Ernest Becker, cultural anthropologist, 1924-74. Won a Pulitzer Prize at the end of his life for his book The Denial of Death. 

I have recently been studying his work and writing about his important thinking for today, especially his contribution to Fear Studies, and specifically to terror management as an extreme existentialist form of fear management. 

The following Tech. Paper No. 99 I devoted to analyzing a bit of what Ernest Becker's work has to do with Education as a field and as a reality of socialization, and then summarized the ways various educators (not that there are many) have engaged Becker's work and what potential biases there are in their ways of interpreting his work. I then propose some alternatives and encourage a good deal more study of Becker for learning and teaching, curriculum development and for handling the kind of terrifying world that is here and coming as cascading global crises are inevitable. His work has much to offer us. 

See Tech. Paper No. 99:  "Ernest Becker's Educational Legacy: A Critical Reflection". https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/112381

See also Tech. Paper No. 108: "A Review of "Immortality Project" Concept: Mis-interpretation by Terror Management Theory" https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/112499?show=full 

‘Ending the Culture of Fear’: Fantasy or Possibility?

A Dialogue between Nonye & Michael

R. Michael Fisher & Nonye T. Aghanya

 [Note:  Michael (Canada) approached Nonye (USA) recently and conducted this email exchange over a few weeks focusing on their interests and questions about the phenomenon called “culture of fear”]

 Recent decades have witnessed the emergence of competitive scaremongering, where different groups vie with one another about what we should and should not fear. So while one group of professionals advises parents to shield their children from the sun in order to protect them from skin cancer, another group points to the risk of children suffering from vitamin D deficiency because they have been shield from the sun. Competitive scaremongering surrounds the debate on whether vaccinating children carries more risk than letting nature run its course. People routinely accuse one another of promoting fear, playing the fear card, or allowing themselves to be manipulated by appeals to fear....Barry Glassner [sociologist] claims that “we are living in the most fear-mongering time in history.’ Perhaps he is right.   -Frank Furedi [1]

RMF: I have recently been working on a paper tracking the history of the “culture of fear” concept across disciplines [2]. Although, this concept has been in my research, writing and teaching since 1997 or so, it remains a sturdy concept for critical analysis of our individual and collective lives. In 2004, I was contracted to do a baseline study of the uses and definitions of “culture of fear” across disciplines. I directed it for leaders, although that report was never published widely [3]. I observe, unfortunately, there is still a good deal of (mis-)interpretation going on amongst those that throw the term around today. So, that’s one issue I’d be curious to explore with you in this brief interview.

Oh, I’m curious Nonye if and when you had heard of the term “culture of fear” or “climate of fear”; and have you pursued researching more into those at all? Do you teach about these concepts as contexts within nursing education or in your online program per se, what is it called?

Nonye: Thanks Michael, this is truly an interesting topic and I’m excited to explore and gain some insights from a fearologist on “culture of fear,” especially as it pertains to healthcare. In the context of Nursing/Medical education and healthcare practices, many institutions for countless years have implemented and embraced various methodologies for more efficient general care delivery. An example is the use of Wong Baker pain scale for objective assessment and better pain management for patients.

However, in my review of various existing empirical studies, there seemed to be a lack of methodology to effectively address patients’ apprehensions due to anxieties and fears in healthcare settings. Such patients’ state of anxiety is quite comparable to the “climate of fear” brought on by the feeling of unknown amongst other factors. Some studies highlight various contributory factors, for e.g. decline of practitioners’ empathy and compassion in healthcare practices and further suggest educational interventions for enhancing empathy in healthcare practitioners as part of a solution to the problem of fear/anxiety management. I’m optimistic about introducing my findings on the use of soft skills of communication as a vital tool for curbing patients fears and anxieties and improving the chances of trust development with healthcare practitioners. Contents of my online courses and book can be used as educational resources in Nursing and medical institutions.

RMF: Okay. But before we get to the conception of what makes a culture of fear, and how to best ‘know’ what a culture of fear is and transform it, I’ll ask you to respond to the recent article in the British Medical Journal (2018) that caught my eye, with a provocative title: “End the Culture of Fear in Healthcare” (Ladher, 2018). This is a prestigious journal in this field. And as a 30 year experienced nurse-educator yourself, I’m sure you are aware of the phenomenon itself where fear, mistrust, intimidation is very real in organizational cultures in the health field. Could you comment on this excerpt from Ladher (2018): “A key finding of the independent report into deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital, where around 600 people received fatal and medically unjustified does of opioids, was a hospital culture of uncritical deference to doctors and a fear of raising concerns.” Ladher goes on to note that the report mentioned calls for “ending professional hierarchies in clinical practice”—you wrote a book or two on this have you not? What’s your take on this kind of finding from such a report, and I am sure there are many other examples of such reports we could find all over in various nations and sectors of society?

Nonye: First, from a practical perspective, I believe there needs to be further clarification of the latter part of Ladher’s article excerpt particularly on the “fear of raising concerns” within the hospital organization and how it may have contributed to the unfortunate fatal opioid overdosing of some 600 hospital residents.

I have written two books [4] in recent years on the issues of overcoming fears and anxiety in regard to the clinician-patient relationship—focusing on communication effectiveness as it relates to treatment effectiveness. This UK report creates more questions than answers. Did many patients’ hesitations and fears of expressing their opinions to their doctors and/or administration of the hospital contribute to strained dialogue and mistrust that made it difficult for the doctors to ascertain their pain levels accurately?

Did the doctors unwelcoming attitudes make it difficult for patients to be vulnerable and transparent about their pain levels? Did the nurses participate in assessing patients pain scales and response to opioid management?

If and when patients attempted to suggest alternate pain management plans, other than opioids (e.g., heating pads, NSAIDS, non-narcotics analgesics), was there a perception that doctors were not accommodating of their suggestions? Did the patients disclose these concerns to nurses and did the nurses fail to inform the prescribing doctors? Did such communication breakdown create a sense of patient dependency and the disastrous impact of opioid over-medication?

RMF: You mention “communication breakdown.” You seem to frame everything in your analysis of your work on communication effectiveness? Is this something you were personally interested in, perhaps even before your training as a nurse? Where did that focus come from? It seems to be a lens you bring to determining what’s really important in reality.

Nonye: Effective communication is achieved via a “two way venture” and this became apparent to me very early in life, as early as 5 years old. I was always an anxious child and grew up into an anxious adult, very eager to please others around me. The realization that I could dramatically reduce my state of anxiety by aiding someone else, by any possible means, to become less anxious while they interacted with me was my eureka moment! Noted in one of my study analyses was a disclosure from Dr Stephen Trzeciak, the chief of medicine at the Cooper University Healthcare in Camden, N.J. In his 2018 TEDx talk which explored the existence of a healthcare compassion crisis, I was fascinated by his mentioning of a stark difference between sympathy and compassion. Sympathy is characterized by feelings while compassion is characterized by actions. Thus the practice of strategic and compassionate engagement became an actionable effective tool which needed to be shared with other healthcare professionals and nursing/medical institutions.

RMF: Oh interesting about your core childhood strategy. I would call that a core base for a fear management system, based on the need for social acceptance and comfort, which then becomes a form of social conformity, which then functions “well” not only to lower your anxiety but it maybe adaptable in a career choice, maybe in a society as a whole, where the strategy gets rewarded via the culture’s need for cooperation, consensus, and being a good workers—or a good person, etc. All that conforming, I suppose is anxiety-reducing too; yet, it can also exacerbate anxiety further below the surface. I know you also are somewhat of a rebel too (smile). 

That’s very reasonable as a core fear management system, and is seen as part of the evolutionary history of our species; so, don’t get me wrong, in that I am not complaining about it, I’m more curious how it fits and works at one level; but my thinking is always critical and reflective too. I have mapped out at least 10 different fear management systems in human cultural evolution [5]—some which individuals may choose to stick with and sometimes they also change and evolve to meet newer challenging conditions when an individual or a culture is faced with bigger challenges that the old fear management system adaptations may start to fail to be serviceable. I guess, I’m always teaching people to examine both what fails and what works, when it comes to their fear management systems—and/or habits. Learn from both. There is always a possibility that even what “works” may have limitations and prevent growth and development. But that’s a larger topic, perhaps for another time. So, back to your professional work...

Nonye: I learned long ago to ask a lot of questions when I see a problem like that described by the article above. If healthcare providers failed to consider patients’ contributions towards the treatment plan, did this lead to a situation where patients just continued to overly ingest opioids because “doctor knows best”? Did doctors uptight and unfriendly demeanor make it difficult for patients to inquire about the frequent dosing of their opioids because they were afraid to upset the doctors by “asking too many questions”?

These are some of the factors that could have contributed to this tragic and unfortunate event and I don’t particularly believe that Ladher’s singular suggestion for “ending professional hierarchy in clinical practice” is sufficient to adequately address this issue and prevent recurrence.

RMF: I agree. If all an institution does, be it a medical and health one or not, is tweak the surfaces of the problems, and focus on the issue of “hierarchy” without focusing on the nature and role of fear, not much will change. I mean Ladher’s summary does note fear is a factor. That is not uncommon in issues when “culture of fear” is raised to a head as an organizational problem. The issue for me is that the thinking of “fear is a factor” is just too tame or euphemistic, and reductionistic. It tends to psychologize, even individualize, fear. It is easy to say “fear is a factor,” more or less—although, in some uptight fear-based organizations they won’t even allow that discussion to come to the surface. It is because “fear management” is a topic way off-the-radar. “Pain management” is on the radar, but not fear management. And, I’m generalizing but this is what seems to happen in health care generally. “Fear” is still like a taboo topic itself, often, and that’s what I see as a professional education and training deficit problem in many organizations. Have you noticed this? Have you thought about this, and what might be some solutions?

Nonye: I totally agree with your assessment of the lax use of fear as a factor that impacts many events in healthcare practices and other organizations. More often than not, there seems to be a reluctance of organizations to delve deeper and discover the root causes of fears that affect the organizational culture and employee performance. This is an important aspect of quality performance process as it can ultimately provide clues for implementing changes that will positively impact an organization’s performance, in healthcare and otherwise.

As part of a quality performance assessment process, this could involve the act of organizational and individual self-reflection. It could sometimes be conducted via a self-assessment questionnaire. This process of reflection may quite frankly be a bit awkward for some but it’s a necessary step for unraveling and successfully addressing the causes of many fears in various institutions and making positive and lasting changes from the result of the revelation of such assessment processes.

RMF: So what if “culture” or at least institutional culture is itself a phenomenon that is a defensive reaction against fear—as existentialists and social psychologists [6] say? What if the entire matrix of the system is so pathological and toxic, which is what “culture of fear” means?

Nonye: Culture of fear in healthcare is a complex one influenced by many factors such as patients’ behaviors, perceptions, healthcare providers’ personal ethics and consulting styles with patients and their abilities to identify patient characteristics and apply appropriate communication styles that lead to more sincere and productive engagements with patients.

These factors must critically be addressed to help reduce the risks of such unfortunate events as reported at Gosport War Memorial hospital. When you speak of culture itself as virtually a fear-based reaction—a defense—and thus seemingly toxic inherently, I don’t know what to say but that’s not a familiar notion to me. Can you say more?

RMF:  Sure, but let me first define what a culture of fear is generically, as a dynamics of a living system. And to quote Furedi, “The term culture of fear works as a rhetorical idiom rather than as a precise concept. Its meaning is often far from clear.” [7] I tend to agree with him, in part. At least, this is what I came up with as a first working definition (and, I did not find it in the dictionary or a sociology encyclopedia or in Frank Furedi’s or Barry Glassner’s books, as useful as those resources may be at one level). Rather, I came up with this after reading hundreds of documents across history and disciplines: culture of fear – is when a system tries to manage fear and ends up creating more fear. It’s a paradoxical fear management regime, you might say. That creates a dilemma because one has to really ask about ‘who’ or ‘what’ to trust in terms of furnishing us as citizens, workers, and leaders with good knowledge on fear management in the context of a culture of fear?

And, without going into further theorizing, the basic thing I discovered is that most people assess the culture of fear based on ‘scientific’ and measurable things, like fear factors, mistrust factors, intimidation factors in the organization, and of course self-assessed fear(s), and so on. The standard psychological fare of applying tools to understand what is going on. But there was in none of the literature (virtually none) any consciousness on the part of the theorists, the professionals, or those creating the assessment tools, that (arguably) 90% of fear (which motivates us; often as anxiety) is unconscious and one doesn’t know the root cause per se. Now, that is my existential, psychoanalytical and fearological lens being applied for that conclusion.

You can see that I go deeper than a rationale based on communications or cognitive behavioral psychological modes per se in the pursuit of understanding fear or what I also call ‘fear’ (culturally modified fear – analogous to culturally modified organisms). The world hasn’t yet caught up with the complex morphing and evolving of ‘fear’ in ‘culture’ (i.e., within culturalism as ideology; i.e., within a culture of fear context)—I mean culturalism as the process of dominating belief systems (and taboos)—mostly that are culturally-created meaning systems as defenses against existential terror—and thus social fictions are used to avoid dealing honestly with that deep unconscious terror).

That’s just one part of my thesis here, then there are all the psychoanalytical implications of say “staff” working under “authorities” and so on. Or patients trying to survive under “authorities” who have at times, literally, control of their life—that is, control of their death. I have written some about that in my latest Technical Paper No. 98. With all these conflicting dynamics as part of communications and basic existence, there is often as Furedi described above, a competition of scaremongering going on as part of people trying to control their world. I don’t mean a natural control within reason, I mean an irrational neurotic and obsessive control. At times, some critics have said, today people are addicted to fear and that glues the whole culture of fear system together. I often meet people who cannot stand the word fearlessness because they say they want to keep their fear. And, I wonder exactly what they mean? Do they want to keep their addiction? Anyways, most people are just not well-enough educated on the history of the culture of fear phenomenon at the base of social life and cultural formations and evolution. Anyways, maybe that’s deeper than you are interested or see as practical in the workplace (?). I’m a fearologist so I cannot restrict myself in researching deeper on the topic of fear (and ‘fear’) and society.

Nonye:  Sure, I absolutely respect your deeper exploratory views on fear as a fearologist. I’m truly honored to have gained more insights from your work about these other aspects of fear management that I otherwise may not have been privileged to learn about. Thanks so much Michael for this interesting dialogue and I wish you much success in your upcoming book project on the past Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson [8].

RMF: Not that there is any one clear all-decided definition of a fearologist and what they are supposed to do, but over 20 years ago, I made a commitment to be able to be informed enough, and maybe even bring some wisdom, to conversations about fear with virtually anyone, and especially to be able to do so across the disciplines and professions. So, it’s been great to have this conversation with someone in the field of Medicine and Health Care. That really means a lot to me. Thanks.

And as for Ladher’s comment, from a medical perspective in that article, my response is: Let’s not overly jump ahead too far when we call out the problems of a culture of fear dynamic, and especially let’s not think that the culture of fear is only in some workplace, the home, the school or on the streets of some ghetto; my point in this dialogue has been to show, there is no “end of the culture of fear” per se, in the concrete sense—more so, there is an educational project that is required from K to 12 and beyond, across societies—whereby we actually teach about how best to educate ourselves on what fear is and what a culture of fear is that constitutes the way fear takes forms. All relationships are inducted into this matrix. Once we understand better, then we can start thinking about the “end of the culture of fear”—but, from my view, that means we have to end this Dominant culture that pervades, that oppresses, and transform its worldview to a new and better one—not based on fear itself. I posit a culture of fearlessness is the replacement. For some, they might say, a culture of love is the replacement. And, from that point of contention—is a whole other interesting dialogue to be had.

End Notes:

1. Furedi, F. (2018). How fear works: Culture of fear in the twenty-first century. Bloomsbury Continuum, p. 5.  

2. Fisher, R. M. (2020). Culture of fear: A critical history of two streams. Technical Paper No. 98. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.  

3. Fisher, R. M. (2004). Capitalizing on fear: A baseline study on the culture of fear for leaders. Intellectual Architects, Ltd.  

4. Aghanya, N. T. (2016). Simple tips to developing a productive clinician-patient relationship. iUniverse; Aghanya, N. T. (2019). Principles for overcoming communication anxiety and improving trust. Folioavenue Publishing.  

5. To study the 10 fear management systems, I argue is a way to expand one’s knowledge of a full spectrum of consciousness and cultural systems, moving from more simple and immature to more complex and mature (i.e., ultimately, towards an emancipatory pull to ‘freedom’ and/or ‘enlightenment’ whatever one wants to call it); see the 10 fear management systems documented in Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world’s fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21^st century. University Press of America/Rowman & Littlefield.  

6. E.g., see the work of cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker (The Denial of Death); and, the social psychologists who have ‘proven’ Becker’s theories and created “Terror Management Theory” (e.g., Sheldon Solomon et al.).  

7. Furedi, pp. 4-5.  

8. She is referring to Michael’s book soon to be released by Peter Lang, Inc. entitled: “The Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: Cultural (R)Evolution in a Dangerous Time.” Nonye wrote an endorsement review about the book, “The gradual advances of a change agent may encounter numerous hiccups on its pathway to implementing change; but with honesty, grace and compassion the committed will forge ahead towards success. The book reflects such a journey of both the author and his subject. R. Michael Fisher, in both an exploratory and objective fashion, provides riveting detailed accounts of many observers who have encountered the remarkable social phenomenon, which has grown in and around a once American presidential candidate—Marianne Deborah Williamson, a true change agent. One must applaud her clear moral stance as a driver of a movement gaining momentum because of this quality of leadership, with a mission for pursuit of greatness in service of others....It is a democratic mission not driven by personal gain but rather driven by eternal fulfilment and the awareness that the benefits of righteousness far exceed those of condemnation. We really need this ‘message’ today.”

Nonye T. Aghanya, MSc., RN, FNP-C, nurse, nurse educator, author, mother and so much more. Originally from Nigeria, she moved as a young person to the USA, now living in Alexandria, VA.  [for a recent 30 min. talk on her work go to: https://bit.ly/3k6HB1X ]

Michael Fisher, Ph.D., artist, educational theorist, author and teacher, has dedicated his life-purpose to the study of fear and fearlessness. He was born and raised in Calgary, AB and after traveling and working internationally, he has returned to Calgary to live and spread the word.

Some (provocative) educational researchers have recently asked for all of Education and teachers to make a turn: 

"...we hope to re-orient [make a turn in] the educational project...one with lower stakes, a shift from immortality to more 'goodness.'" 

(van Kessel & Burke, 2020, p. 216). [1]

------

Whoa! that's a mighty 'Call.' 

On what basis is it made? The simpler interpretation perhaps is my own take from reading this paper carefully. They ask Education (all its stakeholders), but specifically teachers of school teachers, to: 'Be Humble, Be More Courageous' --a slogan for a T-shirt, don't you think? What do they mean by "de-escalation of teaching as an immortality project"? [2]

Where I got that slogan from was specifically from p. 226, where the co-authors wrote, "We posit an educational disposition [turn] that is humbler, which, paradoxically requires more courage." 

The implicit assumption behind their 'Call' is a critique, more or less, that all stakeholders in Education (specifically, teachers of school teachers, and teachers themselves) have been not humble enough, not courageous enough-- which, is a critique worthy to consider, and I have thought of it myself for over four decades (albeit, I might use different conceptual language and discourses). They are saying nearly everyone to do with Education is too arrogant (acting brave) but (paradoxically) also too fearful (i.e., they've been cowards, more or less). Strong stuff... they are going to raise a lot of 'hackles' I would imagine. Time will tell. 

On my part, I have taken their assumption and claims (and use of Terror Management Theory, via Ernest Becker's thought) very seriously. Only recently, in the past few weeks am I chewing and stewing over their papers; the other one is on "evil" [3]. 

For brevity here, lest it be said, in the field of Education, from my point of view, we have before us a 'turn' that is called out loud and clear by two contemporary North American-based educators of a good deal of breadth and depth, and it ought to be heeded--at least, to take up the "conversation" as they would say. I encourage any one to read these, albeit, they are rather academic works. I am particularly interested in this project of theirs, which I am now calling the van Kessel-Burke Hypothesis (i.e., 'Be humble, Be More Courageous' --and, that will lead to nonviolence and non-evil --that is, what they call "more 'goodness'" --in the world). 

The vK-B Hypothesis is particularly interesting to me because of its boldness (to say the least), paradoxically, while calling for more humbleness--in that it is their offering of what I will call from here on Terror Management/Education (TME), and that initiative needs to dialogue [4] with my own 31 years promoting Fear Management/Education (FME) [5]. Curiously, we as researchers and teachers, as writers and educators, have not prior to this last few weeks encountered each other before. 

Let the conversation begin... all are invited. 

Notes

1. van Kessel, C., & Burke, K. (2020). Teaching as an Immortality Project: Positing weakness in response to terror. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(2), 216-29. Both of these authors are professors in faculties of Education (Canada, and USA, respectively).van Kess Burke 2020.pdf

2. There's a large body of thinking (theorizing) on "immortality" relevant to Ernest Becker (and others), of which I'll not say more here, but "immortality project" has a deep historical and evolutionary, cultural and political, importance--for simplicity, re: van Kessel & Burke, the notion involves a meta-motivational drive/seeking, which is universal to human beings (theoretically)--brought on as a defense mechanism to ward off the "fear of death" (i.e., mortality awareness).  

3. Burke, K. J., & van Kessel, C. (2020). Thinking educational controversies through evil and prophetic indictment: Conversation versus conversion. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.     2020.1767072

4. I began this dialogue with TMT theory (and Sheldon Solomon) recently; see a summary of these engagements in Fisher, R. M. (2020). Dialogue between terror management theory and fear management education. Tech Paper 94.pdf In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 

5. E.g., a summary of near 25 years of my research on fear and fearlessness is put together in a first tome (a beginning synthesis) in Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. University Press of America/Rowman & Littlefield. 

Of course this is just a preliminary 'thinking field' of potentials, latencies, and polarities--all which animate a larger 'picture' (representing reality)-- and that's about all. I would have to lecture and write a lot of words down to explain these relations and dynamics and how "learning" itself is implicated and conditioned by this arrangement (this 'design') of innate aspects which shape "why humans learn and unlearn" ... etc. That's not even all worked out for me at this point. Later...

p.s. to thank Dr. Deborah Britzman for some of the major parts of this 'thinking field' --came to me from reading her paper "Between Psychoanalysis and Pedagogy: Scenes of Rapproachement and Alienation" (in Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 2013.]

R. M. Fisher new video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g7AsApU3gU

International Journal of Fear Studies

Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Approaches

Call for Papers and Creative Submissions:

Theme ISSUE: “Living and Learning in Pandemic Times”

Submissions Due Aug. 1, 2020 for the 4th issue of IFJS.

Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic dynamics have really changed our lives. What are we learning in this context of such pervasive fear... and more...? Are there better ways to handle all this?   

FOR the full details of Submission and about the Journal IJFS fourth call Apil 12 .docx

"...the [research] findings show that how we choose to deal with our fear, critically depends on our cultural worldview" - Bobby Azarian (2020) 

"We have an existential threat on our hands, our Left-Right divide, I believe, is by far the most important divide we face....This is the urugent need of the next 50 years." - Jonathan Haidt (2016) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-_Az5nZBBM]

Dr. Bobby Azarian, cognitive neuroscientist, has put together an excellent basic video on the social and cognitive science research that can help explain why "fear" is at core the factor of political, religious and other forms of polarization in social systems. He has worked with the Terror Management Theory (of Ernest Becker, et al.), whereby in this video he takes us through a rapid teaching of major issues and findings. He offers, interestingly, a "cosmic perspective" as basis for a worldview that will be an anti-dote to the polarizing and violent course that American society and a lot of the world is heading down--including the direction toward fascism and authoritarianism, etc. I highly recommend Azarian's (fast-lane hyper) teaching video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvMkz1wy6_U

[Note: as much as Terror Management Theory and neurobiology of fear, and cognitive sciences offer an important direction of knowledge to combat the effects of fear as an emotion/feeling (i.e., a response to threat), I have always questioned how these disciplines and fields of study have not really added much at all to reconceptualizing fear (or 'fear'), fearuality, fear management/education, fearism, etc.). I think there needs to be a lot more dialogue between these knowledge domains and with Fear Management Theory as I promote, then more potent combinations will inevitably lead to a better "fear education" for the 21st century. ]

ADDITIONAL READING:

Azarian apparently has been researching a good deal on "fear" in political orientation, along with many others, it is a vast field of research which I support in general. I found this following article a good one to challenge stereotypes (I offer an excerpt only with link to the full article):

 0 

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  heartland-american  •  2 years ago  •  194 comments

 

Liberals don’t get conservatives. New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt, formerly a liberal himself, showed how much more liberals misunderstand conservatives than vice versa. And when they get conservatives wrong, often it’s by saying we’re “afraid.” Irrationally afraid, even; in fact, we’re “driven by fear.” They’re wrong: conservatism isn’t about fear. But they keep repeating it anyway.

Take the Psychology Today article, “Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives’ Political Attitudes.” (I just love it when they portray us in such a healthy light, don’t you?)

Biased Interpretations (Part 1)

The author, Bobby Azarian, tells us conservatives have a problem. People on the right “fear new experiences,” says. Based on what evidence, you ask? It’s the stuff college students keep in their dorm rooms. Researchers at Berkeley found that liberal students have more travel-related items, while conservatives have more planning- and cleaning-related items.

“This tells us that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences,” says Azarian. “Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle.” Okay, I get that there’s a difference there. I’ve got several questions, though. (First rule of reading science journalism: Ask lots of questions.)

First, why weren’t fear or anxiety even mentioned in the original research report? (They’re brought up briefly in the literature review section, but not where the current research was discussed.)

Second, what about the thousands upon thousands of conservative Christians who take mission trips to less-developed, often deadly parts of the world every year? How is Azarian going to explain this “fear” to them?

How on earth do planning, orderliness and discipline equate to fear?

And third, based strictly on Azarian’s article alone, how on earth do planning, orderliness and discipline equate to fear?

Conservatives’ dorm rooms only reflect fear if fear is what you’re looking for.....He tells us that MRIs show that the amygdala, a fear-related brain region, is larger on average in conservatives than in liberals. “It is possible,” says Azarian, “that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not.”

 [excerpt only]

 Read the entire rebuttal to Azarian et al.,:  https://stream.org/no-liberals-youre-wrong-conservatism-isnt-about-fear/

[Note: my own take as a fearologist is that it will generally be a fallacy of fear-mongering if either side of the political spectrum is caught in a 'game' of 'you have more fear; no, you have more fear' --etc. I have labled this the Fear Wars, long ago. This is where fearology can contribute a whole new perspective on that 'game' (dead-end) and truly lift the dialogue to include the typical fear(s) talk which is valid but take it to a new level where polarization can be dissolved in more potent ways, theoretically... that's a much longer conversation but involves my own (amongst others) work on a fearlessness psychology]

 

Because I am a professional educator per se, it has always struck me how far behind the field of Education (and schooling) is, just about everywhere in the world, when it comes to advancing the notion of "fear management" and, what I prefer to call "fear management/education" (or simply, "fear education"). I'll be writing more about this in the near future blogs here, but just wanted to share this book resource Fear and Schools that looks interesting from the book description: 

Call for Papers and Creative Submissions for International Journal of Fear Studies (2021 Spring Issue) -- ABSTRACT submission deadline: July 15, 2020

Theme: Navigating Ecofear through Diverse Cultures

“Is there one central fear like the trunk of a tree, though it has many branches, and if you could understand that single root of fear you have understood the whole network of fear? How do you approach this, from the periphery or from the centre? If the mind can understand the root of fear then the branches, the various aspects of fear have no meaning, they wither away. So what is the root of fear? Can you look at your fear? Please look at it now, invite it.     - J. Krishnamurti

Concept Note

Ecofear is a culture-specific trope. There could be various reasons for ecofear like climate change and the resultant floods, devastating cyclones, extensive wildfires and even a viral pandemic. The spectrum of fear may vary according to the agencies, context of interactions, and the various reasons for the fear, depending on the cultures in discussion. This issue of IJFR will focus on various kinds of ecofears experienced by humans and other animals in different cultural contexts apart from the various explorations of the consequences and manifestations of ecofear. The fears that connect/disconnect humans from nature have various dimensions that can be studied through a multi-, inter-, and/or transdisciplinary approach―sociological, cultural, economic, political, philosophical, theological, artistic and of course, psychological. These fear-dimensions that are understood through diverse disciplines explore diverse methodologies to arrive at realistic conclusions. For instance, the film Crawl (2019), set in Florida, a hurricane-prone state, contextualizes a world where natural disasters are an accepted reality but the antagonist(s) (alligators) engage in a “war” with humans―an explicit human-animal conflict that is primarily caused by fear (of various kinds) and also invokes fear in the audience. Augustina Baztericca’s novel, Tender is the Flesh: If Everyone Was Eating Human Meat, Would You?, which many readers assert as the most horrifying novel that is set in a world where cannibalism is normalized after a global epidemic which wipes out the animal population. The film and the book, both can be read as a result of human anxiety about a world that they are actively destroying. Fear is at the centre of both the works.

Notable fear-concepts, like ecophobia, theorised by Simon C. Estok, and/or the concept of fearism proposed by R. Michel Fischer, and/or Desh Subba provide a befitting framework to analyse such literary and cultural texts. An author who wishes to contribute to this issue of IJFR may consider employing any of the aforementioned theoretical frameworks or others’ for their critical analyses.

About the Volume

The guest editors of the Winter 2021 issue of the IJFR invite critiques of such depictions―instances of fear, ecophobia, awe, respect, obedience, or even love (not necessarily referring to biophilia) in the context of human-made calamities; fictional accounts of fear or ecophobia in the context of natural calamities; or even critiquing fear-methodologies in various disciplines. We also invite original documented and creative works such as poems, short films, music, short stories, short reports, experiential stories and so on. Authors attempting to write critical essays may analyse any text (literary, social, cinematic and so on) from a fear perspective. Critical essays may be written in about 5000 words and the written creative works may be from 2000-5000 words.

Please send your essay/creative work/proposal of your work to <raysonalex@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in> marking a copy to <sachindevps@gmail.com> according to the time-schedule. For the sake of congruity, we will be following the MLA style format for critical works. We expect the word limit for essays to be between 4000 and 5000 and no restrictions, whatsoever, on creative works.

About the Journal

International Journal of Fear Studies is an open-access peer-reviewed online journal. IJFS was founded in 2018 by R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. (Sen. Editor). Its purpose is to promote the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary study of fear. It is the first journal of its kind with a focus on the nature and role of fear and on innovations in methodologies, pedagogies and research inquiries that expand the fear imaginary beyond what is commonly assumed as how best to know and manage fear.

The Journal accepts submissions that are theoretical or practical on fear that deserves international recognition. The primary criteria is that works have an interdisciplinary and/or transdisciplinary approach, while at the same time are progressive and open-minded works that instigate insight, healing, liberation, creative thinking, critique, and synthesis. IJFS focuses consistently on fear as a subject matter and is issued biannually.

All authors retain their own copyright of their works published in IJFS. The journal will consider re-published submissions as long as copyright approval has been made.

Guest Editors: Rayson K. Alex and Sachindev P.S.

Rayson K. Alex is currently Assistant Professor at BITS-Pilani, K. K. Birla Goa Campus. He is one of the editors of Essays in Ecocriticism (2007), Culture and Media: Ecocritical Explorations (2014), Ecodocumentaries: Critical Essays (2016) and Ecocultural Ethics: Critical Essays (2017). He has directed/co-directed ethnographic video documentaries and is the Founder and co-Director of tiNai Ecofilm Festival.

Sachindev P. S. is at the Department of Film Studies and Visual Culture, English and Foreign Languages University. He is one of the editors of Culture and Media: Ecocritical Explorations (2014). Formerly an advertising creative, he has shot and directed documentaries, one of them screened at the International Documentary and Short Film Festival (IDSFFK 2014).

Fear and a General Social Theory[1] 

-R. Michael Fisher [notes: June 16/20]

                    Introductory Issues of the Social & World

Recently, it occurred to me that no one will really ‘get’ my work adequately until they ‘get’ that my work is foundationally a social theory of fear (management/education). I am deeply a social thinker/theorist and philosopher and educator, who has, unfortunately, not helped the waves of mis-understandings of my work for 31 years because I have not systematically written out my general social theory as context for my work. I am beginning to take on this daunting project. This essay consists of beginning shreds of what is on my mind and is by no means a ‘finished’ work. It is noticeably somewhat nostalgic, at least for me, in that to recover the ‘social’ in my work, and in my life, I have had to return to the past of my first systematic studies of knowledge and disciplines when I was 20 years old to my 30s. If these references seem ‘old’ or ‘out of date’ to readers, I won’t apologize for how important and relevant they are in ‘messages’ for today—but, certainly, this general social theory I am attempting needs up-dating with newer thinkers for sure—yet, all in time. I want to keep things relatively simple to start with. I appreciate your patience with my somewhat nostalgic turn.  

As part of Social Sciences, social theory seems essential to my fearanalysis project [2] on the Fear Problem. It is an approach to all phenomenon (e.g., especially fear and its management/education) primarily through the lens of the social sphere of reality. Social theory today, in the Anthropocene era, also has to be part of Biological and especially Environmental Sciences, because global cascading crises are putting the survival and quality of life on this planet at-high-risk, moving existence regularly into emergencies. COVID-19 is the latest episode showing how vulnerable Homo sapiens is.  

The basic purpose overall of these Sciences seen through my own value-based lens, is that of “making man [sic] more aware of the consequences of his actions.”[3] Awareness has to do with learning, and that is why my profession is Education. I turn now to explicate my evolved, yet still evolving, social theory as a synthesis of many others’ critical thinking and research. It is not too embarrassing to say my social theory is quite unique in the history of thought.

                   Theorizing: Natural Sciences Are Social

 It is essential for humans as a whole, and for me to remember that the aim of the knowledge quest (i.e., learning and education) is to,

 ....establish the process of human development as the goal of the process of social evolution, both the process and the goal being understood to be open to further transformation as we advance in the practice and understanding of them.[4]

 And furthermore, there is a search still going on across large domains of societies functions, and within the inner searching and reflecting that humans do at times, to find a better “image” of our selves—of our nature, of our potential—and to do so, as crucial so that we don’t become crushed by harsh realities of the everyday human condition (i.e., of a good deal of suffering). Markley & Harman (1982) spoke to this in a way that made sense for me in my youthful scholarship days, and still resonates today:

 It seems evident that the characteristics we postulated for an adequate image [of the human] cannot be fulfilled unless such a new type of policy paradigm comes into existence—a paradigm that provides a far closer reconciliation of C. P. Snow’s ‘two cultures’ (the sciences and the humanities) than has heretofore seemed feasible [in modern times]. Central in this pursuit would be the reconciliation of the objective inquiry methods found suitable for learning to manipulate the external/physical environment and the inquiry methods which are emerging to similarly explore the subjective/internal/psychical environment of our living. Likely such an umbrella paradigm will not be possible without the emergence of other, somewhat more specialized but nevertheless holistic [-integral], paradigms to support it.[5]

 In Markley & Harman’s profound search for a “moral science,” “moral economics” and politics for a sustainable, healthy and sane future, they know that a “moral paradigm” lies below them all, which is something I have always been interested in but I am not a “moralist” or “virtues” prophet/teacher or thinker. That’s a topic that arrives much later in this essay and social theory. Suffice it to say at this point, my approach to ethics and morals and the ‘good’ and ‘true’ and ‘beautiful’ will be strongly tainted in this work with the social as environment—and, it is this environmental emphasis that is most conducive to pulling out and foreword why I think the social is so critical to any good fear studies (and fear management/education) today and in the future. To note, the marriage of objective and subjective that Markley & Harman recommend, not totally radical, is very important to my own holistic-integral approach to knowledge and living, of which Wilber (1995) has added another vector of polarities to build a more adequate and complete (and moral) epistemological quadrant analysis. He adds: individual and communal sphere. When I speak of the “social” so forthright and as forming everything in human affairs, I am not excluding the other quadrant inputs into the social sphere of reality but including them, even if they are lesser focused on.  

I more or less ‘hated’ public school. I was born and raised poor working class. The whole system seemed rigged, even though I am a white guy (Canadian), to benefit those who already were privileged by class. The more would get the more and doing well in education was seemingly their way of greasing their wheels of progress (success).  Post-secondary schooling nor societal success meant anything important to me until my 19^th year of life (after graduation from high school in a technical curriculum stream for the ‘dummies’). One course in grades 10-12 really was a place for me to shine—Biology. I was a budding naturalist (thanks to my dad, my uncle, my older brother). Learning science was hard but I did it and learned things I cared about—that is, how Life works. By my 19^th year I was dedicated to pursue secondary education and make a career in science (e.g., forestry or something). The rest is history. As I went through careers and more and more degrees, “Science” grew in scope and dimensions in ways I could have never predicted back in my late teens or early 20s. Today, I reluctantly, would call myself a “scientist” but at-heart I really am. I am a little more comfortable being called a “philosopher” at-heart, an “artist”—and yet, my graduate Ph.D. training ended with a doctorate in Education.

                  Fear is Social

A most basic premise of my life’s work is that fear is social, or more accurately, that the nature and role of fear for humans cannot be understood without a social perspective. At some level, thus, my hypothesis is that: social fear is the best descriptor for all fears and fear itself. Contentious perhaps. I’ll return to that topic later. Now, I wish to claim that science is always social—and, the corollary, all science is social science. Let me explain.

                  Scientists are Social

It is no surprise that from anthropology to ecology and evolutionary studies, many scientists have concluded that “Homo sapiens” is a social species. It sounds simple to conclude. It seems true. What it exactly means and the implications are much more profound, as I have found to be the case over the decades. I think most people don’t really think about this.

Despite the history of Science being diverse, with all its twists and turns and shifts in its role and the ways scientists themselves saw their efforts to build scientific knowledge, it is likely true that at the end of the 19^th century most scientists were relatively “unconcerned as to where they ought to be going. They saw no point in formulating social goals for their professional work, because they regarded science as an end rather than a means.” And many then, as still now, do not want their scientific work determined by social (e.g., economic and political) agendas of interest groups or the public at-large, according to Dubos (1970, p. 229). More characteristically, the scientists overall have not seen their own profession as a social enterprise itself—that is, shaped overly by influences from the social sphere including by non-scientists.

It is hard for the vast majority of scientists (maybe less so today) to believe that what they do intellectually may be socially-determined—in whole or in part. Kuhn’s (1970) classical analysis of the paradigm shifts of the scientific enterprise validates just how social science communities are. Scientists likely find that thought of socially-determined, socially-responsible or “mission-oriented”[6] science rather loathsome, and beneath their self-integrity. They are very proud of their elite scientific training. I remember, the same feeling when I was fully in science education processes and working as a scientist of sorts. To get a masters or doctoral degree in some science adds to their privilege and sense of self-esteem. They see they are in a scientific establishment and career in order to best perform good (or even ‘pure’) science. No one should be telling them or even much influencing them who isn’t a scientist.[7] The very reason of bringing this issue of Science to the foreground to begin my general social theory explication tells you something about how important I think Science is today; And especially, it tells you that I agree with Dubos (50 years ago) that the best way to talk about the current (at least Western) society is under the umbrella term “scientific civilization.”[8]

                  Civilization Types: Evolving Fear(s)

As civilizations, many humans have thus evolved from tribal, to agricultural, to industrial—all because of an advance in Science (and technologies). Since late-modernity, that’s been recognized as a mixed blessing for those of us in the latter forms of civilization. Myself included, we have begun to realize the paradox of progress via Science that is now creating some of the worst nightmares of which are capable of extinguishing all civilization (e.g., nuclear weapons, anthropogenic accelerated global warming, clear-cutting forests, mining, etc.). It is arguable, that there have been new fears created and overcome at each level of civilization type listed above. However, it is also arguable, the current chronic level of fear(s) in the highly scientific civilization type is accumulative (post-traumatic) and worse than other civilizations. If so, it is another hypothesis of my social theory that with increasing progress, comings increasing social fear (of the most destructive kinds). But let’s return to my thinking on Science before focusing on other aspects of my social theory (of fear).

                  Need for a Social Theory of Science

It has been a great gain to knowledge generally to develop the history of science and open-up the world of Science to historians and the public. It may well be, as Dubos suggested, that it is more important for citizens in a true democracy to be critical in their literacy of how Science functions than needing to know all the facts of science and its applications.[9] It is great to have a grasp of both, but at least it is important to learn about science as a social activity that ought to serve social purposes, as well as intellectual purposes. For example, to learn about science is to learn as a layperson that “scientific knowledge is never absolute or final, yet it remains valid when considered in the social and intellectual framework within which it was developed.”[10] Another example, “scientists hardly ever disagree on the validity of the facts themselves, but only [mostly] on the interpretation and use of the these facts.”[11]

The argument I am making, as did Dubos 50 years ago, is that all science operates with shifting “fashions”[12]—that is, it is socially contextualized ‘not an island to itself’ and visa versa “all social decisions now have scientific determinants,”[13] whether we recognize them or not. Snow’s (1959) lecture on The Two Cultures—of facts (science) vs. values (social morals and/or religion)—raised critical questions of the long modern separation of these realms; and, suggested how they ought not be fully disengaged from each other. Integral philosopher, Ken Wilber, notes that Snow called both facts and values inherently “cultures” and thus serve as social phenomena. He argued knowledge is best for cultures/societies when they are not totally battling, competing, and thus end up dissociated and divorced; but rather, today we have to work to repair their ancient marriage[14] so that a higher holistic-integration of knowledge can once again yield wisdom and guidance for the modern, late-modern and post-modern times. There’s a need for a new thinking today—and, more so than ever it will have to be around the notion of fear. I am calling my version of this, as core to my methodological concerns, integral social thinking.

               Methodology of Integral Social Thinking (IST)

As I attempt to introduce this emergent sense that my social theory itself has to be based on integral social thinking—troubling questions of knowing arise. Philosophers call this ontological and epistemological issues. I’ll start with the “integral” part of thinking—which, comes from a long venerable tradition of integral philosophies and theories in history,[15] of which, for example, Wilber (1995) is one of the most prescient of these thinkers, and has influenced my ways of thinking since the early 1980s.

Yet, there is a further problem not so overtly dealt with as an epistemological problem in integral thinking and style, which I must mention. In the study of fear itself (meaning, the human-fear-self-social relationship dynamic) there is a problem of attempting to know something (perhaps, a prior conceptions that are faded or invisible) that is escaping its very knowability. You open a black sealed box to study something locked away inside for generations, but in assuming the light you shine on it will reveal its essence, you more or less destroy the operation and object/subject you are analyzing because it is not the proper ‘method’ to disclose the essence of that which lives in a ‘black box.’

Using this ‘black box’ as metaphor or analogy, this is what I learned in my youth when I (and others) first encountered the nascent field of “ecology.”[16] I cannot help but be an ecological thinker, but that gets massively more complex than approaching an ecological problem of studying Nature when one brings the light of investigation to Culture—in this case, my pursuit of a social theory and a fear theory simultaneously—things get very tricky, to say the least. I’ve hinted at this problem (part of the larger Fear Problem) in my earliest works in the late 1980’s into the early 1990s and why I demarcated my subject of study of fear as ‘fear’ with (‘) marks[17] to signify something I really didn’t know even what it was I was studying or what methods would be best for doing so). The progressive futurists Markley & Harman (1982) touched somewhat on the enigmatic attitude and sensibility in which a researcher has to imbue when after a topic, with humility, with the arational and rational modes, as they articulated one way to capture the same troubling question I am now explicating:

How does one study a priori conceptions which, by definition, are fundamental to and lie beyond the [standard] rules of inquiry of any particular discipline [of knowledge, and knowing, and understanding]? (p. xxi)

I chose to assume “fear” (and ‘fear’) as already embedded in a black box of a prior phenomenon/conceptions and no one discipline or even a couple disciplines could unravel the hidden subtle nature of fear (‘fear’). To be playful, I enlisted a neologism of “fearology” to act as a transdisciplinary approach to the topic. However, there was more I had to deal with in Markley & Harman (1982) and what they called “bricolage thinking” – and my attempt to:

....discern fundamental and usually unrecognized influences on our societal problems, on our social policies, and on our hopes [aspirations] for the future....our aim is to break out of set patterns of thinking (and hence recognize useful new ways of thinking and imaging” (p. xxi)

More specifically, my nascent methodological rationale was built upon both a defence against, and an offense for, a better knowledge about fear (‘fear’) that was already socially embedded in culture—which I soon would discover other scholars talking about how near everything today is embedded in a “culture of fear” (which by 2000, I talked about as a ‘Fear’ Matrix and/or a decade before that, I talked about a largely invisible ubiquitous form of oppression called “fearism”). I felt intuitively, and theorized from my reading, research and phenomenological experiences, that fear was already ‘hooked’ into living inside a black box that for many good reasons could not be opened or if it was it might yield more than the investigator could handle anyways (e.g., you may note the analogy here with the myths of Pandora’s Box, Icarus, Prometheus from ancient Greek as ‘warnings’ to human hubris—likewise, in psychoanalytical theory and practice there is the cautionary of any inquiry into the unconscious).

The invocation from the start of my study of fear to be in search of “fearlessness” was not by chance, albeit, I knew little of what complexity and black box I would bump into as well on this latter subject. In a nutshell, I assumed (sometimes concluded) that the deep territory of fear was an a prior social taboo (and ‘fear’ was even more elusive, denied, repressed and dangerous territory). All fear is a priori social—social fear (i.e., we humans are sociophobic,[18] in other words, and I do not just mean this term like contemporary clinical psychiatrists would use it—as “fear of the social”—although, in part that is applicable too). Thus, I had stumbled in my early years in and around this troubling situation of the social sphere and how much or how little to let it into my investigations of fear. It seems that transdisciplinary study pushes one into creative synthesis of methodologies and multiple ways of knowing, and asks us to be not overly disciplined in trying too hard to control your subject and tools of inquiry....

[to be continued....]

References

Dubos, R. (1970). Reason awake: Science for man. Columbia University Press.

Fisher, R. M. (1995a/12). An introduction to defining ‘fear’: A spectrum approach. Technical Paper No. 1. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (1995b/12). An  introduction to an epistemology of ‘fear’: A fearlessness paradigm. Technical Paper No. 2. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Kuhn, T. (1962/96). The structure of scientific revolutions. [3^rd. ed.] The University of Chicago Press.

Markley, O. W., & Harman, W. W. (1982). Changing images of man. Pergamon Press.

McIntosh, S. (2007). Integral consciousness and the future of evolution: How the integral worldview is transforming politics, culture and spirituality. Paragon House.

Odum, E. P. (1972). Fundamentals of ecology [3^rd ed.]. W. B. Saunders.

Scruton, D. L. (Ed.) (1986). Sociophobics:  The anthropology of fear. Westview Press.

Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion. Random House.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology and spirituality: The spirit in evolution [Vol. 1]. Shambhala.

END NOTES

[1] Cf. to Skoll (2010) “Social theory of fear: Terror, torture, and death in a post-capitalist world.”

[2] Overtly, I co-founded the In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989-) for this work, more implicitly this is a fearanalysis I am doing on the entire phenomenon of humans and fear and life. I have several short publications on "fearanalysis" but the book on this is still to be finalized and published (with the first draft of "An Introduction to Fearanalysis" still sitting on my shelf from 2016). 

[3] Dubos (1970), p. 229.

[4] Quote from Dunn (1971), cited in Markley & Harman (1982), p. 156.

[5] Ibid., p. 157.

[6] Ibid., p. 219.

[7] “[M]any scientists are more interested in the advancement of [scientific] knowledge, than in its possession [by non-scientists]” (Dubos, 1970, p. 209).

[8] Ibid., Chapter 5.

[9] Ibid., p. 215.

[10] Ibid., pp. 217-18, 219.

[11] Ibid. p. 220.

[12] “Rapid and profound shifts of emphasis [on what and how things are studied scientifically] have repeatedly occurred in the scientific community, in part because fashions change in science even more than in other types of endeavors, also because social [and economic] concerns inevitably affect intellectual preoccupation” (Dubos, 1970, p. 217); see also Kuhn (1970).

[13] Ibid., p. 207.

[14] Wilber (1998).

[15] One could make a massive long list of ‘integral’ thinkers going back to ancient times; they are the ‘renaissance’ types that integrated vast domains of different spheres of knowledge, arts, sciences, religion etc. More recently, in philosophy, one can identify several thinkers and lines within philosophy itself that have the qualities of the holistic-integral thinker (and/or “integral consciousness” and/or “integral worldview,” according to McIntosh (2007) some recognizable leaders of this integral movement are Georg Hegel, Henri Bergson, James Mark Baldwin, Teilhard de Chardin, Alfred North Whitehead, Jean Gebser, Jürgen Habermas, Ken Wilber (pp. 151-54).

[16] Odum (1971) refers to this (after G. E. Hutchinson’s notion) ‘black box’ conception as hololgical (p. 22) and which refers to complex systems that one can only study by realizing the “internal workings...are but vaguely known” (and may not be known) (p. 105).

[17] Fisher (1995a, 1995b).

[18] It is not by chance the first major initiative (I know of) in academic work to bring “fear” study out from under the umbrella of the hegemonic dominating grips of the biomedical and psychological fields (i.e., Natural sphere), into the Cultural (social) sphere—via anthropology/sociology/social psychology was called sociophobics (Scruton, 1986). The Spiritual (religious, theological) sphere, including much of philosophy also had taken on “fear” study but that is beyond the scope of the discussion here.

The philosophy of fearism (a la Subba et al.) is a great foundation, and still needs a lot of work (thanks to all of you working on that). However, if the idea of having fear and its role recognized as central in mediating human affairs throughout history, then legitimized in actual contemporary research studies (e.g., in social sciences) and then into actual policy formation (e.g., politics, urban planning)--well, there are some great opportunities. Recently the two research articles below from the international scene of publishing indicate, for the first time in a big way, that I have seen, where "fearism" is used as a key "force" field actor-agent of analysis and interventions. I've selected excerpts from the two papers so you can get a sense of how "fearism" [1] is being used and why. It is exactly this direction that fearism studies and knowledge need to go to actualize into world affairs with some impact. I ask all of you to help spread this message and encourage research in these directions of applications. Very important. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Note

1. You will notice that Desh Subba's notion of "fearism" per se is not being cited directly by these researchers but my own version that pre-dates Subba's meaning of fearism. In Fisher (2017), as you see the citation of my work in these two papers, does include a discussion briefly of Subbaian fearism as well. So far, the researchers in Global Migration Studies tend to (but not always) use my old definition from a paper I published in 2006 (although, my first naming and definition of fearism goes back to 1997). My definition of fearism originally focused on the cultural-ideological angle of fear-based "structures" (discourses) that control and manipulate societies. Fearism in that sense was the subtle underbelly of terrorism. Later in Fisher & Subba (2016) I came to distinguish my original version as fearism-t (toxic). Unfortunately, despite all the enthusiasm in the social sciences with my "fearism" concept and that is great, unfortunately, I have also seen it not used very accurately, or is just oversimplified, of which my 2017 paper was intended to correct those errors but that's not yet happening even in these two new 2020 articles. See Fisher, R. M. (2017).'Fearism': A critical analysis of uses and discourses in Global Migration Studies. Technical Paper No. 64. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. See Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Xlibris. 

Reviews "Why do people vote against their best interests? Why do many working people vote for their class enemy, a con artist who is dedicated slavishly to wealth and private power and is shafting them at every turn?　The question is carefully addressed in this powerful study which explores a central part of the answer: the "security story" mixed with "raw tribalism," an amalgam with ancient vintage, commonly implemented in ways that gravely undermine security. Not for the first time in history—and as Mark Twain reminded us, while history doesn’t repeat, it rhymes. Sometimes ominously, sometimes with hope." Noam Chomsky, author of Internationalism or Extinction

I have not seen this book, it just came out. As a fearologist, I see these kinds of titles of books and articles all the time, "conquering fear" or "going beyond fear" and so on, but I rarely find any good theorizing on the nature of fear, the problem of knowing fear itself (and 'fear' as a culturally modified fear) and thus, they usually are disappointing enterprises. But maybe someone will have a look at this book and report back to the FM ning on it. 

Quantitative Data:

The basic summary of data of FM ning sign-ups (memberships) intrigues me, and shows, that after an initial 'burst' in 2015 when we started the FM ning and invited lots of people, then a drop, and finally a slow organic process of slight increase each year (with no membership drives being done) to a maximum (n =21) in 2018 for some reason? Then a slight decrease but holding to the levels of the initial year of opening the ning AND, most noticeable is that 2020 (especially in May, with effects of Covid-19 mounting, increasing fear in the world population collectively), indicating that the membership level (predictably) will reach well beyond 21 by the end of the year. Note: four new members signed-up in six days (May 16-22, 2020)--then two more signed-up by end of the month, this rate has never been even close to happening over the 5.5 yrs, except the week we started the FM ning... something is happening(?) that is unique... Now, I added another graph to show May sign-ups, and clearly, statistically, it is significant the correlation of "lockdown" (and pandemic) with the interest to sign-up to the FM ning. We ought not take this correlation lightly, and ask how we can work with this growing interest productively. 

Qualitative Data: 

I have not done any statistics on more subtle qualitative aspects of the growth and development of the FM ning. I would say that, I am very looking forward to a vast growth in the numbers and exchanges and actions taken by FM ning members in collaborations to improve the aims of which the FM ning was started in the beginning... please join in, and please invite others to join us too. May we learn great lessons from the Covid-19 global experience and advance fearlessness into the world like a 'fear' vaccine. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hATcs4Zpdqo to watch Thomas Hubl and Otto Sharmer in recent dialogue... 

I have always taught that the significant area of Fear Studies (include 'fear' studies) has to be linked to evolutionary theory, defense psychology theory (e.g., Freud's defense mechanisms, and Ernest Becker's views as well, as found in Terror Management Theory)--but my teaching has always been that why "fear" is so important (and often toxic) is because of humans being "hurt" (i.e., traumatized and not yet healed from past hurts). Hubl puts forward his 3 "Forces" (or "drives") in his own evolutionary theory of transformation, with the last one "trauma" being critically important, if not the most important to understand better than we usually do.  

I have just published a new Tech Paper 94.pdf, "Dialogue Between Terror Management Theory and Fear Management Education" based upon my recent FearTalk 9 with guest Sheldon Solomon, one of the core founders of TMT and other materials in which we both are looking at how to bring our work together in a new synthesis. 

1. R. Michael Fisher,[i] Ph.D.  2020       Technical Paper No. 94

                                                          Abstract

There’s something ‘wrong’ in the field of fear management, the author had expressed in his 2010 tome, The World’s Fearlessness Teachings. Using a transdisciplinary approach to fear and fearology, he has sought how best to engage other theories. Within philosophy of existentialism (a la Ernest Becker) and the applications to social psychology (empirical studies of human behavior via Pyszczynski et al.), he found their contributions on terror (fear) management intriguing. The author, a specialist in fear management/education (FME) has been citing and at times teaching about terror management theory (TMT) since the early 2000s. In 2007 he published his first attempt to integrate TMT through an “integral” lens, to serve as one way to up-grade what he saw as some of the weaknesses in TMT, even though he highly admires TMT. In 2020 he engaged in an in depth interview dialogue with Sheldon Solomon, one of the three core founders of TMT, and it is this Technical Paper No. 94 which offers an extensive transcript from this exchange. As well, the author includes a letter to Solomon on potential ways of upgrading TMT, especially as the world spins within the extraordinary challenges of the coronavirus epidemic and lots of death—never mind, the overall context of an Anthropocene era, which both Solomon and the author acknowledge and attempt to offer good FME.   

[i] Fisher is an Adjunct Faculty member of the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, AB, Canada. He is an educator and fearologist and co-founder of In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989- ) and Research Institute (1991- ) and lead initiator of the Fearlessness Movement ning (2015- ). The Fearology Institute was created by him recently to teach international students about fearology as a legitimate field of studies and profession. He is also founder of the Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education and is Department Head at CSIIE of Integral & 'Fear' Studies. Fisher is an independent scholar, public intellectual and pedagogue, lecturer, author, consultant, researcher, coach, artist and Principal of his own company (http://loveandfearsolutions.com). He has four leading-edge books: The World’s Fearlessness Teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21^st century (University Press of America/Rowman & Littlefield), Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue (Xlibris) and Fearless engagement of Four Arrows: The true story of an Indigenous-based social transformer (Peter Lang), Fear, law and criminology: Critical issues in applying the philosophy of fearism (Xlibris); India, a Nation of Fear and Prejudice (Xlibris); The Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon (Peter Lang).  Currently, he is developing The Fearology Institute to teach courses. He can be reached at: r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com

Abstract

            This paper by Adhikari, displays Death as the ultimate invisible truth of Life. It draws forth the example of various characters and events on how Death has acted as the most powerful human agent to equalize all people, either the powerful or the powerless. It has made the link with the philosophers' principle of invisible truth of Plato, who draws the idea from Socrates. COVID-19 and its influence on virtually the entire world is taken as the example of fear functioning as the master of all humanity in the world. If outside visible things of the world are regarded as false, Death which is invisible, and hence the fear of death, is the final truth of externally unseen things.

Death which is invisible, and hence the fear of death, is the final truth of externally unseen things.   

Key Words: death, fear, COVID-19, mythology, Lord Krishna, Kamsa, images, shadows, traumatic, discourse

Bhawani Shankar Adhikari    

Introduction

Plato takes the discourse of Socrates' idea of invisible truth in the philosophical dispute. The external visible things are not truth and the real truth is unseen and in fact the fear of death is the real truth.  The word "fear" is the human instinct. It is linked with the psychological aspect of the individuals and the amount of fear differs person to person and society to society. It depends on the background of his or her upbringing. Science has created everything but it has not created to measure the exact amount of the individuals' fear as we take the temperature of the fever or the heat of the living creatures. But fear is the master of all. It has become the root cause of invention and the present civilization of the entire world. There is no place to hide the fear of the individuals and the extreme  and low forms of fear becomes detrimental all the time and only the medium fear becomes the true guiding principle in the better path of life. Sigmund Freud's concept of fear is concerned with the idea of the uncertainty. "The term fear, whose metapsychological status remains uncertain (Google, stark stein)" indicates that fear comes with uncertainty and Death itself is the matter of uncertainty but it is the truth of life.

Fear of Death is the ultimate and the greatest one in the life of not only human beings but also in the life of all living creatures. Man is always active and busy in life but when the inner truth of life is revealed to him or her, then everything becomes worthless, meaningless and the useless one. This inner truth of life is Death and it is always lurking behind us but we forget it and ignore it. We become unconscious about the reality of Death. When we become conscious about Death, then we scare too much about it. This is the invisible and unseen truth of life. The unseen truth to the fear of Death is the lack of consciousness and the knowledge.  Nepali thinker Mr. Desh Subba has presented the figure of fear in relation to consciousness and knowledge. "Life . . . consciousness . . . knowledge (Meaning) . . . fear . . . cognition (Subba)." It is obvious that fear does not come without the consciousness and the knowledge. Subba means that knowledge must be the knowledge of meaning. If a person does not have the knowledge of Cobra's poison containing the life taking strength, then the person does not get scared but when he knows about its danger or sees someone being passed away by the Cobra's bite, then the person is scared. Likewise when the person knows that he or she is suffering from the terminal cancer and he or she does not live long, then it is called the knowledge about his or her own Death. Then the person is scared much more. Can we call it the ultimate truth is the "Fear of Death"?  It is also because the Death is unseen and hidden and it becomes the most powerful force to lead the life and the entire world. In the absence of the fear, the whole universe can not function properly and in its system.

Fear in Hidden truth

The philosophers have done the research regarding the truth and the unseen power. Plato has drawn the allegorical concept of the reality and facts. Plato's "Allegory of Cave" is the philosophical principle of getting into the world of the truth. Plato's figure of the burning fire and the people of the den are watching the shades of the burning fire but they have not seen the real burning fire and they believe that the images of the fire of other sides' shadows are the truth. They trust in the false images as the ultimate truth but know nothing about the real truth. They are in the cave in ignorance. If anyone comes  out of the cave with knowledge and knows the truth, and if he comes back to the cave again and convinces the cave dwelling  people to know the truth, then the cave dwellers do not trust him or her. The cave dwellers do not want to come out of the cave. They do not know the invisible, unseen, and the ultimate truth. The real truth is hidden from the visible scenes of outside world. The allegory is explained:

Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all over their lives, facing a black wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of fire behind them, and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality. Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not reality at all, he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the manufactured reality that is the shadows seen by the prisoners. The inmates of the place do not even desire to leave their prison, for know no better life. The prisoners manage to break their bonds one day and discover that their reality was not what they thought it was. They discovered the sun, which Plato uses as an analogy for the fire that man can not see behind like the fire that cast light on the walls of the cave, the human condition is forever bound to the impressions that are received through the senses. (Plato Wikipedia)

This concept of Plato shows that what we see in the outside world with our senses is not the truth but only the images and shadows of the fire is the truth for the cave dwellers but the real truth is invisible and unseen. Our visible form of the world is just the shadows created by the light of the fire to the prisoners who are chained and can see the shadows on the opposite walls. When one of the prisoners comes out of the cave and learns the truth of outside by the knowledge and the learning and he goes back to the cave and tries to convince the prisoners but they do not believe in it. They are habituated to live in the cave and the truth is the truth of the images of the opposite wall created by the fire. So, truth is unseen from the eyes in the visible world. So is the case of the fear of the Death. The allegory of the cave is the lack of enlightens through the education and learning. We are all in the cave of the world because this world itself is the cave in a sense to those people who are without the knowledge of the truth. Man without of knowledge of the truth is in the condition of without knowing the fear of final truth of life.

Realization of Fear

Fear is all around the life of all the living beings but the function of fear depends on the condition and the situation when and where a person faces it in real life. A person thinks that the power holding people enjoy the life. The person believes that the king would be enjoying the life most but when these types of people receive the position of power and the responsibility, then they realize the real fear in life even with the power in their hands. The best example of it is found in The Greek Legend entitled "The Sword of Damocles". In this legend, the common person, Damocles believes that the king of Sicily, Dionysius enjoys the power most and Damocles flatters the king most to receive the position to enjoy. The king knows the truth and he decides to give the moral lesson to Damocles by making him the king temporarily in the banquet. Damocles is made the king and given him the due respect with the crown on his head but the "sword" was put hanging above his head tied by a single hair and Damocles had to taste the food every time. Then Damocles realized the real fear. It is narrated:

When the time of the banquet arrived next day, and the high born guests had all assembled, Damocles, clothed in royal robes, was bidden by the king to ascend the throne; and a golden crown was then placed upon his head, whilst all the guests were commanded to render him the same honour and deference as they would have done to Dionysius himself. . . . The heaviness of the crown soon made his head ache . . . it was somewhat irritating to have to await tasting of every dish offered to him by the royal tasters, for fear it might be poisoned . . . a keen edged naked sword suspended from the roof by a single hair exactly over his head . . . he would be instantly killed and filled with terror at the thought, he entreated the tyrant to permit him to take a lower seat at the board. (Nissani 51-52)

This extract displays that Damocles realized the truth of the fear of the Death only when he was made a king for the time being during the Royal Banquet but with the sword hanging over his head with a single hair and the fear of tasting the food and it might have been poisoned him too. The realization of true fear to Damocles came only when he was in the position under the sharpest sword over his head and it might have fallen at any time and killed him. If he was not placed him in such a position, he would not be in the situation of realization of fear and he would be forever in the condition of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". Likewise the realization of fear of death comes only when the person knows his or her death is nearing him or her.  Fear is invisible and unseen but it is only felt and realized like the fear of corona virus pandemic.

Influence of fear in life

The role of fear is seen and felt only in the life of a person when he or she is the victim of fear. The psychological fear becomes much more powerful than only other kinds of the fear. When the fear exists in the inner voice, minds, and the soul of a person, then it can be seen in the visible form of a person. When the fear influences to the person, then he or she can lose the minds and he or she becomes the mental patient. When a person is entirely under the domination of fear, he or she goes in the traumatic condition. It becomes too complicated to bring him in the right and normal condition again. The fear makes the person abnormal and it does not have any kind of treatment system. So, fear is mainly concerned with psychology of a person. Too much fear troubles the person and he or she suffers too much and forgets him what he or she has done in the actual life.

The example of influence of fear in the life of Armando Gonzalez in a story from Puebla, Mexico entitled "Fear' is practically experienced. Armando was a poor man without home. He had saved fifty thousand pesos in twenty years of hard work and he went in the bank to withdraw the money to buy the house but he was scared of the crowd and he put his hate at the back side of his head. And everyone looked at him. He was afraid with everyone in the bank, in the bus and even with the three boy students and got out of the bus in the middle of the road and ran to the forest. He cried for help and the three boys followed him to help him what had happened to him but he thought they were the robbers. Armando was in tragic condition because of over influence of fear in that particular time. The last scene of his fear is expressed: "As Armando started to get up, the three boys came over a pile of metals pieces and approached him cautiously. He cried like a baby." Why do not you leave me alone? I earned all of this money through hard work! (Lohani 43)". This extract shows that fear of being away from getting his money robbed from the robbers victimizes Armando Gonzalez and his mental condition of fear changed him into a baby like situation and he cries like a baby and requests the three boys to leave him. Armando has experienced the real fear in his life.

Another real fear and its influences are found in the life of Kamsa in Krishna Leela.  The saint's prophecy was that the eighth son of Kamsa's sister, Dewaki, would kill him and Kamsa put his sister, Dewaki and her husband, Bashudev, in the prison from the day of their wedding and went on killing her babies up to the six sons but Balaram and Krishna were saved. They were brothers. They were reared in Gokula in the house of Yasodha and Nandalal. Then the evil king, Kamsa of Mathura, sent the numbers of monsters to kill Krishna but they were killed one by one by Krishna since he was the incarnation of Lord Krishna to free the people from injustice on the Earth. The Kamsa was much more scared and psychologically he was disordered. He did not get sleep. He was surprised with the news of Krishna. He had put even his own father in the prison. He was scared of his own life. He did not want to die. But he made a conspiracy and brought Krishna and his brother Balaram in the palace of Kamsa in Mathura to kill them but Krishna killed Kamsa. His murder is narrated:

There is a mention of the event in the Padma Puran, one of the ancient Puranas of Hindu mythologies. Kamsa was the maternal uncle of Lord Krishna who swore to kill Lord Krishna because according to a prophecy, Lord Krishna would kill him otherwise. Kamsa was a very cruel person and germinated fear in human hearts by his nefarious ways. In fact the Tilla where Krishna killed Kamsa is called the Kamsa Tilla. Krishna pulled Kamsa off his throne as he pulled him by the hair. (Google)

Why Kamsa does all the evil activities from the beginning to the end of his life is because of the fear of Death of him from Lord Krishna. His best friend, Bashudev, who becomes the brother- in- law as soon as he gets married with Dewaki also becomes the problem in Kamsa's life. Kamsa does not want to die. All the evil and cruel activities that the king of Mathura, Kamsa, performs from the fear of the Death and he does not want to die from the hand of the Lord Krishna and the fear of death is the invisible truth.

COVID-19's Fear

            Fear is concerned with the security of life. People scare of losing their life and they do whatever the ways they can do to save the life from the Death. Corona virus got started in China on 31 December 2019 and "The outbreak was declared a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020. On 11 February 2020, WHO announced a name for the new Corona virus disease: COVID-19 (Google)".

World Health Organization's idea is to lockdown the countries to minimize the spread of Corona virus in the world. To lockdown the countries and to stay home with the principle of social distancing is nothing more than the fear of Death. The whole world has come to the position of stand still by the fear of Death. What can be more powerful and fearful except the Death? The fear of Death from Corona virus has brought the entire world in this position and the Death is unknown to humans and people become busy to move ahead in the day to day life. If he/she knows the time of Death, then he/she stops doing anything in life. The fears are of multiple types but the fear of Death is the complicated one. It is stated:

Thanatophobia, of fear of Death, is a relatively complicated phobia. Many, if not most, people are afraid of dying. Some people fear being dead, while others are afraid of the actual act of dying . . . . Many people's fear of Death is tied to their religious belief . . . . Some people think that they know what will happen after Death; but worry that they may be wrong. Some believe that the path to salvation is very straight and narrow, and fear that any deviation or mistakes may cause then to be eternally condemned . . . . Thanatophobia may also have roots in fears of the unknown.(Fritscher Google)

            This article displays that people scare the unknown and in fact that unknown is nothing other than the "Death". Whatever the types of the fear it may be, it is concerned with "Death". Fear of religion, fear of scarcity, fear of any types of weapons, fear of journey, fear of animals and creatures and any types of fear that humans have is directly or indirectly linked with "Death". So the ultimate truth of unseen fear is the fear of "Death".

Death is unknown to man. The person does not know how long he lives and when he dies. So, the truth is that the "Death" is unknown and hidden from the minds of the people. Leo Tolstoy has presented this concept in his story "What men live by". A man was ordering the shoes that would last long but the shoe maker started making slippers. Later the shoe maker was reported that the man had died and he needed the slippers to put on his coffin. And the shoe- maker provided to the messenger of the dead person the same slippers which he had made before. "What dwells in man? What is not given to man? And what men live by? (Google Tolstoy)" are the three questions asked to find the right answers.

"What is not given to man" is the right question to know the fact that man is not given to know his own death. It is beyond the idea of his ability to find out his death. It is hidden and no one knows when and how his Death comes to take his life. If a man knows about his own Death, then he stops every thing that he is doing what it is supposed to do in life. Hence, the Death is hidden in reality and it is the truth of getting scared of. The visible reality is false as Socrates and Plato have argued in their philosophical discourse. Something invisible truth of fear is the fear of Death.

Conclusion

            Death is the agent of equalizer to all either it is ruler or the ruled ones. The Death does not respect the rich and neither hates the poor. The fear of Death is found in the life of all humans, animals, and the creatures. The fear of Death is the invisible truth to all. The amount of fear depends on the situation and the events in person to person but no one is immune from the fear of Death. Even if we ignore the fear of Death in our youth, we cannot do so when the Death comes near to the person. Death is always lurking behind us and we are not aware of it but when we become aware of it, we become helpless. COVID-19^th lockdown in the entire world is the real fear of Death. Hence the fear of Death exists just like the fear of Corona virus which is not seen but only felt and realized by all the humans of the world as a real truth.     

Bhawani Shankar Adhikari                    

English lecturer, Balmeeki Campus, Kathmandu

Nepal Sanskrit University, Nepal    

Works Cited

Fritscher, Lisa. Thanatophobia Diagnosis and Treatment: Fear of Death. Google. https://www.verywellmind.com>Thanatophobia. Wave.

Google. https://www.who.int>diseases>org.

Google. Starksteins. Sigmund Freud and the Psycho analytical concept of Fear and Aniety. https://link.springer.com.

Google. www.https://m. dailyhunt.in>india>ore. wave.

Lohani,Shreedhar p and etal.the Magic of words. M.K. Publishers & Distributers, Bhotahity, Kathmandu. 2000. Print.

Nissani, Moti and Shreedhar Lohani. Flax-Golden Tales: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Learning English.Ekta Bookss, Kathmandu, Nepal. 2008. Print.

Plato. Allegory of Cave. Google. Www. https://en.m.wikipedia.org. Wave.

Subba, Desh. Philosophy of  Fearism: Life is Conducted, Directed and Controlled by the fear. Xbris. 2014. Print.

Tolstoy, Leo. What men Live by? https://en.m.wikipedia.org. 

Dr. Sheldon Solomon, co-founder of Terror Management Theory, dialogues with R. M. Fisher on Jeff Gibbs' new controversial film "Planet of the Humans" (2020). In FearTalk 9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXzUhVTYdb8

Dr. Bruck Liption, a cell-biologist and spiritual philosopher, offers his latest 10 min. video on the coronavirus (Covid-19) 'flu' problem in the world right now and he has strong statements about the nature and role of fear in this pandemic and quarantine. The first few minutes of the video he teaches about the immunological perspective. 

"Fear" is the "biggest problem" in terms of where this virus pandemic is, is going, and will continue to go. That's his view. I tend to agree. I have always respected Lipton's research and teachings going back into the early 1990s and he has always had interesting theories about "fear"... that said, I do not agree with everything he says. I'll leave it up to readers of the FM ning to discuss this and/or ask me about my critiques, at this point. 

Lipton starts the video off with "Stop the fear, take care of yourself." -- and, of course, that can mean a whole lot of things, including, how do we best define what fear is, and what if we do not know completely what it is and there are unconscious fear aspects that are affecting everything as well related to Covid-19 reactionary actions (?)... Lipton assumes we already know everything we need to know about fear, and he does his "scientist" thing in the video ... 

Thank you Piergiacomo severini for an initial response to my question re: the philosophical discussion of Hobbes, and the nature and role of fear, and other things, that has been going on the FM ning of late. There are several things we could discuss from Piergiacomo's Comment. I offer a group of us take this on to respond to him. 

I will start this thread by saying Piergiacomo offers something like a first principle on the contemporary philosophy of fear, and it is a cautionary: to avoid in most cases to reduce fear by definition, by meaning, by application to phenomenon.

This principle would overcome the problems of reductionism that methodologically (e.g., epistemologically) have a history. Reductionism is indeed, in my view one of the great forces (patterns), and habits, of a particular mindset, worldview, values sytem, beliefs, whereby a complex phenomenon is reduced (overly) to a simple phenomenon. And, my research shows that "fear" is particularly susceptible to this reductionism in our past as a species and currently this still predominates. However, there are some good signs that things are changing a bit in the direction of giving fear its due conceptual, theoretical and philosophical regard so as to avoid reductionism and critique reductionism of fear when it occurs. I would like FM ning members to give this all a good consideration and offer your views and knowledge about this topic. Who are good thinkers we could follow in this regard, be they philosophical sources, or otherwise. 

The very positing of a first principle of non-reductionism of fear is at the basis of my own research on fear and fearlessness. I have gone so far as to suggest that ultimately we have to be more interdisciplinary in our discussions about fear and beyond even that, we ought to be more transdisciplinary (e.g., you can read my work on justifying this principle and direction via my writing on the 'Fear' Project, 'Fear' Studies, on fearology (and fearism), fearanalysis, and fearlessness, for starters. My use of the term 'fear' (with the ' marks) is one of a rare exploration on the topic of fear, and I believe offers a sign of resistance to the hegemony of reductionism of fear, amongst other things. My view is thus constructed on an emancipatory knowledge and methodological basis, not merely a functionalist-pragmatic one. 

I look forward to hearing more on this topic, and I do not expect that it has to be a discussion all about my initiatives. 

I also think there are many things in Piergiacomo's Comment(s), and others here, that could be explored and questioned. 

Hey, all you bright philosopher types... could any of you give a summary (synopsis) from your Discussions (in Comments) here, based around Subba's blog on Hobbes,--in terms of how your discussions might be related to the Fearlessness Movement? I'm curious... and maybe the other people in the FM ning community could relate and join in responding IF you could give us some other angles to work with... on what is important to your thinking projects. 

p.s. I appreciate you being so engaged on the FM ning, and bringing some spirited life to the FM ning...