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

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... 

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?   

 IJFS offers space to share the kinds of work (theoretical or practical, complete or incomplete) you are doing 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 uniquely offers a much called for place to focus on fear as a subject matter as no other journal to date.

 All authors retain copyright of their works published in IJFS. The journal will consider re-published submissions as long as copyright approval has been made. This peer reviewed journal is published bi-annually, at minimum, with final editing by Dr. R. M. Fisher (Senior Editor).

 Articles and creative submissions may include large technical and philosophical works, research studies and results, essays, opinions, poetry and other art forms, etc. You are welcome to send a proposal for feedback ahead of time to the editor (r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com). Otherwise, send completed work. Citations of references are essential in papers where appropriate and should follow a standard style format (e.g., Chicago, APA, Harvard, etc.) to avoid any copyright violations. Creative style formats are welcome but require a rationale for any such deviations from standard formats. There is no word-length requirements of submissions. If all goes well the 4^th journal issue will be published in early Sept. 2020.

 Dr. R. Michael Fisher[1], Ph.D., founder/editor of IJFS, developed this on-line journal to promote academic scholarship, professional explorations and popular educational, activist and creative works for a variety of serious readers interested in fresh thinking and ideas about the nature and role of fear in societies.

Issue archive links:

1^st issue https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/110106

2^nd issue https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/111125

3^rd issue https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/111681

 To serve on the Editorial Board (and/or be a Reviewer) make your interest known to Dr. Fisher as soon as possible. Archived editions are available in an open-access pdf format and housed at the University of Calgary Library on PRISM for international access on research search engines. On average 200 downloads/views internationally are made of each issue. In addition, each article has separate download/views statistics.

A journal that operates in the gift economy-- gift donations to IFJS are most welcome, please contact R. M. Fisher.

[1] CV available on request. Dr. Fisher is an independent scholar, educator, fearologist with many publications available on Google Scholar. See his Youtube channel for more of his views: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC01OHEXhSuxnyilmkV0f95A

This is the inside book cover (from the publisher, Oxford University Press, NY, 2004). Author: Corey Robin, "Fear: The History of a Political Idea". 

I share this with you all discussing Hobbes, and philosophical history issues re: passions, emotions, fear, etc. I appreciate the erudite philosophical wonderings you are all offering there in the FM ning. If I had time I'd join in more, but I have a book ms. needing to be completed. Just to say, I have not studied philosophy like many of you in this discussion, but I browse bits from it, and travel across multiple disciplines to gather my views on "fear" in history etc. What intrigued me so much about Robin (2004) was that he is he first author in history of thought, that I know of, to re-frame "fear" as a discourse into an "idea"-- and that changes everything from the total focus on fear as feeling, emotion, etc. His writing on Hobbes (Part 1, pp. 27-50) is something I have read several times over the years, to glean my understanding... some of you may want to check out this reference, if you haven't already. (Note: I also don't agree with all of Robin's approach to fear, either). 

To see new teaching video by RMF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcp0Sv8SNLA

To Listen to this 40 min. interview go to: https://noliesradio.org/archives/172012

Excerpt p. 245, from Fisher, R. M. (2010). The World's Fearlessness Teachings: A Critical Integral Approach to Fear Management/Education for the 21st Century. Lanham, MD.: University Press of America/Rowman & Littlefield. 

The above last chapter of that book, now 10 years old, is still my foremost vision and purpose in everything I do. 

During this rather global "lock down" to slow the spread of coronavirus, I have been producing some 21st century-appropriate, crisis-learning appropriate, fearlessness curriculum materials for your study (and perhaps, pleasure) in any extra time you and your friends may have on your 'home-time' for the next weeks... 

1. see my two short teaching videos setting a context for this crisis transition time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpIhhZYPlv8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PApUkTl5x-k

2. to stay critical in one's empowered self and thinking always in crisis times to avoid unconscious hypnotic learning see my brief sample of critique 

    https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/my-critique-of-desterno-s-coronavirus-advice

3. most exciting (ha ha)... see the diagram attached below that is a skeletal 'map' of my Fear Management Systems Theory (FMST) taken from my main teaching textbook The World's Fearlessness Teachings: A Critical Integral Approach to Fear Management/Education in the 21st Century (2010). As I know several of you have this book, and it is also (in part) available to search online https://www.amazon.ca/Worlds-Fearlessness-Teachings-Management-Education-ebook/dp/B009R6GES0/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=%22World%27s+Fearlessness+Teachings%22&qid=1584459018&s=books&sr=1-1

Your Quiz 1 is to take time to study this map (and research in the book itself) and answer these two basic questions as best you can: 

A. What is the predominating kind of FMS (Fear Management System), according to my theory, that is operating today all over the world regarding the management of fear (I am especially thinking of the so-called First World developed nations)? [hint: numbers 0 to 9 on the map are labels for the FMSs)

B. Give a rationale (why) for your selection for predominant FMS utilized generally (and, what is the second most predominant one as well, and give your rationale)? 

Okay, have fun, and post your answers up on the FM ning... and/or send to me directly r.michaelfisher52 [at] gmail.com 

Also feel free to ask more questions of me and all others in our FM ning community. 

Take care, and keep learning... 

-M.  

So there are many issues I am critical of when any Authority assigns itself to "protect" the people (often, meaning, protect the State power/authority/order): it is political as well as a psychological situation re: our health as citizens. Long ago researchers have shown that "shock doctrine" policies and "crisis" politics is a big power/business construction that is manipulative of people, mainly by using their fear and inserting (more or less) forms of authoritarian propaganda to add to the hypnosis of the moment when people are scared/terrified etc. There is basically a danger of transgressing (excessively) human rights in these situations of declared "emergency state" or "pandemic" etc. See one author who has snooped this out already around the coronavirus... https://nationalpost.com/opinion/marni-soupcoff-outbreaks-are-not-an-excuse-to-trample-on-our-rights.

As critical citizens, we have to be questioning of all Authority, no matter in what situation. One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist but one has to be vigilant to oppression that is subtle and systemic--and has been historically used against people's freedoms. For more background on mis-uses of "emergency time" constructions by Authorities and repercussions, see the great book by critical pedagogy Henry A. Giroux (2003). "The Abandoned Generation: Democracy Beyond the Culture of Fear" (NY: Palgrave/Macmillan).