light­ing design­er Marc Brick­man, who has worked on tour with Pink Floyd, Paul McCart­ney, Hans Zim­mer and many more.” Enjoy the visu­al dis­play above. And see the scene on the stage below:

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book and BlueSky.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

via Live for Music

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Long Strange Trip, the New 4‑Hour Doc­u­men­tary on the Grate­ful Dead, Is Now Stream­ing Free on Ama­zon Prime

Bob Dylan & The Grate­ful Dead Rehearse Togeth­er in Sum­mer 1987: Hear 74 Tracks

The Night When Miles Davis Opened for the Grate­ful Dead in 1970: Hear the Com­plete Record­ings

Jer­ry Gar­cia Talks About the Birth of the Grate­ful Dead & Play­ing Kesey’s Acid Tests in New Ani­mat­ed Video

The Grate­ful Dead Play at the Egypt­ian Pyra­mids, in the Shad­ow of the Sphinx (1978)

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.