Resilience Skills in a Time of Uncertainty: A Free Course from the University of Pennsylvania

Who could use a course on resilience these days? To get you through this win­ter of dis­con­tent, the Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia has cre­at­ed a free ver­sion of Dr. Karen Reivich’s “Resilience Skills” course. (It’s part of the Foun­da­tions of Pos­i­tive Psy­chol­o­gy Spe­cial­iza­tion offered through Cours­era.) This course teach­es stu­dents to 1.) under­stand the pro­tec­tive fac­tors that make one resilient, 2.) make use of non-cog­ni­tive strate­gies that decrease anx­i­ety, 3.) rec­og­nize think­ing traps and how they under­cut resilience, and 4.) cre­ate a buffer of pos­i­tiv­i­ty that boosts resilience in stress­ful sit­u­a­tions.

The course tech­ni­cal­ly runs four weeks, but it can be binge-watched at what­ev­er rate you like. The course draws on the instruc­tor’s book, The Resilience Fac­tor: 7 Keys to Find­ing Your Inner Strength and Over­com­ing Life’s Hur­dles. To take the course for free, select the “Audit” option dur­ing the reg­is­tra­tion process.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

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:

What Are the Keys to Hap­pi­ness?: Take “The Sci­ence of Well-Being,” a Free Online Ver­sion of Yale’s Most Pop­u­lar Course

Intro­duc­tion to Psy­chol­o­gy: A Free Course from Yale Uni­ver­si­ty

Har­vard Course on Pos­i­tive Psy­chol­o­gy: Watch 30 Lec­tures from the University’s Extreme­ly Pop­u­lar Course

Build­ing Your Resilience: Find­ing Mean­ing in Adversity–Take a Free & Time­ly Course Online

This 392-Year-Old Bon­sai Tree Sur­vived the Hiroshi­ma Atom­ic Blast & Still Flour­ish­es Today: The Pow­er of Resilience

Wilhelm Reich’s Orgone Energy Accumulator Was Beloved by William S. Burroughs and Banned by the FDA: Find Plans to Build the Controversial Device Online

Was Aus­tri­an Marx­ist psy­cho­an­a­lyst Wil­helm Reich a tren­chant socio-polit­i­cal thinker or a total crank? A fraud or a prophet? Maybe a lit­tle from each col­umn, at dif­fer­ent times dur­ing the course of his bizarre career. An enthu­si­as­tic stu­dent of Sig­mund Freud, Reich applied his teacher’s the­o­ries of repressed libido to the fright­en­ing polit­i­cal the­ater of the 1930s, writ­ing against the spread of Nazism in his pre­scient 1933 book The Mass Psy­chol­o­gy of Fas­cism. Here, Reich brought Marx and Freud togeth­er to argue that sex­u­al inhi­bi­tion and fear led to arrest­ed devel­op­ment and sub­mis­sion to author­i­tar­i­an­ism.

Reich was “a sex­u­al evan­ge­list,” Christop­er Turn­er writes at The Guardian, “who held that sat­is­fac­to­ry orgasm made the dif­fer­ence between sick­ness and health.” His work was banned and burned by the Nazis, and he fled to a suc­ces­sion of Scan­di­na­vian coun­tries, then to the U.S. in 1939, “by which time his for­mer psy­cho­an­a­lyt­ic col­leagues were ques­tion­ing his san­i­ty.” The pri­ma­ry rea­son for their sus­pi­cion: Reich’s devo­tion to what he called “orgone,” an all-per­va­sive sex­u­al ener­gy that per­me­ates the uni­verse… accord­ing to Reich. Orgone and relat­ed con­cepts appear in his ear­ly work, but by the end of the 1930s, they came to entire­ly dom­i­nate his think­ing.

“In the strange and col­or­ful his­to­ry of pseu­do­science, Wil­helm Reich’s ‘dis­cov­ery’ of orgone—a sub­stance that’s not only a life force, but indeed makes up the very fab­ric of space—must sure­ly be a water­shed,” writes Matt Simon at Wired. Reich inten­si­fied his belief in the glow­ing blue ener­gy of orgone with the inven­tion of the Orgone Ener­gy Accu­mu­la­tor, an iso­la­tion box that sup­pos­ed­ly charged those who sat inside it with the pow­er of orgone. The device went through a few iter­a­tions (see the use of the “orgone blan­ket, above), until its final form of a met­al-lined box rough­ly the size of a wardrobe or tele­phone booth.

Reich’s influ­ence on 20th cen­tu­ry cul­ture goes far beyond the cre­ation of this weird device. He might be said to have pre­dict­ed and pre­cip­i­tat­ed what he him­self called the “sex­u­al rev­o­lu­tion.” (“No pow­er on earth will stop it,” Reich wrote in the 30s.) Crit­ics dis­missed his belief in the lib­er­at­ing poten­tial of free love as a “geni­tial utopia.” Their scorn mat­tered lit­tle to the coun­ter­cul­tur­al fig­ures who picked up and dis­sem­i­nat­ed his work. “Almost a cen­tu­ry” after Reich’s inven­tion of orgone, writes Simon, “his bonkers ideas live on,” includ­ing the notion that near­ly every health con­di­tion can be traced to an imbal­ance of orgone ener­gy.

The Orgone Accu­mu­la­tor was pop­u­lar­ized by William S. Bur­roughs, a true believer—as he was in many things, from Sci­en­tol­ogy to Shamanism—and an enthu­si­as­tic pro­mot­er of “life in orgone box­es.” (Jack Ker­ouac called Bur­roughs’ accu­mu­la­tor a “mys­ti­cal out­house” in On the Road.) Bur­roughs swore by the accu­mu­la­tor and wrote a 1977 arti­cle for Oui mag­a­zine in which he defend­ed Reich’s claims that time spent in the sealed box might cure cancer—a claim that prompt­ed the FDA to file an injunc­tion against Reich in 1954 to stop use of the device and lit­er­a­ture per­tain­ing to it.

“Reich con­tin­ued prof­it­ing from the accu­mu­la­tors,” writes Simon, “and the court found him in con­tempt of the injunc­tion. He was sen­tenced to fed­er­al prison, where he died in 1957.” Devo­tees of his work have defend­ed him ever since. (“Who is the FDA,” wrote Bur­roughs indig­nant­ly, “to deprive can­cer patients of any treat­ment that could be effi­ca­cious?”). James DeMeo, Ph.D., direc­tor of the Orgone Bio­phys­i­cal Research Lab­o­ra­to­ry in Ash­land Ore­gon, has recent­ly released the 3rd, revised and expand­ed, edi­tion of his Orgone Accu­mu­la­tor Hand­book, a thor­ough ref­er­ence guide, “with con­struc­tion plans.”

Should you have the desire to build your own “mys­ti­cal out­house,” DeMeo’s text would seem to be a defin­i­tive ref­er­ence. Pro­ceed at your own risk. Wil­helm Reich’s orgone ther­a­py remains square­ly on a list of treat­ments unap­proved by the FDA. The FBI, on the oth­er hand, who “have a whole sec­tion on their web­site ded­i­cat­ed to Wil­helm Reich,” notes Mary Bel­lis, found no cause to pros­e­cute the Aus­tri­an psy­chol­o­gist. “In 1947,” they note, “a secu­ri­ty inves­ti­ga­tion con­clud­ed that nei­ther the Orgone Project nor any of its staff were engaged in sub­ver­sive activ­i­ties.” But what could have been more sub­ver­sive to the post-war U.S. estab­lish­ment than main­tain­ing the world’s ills could be cured by real­ly good sex? Down­load a free copy of DeMeo’s book here.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

William S. Bur­roughs’ Man­i­festo for Over­throw­ing a Cor­rupt Gov­ern­ment with Fake News and Oth­er Prophet­ic Meth­ods: It’s Now Pub­lished for the First Time

A Look Inside William S. Bur­roughs’ Bunker

The Famous Break Up of Sig­mund Freud & Carl Jung Explained in a New Ani­mat­ed Video

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

What Can You Do About QAnon?: A Short Take from Documentary Filmmaker Kirby Ferguson

You know that QAnon sup­port­ers fig­ured promi­nent­ly in the Capi­tol insur­rec­tion. Two QAnon con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists now hold seats in Con­gress. And per­haps you read the dis­turb­ing pro­file this week­end about the QAnon sup­port­er who attend­ed the elite Dal­ton School in Man­hat­tan and then Har­vard. So–you’re maybe thinking–it’s final­ly worth under­stand­ing what QAnon is, and what we can do about it. Above, watch a 10 minute Op-Doc from film­mak­er Kir­by Fer­gu­son, whose work we’ve fea­tured here before. As you’ll see, his rec­om­men­da­tions (from late Octo­ber) align with expert advice found in our recent post, How to Talk with a Con­spir­a­cy The­o­rist: What the Experts Rec­om­mend. After the vio­lence of Jan­u­ary 6, how­ev­er, it’s rea­son­able to ask whether we need some­thing more than cod­dling and patience.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Con­stant­ly Wrong: Film­mak­er Kir­by Fer­gu­son Makes the Case Against Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ries

How to Talk with a Con­spir­a­cy The­o­rist: What the Experts Rec­om­mend

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 7 ) |

How to Talk with a Conspiracy Theorist: What the Experts Recommend

Why do peo­ple pledge alle­giance to views that seem fun­da­men­tal­ly hos­tile to real­i­ty? Maybe believ­ers in shad­owy, evil forces and secret cabals fall prey to moti­vat­ed rea­son­ing. Truth for them is what they need to believe in order to get what they want. Their cer­tain­ty in the just­ness of a cause can feel as com­fort­ing as a warm blan­ket on a winter’s night. But con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries go far­ther than pri­vate delu­sions of grandeur. They have spilled into the streets, into the halls of the U.S. Capi­tol build­ing and var­i­ous state­hous­es. Con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries about a “stolen” 2020 elec­tion are out for blood.

As dis­tress­ing as such recent pub­lic spec­ta­cles seem at present, they hard­ly come near the harm accom­plished by pro­pa­gan­da like Plan­dem­ic—a short film that claims the COVID-19 cri­sis is a sin­is­ter plot—part of a wave of dis­in­for­ma­tion that has sent infec­tion and death rates soar­ing into the hun­dreds of thou­sands.

We may nev­er know the num­bers of peo­ple who have infect­ed oth­ers by refus­ing to take pre­cau­tions for them­selves, but we do know that the num­ber of peo­ple in the U.S. who believe con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries is alarm­ing­ly high.

A Pew Research sur­vey of adults in the U.S. “found that 36% thought that these con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries” about the elec­tion and the pan­dem­ic “were prob­a­bly or def­i­nite­ly true,” Tanya Basu writes at the MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Review. “Per­haps some of these peo­ple are your fam­i­ly, your friends, your neigh­bors.” Maybe you are con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist your­self. After all, “it’s very human and nor­mal to believe in con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries…. No one is above [them]—not even you.” We all resist facts, as Cass Sun­stein (author of Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ries and Oth­er Dan­ger­ous Ideas) says in the Vox video above, that con­tra­dict cher­ished beliefs and the com­mu­ni­ties of peo­ple who hold them.

So how do we dis­tin­guish between real­i­ty-based views and con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries if we’re all so prone to the lat­ter? Stan­dards of log­i­cal rea­son­ing and evi­dence still help sep­a­rate truth from false­hood in lab­o­ra­to­ries. When it comes to the human mind, emo­tions are just as impor­tant as data. “Con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries make peo­ple feel as though they have some sort of con­trol over the world,” says Daniel Romer, a psy­chol­o­gist and research direc­tor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Pennsylvania’s Annen­berg Pub­lic Pol­i­cy Cen­ter. They’re air­tight, as Wired shows below, and it can be use­less to argue.

Basu spoke with experts like Romer and the mod­er­a­tors of Reddit’s r/ChangeMyView com­mu­ni­ty to find out how to approach oth­ers who hold beliefs that cause harm and have no basis in fact. The con­sen­sus rec­om­mends pro­ceed­ing with kind­ness, find­ing some com­mon ground, and apply­ing a degree of restraint, which includes drop­ping or paus­ing the con­ver­sa­tion if things get heat­ed. We need to rec­og­nize com­pet­ing moti­va­tions: “some peo­ple don’t want to change, no mat­ter the facts.”

Unreg­u­lat­ed emo­tions can and do under­mine our abil­i­ty to rea­son all the time. We can­not ignore or dis­miss them; they can be clear indi­ca­tions some­thing has gone wrong with our think­ing and per­haps with our men­tal and phys­i­cal health. We are all sub­ject­ed, though not equal­ly, to incred­i­ble amounts of height­ened stress under our cur­rent con­di­tions, which allows bad actors like the still-cur­rent U.S. Pres­i­dent to more eas­i­ly exploit uni­ver­sal human vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties and “weaponize moti­vat­ed rea­son­ing,” as Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia, Irvine social psy­chol­o­gist Peter Dit­to observes.

To help counter these ten­den­cies in some small way, we present the resources above. In Bill Nye’s Big Think answer to a video ques­tion from a view­er named Daniel, the long­time sci­ence com­mu­ni­ca­tor talks about the dis­com­fort of cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance. “The way to over­come that,” he says, is with the atti­tude, “we’re all in this togeth­er. Let’s learn about this togeth­er.”

We can per­haps best approach those who embrace harm­ful con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries by not imme­di­ate­ly telling them that we know more than they do. It’s a con­ver­sa­tion that requires some intel­lec­tu­al humil­i­ty and acknowl­edge­ment that change is hard and it feels real­ly scary not to know what’s going on. Below, see an abridged ver­sion of MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Review’s ten tips for rea­son­ing with a con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist, and read Basu’s full arti­cle here.

  1. Always, always speak respect­ful­ly: “With­out respect, com­pas­sion, and empa­thy, no one will open their mind or heart to you. No one will lis­ten.”
  2. Go pri­vate: Using direct mes­sages when online “pre­vents dis­cus­sion from get­ting embar­rass­ing for the poster, and it implies a gen­uine com­pas­sion and inter­est in con­ver­sa­tion rather than a desire for pub­lic sham­ing.”
  3. Test the waters first: “You can ask what it would take to change their mind, and if they say they will nev­er change their mind, then you should take them at their word and not both­er engag­ing.”
  4. Agree: “Con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries often fea­ture ele­ments that every­one can agree on.”
  5. Try the “truth sand­wich”: “Use the fact-fal­la­cy-fact approach, a method first pro­posed by lin­guist George Lakoff.”
  6. Or use the Socrat­ic method: This “chal­lenges peo­ple to come up with sources and defend their posi­tion them­selves.”
  7. Be very care­ful with loved ones: “Bit­ing your tongue and pick­ing your bat­tles can help your men­tal health.”
  8. Real­ize that some peo­ple don’t want to change, no mat­ter the facts.
  9. If it gets bad, stop: “One r/ChangeMyView mod­er­a­tor sug­gest­ed ‘IRL calm­ing down’: shut­ting off your phone or com­put­er and going for a walk.”
  10. Every lit­tle bit helps. “One con­ver­sa­tion will prob­a­bly not change a person’s mind, and that’s okay.”

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

Con­stant­ly Wrong: Film­mak­er Kir­by Fer­gu­son Makes the Case Against Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ries

Neil Arm­strong Sets Straight an Inter­net Truther Who Accused Him of Fak­ing the Moon Land­ing (2000)

Michio Kaku & Noam Chom­sky School Moon Land­ing and 9/11 Con­spir­a­cy The­o­rists

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

Social Psychologist Erich Fromm Diagnoses Why People Wear a Mask of Happiness in Modern Society (1977)

Mod­ern man still is anx­ious and tempt­ed to sur­ren­der his free­dom to dic­ta­tors of all kinds, or to lose it by trans­form­ing him­self into a small cog in the machine. —Erich Fromm

There are more think pieces pub­lished every day than any one per­son can read about our cur­rent moment of social dis­in­te­gra­tion. But we seem to have lost touch with the insights of social psy­chol­o­gy, a field that dom­i­nat­ed pop­u­lar intel­lec­tu­al dis­course in the post-war 20th cen­tu­ry, large­ly due to the influ­en­tial work of Ger­man exiles like Erich Fromm. The human­ist philoso­pher and psychologist’s “pre­scient 1941 trea­sure Escape from Free­dom,writes Maria Popo­va, serves as what he called “‘a diag­no­sis rather than a prog­no­sis,’ writ­ten dur­ing humanity’s grimmest descent into mad­ness in WWII, lay­ing out the foun­da­tion­al ideas on which Fromm would lat­er draw in con­sid­er­ing the basis of a sane soci­ety,” the title of his 1955 study of alien­ation, con­for­mi­ty, and author­i­tar­i­an­ism.

Fromm “is an unjust­ly neglect­ed fig­ure,” Kier­an Durkin argues at Jacobin, “cer­tain­ly when com­pared with his erst­while Frank­furt School col­leagues, such as Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno.” But he has much to offer as a “ground­ed alter­na­tive” to their crit­i­cal the­o­ry, and his work “reveals a dis­tinct­ly more opti­mistic and hope­ful engage­ment with the ques­tion of rad­i­cal social change.” Nonethe­less, Fromm well under­stood that social dis­eases must be iden­ti­fied before they can be treat­ed, and he did not sug­ar­coat his diag­noses. Had soci­ety become more “sane” thir­ty-plus years after the war? Fromm didn’t think so.

In the 1977 inter­view clip above, Fromm defends his claim that “We live in a soci­ety of noto­ri­ous­ly unhap­py peo­ple,” which the inter­view­er calls an “incred­i­ble state­ment.” Fromm replies:

For me it isn’t incred­i­ble at all, but if you just open your eyes, you see it. That is, most peo­ple pre­tend that they are hap­py, even to them­selves, because if you are unhap­py, you are con­sid­ered a fail­ure, so you must wear the mask of being sat­is­fied, of hap­py.

Con­trast this obser­va­tion with Albert Camus’ 1959 state­ment, “Today hap­pi­ness is like a crimenev­er admit it. Don’t say ‘I’m hap­py’ oth­er­wise you will hear con­dem­na­tion all around.” Were Fromm and Camus observ­ing vast­ly dif­fer­ent cul­tur­al worlds? Or is it pos­si­ble that in the inter­ven­ing years, forced hap­pi­nessakin to the social­ly coerced emo­tions Camus depict­ed in The Strangerhad become nor­mal­ized, a screen of denial stretched over exis­ten­tial dread, eco­nom­ic exploita­tion, and social decay?

Fromm’s diag­no­sis of forced hap­pi­ness res­onates strong­ly with The Stranger (and Bil­lie Hol­i­day), and with the image-obsessed soci­ety in which we live most of our lives now, pre­sent­ing var­i­ous curat­ed per­son­ae on social media and video­con­fer­enc­ing apps. Unhap­pi­ness may be a byprod­uct of depres­sion, vio­lence, pover­ty, phys­i­cal ill­ness, social alien­ation… but its man­i­fes­ta­tions pro­duce even more of the same: “Them that’s got shall get / Them that’s not shall lose.” If you’re unhap­py, says Fromm, “you lose cred­it on the mar­ket, you’re no longer a nor­mal per­son or a capa­ble per­son. But you just have to look at peo­ple. You only have to see how behind the mask there is unrest.”

Have we learned how to look at peo­ple behind the mask? Is it pos­si­ble to do so when we most­ly inter­act with them from behind a screen? These are the kinds of ques­tions Fromm’s work can help us grap­ple with, if we’re will­ing to accept his diag­no­sis and tru­ly reck­on with our unhap­pi­ness.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

Albert Camus Explains Why Hap­pi­ness Is Like Com­mit­ting a Crime—”You Should Nev­er Admit to it” (1959)

How Much Mon­ey Do You Need to Be Hap­py? A New Study Gives Us Some Exact Fig­ures

The UN’s World Hap­pi­ness Report Ranks “Social­ist Friend­ly” Coun­tries like Fin­land, Nor­way, Den­mark, Ice­land & Swe­den as Among the Hap­pi­est in the World

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

Don’t Think Twice: A Poignant Film Documents How Bob Dylan & The Beatles Bring Joy to a Dementia Patient

It’s often said the sense of smell is most close­ly con­nect­ed to long-term mem­o­ry. The news offers lit­tle com­fort to us for­get­ful peo­ple with a dimin­ished sense of smell. But increas­ing­ly, neu­ro­sci­en­tists are dis­cov­er­ing how sound can also tap direct­ly into our deep­est mem­o­ries. Patients with Alzheimer’s and demen­tia seem to come alive, becom­ing their old selves when they hear music they rec­og­nize, espe­cial­ly if they were musi­cians or dancers in a for­mer life.

“Sound is evo­lu­tion­ar­i­ly ancient,” Nina Kraus, a neu­ro­sci­en­tist at North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty, tells NPR. “It is deeply, deeply root­ed in our ner­vous sys­tem. So the mem­o­ries that we make, the sound-to-mean­ing con­nec­tions that we have and that we’ve made through­out our lives are always there. And it’s a mat­ter of being able to access them.” The ear­worms we find our­selves hum­ming all day; the songs we nev­er for­get how to sing… these are keys to a store­house of mem­o­ry.

Sto­ries doc­u­ment­ing demen­tia patients in the pres­ence of music usu­al­ly focus, under­stand­ably, on those who have lost brain func­tion due to old age. In “Don’t Think Twice,” the short doc­u­men­tary above, we meet John Fudge, who sus­tained a trau­mat­ic brain injury when he fell from the white cliffs of Dover and split his head open at 24 years old. “The extent of his injuries weren’t revealed,” writes Aeon, “until decades lat­er, when doc­tors decid­ed to per­form a brain scan after John slipped into a deep depres­sion.”

He was found to have exten­sive brain dam­age, “includ­ing a pro­gres­sive form of demen­tia” called Seman­tic Demen­tia that leaves suf­fer­ers aware of their dete­ri­o­ra­tion while being unable to express them­selves. John’s wife Geral­dine “com­pares his brain to an oak tree, its limbs of knowl­edge being slow­ly trimmed away, caus­ing John great men­tal anguish.” In the short film, how­ev­er, we see how “his musi­cal abil­i­ties” are one “as-yet untrimmed branch.”

John him­self explains how he “near­ly died three times” and Geral­dine assists with her obser­va­tions of his expe­ri­ence. “It’s all there,” she says, “it’s just bits of it have sort of been blanked out…. Over the years, John’s seman­tic under­stand­ing of the world will dete­ri­o­rate.” When a young vol­un­teer named Jon from the Hack­ney Befriend­ing Ser­vice stops by, the gloom lifts as John engages his old pas­sion for play­ing songs by the Bea­t­les and Bob Dylan.

Fol­low the mov­ing sto­ry of how John and Jon became fast friends and excel­lent har­mo­niz­ers and see more inspir­ing sto­ries of how music can change Alzheimer’s and demen­tia patients’ lives for the bet­ter at the links below.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How Music Can Awak­en Patients with Alzheimer’s and Demen­tia

Demen­tia Patients Find Some Eter­nal Youth in the Sounds of AC/DC

For­mer Bal­le­ri­na with Demen­tia Grace­ful­ly Comes Alive to Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him @jdmagness

Marina Abramović’s Method for Overcoming Trauma: Go to a Park, Hug a Tree Tight, and Tell It Your Complaints for 15 Minutes

One of the most renowned of Chi­nese poets, Du Fu, sur­vived the dev­as­tat­ing An Lushan rebel­lion that near­ly brought down the Tang Dynasty and result­ed in an incred­i­ble loss of life around the coun­try. His poems are full of grief, as trans­la­tor David Hin­ton notes. The open­ing of “Spring Land­scape” con­tains “pos­si­bly the most famous line in Chi­nese poet­ry,” and a painful com­ment on human­i­ty’s place in the nat­ur­al world.

The coun­try in ruins, rivers and moun­tains
con­tin­ue. The city grows lush with spring.

Blos­soms scat­ter tears for us, and all these
sep­a­ra­tions in a bird’s cry star­tle the heart.

The poem presents a trag­ic irony. Nature invites us in, seems to promise com­fort and refuge. “Du Fu tells us that birds seem to cry for us, and blos­soms weep,” writes Madeleine Thien at The New York Review of Books. But “of course, this is a fairy-tale view, and ‘in the knowl­edge of its fal­si­ty, heart­break­ing.’”

Is nature indif­fer­ent to human suf­fer­ing? It would seem so to the bro­ken-heart­ed Con­fu­cian poet. But nature is not devoid of fel­low feel­ing. Trees talk to each oth­er, cre­ate social worlds and fam­i­lies, and com­mu­ni­cate with the oth­er plants and ani­mals around them. Japan­ese researchers have shown that the oils trees secrete can mea­sur­ably low­er stress lev­els, reduce hos­til­i­ty and depres­sion, and boost immu­ni­ty. Trees may not weep, but they care.

Trees are also, says per­for­mance artist Mari­na Abramović in the short video above, “per­fect­ly silent listeners”—a rare and valu­able qual­i­ty in times of stress. “They have intel­li­gence. They have feel­ings.” And for this rea­son, a tree is the ide­al com­pan­ion when we need an ear.

You can com­plain to them. And I start­ed this a long time ago when I was in the Ama­zon with the native Indi­ans. You know, they will go to the Sequoia tree, which is one of the old­est on the plan­et. And they will make a dance for the tree. These dances for the tree are so incred­i­bly mov­ing an emo­tion­al. So I thought, Wow! Why don’t I cre­ate an exer­cise that real­ly works for me?

Abramović’s tree ther­a­py is one part of her “Abramović Method,” notes Paper, “a set of tech­niques that enables artists to get to high­er states of con­scious­ness.” She rec­om­mends it for any­one who’s reel­ing from the trau­mas of this year. In our own age of dev­as­ta­tion and iso­la­tion, it cer­tain­ly couldn’t hurt, and per­haps we know more than Du Fu did about how nature sup­ports our emo­tion­al lives.

So “please, go to the park near you,” the artist implores. “Pick the tree you like. Hold the tree tight. Real­ly tight. And just pour your heart into it. Com­plain to the tree for a min­i­mum of 15 min­utes. It’s the best heal­ing that you can do.” Includ­ed in the video is a tes­ti­mo­ni­al from an ex-rug­by play­er, who found the Com­plain­ing to Trees method trans­for­ma­tive. “There is some­thing in it,” he says. “It’s almost like you become part of the tree as well.” Trees are not peo­ple. They don’t dis­pense advice. They lis­ten and con­sole in their own mys­te­ri­ous­ly ancient, silent way.

Relat­ed Con­tent:  

The Secret Lan­guage of Trees: A Charm­ing Ani­mat­ed Les­son Explains How Trees Share Infor­ma­tion with Each Oth­er

The Social Lives of Trees: Sci­ence Reveals How Trees Mys­te­ri­ous­ly Talk to Each Oth­er, Work Togeth­er & Form Nur­tur­ing Fam­i­lies

How the Japan­ese Prac­tice of “For­est Bathing”—Or Just Hang­ing Out in the Woods—Can Low­er Stress Lev­els and Fight Dis­ease

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

The Power of Empathy: A Quick Animated Lesson from Brené Brown

Sev­er­al years back, the RSA (Roy­al Soci­ety of the Arts) cre­at­ed a series of dis­tinc­tive ani­mat­ed shorts where well-known intel­lec­tu­als pre­sent­ed big ideas, and a tal­ent­ed artist rapid­ly illus­trat­ed them on a white­board. Some of those talks fea­tured the likes of Slavoj Zizek, Car­ol Dweck, Steven Pinker and Bar­bara Ehren­re­ich. Now RSA presents a video series cre­at­ed in an entire­ly dif­fer­ent aes­thet­ic. Above, you can watch the first of many “espres­so shots for the mind.” This clip fea­tures Dr. Brené Brown, a well-known research pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Hous­ton Grad­u­ate Col­lege of Social Work, pro­vid­ing some quick insights into the dif­fer­ence between sym­pa­thy and empa­thy, and explain­ing why empa­thy is much more mean­ing­ful. To learn more about The Pow­er of Empa­thy, you can watch Brown’s com­plete RSA lec­ture below . You can also watch her very pop­u­lar TED Talk on The Pow­er of Vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty here.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in Decem­ber, 2013.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

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:

Free Online Psy­chol­o­gy Cours­es (Part of our list of Free Online Cours­es)

Med­i­ta­tion 101: A Short, Ani­mat­ed Beginner’s Guide

The Psy­chol­o­gy of Blame: Anoth­er Ani­mat­ed Les­son That Can Make You a Bet­ter Per­son

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast