Blog

Over 20 yrs ago, a really important work on "Fear" appeared out of Europe by a Hungarian sociologist [1]. His name Eleme'r Hankiss. This book sat on my shelves for nearly 20 years as well, because when it first arrived, I was looking at it in a superficial way and it seemed that the focus was on a study of fears in human history related to religious, mythological, anthropological, philosophical, and literary arts and tradtions--which included indepth study of fears in jokes, plays, myths, religious beliefs and symbols, housing and cities, shopping malls and rationality etc. 

Recently, having pulled it off my shelf, I began to realize what a gem of a socioogical study of fear (which is actually quite interdisciplinary, even transdisciplinary somewhat)--was going on and that the author was creating his own variant theory of fear/anxiety (used interchangeably) to explain the entire civilization process--and, he develops that theory in this book starting with a great synthesis of sociologists and anthropologists writings and how they support his theory but that the major theorists in those disciplines tended not to talk explicitly about fear as core motivator for humanity and civilization but they implied it was so. He discusses this as a problem itself in that fear thus remains hidden more or less when it is so critically important to study and know its massive influences. I agree. I agree. I agree. I and many other fearists have been saying this for decades. 

So, Hankiss is no longer alive (died in 2015 in Hungary). He had written a fascinating book also with implications for Fear Studies in 2006 [6], though I have not found a copy to read yet. But this "Fears and Symbols" is more accessible and lays the ground for his critical thinking of fear within the symbolic interactionist tradition of critical theorizing in sociology. He is critical of the psychological schools of thought for often disregarding the social sciences overall and how they have theorized about fear and motivation and civilization processes. Ultimately, Hankiss marks a huge territory of understanding that fear within the social sphere of relations, is always a power in movement and constituted for a longer shelf life. Those are my terms on what happens to fear as it is phenomenologically passed in and through the social symbolic order of knowledge making (and ontology itself). Symbolic Fear in other words is made to last longer on the shelf (shelves) of human experiencing because it has potent creative and constructive (and destructive) capacities that regimes of power in history wish to manipulate--and, that's when history of fear becomes really intriguing and demanding. That's when Fear Study becomes very demanding. Only existential philosophy and psychological or theological discourses on fear really miss far too much information and phenomenological reality, says Hankiss, and I agree--especially with the construct of fear--that is symbolic fear. 

I highly recommend this text. And, of course, there are a lot of areas where I think it needs upgrading and improvements, but I would label it a proto-fearist textbook essential to the new Fear Studies I have proposed for decades. From what I can tell, this book is little known around the world nor is it cited by most authors who write and/or theorize about fear. 

Notes:

1. Former Director of the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and fomer fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford. 

2. His two major books: Hankiss, E. (2001). Fears and symbols: An introduction to the study of western civilization. Central European University Press. and Hankiss, E. (2006). The toothpaste of immortality: Self-construction in the consumer age. John Hopkins University Press. 

This book published by Bloomsbury Continuum (2018), is by Dr. Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology in the UK. He is one of the leading thinkers and writers on the "culture of fear" phenomenon and I highly recommend this book (and his many others). It raises very important questions as to what kind of society we want to live in and how we can change the direction we are currently proceeding. Here's a small excerpt from the first few pages of the book: 

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

I first contacted Frank Furedi by correspondence in 1997 after his first book on this topic and he was gracious to send me some scanned pages of the book so I could study it and it had a strong influence on how I think about fear overall. He's recently taken up my offer to dialogue with him on fear later this year for a possible article we'll co-write for the International Journal of Fear Studies (Issue 3, in early 2020). 

Dr. Margee Kerr, a sociologist, who professionally studies fear. 

Kerr says, "We have a negative bias" by which she means, given a choice in certain experimental studies of visual stimuli, most people will pay more attention to a negative (scary) image than a beautiful one. Psychologists have said this for a long time and shown it true in experiments. Now, to assume this is our human nature (or natural)? is another question Kerr does not debate but merely reads Psychology unproblematically, which is the problem I have with her "scientific" bias as a sociologist. That said she does look at the culture of fear in this short video worth watching "The Science Behind Why We Live in a Culture of Fear." go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQIgToDwL-o

I attended one of her lectures at SIUC some years ago, and I questioned her on her bias in studying fear. She was reluctant at best to engage me. Several emails later, and trying to have a good quality conversation with her and for her to look at my work, she ignores all contact. Too bad. I wonder what she is afraid of? From what I can tell she has built her growing career (and income) as a "horrorologist" of sorts, in that she likes to promote the good things that can happen when people enter into fearful experiences, like at horror shows and extreme sports or entertainment events like horror houses (that was the topic of her dissertation). I am very critical of all of that in ways she isn't. 

In 2007, the well-known sociologist of fear (in the UK), Frank Furedi, published a catchy article in both the prestigious American Journal of Sociology 32, and on his own blog site "Spiked" online. The title: "The Only Thing We Have to Fear is the 'Culture of Fear' Itself" (which is obviously his play on U.S. Pres.  F.D. Roosevelt's quip from 1933). I have followed Furedi's work on fear since the late 1990s. This article in 2007 (10 years ago) still speaks well to the phenomena that is going on today around the world, but especially in the UK and USA (even Canada): here it is: Furedi pdf  

As far as I can see over the years, and from my correspondence with Furedi, he has utilized much of my research on fear to expand his own work but never once has he cited my work. I have virtually always cited his work since the late 1990s. Anyways, despite that unfortunate turn, I agree with lots of his notions on fear and disagree with lots too. He's a sociologist and not transdisciplinary enough for my liking when it comes to the complex Fear Problem.

That said, I really like what he says in this 2007 article: "Fear is often examined in relation to specific issues; it is rarely considered [in academia and social sciences especially] as a sociological problem in its own right"--leading, he continues, "to a stituation where people are talking about fear (and risk, etc.) and doing so via "under-theoritisation of fear." Right on!