David Griesing | Work Life Reward Author | Philadelphia

You are here: Home / Blog

The Surprising Effects of Saying the Right Words Out Loud

By Leave a Comment

A lot of people seem depressed to me. It’s particularly disheartening when their rage against the machine casts a pall over the smiles and chat that they’re aiming in my direction.
 
We all process life’s traumas differently of course, but many of us do so by burying them. it’s just not far enough down to hold our game faces in front of anyone who’s paying attention. 

We get depressed for some of the same reasons that we suffer from PTSD.
 
During America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—and given the unrepaired damage that lingered from Vietnam 30-plus years before—there was a growing acknowledgement of PTSD (or post-traumatic stress disorder) and, more importantly, how to enable soldiers who had internalized the traumas of these battlefields to reach a kind of armistice with them so they could begin to heal as they made their transitions home.
 
Two books have changed my thinking about this healing process, and both suggest paths for recovering from traumas that have been branded on our psyches by war or by simply growing up in damaged families and communities. The first, about warriors struggling to find their ways back from war (and so much more), is “The Evil Hours:  A Biography of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” (2015) by David Morris. The second, about recovering from traumatic experiences more generally, is called “The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind and Body in the Healing of Trauma” (2016) by Besel van der Kolk.  (It’s telling, I think, that Van der Kolk’s important book is still a top-10, best-selling non-fiction title six years after it was first published.)
 
Both books are beautifully written and conceived, and both authors observe how pre-modern societies (unlike our own) enabled trauma survivors to recover through community-sponsored, participatory events. For instance, Morris talks at length about the role that performances of Greek tragedies (and the on-stage choruses that echoed audience reactions) had in finally bringing their returning soldiers back into their communities.  Van der Kolk devotes some of his most powerful chapters to programs that teach victims how to “perform” their ways through the kinds of traumatic events that have been holding them hostage.
 
So I found a recent podcast about the healing that can come from reciting carefully-chosen speeches from Shakespeare’s plays to be yet another way to bring “what’s been damaged” out into the open—to give it both a deep breath and a plaintive voice—in an effort to weaken trauma’s hold on how we are and appear to our families and neighbors.
 
I wondered whether speaking famous lines from a make-shift stage could actually help those who are shadowed by trauma to heal the wounds that still haunt them and are impossible to hide. 

Since I spend a lot of time writing, it’s hard to avoid “the slap to the side of my head” that at exactly the same time I’m grinding out another paragraph, fewer and fewer readers are actually reading anything more than the wordstreams that keep flashing across the surfaces of their phones. Maybe a podcast story like this one “about the healing power of literature” can help to reverse the TikTok-ing of our attention spans so that there will be somebody left with the bandwidth to read any book (and mine in particular) someday.  
 
Of course that reversal will happen, I say to myself. It has to. 
 
But whether it’s a book to read or a speech to recite, whenever advice is involved it also depends on “the quality of the uplift” that follows your words on the page or the ones that you’re delivering to an audience.
 
– So could learning to deliver, say, Gloucester’s speech in Shakespeare’s Richard III (the one that begins: “This is the winter of our discontent”), really help to counteract the conflict and darkness–and more importantly, the buried anger about that conflict and darkness–more effectively than either the “Can’t-you-just-get-over-it” advice or the anti-depressants that our culture keeps prescribing?
 
– Is Shakespeare’s poetry really that much fuller and more resonant with what we’ve actually been feeling and living than the clinical jargon that gestures “in the direction of” but fails to capture the full dimensions of our discontents?
 
– Is there also something about the iambic pentameter of Shakespeare’s lines that can fall into sync with our natural body rhythms, thereby slowing us down and calming us in spite of everything that was destabilizing us before?
 
A recent episode of The Pulse, “a podcast with stories at the heart of health, science, and innovation,” was posing all of these questions and making me wonder about the recognitions that the right words might invite and the healing power of their bodily cadences when we turn them into personal testimony in front of an audience. 
 
– Could transforming Gloucester’s speech or Lady Macbeth’s “Out, Damned Spot” monologue into ones own witnessing about trauma actually relieve some of the pain that’s under the surface but still leaching out?
 
– Could aspects of “a cure like this” be bottled and taken home for medicinal purposes, effectively turning our living rooms into mini-Globe theaters, instead of venting our inner demons whenever we scream at customer service representatives over the phone, assault flight attendants while we’re traveling, threaten poll workers when it’s time to vote, or lash out at our spouses?
 
– Could “magical words, passionately spoken” offer any kind of pressure-relief valve for what’s plainly ailing so many of us?

At least until now, the program that was profiled onThe Pulse has been limited to trauma survivors-–both war veterans and others—who voluntarily come together for a kind of group therapy to (1) chronicle their particular injuries; (2) identify the Shakespearean passages that best reflect those injuries; (3) get some distance from the damage that’s been done by enlisting another group member for a dress rehearsal of those theatrical lines; and (4) learn how to sync breathing with delivery to present what amounts to “their own testimony about personal traumas” in front of the group.
 
The amount of healing that occurs in those who follow this arc was measured and found to be substantial.
 
According to Stephan Wolfert, the program’s founder, the support of similar group members is essential for trauma-sufferers to begin to heal. As comfort levels grow, participants create an inventory of their past injuries, including insomnia, occasions for shame and guilt, or when they’ve felt betrayed and abandoned. From reading excerpts of Shakespeare’s plays, they notice that some of his characters seem to be tortured by the same experiences. According to an article about Wolfert: participants who had felt “stupid” reading these plays in high school “entered the world of Shakespeare’s verse” as they began to feel a kinship between themselves and these characters.
 
An early challenge involved matching participant traumas with monologues in particular plays. Wolfert worked with Alisha Ali, who was part of a research team in applied psychology at NYU, to create an algorithm that could help with those matches. For example, someone with recurrent nightmares would be given the lines of a character with tormented sleep. With a “good-fitting” speech in hand, participants then hand off their “personal trauma monologues” to a trusted group member to rehearse and perform, gaining from it: 

an ‘aesthetic distance’ from his or her own trauma, and from that distance, being able to feel empathy toward the [other] veteran who is performing [your] monologue. For veterans who are unable to forgive themselves for some wartime trauma, such as the death of a fellow soldier, this distance can provide the veteran with a new self-awareness and a path to self-forgiveness.

Because performing Shakespeare is a physical act that requires training, members of the group then turn to improving breath control for delivering lines that are written in iambic pentameter and, as such, have their own unique stops, starts and rhythms. Through his work with Ali, Wolfert began to notice how closely “the beat” in Shakespeare’s verse echoes the rhythms of the human heart, and how encouraging performers to breathe around each line can reduce “heart rate variability”—a regulator of stress in PTSD sufferers—as well as deepening their appreciation of what they’ve been feeling while reciting them. 
 
In the podcast, one group participant described how this breath-work around Shakespeare’s lines worked for him. By alternating each line with a breath, he noticed that:  

it softens, just that breathing between each line, it softens the reading so that the lines almost melt into your breath, ‘cause you’re inhaling and exhaling while you read, almost like you’re not reading it but breathing it, and that’s when the meaning of the words comes in.

At first, the rush of “his sense of aloneness from all directions” overwhelmed him to such a degree that he broke down. These kinds of recognitions and releases of pent-up emotions continued for all participants as they delivered their final testimonies using Shakespeare’s words.
 
All the while, Ali used scientific measures to document health improvements in the group’s participants. She noticed how “immersion” in the verse and “feeling” its rhymes and rhythms through intermittent breathing counteracts the kind of “shallow breathing” that is common when someone is in a near-constant state of fight and flight, which many PTSD sufferers are. At the same time, she noticed how a new sense of calm enabled participants to hold their traumas in a somewhat safer place. 
 
Ali also noted how this kind of play-acting produces “significant increases in self-efficacy,” with participants gaining a greater belief in their own abilities and competencies by owning and performing their experiences and, therefore, building confidence that they can hold jobs and socialize more effectively in spite of their injuries once they leave the group. Ali went on to record “significant improvements” in heart-rate variabilities and in “EEG” measurements that are associated with improved brain functioning among the program’s participants.
 
There seems little doubt that these men and women were more prepared to enter their new worlds by gaining a greater measure of control over old world traumas. 

Another night’s entertainment.

Below is the front-end of Gloucester’s famous speech from Shakespeare’s Richard III  (For its entirety, the last 13 stanzas can be found here.) If you’d like to “make a go” at it, try breathing “in” before and “out” as you recite each line—even if the only one who’s there to hear your testifying is a trusted pet. Notice how surrounding each line with breath deepens your appreciation of the words and how they resonate with your experience. And if you’re not feeling disconnections like these already, try to imagine how it might feel if you were fresh from a battlefield and returning to the supposed relief of an alien world that feels as misaligned as this one does. 

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth’d his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish’d, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Maybe you don’t have PTSD today, but are merely suffering the after-effects of lesser traumas in a world that’s still alarming and frequently destabilizing. 
 
Maybe taking a breath–and cushioning the words for such traumas in the moment that you exhale them–can soften the daily body blows, deepen your breathing and slow a racing heart.

Maybe it’s worth it to keep finding “the words” for the traumas around “just plain living and working,” and that one of the best reasons to read may be how books, plays and poems—particularly great ones—can give us more evocative words than we have already to move us from alienation today to a more comfortable world tomorrow. “The right words” can help us to breathe our sufferings in and then out in an effort to move beyond them.
 
(In the meantime, your captive audience may not always know what’s going on when the stage lights dim and the costumes come out, but hopefully will join you in feeling the air get a little bit lighter after each performance.)

+ + +

This post was adapted from my November 13, 2022 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here. You can subscribe (and not miss any of them) by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

The Sparks That Fly When Work Becomes Play

By Leave a Comment

I’m probably more driven than you imagine. Which is why it was so healthy for me to get down on the floor the other day and get lost in some play with a simpler version of myself.
 
I use cut outs with different colors and patterns to make larger canvasses by moving them around and swapping them out. Think of building a quilt with a big dose of randomness so that something unexpected might begin to emerge from the associations you’re making.
 
If you’ve got enough cut-outs and the right unusual ones, the exercise is totally immersive. You forget where you are in the dexterity of moving these puzzle pieces around. And sometimes you end up with something that almost looks like art.
 
So it was serendipitous this week to stumble on an interview with a cartoonist (an artist, really), teacher and writer who’s made a career out of this kind of playfulness. I’ll introduce her properly in a minute.  In the interview, she was saying something about her grad students (“These are people at the top of their games [with] this laser focus on getting one thing done” in their areas of study) and how much they need little kids to show them how to relax their relentless quests enough for insight and creativity. She was talking about how 3- and 4-year olds approach problem-solving in tactile, immersive and playful ways and how she regularly invites them into the classroom to play with her big kids. 

[M]y students had to be on the floor with them working together. They had to try to get into their mind-set. It’s hard to explain, but it changes you. After you spend about 90 minutes with them, you just find that something has loosened up. You get away from that laser-focused, worrisome way of being.

When you’re an adult watching a kid playing with a little toy, you just think that kid’s doing that and there’s nothing else to it. But from the kid’s perspective that toy is playing with them. It’s interactive.” (I added the emphasis here.)

When the value of this mutual encounter penetrates, at least some of her grad students have a second option. Their scholarship is no longer just about the push to shape their field of study, get their book published and find tenure someplace. All of a sudden, their chosen field can be equally involved in pulling them into it and shaping them back, like that child’s toy. 
 
By breaking some of the earnestness down, there’s finally enough freedom for some magic to happen.
 
This ever-present chance to be taken out of my driven self is one of the great things about having Wally around. There is nothing—nothing—that he wants to do more than play. When I get down on the floor with him and grab a ball he knows what’s coming, because he’s up on his hind legs dancing with delight and purring with expectation. The sad part, I realized after reading this interview, is that I don’t get down on the floor with him enough. 
 
But between the cut-outs the other day and this chance interview encounter, I’m realizing that it’s irresponsible for me NOT to open that space on a regular basis. As this wise woman said, it’s not for everyone (like the chronically under-wired) so this kind of play won’t have: 

saving qualities for people who don’t need it. It’s like, some people can’t digest milk, you know? But a lot of people can.

I don’t post on Instagram anymore, but I visit regularly and have been captivated by the short videos posted by a former Philly guy (and current New Yorker) who identifies himself as @TheDogist  He wanders around the city in his shorts with his camera and whenever he sees an owner with her dog stops, asks if he can take the dog’s picture, interacts with it for a bit, and starts snapping or filming (actually, an invisible assistant does the filming). 
 
His encounters are often magical—like getting down on the ground with a 3- or 4-year old. He has a way with dogs, a dog-oriented gift for gab, and a pocketful of treats at the ready to move each dog’s full attention onto this total surprise of a stranger. I’ve found that @TheDogist’s dog portraits and filmed interactions often perfectly capture their mutual delight.
 
The pictures of dog’s noses here also capture that curious and playful spirit, I think, which brings me back to Lynda Barry. The interview with her (it’s all great, by the way) appeared a few weeks ago in The New York Times Magazine. She’s best known for a weekly comic strip called Ernie Pook’s Comeek, which I never recall seeing in any of my newspapers. (Interestingly, it was first published in a student newspaper, without her knowledge, by fellow cartoonist Matt Groening, whom you may know from his Simpsons fame in later years.) When Barry’s not drawing, she’s teaching “interdisciplinary creativity” at the University of Wisconsin. It was also telling that she’s living not very far from the place where she was born and clearly belongs.
 
Over the years, Barry has written (and drawn) several books, including the award-winning, 2008 graphic novel “What It Is,” a hat trick of sorts that is part memoir, part collage and part workbook counseling readers on how to make a space for their own creativity. One of my favorite things about Barry is that she won a MacArthur Fellowship (the so-called genius grant) a couple of years ago, when she was already well into her sixties.
 
It would not be wrong to say that building playfulness into her life and work has given her access to a kind of fountain of youth. 

These days, I treat my time on social media and streaming platforms like Netflix almost like a timed dessert. For example, I only look at Instagram when I’m close to falling asleep, and limit myself to the day’s postings from the few posters that I follow.  I also try to take my “other screen diversions” in similarly pre-measured doses because I know they’re like sugar:  something I crave but also know are less-than-deadly-for-me ONLY when consumed in small amounts. 
 
YouTube, Twitter, IG. Screen diversions that are always waiting to take you away from reality are addictive: a kind of Mind Candy. These interfaces “know” you well enough to call to you and suck you in like play, but have little-to-none of play’s interactive and real-world upsides. Most of the time, all they are is an escape from reality, especially the reality of your own life and work.
 
Of course, Barry understands the difference between genuine play and the faux-playfulness of screen time as well as anyone, including in this parable of sorts, where she tells us: 

I have I have a friend who’s a writer. No matter what we’re doing or whom he’s around, he’s on his phone. We were sitting out in a parking lot, and there was a guy who came out who was in this full orc costume with a shield. I thought, I’m not going to say anything. Let’s see if my friend looks up. The guy passed right by him and — it was outside a hotel — tried to get through a revolving door. There’s all this bump ba bump ba bump, and if my friend would have looked up, he would have seen an orc [fighting with the revolving door and then] go by! But he never looked up! Then later I told him, and he’s like, ‘That didn’t happen!’ [But] it totally did happen! So something that closes you off to the world that you’re in — I mean, I could be on TikTok all night long. I keep deleting that app because I love it so much. But something that takes you out of your environment, you pay a high price. You miss the orc.

As if she needs to, Barry drives home her point even further:

The main thing about the phone is that you’re no longer where you are. You’re no longer in the room. You’re no longer anywhere. The opportunities to have an interaction with the things [and the people] around you are taken away. I just see the world as richer without the phone.” (my emphases again)

Your alternative focus doesn’t have to be violence on the streets, Vladimir Putin, North Korea, girls cutting off their hair in Iran, babies starving in Pakistan, babies starving in the Horn of Africa, “disturbing images in this video,” rainforests being cut down, a politicized Supreme Court, mass shootings in our schools, smaller containers of coffee for the same price at the grocery store—because those things are only a small part of our daily realities and their din (because that’s what it is) can be escaped with equally small doses of social media time. 
 
For the rest of our lives and our work, playful interaction with the world around us might be a whole lot healthier.

My favorite nose.

The picture of the dog up top was taken by one of the ”teachers” at our favorite day care center @phillydogschoolfairmount The second one is care of @odzi.and.elza, also on IG, and the third from the Dog School folks again on a particularly “nosy” day. I took the last one myself, this morning. 

This post was adapted from my October 9, 2022 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here. You can subscribe (and not miss any of them) by leaving your email address in the column to the right.


With Upward Mobility Frustrated at Every Turn, Let’s Revitalize the American Dream

By Leave a Comment

As I write this, tens of thousands of people are waiting in line in London “to pay their respects” to the Queen. This is no casual choice, since the viewing-line stretches for miles and it could take you a day to reach your goal, which is a walking glimpse (and perhaps a bow of the head or bended knee) before her standard-draped coffin in Westminster Hall. 
 
If you were lucky enough yesterday, the trajectory of your arrival might also have coincided with the brief visit by the Queen’s children (and new King) who were there paying homage to her memory at the compass points of her resting place. But the lines that kept forming outside didn’t need the glimpse of any living royal. 
 
Some asked why so many would wait so long to just walk by.
 
In my own wondering, I learned that since at least World War II, the Brits have developed a curmudgeonly fondness for standing, waiting for something and ambling towards “whatever it is” with others, chatting and complaining as they go. In the War years, the quest was for rations; today, it’s for a different kind of sustenance.

The British are known for their love of getting in line, which in Britain has long been called a ‘queue,’ from the French word for tail. It was once said ‘an Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of one.’

Despite the solitary joke, joining a queue is essentially a group experience, the participants joined by a common desire about what they’re likely to find at the end along the way.

Jenny Muskat, a middle-age woman from London, emerged from Westminster Hall late Thursday and said it took her ‘only’ six-and-a-half hours of waiting. She said she had been unsure earlier in the day about joining the line, but was happy she did after making fast friends with others in the queue. ‘We spent all these hours together, we laughed together, we just now cried together, and it was beautiful,’ she said.

What most of these Brits are doing—and it seems incomprehensible to some—is investing a great deal of time and effort to express their collective respect. They’re saying by this stupendous outpouring: “Thank you. As our Queen, you have given me, given all of us a great deal. In fact, you’ve given us a view of our best selves: Steady. Gracious. Tireless. Of our wry sense of humor. Thank you for being there, for making the rest of us look this good for all these years.”
 
Masses of people “paying their respect” seems almost unthinkable at a time when irony and cynicism make short work out of anything that’s cherished. People on social media were incredulous that anyone in their right mind would wait for that many hours to walk past a box with a body in it. If a national figure with millions of followers like Donald Trump (certainly a ”comparable” in terms of devotion) were to die tomorrow, the crowds would surely come out, but their gathering would be more of a political act, a kind of middle finger to everyone who didn’t come out, instead of a mass demonstration of respect for public virtues and the personal impacts of their mirrored glory.

The Queen’s Queue

To me, the Magic of the Queen derived from the fact that she was always, throughout her very long life, a kind of cipher. We knew what she wanted us to know about her, and almost nothing more—those virtues again, like steadfastness, self-restraint and even nobility while she was greeting “her people” and accepting their hellos and flowers in her “walkabouts” at another town hall or soccer field. 
 
Because the Queen was a kind of screen, her subjects and other admirers could project what they wanted onto her—a sense of majesty or a quintessential Britishness—and see such qualities reflected back upon them. Her fans are grateful today, eager to express their thanks and respect, because this idealized Queen made these “commoners” feel better about the parts of her that they see in themselves, and that at a time when almost nothing else in modern life does. 
 
The closest that Americans come to this kind of “give and take” with popular figures tend to involve individuals with two qualities that are very different from those that the Queen projected and then returned by way of “reflected glory.” Our idealized figures are usually both “self-made” and “very rich.” The clearest example I can think of is Steve Jobs, who turned his particular mirror back on the rest of us by encouraging the dream that we could also transform the world (and become fabulously rich in the process) by having an idea and a garage in which to realize it. Interestingly, some of Jobs’ unshakable aura may also have come from his timing. In the years after his passing, social media’s cynicism and irony have done a better job of rightsizing his successors (like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos) so that their reflected glories are much less desirable to see in ourselves. 
 
Instead these days, most of us have to project our plans about “making ourselves” and “becoming rich” onto a faceless American Dream, while hoping that what gets reflected back encourages our self-sacrifice, inventiveness, hard work and everyday desire to give our children better lives than we’ve had. Unfortunately, while millions continue to believe in that Dream, its promises are no longer encouraging most of us to work harder to achieve it. Instead, those workers who are paying attention in the lower 4/5ths of our economy feel stifled, stuck, betrayed, undermined and “quietly quitting” instead of having their upward mobility encouraged and advanced.
 
I say “those who are paying attention” because the “tradeoffs” of a top-down, government-managed economy (from the more entrepreneurial one that we had until the 1970s) were not only greater “fairness to all” (without regard to individual talent or effort), but also more material well-being (that is, more stuff) so that hopefully no one would feel quite so badly about the loss of an economic upside, and well-oiled corporations could reap more profits by satisfying our consuming desires.  
 
Having this glut of stuff, along with the distractions of entertainment and social media—its full-bore anesthetizing effects as the years spooled on—are what Aldus Huxley forecast in “Brave New World Revisited,” written in 1932. In a prior post called Whose Future Should We Fear Most (which contrasted George Orwell’s and Huxley’s forecasts through today), I tried to capture the context for mass sedation that Huxley’s book so accurately anticipated.

In our era of 24/7 entertainment ‘on demand,’ of non-stop drama from our ‘news’ outlets, and of a constant barrage of social media updates, none of us ever has to pay much attention to what is happening in the so-called “real world” or the roles we should be playing in it.  There is always a new ‘prompt’ from our phones, watches or “smart” speakers to provide us with a refuge from reality. The soma of near constant screen distraction and ‘the internet of things’ has also become a fixture of our daily lives in the four score years since Brave New World was published.

Too many who are no longer animated by the American Dream or disappointed by its promises have also been reduced to passivity by these diversions. They simply can’t be bothered to muster a justifiable sense of outrage before Netflix or YouTube suggests the next thing for them to watch.
 
But as inflation bites and more data gets mustered, it’s amazing to me that anyone “who’s not already rich or totally checked out” can avoid a sense of outrage and its class-driven political upheavals. 

In a post from a couple of weeks back called The Great Resignation is an Exercise in Frustration and Futility I cited data suggesting that government management of the economy has caused the middle, lower middle, and lowest economic classes to realize essentially the same income at the end of their working (or non-working) days due to government transfer payments. But these redistributions of wealth also stifle upward mobility. Mass quitting followed by a frantic search for “better lives via better jobs” is not only a fool’s errand but also an invitation to deeper resentments against “capitalism” and “the American way of life.” It embodies the reality that most Americans these days feel stuck on their rungs of the economic ladder.

The effective death-knell for upward mobility may be saddest for previously disadvantaged people who have struggled and saved and sacrificed so that they could reach the middle classes only to find that they’re still experiencing economic anxiety over the costs of health care, education, a comfortable retirement or an unexpected emergency. It’s hard working rural or immigrant whites, urban Blacks, second or third generation Latinos who finally thought they’d broken through—were on their way to the Dream they’d projected their hopes upon—only to find that nothing but futility was reflecting back on them and making them feel like failures.
 
These white, brown and black Americans have sometimes directed their anger and bitterness towards the poorest among us who seem to be living as well as they are, or towards rich/oblivious Progressives at the top of the pile who can afford to have privileged views since they come at the expense of the remaining 80%. Instead of having someone to be thankful for (like the Queen) or to aspire to be like (such as Steve Jobs), Americans have been finding scapegoats for their rage like Black Lives Matter and its supporters or the Coastal Elites. 
 
Notwithstanding where we find ourselves today (and in spite of all evidence to the contrary), the American Dream still encourages more hope than it can deliver on, and the country’s ire still hasn’t turned on the richest 20%, or the corporations that are also accruing a disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth. 
 
Instead, there are enough folks in that lower 80% who still believe they can hit the economic jackpot that neither the “Occupy Wall Street” uprising of 2011 nor Bernie Sander’s democratic socialism movement in 2016 could enlist enough of the disgruntled masses. Moreover, while President Trump was directing his ire at poor and often minority protestors after the death of George Floyd, he and Congress enhanced the protections for the richest Americans and our most profitable corporations in the so-called Tax Reform Act of 2017. Like we were his game-show contestants, he continued to hock the Dream by telling us: Everyone in America can be a billionaire, just like me, once we rid ourselves of all these freeloaders. 
 
Our increasingly empty Dream was about to lose even more of its hold on our imaginations during the pandemic. As a consequence, the pressure in the pressure cooker for the vast majority that finds it nearly impossible to better their circumstances will continue to build against the way that our elected leaders (both Democrat and Republican) have managed the American economy and designated its winners and losers for the past 50 years.

So where do we go from here?

Like an anti-addiction program, the first step is acknowledging the overwhelming evidence of the American Dream’s fragile state. In 2015, according to a study reported in Fast Company, the U.S. already ranked “among the lowest of all developed countries in terms of the potential for upward mobility, despite clinging to the mythology of Horatio Alger.” That article, called “The American Dream is Dead: Here’s Where It Went,” provided a breakdown of the developed countries where your chances of rising economically were the strongest. 

1. Denmark
2. Norway
3. Finland
4. Canada
5. Australia
6. Sweden
7. New Zealand
8. Germany
9. Japan 
10. Spain

America is simply not the Land of (Economic) Opportunity that it once was.

In my Great Resignation post, I joined Nobel-Prize-winning economist Edmund Phelps in waxing nostalgic for a more-entrepreneurial/ less-government-managed economy given the psychological and economic benefits that it brings to everyone who’s willing to work hard to get ahead. But Phelps didn’t provide much of a roadmap to recover our economic vitality when he wrote “Mass Flourishing.” On the other hand another economist, Oren Cass, has several ideas about boosting upward mobility for all American workers given the much-changed country that we’re living in today. (See my 2019 post A Winter of Work Needs More Color for an overview of Cass’s proposals, including incentivizing all of the country’s working families instead of subsidizing only a few of its most impoverished ones.)
 
In line with both Phelps’s and Cass’s thinking, we need to come to a more inclusive approach to the harms that follow when we stifle individual initiative and deprive a vast majority of the workerforce of its financial and psychological rewards.

A study that was reported out of Yale University this week argues that the lack of upward mobility early in life increases mortality rates in all young adults who confront it. While the emphasis in the study’s presentation was on groups that suffer the most (like young urban Blacks), it’s important to note the pernicious effects that are felt by every young person when they feel that they can’t improve their personal fortunes.  A similar message came from studying pockets of white rural America that are dying from opioid abuse and suicide as chronicled in Angus Deaton’s and Anne Case’s ground-breaking “Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism,” a book I briefly discussed here in another earlier post. 
 
Many of the researchers and prognosticators who have confronted these problems have argued that “intergenerational wealth accumulation” is essential for upward economic mobility. In other words, how much your parents or even grandparents “had” and “left to you” may be as significant (if not more) to upward mobility than your personal work ethic. Some observers, like the author of this New York Magazine essay, clearly agree:

Without the safety net of accumulated family wealth, the children of self-made men and women can be ‘unmade’ in a hurry. With such wealth, by contrast, the trust-fund deadbeat’s child can follow her grandparents’ footsteps back through Harvard.

Thus, making America an exceptionally [upwardly] mobile society [again] will require a greater degree of income and wealth redistribution than most politicians would dare to suggest: To get more poor kids up the ‘ladder of opportunity’ we’re going to have to shorten the space between its rungs.

With my caveat that it’s not just “poor kids” but (more accurately) nearly everyone in the middle, lower middle and lowest classes, I am reluctant to argue that the same bipartisan government that nearly killed the American Dream should be given the mandate of “redistributing” the accumulated wealth at the top of our economy’s pyramid. But something needs to be done. If unlocking the nation’s sleeping economic vitality can’t be driven by wise leaders, than it is likely to be advanced by protests (and worse) on the streets.  

Projecting my hopes for upward mobility onto the American Dream doesn’t have to become a reminder of my failures as a worker, it simply doesn’t. And allowing that kind of resentment to keep accruing is a dangerous thing.
 
Just as the Brits saw their reflected glory in their Queen and wanted to thank her for it, we can recover our reflected glory in the promises of that Dream—but we’ll have to want it as a country, almost more than we want anything else, given how hard that revitalization process is likely to be.
 

This post was adapted from my September 18, 2022 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here. You can subscribe (and not miss any of them) by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

 

Too Many Whose Jobs Aim To Hold Us Together Are Getting Burned Out

By Leave a Comment

While the institutions that serve our most important commitments generally receive our support (or at least our tax dollars), we’re not sustaining the flesh and blood workers who toil within them, too often treating them like disposable assets that are easily replaced–when nothing could be farther from the truth. 

  • In our schools, it’s the teachers, administrators and PTA members who aim to assure parents and communities that their children are reaping the benefits of a good education. 
  •  In our libraries, it’s the librarians who select and recommend the books that will be available for a community to read.    
  •  In our houses of worship, it’s the men and women “of the cloth,” who stand between their congregations and an outside world that’s sorely in need of their faith, hope and love.
  •  In our police and military organizations, it’s the officers who try to bridge a community’s desire for safety with the common threats that it faces every day, whether near or far from home. 
  •  In our political organizations, it’s the public servants who safeguard our votes and the overall integrity of our governance from the mobs that increasingly threaten them from all directions.

These men and women occupy pivot points between their institution’s lofty commitments and the public’s demand that its interests be served. 
 
Sadly, too many of them are collapsing under the strain of conflicting desires within these same communities.
 
Where does the rising toxicity of this “push and pull” leave these essential workers?   Far too often, it’s hurt, demoralized, disabled.
 
And where does it leave the rest of us when they can’t do their jobs anymore, when “other good men and women” see what happened to them and decline to take their places, when their jobs go unfilled or are taken on by those with far narrower views of the public interest?  
 
Where do their voids leave the rest of us?

There are increasingly divided pews in America’s houses of worship.

I have a personal perspective on one of these pivotal jobs that recently got activated while reading an interview with a pastor who’d been forced to abandon his ministry—and his “calling” in life—because of divisions within his congregation that even his Job-like efforts had been unable to bridge.
 
Before I headed to law school, I studied the history of religion in America as well as ethics in the company of a much larger cohort of men and women who were pursuing careers in the ministry.  “Master of Divinity” was the professional degree they were after as they studied the Old and New Testaments, the rituals of liturgy, the growing competition between psychologists and ministers, and how to give an engaging sermon on Sunday mornings. 
 
It was a “slice of life” that came vividly back to me when I read Dan White’s heart-breaking interview in the New York Times this week. 
 
Fresh in my mind as I read it was a post I’d written back in January called “Turning On The Rescuers.”  You may recall its story about a school superintendent in Joplin Missouri who courageously stepped into the breach after deadly tornados destroyed half of his community’s schools. Although the multi-year rebuilding effort that followed exhausted him, his personal consequences worsened when some disgruntled residents drove him from public office with cruel allegations after their hopes around community rebuilding became mired in frustration. Their attacks made him contemplate suicide and, after a period of recovery, take a new job with an organization that counsels former public officials on how to redeploy their leadership skills after vocal minorities among their constituents undermined them. At the time, he called it “an exclusive club that nobody wants to belong to.”  
 
(Sad to say, it’s a next generation American job if there ever was one:  rehabilitating helpers that are abandoned by their communities when some of its attack dogs turn them into targets.)

These men and women occupy pivot points between their institution’s lofty commitments and the public’s demand that its interests be served. 

Dan White, Jr. wanted nothing more than to bring a community of the faithful together. Originally from upstate New York, he became a Baptist minister in the early 2000’s. After a terrible flood devastated the towns around his church, he deepened his vocation by seizing an opportunity to grow his caring community when he jumped into the recovery effort.

We were going to take care of people who weren’t inside our Christian community… caring about people you wouldn’t actually be friends with [already] and helping them overcome that boundary. And so that was another big moment for me in rallying people to care [about one another].

At the same time, his outreach coincided with growing publicity about sex abuse involving the clergy, with many no longer seeing pastors as “shepherds” as much as “wolves.” After attending some social events and “taking the air out of the room” when he identified himself as a minister, White said he stopped sharing with strangers “that I was a pastor,” for the first time feeling “some shame about having that role.”  
 
He began to re-focus almost exclusively on his congregation and, in particular, on their building of a “multipurpose space” (for youth groups, for refugees, to have a place to gather for coffee) and while the majority of his church supported it, a few were opposed. White thought that limited dissent was normal until some who were against the new space made it personal, threatening to “ruin him” if he went forward with it. These opponents sent a mass email to the entire congregation accusing him of being “a bad leader.” As he later described it:

a little faction of people in our church [contended] that this decision was really just my mastermind psychological skills to convince people to do something they didn’t really want to do with their money.

And I realized at that moment that being a pastor is this really precarious little spot you sit in that people project all of their wants, and needs, and demands, expectations, unrealized hopes onto you. And when you don’t meet them, they are posed with a response. Either they’re going to reject you, or ruin you, or abandon you.

And that’s ultimately what started to settle into my own ministry, was just this fear of being abandoned and losing people, and being interpreted in very villainous, demonizing ways and not knowing how to like — that’s the shame. Not knowing how to get that off me.

Around the 2012 election involving Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney, White began to feel even more demoralized about his commitment to bring people together in a caring community. “A dear friend whom I loved” in the congregation approached him and said that as a conservative, she didn’t feel safe in his church, felt “judged here,” and couldn’t remain “with this kind of judgment.” White apologized profusely, told her “you do belong here,” but couldn’t change her mind. Within days, another couple told him about their need to depart because there was “no space for us here” with their more liberal views. White described how he was “in shock” that people with contrary political perspectives “didn’t think they could belong in the same community. And I didn’t really have words to keep them.” When they left his church, it felt like they were abandoning him too.
 
Matters hardly improved as the next election approached. White characterized it this way: 

the election of Trump just threw battery acid on the whole reality. Where people would never have felt comfortable calling another brother or sister in Christ, you know, a horrible name like a Marxist or a white supremacist or a baby killer, I mean, these things just started to — they were just flowing off people’s tongues when Trump got elected.

And then in 2020 came the pandemic, with new opportunities for divisiveness and demonization, like when a church stops meeting in person to reduce Covid’s transmission or decides to reopen, but with a mask policy.

For White, It had finally become too much.

He appreciated the extent of his downward spiral when he took a vacation with his wife. White was shocked by his need to sleep for long periods. When he was awake, his hands were often shaking so much he suspected Parkinson’s. But neurological testing after he returned to work revealed something else entirely: signs of post-traumatic stress. Except instead of PTSD, which is often connected to the experience of a single violent act, his injury was from the accumulation of trauma he’d experienced over almost 20 years of ministry. 
 
How he’d gotten to this traumatized place became clear after a therapist encouraged him to do “an emotional and relational audit.” With her encouragement, White mapped out: 

people that I had loved that were no longer in my life. I had to name people that had attacked me. And then I also had to name events that I was privy to in people’s lives that were traumatic for them, and I had to be present to them. 

And I mapped out, over a period of 20 years, over 180 people that had come into my life or left in my life. And I had just tucked all of this stuff under the carpet. And what she called it — she’s like these are all little deaths. These are all little deaths that you’ve experienced. And you haven’t grieved [over] any of them.

Instead, he carried the grief and loss inside, and slowly but surely they were breaking him down.

Even with this insight, White was “really having a hard time believing that something I loved” had damaged him this much.  He also knew that he’d probably have to stop being a pastor to escape the trauma, but “I just didn’t want to give up on people, and I love them, and I didn’t want to be a quitter.” 
 
When you are “called” to a career by your convictions but become unable to do it because of factors beyond your control, you can suffer “moral injury,” or the same kinds of trauma that many health care professionals experienced during Covid when they could no longer be caregivers in the ways that they needed to be within an overwhelmed health care system. (I wrote about this previously in “The Moral Injury to Caregivers When They Can No Longer Provide Care.”) 
 
White went on to leave his church, to tears from some in his congregation but also to accusations of abandonment from others in their hour of need, so even as he walked out the door he continued to be torn apart. Without a job, he had the space to realize that he couldn’t be alone among faith leaders in suffering this kind of damage, while also realizing that his colleagues had never talked to him about the destructive forces that were buffeting them. He also searched for, but couldn’t find, a version of the Betty Ford Rehabilitation Center that poorly paid pastors could afford. Mulling over its necessity led White and his wife to open a healing refuge for burned-out pastors, which they run to this day.  

Much like that former school superintendent in Joplin Missouri, White is working to heal moral injuries suffered in a different (but related) corner of the job market. He and his fellow pastors share the experience of being vilified for their efforts to bring people together during divisive times. But the injuries they share go deeper than name-calling and hurt feelings. When members of their congregations could no longer remain, they abandon their pastors as well–a string of “tiny deaths” that need to be mourned before healing can begin.
 
We know that injuries like this are occurring in other “pivotal jobs” too—to our teachers, librarians, school board and PTA members, to our election officials and vote counters, to members of our police forces and to key military personnel—all of whom need to be ready to deliver on our most important commitments while being assailed or abandoned at every turn by those they are struggling to serve.

These beleaguered men and women are a dwindling civic resource, and nearly impossible to replace when they leave public service. 
 
The dog days of August are as good a time as any to think about where we’re headed when it comes to some of the most essential jobs in our communities and what we can (and must) do to shore up the brave individuals who are still bold enough to do them.
 

This post was adapted from my August 7, 2022 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes (because of reader reactions) I post the content from one of them here. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

Turning on the Rescuers

By Leave a Comment

Just as I was starting to settle into a new year, I was seized by this story on the radio.
 
It was about a kind of pattern:  how people who dive into natural disaster recovery–helping to produce miracles while doing so, and being initially heralded as miracle workers by nearly everyone–seem to become, in the months of hard work and challenges that follow, scapegoats for everything that has not been achieved, and eventually a kind of public enemy.
 
These first responders often lose their jobs and the luster (if not more) on their reputations as the community around them frays, becomes less willing to follow anyone’s hopeful lead, the disillusion sets in, the naysayers step up, and fingers of blame get pointed.
 
In this particular story, the arc from celebrating the rescuers to demonizing them was navigated by a heartland community. “The fixes” were to schools destroyed by a deadly tornado and to improving the overall quality of education during rebuilding efforts in a small Missouri city.  Their catastrophe always required group commitment, sacrifice and solidarity—not merely the efforts of a few first-responders—but the community that initially followed their lead and called them heroes melted into disappointment as their efforts fell short of its differing hopes, and many of their fellows eventually turned on them.
 
Somebody has to be to blame, you see.  Surely the shortfalls that followed are not my fault, me and my neighbors, due to our failure to cohere, to bury our selfish interests, or to give our initial “heroes” the benefit of our doubts.  The “mess as we see it” has to be the fault of the folks who jumped into the breach in the first place. 
 
I almost said:  foolishly jumped into the breach. 
 
But what would saying this mean? If the most willing and most able of a community’s possible saviors hesitated–and then stepped back, shaking their heads–when they’d almost joined the rescue effort after an unprecedented weather event, an out-of-control wildfire, too much water or not enough? 
 
What would it mean if good men and women decided that it wasn’t worth the inevitable death threats, the risks to their families and their own mental health, the possible loss of their jobs and reputations if they were to step up and respond to a physical calamity in their community when they might be in the best positions to do so?
 
Would saying “I pass” matter less if the calamity affected everyone’s health (like a pandemic) or the community’s ability to govern itself and fend off chaos (given its political divides)?

Political philosopher Edmund Burke famously said, in a phrase that’s almost become hackneyed in its repetition: 

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing.

So what would it really mean if enough good men and women regularly decided that it wasn’t worth the personal costs “of their coming to the rescue” because of the likelihood that their own community would eventually turn on them in personally destructive ways?

When the going gets rough, it’s always easier to say “No” than to say “Yes,” and
to continuously put our support behind our initial “Yes.”

Of course, we’ve seen this movie before.
 
In recent history—which is written from the distance of a half-century or more—few leaders twinkle more brightly than Winston Churchill. 
 
I fell in love with him and his leadership style all over again while I was reading Eric Larson’s recent book about the man behind-the-scenes at Dunkirk and the Blitz—a biographical sketch that was only possible because of newly accessible diaries that had been written by members of Churchill’s family and staff at the time. (Here’s a link to my discussion of that often delightful profile in “Two Books Worth Reading” from around a year and a half ago.)
 
Yet despite Churchill’s ultimately heroic efforts to step into a breach that had been created by flailing national leadership at the dawn of World War II, the British peoples’ gratitude wasn’t deep enough or its memory long enough to continue to back him after the War had been won, and more than his ego suffered as a consequence.
 
Churchill not only lost that post-War election, he became a scapegoat for those who bemoaned the cost in lives and sterling of the War effort, the loss of the British Empire, and once Victory in Europe was declared on VE Day, a “victory” that no longer tasted quite as sweet. 

British voters didn’t give him a vote of confidence or help him to guide their country into peacetime. It’s hardly of a stretch to say that they blamed Churchill for everything that hadn’t gone the way that they would have preferred it.

We’re also seeing this movie today.  Whatever you may think of Anthony Fauci (infectious disease doctor, media personality and CDC spokesman), ask yourselves:  Does any 81-year old man really need daily death threats, to put his family in regular peril, to risk a long and hard-earned reputation for admitting when he’s wrong and helping his country stave off deadly viruses?  In his fall from early hero to current villain in many eyes, what’s most amazing to me is that he hasn’t already said: “To hell with it.” 
 
That’s also what grabbed my attention in the story I was hearing about Joplin Missouri.  Looking back nearly a decade—from disaster in 2011, to interventions by the first responders, to celebrating these individuals as community heroes, and to the mental health toll that followed for so many of them as members of their community proceeded to tear them down—I was struck by what seemed to be the increasingly inevitable “life cycle” of hero-to-villain.
 
Both Churchill and Fauci would surely have identified with these Joplin officials who struggled mightily to help rebuild a mile-wide stretch of town that had been torn to shreds by a deadly, 200-mile-an-hour, so-called “multiple vortex” tornado—only to have too many of these locals eventually turn on them when their post-disaster hopes were frustrated by a lack of funds or a unity of purpose.
 
There’s one more thing that peaked my interest in this story. I’ve spent time in Joplin, Missouri so I felt that I knew at least something about this place and its people. 
 
Some years ago, Joplin was ground zero in a multi-district securities matter that I was involved in as a lawyer. I was headquartered for a month of depositions in nearby Springfield (see The Simpsons) and made a kind of pilgrimage to nearby Joplin, where key players in the alleged investment scheme lived. The cases involved the buying and selling of interests in ethanol plants, ethanol is a by-product of corn, and there are cornfields nearly everywhere in these parts. At the time, I visited Joplin for its silo-full of ethanol entrepreneurs and accountants and because I wanted to know whether their “famous” barbeque was as good as everybody said it was. (“Yes,” to that!)
 
Anyway, the tornado clusters that hit Joplin several years later were devastating to this farming and light industrial community. They killed 158 people outright, injured more than 1100, and caused property damage totaling $2.8 billion, the highest in Missouri’s history. 
 
Joplin’s loss and recovery are also relevant today because of the devastating series of tornados that ripped a 100-mile long path through Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee and Missouri (just to the south-east of Joplin) less than a month ago. The life-cycles of hero-to-villain are likely just beginning to turn for the first-responders in those near-by communities.
 
Immediately after the Joplin tornado struck in 2011, those with the relevant job responsibilities there immediately stepped up and several were interviewed for the story that followed, including Bryan Wicklund (Joplin’s chief building official, who confronted how ill-prepared the community’s building standards had been); Keith Stammer (the City’s emergency management director who had to coordinate relief efforts and wanted to “think big” when rebuilding); and C.J Huff (the school superintendent who confronted serious damage to more than half of Joplin’s schools). Vicky Mieseler, the executive director of mental health clinics in Joplin, and Doug Walker, a clinical psychologist who travels worldwide helping communities struck by disaster, were also interviewed for this story.
 
Their accounts were as sad as they were striking, Huff’s (the school superintendant’s) story in particular. 
 
Mieseler (the local mental health worker) recalled that the best thing that happened after the tornado struck in May was hearing Huff tell the community’s parents that students would be able to go back to school in August, only three months later.  Given the extent of school building damage and the fact that many students and residents were homeless, his announcement had a stunning impact in countering the community’s despair. 
 
Against the Herculean timeline he set for himself, Huff marshaled local resources and managed to re-open schools in August by building classrooms in abandoned big-box stores. During those early months, he describes himself as “a walking heart attack” as he tried to make the school year happen:

I gained about, gosh, 60 pounds, I think. I’m a stress eater. And we all have our coping mechanisms, and mine was ice cream and lots of coffee – lots of coffee and lots of ice cream.”

It made Huff a local hero, and he soon became a national one too, building on a reputation he’d earned before the tornado by helping to launch Bright Futures, an initiative that brought together the school district, local businesses, faith-based organizations and community members to help meet students’ most basic needs, an effort that had grown to 30 affiliates across several states. 

During Huff’s heroic phase: President Obama honored him at a local graduation ceremony one year after the tornado, but as re-building continued and hit the inevitable potholes, his growing notoriety may have worked against him.

As the nitty-gritty of rebuilding Joplin’s schools continued, growing community push-back began to take a toll on Huff. Doug Morris (the disaster psychologist) says Huff became exhausted and distraught as locals began to fight his proposals, and ultimately him personally, at almost every turn. 

Huff was demonized by some residents. He says he considered suicide….

Those attacks included a Change.org campaign to terminate his employment as school superintendant (the termination petition ultimately gained 486 signatures) and the platform became one of several sounding boards for his opponents. The comments posted there refused to give him any credit for his early accomplishments or much (if any) support for the school rebuilding efforts that he championed:

– T Carl: It’s time to take action. CJ Huff has performed gross misconduct in his role as Superintendent of our school system. He is a detriment to our kids, the parents of Joplin’s school children and the taxpayers of Joplin, MO.
 
– Brayden Provins: He’s the worst superintendent the school district has ever had. He’s ran the schools into the ground.
 
– J. Benifield:  I have several grandchildren in the Joplin R-8 school district, with some BULLIED everyday. No one does anything about it and Mr. Huff seems to think there’s “no problem with bullying”….yes, yes there is. These kids don’t need all of this drama from Mr. Huff. His disrespect is deplorable. He needs to focus on the kids AND teachers. We CAN do better.

– Randy Long: He is all for himself and not the kids or the teachers.

Local mental health worker Miesler said Huff was hardly alone in experiencing these kinds of attacks from Joplin residents. “Several years after the tornado,” she said, “you started to see major change in leadership positions” across the community. In addition to Huff, who went on to resign of his own accord, this included the Joplin’s City Manager among many others. 
 
Huff, who is now working as a disaster consultant, reports that “every single one of his [current] colleagues” is a former public official who was ousted from his or her role after responding to a local disaster.  He went on to lament: 

One of the things I learned is that when emotion and logic collide, emotion wins every time. It didn’t matter what we brought, whether it was data or subject matter experts. It didn’t matter.

And about these former public official and new co-workers, he said with a rueful laugh:

We call it the exclusive club that nobody wants to belong to.

Maybe Huff, the other former leaders in Joplin, and public officials elsewhere who had been ousted after responding to community disasters let their initial status as local heroes go to their heads and started to act arrogantly and unresponsively. But then again, maybe not. I couldn’t gather enough information for this post to know whether Joplin’s post-tornado leaders acted like heroes throughout or devolved into something far less than that. It’s certain that Huff and the others weren’t perfect.
 
But the two mental health experts who spoke in this story did so because they believed that the hero-to-villain life cycle after natural disasters is an increasingly common one today. It apparently happens almost everywhere, with considerable health consequences for the initially acclaimed rescuers. What these mental health experts didn’t say—and maybe didn’t have to—is that it’s not just those who step into the fray during natural disasters. Those who attempt to provide leadership in any kind of community crisis today are likely to face the same retribution and personal health consequences despite being celebrated in the early days as heroes. 
 
No one should jump into the fray of an emergency who isn’t both willing and able to do so. But if you can do it and deep-down want to do it because of your abilities and the extent of your community’s need, will any reasonable person actually “jump in” and “take the lead” if they know what they’re probably “buying” for themselves and their families at the back-end?  

Community members who lack these rescuer’s abilities, track records of service, courage and strength of character can turn on you in a flash, accusing you of serving yourself instead of them, of being incompetent, deplorable and worse. “Sticks and stones,” yes, but their daily assaults can be debilitating, especially when the stakes are high and fewer and fewer around you “seem to have your back.”
 
The shame, of course, is that good men and women—and maybe the best of them—will step back from any kind of crisis leadership, leaving it in the hands of the less able and less bold, or even to charlatans.
 
Perhaps this is what we are already seeing in those who stand for elected office, run our school boards, libraries, and other community organizations: far fewer good people than we need to do our most important public work, because we’re scaring them away before they even get involved.

It doesn’t have to be this way, but increasingly it seems to be.
 

This post was adapted from my January 9, 2022 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes (but not always) I post the content from one of them here. You can subscribe and not miss any by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

Recent Posts

Follow Me

David Griesing Twitter @worklifereward