Reflection from “The Palliative Society” by Byung-Chul Han; “The Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold us Well-Being” by William Davies
Recently, I have found on social medias and in chatting with friends that more and more people are now exploring the topic of mental health and art healing, and there have been many hot analyses posts saying that art healing will be the next windfall industry. However, seeing from the quality of the content published by the self-media, the quality of the content is uneven. There is no doubt that the healing industry is a help, but when an industry becomes more and more tied to economics and profit (at least in the eyes of investors and entrepreneurs), it can discourage people from reaching out to it on some level. During an online tutorial at academic support, I picked up a very useful piece of advice: when you can’t pinpoint the scope of your project at once, it helps to be clear about “what you don’t want to do”. Therefore, I read some related books to investigate this issue, hoping to organise my project ideas by reflecting the problems behind this social phenomenon.
In his book “The Palliative Society“, Byung-chul Han refers to the phenomenon of the “economicisation of culture” and “culturalisation of economy”, where “the distinction between culture and commerce, between art and consumption, and between art and advertising has been shattered”, This means that everything takes on the attribute of being consumable, that is, of being likeable, and this “culture of likeability” does not lead to more tolerance, but rather to a further elimination of the possibility of a path to the radical other, of negativity, of suffering. Alain de Botton has written that “the work of art brings us closer to those who have a deep compassion for pain, to their spirit and voice, and allows us to move through it, to complete the recognition of our own pain, and then to connect with the commonality of the human race, no longer feeling isolated and ashamed.” Culture is “a history of human hurt and grief.” Nowadays, the blurring of cultural and economic boundaries has gradually diluted one possibility for people to openly discuss pain. The dominant narrative of self-actualisation in today’s society, of happiness, joy, well-being, etc., may seem positive, encouraging individual self-actualisation, but in fact it is a response to power. Whereas in the torture society power was enforced through physical pain, and in the discipline society power was enforced through repression, we now live in a neoliberal burnout society where power is completely decoupled from pain and manifests itself as freedom. This “intelligent power” is less visible than repressive disciplinary power: under the slogan of self-realisation, people enslave themselves.
William Davies also wrote in his book “The Happiness Industry” about how positive psychology has gradually become dominant in our lives, and our emotions have become a new resource that can be bought and sold. William argues that our fixation on happiness may have more to do with the interests of corporations and governments than personal fulfillment. Both of these perspectives demonstrate the significance of the popularity of positive psychology in our era. The current social environment tends to individualize, internalize, and psychologize problem-solving approaches, which inherently exclude systematic reflection on the underlying issues. This approach goes against the current “spirit of the times” and is a laborious intellectual endeavor that does not receive much appreciation.
In fact, I fell into this thinking paradigm when contemplating my project. If it is possible to directly and specifically address the problems, why go through the trouble of pondering the broader and abstract societal aspects? Moreover, without data and examples to support these questions and analyses, how can they be validated? In the initial stages of considering my project, I found it challenging to target specific groups based on concrete conditions such as social anxiety, health anxiety, or food anxiety. Each individual has a different social identity, and the stressors behind their anxieties also vary. Even if I were to narrow down to a small range of people, the underlying social factors behind their anxieties would still differ significantly. On the other hand, if I simultaneously consider specific factors such as social factors, age stages, gender, and identities, it seems to become a too individual-focused approach, which is not desirable to me and would also make it difficult to find a stable target audience.
However, as I learned in a previous webinar, stressors are constantly changing. Therefore, I now believe that targeting a group of individuals within a specific identity range and life stage seems more appropriate. This approach can limit certain sources of stressors. I plan to focus on the group of art students in graduation year: how they feel their anxiety and what would they do to keep stable and stay on their way? How can I help with them?
Arthur Schopenhauer left behind a sarcastic aphorism long ago: “The only one of mankind’s innate erroneous notions is that the purpose of life is to attain happiness… The wise know that life on Earth is not worth it.” Combined with what has been previously mentioned, the increasingly growing art therapy services present a paradox: creativity is merely an economic strategy. I do not want my project to become a tool that only advocates positivity and happiness through creative means. Therefore, I will still focus on the awareness of negative emotions, self-expression, and the connection between individuals and the world, rather than just healing and eliminating suffering. For this reason, I plan to continue reading “How Forests Think” in the hope that adopting an anthropological approach that transcends the human perspective can provide me with more inspiration.