This is from a psychology textbook Lifespan Development (5th Edition, Turner & Helms):

"Stress can be defined as the common non-specific response of the body to any demand made upon it, be it psychological or physiological. Stressors are external events or conditions that affect the equilibrium of the organism. Put another way, stressors are those situations placing the person in a stressful state. For some, stress is self-imposed; that is, some persons worry about what never happens. Some common stressors include fatigue, disease, physical injury, and emotional conflict. The latter might include tension and frustration. Day-to-day stressors might include financial worries, relationship worries, pollution, pressures at work, and so on. Obviously, stressors become very individualized, and a number of them may be working together at the same time. One person's stressor may be viewed with indifference by someone else. In this sense, one person's poison may be another's pleasure (Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Noshpitz & Coddington, 1990).

Most stress experts (e.g. Insel & Roth, 1991, Smith & Smith, 1990; S.E. Taylor, 1991) maintain that different categories of stressors can be established. For example, social stressors reflect our interaction with others and might include such conditions as crowding, noise, or social pressures to conform. Psychological stressors create mental stress and encompass, among others, frustration, conflict, and anxiety. Physical stressors create physiological demands on the body and might include hunger, thirst, heat, cold, injury, pollutants, toxicants, or poor nutrition. Finally, endemic stressors are those situations that produce 'passive stress' because they can't be controlled, such as inflation or the destructive presence of nuclear arms.

Stressors should thus be viewed as conditions producing bodily turbulence or some type of reactive change that triggers bodily reactions. But we must acknowledge, too, that both good and bad can interfere with teh body's equilibrium and create stress. Eustress, or positive stress, occurs when the body's reactive change is put to productive use. For example, athletes often use the anxiety or tension in their bodies before a game as a method of psyching themselves up for the competition. Some researchers, such as Charles Caroll and Dean Miller (1990), feel that eustress provides interest, comfort, and excitement to life. It helps us concentrate better, focus our efforts, and reach our peak of efficiency. In fact, too little stress actually contributes to what is a boring and joyless existence.

Distress, however, is harmful and unpleasant stress. It occurs when the body and mind are worn down from repeated exposure to an unpleasant situation. In this respect, stress can affect the body's overall immunity, nervous system, hormone levels, and metabolic rates. Whe one's emotional state leads to real physical illnesses, the disease is called psychosomatic (psycho=mind, soma=body). Such disorders include hypertension, headache, arthritis, rheumatism, peptic ulcers, obesity, backache, skin disorders, impotence, menstral irregularities, and possibly even some types of heart ailments (Rice, 1992; S.E. Taylor 1991)."

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/general+adaptation+syndrome

The concern of Buddhism, of course, is not merely with physical health. Distress (or strain) is the acute problem that medical science and clinical psychology addresses. Buddhism, rather, deals with consciousness as a whole, that which is subject to constant stressors. Even eustress, from the Buddhist point of view, while contributing to an alert state of mind that is motivated to act (a useful, and interesting, state of mind) is not necessarily the same asNirvana (unbinding, full release) or Bodhi (awakening - calm, clear, unbiased, and awake).  

Posted by tonygalli at 6:58 AM EST

Updated: Friday, 24 March 2017 5:28 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

I know I haven't worked on this blog in a while. I didn't plan on it. However, I thought if anyone was still coming here I should probably redirect them to the new blog I've been working on: http://tonygalli.wordpress.com/ 

Enjoy!

Posted by tonygalli at 9:02 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 8 February 2016 1:07 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

I’m leaving the country for a while. This will probably be my last blog entry for some time, I don’t know how long.

No matter how much you love America, you have to face the facts. There is a growing debt, a huge trade deficit, and every day billions are spent on a military occupation of a country bogged down in sectarian violence. The war is beset by ill-defined objectives and virtually no strategy to achieve them. China’s population, wealth, and infrastructure are growing, and they are now a major player in the oil game (they also own a large share of our government bonds to help pay for the war in Iraq). In fact, it’s because of restricted access to oil in the past, during and after the Cold War, that they’re not growing faster. And the threat of al Qaeda, well… we all know about that.

For past empires, these types of conditions led to ruin. Given the individualism and ultra-hedonism in American mainstream culture, in tandem with reactionary, cultish religious fundamentalism, it’s hard not to conclude that the US is going the way of Rome. American dominance won’t last forever. I can only hope that the dwindling power and influence of America will not lead to international anarchy, and that America will be able to shape up internally as a result.

Whether America will crumble in my lifetime or not has little, if anything, to do with my going abroad. My decision is based upon personal circumstances and motivations (though my financial situation is certainly related to what’s going on in the macrocosm).

For over a century the US has been the land of opportunity. The right amount of space, capital, and resources make it very attractive to immigrants. As the debate over the swarm of illegal immigration from Mexico makes clear, we are still a primo destination for many. Irrespective of our social freedom, a wonderful constitution and bill of rights (which unscrupulous politicians never stop trying to shred), coming to America for many is simply a business decision. Sometimes our decision to let in political refugees has been a mixed blessing (we’ve harbored terrorists from Cuba because they were anti-Castro). We can be proud, however, that innocents who needed asylum from torture or persecution (religious, political, ethnic, etc.) have found safe haven in the US. Still, that doesn’t change the reality that America excels in economic power, and therefore attracts the bulk of its population for that purpose. As long as you’re willing to work, you can make money here. Sending a day’s worth of earnings back an immigrant’s home country, due to the conversion rate alone, can feed a family for a week in some countries.

The US has an immigration problem while some places have an emigration problem. This is proof to some that America is number 1. I have spoken to immigrants who love America, because things are so much better here than in their home countries, and I have also spoken to those who are miserable here, but aren’t able to leave. Commentators who assume that western-style finance capitalism is the absolute best system to live under do not even consider the possibility that some people, through no fault of their own, do not prosper under it, and that, perhaps in the future, if not now, there will be better alternatives.

Love it or leave it

I’ve often been irked by that statement. Are those two sentiments diametrically opposed? I can’t mention our problems and express dismay over the direction our country is going without being an ex-patriot? There are certain things I hate, and certain things I love. There are things I can appreciate anywhere, or hate anywhere.

I have expressed my patriotism by trying to make a positive contribution to American society. And if I live elsewhere, I can contribute, as best I can, to that society as I see fit. I’m not leaving America because I hate it. I can’t say that I’m brave, either. I’m not renouncing my American citizenship. As much as we’re hated, being an American citizen still comes with benefits and respect (or fear) in the world.

But I'm not frightened of going outside of the US either, even in the area I'll be in (South Central Asia). I'm excited, really. Some people never leave the US, or won't even consider it, because of their mental isolationism, the "golden cage" as the Peruvians say. But several Americans have admitted to me how they wish they could do what I'm doing, if they had the chance. I have that chance now and I'm taking advantage of it. How more American could I be?

Posted by tonygalli at 11:42 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 8 February 2016 1:02 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

I was in the doctor’s office the other day and perused the June issue of Newsweek. I was actually looking for another article, but happened to come across George Will’s commentary on black militancy, dependency, and the soft bigotry of lowered expectations, based on a book by black writer Shelby Steele.

Will correctly hit upon a problem in American society in which people look for excuses to deflect personal responsibility (and guess what, white people do it all the time, not just those pesky minorities “looking for a hand out”).

But there is a lot wrong with this commentary. Identity politics does not hold that biology, or identity, is destiny because of a said groups’ inherent characteristics, but because of outward circumstances. It presumes that society can change, and so can the lives of those seeking more freedom, autonomy, or what have you. When it comes to race, assuming that it's a valid category and not just a social construct, biology can be destiny, a destiny of disempowerment. It doesn’t have to be. To be fair, identity politics can degenerate into a regressive psychology. (No matter how much is given, it’s not enough, society will always be wrong, because its purpose is to serve the needs of an infantile ego with unlimited wants.)  If it’s true that black militants and white liberals polluted the civil rights movement by defining black people as a collective, then why do the same thing and put the onus on black people as a whole? Rather than saying that black people should be more responsible for their behavior, we should just say that individuals period should own behavior.

According to Will, Steele's book argues that racism in the life of a black person today is an event but not a condition. This means that the playing field is fair, even if there are unfair events (and life is unfair for everyone, in equal proportions). Granted, racism is not as bad now as it once was. There are still outright racists, who sometimes harass minorities or commit hate crimes, but these incidents happen randomly and are condemned by the mainstream, unlike the days of yore.

The problem is that there are events in the lives of minorities that happen so regularly they often go unnoticed. There are inconveniences, which individuals cope with in different ways, such as taxis passing black people by while these same cabs pull over immediately for a white person, or black people being followed around in stores. The reality show “Black. White.” (I generally hate reality shows, but this one was one of the few interesting sociological experiments) outlined this. For example, the only black couple in a bar was also the only one asked for pay upfront with a credit card. If you are going to say that if the majority of crime wasn’t done by blacks, they wouldn’t be subjected to these conditions, you are doing the same thing you just blamed liberals for – treating blacks as a collective rather than on an individual basis.

Discrimatory events, whether random or regular, don't necessarily cause an individual to commit a crime. It may or may not be a contributing factor, depending on the case. That doesn’t even matter; it’s wrong because no one should go through that.

Worse than this, though, is being discriminated against in the job market, in housing (good neighborhoods usually = good schools for children), and for other benefits. This is more than just a trifling inconvenience.

To say that this isn't structural because it's (usually) not done on purpose by those in power who discriminate, and not part of some deliberate plan to disempower minorities misses the point. 

There is an unfair burden. In order to disprove a large standing assumption that a certain minority group is inherently inferior – morally, intellectually, spiritually – some take it upon themselves to be better just to be equal. Even though it's not PC to say outloud in American society today that a race is inferior, it's not a stretch to say that many Americans still believe it. Those in the majority might not want to believe that a race is inferior, but when they see certain behavior on the street or see criminals on the news they have enough evidence that, in their minds, lends truth to the stereotypes. Therefore, some minorities try to overachieve in order to overcompensate.

This can have two effects. One, it puts an extraordinary stress on the overachiever, maybe even causing that person to snap. To a racist, this is just more proof that the race is inferior, because even the good ones go bad. If he or she screws up, it can’t just be a person making a mistake, it’s a black person doing it. If a white person screws up, it might be because of other signifiers, but whiteness is not one of them. The second effect is that some of the overachievers might go out of their way to denounce others of their race in order to fit in.

Might Steele be an example of this? I don’t know. I wouldn’t say this is in the same vein of Bill Cosby’s criticism. I sense that Cosby really cares about the plight of black people, even if he views it as largely their fault. Steele is more focused on an ideology. Since he advocates individualism, this is less about the plight of black people as a whole, which, categorically, is considered dehumanizing anyway, and probably more about the author himself. He doesn’t want to be judged for being black, but on his individual merits.

I think that's fair, everyone has a right to be respected as an individual. The great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. also believed in meritocracy. But Dr. King also pulled no punches when criticizing the realities of structural racism, poverty, and even American imperialism. He may have had ties to the Communist Party USA, and was considered a threat not only to racists but to the greater power structure. He was investigated by the FBI, and some members of his family even believe that they had a hand in his murder.

However, I think "guilt-politics" can only go so far. I happen to think reparations for slavery are a very bad idea, even if well-intended. It is true that many in power today got there because of a legacy of family advantages, benefitting from both racism and colonialism. Even some conservatives admit that much. But individuals today should not take credit or blame for the sins of their ancestors or the injustices experienced by them. Instead, the focus should be on real instances of systemic racism that still exists, whether de facto segregation, racial profiling, or voter fraud and intimidation. I’m on the fence with affirmative action. If universities are required to eliminate it, then I think they should also eliminate family legacies.

While Will's commentary makes some fair points, in the hands of some this line of reasoning serves another purpose. It’s like when white people say “I’m not racist because I have a black friend.” It’s easier to shame black people as a whole if you hide behind a black person who agrees with you.

Posted by tonygalli at 10:19 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 5 October 2014 11:56 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

A few days ago I watched most of "When the Levees Broke," Spike Lee’s excellent documentary about the effects of Hurricane Katrina.

One thing the movie revealed is an underlying contempt for New Orleans. The outpouring of aid from compassion fatigued American citizens, a great example of a generous people in terms of private philanthropy, to New Orleans has unfortunately done little to alleviate their situation.

Why this contempt? Is it because it’s a city with a raucous history of bawdy fun or its liberal racial- mixing? Maybe during the Victorian era this would be true, but today you can hardly say that American mainstream culture is not oriented towards fun or pluralism. Maybe it’s because they are an overwhelmingly Catholic city in a Protestant majority country. Then again, I believe that’s true of Chicago as well. Or maybe it’s because of its French roots. The history of America involved the competition of three antagonistic European empires for land and resources – the French, the British, and the Spanish. Anti-French sentiment goes back hundreds of years. A more obvious explanation is the fact the a majority of the city is American-American. Certainly the high crime rate of New Orleans might explain why it’s not held in high regard, as well as its rampant poverty. We would like to forget that these are major factors of the larger American society. If the wealthiest country in the world can’t take care of its own, what does that say about us? Classism, racism, and to a lesser extend anti-French/Catholic sentiment, might be factors. Or maybe it’s something else.

The Konye West incident was a key moment in the film. At a benefit raising event, he went off script on national television and told us how he really felt – “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people.” If this was just a natural disaster, and everyone involved – politicians, the army core of engineers, FEMA - did as much as they could to prevent this disaster, it would be primarily a day of mourning, and shouldn’t be politicized by Democrats or Republican foes to score points. But it is political and it is a time for finger-pointing. Those who were supposed to protect the people of New Orleans failed them. It wasn’t because of a lack of money. This is a deliberate result of a political ideology that holds that the federal government should be involved as little as possible in the lives of American citizens. It translates as contempt for the weak and the actualization of life-boat ethics. Normal life is, for the most part, not a life boat. It’s not until people are put in life-boat situations that it becomes “dog eat dog” and the “might makes right”. Barbara Bush’s comment about Katrina victims making out well is telling. What’s more telling is her response to the victims. She gave money to business start-ups only if they bought her son’s software.

One commentator in the movie noted that Louisiana provides about 30% of America’s oil and gas, in addition to other resources, but the profits go to energy companies rather than the citizens of the state. Major corporations located in this state provide no revenue for it either. Sound familiar? Just imagine if the people of Louisiana decided to secede from the federal government. Not that they would win that fight, but it would certainly be understandable. I don’t advocate for war to gain independence, but if they ever decided to govern their own affairs and take care of their own, I’d say “vive le révolution!” 

Posted by tonygalli at 1:30 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 17 March 2007 9:09 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

I’ve written a lot about socially engaged Buddhism - what it is, what it isn’t. But my entries on this topic so far have been theoretical and academic, historical without many concrete examples.

Thich Nhat Hanh is the one who gets credit for the term, but he is not the only major Buddhist social activist. There is Aung San Suu Kyi, who is still under house arrest in Myanmar. And of course there is the Dalai Lama, whose courageous struggle against the Chinese government resonates around the world. But there is another figure who doesn't get the attention he deserves - Sulak Sivaraksa.

He has written dozens of books and articles on Engaged Buddhism. He has received, among others, the Gandhi Millennium Award and the Right Livelihood Award. Although the latter has been called the "Alternative Nobel Prize," it is not a trivial award, as it has also been received by the likes of Vandana Shiva and Mordechai Vanunu. 

Sivaraksa founded a social science review that analyzed social and political issues while living under dictatorship years before social work became the major force it is in the West. He guided several important NGO’s in Thailand and continued his work under exile.

Sivaraksa is a model, not only for Buddhists, but for any religious or spiritual social activist.

Posted by tonygalli at 3:08 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 8 February 2016 1:07 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Many are alarmed that Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion (though demographic stats can be misleading, it’s unclear how much is due to conversion and how much is due to natural birth rates). It’s becoming more and more apparent to many people in the world that Islam is the worst religion (hey, we all need a common enemy). Those who try to counteract this image problem get labelled as apologists, or worse. If defending Islam’s image seems like an apology, maybe that’s because so many try to put as negative a spin on Islam as they can.

To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, Islam contains some of the best religious tendencies. Sufism is inherently flexibility and has intermixed with other mystical paths. Islam’s holy book says it’s a summation and a correction to previous messages. Unfortunately, that means some of the previous baggage too, not to mention the baggage Islam picked as it developed as a distinct religion of its own.

Al Franken, in his humorous book Oh, the Things I Know, a sort of adult guide-book for post graduates, grades the value of the world’s religions from best to worst. Of course it’s a tongue-in-cheek exercise. He put moderate Islam relatively high on the list, and militant Islam dead last. If I were to construct my own list, it would probably be similar. Islamic fanaticism, out of all fanaticisms, is the one most dangerous to the world right now. Moderate Islam, on the other hand, can co-exist peacefully with the modern West, and for many converts it also addresses its ills. Moderate Islam is not “better” than other religions, but it is a balanced and inclusive approach to life. Islam’s mystical element exemplifies all that is good about Asian religions. Islam’s social ethos is part of an Abrahamic tradition of fighting for the weak and the oppressed. Islamic asceticism does not involve complete withdrawal from the world, but it does curb excess and materialism.

So my assessment is that Islam is neither the best, nor the worst religion, nor both. It is simply one wisdom tradition among many. Any political order that unites people of sovereign nations can’t be based on one religion, even if that religion is based on universal principles. The insights of any religion can be generalized and applied universally to human beings, but that doesn’t mean any one of them should dominate others. This is why unity must also honor diversity, lest idealism sink into barbarism.

Posted by tonygalli at 5:31 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 15 September 2006 10:29 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The last episode I saw of 60 minutes had an interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a friend and collaborator of the Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh who was slain by a fundamentalist Muslim upset over his controversial film “Submission.”

I respect Ali for not letting fundamentalists intimidate her or stop her from expressing her opinions. She should have every right to say what she wants, and if people disagree they should express their opinions in a civil manner. However, she strikes me as a self-serving individualist. In the name of woman’s rights, she manages to stigmatize the minority groups she claims to help. Her criticism of their lack of integration into Dutch society only further alienates them. She also aligns with groups bent on disempowering them politically. To her, there is no way dialogue will bring mutual understanding between the two, not because anyone in the Dutch mainstream has any flaws, except for naïve liberals, but rather because you can never educate religious people so inherently pathological. Rather than clearly differentiating misogyny from religion, or religious ideals from relative cultural norms, her project is to completely secularize Muslims. This means that none of their practices or beliefs contribute to her newly chosen society. Indeed, some of the beliefs and practices of the fundamentalists are quite vile, but isolation or strict assimilation will only make them more hardcore.

To me, Mukhtaran Bibi is a true hero. A tribal council ordered her rape as a “punishment” for the indiscretions of her brother who was seen with an upper caste girl. The Mastoi clan accused him of committing sexual crimes (some believe this was a cover up for their crimes against him). When she was called to intervene on his behalf she was taken into a tent and gang-raped by four men, then thrown out with her clothes torn off and forced to walk through her village naked. Shar’ia, or at least its applications in hudood ordinances, comes down hard on women, and often there is double punishment rather than protection under the law. There is a tradition of “shura,” which is a consultation between families of the victim and the criminal. In theory this is not a bad idea, because it would mean that there is compensation for the victims in accordance with the sentiments of those primarily affected by the crime. In practice, however, shura means that the men who run the household agree to take money as recompense, and this is done to appease the stigma of shame and family dishonor.

Luckily, an influential imam heard Mukhtaran’s story, denounced the incident in public, and urged her to seek justice. Her case was taken up by a human rights commission and she faced her accusers head on, taking her appeal to the high court of Pakistan. Even though the federal government system is more secular than in her local area, they too have an elitist, feudal mentality that discriminates against the poor. But she won, and she didn’t stop there. She used the money she received to open schools for girls and boys, knowing that this is their best shot at empowerment.   

Those in the West who honor reformist Muslims invariably focus on the likes of Ayaan Hirsi and Irshad Manji. At the dinner reception for the "Glamour Woman of the Year" award, Mukhtaran Mai said she felt ignored, and it wouldn’t surprise me if many Americans have never heard of her.

It’s clear that Muslims who see it as their religious duty to fight for equality and human rights are given short shrift, while outspoken reformists who want a westernized version of Islam are hailed in the media. Consider this article from Islamica Magazine about how the US government banned Tariq Ramadan from a teaching position he was offered at Notre Dame University.

(http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue-12/why-tariq-ramadan-13.html)

Posted by tonygalli at 4:22 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 13 September 2006 3:33 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink