Author: The Gray Area with Sean Illing

  • What to do with your sadness, pain, and grief

    AI transcript
    0:00:00 [MUSIC PLAYING]
    0:00:03 Your own weight loss journey is personal.
    0:00:05 Everyone’s diet is different.
    0:00:06 Everyone’s bodies are different.
    0:00:11 And according to Noom, there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
    0:00:14 Noom wants to help you stay focused on what’s important to you,
    0:00:17 with their psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:00:20 This program helps you understand the science
    0:00:22 behind your eating choices, and helps
    0:00:24 you build new habits for a healthier lifestyle.
    0:00:27 Stay focused on what’s important to you,
    0:00:31 with Noom’s psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:00:34 Sign up for your free trial today at noom.com.
    0:00:42 Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home.
    0:00:45 Out, uncertainty, self-doubt, stressing
    0:00:48 about not knowing where to start.
    0:00:54 In, plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done.
    0:00:56 Out, word art.
    0:00:58 Sorry, live laugh lovers.
    0:01:03 In, knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire.
    0:01:06 Start caring for your home with confidence.
    0:01:10 Download Thumbtack today.
    0:01:11 Hey, everyone.
    0:01:11 It’s Sean.
    0:01:16 This week’s episode is one I recorded in June of 2023
    0:01:20 with Mariana Alessandre, a philosopher who
    0:01:23 wrote a book about depression and grief and what it means
    0:01:28 to live with and accept those dark emotions.
    0:01:31 I know the holidays can be hard for lots of us,
    0:01:33 and the message of this conversation
    0:01:37 was that that’s OK, and it doesn’t make any of us
    0:01:41 a failure if we’re struggling when we’re supposed to be happy.
    0:01:46 Rearing this episode has become a holiday tradition for us.
    0:01:49 It’s an offering for anyone in the audience who needs it.
    0:01:52 And even if you’re not struggling during this time,
    0:01:53 there’s a lot of wisdom here.
    0:01:56 And I hope you’ll find some value in it.
    0:01:58 All right then, on with the show.
    0:02:04 How can we find happiness?
    0:02:07 That’s an old question.
    0:02:09 One of the oldest, in fact.
    0:02:11 Since the beginning of philosophy, at least,
    0:02:14 people have been wondering what makes us happy
    0:02:17 and how to get more of it.
    0:02:19 And that’s all good as far as it goes.
    0:02:24 Happiness is great and very much worth pursuing.
    0:02:28 But if you’re a real person living in the real world,
    0:02:32 you know already that it’s not possible to be happy all the time.
    0:02:36 Life just isn’t like that.
    0:02:39 And the problem with the culture obsessed with the pursuit
    0:02:42 of happiness is that it creates a lot of pressure
    0:02:44 to not be unhappy.
    0:02:48 It also reinforces the idea that anyone who’s unhappy
    0:02:53 is, in some important sense, a failure.
    0:02:56 But is that really true?
    0:03:00 Even if you believe that happiness is the ultimate good,
    0:03:04 is it a mistake to assume that unhappiness is something
    0:03:05 to be avoided at all costs?
    0:03:12 I’m Sean Elling, and this is The Gray Area.
    0:03:26 Today’s guest is Mariana Alessandre.
    0:03:29 She’s a philosophy professor at the University of Texas,
    0:03:32 Rio Grande Valley, and the author of a new book
    0:03:36 called Night Vision, Seeing Ourselves Through Dark Moods.
    0:03:40 The book is not just a rebuke of what people sometimes
    0:03:43 call toxic positivity.
    0:03:46 It’s really an attempt to honor those darker emotions
    0:03:48 that all of us feel sometimes.
    0:03:51 It’s a very clear-eyed and intimate look
    0:03:54 at the reality of our inner lives.
    0:03:59 But importantly, it isn’t a celebration of sadness either.
    0:04:03 It’s a meditation on painful emotions
    0:04:05 and the important truths they can reveal
    0:04:08 about the world and our place in it.
    0:04:12 And this is something I wanted to explore with Mariana.
    0:04:15 So I invited her onto the show to do just that.
    0:04:24 There is a standard way of viewing darkness
    0:04:27 that you’re pushing back against in this book.
    0:04:31 You’re talking about dark emotions like anger, anxiety,
    0:04:35 depression, and grief, but also darkness
    0:04:38 in the sense of obscurity.
    0:04:40 And the unknown.
    0:04:42 So I just want to begin with you telling me
    0:04:44 about this standard view and really
    0:04:48 why you think it’s wrong, or unhelpful, or both.
    0:04:50 OK, so to talk about the dark, it’s
    0:04:52 like essential to figure out the light first.
    0:04:54 It’s almost hard to see how we think of the dark
    0:04:57 without it being in comparison with how we see the light.
    0:05:00 And so in the book, I talk about Plato’s Cave
    0:05:04 and how in the story, there are all these prisoners who
    0:05:07 are looking at the cave wall and behind them
    0:05:07 is a fire.
    0:05:10 And behind the fire are these puppeteers
    0:05:12 who hold up these puppets.
    0:05:15 And they walk around with these puppets of people and trees
    0:05:16 and dogs.
    0:05:20 And those puppets project shadows onto the wall.
    0:05:23 And then the people believe what they see on the wall.
    0:05:25 They think that those things on the wall
    0:05:28 are actually the actual things.
    0:05:30 And so they give them names, and they have contests,
    0:05:32 and they see who’s the smartest.
    0:05:34 But it’s all based on shadows.
    0:05:37 And one day, one of these prisoners
    0:05:41 gets freed against his will, because they, first of all,
    0:05:43 they don’t really know that they’re prisoners
    0:05:47 until someone drags this person out into the light.
    0:05:50 And in the light, first, the person’s blinded
    0:05:52 and doesn’t want to be there.
    0:05:53 So he first wants to look at the ground
    0:05:56 and the shadows on the ground because those things look
    0:05:58 real and truth.
    0:06:01 And then he can look at the water that has reflections.
    0:06:04 And then by night, he can see things clearer.
    0:06:06 And little by little, Plato tells us
    0:06:09 that this person acclimates to the light
    0:06:10 and then can finally see truth.
    0:06:13 So can finally see the real tree,
    0:06:17 whereas before, he was seeing a copy of a copy of a tree.
    0:06:20 And so a lot of people, I would say most people,
    0:06:22 interpret this story as saying that the light is what
    0:06:26 allows us to see truth, that the light is what saves.
    0:06:28 I mean, if you take it into the religious realm,
    0:06:31 a lot of religions talk about how the light is the savior.
    0:06:32 I’m the light of the world.
    0:06:34 The light saves you from darkness.
    0:06:38 So then we have light like way up high in the sky
    0:06:40 as this thing that is everything.
    0:06:42 Light is intelligence.
    0:06:43 We say you’re radiant, you’re beautiful,
    0:06:46 you’re glowing, you’re brilliant.
    0:06:48 Let me shed light on it.
    0:06:50 Like we have so many small metaphors.
    0:06:51 So I call them all the light metaphor.
    0:06:55 It’s just this big way that we invoke brightness
    0:06:59 as good and beautiful and holy and pure.
    0:07:02 So then in the light of that, darkness,
    0:07:04 think about all the words that it means.
    0:07:08 It means ignorance, danger, ugliness.
    0:07:11 Like if something’s dark, we don’t wanna go to a dark place.
    0:07:12 We don’t wanna be there.
    0:07:14 We wanna shed the dark and step out of the dark
    0:07:15 and into the light.
    0:07:17 And so we have created in our society
    0:07:22 this very difficult dichotomy between light and dark.
    0:07:25 And we spend a lot of us spend a lot of our time
    0:07:29 trying to get brighter and lighter and shed our darkness.
    0:07:33 And from my point of view, that’s not possible.
    0:07:37 And so then we’re left feeling like failed bright creatures
    0:07:40 because we’re also creatures of the dark.
    0:07:45 And so I’m trying to hold a space open for the darkness
    0:07:49 that values it and that honors it as part of who we are
    0:07:52 rather than just as something that’s trying to overcome
    0:07:54 or dismiss or get rid of it.
    0:07:58 – It’s probably the most pervasive metaphor in our culture.
    0:08:00 I’m not sure there’s even a close competitor, right?
    0:08:01 The light and dark.
    0:08:03 – And it’s so hard to doubt
    0:08:06 because it just seems natural
    0:08:08 that light is better than dark, you know?
    0:08:10 – Well, I mean, you mentioned the allegory of the cave.
    0:08:12 And as you were just saying, right?
    0:08:17 The moral of that story typically is taken to be,
    0:08:19 hey, look, get your ass out of the cave
    0:08:20 and into the sunlight
    0:08:22 so that you can see the real truth of things.
    0:08:24 And you have a sort of alternate take
    0:08:26 which is that, and now I’m quoting you.
    0:08:29 Everyone is a potential puppeteer.
    0:08:31 That for you is the sort of upshot of that.
    0:08:33 What do you mean by that?
    0:08:35 – Okay, so caves are dark, right?
    0:08:36 But like I live in Texas.
    0:08:39 I live where it’s like sunny 25 hours a day.
    0:08:41 Like it is so crazy here.
    0:08:45 And I would not want to just be in the sun my whole life.
    0:08:49 Like just out there in the desert, you know, in the sun.
    0:08:52 The cave provides us this like shelter.
    0:08:54 If we see the metaphor or the allegory of the cave
    0:08:57 as the cave was bad because it was dark
    0:08:59 and the outside is good because it’s light,
    0:09:02 I think we’re missing a huge part of the story.
    0:09:03 And the part of the story
    0:09:05 that I wish I could talk to Plato about
    0:09:06 is these puppeteers, right?
    0:09:08 He mentions them.
    0:09:09 He doesn’t tell us who they are.
    0:09:12 He doesn’t tell us if they’re also prisoners.
    0:09:14 He doesn’t tell us if they’re doing it on purpose, right?
    0:09:17 So you’ve got puppeteers trying to get you
    0:09:18 to believe something, right?
    0:09:22 They’re projecting ideas onto the wall in front of you.
    0:09:23 You believe it.
    0:09:25 So we don’t know if they’re fooling them on purpose
    0:09:28 or if they are just misguided.
    0:09:30 So anyone who’s giving us any messages
    0:09:33 about how we should think, how we should be our bodies,
    0:09:36 how we should feel, et cetera, what we should buy, right?
    0:09:37 Those are all puppeteers who are trying to get us
    0:09:40 to do one thing or another, you know,
    0:09:42 including people who aren’t doing it for money.
    0:09:44 Anyone who wants to sort of influence us
    0:09:46 is a potential puppeteer.
    0:09:47 So what I think is wrong with the cave
    0:09:49 isn’t that it’s dark.
    0:09:51 It’s that we’ve got a bunch of puppeteers in there
    0:09:52 who are sort of like unchecked.
    0:09:53 We haven’t examined them.
    0:09:56 What if we just took out the puppeteers?
    0:09:57 Couldn’t we just sort of live in the cave,
    0:09:59 go out in the light sometimes,
    0:10:01 go back in the cave, go out in the light?
    0:10:03 It doesn’t have to be that there’s bad actors.
    0:10:04 We don’t have to say that people are trying
    0:10:05 to manipulate us or something, right?
    0:10:08 It’s just that we’re getting a lot of messages
    0:10:11 on the walls of our own society that I question.
    0:10:12 And I want to say, like, can we doubt that?
    0:10:15 Can we see that that’s actually harming us?
    0:10:18 Because if we’re so busy chasing the light
    0:10:20 and we find ourselves still in the dark,
    0:10:21 we’re gonna blame ourselves
    0:10:23 because that’s a lot of the messaging that we get
    0:10:26 coming from self-help of today.
    0:10:27 So I want to inspect the messaging,
    0:10:30 see who’s projecting it and see what are their motives.
    0:10:34 Is it closer to what’s real or is it closer to a shadow?
    0:10:36 – So I want to back up a little bit
    0:10:38 and just talk about the origin of the book
    0:10:39 and then kind of work our way
    0:10:42 back through the argument you’re making.
    0:10:44 This book came out of the pandemic
    0:10:47 and you talk about how you were granted this sabbatical year
    0:10:49 right before all hell breaks loose
    0:10:51 and the school shut down.
    0:10:54 And how that really changed your experience
    0:10:57 and very obviously shaped the book.
    0:11:00 Do you think this would be a very different book
    0:11:04 in the end without that pandemic experience?
    0:11:05 – There’s a lot of things
    0:11:07 about the timing of the book that are interesting.
    0:11:09 I tried to sell a book like this,
    0:11:12 like similar concepts in 2014.
    0:11:16 And it didn’t sell because everyone was so full of hope.
    0:11:20 Obama’s president, nothing’s wrong, no pandemic,
    0:11:23 no one’s angry, no one was defending anger,
    0:11:24 no one needed to be angry.
    0:11:25 – That’s a lifetime ago.
    0:11:29 – Yeah, and then Trump, right?
    0:11:30 And then people are angry on both sides.
    0:11:31 Everyone’s all of a sudden angry.
    0:11:33 Everyone’s starting to defend anger.
    0:11:35 Then it sold because it’s like,
    0:11:37 yes, there’s a time now for this.
    0:11:40 And so I was gonna write the book pandemic or not,
    0:11:41 but I think what the pandemic did
    0:11:43 was every chapter that I was writing,
    0:11:47 I experienced what that chapter was about at the time.
    0:11:50 So while I’m writing about anger, I’m experiencing anger.
    0:11:52 I’m like, okay, I get it.
    0:11:54 I have to be here in this mood
    0:11:55 to be able to talk about this mood,
    0:11:58 but it was really frustrating.
    0:11:59 But that’s what it gave me.
    0:12:02 It was like a very heightened experience of these moods.
    0:12:06 – It’s all very relatable to me as a parent.
    0:12:08 You talk about all the anger
    0:12:11 you felt towards your kids during that time.
    0:12:13 And the thing you noticed
    0:12:16 was that it was producing the cycle of self-blame.
    0:12:20 And for you that does feed this narrative.
    0:12:22 That’s again, very pervasive in our society.
    0:12:24 And you call it the brokenness story.
    0:12:26 What is that?
    0:12:28 – All right, so the light metaphor
    0:12:29 is the opposite of the brokenness story.
    0:12:31 They’re the same, they’re two sides of the same coin.
    0:12:35 So the light metaphor is be like a proton, always positive.
    0:12:39 Choose happy or like my kid’s principle says,
    0:12:41 make it a great day or not.
    0:12:42 The choice is yours.
    0:12:46 When we’re doing well, we sometimes take credit for it.
    0:12:47 And we’re like, I stayed sunny.
    0:12:49 I did it myself.
    0:12:51 I got myself out of the darkness, you know?
    0:12:54 And it’s very seductive and it’s lovely and it’s empowering
    0:12:57 and people wanna feel like wearing control of our feelings.
    0:12:59 A lot of this kind of talk.
    0:13:02 So the brokenness story is what happens
    0:13:04 when you believe all those things
    0:13:06 and then you feel the opposite way.
    0:13:08 So let’s talk about anger
    0:13:10 ’cause that’s the one you bring up.
    0:13:12 I was trained to believe that I can control my emotions, right?
    0:13:14 This is from the Stoics.
    0:13:16 They say, you don’t have to feel angry.
    0:13:18 You let yourself feel angry.
    0:13:22 So if you’ve ever said to yourself, I’m sorry, I got angry.
    0:13:24 Even if you don’t know it, that’s a Stoic tenet
    0:13:26 because what it does is it implies
    0:13:28 that you didn’t have to get angry.
    0:13:30 That feelings are not a thing that have to happen.
    0:13:34 You can, with years and years of training,
    0:13:37 get yourself to not feel agitated by things.
    0:13:39 And so you allowed it and it was bad, right?
    0:13:40 So it’s two things, right?
    0:13:44 One is optional and two, it’s not helpful for us, right?
    0:13:46 So in our society, people say anger’s useless,
    0:13:50 anger’s bad for women, anger’s ugly, anger’s irrational.
    0:13:52 Nothing good comes from anger.
    0:13:53 I mean, I hear these things every day
    0:13:56 or I read them on the walls of my society, right?
    0:13:57 That was my education.
    0:13:58 Anger’s bad.
    0:14:00 I can control it if I really want to.
    0:14:03 If I’m strong enough, it’s in my power.
    0:14:06 So then what happens when you’re angry?
    0:14:08 That’s the brokenness story is now I’m a monster, right?
    0:14:10 That’s the story I have been telling myself my whole life
    0:14:12 ’cause I’ve been angry since birth.
    0:14:14 I’m a monster.
    0:14:16 I have these beautiful kids.
    0:14:17 Everything’s wonderful.
    0:14:18 What’s wrong with me?
    0:14:19 Why aren’t I grateful?
    0:14:21 Why aren’t I a better person?
    0:14:24 I’m ugly and crazy and irrational.
    0:14:25 So that’s the brokenness story
    0:14:29 is when I feel that feeling I’m not supposed to feel,
    0:14:32 up against a world that says that I don’t have to feel it
    0:14:33 and I can be better than that
    0:14:36 if I could only choose the right way,
    0:14:38 then the self-blame comes, the shame comes
    0:14:40 and that makes everything worse.
    0:14:43 So I want to reconfigure our emotional society
    0:14:46 such that we don’t place those expectations on ourselves.
    0:14:48 – Has it always been that way for you?
    0:14:50 The way you put it in the book was kind of striking
    0:14:53 that you’ve always been genetically angry,
    0:14:54 that this has always been in you,
    0:14:59 that the world has always seemed to you just kind of tragic
    0:15:02 and sad and you were another lovely line from the book
    0:15:04 excruciatingly alive to the world
    0:15:06 and maybe someone else’s quote,
    0:15:09 but this is something that you felt in yourself
    0:15:10 very early on.
    0:15:14 – Yeah, those words excruciatingly alive to the world
    0:15:15 are Gloria Anzalduas.
    0:15:16 – That’s right.
    0:15:19 – And she’s the sort of hero of my fourth chapter
    0:15:23 on depression, but I don’t think I’m unique in this.
    0:15:25 I think if you’re raised in a household
    0:15:29 that doesn’t really love emotions, especially sadness
    0:15:31 and crying, like crying would be made fun of, you know,
    0:15:34 even for girls, like it wasn’t acceptable in my house.
    0:15:37 And so everything kind of comes out as anger.
    0:15:39 So when I’m scared, I get angry.
    0:15:40 When I’m sad, I get angry.
    0:15:44 And I always just wished that I could be a crier
    0:15:45 ’cause it’s so feminine, right?
    0:15:47 It’s so much more acceptable and sweet.
    0:15:50 Like, and people would feel bad for me if I cried,
    0:15:52 but like, because I’m angry, I get aggressive
    0:15:54 and people just get mad at me.
    0:15:56 And then I’m like, oh, no, I was really just sad, right?
    0:15:59 So everything comes out as anger, pretty typical,
    0:16:01 but it masks the other feelings too.
    0:16:04 So it’s my ready, you know, it’s my go-to emotion.
    0:16:05 There’s nothing wrong with it.
    0:16:07 It’s just an interesting one to have
    0:16:10 because it’s not one very readily accepted
    0:16:11 for women in our society.
    0:16:13 – You do something in the book
    0:16:16 that is a sort of hobby horse of mine.
    0:16:19 And I’m always here for anyone who’s willing to do it,
    0:16:22 which is basically take a shit on what we think of
    0:16:25 as the self-help industry.
    0:16:26 We have these books that sort of pedal
    0:16:29 this very crude version of, I guess, you know,
    0:16:30 toxic positivity, we’ll call it.
    0:16:32 I guess that’s the phrase.
    0:16:35 Would your beef with these sorts of books,
    0:16:38 the sorts of books that not just imbibe this idea
    0:16:43 that light is good and sadness is dark and bad,
    0:16:45 but these sorts of books that traffic in this idea
    0:16:48 that you really are in control of your own happiness
    0:16:52 and to the extent you’re not happy, it’s your fault.
    0:16:53 – That’s it in a nutshell.
    0:16:56 And the thing is, I love self-help books.
    0:16:59 Like, I love them and I am drawn into them
    0:17:02 in the same way I’m drawn into Marcus Aurelius.
    0:17:04 I love someone telling me,
    0:17:06 “Hey, you know what, you’re not a victim.
    0:17:09 You can get better, you can feel better.
    0:17:10 Just do these things.
    0:17:12 These things worked for me.
    0:17:14 They can work for you.”
    0:17:16 So the sense of empowerment they give,
    0:17:18 it’s really the author saying,
    0:17:20 “Hey, you know what, I was in that place too
    0:17:22 and I got myself out of it
    0:17:23 and so I’m gonna help you get out of it.”
    0:17:24 And so a lot of the authors,
    0:17:26 I quote a few self-help authors,
    0:17:28 I don’t think they’re bad people.
    0:17:30 I think they’re confused into thinking
    0:17:32 that they made their own way out of it.
    0:17:35 Whereas we talk about privilege, we talk about luck,
    0:17:37 we talk about other people.
    0:17:39 And at this point, they’re being sustained
    0:17:41 on the backs of people who think they’re broken.
    0:17:44 So I go into the store, I feel broken,
    0:17:45 I go to the self-help aisle, right?
    0:17:49 Like it looks like someone’s going to help me get unbroken
    0:17:51 and then they make money, right?
    0:17:54 So they actually need me to feel bad,
    0:17:56 they need me to suffer and they need me to feel
    0:17:58 like it’s my fault that I’m suffering.
    0:17:59 They need me to feel bad about it,
    0:18:03 that I am in control of it and I want to be just like them.
    0:18:05 And now a lot of these people are super rich,
    0:18:07 but now they’re definitely peddling
    0:18:10 because they’re dependent on us.
    0:18:12 In the same way that a lot of industries benefit
    0:18:14 off of people who are suffering.
    0:18:16 I mean, I’m quoting someone who says,
    0:18:19 “If you’re not happy, then it’s on you.”
    0:18:22 And I just think, wow, is that a bold claim?
    0:18:23 Is that such a huge claim to make
    0:18:27 because you think that happiness is within 100%
    0:18:29 within your control, that is incredible.
    0:18:32 That’s like purely stoic and very dangerous
    0:18:34 for a sufferer to read.
    0:18:37 – And there’s got to be some kinship
    0:18:39 between the light metaphor and the way
    0:18:41 Americans understand themselves
    0:18:44 that makes this place such fertile ground for this.
    0:18:46 I mean, you mentioned the power of positive thinking,
    0:18:48 the famous book by Norman Vincent Peel,
    0:18:50 which came out in like the 50s.
    0:18:52 And it’s sort of the foundational text
    0:18:53 of this whole genre.
    0:18:55 And I’m sure there’s just a ton to be said
    0:18:59 about how those kinds of ideas really did shape
    0:19:03 post-war America and helped cultivate and cement
    0:19:06 all of these sort of attitudes and dispositions or whatever.
    0:19:09 – Yeah, I think the US is a bizarre mix of stoicism,
    0:19:12 like the revival of stoicism that’s so hot,
    0:19:15 not just in California, but all over the world.
    0:19:16 But specifically for the US,
    0:19:18 stoicism says choose happy.
    0:19:20 You get to be happy if you want to.
    0:19:22 But they’re very careful.
    0:19:25 They say you can’t control most of things.
    0:19:27 You can only control yourself, your virtue,
    0:19:28 what you put into the world.
    0:19:31 So they’re actually more careful than most Americans
    0:19:33 who sort of peddle similar theories.
    0:19:36 But it’s stoicism plus Peel, exactly.
    0:19:40 1952, power of positive thinking.
    0:19:41 So if the stoics say, you know what,
    0:19:44 you can’t control your outside circumstances,
    0:19:46 Peel is like, no, no, you can.
    0:19:48 If you actually think positively enough,
    0:19:49 you can get that job.
    0:19:50 And if you didn’t get that job,
    0:19:52 this is the brokenness story.
    0:19:53 If you didn’t get that job,
    0:19:55 it’s because you weren’t trying hard enough.
    0:19:56 You weren’t positive enough.
    0:19:58 You had some negativity, pessimism.
    0:19:59 You influenced it.
    0:20:00 With that attitude,
    0:20:02 you’re never going to get where you want to be.
    0:20:11 – For many years, Mariana was a fan
    0:20:14 of the stoics approach to managing emotions,
    0:20:18 but soon found herself more attracted to Aristotle’s view.
    0:20:21 I’ll ask her to unpack that philosophical switch
    0:20:22 after a short break.
    0:20:25 (upbeat music)
    0:20:32 Support for the show comes from Givewell.
    0:20:34 When you make a charitable donation,
    0:20:37 you want to know your money is being well spent.
    0:20:39 For that, you might want to try Givewell.
    0:20:41 Givewell is an independent nonprofit
    0:20:43 that spent the last 17 years
    0:20:46 researching charitable organizations.
    0:20:47 And they only give recommendations
    0:20:51 to the highest impact causes that they vetted thoroughly.
    0:20:52 According to Givewell,
    0:20:54 over 125,000 donors have used it
    0:20:57 to donate more than $2 billion.
    0:20:59 Rigorous evidence suggests that these donations
    0:21:02 could save over 200,000 lives.
    0:21:05 And Givewell wants to help you make informed decisions
    0:21:07 about high impact giving.
    0:21:09 So all of their research and recommendations
    0:21:11 are available on their site for free.
    0:21:13 You can make tax deductible donations
    0:21:15 and Givewell doesn’t take a cut.
    0:21:17 If you’ve never used Givewell to donate,
    0:21:19 you can have your donation matched up to $100
    0:21:21 before the end of the year
    0:21:23 or as long as matching funds last.
    0:21:24 To claim your match,
    0:21:26 you can go to Givewell.org
    0:21:29 and pick podcasts and enter the gray area at checkout.
    0:21:31 Make sure they know that you heard about Givewell
    0:21:34 from the gray area to get your donation matched.
    0:21:37 Again, that’s Givewell.org to donate or find out more.
    0:21:44 Support for the gray area comes from Quince.
    0:21:45 Winter is coming.
    0:21:48 Actually, no, it’s already here.
    0:21:50 Honestly, I just wanted to say winter is coming.
    0:21:53 But seriously, when the weather gets cold and bleak,
    0:21:56 it can feel amazing to lean into cozy mode.
    0:21:59 Quince offers a ton of luxurious cold weather necessity
    0:22:01 that can add a lot of winter comfort to your wardrobe
    0:22:03 without costing a fortune.
    0:22:05 Our colleague Claire White got to try out some pieces
    0:22:06 from Quince.
    0:22:08 Here’s what she had to say about them.
    0:22:10 – I was surprised at how good the quality is
    0:22:11 based on the price point.
    0:22:14 Oftentimes, a luxury material like this
    0:22:17 can go for a pretty penny.
    0:22:19 This was right within my budget
    0:22:21 and still feels great.
    0:22:23 – You can get luxury this holiday season
    0:22:25 without the luxury price tag.
    0:22:30 You can go to quince.com/grayarea for 365 day returns
    0:22:32 plus free shipping on your order.
    0:22:37 That’s Q-U-I-N-C-E.com/grayarea to get free shipping
    0:22:39 and 365 day returns.
    0:22:41 Quince.com/grayarea.
    0:22:44 (upbeat music)
    0:22:48 – Fox Creative.
    0:22:51 – This is advertiser content from Zell.
    0:22:56 When you picture an online scammer, what do you see?
    0:22:58 – For the longest time, we have these images
    0:23:00 of somebody sitting crouched over their computer
    0:23:02 with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away
    0:23:03 in the middle of the night.
    0:23:06 And honestly, that’s not what it is anymore.
    0:23:09 – That’s Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.
    0:23:12 These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates
    0:23:16 than individual con artists and they’re making bank.
    0:23:21 Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion.
    0:23:23 – It’s mind blowing to see the kind of infrastructure
    0:23:28 that’s been built to facilitate scamming at scale.
    0:23:30 There are hundreds, if not thousands,
    0:23:32 of scam centers all around the world.
    0:23:34 These are very savvy business people.
    0:23:36 These are organized criminal rings.
    0:23:39 And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem,
    0:23:41 we can protect people better.
    0:23:45 – One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face
    0:23:48 is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed
    0:23:50 to discuss what happened to them.
    0:23:54 But Ian says, one of our best defenses is simple.
    0:23:56 We need to talk to each other.
    0:23:58 – We need to have those awkward conversations
    0:24:00 around what do you do if you have text messages
    0:24:01 you don’t recognize?
    0:24:03 What do you do if you start getting asked
    0:24:05 to send information that’s more sensitive?
    0:24:08 Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness,
    0:24:10 a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim
    0:24:13 and we have these conversations all the time.
    0:24:15 So we are all at risk
    0:24:18 and we all need to work together to protect each other.
    0:24:20 – Learn more about how to protect yourself
    0:24:23 at vox.com/zel.
    0:24:25 And when using digital payment platforms,
    0:24:29 remember to only send money to people you know and trust.
    0:24:36 (gentle music)
    0:24:38 (gentle music)
    0:24:47 – Earlier in your life, you were a big fan of the Stoics
    0:24:48 and maybe still are to some degree.
    0:24:51 I mean, you mentioned even reading Epictetus’s handbook
    0:24:55 every year for like 15 years, which is impressive.
    0:24:58 But it does seem like you have arrived at the view
    0:25:01 that the Stoic approach to passions
    0:25:03 and their approach to dark feelings
    0:25:06 is just ultimately not satisfying.
    0:25:08 And that sort of led you to Aristotle.
    0:25:11 So just tell us how that happened and why.
    0:25:16 – Yeah, Stoicism is very, I guess, seductive
    0:25:18 is a good word. – It is.
    0:25:19 – It’s beautiful.
    0:25:23 There’s so much in there that comes from the heart.
    0:25:24 Like these are real human beings
    0:25:26 who are really suffering.
    0:25:31 Seneca, you know, he’s seeing crazy stuff going on.
    0:25:33 And Marcus Aurelius is Emperor of Rome, right?
    0:25:37 So he’s got to find a way to be okay.
    0:25:38 And they’re giving us a way,
    0:25:40 they call it tranquility or ataraxia,
    0:25:44 freedom from worry because they think that what agitates us,
    0:25:48 this is from Epictetus, is not the things themselves
    0:25:51 but our judgments about the things.
    0:25:52 And if that sounds familiar,
    0:25:55 that’s very much what CBT, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
    0:26:00 teaches today, what upsets us is not the circumstances,
    0:26:02 but it’s how we are interpreting.
    0:26:03 It’s the narrative we tell.
    0:26:06 It’s the story we tell about our circumstances
    0:26:07 that makes us more upset.
    0:26:11 And so the Stoics aim for us to be more neutral.
    0:26:13 The house burned down, don’t say it’s bad.
    0:26:16 Just say what happened, just say my house burned down.
    0:26:18 Because you can take different people,
    0:26:20 two people whose house burned down,
    0:26:22 one of them is gonna be distraught
    0:26:24 because they believe that it’s awful.
    0:26:26 They’re gonna never get over it, you know,
    0:26:28 they’re gonna be miserable forever.
    0:26:29 And then on the other hand,
    0:26:32 you can have another person who’s more Stoic
    0:26:33 who says, okay, my house burned down,
    0:26:34 what do I do now?
    0:26:37 Right, like they can be more tranquil
    0:26:38 and free from all that worry.
    0:26:42 So the Stoic messaging is so seductive
    0:26:44 because it makes you feel like these things are optional.
    0:26:48 Like my big feelings, I can tone them down.
    0:26:49 I can settle them out.
    0:26:51 And yes, becoming a new mother,
    0:26:53 I really got into Stoicism.
    0:26:56 I had like a notebook, I did just a bunch of work.
    0:26:59 There’s all different kinds of practices that you do
    0:27:01 so that I wouldn’t hurt my baby, right?
    0:27:04 So that I wouldn’t do things that are wrong
    0:27:06 because you’re not sleeping and, you know, they cry,
    0:27:09 like all the time and I needed something
    0:27:11 to make me feel like I could be calm.
    0:27:14 Like Seneca calls life a storm, right?
    0:27:18 So that one can be calm, like on a ship, you’re calm,
    0:27:21 even though life around you is raging.
    0:27:23 And so it’s not a surprise to me
    0:27:26 that a lot of Americans love the Stoic mindset
    0:27:29 because it makes you feel like you can, it’s just hard work.
    0:27:31 And I think Americans also like hard work.
    0:27:33 I know I do, like give me something to do.
    0:27:36 Like, but again, it is so strenuous.
    0:27:38 You know, I’ll even go back now and I’ll be like,
    0:27:40 let me read Marcus Aurelius again.
    0:27:43 And then I go back and I walk away from the encounter
    0:27:45 with him and I feel worse about myself.
    0:27:49 This is our society where if the message being peddled
    0:27:53 is your happiness is up to you, then any problem you have,
    0:27:55 you can say, well, it must be me
    0:27:58 because X person over here overcame 6,000 struggles
    0:28:00 and they’re great and I’m not okay.
    0:28:02 So it’s me and I’m the problem.
    0:28:06 So the Stoics, they don’t leave a lot of room for luck.
    0:28:08 Aristotle does.
    0:28:09 So I moved into Aristotle
    0:28:12 because I just find him so much kinder
    0:28:14 to the human condition.
    0:28:16 And so he says we have three parts in our soul,
    0:28:21 feelings and predispositions and active conditions.
    0:28:23 Feelings, we all know what they are.
    0:28:25 You know, I feel mad, I feel sad, whatever.
    0:28:27 He’s like, yeah, feelings come and go.
    0:28:29 He doesn’t think they’re optional
    0:28:31 in the way that the Stoics think they’re optional
    0:28:35 and he doesn’t want us to spend our time trying to fix them
    0:28:36 because he’s like, you know what,
    0:28:38 there’s like bigger fish to fry.
    0:28:41 So leave the feelings alone, know yourself,
    0:28:43 know what are you likely to feel?
    0:28:45 So for mine, again, it’s anger.
    0:28:47 If something goes wrong, I can think like,
    0:28:48 oh, I’m most likely to get angry.
    0:28:51 So let me not get behind the driver that’s slow
    0:28:53 because I’m probably gonna get really angry, right?
    0:28:57 So what he thinks is worth all the gold in the world
    0:29:00 is the active conditions and that’s the behavior.
    0:29:04 So if you say something like, I got angry
    0:29:07 and I’m sorry, I yelled at you when I was angry.
    0:29:09 That’s a Aristotelian.
    0:29:11 He’s not saying, I’m sorry, I got angry.
    0:29:14 He’s saying, I’m sorry, I yelled out of anger
    0:29:15 or at the worst, right?
    0:29:16 I’m sorry, I hit you.
    0:29:19 Like I should not have done this action
    0:29:21 as a response to the feeling.
    0:29:23 So he wants us to disconnect the feeling from the action.
    0:29:26 And he says, even when something provokes you,
    0:29:29 you need to be able to act beautifully
    0:29:31 in light of that provocation.
    0:29:33 So that for me felt like, oh, I can do that.
    0:29:35 And Mr. Rogers is all about that, right?
    0:29:37 Like our feelings are fine.
    0:29:39 It’s the way that we handle them.
    0:29:40 That’s the problem.
    0:29:42 So a lot of people are actually convinced more
    0:29:43 by Aristotle than by the Stoics,
    0:29:45 especially in today’s day and age.
    0:29:47 I don’t know a lot of people who really believe
    0:29:49 that feelings are optional,
    0:29:51 but I do know a lot of people who say,
    0:29:53 okay, maybe feelings aren’t optional,
    0:29:56 but I can definitely control my behavior.
    0:29:59 So action is the most important thing.
    0:30:00 – You talk a lot about grief in the book
    0:30:03 as one must in a book like this.
    0:30:08 And the Stoic wisdom on grief is,
    0:30:12 as you’re sort of suggesting here, is to conquer it.
    0:30:15 And on the one hand, that can seem kind of cold.
    0:30:20 And you pointed the example of the letter Seneca wrote,
    0:30:23 a grieving mother telling her to grieve no more
    0:30:24 than was honorable.
    0:30:29 And that definitely seems a little unempathetic, we’ll say.
    0:30:34 But on the other hand, is this still possibly wise,
    0:30:37 given how self-destructive runaway grief can be?
    0:30:39 I mean, maybe the Stoics are right here to just say,
    0:30:41 hey, you know, we can’t grieve forever.
    0:30:43 We gotta stop sometime.
    0:30:46 So why not wheel yourself out of it sooner
    0:30:47 rather than later?
    0:30:49 – No, I totally understand that.
    0:30:51 And I had a student kind of raise a similar question
    0:30:54 about a relative who she saw was just in grief
    0:30:54 her whole life.
    0:30:55 And she said, aren’t the Stoics right?
    0:30:57 Don’t we have to get rid of it at some point?
    0:31:00 We can’t just sort of let ourselves wallow forever
    0:31:03 ’cause it’s destructive to other people, et cetera.
    0:31:07 So Cicero comes to mind because he said grief is optional
    0:31:09 because Cicero lost his daughter.
    0:31:11 And he said, but I saw a soldier on the field
    0:31:13 who had also just lost his child.
    0:31:17 And that soldier on the field didn’t cry.
    0:31:19 And he said, so proof, grief is optional.
    0:31:21 You can actually just like stop it before it starts.
    0:31:24 This is their big thing because it’s painful, right?
    0:31:26 Like they care about us a lot.
    0:31:27 Here’s a painful thing.
    0:31:28 Do we wanna feel pain?
    0:31:30 No, so let’s not feel pain.
    0:31:34 Like we don’t need to succumb to these emotions.
    0:31:39 But my take on it is that a lot of why we feel bad
    0:31:43 about grief specifically is the shame element.
    0:31:45 So for me, the definition of shame in the book
    0:31:48 is feeling bad about feeling bad.
    0:31:50 So here I am, let’s say I’ve lost someone
    0:31:53 and I feel grief and I try to talk about it.
    0:31:55 And then the person shushes me.
    0:31:56 And they say, don’t say that.
    0:31:58 Don’t talk about that person.
    0:31:59 Let’s go out dancing.
    0:32:05 We are stifled by a society that is so inept
    0:32:11 at handling our dark moods that it adds insult to injury.
    0:32:13 And then what happens is that the griever is left
    0:32:15 completely alone with their grief
    0:32:18 because nobody understands.
    0:32:20 And so I draw heavily on this book by Megan Devine
    0:32:22 called “It’s Okay That You’re Not Okay,”
    0:32:25 understanding grief in a world that doesn’t understand.
    0:32:30 And she’s amazing because she shows all of the horrible
    0:32:32 things that people say to a griever
    0:32:33 that actually make them feel worse.
    0:32:36 It’s like Job’s comforters were anything but comforting.
    0:32:38 They were just like blaming him.
    0:32:40 Grievers are feeling this like loss
    0:32:42 and this pain and this tenderness.
    0:32:46 And a lot of times either a person is so uncomfortable
    0:32:47 that they just ghost you.
    0:32:48 They just have run away.
    0:32:50 And they’re like, well, I didn’t know what to say.
    0:32:52 So I ran away and that’s terrible
    0:32:53 ’cause then you’re left alone in your grief
    0:32:56 and feeling like I thought that person was my friend.
    0:32:59 Or they’ll give the platitudes.
    0:33:00 At least this, at least that.
    0:33:02 I mean, I have a quick story.
    0:33:06 My mom lost her child, one of my brothers.
    0:33:09 It was before I was born, but he died at the age of nine.
    0:33:12 And my mom already had like six kids by then.
    0:33:14 And people told her all sorts of things
    0:33:16 that she had to just put up with.
    0:33:18 Everything from it happens for a reason.
    0:33:21 God wanted an angel, et cetera, et cetera.
    0:33:24 I mean, you can sort of imagine like all the bad things
    0:33:25 that someone could say.
    0:33:27 The worst thing that they said to her,
    0:33:29 according to her years later, she said,
    0:33:33 they told her, well, at least you have all those other kids.
    0:33:37 Like if we understood the implication of that phrase,
    0:33:41 we’re so well-intentioned, but we botch grief so badly.
    0:33:43 It’s like we go in, we’ve got like scissors on our hand.
    0:33:45 And we go in to hug the griever.
    0:33:48 And like we cut them up with our, at least you have this.
    0:33:53 And if only, and just not allowing the person to grieve.
    0:33:57 And so I think that a lot of the reason why long grievers
    0:34:00 are long grievers is because the world is the way it is.
    0:34:03 And I think that if the world were different,
    0:34:06 then the griever wouldn’t be as afflicted.
    0:34:10 And so what I’m trying to do is like turn the lens
    0:34:12 and say, hey, you know what?
    0:34:14 You live in a sick society.
    0:34:15 So society may be calling you sick,
    0:34:19 but let’s look at the world in which you’re grieving
    0:34:24 and let’s see how those people around you are affecting you
    0:34:26 and they’re making you feel shame
    0:34:29 and loneliness on top of grief.
    0:34:32 So I don’t need necessarily to tell the person
    0:34:34 who’s already suffering, well, you need to do X, Y, and Z.
    0:34:35 You need to get out more.
    0:34:37 You should open your blinds, go for a walk.
    0:34:38 You need sunshine.
    0:34:39 That’s not it.
    0:34:42 It’s us, the comforters who need to back off
    0:34:45 and who need to really, really approach grief differently
    0:34:48 and approach all of the dark moods for ourselves,
    0:34:50 but also for other people.
    0:34:52 Right now our expectations in our society
    0:34:55 are set at hashtag no bad days.
    0:34:58 And I just think we’re screwed because one,
    0:35:01 that means one bad day is you failed.
    0:35:05 And so grief is like a big failure, right?
    0:35:06 Like, oh, you’re sad more than two weeks.
    0:35:09 Well, let’s see what we can do with you, right?
    0:35:11 Everyone else wants to change the person
    0:35:12 and I wanna say, hey, you know what?
    0:35:13 I don’t think it’s you.
    0:35:15 I think you’re living in a world
    0:35:16 that is emotionally intolerant.
    0:35:20 – You just mentioned hashtag no bad days.
    0:35:23 And I want our listeners to know
    0:35:24 what you’re referring to there.
    0:35:26 And this is, I think, toward the end of the book,
    0:35:29 you bring up a guy, it’s your kid’s soccer coach.
    0:35:30 And he’s wearing the sweatshirt
    0:35:33 and it says hashtag no bad days.
    0:35:36 And your point in bringing him up is to say,
    0:35:39 even that guy knows that, in fact,
    0:35:41 there will be bad days.
    0:35:44 So why does that person buy and wear
    0:35:46 that shirt in the first place?
    0:35:47 – I mean, I’ve been so tempted to ask him,
    0:35:51 but I never wanted to insult him or sort of like come at him.
    0:35:52 But I’ve been so tempted to ask him like,
    0:35:53 what made you buy that?
    0:35:56 Why do we hang things in our house
    0:35:58 that say like, it’ll get brighter.
    0:36:00 Good days are right around the corner.
    0:36:02 Stay positive, stay sunny.
    0:36:03 I mean, the whole point that he’s doing
    0:36:06 is he’s spreading sunshine.
    0:36:07 He’s just a good American.
    0:36:10 Like he’s reading the walls of our society that say,
    0:36:13 hey, you know what, smile, it cheers people up.
    0:36:15 When people are sad, make them feel better,
    0:36:18 buy them something or make them smile.
    0:36:21 So he’s living in a world where that’s what we should do.
    0:36:24 When we have a bad emotion, we should not give into it.
    0:36:25 We should not listen to it.
    0:36:28 We should do our best to combat it.
    0:36:31 So combat negativity with positivity.
    0:36:33 And so he’s just reading the walls of our society
    0:36:34 absolutely correctly.
    0:36:35 I’m the weirdo here.
    0:36:36 I’m the one who’s saying,
    0:36:39 wait, aren’t the walls of our society projecting shadows?
    0:36:42 Aren’t those shadows of actually what really is?
    0:36:44 And what really is is that we are dark
    0:36:47 and we have these moods and we have bad days.
    0:36:49 And my whole argument is that they, in fact,
    0:36:51 for a lot of us, okay, I’m not even speaking
    0:36:53 for everyone here ’cause maybe some people read the book
    0:36:54 and they’re like, that’s not the world I live in.
    0:36:55 That’s okay.
    0:36:59 But for a lot of us, wow, the world that we live in
    0:37:02 is pressuring us to stay positive
    0:37:05 and we can’t keep up and we don’t want to keep up.
    0:37:07 There’s no need to stay positive
    0:37:09 ’cause we’re not gonna drown in negativity.
    0:37:11 – The pressuring is a big point.
    0:37:14 And this comes up in your discussion of grief
    0:37:15 and your description of it
    0:37:18 as a sort of juggling the prospect of falling apart,
    0:37:21 which when people experience grief,
    0:37:23 it is this experience of falling apart.
    0:37:25 And at the same time, there’s this tension
    0:37:28 between that experience, which is true,
    0:37:32 and then the simultaneous desire to not wanna fall apart.
    0:37:34 And yet people in your life, friends and family,
    0:37:37 who genuinely don’t wanna see you fall apart,
    0:37:40 and so navigating that tension is really hard.
    0:37:42 – I wanna push back even on that word though.
    0:37:43 – Yeah, please.
    0:37:47 – Because right now, like I’m sitting in my office
    0:37:49 and down the hall, my mom is dying, okay?
    0:37:51 She’s on hospice.
    0:37:53 It looks like she’s in the active phase of dying.
    0:37:58 So I have been caring for her and it is absolutely exhausting.
    0:38:02 I don’t know what date is, but I’m not falling apart.
    0:38:04 Like that’s what I’m tempted to say.
    0:38:05 I’m tempted to say, I’m going crazy.
    0:38:06 I’m falling apart.
    0:38:08 I can’t handle this.
    0:38:09 Everything that points to the person,
    0:38:12 that there’s something wrong with me.
    0:38:14 And really what I wanna replace that with,
    0:38:15 I just want new vocabulary.
    0:38:17 I want us all to pitch in.
    0:38:19 Can we get better descriptions of this?
    0:38:21 Because it’s not a feeling of falling apart.
    0:38:22 Like that’s within a framework
    0:38:24 that everything is held together, right?
    0:38:26 So in my intro to the grief chapter,
    0:38:29 I talk about a person who congratulates another person
    0:38:32 on keeping it together when your wife died.
    0:38:33 It’s so amazing that you kept it.
    0:38:35 And I’m like, what does that even mean?
    0:38:36 I don’t relate to those words anymore,
    0:38:40 the way that I used to be kind of seduced by them too.
    0:38:42 So now I just think, I’m not falling apart.
    0:38:45 I’m going through something incredibly difficult,
    0:38:47 but I’m not broken.
    0:38:51 It just means that I feel like there’s a great weight
    0:38:52 on top of me now.
    0:38:56 And that feeling will go once I know that my mom is okay.
    0:39:00 But for now, that’s the life that I’m living.
    0:39:02 And I don’t wanna turn against myself
    0:39:03 because a lot of this light metaphor
    0:39:05 and the broken history,
    0:39:06 it’s when I turn against myself and say,
    0:39:07 what’s wrong with me?
    0:39:09 Why can’t I handle this better?
    0:39:10 Well, who would?
    0:39:12 Who’s not anxious right now?
    0:39:16 Who doesn’t have reason for sadness?
    0:39:19 Why is the expectation set that we’re better than this?
    0:39:21 Like, what does that even mean?
    0:39:23 Like, I’m experiencing something so poignant
    0:39:28 and rich and beautiful and like seriously honest.
    0:39:31 Socrates preaches intellectual honesty.
    0:39:34 And I want to say emotional honesty
    0:39:37 is just as important as intellectual honesty.
    0:39:38 So I would like to see a world
    0:39:40 in which we would be brave enough,
    0:39:43 honest enough to be emotionally honest with one another
    0:39:46 so that we could sort of like lower
    0:39:48 our expectations of what we think life is.
    0:39:53 So I wanna get away from that kind of falling apart metaphor too.
    0:39:56 – It says something about the pervasiveness
    0:39:59 of the metaphor that I sort of unreflectedly
    0:40:00 became a vehicle for it there
    0:40:02 without even thinking about it.
    0:40:04 Can I ask how you’re preparing
    0:40:06 for your mom’s potential death?
    0:40:08 I mean, are you almost,
    0:40:09 in some ways it just almost feel like
    0:40:10 you’re kind of pre-greaving.
    0:40:12 I mean, I talked about this on the show.
    0:40:15 I lost my mom about three years ago,
    0:40:16 but it was very sudden.
    0:40:17 There was a car crash.
    0:40:20 There was no time to prepare or reflect on anything.
    0:40:22 It just happened.
    0:40:26 And the grieving process for me,
    0:40:28 I don’t even really know how to talk about it.
    0:40:30 It was just like this sort of shadow
    0:40:33 that just kind of followed me around for a long time.
    0:40:37 And then one day it was a little lighter
    0:40:39 and then another month or two or three down the road,
    0:40:42 it was a little lighter and you just sort of get on with it.
    0:40:46 But how are you, as someone who thinks so deeply
    0:40:48 about these sorts of questions,
    0:40:50 how are you preparing for this?
    0:40:52 How do you think you’ll handle it?
    0:40:55 – No, I think there’s just something
    0:40:58 about losing your mom that’s like,
    0:40:59 I lost my father in February.
    0:41:01 So these are like back to back,
    0:41:04 but there’s something different about losing my mom.
    0:41:07 And because it was more sudden,
    0:41:09 she thought she had six years,
    0:41:11 but then her cancer came back.
    0:41:13 And so it’s not sudden like yours,
    0:41:15 but it feels more like I’m not prepared.
    0:41:17 Whereas my father had had a stroke four years ago.
    0:41:20 You know, we had more time to sort of recognize
    0:41:22 that he wasn’t immortal.
    0:41:25 When I teach like Seneca on grieving
    0:41:29 and he says practice death in advance.
    0:41:31 And I asked my students, what do you think that means, right?
    0:41:35 And some of it to them means spend time with the person,
    0:41:36 tell these people that you love them,
    0:41:38 like recognize that your parents and grandparents
    0:41:40 are mortal, et cetera.
    0:41:42 But then some of them also pick up on the fact,
    0:41:45 I think he’s also saying like, you’re actually doing it.
    0:41:46 Like I’m doing grief right now.
    0:41:49 I’m practicing my mom’s death by looking at her every day
    0:41:52 and putting drops of water into her mouth.
    0:41:55 She does not look like a person who’s alive.
    0:41:58 So I’m practicing death.
    0:42:01 And with that, I’m allowing myself to grieve.
    0:42:02 So I just cry spontaneously.
    0:42:04 I cry talking to friends.
    0:42:06 And this is something that like I said earlier,
    0:42:06 I’m not a cryer.
    0:42:08 So it’s weird for me.
    0:42:09 And it’s usually very quick.
    0:42:11 It’s like a quick cry and then I’m done,
    0:42:12 but then it comes back.
    0:42:15 But in terms of like testing my own theories,
    0:42:18 what I believe is that sharing your pain
    0:42:20 is a gift to other people.
    0:42:23 And I think we’ve been raised to believe
    0:42:25 that my pain is a burden.
    0:42:28 So I should shield somebody else from my pain.
    0:42:29 So if I really love you,
    0:42:31 I will not tell you what’s going on with me
    0:42:33 because it would hurt you.
    0:42:34 Because I don’t want to make you suffer.
    0:42:37 I shouldn’t tell you that I’m suffering.
    0:42:39 I believe that if we’re in pain,
    0:42:42 the loving thing to do, if you feel like it,
    0:42:43 is to tell other people,
    0:42:45 to invite them into the world of pain
    0:42:48 and to say like, it’s okay here too.
    0:42:50 So one thing I’m doing a lot is with my kids
    0:42:51 ’cause obviously they live here
    0:42:53 and they’re seeing all this.
    0:42:54 And so I talk to them about it every day
    0:42:57 and talk about different angles of it.
    0:42:58 And I warned them the other day.
    0:43:01 I said, you know, I think I’m gonna cry a lot for Ita.
    0:43:05 But I said, just know that a lot of my crying
    0:43:08 will be relief because right now I’m taking care of her.
    0:43:11 So I’m under a lot of stress making a lot of decisions
    0:43:13 that I don’t always know are right,
    0:43:15 but it’s gonna be relief.
    0:43:17 It’s not just sadness.
    0:43:19 Crying is so mixed and beautiful
    0:43:21 and like it’s so good to cry
    0:43:23 and talking about it,
    0:43:25 talking to people normalizing it, right?
    0:43:26 It’s not a secret.
    0:43:30 And I wanna make more normal real life stuff.
    0:43:33 So Miguel de Unimuno is a philosopher I use
    0:43:36 in the second chapter on sadness.
    0:43:38 And I call it dolor because in Spanish
    0:43:41 that just means like emotional pain and physical pain.
    0:43:45 And he says that we are like guitars,
    0:43:49 whereby when two guitars are standing next to each other,
    0:43:51 if you vibrate one of their strings,
    0:43:53 if you pluck one set of strings,
    0:43:56 the other set of strings starts to vibrate.
    0:43:57 That’s beautiful.
    0:43:58 That’s the way it should work
    0:44:00 and that’s the way it often works.
    0:44:02 So if I’m talking about my mom,
    0:44:03 you don’t have to say, no, no,
    0:44:05 we don’t have to talk about that or whatever.
    0:44:08 Like your strings, your heartstrings should vibrate.
    0:44:10 And they did because then you told me about your mom.
    0:44:15 And someone asked him, why doesn’t it always happen?
    0:44:16 And he said, well,
    0:44:20 I guess the other person doesn’t have heartstrings.
    0:44:23 Or he says they’re frozen.
    0:44:24 And I think that happens to a lot of us.
    0:44:27 When we feel numb at the sight of other people’s pain,
    0:44:30 it’s because they got frozen because we’ve been taught
    0:44:33 that pain is like taboo and not supposed to talk about it.
    0:44:36 And like, oh, maybe I don’t know you very well.
    0:44:38 Oh, this is awkward, whatever.
    0:44:41 But like it’s about like thawing out our heartstrings
    0:44:42 to allow them to vibrate.
    0:44:45 Even in the case of my mom, there’s no tragedy here.
    0:44:46 It’s just pain.
    0:44:50 It’s hard and it’s real and it’s natural and all of that.
    0:44:52 But it’s what’s going on.
    0:44:54 So it’s emotionally honest.
    0:44:58 – Is that what it means for you to find,
    0:45:01 to create dignity and these sorts of emotions,
    0:45:05 to not do what there’s a lot of social pressure to do,
    0:45:07 which is to mask it, to paper over it,
    0:45:11 to tamp it down for the sake of not making someone else
    0:45:14 have to acknowledge it and deal with something actually,
    0:45:15 you know, real.
    0:45:17 Is that where the dignity is to be found?
    0:45:19 And again, not bludgeoning people with it,
    0:45:21 but also not running away from it.
    0:45:21 – Yeah.
    0:45:24 – Being honest about it and being almost proud of it,
    0:45:25 actually.
    0:45:26 – I had to think about this a lot
    0:45:30 because it’s not the mood that I’m trying to dignify.
    0:45:33 It’s very difficult to dignify depression.
    0:45:35 ‘Cause then you slip into the five gifts of your depression,
    0:45:39 the thing you didn’t know that was so great about this thing.
    0:45:41 That’s not the point of the book.
    0:45:42 The point of the book is to actually dignify
    0:45:46 and see and recognize, ’cause I can’t give you dignity.
    0:45:48 I can recognize the dignity in you.
    0:45:52 Recognize the person who suffers as dignified.
    0:45:53 – Yeah.
    0:45:54 – So whether it’s my mom right now,
    0:45:57 she’s like physically suffering and cannot speak
    0:45:58 and she is dignified.
    0:46:00 Or whether it’s the person who’s depressed
    0:46:02 and on the bathroom floor and can’t get out of bed,
    0:46:04 that person’s dignified.
    0:46:07 We just have to see it and we don’t see it.
    0:46:10 And I want to show us why we don’t see it.
    0:46:11 There’s a temptation not to see it
    0:46:13 because we’ve been closing our eyes
    0:46:16 because we’re so blinded by the light
    0:46:18 that we close our eyes to the darkness,
    0:46:19 pretend it’s not there.
    0:46:20 So then when it’s there, we don’t know what to do with it
    0:46:23 and we end up kind of ignoring it
    0:46:24 or like you said, tamping it down.
    0:46:27 There’s a million ways that we can try to negate it
    0:46:28 or overcome.
    0:46:29 You should see the titles.
    0:46:31 If you go to the titles section of self-help,
    0:46:32 it’s like overcome your negativity.
    0:46:35 And I’m like, oh, as an existentialist,
    0:46:37 I just don’t think that’s what we do.
    0:46:39 I don’t think we overcome negativity.
    0:46:41 I think we just live with negativity.
    0:46:43 So it’s not about dignifying the mood,
    0:46:44 it’s about dignifying the person,
    0:46:48 showing us that whoever’s suffering is also dignified.
    0:46:49 We’re fully human beings.
    0:47:01 – We’re gonna take one last quick break,
    0:47:03 but when we come back,
    0:47:06 we try to shake off these bad feelings when they arise.
    0:47:10 Is that dishonoring these emotions?
    0:47:12 Are we doing an injustice to ourselves?
    0:47:21 – This is an ad from BetterHelp.
    0:47:22 This holiday season,
    0:47:25 do something for a special person in your life.
    0:47:28 You, give yourself the gift of better mental health.
    0:47:30 BetterHelp online therapy connects you
    0:47:33 with a qualified therapist via phone, video, or live chat.
    0:47:34 It’s convenient and affordable
    0:47:37 and can be done from the comfort of your own home.
    0:47:39 Having someone to talk to is truly a gift,
    0:47:41 especially during the holidays.
    0:47:43 Visit BetterHelp.com to learn more
    0:47:45 and save 10% off your first month.
    0:47:48 That’s BetterHelp, H-E-L-P.com.
    0:47:50 – BC Liquor has your holidays covered
    0:47:53 with a curated selection of our holiday favorites,
    0:47:55 whether a gift or entertaining idea.
    0:47:58 Our expert staff can help you discover the perfect choice.
    0:48:01 Visit your nearest BC Liquor store today.
    0:48:02 Enjoy responsibly.
    0:48:07 – Sure, I could tell you winter’s coming
    0:48:09 or that it brings cold dry air,
    0:48:10 but you already knew that.
    0:48:11 What you might not know
    0:48:14 is that Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash
    0:48:18 is made with millions of moisturizing micro-moisture droplets
    0:48:20 to keep your skin silky soft for 24 hours.
    0:48:23 Plus, it’s paraben and sulfate-free.
    0:48:26 No matter how dry your skin feels, Dove has you covered.
    0:48:28 Buy Dove Body Wash today at your local retailer
    0:48:32 or visit Dove.ca to learn more and order online.
    0:48:38 (gentle music)
    0:48:41 (gentle music)
    0:48:45 – You mentioned depression,
    0:48:48 and this is something I struggle with a little bit
    0:48:51 when thinking about my own thoughts.
    0:48:54 And as you said, you’ll find a lot of psychologists,
    0:48:56 a lot of physicians, and many other people saying
    0:49:00 that we should seek to eradicate depression.
    0:49:03 That’s nonsense, that’s not realizable.
    0:49:06 And I really do appreciate your point
    0:49:08 about the need to honor people’s depression
    0:49:11 or to honor their dark moods
    0:49:13 because that is a reality of life.
    0:49:15 And then I find myself just wondering
    0:49:18 if you think it’s possible to honor those feelings
    0:49:21 and seek to transcend them at the same time.
    0:49:23 And I’d like to think that that is something
    0:49:26 that we could do without telling people
    0:49:29 that they’re broken, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
    0:49:31 – I mean, under our current framework,
    0:49:32 it doesn’t seem like there’s any way to do it
    0:49:34 without telling someone that they’re broken
    0:49:37 because that’s the well-worn path
    0:49:38 that says like my students will tell me,
    0:49:41 well, I’m great except for I have depression.
    0:49:43 And so that’s the trash part of me.
    0:49:45 And so I’m broken.
    0:49:49 And like you said, it’s not realizable to get rid of it.
    0:49:52 And so I say, okay, well then here’s you
    0:49:54 and here’s your depression
    0:49:57 and you want to trash the depression part of you,
    0:49:59 but that depression part of you is stuck to you.
    0:50:02 And so you’re gonna end up trashing yourself.
    0:50:03 That’s what I think we end up doing
    0:50:06 by calling ourselves broken.
    0:50:07 And so I’m trying to put better words out there,
    0:50:09 like better ways to talk about depression.
    0:50:11 And I use Anzaldua as an example.
    0:50:13 She calls it the Coaliqua state.
    0:50:17 She creates this colorful metaphor out of Aztec philosophy.
    0:50:19 And I use it simply as an example
    0:50:21 of a way that someone who has depression,
    0:50:24 who suffers or lives with depression,
    0:50:25 can talk about their depression
    0:50:27 in a way that is not demeaning to them.
    0:50:29 She does not like her depression.
    0:50:30 She still hates it.
    0:50:31 So you don’t have to say,
    0:50:33 and then I realized that depression was my gift.
    0:50:35 That’s not the book.
    0:50:38 It’s, oh, how can we talk about this
    0:50:39 so that I don’t turn against myself
    0:50:43 so that that’s not my dirty secret that I don’t tell anyone.
    0:50:45 And as soon as they find out, they’re not gonna love me.
    0:50:48 It’s how to incorporate something like depression
    0:50:51 or anxiety into the story of my life
    0:50:54 that honors it or honors that that’s part of me
    0:50:56 on the premise that we can’t get rid of it.
    0:50:58 So we’re not talking about a world
    0:51:01 in which we have the choice, get rid of it or not.
    0:51:02 We don’t have that choice.
    0:51:05 The only choices we have are we trash ourselves
    0:51:07 or we find better ways to talk.
    0:51:10 And when I say, we, I don’t even mean the individual.
    0:51:11 Like it’s not up to the individual.
    0:51:13 It’s up to society to create a world
    0:51:16 that’s more emotionally flexible and tolerant
    0:51:18 and not even just tolerant, but like embracing,
    0:51:21 seeing all of the connections that can be made
    0:51:24 once we become emotionally honest.
    0:51:27 There’s so much there, not about the depression,
    0:51:30 but about sharing it, about sharing the stories
    0:51:33 of all these pains that really, really, really connect people.
    0:51:35 And this is Onamono’s idea
    0:51:37 that pain sharing pain connects people.
    0:51:38 We connect better.
    0:51:41 Our souls connect better when we’re in pain.
    0:51:42 And I agree with him.
    0:51:45 He says our bodies connect better when they’re in pleasure.
    0:51:47 And I agree with that too.
    0:51:50 But our souls connect when we’re in pain.
    0:51:52 And so if we constantly hiding our pain,
    0:51:55 we have these very oftentimes superficial relationships
    0:51:58 with one another because we’re not allowing ourselves
    0:51:59 to go there.
    0:52:00 – That’s right.
    0:52:01 – So it’s about the way we talk,
    0:52:03 the way people respond,
    0:52:06 but like writ large on a societal level.
    0:52:09 – I have to say when I was reading your book,
    0:52:12 I kept coming back to my life as a parent.
    0:52:14 My son is about to be four.
    0:52:18 And how all of this really does apply to that experience.
    0:52:22 And one thing I have realized sometimes very painfully
    0:52:26 is that parenting is a test of your principles
    0:52:27 in a very concrete way.
    0:52:29 And that really is the case here.
    0:52:33 I mean, you open the second chapter with childhood memories
    0:52:36 of being told, stop wallowing,
    0:52:38 don’t linger in your pity party, right?
    0:52:39 All that kind of shit.
    0:52:43 And my son is extremely emotional
    0:52:46 and sensitive and strong-willed.
    0:52:48 And I don’t wanna suppress that,
    0:52:52 but man, I also have a hard time doing anything,
    0:52:55 but trying to make him stop and suppress it
    0:53:00 when he gets carried away by those dark or explosive emotions.
    0:53:02 And I don’t know, it’s a real struggle.
    0:53:04 And I know you know what I mean.
    0:53:08 And I really don’t wanna do the dumb masculinity thing
    0:53:11 where I teach him to code vulnerability as weakness.
    0:53:14 But there is this like stoic-y side to me
    0:53:17 that really wants him to overcome these feelings.
    0:53:19 And some days I do better than others
    0:53:20 in trying to manage it,
    0:53:24 but it really is a kind of testing ground for this stuff.
    0:53:25 – All right, how about this then?
    0:53:27 If you wanna hang on to the overcome,
    0:53:31 maybe overcoming comes from feeling.
    0:53:34 Like give in and then it will be overcome.
    0:53:36 I really believe that if someone’s in pain
    0:53:38 and you sit with them,
    0:53:40 instead of running away from them,
    0:53:42 they’ll actually stop crying sooner.
    0:53:44 Like the thing that I hear,
    0:53:47 once I start crying, I’m never gonna stop.
    0:53:48 I’m like, that’s not true.
    0:53:51 That’s just something people say.
    0:53:54 Or people tell me, I really like to cry in private.
    0:53:56 And I said, maybe that’s true.
    0:53:59 Or can you think of a time that you tried
    0:54:02 to bring your pain to someone else and they squashed it?
    0:54:03 They denied it.
    0:54:04 They wanted you to overcome it.
    0:54:07 So I think that one of the paths to lessening the suffering
    0:54:09 is to accept the suffering.
    0:54:11 Like if you could go about it that way,
    0:54:14 it would give you a reason to not try to shut them up.
    0:54:17 I mean, I always have to check myself.
    0:54:18 And sometimes my husband checks me
    0:54:20 because I wanna say, stop crying.
    0:54:22 And I’m like, no, I wrote a book about this.
    0:54:24 I cannot tell my kids to stop crying.
    0:54:26 I have to get curious.
    0:54:29 I had a real win one time when my kid was really little,
    0:54:32 like your kids, my kids are now eight and nine and 10.
    0:54:33 So they’re a little older,
    0:54:34 but my son was crying, crying, crying.
    0:54:37 And I was breastfeeding my other baby.
    0:54:41 So I had him come in and I said, draw it.
    0:54:42 And so we started drawing it.
    0:54:43 And I said, is this how you feel?
    0:54:44 Is this how you feel?
    0:54:46 And we drew like mad face after mad face
    0:54:48 and sad face after sad face.
    0:54:52 And it was amazing because he was like, yeah, there it is.
    0:54:53 That’s how I feel.
    0:54:56 And if you can give them a mirror, that’s how I feel.
    0:54:59 I think this is my theory, test it.
    0:55:01 I think the sadness goes down.
    0:55:04 And a more recent example is my 10 year old son
    0:55:06 was crying about something like that.
    0:55:07 The world would consider very frivolous.
    0:55:09 Like he didn’t, he couldn’t go to two parties
    0:55:11 and he had to choose which party, so he’s crying.
    0:55:13 You know, the temptation is to be like, that’s nothing.
    0:55:15 Don’t you know that it does dying?
    0:55:16 You know, like that’s the Trump card.
    0:55:18 I can always say that.
    0:55:20 But I just went in and I rubbed his back
    0:55:22 and I said, yeah, it’s really hard.
    0:55:25 And then my heartstrings started vibrating.
    0:55:27 So I started crying and he like whipped around
    0:55:29 and he’s like, why are you crying?
    0:55:32 And I was like, well, I’m crying because it does dying.
    0:55:34 And he just rubbed my back.
    0:55:36 He did not wipe away my tears.
    0:55:38 And so I thought, oh, I did it
    0:55:41 because we don’t have to wipe the tears.
    0:55:43 The point of this isn’t to get through it
    0:55:45 as quick as possible or to stop it.
    0:55:48 It’s like, let’s just have a nice cry together.
    0:55:51 And then we’re joined together and we’re hugging
    0:55:52 and it’s not traumatic for him.
    0:55:55 Like it’s just for a 44 year old,
    0:55:56 that’s what I’m crying about.
    0:55:58 And for a 10 year old, that’s what he’s crying about.
    0:55:59 And that’s okay.
    0:56:02 Like I never want to compare my sadness to his
    0:56:03 and say like, you have no right to be sad.
    0:56:05 Like we just all get a right to be sad
    0:56:06 about whatever it is.
    0:56:08 And we don’t have to say first world problems
    0:56:10 or anything like that.
    0:56:11 We’re just sad.
    0:56:12 It’s not really a big deal.
    0:56:15 – Obviously what you’re saying in this book
    0:56:17 and what you’re saying now is we need new stories.
    0:56:20 We need better stories about our dark moods.
    0:56:22 Stories that honor those dark moods
    0:56:25 and that don’t seek to expunge them.
    0:56:28 Is there a simple way for you to maybe sum up
    0:56:30 what that story might look like?
    0:56:33 The story we should tell ourselves about our dark moods?
    0:56:34 – Yeah.
    0:56:36 I mean, I have one concrete suggestion
    0:56:39 that I think is a kind of summary.
    0:56:42 So much of our pain comes from believing
    0:56:44 that we’re supposed to cheer each other up.
    0:56:48 And how do I make my friend happy when she’s sad?
    0:56:52 If we could eliminate the idea that it’s our job
    0:56:57 to make another person happy or cheer them up,
    0:56:59 we can just be there for them.
    0:57:02 So I think like whether we’re talking about anxiety
    0:57:05 or grief or depression, like once we relieve ourselves
    0:57:09 over the responsibility for other people’s moods,
    0:57:11 then we are just like, oh,
    0:57:13 oh, I can just come over and have pizza with you.
    0:57:15 Great, like I can do that.
    0:57:16 But when I thought I had to cheer you up,
    0:57:19 that stressed me out, so I ran away.
    0:57:21 Like if I could change one thing in our world,
    0:57:22 like immediately it would be to get people
    0:57:26 to stop believing that our job is to cheer each other up.
    0:57:29 I do think that our job, if we love the person,
    0:57:32 is to not leave them alone.
    0:57:34 I think we want other people around
    0:57:36 and the sufferer always gets to decide
    0:57:38 ’cause maybe they don’t, then you go away.
    0:57:42 But like to not leave somebody alone in pain,
    0:57:44 your job isn’t to cheer them up,
    0:57:45 it’s just to kind of sit there with them.
    0:57:49 If that is good and sometimes saying nothing at all
    0:57:52 really is much better than these phony condolences
    0:57:54 that are so awkward.
    0:57:58 – Again, the book is called Night Vision.
    0:58:00 Mariana, this was a true pleasure.
    0:58:02 Thank you so much for coming in.
    0:58:03 – Thank you.
    0:58:05 (upbeat music)
    0:58:08 (upbeat music)
    0:58:21 – All right, I hope you enjoyed this episode
    0:58:25 and the spirit in which it was offered.
    0:58:27 Like I said at the top,
    0:58:31 I know the holidays can be difficult for lots of us,
    0:58:35 but every time I listen to this conversation,
    0:58:40 I’m reminded of how isolating grief and depression can be,
    0:58:43 especially during times of celebration,
    0:58:47 but also that despite those feelings,
    0:58:50 you’re never as alone as you think,
    0:58:55 and there’s a lot of power in transforming your relationship
    0:58:59 to your own pain while honoring it at the same time.
    0:59:05 But as always, we do want to know what you think.
    0:59:09 So drop us a line at TheGrayArea@Vox.com.
    0:59:10 And when you’re finished with that,
    0:59:12 go ahead and rate and review
    0:59:14 and please subscribe to the podcast.
    0:59:15 That really helps.
    0:59:21 This episode was produced by Eric Janikis,
    0:59:25 engineered by Patrick Boyd, and edited by A.M. Hall.
    0:59:27 Alex Overington wrote our theme music,
    0:59:31 new episodes of The Gray Area drop on Mondays.
    0:59:33 The Gray Area is part of Vox.
    0:59:35 Support Vox’s journalism by joining
    0:59:37 our membership program today.
    0:59:40 Go to Vox.com/members to sign up.
    0:59:42 And if you decide to sign up because of this show,
    0:59:43 let us know.

    How can we find happiness? That’s an old question. Since the beginning of philosophy people have been wondering what makes us happy and how to get more of it. But if you’re a real person living in the real world, you know already that it’s not possible to be happy all the time. So what do we do when we’re experiencing depression or grief or a dark mood?

    Philosopher Mariana Alessandri thinks that we should stop trying to repress these feelings.

    In this conversation, which originally aired in 2023, Sean speaks with Mariana about her book Night Vision: Seeing Ourselves Through Dark Moods and how our obsession with staying positive has produced destructive emotional cycles.

    Host, Sean Illing (@seanilling)

    Guest: Mariana Alessandri, philosopher and author of Night Vision: Seeing Ourselves Through Dark Moods

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • What do animals feel?

    AI transcript
    🌐
    0:00:01 (upbeat music)
    0:00:04 Support for this show is brought to you by Nissan Kicks.
    0:00:06 It’s never too late to try new things
    0:00:09 and it’s never too late to reinvent yourself.
    0:00:12 The all-new re-imagined Nissan Kicks
    0:00:14 is the city-sized crossover vehicle
    0:00:17 that’s been completely revamped for urban adventure.
    0:00:20 From the design and styling to the performance,
    0:00:21 all the way to features
    0:00:23 like the Bose Personal Plus sound system,
    0:00:26 you can get closer to everything you love about city life
    0:00:29 in the all-new re-imagined Nissan Kicks.
    0:00:34 Learn more at www.nisanusa.com/2025-Kicks.
    0:00:36 Available feature,
    0:00:39 Bose is a registered trademark of the Bose Corporation.
    0:00:46 – Your own weight loss journey is personal.
    0:00:47 Everyone’s diet is different,
    0:00:49 everyone’s bodies are different,
    0:00:50 and according to Noom,
    0:00:53 there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
    0:00:55 Noom wants to help you stay focused
    0:00:57 on what’s important to you,
    0:01:00 with their psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:01:02 This program helps you understand the science
    0:01:04 behind your eating choices
    0:01:07 and helps you build new habits for a healthier lifestyle.
    0:01:09 Stay focused on what’s important to you
    0:01:13 with Noom’s psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:01:16 Sign up for your free trial today at Noom.com.
    0:01:24 – Can you ever really know what’s going on
    0:01:26 inside the mind of another creature?
    0:01:31 – In some cases, like other humans or dogs and cats,
    0:01:35 we might be able to guess with a bit of confidence,
    0:01:39 but what about octopuses or insects?
    0:01:41 What about AI systems?
    0:01:44 Will they ever be able to feel anything?
    0:01:48 Despite all of our progress in science and technology,
    0:01:50 we still have basically no idea
    0:01:52 how to look inside the private experiences
    0:01:54 of other creatures.
    0:01:57 The question of what kinds of beings can feel things
    0:02:00 and what those feelings are really like
    0:02:01 remains one of the biggest mysteries
    0:02:04 in both philosophy and science.
    0:02:07 And maybe, at some point,
    0:02:10 we’ll develop a big new theory of consciousness
    0:02:14 that helps us really understand the inside of other minds.
    0:02:18 But until then, we’re stuck making guesses
    0:02:22 and judgment calls about what other creatures can feel
    0:02:25 and about whether certain things can feel at all.
    0:02:30 So, where do we draw the line
    0:02:34 of what kinds of creatures might be sentient?
    0:02:37 And how do we figure out our ethical obligations
    0:02:39 to creatures that remain a mystery to us?
    0:02:43 I’m O’Shawn Jarrow, sitting in for Sean Illing,
    0:02:45 and this is the Gray Area.
    0:02:54 My guest today is philosopher of science, Jonathan Birch.
    0:02:56 He’s the principal investigator
    0:02:58 on the Foundations of Animal Sentience Project
    0:03:00 at the London School of Economics,
    0:03:03 and author of the recently released book,
    0:03:07 The Edge of Sentience, Risk and Precaution in Humans,
    0:03:08 Other Animals and AI.
    0:03:13 He also successfully convinced the UK government
    0:03:17 to consider lobsters, octopuses, and crabs sentient
    0:03:19 and therefore, deserving of legal protections,
    0:03:22 which is a story that we’ll get into.
    0:03:24 And it’s that work that earned him a place
    0:03:26 on Vox’s Future Perfect 50 list,
    0:03:30 a roundup of 50 of the most influential people
    0:03:33 working to make the future a better place for everyone.
    0:03:37 And in Birch’s case, for every sentient creature.
    0:03:42 In this conversation, we explore everything that we do
    0:03:45 and don’t know about sentience
    0:03:47 and how to make decisions around it,
    0:03:50 given all the uncertainty that we can’t yet escape.
    0:03:54 Jonathan Birch, welcome to the Gray Area.
    0:03:56 Thanks so much for coming on.
    0:03:57 – Thanks for inviting me.
    0:04:00 – So, one of the central ideas of your work
    0:04:04 is this fuzzy idea of sentience.
    0:04:06 And you focus on sentience across creatures,
    0:04:08 from insects to animals,
    0:04:11 to even potentially artificial intelligence.
    0:04:14 And one of the challenges in that work
    0:04:17 is defining sentience in the first place.
    0:04:19 So, can you talk a little bit about how you’ve come
    0:04:21 to define the term sentience?
    0:04:25 – For me, it starts with thinking about pain
    0:04:27 and thinking about questions like,
    0:04:29 can an octopus feel pain?
    0:04:31 Can a crab, can a shrimp?
    0:04:35 And then realizing that actually pain is too narrow
    0:04:40 for what really matters to us and that matters ethically.
    0:04:43 Because other negative experiences matter as well,
    0:04:47 like anxiety and boredom and frustration
    0:04:49 that are not really forms of pain.
    0:04:53 And then the positive side of mental life also matters.
    0:04:57 Pleasure matters, joy, excitement.
    0:04:59 And the advantage of the term sentience for me
    0:05:02 is that it captures all of that.
    0:05:04 It’s about the capacity to have
    0:05:07 positive or negative feelings.
    0:05:11 – The way that you define sentience
    0:05:13 struck me as kind of basically the way
    0:05:15 that I’ve thought about consciousness.
    0:05:17 But in your book, you have this handy diagram
    0:05:20 that shows how you see sentience and consciousness
    0:05:22 as to some degree different.
    0:05:24 So how do you understand the difference
    0:05:27 between sentience and consciousness?
    0:05:29 – The problem with the term consciousness, as I see it,
    0:05:32 is that it can point to any other number of things.
    0:05:34 Sometimes we are definitely using it
    0:05:37 to refer to our immediate raw experience
    0:05:39 of the present moment.
    0:05:41 But sometimes when we’re talking about consciousness,
    0:05:45 we’re thinking of things that are overlaid on top of that.
    0:05:47 Herbert Feigel in the 1950s
    0:05:49 talked about there being these three layers,
    0:05:53 sentience, sapience and selfhood.
    0:05:55 Where sapience is about the ability
    0:05:59 to not just have those immediate raw experiences,
    0:06:01 but to reflect on them.
    0:06:03 And selfhood is something different again,
    0:06:06 ’cause it’s about awareness of yourself
    0:06:09 as this persistent subject of the experiences
    0:06:13 that has a past and has a future.
    0:06:15 And when we use the term consciousness,
    0:06:18 we might be pointing to any of these three things
    0:06:22 or maybe the package of those three things altogether.
    0:06:25 – So sentience is maybe a bit of a simpler,
    0:06:27 more primitive capacity for feeling
    0:06:30 where consciousness may include these more complex layers?
    0:06:31 – I think of it as the base layer.
    0:06:34 Yeah, I think of it as the most elemental,
    0:06:37 most basic, most evolutionarily ancient
    0:06:40 part of human consciousness
    0:06:41 that is very likely to be shared
    0:06:43 with a wide range of other animals.
    0:06:45 – I do a fair bit of reporting
    0:06:48 on these kinds of questions of consciousness and sentience.
    0:06:51 And everyone tends to agree that it’s a mystery, right?
    0:06:53 And so a lot of emphasis goes on
    0:06:56 trying to dispel the mystery.
    0:06:58 And what I found really interesting about your approach
    0:07:00 is that you seem to take the uncertainty
    0:07:02 in the mystery as your starting point.
    0:07:04 And rather than focusing on how do we solve this?
    0:07:06 How do we dispel it?
    0:07:07 You’re trying to help us think through
    0:07:11 how to make practical decisions given that uncertainty.
    0:07:13 I’m curious how you came to that approach.
    0:07:14 – Yeah, the question for me
    0:07:16 is how do we live with this uncertainty?
    0:07:20 How do we manage risk better than we’re doing at present?
    0:07:25 How can we use ideas from across science and philosophy
    0:07:28 to help us make better decisions
    0:07:29 when faced with those problems?
    0:07:32 And in particular to help us err on the side of caution.
    0:07:34 – Just to maybe make it explicit,
    0:07:37 you mentioned the risk of uncertainty.
    0:07:39 What is the risk here?
    0:07:41 – Well, it depends on the particular case
    0:07:42 we’re thinking about.
    0:07:44 One of the cases that brought me to this topic
    0:07:47 was the practice of dropping crabs and lobsters
    0:07:49 into pans of boiling water.
    0:07:52 And it seems like a clear case to me
    0:07:55 where you don’t need certainty actually.
    0:07:56 You don’t even need knowledge.
    0:08:00 You don’t need high probability to see the risk.
    0:08:04 And in fact, to do sensible common sense things
    0:08:05 to reduce that risk.
    0:08:07 – So the risk is the suffering we’re imposing
    0:08:10 on these potentially other sentient creatures.
    0:08:13 – That’s usually what looms largest for me, yeah.
    0:08:15 The risk of doing things
    0:08:17 that mean we end up living very badly
    0:08:20 because we cause enormous amounts of suffering
    0:08:22 to the creatures around us.
    0:08:26 And you can think of that as a risk to the creatures
    0:08:28 that end up suffering, but it’s also a risk to us.
    0:08:31 A risk that our lives will be horrible
    0:08:32 and destructive and absurd.
    0:08:35 – I worry about my life being horrible
    0:08:37 and destructive and absurd all the time.
    0:08:39 So this is a handy way to think about it.
    0:08:40 – We all should.
    0:08:43 – I’d like to turn to your very practical work,
    0:08:45 advising the UK government
    0:08:49 on the Animal Welfare and Sentience Act of 2022.
    0:08:50 The question was put to you
    0:08:53 of whether they should consider certain invertebrates
    0:08:55 like octopus and crabs and lobsters,
    0:08:58 whether they should be included and protected in the bill.
    0:09:01 Could you just give a little context on that story
    0:09:02 and what led the government to come
    0:09:05 and ask you to lead a research team on that question?
    0:09:08 – Yeah, it was indirectly a result of Brexit,
    0:09:11 the UK leaving the European Union,
    0:09:15 because in doing that, we left the EU’s Lisbon Treaty
    0:09:18 that has a line in it about respecting animals
    0:09:20 as sentient beings.
    0:09:22 And so Animal Welfare Organization said to the government,
    0:09:25 are you going to import that into UK law?
    0:09:27 And they said, no.
    0:09:29 And they got a lot of bad press along the lines of,
    0:09:32 well, don’t you think animals feel pain?
    0:09:35 And so they promised new legislation
    0:09:38 that would restore respect for sentient beings
    0:09:40 back to UK law.
    0:09:43 And they produced a draft of the bill
    0:09:46 that included vertebrate animals.
    0:09:48 You could say that’s progressive in a way
    0:09:50 because fishes are in there, which is great,
    0:09:52 but it generated a lot of criticism
    0:09:55 because of the omission of invertebrates.
    0:09:58 And so in that context, they commissioned a team led by me
    0:10:01 to produce a review of the evidence of sentience
    0:10:03 in two groups of invertebrates,
    0:10:06 the cephalopods like octopuses
    0:10:09 and the decopod crustaceans like crabs and lobsters.
    0:10:11 I’d already been calling for applications
    0:10:14 of the precautionary principle to questions of sentience
    0:10:16 and had written about that.
    0:10:19 And it already established at the LSE a project
    0:10:22 called the Foundations of Animal Sentience Project
    0:10:25 that aims to try to place the emerging science
    0:10:29 of animal sentience on more secure foundations,
    0:10:31 advance it, develop better methods,
    0:10:33 and find new ways of putting the science to work
    0:10:35 to design better policies,
    0:10:37 laws and ways of caring for animals.
    0:10:39 So in a way, I was in the right place at the right time.
    0:10:43 I was pretty ideally situated to be leading a review like this.
    0:10:46 – How do folks actually go about trying to answer
    0:10:51 the question of whether a given animal is or is not sentient?
    0:10:53 – Well, in lots of different ways.
    0:10:55 And I think when we’re looking at animals
    0:10:58 that are relatively close to us in evolutionary terms,
    0:11:00 like other mammals,
    0:11:02 neuroscience is a huge part of it
    0:11:05 because we can look for similarities of brain mechanism.
    0:11:08 But when thinking about crabs and lobsters,
    0:11:09 what we’re not going to find
    0:11:11 is exactly the same brain mechanisms
    0:11:13 because we’re separated from them
    0:11:16 by over 500 million years of evolution.
    0:11:17 – That’s quite a bit.
    0:11:19 – And so I think in that context,
    0:11:23 you can ask big picture neurological questions.
    0:11:27 Are there integrative brain regions, for example?
    0:11:29 But the evidence is quite limited,
    0:11:33 and so behavior ends up carrying a huge amount of weight.
    0:11:36 Some of the strongest evidence comes from behaviors
    0:11:41 that show the animal valuing pain relief when injured.
    0:11:45 So for example, there was a study by Robin Crook
    0:11:46 on octobuses, which is where you give the animal
    0:11:49 a choice of two different chambers,
    0:11:52 and you see which one it initially prefers.
    0:11:56 And then you allow it to experience the effects
    0:12:00 of a noxious stimulus, a nasty event.
    0:12:03 And then in the other chamber that it initially dispreferred,
    0:12:07 you allow it to experience the effects of an aesthetic
    0:12:10 or a pain relieving drug.
    0:12:12 And then you see whether its preferences reverse.
    0:12:14 So now going forward,
    0:12:17 it goes to that chamber where it had a good experience
    0:12:20 rather than the one where it had a terrible experience.
    0:12:22 So it’s a pattern of behavior.
    0:12:26 In ourselves, this would be explained by feeling pain
    0:12:28 and then getting relief from the pain.
    0:12:30 And when we see it in other mammals,
    0:12:32 we make that same inference.
    0:12:34 – Are there any other categories?
    0:12:36 ‘Cause we mentioned pain is one bucket of sentience,
    0:12:38 but there’s much more to it.
    0:12:39 Is there anything else that tends to play
    0:12:42 a big role in the research?
    0:12:42 – There’s much more to it.
    0:12:44 And what I would like to see in the future
    0:12:47 is animal sentience research moving beyond pain
    0:12:50 and looking for other states that matter,
    0:12:53 like joy for instance.
    0:12:58 In practice though, by far the largest body of literature
    0:13:01 exists for looking at markers of pain.
    0:13:05 – I would love to read a paper that tries to assess
    0:13:07 to what degree rats are experiencing joy
    0:13:09 rather than pain, that would be lovely.
    0:13:12 – I mean, studies of play behavior are very relevant here.
    0:13:16 The studies of rats playing hide and seek for example,
    0:13:18 where there must be something motivating
    0:13:20 these play behaviors.
    0:13:23 In the human case, we would call it joy, delight,
    0:13:26 excitement, something like that.
    0:13:29 And so it gets you taking seriously the possibility
    0:13:32 there might be something like that in other animals too.
    0:13:34 – I think the thing I’m actually left wondering is
    0:13:39 what animals don’t show signs of sentience in these cases?
    0:13:42 – Right, I mean, there’s many invertebrates
    0:13:45 where you have an absence of evidence
    0:13:48 ’cause no one has really looked.
    0:13:53 So snails for example, there’s frustratingly little evidence.
    0:13:58 Also bivalve mollusks, which people talk about a lot
    0:14:00 ’cause they eat so many of them.
    0:14:03 Very, very little evidence to base our judgments on.
    0:14:05 And it’s hard to know what to infer from this.
    0:14:07 There’s this slogan that absence of evidence
    0:14:09 is not evidence of absence.
    0:14:11 And it’s a little bit oversimplifying
    0:14:13 ’cause you sort of think, well, you know,
    0:14:18 when researchers find some indicators of pain,
    0:14:20 they’ve got strong motivations to press on
    0:14:22 because it could be a useful pain model
    0:14:24 for biomedical research.
    0:14:27 And this is exactly what we’ve seen in insects,
    0:14:29 particularly Drosophila fruit flies,
    0:14:31 that seeing some of those initial markers
    0:14:33 has led scientists to think, well, let’s go for this.
    0:14:38 And it turns out they’re surprisingly useful pain models.
    0:14:39 – A pain model for humans?
    0:14:40 – Right, exactly.
    0:14:44 Yeah, that traditionally biomedical researchers have used rats
    0:14:48 and there’s pressure to replace.
    0:14:50 I don’t personally think that replacement here
    0:14:53 should mean replacing mammals with invertebrates.
    0:14:56 It’s not really the kind of replacement that I support,
    0:14:59 but that is how a lot of scientists understand it.
    0:15:03 And so they’re looking for ways to replace rats with flies.
    0:15:04 – How do they decide
    0:15:06 that the fly is a good pain model for humans?
    0:15:08 – I mean, researchers have the ability
    0:15:11 to manipulate the genetics of flies
    0:15:16 at very, very fine grains using astonishing technologies.
    0:15:22 So there was a recent paper that basically installed
    0:15:26 in some flies sensitivity to chili heat.
    0:15:30 Which of course in us, over a certain threshold,
    0:15:32 this becomes painful.
    0:15:34 So if you have one of the hottest chilies in the world,
    0:15:37 you’re not gonna just carry on as normal.
    0:15:38 – Certainly not.
    0:15:40 – And they showed that the same behavior
    0:15:41 can be produced in flies.
    0:15:45 You can engineer them to be responsive to chili
    0:15:48 and then you can dial up the amount of capsaicin
    0:15:49 in the food they’re eating.
    0:15:52 And there’ll come a point where they just stop eating
    0:15:57 and withdraw from food, even though it leads them to starve.
    0:16:00 And things like this that you’re leading researchers
    0:16:03 to say, wow, the mechanisms here are mechanisms
    0:16:07 we can use for testing out potential pain relieving drugs.
    0:16:11 And the fruit flies are a standard model organism,
    0:16:13 as they say in science.
    0:16:16 So there’s countless numbers of them,
    0:16:18 but traditionally they’ve been studied
    0:16:20 for genetics primarily.
    0:16:21 People haven’t been thinking of them
    0:16:24 as model systems of cognitive functions
    0:16:28 or of sentience or of pain or of sociality.
    0:16:31 And they’re realizing to their surprise
    0:16:33 that they’re very good models of all of these things.
    0:16:35 And then your question is, well,
    0:16:38 why is it such a good model of these things?
    0:16:42 Could it be in fact that it possesses sentience of some kind?
    0:16:46 – I don’t wanna go too far down this rabbit hole
    0:16:48 ’cause I could spend hours asking you about this.
    0:16:52 Let’s swing back to your research on the UK’s Act for a second.
    0:16:54 You wound up recommending that the invertebrates
    0:16:56 you looked at should be included.
    0:16:59 And you mentioned this included, you know, octopuses,
    0:17:01 which to me seems straightforward.
    0:17:04 These seem very intelligent and playful.
    0:17:06 I don’t need a lot of research to convince me of that.
    0:17:09 But you recommended things like, you know, crabs and lobsters
    0:17:11 and things where maybe people’s intuitions differ
    0:17:14 a little bit in practical terms.
    0:17:17 What changed for the life of a crab
    0:17:20 after the UK did formally include them in the bill?
    0:17:23 How does that wind up benefiting crabs?
    0:17:26 – It’s a topic of ongoing discussion, basically,
    0:17:27 ’cause what this new act does
    0:17:30 is it creates a duty on policymakers
    0:17:33 to consider the animal welfare consequences
    0:17:36 of their decisions, including to crabs.
    0:17:39 Now, we recommended, don’t just put crabs
    0:17:41 in this particular act.
    0:17:45 Also, amend the UK’s other animal welfare laws
    0:17:48 to be consistent with the new act.
    0:17:49 And this we’ve not yet seen.
    0:17:52 So we’re really hoping that this will happen
    0:17:53 and will happen in the near future.
    0:17:56 And it’s something that definitely should happen.
    0:17:58 ‘Cause in the meantime, we’ve got a rather confusing picture
    0:18:01 where you have these other laws that say
    0:18:04 animals should not be caused unnecessary suffering
    0:18:07 when they’re killed and people should require training
    0:18:09 if they’re going to slaughter animals.
    0:18:12 And then you have this new law that says
    0:18:14 for legal purposes, decapod crustaceans
    0:18:16 are to be considered animals.
    0:18:19 And as a philosopher, I’m always thinking,
    0:18:20 well, read these two things together
    0:18:22 and think about what they logically imply
    0:18:23 when written together.
    0:18:26 And lawyers don’t like that kind of argument.
    0:18:28 Lawyers want a clear precedent
    0:18:31 where there’s been some kind of test case
    0:18:35 that has convicted someone for boiling a lobster alive
    0:18:36 or something like that.
    0:18:38 And that’s what we’ve not yet had.
    0:18:41 So I’m hoping that lawmakers will act
    0:18:44 to clarify that situation.
    0:18:46 To me, it’s kind of clear.
    0:18:47 How much clearer could it be
    0:18:50 that this method causes unnecessary suffering
    0:18:51 quite obviously.
    0:18:56 And it’s illegal to do that to any animal,
    0:18:58 including crabs.
    0:19:02 But in practice, because it’s not explicitly ruled out,
    0:19:07 it’s not quite good enough at the moment.
    0:19:09 We wanna see this explicitly ruled out.
    0:19:13 – So we’ll take incremental steps to get there.
    0:19:15 – Yeah, in a way, I’m glad people take this issue
    0:19:16 seriously at all.
    0:19:19 I didn’t really expect that when I started working on it.
    0:19:23 And so to have achieved any policy change that benefits
    0:19:25 crabs and lobsters in any way,
    0:19:27 I’ve gotta count that as a win.
    0:19:40 – Support for the gray area comes from Mint Mobile.
    0:19:42 There’s nothing like the satisfaction
    0:19:44 of realizing you just got an incredible deal.
    0:19:47 But those little victories have gotten harder
    0:19:48 and harder to find.
    0:19:50 Here’s the good news though.
    0:19:52 Mint Mobile is resurrecting that incredible
    0:19:54 “I got a deal” feeling.
    0:19:56 Right now, when you make the switch to a Mint Mobile plan,
    0:19:59 you’ll pay just $15 a month when you purchase
    0:20:01 a new three month phone plan.
    0:20:03 All Mint Mobile plans come with high speed data
    0:20:05 and unlimited talk and text delivered
    0:20:08 on the nation’s largest 5G network.
    0:20:10 You can even keep your phone, your contacts,
    0:20:11 and your number.
    0:20:13 It doesn’t get much easier than that.
    0:20:15 To get this new customer offer
    0:20:17 and your new three month premium wireless plan
    0:20:18 for just 15 bucks a month,
    0:20:21 you can go to mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:20:24 That’s mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:20:27 You can cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month
    0:20:29 at mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:20:33 $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 a month.
    0:20:36 New customers on first three month plan only.
    0:20:39 Speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan,
    0:20:41 additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply.
    0:20:43 See Mint Mobile for details.
    0:20:50 Support for the gray area comes from Cook Unity.
    0:20:52 You know one way to eat chef prepared meals
    0:20:53 in the comfort of your home?
    0:20:56 You can spend years at culinary school,
    0:20:58 work your way up the restaurant industry,
    0:21:00 become a renowned chef on your own,
    0:21:02 and then cook something for yourself.
    0:21:04 Cook Unity delivers meals to your door
    0:21:06 that are crafted by award winning chefs
    0:21:10 and made with local farm fresh ingredients.
    0:21:13 Cook Unity’s selection of over 350 meals
    0:21:15 offers a variety of cuisines
    0:21:17 and their menus are updated weekly.
    0:21:18 So you’re sure to find something
    0:21:21 to fit your taste and dietary needs.
    0:21:22 One of our colleagues, Nisha,
    0:21:24 tried Cook Unity for herself.
    0:21:26 – Sometimes you’re just too tired to cook.
    0:21:28 I’m a, I have a two and a half year old.
    0:21:31 Sometimes you’re just exhausted at the end of the day.
    0:21:33 And it’s very easy to default to take out.
    0:21:35 So it was really nice to not have the mental load
    0:21:37 of having it cook every day,
    0:21:40 but having healthy home cooked meals
    0:21:42 already prepared for you
    0:21:45 and not having to go the takeout route.
    0:21:48 – You can get the gift of delivering mouthwatering meals
    0:21:49 crafted by local ingredients
    0:21:52 and award winning chefs with Cook Unity.
    0:21:55 You can go to cookunity.com/grayarea
    0:21:58 or enter code grayarea before checkout
    0:22:00 for 50% off your first week.
    0:22:02 That’s 50% off your first week
    0:22:04 by using code grayarea
    0:22:07 or going to cookunity.com/grayarea.
    0:22:14 – Support for the gray area comes from Shopify.
    0:22:18 Viral marketing campaigns have gotten pretty wild lately.
    0:22:19 Like in Russia,
    0:22:22 one pizza chain offered 100 free pizzas a year
    0:22:24 for 100 years to anyone
    0:22:26 who got the company logo tattooed on their body.
    0:22:29 Apparently 400 misguided souls did it,
    0:22:33 which is a story that deserves its own podcast.
    0:22:34 But if you want to grow your company
    0:22:38 without resorting to a morally dubious viral scheme,
    0:22:40 you might want to check out Shopify.
    0:22:43 Shopify is an all-in-one digital commerce platform
    0:22:46 that wants to help your business sell better than ever before.
    0:22:49 Shopify says they can help you convert browsers
    0:22:52 into buyers and sell more over time.
    0:22:55 And their shop pay feature can boost conversions by 50%.
    0:22:58 There’s a reason companies like Allbirds turn to Shopify
    0:23:01 to sell more products to more customers.
    0:23:03 Businesses that sell more sell with Shopify.
    0:23:05 Want to upgrade your business
    0:23:07 and get the same checkout Allbirds uses?
    0:23:10 You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period
    0:23:14 at Shopify.com/Vox, all lowercase.
    0:23:18 That’s Shopify.com/Vox to upgrade your selling today.
    0:23:20 Shopify.com/Vox.
    0:23:28 (gentle music)
    0:23:38 – Let’s move to another set of potential beings.
    0:23:41 Your work on Sentience covers artificial intelligence.
    0:23:44 And one of the things that I’ve been most interested
    0:23:46 in watching as the past few years
    0:23:48 have really thrust a lot of questions around AI
    0:23:52 into the mainstream has been this unbundling
    0:23:54 of consciousness and intelligence
    0:23:56 or Sentience and intelligence.
    0:23:59 We’re clearly getting better at creating
    0:24:01 more intelligent systems that can achieve
    0:24:05 and with competency perform certain tasks.
    0:24:07 But it remains very unclear
    0:24:09 if we’re getting any closer to Sentient ones.
    0:24:12 So how do you understand the relationship
    0:24:15 between Sentience and intelligence?
    0:24:17 – I think it’s entirely possible
    0:24:21 that we will get AI systems with very high levels
    0:24:26 of intelligence and absolutely no Sentience at all.
    0:24:27 That’s entirely possible.
    0:24:31 And when you think about shrimps or snails, for example,
    0:24:34 we can also conceive of how there can be Sentience
    0:24:37 with perhaps not all that much intelligence.
    0:24:40 – On another podcast, you had mentioned that
    0:24:43 it might actually be easier to create AI systems
    0:24:45 that are Sentient by modeling them
    0:24:47 off of less intelligent systems
    0:24:50 rather than just cranking up the intelligence dial
    0:24:52 until it bursts through into Sentience.
    0:24:54 Why is that?
    0:24:55 – That could absolutely be the case.
    0:24:59 I see it many possible pathways to Sentient AI.
    0:25:01 One of which is through the emulation
    0:25:03 of animal nervous systems.
    0:25:06 There’s a long running project called Open Worm
    0:25:09 that tries to recreate the nervous system
    0:25:14 of a tiny worm called C. elegans in computer software.
    0:25:16 There’s not a huge amount of funding going into this
    0:25:19 because it’s not seen as very lucrative,
    0:25:20 just very interesting.
    0:25:23 And so even with those very simple nervous systems,
    0:25:25 we’re not really at the stage where we can say
    0:25:27 they’ve been emulated.
    0:25:28 But you can see the pathway here.
    0:25:31 You know, suppose we did get an emulation
    0:25:33 of a worms nervous system.
    0:25:35 I’m sure we would then move on to fruit flies.
    0:25:39 If that worked, researchers would be going on to open mouse,
    0:25:43 open fish and emulating animal brains
    0:25:45 at ever greater levels of detail.
    0:25:49 And then in relation to questions of Sentience,
    0:25:51 we’ve got to take seriously the possibility
    0:25:56 that Sentience does not require a biological substrate,
    0:25:59 that the stuff you’re made of might not matter.
    0:26:01 It might matter, but it might not.
    0:26:03 And so it might be that if you recreate
    0:26:08 the same functional organization in a different substrate,
    0:26:11 so no neurons of a biological kind anymore,
    0:26:13 just computer software,
    0:26:15 maybe you would create Sentience as well.
    0:26:18 – You’ve talked about this idea that you’ve called
    0:26:20 the N equals one problem.
    0:26:22 Can you explain what that is?
    0:26:28 – Well, this is a term that began in origins of life studies,
    0:26:31 where it’s people searching for extraterrestrial life
    0:26:34 or studying life’s origin and asking,
    0:26:37 well, we only have one case to draw on.
    0:26:39 And if we only have one case,
    0:26:43 how are we supposed to know what was essential to life
    0:26:46 from what was a contingent feature
    0:26:48 of how life was achieved on Earth?
    0:26:53 And one might think we have an N equals one problem
    0:26:55 with consciousness as well.
    0:26:59 If you think it’s something that has only evolved once,
    0:27:01 seems like you’re always gonna have problems
    0:27:02 disentangling what’s essential to it
    0:27:06 from what is contingent.
    0:27:06 Luckily though,
    0:27:09 I think we might be in an N greater than one situation
    0:27:12 when it comes to Sentience and consciousness
    0:27:14 because of the arthropods like flies and bees
    0:27:17 and because of the cephalopods and crabs.
    0:27:18 And because of the cephalopods
    0:27:21 like octopuses, squid, cuttlefish,
    0:27:24 we might even be in an N equals three situation,
    0:27:28 in which case, studying those other cases,
    0:27:32 octopuses, crabs, insects has tremendous value
    0:27:35 for understanding the nature of Sentience
    0:27:37 ’cause it can tell us,
    0:27:39 it can start to give us some insight
    0:27:43 into what might be essential to having it at all
    0:27:45 versus what might be a quirk
    0:27:48 of how it is achieved in humans.
    0:27:50 – Just to make sure I have this right,
    0:27:54 if we are in an N equals one scenario with Sentience,
    0:27:56 that means that every sentient creature evolved
    0:27:59 from the same sentient ancestor.
    0:28:01 It’s one evolutionary lineage.
    0:28:01 – That’s right.
    0:28:05 – And so Sentience has only evolved once on Earth’s history
    0:28:07 so it gives us one example to look at.
    0:28:08 – Exactly.
    0:28:10 – But if we’re not in an N equals one situation,
    0:28:12 you mentioned N equals three
    0:28:13 and there’s a fair bit of research
    0:28:16 suggesting this could be the case or something like it,
    0:28:19 then Sentience has evolved three separate times
    0:28:22 in three separate kind of cases of form
    0:28:24 and the architecture of a being.
    0:28:26 – That’s fascinating to me,
    0:28:28 the idea that Sentience could have involved
    0:28:31 independently multiple times in different ways.
    0:28:34 – Yeah, we know it’s true of eyes, for example,
    0:28:37 when you look at the eyes of cephalopods,
    0:28:40 you see a wonderful mixture of similarities and differences.
    0:28:44 So we see convergent evolution, similar thing,
    0:28:49 evolving independently to solve a similar problem
    0:28:51 and Sentience could be just like that.
    0:28:55 – The greater the number of N’s we have here,
    0:28:59 the number of separate instances of Sentience evolving,
    0:29:03 it strikes me as that lends more credence to the idea
    0:29:06 that AI could develop its own independent route
    0:29:09 to Sentience as well that might not look exactly
    0:29:11 like what we’ve seen in the past.
    0:29:14 – It’s also the way towards really knowing
    0:29:16 whether it has or not as well
    0:29:19 because at present, we’re just not in that situation.
    0:29:22 We’re not in a good enough position
    0:29:25 to be able to really know that we’ve created Sentience AI
    0:29:28 even when we do, we’ll be faced
    0:29:31 with horrible disorienting uncertainty.
    0:29:33 But to me, the pathway towards better evidence
    0:29:36 and maybe one day knowledge lies through
    0:29:38 studying other animals.
    0:29:41 And it lies through trying to get other N’s,
    0:29:45 other independently evolved cases
    0:29:48 so that we can develop theories
    0:29:51 that genuinely disentangle the quirks
    0:29:54 of human consciousness from what is needed
    0:29:56 to be conscious at all.
    0:30:01 – What kind of evidence would you find compelling
    0:30:05 that tests for Sentience in AI systems?
    0:30:08 – It’s something I’ve been thinking about a great deal
    0:30:12 because when we’re looking at the surface linguistic behavior
    0:30:14 of an AI system that has been trained
    0:30:18 on over a trillion words of human training data,
    0:30:22 we clearly gonna see very fluent talking
    0:30:24 about feelings and emotions.
    0:30:29 And we’re already seeing that.
    0:30:33 And it’s really, I would say not evidence at all
    0:30:36 that the system actually has those feelings
    0:30:40 because it can be explained as a kind of skillful mimicry.
    0:30:43 And if that mimicry serves the system’s objectives,
    0:30:45 we should expect to see it.
    0:30:48 We should expect our criteria to be gained
    0:30:50 if the objectives are served by persuading
    0:30:54 the human user of Sentience.
    0:30:56 And so this is a huge problem and it points
    0:31:01 to the need to look deeper in some way.
    0:31:03 These systems are very substantially opaque.
    0:31:07 It is really, really hard to infer anything
    0:31:10 about what the processes are inside them.
    0:31:12 And so I have a second line of research as well
    0:31:15 that I’ve been developing with collaborators at Google
    0:31:19 that is about trying to adapt some of these animal experiments.
    0:31:22 Let’s see if we can translate them over to the AI case.
    0:31:24 – These are looking for behavior changes?
    0:31:27 – Yeah, looking for subtle behavior changes
    0:31:32 that we hope would not be gaming
    0:31:35 because they’re not part of the normal repertoire
    0:31:37 in which humans express their feelings,
    0:31:39 but are rather these very subtle things
    0:31:41 that we’ve looked for in other animals
    0:31:43 because they can’t talk about their feelings
    0:31:45 in the first place.
    0:31:47 – So it’s funny, we’re hitting the same problem in AI
    0:31:49 that we are in animals and humans,
    0:31:53 which is that in both cases, there’s a black box problem
    0:31:54 where we don’t actually understand
    0:31:55 the inner workings to some degree.
    0:31:58 – The problems are so much worse in the AI case though
    0:32:03 because when you’re faced with a pattern of behavior
    0:32:07 in another animal like an octopus
    0:32:10 that is well explained by there being a state
    0:32:14 like pain there, that is the best explanation
    0:32:15 for your data.
    0:32:18 And it doesn’t have to compete with this other explanation
    0:32:21 that maybe the octopus read a trillion words
    0:32:23 about how humans express their feelings
    0:32:27 and stands to benefit from gaming our criteria
    0:32:29 and skillfully mimicking us.
    0:32:33 We know the octopus is not doing that, that never arises.
    0:32:36 In the AI case, those two explanations always compete
    0:32:39 and the second one with current systems
    0:32:41 seems to be rather more plausible.
    0:32:43 And in addition to that,
    0:32:46 the substrate is completely different as well.
    0:32:48 So we face huge challenges
    0:32:49 and I suppose what I’m trying to do
    0:32:51 is maintain an attitude of humility
    0:32:53 in the face of those challenges.
    0:32:57 Now, let’s not be credulous about this,
    0:32:59 but also let’s not give up the search
    0:33:02 for developing higher quality kinds of test.
    0:33:14 Support for the gray area comes from green light.
    0:33:28 Anyway, it applies to more than fish.
    0:33:30 It’s also a great lesson for parents
    0:33:32 who want their kids to learn important skills
    0:33:35 that will set them up for success later in life.
    0:33:37 As we enter the gifting season,
    0:33:39 now might be the perfect time
    0:33:41 to give your kids money skills that will last
    0:33:43 well beyond the holidays.
    0:33:45 That’s where green light comes in.
    0:33:46 Green light is a debit card
    0:33:49 and money at made specifically with families in mind.
    0:33:50 Send money to your kids,
    0:33:52 track their spending and saving
    0:33:54 and help them develop their financial skills
    0:33:57 with games aimed at building the confidence they need
    0:34:00 to make wiser decisions with their money.
    0:34:02 My kid is a little too young for this.
    0:34:04 We’re still rocking piggy banks,
    0:34:06 but I’ve got a colleague here at Vox
    0:34:08 who uses it with his two boys and he loves it.
    0:34:10 You can sign up for green light today
    0:34:12 at greenlight.com/grayarea.
    0:34:14 That’s greenlight.com/grayarea
    0:34:16 to try green light today.
    0:34:18 Greenlight.com/grayarea.
    0:34:24 Support for the show comes from Give Well.
    0:34:27 When you make a charitable donation,
    0:34:30 you want to know your money is being well spent.
    0:34:32 For that, you might want to try Give Well.
    0:34:34 Give Well is an independent nonprofit
    0:34:36 that’s spent the last 17 years
    0:34:39 researching charitable organizations.
    0:34:40 And they only give recommendations
    0:34:44 to the highest impact causes that they vetted thoroughly.
    0:34:47 According to Give Well, over 125,000 donors
    0:34:50 have used it to donate more than $2 billion.
    0:34:52 Rigorous evidence suggests that these donations
    0:34:55 could save over 200,000 lives.
    0:34:58 And Give Well wants to help you make informed decisions
    0:34:59 about high impact giving.
    0:35:02 So all of their research and recommendations
    0:35:04 are available on their site for free.
    0:35:06 You can make tax deductible donations
    0:35:08 and Give Well doesn’t take a cut.
    0:35:09 If you’ve never used Give Well to donate,
    0:35:12 you can have your donation matched up to $100
    0:35:14 before the end of the year
    0:35:16 or as long as matching funds last.
    0:35:18 To claim your match, you can go to GiveWell.org
    0:35:22 and pick podcast and enter the gray area at checkout.
    0:35:24 Make sure they know that you heard about Give Well
    0:35:26 from the gray area to get your donation matched.
    0:35:30 Again, that’s GiveWell.org to donate or find out more.
    0:35:37 Support for the gray area comes from Delete Me.
    0:35:39 Delete Me allows you to discover and control
    0:35:40 your digital footprint,
    0:35:43 letting you see where things like home addresses,
    0:35:44 phone numbers, and even email addresses
    0:35:47 are floating around on data broker sites.
    0:35:50 And that means Delete Me could be the perfect holiday gift
    0:35:52 for a loved one looking to help safeguard
    0:35:54 their own life online.
    0:35:55 Delete Me can help anyone monitor
    0:35:59 and remove the personal info they don’t want on the internet.
    0:36:01 Claire White, our colleague here at Vox,
    0:36:04 tried Delete Me for herself and even gifted it to a friend.
    0:36:08 This year, I gave two of my friends a Delete Me subscription
    0:36:09 and it’s been the perfect gift
    0:36:12 ’cause it’s something that will last beyond the season.
    0:36:14 Delete Me will continue to remove their information
    0:36:16 from online and it’s something I’ve been raving about
    0:36:19 so I know that they’re gonna love it as well.
    0:36:21 – This holiday season, you can give your loved ones
    0:36:25 the gift of privacy and peace of mind with Delete Me.
    0:36:27 Now at a special discount for our listeners.
    0:36:30 Today, you can get 20% off your Delete Me plan
    0:36:33 when you go to joindeleteme.com/vox
    0:36:35 and use promo code Vox at checkout.
    0:36:39 The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteme.com/vox
    0:36:42 and enter code Vox at checkout.
    0:36:46 That’s joindeleteme.com/vox code Vox.
    0:36:52 (gentle music)
    0:37:00 – One of the major aims of your recent book
    0:37:02 is to propose a framework
    0:37:04 for making these kinds of practical decisions
    0:37:06 about potentially sentient creatures,
    0:37:09 whether it’s an animal, whether it’s AI,
    0:37:11 given this uncertainty.
    0:37:12 Tell me about that framework.
    0:37:15 – Well, it’s a precautionary framework.
    0:37:18 One of the things I urge is a pragmatic shift
    0:37:20 in how we think about the question.
    0:37:23 From asking, is the system sentient
    0:37:26 where uncertainty will always be with us?
    0:37:30 To asking instead, is the system a sentient’s candidate?
    0:37:32 Where the concept of a sentient’s candidate
    0:37:36 is a concept that we’ve pragmatically engineered.
    0:37:39 And what it says is that a system is a sentient’s candidate
    0:37:41 when there’s a realistic possibility of sentient’s
    0:37:44 that it would be irresponsible to ignore.
    0:37:45 And when there’s an evidence base
    0:37:49 that can inform the design and assessment of precautions.
    0:37:52 And because we’ve constructed the concept like that,
    0:37:56 we can use current evidence to make judgments.
    0:37:59 The cost of doing that is that those judgments
    0:38:02 are not purely scientific judgments anymore.
    0:38:05 There’s an ethical element to the judgment as well,
    0:38:07 because it’s about when a realistic possibility
    0:38:10 becomes irresponsible to ignore.
    0:38:13 And that’s implicitly a value judgment.
    0:38:15 But by reconstructing the question in that way,
    0:38:16 we make it answerable.
    0:38:19 – So, presumably then,
    0:38:21 given your recommendation to the UK government,
    0:38:25 you would say that those invertebrates you looked at
    0:38:27 are sentient’s candidates.
    0:38:29 That there’s enough evidence to at least consider
    0:38:31 the possibility of sentience.
    0:38:35 Where would you stop with the current category
    0:38:36 of sentient’s candidate?
    0:38:39 What is not a sentient’s candidate in your current view?
    0:38:43 – I’ve come to the view that insects really are,
    0:38:44 which surprises me.
    0:38:46 You know, it would have surprised past me
    0:38:49 who hadn’t read so much of the literature about insects.
    0:38:53 The evidence just clearly shows a realistic possibility
    0:38:55 of sentience, it would be irresponsible to ignore.
    0:38:59 But really, that’s currently where I stop.
    0:39:01 So the cephalopod mollusks, the decapod crustaceans,
    0:39:05 the insects, lot of evidence in those cases.
    0:39:08 And I think in other invertebrates,
    0:39:11 what we should say instead is that we lack the kind of
    0:39:14 evidence that would be needed to effectively design
    0:39:17 precautions to manage welfare risks.
    0:39:21 And so the imperative there is to be getting more evidence.
    0:39:24 And so in my book, I call these investigation priorities.
    0:39:27 – So insects are sentience candidates.
    0:39:30 Where does today’s generation of AI,
    0:39:33 let’s LLMs in particular, so open AI is chatgy, BT,
    0:39:36 anthropics, Claude, are these sentience candidates
    0:39:37 in your view yet?
    0:39:40 – I suggest that they’re investigation priorities,
    0:39:43 which is already controversial because I’m saying that,
    0:39:47 well, just as snails, we need more evidence.
    0:39:49 Equally in AI, we need more evidence.
    0:39:51 So I’m not being one of those people who just dismisses
    0:39:56 the possibility of sentient AI as being a ridiculous one.
    0:39:58 But I don’t think they’re sentience candidates
    0:40:00 because we don’t have enough evidence.
    0:40:02 – When you say that something is a sentience candidate,
    0:40:05 it’s implying that we need to consider their welfare
    0:40:08 and our behaviors and the decisions that we make.
    0:40:09 – In public policy.
    0:40:10 Yeah, I mean, in our personal lives,
    0:40:13 we might want to be even more precautionary,
    0:40:17 but I’m designing here a framework for setting policy.
    0:40:19 – Right, ’cause I can imagine,
    0:40:21 I think that the standard kind of line
    0:40:23 that you get at this point is,
    0:40:24 if you’re telling me I need to consider
    0:40:26 the welfare of insects,
    0:40:28 how can I take a step on the sidewalk?
    0:40:30 And one of the ideas that’s central to your framework
    0:40:33 is this idea of proportionality, which I really liked.
    0:40:36 You talk about how the precautions that we take
    0:40:39 should match the scale of the risk of suffering
    0:40:41 that our actions kind of carry.
    0:40:43 So how do you think about quantifying the risk
    0:40:45 of suffering an action carries, right?
    0:40:49 Does harming simpler creatures or insects
    0:40:52 carry less risk than harming larger, more complex ones
    0:40:54 like pigs or octopuses?
    0:40:57 – Well, I’m opposed to trying to reduce it
    0:41:00 or to a calculation and perhaps disagree
    0:41:02 with some utilitarians on that point.
    0:41:04 When you’re setting public policy,
    0:41:08 cost-benefit analysis has its place,
    0:41:10 but we’re not in that kind of situation here.
    0:41:13 We’re weighing up very incommensurable things,
    0:41:16 things that it’s very, very hard to compare.
    0:41:18 And I think in that kind of situation,
    0:41:21 you don’t want to be just making a calculation.
    0:41:24 What you need to have is a democratic, inclusive process
    0:41:27 through which different positions can be represented
    0:41:32 and we can try to resolve our value conflicts democratically.
    0:41:35 And so in the book, I advocate for citizens assemblies
    0:41:39 as being the most promising way of doing this,
    0:41:41 where you bring a random sample of the public
    0:41:45 into an environment where they’re informed about the risks,
    0:41:47 they’re informed about possible precautions,
    0:41:50 and they’re given a series of tests to go through
    0:41:53 to debate what they think would be proportionate
    0:41:54 to those risks.
    0:41:57 And things like, we’re all banned from walking now
    0:41:59 because it might hurt insects.
    0:42:02 I don’t see those as very likely to be judged proportionate
    0:42:04 by such an exercise.
    0:42:06 But other things we might do to help insects,
    0:42:09 like banning certain kinds of pesticides,
    0:42:12 I think might well be judged proportionate.
    0:42:15 – Is this, this sounds to me almost like a form of jury duty.
    0:42:17 You have a random selection of citizens brought together.
    0:42:18 – Yeah.
    0:42:20 – How do you, when I think about this on one hand,
    0:42:21 I think it sounds lovely.
    0:42:23 I like the idea of us all coming together
    0:42:26 to debate the welfare of our fellow creatures.
    0:42:28 It also strikes me as kind of optimistic,
    0:42:32 to imagine us not only doing this, but doing it well.
    0:42:35 And I’m curious how you think about balancing
    0:42:38 the value of expertise in making these decisions
    0:42:40 with democratic input.
    0:42:44 – Yeah, I’m implicitly proposing a division of labor
    0:42:47 where experts are supposed to make this judgment
    0:42:51 of sentience candidature or candidacy.
    0:42:53 Is the octopus a sentience candidate?
    0:42:56 But then they’re not adjudicating
    0:42:58 the questions of proportionality.
    0:43:00 – So what to do about it?
    0:43:02 – Yeah, then it would be a tyranny of expert values.
    0:43:05 You’d have this question that calls for value judgments
    0:43:06 about what to do.
    0:43:08 And you’d be handing that over to the experts
    0:43:12 and letting the experts dictate changes to our way of life.
    0:43:15 That question of proportionality,
    0:43:18 that should be handed over to the citizens assembly.
    0:43:21 And I think it doesn’t require ordinary citizens
    0:43:24 to adjudicate the scientific disagreement.
    0:43:27 And that’s really crucial because if you’re asking
    0:43:28 random members of the public to adjudicate
    0:43:32 which brain regions they think are more important to sentience,
    0:43:34 that’s gonna be a total disaster.
    0:43:37 But the point is you give them questions
    0:43:40 about what sorts of changes to our way of life
    0:43:44 would be proportionate, would be permissible,
    0:43:47 adequate, reasonably necessary and consistent
    0:43:50 in relation to this risk that’s been identified.
    0:43:52 And you ask them to debate those questions.
    0:43:55 And I think that’s entirely feasible.
    0:43:57 I’m very optimistic about citizens assemblies
    0:44:00 as a mechanism for addressing that kind of question,
    0:44:02 a question about our shared values.
    0:44:05 – Do you see these as legally binding
    0:44:07 or kind of making recommendations?
    0:44:11 – I think they can only be making recommendations.
    0:44:14 What I’m proposing is that on certain specific issues
    0:44:17 where we think we need public input,
    0:44:19 but we don’t wanna put them to a referendum
    0:44:22 because we might need to revisit the issues
    0:44:24 when new evidence comes to light
    0:44:26 and you need a certain level of information
    0:44:28 to understand what the issue is.
    0:44:31 Citizens assemblies are great for those kinds of issues.
    0:44:34 And because they’re very effective,
    0:44:36 the recommendations they deliver
    0:44:38 should be given weight by policymakers
    0:44:40 and should be implemented.
    0:44:43 They’re not substituting for parliamentary democracy,
    0:44:46 but they’re feeding into it in a really valuable way.
    0:44:51 – One thing that I can’t help but wonder about all of this,
    0:44:54 humans are already incredibly cruel to animals
    0:44:56 that most of us agree are very sentient,
    0:44:58 I’m thinking of pigs or cows.
    0:45:01 I think we’ve largely moved away from,
    0:45:03 Descartes in the 1600s
    0:45:06 where all animals were considered unfeeling machines.
    0:45:09 Today we might disagree about how small
    0:45:11 and simple down the chain we go
    0:45:14 before we lose in consensus on sentience,
    0:45:17 but agreeing that they’re sentient
    0:45:18 doesn’t seem to have prevented us
    0:45:21 from doing atrocious things to many animals.
    0:45:24 So I’m curious if the goal is to help guide us
    0:45:27 in making more ethical decisions,
    0:45:29 how do you think that determining sentience
    0:45:31 in other creatures will help?
    0:45:37 – You’re totally right that recognizing animals as sentient
    0:45:40 does not immediately lead to behavioral change
    0:45:42 to treat them better.
    0:45:45 And this is the tragedy of how we treat
    0:45:48 lots of mammals like pigs and birds like chickens,
    0:45:51 that we recognize them as sentient beings,
    0:45:54 and yet we fail them very, very seriously.
    0:45:57 I think there’s a lot of research to be done
    0:46:01 about what kinds of information about sentience
    0:46:03 might genuinely change people’s behavior.
    0:46:07 And I’m very interested in doing that kind of research
    0:46:12 going forward, but with cases like octopuses,
    0:46:15 at least there’s quite an opportunity
    0:46:16 in this particular case, I think,
    0:46:20 because you don’t have really entrenched industries
    0:46:22 already farming them.
    0:46:24 Part of the problem we face with the pigs and chickens
    0:46:28 and so on is that in opposing these practices,
    0:46:31 the enemy is very, very powerful.
    0:46:33 The arguments are really easy to state
    0:46:38 and people do get them and they do see why this is wrong,
    0:46:41 but then the enemy is so powerful
    0:46:44 that actually changing this juggernaut,
    0:46:47 this leviathan is a huge challenge.
    0:46:51 By contrast with invertebrate farming,
    0:46:54 we’re talking about practices sometimes
    0:46:57 that could become entrenched like that in the future,
    0:46:59 but are not yet entrenched.
    0:47:04 Octopus farming is currently on quite small scales,
    0:47:06 shrimp farming is much larger,
    0:47:09 insect farming is much larger,
    0:47:11 but they’re not as entrenched and powerful
    0:47:14 as pig farming, poultry farming.
    0:47:16 And so there seem to be real opportunities here
    0:47:19 to effect positive change, or at least I hope so.
    0:47:21 In the octopus farming case, for example,
    0:47:24 we’ve actually seen bands implemented
    0:47:27 in Washington State and in California.
    0:47:31 And that’s a sign that progress is really possible
    0:47:32 in these cases.
    0:47:35 – There are talks of banning AI development.
    0:47:37 The philosopher Thomas Metzinger is famously called
    0:47:41 for a ban until 2050, that might be difficult operationally,
    0:47:45 but I’m curious how you think about actions we can take today
    0:47:47 at the early stages of these institutions
    0:47:49 that might help in the long run.
    0:47:51 – Yeah, huge problems.
    0:47:55 I do think Metzinger’s proposal deserves to be taken seriously,
    0:48:00 but also we need to be thinking about what can we do
    0:48:05 that is more easily achieved than banning this stuff,
    0:48:08 but then nonetheless makes a positive difference.
    0:48:11 And in the book, I suggest there might be some lessons here
    0:48:14 from the regulation of animal research
    0:48:17 that you can’t just do what you like,
    0:48:19 experimenting on animals.
    0:48:22 In the UK, at least, there’s quite a strict framework
    0:48:25 requiring you to get a license.
    0:48:27 And it’s not a perfect framework by any means.
    0:48:29 It has a lot of problems,
    0:48:33 but it does show a possible compromise
    0:48:35 between simply banning something altogether
    0:48:39 and allowing it to happen in a completely unregulated way.
    0:48:41 And the nature of that compromise
    0:48:44 is that you expect the people doing this research
    0:48:47 to be transparent about their plans,
    0:48:49 to reveal their plans to a regulator.
    0:48:53 Who is able to see them and assess the harms and benefits
    0:48:54 and only give a license
    0:48:57 if they think the benefits outweigh the harms.
    0:49:01 And I’d like to see something like that in AI research
    0:49:03 as well as in animal research.
    0:49:04 – Well, it’s interesting
    0:49:05 ’cause it brings us right back
    0:49:06 to what you were talking about a little while ago,
    0:49:10 which is, if we can’t trust the linguistic output,
    0:49:12 we need the research on understanding,
    0:49:14 well, how do we even assess harm and risk
    0:49:16 in AI systems in the first place?
    0:49:18 – As I say, it’s a huge problem coming down the road
    0:49:20 for the whole of society.
    0:49:24 I think there’ll be significant social divisions opening up
    0:49:28 in the near future between people who are quite convinced
    0:49:31 that their AI companions are sentient
    0:49:33 and want rights for them
    0:49:38 and others who simply find that ridiculous and absurd.
    0:49:40 And I think that there’ll be a lot of tensions
    0:49:42 between these two groups.
    0:49:45 And in a way, the only way to really move forward
    0:49:49 is to have better evidence than we do now.
    0:49:52 And so there needs to be more research.
    0:49:55 I’m always in this difficult position of,
    0:49:57 I want more research, the tech companies might fund it,
    0:49:59 I hope they will, I want them to fund it.
    0:50:02 At the same time, it could be very problematic
    0:50:04 for them as well.
    0:50:06 And so I can’t make any promises in advance
    0:50:08 that the outcomes of that research
    0:50:11 will be advantageous to the tech companies.
    0:50:14 So, but even though I’m in a difficult position there,
    0:50:18 I feel like I still have to try and do something.
    0:50:21 – Maybe by way of trying to wrap this all up,
    0:50:24 you have been involved in these kinds of questions
    0:50:25 for a number of years.
    0:50:27 And you’ve mentioned a few times throughout the conversation
    0:50:29 that you have seen a pace of change
    0:50:31 that’s been kind of inspiring.
    0:50:32 You’ve seen questions that previously
    0:50:35 were not a part of the conversation now,
    0:50:37 becoming part of the mainstream conversation.
    0:50:41 So what have you seen in the last decade or two
    0:50:43 in terms of the degree to which we are really beginning
    0:50:44 to embrace these questions?
    0:50:46 – I’ve seen some positive steps.
    0:50:49 I think issues around crabs and lobsters and octopus
    0:50:53 is taking far more seriously than they were 10 years ago.
    0:50:56 For example, I really did not expect that California
    0:51:00 would bring in an octopus farming ban
    0:51:03 and in the legislation cite our work
    0:51:07 as being a key factor driving it.
    0:51:08 I mean, that was extraordinary.
    0:51:11 So it just goes to show that it really pays off sometimes
    0:51:14 to do impact driven work.
    0:51:16 I think we’ve seen over the last couple of years
    0:51:19 some changes in the conversations around AI as well.
    0:51:23 The book is written in a very optimistic tone, I think,
    0:51:26 because well, you’ve got to hope to make it a reality.
    0:51:30 You’ve got to believe in the possibility of us
    0:51:34 taking steps to manage risk better than we do.
    0:51:36 And the book is full of proposals
    0:51:38 about how we might do that.
    0:51:42 And I think at least some of these will be adopted in the future.
    0:51:49 – I would love to see it, I’m optimistic as well.
    0:51:52 Jonathan Birch, thank you so much for coming on the show.
    0:51:53 This was a pleasure.
    0:51:54 – Thanks, Hachan.
    0:52:07 – Once again, the book is The Edge of Sentience,
    0:52:10 which is free to read on the Oxford Academic Platform.
    0:52:13 We’ll include a link to that in the show notes.
    0:52:14 And that’s it.
    0:52:17 I hope you enjoyed the episode as much as I did.
    0:52:20 I am still thinking about whether we’re in an N equals one
    0:52:23 or an N equals three world,
    0:52:25 and how the future of how we look for sentience
    0:52:29 in AI systems could come down to animal research
    0:52:30 that helps us figure out
    0:52:35 whether all animals share the same sentient ancestor,
    0:52:37 or whether sentience is something
    0:52:40 that’s evolved a few separate times.
    0:52:43 This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey
    0:52:46 and hosted by me, O’Shan Jarrow.
    0:52:50 My day job is as a staff writer with Future Perfect at Vox,
    0:52:53 where I cover the latest ideas in the science
    0:52:55 and philosophy of consciousness,
    0:52:57 as well as political economy.
    0:53:01 You can read my stuff at box.com/futureperfect.
    0:53:04 Today’s episode was engineered by Patrick Boyd,
    0:53:08 fact-checked by Anouk Dussot, edited by Jorge Just,
    0:53:10 and Alex Overington wrote our theme music.
    0:53:14 New episodes of The Gray Area drop on Mondays.
    0:53:16 Listen and subscribe.
    0:53:17 The show is part of Vox.
    0:53:19 Support Vox’s journalism
    0:53:22 by joining our membership program today.
    0:53:25 Go to vox.com/members to sign up.
    0:53:27 And if you decide to sign up because of the show,
    0:53:28 let us know.
    0:00:01 (upbeat music)
    0:00:04 Support for this show is brought to you by Nissan Kicks.
    0:00:06 It’s never too late to try new things
    0:00:09 and it’s never too late to reinvent yourself.
    0:00:12 The all-new re-imagined Nissan Kicks
    0:00:14 is the city-sized crossover vehicle
    0:00:17 that’s been completely revamped for urban adventure.
    0:00:20 From the design and styling to the performance,
    0:00:21 all the way to features
    0:00:23 like the Bose Personal Plus sound system,
    0:00:26 you can get closer to everything you love about city life
    0:00:29 in the all-new re-imagined Nissan Kicks.
    0:00:34 Learn more at www.nisanusa.com/2025-Kicks.
    0:00:36 Available feature,
    0:00:39 Bose is a registered trademark of the Bose Corporation.
    0:00:46 – Your own weight loss journey is personal.
    0:00:47 Everyone’s diet is different,
    0:00:49 everyone’s bodies are different,
    0:00:50 and according to Noom,
    0:00:53 there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
    0:00:55 Noom wants to help you stay focused
    0:00:57 on what’s important to you,
    0:01:00 with their psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:01:02 This program helps you understand the science
    0:01:04 behind your eating choices
    0:01:07 and helps you build new habits for a healthier lifestyle.
    0:01:09 Stay focused on what’s important to you
    0:01:13 with Noom’s psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:01:16 Sign up for your free trial today at Noom.com.
    0:01:24 – Can you ever really know what’s going on
    0:01:26 inside the mind of another creature?
    0:01:31 – In some cases, like other humans or dogs and cats,
    0:01:35 we might be able to guess with a bit of confidence,
    0:01:39 but what about octopuses or insects?
    0:01:41 What about AI systems?
    0:01:44 Will they ever be able to feel anything?
    0:01:48 Despite all of our progress in science and technology,
    0:01:50 we still have basically no idea
    0:01:52 how to look inside the private experiences
    0:01:54 of other creatures.
    0:01:57 The question of what kinds of beings can feel things
    0:02:00 and what those feelings are really like
    0:02:01 remains one of the biggest mysteries
    0:02:04 in both philosophy and science.
    0:02:07 And maybe, at some point,
    0:02:10 we’ll develop a big new theory of consciousness
    0:02:14 that helps us really understand the inside of other minds.
    0:02:18 But until then, we’re stuck making guesses
    0:02:22 and judgment calls about what other creatures can feel
    0:02:25 and about whether certain things can feel at all.
    0:02:30 So, where do we draw the line
    0:02:34 of what kinds of creatures might be sentient?
    0:02:37 And how do we figure out our ethical obligations
    0:02:39 to creatures that remain a mystery to us?
    0:02:43 I’m O’Shawn Jarrow, sitting in for Sean Illing,
    0:02:45 and this is the Gray Area.
    0:02:54 My guest today is philosopher of science, Jonathan Birch.
    0:02:56 He’s the principal investigator
    0:02:58 on the Foundations of Animal Sentience Project
    0:03:00 at the London School of Economics,
    0:03:03 and author of the recently released book,
    0:03:07 The Edge of Sentience, Risk and Precaution in Humans,
    0:03:08 Other Animals and AI.
    0:03:13 He also successfully convinced the UK government
    0:03:17 to consider lobsters, octopuses, and crabs sentient
    0:03:19 and therefore, deserving of legal protections,
    0:03:22 which is a story that we’ll get into.
    0:03:24 And it’s that work that earned him a place
    0:03:26 on Vox’s Future Perfect 50 list,
    0:03:30 a roundup of 50 of the most influential people
    0:03:33 working to make the future a better place for everyone.
    0:03:37 And in Birch’s case, for every sentient creature.
    0:03:42 In this conversation, we explore everything that we do
    0:03:45 and don’t know about sentience
    0:03:47 and how to make decisions around it,
    0:03:50 given all the uncertainty that we can’t yet escape.
    0:03:54 Jonathan Birch, welcome to the Gray Area.
    0:03:56 Thanks so much for coming on.
    0:03:57 – Thanks for inviting me.
    0:04:00 – So, one of the central ideas of your work
    0:04:04 is this fuzzy idea of sentience.
    0:04:06 And you focus on sentience across creatures,
    0:04:08 from insects to animals,
    0:04:11 to even potentially artificial intelligence.
    0:04:14 And one of the challenges in that work
    0:04:17 is defining sentience in the first place.
    0:04:19 So, can you talk a little bit about how you’ve come
    0:04:21 to define the term sentience?
    0:04:25 – For me, it starts with thinking about pain
    0:04:27 and thinking about questions like,
    0:04:29 can an octopus feel pain?
    0:04:31 Can a crab, can a shrimp?
    0:04:35 And then realizing that actually pain is too narrow
    0:04:40 for what really matters to us and that matters ethically.
    0:04:43 Because other negative experiences matter as well,
    0:04:47 like anxiety and boredom and frustration
    0:04:49 that are not really forms of pain.
    0:04:53 And then the positive side of mental life also matters.
    0:04:57 Pleasure matters, joy, excitement.
    0:04:59 And the advantage of the term sentience for me
    0:05:02 is that it captures all of that.
    0:05:04 It’s about the capacity to have
    0:05:07 positive or negative feelings.
    0:05:11 – The way that you define sentience
    0:05:13 struck me as kind of basically the way
    0:05:15 that I’ve thought about consciousness.
    0:05:17 But in your book, you have this handy diagram
    0:05:20 that shows how you see sentience and consciousness
    0:05:22 as to some degree different.
    0:05:24 So how do you understand the difference
    0:05:27 between sentience and consciousness?
    0:05:29 – The problem with the term consciousness, as I see it,
    0:05:32 is that it can point to any other number of things.
    0:05:34 Sometimes we are definitely using it
    0:05:37 to refer to our immediate raw experience
    0:05:39 of the present moment.
    0:05:41 But sometimes when we’re talking about consciousness,
    0:05:45 we’re thinking of things that are overlaid on top of that.
    0:05:47 Herbert Feigel in the 1950s
    0:05:49 talked about there being these three layers,
    0:05:53 sentience, sapience and selfhood.
    0:05:55 Where sapience is about the ability
    0:05:59 to not just have those immediate raw experiences,
    0:06:01 but to reflect on them.
    0:06:03 And selfhood is something different again,
    0:06:06 ’cause it’s about awareness of yourself
    0:06:09 as this persistent subject of the experiences
    0:06:13 that has a past and has a future.
    0:06:15 And when we use the term consciousness,
    0:06:18 we might be pointing to any of these three things
    0:06:22 or maybe the package of those three things altogether.
    0:06:25 – So sentience is maybe a bit of a simpler,
    0:06:27 more primitive capacity for feeling
    0:06:30 where consciousness may include these more complex layers?
    0:06:31 – I think of it as the base layer.
    0:06:34 Yeah, I think of it as the most elemental,
    0:06:37 most basic, most evolutionarily ancient
    0:06:40 part of human consciousness
    0:06:41 that is very likely to be shared
    0:06:43 with a wide range of other animals.
    0:06:45 – I do a fair bit of reporting
    0:06:48 on these kinds of questions of consciousness and sentience.
    0:06:51 And everyone tends to agree that it’s a mystery, right?
    0:06:53 And so a lot of emphasis goes on
    0:06:56 trying to dispel the mystery.
    0:06:58 And what I found really interesting about your approach
    0:07:00 is that you seem to take the uncertainty
    0:07:02 in the mystery as your starting point.
    0:07:04 And rather than focusing on how do we solve this?
    0:07:06 How do we dispel it?
    0:07:07 You’re trying to help us think through
    0:07:11 how to make practical decisions given that uncertainty.
    0:07:13 I’m curious how you came to that approach.
    0:07:14 – Yeah, the question for me
    0:07:16 is how do we live with this uncertainty?
    0:07:20 How do we manage risk better than we’re doing at present?
    0:07:25 How can we use ideas from across science and philosophy
    0:07:28 to help us make better decisions
    0:07:29 when faced with those problems?
    0:07:32 And in particular to help us err on the side of caution.
    0:07:34 – Just to maybe make it explicit,
    0:07:37 you mentioned the risk of uncertainty.
    0:07:39 What is the risk here?
    0:07:41 – Well, it depends on the particular case
    0:07:42 we’re thinking about.
    0:07:44 One of the cases that brought me to this topic
    0:07:47 was the practice of dropping crabs and lobsters
    0:07:49 into pans of boiling water.
    0:07:52 And it seems like a clear case to me
    0:07:55 where you don’t need certainty actually.
    0:07:56 You don’t even need knowledge.
    0:08:00 You don’t need high probability to see the risk.
    0:08:04 And in fact, to do sensible common sense things
    0:08:05 to reduce that risk.
    0:08:07 – So the risk is the suffering we’re imposing
    0:08:10 on these potentially other sentient creatures.
    0:08:13 – That’s usually what looms largest for me, yeah.
    0:08:15 The risk of doing things
    0:08:17 that mean we end up living very badly
    0:08:20 because we cause enormous amounts of suffering
    0:08:22 to the creatures around us.
    0:08:26 And you can think of that as a risk to the creatures
    0:08:28 that end up suffering, but it’s also a risk to us.
    0:08:31 A risk that our lives will be horrible
    0:08:32 and destructive and absurd.
    0:08:35 – I worry about my life being horrible
    0:08:37 and destructive and absurd all the time.
    0:08:39 So this is a handy way to think about it.
    0:08:40 – We all should.
    0:08:43 – I’d like to turn to your very practical work,
    0:08:45 advising the UK government
    0:08:49 on the Animal Welfare and Sentience Act of 2022.
    0:08:50 The question was put to you
    0:08:53 of whether they should consider certain invertebrates
    0:08:55 like octopus and crabs and lobsters,
    0:08:58 whether they should be included and protected in the bill.
    0:09:01 Could you just give a little context on that story
    0:09:02 and what led the government to come
    0:09:05 and ask you to lead a research team on that question?
    0:09:08 – Yeah, it was indirectly a result of Brexit,
    0:09:11 the UK leaving the European Union,
    0:09:15 because in doing that, we left the EU’s Lisbon Treaty
    0:09:18 that has a line in it about respecting animals
    0:09:20 as sentient beings.
    0:09:22 And so Animal Welfare Organization said to the government,
    0:09:25 are you going to import that into UK law?
    0:09:27 And they said, no.
    0:09:29 And they got a lot of bad press along the lines of,
    0:09:32 well, don’t you think animals feel pain?
    0:09:35 And so they promised new legislation
    0:09:38 that would restore respect for sentient beings
    0:09:40 back to UK law.
    0:09:43 And they produced a draft of the bill
    0:09:46 that included vertebrate animals.
    0:09:48 You could say that’s progressive in a way
    0:09:50 because fishes are in there, which is great,
    0:09:52 but it generated a lot of criticism
    0:09:55 because of the omission of invertebrates.
    0:09:58 And so in that context, they commissioned a team led by me
    0:10:01 to produce a review of the evidence of sentience
    0:10:03 in two groups of invertebrates,
    0:10:06 the cephalopods like octopuses
    0:10:09 and the decopod crustaceans like crabs and lobsters.
    0:10:11 I’d already been calling for applications
    0:10:14 of the precautionary principle to questions of sentience
    0:10:16 and had written about that.
    0:10:19 And it already established at the LSE a project
    0:10:22 called the Foundations of Animal Sentience Project
    0:10:25 that aims to try to place the emerging science
    0:10:29 of animal sentience on more secure foundations,
    0:10:31 advance it, develop better methods,
    0:10:33 and find new ways of putting the science to work
    0:10:35 to design better policies,
    0:10:37 laws and ways of caring for animals.
    0:10:39 So in a way, I was in the right place at the right time.
    0:10:43 I was pretty ideally situated to be leading a review like this.
    0:10:46 – How do folks actually go about trying to answer
    0:10:51 the question of whether a given animal is or is not sentient?
    0:10:53 – Well, in lots of different ways.
    0:10:55 And I think when we’re looking at animals
    0:10:58 that are relatively close to us in evolutionary terms,
    0:11:00 like other mammals,
    0:11:02 neuroscience is a huge part of it
    0:11:05 because we can look for similarities of brain mechanism.
    0:11:08 But when thinking about crabs and lobsters,
    0:11:09 what we’re not going to find
    0:11:11 is exactly the same brain mechanisms
    0:11:13 because we’re separated from them
    0:11:16 by over 500 million years of evolution.
    0:11:17 – That’s quite a bit.
    0:11:19 – And so I think in that context,
    0:11:23 you can ask big picture neurological questions.
    0:11:27 Are there integrative brain regions, for example?
    0:11:29 But the evidence is quite limited,
    0:11:33 and so behavior ends up carrying a huge amount of weight.
    0:11:36 Some of the strongest evidence comes from behaviors
    0:11:41 that show the animal valuing pain relief when injured.
    0:11:45 So for example, there was a study by Robin Crook
    0:11:46 on octobuses, which is where you give the animal
    0:11:49 a choice of two different chambers,
    0:11:52 and you see which one it initially prefers.
    0:11:56 And then you allow it to experience the effects
    0:12:00 of a noxious stimulus, a nasty event.
    0:12:03 And then in the other chamber that it initially dispreferred,
    0:12:07 you allow it to experience the effects of an aesthetic
    0:12:10 or a pain relieving drug.
    0:12:12 And then you see whether its preferences reverse.
    0:12:14 So now going forward,
    0:12:17 it goes to that chamber where it had a good experience
    0:12:20 rather than the one where it had a terrible experience.
    0:12:22 So it’s a pattern of behavior.
    0:12:26 In ourselves, this would be explained by feeling pain
    0:12:28 and then getting relief from the pain.
    0:12:30 And when we see it in other mammals,
    0:12:32 we make that same inference.
    0:12:34 – Are there any other categories?
    0:12:36 ‘Cause we mentioned pain is one bucket of sentience,
    0:12:38 but there’s much more to it.
    0:12:39 Is there anything else that tends to play
    0:12:42 a big role in the research?
    0:12:42 – There’s much more to it.
    0:12:44 And what I would like to see in the future
    0:12:47 is animal sentience research moving beyond pain
    0:12:50 and looking for other states that matter,
    0:12:53 like joy for instance.
    0:12:58 In practice though, by far the largest body of literature
    0:13:01 exists for looking at markers of pain.
    0:13:05 – I would love to read a paper that tries to assess
    0:13:07 to what degree rats are experiencing joy
    0:13:09 rather than pain, that would be lovely.
    0:13:12 – I mean, studies of play behavior are very relevant here.
    0:13:16 The studies of rats playing hide and seek for example,
    0:13:18 where there must be something motivating
    0:13:20 these play behaviors.
    0:13:23 In the human case, we would call it joy, delight,
    0:13:26 excitement, something like that.
    0:13:29 And so it gets you taking seriously the possibility
    0:13:32 there might be something like that in other animals too.
    0:13:34 – I think the thing I’m actually left wondering is
    0:13:39 what animals don’t show signs of sentience in these cases?
    0:13:42 – Right, I mean, there’s many invertebrates
    0:13:45 where you have an absence of evidence
    0:13:48 ’cause no one has really looked.
    0:13:53 So snails for example, there’s frustratingly little evidence.
    0:13:58 Also bivalve mollusks, which people talk about a lot
    0:14:00 ’cause they eat so many of them.
    0:14:03 Very, very little evidence to base our judgments on.
    0:14:05 And it’s hard to know what to infer from this.
    0:14:07 There’s this slogan that absence of evidence
    0:14:09 is not evidence of absence.
    0:14:11 And it’s a little bit oversimplifying
    0:14:13 ’cause you sort of think, well, you know,
    0:14:18 when researchers find some indicators of pain,
    0:14:20 they’ve got strong motivations to press on
    0:14:22 because it could be a useful pain model
    0:14:24 for biomedical research.
    0:14:27 And this is exactly what we’ve seen in insects,
    0:14:29 particularly Drosophila fruit flies,
    0:14:31 that seeing some of those initial markers
    0:14:33 has led scientists to think, well, let’s go for this.
    0:14:38 And it turns out they’re surprisingly useful pain models.
    0:14:39 – A pain model for humans?
    0:14:40 – Right, exactly.
    0:14:44 Yeah, that traditionally biomedical researchers have used rats
    0:14:48 and there’s pressure to replace.
    0:14:50 I don’t personally think that replacement here
    0:14:53 should mean replacing mammals with invertebrates.
    0:14:56 It’s not really the kind of replacement that I support,
    0:14:59 but that is how a lot of scientists understand it.
    0:15:03 And so they’re looking for ways to replace rats with flies.
    0:15:04 – How do they decide
    0:15:06 that the fly is a good pain model for humans?
    0:15:08 – I mean, researchers have the ability
    0:15:11 to manipulate the genetics of flies
    0:15:16 at very, very fine grains using astonishing technologies.
    0:15:22 So there was a recent paper that basically installed
    0:15:26 in some flies sensitivity to chili heat.
    0:15:30 Which of course in us, over a certain threshold,
    0:15:32 this becomes painful.
    0:15:34 So if you have one of the hottest chilies in the world,
    0:15:37 you’re not gonna just carry on as normal.
    0:15:38 – Certainly not.
    0:15:40 – And they showed that the same behavior
    0:15:41 can be produced in flies.
    0:15:45 You can engineer them to be responsive to chili
    0:15:48 and then you can dial up the amount of capsaicin
    0:15:49 in the food they’re eating.
    0:15:52 And there’ll come a point where they just stop eating
    0:15:57 and withdraw from food, even though it leads them to starve.
    0:16:00 And things like this that you’re leading researchers
    0:16:03 to say, wow, the mechanisms here are mechanisms
    0:16:07 we can use for testing out potential pain relieving drugs.
    0:16:11 And the fruit flies are a standard model organism,
    0:16:13 as they say in science.
    0:16:16 So there’s countless numbers of them,
    0:16:18 but traditionally they’ve been studied
    0:16:20 for genetics primarily.
    0:16:21 People haven’t been thinking of them
    0:16:24 as model systems of cognitive functions
    0:16:28 or of sentience or of pain or of sociality.
    0:16:31 And they’re realizing to their surprise
    0:16:33 that they’re very good models of all of these things.
    0:16:35 And then your question is, well,
    0:16:38 why is it such a good model of these things?
    0:16:42 Could it be in fact that it possesses sentience of some kind?
    0:16:46 – I don’t wanna go too far down this rabbit hole
    0:16:48 ’cause I could spend hours asking you about this.
    0:16:52 Let’s swing back to your research on the UK’s Act for a second.
    0:16:54 You wound up recommending that the invertebrates
    0:16:56 you looked at should be included.
    0:16:59 And you mentioned this included, you know, octopuses,
    0:17:01 which to me seems straightforward.
    0:17:04 These seem very intelligent and playful.
    0:17:06 I don’t need a lot of research to convince me of that.
    0:17:09 But you recommended things like, you know, crabs and lobsters
    0:17:11 and things where maybe people’s intuitions differ
    0:17:14 a little bit in practical terms.
    0:17:17 What changed for the life of a crab
    0:17:20 after the UK did formally include them in the bill?
    0:17:23 How does that wind up benefiting crabs?
    0:17:26 – It’s a topic of ongoing discussion, basically,
    0:17:27 ’cause what this new act does
    0:17:30 is it creates a duty on policymakers
    0:17:33 to consider the animal welfare consequences
    0:17:36 of their decisions, including to crabs.
    0:17:39 Now, we recommended, don’t just put crabs
    0:17:41 in this particular act.
    0:17:45 Also, amend the UK’s other animal welfare laws
    0:17:48 to be consistent with the new act.
    0:17:49 And this we’ve not yet seen.
    0:17:52 So we’re really hoping that this will happen
    0:17:53 and will happen in the near future.
    0:17:56 And it’s something that definitely should happen.
    0:17:58 ‘Cause in the meantime, we’ve got a rather confusing picture
    0:18:01 where you have these other laws that say
    0:18:04 animals should not be caused unnecessary suffering
    0:18:07 when they’re killed and people should require training
    0:18:09 if they’re going to slaughter animals.
    0:18:12 And then you have this new law that says
    0:18:14 for legal purposes, decapod crustaceans
    0:18:16 are to be considered animals.
    0:18:19 And as a philosopher, I’m always thinking,
    0:18:20 well, read these two things together
    0:18:22 and think about what they logically imply
    0:18:23 when written together.
    0:18:26 And lawyers don’t like that kind of argument.
    0:18:28 Lawyers want a clear precedent
    0:18:31 where there’s been some kind of test case
    0:18:35 that has convicted someone for boiling a lobster alive
    0:18:36 or something like that.
    0:18:38 And that’s what we’ve not yet had.
    0:18:41 So I’m hoping that lawmakers will act
    0:18:44 to clarify that situation.
    0:18:46 To me, it’s kind of clear.
    0:18:47 How much clearer could it be
    0:18:50 that this method causes unnecessary suffering
    0:18:51 quite obviously.
    0:18:56 And it’s illegal to do that to any animal,
    0:18:58 including crabs.
    0:19:02 But in practice, because it’s not explicitly ruled out,
    0:19:07 it’s not quite good enough at the moment.
    0:19:09 We wanna see this explicitly ruled out.
    0:19:13 – So we’ll take incremental steps to get there.
    0:19:15 – Yeah, in a way, I’m glad people take this issue
    0:19:16 seriously at all.
    0:19:19 I didn’t really expect that when I started working on it.
    0:19:23 And so to have achieved any policy change that benefits
    0:19:25 crabs and lobsters in any way,
    0:19:27 I’ve gotta count that as a win.
    0:19:40 – Support for the gray area comes from Mint Mobile.
    0:19:42 There’s nothing like the satisfaction
    0:19:44 of realizing you just got an incredible deal.
    0:19:47 But those little victories have gotten harder
    0:19:48 and harder to find.
    0:19:50 Here’s the good news though.
    0:19:52 Mint Mobile is resurrecting that incredible
    0:19:54 “I got a deal” feeling.
    0:19:56 Right now, when you make the switch to a Mint Mobile plan,
    0:19:59 you’ll pay just $15 a month when you purchase
    0:20:01 a new three month phone plan.
    0:20:03 All Mint Mobile plans come with high speed data
    0:20:05 and unlimited talk and text delivered
    0:20:08 on the nation’s largest 5G network.
    0:20:10 You can even keep your phone, your contacts,
    0:20:11 and your number.
    0:20:13 It doesn’t get much easier than that.
    0:20:15 To get this new customer offer
    0:20:17 and your new three month premium wireless plan
    0:20:18 for just 15 bucks a month,
    0:20:21 you can go to mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:20:24 That’s mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:20:27 You can cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month
    0:20:29 at mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:20:33 $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 a month.
    0:20:36 New customers on first three month plan only.
    0:20:39 Speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan,
    0:20:41 additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply.
    0:20:43 See Mint Mobile for details.
    0:20:50 Support for the gray area comes from Cook Unity.
    0:20:52 You know one way to eat chef prepared meals
    0:20:53 in the comfort of your home?
    0:20:56 You can spend years at culinary school,
    0:20:58 work your way up the restaurant industry,
    0:21:00 become a renowned chef on your own,
    0:21:02 and then cook something for yourself.
    0:21:04 Cook Unity delivers meals to your door
    0:21:06 that are crafted by award winning chefs
    0:21:10 and made with local farm fresh ingredients.
    0:21:13 Cook Unity’s selection of over 350 meals
    0:21:15 offers a variety of cuisines
    0:21:17 and their menus are updated weekly.
    0:21:18 So you’re sure to find something
    0:21:21 to fit your taste and dietary needs.
    0:21:22 One of our colleagues, Nisha,
    0:21:24 tried Cook Unity for herself.
    0:21:26 – Sometimes you’re just too tired to cook.
    0:21:28 I’m a, I have a two and a half year old.
    0:21:31 Sometimes you’re just exhausted at the end of the day.
    0:21:33 And it’s very easy to default to take out.
    0:21:35 So it was really nice to not have the mental load
    0:21:37 of having it cook every day,
    0:21:40 but having healthy home cooked meals
    0:21:42 already prepared for you
    0:21:45 and not having to go the takeout route.
    0:21:48 – You can get the gift of delivering mouthwatering meals
    0:21:49 crafted by local ingredients
    0:21:52 and award winning chefs with Cook Unity.
    0:21:55 You can go to cookunity.com/grayarea
    0:21:58 or enter code grayarea before checkout
    0:22:00 for 50% off your first week.
    0:22:02 That’s 50% off your first week
    0:22:04 by using code grayarea
    0:22:07 or going to cookunity.com/grayarea.
    0:22:14 – Support for the gray area comes from Shopify.
    0:22:18 Viral marketing campaigns have gotten pretty wild lately.
    0:22:19 Like in Russia,
    0:22:22 one pizza chain offered 100 free pizzas a year
    0:22:24 for 100 years to anyone
    0:22:26 who got the company logo tattooed on their body.
    0:22:29 Apparently 400 misguided souls did it,
    0:22:33 which is a story that deserves its own podcast.
    0:22:34 But if you want to grow your company
    0:22:38 without resorting to a morally dubious viral scheme,
    0:22:40 you might want to check out Shopify.
    0:22:43 Shopify is an all-in-one digital commerce platform
    0:22:46 that wants to help your business sell better than ever before.
    0:22:49 Shopify says they can help you convert browsers
    0:22:52 into buyers and sell more over time.
    0:22:55 And their shop pay feature can boost conversions by 50%.
    0:22:58 There’s a reason companies like Allbirds turn to Shopify
    0:23:01 to sell more products to more customers.
    0:23:03 Businesses that sell more sell with Shopify.
    0:23:05 Want to upgrade your business
    0:23:07 and get the same checkout Allbirds uses?
    0:23:10 You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period
    0:23:14 at Shopify.com/Vox, all lowercase.
    0:23:18 That’s Shopify.com/Vox to upgrade your selling today.
    0:23:20 Shopify.com/Vox.
    0:23:28 (gentle music)
    0:23:38 – Let’s move to another set of potential beings.
    0:23:41 Your work on Sentience covers artificial intelligence.
    0:23:44 And one of the things that I’ve been most interested
    0:23:46 in watching as the past few years
    0:23:48 have really thrust a lot of questions around AI
    0:23:52 into the mainstream has been this unbundling
    0:23:54 of consciousness and intelligence
    0:23:56 or Sentience and intelligence.
    0:23:59 We’re clearly getting better at creating
    0:24:01 more intelligent systems that can achieve
    0:24:05 and with competency perform certain tasks.
    0:24:07 But it remains very unclear
    0:24:09 if we’re getting any closer to Sentient ones.
    0:24:12 So how do you understand the relationship
    0:24:15 between Sentience and intelligence?
    0:24:17 – I think it’s entirely possible
    0:24:21 that we will get AI systems with very high levels
    0:24:26 of intelligence and absolutely no Sentience at all.
    0:24:27 That’s entirely possible.
    0:24:31 And when you think about shrimps or snails, for example,
    0:24:34 we can also conceive of how there can be Sentience
    0:24:37 with perhaps not all that much intelligence.
    0:24:40 – On another podcast, you had mentioned that
    0:24:43 it might actually be easier to create AI systems
    0:24:45 that are Sentient by modeling them
    0:24:47 off of less intelligent systems
    0:24:50 rather than just cranking up the intelligence dial
    0:24:52 until it bursts through into Sentience.
    0:24:54 Why is that?
    0:24:55 – That could absolutely be the case.
    0:24:59 I see it many possible pathways to Sentient AI.
    0:25:01 One of which is through the emulation
    0:25:03 of animal nervous systems.
    0:25:06 There’s a long running project called Open Worm
    0:25:09 that tries to recreate the nervous system
    0:25:14 of a tiny worm called C. elegans in computer software.
    0:25:16 There’s not a huge amount of funding going into this
    0:25:19 because it’s not seen as very lucrative,
    0:25:20 just very interesting.
    0:25:23 And so even with those very simple nervous systems,
    0:25:25 we’re not really at the stage where we can say
    0:25:27 they’ve been emulated.
    0:25:28 But you can see the pathway here.
    0:25:31 You know, suppose we did get an emulation
    0:25:33 of a worms nervous system.
    0:25:35 I’m sure we would then move on to fruit flies.
    0:25:39 If that worked, researchers would be going on to open mouse,
    0:25:43 open fish and emulating animal brains
    0:25:45 at ever greater levels of detail.
    0:25:49 And then in relation to questions of Sentience,
    0:25:51 we’ve got to take seriously the possibility
    0:25:56 that Sentience does not require a biological substrate,
    0:25:59 that the stuff you’re made of might not matter.
    0:26:01 It might matter, but it might not.
    0:26:03 And so it might be that if you recreate
    0:26:08 the same functional organization in a different substrate,
    0:26:11 so no neurons of a biological kind anymore,
    0:26:13 just computer software,
    0:26:15 maybe you would create Sentience as well.
    0:26:18 – You’ve talked about this idea that you’ve called
    0:26:20 the N equals one problem.
    0:26:22 Can you explain what that is?
    0:26:28 – Well, this is a term that began in origins of life studies,
    0:26:31 where it’s people searching for extraterrestrial life
    0:26:34 or studying life’s origin and asking,
    0:26:37 well, we only have one case to draw on.
    0:26:39 And if we only have one case,
    0:26:43 how are we supposed to know what was essential to life
    0:26:46 from what was a contingent feature
    0:26:48 of how life was achieved on Earth?
    0:26:53 And one might think we have an N equals one problem
    0:26:55 with consciousness as well.
    0:26:59 If you think it’s something that has only evolved once,
    0:27:01 seems like you’re always gonna have problems
    0:27:02 disentangling what’s essential to it
    0:27:06 from what is contingent.
    0:27:06 Luckily though,
    0:27:09 I think we might be in an N greater than one situation
    0:27:12 when it comes to Sentience and consciousness
    0:27:14 because of the arthropods like flies and bees
    0:27:17 and because of the cephalopods and crabs.
    0:27:18 And because of the cephalopods
    0:27:21 like octopuses, squid, cuttlefish,
    0:27:24 we might even be in an N equals three situation,
    0:27:28 in which case, studying those other cases,
    0:27:32 octopuses, crabs, insects has tremendous value
    0:27:35 for understanding the nature of Sentience
    0:27:37 ’cause it can tell us,
    0:27:39 it can start to give us some insight
    0:27:43 into what might be essential to having it at all
    0:27:45 versus what might be a quirk
    0:27:48 of how it is achieved in humans.
    0:27:50 – Just to make sure I have this right,
    0:27:54 if we are in an N equals one scenario with Sentience,
    0:27:56 that means that every sentient creature evolved
    0:27:59 from the same sentient ancestor.
    0:28:01 It’s one evolutionary lineage.
    0:28:01 – That’s right.
    0:28:05 – And so Sentience has only evolved once on Earth’s history
    0:28:07 so it gives us one example to look at.
    0:28:08 – Exactly.
    0:28:10 – But if we’re not in an N equals one situation,
    0:28:12 you mentioned N equals three
    0:28:13 and there’s a fair bit of research
    0:28:16 suggesting this could be the case or something like it,
    0:28:19 then Sentience has evolved three separate times
    0:28:22 in three separate kind of cases of form
    0:28:24 and the architecture of a being.
    0:28:26 – That’s fascinating to me,
    0:28:28 the idea that Sentience could have involved
    0:28:31 independently multiple times in different ways.
    0:28:34 – Yeah, we know it’s true of eyes, for example,
    0:28:37 when you look at the eyes of cephalopods,
    0:28:40 you see a wonderful mixture of similarities and differences.
    0:28:44 So we see convergent evolution, similar thing,
    0:28:49 evolving independently to solve a similar problem
    0:28:51 and Sentience could be just like that.
    0:28:55 – The greater the number of N’s we have here,
    0:28:59 the number of separate instances of Sentience evolving,
    0:29:03 it strikes me as that lends more credence to the idea
    0:29:06 that AI could develop its own independent route
    0:29:09 to Sentience as well that might not look exactly
    0:29:11 like what we’ve seen in the past.
    0:29:14 – It’s also the way towards really knowing
    0:29:16 whether it has or not as well
    0:29:19 because at present, we’re just not in that situation.
    0:29:22 We’re not in a good enough position
    0:29:25 to be able to really know that we’ve created Sentience AI
    0:29:28 even when we do, we’ll be faced
    0:29:31 with horrible disorienting uncertainty.
    0:29:33 But to me, the pathway towards better evidence
    0:29:36 and maybe one day knowledge lies through
    0:29:38 studying other animals.
    0:29:41 And it lies through trying to get other N’s,
    0:29:45 other independently evolved cases
    0:29:48 so that we can develop theories
    0:29:51 that genuinely disentangle the quirks
    0:29:54 of human consciousness from what is needed
    0:29:56 to be conscious at all.
    0:30:01 – What kind of evidence would you find compelling
    0:30:05 that tests for Sentience in AI systems?
    0:30:08 – It’s something I’ve been thinking about a great deal
    0:30:12 because when we’re looking at the surface linguistic behavior
    0:30:14 of an AI system that has been trained
    0:30:18 on over a trillion words of human training data,
    0:30:22 we clearly gonna see very fluent talking
    0:30:24 about feelings and emotions.
    0:30:29 And we’re already seeing that.
    0:30:33 And it’s really, I would say not evidence at all
    0:30:36 that the system actually has those feelings
    0:30:40 because it can be explained as a kind of skillful mimicry.
    0:30:43 And if that mimicry serves the system’s objectives,
    0:30:45 we should expect to see it.
    0:30:48 We should expect our criteria to be gained
    0:30:50 if the objectives are served by persuading
    0:30:54 the human user of Sentience.
    0:30:56 And so this is a huge problem and it points
    0:31:01 to the need to look deeper in some way.
    0:31:03 These systems are very substantially opaque.
    0:31:07 It is really, really hard to infer anything
    0:31:10 about what the processes are inside them.
    0:31:12 And so I have a second line of research as well
    0:31:15 that I’ve been developing with collaborators at Google
    0:31:19 that is about trying to adapt some of these animal experiments.
    0:31:22 Let’s see if we can translate them over to the AI case.
    0:31:24 – These are looking for behavior changes?
    0:31:27 – Yeah, looking for subtle behavior changes
    0:31:32 that we hope would not be gaming
    0:31:35 because they’re not part of the normal repertoire
    0:31:37 in which humans express their feelings,
    0:31:39 but are rather these very subtle things
    0:31:41 that we’ve looked for in other animals
    0:31:43 because they can’t talk about their feelings
    0:31:45 in the first place.
    0:31:47 – So it’s funny, we’re hitting the same problem in AI
    0:31:49 that we are in animals and humans,
    0:31:53 which is that in both cases, there’s a black box problem
    0:31:54 where we don’t actually understand
    0:31:55 the inner workings to some degree.
    0:31:58 – The problems are so much worse in the AI case though
    0:32:03 because when you’re faced with a pattern of behavior
    0:32:07 in another animal like an octopus
    0:32:10 that is well explained by there being a state
    0:32:14 like pain there, that is the best explanation
    0:32:15 for your data.
    0:32:18 And it doesn’t have to compete with this other explanation
    0:32:21 that maybe the octopus read a trillion words
    0:32:23 about how humans express their feelings
    0:32:27 and stands to benefit from gaming our criteria
    0:32:29 and skillfully mimicking us.
    0:32:33 We know the octopus is not doing that, that never arises.
    0:32:36 In the AI case, those two explanations always compete
    0:32:39 and the second one with current systems
    0:32:41 seems to be rather more plausible.
    0:32:43 And in addition to that,
    0:32:46 the substrate is completely different as well.
    0:32:48 So we face huge challenges
    0:32:49 and I suppose what I’m trying to do
    0:32:51 is maintain an attitude of humility
    0:32:53 in the face of those challenges.
    0:32:57 Now, let’s not be credulous about this,
    0:32:59 but also let’s not give up the search
    0:33:02 for developing higher quality kinds of test.
    0:33:14 Support for the gray area comes from green light.
    0:33:28 Anyway, it applies to more than fish.
    0:33:30 It’s also a great lesson for parents
    0:33:32 who want their kids to learn important skills
    0:33:35 that will set them up for success later in life.
    0:33:37 As we enter the gifting season,
    0:33:39 now might be the perfect time
    0:33:41 to give your kids money skills that will last
    0:33:43 well beyond the holidays.
    0:33:45 That’s where green light comes in.
    0:33:46 Green light is a debit card
    0:33:49 and money at made specifically with families in mind.
    0:33:50 Send money to your kids,
    0:33:52 track their spending and saving
    0:33:54 and help them develop their financial skills
    0:33:57 with games aimed at building the confidence they need
    0:34:00 to make wiser decisions with their money.
    0:34:02 My kid is a little too young for this.
    0:34:04 We’re still rocking piggy banks,
    0:34:06 but I’ve got a colleague here at Vox
    0:34:08 who uses it with his two boys and he loves it.
    0:34:10 You can sign up for green light today
    0:34:12 at greenlight.com/grayarea.
    0:34:14 That’s greenlight.com/grayarea
    0:34:16 to try green light today.
    0:34:18 Greenlight.com/grayarea.
    0:34:24 Support for the show comes from Give Well.
    0:34:27 When you make a charitable donation,
    0:34:30 you want to know your money is being well spent.
    0:34:32 For that, you might want to try Give Well.
    0:34:34 Give Well is an independent nonprofit
    0:34:36 that’s spent the last 17 years
    0:34:39 researching charitable organizations.
    0:34:40 And they only give recommendations
    0:34:44 to the highest impact causes that they vetted thoroughly.
    0:34:47 According to Give Well, over 125,000 donors
    0:34:50 have used it to donate more than $2 billion.
    0:34:52 Rigorous evidence suggests that these donations
    0:34:55 could save over 200,000 lives.
    0:34:58 And Give Well wants to help you make informed decisions
    0:34:59 about high impact giving.
    0:35:02 So all of their research and recommendations
    0:35:04 are available on their site for free.
    0:35:06 You can make tax deductible donations
    0:35:08 and Give Well doesn’t take a cut.
    0:35:09 If you’ve never used Give Well to donate,
    0:35:12 you can have your donation matched up to $100
    0:35:14 before the end of the year
    0:35:16 or as long as matching funds last.
    0:35:18 To claim your match, you can go to GiveWell.org
    0:35:22 and pick podcast and enter the gray area at checkout.
    0:35:24 Make sure they know that you heard about Give Well
    0:35:26 from the gray area to get your donation matched.
    0:35:30 Again, that’s GiveWell.org to donate or find out more.
    0:35:37 Support for the gray area comes from Delete Me.
    0:35:39 Delete Me allows you to discover and control
    0:35:40 your digital footprint,
    0:35:43 letting you see where things like home addresses,
    0:35:44 phone numbers, and even email addresses
    0:35:47 are floating around on data broker sites.
    0:35:50 And that means Delete Me could be the perfect holiday gift
    0:35:52 for a loved one looking to help safeguard
    0:35:54 their own life online.
    0:35:55 Delete Me can help anyone monitor
    0:35:59 and remove the personal info they don’t want on the internet.
    0:36:01 Claire White, our colleague here at Vox,
    0:36:04 tried Delete Me for herself and even gifted it to a friend.
    0:36:08 This year, I gave two of my friends a Delete Me subscription
    0:36:09 and it’s been the perfect gift
    0:36:12 ’cause it’s something that will last beyond the season.
    0:36:14 Delete Me will continue to remove their information
    0:36:16 from online and it’s something I’ve been raving about
    0:36:19 so I know that they’re gonna love it as well.
    0:36:21 – This holiday season, you can give your loved ones
    0:36:25 the gift of privacy and peace of mind with Delete Me.
    0:36:27 Now at a special discount for our listeners.
    0:36:30 Today, you can get 20% off your Delete Me plan
    0:36:33 when you go to joindeleteme.com/vox
    0:36:35 and use promo code Vox at checkout.
    0:36:39 The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteme.com/vox
    0:36:42 and enter code Vox at checkout.
    0:36:46 That’s joindeleteme.com/vox code Vox.
    0:36:52 (gentle music)
    0:37:00 – One of the major aims of your recent book
    0:37:02 is to propose a framework
    0:37:04 for making these kinds of practical decisions
    0:37:06 about potentially sentient creatures,
    0:37:09 whether it’s an animal, whether it’s AI,
    0:37:11 given this uncertainty.
    0:37:12 Tell me about that framework.
    0:37:15 – Well, it’s a precautionary framework.
    0:37:18 One of the things I urge is a pragmatic shift
    0:37:20 in how we think about the question.
    0:37:23 From asking, is the system sentient
    0:37:26 where uncertainty will always be with us?
    0:37:30 To asking instead, is the system a sentient’s candidate?
    0:37:32 Where the concept of a sentient’s candidate
    0:37:36 is a concept that we’ve pragmatically engineered.
    0:37:39 And what it says is that a system is a sentient’s candidate
    0:37:41 when there’s a realistic possibility of sentient’s
    0:37:44 that it would be irresponsible to ignore.
    0:37:45 And when there’s an evidence base
    0:37:49 that can inform the design and assessment of precautions.
    0:37:52 And because we’ve constructed the concept like that,
    0:37:56 we can use current evidence to make judgments.
    0:37:59 The cost of doing that is that those judgments
    0:38:02 are not purely scientific judgments anymore.
    0:38:05 There’s an ethical element to the judgment as well,
    0:38:07 because it’s about when a realistic possibility
    0:38:10 becomes irresponsible to ignore.
    0:38:13 And that’s implicitly a value judgment.
    0:38:15 But by reconstructing the question in that way,
    0:38:16 we make it answerable.
    0:38:19 – So, presumably then,
    0:38:21 given your recommendation to the UK government,
    0:38:25 you would say that those invertebrates you looked at
    0:38:27 are sentient’s candidates.
    0:38:29 That there’s enough evidence to at least consider
    0:38:31 the possibility of sentience.
    0:38:35 Where would you stop with the current category
    0:38:36 of sentient’s candidate?
    0:38:39 What is not a sentient’s candidate in your current view?
    0:38:43 – I’ve come to the view that insects really are,
    0:38:44 which surprises me.
    0:38:46 You know, it would have surprised past me
    0:38:49 who hadn’t read so much of the literature about insects.
    0:38:53 The evidence just clearly shows a realistic possibility
    0:38:55 of sentience, it would be irresponsible to ignore.
    0:38:59 But really, that’s currently where I stop.
    0:39:01 So the cephalopod mollusks, the decapod crustaceans,
    0:39:05 the insects, lot of evidence in those cases.
    0:39:08 And I think in other invertebrates,
    0:39:11 what we should say instead is that we lack the kind of
    0:39:14 evidence that would be needed to effectively design
    0:39:17 precautions to manage welfare risks.
    0:39:21 And so the imperative there is to be getting more evidence.
    0:39:24 And so in my book, I call these investigation priorities.
    0:39:27 – So insects are sentience candidates.
    0:39:30 Where does today’s generation of AI,
    0:39:33 let’s LLMs in particular, so open AI is chatgy, BT,
    0:39:36 anthropics, Claude, are these sentience candidates
    0:39:37 in your view yet?
    0:39:40 – I suggest that they’re investigation priorities,
    0:39:43 which is already controversial because I’m saying that,
    0:39:47 well, just as snails, we need more evidence.
    0:39:49 Equally in AI, we need more evidence.
    0:39:51 So I’m not being one of those people who just dismisses
    0:39:56 the possibility of sentient AI as being a ridiculous one.
    0:39:58 But I don’t think they’re sentience candidates
    0:40:00 because we don’t have enough evidence.
    0:40:02 – When you say that something is a sentience candidate,
    0:40:05 it’s implying that we need to consider their welfare
    0:40:08 and our behaviors and the decisions that we make.
    0:40:09 – In public policy.
    0:40:10 Yeah, I mean, in our personal lives,
    0:40:13 we might want to be even more precautionary,
    0:40:17 but I’m designing here a framework for setting policy.
    0:40:19 – Right, ’cause I can imagine,
    0:40:21 I think that the standard kind of line
    0:40:23 that you get at this point is,
    0:40:24 if you’re telling me I need to consider
    0:40:26 the welfare of insects,
    0:40:28 how can I take a step on the sidewalk?
    0:40:30 And one of the ideas that’s central to your framework
    0:40:33 is this idea of proportionality, which I really liked.
    0:40:36 You talk about how the precautions that we take
    0:40:39 should match the scale of the risk of suffering
    0:40:41 that our actions kind of carry.
    0:40:43 So how do you think about quantifying the risk
    0:40:45 of suffering an action carries, right?
    0:40:49 Does harming simpler creatures or insects
    0:40:52 carry less risk than harming larger, more complex ones
    0:40:54 like pigs or octopuses?
    0:40:57 – Well, I’m opposed to trying to reduce it
    0:41:00 or to a calculation and perhaps disagree
    0:41:02 with some utilitarians on that point.
    0:41:04 When you’re setting public policy,
    0:41:08 cost-benefit analysis has its place,
    0:41:10 but we’re not in that kind of situation here.
    0:41:13 We’re weighing up very incommensurable things,
    0:41:16 things that it’s very, very hard to compare.
    0:41:18 And I think in that kind of situation,
    0:41:21 you don’t want to be just making a calculation.
    0:41:24 What you need to have is a democratic, inclusive process
    0:41:27 through which different positions can be represented
    0:41:32 and we can try to resolve our value conflicts democratically.
    0:41:35 And so in the book, I advocate for citizens assemblies
    0:41:39 as being the most promising way of doing this,
    0:41:41 where you bring a random sample of the public
    0:41:45 into an environment where they’re informed about the risks,
    0:41:47 they’re informed about possible precautions,
    0:41:50 and they’re given a series of tests to go through
    0:41:53 to debate what they think would be proportionate
    0:41:54 to those risks.
    0:41:57 And things like, we’re all banned from walking now
    0:41:59 because it might hurt insects.
    0:42:02 I don’t see those as very likely to be judged proportionate
    0:42:04 by such an exercise.
    0:42:06 But other things we might do to help insects,
    0:42:09 like banning certain kinds of pesticides,
    0:42:12 I think might well be judged proportionate.
    0:42:15 – Is this, this sounds to me almost like a form of jury duty.
    0:42:17 You have a random selection of citizens brought together.
    0:42:18 – Yeah.
    0:42:20 – How do you, when I think about this on one hand,
    0:42:21 I think it sounds lovely.
    0:42:23 I like the idea of us all coming together
    0:42:26 to debate the welfare of our fellow creatures.
    0:42:28 It also strikes me as kind of optimistic,
    0:42:32 to imagine us not only doing this, but doing it well.
    0:42:35 And I’m curious how you think about balancing
    0:42:38 the value of expertise in making these decisions
    0:42:40 with democratic input.
    0:42:44 – Yeah, I’m implicitly proposing a division of labor
    0:42:47 where experts are supposed to make this judgment
    0:42:51 of sentience candidature or candidacy.
    0:42:53 Is the octopus a sentience candidate?
    0:42:56 But then they’re not adjudicating
    0:42:58 the questions of proportionality.
    0:43:00 – So what to do about it?
    0:43:02 – Yeah, then it would be a tyranny of expert values.
    0:43:05 You’d have this question that calls for value judgments
    0:43:06 about what to do.
    0:43:08 And you’d be handing that over to the experts
    0:43:12 and letting the experts dictate changes to our way of life.
    0:43:15 That question of proportionality,
    0:43:18 that should be handed over to the citizens assembly.
    0:43:21 And I think it doesn’t require ordinary citizens
    0:43:24 to adjudicate the scientific disagreement.
    0:43:27 And that’s really crucial because if you’re asking
    0:43:28 random members of the public to adjudicate
    0:43:32 which brain regions they think are more important to sentience,
    0:43:34 that’s gonna be a total disaster.
    0:43:37 But the point is you give them questions
    0:43:40 about what sorts of changes to our way of life
    0:43:44 would be proportionate, would be permissible,
    0:43:47 adequate, reasonably necessary and consistent
    0:43:50 in relation to this risk that’s been identified.
    0:43:52 And you ask them to debate those questions.
    0:43:55 And I think that’s entirely feasible.
    0:43:57 I’m very optimistic about citizens assemblies
    0:44:00 as a mechanism for addressing that kind of question,
    0:44:02 a question about our shared values.
    0:44:05 – Do you see these as legally binding
    0:44:07 or kind of making recommendations?
    0:44:11 – I think they can only be making recommendations.
    0:44:14 What I’m proposing is that on certain specific issues
    0:44:17 where we think we need public input,
    0:44:19 but we don’t wanna put them to a referendum
    0:44:22 because we might need to revisit the issues
    0:44:24 when new evidence comes to light
    0:44:26 and you need a certain level of information
    0:44:28 to understand what the issue is.
    0:44:31 Citizens assemblies are great for those kinds of issues.
    0:44:34 And because they’re very effective,
    0:44:36 the recommendations they deliver
    0:44:38 should be given weight by policymakers
    0:44:40 and should be implemented.
    0:44:43 They’re not substituting for parliamentary democracy,
    0:44:46 but they’re feeding into it in a really valuable way.
    0:44:51 – One thing that I can’t help but wonder about all of this,
    0:44:54 humans are already incredibly cruel to animals
    0:44:56 that most of us agree are very sentient,
    0:44:58 I’m thinking of pigs or cows.
    0:45:01 I think we’ve largely moved away from,
    0:45:03 Descartes in the 1600s
    0:45:06 where all animals were considered unfeeling machines.
    0:45:09 Today we might disagree about how small
    0:45:11 and simple down the chain we go
    0:45:14 before we lose in consensus on sentience,
    0:45:17 but agreeing that they’re sentient
    0:45:18 doesn’t seem to have prevented us
    0:45:21 from doing atrocious things to many animals.
    0:45:24 So I’m curious if the goal is to help guide us
    0:45:27 in making more ethical decisions,
    0:45:29 how do you think that determining sentience
    0:45:31 in other creatures will help?
    0:45:37 – You’re totally right that recognizing animals as sentient
    0:45:40 does not immediately lead to behavioral change
    0:45:42 to treat them better.
    0:45:45 And this is the tragedy of how we treat
    0:45:48 lots of mammals like pigs and birds like chickens,
    0:45:51 that we recognize them as sentient beings,
    0:45:54 and yet we fail them very, very seriously.
    0:45:57 I think there’s a lot of research to be done
    0:46:01 about what kinds of information about sentience
    0:46:03 might genuinely change people’s behavior.
    0:46:07 And I’m very interested in doing that kind of research
    0:46:12 going forward, but with cases like octopuses,
    0:46:15 at least there’s quite an opportunity
    0:46:16 in this particular case, I think,
    0:46:20 because you don’t have really entrenched industries
    0:46:22 already farming them.
    0:46:24 Part of the problem we face with the pigs and chickens
    0:46:28 and so on is that in opposing these practices,
    0:46:31 the enemy is very, very powerful.
    0:46:33 The arguments are really easy to state
    0:46:38 and people do get them and they do see why this is wrong,
    0:46:41 but then the enemy is so powerful
    0:46:44 that actually changing this juggernaut,
    0:46:47 this leviathan is a huge challenge.
    0:46:51 By contrast with invertebrate farming,
    0:46:54 we’re talking about practices sometimes
    0:46:57 that could become entrenched like that in the future,
    0:46:59 but are not yet entrenched.
    0:47:04 Octopus farming is currently on quite small scales,
    0:47:06 shrimp farming is much larger,
    0:47:09 insect farming is much larger,
    0:47:11 but they’re not as entrenched and powerful
    0:47:14 as pig farming, poultry farming.
    0:47:16 And so there seem to be real opportunities here
    0:47:19 to effect positive change, or at least I hope so.
    0:47:21 In the octopus farming case, for example,
    0:47:24 we’ve actually seen bands implemented
    0:47:27 in Washington State and in California.
    0:47:31 And that’s a sign that progress is really possible
    0:47:32 in these cases.
    0:47:35 – There are talks of banning AI development.
    0:47:37 The philosopher Thomas Metzinger is famously called
    0:47:41 for a ban until 2050, that might be difficult operationally,
    0:47:45 but I’m curious how you think about actions we can take today
    0:47:47 at the early stages of these institutions
    0:47:49 that might help in the long run.
    0:47:51 – Yeah, huge problems.
    0:47:55 I do think Metzinger’s proposal deserves to be taken seriously,
    0:48:00 but also we need to be thinking about what can we do
    0:48:05 that is more easily achieved than banning this stuff,
    0:48:08 but then nonetheless makes a positive difference.
    0:48:11 And in the book, I suggest there might be some lessons here
    0:48:14 from the regulation of animal research
    0:48:17 that you can’t just do what you like,
    0:48:19 experimenting on animals.
    0:48:22 In the UK, at least, there’s quite a strict framework
    0:48:25 requiring you to get a license.
    0:48:27 And it’s not a perfect framework by any means.
    0:48:29 It has a lot of problems,
    0:48:33 but it does show a possible compromise
    0:48:35 between simply banning something altogether
    0:48:39 and allowing it to happen in a completely unregulated way.
    0:48:41 And the nature of that compromise
    0:48:44 is that you expect the people doing this research
    0:48:47 to be transparent about their plans,
    0:48:49 to reveal their plans to a regulator.
    0:48:53 Who is able to see them and assess the harms and benefits
    0:48:54 and only give a license
    0:48:57 if they think the benefits outweigh the harms.
    0:49:01 And I’d like to see something like that in AI research
    0:49:03 as well as in animal research.
    0:49:04 – Well, it’s interesting
    0:49:05 ’cause it brings us right back
    0:49:06 to what you were talking about a little while ago,
    0:49:10 which is, if we can’t trust the linguistic output,
    0:49:12 we need the research on understanding,
    0:49:14 well, how do we even assess harm and risk
    0:49:16 in AI systems in the first place?
    0:49:18 – As I say, it’s a huge problem coming down the road
    0:49:20 for the whole of society.
    0:49:24 I think there’ll be significant social divisions opening up
    0:49:28 in the near future between people who are quite convinced
    0:49:31 that their AI companions are sentient
    0:49:33 and want rights for them
    0:49:38 and others who simply find that ridiculous and absurd.
    0:49:40 And I think that there’ll be a lot of tensions
    0:49:42 between these two groups.
    0:49:45 And in a way, the only way to really move forward
    0:49:49 is to have better evidence than we do now.
    0:49:52 And so there needs to be more research.
    0:49:55 I’m always in this difficult position of,
    0:49:57 I want more research, the tech companies might fund it,
    0:49:59 I hope they will, I want them to fund it.
    0:50:02 At the same time, it could be very problematic
    0:50:04 for them as well.
    0:50:06 And so I can’t make any promises in advance
    0:50:08 that the outcomes of that research
    0:50:11 will be advantageous to the tech companies.
    0:50:14 So, but even though I’m in a difficult position there,
    0:50:18 I feel like I still have to try and do something.
    0:50:21 – Maybe by way of trying to wrap this all up,
    0:50:24 you have been involved in these kinds of questions
    0:50:25 for a number of years.
    0:50:27 And you’ve mentioned a few times throughout the conversation
    0:50:29 that you have seen a pace of change
    0:50:31 that’s been kind of inspiring.
    0:50:32 You’ve seen questions that previously
    0:50:35 were not a part of the conversation now,
    0:50:37 becoming part of the mainstream conversation.
    0:50:41 So what have you seen in the last decade or two
    0:50:43 in terms of the degree to which we are really beginning
    0:50:44 to embrace these questions?
    0:50:46 – I’ve seen some positive steps.
    0:50:49 I think issues around crabs and lobsters and octopus
    0:50:53 is taking far more seriously than they were 10 years ago.
    0:50:56 For example, I really did not expect that California
    0:51:00 would bring in an octopus farming ban
    0:51:03 and in the legislation cite our work
    0:51:07 as being a key factor driving it.
    0:51:08 I mean, that was extraordinary.
    0:51:11 So it just goes to show that it really pays off sometimes
    0:51:14 to do impact driven work.
    0:51:16 I think we’ve seen over the last couple of years
    0:51:19 some changes in the conversations around AI as well.
    0:51:23 The book is written in a very optimistic tone, I think,
    0:51:26 because well, you’ve got to hope to make it a reality.
    0:51:30 You’ve got to believe in the possibility of us
    0:51:34 taking steps to manage risk better than we do.
    0:51:36 And the book is full of proposals
    0:51:38 about how we might do that.
    0:51:42 And I think at least some of these will be adopted in the future.
    0:51:49 – I would love to see it, I’m optimistic as well.
    0:51:52 Jonathan Birch, thank you so much for coming on the show.
    0:51:53 This was a pleasure.
    0:51:54 – Thanks, Hachan.
    0:52:07 – Once again, the book is The Edge of Sentience,
    0:52:10 which is free to read on the Oxford Academic Platform.
    0:52:13 We’ll include a link to that in the show notes.
    0:52:14 And that’s it.
    0:52:17 I hope you enjoyed the episode as much as I did.
    0:52:20 I am still thinking about whether we’re in an N equals one
    0:52:23 or an N equals three world,
    0:52:25 and how the future of how we look for sentience
    0:52:29 in AI systems could come down to animal research
    0:52:30 that helps us figure out
    0:52:35 whether all animals share the same sentient ancestor,
    0:52:37 or whether sentience is something
    0:52:40 that’s evolved a few separate times.
    0:52:43 This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey
    0:52:46 and hosted by me, O’Shan Jarrow.
    0:52:50 My day job is as a staff writer with Future Perfect at Vox,
    0:52:53 where I cover the latest ideas in the science
    0:52:55 and philosophy of consciousness,
    0:52:57 as well as political economy.
    0:53:01 You can read my stuff at box.com/futureperfect.
    0:53:04 Today’s episode was engineered by Patrick Boyd,
    0:53:08 fact-checked by Anouk Dussot, edited by Jorge Just,
    0:53:10 and Alex Overington wrote our theme music.
    0:53:14 New episodes of The Gray Area drop on Mondays.
    0:53:16 Listen and subscribe.
    0:53:17 The show is part of Vox.
    0:53:19 Support Vox’s journalism
    0:53:22 by joining our membership program today.
    0:53:25 Go to vox.com/members to sign up.
    0:53:27 And if you decide to sign up because of the show,
    0:53:28 let us know.
    2

    Can you ever really know what’s going on inside the mind of another creature?

    In some cases, like other humans, or dogs and cats, we might be able to guess with a bit of confidence. But what about octopuses? Or insects? What about AI systems — will they ever be able to feel anything? And if they do feel anything, what are our ethical obligations toward them?

    In today’s episode, Vox staff writer Oshan Jarow brings those questions to philosopher of science Jonathan Birch.

    Birch is the principal investigator on the Foundations of Animal Sentience Project at the London School of Economics, and author of the recently released book, The Edge of Sentience: Risk and Precaution in Humans, Other Animals, and AI. Birch also convinced the UK government to consider lobsters, octopuses, and crabs sentient and therefore deserving of legal protection.

    This unique perspective earned Jonathan a place on Vox’s Future Perfect 50 list, an annual celebration of the people working to make the future a better place. The list — published last month — includes writers, scientists, thinkers, and activists who are reshaping our world for the better.

    In this conversation, Oshan and Jonathan explore everything we know— and don’t know — about sentience, and how to make ethical decisions about creatures who may possess it.

    Guest host: Oshan Jarow

    Guest: Jonathan Birch, Author of The Edge of Sentience: Risk and Precaution in Humans, Other Animals, and AI. Available for free on the Oxford Academic platform.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • Are men okay?

    AI transcript
    0:00:02 [MUSIC PLAYING]
    0:00:05 Support for the gray area comes from Blue Nile.
    0:00:07 The holidays are the perfect time to cozy up by the fire
    0:00:11 with someone special and maybe even pop the question.
    0:00:13 If you’re planning to put an engagement ring
    0:00:15 under the proverbial or literal tree,
    0:00:18 consider getting it from Blue Nile.
    0:00:22 Blue Nile is the original online jeweler since 1999,
    0:00:24 and they’re committed to ensuring that the highest
    0:00:26 ethical standards are observed when sourcing diamonds
    0:00:28 and jewelry.
    0:00:30 Right now, you can go to BlueNile.com
    0:00:34 and use code “Gray Area” for $50 off your purchase of $500
    0:00:35 or more.
    0:00:40 That’s $50 off with code “Gray Area” at BlueNile.com.
    0:00:41 BlueNile.com.
    0:00:49 Support for this show comes from Constant Contact.
    0:00:52 If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you,
    0:00:56 Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention.
    0:00:59 Constant Contact’s award-winning marketing platform
    0:01:02 offers all the automation, integration, and reporting
    0:01:05 tools that get your marketing running seamlessly,
    0:01:08 all backed by their expert live customer support.
    0:01:12 It’s time to get going and growing with Constant Contact
    0:01:13 today.
    0:01:15 Ready, set, grow.
    0:01:20 Go to Constant Contact.ca and start your free trial today.
    0:01:24 Go to Constant Contact.ca for your free trial.
    0:01:26 Constant Contact.ca.
    0:01:33 What’s going on with men?
    0:01:35 There’s a growing body of evidence
    0:01:41 that men are falling behind in education, in the labor market.
    0:01:44 And when you look at the numbers on drug overdoses
    0:01:48 and deaths by suicide, it’s pretty bleak.
    0:01:52 And it’s not just a problem for men.
    0:01:57 It’s a problem for women and for our culture and our politics.
    0:02:00 The fact is, we have an alarming number
    0:02:04 of lonely, alienated, and disaffected young men
    0:02:06 in this country.
    0:02:10 And whatever the reasons for that and however justified
    0:02:16 they may or may not be, this is something we have to deal with.
    0:02:19 You can see this playing out on the political front.
    0:02:24 Donald Trump made explicit appeals to men, and it worked.
    0:02:27 He gained ground with men, especially younger men.
    0:02:32 And not just white men, but also black and Latino men.
    0:02:36 For me, personally, the sort of masculinity
    0:02:40 that Trump models isn’t appealing.
    0:02:40 I think he’s a bully.
    0:02:42 I think he’s a liar.
    0:02:45 And he projects a kind of strength
    0:02:49 that’s divorced from any sense of restraint or obligation
    0:02:50 to other people.
    0:02:53 But the fact that he appeals to so many men
    0:02:57 says something important about this cultural moment.
    0:03:01 I think about this a lot because I’m raising a young son.
    0:03:04 And I ask myself, how do I raise him
    0:03:07 to be a man who’s strong and capable,
    0:03:09 but also compassionate and honest?
    0:03:15 I’m Sean Ealing, and this is the Gray Area.
    0:03:19 [MUSIC PLAYING]
    0:03:23 Today’s guest is Scott Galloway.
    0:03:26 He’s a professor of marketing at NYU
    0:03:30 and the host of the Professor G-Pod on the Vox Media podcast
    0:03:31 network.
    0:03:35 And he spent a ton of time researching and thinking
    0:03:37 about these issues.
    0:03:39 He’s currently working on a book, actually,
    0:03:42 about men and masculinity.
    0:03:45 I’ve wanted to talk to Scott for a while
    0:03:48 about the research he’s doing, what he’s learning,
    0:03:50 and how it’s changing the way he thinks
    0:03:54 about his own sons, how he’s raising them.
    0:03:59 It’s a conversation I was going to have outside this podcast,
    0:04:01 just talking to the guy.
    0:04:05 But I know a lot of you are also wrestling with this question
    0:04:10 of what makes a man, whether your parents are not.
    0:04:15 So I invited Scott onto the show to talk about masculinity,
    0:04:18 about the struggles men are facing,
    0:04:21 and about his advice for parents who are also
    0:04:25 struggling to navigate this moment.
    0:04:29 The conversation got pretty personal, which I think is good.
    0:04:33 If your definition of masculinity includes
    0:04:35 dudes can’t talk about their feelings,
    0:04:39 well, you’re about to be surprised.
    0:04:43 [END PLAYBACK]
    0:04:45 Scott Galloway, welcome to the show.
    0:04:48 Sean, thanks for having me.
    0:04:49 I’m really glad you’re here.
    0:04:52 You’ve been great on this topic.
    0:04:55 And it’s something I think about a lot.
    0:04:59 And I have found that it is a complicated conversation
    0:05:02 to try and have with people.
    0:05:05 Men are obviously not the only ones struggling.
    0:05:10 And people are very used to seeing men in power and in charge
    0:05:16 that it’s hard to reframe this conversation in a productive way.
    0:05:20 So I just want to start by trying to understand some
    0:05:25 of the headwinds here and just give people a snapshot of the data.
    0:05:28 So when someone wants to know what you mean
    0:05:31 when you say that men are struggling, how do you sum it up?
    0:05:34 What do you point to?
    0:05:36 Well, it’s just data.
    0:05:38 Men are four times as likely to kill themselves.
    0:05:41 If you walk into a morgue and you see five people died
    0:05:43 by suicide, four of them are men.
    0:05:45 Men are not attaching to school.
    0:05:46 They’re not attaching to relationships.
    0:05:47 They’re not attaching to work.
    0:05:50 One in three men under the age of 30 has a girlfriend.
    0:05:53 Two in three women under the age of 30 has a boyfriend.
    0:05:54 You think, well, that’s mathematically impossible.
    0:05:58 It’s not because women are dating older because they want
    0:06:01 more economically and emotionally viable men.
    0:06:06 And the gag reflex you get from progressives and women
    0:06:10 when you start talking about struggling young men
    0:06:14 is understandable because no one was talking about it.
    0:06:18 And then some very unproductive voices entered into that void.
    0:06:21 And this kind of mannish here emerged where it was more,
    0:06:23 what I would refer to as thinly veiled misogyny,
    0:06:26 where it starts off good.
    0:06:27 It starts off take control of your life,
    0:06:29 be more action oriented, be physically fit.
    0:06:32 And then it starts to go to these really ugly places,
    0:06:35 basically treating women as property,
    0:06:37 showing them who’s boss.
    0:06:40 I would never let my girlfriend go to the club alone,
    0:06:43 buying some sort of expensive douchey, like supercar.
    0:06:46 And by the way, take my crypto university
    0:06:47 and learn how to be a baller.
    0:06:51 And so the voices that entered this discussion initially
    0:06:52 were really unproductive voices.
    0:06:55 So I think the natural gag reflex
    0:06:57 was somewhat understandable.
    0:06:59 The conversation has become much more productive
    0:07:01 because one, the data continues to get worse.
    0:07:05 And two, the conversation is now being led
    0:07:09 or inspired by a demographic that has more credibility.
    0:07:11 And that is mothers.
    0:07:14 And then as you see a lot of mothers
    0:07:16 who consider themselves feminist saying,
    0:07:17 there’s just no getting around it.
    0:07:19 I have three kids, two daughters, one son,
    0:07:22 one daughter at Penn, one daughter in PR in Chicago.
    0:07:26 And my son is in the basement vaping and playing video games.
    0:07:29 And the data is just overwhelming.
    0:07:31 And you need to acknowledge that one,
    0:07:33 men have had a 2000 year head start.
    0:07:36 So you can understand why people don’t feel sorry
    0:07:40 for young men on a kind of macro level basis.
    0:07:43 But also to recognize that empathy is not a zero-sum game.
    0:07:46 Civil rights didn’t hurt white people.
    0:07:48 Gay marriage didn’t hurt heteronormative marriage.
    0:07:51 And while acknowledging that women still face
    0:07:55 a lot of challenges to have empathy for the very real
    0:07:58 and increasing struggles young men are facing,
    0:08:00 we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    0:08:03 And a 19 year old kid in Appalachia,
    0:08:05 who’s being raised by a single mother,
    0:08:06 has no male role models,
    0:08:08 has very few economic opportunities
    0:08:09 or on ramps into the middle class,
    0:08:13 is struggling perhaps or has gambling apps on his phone,
    0:08:15 sending him notifications 50 times a day
    0:08:18 to bet on the Kansas City Chiefs game,
    0:08:20 who has social media, addicting him
    0:08:22 and maybe radicalizing him,
    0:08:24 has few mating opportunities.
    0:08:26 It’s okay to have empathy for that kid,
    0:08:30 recognizing that yeah, maybe Scott Galloway
    0:08:31 and maybe even Sean, you’re younger than me,
    0:08:34 had more advantage than they deserved.
    0:08:36 But should that 19 year old male
    0:08:39 pay the price for the advantage I registered?
    0:08:41 So I think the conversation actually
    0:08:42 over the last five or seven years
    0:08:45 has become much more productive.
    0:08:47 And if you wanna understand why we should be thinking
    0:08:48 about it, just look at the data.
    0:08:50 We are not, women are not gonna continue to flourish
    0:08:54 nor is the nation if men are flailing.
    0:08:56 – Why do you think it’s so hard to accept this idea
    0:09:00 that empathy doesn’t have to be a zero sum game?
    0:09:02 – I think a lot of it is our fault.
    0:09:04 I mean, when I say our, I mean, progressives,
    0:09:07 there is a certain, I think, sort of, okay,
    0:09:11 these people have advantage and are naturally more likely
    0:09:15 and prone to be oppressors than the oppressed.
    0:09:18 And there’s very little empathy for them
    0:09:20 in a society that is dramatically changing
    0:09:23 where men don’t have the same economic role they used to
    0:09:25 or the same economic opportunities.
    0:09:28 There are some second order effects we need to talk about.
    0:09:31 And that is, if we’re gonna have an honest conversation
    0:09:33 around mating, we have to have an honest conversation
    0:09:34 around mating.
    0:09:36 So men mate socioeconomically horizontally
    0:09:38 and down, women horizontally and up.
    0:09:40 Three quarters of women say economic viability
    0:09:43 is key to a mate, only a quarter of men,
    0:09:45 now I think it’s a third, say it’s key to a mate.
    0:09:47 How many times have we heard,
    0:09:50 I know all of these great women who are high character,
    0:09:52 attractive, have their act together,
    0:09:53 but they can’t find a man?
    0:09:55 Well, actually they can, they just can’t find a man
    0:09:57 they want to date.
    0:09:59 So what you have is more and more reasons,
    0:10:02 including political bifurcation where young people
    0:10:03 aren’t connecting, falling in love and mating
    0:10:05 and forming households.
    0:10:08 And we have declining birth rates.
    0:10:11 If it wasn’t for immigration, we’d be in decline.
    0:10:14 And I think it leads to a lot of second order effects
    0:10:17 around loneliness and depression and anxiety.
    0:10:19 And then just to wrap up here,
    0:10:20 it’s different for men than women.
    0:10:23 ‘Cause when women don’t have a romantic relationship,
    0:10:26 oftentimes they will channel that additional energy
    0:10:30 into relationships with friends, family and their work.
    0:10:32 When men don’t have the prospect
    0:10:36 of a romantic relationship, they kind of come off the rails.
    0:10:38 They’re less likely to be employed.
    0:10:41 They’re more likely to engage in misogynistic content.
    0:10:44 And some, without the prospect of a romantic relationship,
    0:10:47 men become shitty citizens.
    0:10:49 Women don’t have an obligation to mate with anyone.
    0:10:51 I’m not suggesting they lower their standards,
    0:10:53 but the reality is we’re producing
    0:10:55 the most dangerous person in the world by the millions
    0:10:58 and that is a young, lonely, broke man.
    0:10:59 And the question is, all right,
    0:11:01 what does that mean for society?
    0:11:03 ‘Cause the thing that the most violent,
    0:11:05 unstable society is having in common
    0:11:07 is a disproportion of young men who feel
    0:11:08 as if they have nothing to lose
    0:11:12 because they have no economic or romantic opportunities.
    0:11:15 So I think this is a big issue for society.
    0:11:17 And I just come back to the same thing.
    0:11:18 Empathy is not a zero sum game.
    0:11:22 We can acknowledge that women still face a lot of challenges
    0:11:24 and we should be focused on those
    0:11:26 and we should do nothing to get in the way of their progress.
    0:11:28 But at the same time, we can recognize
    0:11:31 that a young man should not be paying
    0:11:35 for the advantage I received by not acknowledging
    0:11:37 the data around just how many headwinds
    0:11:39 young men are facing in our society.
    0:11:43 – I suspect that, you know, the numbers on
    0:11:47 so-called deaths of despair, drug addiction,
    0:11:50 suicide, these sorts of things have always tilted
    0:11:53 in the direction of men disproportionately.
    0:11:55 But how much is that gap growing?
    0:11:58 And how much is it growing particularly among young,
    0:11:59 younger men?
    0:12:01 – It’s staggering.
    0:12:03 Richard Reeves, who started my Yoda on this
    0:12:06 and kind of inspired my thinking on this.
    0:12:08 But Richard did this analysis
    0:12:11 and he looked at deaths of despair, overdoses,
    0:12:15 drunk driving, accidents, you know,
    0:12:19 getting way too drunk and then doing something stupid,
    0:12:22 suicide, the incremental increase
    0:12:26 in deaths of despair amongst men since 2004.
    0:12:28 This isn’t how many men have died since 2004
    0:12:30 based on the percentage of people
    0:12:33 that were dying from death of despair to that point.
    0:12:35 But the increase in the number of deaths of despair
    0:12:40 since 2004 has taken the lives of 400,000 American men.
    0:12:43 That’s how many men we lost in World War II.
    0:12:45 So the incremental deaths of despair
    0:12:48 amongst young men over the last 20 years
    0:12:50 has taken as many lives as World War II.
    0:12:53 And if you were to reverse engineer all of this
    0:12:57 to where a boy or a young man kind of comes off the tracks,
    0:13:00 like where did these problems start?
    0:13:02 You can typically reverse engineer it
    0:13:05 to one point in their life and it’s the following.
    0:13:07 When they lose a male role model.
    0:13:10 I think the ultimate expression of masculinity
    0:13:14 is to take an interest in the life of a boy that isn’t yours.
    0:13:16 And unfortunately, I was on Bill Maher
    0:13:18 and I said, I made this speech about
    0:13:20 men need to get involved in boys’ lives.
    0:13:22 And he said, whoa, I get involved in a 15 year old boy’s
    0:13:25 lives and everyone’s gonna say, well, what’s he doing?
    0:13:26 What’s wrong?
    0:13:28 And because of the Catholic Church and Michael Jackson,
    0:13:31 there’s now this feeling that if a man wants to get involved
    0:13:33 in a young boy’s life, that there’s something wrong with him,
    0:13:35 that he might be a pedophile.
    0:13:37 And this just isn’t true.
    0:13:39 There are a lot of great men out there
    0:13:42 who have loved to give fraternal and paternal love
    0:13:44 and would like to coach a young man.
    0:13:45 And they don’t need to be ballers.
    0:13:47 They just need to be trying to live a virtuous life.
    0:13:51 ‘Cause I can attest to this as the father of two boys.
    0:13:53 It is not hard to help them.
    0:13:56 Why did you decide to go to school without shoes today?
    0:13:57 Basic questions.
    0:13:59 I’m coaching another young man
    0:14:01 who’s decided he’s gonna quit a decent job
    0:14:02 and move to Alaska.
    0:14:03 And I’m like, why are you moving to Alaska?
    0:14:05 He’s like, well, I saw a program out and it looks cool.
    0:14:07 I’m like, so you’re gonna give up your job?
    0:14:08 You’re gonna give up your support system
    0:14:10 and you’re just gonna move to Alaska?
    0:14:15 I mean, it’s not that hard to add a lot of value
    0:14:17 to a lot of young men’s lives right now.
    0:14:21 So I think we need to stop the suspicion
    0:14:23 and the demonization of anybody who wants to get involved
    0:14:27 and help a young man or get involved in a young boy’s life
    0:14:30 and suspect them of something much more malicious
    0:14:35 and create a culture of mentorship and helping young boys.
    0:14:38 So one call out is if you’re a man who has love to give
    0:14:40 and there’s a lot of them out there,
    0:14:42 you don’t have to be a bowler just living a good life.
    0:14:44 There are young men everywhere and boys
    0:14:47 that need your guidance.
    0:14:50 Well, to your point about the most dangerous person
    0:14:54 in the world being a young man who’s broken and alone,
    0:14:58 I think we have this loneliness crisis intersecting
    0:15:00 with the rise of digital technology
    0:15:05 and it really is impossible to overstate
    0:15:08 how ugly some of these online spaces are.
    0:15:11 I mean, if you’ve seen an Andrew Tate video,
    0:15:12 you know what I mean.
    0:15:17 And someone like Tate is a weak man’s idea of a strong man
    0:15:20 in the same way that Trump is a poor person’s idea
    0:15:22 of a very rich person.
    0:15:26 But the reality is that Tate is the dominant model
    0:15:28 you’re going to encounter online.
    0:15:30 And if you’re trying to make sense of this journey
    0:15:33 people take from loneliness, to resentment,
    0:15:35 to conspiracism and fascism,
    0:15:37 just put on some fucking gloves
    0:15:40 and scroll through Tate’s social media feeds
    0:15:42 and see how easily it drops you
    0:15:47 into this whole constellation of bad ideas
    0:15:49 and shitty politics.
    0:15:53 And more and more people are being sucked into that abyss.
    0:15:56 – Yeah, and I do think there’s actually at this point,
    0:16:01 I think Andrew Tate is just kind of an irrelevant
    0:16:01 footnote in history.
    0:16:04 I think he’s going away almost as quickly as he’s popped up.
    0:16:07 I think a lot of people have realized that this kid,
    0:16:09 you know, spending time three months
    0:16:11 in a Romanian prison for sex trafficking,
    0:16:14 it’s not anyone’s ideal of a successful person.
    0:16:19 And all this bullshit, this grift of join my crypto university,
    0:16:22 he’s not even worth the oxygen talking about.
    0:16:24 I actually think that Trump and to a certain extent,
    0:16:26 Elon Musk are a bigger problem for young men
    0:16:31 because these individuals have taught young men
    0:16:35 that coarseness and cruelty is conflated with masculinity.
    0:16:39 And their success, especially Elon Musk’s success
    0:16:43 is so impressive and inspiring for young men.
    0:16:47 I get why he is and should be a role model
    0:16:48 on many levels for young men.
    0:16:51 At the same time, attacking people online,
    0:16:54 disavowing your transgender daughter,
    0:16:57 saying that she’s dead to me, you know,
    0:17:01 it’s just Trump that being, you know,
    0:17:04 this is an ex-direction as 34 felon accounts.
    0:17:07 And people say, oh, you have Trump derangement syndrome.
    0:17:11 No, I have democracy addiction is what I suffer from.
    0:17:13 And at the same time, inspiring an insurrection,
    0:17:16 these are just not great role models for men.
    0:17:21 And I worry that this vision of masculinity
    0:17:25 has been conflated with some very ugly attributes,
    0:17:29 coarseness, cruelty, misogyny.
    0:17:31 That’s basically what it is.
    0:17:34 And attacking was on the attack.
    0:17:36 I mean, I have 14 and 17 year old boys.
    0:17:39 The first role model, the first role model
    0:17:41 of any child used to be the president.
    0:17:44 That was the person you were supposed to immediately
    0:17:45 look to as success.
    0:17:48 That’s what it means to be successful in America.
    0:17:50 Is that our definition of success now?
    0:17:53 (gentle music)
    0:17:56 (gentle music)
    0:18:11 Support for the gray area comes from Blue Nile.
    0:18:14 This ad is going up to a very specific group of people,
    0:18:16 those who are thinking about getting down
    0:18:18 on one knee and proposing.
    0:18:20 And if you’re one of those people hoping to put a ring
    0:18:23 on it, no pressure, but maybe listen up,
    0:18:26 you might be able to find your ring from Blue Nile.
    0:18:30 Blue Nile is the original online jeweler since 1999.
    0:18:33 On BlueNile.com, you can get creative with bigger
    0:18:36 and more brilliant pieces tough to find anywhere else.
    0:18:37 Plus, they say they’re committed to ensuring
    0:18:40 that the highest ethical standards are observed
    0:18:42 when sourcing diamonds and jewelry.
    0:18:45 And their diamond price guarantee means that in most cases
    0:18:47 they can meet or beat a competitor’s price
    0:18:49 on a comparable diamond.
    0:18:51 And if that’s not enough, just know that every Blue Nile
    0:18:54 quarter is insured and arrives in packaging
    0:18:56 that won’t give away what’s inside.
    0:18:58 Right now, you can go to BlueNile.com
    0:19:01 and use code Gray Area for $50 off your purchase
    0:19:03 of $500 or more.
    0:19:08 That’s $50 off with code Gray Area at BlueNile.com.
    0:19:09 BlueNile.com.
    0:19:17 Support for the gray area comes from Shopify.
    0:19:20 Viral marketing campaigns have gotten pretty wild lately.
    0:19:23 Like in Russia, One Pizza Chain offered 100 free pizzas
    0:19:27 a year for 100 years to anyone who got the company logo
    0:19:29 tattooed on their body.
    0:19:32 Apparently 400 misguided souls did it,
    0:19:35 which is a story that deserves its own podcast.
    0:19:37 But if you want to grow your company
    0:19:40 without resorting to a morally dubious viral scheme,
    0:19:43 you might want to check out Shopify.
    0:19:46 Shopify is an all-in-one digital commerce platform
    0:19:47 that wants to help your business sell better
    0:19:49 than ever before.
    0:19:51 Shopify says they can help you convert browsers
    0:19:54 into buyers and sell more over time.
    0:19:57 And their shop pay feature can boost conversions by 50%.
    0:19:59 There’s a reason companies like Allbirds
    0:20:03 turn to Shopify to sell more products to more customers.
    0:20:06 Businesses that sell more sell with Shopify.
    0:20:07 Want to upgrade your business
    0:20:09 and get the same checkout Allbirds uses?
    0:20:12 You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period
    0:20:16 at Shopify.com/fox, all lowercase.
    0:20:20 That’s Shopify.com/fox to upgrade your selling today.
    0:20:22 Shopify.com/fox.
    0:20:30 Support for the gray area comes from Bombas.
    0:20:31 Consider the sock.
    0:20:34 Sometimes we overlook this vital piece of clothing.
    0:20:37 They can keep you warm, they can keep you cool,
    0:20:38 and they can make or break an outfit.
    0:20:41 This winter, don’t overlook your socks.
    0:20:43 Bombas has leveled up their cozy game,
    0:20:45 making them the perfect holiday gift.
    0:20:47 I’ve tried Bombas myself.
    0:20:50 At this point, I’m maybe two or three pairs away
    0:20:52 from wearing nothing but Bombas socks.
    0:20:55 Sock, nirvana, basically.
    0:20:57 My newest ones are the winter wool socks,
    0:21:00 which I’m literally wearing as I record this ad
    0:21:02 because it’s cold and they’re cozy as hell.
    0:21:04 And no matter what you get from Bombas,
    0:21:07 your purchase creates a very real clothing donation
    0:21:10 for someone experiencing housing insecurity.
    0:21:12 During cold months, something like a new pair of socks
    0:21:13 can make a big impact.
    0:21:16 And thanks to Bombas loyalists all over the world,
    0:21:20 they’ve donated 140 million essential clothing items.
    0:21:22 Ready to get comfy and give back?
    0:21:25 Head over to bombas.com/grayarea
    0:21:28 and use code grayarea for 20% off your first purchase.
    0:21:32 That’s B-O-M-B-A-S.com/grayarea
    0:21:34 and use code grayarea at checkout.
    0:21:45 (soft music)
    0:21:53 My son’s five.
    0:21:57 And so this one’s personal for me too.
    0:22:00 And I don’t wanna see him screwed up
    0:22:04 in the way I see so many other young men screwed up.
    0:22:08 I don’t wanna see him undone by his own resentments.
    0:22:11 And I don’t judge these men,
    0:22:14 even though I can see how much destruction they’re causing,
    0:22:17 because I can see myself in them.
    0:22:21 I can see myself tumbling down the same rabbit hole
    0:22:22 when I was younger.
    0:22:23 I was pretty lost.
    0:22:25 I was caught up with drugs.
    0:22:28 I was close to falling right over the cliff, you know?
    0:22:33 But I had a family member who said something to me one night
    0:22:36 that probably saved my life.
    0:22:38 It was my get your shit together moment.
    0:22:42 And soon after that, I was in the military
    0:22:45 and the whole trajectory of my life changed.
    0:22:49 And that’s how close any of us are to going the other way.
    0:22:52 I really believe that.
    0:22:55 – Well, but what you just said is really powerful
    0:22:56 and it moves to solutions.
    0:22:58 And I’m trying to be better about proposing solutions
    0:23:00 ’cause I’m such a glass half empty kind of guy.
    0:23:03 I think I can articulate the problems really well.
    0:23:06 I’ve gotta get better at articulating the solutions.
    0:23:09 But I think mandatory national service would benefit
    0:23:12 America, young people and especially men.
    0:23:15 I spent some time in Israel after October the 7th
    0:23:17 and I got to spend some time with a battalion
    0:23:18 or a squadron, I don’t know what the term is,
    0:23:20 about 120 kids from the IDF.
    0:23:25 And these are 19 year olds, men and women fit thin,
    0:23:29 handling semi-automatic weapons,
    0:23:32 serving in the agency of something bigger than themselves,
    0:23:34 meeting lifelong friends,
    0:23:37 meeting co-founders of businesses, meeting mates,
    0:23:40 and they all serve in the same uniform.
    0:23:41 So I think national service,
    0:23:44 and it doesn’t necessarily need to be military service,
    0:23:46 it can be senior care, it can be planting trees,
    0:23:48 whatever it might be,
    0:23:51 helping kids in low income neighborhoods.
    0:23:54 But I think saying to all young people,
    0:23:58 you have to spend 12, 24 months serving the agency
    0:24:00 of something bigger than yourself with people
    0:24:02 from different income groups,
    0:24:04 ethnic, sexual orientations,
    0:24:07 recognizing that America is worth investing in.
    0:24:10 I think that’s one idea in terms of a solution
    0:24:12 for getting around some of these issues.
    0:24:16 – So if it’s not Tate, it’s not Trump, it’s not Musk,
    0:24:18 what do you think the healthiest model
    0:24:23 of modern masculinity looks like or ought to look like?
    0:24:26 – I think there are examples, but they’re not,
    0:24:28 unfortunately, I don’t think there’s,
    0:24:31 you know, I have a tough time,
    0:24:34 people always say to me, “Who are the role models?”
    0:24:37 And I do think there’s just millions of men
    0:24:40 who get up every day at surplus value.
    0:24:43 They create more tax revenue than they absorb,
    0:24:46 they listen to more complaints than they complain.
    0:24:49 They notice other people’s lives, they’re in great shape,
    0:24:52 they try to achieve, they plant the trees
    0:24:54 of which the shade they’ll never sit under.
    0:24:55 I think there’s millions of those men around,
    0:24:57 I mean, this is an odd example,
    0:24:59 I read Chris Christofferson’s obituary,
    0:25:03 I don’t know if you know him, the country singer.
    0:25:07 He was a Golden Glove, played high school football,
    0:25:08 became a Rhodes Scholar,
    0:25:10 got a master’s in English from Oxford
    0:25:13 and then decided he was gonna go serve his country,
    0:25:17 rose to the level of captain, he was a helicopter pilot,
    0:25:19 was known as kind of a poet in his music
    0:25:21 and had this reputation for being very generous
    0:25:23 with other artists.
    0:25:28 I mean, a gentle, generous soul who went to,
    0:25:32 wanted to serve his country, was physically robust
    0:25:33 and outstanding at what he did.
    0:25:35 Now, I don’t think it’s realistic to think
    0:25:37 any of us are gonna be Chris Christofferson,
    0:25:40 but I think there are men everywhere
    0:25:44 who are trying to add surplus value
    0:25:46 and can be really good role models.
    0:25:48 I think there’s a lot of them in government,
    0:25:50 I think there’s wonderful role models
    0:25:53 in the service and services.
    0:25:56 I think they’re everywhere, unfortunately,
    0:25:59 because of social media and the algorithms,
    0:26:02 because of the rage that people feel.
    0:26:05 I think that we’re more drawn to,
    0:26:06 the media is like a tyrannosaurus rex,
    0:26:09 it’s drawn towards movement and violence.
    0:26:12 And when it sees people making outlandish,
    0:26:14 provocative, stupid, aggressive, mean things,
    0:26:18 it gives those people more organic reach.
    0:26:21 So there’s a confluence of really unfortunate factors
    0:26:23 and that is the algorithms love,
    0:26:26 Elon Musk accusing an honored serviceman
    0:26:29 of treason and saying he will pay a price.
    0:26:32 You just don’t, I mean, this is the kind of behavior
    0:26:33 we never would have tolerated,
    0:26:35 but now the algorithms love it.
    0:26:37 And there are now so many people living their own reality
    0:26:38 that they believe Elon Musk,
    0:26:40 because he inspired the EV race
    0:26:42 and sends rockets into space that he must be right,
    0:26:44 that he’s on to something.
    0:26:47 And so I think there’s unfortunately the men
    0:26:51 who are gained the most notoriety,
    0:26:54 the algorithms love their coarseness, their cruelty,
    0:26:57 and what I would call anti-masculine behavior.
    0:26:59 And that is, I don’t even like to use the word toxic
    0:27:01 masculinity, ’cause I don’t like to put those two words
    0:27:05 next to each other, but this is anti-masculine behavior.
    0:27:10 This is deciding that you need to show your toughness
    0:27:14 by being coarse and cruel and attacking people
    0:27:18 that are less powerful than you.
    0:27:19 – For me, the problem isn’t toughness,
    0:27:20 it’s not warrior culture,
    0:27:23 it’s not the celebration of strength and fitness,
    0:27:25 which is now stupidly coded as right wing.
    0:27:29 The problem as you’re saying or have said
    0:27:32 is that when all of this gets unmoored
    0:27:35 from any sense of purpose or community,
    0:27:38 any sense of service to people and things beyond yourself.
    0:27:40 And that’s part of the reason why I think
    0:27:43 the loneliness crisis is so central
    0:27:45 to this whole conversation, not just about men,
    0:27:46 but really everyone.
    0:27:50 It’s practically a civilizational crisis at this point.
    0:27:54 – Yeah, look, but I have a couple of questions for you
    0:27:55 ’cause I don’t know much about you.
    0:27:57 You said you suffered from addiction
    0:27:59 and then you went into the service.
    0:28:01 What was your addiction and what branch
    0:28:03 of the armed services did you serve in
    0:28:05 and how long did you serve?
    0:28:07 – I wouldn’t say it was addiction.
    0:28:11 I was using a lot of drugs, I was selling drugs
    0:28:17 and I was 18, left home and I joined the Air Force.
    0:28:20 And I did my just under four years and I got out
    0:28:21 and I went to school.
    0:28:26 But obviously, so you’re selling drugs and using,
    0:28:29 and something went off that said,
    0:28:31 okay, I need to get my shit together
    0:28:33 and you turn to the Air Force.
    0:28:38 And by the way, I think that’s a great, that’s a way out.
    0:28:40 That’s a way to get your life back on track.
    0:28:42 And unfortunately, something like 60 or 70%
    0:28:44 of the people now of the men who decide,
    0:28:46 I want to take that path can’t
    0:28:49 because they can’t pass a physical fitness test
    0:28:52 because of obesity or a mental wellness test
    0:28:54 because of anxiety and depression.
    0:28:56 But that for you, it sounds like
    0:28:58 that was really kind of the turning point in your life.
    0:29:00 Is that accurate?
    0:29:03 – Yeah, I was living in a shitty apartment
    0:29:05 with a bunch of drugged out people
    0:29:09 that I was a valet parking cars at the casino with.
    0:29:12 And I had an older cousin who grew up next door to me.
    0:29:15 I was an only child, but he was basically my brother,
    0:29:19 my older brother, the closest thing I’ve ever had to one.
    0:29:22 And he came over and dragged my ass out of the apartment
    0:29:25 and pushed me up against the car and just said,
    0:29:27 you’re better than this.
    0:29:28 I’m embarrassed for you.
    0:29:30 I’m embarrassed for our family.
    0:29:31 Get your shit together.
    0:29:34 And I went back in the apartment, sat in the corner
    0:29:39 and looked around and said, nope, where’s the rip cord?
    0:29:41 – But here’s what you had.
    0:29:44 You had a man in your life
    0:29:49 who had an irrational passion for your wellbeing.
    0:29:52 And was willing to have a very uncomfortable,
    0:29:55 like no upside conversation other than hoping
    0:29:57 it was gonna impact your life.
    0:29:59 And that’s what’s really missing
    0:30:00 with a lot of these young men.
    0:30:02 It doesn’t sound like you had a lot of male role models,
    0:30:04 like me, single mother.
    0:30:07 Not a lot of economic or romantic possibilities.
    0:30:10 But what you had was a man who cared about you.
    0:30:12 And there’s just certain things.
    0:30:16 It’s hard for your mom to push you up against a car
    0:30:19 and physically intimidate you and scare,
    0:30:21 kind of scare you straight.
    0:30:23 That’s hard for your mom.
    0:30:24 Moms can provide other things.
    0:30:25 They can provide love and nurturing
    0:30:27 and a sense of confidence.
    0:30:30 But young men need men.
    0:30:35 And so what you had, or what I would diagnose,
    0:30:38 is the drug that saved your life
    0:30:41 was having a man in your life that cared about you
    0:30:42 and cared so much they were willing
    0:30:45 to have a very uncomfortable conversation.
    0:30:47 He had to plan out what he was gonna say.
    0:30:48 He had to go over.
    0:30:52 He had to know you might not ever speak to him again.
    0:30:53 A non-zero probability,
    0:30:55 probably a better than likely opportunity.
    0:30:57 You were gonna ignore him.
    0:30:59 That’s like almost all downside for him
    0:31:04 other than wanting to help you because he cared about you.
    0:31:07 That emotion is what’s in short supply.
    0:31:12 That person who has the strength and the willingness
    0:31:18 to find someone, to go over to that guy’s apartment
    0:31:19 and tell him to get a shit together
    0:31:21 and do it out of love and concern.
    0:31:27 That is quite frankly, we don’t need more fucking AI.
    0:31:29 That is what we need.
    0:31:32 We don’t need the S&P and the Dow to hit more highs.
    0:31:37 We need more men who have the relationships
    0:31:38 and the strength and the will
    0:31:41 to go have those conversations with other young men.
    0:31:43 So I think a lot about this,
    0:31:45 but the path you took, think about that.
    0:31:48 That’s a great story, right?
    0:31:53 So the question is, how do we create more of those moments
    0:31:55 where when men come off the tracks,
    0:31:57 there’s someone and an organization there.
    0:32:01 For you, it was older cousin in the Air Force
    0:32:03 that quite frankly saved your ass.
    0:32:05 – And it had to be him.
    0:32:07 I had a relationship with my dad, I still do,
    0:32:11 but you have all these hangups
    0:32:13 and there’s all this bullshit macho posturing
    0:32:16 with between sons and fathers.
    0:32:20 I needed an older male in my life
    0:32:22 who I didn’t have those hangups with,
    0:32:25 who could shake me out of my stupor.
    0:32:27 And that goes to this point you’re making
    0:32:32 about having more male mentors in our lives
    0:32:34 that aren’t necessarily our fathers.
    0:32:36 And the question for you is,
    0:32:39 do we have the cultural infrastructure to facilitate that?
    0:32:42 Are we doing anything politically, socially, culturally,
    0:32:44 economically to make that more likely,
    0:32:46 to make that more of a thing,
    0:32:51 to make that more of an opportunity for more people
    0:32:52 in more places?
    0:32:56 – I think, but even conversations like this,
    0:32:57 I think there’s a lot of men probably listening to this
    0:32:59 podcast, the first thing I ask men is who are,
    0:33:00 have they acted?
    0:33:03 I’m like, do you mentor or coach any young men?
    0:33:05 And they’ll say, well, and they pause and they’re like,
    0:33:07 well, my nephew, I’m like,
    0:33:09 look at what an impressive man you are.
    0:33:13 It would be so easy for you 30, 60 minutes a week.
    0:33:18 I coach three young men at a time and they get intimidated.
    0:33:19 When they’re embarrassed to do that for fear
    0:33:22 that people are gonna think something’s up with them,
    0:33:25 we need to get, we need to starch our culture of that
    0:33:30 and to create a society where the moment you become
    0:33:34 a virtuous man who’s on the right path,
    0:33:37 your obligation is to try and pull a few people behind you.
    0:33:40 And what you said about your relationship with your father
    0:33:41 is very typical.
    0:33:44 There’s a very healthy hormone or instinct with young men
    0:33:46 where they kind of rebel against their dad
    0:33:50 because they have to leave the tribe, the nest, the pack.
    0:33:54 What’s interesting is that oftentimes a 16, 18, 22-year-old
    0:33:59 boy/man will listen to his dad’s friends more than his dad.
    0:34:04 And there’s a lot of men, young men, who the dad isn’t around.
    0:34:05 My dad wasn’t really around.
    0:34:09 I mean, and the other thing is we need single moms
    0:34:12 and moms and churches and family courts to recognize
    0:34:16 the moment there’s a divorce and there are kids,
    0:34:19 specifically boys who no longer have a male role model
    0:34:23 living with that young boy, there needs to be an infrastructure
    0:34:26 for maintaining male presence in that boy’s life.
    0:34:29 And even that is a controversial statement.
    0:34:30 Well, what do you mean?
    0:34:30 Aren’t women able?
    0:34:31 Well, of course they are.
    0:34:34 Women are important to a young man’s life.
    0:34:38 My mother lived and died as secretary a lot of my life.
    0:34:42 But my mom always made sure I had men in my life.
    0:34:44 Two of her boyfriends that she only went out with
    0:34:46 for two or three years each stayed involved in my life
    0:34:48 and she encouraged it.
    0:34:49 There was a guy across the hall.
    0:34:51 He and his girlfriend used to take me horseback riding
    0:34:54 and then he would just every weekend roll over to me
    0:34:56 and come with me and wash my car.
    0:34:59 And my mom always made sure I had men in my life.
    0:35:02 And that was hugely important for me.
    0:35:06 My mom’s boyfriend gave me 200 bucks and said,
    0:35:07 “Go buy stock.”
    0:35:09 I started asking about the stock market, I was 13.
    0:35:11 And he said, “Go to one of those fancy brokerages
    0:35:13 “in the village, Westwood Village.
    0:35:15 “And if you don’t buy stock by Monday afternoon,
    0:35:16 “I’m taking the 200 bucks back.
    0:35:18 “I’d never seen $200 in my life.”
    0:35:20 I went down to Dean Winter, I sat in the lobby.
    0:35:22 I met this guy named Sycero.
    0:35:26 I had $200, I bought 12 shares of Columbia Pictures at 16.
    0:35:28 I wasn’t very popular in junior high school.
    0:35:29 I used to go to the phone booth every day,
    0:35:31 put in two dimes, call Sy,
    0:35:33 and he’d give me a 10-minute lecture on the market.
    0:35:35 So close encounters of the third kind is a hit.
    0:35:37 That’s why the stock’s up today.
    0:35:38 Why is it up?
    0:35:40 There’s more people who wanna buy it than sell it
    0:35:41 so they have to raise the price
    0:35:43 to get enough sellers interested in selling.
    0:35:46 I’ve made, and I’m flexing now,
    0:35:49 tens of millions of dollars in the market.
    0:35:52 And a large part of it is I have been buying stock
    0:35:54 since I was 13.
    0:35:58 And I still get, probably monthly,
    0:36:01 a text message from Sy 46 years later.
    0:36:03 You know, a fantastic male role model for me.
    0:36:05 It taught me about the markets.
    0:36:08 But we have to have a culture of ensuring.
    0:36:10 And I think Family Court plays a role,
    0:36:12 I think Religious Institute.
    0:36:15 The moment you see a boy without a male role model,
    0:36:17 it is the community’s responsibility
    0:36:21 to inject male leadership, male mentorship,
    0:36:22 into that boy’s life.
    0:36:25 (upbeat music)
    0:36:42 Support for the gray area comes from Givewell.
    0:36:44 Givewell wants to help you maximize
    0:36:45 your charitable donations,
    0:36:47 ensuring that every dollar you give
    0:36:51 does as much as possible to help people in need.
    0:36:52 Givewell says that they have spent
    0:36:55 over 17 years researching charitable organizations
    0:36:57 and only directs funding to a few
    0:37:00 of the highest impact opportunities they’ve found.
    0:37:03 They say that over 100,000 donors
    0:37:06 have used Givewell to donate more than $2 billion.
    0:37:09 And that their rigorous evidence suggests
    0:37:12 that these donations will save over 200,000 lives
    0:37:15 and improve the lives of millions more.
    0:37:18 You can find all of their research and recommendations
    0:37:20 on their site for free.
    0:37:23 You can make tax deductible donations
    0:37:25 to their recommended funds or charities
    0:37:27 and Givewell doesn’t take a cut.
    0:37:29 If you’ve never used Givewell to donate,
    0:37:32 you can have your donation matched up to $100
    0:37:33 before the end of the year
    0:37:36 or as long as matching funds last.
    0:37:40 To claim your match, go to givewell.org
    0:37:43 and pick podcast and enter the gray area at checkout.
    0:37:46 Make sure they know that you heard about Givewell
    0:37:49 from the gray area to get your donation matched.
    0:37:53 Again, that’s givewell.org to donate or find out more.
    0:38:01 Support for the gray area comes from NetSuite.
    0:38:02 Planning for the future is hard,
    0:38:05 especially if you run a business.
    0:38:06 It’s like painting a picture
    0:38:08 while a canvas keeps changing shape.
    0:38:10 Sometimes you just have to adapt your vision
    0:38:12 to fit the situation.
    0:38:14 But companies can feel a little more secure
    0:38:17 by switching to NetSuite by Oracle.
    0:38:19 With real-time insights and predictive tools,
    0:38:22 NetSuite says that they’ve become the go-to platform
    0:38:24 for nearly 40,000 businesses.
    0:38:27 With one unified business management suite,
    0:38:29 there’s one source of truth,
    0:38:31 giving you the visibility and control
    0:38:33 you need to make quick decisions.
    0:38:35 NetSuite helps you do more than just manage your business.
    0:38:38 It can help you capture its full potential.
    0:38:41 Using their expert real-time insights and forecasting,
    0:38:42 you can stay ahead
    0:38:44 and close your books faster than ever before.
    0:38:47 And if you’re curious how AI might affect your business,
    0:38:50 you can download the CFO’s Guide to AI and Machine Learning
    0:38:53 at netsuite.com/grayarea.
    0:38:58 The guide is free to you at netsuite.com/grayarea.
    0:39:01 That’s netsuite.com/grayarea.
    0:39:11 Amazon Q Business is the new generative AI assistant from AWS
    0:39:14 because many tasks can make business slow,
    0:39:15 like wading through the mud.
    0:39:18 Help!
    0:39:22 Luckily, there’s a faster, easier, less messy choice.
    0:39:25 Amazon Q can securely understand your business data
    0:39:28 and use that knowledge to streamline tasks.
    0:39:29 Now you can summarize quarterly results
    0:39:32 or do complex analyses in no time.
    0:39:34 Q got this.
    0:39:37 Learn when Amazon Q Business can do for you
    0:39:40 at aws.com/learnmore.
    0:39:44 That’s aws.com/learnmore.
    0:40:03 – I’m not here to tell anyone
    0:40:07 to have children or start a family.
    0:40:09 And that’s a choice everyone is free to make,
    0:40:10 should be free to make.
    0:40:16 But do you think we’d have better, healthier,
    0:40:20 more productive men if more of us became fathers?
    0:40:22 I mean, all I can say is that it was transformative
    0:40:24 for me and my life.
    0:40:29 I badly needed to care about someone else’s life
    0:40:30 more than my own.
    0:40:32 – Some people just aren’t ready for kids.
    0:40:33 They’re not economically secure.
    0:40:35 They’re not emotionally ready for kids.
    0:40:38 My life up until I had kids,
    0:40:39 I had kids later in life.
    0:40:41 I didn’t have my first child when I was 42.
    0:40:43 My life was about more.
    0:40:44 I want more money.
    0:40:45 I want more fame.
    0:40:47 I want more recognition.
    0:40:49 I want to party with cooler people.
    0:40:50 I want to date more women.
    0:40:53 I want to have more sex, more money, more cool.
    0:40:56 It’s just like, oh, I have this much money.
    0:40:58 Well, I can have more.
    0:41:00 Well, I’m in this fabulous scene.
    0:41:03 Well, all right, I’m on an amazing party in St. Bart’s.
    0:41:06 Well, is there a more amazing party in the South of France?
    0:41:07 It was always more.
    0:41:09 And the only time I’ve ever felt sort of sad
    0:41:11 and thought this was enough was when I have,
    0:41:12 occasionally I have that moment with my boys.
    0:41:14 Unless we, let’s be honest, kids can be awful.
    0:41:16 It’s a lot of stress.
    0:41:18 But occasionally last night,
    0:41:21 I’m watching the Liverpool man city game.
    0:41:23 My kids is naturally 70 and 14 come in,
    0:41:25 throw their legs over mine just naturally.
    0:41:26 And I’m like, dogs come in.
    0:41:27 I’m like, okay, this is enough.
    0:41:30 I can’t imagine anything more than this.
    0:41:32 It also got me, like you said,
    0:41:35 it’s almost sort of relaxing.
    0:41:36 When I was single, it was on Friday.
    0:41:39 It’s like, where am I gonna have brunch?
    0:41:40 What cool people am I hanging out with?
    0:41:42 What hot woman am I gonna go out with?
    0:41:45 Like, and then all of a sudden your weekends are like,
    0:41:46 you know what you’re doing.
    0:41:47 You’re taking your kid to soccer practice
    0:41:50 and you’re going to some lame-ass birthday party on Sunday
    0:41:53 where you wanna like, you gather with all the other dads
    0:41:56 and just roll your eyes like, Jesus, how did we end up here?
    0:41:57 But it’s sort of relaxing.
    0:42:00 It’s like, okay, I got something else
    0:42:03 that’s more important than me all the fucking time.
    0:42:06 And also for me professionally, it got me very focused.
    0:42:09 I always made enough money to live a pretty good life
    0:42:12 to at least have full wealth, have a nice apartment,
    0:42:14 a big screen TV, take nice vacations,
    0:42:17 go on, you know, do cool things.
    0:42:21 But once I had a kid, it was like, okay, shit just got real.
    0:42:23 I gotta get very focused.
    0:42:25 And I also get tremendous reward at night
    0:42:27 when I know my kids are warm and safe
    0:42:29 and well taken care of and going to good schools
    0:42:32 and I’m raising them with a competent partner.
    0:42:33 That makes me feel very strong.
    0:42:36 It gives me a sense of gratification.
    0:42:38 That is where that’s the only time in my life
    0:42:41 I’ve ever felt whole, like really whole.
    0:42:42 Like, okay, I get it.
    0:42:43 I’m here for a reason.
    0:42:45 I’m doing something.
    0:42:46 So I feel the same way you do.
    0:42:49 I’m remiss to tell people that the answer is, you know,
    0:42:52 have kids, but what I can say as personally
    0:42:56 is nothing, I was never sated.
    0:43:00 I was never satisfied fully until I had kids.
    0:43:02 And I think that’s a whole shooting match.
    0:43:03 And I think we need more public policy
    0:43:07 that stuffs more money into the pockets of young people
    0:43:08 so they can afford to have kids.
    0:43:11 60% of 30-year-olds used to have a child in the house.
    0:43:12 Now it’s 27%.
    0:43:16 So I’m a big believer in child tax credit,
    0:43:19 tax holiday like Portugal age 20 to 30, no federal tax.
    0:43:23 More third spaces give more people,
    0:43:26 more young people a chance to meet each other
    0:43:29 and fall in love and have kids
    0:43:31 and make sure that when you have a kid,
    0:43:34 it’s not as economically stressful as it’s become.
    0:43:38 – I know we have lots of parents who listen to the show
    0:43:42 and they’re all trying to navigate these waters
    0:43:45 with their kids in their own ways.
    0:43:50 Do you have any words of advice for them?
    0:43:52 – I think it’s such an individual.
    0:43:54 I think I’ve read most parenting books
    0:43:55 and the thing they all have in common
    0:43:57 is they all contradict each other.
    0:43:59 I mean, you know the basics, right?
    0:44:03 Firm but gentle, you know?
    0:44:06 – I’m looking for your approach, not the approach.
    0:44:09 – Yeah, look, what I try and do is Ryan Holiday
    0:44:11 is this wonderful podcaster, young man.
    0:44:14 I’m learning so much from so many of these young men
    0:44:16 who talks about stoicism.
    0:44:18 He talks about garbage time.
    0:44:21 And that is, you never made the myth of quality time.
    0:44:23 Well, I work all the time, but I spend time.
    0:44:25 I have quality time with my kids.
    0:44:26 There’s no such thing as quality time.
    0:44:28 The biggest moments, the most important moments
    0:44:29 with my kids have been unexpected.
    0:44:31 I’m driving them to school and not looking them in the eye
    0:44:34 and they say, “Dad, there’s a girl I like at school.
    0:44:37 “This happened, what do you think?”
    0:44:39 You pray for those moments as a dad.
    0:44:40 I think my kids have asked me for advice
    0:44:43 maybe three times in their life.
    0:44:46 And they happen when they’re least expected.
    0:44:49 You know, garbage time, as much time as you can.
    0:44:51 Having said that, when they’re young,
    0:44:52 I didn’t spend a lot of time with them
    0:44:54 ’cause I was focused on building economic security
    0:44:56 and I think that was the right decision.
    0:45:01 I think that trying to ensure that the household
    0:45:02 has an absence of stress by getting
    0:45:05 to a certain level of economic security
    0:45:07 and then with any remaining time,
    0:45:09 just garbage time with your kids.
    0:45:13 Just be an Uber driver, hang out with them.
    0:45:16 You know, just a ton of time with them.
    0:45:18 Play games with them because you never know
    0:45:20 when those kind of moments are gonna happen.
    0:45:22 And then the other thing I think you can do as a man
    0:45:25 is try and be as loving and supportive
    0:45:26 of your partner as possible.
    0:45:28 I think they see that.
    0:45:31 I think they see this is how I should treat women.
    0:45:35 I think they see, wow, dad really loves mom
    0:45:37 and is thinking about her a lot.
    0:45:39 And I’m gonna be that way when I’m a man.
    0:45:43 I think that some of my faults when it comes to women
    0:45:46 have been quite frankly, ’cause my model
    0:45:47 for how to treat women, my father,
    0:45:49 who’s been married and divorced four times,
    0:45:51 was not a great role model.
    0:45:55 So economic security is much garbage time
    0:46:00 as you can muster and try and be a really loving,
    0:46:03 visibly loving and supportive of your partner
    0:46:05 such that your kids notice.
    0:46:09 Yeah, I really do believe that the best thing you can do
    0:46:14 as a father for your kids is to love their mother.
    0:46:21 And I really like what you say about framing our lives
    0:46:24 in terms of negative and surplus value,
    0:46:27 which sounds like sterile economic language,
    0:46:30 but I don’t think it is in this case.
    0:46:32 My dad wasn’t perfect.
    0:46:35 He made a lot of mistakes, but he did his best
    0:46:37 and he did a little bit better than his dad.
    0:46:41 And I’m committed to doing a little better than him.
    0:46:45 And I expect my son will be better than me.
    0:46:48 And that’s the whole game, man, like that’s it.
    0:46:53 That’s the ethos we have to instill in young people,
    0:46:56 whether it’s in the context of being a dad
    0:46:58 or being a husband or a partner or friend
    0:47:01 or whatever the most important role in your life is.
    0:47:03 Attack it with that mindset
    0:47:06 and the world will be better for it.
    0:47:09 Yeah, there’s two great points in there.
    0:47:15 This notion of a huge unlock for me was
    0:47:17 I used to look at relationships as a transaction.
    0:47:19 Am I getting as much joy and camaraderie
    0:47:21 from this friendship as I’m giving?
    0:47:24 Am I getting as much money from this business partnership
    0:47:25 or value as I’m giving?
    0:47:30 Am I getting as much joy, romance, good sex, whatever
    0:47:33 from this romantic relationship as I think I’m giving?
    0:47:35 And the moment I felt like I was getting less
    0:47:39 than I was giving, I was angry, injected,
    0:47:41 expectation of the relationship.
    0:47:45 And a huge unlock for me was to stop keeping score.
    0:47:47 And that is I think, okay, my dad wasn’t a very good dad.
    0:47:48 He wasn’t bad.
    0:47:50 He was much better to your point to me
    0:47:51 than his father was to him.
    0:47:54 His father physically abused him and my dad tried.
    0:47:58 He left me and my mom, moved to Ohio,
    0:47:59 wasn’t that involved in my life,
    0:48:02 but he did make an effort much better to me than his father.
    0:48:04 And the fact that you’ve recognized that,
    0:48:05 I think it’s a huge unlock.
    0:48:06 But the big unlock for me was,
    0:48:09 and it didn’t happen until I was your age,
    0:48:13 I said, stop thinking about relationships as a transaction
    0:48:16 and just say, what kind of son, what kind of partner,
    0:48:17 what kind of business partner, what kind of investor,
    0:48:20 what kind of dad do you want to be?
    0:48:22 And ignore what you get back.
    0:48:23 I mean, if you’re not enjoying a relationship,
    0:48:25 I shed friends, that’s fine.
    0:48:27 If at some point it’s like you’re not getting no value
    0:48:29 from this thing, then just accept the relationship.
    0:48:31 But I said, what kind of son do I want to be?
    0:48:33 I want to be a generous, loving son.
    0:48:35 And that’s what I decided to do.
    0:48:38 And I stopped thinking, well, my dad wasn’t there for me.
    0:48:40 My dad could have, my dad basically left me to go,
    0:48:43 I just, I got rid of all that bullshit.
    0:48:46 And I started just being the son I wanted to be.
    0:48:47 It’s really important with your kids,
    0:48:51 ’cause despite what the Hallmark channel tells you,
    0:48:52 you’re not gonna get as much from your kids
    0:48:53 as you’re gonna have to give them.
    0:48:57 I mean, there’s just some days where I feel like
    0:48:59 I’m a loving, you know,
    0:49:03 I’m something out of the fucking Hallmark channel as a dad.
    0:49:06 And my kids are just total assholes.
    0:49:07 Could not be more ungrateful,
    0:49:10 could not be less kind to their mother,
    0:49:11 could not be more expectant, more,
    0:49:14 I mean, it’s awful.
    0:49:16 And I’m like, okay, there’s a word for that.
    0:49:20 Dad, if you feel as if, all right,
    0:49:23 I’m not getting as much from my kids as I’m giving,
    0:49:26 that means you’re being a father.
    0:49:28 That’s what we’re here for.
    0:49:31 We’re here to absorb blows.
    0:49:32 And I’m not saying be depressed
    0:49:35 or not in touch with your emotions.
    0:49:38 But I recognize now that my job,
    0:49:42 my goal is to add surplus value
    0:49:45 that I wanna give more than I get.
    0:49:49 And be clear with kids, that’s just part of it.
    0:49:51 You’re gonna have to invest way more
    0:49:54 of your love, emotion, resources than you are.
    0:49:55 I mean, maybe when I’m older,
    0:49:58 maybe I’ll get more back from them than I’m giving,
    0:50:01 but I’m not holding my breath.
    0:50:02 And what you have to realize
    0:50:04 or what has been a big unlock for me is,
    0:50:07 that’s the goal is to be able to say,
    0:50:11 I know I’m giving my kids so much more
    0:50:12 than maybe I’m getting from them.
    0:50:15 That’s it, that means I’m serving that purpose.
    0:50:16 I’m being a dad.
    0:50:21 – We could go all day, but I know you have to go.
    0:50:23 So I will let you go.
    0:50:24 Scott, this was great.
    0:50:25 It was a long time coming.
    0:50:28 I really appreciate you being here
    0:50:29 and taking the time to do it.
    0:50:31 – Shawna, I love your work and I love your story.
    0:50:32 I think you’re just doing great work.
    0:50:34 I think you’re adding real value.
    0:50:36 I very much appreciate what you’re doing.
    0:50:38 (upbeat music)
    0:50:48 – Oh, right.
    0:50:51 I hope you enjoyed this episode.
    0:50:55 It got a little more personal than I intended,
    0:51:00 but ultimately I think that’s a good thing.
    0:51:04 And I know this was a conversation between men,
    0:51:08 about men and mostly for men,
    0:51:12 but my goal was to do it in a way
    0:51:15 that felt useful to everyone.
    0:51:17 And I hope it was.
    0:51:20 And if it wasn’t, I’ll do better next time.
    0:51:24 As always, we want to know what you think.
    0:51:29 So drop us a line at the gray area at box.com.
    0:51:31 And once you’re done with that,
    0:51:34 please rate and review and subscribe to the pod.
    0:51:39 This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey,
    0:51:43 edited by Jorge Just, engineered by Christian Ayala,
    0:51:46 fact-checked by Anok Dusso,
    0:51:48 and Alex O’Varrington wrote our theme music.
    0:51:50 Also, just a heads up,
    0:51:53 this week we’ve dropped a new video episode.
    0:51:55 You can see my interview with my Vox colleague,
    0:51:59 Zach Beecham, on the Vox YouTube channel.
    0:52:01 We discuss America’s reactionary politics
    0:52:04 and the incoming Trump administration.
    0:52:09 It’s really good, so go check it out at youtube.com/vox.
    0:52:12 The gray area is part of Vox,
    0:52:14 support Vox’s journalism by joining
    0:52:16 our membership program today.
    0:52:19 Go to vox.com/members to sign up.
    0:52:22 And if you do decide to sign up because of this show,
    0:52:23 let us know.
    0:52:26 (upbeat music)
    0:52:40 Your own weight loss journey is personal.
    0:52:41 Everyone’s diet is different,
    0:52:43 everyone’s bodies are different.
    0:52:44 And according to Noom,
    0:52:47 there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
    0:52:49 Noom wants to help you stay focused
    0:52:51 on what’s important to you,
    0:52:54 with their psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:52:56 This program helps you understand the science
    0:52:58 behind your eating choices,
    0:53:01 and helps you build new habits for a healthier lifestyle.
    0:53:03 Stay focused on what’s important to you,
    0:53:07 with Noom’s psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:53:10 Sign up for your free trial today at Noom.com.
    0:53:13 (upbeat music)

    This week, host Sean Illing gets personal when he asks professor and podcast host Scott Galloway: What’s going on with men?

    There’s a growing body of evidence that men are falling behind in education, the labor market, and other areas. And when you look at the numbers on drug overdoses and deaths by suicide, it’s pretty bleak.

    Sean and Scott — both of whom are raising sons — talk about the struggles men are facing today, how parents can navigate the current moment, and the challenges they each faced as young men.

    Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling)

    Guest: Scott Galloway, professor and podcast host

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • How to feel alive

    AI transcript
    0:00:06 I’m Ashley Seaford, and I host Into the Mix, a Ben & Jerry’s podcast about joy and justice
    0:00:09 produced with Vox Creative.
    0:00:14 For the past few years, I’ve seen a lot of hand-wringing about Governor Ron DeSantis’
    0:00:19 agenda to end what he calls “woke indoctrination.”
    0:00:22 But we wanted to know, what does that mean?
    0:00:28 And how does this agenda actually affect the people living and working there?
    0:00:32 Especially those who have benefited from the diversity, equity, and inclusion programs
    0:00:35 that DeSantis’ policies would uproot.
    0:00:40 Check out the latest mini-series on Into the Mix, a Ben & Jerry’s podcast.
    0:00:45 Subscribe now!
    0:00:48 Support for the gray area comes from Blue Nile.
    0:00:52 We’re all making a lot of big plans for the New Year, and maybe those plans involve taking
    0:00:54 the next step with your special someone.
    0:00:58 If so, you might want to check out sourcing an engagement ring from Blue Nile.
    0:01:02 Blue Nile is the original online jeweler since 1999.
    0:01:07 On BlueNile.com, you can get created with bigger and more brilliant pieces tough to find
    0:01:08 anywhere else.
    0:01:13 Right now, you can go to BlueNile.com and use code “GrayArea” for $50 off your purchase
    0:01:15 of $500 or more.
    0:01:19 That’s $50 off with code “GrayArea” at BlueNile.com.
    0:01:28 The sheer feeling of aliveness.
    0:01:33 We all know what that is, even though it comes in many different forms.
    0:01:38 Maybe it’s going for a long run at night, or free climbing a mountain, or an intense
    0:01:40 meditation practice.
    0:01:46 Or that sensation you get when you’re on the floor by the stage at a great concert.
    0:01:50 Call it a flow state, or religious experience, or whatever you want.
    0:01:56 But it’s a kind of ecstasy almost all of us have experienced at some point in our lives.
    0:02:01 People have been having experiences like this for centuries, and in previous eras they called
    0:02:03 it a mystical experience.
    0:02:09 In the modern world, a word like “mystical” feels weird, or out of place.
    0:02:13 Maybe when you hear it, you think of a fringe religious figure.
    0:02:16 Or some kind of spiritual guru.
    0:02:21 Or if you’re less charitable, maybe you think of one of those crystal peddling influencers
    0:02:23 on Instagram.
    0:02:29 But the study of mysticism, this feeling of intense experience that I’m talking about,
    0:02:33 has been the focus of philosophers and theologians for a very long time.
    0:02:39 So what can we learn from the tradition of mystical thought?
    0:02:46 May it help us live better and more meaningful and more present lives in the 21st century.
    0:02:55 I’m Sean Elling, and this is The Great Area.
    0:02:57 Today’s guest is Simon Critchley.
    0:03:01 He’s a writer and a philosopher at the New School in New York, and the author of a new
    0:03:04 book called Mysticism.
    0:03:10 Critchley is not a religious person, but he’s interested in mystical experiences, and what
    0:03:15 I appreciate about his work is that it’s not judgmental.
    0:03:21 It is open-minded and curious and exploratory in a way that is frankly all too rare in the
    0:03:25 world of philosophy, which is what makes this book so enjoyable.
    0:03:31 For Critchley, mysticism isn’t the question of religious belief, nor is it about ideas
    0:03:32 and arguments.
    0:03:37 It’s about how we use our attention and how we break free of habits and default modes
    0:03:42 of being in the world that make it hard for us to get outside of ourselves.
    0:03:45 And that really is what this conversation is about.
    0:03:50 What can we do to get out of our head so that we can see and feel things that we otherwise
    0:04:01 can’t see and feel?
    0:04:03 I’m Simon Critchley.
    0:04:04 Welcome to the show.
    0:04:06 Sean, thank you very much for having me.
    0:04:07 I’m very happy to be here.
    0:04:13 Well, let’s get into mysticism, and I don’t want to ask you to just define mysticism because
    0:04:17 it’s not that simple, but let’s wrap our arms around it a little bit.
    0:04:22 You discuss a lot of different ways people have understood mysticism in the book.
    0:04:24 How do you describe it?
    0:04:30 What are some of the more useful ways to think about it?
    0:04:34 There’s a lovely short definition by Evelyn Underhill that I begin the book with, which
    0:04:36 is experience in its most intense form.
    0:04:44 So pushing yourself aside in order to be open to a lived intensity of experience, an experience
    0:04:47 of ecstasy, that’s the core of it for me.
    0:04:52 The other thing about mysticism is that mysticism, so mysticism is not a religion, it’s a tendency
    0:04:59 within religion, everything that we can call religion, which means that for as long as there
    0:05:05 have been human beings, there is something like religion and at the core of that is something
    0:05:07 like mystical practice.
    0:05:13 It attracts an audience, so there’s something essentially popular and even populist about
    0:05:14 mysticism.
    0:05:22 I think in part because of its roots in religion, a lot of people today, especially secular
    0:05:33 rationalist types, will dismiss mysticism as the realm of delusion and irrationality.
    0:05:36 You clearly think that is a mistake, why?
    0:05:37 And I agree by the way.
    0:05:38 Yeah.
    0:05:42 I mean, the word mystic has become a term of abuse, right?
    0:05:49 So if you’re giving a talk in an academic context or not necessarily an academic context
    0:05:54 and someone says that’s mysticism, then that’s a refutation, right there, that’s the end
    0:05:55 of the conversation.
    0:05:57 That’s mysticism, you’re a mystic.
    0:06:09 And so mysticism has become a term of abuse and that connects to a much longer, deeper
    0:06:16 story about the nature of philosophy in the modern world.
    0:06:26 And I think the philosophers, I mean, the key figure here is Emmanuel Kant, who kind
    0:06:33 of sets up modern philosophy, really, he’s the first philosopher who’s also an academic
    0:06:39 before that philosophers have been courtiers or doctors and things like that.
    0:06:52 But Kant is engaged in this critical, rational activity to draw tight the realm of faith
    0:06:59 in order to make science be reconciled with the experience of faith and freedom.
    0:07:04 And what has to be kept out of the way very clearly for Kant are those people that he refers
    0:07:11 to as spirit seers, enthusiast fanatics, yes his wonderful term in German, Schwermerei, kind
    0:07:13 of enthusiasm, fanaticism.
    0:07:19 So philosophy then becomes this critical, rational enterprise that’s set up in order
    0:07:23 to protect people against the threat of mysticism.
    0:07:29 And that’s very much how it’s continued in its academic and non-academic guises.
    0:07:35 That does a number of things that reduces philosophy to a very rationalistic, critical
    0:07:38 enterprise, it really narrows it down.
    0:07:44 It makes most of the history of philosophy and the history of thought unrecognizable
    0:07:53 because the divine has been baked into philosophy from the beginning in Plato’s dialogues, Plato’s
    0:07:58 Fadros in Symposium, it’s all about divine visions and even Aristotle, the highest goal
    0:08:00 of ethics is divine life.
    0:08:07 So it makes the history of philosophy unrecognizable and it really narrows down philosophical practice
    0:08:10 to this very kind of small area of activity.
    0:08:16 Well, I like the way I’ve heard you put it before that the dominant strain of philosophy,
    0:08:23 modern philosophy became obsessed with asking whether something is true and became disinterested
    0:08:27 in the question, why is it meaningful?
    0:08:32 Exactly, there’s a brilliant pair of essays by John Stuart Mill.
    0:08:38 The first one is on Bentham, Jeremy Bentham, who was his teacher and the Benthamite tendency
    0:08:42 reduces philosophy to the question, is it true?
    0:08:48 Of anything that’s presented to you, any doctrine, is it true?
    0:08:56 The other side is Coleridge and the Coleridgean question of anything according to John Stuart
    0:09:01 Mill is what is the meaning of it, what is the meaning of it?
    0:09:03 And these two questions are both important questions.
    0:09:09 If we’re presented with a proposition, whatever it might be, then we can ask of it, is it
    0:09:16 true or is this delusional, fine?
    0:09:23 And we expect the area of, say, scientific activity to be governed by a concern for truth.
    0:09:29 But if that’s all that there is, then it loses this whole dimension of meaning and that’s
    0:09:34 often been sidelined or overlooked in philosophy in the last couple hundred years.
    0:09:41 How much of the mystical experience is really about shutting down the thinking mind?
    0:09:44 Oh, yeah, a lot of it is about shutting down the thinking mind.
    0:09:50 Yeah, it’s about pushing yourself out of the way as much as possible.
    0:10:03 I begin the book with Hamlet and I say that Hamlet is the anti-mystic par excellence and
    0:10:09 Hamlet is entirely in his own head and it’s the most intelligent head you could imagine
    0:10:10 being inside.
    0:10:12 He knows everything.
    0:10:18 He can see everything from 17 different angles and he can still acquire with the most extraordinary
    0:10:25 elegance and eloquence and chatter on.
    0:10:32 But what that does in his case is it kills the capacity for love and it kills the capacity
    0:10:38 for love for his girlfriend, partner, Ophelia, for his mother and for the world.
    0:10:42 The world is a sterile promontory for Hamlet.
    0:10:49 So Hamlet is what it’s like at its very best to be inside your head.
    0:10:52 So the question is then how do you push that aside?
    0:11:00 How do you push that self that we think is us, that actually is blocking our view to
    0:11:02 what we really should be seeing?
    0:11:04 How do you push that away?
    0:11:10 And the mystics are people that have tried to do that given as kind of itineraries of
    0:11:18 ways of doing that, where we can kind of leave ourselves behind, de-create ourselves as Simone
    0:11:26 Vape says in order to undo ourselves, in order to open ourselves to something else.
    0:11:36 There’s a great line from Marguerite Porrethigan where she talks about, “I have to hack and
    0:11:42 hue away at myself in order to make a space that’s large enough for love to enter in,
    0:11:44 to hack and hue.”
    0:11:48 There’s a lot of hacking and hueing in mysticism that the self is something that has to be
    0:11:51 kind of torn apart, torn open.
    0:11:56 And if you can do that, then you can make a space that’s large enough for love to enter
    0:11:57 in.
    0:12:04 You know, what I was thinking about reading your book was Dostoevsky’s notes from Underground.
    0:12:05 Oh, yeah.
    0:12:06 Yeah.
    0:12:13 There’s that opening line where the protagonist says, “I swear to you that to think too much
    0:12:17 is a disease, a real actual disease.”
    0:12:23 And that whole book is like a case study in how someone can be completely undone by their
    0:12:24 own thoughts.
    0:12:28 It’s haunted me since I first read it probably 20 years ago.
    0:12:34 And it’s a weird thing to say, and I’m pretty sure much smarter people than me have already
    0:12:35 made this argument.
    0:12:40 But I have really come to believe that being self-absorbed in that way, being trapped in
    0:12:44 the self in your own mind, is what hell actually is.
    0:12:45 Yes.
    0:12:46 Yes.
    0:12:47 Oh, absolutely.
    0:12:48 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    0:12:49 Yeah.
    0:12:50 That’s very good, Sean.
    0:12:58 Actually, you could say about the existence of hell, which we could talk about.
    0:13:05 I don’t believe in the existence of a place called hell where most people are going to
    0:13:06 go.
    0:13:14 But I burn in hell insofar as I am a prisoner to myself, right, insofar as I’m locked in
    0:13:22 this head, locked in these preoccupations, these doubts, this second guessing, the suspicion
    0:13:29 that I have, I am burning in hell every day, so how do I push that away?
    0:13:37 So is the idea here that when you can quiet your mind, when you can detach from the ego,
    0:13:42 there’s a reality, there’s a part of the world or way of being in the world that becomes
    0:13:46 available to you, that otherwise isn’t?
    0:13:48 Yes, I think that is it.
    0:13:50 Quieting the mind is a very good way of putting it.
    0:13:59 It’s about, it’s quieting the mind and also trying to escape the curse of reflection.
    0:14:06 The underground man is someone who is cursed with raciocination, he’s cursed with reflection.
    0:14:17 And to quieten the mind means to let that go and to open yourself to find what one of
    0:14:23 my favourite mystical writers, Meister Eckhart, calls a ‘releasement’, which is a ‘releasement’
    0:14:30 from the self, a ‘releasement’ from the ego, to be out there with what is and to stand
    0:14:37 there with what is and not to, not to be inside one’s head.
    0:14:45 And that means looking, attending, attending largely, attending, having cultivated practices
    0:14:46 of attention.
    0:14:51 And these people you describe in the book, how do they get here?
    0:14:52 What do they do?
    0:14:57 Is it fasting, meditation, prayer, ritual?
    0:15:00 What do they actually do to get there?
    0:15:04 Everything really has to begin with reading.
    0:15:11 And so the mystics were not just these people having these strange, extreme experiences.
    0:15:18 They were people who, for whom all of this began with the reading of texts.
    0:15:24 So in many ways, the easiest way of describing how to become a mystic is by reading, by allowing
    0:15:33 your attention to be genuinely taken by something, a text that you’re engaged with, and to really
    0:15:39 give yourself over to that, and not to necessarily always ask questions about whether it’s true,
    0:15:44 whether it makes sense, but to try and enter into its world.
    0:15:53 And that was something that was organised by the institutions of, in the case that I’m
    0:15:57 dealing with in the book, the organisations of the Christian church, particularly the
    0:15:58 monasteries.
    0:16:08 So you could get to that state by the adoption of a series of bodily and spiritual practices
    0:16:12 and then open yourself up.
    0:16:13 But everything really begins with reading.
    0:16:15 Yeah, so that would be it.
    0:16:16 That’s what you have to do.
    0:16:18 Well, done.
    0:16:23 I’ll do that before dinner.
    0:16:28 Let me ask you about another practice, which you’ve alluded to already, which is love.
    0:16:31 And I used the word “practice” deliberately.
    0:16:35 You write something very interesting in the book about love, and now I’ll quote you.
    0:16:39 You say, “To love is to negate.
    0:16:43 Love is a process of stripping away, cutting away, tearing away that opens us up to what
    0:16:47 exceeds the self.”
    0:16:50 How do you think about this relationship between mysticism and love?
    0:16:57 Is the experience of true love, the act of true love itself, a kind of mystical practice?
    0:16:58 Yes.
    0:16:59 Yes.
    0:17:00 In what way?
    0:17:06 Well, it would be love, love of something which is not you, love of something which is
    0:17:07 outside you.
    0:17:16 So to give oneself over to someone, to something else completely, to another way of thinking
    0:17:23 about it, is to give what you do not have and to receive that over which you have no
    0:17:25 power.
    0:17:29 To give what you do not have and to receive that over which you have no power.
    0:17:32 So I cannot give love.
    0:17:41 I can say I love you, but love has the strange quality of I have to pledge myself in love.
    0:17:46 But for someone else to experience that love, or for me to get close to that love, it’s
    0:17:51 not something that I have in my, a quantity of it in my mind, I have to give what I do
    0:17:52 not have.
    0:18:00 And then if I’m fortunate, I can receive love as a form of grace, which is something over
    0:18:01 which I have no power.
    0:18:07 I can be in love, I can receive love, I can get love back, but it’s not in my control.
    0:18:15 So love, you know, really the practice of love turns on a relunciation of control.
    0:18:16 That’s really key.
    0:18:17 Yeah.
    0:18:24 I, you know, you mentioned the French philosopher Simone Weil earlier.
    0:18:30 We did an episode about her a couple of years ago and I think she’s one of the great moral
    0:18:35 geniuses of the 20th century and she was also a Christian mystic and her ideas are all over
    0:18:42 this book and her idea of decreation, which you mentioned earlier, I mean, that emptying
    0:18:46 ourselves of ourselves or pushing ourselves out of the picture, I mean, she, for her that
    0:18:54 was a really a precondition of loving another person or truly paying attention to another
    0:18:57 person, which is really love in a way.
    0:19:00 And that is, of course, easier said than done.
    0:19:06 I’m not sure how many of us can really do it, but that doesn’t mean she’s wrong.
    0:19:10 No, it doesn’t mean she’s right and it’s about and it’s about waiting for Simone Weil.
    0:19:14 It’s about, you can cultivate this practice of love and then you just have to wait, perhaps
    0:19:20 there’ll be grace, perhaps there, you can’t predict it, you can’t, you can’t force it.
    0:19:27 You can, but you can undo the creature Lee or what I like to say, the critchley in the
    0:19:33 sense that, you know, whatever this thing is, this, this lump of flesh that I am and its
    0:19:42 preoccupations and its doubts and its stuff, that has to be stripped away and and and and
    0:19:51 opened as much as possible in order to, yeah, in order to, in order to love and and then
    0:19:53 to and then to wait.
    0:20:01 And I think it’s the hardest thing to do is the hardest thing to ask of anybody.
    0:20:07 And then the, and then the problem, then the paradox is not the parody, maybe it’s a paradox
    0:20:13 is that the last person that Simone Weil was interested in was Simone Weil, she had no interest
    0:20:23 in herself, you know, a totally selfless person, a hero, a heroine, but of course we get interested
    0:20:28 in Simone Weil and there were operas written about Simone Weil movies, whatever it might
    0:20:29 be.
    0:20:36 So the paradox is that in pushing yourself out of the way, like Simone Weil, like Marguerite
    0:20:39 Porrette, these characters, you, you push yourself forward.
    0:20:44 So we become unduly obsessed with the, the character of the mystic.
    0:20:49 And that is also a way of, it can draw people in, but it’s also a way of missing the point.
    0:20:57 You know, that, you know, we, we, you know, it’s an in relationship to stuff that I do.
    0:21:05 It’s the reason I, you know, nothing, there’s nothing interesting going on in, in my head.
    0:21:14 But if I can attend and, and engage in a disciplined way in reading and making notes and thinking
    0:21:21 through difficult series of texts, I can, I can find something which is not me, right,
    0:21:30 but which is, which is out there and find something perhaps in a text that shifts the, the aspect
    0:21:32 under which that thing is seen.
    0:21:40 And that’s, so in a sense, you know, writing is about writing is de-creation, writing is
    0:21:42 pushing yourself out of the way.
    0:21:48 And we have this, again, ridiculous idea that, you know, writing is some kind of expression
    0:21:54 of the self, that there’s a self kind of preexisting in there.
    0:22:00 And the self just has to write it down, you know, in the form of a memoir, you know, written
    0:22:06 by 28 year olds who’ve experienced, maybe they experienced some extreme stuff, but they
    0:22:08 usually haven’t.
    0:22:10 And for Simone Vey, it’s, it’s the opposite.
    0:22:15 It’s about, you know, getting as far away from that as possible in order to attend to
    0:22:18 something that’s outside yourself.
    0:22:27 What was really hitting home for me reading the book is that all of these mystics, and
    0:22:39 this definitely includes Simone Vey, it really points to the ultimate, how to put this, it
    0:22:47 really points to the ultimate emptiness of a cynical, endlessly questioning intelligence,
    0:22:51 which in the end just draws you deeper and deeper into yourself.
    0:22:53 And that’s a road to nowhere.
    0:22:59 It’s certainly not a road to fulfillment, and, you know, I guess to be personal, I mean,
    0:23:05 I have a mind that’s naturally cynical and questioning, and maybe that would be worth
    0:23:10 the price of admission if I was some kind of philosophical genius with an enduring contribution
    0:23:15 to make, but instead I’m probably just smart enough to think myself out of happiness.
    0:23:20 So, so that sucks, I don’t know about you.
    0:23:23 It sounds similar.
    0:23:24 But I’m trying.
    0:23:25 I’m trying.
    0:23:29 I’m no Simone Vey, but I mean, who is?
    0:23:33 The ultimate emptiness of a cynical questioning intelligence, yes.
    0:23:41 And I think that’s often what gets paraded or presented to us and applauded as, you know,
    0:23:48 being smart, and that seems to be the, you know, the, the most important, you know, criterion
    0:23:55 we can use to decide whether someone should be, should get a job or not get a job or be
    0:23:59 admitted into some institution or not, whether they’re smart.
    0:24:05 There isn’t an emptiness to it, there’s a, there’s a howling void at the core of it.
    0:24:12 And it, you know, it does require, I think, work, interesting work, requires a kind of
    0:24:19 idiocy, a kind of stupidity, which I think is important that the, I mean, the book, you
    0:24:26 know, one of the things that it does at the end is to pick up this idea from Brian Eno
    0:24:29 of Idiot Glee.
    0:24:38 And so, I’m serious about that, Idiot Glee is a kind of sheer joy at the, the mad fact
    0:24:39 of the world.
    0:24:42 And for people who don’t, Brian Eno of the very famous musician.
    0:24:48 Yeah, Brian Eno was the inventor of various new categories of music, including ambient
    0:24:58 and generative music and, and all rounds total, total genius, but the, and it’s the idea
    0:25:04 there is that we have to, you know, can we just, can we just be kind of happy idiots
    0:25:09 in a way and, and not have to be imprisoned in our smartness?
    0:25:12 This takes us back to, to Hamlet, Hamlet is smart.
    0:25:17 Hamlet is the ultimate expression of a cynical questioning intelligence.
    0:25:23 And it’s, it’s, it’s fun to watch, you know, it’s, it’s extraordinary to watch it’s, it’s,
    0:25:27 it’s held to be and held to be around.
    0:25:33 And, and the idea that we should valorize that above other forms of being human seems
    0:25:36 to me extremely, extremely strange.
    0:25:43 So yeah, one or two cheers, or maybe three cheers for idiot Glee.
    0:25:50 And, and you’re looking, I think I see that in, in, in, in the philosophy world, such
    0:25:55 as it is, there’s a tremendous value placed on smartness.
    0:26:00 And it’s impressive when someone’s really, really clever.
    0:26:05 Is that going to lead to work, to actually interesting work, occasionally, but usually
    0:26:14 not for work, you need a kind of plodding, plodding methodical discipline that you’re
    0:26:20 going to carry on for a number of years, and then maybe you’ll be able to write a book.
    0:26:23 So in a sense, I question the value of smartness.
    0:26:26 We tend to conflate intelligence and wisdom, don’t we?
    0:26:27 We do.
    0:26:28 Yeah.
    0:26:30 And wisdom is a different thing entirely.
    0:26:36 And we confuse, we do confuse intelligence with wisdom, and, and then we, we confuse
    0:26:40 artificial intelligence with wisdom, even more so.
    0:26:58 And that’s, that’s, that’s even worse.
    0:27:01 Work for the Gray Area comes from GiveWell.
    0:27:06 There are over one and a half million nonprofit organizations in the U.S. and millions more
    0:27:07 around the world.
    0:27:11 So how do you know which ones can make the biggest impact with your donation?
    0:27:15 Well, GiveWell was founded to help people figure that out.
    0:27:20 They pour over independent studies and charity data to help donors direct their funds to
    0:27:24 evidence-backed organizations that are saving and improving lives.
    0:27:27 This really is a terrific organization.
    0:27:33 According to their data, over 100,000 donors have used GiveWell to donate more than $2 billion.
    0:27:37 You can find all of their research and recommendations on their site for free.
    0:27:42 You can also make tax-deductible donations to their recommended funds or charities,
    0:27:45 and GiveWell says they don’t take a cut.
    0:27:49 If you’ve never used GiveWell to donate, you can have your donation match up to $100
    0:27:54 before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last.
    0:27:59 To claim your match, go to GiveWell.org, pick Podcast, and enter the Gray Area with Sean
    0:28:01 Elling at checkout.
    0:28:05 Make sure they know that you heard about GiveWell from the Gray Area to get your donation matched.
    0:28:13 Again, that’s GiveWell.org to donate or find out more.
    0:28:16 Support for the Gray Area comes from Found.
    0:28:20 When you’re a small business owner, time is money, and that means you can’t afford
    0:28:24 to spend your time toggling between five different apps.
    0:28:28 One for your business bank account, one for your expense tracking, invoicing, contractor
    0:28:31 payments, tax planning, you get the idea.
    0:28:33 Well, Found wants to help.
    0:28:37 Found is business banking designed for small business owners just like you.
    0:28:42 Found lets you manage your financial tasks effortlessly, all in one easy-to-use app.
    0:28:46 The platform can help you manage your money, track your spending, invoice your clients,
    0:28:49 and even handle your taxes, so you can focus on running your business.
    0:28:55 Found says that their simplified tax tools estimate your tax bill for you in real time,
    0:28:58 auto-saving what you owe to make tax time seamless.
    0:29:01 You can try Found for free at found.com/grayarea.
    0:29:08 Again, you can sign up for Found for free today at found.com/grayarea.
    0:29:11 Found is a financial technology company, not a bank.
    0:29:15 Banking services are provided by Pyrmont Bank, member FDIC.
    0:29:16 Found’s core features are free.
    0:29:23 They also offer an optional paid product, Found Plus.
    0:29:26 Support for the gray area comes from DeleteMe.
    0:29:30 We do it every day, but entering your data over and over again on the Internet can have
    0:29:32 unintended consequences.
    0:29:37 Data brokers profit by selling your personal information, turning your data into a commodity.
    0:29:41 It’s possible your private details can be purchased by anyone online, increasing the
    0:29:44 risk of identity theft, phishing, harassment, and spam calls.
    0:29:48 Now, however, you can take control of your privacy with DeleteMe.
    0:29:52 DeleteMe is here to constantly monitor and remove the personal information you don’t
    0:29:54 want on the Internet.
    0:29:57 Claire White, our colleague here at Vox, tried DeleteMe for herself.
    0:30:03 DeleteMe made it super easy for my information to be removed from unwanted sites on the Internet.
    0:30:05 I did not have to lift a finger.
    0:30:06 They did it for me.
    0:30:11 I did not have to do anything in terms of removing this unwanted data.
    0:30:12 It was shocking.
    0:30:16 I did not realize that all of my information was just out there available.
    0:30:20 You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for
    0:30:23 DeleteMe, now at a special discount for our listeners.
    0:30:29 Today you can get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/vox and use
    0:30:31 promo code VOX at checkout.
    0:30:38 You can get 20% off by going to joindeleteme.com/vox and enter code VOX at checkout.
    0:30:52 Please joindeleteme.com/vox/codeVOX.
    0:30:59 I did want to ask if you think much about the relationship between psychedelics and
    0:31:00 mystical experiences.
    0:31:07 I mean, I don’t want to say flippantly that there’s a shortcut to a mystical experience,
    0:31:10 but if there is a shortcut, it’s a giant bag of mushrooms.
    0:31:11 Right.
    0:31:15 Do you think much about this?
    0:31:24 I think that I’m really bad with hallucinogenics.
    0:31:34 I was a dirty old punk in England in the 1970s and our whole culture was based on a refusal
    0:31:43 of hallucination and LSD taken by those dozy, lazy hippies that chased us down the street
    0:31:46 for wearing straight trousers and things like that.
    0:31:49 So I’ve got deep memories of that.
    0:31:57 And if there was a drug that really got me going and drug of the subculture that I was
    0:32:05 part of, it was amphetamines and amphetamines are also terrible, but it can be great to
    0:32:07 listen to music on.
    0:32:11 I think that there’s … I mean, there are people that I trust that is a friend of mine
    0:32:16 called Justin Smith who wrote a piece for … I think for Wired called “This is a Philosopher
    0:32:17 on Drugs.”
    0:32:18 He was on the show.
    0:32:19 We talked about that.
    0:32:20 Okay.
    0:32:26 And Justin is a proper philosopher and I found that piece very interesting and I don’t dismiss
    0:32:29 it at all.
    0:32:37 I think the kind of relaxation that he experienced in relationship to microdosing is very interesting
    0:32:40 and I totally get that.
    0:32:49 I think the mystics that we have that I talk about were disinhibited and it would be good
    0:32:51 for us to be disinhibited too.
    0:32:53 Did drugs play a role in that?
    0:32:54 Could they?
    0:32:55 Yes.
    0:33:03 Personally, I’m more of a … I’m still more of a gin martini kind of person really.
    0:33:09 I’m looking forward to tomorrow night and I’m going to go for drinks with a couple of
    0:33:14 friends and my wife and we’re going to drink excellent martinis and I find that kind of
    0:33:22 relaxation into a space with others, with the medium of alcohol in that case.
    0:33:23 Yeah.
    0:33:24 What is it?
    0:33:25 What is it in James C?
    0:33:30 Alcohol is the ultimate exciter of the yes function in man, a bit like that.
    0:33:32 I’ll take that for the time being.
    0:33:38 But I think it … Justin also says that he stopped drinking so maybe he’s right.
    0:33:43 I don’t know if it’s the right way to put this but do you think cheating may be the
    0:33:50 wrong word but do you think it may diminish the meaning and the quality of the mystical
    0:33:55 experience if it is fueled or accelerated or sparked by drugs?
    0:33:56 Yeah.
    0:33:57 Yeah.
    0:33:58 I think it doesn’t need it.
    0:33:59 It can be there.
    0:34:00 Yeah.
    0:34:02 One thing that I was interested in, I still am.
    0:34:07 I might write something about this, is the mysteries of elapsis, the mysteries of elapsina
    0:34:11 that were carried on for about a thousand years outside the city of Athens.
    0:34:18 These were people that were on a kind of collective eight-day series of processions, devotional
    0:34:25 activities which culminated in a procession along the sacred way as it was called from
    0:34:35 the center of Athens to the ritual site in elapsina, elapsis, and they fasted for a good
    0:34:37 long period of time.
    0:34:38 They got to the place.
    0:34:44 There was dancing and then they drank a drink called cuchillon and there’s been much speculation
    0:34:51 about what was in this drink, were there psychoactive substances in this, were these people tripping
    0:34:54 when they were in the mysteries.
    0:35:01 The woman that used to run the site, if she’s still there, insisted to me, this was just
    0:35:03 barley and water.
    0:35:08 Barley and water and these people were hungry and they wanted a good time.
    0:35:09 There was no–
    0:35:10 Nah.
    0:35:11 They’re not buying it.
    0:35:19 So, I think in that context and also collectively, you’re part of a group, in that case it would
    0:35:25 have been several thousand people that would have experienced that together in an extreme
    0:35:30 state then, yeah, I can understand that.
    0:35:35 The ceremonial aspect of that and the intentionality behind it makes a big difference.
    0:35:47 There’s a huge, huge difference between dropping acid and going to a creed show and engaging
    0:35:51 with psychedelics in a ceremonial setting in that way.
    0:35:53 Those are just fundamentally different enterprises.
    0:35:54 Yeah.
    0:36:00 And the ceremonial is very important to the mystical traditions that I deal with.
    0:36:01 It really is.
    0:36:02 This is not something you can just–
    0:36:03 Yeah.
    0:36:11 There’s a lot wrapped up in a lot of– and it helps if you have a ceremonial framework.
    0:36:17 The other experiences I’ve had, which I don’t write about in the book, which have been important
    0:36:25 in not directly, but indirectly, was I spent a couple of days on Mount Athos, the Holy
    0:36:35 Mountain in northern Greece and was there and there’s very little food and both times
    0:36:44 was during Lent and basically what you’re doing is you’re in church for 12, 16 hours
    0:36:52 a day and there is singing and you’re very hungry and you’re deprived of sleep and then
    0:36:57 you get a couple of hours’ sleep and then the bell goes at 4 a.m. and you go back in
    0:37:03 and the people are back at it and the whole thing is framed ceremonially.
    0:37:07 People are putting on costumes, taking off costumes, candles are being lit, they’re
    0:37:16 being extinguished, they’re being moved around and after a few days of that, you begin to
    0:37:25 understand, well, maybe this is what was going on in those Neolithic caves when oil flames
    0:37:30 were being used to light up pictures of bison and horses or whatever.
    0:37:36 If you can get into that ceremonial state of mind, devotional state of mind, then something
    0:37:37 can open up.
    0:37:47 You say that mysticism mostly lives on in the modern world as an aesthetic experience.
    0:37:49 What does that mean?
    0:37:55 So if you’d like to put it into shorthand, it would be that the mystic becomes the romantic
    0:38:05 poet so that the mystical vision becomes what we expect awards with or I’m sitting here
    0:38:11 in the Vox studio is very close to New York Harbour and I think about the beginning of
    0:38:17 Melville’s Moby Dick where we get this amazing kind of reverse camera perspective of New
    0:38:26 York Harbour seen somehow from the air at Battery Park and Corley’s Hook and the Melville,
    0:38:31 the Emerson, the Whitman gives us the view of the whole.
    0:38:32 The mystic becomes the poet.
    0:38:34 Does that sense?
    0:38:40 And that’s both good news in the sense in which the kind of experience that we associate
    0:38:47 with mysticism does survive in things like poetry and music but it loses all of its institutional
    0:38:48 framing.
    0:38:52 It loses its church.
    0:38:59 It just becomes some guy writing poems in a room.
    0:39:09 But I think that for me the aesthetic experience that most captures mysticism for me is the
    0:39:18 experience of music and also a lot of things that we were talking about, you know, a quietening
    0:39:27 of the mind, a sense of leaving oneself behind, of giving up that cynical questioning intelligence,
    0:39:32 all of those things for me can be had very directly in the experience of listening to
    0:39:33 the music that I love.
    0:39:34 Well, what’s going on there?
    0:39:37 I mean, it may be my favourite line in the book where you say it’s impossible to be
    0:39:41 an atheist while listening to the music that you love.
    0:39:42 Yes.
    0:39:46 I’m not exactly sure what you mean but also I know exactly what you mean.
    0:39:47 Right.
    0:39:51 And anyone who loves music will know what you mean too.
    0:39:52 Yeah.
    0:39:53 That’s it.
    0:39:54 I mean, you know exactly what I mean.
    0:39:56 And I’m not being prescriptive.
    0:40:02 So at that point just insert, you know, whatever it is that floats your boat, insert at that
    0:40:03 point.
    0:40:04 But what’s going on there?
    0:40:16 I think it’s an incredible opening of the mind.
    0:40:23 And it’s hard to describe.
    0:40:30 For me, you know, the world opened up through music, through pop music.
    0:40:39 And it gave me a vocabulary, it gave me a way of not being me but of looking at something
    0:40:43 else and just these experiences that I had around music.
    0:40:51 So I try to talk about some of those in relationship to early seventies, Kraut Rock and some punk
    0:40:58 stuff and odds and ends and end up with Nick Cave and people like that.
    0:41:03 And there is an experience of the sacral in music.
    0:41:06 There just is.
    0:41:07 And you can.
    0:41:15 And it’s why we, I think we judge, we judge people with bad musical tastes so harshly.
    0:41:17 It’s why it’s really unforgivable, you know.
    0:41:18 Okay.
    0:41:19 So you voted for Trump.
    0:41:20 Okay.
    0:41:21 Fair enough.
    0:41:22 I’ll try and understand you.
    0:41:27 But you like this album, that’s unforgivable.
    0:41:29 You just got terrible taste.
    0:41:38 You know, we do and if someone doesn’t appreciate something that I really love musically, then
    0:41:39 I judge them.
    0:41:41 I think, you know, okay, you don’t get that.
    0:41:45 Well, good luck with the rest of your life.
    0:41:47 So, but how does it do it?
    0:41:48 How does music do that?
    0:41:54 Well, you could say it, you know, Schopenhauer thought it was the, it kind of resonated
    0:41:58 with the will, the kind of the unconscious will, there was a kind of an attunement between
    0:42:01 us and the world through music.
    0:42:08 Nietzsche had similar sorts of ideas that music is the, is the highest art form because
    0:42:13 it’s the, you know, it sort of resonates with the deepest level of us.
    0:42:14 I think something like that is true.
    0:42:16 I’m not, I’m not a problem.
    0:42:18 It’s, it’s primordial.
    0:42:19 It’s before language.
    0:42:26 It’s, you know, again, it’s like, hey, man, if you’ve been to a tool show and you were
    0:42:31 in the crowd when, you know, he goes on one of those 10 minute drum solos and that the
    0:42:38 whole place is out of its body, sort of melding together in this weird Turkimian collective
    0:42:43 evervescence or whatever, or Dionysian ecstasy or whatever it is.
    0:42:50 I mean, everyone has been in a room like that and you’re just, you almost disassociate.
    0:42:55 And even if you’ve never been to a church proper, if you’ve ever been in a show like
    0:42:56 that, you’ve been to church.
    0:42:57 It’s church.
    0:42:58 Yeah.
    0:42:59 It’s church.
    0:43:00 Yeah.
    0:43:01 Yeah.
    0:43:06 One thing I learned very early in the, the United States was that my PhD advisor wound
    0:43:08 up in Memphis.
    0:43:12 And so the first time, the first place I went to in the United States was, was Memphis.
    0:43:19 And the first thing I did when I got to Memphis was I went to church because my advisor Robert
    0:43:25 had, when I knew him, this was, I didn’t see, didn’t see each other for like three years
    0:43:29 because he couldn’t leave and I wasn’t going, anyway, so long story.
    0:43:35 He’d shifted from being a Catholic to joining a black Baptist congregation in Memphis.
    0:43:43 So I went to church with him and I remember that it was a band on stage.
    0:43:51 There was a very long sermon and then things erupted and church was wild and unhinged.
    0:43:58 And then I went to some clubs in Memphis with Robert, both the, the more touristy things
    0:44:02 on Beale Street, but then there were places at that point in Midtown, which were much
    0:44:04 more well behaved.
    0:44:09 People were being very shown great decorum in clubs, but in church, it was something
    0:44:10 else.
    0:44:13 Then I learned that, you know, church is something that you can have.
    0:44:14 Yeah.
    0:44:16 Did we have church today or not?
    0:44:20 So church isn’t, church doesn’t require a physical location of an actual church.
    0:44:26 It can be something you have and I think you can have it in relationship to music.
    0:44:28 And I wish I just did more of that.
    0:44:31 I wish I listened to more live music.
    0:44:38 I tend to be, I tend to do a lot of this, you know, at home with my wife and we listen
    0:44:45 all with friends, but, and I listen a lot and it means so much to me, but I’ve always,
    0:44:52 I’ve always preferred, I mean, what you say about the, the Durkheimian, you know, religious
    0:44:56 experience of, of a collective, uh, there is that and that’s very important.
    0:45:01 But for me, there is a almost, um, there’s an intimacy to musical experience, which
    0:45:03 is also very important.
    0:45:08 Listening to it alone, listening to it with one person and then, um, and just sort of
    0:45:28 releasing yourself into it.
    0:45:29 Hey there.
    0:45:35 I’m Ashley C. Ford and I host “Into the Mix,” a Ben and Jerry’s podcast about joy and
    0:45:38 justice produced with Vox Creative.
    0:45:42 I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen a lot of headlines about how Florida Governor
    0:45:50 Ron DeSantis wants to end what he calls woke indoctrination, like in 2021, when Florida
    0:45:56 passed the so-called Stop Woke Act that would limit how schools and businesses could talk
    0:45:58 about race and sexual identity.
    0:46:05 What we wanted to ask, how does it affect the actual people and business owners in Florida?
    0:46:09 To find out, I talked to a man named Antonio McBroom.
    0:46:14 Antonio is a black business owner who says he found purpose in uplifting marginalized
    0:46:15 people.
    0:46:21 He even started his own company with a mission to help people like him navigate bias in the
    0:46:22 workplace.
    0:46:29 If we literally cannot address the real challenges of our marketplace, the real challenges historically
    0:46:34 that have led to this, if we can’t be attentive and talk about that in the workplace, it’s
    0:46:36 a threat to our democracy.
    0:46:43 Hear the story of how he and other business owners put the Stop Woke Act in legal limbo.
    0:46:49 Subscribe to “Into the Mix,” a Ben and Jerry’s podcast.
    0:46:55 Support for the gray area comes from Wondery and their podcast, Redacted Declassified Mysteries.
    0:47:00 Did you know that after World War II, the U.S. government secretly brought former Nazi
    0:47:05 scientists to America in a covert operation to advance military technology?
    0:47:10 Or that in the 1950s, the U.S. Army conducted a secret experiment by releasing bacteria
    0:47:17 over San Francisco to test how a biological attack might spread without alerting the public?
    0:47:21 These might sound like conspiracy theories, but they’re actually well-documented government
    0:47:25 actions that were hidden away in classified files for decades.
    0:47:31 Each week on the new podcast, Redacted Declassified Mysteries hosts Luc Lamana Uncovered True Stories
    0:47:36 that might shock you, stories of covert experiments and secret operations that have had lasting
    0:47:38 impacts on our world.
    0:47:41 The stories are real, the secrets are shocking.
    0:47:46 You can follow Redacted Declassified Mysteries with Luc Lamana on the Wondery app or wherever
    0:47:47 you get your podcasts.
    0:47:52 For ad-free access, you can join Wondery Plus and the Wondery app or Apple Podcast.
    0:47:57 You can start your free trial today.
    0:48:00 Support for the gray area comes from Bombas.
    0:48:01 Consider the sock.
    0:48:04 Sometimes we overlook this vital piece of clothing.
    0:48:08 They can keep you warm, they can keep you cool, and they can make or break an outfit.
    0:48:11 This winter, don’t overlook your socks.
    0:48:15 Bombas has leveled up their cozy game, making them the perfect holiday gift.
    0:48:17 I’ve tried Bombas myself.
    0:48:23 At this point, I’m maybe two or three pairs away from wearing nothing but Bombas socks.
    0:48:24 Sock nirvana, basically.
    0:48:30 My newest ones are the winter wool socks, which I’m literally wearing as I record this ad
    0:48:32 because it’s cold and they’re cozy as hell.
    0:48:37 And no matter what you get from Bombas, your purchase creates a very real clothing donation
    0:48:40 for someone experiencing housing insecurity.
    0:48:43 During cold months, something like a new pair of socks can make a big impact.
    0:48:49 And thanks to Bombas Loyalists all over the world, they’ve donated 140 million essential
    0:48:50 clothing items.
    0:48:52 Ready to get comfy and give back?
    0:48:58 Head over to bombas.com/grayarea and use code “grayarea” for 20% off your first purchase.
    0:49:03 That’s B-O-M-B-A-S.com/grayarea and use code “grayarea” at checkout.
    0:49:30 Just more practically, other than listening to music, just in the day-to-day crucible
    0:49:32 of everyday life.
    0:49:42 What other access points are there to this continuum of experience, to the mystical experience?
    0:49:50 We did a class about a few years ago, five years ago now, called Human Observation.
    0:49:51 Human Observation.
    0:49:53 And the aim of the class was very simple.
    0:50:01 We got students to work in groups of two, three, and to find a phenomenon and to observe
    0:50:06 it methodically over a period of time.
    0:50:07 And that’s what they did.
    0:50:14 And then to write a report that could be read by somebody’s grandmother in very simple
    0:50:17 language describing what they’d found.
    0:50:23 So I think observation is a way of attending, actually just basic observation and doing
    0:50:31 that with understanding and with empathy and not with contempt and judgment.
    0:50:37 And that could be watching people move in the street or it could be watching what happens
    0:50:45 when people have a drink or have coffee or it could be one of the groups was concerned
    0:50:49 with the issue of what happens to corpses in New York.
    0:50:55 And that was the first time I became aware of Heart Island, which has come into the
    0:50:59 news in the last few years where it’s called the Potter’s Field of New York.
    0:51:03 It’s where the unclaimed corpses go.
    0:51:07 So observation I think is really, really important and it’s very hard to do.
    0:51:09 I find that very hard to do.
    0:51:10 Yeah.
    0:51:16 Or look, it could be what people like to call the flow state.
    0:51:19 Maybe it’s rock climbing or surfing or something.
    0:51:24 Anything that collapses, that mind-body distinction can get you out of your head and just drops
    0:51:29 you into your body where you were just immediately present.
    0:51:35 Nothing else exists in the world except what is right in front of you.
    0:51:40 That kind of state seems to be something like mysticism or mystical.
    0:51:41 Yeah.
    0:51:42 I agree, Sean.
    0:51:46 The other thing I’d mentioned just come to my mind is that for me, I mean, I’m all my
    0:51:51 family are from Liverpool, I’m a supporter of Liverpool Football Club and that’s my
    0:51:54 primary religious identification.
    0:52:01 And when I’m watching games, which is very rarely live these days, but it’s on TV or
    0:52:08 at least with friends here in New York, that is now a body experience.
    0:52:14 That sense of being, submitting to the flow of the game, submitting to the meditative
    0:52:20 flow of the game and allowing your emotions to go where they want to go, that’s kind
    0:52:22 of strange and beautiful.
    0:52:27 So sports have a claim as well, at least for someone like me.
    0:52:28 Yeah.
    0:52:35 Or watching a concert pianist or a guitarist just leave their bodies, it feels like, and
    0:52:39 just go into an almost, where they become like almost like a conduit, where whatever
    0:52:42 it is they’re channeling, it’s just kind of flowing through them.
    0:52:43 They’re not thinking at all.
    0:52:44 They’re just doing.
    0:52:48 Do you feel like that doing this?
    0:52:50 These kind of conversations or the show?
    0:52:51 Yeah.
    0:52:52 No.
    0:53:01 I mean, I mean, there are conversations like this one that I connect with more personally
    0:53:10 and really enjoy, but I don’t, and I do is I try as hard as I can to really listen, but
    0:53:12 there’s too much other shit going on.
    0:53:15 You know, I still, there’s still, there’s still a voice in my head.
    0:53:17 I’m still thinking about what you’re saying.
    0:53:22 I’m thinking about what do I want to ask next or can I get to all the things I really
    0:53:26 wanted to get to and what’s going to go and what can I keep, you know, that kind of stuff
    0:53:33 is still going on and that does get in the way of being fully immersed.
    0:53:37 But some conversations are closer to that than others.
    0:53:42 I don’t know that I can say it’s ever fully quite like that.
    0:53:49 When I’m speaking in occasions like this or, you know, doing an event, I have no recollection
    0:53:57 of what I say in a sense it’s strangely disinhibiting.
    0:54:04 So I think for me, talk is a way of, it can be a flow state too if you let it happen.
    0:54:06 And that’s also hard to do.
    0:54:12 It means lessing the self-censorship down a little bit, which is, which is quite tricky.
    0:54:15 I think it’s easier to do in person too.
    0:54:16 Oh yeah.
    0:54:18 Yeah, it’s much easier to do in person.
    0:54:20 And yeah, what did we talk about?
    0:54:22 We talked about all sorts of things.
    0:54:23 We talked about all the things.
    0:54:25 We talked about all the things.
    0:54:26 Are you right?
    0:54:29 We have gone on for quite a bit here.
    0:54:30 Let me just ask.
    0:54:31 Yeah, sure.
    0:54:37 When I’m reading your book, of course, if anyone listening is interested in engaging
    0:54:44 with some of the primary texts, mystical texts, where would you recommend they start?
    0:54:45 What books?
    0:54:46 What thinkers?
    0:54:47 What writers?
    0:54:48 All right.
    0:54:49 Very simple.
    0:54:55 Get a hold of a copy of Bernard McGinn’s The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism,
    0:55:01 published by the Modern Library in, let’s say, 2006, Essential Writings of Christian
    0:55:02 Mysticism.
    0:55:10 And that’s a brilliant book because McGinn is a proper University of Chicago theologian,
    0:55:19 and he’s written this huge history of Christian mysticism in chronologically, but the essential
    0:55:22 writings is it’s synchronic.
    0:55:28 It’s a series of kind of samples, little excerpts from texts, so you’ll find Maestro
    0:55:35 Eckhart along with Thomas Merton or Marguerite Perrette alongside Madame Guillaume, or wherever
    0:55:36 it might be.
    0:55:44 And it’s a wonderful book to use and peruse and to flick back and forth with.
    0:55:52 And it gives you a sense of also how the mystical tradition circulated.
    0:56:00 It wasn’t a tradition of the book and of the great book that had to be read from the beginning
    0:56:01 to the end.
    0:56:11 This was a tradition of fragments, of sermons, of reflections that were copied and recopied
    0:56:12 and passed on.
    0:56:20 So I think McGinn gives you a kind of flavor of how mysticism functions in a very powerful
    0:56:21 way.
    0:56:24 Well, I think we’ve covered a lot of ground.
    0:56:28 And I’ll just reiterate what I said at the beginning.
    0:56:35 Maybe what I love most about this book is how affirming and curious it is, which is too
    0:56:38 rare in serious philosophy.
    0:56:41 So I’m a fan.
    0:56:42 Thank you very much, Sean.
    0:56:44 I appreciate that very much.
    0:56:48 Once again, the book is called Mysticism, Simon Critchley.
    0:56:49 This was wonderful.
    0:56:50 Thank you.
    0:56:56 Thank you very much.
    0:56:58 All right, I hope you enjoyed this episode.
    0:57:02 You could probably hear my enthusiasm in this one.
    0:57:07 I was drawn to this book from the beginning because I’m sincerely interested in what these
    0:57:13 deep traditions of thought can offer us today, whether we’re religious or secular or something
    0:57:17 in between.
    0:57:22 I’ll be thinking about this conversation for a while and hopefully I’ll actually take
    0:57:27 some of the advice on offer here and get out of my head a little bit more.
    0:57:31 And maybe you will too, which would be awesome.
    0:57:34 But as always, we do want to know what you think.
    0:57:39 So drop us a line at TheGrayAreaAtBox.com and then please rate and review the pod and
    0:57:41 subscribe if you haven’t already.
    0:57:45 That helps us reach more people.
    0:57:50 This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey and Travis Larchuck, edited by Jorge Just,
    0:57:55 engineered by Andrea Christen’s daughter, back checked by Anouk Dussot, and Alex Overington
    0:57:57 wrote our theme music.
    0:58:03 New episodes of The Gray Area drop on Mondays, listen and subscribe.
    0:58:05 This show is part of VOX.
    0:58:08 Support VOX’s journalism by joining our membership program today.
    0:58:12 Go to vox.com/members to sign up.
    0:58:15 And if you decide to sign up because of this show, let us know.
    0:58:25 [MUSIC]
    0:58:40 Support for this episode comes from AWS.
    0:58:45 AWS Generative AI gives you the tools to power your business forward with the security and
    0:58:50 speed of the world’s most experienced cloud.
    0:58:53 Your own weight loss journey is personal.
    0:58:57 Everyone’s diet is different, everyone’s bodies are different, and according to Noom,
    0:59:00 there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
    0:59:05 Noom wants to help you stay focused on what’s important to you, with their psychology and
    0:59:07 biology-based approach.
    0:59:11 This program helps you understand the science behind your eating choices, and helps you
    0:59:14 build new habits for a healthier lifestyle.
    0:59:20 Stay focused on what’s important to you, with Noom’s psychology and biology-based approach.
    0:59:23 Sign up for your free trial today at Noom.com.
    0:59:26 [MUSIC PLAYING]

    The sheer feeling of aliveness. We all know what that is, even though it comes in many different forms. Maybe it’s going for a long run at night. Or free-climbing a mountain. Or an intense meditation practice. Or that sensation you get when you’re on the floor at a great concert. Call it a flow state or a religious experience or whatever you want, but it’s a kind of ecstasy.

    People have been experiencing this for centuries, and in previous eras, they called it a mystical experience. In the modern world a word like “mystical” feels weird or out of place. Maybe when you hear it, you think of a fringe religious figure. Or a spiritual teacher. Or crystal-peddling influencers on Instagram. But the study of mysticism — that feeling of intense experience — has been the focus of philosophers and theologians for centuries. So what can we learn from the tradition of mystical thought? Might it help us live better and more meaningful lives in the 21st century?

    Today’s guest is Simon Critchley. He’s a writer and a philosopher at the New School in New York and the author of a new book called Mysticism. In this conversation, he tells host Sean Illing how we can all get outside our own heads and enjoy what it feels like to be alive.

    Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling)

    Guest: Simon Critchley, philosopher and author of the book Mysticism

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • The antidote to climate anxiety

    AI transcript
    0:00:04 Support for this show comes from Constant Contact.
    0:00:07 If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you,
    0:00:10 Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention.
    0:00:15 Constant Contact’s award-winning marketing platform offers all the automation,
    0:00:20 integration, and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly,
    0:00:23 all backed by their expert live customer support.
    0:00:27 It’s time to get going and growing with Constant Contact today.
    0:00:30 Ready? Set. Grow.
    0:00:34 Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today.
    0:00:38 Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial.
    0:00:41 ConstantContact.ca.
    0:00:46 Support for this episode comes from AWS.
    0:00:51 AWS Generative AI gives you the tools to power your business forward
    0:00:55 with the security and speed of the world’s most experienced cloud.
    0:00:59 Hi, I’m Brian Walsh. I run the Future Perfect section at Vox.
    0:01:02 The Future Perfect team tackles the big stuff.
    0:01:06 We report on the world’s most important and underappreciated problems,
    0:01:08 the focus on how we can solve them.
    0:01:12 Last week, we released our third annual Future Perfect 50 list,
    0:01:17 a roundup of 50 of the most important and influential people in our world.
    0:01:21 These are the men and women who are working to make the future a better place for everyone.
    0:01:25 People who are taking grand, visionary, sometimes weird ideas,
    0:01:29 ideas that might seem utopian, but are actually achievable,
    0:01:31 and putting them into practice.
    0:01:34 That desire to not shy away from the big questions
    0:01:37 is what makes the gray area and Future Perfect best buds.
    0:01:39 Turns out that one of the first people we added to the list
    0:01:42 was also one of Sean’s favorite interviews from this year,
    0:01:45 marine biologist Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson.
    0:01:48 Author of the new book, “What If We Got It Right?”
    0:01:51 Vision is the most important thing in the world.
    0:01:53 Visions of Climate Futures.
    0:01:57 Dr. Johnson brings a unique perspective of informed optimism to climate change,
    0:02:03 a subject too often split between unwarranted demerism and empty-headed denialism.
    0:02:06 In the run-up to the November 5 presidential election,
    0:02:11 Dr. Johnson warned that all the optimistic progress and climate policy of the past few years
    0:02:15 was at risk should Donald Trump return to the White House.
    0:02:18 Which is exactly where we find ourselves now.
    0:02:22 But that reality only makes Dr. Johnson’s message all the more vital.
    0:02:27 How we can adjust our systems, our ways of life, to deal with the change in climate,
    0:02:29 that’s maybe the biggest problem we have right now.
    0:02:34 And Dr. Johnson is focused on solutions, even now.
    0:02:36 Here’s Sean’s interview with Dr. Johnson.
    0:02:36 I hope you enjoy it.
    0:02:38 And when you’re done listening,
    0:02:41 come check out the 49 other visionaries in our list this year
    0:02:46 at vox.com/future-perfect-50.
    0:02:52 [Music]
    0:02:57 If I asked you to tell me the one issue that makes you feel the most pessimistic,
    0:02:58 what would it be?
    0:03:02 [Music]
    0:03:05 I feel pretty confident saying that the most popular response,
    0:03:08 certainly one of the most popular responses,
    0:03:09 would be climate change.
    0:03:12 [Music]
    0:03:16 But is climate despair really as tempting and reasonable as it seems?
    0:03:17 [Music]
    0:03:20 The problem isn’t imaginary.
    0:03:23 Climate change is real and terrifying.
    0:03:27 But even if it’s as bad as the worst predictions suggest,
    0:03:32 do we gain anything by resigning ourselves to that fate?
    0:03:38 What effect might our despair have on our ability to act in the present?
    0:03:40 More to the point,
    0:03:47 is our fatalism undercutting our capacity to tackle this problem?
    0:03:49 I’m Sean Elling, and this is the Gray Area.
    0:03:59 [Music]
    0:04:03 Today’s guest is Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson.
    0:04:04 She’s a marine biologist,
    0:04:09 a co-founder of the non-profit Think Tank Urban Ocean Lab,
    0:04:14 and the author of a new book called “What if We Get It Right?”
    0:04:18 It’s a curated series of essays and poetry
    0:04:20 and conversations with a wide range of people
    0:04:25 who are all in their own ways trying to build a better future.
    0:04:28 It’s not a blindly optimistic book.
    0:04:32 The point is not that everything is fine.
    0:04:38 The point is that we have to act as though the future is a place we want to live in.
    0:04:44 According to Johnson, there are already many concrete climate solutions.
    0:04:48 If we were motivated by a belief in a better tomorrow, not a worse one,
    0:04:53 we would implement more of those solutions and find new ones.
    0:04:59 So if you’re someone looking for inspiration or reasons to feel hopeful,
    0:05:05 or even better, for guidance on what to do and where to start,
    0:05:09 this book and this conversation with Ayanna is for you.
    0:05:17 Dr. Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson, welcome to the show.
    0:05:19 Thank you. It’s great to be here.
    0:05:22 You’re actually a marine biologist,
    0:05:25 which I think is a standard top five dream job for kids.
    0:05:27 Super common dream job.
    0:05:35 Like many five to 10 year olds are very into marine biology as a life path.
    0:05:40 Was marine biology your gateway to environmentalism?
    0:05:43 Is that why you do this work?
    0:05:49 I just was a kid who loved nature, which is honestly not very unique.
    0:05:55 How many kids like bugs and fireflies and shooting stars and octopuses
    0:05:58 and autumn leaves and all the rest of it.
    0:06:00 I was just like, this all seems very cool.
    0:06:07 And that innate curiosity, that biophilia, as E.O. Wilson calls it,
    0:06:13 the magnificent entomologist, is just part of who we are as humans.
    0:06:15 It’s normal to love the world.
    0:06:18 It’s less common to make that your job.
    0:06:23 But of course, once you fall in love with nature with one ecosystem
    0:06:28 or a few specific species and you find out that they’re threatened,
    0:06:31 you’re like, wait a second, what are we doing about this?
    0:06:33 Is there a grown up who’s already on top of this?
    0:06:34 Is this not sorted?
    0:06:39 Seems like we should protect forests and coral reefs and all the rest.
    0:06:41 It’s funny, my mom was cleaning out the closet
    0:06:43 and found these old school papers.
    0:06:48 And apparently I was writing the same essays since I was like 10
    0:06:50 about nature being great and how we should protect it.
    0:06:53 So it wasn’t always going to be the ocean.
    0:06:57 I wanted to become a park ranger at one point or an environmental lawyer.
    0:06:59 But yeah, the ocean seemed like it needed more advocates
    0:07:03 at the particular moment I was thinking about graduate school.
    0:07:09 You open your book by saying that anytime you tell people
    0:07:14 that you do climate work, they invariably ask, and I’m quoting,
    0:07:16 how fucked are we?
    0:07:17 Yeah.
    0:07:21 Well, Ayanna, how fucked are we?
    0:07:25 Well, we’re pretty fucked.
    0:07:31 But there’s a lot we could do to have a better possible future.
    0:07:36 And I think it’s important to always hold both of those things together.
    0:07:38 We have already changed the climate.
    0:07:44 We are already seeing the intense heat waves and floods and droughts
    0:07:46 and wildfires and hurricanes.
    0:07:51 All of that is already supercharged by our changed climate.
    0:07:53 But there’s still so much we can do.
    0:07:56 We basically have the solutions we need.
    0:08:02 We’re just being really slow at deploying them, at implementing them, right?
    0:08:05 We already know how to transition to renewable energy
    0:08:07 and stop spewing fossil fuels.
    0:08:12 We know how to protect and restore ecosystems that are absorbing all this carbon.
    0:08:15 We know how to green buildings, insulate buildings,
    0:08:20 shift to better public transit, improve our food system.
    0:08:24 Like, the solutions are all right there.
    0:08:28 So, as you know, this book has a reality check chapter
    0:08:31 where I lay out all the bad news.
    0:08:33 But that’s like three pages.
    0:08:37 And then the rest of the book is like, OK, what are we going to do about it?
    0:08:42 There’s no point anymore in talking about how to solve the problem of climate change, right?
    0:08:43 I mean, that ship has sailed.
    0:08:45 It’s all about adaptation now.
    0:08:48 Yeah. I mean, the climate has already changed.
    0:08:53 There’s not a time machine back to before we put
    0:08:57 a completely mind-boggling amount of excess carbon into the atmosphere.
    0:09:02 Whether and how well we address the climate crisis
    0:09:08 determines the outcomes of life on Earth for all eight million species
    0:09:12 and whether hundreds of millions of people live or die
    0:09:13 and how well we all can live.
    0:09:18 So even though perfection is not an option,
    0:09:22 there’s such a wide range of possible futures
    0:09:25 and we just need to make sure we get the best possible one.
    0:09:27 Well, that seems like an important point, right?
    0:09:29 This is really about degrees of suffering
    0:09:35 and the consequences of specific choices we make or won’t make as it might be, right?
    0:09:39 The difference between temperature spikes of two and four degrees
    0:09:43 is the difference between lots of people living and dying, right?
    0:09:48 Yeah. I mean, it’s easier for me to think about it in terms of the human body
    0:09:53 running a fever because we can think of one or two degrees as not that big a deal.
    0:10:00 But the difference between you having a fever of 100 and 102 or 103 is a huge difference.
    0:10:07 And that’s the level of sensitivity to temperature that all species and ecosystems have.
    0:10:12 If we can prevent a half a degree of warming or a degree of warming,
    0:10:16 that actually makes a big difference. It’s worth the effort.
    0:10:21 People like to use different words to describe the project ahead of us.
    0:10:25 Words like sustainability or revolution.
    0:10:28 You like to use the word transformation.
    0:10:32 Why is that a better way to frame this?
    0:10:37 There’s two words that I pair together and their possibility and transformation.
    0:10:41 And I think possibilities for what we’ve just been talking about, right?
    0:10:45 This wide spectrum of possible futures.
    0:10:46 I’m not an optimist.
    0:10:50 I’m not particularly hopeful given human history.
    0:10:57 We don’t have a great track record of addressing collectively major challenges that we face.
    0:11:01 There’s some important exceptions to that, like dealing with the ozone hole
    0:11:04 through the Montreal Protocol, et cetera.
    0:11:09 But this sense of possibility really drives me because the future is not yet written.
    0:11:15 Like what if we just wrote a better one than the trajectory that we’re on?
    0:11:25 So pairing this possibility with transformation and transformation is a word
    0:11:29 I’ve gravitated towards because it indicates the scale of change.
    0:11:30 Similar to revolution that you mentioned,
    0:11:37 but revolution sort of implies a more tumultuous, violent, upheaval kind of thing.
    0:11:43 Yeah, maybe it’s not that great in the process of it.
    0:11:47 But transformation is a, I don’t know, maybe it’s slightly more poetic in some way,
    0:11:55 but it’s how do we reshape and reimagine how we live on this planet and with each other?
    0:12:04 And to me, that’s a question about design and culture and society and economy and politics, right?
    0:12:10 It’s about the context within which we’re making all these more technical decisions.
    0:12:14 And I don’t know, I can get excited about possibility and transformation.
    0:12:18 Like what kind of future do we want to create together?
    0:12:24 And in this book, there’s a whole bunch of what if questions that I find really captivating.
    0:12:29 And one of them is what if climate adaptation is beautiful?
    0:12:36 And that I think about in a pair with what if we act as if we love the future?
    0:12:36 Yeah, I love that.
    0:12:43 And there’s just so much, I don’t know, I’m like wiggling my fingers around
    0:12:47 sort of like gesturing, like possibility, like excitement, sparkles.
    0:12:54 Like what if I just feel like we need to be asking more big questions of ourselves
    0:12:59 and each other in this moment because we’re at this inflection point in human history.
    0:13:03 We either like get our shit together or we don’t.
    0:13:05 And obviously I would like us to at least try.
    0:13:09 But you don’t like the word sustainable, right?
    0:13:11 You feel like that’s setting the bar too low?
    0:13:14 I mean, it’s sort of just an everywhere word now.
    0:13:17 It’s useful, but it doesn’t have a lot of meaning.
    0:13:20 It’s very general.
    0:13:28 And the sort of analog use that I’ve heard is if someone asked you how your marriage
    0:13:31 was going and you were like, eh, it’s sustainable.
    0:13:35 It’s like, okay, well, don’t want to trade lives with you.
    0:13:37 Doesn’t sound terribly romantic.
    0:13:44 So yes, I would say we should set a higher bar than sustainability, especially given that
    0:13:48 we’ve already degraded nature so much that I don’t want to just sustain what we have.
    0:13:50 I want to protect and restore.
    0:13:59 So what if, to use your phrase just now, what if climate adaptation is beautiful?
    0:14:00 What then?
    0:14:04 Are we, is it rainbows and sunshine we have to look forward to?
    0:14:07 Well, I think we will always have rainbows and sunshine.
    0:14:09 That’s the good news.
    0:14:13 But one of the, I’m just going to flip to this page.
    0:14:19 There’s a section called if we build it about architecture and design and technology.
    0:14:26 So imagine if we were just deliberate about building things that were
    0:14:31 aesthetically pleasing and durable and could be deconstructed and reuse the parts instead
    0:14:33 of demolishing things, right?
    0:14:37 There’s so many, you know, and what materials are we choosing?
    0:14:44 There’s so many choices that we’re making that are shaping our societal trajectory.
    0:14:48 And like every day we are building a piece of the future, something that will be here
    0:14:51 in 10 years or a century or more.
    0:14:55 So let’s just be really thoughtful about all that and make it nice.
    0:15:02 Like some cities and towns are now passing essentially deconstruction
    0:15:07 ordinances that say you have to take apart buildings instead of demolishing them.
    0:15:10 Instead of just pulverizing everything and sending it to the landfill,
    0:15:14 you have to take it apart so the pieces can be reused like Legos,
    0:15:16 which seems obvious almost.
    0:15:19 Like why wouldn’t we always have been doing that, right?
    0:15:26 The way that people are reusing old barns to make like reclaimed wood floors and wall panels
    0:15:26 and whatever.
    0:15:31 We should be doing that with all parts of building materials that we can.
    0:15:39 So big picture wise, are you encouraged by the direction of the climate movement as it stands
    0:15:41 at the moment?
    0:15:43 What are your major concerns?
    0:15:47 My primary concern is that we’re just not moving fast enough.
    0:15:51 Given that we have basically all the solutions that we need,
    0:15:57 it’s just incredibly frustrating how politics is holding us back.
    0:16:04 I mean, in this country we have a division between the two major parties about whether
    0:16:08 climate change exists and whether it’s something we should address,
    0:16:13 which is just so retrograde, I don’t even know where to start.
    0:16:21 And it’s especially frustrating because most Republican politicians are literally just pretending
    0:16:22 they don’t think it exists.
    0:16:25 Like they are fully aware that climate science is real,
    0:16:29 but it’s untenable politically for them to admit that.
    0:16:32 And that’s a huge part of why we’re in this mess,
    0:16:38 as well as the fact that the fossil fuel lobby is ridiculously powerful in this country.
    0:16:42 And so many politicians are bought and paid for in one way or another,
    0:16:46 even though that’s not very many jobs.
    0:16:52 And then you have the banking sector, which is funding all these fossil fuel corporations
    0:16:57 to continue expanding their extraction and infrastructure.
    0:17:02 You have, since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015,
    0:17:08 60 banks have provided $6.9 trillion in financing to fossil fuel companies,
    0:17:16 but the top four U.S. banks alone, JP Morgan Chase, City Bank, Wells Fargo and Bank of America,
    0:17:24 have provided almost $1.5 trillion to finance fossil fuel companies.
    0:17:26 So yeah, if you have your money in any of those banks,
    0:17:32 I would move your retirement savings, etc., to a place that does not make the problem worse.
    0:17:41 And there’s analysis showing that the impact of you moving your money out of fossil fuels
    0:17:49 is a bigger impact than any amount of eating only plants and only walking and biking
    0:18:01 could do, because it is that bad to be investing in the expansion of fossil fuels.
    0:18:12 Support for the gray area comes from Givewell.
    0:18:17 There are over one and a half million nonprofit organizations in the U.S.
    0:18:19 and millions more around the world.
    0:18:23 So how do you know which ones can make the biggest impact with your donation?
    0:18:27 Well, Givewell was founded to help people figure that out.
    0:18:32 They pour over independent studies and charity data to help donors direct their funds to
    0:18:35 evidence-backed organizations that are saving and improving lives.
    0:18:38 This really is a terrific organization.
    0:18:44 According to their data, over 100,000 donors have used Givewell to donate more than $2 billion.
    0:18:49 You can find all of their research and recommendations on their site for free.
    0:18:54 You can also make tax-deductible donations to their recommended funds or charities,
    0:18:56 and Givewell says they don’t take a cut.
    0:19:01 If you’ve never used Givewell to donate, you can have your donation matched up to $100
    0:19:05 before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last.
    0:19:11 To claim your match, go to Givewell.org, pick podcast, and enter the gray area with Shawn
    0:19:13 Elling at checkout.
    0:19:17 Make sure they know that you heard about Givewell from the gray area to get your donation matched.
    0:19:21 Again, that’s Givewell.org to donate or find out more.
    0:19:27 Fox Creative
    0:19:31 This is advertiser content from Zell.
    0:19:35 When you picture an online scammer, what do you see?
    0:19:40 For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer
    0:19:43 with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night.
    0:19:45 And honestly, that’s not what it is anymore.
    0:19:49 That’s Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.
    0:19:54 These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists,
    0:19:56 and they’re making bank.
    0:19:59 Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion.
    0:20:04 It’s mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that’s been built
    0:20:07 to facilitate scamming at scale.
    0:20:12 There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world.
    0:20:14 These are very savvy business people.
    0:20:16 These are organized criminal rings.
    0:20:20 And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better.
    0:20:25 One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face
    0:20:30 is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them.
    0:20:33 But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple.
    0:20:36 We need to talk to each other.
    0:20:38 We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do
    0:20:41 if you have text messages you don’t recognize?
    0:20:44 What do you do if you start getting asked to send information
    0:20:45 that’s more sensitive?
    0:20:49 Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam,
    0:20:52 but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time.
    0:20:57 So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other.
    0:21:03 >> Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com/zel.
    0:21:05 And when using digital payment platforms,
    0:21:08 remember to only send money to people you know and trust.
    0:21:13 >> Support for this episode comes from AWS.
    0:21:17 AWS Generative AI gives you the tools to power your business forward
    0:21:21 with the security and speed of the world’s most experienced cloud.
    0:21:31 [MUSIC]
    0:21:34 >> What would be the difference between a Harris administration
    0:21:36 and another Trump administration?
    0:21:39 What are the stakes on the climate front?
    0:21:41 >> The stakes are sky high.
    0:21:47 There are actually graphs projecting the difference in greenhouse gas emissions
    0:21:52 between the two and it’s really remarkable because you have on one hand,
    0:21:57 Vice President Harris, who was the deciding vote in passing the Inflation Reduction Act,
    0:22:02 which was the largest ever investment in climate solutions in world history.
    0:22:07 This Biden-Harris administration has created the American Climate Corps,
    0:22:12 we’re just putting tens of thousands of young people to work implementing climate solutions
    0:22:18 from reducing wildfire risk to installing solar panels to replanting wetlands.
    0:22:25 We have a loan program office in the Department of Energy that has hundreds of billions of dollars
    0:22:30 that they’re giving out to businesses that are figuring out this renewable energy transition.
    0:22:36 All of that could be completely wiped out essentially on day one of a Trump administration.
    0:22:42 You have in Trump a candidate who has offered two fossil fuel executives
    0:22:46 that if they donate a billion dollars to his presidential campaign,
    0:22:49 he will basically do their bidding once he gets into the White House.
    0:22:51 That is how stark a difference this is.
    0:22:58 >> Yeah. You have a podcast episode called, “How much does the president matter?”
    0:23:00 And I guess the answer is a lot.
    0:23:06 >> A lot. I mean, but at the same time, a president can only do so much without Congress,
    0:23:14 right? So making sure you have we’re electing politicians for Senate and the House that get it,
    0:23:19 that actually are going to do something on climate is also critical.
    0:23:22 But the president is staffing all the federal agencies,
    0:23:27 the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    0:23:33 and NASA and the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior
    0:23:38 that are all making these decisions about permitting for fossil fuels
    0:23:41 or offshore renewable wind energy, right?
    0:23:48 But I’ll also give a shout out to local politics because it is at the city council level,
    0:23:54 it is at the public utility commissions, it is at the school boards where we’re deciding,
    0:23:58 are we teaching our children about what we can do about climate change?
    0:24:04 Are we investing in municipal composting? Composting makes a really big difference
    0:24:09 because rotting food in landfills emits tons of methane, a super potent greenhouse gas.
    0:24:14 Are we building out bike lanes and all of this public transit infrastructure
    0:24:18 that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
    0:24:21 All of these local decisions really matter too.
    0:24:26 So for those who are sort of overwhelmed with what’s happening at the presidential level,
    0:24:30 it is absolutely worth your effort to think about local elections
    0:24:33 and how you can support climate leaders down ballot.
    0:24:42 I initially wanted to ask you what gives you the most hope right now,
    0:24:45 but then I got to the part of the book where you write and I’m quoting again,
    0:24:51 “Fuck hope, what’s the strategy? Do you feel like we, the royal we,
    0:24:56 actually do have a clear concrete strategy for that better future?”
    0:25:00 Because the path to the shitty future is crystal clear.
    0:25:02 It is just keep doing what we’ve been doing.
    0:25:10 And this is where I think media, Hollywood, music, art, culture makers broadly
    0:25:18 really need to dive in with us because I cannot literally show you
    0:25:21 what the future could look like. I can talk about it.
    0:25:25 I can write about it. I can interview people about it.
    0:25:29 I can, as I did for this book, commission art about it.
    0:25:33 But I feel like if it’s possible to go through our day to day
    0:25:37 and not encounter anything about climate, which it currently is,
    0:25:44 I mean, for example, less than 1% of the minutes on major TV news stations are about climate.
    0:25:47 And that’s actually gone down. I think it was 1.3%.
    0:25:53 In 2022, and now it’s down to 0.9% in 2023, right?
    0:25:54 So we’re going in the wrong direction.
    0:26:00 If this is not part of our day to day exposure,
    0:26:02 then it’s just always on the back burner.
    0:26:04 There’s always something more important.
    0:26:09 And we’re thinking about climate as something separate from our other concerns.
    0:26:13 Whereas it’s actually just the context within which everything else
    0:26:20 right now is playing out. So there’s a chapter in the book called “I Dream of Climate Rom-Coms,”
    0:26:25 where I interview producer Franklin Leonard, founder of The Blacklist out in Hollywood,
    0:26:31 and Adam McKay, filmmaker, writer, director, about the role of Hollywood in this.
    0:26:36 Because basically, to date, Hollywood has just shown us the apocalypse,
    0:26:40 the fire and brimstone, the day after tomorrow kind of stuff.
    0:26:46 And there are very few examples of not like utopian rose-colored glasses stuff,
    0:26:52 but like literally, what if we just used the solutions we had and projected that forward?
    0:26:54 What would that look like?
    0:27:01 I always loved Nietzsche’s idea that we have art in order not to die of the truth.
    0:27:05 And you can interpret that in different ways, I guess.
    0:27:11 But for me, it means that the job of art isn’t to hold up a mirror and tell us what is.
    0:27:13 We have science for that.
    0:27:19 Great art points to what could be before it is.
    0:27:21 And man, do we need more of that right now.
    0:27:24 Yes, yes, yes. We need so much more of that.
    0:27:31 Anyone who’s listening who can create art, who can help us see the way forward,
    0:27:32 we absolutely need you.
    0:27:39 Can we just say at this point that the clean energy transition is inevitable?
    0:27:40 Don’t know what the timeline is exactly,
    0:27:44 but clean energy is the future full stop.
    0:27:45 It’s a question of how long it takes.
    0:27:49 Yeah, and that transformation is already well underway,
    0:27:53 despite all the lobbying efforts from the fossil fuel industry, etc.
    0:27:57 Because at this point, it just makes economic sense.
    0:28:02 The reason that Iowa and Texas are leading the country in wind energy
    0:28:04 is not because they’re a bunch of hippies.
    0:28:09 It’s because it’s profitable and they’re good jobs
    0:28:12 and people are excited about having those industries there.
    0:28:18 Solar and wind, I mean, these are now the cheapest forms of energy on the planet.
    0:28:21 I mean, photons, catch them, use them.
    0:28:23 Why not? Yeah.
    0:28:29 The thing I think people do not talk about enough what we’re talking about electricity
    0:28:34 is that regardless of the source, we absolutely also need to focus on energy conservation.
    0:28:41 This is not about just like willy-nilly running a lot of electrical stuff all the time,
    0:28:46 because now we have solar panels, because it takes energy to make solar panels.
    0:28:50 It takes raw materials to make solar panels.
    0:28:55 We still want to rein all that in and live more lightly on the planet.
    0:29:00 So I would just put in a plug for energy conservation
    0:29:04 being an estimated like 30 to 50% of the solution.
    0:29:07 We will need to build a lot less renewables
    0:29:11 if we are just more frugal with our electricity.
    0:29:14 And what about carbon capture technologies?
    0:29:17 I feel like all of our optimistic scenarios include
    0:29:21 an assumption that we’re going to get increasingly better
    0:29:27 and more efficient at removing existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
    0:29:28 Is that a safe assumption?
    0:29:29 Well, we’re really bad at it now.
    0:29:32 So I’m sure we’ll get better at it.
    0:29:35 Okay. Are we going to get better enough is maybe what I’m asking?
    0:29:36 I have no idea.
    0:29:37 Because we have to, right?
    0:29:43 Like there’s just, this has to be part of the solution or part of the strategy.
    0:29:47 I mean, the first interview in the book is with Dr. Kate Marvel,
    0:29:50 who’s a NASA client scientist who says, “Sure, great.
    0:29:54 Like we should pursue carbon capture and storage.”
    0:30:00 But it’s important to note there that this is not like a get out of jail free carbon.
    0:30:03 We can keep burning fossil fuels and just catch it back.
    0:30:06 It takes a lot of energy to do carbon capture.
    0:30:11 So we basically need to focus that effort only on taking out carbon
    0:30:13 that is already in the atmosphere.
    0:30:17 We can’t just use that as an excuse to not change our ways.
    0:30:21 So I think, again, that brings us back to energy conservation
    0:30:23 and the shift to renewables being fundamental.
    0:30:27 And if we figure out carbon capture, that’s a bonus.
    0:30:32 But also we need to give a lot more credit to the OG,
    0:30:34 the original gangster of carbon capture,
    0:30:40 which is photosynthesis and plants and protect and restore ecosystems,
    0:30:47 forests, wetlands, mangroves, all of that are a critical piece of this too.
    0:30:50 And we just absolutely do not give enough credit to nature,
    0:30:55 which by some estimates is 30 or 40% of the solution we need
    0:30:57 if we are restoring ecosystems.
    0:31:02 You know, I’ve had conversations with people like Andreas Maum.
    0:31:03 He was a guest on the pod.
    0:31:08 He says, which sounds bad on the surface, but is actually encouraging.
    0:31:11 And I think you were hinting at this earlier.
    0:31:13 We don’t have a science problem.
    0:31:14 We don’t have a knowledge problem.
    0:31:17 We know everything we need to know to do what we need to do.
    0:31:21 And there are already viable alternatives to move us in that direction.
    0:31:24 What we have is a political economy problem.
    0:31:29 Certain financial interests are invested in locking us in this paradigm.
    0:31:30 This is obviously a big obstacle,
    0:31:32 but at least we know what the problem is.
    0:31:34 If we lack the knowledge or the technologies,
    0:31:36 there’s not much we can do about that.
    0:31:37 But we know.
    0:31:40 And if we’ve learned anything about markets,
    0:31:43 is that they’ll move in the direction of profit.
    0:31:45 So maybe we can’t change the economic system,
    0:31:49 but we do understand its incentive structure and we can work within that.
    0:31:52 So we’re going to have to find a way to make non-fossil fuel energy sources cheaper
    0:31:54 and more efficient and lucrative.
    0:31:55 So just tell me that’s the case.
    0:31:58 Tell me there’s a shit ton of money to be made in green energy,
    0:32:00 because if there is, that’s good news.
    0:32:04 There is a shit ton of money to be made in green energy.
    0:32:07 I can say that unequivocally.
    0:32:11 I think this is probably a McKinsey study that found getting to net zero,
    0:32:14 net zero greenhouse gas emissions,
    0:32:18 is a more than $12 trillion business opportunity.
    0:32:24 And in 2023, $1.8 trillion was invested in the clean energy transition,
    0:32:26 which was a new record.
    0:32:29 It’s worth saying also that also in 2023,
    0:32:32 over a trillion dollars was invested in additional fossil fuel,
    0:32:36 but renewables are ahead as a global investment amount.
    0:32:40 And also last year, for the second year in a row,
    0:32:45 banks generated more revenue from environmentally friendly investing,
    0:32:50 about $3 billion, than they did from fossil fuel investing, which is 2.7.
    0:32:51 I think those are still too close.
    0:32:58 But yes, the economics are absolutely turning in favor of clean energy,
    0:33:01 which is great because we would need to do it anyway.
    0:33:07 But it’s certainly easier when the balance sheet is in your favor.
    0:33:12 Yeah, and look, I bring all this up not to make the overly simple point that
    0:33:15 capitalism is bad.
    0:33:17 I think it’s a little more complicated than that.
    0:33:20 And even if you believe that, it’s not helpful to leave it there.
    0:33:23 Well, even if you believe in pure free market capitalism,
    0:33:30 I mean, I think a free market folks need to just acknowledge that the market is not free.
    0:33:35 So right now we have a completely insane amount of subsidies
    0:33:39 still going to fossil fuels.
    0:33:44 And if we just reformed fossil fuel subsidies and put a price on pollution,
    0:33:46 which is all this greenhouse gas stuff,
    0:33:49 we could generate trillions of dollars in government revenues,
    0:33:54 which could be used to address the climate crisis, right?
    0:33:58 So subsidizing all the bad stuff is not a free market.
    0:34:03 We haven’t been giving renewables a fair chance at this.
    0:34:08 The game has been rigged for the continuation of fossil fuels.
    0:34:12 All those lobbying dollars have really paid off.
    0:34:16 And so we’re now just starting to see that shift a bit,
    0:34:18 which is evening the playing field.
    0:34:20 And guess who wins when it’s a fair fight?
    0:34:24 Photons is the answer.
    0:34:27 Wind, the stuff that’s free and just out there.
    0:34:28 And we can just catch it.
    0:34:32 So okay, so wait a minute.
    0:34:36 I can’t quite tell if you agree with me or not in the big picture sense, right?
    0:34:41 Do you actually agree that we can work within capitalism,
    0:34:47 we can use the internal logic of capitalism to get on the right path here?
    0:34:47 No, I do.
    0:34:48 And I think we must.
    0:34:54 We do not have time to completely take apart and put back together a new economic system
    0:34:57 within the next decade, which is when we need to basically
    0:35:00 make this huge leap in addressing the climate crisis.
    0:35:05 So yeah, what I’m saying is that already renewables make economic sense.
    0:35:12 Already green buildings and the shift to electric transportation, etc.
    0:35:14 are making economic sense.
    0:35:21 So if we can just stop subsidizing fossil fuels within our existing capitalist system,
    0:35:28 we could just stop giving extra bonus money to people who are massively polluting the
    0:35:31 planet and destroying things for life on earth.
    0:35:34 That would help things go even faster.
    0:35:50 Are you looking to eat healthier, but you still find yourself occasionally
    0:35:53 rebounding with junk food and empty calories?
    0:35:55 You don’t need to wait for the new year to start fresh.
    0:35:56 New year, new me?
    0:35:58 How about same year, new me?
    0:36:00 You just need a different approach.
    0:36:05 According to Noom, losing weight has less to do with discipline and more to do with psychology.
    0:36:10 Noom is the weight loss management program that focuses on the science behind food cravings
    0:36:12 and building sustainable eating habits.
    0:36:16 Noom wants to help you stay focused on what’s important to you with their
    0:36:18 psychology and biology based approach.
    0:36:23 Noom takes into account your unique biological factors which also affect weight loss success.
    0:36:27 The program can also help you understand the science behind your eating choices
    0:36:32 and why you have those specific cravings and it can help you build new habits for a healthier lifestyle.
    0:36:35 And since everyone’s journey is different, so are your daily lessons.
    0:36:37 They’re personalized to help you reach your goal.
    0:36:43 Stay focused on what’s important to you with Noom’s psychology and biology based approach.
    0:36:48 Sign up for your trial today at Noom.com.
    0:36:51 Support for the show comes from Alex Partners.
    0:36:55 In business, disruption brings not only challenges but opportunities.
    0:36:58 As artificial intelligence powers pivotal moments of change,
    0:37:01 Alex Partners is the consulting firm chief executives can rely on.
    0:37:07 Alex Partners is dedicated to making sure your company knows what really matters when it comes to AI.
    0:37:10 As part of their 2024 tech sector report,
    0:37:15 Alex Partners spoke with nearly 350 tech executives from across North America and Europe
    0:37:19 to dig deeper into how tech companies are responding to these changing headwinds.
    0:37:22 And in their 2024 digital disruption report,
    0:37:28 Alex Partners found that 88% of executives report seeing potential for growth from digital disruption,
    0:37:34 with 37% seeing significant or even extremely high positive impact on revenue growth.
    0:37:38 You can read both reports and learn how to convert digital disruption
    0:37:43 into revenue growth at www.alexpartners.com/box.
    0:37:50 That’s www.alixpartners.com/vox.
    0:37:54 In the face of disruption, businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point
    0:37:57 and deliver results when it really matters.
    0:38:02 Support for this show is brought to you by Nissan Kicks.
    0:38:08 It’s never too late to try new things, and it’s never too late to reinvent yourself.
    0:38:12 The all-new, reimagined Nissan Kicks is the city-sized crossover vehicle
    0:38:15 that’s been completely revamped for urban adventure.
    0:38:18 From the design and styling to the performance,
    0:38:22 all the way to features like the Bose Personal Plus sound system,
    0:38:27 you can get closer to everything you love about city life in the all-new, reimagined Nissan Kicks.
    0:38:33 Learn more at www.nisonusa.com/2025-Kicks.
    0:38:37 Available feature, Bose is a registered trademark of the Bose Corporation.
    0:38:56 You say the best thing we can do when confronting an existential crisis
    0:38:59 is imagine what could be on the other side.
    0:39:02 What’s the most realistic best-case scenario for you?
    0:39:05 Big picture?
    0:39:06 Yeah.
    0:39:13 The dream for me when I think about getting it right really starts with nature,
    0:39:18 starts with putting photosynthesis on the pedestal it deserves.
    0:39:22 And thinking about, you know, how we are shifting our food system,
    0:39:26 how we are shifting transportation, how I mean,
    0:39:32 I imagine like all of Gen Z just refusing to work for the fossil fuel industry, right?
    0:39:35 Or as Jane Fonda says, like, you know,
    0:39:37 don’t sleep with anyone who works in fossil fuels,
    0:39:40 just like ice out that whole sector.
    0:39:46 Just turn all of that into something that’s really unappealing.
    0:39:50 I imagine a future where our homes are not drafty
    0:39:52 because they’re well-insulated, right?
    0:39:57 Where we don’t have traffic in cities and on highways
    0:39:58 because we have much better transportation.
    0:40:00 We have high-speed rail.
    0:40:05 I mean, for the love of God, can we get like some fast trains in America?
    0:40:07 Sort of embarrassing that we don’t have that.
    0:40:11 Where we have just delicious local foods,
    0:40:14 where we have restored coastal ecosystems
    0:40:17 that are buffering us from the impacts of climate change.
    0:40:19 Where we actually have fewer desk jobs
    0:40:22 because more of us are out in the world doing this stuff,
    0:40:25 which is so gratifying.
    0:40:29 And where we can actually just slow down
    0:40:36 and enjoy life a bit more because we have our shit together
    0:40:41 and because culture has caught up with this climate reality
    0:40:46 and the status quo and what is aspirational have changed.
    0:40:52 I mean, it’s worth a shot, no?
    0:40:53 Oh yeah, no.
    0:40:59 I’m just gathering my thoughts and I’m also trying to
    0:41:01 summon all the hopefulness that I can.
    0:41:04 Well, here’s the thing.
    0:41:06 You don’t actually need to be hopeful.
    0:41:07 I’m not hopeful.
    0:41:11 I think that hope is insufficient even if we have it.
    0:41:12 We need a plan.
    0:41:16 We need to each find our role to play in climate solutions.
    0:41:20 One of the major things that I sort of encourage people to do
    0:41:23 is think really specifically about what you can do.
    0:41:28 Not the generic list of like march, protest, donate,
    0:41:31 spread the word, lower your individual carbon footprint,
    0:41:35 which is all good and well to do and I do it.
    0:41:39 But if you and I and teachers and doctors and farmers
    0:41:42 and project managers and web designers
    0:41:44 were all doing exactly the same thing,
    0:41:45 that would be a total waste.
    0:41:50 So instead of thinking about hope, whether you have it or not,
    0:41:51 it doesn’t really matter.
    0:41:57 Just do something and you’ll feel good regardless of the outcome
    0:41:59 because you will have contributed to making things
    0:42:02 slightly better than they would otherwise have been.
    0:42:05 And if we each do that, it sounds corny,
    0:42:09 but it is factually accurate that all that stuff adds up.
    0:42:11 And if you need a place to start,
    0:42:15 I offer this concept of a climate action Venn diagram,
    0:42:18 which is three circles, sort of a simplified version
    0:42:22 of the Japanese concept of Ikigai for finding your purpose,
    0:42:25 which is one circle is what are you good at?
    0:42:27 So what are your skills, resources, networks,
    0:42:30 like what can you specifically bring to the table?
    0:42:34 What is the work that needs doing is the second circle.
    0:42:37 What are the climate and justice solutions you want to work on
    0:42:39 because there are hundreds of them?
    0:42:43 And the third circle is what brings you joy or satisfaction?
    0:42:46 Like what gets you out of bed in the morning?
    0:42:49 And how can we each find our way to the sweet spot
    0:42:52 in the center of that Venn diagram
    0:42:57 and just live there for as many minutes of our lives as we can?
    0:43:02 Well, to do this, one thing we clearly have to do
    0:43:07 is make people feel emotionally the stakes of this
    0:43:12 without also pushing them into quietism or despair.
    0:43:15 And so the question is, how do we do that?
    0:43:20 I mean, I have to say there’s a reality here that sucks,
    0:43:20 but it’s true.
    0:43:24 And maybe this has changed marginally in one direction
    0:43:26 or the other, but poll after poll that I’ve seen
    0:43:30 shows that a lot of Americans simply don’t care
    0:43:32 about climate change that much or they might care,
    0:43:35 but it’s nowhere near the top of their list of priorities,
    0:43:38 which is why politically it just doesn’t move the needle.
    0:43:40 And that makes it difficult for legislators
    0:43:41 to deal with the problem.
    0:43:43 I mean, I lived in Louisiana for a decade.
    0:43:45 The coast there is disappearing.
    0:43:48 Cultures and ways of life and towns and communities
    0:43:50 are disappearing.
    0:43:51 And still a lot of people in that state
    0:43:54 refuse to connect the dots.
    0:43:57 So how do we help them do that?
    0:43:58 How do we make them feel this?
    0:44:02 First, I think it’s important to acknowledge
    0:44:05 that the majority of Americans are concerned
    0:44:07 about climate change and would like our government
    0:44:08 to do more about it.
    0:44:11 We hear so much about climate deniers
    0:44:13 that we think it’s like half the country.
    0:44:14 It’s like 12%.
    0:44:17 So yeah, just because I tried to correct that and say
    0:44:19 that they just, it’s not that they don’t care,
    0:44:22 but they just care about many other things before.
    0:44:23 Absolutely.
    0:44:25 And so I think what you’re referring to
    0:44:28 is the sort of pulling on political priorities,
    0:44:30 like what determines who you’re voting for,
    0:44:32 like what, you know, what is that ranking?
    0:44:37 And climate rarely breaks the top five or 10 issues
    0:44:43 when you’re thinking about jobs, economy, housing, wars,
    0:44:45 all of this other stuff, right?
    0:44:49 And I get that we have these day-to-day concerns
    0:44:52 that are critical to our quality of life,
    0:44:54 to our well-being.
    0:44:58 And I don’t fault people for ranking those higher,
    0:45:01 but I do fault us for not understanding
    0:45:03 that those are connected to climate change
    0:45:06 in some very significant ways.
    0:45:07 There’s an incredible organization
    0:45:09 called Environmental Voter Project,
    0:45:11 and this is what they do.
    0:45:14 There are something like 10 million Americans
    0:45:16 who actually have environment
    0:45:19 as their number one issue politically,
    0:45:22 and they are already registered to vote,
    0:45:24 and they simply do not go to the polls.
    0:45:29 Can you imagine if we had another 10 million climate voters
    0:45:32 who were voting in every election,
    0:45:34 and then politicians were like,
    0:45:36 “Oh, shit, I guess there’s a whole demographic
    0:45:39 that cares about this that’s very active politically.
    0:45:41 We’re going to have to earn their votes.”
    0:45:43 That would absolutely change the game.
    0:45:47 And so all of their work on turning out environmental voters
    0:45:50 is making a very big difference.
    0:45:53 So for those who are like, “Ah, climate and politics,
    0:45:55 it’s like such a mess.”
    0:45:57 I would say, “Join me in volunteering
    0:45:59 with Environmental Voter Project,
    0:46:02 helping to get people who care engaged
    0:46:04 and having their voices heard,
    0:46:08 because once we have a larger constituency
    0:46:11 of active climate voters, that will shift the politics.”
    0:46:14 And the politics follows culture,
    0:46:17 so it’s not politicians that are leading the way.
    0:46:19 They are followers.
    0:46:21 So the more of us speak up
    0:46:24 about this as a political priority for us,
    0:46:27 the faster we’ll get these changes that we need.
    0:46:31 Do you have thoughts about how we can convince skeptics
    0:46:37 or even just outright deniers that this work must be done?
    0:46:41 Do we even need to engage with skeptics and deniers?
    0:46:44 Is that fruitless or is it necessary?
    0:46:48 I personally am not out there on Al Gore’s internet
    0:46:49 debating climate deniers.
    0:46:52 I just, it’s not my jam.
    0:46:56 But again, that’s a small portion of Americans.
    0:47:00 It’s an even smaller portion of the global population.
    0:47:02 And so where I focus my effort
    0:47:04 is for the people who already care,
    0:47:08 who are already concerned, to saying, “We need you.
    0:47:10 We need you working on solutions.
    0:47:11 Welcome.
    0:47:12 Roll up your sleeves.
    0:47:15 We’ll help you find ways to plug in
    0:47:16 and do something that’s useful.”
    0:47:21 And to circle back to our point earlier,
    0:47:24 which is the economics of a lot of these climate solutions,
    0:47:26 are just really favorable.
    0:47:29 So we don’t actually need to debate whether greenhouse gases
    0:47:32 being spewed by burning fossil fuels
    0:47:34 and blanketing the planet and warming it
    0:47:37 is a thing that’s happening, even though it’s very clear.
    0:47:39 It’s been for 50 years.
    0:47:40 That’s what’s happening.
    0:47:44 We just need to say, “Hey, who wants a good job
    0:47:47 in engineering and manufacturing?
    0:47:55 Let’s build some more battery, wind, solar, plants, and installation.”
    0:47:59 And so the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act
    0:48:02 are mostly being experienced in red states
    0:48:05 that are getting all this manufacturing capacity,
    0:48:07 all these green jobs,
    0:48:09 even though all of their representatives
    0:48:11 voted against that funding.
    0:48:13 So I think with that shift,
    0:48:18 with those benefits going to politically conservative areas
    0:48:20 where climate denial is higher,
    0:48:25 we may start to see an even more rapid
    0:48:28 and strong embrace of climate solutions
    0:48:31 even without talking about climate change.
    0:48:33 We do not actually have to agree on the problem
    0:48:35 to collaborate on the solutions.
    0:48:37 And so that we have in our favor.
    0:48:39 Yeah.
    0:48:45 You seem very angsty and nervous and concerned.
    0:48:47 My therapy appointment is in two weeks, I don’t.
    0:48:49 I’m not your therapist,
    0:48:52 but there is a whole burgeoning sector, actually,
    0:48:54 of climate therapy,
    0:48:56 because climate anxiety is a real thing,
    0:49:01 and people are understandably grappling with it, right?
    0:49:03 The prospect of life on Earth
    0:49:06 ceasing to exist in the way that we have always known it
    0:49:09 is freaking terrifying.
    0:49:13 But I think, and there’s sort of like this term,
    0:49:17 like climate sad boys that those of us working
    0:49:20 are like, the climate sad boys are back again.
    0:49:23 Here come the doomers, like always asking us how bad it is.
    0:49:25 I’m not sobbing in my corner.
    0:49:27 All right, hold on, all right.
    0:49:30 Look, I’m also trying to speak to the angst
    0:49:32 of people listening as well.
    0:49:34 I hear it, and I feel it,
    0:49:36 often, I don’t want to minimize it.
    0:49:39 But I think the more we just focus on possibility
    0:49:41 and what we can each do,
    0:49:44 and just acknowledge that we as individuals
    0:49:48 cannot control the future of life on Earth,
    0:49:51 but we can do our part and kind of like,
    0:49:53 I don’t worry about it day to day.
    0:49:56 I spend very little time thinking about the problems,
    0:50:01 because that doesn’t actually change what I need to do.
    0:50:03 I need to do what I need to do.
    0:50:06 I need to do my work at Urban Ocean Lab,
    0:50:09 this policy think tank for the future of coastal cities
    0:50:09 that I co-founded.
    0:50:13 We need to help cities adapt to sea level rise
    0:50:16 and build out offshore renewable energy
    0:50:19 and restore and protect the coastal ecosystems
    0:50:22 that will help buffer the impacts of storms.
    0:50:24 Like, that’s how I spend my days.
    0:50:28 And so my days are full of creativity and problem solving,
    0:50:29 great collaborations,
    0:50:32 and like, punctuated with moments of delight
    0:50:33 and tiny victories.
    0:50:37 And what more could we expect out of life?
    0:50:42 I think to me, that’s enough to just do my part.
    0:50:48 Something we’ve seen in recent years are climate activists,
    0:50:52 blocking traffic, throwing paint on artworks and museums.
    0:50:56 I think that’s stupid on purely strategic grounds.
    0:51:01 But I do wonder how you think about the role of activism
    0:51:05 and protest and how that can be most beneficial.
    0:51:08 I mean, I think Bill McKibbin said to you
    0:51:09 in your interview with him
    0:51:11 that he doesn’t think there’s any scenario
    0:51:14 where we don’t have to march in the streets.
    0:51:16 And that seems probably right to me,
    0:51:17 but is that how you feel?
    0:51:19 Bill McKibbin is a wise man.
    0:51:21 I definitely agree.
    0:51:23 I mean, we have to voice our objection
    0:51:26 to things that make no freaking sense.
    0:51:27 We have to voice our objection
    0:51:30 to continuing to subsidize fossil fuel companies
    0:51:31 with our dollars.
    0:51:35 We have to voice our objection to people
    0:51:38 who deny climate change, calling the shots.
    0:51:41 Some of the more extreme forms of protest,
    0:51:45 if we’re honest, make people like me seem more reasonable.
    0:51:47 And I’m grateful for it, right?
    0:51:50 Those works of art that had soup thrown at them are fine.
    0:51:51 They were covered with glass.
    0:51:52 They were wiped off.
    0:51:53 Everything’s fine.
    0:51:56 So I think we need to just, for one,
    0:51:57 keep things in perspective,
    0:51:59 but also if we’re acknowledging
    0:52:02 that the future of human life on this planet,
    0:52:05 the quality of life for our species
    0:52:08 is literally being determined
    0:52:10 by what we do in the next decade,
    0:52:12 then is throwing soup at a painting
    0:52:14 really the worst thing we can imagine?
    0:52:17 Is it the most effective messaging?
    0:52:20 Well, I think we could have done better.
    0:52:22 I think there’s obviously
    0:52:23 much better climate communication
    0:52:27 that can be layered on top of protest,
    0:52:31 but I absolutely see a value for protest.
    0:52:35 And it opens the door to a lot of policy conversations.
    0:52:39 And that is the role to shift the Overton window,
    0:52:42 to make politicians and executives
    0:52:45 feel like they have to do more and faster
    0:52:48 by just exerting that social pressure
    0:52:52 and removing the social license to operate,
    0:52:53 to say we are watching you.
    0:52:56 We are voting at the ballot box
    0:52:57 and we are voting with our dollars
    0:53:00 and we will name and shame the bad actors
    0:53:03 and welcome you onto the side
    0:53:06 of climate solutions whenever you’re ready.
    0:53:10 Dr. Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson,
    0:53:14 thank you for outing me as a climate sad boy.
    0:53:18 And honestly, seriously,
    0:53:22 I do feel better after conversations like this.
    0:53:25 I do feel better after reading your book.
    0:53:26 All right, there we go.
    0:53:30 Fill in your Venn diagram and get to work.
    0:53:33 Thanks for existing and thanks for coming in.
    0:53:35 Thanks for having me.
    0:53:49 All right, thanks for hanging out with me
    0:53:50 for another episode.
    0:53:52 I hope you enjoyed it.
    0:53:54 As always, you can tell me what you think of the episode.
    0:53:58 You can drop us a line at thegrayarea@vox.com.
    0:54:00 I read those emails, so keep them coming.
    0:54:03 And please rate, review whenever you get a chance.
    0:54:07 This episode was produced by Travis Larchuck
    0:54:10 and Beth Morrissey, edited by Jorge Just,
    0:54:12 engineered by Patrick Boyd,
    0:54:14 backchecked by Anouk Dussot,
    0:54:16 and Alex Overington wrote our theme music.
    0:54:20 New episodes of the Gray Area drop on Mondays.
    0:54:21 Listen and subscribe.
    0:54:28 This show is part of Vox.
    0:54:32 Support Vox’s journalism by joining our membership program today.
    0:54:34 Go to vox.com/members to sign up.
    0:54:40 Support for this episode comes from AWS.
    0:54:44 AWS Generative AI gives you the tools to power your business forward
    0:54:48 with the security and speed of the world’s most experienced cloud.
    0:54:53 Support for this show is brought to you by Nissan Kicks.
    0:54:56 It’s never too late to try new things,
    0:54:59 and it’s never too late to reinvent yourself.
    0:55:01 The all-new, reimagined Nissan Kicks
    0:55:03 is the city-sized crossover vehicle
    0:55:06 that’s been completely revamped for urban adventure.
    0:55:09 From the design and styling to the performance,
    0:55:13 all the way to features like the Bose Personal Plus sound system,
    0:55:15 you can get closer to everything you love about city life
    0:55:18 in the all-new, reimagined Nissan Kicks.
    0:55:24 Learn more at www.nesonusa.com/2025-kicks.
    0:55:31 Available feature, Bose is a registered trademark of the Bose Corporation.

    In this episode, host Sean Illing speaks with marine biologist Ayana Elizabeth Johnson about her book What If We Get It Right? Visions of Climate Futures.

    Johnson approaches climate change with informed optimism, encouraging us to stop waiting for the worst to happen. She doesn’t reject the realities of a warming planet but reminds us that doomerism is paralyzing us into inaction. In short, having a better climate future begins with envisioning one and then mapping the road to get there.

    This unique perspective earned Johnson a place on Vox’s Future Perfect 50 list, an annual celebration of the people working to make the future a better place. The list — published last week — includes writers, scientists, thinkers, and activists who are reshaping our world for the better.

    In honor of the Future Perfect 50 — and to remind us all that a better climate future is possible — The Gray Area team is sharing Sean’s interview with Johnson, which originally aired in September 2024.

    Click here to find out more about the 2024 Future Perfect 50.

    And click here to read Johnson’s profile.

    Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling)

    Guest: Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, marine biologist and author of What If We Get It Right? Visions of Climate Futures.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • America’s reactionary moment

    AI transcript
    0:00:06 Hey everybody, I’m Ashley C. Ford and I’m the host of Into the Mix, a Ben and Jerry’s podcast
    0:00:13 about joy and justice, produced with Vox Creative. And in our new mini-series, we’re talking about
    0:00:19 voter fraud. For years now, former President Donald Trump has made it a key talking point,
    0:00:25 despite there being no evidence of widespread fraud. But what impact do claims like these have
    0:00:32 on ordinary voters? People like Olivia Coley-Piersen, a civil servant in Douglas, Georgia,
    0:00:37 who was arrested for voter fraud because she showed a first-time voter how the voting machines
    0:00:44 worked. Hear how she fought back on the latest episode of Into the Mix. Subscribe now wherever you listen.
    0:00:54 Support for the gray area comes from Blue Nile. As you look back on 2024, maybe your best memories
    0:01:01 are from all the times you spent with your partner. And as you start planning 2025, maybe, just maybe,
    0:01:06 those plans involve getting engaged. No pressure, just saying. And if you do decide,
    0:01:10 it’s time to pop the question, you might want to check out sourcing an engagement ring from
    0:01:15 Blue Nile. Right now, you can go to bluenile.com and use code gray area for $50 off your purchase
    0:01:30 of $500 or more. That’s $50 off with code grayarea@bluenile.com. It’s been almost two weeks since
    0:01:37 the presidential election. The outcome was not what I wanted. But I cannot say that it was unexpected.
    0:01:49 If anything surprised me, it was how definitive the Trump victory was.
    0:01:56 And if anyone says that there’s a simple and obvious explanation, I would suggest not listening
    0:02:06 to them anymore. There isn’t a reason for this. There are many reasons. And we just don’t know
    0:02:12 enough right now to parse it out in a satisfying way. But that doesn’t mean that we have no idea
    0:02:19 what just happened. We know plenty. The road to this result has been paved for several years and
    0:02:25 regardless of who you voted for or what your politics are, I think we all have a duty to
    0:02:42 read the political room as best we can. I’m Sean Elling and this is the gray area.
    0:02:54 Today’s guest is Zach Beecham. Zach is a friend and a colleague here at Vox who recently published
    0:03:02 a book called The Reactionary Spirit. The book is a deep dive into the historical roots of
    0:03:09 reactionary politics, both here and around the world. But more than that, it’s a book about
    0:03:16 democracy and the contradictions and the conflicts at the heart of it. What we can say pretty confidently
    0:03:22 is that the roughly 75 million people who just voted for Trump were saying no to something.
    0:03:29 They were saying no to lots of things to be more accurate. And I am genuinely interested in
    0:03:35 understanding what so many people were rejecting and why and what lessons we might be able to draw
    0:03:42 from that. This is Zach’s beat. In addition to his book, he writes a newsletter for Vox called
    0:03:47 On the Right, which is all about the evolving nature of conservatism and the various ideas
    0:03:54 and movements driving it. So in the aftermath of this election, I invited Zach on the show
    0:03:57 to talk about what happened and what it could mean for our political future.
    0:04:05 Zach Beecham, welcome to the show. Hey, Sean, it’s really, really great to be here with you.
    0:04:09 It’s good to see you too, buddy. So there’s a lot I want to talk about, but I think
    0:04:17 right out of the gate, let’s just address the orange elephant in the room. Yeah. Trump didn’t
    0:04:25 just win the election. It was a fairly resounding win, not a historical blowout, but he gained
    0:04:31 ground with basically every single demo. This isn’t Pod Save America, so we’re not here to do
    0:04:37 an autopsy. But now that we’ve had a few days to let everything sink in,
    0:04:43 how are you feeling? What do you make of what happened? Well, next time on Pod Save America,
    0:04:47 I hope that they say this isn’t the gray area at the beginning, and then we go on to do something
    0:04:52 very differently. Like, I would say we should separate out two different things, right? Like,
    0:04:56 one is our analysis of what’s happening, and the other is how we feel about what happened,
    0:05:01 both sort of emotionally and normatively. Like, how do we judge a reaction like this?
    0:05:08 Analytically, I think we’re still pretty early to have any really strong conclusions,
    0:05:13 but I will say that most of what people are saying as a result of that doesn’t make a
    0:05:17 lot of sense to me, right? If you notice, there’s like a one-to-one correlation between someone’s
    0:05:22 very detailed account of what happened in the election and their own priors about how politics
    0:05:26 works. Fancy that, right? Or actually, it’s this other thing that had nothing to do with
    0:05:30 my ideology, which, by the way, is my own inclination just from looking at the data.
    0:05:33 You mentioned that Trump gained ground with basically every group, right? Like, well,
    0:05:39 that only happens, this kind of uniform swing, when there’s something, some big structural
    0:05:44 factor at play, right? And the things, the candidates that make sense to explain a shift from
    0:05:51 2020 to 2024 are inflation, right? That’s new, and it’s been politically potent everywhere and
    0:05:57 historically in the U.S. it matters. And anti-incumbent sentiment, which is like a worldwide
    0:06:03 fact. It’s true in democracies around the world. Her biggest losses were in blue states.
    0:06:08 And that suggests that something is going on that wasn’t just like Harris’ message is bad.
    0:06:12 She didn’t say exactly the things that I thought you should say when you’re going to win,
    0:06:14 right? Something else is happening.
    0:06:20 I mean, there clearly wasn’t a reason. There are many reasons, and we’re going to be
    0:06:24 parsing this out for a while, I’m sure.
    0:06:27 Years? People are still fighting about 2016, so years.
    0:06:37 Yeah, no shit. From your point of view, what were the most important material stakes
    0:06:41 of this election? And I realize there’s a lot of uncertainty here, but it’s not a complete
    0:06:46 black box. And I’m asking because I think this question is mostly lost in all the
    0:06:54 horse race coverage and all the arguments about exit polling and what went wrong for Dems.
    0:06:59 Yeah, look, what matters is that Donald Trump is coming into his second term agenda
    0:07:07 with a very clear vision of what his movement is for and what he wants to wield power to get.
    0:07:12 And that was not true in the first term. The first term, those of us that remember and were
    0:07:18 journalists during it especially, was chaotic. A lot of things happened for reasons that were
    0:07:25 hard to tell. The policy process was not streamlined. The people in charge had fundamentally
    0:07:30 different ways of thinking about politics. This time around, I expect chaos. Trump is not a very
    0:07:40 good manager, just of people like a good executive. But at the same time, I really do think that he
    0:07:46 will come in an attempt to implement at least three things that are really important to him and
    0:07:53 that have huge, huge stakes for people’s lives. The first one is mass deportation. I think there’s
    0:07:59 no doubt that’s going to happen. How mass it is exactly, we don’t know, but it could be in the
    0:08:06 millions of the number of people who are deported, which would be a massive disruption to all sorts
    0:08:11 of different things from businesses that depend on these people to work from most importantly to
    0:08:14 the people themselves and the communities that they’re a part of, of them being suddenly thrown
    0:08:18 out of the country, some of whom maybe have never even left the United States.
    0:08:25 Just to say that there is no non-horrendous way to execute that. It would be very ugly.
    0:08:30 Correct. We’re talking ice agents going door to door, looking for people in certain areas.
    0:08:35 We’re talking potentially camps where undocumented migrants are kept for
    0:08:42 holding until they can be processed and deported. All of that’s a realistic possibility. This is
    0:08:46 all stuff the Trump team has said themselves. It’s not just people projecting onto them.
    0:08:50 Economic disruptions are real. The pain of individuals, what it’s going to do to American
    0:08:54 society, that’s all I think going to happen. The only question is how big the scale is.
    0:09:00 I think a similar thing like that is tariffs. We’re going to get fairly significant economic
    0:09:06 disruptions. If you’re talking people don’t like inflation, just wait until every foreign made good
    0:09:12 is 10% more expensive or whatever. If Trump targets China, escalating trade wars in the first term,
    0:09:18 I think they continue through Biden’s term, by the way, contributed non-trivially to rising prices
    0:09:26 and economic slowdown. I would expect that. Then the third thing, which is hard to process as a
    0:09:32 material stake in the way that you put it, but is really important, is Trump’s plan to remake the
    0:09:39 federal government in his image and purge critics from the ranks of the civil service.
    0:09:47 This is profoundly dangerous, I would say, because what it means is not just
    0:09:54 asserting political control over the state, though there’s that. There is a significant
    0:09:59 element of democratic threat there. All the downstream consequences are potentially
    0:10:03 quite dangerous, depending on which department you look at. I recently wrote a very long thing
    0:10:08 about Trump’s plan for one division of the Justice Department, the Civil Rights Division,
    0:10:14 and how much that could be used as a tool of weakening certain foundations of American politics,
    0:10:21 and that’s just one sub-branch of one branch. But it’s also not just democracy. It’s also
    0:10:28 every function of the federal government that depends on non-partisan experience civil
    0:10:33 servants could potentially be affected by this. The consequences are almost unpredictably large.
    0:10:40 One example is that it’s not outside the realm of Trump’s power to encourage localities,
    0:10:46 if he doesn’t power RFK Jr. in the way he suggested, to eliminate vaccine mandates in schools.
    0:10:51 And if that happens, we’re talking about an unprecedented experiment in a developed country
    0:10:56 reversing vaccines that had kept the rate of preventable diseases down at a marginal level,
    0:11:00 the reduction of herd immunity across the United States. So it’s not just a red area problem.
    0:11:05 If red states are the only one following federal guidance, it’s like potentially we’re talking
    0:11:12 national returns of diseases thought defeated. And again, I want to emphasize that these are just
    0:11:18 two examples. I pulled almost at random from the list of examples because I’ve been thinking about
    0:11:23 them for a variety of reasons recently. If Trump does the things that he says he’s going to do,
    0:11:27 the revisions to the American state and the functioning of the American government model
    0:11:35 will be fundamental. But that’s what is so wow to me. How much of the faith in Donald Trump
    0:11:43 really depends on him not doing the things he says he’s absolutely going to do.
    0:11:51 What a gamble. I mean, I think that a lot of people can’t believe it. They just hear stuff
    0:11:57 like that and they can’t. And some people just don’t think about it. They go to vote because
    0:12:03 they’re angry that groceries are somewhat more expensive and they have seen some scary images
    0:12:08 of the border on TV. And I don’t mean to make light of people for doing this. This is what
    0:12:13 democracy is. Not everybody spends all day thinking about politics, they’re not supposed to and they
    0:12:19 shouldn’t. It’s not like they’re morally blameworthy for casting a vote based on limited information.
    0:12:28 Again, that is what democracy is. It’s just that the sheer radicalism of Trump’s policies are
    0:12:34 difficult to understand unless you’re really well versed in how the US federal government works.
    0:12:45 That’s not most people. And one thing I write about extensively in my book is how anti-democratic
    0:12:52 politics functions by masking itself in both democratic language but also in being boring,
    0:12:58 right? And being normal, seeming like just sort of like everyday stuff inside the political system.
    0:13:04 And I really think that a lot of how Trump got away with promising to do significant damage
    0:13:10 to American democracies because it didn’t register to most people as operating in that way.
    0:13:16 Well, let’s get into that. You’ve covered the American right for a long time. You just wrote
    0:13:22 an excellent book about this. You have a great Vox newsletter called On the Right, which is very
    0:13:28 much about this. And so that’s where I want to move this conversation. And let’s just set aside
    0:13:33 the election for a minute, though we’re probably going to keep coming back to it. We just can’t
    0:13:42 help it. But when someone asks you, what is American conservatism in 2024? What is your answer?
    0:13:53 Not conservatism. What we call the conservative movement today is not what the conservative
    0:13:58 movement historically has been in the United States. It’s a species of reactionary politics.
    0:14:05 And the distinction, I think, rests in the party’s fundamental attitude towards democracy and
    0:14:12 democratic institutions. The old Republican Party, for all of its faults, played by the
    0:14:19 political rules. It had faith in the idea that elections determine the winner and that when
    0:14:25 elections happen, you accept the verdict of the people and you adjust based on that,
    0:14:29 regardless of whether or not you like the policy preferences. Again, we can already start to see
    0:14:33 the scenes in this narrative, the emergencies of certain Trumpisms, because you’d be like,
    0:14:38 well, what about the 2000 election? To which I would say, exactly. That’s evidence that there was
    0:14:44 always a component of this more radical version of the right. But even that was much more system
    0:14:52 oriented and system accepting than what the Republican Party has become, which in the language
    0:14:57 that I use in my book is a reactionary party. And reactionary parties are different from
    0:15:05 conservatism in that they both share an orientation towards believing that certain ways in which
    0:15:13 society is arranged, certain setups, institutions, even hierarchies are good and necessary, right?
    0:15:18 That there’s value in the way that things are. What differs between the two of them is that
    0:15:25 conservative parties don’t see potential social change as an indictment of democracy. That is
    0:15:31 to say, even if a democracy or an election produces an outcome that they don’t like,
    0:15:36 that threatens to transform wholesale certain elements of the social order,
    0:15:40 a conservative would not throw out the political order as a consequence of that.
    0:15:44 Reactionaries are willing to do that. And my view is that the core of the Trump movement,
    0:15:50 which I want to distinguish from every Trump supporter, they’re not the same. But the people
    0:15:56 who have given Donald Trump an iron grip on the Republican Party, that sort of hardcore of support
    0:16:02 are animated primarily by reactionary politics, by a sense that things have gone too far in a
    0:16:07 socially liberal and culturally liberal and even in some cases economically liberal direction.
    0:16:15 And they want things to go back to partially a past that never existed, but also a past that
    0:16:22 did exist, where there was a little bit more order and structure in terms of who is in charge
    0:16:32 and what the rules were. I should say, I think we both respect the conservative instinct.
    0:16:38 I genuinely think that, and we’ve talked about this before, the challenge of political
    0:16:45 life is navigating the tension between order and progress, which is very difficult.
    0:16:52 And you put it well in the book, the small d democratic right sees virtue and tradition
    0:16:57 and danger and change. There’s wisdom in that orientation, correct?
    0:17:02 I absolutely think that part of what’s made me so nervous about the 2024 election results is that
    0:17:09 Trump has a much more anti-system orientation on foreign policy than he did in the past and that
    0:17:17 the international order as defined post-World War II really orients around the United States playing
    0:17:21 this core stabilizing role and being willing to involve itself in all sorts of things that
    0:17:28 most Americans don’t see or even care about, but that do play a role in global financial
    0:17:34 political stability. A lot of what Trump wants to do is tear down the things that make that work.
    0:17:42 I feel very conservative saying this, but if you take a hammer to that system and you change it
    0:17:45 because you think it’s not delivering in certain ways, which it isn’t by the way,
    0:17:49 it’s not perfect, it’s doing a lot of things that I think are very good, but if you take a
    0:17:53 hammer to that system, you don’t know what the consequences are going to be. I think they’re
    0:18:02 likely to be quite dangerous. That impulse, that sense that whatever the critiques are,
    0:18:05 and there are many, when I say things like this, people often say, “How can you support an
    0:18:11 international order that is yielding the inhumanity in Gaza?” Which I take it. That’s a very classic
    0:18:18 progressive critique of conservatism. X feature of the status quo is bad, is unacceptable even
    0:18:22 morally. How dare you support the status quo as a whole to which the conservative replies reasonably?
    0:18:26 Well, that’s really bad and we should try to do something about it, but that doesn’t mean you
    0:18:32 throw the baby out with the bathwater. That doesn’t mean that you should say, “Okay, the whole
    0:18:36 thing is irredeemable. Let’s throw it out or let’s transform everything.” That’s how I feel about
    0:18:40 the international system. What makes me very worried about Trumpism is that part of its reactionary
    0:18:45 politics is saying the international order is a symptom of the leftism that we just like so much.
    0:18:53 There’s a political scientist we both know at Harvard, Daniel Ziblatt. You discussed his work
    0:19:02 in your book pretty early on. He made the case, I think, successfully that the countries in Europe
    0:19:08 that transitioned successfully into democracy were the countries that had the strongest
    0:19:14 conservative parties, which sounds a little counterintuitive at first. But this is an important
    0:19:19 point. What was his explanation for that? Because it does speak to the inherent utility of having,
    0:19:25 of saying, healthy conservative party. Yeah. Historically speaking, the base of conservative
    0:19:31 parties has been the social and economic elite, which makes sense. Who benefits the most from
    0:19:38 the status quo? Well, it’s the wealthy and the powerful and the influential. They need some way
    0:19:44 to organize their interests and defend them, whether or not you agree with whatever their
    0:19:53 policies are for defending those things. My read of Ziblatt’s book is that he sees conservative
    0:20:02 parties as a means of structuring those interests and channeling them into pro-system politics.
    0:20:06 That is to say, if these rich people, powerful people in society, believe that they can get what
    0:20:12 they want through the electoral system, they don’t feel as much of a threat when democracy delivers
    0:20:20 results that are contrary to their own views that maybe level the playing field a little bit for
    0:20:25 people lower down on the social and economic hierarchy. They’re willing to tolerate losing
    0:20:29 elections periodically as long as they think that they’ll have a chance to win again in the future
    0:20:36 and that they feel like the policy results aren’t fundamentally, let’s say, I don’t know,
    0:20:41 lead them to the guillotine. But when they don’t have a party like that, something that can advocate
    0:20:46 for them in elections, a strong party, and I use the guillotine example deliberately, right? If you
    0:20:50 read a history of the French Revolution, it’s just a story of like leftward and leftward and
    0:20:58 leftward movements until there’s not any party that could properly even resemble anything described
    0:21:03 as being on the right. It’s just a division between more and less radical people on the left
    0:21:08 that in countries like that where the right felt that the very nature of the political system,
    0:21:13 the democratic system, had become an existential threat to their, often their physical survival,
    0:21:19 let alone their economic status. Well, they’re willing to support extreme measures like the
    0:21:27 restoration of the bourbon monarchy in order to safeguard themselves. So that’s what a conservative
    0:21:34 party does, right? It advocates and stabilizes the social order by serving to bring the most
    0:21:42 powerful people in that order into the system itself. And the problem is when you lack a conservative
    0:21:49 party or what was once a conservative party is no longer acting as such, your political system
    0:21:53 gets a little off kilter. And to repeat, we currently lack an actually conservative party
    0:21:59 in America. Yeah, great. You know, I was trusting your listeners to get the get the inference there.
    0:22:21 Support for the gray area comes from Mint Mobile. I hate to ruin your ad break with some bad news,
    0:22:24 but you’re probably paying too much for your cell phone plan.
    0:22:28 It’s one of those budgetary to line items that always looks pretty ugly,
    0:22:32 and it might feel like there’s nothing you can do about it. Here’s the good news though.
    0:22:38 Mint Mobile. Mint Mobile’s latest deal might challenge your idea of what a phone plan has to
    0:22:43 cost. If you make the switch now, you’ll pay just $15 a month when you purchase a new three-month
    0:22:48 phone plan. All Mint Mobile plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered
    0:22:54 on the nation’s largest 5G network. You can even keep your phone, your contacts, and your number.
    0:22:59 It doesn’t get much easier than that, people. To get this new customer offer and your new
    0:23:05 three-month premium wireless plan for just $15 a month, you can go to mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:23:12 That’s mintmobile.com/grayarea. You can cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:23:20 $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 a month. New customers on first three-month plan
    0:23:25 only. Speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions
    0:23:35 apply. See Mint Mobile for details. Support for the gray area comes from deleteme. These days,
    0:23:40 we all basically know that our personal info is just hanging out on the interwebs somewhere.
    0:23:46 But it can have serious real-life consequences. Data brokers can make a profit off of your data,
    0:23:50 from your name, contact information, home address, and even your social security number.
    0:23:56 That’s why deleteme is here to help. It’s a subscription service that monitors and removes
    0:24:01 your personal info from hundreds of data brokers. Claire White, our colleague here at Vox, tried
    0:24:10 deleteme for herself. I’ve had great experience with deleteme. They have reviewed over 8,000 listings
    0:24:17 online, including my name, my phone number, and my address, and removed over 100 data brokers with
    0:24:22 my information. You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up
    0:24:29 for deleteme. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Today, you can get 20% off your deleteme
    0:24:35 plan when you go to join deleteme.com/Vox and use promo code Vox at checkout. You can get
    0:24:44 20% off by going to join deleteme.com/Vox and enter code Vox at checkout. That’s join deleteme.com/Vox
    0:24:54 code Vox. Support for the show comes from Shopify. It’s easy to take the magic of online shopping
    0:25:00 for granted. Just a couple of clicks and voila, that new translation of Schopenhauer’s The
    0:25:05 World as Will and Representation arrives at your doorstep. But the reality is that it takes an
    0:25:11 enormous amount of logistical brilliance to make it all happen. And Shopify is one of the platforms
    0:25:16 powering online commerce. So if you run your business online, you might want to try Shopify.
    0:25:22 Shopify is the online commerce platform that makes it easy to buy and sell. According to
    0:25:28 Shopify, businesses that use their shop pay feature see conversions up to 50%, meaning way less
    0:25:36 cards going abandoned and way more sales going because businesses that sell more sell on Shopify.
    0:25:43 You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com/Vox, all lowercase.
    0:25:52 You can go to Shopify.com/Vox to upgrade your selling today. That’s Shopify.com/Vox.
    0:26:05 [Music]
    0:26:11 The reactionary spirit you’re talking about. It is a form of anti-democratic politics and we see it
    0:26:19 in democratic societies when there’s a perceived threat to the social order, to traditional
    0:26:28 hierarchies. And that becomes the justification for using all forms of power to undermine democracy
    0:26:34 from within. First of all, how is this different from fascism? Is it that reactionary politics
    0:26:41 claims to be a defense of true democracy, whereas fascism is just an outright rejection of the whole
    0:26:50 democratic project? The way I would see it is that oftentimes fascism is a species of reactionary
    0:26:56 politics, but there are plenty of variants of reactionary movements that are not fascist
    0:27:02 in orientation. They have some different ideological tenor to them. A lot of
    0:27:09 anti-democratic parties historically, let’s say, we were just talking about 19th-century
    0:27:14 Europe. That was before fascism existed. Monarchism, like anti-revolutionary monarchism,
    0:27:19 was certainly a variant of reactionary politics in the sense that there had been a change to
    0:27:24 the social order that led people to turn against democracy itself, but it wasn’t fascist in the
    0:27:32 sense that it didn’t have all of the specific hallmarks of mid-century European authoritarianism.
    0:27:37 We can go down the list and there are different examples, but I think what it means to be a
    0:27:46 example of the reactionary spirit is to be an extreme right party that, for whatever reason,
    0:27:51 believes that change has gone too far and that overthrowing democracy in one way or another
    0:27:56 is the solution. Now, the point you made earlier about playing within the contours of the democratic
    0:28:01 game is really important, but I think it speaks to different facet of the reactionary spirit and
    0:28:10 its mutability. Reactionary politics doesn’t go away after fascism. The extreme right is
    0:28:16 delegitimized, like, morally in a lot of places, not everywhere, but certainly in the Atlantic West.
    0:28:25 What happens is not that people all of a sudden are fine with social progress, challenges to the
    0:28:30 economic hierarchy, and are unwilling to do anything about it, or even that they’ve just
    0:28:35 reconciled themselves fully to losing democratic elections. There are always people who reject
    0:28:40 those things, but they recognize that the public has mostly gotten on board with democracy and
    0:28:46 still is, by the way, as much anti-system or anti-elite sentiment as there is right now. People
    0:28:50 still generally want to have elections and want to be able to choose who leads them. They’re pulling
    0:28:57 on that’s pretty clear. They adapt their rhetoric. I think this is an important difference between
    0:29:03 modern reactionary politics and a fascist reactionary politics, is that fascists and monarchists,
    0:29:08 too, they would outright say, “We are against democracy. Democracy is bad. We need to replace it.”
    0:29:14 Now, authoritarian’s tend to have a more subtle message, at least when they’re operating inside
    0:29:18 a country that’s already a democracy. They’re trying to contest elections with an electorate
    0:29:25 that believes in democracy as the governing logic of the system. What they do is say,
    0:29:30 “We are the true democrats.” It’s the other people, these opponents who are trying to,
    0:29:38 through their radical leftism, radical Marxism, you’ve heard all of these terms, are trying to
    0:29:43 overthrow our system of government, not us. They stole the election. We didn’t lose it.
    0:29:49 Isn’t it that we see elections as illegitimate? It’s that Joe Biden, his nefarious thugs,
    0:29:54 somehow managed to secretly rig the 2020 election behind our backs. That difference,
    0:30:01 playing within the ideological contours of democratic discourse, allows them to succeed
    0:30:07 in an environment where being called a fascist is still a slur. Trump didn’t say, “I’m a fascist.”
    0:30:11 Yay, when he was called that, he was like, “Look at how they’re trying to call you a fascist,
    0:30:15 and aren’t you angry about that?” It’s all taking place in a very different
    0:30:19 ideological environment than previous bouts of authoritarianism.
    0:30:24 We can make the case that Trumpism is a reactionary movement, but
    0:30:35 what is Trumpism really reacting against? What it seems to be, increasingly, is a rejection of
    0:30:43 the ruling elites, a rejection of the professional managerial class, which is more about class and
    0:30:51 culture than race and the preservation of traditional hierarchies. How do you make
    0:30:57 sense of that? Yeah, I think there’s a little bit of analytic slippage going on in that account,
    0:31:01 and I think we need to be really careful when we talk about it. That’s the classiest way someone
    0:31:06 just called me wrong, by the way. A little analytical slippage there, sir. There’s a little
    0:31:11 bit of slippage here. I’m speaking for the critics. This is how I run away from everything.
    0:31:15 Yeah, I didn’t want to tell you. Many people are saying that.
    0:31:20 Many people are saying that. That’s actually true. They’re wrong, and I think in important
    0:31:26 sense, but write in another one. Let’s start with wrong. When we talk about what Trumpism is,
    0:31:33 we need to specify what we’re talking about. I don’t think looking at a general election and
    0:31:40 saying that person voted for Trump is necessarily to say that person is a Trumpist. If somebody was
    0:31:45 considering voting for Harris or maybe voted for Democrats down ballot, it might not make
    0:31:51 sense to think of their behavior through a purely ideological lens, because they may not even have
    0:31:54 firm ideological beliefs. Many swing voters don’t. If you look at the way they talk about
    0:32:00 politics, it’s just sort of jumbled. Again, I’m not saying that they are bad for having jumbled
    0:32:05 views. That’s a fact about people who don’t pay attention to politics very much. Even people
    0:32:12 who do have jumbled views. That’s true. Fair enough. If you look at Trump’s core supporters,
    0:32:20 though, the story of racial and social grievance, anger about immigration,
    0:32:28 a sense of alienation from the United States after Obama really personalized the changing
    0:32:35 social order, all of that is remarkably consistent among the people who will turn out to vote for
    0:32:41 Trump in a Republican primary. It’s been true over and over again. The evidence is overwhelmingly
    0:32:48 strong that this is their core motivation in Trump politics, in being engaged in this movement.
    0:32:55 Nothing about this election result changes that. What that part of the story does is help us
    0:33:01 understand why Trump has gained control over one of our two major political parties.
    0:33:05 Why it is that he crushed traditional Republicans who are unwilling to give those voters
    0:33:10 what they wanted in such clear terms. Those voters had become a majority of the Republican
    0:33:18 party internally. More than that, it’s why vast, vast, vast bulk of Republicans rejected the 2020
    0:33:22 election when previously they had believed elections were legitimate. It’s why so many
    0:33:26 people were willing to swallow the idea that Obama wasn’t born in the United States. That’s
    0:33:32 like one category of explanation. Then we’re talking about shifts in coalitions between different
    0:33:37 elections. Here, the analysis becomes a lot trickier because we’re not talking about what makes
    0:33:42 up the core of an ideological movement because all of those voters are baked into voting for
    0:33:47 Trump no matter what. You have 46, 47% of the electorate that’s not going to change their mind
    0:33:54 no matter what on both sides, but maybe a bit of exaggeration but not much. You end up having
    0:34:01 these voters in the middle. What causes someone to change their votes between elections is not
    0:34:08 the same thing as what engages really highly motivated, highly ideological voters who make
    0:34:12 up a political movement. They’re swing voters. They’re not Trumpists in the clear sense just
    0:34:18 because you voted for Trump once. Collapsing that distinction leads to analytic mistakes.
    0:34:23 I think trying to be careful about what we’re saying and the kinds of claims that we’re making
    0:34:29 and analyzing election results is really important. I just continue to have a hard time
    0:34:37 parsing out all the forces that are combining to scramble our politics. There’s so much
    0:34:43 alienation. It’s a very lonely society. Our democracy doesn’t feel very participatory
    0:34:48 for lots of people, so there’s not enough investment in it. I think social media,
    0:34:53 media fragmentation more generally, the collapse of consensus reality, it’s all been very
    0:35:01 destabilizing. I’m just going to keep saying that I think millions of people have never experienced
    0:35:07 real political disorder. I think they take liberal democracy for granted and frankly,
    0:35:13 don’t take politics very seriously. It is a reality TV show and they’re entertained by
    0:35:18 Trump and they think he’s funny and he’ll make eggs a little cheaper and also drive coastal
    0:35:25 elites insane and that’s kind of it. Yeah. I mean, I think that’s really, that’s true for a lot of
    0:35:30 people, right? A lot of people. A lot of people, especially that point about taking liberal democracy
    0:35:38 for granted is so important. I think it’s that when you live in a political order for a long
    0:35:43 period of time, you just came to take it as like a baseline. This is the way that things are,
    0:35:51 right? It’s not that you can’t even envision fundamental change. It’s that you don’t even have
    0:35:58 the vocabulary necessary or the sense of perspective necessary to believe that you
    0:36:03 should be envisioning radical change. It just doesn’t enter into your daily life, right? If you
    0:36:09 look at interviews with swing voters and the way that they talk about politics or talk to them
    0:36:15 yourselves, the sense that you get is not that these people are like, “I want to burn American
    0:36:20 democracy to the ground.” It’s that they’ve got a choice between two candidates, like they do every
    0:36:25 election and they pick the one who represents whatever their grievances are at this moment in
    0:36:30 time or whatever their anger or frustration or even hopes and dreams are at this moment in time.
    0:36:34 Lots of different things go into for a voter that changes their mind election to election.
    0:36:41 What speaks to that and the stuff about who Trump really is and what he really stands for,
    0:36:48 the system-threatening part of it, it just doesn’t even register because it seems too remote to feel
    0:36:55 real. Not just remote. It also feels, I think we’ve talked about this a little bit, it feels
    0:37:01 a little too silly and absurd often, right? I mean, figuring out how to situate Trump in this
    0:37:09 story has always been weird for me. I think he’s too nihilistic to be the leader of anything other
    0:37:18 than a personality cult. But the question, I guess, for you is, has he become more like a vehicle
    0:37:26 that serious ideological reactionaries are using to advance their serious political project?
    0:37:37 I mean, I’m going to say yes and no. So yes, in the sense that Trump does not have the mind for
    0:37:51 detailed policy work. It’s just not what he cares about. It’s not. He doesn’t want to try to understand
    0:37:55 how something like Schedule F is going to work. He’s not going to be in the details going through
    0:38:01 staff directories. He doesn’t really know how the federal government relates to local prosecutors
    0:38:06 and what the authority is to punish the people who went after him, but he wants to do it and he
    0:38:10 wants someone to figure out how to do it. And that’s the stuff that he’s immediately concerned
    0:38:15 with. And there’s the stuff that’s relatively far afield. Do you think Trump really has a sense
    0:38:22 of what the Department of Labor does or cares? Absolutely. No. No. He’s no sense, right? And
    0:38:27 we’ll just do whatever people around him or the last person he talked to suggested that he does
    0:38:32 or the last person that he liked that he talked to. So in that sense, yeah, a lot of what happens
    0:38:37 in Trump administrations, now that we have to use the plural, is going to be determined by the
    0:38:43 political world around him. And I also don’t think he has a sincere commitment to anti-democracy
    0:38:49 either. He would never write a book where he lays out a coherent political ideology that
    0:38:54 he sincerely believes. He puts forward whatever makes sense at a time. But, Zach, this is my
    0:38:59 problem with him. He’s not committed to anything. I have always felt that his political genius
    0:39:04 consists in making himself into an avatar onto which people can project whatever they need to
    0:39:11 project. And he’s just so well-equipped to be this kind of vehicle that I’m talking about. Because,
    0:39:15 again, I genuinely do not think he cares about anything other than himself. I mean, if the man
    0:39:21 had to choose between preserving liberal democracy for another century or building a beautiful new
    0:39:27 golf course in Saudi Arabia, is there any doubt he’d build the fucking golf course? That’s his
    0:39:32 level of commitment to democracy. No, but I think that that’s a mistake,
    0:39:37 right? Because it’s not that he doesn’t have a commitment to democracy in the sense that he’s
    0:39:46 not attached to it. He doesn’t like it. He doesn’t like the idea that he can’t do whatever he wants
    0:39:51 when he gets power. He gets very angry when people say, “You can’t do that,” or, “That’s illegal.”
    0:39:57 And he openly admires leaders in other countries who have either always been authoritarian,
    0:40:03 like Xi Jinping in China, or who have torn down their own democracies, like Putin or Victor
    0:40:09 Orban in Hungary. He thinks that they’re strong and that it’s great that they get to do stuff like
    0:40:13 that. And again, this is not an ideological commitment to authoritarianism either. It’s not
    0:40:18 like Trump has a sincere belief that authoritarian systems work better or deliver better in some
    0:40:25 kind of meaningful sense. It’s a gut level, “I like that. I want to be like that.” It’s when he said,
    0:40:30 in those comments that were recently reported, “I want generals like Hitler’s generals.” It’s not
    0:40:34 like he was saying, “I want generals who will follow my orders to exterminate the Jews.” He’s
    0:40:39 saying, “I want people who listen to me and do the things that I say, whatever those things are,
    0:40:45 however crazy they might seem.” And in that sense, he has a gut level authoritarianism and it’s
    0:40:50 reactionary in the sense that he very clearly hates a lot of the social change that has happened.
    0:40:56 So he does really classically fit the pattern I describe in the book. But it’s not because he,
    0:41:01 unlike someone like, say, Orban or Narendra Modi in India or Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel,
    0:41:08 all of them have complex ideological beliefs. Orban’s are mostly for show, by the way. He mostly
    0:41:14 cares about power, but he’s a very sophisticated ideological operator. And Netanyahu and Modi
    0:41:18 are for real ideologues. They really do believe a lot of what they’re saying.
    0:41:21 I think that’s more what I was speaking to. It’s clear that Trump wants power. It’s just
    0:41:27 not clear to me what he really wants to do with it. It’s not clear to me what it will be in service
    0:41:30 of. Yeah. I mean, there are two things, right? Like two things that I think he does care about,
    0:41:34 right? He does believe that we need to get the immigrants out of our country. He really does
    0:41:39 believe that. It’s been true for decades in his statements. It’s one thing he’s been consistent
    0:41:45 on. And the second, he believes that free trade is bad for America. It’s like a really fixed belief
    0:41:51 for him. It’s unchangeable. No amount of evidence could cause him to change his mind on this topic.
    0:41:55 The only question is how far he’s willing to go in pursuing an anti-trade agenda.
    0:42:02 And those two things reflect a deeper worldview, I think, a sense of the world as a fundamentally
    0:42:07 zero someplace, where it can’t be the case that migrants coming to the U.S. is good for
    0:42:12 native-born citizens, right? Someone has to win and someone has to lose. It can’t be the case that
    0:42:18 both countries involved in a trading arrangement benefit. Someone has to get the better of the
    0:42:22 deal that’s being made between the two sides. And you see this in his approach to foreign policy,
    0:42:28 too. It can’t be the case that the Atlantic Alliance is something that stabilizes the world
    0:42:35 for everybody. It’s that the Europeans are taking America for a ride. Americans are letting them
    0:42:42 slide on their own defense obligations and footing the bill. So it’s bad for us because we’re the
    0:42:48 militarily stronger component of the alliance and on down the list. And so that sort of constellation
    0:42:55 of instincts, the zero sum-ness of it all filters down into perspectives on different policy issues.
    0:43:01 But it’s not in the same way as somebody who has a doctrine, a set of propositions that they believe
    0:43:06 about the world that have been applied to different cases. It’s just he has sort of feelings about
    0:43:12 stuff. And the feelings about stuff translates into some relatively stable policy views in some
    0:43:15 areas where he doesn’t really think that much or care that much about it. And when he doesn’t care,
    0:43:20 he is willing to be protean in the way that you described, to just change his mind on abortion
    0:43:24 whenever he feels like it and whatever the audience is and say wildly different contradictory stuff
    0:43:27 depending on what feels like in his interest at that moment in time.
    0:43:33 Yeah, I think it’s clear he certainly has instincts. And I think those instincts can be
    0:43:40 properly called authoritarian. I’m curious what you make a JD Vance. I mean, I know he’s shape
    0:43:47 shifted quite a bit here in the last few years, but he seems to me to be seriously ideological
    0:43:52 in a way that maybe Trump isn’t. I mean, is he the future of the political right? What does
    0:43:57 he represent? What does he want? I think he is sincerely ideological. I think this is in part
    0:44:02 because I’ve met him and I’ve interviewed him, however briefly, but also because I’ve talked
    0:44:08 to people who know him pretty well. Just through random chance, we have a good friend in common,
    0:44:12 his former law school roommate who’s now a state senator in Georgia named Josh McClearn.
    0:44:17 And I talked to Josh a lot about this. And he’s like, well, JD is really motivated by
    0:44:26 anger. He’s just a very angry person. And in Josh’s accounting, that anger has shifted from
    0:44:33 being an anger in part at the circumstances under which he was raised, which you can see on
    0:44:38 display in Hillbilly Elegy and the way that he talks condescendingly in a lot of times about
    0:44:43 other poor whites and about how he’s the one who made it out and they have cultural problems that
    0:44:50 prevent them from doing so. It’s a very classic conservative text in those ways. But now his
    0:44:55 resentments, he’s always had these, but I think they’ve come to the fore, are primarily directed
    0:45:02 at other elites. He’s angry about the way that the elite establishment and the Ivy League and
    0:45:06 the business world and the political world treats people who believe the sorts of things that he
    0:45:14 believes. And he’s come to align himself with Trumpism and builds a broader doctrine around
    0:45:19 that anger that’s very, very hostile to the current political arrangement, the current political order
    0:45:23 in a fundamental sense. I mean, he literally called himself, at one event, an anti-regime
    0:45:29 leader. That’s the nature of his politics. He believes the fact that he refers to the United
    0:45:34 States as a regime to begin with is, I think, telling in the way that he thinks about things.
    0:45:40 And so, Vance, people differ on how serious he is about his Trumpist ideological
    0:45:45 turn. I happen to, for the reasons I just described, think it’s serious. But ultimately,
    0:45:52 what someone actually believes matters less than what they do with that belief. And most of the
    0:45:57 time, politicians are what they say, not what they feel in their hearts. It’s the commitments
    0:46:01 they make in public that bind them to a certain policy direction and cause them to act in a
    0:46:06 particular way. And the alliances they cultivate, the networks they need to survive as politicians.
    0:46:13 Whether or not Vance believes the radical stuff that he said, he’s bound to it. He
    0:46:19 pals around with people like Curtis Yervin, who’s a monarchist. And Vance has cited him as explicitly
    0:46:23 as an influence on how he thinks about executive branch staffing in a second Trump administration.
    0:46:29 He is thinking about how to remake the federal government through the lens of the work of a
    0:46:34 guy who wants to topple democracy, which is a wild thing to say about the vice president elect,
    0:46:43 but is absolutely true, I mean, by his own words. And I don’t know if Vance has the charisma to pull
    0:46:50 off what Trump does. Like you said earlier, Trump is funny. He is, he’s really funny, right?
    0:46:53 I don’t know if you’ve seen JD ordering donuts in a diner, it’s
    0:47:02 we really blew off the diner folks away. Yeah, it’s like most people are going to come across
    0:47:07 a stilted interactions like that. Like Lord knows that’s not. Yeah, but with some people,
    0:47:13 you can see the ones and zeros a little more. Fair enough. Fair enough. But I think
    0:47:17 I think honestly, like Sean, if you had JD Vance on your show, he would come across as like a
    0:47:23 pretty natural guy and it probably would be a pretty fun conversation, right? This is the kind
    0:47:27 of meeting. I’ve talked to him before. Yeah, yeah, right? I talked to him before, it was years ago,
    0:47:33 right after his book, and he really struck me as a very different person then. Yeah, but fair enough.
    0:47:39 Then he is now. And so I don’t know how that interaction would go today. But if he was like
    0:47:46 on this right now and you or me or both of us characterized him as a reactionary, would he
    0:47:50 own that label? Or would he describe his political project differently?
    0:47:54 That’s an interesting question. I know he wouldn’t characterize it in the way that I characterize
    0:48:00 it. Like he wouldn’t say, yeah, I’m dedicated to tearing democracy down. Because that’s part of,
    0:48:04 in my accounting, that’s part of what makes reactionary politics work today,
    0:48:10 is you have to explicitly say I’m for democracy, right? And then claim the mantle of democratic
    0:48:16 elections in order to tear down the scaffolding that makes fair elections possible in the future.
    0:48:22 But I think that if you asked Vance, do you reject your previous characterization of yourself as an
    0:48:27 anti-regime candidate or an anti-regime politician? He’d say, of course not. That’s what I believe.
    0:48:36 I believe the regime is a coterie of liberals and unaccountable positions in culture and the
    0:48:44 “deep state” in academia that exercise undue influence and do so against the wills and the
    0:48:48 beliefs and the majority of the American people. And I’m speaking for them. And my political project
    0:48:53 is to destroy the powers of these unaccountable elites and bring things back to the people.
    0:48:57 I think that’s what he would say. I don’t think that’s what he actually is doing.
    0:49:02 And I don’t know the extent to which he believes that he’s really the guy who is putting things
    0:49:09 back in charge of normal people, or whether he just says that for show. But that comes awful
    0:49:14 close without the anti-democratic part to how I would define reactionary. It just, you know,
    0:49:19 the tiny little bitty question of whether or not you believe elections should be fair.
    0:49:26 Whatever one thinks of Trump’s appeal and why so many people voted for him, I think we’ve discussed
    0:49:34 lots of people voted for him for lots of different reasons. The fact is, he is not committed to
    0:49:39 liberal democracy. He is not committed to the rule of law. And that creates a lot of uncertainty
    0:49:47 about what might happen. One of the things you do in the book is challenge American exceptionalism.
    0:49:53 I mean, this idea that we’re immune to certain kinds of political chaos because we’re America.
    0:50:02 Do you think our institutions will continue to hold? I think they will. I don’t think this
    0:50:08 is the end of the Republic. But I’ll confess that I’m not super duper confident about that.
    0:50:16 Yeah. I mean, I think that there is no reason to expect that elections will be formally abolished
    0:50:21 by 2028 in the way that some wild-eyed commentators and social media have suggested.
    0:50:27 I think there is a moderate chance that their fairness is severely undermined by then,
    0:50:32 a not unreasonable one. And I think there is a very high chance that some of the core institutions
    0:50:37 of American democracy will be damaged in ways that have significant long-term consequences.
    0:50:43 But differently, I don’t think this election itself is the end of American democracy. It spells
    0:50:48 the formal abolition of it. I do think it is the beginning of the greatest test American
    0:50:53 democracy has seen since the Civil War of its resilience. And the outcome of that test is not
    0:51:01 determined with a huge range of probabilities ranging from truly catastrophic to merely somewhat
    0:51:09 banned. And just to the point is not lost, what makes this to you a more significant test than the
    0:51:17 first Trump administration? I mean, it’s the degree to which they have clear and cogent plans
    0:51:21 about what they want to do and the anti-democratic nature of those plans.
    0:51:25 Coming into office last time, Trump didn’t have a vendetta against large chunks of the government.
    0:51:29 He didn’t believe an election had been stolen from him and that needed to be rectified. And he
    0:51:34 really believes that. It’s like a slight to his personal self. At the very least, he thinks it
    0:51:38 is a public blemish that needs to be shown to be false to many people because if many people
    0:51:42 believe that he won, then that’s good enough. It doesn’t matter if he actually did.
    0:51:47 Well, what matters, I guess, maybe to put it differently is Donald Trump’s honor. And the
    0:51:53 honor of Donald Trump must be avenged at all costs. And the insult of 2020 must be erased
    0:51:59 from the history books. That’s the kind of thing that he cares about. And the degree and scope of
    0:52:04 the planning that has gone into this and the willingness to take a hammer to different institutions
    0:52:09 to the US government and the specificity of the plans for doing. So to name just one example
    0:52:18 from Project 2025, they want to prosecute the former Pennsylvania Secretary of State who presided
    0:52:25 over the 2020 elections using the CLAN Act, which was passed to fight the first CLAN. And it’s
    0:52:33 basically alleging that by trying to help people fix improperly filed mail-in ballots in 2020,
    0:52:41 that this Pennsylvania Secretary of State candidate was rigging the election, trying to
    0:52:47 undermine everyone else’s fair exercise of their votes in a way akin to the CLAN intimidating
    0:52:54 black voters in the 1860s by threatening to lynch them. This is like a crazy charge on
    0:52:58 substantive legal grounds. When I speak to legal experts about this, they’re like,
    0:53:05 no credible prosecutor I know would bring such a charge. It’s a real abuse of power and anti-democratic
    0:53:11 in many ways because it’s like trying to wield federal power to prevent local authorities from
    0:53:17 administering elections properly and helping people vote. So in order to try to even begin an
    0:53:23 investigation on this front, let alone actually prosecute, what you need to do is fire the people
    0:53:27 who would do that kind of job, which would typically be in the Justice Department’s
    0:53:30 Civil Rights Division or also the Election Crimes Unit in the Criminal Division,
    0:53:36 fire those people who would work on these cases, bring in attorneys who are willing to do what you
    0:53:42 say, even though it’s ludicrous on the basis of a traditional read of the law, and then initiate
    0:53:49 an investigation, try to get charges spun up, and then get them to a judge like Eileen Cannon,
    0:53:53 who’s presiding over Trump’s documents case, and has clearly shown herself to not really care about
    0:53:58 what’s going on, but rather just interpret the law in whatever ways must favorable to Trump.
    0:54:05 All of that stuff, this is just one specific example, but it illustrates the ways in which
    0:54:09 you’re doing what Trump and his allies have outlined as part of their revenge campaign,
    0:54:16 requires attacking very fundamental components of American democracy. The building blocks,
    0:54:22 like the rule of law, like a non-partisan civil service that treats all citizens equally,
    0:54:26 like a judiciary that’s designed with interpreting the law as best as it can, rather than delivering
    0:54:33 policy outlines. You need all of those things in order to act on already offered promises
    0:54:39 in what is widely understood to be the planning document for the Trump administration, like the
    0:54:46 main one. That is a threat, a concerted authoritarian campaign, unlike anything the United States has
    0:54:52 seen in its history, really, at the federal level. There’s nothing, I’m trying to think,
    0:54:57 and there’s just no good parallel. There have been more serious challenges to American democracy
    0:55:03 before, but they mostly took place in the case of either foreign attacks, like the War of 1812,
    0:55:11 and internal violent challenges, the Civil War, in many ways Jim Crow was a state-level
    0:55:17 challenge to American democracy. But you haven’t had, at any point, a federal government
    0:55:23 that has made one of its central missions be crushing the various constituent parts that
    0:55:27 make a democracy work. That’s a new one for the United States.
    0:55:46 Support for the Gray Area comes from Greenlight. A piggy bank might be cute for a five-year-old,
    0:55:51 but it doesn’t help your teenager learn financial literacy. That’s where Greenlight can help.
    0:55:56 Greenlight is a debit card and money app made specifically with families in mind. You can send
    0:56:00 money to your kids, track their spending and saving, and help them develop their financial
    0:56:06 skills with games aimed at building the confidence they need to make wiser decisions with their money.
    0:56:10 The app even includes a chores feature, where you can set up recurring responsibilities for your
    0:56:16 kids, allowing them to earn a regular allowance each week. My kids are a little too young for it.
    0:56:21 We’re still in the piggy bank phase, but I’ve got a colleague here at Vox who uses it with his two
    0:56:28 boys, and he loves it. You can sign up for Greenlight today at greenlight.com/grayarea.
    0:56:40 That’s greenlight.com/grayarea to try Greenlight today. Greenlight.com/grayarea.
    0:56:46 Vox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zell.
    0:56:53 When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images
    0:56:57 of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in
    0:57:00 the middle of the night, and honestly, that’s not what it is anymore.
    0:57:05 That’s Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days,
    0:57:11 online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists, and they’re making bank.
    0:57:15 Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion.
    0:57:22 It’s mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that’s been built to facilitate scamming at scale.
    0:57:27 There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world.
    0:57:31 These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings.
    0:57:35 And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better.
    0:57:43 One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed
    0:57:48 to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple.
    0:57:51 We need to talk to each other.
    0:57:55 We need to have those awkward conversations around, what do you do if you have text messages you
    0:57:59 don’t recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that’s more
    0:58:04 sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam,
    0:58:07 but he fell victim, and we have these conversations all the time.
    0:58:12 So we are all at risk, and we all need to work together to protect each other.
    0:58:18 Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com/zel.
    0:58:23 And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust.
    0:58:31 Hey there, I’m Ashley C. Ford, an eye host into the mix,
    0:58:37 a Ben and Jerry’s podcast about joy and justice, produced with vox creative.
    0:58:42 As former president Donald Trump continues to claim, without evidence,
    0:58:47 that voter fraud is a key issue in the 2024 presidential election,
    0:58:52 we wanted to know, what impact can claims like this have on ordinary voters?
    0:58:58 Olivia Coley Pearson, or Ms. Livy as she is known in her community,
    0:59:02 comes from a family of proud voters and civil rights activists.
    0:59:05 So as an adult, civil service came naturally to her.
    0:59:09 In 2012, while she was volunteering at the polls,
    0:59:13 a first time voter asked Ms. Livy how the voting machine worked,
    0:59:20 and of course, she showed them. Years later, in 2016, Ms. Livy was arrested for voter fraud
    0:59:25 because of it. In her mind, this arrest wasn’t about voter fraud,
    0:59:30 it was about intimidating black voters. Listen to her story on the first episode
    0:59:43 of our new three-part series on Into the Mix, out now.
    0:59:48 It feels so wild to say this, but
    0:59:55 is it clear by now that Trump is unquestionably the most consequential
    1:00:01 political figure of the 21st century so far? Depends on how you calculate these things.
    1:00:05 First of all, we don’t know how successful he’ll be at doing those things.
    1:00:15 All of the scenarios that I just spun out in that last answer depend on not only Trump and his
    1:00:20 team’s willingness to root out people inside the government and replace them with ideologically
    1:00:25 motivated people, but all of them being competent enough to deal with the existing roadblocks that
    1:00:31 make politically motivated prosecutions difficult. And I don’t know if they have the bureaucratic
    1:00:36 or legal competence to do this kind of thing. When you said earlier that you think the system
    1:00:41 might hold, I think that’s a big reason why, is tearing down a democracy is really hard.
    1:00:46 One thing that I learned from studying Victor Orban in Hungary and writing about him in the
    1:00:52 book and just doing a lot of reporting on him in the past several years is that he’s super smart.
    1:00:58 He’s a lawyer by training. His inner circle, all lawyers, they all have an intimate knowledge
    1:01:04 of how the Hungarian political system works and have been very, very good at finding its weak
    1:01:13 points and sticking knives in them. That is a particular kind of talent and skill that I know
    1:01:18 Trump personally doesn’t possess and I don’t know how many of his people are going to possess enough
    1:01:23 space to be able to succeed in what is unquestionably a much more difficult political environment to
    1:01:27 authoritarianize. The Hungarian system was a lot simpler. There were no checks and balances
    1:01:31 given that he had a two-thirds majority that could amend the constitution at will. That’s not
    1:01:36 how things work here. That’s going to be hard. That will determine a lot of the answer to your
    1:01:43 question is Trump, the most significant figure of the 21st century. My view is Trump’s significance
    1:01:52 will depend very heavily on how successful he is in his second term at doing what he wants to do,
    1:01:57 but I do think you can also make a case that the ideological impact of Trump on American politics
    1:02:02 has already been massive and will inaugurate shifts that may well become permanent.
    1:02:07 I don’t think there’s any doubt. I guess to bring this around to the question of
    1:02:12 where we’re going and what’s next, personally,
    1:02:20 my political commitments haven’t changed. I believe in democracy. I’m with John Dewey.
    1:02:25 I have faith in ordinary people. If they’re empowered to meaningfully participate in political
    1:02:35 life, the way our politics have drifted in the last decade has left me pretty alienated for reasons
    1:02:41 I don’t really want to get into at the moment. We don’t have time, but I’m not a both sides
    1:02:47 or equivalently bad type. I voted for Harris because Trump doesn’t give a shit about the
    1:02:52 constitution and failed the most basic test you can take as a politician in a liberal democracy,
    1:02:57 not accepting a peaceful transfer of power in the world the Democratic Party wants to
    1:03:03 build remains much closer to the world I want to live in. This wasn’t a hard choice for me.
    1:03:09 Still, though, I do wonder where we’re heading and what our politics might look like on the other
    1:03:17 side of all of this. Trump is old, very old. There is a shelf life to his political career.
    1:03:25 There are people who think our situation will be drastically better the day he leaves and while
    1:03:31 I think we’ll be better off when he’s gone. I’m not so sure the political dysfunction
    1:03:37 that he’s uncorked will fade away nearly as quickly as people think. What do you think?
    1:03:45 Well, I agree with you in brief, but to build on what you’re saying. First, let’s say Trump dies
    1:03:53 in office. Then you get President JD Vance who shares very, very similar ideological commitments
    1:03:57 to the people who want to tear down American democracy and is, I think, probably one of them
    1:04:09 in a lot of ways. So there’s that. The fact that Trumpist politics have paid off in two
    1:04:14 presidential elections for Republicans and I just can’t imagine being a Republican strategist right
    1:04:21 now and being what we need to do is go back to 2012 because even if all you care about narrowly
    1:04:28 is winning elections, then you’re going to try to be Trump rather than the pre-Trump GOP.
    1:04:33 There will be a lot of people trying to take up the mantle of Trump’s successor
    1:04:37 in the Republican Party and that means doing a lot of the same things that he did.
    1:04:41 But can they do them in the way he did them? He is one of one in so many ways.
    1:04:48 I’m very skeptical. I’m very skeptical of that. If you look comparatively at authoritarian parties
    1:04:56 that work inside democracies, many of them are led by singular charismatic figures. Not all,
    1:05:03 but many of the successful ones. There’s this saying in Indian politics that Narendra Modi is
    1:05:14 the man who has a 56 inch chest. It’s not literally true, but it’s one of many things that isn’t
    1:05:21 about him that his supporters say when you talk to them. This mythologizing and grandiose comments
    1:05:30 stem from Modi’s outsized personality and his ability to connect as a figure with supporters
    1:05:34 of his party and with a lot of ordinary Indians who might not have supported his party in the
    1:05:41 past. I think Trump is much the same way and that appeal, first of all, it’s not invariant.
    1:05:45 Like Modi, while he won re-election this year, his party took a major hit. They lost their
    1:05:50 parliamentary majority and he’s now in power with the coalition and Trump, of course, lost in 2020.
    1:05:57 But second is what happens when it’s gone. We know that this is a huge problem for authoritarian
    1:06:03 parties in authoritarian countries. There are often nasty fights over what happens after the
    1:06:09 big man dies. That seems equally true in authoritarian factions inside democracies,
    1:06:17 because part of what makes them authoritarian is that they put one guy in charge and it’s not clear
    1:06:21 who’s next unless you have something like a monarchy where the rules of succession are clear,
    1:06:26 but even then who doesn’t know about nasty fights inside monarchies over who is the true heir to
    1:06:33 the throne. It’s just a fact of life when you’re not having things settled through a sort of normal
    1:06:38 democratic procedure when some politics come so oriented around one person to an outsized degree.
    1:06:48 So I just don’t know what’s going to happen after Trump is gone. I can guess and I think a lot will
    1:06:58 depend on how his administration manages American public opinion. Not only did Trump end his presidency
    1:07:04 historically unpopular, but even now he’s unpopular. He just won an election and as a figure,
    1:07:11 he is an unpopular candidate. There’s a lot of people who really don’t like him and many of the
    1:07:15 swing voters could be turned off by things that happened during his presidency, especially if
    1:07:19 it’s as disruptive as it seems like it might be to ordinary people’s lives.
    1:07:22 Yeah, and maybe this goes back to the legacy question a little bit or the question of his
    1:07:30 ultimate impact. I mean, I don’t know either. I just know he broke a lot of things that cannot be
    1:07:37 fixed very easily. I mean, you talk about the legacy of Nietzsche on the reactionary right
    1:07:40 towards the end of the book, which obviously triggered me a little bit.
    1:07:46 It was written for you, Sean. I should have written that. This is the Sean section of the book.
    1:07:55 I felt very seen. But Nietzsche definitely was not a fan of democracy, but man, any anti-democratic
    1:08:00 movement with Trump as its face is so far from what Nietzsche would have championed,
    1:08:05 the anti-intellectualism, the petty narcissism, the worshiping of money for its own sake. I mean,
    1:08:10 he is the pleasure-seeking decadent Nietzsche thought democratic cultures would inevitably
    1:08:16 produce. But the one Nietzschean thing about him, which is what we’ve been talking about here, is that
    1:08:23 he is dynamite. He has a way of blowing everything up, and that’s something Nietzsche would have
    1:08:31 appreciated. But what worries me is that there just doesn’t seem to be much else there. There’s
    1:08:38 no real ideas, no new values, no vision of the future. It’s just all the worst excesses and
    1:08:45 pathologies of our culture taken to their logical end point. And I don’t know where that leads us,
    1:08:50 except staring at the abyss, I guess, to stick with the Nietzsche themes.
    1:08:57 Yeah, except now, not only is the abyss staring back, it’s almost in reverse, right? We’re staring
    1:09:00 up at the abyss, and the abyss is staring down from its commanding heights of the federal government.
    1:09:12 Kind of twist the metaphor past the point of breaking, but the one thing that I will say
    1:09:20 that’s hopeful to counter the depressing sentiment that you just outlined is that I really believe,
    1:09:27 and even after this election, I really believe this, that most people in the United States and
    1:09:34 in other democracies still want to live in a democracy. Again and again, they say it, polls
    1:09:41 show it, that the alternatives don’t poll very well. They force people to act within its confines,
    1:09:49 and when they stray too far, there tends to be a popular backlash. I think the 2024 election is
    1:09:54 just another in a long list of trans ideological, like it’s not just like one side is being punished,
    1:10:00 but trans ideological backlashes against a status quo that people don’t like for certain reasons,
    1:10:06 but there’s a limit to how much people hate the status quo. There are things that you can do to
    1:10:11 break it, and if there’s anything, anything that’s been clear about American politics in the past
    1:10:15 few years, it’s that when you do things, when you try something ambitious, people punish you for it.
    1:10:22 What happened after Obamacare? Obama suffered an extraordinary wipeout. The Democrats did more
    1:10:27 precisely in the 2010 midterm elections, and there’s good evidence that Democratic candidates who
    1:10:35 voted for Obamacare suffered more because voters didn’t like that change was happening. Now,
    1:10:40 Obamacare is incredibly popular to the point where Republicans are debating whether or not
    1:10:44 they should try to ever repeal it again at all. They talk about it, and Mike Johnson said something
    1:10:48 that sounded like he wanted to repeal Obamacare, and then he walked it back immediately because
    1:10:51 what you’re doing is threatening to take people’s health care away. You’re threatening to disrupt
    1:10:57 the status quo in a radical way, and that status quo bias is very real, and it exists at the same
    1:11:03 time as anti-incumbent sentiment, which is a weird thing to think about. People are both unhappy
    1:11:07 with the way that things are, and then really unhappy when you try to change some of the things
    1:11:12 that are the way things are. I wouldn’t call it especially coherent, but it is a kind of conservative
    1:11:17 safeguard on democracy that if Trump pushes too hard too fast to try to break some stuff,
    1:11:20 there will be a real reckoning with the American public.
    1:11:27 I hope so, and the optimistic case you make at the end of the book is pretty persuasive to me,
    1:11:30 even though my instincts are want to push me in the opposite direction.
    1:11:31 To me, bleak.
    1:11:37 It’s a good point that we are still all sort of playing this fundamental language game of democracy.
    1:11:42 Even the GOP, which as a party, I think it’s just objectively less committed to liberal
    1:11:47 democracy than the Democrats, they still feel compelled to cloak their appeals in the language
    1:11:53 of democracy, and that does say something about how secure we are in the ideological confines
    1:12:02 of liberal democracy. I will say, the thing I struggle with in that last chapter is the argument
    1:12:09 about how effective it can be telling voters that they need to defend democracy. I don’t know how
    1:12:16 much it matters in the way we think it matters. And like I said earlier, I think Americans in
    1:12:22 particular are incredibly privileged, and many people knowingly or not take stability for granted,
    1:12:27 and democracy is just an abstraction. And having never lived in a non-democracy, people are just
    1:12:32 not as worried as they should be about losing one. I have been thinking about this question
    1:12:38 a lot since those exit polls that you referred to and the outcome of the election
    1:12:43 are definitely not ones that vindicate my arguments that you should be making the political case
    1:12:49 about democracy in the way that I think the 2022 election results strongly vindicated that as an
    1:12:57 argument, or at least was very consistent with that. What I think is that not every election
    1:13:04 is going to be about the things you want it to be about. It just isn’t the case that even if you
    1:13:07 objectively are correct that democracy is on the line, that that’s going to be the issue that
    1:13:13 registers with voters in this particular election. And that’s in part because, second, it’s a little
    1:13:20 bit harder to say democracy is on the ballot when you’re the party in power. Not impossible. Again,
    1:13:26 2022 was easier, but there wasn’t the countervailing pressure of someone like Donald Trump who’s
    1:13:32 capable of ginning up a lot of support, which leads me to three, which is that one of the most
    1:13:36 effective tactics for any authoritarian party to pull right now is to claim the mantle of
    1:13:42 true democracy and to blame the other party for not being really democratic and not succeeding in.
    1:13:52 And regardless of the strength of that case, it can really resonate with people. And so the push
    1:13:59 and pull of a lot of arguments now in a society where democracy is in trouble is who can do a
    1:14:09 better job making the case that their side is to blame or that getting their voters more riled up
    1:14:13 about this particular issue. And in this election for a constellation of reasons,
    1:14:17 I think primarily orienting around anti-income and sentiment, Republicans had an easier time
    1:14:21 with their version of the argument, even though clearly they’re the party that’s more threatening
    1:14:28 to democracy. Things will be different in future elections, especially if Trump acts in the way
    1:14:34 that I think he will. Like I said in the book, that this tactic succeeds primarily when you can
    1:14:41 point to a contrast between their pro-democratic rhetoric, the claims to be standing for democracy,
    1:14:48 and actual behavior that is itself anti-democratic. And that’s easier when somebody’s in power and
    1:14:54 actually doing said anti-democratic things. Trump’s, he’s out of power and a lot of people
    1:15:01 don’t remember what things were like in 2019. Next time around, 2026, 2028, as long as we still have
    1:15:06 relatively fair and functional elections, which I think we probably will, the fact that I have to
    1:15:14 caveat was probably is disturbing, but I think we’re likely to. Voters will be seeing what Trump
    1:15:20 has to offer. And I just have a hard time believing that Democrats won’t be better able to make this
    1:15:26 case next time around, given the objective changes to reality. I think they will. And I think there’ll
    1:15:34 be a thermostatic reaction in the other direction. It has been very instructive for me. I live in
    1:15:41 Southern Mississippi at the moment, which is obviously a Trump stronghold. And I can’t tell
    1:15:47 you how many people I know who, if you ask them to straight up, what’s more concerning to you?
    1:15:53 A gallon of milk being 72 cents higher than it was five years ago or president of the United
    1:15:59 States refusing a peaceful transfer of power. The answer is the milk, dude. And that may be
    1:16:03 because they don’t really believe anything will truly destroy the American system. But even in
    1:16:07 that case, it speaks to my point about the background assumption that our democracy will
    1:16:14 just keep humming along forever, no matter what we do or who we elect. And that is a problem,
    1:16:19 I think, a very big problem. I agree. The way I’ve been thinking about this since the election
    1:16:26 is that people lack a tragic imagination. The ability to think what happens if something changes
    1:16:32 in a way that you lose so much that you’re taken for granted. And people just can’t,
    1:16:37 they can’t conceptualize of something that fundamental being broken. Because it’s so
    1:16:42 outside the realm of their own experience. It sounds like catastrophizing to talk about it.
    1:16:46 And then it happens. And then you quickly adjust and live in the new reality,
    1:16:52 but it’s forever changed. I do think it would be better if horrible
    1:16:56 shit didn’t have to happen in order for us to course correct.
    1:17:04 And I will say, look, I do, I think you make a good case in the book that
    1:17:12 we still have every reason to believe that liberal democracy will hold. And frankly,
    1:17:16 believing that to be true is probably essential to making it happen.
    1:17:24 And that alone is all the justification we need, really. So there’s my optimism.
    1:17:27 There’s your optimism. And I appreciate that shot.
    1:17:34 Zach Beechamp, this is a long time coming, man. I’m really glad we finally got you on the show.
    1:17:40 Please go check out Zach’s terrific book, The Reactionary Spirit. And you should also go check
    1:17:44 out his terrific newsletter called On The Right. We’ll drop a link in the show notes.
    1:17:57 Zach Beechamp, thanks buddy. Thank you. This has been great.
    1:18:09 All right, I hope you found that episode useful. I’ll just say I went into this conversation thinking
    1:18:16 there are no simple answers to what just happened. And I feel even more strongly about that now.
    1:18:25 But there’s a tendency on the left to dismiss what just happened as some kind of rupture
    1:18:32 of democracy. But Trump won the popular vote in a free and fair election.
    1:18:40 So whatever we think about how he might govern, that’s democracy. And that’s worth remembering.
    1:18:48 Anyway, as always, we do want to know what you think. So drop us a line at the gray area at
    1:18:53 box.com. And then please rate, review, and subscribe to the show if you haven’t already.
    1:19:01 This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey and Travis Larchuck, edited by Jorge Just,
    1:19:07 engineered by Patrick Boyd, fact-checked by Anouk Dussault, and Alex Overington wrote our theme music.
    1:19:12 New episodes of The Gray Area drop on Mondays. Listen and subscribe.
    1:19:18 The show is part of Vox. Support Vox’s journalism by joining our membership program today.
    1:19:31 Go to vox.com/members to sign up. And if you decide to sign up because of this show, let us know.
    1:19:48 I’m Ashley C. Ford, and I host Into the Mix, a Ben and Jerry’s podcast about joy and justice
    1:19:54 produced with Vox Creative. We’re back with new episodes, taking a look at voter fraud,
    1:20:00 specifically how the fear of voter fraud accusations can lead to voter suppression.
    1:20:06 As the 2024 election draws nearer, former President Donald Trump continues to claim
    1:20:13 without evidence that widespread voter fraud lost him the election in 2020. So we wanted to know,
    1:20:19 how do claims like this affect ordinary voters? Here’s the story of a civil servant who faced
    1:20:26 felony charges and hears in prison for helping a first-time voter figure out how to use a voting
    1:20:31 machine. That story and more on Into the Mix, a Ben and Jerry’s podcast.
    1:20:41 Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere? And you’re making content that no one sees,
    1:20:48 and it takes forever to build a campaign? Well, that’s why we built HubSpot. It’s an AI-powered
    1:20:53 customer platform that builds campaigns for you, tells you which leads are worth knowing,
    1:20:59 and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social abrees. So now,
    1:21:05 it’s easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at hubspot.com/marketers.

    What just happened?

    It’s been almost two weeks since the presidential election, and many Americans are still grappling with the result. The political reckoning will probably last for months, if not years, and we may never know exactly why voters made the choices they did. But one thing is clear: the roughly 75 million people who voted for Trump were saying “No” to something. So what were they rejecting?

    Today’s guest is Zack Beauchamp, Vox senior correspondent and author of The Reactionary Spirit: How America’s Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept the World. It’s a book about democracy and the contradictions and conflicts at the heart of it.

    Beauchamp speaks with host Sean Illing about America’s growing reactionary movement and what it could mean for the country’s political future.

    Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling), host, The Gray Area

    Guest: Zack Beauchamp, Vox senior correspondent and author of The Reactionary Spirit: How America’s Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept the World.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • Well this is awkward

    AI transcript
    0:00:01 [MUSIC PLAYING]
    0:00:04 Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere?
    0:00:06 And you’re making content that no one sees,
    0:00:09 and it takes forever to build a campaign?
    0:00:12 Well, that’s why we built HubSpot.
    0:00:13 It’s an AI-powered customer platform
    0:00:15 that builds campaigns for you.
    0:00:17 Tells you which leads are worth knowing,
    0:00:20 and makes writing blogs, creating videos,
    0:00:22 and posting on social a breeze.
    0:00:25 So now, it’s easier than ever to be a marketer.
    0:00:28 Get started at HubSpot.com/marketers.
    0:00:30 [MUSIC PLAYING]
    0:00:34 Support for this show comes from Constant Contact.
    0:00:37 If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you,
    0:00:40 Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention.
    0:00:43 Constant Contact’s award-winning marketing platform
    0:00:46 offers all the automation, integration, and reporting
    0:00:50 tools that get your marketing running seamlessly,
    0:00:53 all backed by their expert live customer support.
    0:00:55 It’s time to get going and growing
    0:00:57 with Constant Contact today.
    0:01:00 Ready, set, grow.
    0:01:04 Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today.
    0:01:08 Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial.
    0:01:09 ConstantContact.ca.
    0:01:19 The episode you’re about to hear
    0:01:22 was recorded a couple of weeks ago.
    0:01:25 We obviously knew the election was around the corner,
    0:01:29 and the idea at the time was that we’d all
    0:01:31 be drowning in politics, and we wanted
    0:01:36 to do a show that felt like a break from all of that.
    0:01:39 So we had a conversation with a philosopher
    0:01:44 about the philosophy of awkwardness and awkward situations,
    0:01:48 and that’s the episode you’re about to hear today.
    0:01:50 Because in the days after the election,
    0:01:53 one of the things that’s really come through
    0:01:56 is that things are going to get awkward.
    0:01:59 Half of this country voted for a totally different vision
    0:02:01 of the world than the other half,
    0:02:05 but 100% of the country feels very certain that the vision
    0:02:09 they have is the right one.
    0:02:12 We’re living in a situation that nobody really
    0:02:14 knows how to navigate, and the rules
    0:02:18 for how to be in this world are pretty unclear,
    0:02:20 and that is an awkward situation.
    0:02:23 And as we settle into this world, as we
    0:02:27 go to Thanksgiving and end of year holidays and New Year’s
    0:02:30 parties with people we love who live
    0:02:32 in a different world from us, it’s
    0:02:34 going to feel even more awkward.
    0:02:38 We’re going to mess up.
    0:02:41 I’m Sean Elling, and this is the Gray Area.
    0:02:44 [MUSIC PLAYING]
    0:02:58 Today’s guest is Alexandra Plakius.
    0:03:01 She’s a philosopher at Hamilton College
    0:03:05 and the author of the book Awkwardness of Theory.
    0:03:07 I’ve always loved it when philosophers
    0:03:10 tackle practical everyday problems.
    0:03:13 Usually the sort of problems we might assume
    0:03:17 are unworthy of serious philosophical inquiry.
    0:03:22 This book by Plakius is a great example of this.
    0:03:26 She takes something we all think we understand, awkwardness,
    0:03:30 and redefines it in a way that changes how you think about it,
    0:03:34 or at least it changed how I think about it.
    0:03:37 For Plakius, there are no awkward people
    0:03:41 because awkwardness isn’t a personality trait.
    0:03:44 Instead, it’s a kind of social property.
    0:03:47 It’s what happens when the unofficial scripts governing
    0:03:51 our social life collapse, which is why she
    0:03:55 argues that only situations, not people, can be awkward.
    0:04:06 Alexandra Plakius, welcome to the show.
    0:04:08 Thanks so much for having me.
    0:04:11 You have an interesting philosophical background.
    0:04:17 You study moral psychology and the cultural foundations
    0:04:19 of values and that sort of thing.
    0:04:24 How did you end up writing a book about awkwardness?
    0:04:27 So I think first, as a philosopher,
    0:04:30 any time you come across a topic that it seems not
    0:04:32 that many people have written them out,
    0:04:34 there’s always a little bit of a thrill there.
    0:04:39 But really, I think I was interested in awkwardness
    0:04:42 because as a moral philosopher, I’m often
    0:04:44 spending my time talking to students about life or death
    0:04:47 dilemmas, whether to pull the switch on the trolley
    0:04:50 so it hits one person instead of five.
    0:04:53 But hopefully, most of my students
    0:04:55 will never actually be in that situation.
    0:04:58 On the other hand, there are all of these daily moments
    0:05:01 of discomfort and awkwardness and things
    0:05:03 like that that philosophers don’t often
    0:05:04 talk that much about.
    0:05:07 And there’s almost a sense that we shouldn’t really
    0:05:08 care too much about that.
    0:05:10 We should be above that.
    0:05:12 We should be living the life of the mind.
    0:05:14 But we live in a social world and those social issues
    0:05:15 matter to us.
    0:05:16 So I think I was attracted to the idea
    0:05:19 of digging a little deeper into the kinds of everyday
    0:05:22 interactions that we will encounter in our lives
    0:05:25 and how we navigate them and why they matter.
    0:05:31 And yet there is a good bit of serious philosophical work
    0:05:36 on topics like anxiety, depression, loneliness,
    0:05:37 those sorts of things.
    0:05:42 But very little, as far as I can tell, on awkwardness.
    0:05:44 Have any theories on why that is?
    0:05:47 I think the main reason is that awkwardness
    0:05:50 has typically been assimilated to discussions
    0:05:53 of embarrassment and shame to the extent
    0:05:54 that it’s really discussed at all.
    0:05:57 Even there, it gets surprisingly little attention.
    0:06:01 So the scholar William Miller has a book on humiliation.
    0:06:02 And if you look at his index, he’s
    0:06:06 got more entries for axe murder than he does for awkwardness.
    0:06:08 So awkwardness– yeah, you’re right.
    0:06:10 It gets surprisingly little attention,
    0:06:12 even as philosophers have turned their attention
    0:06:16 to particular emotions and particular negative emotions.
    0:06:18 Well, let’s get into it.
    0:06:25 Awkwardness is normally defined as a personal problem
    0:06:29 or a personality trait.
    0:06:31 Or sometimes, as you just said, it’s basically
    0:06:33 a synonym for embarrassment.
    0:06:36 And these are all understandings that you challenge.
    0:06:39 So tell me how you define awkwardness.
    0:06:44 And maybe just as importantly, tell me what you think it isn’t.
    0:06:44 Right.
    0:06:47 So starting with what it isn’t, I don’t think
    0:06:49 awkwardness is a personal problem.
    0:06:51 I don’t think awkwardness is a personal trait.
    0:06:54 One of the things I was surprised by in writing this book
    0:06:58 is how quickly people were willing to tell me
    0:07:01 I’m really awkward or oh, I’m so excited to read your book
    0:07:03 as a very awkward person.
    0:07:05 It’s something that a lot of people are willing and even
    0:07:07 eager to self-identify with.
    0:07:09 But I actually think that’s a mistake.
    0:07:10 I don’t think people are awkward.
    0:07:12 I think situations are awkward.
    0:07:14 On my view, awkwardness is something
    0:07:18 that happens in a situation when we lack the social resources
    0:07:20 we need to guide us through it.
    0:07:22 And so interactions become awkward
    0:07:25 when we’re uncertain what kind of interaction we’re in,
    0:07:27 what our role in that interaction is,
    0:07:29 what the other person’s role is, when
    0:07:32 we’re unable to coordinate on a social script
    0:07:33 to get us through it.
    0:07:36 So in that sense, awkwardness is not a personal problem.
    0:07:38 It’s an us problem.
    0:07:44 But surely some people are more or less awkward than others,
    0:07:46 right, even if it’s generally true that there
    0:07:50 are no awkward people, only awkward situations.
    0:07:52 So I think there’s an interesting ambiguity
    0:07:55 when we describe people as awkward between meaning
    0:07:59 that person feels awkward or they make me feel awkward.
    0:08:01 So if I say, like, Sean is awkward at parties,
    0:08:04 I might mean Sean makes me feel awkward when he’s at parties,
    0:08:07 or I might mean Sean feels awkward at parties.
    0:08:09 I do think that you’re right.
    0:08:11 Some people read social cues differently,
    0:08:14 and some people might have a difficult time
    0:08:16 triangulating on the kind of social cues that most of us
    0:08:18 rely on every day.
    0:08:21 Some people also just give social cues differently, right?
    0:08:24 So some people might be less inclined to make eye contact.
    0:08:27 Or if you’ve ever tried to have a conversation with someone
    0:08:30 whose conversational timing is just a little off
    0:08:33 and you’re not sure when you’re supposed to break in, right?
    0:08:36 Is that a pause that’s an invitation?
    0:08:37 Is it a pause that’s a hesitation?
    0:08:40 That can feel really awkward, right?
    0:08:43 But that feeling of awkwardness doesn’t necessarily
    0:08:46 tell us something about that person’s character.
    0:08:49 It might just mean that we need to adjust our own social cues.
    0:08:53 Or it might mean that we’re in a kind of situation for which we
    0:08:56 really haven’t figured out the social norms yet.
    0:09:00 Even if it’s true that maybe some people
    0:09:04 have more difficulties navigating social interactions
    0:09:07 than others, you still think it’s the case, right,
    0:09:13 that labeling them awkward obscures more than it reveals.
    0:09:14 That’s right.
    0:09:16 I think labeling people as awkward is
    0:09:20 unhelpful both in terms of the reason I just mentioned
    0:09:25 that there’s that ambiguity there about where the awkwardness is.
    0:09:28 I think also it obscures what’s interesting about awkwardness,
    0:09:32 which is the way it can highlight gaps in our social scripts,
    0:09:34 in our social norms, in our social resources.
    0:09:37 So if I just blame you for the awkwardness that
    0:09:40 arises at the party, I might be missing an opportunity
    0:09:43 to reflect on my own behavior or on the norms governing
    0:09:45 our social interaction.
    0:09:46 One of the things I talk about in the book
    0:09:49 is the way that labeling someone awkward
    0:09:54 can also intersect with our social scripts around gender
    0:09:57 and power and privilege in such a way that when an interaction
    0:10:00 becomes uncomfortable, labeling one person as awkward
    0:10:02 is often a way to offload responsibility
    0:10:04 for that discomfort.
    0:10:07 When I think of awkwardness, or at least
    0:10:09 when I thought of it before reading your book,
    0:10:15 your book basically did persuade me to think of it differently.
    0:10:18 When I thought of awkwardness, I would think immediately
    0:10:23 of fear, fear of interacting with other people.
    0:10:26 But that implies a kind of misanthropy, right?
    0:10:30 So if you’re awkward, that means you must just not like people
    0:10:34 and get weirdly uncomfortable around them.
    0:10:37 But you really think that’s not only not true,
    0:10:41 but it’s actually harmful, right?
    0:10:44 I hadn’t really thought about the intersection between awkwardness
    0:10:45 and fear per se.
    0:10:47 I do think there’s an intersection between awkwardness
    0:10:49 and anxiety and social anxiety in particular.
    0:10:52 And I think one reason people sometimes label themselves
    0:10:55 as awkward, there’s some research suggesting
    0:10:58 that this is a strategy to manage social anxiety, almost
    0:11:01 a way of saying, don’t expect too much for me
    0:11:04 in the social domain, I’m a very awkward person.
    0:11:07 But I think what’s interesting is that in other cases,
    0:11:09 people who we would tend to perceive as awkward
    0:11:13 may not experience their own behavior in a negative way
    0:11:16 or may not experience these social interactions
    0:11:17 in a negative way, right?
    0:11:19 It may be that the social cues they’re giving off
    0:11:21 make us feel awkward, but they’re not
    0:11:23 having any kind of negative experience.
    0:11:25 I do think we fear awkwardness a lot.
    0:11:28 I think that we are surprisingly afraid of awkwardness.
    0:11:31 And another reason I was interested in studying it
    0:11:33 was because I was interested in the ways
    0:11:35 that awkwardness or the fear of awkwardness
    0:11:39 inhibits us from engaging in certain kinds of conversations
    0:11:44 and criticism of others and examinations of our own behavior.
    0:11:47 And I think there are a lot of cases where we should act,
    0:11:49 we know we should act, and we don’t
    0:11:51 because we’re afraid of making things awkward.
    0:11:54 After the #MeToo movement, there was an interview
    0:11:57 with men about sexual harassment in the workplace.
    0:12:00 And you would find men saying things like, well,
    0:12:03 I knew my co-worker’s behavior wasn’t OK,
    0:12:05 and I knew I should say something.
    0:12:08 But I was afraid of making things awkward if I spoke up.
    0:12:10 And on the one hand, that’s really puzzling.
    0:12:14 Like, your co-workers are engaging in sexual harassment.
    0:12:15 That’s not OK.
    0:12:16 You know that.
    0:12:19 That’s a moral obligation to speak up and do something.
    0:12:24 Why would you let something as seemingly
    0:12:29 minor as some social discomfort inhibit you from speaking up?
    0:12:33 But I think awkwardness exerts a really powerful force on us.
    0:12:37 Yeah, I’ll bracket the question of when you’re in situations
    0:12:39 where there’s an obvious power imbalance.
    0:12:42 But just in general, the fear part.
    0:12:44 I mean, for me, awkwardness, at least a lot of it
    0:12:50 is about this experience of uncertainty, which
    0:12:52 is a panic inducing thing for a lot of people.
    0:12:54 And I’ll count myself among them.
    0:12:56 I mean, maybe panic is a strong word,
    0:13:00 but I’ve never been super comfortable with uncertainty.
    0:13:03 And to the extent I’ve never really
    0:13:07 presented as awkward in social settings,
    0:13:09 I think it’s mostly because I’m pretty good at performing
    0:13:10 in that way.
    0:13:13 But that discomfort is there all the time,
    0:13:15 right underneath the mask.
    0:13:18 What is it about uncertainty in social settings
    0:13:22 that’s so unnerving, even when the stakes are low?
    0:13:25 Like, what the hell are we afraid of, really?
    0:13:26 That’s such a great point.
    0:13:28 And I think that one of the things awkwardness can
    0:13:31 highlight for us is, first, how reliant we
    0:13:33 are on everyday social cues to get through things.
    0:13:36 I think that we often don’t notice
    0:13:38 the kind of social scaffolding that
    0:13:41 goes into our interactions, because it’s just mostly there,
    0:13:42 right?
    0:13:44 But when it’s absent, all of a sudden,
    0:13:47 it is like the floor is pulled out from under us.
    0:13:48 And we have that almost that moment
    0:13:51 where you go off a cliff and your legs are circling in the air.
    0:13:53 And it is this feeling of panic.
    0:13:55 And I think part of that is we seem
    0:13:58 to have an expectation that socializing
    0:14:01 should be effortless, that the ability
    0:14:03 to move through the world and social interactions
    0:14:06 and present yourself in public is something everyone just kind
    0:14:08 of knows how to do without instruction,
    0:14:11 and that your ability to do it is really a measure of you
    0:14:12 as a person.
    0:14:15 But when you think about it, that’s kind of puzzling.
    0:14:19 Like, we have all of these various roles we inhabit
    0:14:19 throughout the day.
    0:14:22 We are put into new situations all the time.
    0:14:24 We’re meeting new people.
    0:14:25 That’s hard.
    0:14:27 That’s complicated, right?
    0:14:31 And so I think part of why I think
    0:14:32 it’s a mistake to think about awkwardness
    0:14:35 as an individual problem is that it’s
    0:14:38 OK to need help navigating social interactions.
    0:14:41 It’s OK not to know how to behave in a social setting.
    0:14:44 And I think once we move past that expectation that this
    0:14:45 is something everyone should know,
    0:14:48 we might stop fearing uncertainty so much,
    0:14:50 because that uncertainty no longer
    0:14:52 threatens to unmask us, right?
    0:14:55 It’s OK not to know how to behave at this kind of party.
    0:14:58 It’s OK not to know what to call your professor
    0:14:59 on the first day of class.
    0:15:00 You can just ask.
    0:15:04 And I think the more we admit that sometimes socializing
    0:15:06 is hard and it’s OK to be uncertain,
    0:15:10 then maybe the less threatening that uncertainty will seem.
    0:15:11 I have never heard it put this way,
    0:15:15 but I do like thinking of awkwardness
    0:15:18 as a form of disorientation.
    0:15:21 I mean, I like this idea that the essence of awkwardness
    0:15:26 is really just being lost in a situation.
    0:15:28 I’ve just never heard it frame that way.
    0:15:30 But once you start seeing it through that lens,
    0:15:33 it does change the way you think about it.
    0:15:33 Right.
    0:15:36 And I think this is another part of the kind of shift
    0:15:38 from thinking about it as an individual issue
    0:15:41 is when we see it as a navigation failure,
    0:15:43 we might be less likely to blame ourselves for it.
    0:15:45 And we might be more likely to think about, well,
    0:15:48 what can we do next time to avoid that awkward situation?
    0:15:51 What do we need in our navigational resources?
    0:15:55 I think we both used the word embarrassment a few minutes ago.
    0:15:58 But another word that often gets mixed up with awkwardness
    0:16:00 is cringe.
    0:16:04 And you write that our awkward moments are not cringe-worthy.
    0:16:09 So what is the difference between awkward and cringy?
    0:16:12 So I think there’s cringe in the sense
    0:16:15 that people use it now sort of online.
    0:16:19 I think cringe in the sense of like that cringing feeling
    0:16:22 you have, cringing is retrospective.
    0:16:24 It’s what happens when you look back on something.
    0:16:26 And I know we all probably have those moments.
    0:16:28 Some of them are just decades old,
    0:16:31 where all it takes like one second of thinking about it
    0:16:35 before you’re literally curling into a ball just wanting
    0:16:37 to shrink inside yourself.
    0:16:38 That’s cringing.
    0:16:40 And cringing comes when we look back
    0:16:43 on moments of awkwardness often, or moments of shame,
    0:16:45 or moments of embarrassment.
    0:16:47 And I think that the reason we associate cringing
    0:16:49 and awkwardness is because we think
    0:16:52 about our awkward moments as something shameful.
    0:16:55 We think about them as something we should be ashamed of
    0:16:56 or embarrassed about.
    0:16:59 But notice that the cringing is a different response.
    0:17:02 It’s a kind of after-the-fact response to awkwardness,
    0:17:04 but it’s different from the awkwardness itself.
    0:17:06 When you are in the middle of awkwardness,
    0:17:08 you’re not really– you’re almost frozen, right?
    0:17:09 You’re not cringing.
    0:17:11 You’re not really doing anything.
    0:17:13 It’s only when you kind of like stop and reflect
    0:17:15 and notice the awkwardness later,
    0:17:17 that’s when the cringe kicks in.
    0:17:21 Why do you think some people are just more sensitive to
    0:17:25 or attuned to that lack of a social script
    0:17:29 and other people just seem to not notice it as much
    0:17:30 or maybe not even care as much?
    0:17:34 And therefore, maybe they don’t experience that awkwardness
    0:17:38 in the way the other person does.
    0:17:39 Right, that’s a great question.
    0:17:41 I think that it’s tempting to envy those people
    0:17:44 who don’t feel awkward about things,
    0:17:47 but it’s also helpful to remember
    0:17:49 that part of the reason we feel awkward
    0:17:52 is because we care about being attuned to other people.
    0:17:54 We care about being in sync with other people
    0:17:57 and we care about other people’s responses to us.
    0:17:59 And so in that sense, awkwardness is,
    0:18:01 I think, related to empathy,
    0:18:05 related to all of our pro-social characteristics.
    0:18:08 I think it can go too far in the sense of self-consciousness
    0:18:09 and self-monitoring.
    0:18:11 And I think that there are moments
    0:18:13 where we don’t feel awkward
    0:18:16 because we’re just so in the flow
    0:18:19 that those moments where you kind of lose yourself
    0:18:21 in an interaction or an activity
    0:18:22 and you don’t have time to feel self-conscious,
    0:18:25 you don’t have time to think about what you’re doing.
    0:18:27 As far as individual differences in feeling awkward,
    0:18:29 I definitely think that’s true.
    0:18:31 And I think that part of it is probably
    0:18:34 a personality trait kind of thing.
    0:18:36 I think there may be people who genuinely
    0:18:38 don’t feel awkward at all ever
    0:18:40 and I am a little afraid of those people.
    0:18:44 And I think those people worry me maybe a little bit.
    0:18:47 But I think there are also people who could probably do
    0:18:49 with feeling a little bit less awkward.
    0:18:52 And I think some of that has to do with how we see ourselves
    0:18:56 as responsible for other people’s comfort
    0:18:58 and how we are assigned responsibility
    0:19:02 for other people’s comfort by social norms around gender
    0:19:04 and privilege and things like that.
    0:19:06 – So you’re saying if somebody doesn’t feel awkwardness ever,
    0:19:10 they’re either the coolest person in history
    0:19:13 of the world or a complete sociopath?
    0:19:15 – I guess I had in mind more the latter.
    0:19:18 But it could be the former.
    0:19:21 I do think that we can probably think of people,
    0:19:22 probably everyone can think of someone
    0:19:24 who just has that kind of charisma
    0:19:27 and who doesn’t seem to feel ill at ease
    0:19:30 and who also seems to be able to put others at ease.
    0:19:31 And I think that question of charisma
    0:19:33 is a really interesting one.
    0:19:34 And that’s something that I would love
    0:19:36 to look more into in the future.
    0:19:39 I think some of it is like a kind of social confidence
    0:19:41 and a kind of social grace.
    0:19:43 Throughout different cultures and history,
    0:19:46 people have always admired that performance
    0:19:48 of effortlessness, right?
    0:19:50 And I think that’s supposed to be the mark
    0:19:53 of social status and confidence
    0:19:55 is just having that kind of social capital
    0:19:59 and being able to seem at ease in any situation.
    0:20:01 – Do we have a good sense of whether or not more
    0:20:06 and more people are self-identifying as awkward?
    0:20:09 Are the trend lines clear in either direction here?
    0:20:13 Because my guess would be
    0:20:15 that digital technology in particular
    0:20:18 is making more people think of themselves as awkward
    0:20:20 because we don’t socialize in real life
    0:20:21 as often as we used to.
    0:20:24 And so when we do have to actually go out into the world
    0:20:27 with other people, we’re less comfortable,
    0:20:28 less certain of what to do.
    0:20:31 And I imagine that would increase
    0:20:34 the experience of awkwardness.
    0:20:35 – Yeah, that’s an interesting question.
    0:20:37 And I don’t have data for you on that.
    0:20:40 I can say that one of the things I found
    0:20:42 when I was researching the book,
    0:20:44 there’s a lot of like articles online
    0:20:47 and media coverage suggesting like,
    0:20:49 “Oh, we live in this golden age of awkwardness
    0:20:51 “or we live in really awkward times.”
    0:20:54 But you can find articles going back like 100 years
    0:20:55 saying the same thing.
    0:20:58 And there was, I found, it came across a Life Magazine letter
    0:21:02 that began telling the story of an encounter
    0:21:03 in like a restaurant.
    0:21:05 And they were saying, “We live in awkward times.”
    0:21:06 And I was in a tea shop
    0:21:09 and the waiter or the server went over to a customer
    0:21:12 and said, “Excuse me, sir, I mean, madam, I mean, sir,
    0:21:13 “I mean, madam.”
    0:21:15 And this observation that like,
    0:21:16 “Oh, we live in really awkward times.
    0:21:19 “You’re not sure which pronoun to use for someone.”
    0:21:21 It just feels so contemporary.
    0:21:23 And so in some sense, I think that
    0:21:25 as long as social norms have been in flux
    0:21:27 and there’s been room for uncertainty
    0:21:29 about what social norms were in play,
    0:21:31 there’s room for awkwardness.
    0:21:34 – What do you think are the most frequently
    0:21:39 awkward experiences that people have in their everyday lives?
    0:21:40 – So if you ask people this,
    0:21:43 one of the most common awkward experiences people cite
    0:21:46 is clogging up someone’s toilet
    0:21:48 when you’re a guest in their house,
    0:21:53 accidentally sending a message to the group chat
    0:21:55 that is about someone in the group chat.
    0:21:57 So being kind of outed as gossiping
    0:22:00 about a group chat member in that very chat.
    0:22:03 Those are what people will say if you ask them
    0:22:06 what are the most awkward experiences you can imagine.
    0:22:09 (upbeat music)
    0:22:22 – Support for the gray area comes from NetSuite.
    0:22:24 Planning for the future of your business
    0:22:27 can feel a lot like navigating a maze that keeps shifting.
    0:22:30 An economic landscape full of bull markets,
    0:22:32 bear markets, rising inflation,
    0:22:34 and fluctuating interest rates.
    0:22:37 The variables never stop moving,
    0:22:38 but a lot of companies are finding stability
    0:22:41 by switching to NetSuite by Oracle.
    0:22:44 With real-time insights and predictive tools,
    0:22:47 NetSuite says they’ve become the go-to platform
    0:22:49 for nearly 40,000 businesses.
    0:22:52 NetSuite can be your one platform for everything,
    0:22:56 accounting, finance, inventory, HR, and more.
    0:22:59 That’s one fluid space with one single source of truth.
    0:23:02 And if you’re wondering how AI will affect your business
    0:23:04 or just your industry in general,
    0:23:06 NetSuite says they can help by providing insights
    0:23:09 that make sure your business is future ready.
    0:23:10 Speaking of AI,
    0:23:13 download the CFO’s guide to AI and machine learning
    0:23:16 at netsuite.com/grayarea.
    0:23:20 The guide is free to you at netsuite.com/grayarea,
    0:23:22 netsuite.com/grayarea.
    0:23:28 Support for the show comes from Shopify.
    0:23:31 It’s easy to take the magic of online shopping for granted.
    0:23:34 Just a couple of clicks, and voila,
    0:23:37 that new translation of Schopenhauer’s The World as Will
    0:23:40 and Representation arrives at your doorstep.
    0:23:43 But the reality is that it takes an enormous amount
    0:23:45 of logistical brilliance to make it all happen.
    0:23:47 And Shopify is one of the platform’s
    0:23:49 powering online commerce.
    0:23:51 So if you run your business online,
    0:23:53 you might wanna try Shopify.
    0:23:55 Shopify is the online commerce platform
    0:23:58 that makes it easy to buy and sell.
    0:23:59 According to Shopify,
    0:24:01 businesses that use their shop pay features
    0:24:04 see conversions up to 50%,
    0:24:06 meaning way less carts going abandoned
    0:24:09 and way more sales going (bell dings)
    0:24:12 because businesses that sell more sell on Shopify.
    0:24:15 You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period
    0:24:19 at Shopify.com/vox, all lowercase.
    0:24:22 You can go to Shopify.com/vox
    0:24:24 to upgrade your selling today.
    0:24:27 That’s Shopify.com/vox.
    0:24:30 (bell dings)
    0:24:33 Support for the gray area comes from Bombas.
    0:24:36 This season, they’ve made their super comfortable socks
    0:24:37 even cozier.
    0:24:40 Bombas socks are made with premium fabrics to guarantee
    0:24:43 they’ll be the warmest, comfiest pair in your drawer,
    0:24:45 like long staple cotton and merino wool.
    0:24:47 They also offer an incredible pair
    0:24:50 of Sherpa line slippers designed with memory foam
    0:24:53 to make it feel like you’re walking on warm pillows.
    0:24:55 I’ve been telling you about my Bombas athletic socks
    0:24:56 for a while now.
    0:24:57 They’re great.
    0:24:59 I still rock them on my runs,
    0:25:02 but they sent me some of their winter wool socks
    0:25:03 a few weeks ago.
    0:25:07 And let’s just say they’ve immediately jumped
    0:25:09 to the top of my sock power rankings.
    0:25:12 And also, did you know socks are among the most requested
    0:25:15 items from people experiencing homelessness?
    0:25:17 That’s why Bombas started donating a pair
    0:25:19 of comfortable, high quality socks
    0:25:21 with someone in need for every pair purchased.
    0:25:23 So ready to feel good and do good?
    0:25:26 Head over to bombas.com/grayarea
    0:25:30 and use code grayarea for 20% off your first purchase.
    0:25:35 That’s BOMBAS.com/grayarea, code grayarea at checkout.
    0:25:41 (gentle music)
    0:25:43 (gentle music)
    0:25:56 – I’ve got a question for you.
    0:25:57 – Sure.
    0:26:00 – As a resident awkwardness expert.
    0:26:03 So I’m a podcaster.
    0:26:06 I talk into the mic for a living,
    0:26:11 but I hate the sound of my own voice.
    0:26:16 And when I listen to my recordings alone,
    0:26:17 I don’t like it.
    0:26:19 I think it’s terrible.
    0:26:21 I wanna turn it off, but it’s not awkward
    0:26:23 because I’m alone.
    0:26:27 But if I’m in the car with my family
    0:26:28 and they turn my pod on,
    0:26:32 or if I walk into a room and someone is listening
    0:26:34 to my show, it’s awkward.
    0:26:37 Because now it’s a social situation.
    0:26:41 Now I’m worried about how I’m being seen by others.
    0:26:44 But is this actually a case of awkwardness
    0:26:45 as you understand it?
    0:26:48 Is there a lack of a social script here?
    0:26:53 Or am I just being neurotic and embarrassed?
    0:26:57 But that’s not quite the same thing as awkwardness.
    0:27:01 – Well, the bad news is you can be neurotic, embarrassed
    0:27:03 and awkward all at the same time.
    0:27:04 – Sweet.
    0:27:09 – So yeah, I think that there is some awkwardness there
    0:27:12 in that we may not always be great at knowing how to act
    0:27:16 when our own voice is being played in front of other people.
    0:27:18 So there might be a little bit of self-consciousness there
    0:27:21 and a little bit of uncertainty about like, yeah,
    0:27:24 how to act and what we’re supposed to do or say
    0:27:26 or acknowledge or not acknowledge.
    0:27:29 So one thing I’ve realized since the book came out is
    0:27:33 I’m really awkward when people congratulate me on the book
    0:27:36 or say, you know, oh, I saw your book on such and such
    0:27:39 and I just don’t know what to say or do.
    0:27:42 And I start to feel really awkward
    0:27:44 and the interaction becomes awkward.
    0:27:46 And I think that’s just a matter of feeling
    0:27:50 maybe a little uncomfortable with our own standing
    0:27:51 or status in those interactions.
    0:27:53 Like what’s my role here?
    0:27:54 What am I supposed to do?
    0:27:56 You know, a lot of people can just say thanks and stop
    0:27:57 and that’s it.
    0:27:59 You might find yourself making a joke
    0:28:02 to deflect your own embarrassment or awkwardness
    0:28:03 in those situations.
    0:28:07 And I think humor is a tool that we turn to a lot.
    0:28:10 – Oh, my move is just to preemptively shit on myself
    0:28:14 before anyone else can do it and it kind of neutralizes.
    0:28:15 – Well, that works too.
    0:28:18 And notice like that, I’m not saying that’s the best move.
    0:28:21 I’m not necessarily recommending it, but it does work.
    0:28:24 And I think one thing it does is it gives you a go-to move
    0:28:27 and then it gives someone else like a next line, right?
    0:28:30 Which is like, no, no, you sound great or no,
    0:28:31 I love the episode.
    0:28:34 So it kind of helps everyone out by setting the tone.
    0:28:37 Like this is gonna be a self-deprecating interaction
    0:28:38 and now your role is to reassure me
    0:28:40 that I’m not shit, right?
    0:28:46 – Why saying goodbye at parties so damn awkward?
    0:28:47 That can’t be just for me, right?
    0:28:51 I mean, that has to be pretty frequently cited
    0:28:53 awkward experience, yeah?
    0:28:56 – You know, a formative childhood experience was waiting
    0:28:57 for my parents to say goodbye at parties
    0:28:59 to like 20 million people.
    0:29:00 So I just leave.
    0:29:03 So I can’t really tell you for sure.
    0:29:04 If I could solve that one.
    0:29:07 Yeah, I’m just a quick wave to the room and I’m out.
    0:29:10 – That’s the thing.
    0:29:11 The old Irish goodbye.
    0:29:12 I mean, that’s probably,
    0:29:16 see if I was cooler, I would do that because a problem.
    0:29:18 You know, you have those moments where you’re saying bye
    0:29:22 to someone and again, again, I’m someone,
    0:29:24 I have a lot of self chatter, self talk, right?
    0:29:27 So you’re saying bye and you’re thinking,
    0:29:29 wait a minute, are we shaking hands here?
    0:29:30 Are we gonna hug it out?
    0:29:32 Are we fist bumping?
    0:29:35 We’re just gonna do a calm, cool nod.
    0:29:37 It’s saying goodbye even necessary at all.
    0:29:39 And it’s awkward because you don’t know
    0:29:40 what’s in the script here.
    0:29:43 And you don’t wanna guess wrong
    0:29:47 because then you are embarrassed and it’s awkward.
    0:29:48 – Yeah, I mean, there’s, you know,
    0:29:51 a classic awkward moment is like, I go in for the hug,
    0:29:53 the other person’s looking for a handshake
    0:29:55 and it can get, that’s so awkward.
    0:29:58 But I think also we’re identifying part
    0:30:00 of your problem here, which is not just you,
    0:30:03 but a lot of people have this kind of inner monologue
    0:30:06 that involves second guessing and kind of monitoring
    0:30:07 the interaction in real time.
    0:30:10 And that is not helpful.
    0:30:11 You know, if you think of something like playing piano
    0:30:14 or dancing, right, when you’re in that flow state,
    0:30:16 you’re not thinking about like,
    0:30:17 oh, are my toes in the right place?
    0:30:18 Where are my fingers going next?
    0:30:21 You’re just doing it, you’re just executing, right?
    0:30:24 And this goes back to that idea of effortless socializing.
    0:30:26 It might sound weird to say that socializing
    0:30:28 is a kind of flow state,
    0:30:29 but I think we’ve all had those moments
    0:30:30 where you have a really good hangout
    0:30:32 or you have a great conversation and it just goes.
    0:30:34 And you’re not thinking about it,
    0:30:36 you’re not self-monitoring, you’re just in it.
    0:30:39 And I think the minute we start second guessing stuff,
    0:30:41 it’s not even that we don’t know the script,
    0:30:42 but it’s like in that moment,
    0:30:47 we create that doubt that leads us to be unable
    0:30:49 to just land on one and execute it.
    0:30:54 Why is silence so awkward?
    0:30:57 – Silence becomes awkward
    0:30:59 when we don’t know how to interpret it.
    0:31:04 And I think that some silences can be quite clear.
    0:31:06 Sometimes we know what a silence is doing
    0:31:09 and there’s companionable silences, right?
    0:31:10 Where we’re not worried about
    0:31:11 what the other person is thinking.
    0:31:13 That’s a moment, right?
    0:31:15 That’s a milestone in a relationship,
    0:31:16 the companionable silence.
    0:31:19 But silence can be open to ambiguity
    0:31:21 and that can create awkwardness.
    0:31:24 – Small talk.
    0:31:25 – Oof.
    0:31:29 – Whether it’s like at a party or you’re just,
    0:31:32 I don’t know, pushing the grocery cart
    0:31:35 through your produce aisle and you bump into
    0:31:36 someone you haven’t seen in a while.
    0:31:38 Someone, maybe it’s an old friend,
    0:31:40 maybe it’s someone who’s a friend of a friend.
    0:31:42 You don’t really know what to say.
    0:31:45 Under no other circumstances would you even
    0:31:47 talk to them, really.
    0:31:49 You’re probably not in each other’s life for a reason.
    0:31:51 Why are those sorts of interactions
    0:31:53 so painfully awkward?
    0:31:55 – Yeah, I think it depends.
    0:31:57 I don’t think they have to be.
    0:32:00 I think, you know, my husband is British
    0:32:02 and I think there’s like kind of a running joke
    0:32:04 that British people talk about the weather a lot.
    0:32:07 But notice, the weather is a great go-to small talk topic.
    0:32:10 And I think what that shows is that often
    0:32:13 the role of small talk is not to actually exchange
    0:32:15 like a lot of meaningful information.
    0:32:18 It’s just to kind of do a quick social check-in,
    0:32:20 give a little FaceTime to the other person
    0:32:22 and then you move on.
    0:32:24 – Well, this is probably half the value
    0:32:25 of following sports.
    0:32:26 That’s another one.
    0:32:28 If you don’t, if you have no idea what else to say,
    0:32:30 just fuck man, you see the Dodgers game?
    0:32:32 I mean, it’s like, it’s always there.
    0:32:33 You can pull that cart out.
    0:32:36 – And it cuts across so many other differences, right?
    0:32:39 And it’s, I mean, even if someone roots for a rival team,
    0:32:41 right, you can give them a little bit of a hard time
    0:32:43 and tease them a little bit and it’s fine.
    0:32:45 Think about small talk.
    0:32:49 It may not even be exactly that it’s awkward,
    0:32:53 at least in my experience, though it can be.
    0:32:59 But if it’s not awkward, it’s most definitely boring,
    0:33:00 which is one of the reasons I always,
    0:33:03 even when I live in DC, I just,
    0:33:06 I’m not into the whole cocktail circuit thing.
    0:33:08 I just don’t like it.
    0:33:12 Do you think that’s because when you’re doing small talk
    0:33:16 in those settings, you’re not deviating
    0:33:17 from the script actually.
    0:33:20 Like it’s almost meant to alleviate awkwardness.
    0:33:24 And therefore we stick very closely to a script.
    0:33:28 – I think another reason small talk can become awkward
    0:33:30 is that without realizing it,
    0:33:33 we are depending on all kinds of social cues
    0:33:35 from our partner, whether it’s eye contact,
    0:33:38 timing of conversational pauses,
    0:33:41 even the distance someone stands from us,
    0:33:43 where they’re looking, are they looking at us?
    0:33:44 Are they looking over our shoulder?
    0:33:46 We’ve all had that experience.
    0:33:49 So small talk can go off the rails,
    0:33:52 even while the topic is, stays perfectly normal
    0:33:54 and consistent and boring,
    0:33:55 we can find the interaction awkward,
    0:33:57 maybe even for reasons that we’re not aware of
    0:34:00 or couldn’t articulate or couldn’t pinpoint.
    0:34:02 But yes, I also agree that small talk,
    0:34:05 if it goes perfectly well, can be boring, right?
    0:34:06 And that brings up another interesting point,
    0:34:08 which is like, well, what are the alternatives
    0:34:09 to awkwardness sometimes, right?
    0:34:12 Is it better to try to introduce a new topic?
    0:34:15 Is it better to try to do something a little different?
    0:34:18 Or is it better to play it safe, avoid awkwardness
    0:34:20 and just be bored?
    0:34:25 – One thing your book really emphasizes,
    0:34:28 which I like, even if it’s not the main point,
    0:34:34 is how much of social life really is a performance,
    0:34:36 which isn’t to say that everything we do
    0:34:38 with other people is phony,
    0:34:41 but it is a kind of dance, isn’t it?
    0:34:42 And because we can’t control everything
    0:34:44 and because we don’t know what’s going on
    0:34:47 in other people’s minds,
    0:34:50 it’s fraught with all kinds of hazards.
    0:34:52 – Yes, absolutely, I think that’s right.
    0:34:57 And I think that, again, that there’s this tendency
    0:34:59 or I think temptation to blame ourselves
    0:35:01 when interactions go off the rails,
    0:35:05 but the expression it takes to the tango is apt here, right?
    0:35:08 We’re dependent on a partner also to give us cues.
    0:35:10 And I think we have to also be mindful
    0:35:11 of the cues we’re giving out to others.
    0:35:13 So the idea of a performance,
    0:35:15 I really like the point you made there,
    0:35:18 that it’s not to say it’s insincere or phony,
    0:35:22 but it is that we are executing a kind of performance.
    0:35:26 And some of that is up to us
    0:35:28 and some of it is based on the roles
    0:35:31 that other people make available to us
    0:35:35 and that our day-to-day life makes available to us.
    0:35:37 – There’s the social cues part of it.
    0:35:41 And then there’s experiences when you deviate
    0:35:44 one way or the other from what’s expected.
    0:35:47 You know, I may have talked about this on the show before,
    0:35:51 but back in 2018, I went on this reporting trip
    0:35:55 to Costa Rica and I did a lot of psychedelics
    0:35:56 over the course of a week.
    0:35:57 I even wrote about it for Vox
    0:35:59 and you can find it on the interwebs
    0:36:01 if you’re so inclined.
    0:36:04 But I bring it up because reading your book,
    0:36:06 it made me think a lot about that.
    0:36:11 And that led for me to a very interesting social experiment.
    0:36:16 I would say probably for at least six months or so
    0:36:17 after that experience,
    0:36:22 I was easily the most present I’ve ever been in my life
    0:36:24 because it just wasn’t in my head really at all
    0:36:26 like I normally am.
    0:36:28 So I was very attuned to the moment
    0:36:30 and the people around me.
    0:36:35 And during this time, without thinking about it at all,
    0:36:40 I was really, and I mean, really making eye contact
    0:36:43 with people like if I was talking to you
    0:36:45 or if you were talking to me, I was listening.
    0:36:47 I mean, really listening.
    0:36:49 And I was looking you right in the eyes the whole time.
    0:36:52 And after a while, I started to realize
    0:36:54 how much awkwardness this created
    0:36:58 because people aren’t accustomed to that.
    0:37:01 We’re not really present with each other in that way.
    0:37:03 We’re distracted.
    0:37:06 We often perform listening,
    0:37:10 but we’re mostly in our little bubbles
    0:37:12 colliding as minimally as possible
    0:37:15 as we move through our mostly private lives.
    0:37:17 And what I was doing,
    0:37:22 unselfconsciously was rupturing that social pattern
    0:37:23 a little bit, breaking from the script.
    0:37:25 And it was awkward.
    0:37:28 And after a while, I guess I just fell back
    0:37:31 into the default routine and got back on the script.
    0:37:33 And it’s less awkward, for sure.
    0:37:36 But it was an instructive experiment for me.
    0:37:41 And reflecting back on it now, that’s a lot clearer.
    0:37:44 – I mean, I kind of love this.
    0:37:46 This is kind of hilarious.
    0:37:50 And to me, it’s this idea that you’re walking around
    0:37:52 being really present and listening
    0:37:54 and doing all these things that you are great
    0:37:55 and that we want to do.
    0:37:57 And yet simultaneously just making other people
    0:38:01 super uncomfortable with the level of eye contact, right?
    0:38:03 That they’re feeling like this is really awkward.
    0:38:05 It was a little much, yeah.
    0:38:08 – I think this point about eye contact is interesting
    0:38:12 because we are so sensitive to differences in eye contact.
    0:38:14 And it’s also something that’s culturally variable.
    0:38:16 What amount of gaze time is appropriate?
    0:38:18 What it means?
    0:38:21 What it might mean coming from a man?
    0:38:23 What it might mean coming from a woman
    0:38:24 in different situations?
    0:38:26 And I think we also can adjust pretty well
    0:38:29 without making a conscious effort too, right?
    0:38:31 I think some of us might have to like consciously
    0:38:33 remind ourselves, look in the eyes, right?
    0:38:35 Look at that person, make eye contact.
    0:38:38 Sometimes people talk about telling their kids that too.
    0:38:39 When you meet someone, shake their hand
    0:38:41 and look at them in the eye, right?
    0:38:43 So we can consciously adjust it.
    0:38:46 But it is again, something that I think we negotiate
    0:38:50 with others tacitly without intending to.
    0:38:52 – What do you think is the biggest price we pay
    0:38:56 for our fear of awkwardness?
    0:38:58 What doesn’t happen in the world
    0:39:00 that we should want to happen
    0:39:05 because we’re so desperate to avoid awkward situations?
    0:39:08 – So I think there’s a lot of opportunities
    0:39:12 for human connection and comfort that are lost.
    0:39:14 One case I think about a lot is grief
    0:39:19 and that we are, let me preface this by saying,
    0:39:22 I’m always mindful that when I draw these generalizations,
    0:39:25 everybody’s experience of awkwardness is different.
    0:39:27 And I think as a philosopher,
    0:39:29 I’m trained to make pronouncements
    0:39:32 like big generalizations, universal principles.
    0:39:35 I think one thing that’s challenging about awkwardness
    0:39:36 is everyone’s experience is different.
    0:39:41 There are so many ways for things to be and go awkward.
    0:39:45 But I do think that we tend to be awkward around grief
    0:39:47 and talking about grief and loss.
    0:39:49 And I think that comes to mind particularly
    0:39:52 because that’s a time when people are really hurting
    0:39:55 and can really use connection and comfort.
    0:39:59 And I think that a lot of times people are hesitant
    0:40:02 to reach out because they don’t know what to say.
    0:40:05 I think that there was a time when
    0:40:07 if everybody belonged to the same religious group,
    0:40:09 we would have highly scripted rituals
    0:40:10 around grief and mourning.
    0:40:13 And I think that as we’ve gotten more choice
    0:40:16 in our religious or spiritual practices,
    0:40:19 which is a good thing, one of the side effects of that
    0:40:23 has been a kind of loss of sense of how we should respond to
    0:40:25 or talk about death and loss and grief.
    0:40:28 So that’s one case that comes to mind.
    0:40:30 Maybe a less emotionally fraught one,
    0:40:33 although still pretty big, is money.
    0:40:35 There’s been a lot written about the salary gap
    0:40:38 and inequities in pay.
    0:40:41 And I think that’s partly a consequence of the fact
    0:40:44 that we don’t really necessarily know how to talk about money
    0:40:46 or there’s all kinds of weird social norms
    0:40:48 about discussing money.
    0:40:50 And that can contribute to misapprehensions
    0:40:55 and ignorance and allow inequalities to persist.
    0:40:56 So those are two cases.
    0:41:00 I think there’s probably other topics that come to mind.
    0:41:03 People have recently started talking about menopause
    0:41:06 and the way that the experience of menopause affects people
    0:41:12 and that that’s something that we’ve had a lot of social silence
    0:41:16 around to the point where when people start to experience it,
    0:41:19 they may kind of be perplexed by their own experience
    0:41:21 and not be sure how to talk about it with others.
    0:41:24 I do think in a lot of these cases,
    0:41:28 the ability to talk about things online has really helped
    0:41:30 and has allowed people to figure out
    0:41:33 how they want to talk about things in advance of in-person,
    0:41:36 face-to-face social interactions.
    0:41:38 And I think that that is one way in which the internet
    0:41:42 can make life less awkward is by allowing us to try this out
    0:41:45 and figure out what we think in advance of going
    0:41:48 into those in-person, potentially awkward interactions.
    0:41:51 [MUSIC PLAYING]
    0:41:54 Support for the Gray Area comes from DeleteMe.
    0:41:57 We do it every day, but entering your data over and over again
    0:42:00 on the internet can have unintended consequences.
    0:42:03 Data brokers profit by selling your personal information,
    0:42:05 turning your data into a commodity.
    0:42:07 It’s possible your private details can be purchased
    0:42:10 by anyone online, increasing the risk of identity theft,
    0:42:12 phishing, harassment, and so on.
    0:42:14 And that’s why we’re doing this.
    0:42:17 And we’re doing this because we want to make sure
    0:42:19 that we’re able to find out what’s going on
    0:42:21 increasing the risk of identity theft, phishing, harassment,
    0:42:23 and spam calls.
    0:42:25 Now, however, you can take control of your privacy
    0:42:26 with DeleteMe.
    0:42:29 DeleteMe is here to constantly monitor and remove
    0:42:32 the personal information you don’t want on the internet.
    0:42:34 Claire White, our colleague here at Vox,
    0:42:35 tried DeleteMe for herself.
    0:42:38 DeleteMe made it super easy for my information
    0:42:42 to be removed from unwanted sites on the internet.
    0:42:43 I did not have to lift a finger.
    0:42:45 They did it for me.
    0:42:47 I did not have to do anything in terms
    0:42:49 of removing this unwanted data.
    0:42:50 It was shocking.
    0:42:52 I did not realize that all of my information
    0:42:54 was just out there available.
    0:42:55 You can take control of your data
    0:42:57 and keep your private life private
    0:42:59 by signing up for DeleteMe,
    0:43:02 now at a special discount for our listeners.
    0:43:04 Today, you can get 20% off your DeleteMe plan
    0:43:07 when you go to joindeleteme.com/vox
    0:43:09 and use promo code Vox at checkout.
    0:43:13 You can get 20% off by going to joindeleteme.com/vox
    0:43:16 and enter code Vox at checkout.
    0:43:19 That’s joindeleteme.com/vox code Vox.
    0:43:27 Support for the gray area comes from Quince.
    0:43:29 One of the things I love most about fall
    0:43:30 is the fresh wardrobe.
    0:43:33 The flip flops are out and the hoodies are in.
    0:43:35 Chunky boots aren’t really my thing,
    0:43:38 but for those who partake, welcome back.
    0:43:40 If your cool weather collection is in need
    0:43:41 of an upgrade this year,
    0:43:43 you might want to check out Quince.
    0:43:46 They’ve found a way to combine quality and longevity
    0:43:48 with prices that might surprise you.
    0:43:51 Their Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at just $50
    0:43:53 and they have a huge lineup of fall-ready items,
    0:43:55 including beautiful leather jackets,
    0:43:58 cotton cardigans, soft denim, and so much more.
    0:44:00 Plus, Quince says they only work with factories
    0:44:01 that use safe, ethical,
    0:44:04 and responsible manufacturing practices.
    0:44:07 Our colleague and product tester extraordinaire,
    0:44:09 Claire White, got the tryout Quince herself.
    0:44:12 – I received the Mongolian cashmere cardigan sweater
    0:44:16 from Quince recently and I am in love with it.
    0:44:19 The quality is amazing, especially for the price.
    0:44:20 I got the chocolate brown color,
    0:44:24 which feels very in season and trendy to me.
    0:44:27 – Upgrade your wardrobe with pieces made to last with Quince.
    0:44:31 Go to quince.com/grayarea for free shipping on your order
    0:44:33 and 365 day returns.
    0:44:38 That’s Q-U-I-N-C-E.com/grayarea to get free shipping
    0:44:41 and 365 day returns.
    0:44:43 Quince.com/grayarea.
    0:44:49 – Fox Creative.
    0:44:53 – This is advertiser content from Zell.
    0:44:58 When you picture an online scammer, what do you see?
    0:44:59 – For the longest time, we have these images
    0:45:01 of somebody sitting crouched over their computer
    0:45:03 with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away
    0:45:04 in the middle of the night.
    0:45:07 And honestly, that’s not what it is anymore.
    0:45:11 – That’s Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.
    0:45:14 These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates
    0:45:18 than individual con artists and they’re making bank.
    0:45:22 Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion.
    0:45:25 – It’s mind blowing to see the kind of infrastructure
    0:45:29 that’s been built to facilitate scamming at scale.
    0:45:31 There are hundreds, if not thousands
    0:45:34 of scam centers all around the world.
    0:45:36 These are very savvy business people.
    0:45:38 These are organized criminal rings.
    0:45:41 And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem,
    0:45:42 we can protect people better.
    0:45:46 – One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face
    0:45:50 is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed
    0:45:51 to discuss what happened to them.
    0:45:55 But Ian says, one of our best defenses is simple.
    0:45:57 We need to talk to each other.
    0:46:00 – We need to have those awkward conversations around,
    0:46:01 what do you do if you have text messages
    0:46:03 you don’t recognize?
    0:46:04 What do you do if you start getting asked
    0:46:07 to send information that’s more sensitive?
    0:46:10 Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness,
    0:46:12 a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim
    0:46:14 and we have these conversations all the time.
    0:46:18 So we are all at risk and we all need to work together
    0:46:20 to protect each other.
    0:46:25 – Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com/zel.
    0:46:27 And when using digital payment platforms,
    0:46:30 remember to only send money to people you know and trust.
    0:46:36 (orchestral music)
    0:46:51 – For me, it’s almost the tragic little paradox
    0:46:54 of awkwardness that, you know, it’s only possible
    0:46:59 because we’re social creatures and we want to belong.
    0:47:00 We want to be accepted.
    0:47:03 So we’re constantly trying to conform.
    0:47:06 But it’s precisely because of this fear
    0:47:11 of not being accepted that we’re often not present.
    0:47:15 We’re not authentically open to real connection
    0:47:18 because we’re too busy trying to perform our roles
    0:47:22 or perform the social script, whatever we think it is.
    0:47:28 But I don’t know, do you think I’m overthinking this?
    0:47:30 – No, I think that’s exactly right.
    0:47:34 I think that awkwardness, yeah, it’s a sign
    0:47:38 of how much we care about coordinating with other people
    0:47:41 as a way of making ourselves, it’s the vulnerability
    0:47:43 that, you know, accompanies our movement
    0:47:44 for the social world.
    0:47:47 And I think that is a little bit sad,
    0:47:49 but I think also if we can just own up to it
    0:47:52 and recognize that it’s something that we share with others
    0:47:55 and maybe be willing to make ourselves vulnerable,
    0:47:59 maybe then we can start to evade some of that paradox
    0:48:00 that you allude to.
    0:48:03 I do think also that one thing we can do is be mindful
    0:48:08 of, you know, if we think of awkwardness as bound up
    0:48:11 with all of these dynamics of power and privilege
    0:48:12 and who gets to be awkward
    0:48:15 and who gets to get away with being awkward,
    0:48:18 I think we can also try to bear some of that awkwardness
    0:48:21 for others who might be less able to put themselves
    0:48:23 out there and be vulnerable like that.
    0:48:26 Anytime you’re talking about social dynamics,
    0:48:28 there’s always this background element of power,
    0:48:32 who has it, who doesn’t, and how that colors in interaction.
    0:48:37 When there is a clear power imbalance between people,
    0:48:41 who’s responsible for alleviating the awkwardness?
    0:48:43 Who should be responsible?
    0:48:46 Or is anyone really responsible for that?
    0:48:49 – I mean, I really like that you went from who should,
    0:48:52 who is responsible to who should be responsible
    0:48:54 because I think that’s a distinction we don’t often make.
    0:48:56 And I think without realizing it,
    0:48:58 sometimes we have certain expectations.
    0:49:01 I think women often feel responsible
    0:49:04 for other people’s emotional comfort.
    0:49:06 And I think there’s an expectation
    0:49:08 that women will kind of manage emotions
    0:49:10 in a way that doesn’t attach to men.
    0:49:13 So I think that can make it doubly hard.
    0:49:15 And if you think about some of the issues
    0:49:18 that tend to become awkward when we’re discussing them.
    0:49:19 So throughout the podcast,
    0:49:21 I’ve alluded to like sexual harassment,
    0:49:26 talking about menopause or reproduction, salary gaps,
    0:49:27 things like this,
    0:49:29 these do tend to be things that affect women.
    0:49:31 And I don’t think it’s a coincidence
    0:49:35 that women tend to be assigned responsibility
    0:49:37 for alleviating awkwardness.
    0:49:38 And therefore I might be more afraid
    0:49:40 of making things awkward,
    0:49:44 of not seeming to raise uncomfortable topics.
    0:49:49 So I think that one thing we can do sort of collectively
    0:49:51 is to be aware going into situations
    0:49:54 of where we might have more privilege and more power
    0:49:57 and then take it on ourselves to alleviate the awkwardness.
    0:49:59 If we’re worried that a certain social norm
    0:50:00 or script is unclear,
    0:50:03 we could just make it explicit, right?
    0:50:04 I am a college professor
    0:50:07 and people sometimes talk about this kind of hidden curriculum
    0:50:09 that a lot of our students come in
    0:50:11 knowing what office hours are,
    0:50:13 knowing how to email a professor,
    0:50:14 knowing exactly what’s expected
    0:50:17 in terms of behavior in class and note taking
    0:50:18 and things like this,
    0:50:19 but some students don’t.
    0:50:22 And they might feel really awkward in certain situations.
    0:50:25 And if we just take that minute and make things explicit
    0:50:27 and say, when you’re emailing a professor,
    0:50:29 here’s a good way to go about it
    0:50:32 or here’s what office hours are
    0:50:33 and here’s what you should expect
    0:50:35 when you come to office hours,
    0:50:37 we can just make things less awkward for those people.
    0:50:39 It might feel weird to us to do that
    0:50:43 because it’s not something we’ve ever explicitly articulated,
    0:50:44 but it might, you know,
    0:50:47 in taking on that little bit of weirdness for ourselves,
    0:50:49 we might make things significantly less awkward
    0:50:51 for someone else.
    0:50:56 – I like that you point out what a weird,
    0:51:00 and now this is my language, obnoxious flex.
    0:51:03 It is when you have powerful people.
    0:51:08 You know, it is a very particular kind of flex
    0:51:11 by very powerful people to not care about creating awkwardness
    0:51:14 because they’re always the most powerful person in the room.
    0:51:16 So they don’t have to give a shit
    0:51:19 about conforming to social norms.
    0:51:23 So, you know, Mark Zuckerberg can walk into the room
    0:51:27 and do his, whatever his thing is now.
    0:51:30 He seems to have undergone quite a bit of brand management
    0:51:31 here in the last couple of years,
    0:51:33 but you know what I’m talking about, right?
    0:51:35 I mean, that that is a very particular kind of flex
    0:51:39 by a person who knows they’re sort of above it all
    0:51:40 in that way and not accountable.
    0:51:41 So they can create awkwardness
    0:51:44 without really worrying about it
    0:51:47 because they have more power than everyone else
    0:51:49 they’re interacting with.
    0:51:51 – Absolutely, I think that’s absolutely right.
    0:51:52 And I think there’s really two issues there.
    0:51:55 One is this ability to kind of use awkwardness
    0:51:58 as a social flex that’s available to some people
    0:51:58 and not others.
    0:52:00 So if you contrast someone like Mark Zuckerberg
    0:52:03 to someone like female CEO,
    0:52:06 and the one who comes to mind is Elizabeth Holmes,
    0:52:07 obviously had some other issues
    0:52:10 in addition to her presentation.
    0:52:12 But you know, she was widely pilloried
    0:52:16 for her kind of self-presentation and her awkwardness
    0:52:19 in a way that you just don’t see male CEOs
    0:52:21 getting called out the same way
    0:52:24 or losing credibility in terms of presentation
    0:52:25 for being awkward.
    0:52:27 But there’s a second point you mentioned
    0:52:28 which is accountability.
    0:52:30 And I think that we do see awkwardness being used
    0:52:31 to evade accountability.
    0:52:35 And I think this happens both in business and in academia
    0:52:37 where there’s this sense of like,
    0:52:38 well, that person’s just so awkward,
    0:52:42 you can’t expect them to adhere to these kinds of norms
    0:52:44 or, oh, they didn’t mean anything by it.
    0:52:46 They’re just really awkward.
    0:52:46 We have to, you know,
    0:52:49 we can’t hold them to the same standards as others
    0:52:52 where, you know, other people’s social discomfort
    0:52:54 seems suddenly not to matter as much.
    0:52:56 And we let people get away with behavior
    0:52:59 that is really sometimes deeply problematic
    0:53:01 in the name of awkwardness.
    0:53:05 – If you’re right, and I think you are,
    0:53:09 that awkwardness is a social property.
    0:53:11 So individuals aren’t responsible
    0:53:14 for creating it for the most part.
    0:53:18 And it will always be a part of life with other people.
    0:53:20 But if you are someone listening to this
    0:53:22 and you’d like to decrease the amount of awkwardness
    0:53:24 in your life as much as possible
    0:53:27 or at least change your relationship to awkwardness
    0:53:31 so that it’s less taxing, what’s your advice?
    0:53:32 – So first, can I just say,
    0:53:35 I do think people can create awkwardness.
    0:53:37 And I think sometimes that can be very strategic
    0:53:38 for good or evil, right?
    0:53:40 Sometimes we can use awkwardness to draw attention
    0:53:42 to an interaction that we find problematic.
    0:53:44 So an example I use in the book is like,
    0:53:47 if you’re, you know, some graduate students
    0:53:48 are going to dinner with a professor
    0:53:52 who makes a really sexist gross joke, you know,
    0:53:54 one strategy might be to just call him out.
    0:53:55 But if no one feels comfortable doing that,
    0:53:58 you can just let an awkward silence sit there
    0:54:00 and just not laugh, not respond, not say anything.
    0:54:03 And that awkwardness kind of really draws attention,
    0:54:06 I think, to the joke not landing.
    0:54:08 And so it can be a way of saying something
    0:54:10 where you don’t actually have the power to say it.
    0:54:12 So I do think we can create awkward situations
    0:54:15 sometimes strategically for good.
    0:54:16 But to go to your question,
    0:54:19 so if you want to decrease the awkward situations
    0:54:22 in your life, I think there are a few things we can do
    0:54:24 when we feel an awkward situation looming.
    0:54:27 One is to think about the interaction itself
    0:54:29 and what our goals are for that interaction.
    0:54:32 Like what kind of interaction do we want this to be?
    0:54:36 So say we’re worried about politics coming up
    0:54:38 during the holiday dinner and it’s going to get awkward.
    0:54:40 One thing we might think about as well,
    0:54:42 if we have to have a conversation about politics,
    0:54:44 what’s the most important thing to us?
    0:54:46 Like what is our goal for that interaction?
    0:54:48 Do we want to feel heard?
    0:54:50 Do we want to convince the other person?
    0:54:53 Do we want to make them feel comfortable?
    0:54:54 Do we want to make a third party
    0:54:55 who’s listening feel comfortable?
    0:54:57 And that can help us figure out
    0:55:00 what script should guide us through the interaction.
    0:55:04 I think another thing we can do is admit uncertainty
    0:55:06 and ask for help where we can.
    0:55:07 So if we’re going into a situation
    0:55:09 we really don’t know, right?
    0:55:11 Like what kind of party is this going to be?
    0:55:12 How many people are going to be there?
    0:55:14 What should I wear?
    0:55:15 It’s okay to ask these things.
    0:55:17 And I think that if you’re someone who is, say,
    0:55:20 hosting a party and you think it’s going to be really
    0:55:22 ambiguous, you can tell people, right?
    0:55:24 Hey, I’m having some people over,
    0:55:26 they’ll probably be about 30 people there, right?
    0:55:28 Let people know in advance what to expect.
    0:55:30 And as I said before, I think this is something
    0:55:34 that people in positions to do so can do
    0:55:36 to make things easier for others
    0:55:38 who might not feel as comfortable asking questions.
    0:55:39 And it’s certainly that something
    0:55:41 that we can be attentive to in the workplace.
    0:55:44 So if you’re conducting job interviews,
    0:55:47 you might let candidates know what to expect.
    0:55:49 Here’s how the interview will be structured.
    0:55:52 Here’s what we’d expect from you, so on and so forth.
    0:55:54 And then the last thing I would just say is
    0:55:59 it’s easy to focus on how unpleasant awkwardness is.
    0:56:02 But I think one thing we can bear in mind is like,
    0:56:05 what are the alternatives to awkwardness?
    0:56:07 Because I think that sometimes we’re so afraid
    0:56:09 of awkwardness that we lose sight of the fact
    0:56:11 that the alternatives might be worse.
    0:56:14 So going back to a conversation about politics,
    0:56:16 maybe it’s awkward to talk about politics
    0:56:18 with your extended family.
    0:56:21 But what would you prefer, an awkward conversation
    0:56:23 or a really angry conversation?
    0:56:25 Because if awkwardness is a kind of uncertainty
    0:56:27 and hesitation, the alternative to that
    0:56:31 might be a kind of very certain, very angry tone
    0:56:33 or interaction, right?
    0:56:34 And so I think sometimes awkwardness
    0:56:36 has this other function and this other utility,
    0:56:40 which is it can keep us from landing on social scripts
    0:56:43 that are really counterproductive or really negative, right?
    0:56:45 It can kind of keep us reserved
    0:56:50 or keep us from entering into like angry or offensive
    0:56:55 or really other problematic emotional scripts.
    0:56:58 One thing I learned in that experience
    0:57:00 I was talking about earlier is that
    0:57:04 there are real risks involved anytime you deviate
    0:57:07 from the established social script
    0:57:09 in ways that might create a little bit of uncertainty.
    0:57:11 Even if your intentions are good,
    0:57:14 it might not go the way you hope.
    0:57:18 And maybe the point of all this is that that’s okay.
    0:57:19 That’s life.
    0:57:21 This isn’t actually a scripted TV show.
    0:57:22 It’s unpredictable.
    0:57:23 Shit happens.
    0:57:26 But I guess easier said than done.
    0:57:28 – Well, and scripts have to change sometimes too.
    0:57:30 And I think that’s one place
    0:57:31 where we see awkwardness emerging, right?
    0:57:34 Sometimes the old scripts just don’t work anymore, right?
    0:57:35 – And that’s good.
    0:57:36 – Yeah, it’s good.
    0:57:38 And we can be explicit, right?
    0:57:41 We can say like, okay, look,
    0:57:44 now I’m in this polyamorous relationship
    0:57:46 and I wanna bring all my partners home for Thanksgiving
    0:57:48 and like, what’s the deal?
    0:57:51 What’s the norm around introducing multiple partners
    0:57:52 to your family?
    0:57:53 And we can just figure it out, right?
    0:57:54 And that’s okay.
    0:57:57 The world will not end if we kind of explicitly acknowledge
    0:57:59 that some of these norms are things
    0:58:01 we have control over, we can negotiate,
    0:58:05 and we can figure out what’s gonna work for us collectively.
    0:58:07 – Could we get rid of all this awkwardness
    0:58:11 if everyone was forced to take improv classes in school?
    0:58:12 And I’m kind of serious.
    0:58:14 I mean, if awkwardness is just the result
    0:58:16 of the lack of a social script,
    0:58:20 then maybe being comfortable without a script is the answer.
    0:58:23 – Maybe, I guess a different question is,
    0:58:24 would we want to?
    0:58:26 Would we want to get rid of awkwardness?
    0:58:29 Or is it better to have situations
    0:58:30 where we feel a little hesitant,
    0:58:32 where we feel a little uncertain,
    0:58:34 and where we take a minute to become aware
    0:58:36 of the social infrastructure around us?
    0:58:39 Because once we recognize that it’s there,
    0:58:42 we can be conscious of our role in creating it
    0:58:43 and that gives us the ability
    0:58:46 to consciously reflect on and change it.
    0:58:47 – Yeah, I don’t think it’s about getting rid
    0:58:48 of that uncertainty.
    0:58:50 It’s about changing our relationship to it.
    0:58:52 It’s about being comfortable with it,
    0:58:54 and not trying to expunge it.
    0:58:55 – Yeah, and I don’t even think
    0:58:57 we need improv classes for that.
    0:58:59 I think people just need to read my book.
    0:59:02 – First off, that’s a false choice.
    0:59:04 We can clearly do both.
    0:59:08 But I mean, I’ve always, I mean, the older I get,
    0:59:10 the more I believe that doing improv comedy
    0:59:13 is almost like the ultimate training for navigating life.
    0:59:16 And it’s something I’ve always wanted to do,
    0:59:17 but I keep not doing it.
    0:59:19 – I mean, I think having a podcast
    0:59:21 must be a kind of improv, right?
    0:59:23 I mean, you have to get good at some kind of improv
    0:59:28 and reacting to your yes, reacting to the conversation.
    0:59:31 But I don’t know if we need to do,
    0:59:33 there’s two things improv might do for you.
    0:59:38 One is to help you sort of react on your feet in the moment.
    0:59:43 And the other way to get out of awkwardness
    0:59:44 or to mind awkwardness less
    0:59:47 is to just be okay with discomfort, right?
    0:59:49 And I do think that second thing,
    0:59:52 I often think that being okay with other people’s discomfort
    0:59:55 and your own discomfort is a kind of superpower, right?
    0:59:56 And I think in some ways,
    0:59:58 that’s what going to a cocktail party
    1:00:01 can feel like sometimes it’s just standing there
    1:00:04 feeling like you are on stage failing
    1:00:06 and you have no choice but to push through.
    1:00:08 And I think once we recognize that like,
    1:00:10 it’s not just us, it happens to everyone
    1:00:13 and it’s not necessarily our fault.
    1:00:16 And it doesn’t say anything terrible about us, right?
    1:00:19 Improv is about building connections with your partner.
    1:00:20 I assume I haven’t really done it.
    1:00:23 So I’m kind of basing this on what I know of improv.
    1:00:26 But I think that’s another way to get out of our own awkwardness
    1:00:28 is to pay attention to other people
    1:00:30 and to try to attune ourselves to other people.
    1:00:33 And I think that’s one reason that, you know,
    1:00:35 we might see an analogy with improv here, right?
    1:00:37 That willingness to put something out there
    1:00:40 and have someone else say yes and, right?
    1:00:43 But notice if your improv partner never gives you the yes and,
    1:00:45 there’s not much you can do there.
    1:00:47 And blaming yourself is really a mistake
    1:00:50 because they’re not giving you much to work with.
    1:00:52 Yeah.
    1:00:56 So if someone listens to this conversation or read your book,
    1:00:58 what is the most important lesson
    1:01:01 you’d want them to walk away with?
    1:01:04 Yeah, I mean, I think what I would hope people would take away
    1:01:07 is awkwardness is not a personal failing.
    1:01:12 Awkwardness is not a you problem, it’s an us problem.
    1:01:16 And that awkwardness is something that happens
    1:01:18 not necessarily because of a mistake someone made
    1:01:21 or because someone is bad at something.
    1:01:26 It can be something that happens simply because we’ve outgrown
    1:01:30 the social norms and scripts available to us as a society.
    1:01:34 So I guess the point of that is we can see awkwardness
    1:01:36 as an opportunity to take something
    1:01:40 that’s not working for us and re-engineer it.
    1:01:41 I like that.
    1:01:44 And yeah, I think I’d stress the same thing.
    1:01:46 I mean, especially if you’re someone
    1:01:48 who thinks of yourself as awkward
    1:01:53 or who has been called awkward by other people,
    1:01:55 maybe take it easy on yourself.
    1:01:57 Maybe say, you know what, screw that, I’m not awkward.
    1:02:00 The world we’ve built might make me feel awkward sometimes,
    1:02:03 but that says more about the world than me.
    1:02:06 So yeah, let’s leave it right there.
    1:02:10 Alexandra Plakius, this was a lot of fun.
    1:02:11 Thank you.
    1:02:12 Thank you so much.
    1:02:15 Also, go check out Alexandra’s book.
    1:02:18 It is called Awkwardness, A Theory.
    1:02:33 All right, I hope you enjoyed this episode.
    1:02:36 As always, we wanna know what you think.
    1:02:40 So go ahead and drop us a line at the grayarea@vox.com.
    1:02:45 And after that, rate, review, and subscribe to the pod,
    1:02:46 if you haven’t already.
    1:02:49 This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey
    1:02:51 and Travis Larchek.
    1:02:54 Today’s episode was engineered by Patrick Boyd,
    1:02:58 fact-checked by Anouk Dussot, edited by Jorge Just,
    1:03:01 and Alex O’Brington wrote our theme music.
    1:03:04 New episodes of The Gray Area drop on Mondays.
    1:03:05 Listen and subscribe.
    1:03:09 The show is part of VOX.
    1:03:10 Support VOX’s journalism
    1:03:13 by joining our membership program today.
    1:03:16 Go to vox.com/members to sign up.
    1:03:19 And if you decide to sign up because of this show,
    1:03:20 let us know.
    1:03:24 – Everything about music
    1:03:26 is secretly a story about technology.
    1:03:30 How we listen to it from vinyl to iPods to Spotify.
    1:03:35 How we make it from pianos to computer plugins to AI prompts.
    1:03:38 How we discover it from music blogs to TikTok.
    1:03:40 All this month on The Vergecast,
    1:03:42 we’re telling stories about those changes
    1:03:45 and how technological change changes
    1:03:47 not just the way we experience music,
    1:03:49 but the music itself.
    1:03:52 All that, all this month on The Vergecast,
    1:03:53 wherever you find podcasts.
    1:03:57 – Food and security still affects millions
    1:03:59 of individuals around the globe.
    1:04:01 And Nestlé, a global leader in nutrition, health,
    1:04:03 and wellness, understands the importance
    1:04:07 of working together to create lasting change.
    1:04:10 Nestlé’s partnerships extend beyond just financial support
    1:04:11 from building urban hoop houses
    1:04:13 to producing custom seasoning for food banks.
    1:04:15 Nestlé and their partners actively engage
    1:04:18 with local communities, listening to their needs,
    1:04:21 and working together to find innovative solutions.
    1:04:22 Nestlé is committed to helping support
    1:04:25 thriving, resilient communities today
    1:04:27 and for generations to come.
    1:04:30 Together, we can help to build stronger, healthier communities.
    1:04:32 Learn more at Nestlé.com.
    1:04:35 (dramatic music)

    Philosopher Alexandra Plakias says there are no awkward people, only awkward situations. In her book, Awkwardness: A Theory, Plakias explains the difference between embarrassment and awkwardness, how awkwardness can be used by people in power as a way of breaking social norms, and what exactly is happening when people aren’t on the same social script.

    Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling), host, The Gray Area

    Guest: Alexandra Plakias, author, Awkwardness: A Theory

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • What just happened, and what comes next

    AI transcript
    0:00:06 Everything about music is secretly a story about technology, how we listen to it from vinyl
    0:00:13 to iPods to Spotify, how we make it from pianos to computer plugins to AI prompts,
    0:00:18 how we discover it from music blogs to TikTok. All this month on The Vergecast, we’re telling
    0:00:24 stories about those changes and how technological change changes not just the way we experience
    0:00:31 music, but the music itself. All that, all this month on The Vergecast, wherever you find podcasts.
    0:00:39 Hello. I’m coming to you on a Friday, which is an unusual thing to do, but this has been
    0:00:45 an unusual week. I am still sifting through it, and I know many of you are as well.
    0:00:51 You will hear some of my thoughts soon enough, I promise. But in the meantime,
    0:00:57 my colleague Jacqueline Hill at Vox’s new podcast, Explain It To Me, has swooped in to help.
    0:01:03 Her team got lots of listener questions in the aftermath of Trump’s win on Tuesday,
    0:01:09 and she got some answers for them from the Vox reporters who know the most about why the outcome
    0:01:17 was what it was and what it might mean. Things are a little unsettled, I get that, but information
    0:01:23 is about the best thing we can offer, and JQ and our team have a lot they can tell you.
    0:01:29 We’re dropping that episode here, and I hope it helps. See you back in the feed on Monday.
    0:01:43 You’re listening to Explain It To Me. I’m Jacqueline Hill. Wow. What a week.
    0:01:49 As I’m sure many of you know, Tuesday was election day, and I know that you know because
    0:01:55 of the tons of questions we received from you. I’m talking about from all over the country and
    0:02:01 throughout the entire voting process. Hey, my name is Luke. I’m from Michigan. My question is about
    0:02:06 the election. I waffle between anxiety and trying to reassure myself that everything’s going to be
    0:02:16 okay about this election. It’s kind of really boring to have our entire world descend on just
    0:02:22 a few states, and it’s really frustrating to have people who are nothing like me don’t really
    0:02:27 represent my beliefs have such a major sway in the decisions of this country.
    0:02:32 People called in with questions about their results, about the aftermath,
    0:02:37 and what it all means for the next four years. You also shared what you were experiencing
    0:02:42 throughout the day. Here’s a call we got pretty early on from Ronan, who voted for the first time.
    0:02:49 It is currently November 5th, and it is election day. I’m a student at Utah State University.
    0:02:54 I’m a first time voter and a college student who isn’t committed to either party. Tonight,
    0:03:00 I will be hosting an election party. I went and got some, some little flags and some materials
    0:03:05 for that. I’ll be making some brownies and some cookies. So I’m really excited because I think
    0:03:11 no matter what happens, to me, it’s a celebration that we’re seeing democracy happen in real time.
    0:03:15 And that might just be the political science student in me, but I’m really excited about it.
    0:03:21 And people kept checking in with questions and reflections throughout the night.
    0:03:32 Time is 9 24 p.m. I just got home from working election day. This was my first election cycle
    0:03:41 and election day working as a poll worker. And overall, it was fantastic. The people I met there,
    0:03:47 they were the most professional, the kindest, the most polite people I’ve ever met.
    0:03:58 There was one unpleasant experience during early voting. This lady commented, “Oh, you have really
    0:04:05 beautiful dark hair. Where are you from? Are you from Knoxville?” And I said, “No, I’m from Venezuela.”
    0:04:15 And as soon as I said that, her face got incredibly serious as if that wasn’t what she wanted to hear.
    0:04:21 And I just let her know, you know, when you’re done voting, there’s a scanner at the end of
    0:04:26 the room. You can turn in your ballot there, right? I hope she had an okay rest of the day.
    0:04:31 All right. Thank you for taking your time to listen to this. Bye.
    0:04:39 Now, what was I up to? I spent election night at the office with my fellow Vox journalists.
    0:04:43 I got there around six-ish. Most of my colleagues were already there,
    0:04:47 gathered around the tacos we were having for dinner, plenty of soda,
    0:04:52 a desperate and successful hunt for cold brew, and emergency energy drinks on deck.
    0:04:58 There were also special appearances from a co-worker’s baby and another co-worker’s dog,
    0:05:04 two very cute additions to the evening. And I should say, the thing about election night in DC
    0:05:10 is that people really let their nerd flags fly. On my way in, I saw people headed to bars for
    0:05:16 results, watch parties, and I even ran into a DJ dressed as Steve Kornacki. For a lot of us,
    0:05:22 it was a long night. I’m sure it was a long night for many of you too. In fact, I know it was because
    0:05:28 the questions kept rolling in. I had so many questions about elections. First of all,
    0:05:35 every time election comes, my question about the election results revolves around how various
    0:05:40 demographics voted in this election and last night in the years. As the night wore on, the questions
    0:05:48 started to change. I just wanted to call and ask, how are those Democrats feeling right now?
    0:05:58 I bet they’re crying, huh? I bet they’re crying, huh? Trump 2024. With all of the stress and
    0:06:04 disappointments that came with the election results this year, something that’s been going
    0:06:09 through my mind is, when will America be ready for a woman to lead the country?
    0:06:16 My name is Blake from Florida. My question about the election, seeing that Donald Trump has won,
    0:06:19 so what’s going to happen with all of those indictments?
    0:06:25 I am also curious about women’s reproductive rights. This was a huge issue for me when I
    0:06:32 went into the polls this year. And so I’m curious how much this is really going to impact things
    0:06:37 from where they are today. And when all was said and almost done, the questions we got
    0:06:44 kind of fell into a few themes. What just happened? Why did it happen? And what’s going to happen next?
    0:06:50 And so today, we check in with our colleagues who cover Republicans, Democrats, and the courts,
    0:06:54 and we bring them your questions. That’s today on Explain It To Me.
    0:07:07 Hi, Christian. It is the day after the election. It’s actually 3.42 p.m. on Wednesday. And I haven’t
    0:07:15 seen you in, I don’t know, a few hours. I’m sure it was all a blur. How are you doing today? It
    0:07:20 feels like we have come a long way from Tuesday night’s tacos. Yeah, we have come a long way.
    0:07:29 I might sound similarly delirious. It’s pretty astounding what happened.
    0:07:34 Yeah. So the first set of questions from our listeners can kind of all be boiled down to
    0:07:40 what exactly happened this week in the clear light of the morning, or I guess the mid-late
    0:07:48 afternoon. What are your takeaways? Yeah, the big takeaway obviously is just that this is a country
    0:07:55 that was ready to issue a very stunning rebuke to Democrats, and specifically to Vice President
    0:08:02 Harris and President Joe Biden. So top line, we saw red shifts in counties across the country.
    0:08:11 Almost, I’m pretty sure no state was more liberal than in 2020. It’s almost impossible to talk about
    0:08:19 what’s happening among subsects of the electorate without acknowledging that just across every
    0:08:26 kind of category of voter, there was a shift to the right. And I can say very clearly now,
    0:08:33 like one of the more interesting things that we saw last night, pretty early on, was places that
    0:08:40 were Republican were getting more Republican. Places that were Democratic like urban centers
    0:08:45 were not as Democratic as they might be expected to be. And the suburbs,
    0:08:52 which have been making a slow shift toward Democrats since 2016, did not continue that
    0:08:58 leftward drift to the degree that Democrats need in order to win some of these important races.
    0:09:02 What surprised you the most about last night’s results?
    0:09:08 I wasn’t expecting so many primarily Hispanic counties to flip so early or to flip to the
    0:09:14 degree that they did. There’s been a lot of talk this election about the shifting electorate,
    0:09:19 you know, how Trump was picking up support among Black men and Latino voters. And we
    0:09:24 got some questions about that. Hi, everybody. This is Barton from Ann Arbor, Michigan. And my
    0:09:32 question is, they’re saying that among Black men and among women and among Latino voters,
    0:09:42 there’s a big surge in support for Trump. And my only question is, why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
    0:09:50 Hi, John Cohen. This is Nicole. Last night, the media was heavily covering how Black men
    0:09:57 were voting in battleground states. And I’m just curious if you could explain whether it did or
    0:10:03 could have affected the election results. This question was in the air, I think. Here’s something
    0:10:09 from the news. Well, votes are still pouring in, still being counted, but still a little too early
    0:10:15 to tell exactly which minority will be the scapegoat in this election. But the night is young.
    0:10:19 Plenty of groups are still out there. You have young voters, old voters, Asian voters all
    0:10:24 still in play. Muslims, Cubans, certainly the list goes on. And some minority will be to blame
    0:10:31 tonight. Okay. That last one was from The Onion, I will admit. So the fake newscaster said that
    0:10:37 we’re definitely going to have a minority group to use as a scapegoat. Tell me again why the
    0:10:43 scapegroup shouldn’t be the majority, why it tends to go towards those smaller groups.
    0:10:48 Yeah. So I think there are two reasons. One, there are some assumptions already baked in about the
    0:10:53 way that the majority is going to work, white voters. And so there’s a little bit less of a
    0:10:59 shock perhaps at the same time, because some of these shifts among non-white voters, among the
    0:11:06 minority, feel so novel. They feel so different. They feel so new, even though this is now what the
    0:11:10 second time that we’ve seen Trump overperform with these groups of voters.
    0:11:15 Is it too soon to find explanations for what’s happening? Like what do we know so far?
    0:11:21 So we do know a few things. First thing is that turnout did not seem to be like an issue.
    0:11:28 Turnout was pretty high this election. Turnout in battleground states was pretty high,
    0:11:33 which in the past has usually meant pretty good things for Democrats, right? One of the easy
    0:11:39 explanations in past cycles for why Democrats underperform is, oh, well, the base just didn’t
    0:11:43 come out. Black voters didn’t turn out in urban centers. That doesn’t seem like it’s
    0:11:47 going to be a pretty good explanation, because what we’re seeing is that those urban centers
    0:11:52 shifted to the right. Conclusion is that lots of these places either did not continue their shift
    0:11:57 to the left, like in the suburbs, or did by small amount. But we can also look at counties that have
    0:12:04 large populations of voters of color, of non-white voters, and using that we can make comparisons
    0:12:10 to 2020. Looking at South Texas, where we saw a shift in Hispanic and Latino, primarily Mexican
    0:12:16 American and Tejanos, toward Trump in 2020, we can make a pretty easy determination that something
    0:12:22 happened in Texas, because those counties that were drifting toward Trump either flipped,
    0:12:28 or if they had voted for Trump in the last election, voted for Trump by a larger margin this time around.
    0:12:36 Why are people asking about these specific groups? I think of pollsters, I think even in the
    0:12:42 aftermath, there’s all this talk on voters of color, these people who don’t make up the majority.
    0:12:47 But a lot of this is, it’s about blame. It’s about like, okay, who do we blame?
    0:12:54 And it feels like the first place people point their fingers are to people of color,
    0:13:03 even though a little over 75% of people in the United States are white. And I should point out,
    0:13:07 we did not get any questions about what’s up with the white people who vote for Trump.
    0:13:15 Why aren’t we necessarily seeing people parse out that part of the electorate as much as these
    0:13:20 smaller groups of people? I think there will be some analysis that remains to be done as we get
    0:13:24 better and better data, and more votes are counted, because white voters, as you said,
    0:13:28 and in many of these American states as well as nationally, any kind of small shift just because
    0:13:35 of how large that group is, is like, orders of magnitude more to affect the overall result
    0:13:41 in a state than any kind of big shift happening among non-white voters. That’s true in Pennsylvania,
    0:13:45 for example, where counties and areas that have large Puerto Rican populations that might have
    0:13:52 shifted toward Republicans. But overall, there was just more underperformance among white voters
    0:13:57 there that even if you were to subtract those gains from non-white voters, the state still
    0:14:01 would have gone in the Republican direction because of Trump overperforming with white voters
    0:14:08 in Pennsylvania. There’s still this assumption for so long, I’ve written about this a bunch,
    0:14:15 we’ve talked about this, this assumption that a diversifying America would inevitably lead to
    0:14:22 just progressive or liberal or Democratic dominance, regardless of other factors,
    0:14:27 which once again, keeps being proven wrong and wrong. In fact, we’re probably seeing,
    0:14:31 because of just how Republican the swing of the country was in general,
    0:14:38 that this election will be one where racial polarization decreases, where especially among
    0:14:44 Latino voters, they voted similarly or in the similar swing as white voters. But I think what
    0:14:50 we’ll see is that this overall swing happened. I mean, Democrats got the turnout they wanted,
    0:14:54 but it turns out that the voters that were turning out just didn’t want to vote for Democrat.
    0:14:59 Okay, there is something that I’ve been paying attention to in politics,
    0:15:05 and that’s the way people of color have often been grouped into one category.
    0:15:12 And we aren’t all the same, like a black person and a Hispanic person and an Asian person,
    0:15:16 we are not the same, we have different experiences, we are able to assimilate to different degrees,
    0:15:23 if at all. Are we going to start seeing an end of POC as a political coalition?
    0:15:26 Because I admit, I tire when people say people of color, and I’m like, “Do you mean black?”
    0:15:31 Because sometimes they mean black, and sometimes they mean any other thing. Are we going to stop
    0:15:37 seeing people talk about these groups of voters, like all together, and start seeing people discuss
    0:15:43 us, I guess, more individually? Yeah, do you remember BIPOC? Oh my gosh, BIPOC. You cannot
    0:15:48 tell me that that is not a bisexual person of color. So much fraught identity.
    0:15:54 Right, this is the thing with identity is it’s complicated and it’s messy, and that’s why I get
    0:16:00 the urge to use people of color, non-white voter, right? It’s a broad enough term to include as many
    0:16:09 people, but is it too broad in terms of usefulness in politics? But there’s so much diversity that
    0:16:16 underlies any one of the communities that makes up person of color, and so I do wonder how useful
    0:16:21 it’ll continue to be, especially as there were some shifts potentially this year, maybe not
    0:16:28 as dramatic as the polling suggested among black voters. But black voters’ behavior in this election
    0:16:36 was very different from the behavior of Hispanic and Latino voters. One group still gave Democrats
    0:16:42 a huge margin of support. The other looks more and more like a swing group. So there was something
    0:16:51 in the water that people were just rearing to punish the incumbents. So there’s an aspect of
    0:16:57 the incumbency problem now, maybe it’s no longer an advantage, like we thought in political science.
    0:17:05 There’s the fact that if we’re to believe the exit polls, so have you copied out there, and then
    0:17:13 the issues just did not break in Harris’ favor. So there’s definitely the economic kitchen table
    0:17:18 issues that propelled a lot of this anger, but then even on some of the social issues,
    0:17:25 some of these surveys are telling us that there was frustration about immigration,
    0:17:32 there was frustration about gender and sexuality, which does lead to this idea of
    0:17:42 something is a mess. There’s some kind of beyond just the kitchen table issues. There’s some kind
    0:17:48 of other ideological aspect here. I’m curious, we got a question from Instagram. What’s next for
    0:17:54 Democrats? Do they shift further left or further right? What’s next for them? The assumption is that
    0:17:59 the lesson here will be they have to move to the right, that they have to move toward the center
    0:18:03 to become more moderate. And there is a good criticism to be made that that tends to be the
    0:18:08 lesson the Democrats get after every election. There’s maybe some social issues, some economic
    0:18:13 issues on which a more progressive or a more populist stance were okay with the electorate,
    0:18:20 but then you see other shifts like California deciding to implement stricter sentencing requirements
    0:18:26 in the state. So there’s a mixed bag there of just what is it that the electorate wants? Is this
    0:18:31 just a complete rebuke of progressivism and a complete rebuke of liberal politics? Is the solution
    0:18:37 to move to the center? Yeah, we got another question from a Vox reader who wants to know,
    0:18:43 do you think Harris underperformed or Trump overperformed? Can we even know that yet?
    0:18:50 Yeah, it’s going to be hard to make a definitive statement. I will say that red shift makes me
    0:18:57 think Trump overperformed. He did really well in rural regions. He did shockingly well in urban
    0:19:06 places. On the Harris side, I don’t know that she underperformed. My whole take there is,
    0:19:14 and this is kind of boring, there are complications to this, but every indicator pointed to
    0:19:19 a landslide loss like more registered Republicans or self-identified Republicans in national
    0:19:27 surveys, big discontentment with Joe Biden, Republican advantages on two of the top three
    0:19:33 issues for voters, the economy and immigration, only abortion rights were a spot where Democrats
    0:19:40 had an advantage, and then the just overall global trend that we’re seeing across democracies in
    0:19:46 general, which is a COVID hangover, frustration at the way that the pandemic was managed by parties
    0:19:53 that were in control, and then further frustration with the ensuing rise in inflation and cost of
    0:19:59 goods. Parties in power were punished across the world this year, and Canada seems like it’ll be
    0:20:07 next year. So you came to this call kind of bummed out, burned out. I know we are running on … We’ve
    0:20:16 had so much coffee in the last 48 hours. What is the silver lining? I think what I’m perhaps most
    0:20:28 optimistic about … That’s so real. What I’m most optimistic about is that Reputation Taylor’s
    0:20:35 version is still going to come out. Christian Paz, thank you so much for joining us on Explain
    0:20:41 It To Me, and helping us parse all of this out in the chaotic days after the election.
    0:20:47 Absolutely. Thanks for having me. I hope you get to take a nap today. First, I’m going to need a
    0:20:57 drink. Yeah. Oh my gosh. Maybe a cigarette. We’ll see. Yeah. Vice time. Vice time. Oh no, we’re Vox. Vox time.
    0:21:07 Oh God, I missed the Harris speech. Oh God.
    0:21:19 Vox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zell.
    0:21:26 When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of
    0:21:30 somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle
    0:21:37 of the night, and honestly, that’s not what it is anymore. That’s Ian Mitchell, a banker-turned-fraud
    0:21:43 fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists,
    0:21:50 and they’re making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It’s mind-blowing
    0:21:57 to see the kind of infrastructure that’s been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are
    0:22:02 hundreds if not thousands of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business
    0:22:07 people. These are organized criminal rings, and so once we understand the magnitude of this problem,
    0:22:14 we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam
    0:22:20 victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best
    0:22:26 defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around
    0:22:31 what do you do if you have text messages you don’t recognize? What do you do if you start getting
    0:22:36 asked to send information that’s more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness,
    0:22:40 a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim, and we have these conversations all the time.
    0:22:46 So we are all at risk, and we all need to work together to protect each other.
    0:22:53 Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com/zel. And when using digital payment platforms,
    0:22:57 remember to only send money to people you know and trust.
    0:23:03 Hi, Vox. Explain it to me. My name is Katie, and I have a question.
    0:23:09 So even before results came in on election night, you all sit in lots of questions about
    0:23:18 a specific topic. Why is Trump not in jail? President-elect Donald Trump and the law.
    0:23:27 After being convicted of a ton of felonies, he’s just a convicted felon running around.
    0:23:34 Like, why does this happen? Later in the night, another listener, my name’s Blake from Florida,
    0:23:38 sent in a question about the courts that I’ve been wondering about since election night.
    0:23:42 Seeing that Donald Trump has won, so what’s going to happen with all of those indictments
    0:23:49 that feels like all of them were pushed to just after the election? And there’s this window now
    0:23:54 between now and then when he’s actually inaugurated. Can any of those be expedited?
    0:24:01 It feels like he committed crimes. We see that. He was able to somehow stall it,
    0:24:07 and it seems bad. And in a just world, this would have been taking caros a lot earlier,
    0:24:11 as opposed to letting it be something that could be kicked down the road. So thanks so much. Goodbye.
    0:24:17 There’s an old legal principle. You don’t kick Superman in the balls.
    0:24:21 For answers, I caught up with Vox’s senior correspondent and Supreme Court interpreter
    0:24:25 Ian Milheiser for a speed round of court questions.
    0:24:33 Is there some possibility that Donald Trump could spend some portion of the lame duck
    0:24:40 period in jail? I mean, I’m a good enough lawyer that I could come up with an argument for why
    0:24:52 that is permissible, but come on. I just think it would be unimaginably foolish to further antagonize
    0:24:59 this man in this way before he becomes the most powerful man in the world at this specific moment
    0:25:07 in history. So Trump has quite a few criminal cases, lots of charges. I want to talk a little
    0:25:12 bit about something that Blake talked about in his questions, and that’s the president-elect
    0:25:18 being able to somehow stall these cases. Can we take a step back and review all these criminal
    0:25:25 cases against Trump? Give us a quick refresher on what those cases are and why each case hasn’t
    0:25:31 resulted in any real consequences. So there are four cases, and each one is stalled for different
    0:25:39 reasons. So, you know, the Georgia case. The Georgia case arises out of Trump’s election
    0:25:45 of theft attempts. Like, you might remember the phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary
    0:25:50 of State Brad Raffensperger. The people of Georgia are angry. The people of the country are angry.
    0:25:57 Where he told Brad Raffensperger to try to find votes. All I want to do is this. I just want to find
    0:26:08 11,780 votes. However many he needed in order to overturn the result in Georgia in 2020.
    0:26:13 And there’s several reasons why that case was never likely to move forward before the election.
    0:26:18 One was that they didn’t just indict Trump. They indicted all of his co-conspirators.
    0:26:23 And so it was just a really complex case with, like, all sorts of normal legitimate reasons.
    0:26:29 Why would take a long time to bring that to trial? The other problem there. The prosecutor didn’t
    0:26:37 keep her damn pants on. Dang. The district attorney in that case had an affair with the
    0:26:44 gentleman that she hired to be the lead prosecutor. And, like, my God, just a general
    0:26:51 bit of legal ethical advice I will give is that if you are prosecuting one of the most important
    0:27:00 cases in American history, maybe just quietly let the sexual tension build until the trial is over.
    0:27:08 In the one about the documents where he just kept a bunch of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
    0:27:13 This may be the most politically explosive raid ever undertaken by the FBI.
    0:27:19 The FBI executing a search warrant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida.
    0:27:23 The reason why that one’s been strung out can be summarized in two words, Eileen Cannon.
    0:27:29 You know, he’s got a judge who’s basically on his side and who has gone out of her way
    0:27:34 to do favors for him. The judge who threw out Donald Trump’s classified documents case
    0:27:39 is now on a list of potential candidates to be attorney general if Trump wins.
    0:27:45 The New York case where he has been convicted, this involves the least significant charges.
    0:27:51 He was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to cover up the fact
    0:27:55 that he paid hush money to the pornographic actress Stormy Daniels.
    0:28:08 And what happened there was Trump just asked that the sentencing be delayed till after the
    0:28:14 election. The judge didn’t want to interfere with the election and so he said fine, the prosecutors
    0:28:19 didn’t oppose that motion. So everyone just sort of agreed like, look, let’s wait till after the
    0:28:25 election before we resolve this. And then that leads one other case, the DC case.
    0:28:29 The former president did just land here at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC.
    0:28:34 And remember, this is a four count indictment of the former president of the United States,
    0:28:40 all in the context of the former president’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results.
    0:28:43 The main reason it’s delayed is because it went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sat on
    0:28:47 it for a really long time and then they held that he has really brought immunity.
    0:28:53 The Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump does have immunity for some of his alleged
    0:28:57 conduct as president in his federal election interference case.
    0:29:01 Ian, you mentioned the Supreme Court immunity ruling that came down this past summer.
    0:29:06 We’ve actually gotten some questions about what the Supreme Court’s role in all of these cases
    0:29:12 against Trump is. Hey, John Cullen, Alexa here. I have a couple of questions. The biggest one being
    0:29:18 the broad immunity decision. And I wonder what that means with Trump now in office and would
    0:29:21 love to know more about how much the broad immunity decision really changes the scope
    0:29:26 of presidential power. Yeah. Tell us about that Supreme Court ruling, which was really the head
    0:29:33 liner out of the courts last term. What did that decision change and how could it play into a second
    0:29:40 term for Trump or, you know, any presidency after this? So there’s a long standing rule that
    0:29:47 certain high ranking government officials, including the president, prosecutors and judges,
    0:29:54 cannot have civil lawsuits brought against them for like stuff that they do in the course of
    0:30:00 their official duties. And I mean, there’s a pretty basic reason for that, which is that anyone can
    0:30:06 file a civil lawsuit. There was a fear that, you know, those individuals would just be ground down
    0:30:10 by a bunch of lawsuits that they’d have to defend against, they’d have to pay lawyers from, and it
    0:30:16 would discourage them from performing their jobs or even wanting to have their jobs. So that principle
    0:30:23 is long standing. The idea that the president is immune from criminal charges, at least after
    0:30:29 they leave office, is completely novel and was made up by this Supreme Court. In the past, the
    0:30:38 reason why this issue never came up, like most presidents just tried to comply with the criminal
    0:30:44 law. And I mean, like the one thing that is clear about Donald Trump is that he thinks he can get
    0:30:51 away with everything and thus far he has. And so I think that the Trump immunity decision makes a
    0:30:58 second Trump presidency very dangerous, because he now knows for sure that there’ll be no consequences
    0:31:06 for anything that he does. Okay, so I would love for you to bring out your crystal ball. You know,
    0:31:12 we are going to look into the future. We’re going to pull that so Raven. The Supreme Court’s played
    0:31:17 a really big role in shielding Trump from some of these charges through this immunity ruling.
    0:31:23 It seems like most of the charges will likely go away anyway with his reelection. So
    0:31:31 how will the decision affect his next term and, you know, even beyond these next four years?
    0:31:36 I mean, I think they will give him a complete blanket immunity from criminal charges while he
    0:31:41 is the sitting president of the United States. And I kind of think that’s the right answer as a
    0:31:48 matter of law. I’m not at all sympathetic to Donald Trump, but like imagine if say,
    0:31:55 Ron DeSantis’s Florida had decided to harass Biden with criminal charges, or if the state of
    0:32:01 Mississippi had decided to bring fake charges against Lyndon Johnson after Lyndon Johnson signed
    0:32:05 the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. There’s lots of reasons why you don’t want an
    0:32:12 individual state to debilitate the president in that way. And so I think the constitutional
    0:32:17 arguments against pursuing a criminal trial against a sitting president are very strong.
    0:32:24 The question is like, could the charges then be revived after he leaves office? I can’t think
    0:32:30 of any good legal reason why they couldn’t be revived. But by the time we would get around
    0:32:36 to convicting him after he has served and then he’s an 82-year-old man, like I’m very doubtful
    0:32:44 that there is still going to be the political will four years from now. But it’s such an unprecedented
    0:32:49 set of circumstances that I think that’s a question we answer four years from now.
    0:32:56 So one of the things that I really enjoy, and maybe enjoy is the wrong word, but one of the
    0:33:02 things that I appreciate about when we are both in the office at the same time is that we, you know,
    0:33:08 with clear eyes can think about the worst case scenarios for democracy together. And you know,
    0:33:12 we got a pretty do-me-question and I want to play it for you.
    0:33:17 Hey, my name is Luke. I’m from Michigan. I waffle between anxiety and trying to reassure
    0:33:23 myself that everything is going to be okay. I’m not a Trump fan and I do think he’ll be horrible
    0:33:30 for democracy. But the main question is, what can I do for the next four years to ensure that he
    0:33:36 does not hold on to power, to hang on to power indefinitely? How can I prevent that from happening?
    0:33:45 I mean, I think that’s a difficult question. We have a constitutional system that lays out
    0:33:53 very clear processes by which you can weaken the incumbent party. The next major roadblock
    0:33:57 where Donald Trump’s climb to power can be stopped is the midterm election.
    0:34:02 You know, among other things in the midterm election, it might be possible for Democrats to
    0:34:07 take the Senate. And once they take the Senate, that means they can stop all Trump judicial
    0:34:13 confirmations. You know, no more people getting on the Supreme Court saying that Donald Trump’s
    0:34:18 allowed to do crimes while he’s in office. Like, that is the biggest thing that could happen to
    0:34:23 try to halt this man’s rise to power, electing a Congress that will check this man.
    0:34:29 What outstanding questions do you have right now? We’re going to talk to some other people
    0:34:32 in our newsroom. Is there anything you want to know from them?
    0:34:40 I mean, the biggest question that I have is just how aggressive is Donald Trump going to be? Like,
    0:34:45 is he actually going to bring criminal charges against his political rivals? Is he actually
    0:34:51 going to be able to round up the millions and millions of undocumented immigrants who live
    0:34:56 in the United States and find a way to deport all of them? And so the question I have is, I mean,
    0:35:01 I don’t know which of the specific things that Donald Trump has said he wants to do are actually
    0:35:08 going to get done. After the break, I call up a colleague who’s looked into just that.
    0:35:14 So hugely important. I think it’s the story right now. A lot of people are going to focus
    0:35:18 on the politics for understandable reasons, but the policy is the thing that’s going to govern
    0:35:22 all of our lives for the next four years. And it’s hard to overstate how revolutionary
    0:35:30 Trump’s policy agenda is. Stay with us.
    0:35:39 We’re back. You’re listening to Explain It to Me. Before the break, I talked with my
    0:35:44 colleague Ian about the courts and a second Trump presidency. What Ian wants to know is if
    0:35:49 Trump will follow through on all those campaign promises he made. Lucky for us, we have another
    0:35:53 co-worker who has thoughts on that. And he was also in the office on election night.
    0:36:00 Zach Beecham, I’m a senior correspondent here at Vox. It is 9.09 p.m. on the east coast.
    0:36:07 So like everybody else, I’m watching those seven key swing states, right? And we’re all trying to
    0:36:11 see how they’re fitting in with each other. And as we speak right now, most of them don’t have
    0:36:16 sufficient data for us to be really confident about what’s happening. Well, it is about 17 hours
    0:36:24 later and we know what happened. And in fact, we got a call from a listener about what happened.
    0:36:32 I want to go ahead and play it for you. Hey, this is Alex from Kansas City. I just wanted to call
    0:36:39 and ask, how are those Democrats feeling right now? I bet they’re crying, huh? I bet they’re crying,
    0:36:47 huh? Trump 2024. You’ve been monitoring right-wing media. I’m curious
    0:36:53 what the reaction to the results has been like there. Is it similar to Alex’s energy?
    0:37:00 Yeah. A lot of the American right is oriented around a shared antipathy towards the left.
    0:37:07 Their glee is in part so many of these people being disappointed and humiliated and angry. And
    0:37:13 it’s not just like a belief that Trump has done something impressive. It’s that he’s beaten
    0:37:18 the people that they really hate. And it’s quite a source of joy for a lot of people on the right.
    0:37:23 Yeah. So you cover Republicans in the right. And from your perspective,
    0:37:28 how did this win happen? How did Donald Trump win the reelection?
    0:37:32 If I have to give you a short explanation for what happened, a simple one sentence,
    0:37:37 it’s that people don’t like incumbents, right? This is true not just in the United States,
    0:37:43 but across the world, right? 2024 is the biggest year of elections in human history. Never have
    0:37:48 more people voted than they have this year. And what we saw in the United States fits that theory
    0:37:53 to a T, right? Across the board, there was a shift in the U.S. Like if you look at this,
    0:37:57 the Washington Post has this really handy map where you can look at county results and they
    0:38:02 can show you at the county level whether those counties swung left or right relative to the
    0:38:08 2020 election. And if you look at it, it’s just a sea of red, right? Everywhere with a few exceptions.
    0:38:13 Americans were more inclined to vote for a Republican than a Democrat. And to me,
    0:38:16 that’s like the number one analytic question that you have to answer is what theory do you
    0:38:22 have that can explain nearly everybody moving in one direction. And the answer is that most people
    0:38:26 are dissatisfied with how things were going, right? Exit polls are unreliable for subgroups,
    0:38:30 especially, but one consistent finding, which makes me have a little bit more confidence in them,
    0:38:35 is that 70 plus percent of Americans think the country was on the wrong track or not doing well.
    0:38:43 And that to me is the story of the election. I’m also curious about Donald Trump, the man.
    0:38:48 A question we got about President-elect Trump, we got on Instagram from a Vox follower was,
    0:38:53 what am I missing? Why is he so great? And there really is this cult of personality around Trump.
    0:38:59 He has stands. It’s up there with the Beehive and the Swifties. What is up with Donald Trump’s appeal?
    0:39:09 So Trump connects on a really fundamental level with a lot of voters, right? Part of it is that
    0:39:15 he’s been a celebrity for several decades now, and he has a kind of magnetic charisma honed in
    0:39:19 all of his public appearances over all this time that draws people to him. And like, I don’t really
    0:39:25 know how to explain charisma. It’s hard to describe Riz, you know? But yeah, but like you see it,
    0:39:29 right? If you watch him speak, yeah, a lot of the time he’s boring, but then he does like these
    0:39:35 weird dances and says kind of funny stuff. And people really, they really like that. It makes
    0:39:41 them feel exciting to a lot of voters. In my book on right-wing authoritarian politics called
    0:39:47 “The Reactionary Spirit,” I argue that the core of Trumpism is a group of Americans who feel like
    0:39:53 they have lost what their country was, what the country, what they believe the country ought to
    0:39:59 be or what it should be. And this is primarily a reaction to social and demographic change.
    0:40:05 And that’s like, I don’t think that that theory is like the only thing that explains the 2024
    0:40:10 election results. It especially doesn’t explain like a uniform national shift in Trump’s favor.
    0:40:17 But Trump got to this point despite, you know, being in terms of policy, a pretty radical extremist
    0:40:22 because he got to the head of one of our two major parties, which normalizes and basically by default.
    0:40:27 And he did that by expertly manipulating the grievances of a percentage of the population,
    0:40:32 a mostly white, mostly older population. Huh, that makes sense. I’d like to bring you another
    0:40:38 question we got from the Vox audience about executive orders, which, you know, our directives,
    0:40:43 presidents can issue without waiting on Congress to pass a law. The question reads,
    0:40:48 what do we expect to be Trump’s first set of executive orders?
    0:40:54 So hugely important. I think it’s the story right now. A lot of people are going to focus
    0:40:58 on the politics for understandable reasons, but the policy is the thing that’s going to
    0:41:02 govern all of our lives for the next four years. And it’s hard to overstate how revolutionary
    0:41:09 Trump’s policy agenda is. I would pick three policy areas to focus on here, right? The first is
    0:41:14 trade, right? Trump has promised across the board tariffs, universal or near universal,
    0:41:19 on all imported goods. I would expect that to happen immediately. The question is what level
    0:41:24 they’ll be at? Regardless of the number across the board tariffs will do pretty significant
    0:41:30 economic damage pretty quickly. It’s one of those areas where Trump has a very idiosyncratic view
    0:41:35 that’s aligned against basically all economists left and right on this particular issue.
    0:41:40 The second one, Trump, the Trump team is already talking about this right after the election is
    0:41:46 mass deportations. I don’t know how mass is mass, but they have a lot of very specific plans about
    0:41:52 how to restructure the way in which the federal government does deportations to be able to reach
    0:41:58 a much larger group of undocumented immigrants much more quickly. So, I mean, we’re possibly talking
    0:42:04 millions. And the third major area is staffing of the federal government. Tell me more about that.
    0:42:09 Right? Trump has said that he will re-implement something called Schedule F immediately upon
    0:42:14 taking power. Schedule F is a reclassification of parts of the federal civil service that
    0:42:21 makes people whose jobs were previously non-political into political appointees. Trump can fire this
    0:42:28 by some estimates. It’s well over 50,000 people that would be fired. And, you know, if Trump can
    0:42:34 replace career civil servants in key positions with his people, he’ll be able to do a lot more
    0:42:39 across the board and many of his other plans, especially plans to, for example, open investigations
    0:42:45 into the Bidens and into Harris. So that is really sort of a lynchpin of the broader Trump agenda.
    0:42:53 Yeah, I’m curious if any of this is actually going to happen. I mean, politicians say they’ll
    0:43:00 do stuff all the time that they never do. And I think with Trump, it’s especially hard to tell
    0:43:05 what’s real and what’s not because he’s just such a showman. Like a lot of times, he does it just
    0:43:10 for the shock at all. You do it a bit. Yeah. And so how do we know if it’s a bit or not? Or how do
    0:43:15 we know if he’s like, no, I’m actually about to do this? Well, you know, sometimes that can be
    0:43:19 really hard to tell, right? Like one policy I’ve struggled with a lot, invading Mexico, that is
    0:43:24 sending U.S. special forces into Mexico to fight drug cartels. Like that sounds totally nuts.
    0:43:29 Yeah. Right? It’s just like totally insane. I’ve argued in print that we need to take it seriously,
    0:43:32 but that doesn’t mean I think it’s guaranteed that it’s going to happen.
    0:43:37 These other three things that I mentioned, though, those are all extremely likely to happen.
    0:43:43 Right? One consistent finding in the political science literature, which I think maybe is a
    0:43:47 little bit surprising to people, is that presidents tend to keep their promises.
    0:43:51 Right? It’s not that they’re always telling the truth all the time. I mean, Trump lies constantly,
    0:43:55 but when they say they want to do something, they’re stating their intent to do it.
    0:44:00 Right? They’re not just saying it to say it. Right? It’s that they think that this is an
    0:44:05 important part of their governing agenda. And by all accounts, on those three areas, immigration,
    0:44:12 trade, and control of the federal government, like Trump is speaking for a place of conviction here.
    0:44:16 He changes his mind all the time on different stuff. Like abortion is a great example.
    0:44:19 You know, he’s swung wildly on abortion because I don’t think he really has core
    0:44:23 convictions on that issue. But on trade and immigration, he’s been consistent for a very
    0:44:28 long time. And on control of the federal government, his number one preoccupation is that throughout
    0:44:34 his time in the White House and since has been that government wasn’t loyal to him personally,
    0:44:39 that he couldn’t do whatever he wanted, that were people getting in his way. And now he’s in a
    0:44:47 position to stop that. And even as he has said many times, to get retribution for the prosecution
    0:44:53 and investigations into him that happened in his years out of power. And there’s just no
    0:44:57 doubt in my mind that he’s going to pursue that. The only question is how effectively
    0:45:00 he’ll be able to accomplish his goals and all of these things. And that I don’t have a clear answer
    0:45:08 to. So, Democrats have been saying for a year that this election 2024 is the most important
    0:45:14 election of our lifetimes. Now that it’s over, was it? How should we think about that part of it
    0:45:22 now that the election’s done? I mean, I think they were right. And I think that that’s scary.
    0:45:29 Because people did say that, but it was just clear from the way that the election was being
    0:45:34 talked about the way it was being covered. People weren’t feeling the same level of
    0:45:42 existential significance that they did in, let’s say 2020. People have difficulty imagining that
    0:45:49 they’ve lost something until it’s actually lost. And I think we saw this pretty clearly with abortion.
    0:45:56 For most Americans, the idea of Roe versus Wade being repealed was abstract until it was actually
    0:46:01 repealed. And then we saw this massive political movement oriented around protecting abortion
    0:46:06 rights and significant victories for abortion rights referenda, which continued in this election,
    0:46:15 even though they lost some. But still, a majority won this time around. And I think that’s true with
    0:46:21 a lot of things, not just rights that you can lose, but also basic elements of government
    0:46:25 that we take for granted. And then just go on down the list with different policies.
    0:46:32 It’s hard to imagine what it would mean for millions of people who are either are or alleged
    0:46:36 to be undocumented immigrants being rounded up and put into camps. I mean, they’ve literally
    0:46:40 talked about camps for these people. I’m not making this up. This isn’t anti-Trump hysteria.
    0:46:45 It’s what Trump plans call for in order to house all of the people that they’re detaining,
    0:46:51 putting them in camps and then deporting them. That is something that feels so removed from our
    0:46:57 day-to-day experience of life that you can’t integrate it. You can’t even really process it.
    0:47:03 But if we start to get massive measles outbreaks because RFK Jr. has destroyed our vaccine
    0:47:08 infrastructure, if the American economy goes into a tailspin because Trump institutes these
    0:47:13 wild and crazy tariffs, if you start to see your friends and neighbors getting thrown into camps,
    0:47:21 people will realize that they’ve lost something really significant. But it just, it’s,
    0:47:26 the hypothetical messaging didn’t go through. And now I fear we’re going to have to live through
    0:47:32 the hypothetical. All right, Zach, thank you so much for explaining this to us. Thank you,
    0:47:43 JQ. I’m always happy to chat with you. That’s it for this episode of Explain It To Me.
    0:47:48 Thank you to all of you who called in with your questions. We hope to answer more of
    0:47:52 them in the coming weeks. We got a bunch about ranked choice voting in particular,
    0:47:58 so we’ll dedicate a whole episode to that soon. If you have a question about the election or
    0:48:11 about literally anything else, please give us a call. 1-800-618-8545. We’d love to hear from you.
    0:48:23 Our producers this week were Sylphie Lalonde and Gabrielle Burbay. Anouk Dousseau, Sarah Shweppy,
    0:48:29 and Katie Pindsy Moog fact-checked this episode. It was edited by Jorge Just, Julia Longoria,
    0:48:34 and Natalie Jennings. Mixing sound design and engineering by Christian Ayala.
    0:48:41 Our supervising producer is Carla Javier. Special thanks to you, our listeners, for sending us
    0:48:46 questions and making our show possible. If this was valuable to you, please consider supporting
    0:48:52 this work financially by becoming a Vox member. Details, perks, and more at vox.com/members.
    0:49:03 I’m Jonklin Hill, and I’ll talk to you soon. Take care out there.
    0:49:09 First, will you tell me about your influence on tonight’s election dinner?
    0:49:16 It was fully my decision. I rigged the vote. I first started off by shocking people with
    0:49:22 the suggestion that we get pasta, and I knew in the end I wanted Chaya. Throughout, like, a
    0:49:27 spoiler third-party DC vegan, which we’ve had before, very delicious, but I knew where this was
    0:49:32 going to end. Oh my god, I was there when you threw out pasta, the fact that this was your plan all
    0:49:37 along. I tricked everyone, and then I stopped the count.
    0:49:46 [BLANK_AUDIO]

    This has been an unusual week. Sean and the TGA team are still sifting through it all and figuring out what to think about the presidential election. In the meantime, our colleague Jonquilyn Hill has leapt into action. She and her team from the Explain It to Me podcast collected lots of listener questions in the aftermath of Trump’s victory, and took them to the Vox reporters who know the most about what happened and what it all means. We’ll be back with a new episode on Monday. Until then, check out Explain It to Me.

    ________________________

    Wow, what a week. The country has a new president-elect, and our listeners have a ton of questions about what comes next. Why did Latino voters swing right? How will Democrats respond? What’s going to happen to Donald Trump’s court cases? Will Trump really do all the things he said he would during the campaign? Host Jonquilyn Hill sits down with Vox correspondents Christian Paz, Ian Millhiser, and Zack Beauchamp to answer all that and more.

    Submit your questions — about politics, or, if you need a break, about anything else — by calling 1-800-618-8545. You can also submit them here.

    Credits:

    Jonquilyn Hill, host

    Sofi LaLonde and Gabrielle Berbey, producers

    Cristian Ayala, engineer

    Carla Javier, supervising producer

    Caity PenzeyMoog, Anouck Dussaud, and Sarah Schweppe, fact checkers

    Jorge Just, Julia Longoria, and Natalie Jennings, editors 

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • Does being “woke” do any good?

    AI transcript
    0:00:00 (upbeat music)
    0:00:04 Support for this show comes from Constant Contact.
    0:00:07 If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you,
    0:00:10 Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention.
    0:00:14 Constant Contact’s award-winning marketing platform
    0:00:17 offers all the automation, integration, and reporting tools
    0:00:20 that get your marketing running seamlessly,
    0:00:23 all backed by their expert live customer support.
    0:00:25 It’s time to get going and growing
    0:00:28 with Constant Contact today.
    0:00:30 Ready, set, grow.
    0:00:34 Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today.
    0:00:39 Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial,
    0:00:41 ConstantContact.ca.
    0:00:46 Thumbtack presents the ins and outs
    0:00:47 of caring for your home.
    0:00:51 Out, uncertainty, self-doubt,
    0:00:54 stressing about not knowing where to start.
    0:00:57 In, plans and guides that make it easy
    0:00:59 to get home projects done.
    0:01:02 Out, word art.
    0:01:04 Sorry, live laugh lovers.
    0:01:09 In, knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire.
    0:01:13 Start caring for your home with confidence.
    0:01:14 Download Thumbtack today.
    0:01:20 – There are several terms in our political vocabulary
    0:01:24 that have been stretched to the point of incoherence.
    0:01:28 Marxist and Orwellian spring immediately to mind,
    0:01:32 but at this moment, I’m not sure any term
    0:01:33 can compete with woke.
    0:01:39 Whether you’re on the left or the right,
    0:01:42 whether you’re pro or anti-woke,
    0:01:44 or even if you’re not especially political
    0:01:46 and don’t follow this stuff,
    0:01:49 woke is a word you simply cannot escape.
    0:01:54 The problem is that woke has become a catch-all term,
    0:01:59 often deployed in bad faith to smear or dismiss anything
    0:02:03 that has any vague association with progressive politics.
    0:02:07 As a result, anytime you venture into an argument
    0:02:10 about wokeness, it becomes hopelessly entangled
    0:02:12 in this broader cultural battle.
    0:02:17 However, wokeness is not purely a figment
    0:02:19 of the reactionary mind.
    0:02:23 Even if we can’t quite define it,
    0:02:27 it refers to something actually happening in the world.
    0:02:29 And if we can cut through all the bullshit
    0:02:32 and all the bad faith, it’s worth understanding
    0:02:34 what it is and where it comes from.
    0:02:40 I’m Sean Elling, and this is The Gray Area.
    0:02:43 (upbeat music)
    0:02:53 Today’s guest is Musa Algarvi.
    0:02:56 He’s a journalist, a professor at Stony Brook University,
    0:02:59 and the author of a very interesting new book
    0:03:01 called We Have Never Been Woke,
    0:03:04 The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite.
    0:03:09 Musa’s book is a serious effort
    0:03:12 to understand this movement and the effects it is having
    0:03:15 or not having on our society.
    0:03:20 And whether one agrees with all of his conclusions or not,
    0:03:23 it’s impossible to read this book and not walk away
    0:03:27 feeling like you know more than you did before you read it.
    0:03:28 So I invited him on the show
    0:03:31 to talk about what wokeism means,
    0:03:35 why it’s not as new and unprecedented as people think,
    0:03:38 and why the social and economic forces driving it
    0:03:40 are so complicated.
    0:03:47 Musa Algarvi, welcome to the show.
    0:03:47 – It’s great to be here.
    0:03:50 Thank you so much for having me.
    0:03:51 – I’m glad we’re finally doing this.
    0:03:58 Wokeism is a topic I’ve mostly avoided on the show,
    0:04:01 not because I don’t think it refers
    0:04:03 to a real thing happening in the world,
    0:04:06 but because most of the discourse around it
    0:04:11 is so tedious and circular or bad faith.
    0:04:15 And if your book was merely a defense of wokeness
    0:04:17 or an attack on it,
    0:04:18 I don’t think I would have invited you on,
    0:04:21 but it’s so much more than that.
    0:04:25 In your mind, what makes it a fresh contribution?
    0:04:28 – I think one of the big contributions of the book
    0:04:31 is that it helps contextualize the present moment
    0:04:32 in a different way.
    0:04:35 It shows that what’s happening after 2010
    0:04:36 is actually a case of something.
    0:04:38 And in fact, there have been three other
    0:04:39 previous awokenings.
    0:04:41 And by comparing and contrasting these cases,
    0:04:44 we can actually get a lot of insight into questions
    0:04:46 like why do these awokenings come about?
    0:04:47 Why do they end?
    0:04:48 Do they change anything?
    0:04:51 And these kinds of questions,
    0:04:53 instead of trying to just explain things
    0:04:54 that are happening today,
    0:04:57 in terms of other things that are also happening today,
    0:05:00 to kind of step back and take a more
    0:05:02 kind of structural look at what’s happening.
    0:05:04 So I think that’s one of the big values.
    0:05:06 Primarily what it’s trying to do
    0:05:10 is this deep study of contemporary inequalities,
    0:05:13 how they come about, who benefits from them and how.
    0:05:17 And here I think it makes an important contribution as well,
    0:05:21 because especially in symbolic capitalist spaces,
    0:05:26 so spaces like higher ed, journalism, and so on,
    0:05:29 when we tell narratives about how various social problems
    0:05:31 come about and persist and so on,
    0:05:34 the stories that we tell are kind of self-serving.
    0:05:39 And in particular, we tend to focus on basically,
    0:05:40 the millionaires, the billionaires,
    0:05:42 the multinational corporations,
    0:05:44 and also those damn Republicans.
    0:05:47 And it’s not like those stories are false per se,
    0:05:52 but they’re also like really, really, really incomplete.
    0:05:55 And so part of what I’m trying to do in this book
    0:05:59 is kind of hit those missing notes to show people,
    0:06:02 like even if we want to explain the actions
    0:06:04 of the millionaires and the billionaires
    0:06:07 and the multinational corporations, for instance,
    0:06:11 it’s actually impossible to explain how any of the stuff
    0:06:15 that those actors do actually happens without us.
    0:06:18 It’s with us and through us that they accomplish those goals.
    0:06:21 And then the last contribution, I think,
    0:06:23 is it’s a cool study of the political economy
    0:06:26 of the knowledge professions.
    0:06:29 So how does the changing kind of power and wealth
    0:06:31 of the symbolic professions
    0:06:32 and the people who take part in them,
    0:06:36 how does that relate to our changing
    0:06:38 kind of moral and political narratives
    0:06:42 and the ways that we behave politically in society
    0:06:45 and our ideological alignments and things like that?
    0:06:48 – I wanna get into the meat of the case you’re making here.
    0:06:55 Let’s just do a little bit of table setting to ground us.
    0:07:00 And I realize every interviewer is probably asking you
    0:07:03 to define wokeness.
    0:07:08 And in the book, you don’t offer a precise definition
    0:07:12 because it’s a contested term and like many contested terms,
    0:07:15 it can’t be clearly defined.
    0:07:18 However, I do think it will help
    0:07:22 if you explain why you resisted defining it
    0:07:26 and then at least give me the most general account
    0:07:29 you can of wokeness so that we at least know
    0:07:32 what we’re talking about for the rest of this conversation
    0:07:33 or people know what you’re talking about.
    0:07:34 – Yeah, absolutely.
    0:07:38 So, yeah, there’s this move in the discourse
    0:07:40 that I think is really unhelpful.
    0:07:43 That’s basically like, if you can’t provide
    0:07:45 a crisp analytic definition of something,
    0:07:47 then you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
    0:07:49 You’re not talking about anything.
    0:07:51 There’s no there, there, it’s a moral panic or whatever.
    0:07:53 And I think that’s a really bad way
    0:07:55 to think about how language works.
    0:07:57 Like the idea that we need necessary
    0:08:00 and sufficient conditions for something
    0:08:02 in order to understand what it is is just false.
    0:08:05 So what I don’t do in the book is provide that
    0:08:09 but I do provide kind of a rich thick description
    0:08:12 about what different stakeholders seem to mean
    0:08:14 when they refer to wokeness.
    0:08:16 And there, there’s actually a lot of agreement
    0:08:17 and there are a whole bunch of things
    0:08:19 that kind of people across the political
    0:08:22 and ideological spectrum seem to have in mind
    0:08:25 when they’re talking about this contested term.
    0:08:27 I don’t think they cohere into a definition
    0:08:29 but it is the case that stakeholders
    0:08:32 kind of across the political and ideological spectrum,
    0:08:35 there is a kind of broad zone of agreement
    0:08:38 of kinds of things that we’re talking about
    0:08:39 when we talk about wokeness.
    0:08:41 And I’ll say during the last period of a wokening
    0:08:43 in the late 80s to early 90s,
    0:08:44 instead of talking about wokeness,
    0:08:46 they talked about political correctness.
    0:08:50 But it was, but it was like the same constellation
    0:08:53 of attitudes and dispositions more or less.
    0:08:56 And the dynamics of how that word played out
    0:08:59 in the public unfolded in much the same way.
    0:09:01 So at first there was a lot of people
    0:09:03 who identified as politically correct
    0:09:07 in an ironic way to mean my views,
    0:09:09 my moral and political views are correct.
    0:09:14 And other people started to associate PC culture
    0:09:15 with this kind of sanctimonious,
    0:09:19 purely symbolic form of activism.
    0:09:23 And then gradually the right seized upon this dispute
    0:09:25 within the left and started attacking anything
    0:09:27 they didn’t like as PC.
    0:09:30 And then it became difficult for anyone
    0:09:32 to associate unironically
    0:09:34 with the term politically correctness
    0:09:36 and the term political correctness became
    0:09:38 almost purely a term of derision.
    0:09:40 And even to be politically incorrect,
    0:09:42 it took on a somewhat positive valency
    0:09:45 at people like Bill Maher who had a whole show
    0:09:47 politically incorrect or something like that.
    0:09:50 And you see the same thing playing out with woke today.
    0:09:55 So increasingly no one self identifies as woke
    0:09:57 in an unironic way.
    0:10:01 And so the same kind of dynamic that we saw playing out
    0:10:03 in the last awokening around political correctness
    0:10:06 is now playing out in a very similar way
    0:10:07 around the term woke.
    0:10:09 And in the next awokening, the term woke
    0:10:11 probably won’t be part of it.
    0:10:15 There’ll be some probably some other term as this one,
    0:10:18 some other term that activists used to define themselves
    0:10:20 in their approach to politics and so on.
    0:10:26 – Okay, so we’re in the midst of the fourth awokening,
    0:10:28 according to you that we’ve had in this country.
    0:10:30 There’s one in the 20s or 30s.
    0:10:32 There’s another one in the 60s.
    0:10:36 There’s the one you’re just talking about in the 80s, 90s.
    0:10:38 And then this current one,
    0:10:41 what do all these periods have in common?
    0:10:45 What is the thread that ties them together?
    0:10:49 The tweet length answer is that these periods
    0:10:54 of awokening happen when there’s a big crisis for elites
    0:10:59 where they are expecting a certain life
    0:11:03 and it seems like they won’t be able to live that life.
    0:11:05 One thread that cuts across all four awokenings
    0:11:09 is that they tend to occur during these periods
    0:11:10 of elite overproduction.
    0:11:14 And so elite overproduction is a term that’s taken
    0:11:16 from sociologist Jack Goldstone,
    0:11:18 then historian Peter Turchin.
    0:11:20 And it refers to a condition
    0:11:22 where society is producing more people
    0:11:25 that have a reasonable expectation to be elites.
    0:11:28 Then we have the capacity to actually give them
    0:11:31 the elite lifestyles and positions that they’re expecting.
    0:11:33 So you have growing numbers of people
    0:11:34 who did everything right.
    0:11:37 They got good grades, they went to college,
    0:11:39 they went to the right colleges,
    0:11:40 they studied the right majors
    0:11:43 and they’re expecting six figure salaries
    0:11:45 and to be able to have a house
    0:11:47 and to get married and settled down
    0:11:48 and have kids and a standard of living
    0:11:50 that’s close to or better
    0:11:51 than what their parents experienced.
    0:11:54 And all of a sudden they’re not able to do any of that.
    0:11:56 When you have growing numbers of people
    0:11:58 in that kind of a condition,
    0:12:01 what they tend to do is indict the social order
    0:12:02 that they think failed them
    0:12:05 and try to tear down some of the existing elites
    0:12:07 to make space for people like themselves.
    0:12:09 So that’s at their core,
    0:12:11 what I argue is happening in awokenings.
    0:12:16 The two factors that cut across all four awokenings
    0:12:19 are the elite overproduction
    0:12:22 and this other factor, popular immiseration.
    0:12:24 So elite overproduction,
    0:12:28 one reason why that’s not enough
    0:12:31 to predict awokenings, why it’s not sufficient
    0:12:37 is because often when elites are having a tough time,
    0:12:40 it’s hard to get anyone to care.
    0:12:42 And that’s because there’s this phenomenon
    0:12:45 where the fortunes of elites and non-elites
    0:12:47 tend to operate counter-cyclicly.
    0:12:49 When elites are having a tough time,
    0:12:51 it’s hard to get anyone to care.
    0:12:53 No one’s breaking out a tiny violin
    0:12:55 and going, “Oh, poor elite guy,
    0:12:58 he has to live a normal life and get a normal job.
    0:12:59 Like everyone else.
    0:13:01 Oh, let me play you a sad song, right?”
    0:13:03 So if times are pretty good for everyone else
    0:13:05 but bad for elites, no one cares.
    0:13:07 But there are these moments
    0:13:09 when the trajectories get collapsed,
    0:13:13 when things have been kind of bad and growing worse
    0:13:15 for ordinary people for a while
    0:13:18 and all of a sudden they’re bad for a lot of elites too,
    0:13:20 those are the moments when awokenings happen
    0:13:24 because the frustrated elite aspirants
    0:13:26 not only have a motive,
    0:13:29 but they also have a means to really mess with the system
    0:13:32 ’cause there’s this huge base of other people in society
    0:13:34 who are also really frustrated
    0:13:35 with the way things are going,
    0:13:38 who also have a bone to pick
    0:13:40 with the people who are kind of running the show.
    0:13:41 And so they have a more leverage,
    0:13:43 these frustrated elite aspirants have more leverage
    0:13:46 over the system than they otherwise might.
    0:13:48 – Let me push on something for a second.
    0:13:51 The case you make in the book is that the elites
    0:13:53 and you and I are technically part of this group
    0:13:55 because of what we do,
    0:13:59 like to imagine that we’re part of the 99%
    0:14:01 and it’s the one percenters who are the real elites
    0:14:05 when in fact it’s really the top 20%
    0:14:08 who are hoarding most of the power and wealth.
    0:14:13 Isn’t it true though that much of what you call
    0:14:15 the symbolic capitalist class,
    0:14:17 that’s the term we’re about to define right after this,
    0:14:19 but for now let’s just say people like me and you
    0:14:22 and journalists, academics, bureaucrats, lawyers,
    0:14:25 corporate management types and so on.
    0:14:29 Most of us exist in a kind of precarity
    0:14:32 that is much closer to the lived experience
    0:14:34 of the middle and working classes
    0:14:37 than it is to the tech CEOs or the hedge fund managers.
    0:14:40 You and I have much more in common with a school teacher
    0:14:43 or a firefighter or a retail manager
    0:14:46 than we do with Mark Zuckerberg or Jay-Z
    0:14:49 or whoever the hell is running Goldman Sachs these days.
    0:14:51 It seems to me that in theory at least
    0:14:53 there’s more convergence of interest here
    0:14:56 than your thesis might suggest.
    0:14:57 What am I missing?
    0:14:58 – I mean, I think that’s definitely how we like
    0:15:01 to think of ourselves, but as I show in the book,
    0:15:04 one of the problems that we have is that we compare
    0:15:07 ourselves, I think too much to people like Mark Zuckerberg
    0:15:09 and go, “Oh, well, I’m just a normie,”
    0:15:11 rather than comparing ourselves to normies.
    0:15:14 So I’ll give an example I talk about in the book
    0:15:18 is when you look at adjunct professors.
    0:15:22 So adjunct professors relative to tenure line professors
    0:15:23 are clearly exploited.
    0:15:28 They make a lot less money for doing the same kinds of work.
    0:15:31 They have no say over faculty governance.
    0:15:33 They have really precarious labor contracts.
    0:15:35 They have no academic freedom to speak of
    0:15:37 as I discovered firsthand when I did that job.
    0:15:38 – I was one, it sucked.
    0:15:44 – But it’s also the case that if you are
    0:15:47 a full-time adjunct instructor on average,
    0:15:51 you make much more than the typical American worker
    0:15:53 and you also have much better working conditions.
    0:15:55 You have much higher social status and so on.
    0:15:58 And this is part of the reason why people choose to adjunct
    0:16:00 instead of becoming a manager at Waffle House or something
    0:16:03 is because they don’t wanna be those people.
    0:16:07 The idea of working as a manager in a Waffle House
    0:16:08 or something like that,
    0:16:13 they would rather struggle as an adjunct at Berkeley
    0:16:16 than to be a shoe salesman.
    0:16:18 They don’t see themselves in the same boat.
    0:16:20 They don’t wanna be in the same boat.
    0:16:23 They passionately don’t wanna be in the same boat.
    0:16:26 And even in terms of things like culture,
    0:16:30 in many respects, actually we are closer to people
    0:16:32 like Mark Zuckerberg and those folks.
    0:16:34 And in fact, increasingly the millionaires
    0:16:37 and the billionaires are drawn from us anyway,
    0:16:39 Zuckerberg being a great example.
    0:16:42 Like for instance, take journalists.
    0:16:44 So journalism used to be a job
    0:16:47 where you had decent numbers of working class people.
    0:16:49 That’s not the case so much anymore.
    0:16:52 Both because of credential requirements,
    0:16:56 like journalists are increasingly focused on
    0:17:00 only people with college degrees can be journalists
    0:17:03 and especially people who graduate from elite schools.
    0:17:07 And so like in a world where you need to have
    0:17:09 a college degree and a college degree in the right majors
    0:17:11 and from the right schools in order to be a journalist.
    0:17:13 And in order to be a journalist,
    0:17:15 you also have to basically work for free
    0:17:16 in really expensive cities
    0:17:18 to get your foot in the door and so on.
    0:17:20 Then the only people who can really be journalists
    0:17:22 are people who are relatively affluent.
    0:17:24 And that has important implications
    0:17:26 for the way we do our job.
    0:17:30 So for instance, it’s holding the elite to account
    0:17:31 plays out much different.
    0:17:33 If the people you’re supposed to be holding to account
    0:17:35 are your classmates and your friends
    0:17:38 and your lovers and your neighbors versus
    0:17:40 if you have this kind of sociological distance
    0:17:41 between you and the elites.
    0:17:48 And the perspectives of non-elite people
    0:17:51 are also not particularly present in our institution.
    0:17:55 So a great example, there’s an essay by Bertrand Cooper
    0:17:57 called “Who Gets to Create Black Culture?”
    0:18:00 And in this essay, he points out,
    0:18:04 like if George Floyd was alive after he was killed,
    0:18:09 he became the New York Times, the Washington Post, HBO,
    0:18:12 everyone, George Floyd, George Floyd, George Floyd.
    0:18:13 If George Floyd hadn’t been killed,
    0:18:16 but he wanted to write for the New York Times,
    0:18:18 there’s zero chance he would have had to,
    0:18:20 he would have been able to write for the New York Times.
    0:18:21 The New York Times doesn’t care
    0:18:24 what people like George Floyd think about anything.
    0:18:27 Their perspectives are not valid.
    0:18:28 They’re not valued.
    0:18:32 Ironically, George Floyd became someone who mattered to us
    0:18:34 after he became a victim of state violence
    0:18:37 and we could use his death in our power struggles.
    0:18:41 Until that point, George Floyd and his perspectives
    0:18:42 don’t matter to us.
    0:18:43 People like George Floyd don’t matter to us.
    0:18:45 We don’t engage with those people.
    0:18:47 We don’t uplift their perspectives.
    0:18:50 And so actually, I just don’t think it’s true
    0:18:52 that we have a lot in common with ordinary,
    0:18:56 not only do we not have a lot in common with ordinary people
    0:19:00 in terms of our interests and social networks
    0:19:02 and things like that, but we don’t want to,
    0:19:03 even when you look at things like our moral
    0:19:05 and political views.
    0:19:07 Our moral and political views and the ways
    0:19:10 that we engage in politics are far out of step
    0:19:14 with the way that the rest of Americans talk
    0:19:15 and think about these social issues,
    0:19:18 but are actually much closer to the ways
    0:19:19 that millionaires and billionaires
    0:19:22 and those kinds of people talk and think about politics.
    0:19:23 – Do you think the New York Times
    0:19:26 doesn’t give a shit about George Floyd
    0:19:27 until he’s been killed by the state,
    0:19:31 or is it that the audience won’t pay attention
    0:19:33 until that’s the case?
    0:19:34 – I think it’s kind of both.
    0:19:36 And part of the reason it’s both actually,
    0:19:38 I talk about this a bit in the book,
    0:19:41 is that the people who produce and consume these narratives
    0:19:44 are increasingly the same people.
    0:19:47 It’s the same slice of society that’s producing
    0:19:49 almost all of this work in the symbolic professions
    0:19:51 and they’re almost the exact same
    0:19:53 as the audience that’s consuming them
    0:19:56 in terms of where they live, the professions they work in,
    0:19:57 what their values are,
    0:20:01 the kinds of educational background they have, and so on.
    0:20:04 It’s this really incestuous relationship increasingly
    0:20:06 between writers and audiences
    0:20:07 where they’re virtually identical.
    0:20:10 So I think it’s the case that a lot of the writers
    0:20:13 don’t really, and editors and stuff,
    0:20:16 don’t really have their finger on the pulse of normies,
    0:20:17 but I think it’s also true
    0:20:19 that the audience of the New York Times
    0:20:20 doesn’t particularly care about normies
    0:20:22 and their problems either.
    0:20:25 – I think there’s just something undeniably true about that.
    0:20:29 There’s a particularly depressing section of the book,
    0:20:31 for me at least, where you’re talking about
    0:20:36 how much of what we think of as the discourse,
    0:20:39 nonfiction books, newspapers, journals, magazines,
    0:20:44 is mostly just elites talking to other elites
    0:20:47 with the pretense that it matters to or is even seen by.
    0:20:50 The rest of the country, but it really isn’t for the most part.
    0:20:53 So a lot of it is just masturbatory.
    0:20:56 – Yeah, it matters especially for the work
    0:21:01 that’s trying to understand and mitigate social problems,
    0:21:04 because a lot of the people that we’re trying to help
    0:21:06 are just not part of the conversation.
    0:21:08 (upbeat music)
    0:21:11 (upbeat music)
    0:21:38 – Support for the gray area comes from NetSuite,
    0:21:39 planning for the future of your business
    0:21:43 can feel a lot like navigating a maze that keeps shifting
    0:21:46 in economic landscape full of bull markets,
    0:21:48 bear markets, rising inflation,
    0:21:50 and fluctuating interest rates.
    0:21:52 The variables never stop moving,
    0:21:54 but a lot of companies are finding stability
    0:21:57 by switching to NetSuite by Oracle.
    0:22:00 With real-time insights and predictive tools,
    0:22:02 NetSuite says they’ve become the go-to platform
    0:22:05 for nearly 40,000 businesses.
    0:22:08 NetSuite can be your one platform for everything.
    0:22:11 Accounting, finance, inventory, HR, and more.
    0:22:15 That’s one fluid space with one single source of truth.
    0:22:17 And if you’re wondering how AI will affect your business
    0:22:20 or just your industry in general,
    0:22:22 NetSuite says they can help by providing insights
    0:22:25 that make sure your business is future ready.
    0:22:27 Speaking of AI, download the CFO’s guide
    0:22:32 to AI and machine learning at netsuite.com/grayarea.
    0:22:36 The guide is free to you at netsuite.com/grayarea,
    0:22:38 netsuite.com/grayarea.
    0:22:44 Support for the gray area comes from Cook Unity.
    0:22:47 You guys know about the concept of decision fatigue, right?
    0:22:51 The idea is that every decision you make takes a toll.
    0:22:53 So imagine that you have a hundred decision dollars
    0:22:55 to spend every day.
    0:22:58 Finding the right shirt in the morning, that’s a couple bucks.
    0:23:01 Answering the question, I don’t know, what do you want to do?
    0:23:04 There’s 35 more dollars.
    0:23:05 And your choices just add up,
    0:23:09 which is why dinner can feel like an impossible problem to solve.
    0:23:13 Cook Unity makes it easy to put food on the table every night,
    0:23:15 no decision dollars required.
    0:23:17 Our colleague, Nisha, tried it for herself.
    0:23:20 The meals I got from Cook Unity are very easy to prepare.
    0:23:22 If you have the time, they recommend putting it in the oven
    0:23:25 at 350 for 15 minutes to warm it.
    0:23:26 But if you don’t have the time,
    0:23:28 there’s a very easy microwave shortcut.
    0:23:32 So options for, you know, whatever amount of time you have.
    0:23:35 So take a load off and let Cook Unity handle dinner.
    0:23:37 Affordable food, crafted by award-winning chefs,
    0:23:39 delivered to your door.
    0:23:41 You can go to cookunity.com/grayarea
    0:23:43 or enter Code Gray Area before checkout
    0:23:46 for 50% off your first week.
    0:23:49 That’s 50% off your first week by using Code Gray Area
    0:23:52 or going to cookunity.com/grayarea.
    0:23:59 Support for the show comes from Into the Mix,
    0:24:02 a Ben and Jerry’s podcast about joy and justice
    0:24:04 produced with Vox Creative.
    0:24:07 In season three of this award-winning podcast,
    0:24:08 Into the Mix is covering stories
    0:24:11 on the ordinary people fighting for justice
    0:24:12 in their local communities.
    0:24:14 Starting with the fight against the workhouse,
    0:24:17 a penitentiary in St. Louis known for its abject conditions,
    0:24:19 mold, and pest infestations,
    0:24:22 and its embrace of the cash bail system.
    0:24:25 Host Ashley C. Ford interviews Ainez Bordeaux,
    0:24:27 who spent a month in the workhouse
    0:24:29 when she couldn’t afford her $25,000 bail.
    0:24:31 Experiencing what I experienced
    0:24:34 and watching other women go through it
    0:24:39 and know that there were thousands before us
    0:24:42 and there were thousands after us
    0:24:46 who had experienced those same things,
    0:24:48 that’s where I was radicalized.
    0:24:50 Eventually, her charge was vacated,
    0:24:52 but the experience changed her.
    0:24:54 You’re starting a campaign to close the workhouse.
    0:24:55 Are you interested?
    0:24:57 And I was like, hell yeah.
    0:24:58 Hell yeah, I’m interested.
    0:25:00 You can hear how she and other advocates fought
    0:25:02 to shut down the workhouse,
    0:25:03 and won on the first episode
    0:25:06 of this special three-part series Out Now.
    0:25:09 Subscribe to Into the Mix, a Ben and Jerry’s podcast.
    0:25:16 (gentle music)
    0:25:22 So this would be a good time
    0:25:25 to explain this term, symbolic capitalism,
    0:25:29 because the thing people are constantly puzzling over
    0:25:33 is that the elites in our society
    0:25:37 who benefit most from the systemic inequalities,
    0:25:41 mostly highly educated white liberals,
    0:25:44 are also the ones most exercised
    0:25:45 about all of these inequalities.
    0:25:49 Now this appears to be a contradiction on the face of it,
    0:25:51 but it’s really not for you, right?
    0:25:54 Like this is just a game symbolic capitalist play
    0:25:56 with each other.
    0:25:58 It’s not just a game.
    0:26:01 So one of the ways I think the discourse sometimes
    0:26:05 goes awry is that there’s this kind of narrative tendency
    0:26:08 that we have where we think if we can expose
    0:26:10 that someone has an interest in doing something
    0:26:13 or believing something, that they must not be sincere.
    0:26:15 Right, not true.
    0:26:17 Yeah, and I think that’s a bad way of thinking about thinking
    0:26:20 because our cognitive and perceptual systems,
    0:26:23 I argue, are kind of fundamentally geared
    0:26:25 towards perceiving and thinking about the world
    0:26:28 in ways that enhance our interests and further our goals.
    0:26:30 And if we take that research seriously,
    0:26:33 then we would see that there’s actually not a contradiction
    0:26:36 between sincerely believing something
    0:26:39 and also mobilizing that belief
    0:26:41 in the service of your self-interest.
    0:26:43 In fact, if you had an interest in believing something,
    0:26:46 you would believe it even more sincerely
    0:26:47 and you would probably try to get other people
    0:26:49 to believe it as well.
    0:26:52 I just take it for granted that when we say
    0:26:54 we want the poor to be uplifted,
    0:26:56 that we want people who are marginalized
    0:26:57 and disadvantaged in society
    0:27:00 to live lives of dignity and inclusion.
    0:27:02 I don’t think we’re being insincere about that,
    0:27:04 but that’s not our only sincere commitment.
    0:27:06 We also sincerely want to be elites,
    0:27:10 which is to say we think that our voice
    0:27:12 and our preferences should matter
    0:27:15 more than the person checking us out at Stop and Shop
    0:27:20 or the gas station attendant when we fill up the tank.
    0:27:23 And we think that we should have a higher standard of living
    0:27:27 than someone who’s flipping burgers at McDonald’s
    0:27:29 or selling shoes at Dillard’s.
    0:27:31 We strongly want our children to reproduce
    0:27:34 or have an even stronger social position than ourselves.
    0:27:36 And so these drives are in fundamental tension though,
    0:27:38 like the drive to be an egalitarian
    0:27:41 and the drive to be an elite don’t sit easily with each other.
    0:27:45 You can’t really be an egalitarian social climber, right?
    0:27:50 And this kind of tension has been
    0:27:52 with the symbolic capitalists from the beginning.
    0:27:57 It’s a tension that defines this elite constellation
    0:28:00 from the beginning through the present.
    0:28:02 So yeah, I don’t think it’s a lack of sincerity.
    0:28:05 I think it’s just that we have these other sincere drives
    0:28:06 and this desire to be elite
    0:28:09 when they do come into conflict as they often do.
    0:28:14 – So symbolic capitalists are aligned pretty disproportionately
    0:28:19 with the political left for reasons you can explain
    0:28:22 and you certainly do in the book.
    0:28:25 But you also write that at bottom the anti-woke
    0:28:28 and the woke actually subscribe
    0:28:32 to the same fundamental worldview.
    0:28:33 I’d love for you to explain why that is
    0:28:34 because I think it’s important.
    0:28:38 – Yeah, so one of the things that’s true
    0:28:42 of both the woke and the anti-woke crowd
    0:28:46 is that they both think that things like symbols
    0:28:49 and rhetorics and beliefs and hearts and minds
    0:28:52 and things like the names on buildings
    0:28:57 and what kinds of things are taught to,
    0:29:00 like that these kinds of struggles over culture
    0:29:02 and symbols and rhetoric and so on
    0:29:05 are like the most important things.
    0:29:07 More important than a lot of bread and butter issues
    0:29:11 that normal people have to deal with in their day-to-day life.
    0:29:16 Like a lot of the anti-woke people describe wokeness
    0:29:20 as this kind of major threat to Western civilization,
    0:29:21 to the prevailing order,
    0:29:24 like they’re also engaged in this kind of cosmic struggle
    0:29:26 in their minds.
    0:29:30 And so their ways of thinking about the world and politics
    0:29:33 are not much different than the people they’re criticizing.
    0:29:36 As I show in the, and I also argue later in the book,
    0:29:40 that one thing that you see,
    0:29:43 one of the big impacts of awokenings,
    0:29:44 they don’t tend to change much
    0:29:46 in terms of allocations of resources
    0:29:50 for the genuinely disadvantaged in society and so on.
    0:29:52 They don’t tend to help the wretched of the earth
    0:29:53 in a meaningful, durable way.
    0:29:57 One thing that does tend to happen though,
    0:30:01 is that these moments of awokening
    0:30:04 tend to devolve into cultural wars
    0:30:07 and they result in these non-trivial gains for the right,
    0:30:09 typically at the ballot box,
    0:30:12 and then often the creation
    0:30:16 of alternative knowledge economy infrastructures
    0:30:23 and kind of durable mistrust of mainstream institutions.
    0:30:25 Okay, so why does this happen?
    0:30:28 So during these periods of awokening,
    0:30:30 symbolic capitalists shift a lot.
    0:30:32 Like the ways that we engage in politics,
    0:30:33 the way we think about things
    0:30:36 and so on, shift in these really radical ways.
    0:30:38 And so the gap between us and everyone else
    0:30:41 gets bigger than it normally is.
    0:30:43 And we recognize that and we assume often
    0:30:45 that it’s because those people
    0:30:47 are growing more racist or sexist or whatever,
    0:30:49 but actually when you look at the trend lines,
    0:30:51 they’re not, it’s that we’ve shifted a lot
    0:30:53 while they’ve been pretty steady.
    0:30:57 But so the gap gets bigger and people care about it more.
    0:30:59 And they care about the gap more
    0:31:02 because we become more militant during these periods
    0:31:04 of villainizing and demonizing and mocking
    0:31:06 and trying to censor and so on,
    0:31:08 anyone who disagrees with us.
    0:31:10 So people notice this gap more
    0:31:12 because we’re becoming more confrontational
    0:31:14 towards people that we disagree with.
    0:31:17 And so this gap and the fact
    0:31:18 that people care about the gap more,
    0:31:20 it creates an opportunity
    0:31:22 for like right aligned political entrepreneurs
    0:31:25 to basically campaign by running against us
    0:31:28 by bringing people like us under control.
    0:31:30 Narratives start to circulate like,
    0:31:33 oh, well the mainstream media is just a propaganda arm
    0:31:34 for the Democratic Party
    0:31:38 or colleges and universities are in the business now
    0:31:40 of just indoctrinating young people
    0:31:43 rather than teaching them useful knowledge and skills.
    0:31:46 And so there tend to be these kinds of movements
    0:31:48 by right aligned political folks
    0:31:49 then to campaign against people like us.
    0:31:53 And you usually see efforts to curb our autonomy,
    0:31:55 cut lines of funding and things like that.
    0:31:56 And you also see the creation
    0:31:59 of these alternative infrastructures.
    0:32:03 So after the awokening of the 1960s and 70s, for instance,
    0:32:05 there was a perception that higher ed was lost,
    0:32:06 can’t fix it.
    0:32:09 It’s just captured, it’s ideologically captured.
    0:32:11 And so what did people do?
    0:32:13 Well, they launched these right aligned think tanks
    0:32:14 starting with the Kato Institute
    0:32:16 and the Heritage Foundation and so on.
    0:32:19 And then in the late 80s, early 90s,
    0:32:22 there was a perception that the media was lost.
    0:32:23 And so what did they do?
    0:32:24 They launched Fox News
    0:32:26 in the aftermath of the third grade awokening.
    0:32:29 And then finally, in the current moment,
    0:32:32 you see these moments to like Elon Musk
    0:32:35 trying this anti-woke takeover of Twitter
    0:32:38 or Donald Trump trying to launch true social.
    0:32:40 And the thing about it is these alternative
    0:32:42 knowledge economy infrastructures,
    0:32:45 they have an existential stake.
    0:32:48 Like the way they make money, the way they keep viewers
    0:32:51 is by sowing consistent mistrust in mainstream institutions.
    0:32:54 So Fox News, their bread and butter
    0:32:56 is all day, every day telling people,
    0:32:58 the mainstream media is lying to you.
    0:33:00 They don’t care about people like you.
    0:33:01 They don’t share your values.
    0:33:03 They’re not giving you the whole story.
    0:33:04 Like that’s how they make money.
    0:33:05 This is all day, every day,
    0:33:07 sowing trust in mainstream institution
    0:33:09 in order to capture part of our market share.
    0:33:14 And so to the extent that we create an opportunity,
    0:33:18 a market for these alternative infrastructures
    0:33:20 because of the ways that we conduct ourselves
    0:33:23 during awokenings, one consequence of that
    0:33:25 tends to be kind of durable mistrust
    0:33:28 and kind of reduced influence in a long-term way.
    0:33:31 We live with the consequences of that for a long time.
    0:33:34 – Right, and another consequence is that
    0:33:38 the power structure basically remains the same.
    0:33:39 – Yeah.
    0:33:43 – Can you steelman the case for a minute, at least,
    0:33:46 for what we’re calling wokeness
    0:33:49 as something potentially more materially significant
    0:33:51 than maybe we’re giving it credit for, right?
    0:33:55 Is there a politics is downstream of culture argument
    0:33:58 that the focus on symbolism and representation
    0:34:01 and the rest of it will create
    0:34:03 the kinds of cultural changes today
    0:34:06 that will lead to concrete material improvements
    0:34:08 in people’s lives tomorrow?
    0:34:10 Or have you seen enough historical evidence
    0:34:13 to suggest that just doesn’t happen?
    0:34:14 – By a lot of measures,
    0:34:17 like things like black, white income gaps,
    0:34:18 mass incarceration rate,
    0:34:20 like a lot of these kinds of social problems
    0:34:23 that people were upset about in the 1960s
    0:34:24 are the same or worse today.
    0:34:30 Now, that said, I do think that there are some ways
    0:34:32 in which society and culture change
    0:34:35 that are just beneficial.
    0:34:37 And that are sometimes these changes
    0:34:39 are kind of orthogonal to the,
    0:34:40 in fact, they’re typically orthogonal
    0:34:41 to the great awokenings,
    0:34:43 but they are sometimes changes
    0:34:45 that were done by symbolic capitalists,
    0:34:46 sometimes in between awokenings,
    0:34:47 so not during the awokenings,
    0:34:52 but like actual good things that have happened
    0:34:53 in institutions that we should celebrate.
    0:34:57 So for instance, one of the things that bugs me out
    0:35:00 in a lot of the conversations around DEI
    0:35:04 and merit in higher ed,
    0:35:08 is that there’s this kind of wild,
    0:35:11 a historical narrative that seems to be at play.
    0:35:14 So people will say things like the implicit argument
    0:35:16 is like back in the day,
    0:35:18 we used to make decisions based on things
    0:35:19 like their people’s merit
    0:35:22 for hiring and promotion in academia.
    0:35:25 And today we pay so much attention to things like identity.
    0:35:27 And it’s like,
    0:35:30 and that’s kind of a ridiculous, a historical argument.
    0:35:34 So until somewhat recently in US history,
    0:35:36 pretty much the only people who could be professors
    0:35:41 were like straight white men, especially wasp men.
    0:35:45 And there were, if you were black, if you were a woman,
    0:35:48 if you were like explicitly gay,
    0:35:51 if you were even Jewish in many cases,
    0:35:56 then you were not eligible to be a professor.
    0:35:59 And it wasn’t even hidden, no one was ashamed of this.
    0:36:03 Like these were jobs for wasp men.
    0:36:07 A lot of jobs weren’t even, it wasn’t until the 1990s.
    0:36:11 The 1990s when departments were actually forced
    0:36:15 to conduct open searches and list their open positions
    0:36:17 publicly until that time,
    0:36:19 people would just give lifetime appointments
    0:36:21 to people in their network.
    0:36:26 And with no competition, meritocratic or otherwise.
    0:36:30 And so before, during this period, the good old days,
    0:36:31 it was definitely the case
    0:36:34 where when the only people who could even be considered
    0:36:37 for a job were straight white men
    0:36:40 that no one talked about race, gender or sexuality
    0:36:42 in hiring and promotion decisions.
    0:36:45 ‘Cause why would you, what was there to talk about?
    0:36:47 But that didn’t mean that hiring and promotion
    0:36:49 wasn’t identity-based, it was more identity-based.
    0:36:52 You had to belong to this very specific slice of society
    0:36:54 to even be considered for the job.
    0:36:57 So to say that that’s not identitarian is wild.
    0:37:00 It was only when we stopped taking for granted
    0:37:03 that the professors were straight white men,
    0:37:06 that the question of who does get to become a professor
    0:37:09 and in virtue of what becomes a live question.
    0:37:11 – Well, can we also say to the extent
    0:37:13 that what you just said is true and it is,
    0:37:17 that is in fact a victory
    0:37:19 of these sorts of social and cultural movements
    0:37:22 that did produce an actual change in society
    0:37:24 that was materially significant.
    0:37:28 – Yeah, I mean, frankly, like the upshot
    0:37:30 is that hiring and promotion today
    0:37:32 is actually much more standardized.
    0:37:34 It’s much more transparent.
    0:37:37 It’s much more metrics focused
    0:37:39 than basically it ever has been.
    0:37:42 But the thing about it is a lot of these changes,
    0:37:45 again, they weren’t necessarily the product of awokenings.
    0:37:47 And you can see this for a lot of other positive changes.
    0:37:51 So Colleen Aaron, a colleague of mine who’s a sociologist,
    0:37:54 she has this great book on the First Step Act.
    0:37:58 So the First Step Act was for readers
    0:37:59 who are not immediately familiar.
    0:38:01 It was one of the most significant pieces
    0:38:03 of criminal justice reform that had been published
    0:38:06 that had been passed into law in decades.
    0:38:09 And as Colleen shows in this book,
    0:38:12 the passage of the First Step Act was created
    0:38:15 through this careful process of consensus building
    0:38:17 across Democrats, Republicans,
    0:38:20 all of these community organizations and legislators.
    0:38:23 There’s this kind of gradual consensus building effort
    0:38:27 that took decades, even before Black Lives Matter
    0:38:29 and the Great Awokening and all of this kind of stuff
    0:38:32 in conservative and Republican spaces.
    0:38:33 There was growing awareness
    0:38:35 that there were problems in the criminal justice system.
    0:38:37 So it happened to get signed into law
    0:38:40 under President Trump during the Great Awokening,
    0:38:41 but it wasn’t caused by the Great Awokening.
    0:38:46 And in fact, because it happened to get signed into law
    0:38:49 during this period of heightened contestation
    0:38:52 over social justice, and there were a lot
    0:38:55 of symbolic capitalists who were kind of hotdogging,
    0:38:59 striking these really extreme positions
    0:39:03 that were out of step both with what most of the people
    0:39:06 were trying to help want, like defund the police,
    0:39:08 close all the prisons and so on.
    0:39:13 That this long period of decades on consensus building
    0:39:15 was destroyed by the way that symbolic capitalists
    0:39:17 conducted herself during the Great Awokening.
    0:39:19 And so rather than the First Step Act
    0:39:24 being like the cornerstone upon which to build
    0:39:26 other criminal justice reform,
    0:39:29 it actually basically limped across the finish line
    0:39:31 and there hasn’t been much change other than that,
    0:39:33 which is to say, there are good things that happen
    0:39:36 that symbolic capitalists often take part in,
    0:39:38 but they tend to be orthogonal
    0:39:39 to these periods of Great Awokening.
    0:39:42 If anything, often the periods of Great Awokening
    0:39:46 end up messing up social reform movements
    0:39:48 that are already underway for a whole host of reasons
    0:39:49 I discussed in the book.
    0:40:00 Support for the gray area comes from found.
    0:40:03 Small business owners know that keeping things
    0:40:06 running smoothly takes work and a whole lot of apps.
    0:40:09 One for tracking expenses, another for staying
    0:40:12 on top of your taxes, and another for payroll management.
    0:40:13 Just switching back and forth
    0:40:16 between them must eat up practically half your day.
    0:40:18 If you’re looking for a way to take some busy work
    0:40:22 off your plate and handle all of those tasks in one place,
    0:40:24 you might want to check out found.
    0:40:26 Found is business banking design
    0:40:29 for small business owners just like you.
    0:40:32 Found lets you manage your financial tasks effortlessly,
    0:40:34 all in one easy to use app.
    0:40:36 The platform can help you manage your money,
    0:40:38 track your spending, invoice your clients,
    0:40:40 and even handle your taxes.
    0:40:43 So you can focus on actually running your business.
    0:40:47 You can try found for free at found.com/grayarea.
    0:40:49 Listeners can sign up for found for free today
    0:40:53 at found.com/grayarea.
    0:40:56 Found is a financial technology company, not a bank.
    0:41:00 Banking services are provided by Piermont Bank, member FDIC.
    0:41:02 Found’s core features are free.
    0:41:05 They also offer an optional paid product, found plus.
    0:41:10 – Robinhood is introducing forecast contracts
    0:41:12 so you can trade the presidential election.
    0:41:14 Through Robinhood, you can now trade
    0:41:16 financial derivatives contracts
    0:41:18 on who will win the US presidential election,
    0:41:21 Harris or Trump, and watch as contract prices
    0:41:24 react to real-time market sentiment.
    0:41:28 Each contract you own will pay $1 on January 8th, 2025
    0:41:31 if that candidate is confirmed as the next US president
    0:41:32 by Congress.
    0:41:34 Learn more about the presidential election contracts
    0:41:39 on Robinhood at www.robinhood.com/election.
    0:41:42 The risk of loss in trading commodity interests
    0:41:43 can be substantial.
    0:41:44 You should therefore carefully consider
    0:41:46 whether such trading is suitable for you
    0:41:48 in light of your financial condition.
    0:41:50 Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply.
    0:41:53 Commodity interest trading is not appropriate for everyone.
    0:41:56 Displayed prices are based on real-time market sentiment.
    0:41:59 This event contract is offered by Robinhood Derivatives,
    0:42:01 a registered Futures Commission merchant and swap firm.
    0:42:03 Exchange and regulatory fees apply.
    0:42:08 Learn more at www.robinhood.com/election.
    0:42:13 – Breaking news happens anywhere, anytime.
    0:42:16 – Police have warned the protesters repeatedly.
    0:42:17 Get back.
    0:42:20 – CBC News brings the story to you as it happens.
    0:42:22 – Hundreds of wildfires are burning.
    0:42:24 – Be the first to know what’s going on
    0:42:27 and what that means for you and for Canadians.
    0:42:31 – This situation has changed very quickly.
    0:42:34 – Helping make sense of the world when it matters most.
    0:42:35 Stay in the know.
    0:42:37 CBC News.
    0:42:46 (gentle music)
    0:42:52 – You know as well as I do
    0:42:54 that anti-wokism has become
    0:42:59 its own little cottage industry on the right.
    0:43:03 With the caveat that we obviously can’t control
    0:43:05 what bad faith actors do with our work
    0:43:07 once it’s out in the world.
    0:43:10 Do you worry about this book being misinterpreted
    0:43:16 and perhaps adopted as a cudgel in the culture war?
    0:43:19 – Yeah, I talk about this in the book,
    0:43:22 that one of the perennial joys and terrors
    0:43:24 of putting ideas out in the world
    0:43:26 is after a while they cease to be yours to control.
    0:43:28 I worry about that as much as anyone else
    0:43:32 but what I tried to focus on for this book
    0:43:34 was trying to answer the questions that I had
    0:43:37 as kind of fully and comprehensively
    0:43:40 and kind of fairly as possible
    0:43:44 and kind of let the politics play out how they do.
    0:43:47 That’s not my job.
    0:43:49 But that said, I also tried,
    0:43:53 I think a lot of the anti-woke kind of culture warriors
    0:43:55 are gonna have a tough time
    0:43:58 really mobilizing the book the way they might hope
    0:44:03 both because it has a lot of very critical things
    0:44:06 to say about the anti-woke kind of people
    0:44:08 and the game that they’re playing as well.
    0:44:11 I apply a very symmetrical lens to understanding them
    0:44:13 and their behaviors and actions.
    0:44:18 And the book also, you know that the reality is
    0:44:23 a lot of work like in queer theory or critical race theory
    0:44:24 or feminist standpoint epistemology
    0:44:28 or post-colonial theory, like these modes of scholarship
    0:44:29 deeply inform my own thinking
    0:44:34 including on these questions about power and ideology
    0:44:35 and how they relate to each other.
    0:44:38 In a deep sense, what the book is doing
    0:44:41 is taking the arguments from these literatures
    0:44:43 to what I perceive to be their logical conclusions
    0:44:47 which will lead us to ask of our own
    0:44:50 ostensibly emancipatory ideologies
    0:44:53 whether or not they might also reflect our class interests
    0:44:55 whether or not they actually represent the values
    0:44:58 and interests of the people that we’re trying to help
    0:45:01 and whether or not like there’s no reason to think
    0:45:04 that our own belief systems are exempt
    0:45:05 and a lot of these other related literatures
    0:45:08 and not to villainize them or mock them or demean them
    0:45:11 but in fact to show how they can be valuable.
    0:45:14 And so in this and a lot of other ways
    0:45:18 I think the book is not easily digestible
    0:45:21 into the culture wars and the ways that people might hope.
    0:45:23 – You said something a second ago and I’m glad you did
    0:45:27 because I wouldn’t normally mention this.
    0:45:30 This is not in my little prep doc I have on hand
    0:45:35 but it’s relevant and you gestured to it just a second ago
    0:45:36 and you also addressed it in the book.
    0:45:38 So I’m gonna broach it here.
    0:45:44 You’re a black Muslim American challenging
    0:45:47 some of the orthodoxies on the left and the right
    0:45:51 and there’s this thing that often happens on the left
    0:45:55 and I don’t like it where whenever a black person has views
    0:45:57 that aren’t doctrinaire or that aren’t the views
    0:46:00 of white progressive thinks a black person is supposed
    0:46:03 to have they get dismissed or attacked.
    0:46:07 And I think you even say in the book that you’re emphasizing
    0:46:10 your blackness and the influence of black scholarship
    0:46:13 on the book to push readers to listen to you
    0:46:16 in a way they might otherwise not.
    0:46:18 What is it that you want those readers in particular
    0:46:21 to hear that they might otherwise not?
    0:46:26 – Yeah, so the thing that they need to hear
    0:46:34 is that the values and interests of people like us
    0:46:38 are often out of step with those of the people
    0:46:39 that we want to help.
    0:46:42 Our views of politics, the solutions that we have
    0:46:45 to social problems are often out of step
    0:46:49 with what other people want and need in some ways
    0:46:51 and often ways that cause them harm.
    0:46:55 So quick example, I was at a conference
    0:46:56 on political polarization.
    0:47:00 They had four black people taking part in this conversation
    0:47:05 alongside the whites and the four of them
    0:47:08 and four of us, there was me who’s half white.
    0:47:11 There was two Afro Caribbean folks
    0:47:14 and then there was someone who was Kenyan and Nigerian.
    0:47:18 So not one person out of the four black people
    0:47:21 who were part of this panel, not one person
    0:47:23 was a mono racial non-immigrant black person.
    0:47:26 They’re the overwhelming majority of America
    0:47:28 of America’s black population.
    0:47:30 There were nowhere represented on this panel
    0:47:32 setting aside the class dimension of it.
    0:47:35 But even just looking at ethnicity,
    0:47:37 we were not even ethnically remotely representative
    0:47:39 of blacks in America.
    0:47:43 And in that panel, while unrepresentative
    0:47:47 of black America was perfectly representative
    0:47:50 of how almost all of the spokespeople
    0:47:52 in symbolic capitalist spaces are.
    0:47:54 Almost all of the black spokespeople
    0:47:58 in symbolic capitalist spaces are either mixed race
    0:48:03 or recent immigrant black heritage.
    0:48:07 And the few exceptions to that rule tend to be people
    0:48:10 who are themselves like from really relatively
    0:48:11 affluent backgrounds.
    0:48:17 And so the problem with turning to people like myself
    0:48:22 to understand like how all black America thinks
    0:48:25 is just that we’re not representative of black America.
    0:48:26 Our experiences are not the same.
    0:48:28 Our challenges are not the same.
    0:48:31 Our values and interests are often very different
    0:48:32 from the modal black American.
    0:48:35 If you look at the modal black American,
    0:48:38 black people in America vote overwhelmingly
    0:48:40 with the democratic party,
    0:48:41 but not because they’re super liberal.
    0:48:44 They’re some of the most culturally conservative folks
    0:48:46 in the democratic block.
    0:48:48 And in fact, this is one of the big problems
    0:48:51 that a lot of institutions have
    0:48:54 when they try to promote diversity and inclusion
    0:48:59 is that we often create these spaces
    0:49:02 that are really hostile towards traditional
    0:49:05 or socially conservative or religious views
    0:49:07 in the name of diversity and inclusion.
    0:49:10 But the people who are most affected by that
    0:49:13 are people who are already underrepresented in these spaces.
    0:49:15 The kinds of people who are already the dominant population,
    0:49:18 so relatively affluent, highly educated,
    0:49:21 background, urban and suburban white people and so on.
    0:49:24 The people who dominate these institutions demographically
    0:49:26 also tend to share the dominant ideologies.
    0:49:28 They’re products of the same kinds of childhoods
    0:49:30 and institutions and so on.
    0:49:33 If you look at the Americans
    0:49:35 who are most likely to self-identify
    0:49:38 as anti-racist, as feminist, as allies to LGBTQ people,
    0:49:40 as environmentalists and so on,
    0:49:43 it’s highly educated, relatively affluent,
    0:49:45 urban and suburban white people.
    0:49:47 And so if we create an environment
    0:49:49 that if you’re not those things,
    0:49:51 you’re gonna be suppressed or villainized
    0:49:53 or socially sanctioned and whatever.
    0:49:56 The people who are gonna be most adversely affected by that
    0:49:59 are gonna be non-traditional students, rural students,
    0:50:02 less affluent students, immigrants, non-white students,
    0:50:04 religious minority students and so on.
    0:50:07 So we do all of these policies
    0:50:09 in the name of diversity and inclusion
    0:50:12 that are often devastating for the people we want to help.
    0:50:15 – Well, look, I’m not gonna ask you to solve
    0:50:17 all of our political problems,
    0:50:20 but I guess I am curious what you think
    0:50:25 or what you see on the other side of this awakening.
    0:50:28 I mean, our politics feel pretty dysfunctional right now.
    0:50:33 It feels pretty stuck and hopelessly polarized.
    0:50:39 Do you have any reason based on how these previous eras
    0:50:42 have played out to think we might end up
    0:50:45 in a healthier place after all this?
    0:50:47 – So in the book, I talk about how there are these things
    0:50:51 that are very much the same across the Wokenings.
    0:50:55 But there are also a couple of things that are different,
    0:50:56 that are different in an important way.
    0:51:00 For all the parts of the awakening that’s cyclical,
    0:51:03 there is actually this set of trend lines
    0:51:05 that I think matters a lot for thinking through
    0:51:07 what the legacy of this awakening might be
    0:51:09 and what the next one might look like.
    0:51:11 One thing that I think is importantly different
    0:51:15 that has been increasingly different each awakening
    0:51:16 is that the share of Americans
    0:51:19 who take part in the symbolic professions has changed.
    0:51:23 So in the 1920s, at the time of the first great awakening,
    0:51:25 symbolic capitalists were like 3% of workers.
    0:51:29 And now it’s about a third of workers.
    0:51:33 And so still a minority, not close to a majority,
    0:51:36 but a really big minority.
    0:51:36 And that matters.
    0:51:40 That matters because when you’re only 3% of a population,
    0:51:42 you can’t just write off the rest of America.
    0:51:45 If you’re a third of all workers though,
    0:51:47 and you tend to be the most affluent workers
    0:51:50 and you’re concentrated in these very particular communities
    0:51:52 and you’re taking part in these really interconnected
    0:51:55 institutions like academia and the nonprofit sphere
    0:51:57 and policy-making circles and so on,
    0:52:01 then it actually is, you absolutely can.
    0:52:03 So you can just totally write off the values
    0:52:06 of most of America and make money hand over fist.
    0:52:10 You can be a political party that increasingly alienates
    0:52:14 or is increasingly distant from mainstream America.
    0:52:19 And you can win lots of elections of national city elections,
    0:52:22 state elections all across the country,
    0:52:25 be flush with funds and even be competitive
    0:52:28 on the national stage if you can just get enough normies
    0:52:29 to kind of get along with you
    0:52:32 in addition to your kind of core constituency.
    0:52:38 And so one of the things that’s become increasingly the case
    0:52:40 that’s been different from awokening to awokening
    0:52:44 is that symbolic capitalists have been a larger share
    0:52:48 of the overall workforce
    0:52:51 and more resources have been consolidated in our hands.
    0:52:52 And as a result of that,
    0:52:57 we have a lot more autonomy from the rest of the public
    0:52:59 in a way that is sometimes pernicious.
    0:53:00 And more broadly,
    0:53:05 I just think that some of the current bifurcation we see
    0:53:08 between us and most of the rest of society
    0:53:10 is probably not sustainable.
    0:53:14 I think one of the things that you see very clearly
    0:53:18 is that growing shares of Americans feel like
    0:53:21 they don’t have a voice or a stake in our institutions.
    0:53:23 They think that their values are not represented
    0:53:24 in our institutions.
    0:53:26 And in fact, they think that our institutions
    0:53:29 are hostile towards their interests.
    0:53:32 And there’s lots of research in the United States
    0:53:33 and around the world that suggests
    0:53:36 that when people feel that way,
    0:53:39 what they do is they try to burn down those institutions.
    0:53:42 They try to marginalize them, defund them,
    0:53:46 delegitimize them and otherwise burn them down.
    0:53:48 And that’s a very rational response.
    0:53:50 And it doesn’t matter what the institution is.
    0:53:52 If you don’t have a voice or a stake in it
    0:53:54 and you think it’s committed to the destruction
    0:53:57 of people like you, why would you not resist it?
    0:54:01 It would be crazy to actually conspire with that institution
    0:54:04 towards your own destruction and immiseration, right?
    0:54:05 You would of course resist it.
    0:54:07 That’s the natural normal thing to do.
    0:54:09 And it doesn’t matter what that institution is.
    0:54:11 So often symbolic capitalists,
    0:54:14 when we’re met with distrust,
    0:54:16 when we’re met with this kind of resistance,
    0:54:21 we pathologize it as like for instance, anti-intellectualism.
    0:54:26 And instead of really reckoning in a serious way
    0:54:29 with the fact that a lot of people feel not wrongly
    0:54:32 in many cases, that they don’t have a voice or a stake,
    0:54:34 that people like us look down on people like them,
    0:54:36 that people like us are actively hostile
    0:54:39 towards people like them, that we write off their suffering.
    0:54:41 And we actually hope in many cases
    0:54:43 that their suffering continues or grows worse
    0:54:45 because they think the wrong things
    0:54:47 or say the wrong things or vote for the wrong people
    0:54:48 and so on.
    0:54:51 And so I think this kind of,
    0:54:55 this bifurcation is not sustainable in the longterm.
    0:54:57 Something’s gonna give one way or another.
    0:55:01 And I hope that it gives in a,
    0:55:05 I hope that we can make choices
    0:55:07 that allow something to give
    0:55:10 in a way that’s not highly destructive.
    0:55:13 – I do wanna say that I think this book is as,
    0:55:17 intellectually honest as a book on this topic
    0:55:18 could possibly be.
    0:55:23 And for that reason, I think it’s a genuinely worthwhile
    0:55:26 contribution to this conversation.
    0:55:28 So I commend you for that.
    0:55:29 – Thank you so much.
    0:55:30 Thank you.
    0:55:33 – Once again, the book is called “We Have Never Been Woke,
    0:55:37 “The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite.”
    0:55:38 Musa Algarbi.
    0:55:39 Thank you.
    0:55:40 – It’s been great.
    0:55:41 Thank you for having me.
    0:55:44 (upbeat music)
    0:55:55 – All right, I hope you enjoyed that conversation.
    0:55:57 I most certainly did.
    0:55:59 As always, we do wanna know what you think.
    0:56:03 So drop us a line at the gray area at box.com
    0:56:05 and please go ahead, rate, review
    0:56:07 and subscribe to the podcast.
    0:56:09 That stuff really helps us grow.
    0:56:12 This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey
    0:56:13 and Travis Larchuck.
    0:56:16 Today’s episode was engineered by Patrick Boyd,
    0:56:20 fact-checked by Anouk Dussot, edited by Jorge Just
    0:56:23 and Alex Overington wrote our theme music.
    0:56:29 New episodes of the gray area drop on Mondays,
    0:56:30 listen and subscribe.
    0:56:36 This show is part of Vox.
    0:56:38 Support Vox’s journalism by joining
    0:56:40 our membership program today.
    0:56:43 Go to vox.com/members to sign up.
    0:56:46 And if you do decide to sign up because of this show,
    0:56:47 let us know.
    0:56:53 Support for the gray area comes from Greenlight.
    0:56:54 Remember that show?
    0:56:55 Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
    0:56:58 Where contestants would have a battle of wits
    0:57:01 against fifth graders and constantly lose?
    0:57:02 It wasn’t really a fair fight.
    0:57:06 All the subjects were what the students learned in class.
    0:57:09 Geography is hard, but despite what you saw on that show,
    0:57:11 fifth graders still have a lot to learn,
    0:57:14 like managing their money responsibly.
    0:57:15 Enter Greenlight.
    0:57:18 Greenlight is a debit card and money app for families.
    0:57:21 Parents can keep an eye on kids spending and money habits
    0:57:25 and kids can learn how to save, invest and spend wisely.
    0:57:27 And with a Greenlight infinity plan,
    0:57:30 you get even more financial literacy resources
    0:57:33 and teens can check in thanks to family location share.
    0:57:35 My kids a bit too young right now,
    0:57:38 we’re still in the piggy bank phase,
    0:57:39 but I’ve got a colleague here at Vox
    0:57:42 who uses it with his two boys and he loves it.
    0:57:44 You can join the millions of parents and kids
    0:57:46 who use Greenlight to navigate life together.
    0:57:48 You can sign up for Greenlight today
    0:57:49 and get your first month free
    0:57:53 when you go to greenlight.com/grayarea.
    0:57:56 That’s greenlight.com/grayarea to try Greenlight for free.
    0:57:59 Greenlight.com/grayarea.
    0:58:03 – Robinhood is introducing forecast contracts.
    0:58:05 So you can trade the presidential election.
    0:58:06 Through Robinhood,
    0:58:09 you can now trade financial derivatives contracts
    0:58:11 on who will win the US presidential election,
    0:58:13 Harris or Trump,
    0:58:14 and watch as contract prices
    0:58:17 react to real-time market sentiment.
    0:58:21 Each contract you own will pay $1 on January 8th, 2025,
    0:58:23 if that candidate is confirmed
    0:58:25 as the next US president by Congress.
    0:58:28 Learn more about the presidential election contracts
    0:58:33 on Robinhood at www.robinhood.com/election.
    0:58:35 The risk of loss and trading commodity interests
    0:58:36 can be substantial.
    0:58:37 You should therefore carefully consider
    0:58:39 whether such trading is suitable for you
    0:58:41 in light of your financial condition.
    0:58:44 Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply.
    0:58:46 Commodity interest trading is not appropriate for everyone.
    0:58:49 Displayed prices are based on real-time market sentiment.
    0:58:52 This event contract is offered by Robinhood derivatives,
    0:58:55 a registered Futures Commission merchant and SWAP firm.
    0:58:57 Exchange and regulatory fees apply.
    0:59:01 Learn more at www.robinhood.com/election.
    0:59:04 (upbeat music)

    What does it mean to be “woke”? It’s become a catchall term to smear or dismiss anything that has any vague association with progressive politics. As a result, anytime you venture into an argument about “wokeness,” it becomes hopelessly entangled in a broader cultural battle. Today’s guest, journalist and professor Musa al-Gharbi, helps us untangle “wokeness” from its fraught political context. The author of a new book, We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite, al-Gharbi explains what effects the movement is and isn’t having on our society.

    Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling), host, The Gray Area

    Guest: Musa al-Gharbi (@Musa_alGharbi), author, We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite,

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • Is America collapsing like Ancient Rome?

    AI transcript
    0:00:00 (upbeat music)
    0:00:04 Support for this show comes from Constant Contact.
    0:00:07 If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you,
    0:00:10 Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention.
    0:00:14 Constant Contact’s award-winning marketing platform
    0:00:17 offers all the automation, integration, and reporting tools
    0:00:20 that get your marketing running seamlessly,
    0:00:23 all backed by their expert live customer support.
    0:00:25 It’s time to get going and growing
    0:00:28 with Constant Contact today.
    0:00:30 Ready, set, grow.
    0:00:34 Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today.
    0:00:39 Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial,
    0:00:41 ConstantContact.ca.
    0:00:48 – At Apple Podcasts, we’re obsessed with good stories.
    0:00:52 That’s why this fall, we’re introducing series essentials.
    0:00:54 Each month, our editors choose one series
    0:00:56 that we think will captivate you from start to finish,
    0:00:59 presented completely ad-free.
    0:01:00 This month, we invite you to check out
    0:01:02 Wondery’s Ghost Story.
    0:01:04 In this gripping tale,
    0:01:06 journalist Tristan Redman’s investigation
    0:01:09 into a haunted bedroom takes a surprising turn
    0:01:11 when he discovers a dark secret
    0:01:13 connecting his own family to the ghost.
    0:01:16 The story features homicide detectives, ghost hunters,
    0:01:18 and even psychic mediums.
    0:01:20 Apple Podcasts series essentials.
    0:01:24 One story you won’t wanna miss, selected each month.
    0:01:27 Listen completely ad-free, only on Apple Podcasts.
    0:01:37 – If you were a Roman citizen around, say, 200 BC,
    0:01:40 you might have assumed Rome was going to last forever.
    0:01:46 At the time, Rome was the greatest republic in human history
    0:01:49 and its institutions had proven resilient through invasions
    0:01:52 and all kinds of disasters.
    0:01:54 But the foundations of Rome started to weaken
    0:01:57 less than a century later.
    0:02:01 And by 27 BC, the republic had collapsed entirely
    0:02:03 and became an empire.
    0:02:05 And even though the Roman state persisted,
    0:02:09 it was no longer a representative democracy.
    0:02:12 The fall of the republic is both complicated
    0:02:13 and straightforward.
    0:02:17 The state became too big and chaotic.
    0:02:20 The influence of money and private interests
    0:02:23 corrupted public institutions.
    0:02:26 And social and economic inequalities became so large
    0:02:30 that citizens lost faith in the system altogether
    0:02:33 and gradually fell into the arms of tyrants and demagogues.
    0:02:40 All of that sounds very familiar, doesn’t it?
    0:02:46 I’m Sean Elling and this is The Gray Area.
    0:02:48 (upbeat music)
    0:03:02 Today’s guest is Edward Watts.
    0:03:04 He’s a historian at the University of California,
    0:03:07 San Diego, and the author of two terrific books
    0:03:08 on ancient Rome.
    0:03:11 One in 2018 called “Mortal Republic,”
    0:03:14 how Rome fell into tyranny.
    0:03:17 And the other in 2021 called “The Eternal Decline
    0:03:18 and Fall of Rome.”
    0:03:23 “Mortal Republic” is probably the best thing I’ve read
    0:03:25 on the history of Rome,
    0:03:28 both because it lays out what went wrong and why.
    0:03:31 And also, because it makes an attempt to explain
    0:03:34 how the lessons of its decline might help save
    0:03:37 fledgling republics like the United States.
    0:03:40 So I invited Watts on the show to talk about those lessons
    0:03:43 and why he thinks the American republic
    0:03:46 is in danger of going the way of ancient Rome.
    0:03:52 Edward Watts, welcome to the show.
    0:03:53 Thank you.
    0:04:00 So last year, there was a hilarious TikTok thing
    0:04:04 where women were asking men in their lives
    0:04:07 how often they think about the Roman Empire.
    0:04:11 And perhaps unsurprisingly, the answer was quite a bit.
    0:04:14 So I ask you, good sir.
    0:04:17 How often do you think about the Roman Empire?
    0:04:19 And is it healthy?
    0:04:22 I think about the Roman Empire all the time.
    0:04:24 My wife does not think it’s healthy.
    0:04:27 She feels that the Roman Empire has been imposed
    0:04:29 on her thought world for a very long time.
    0:04:32 And when that came out, she commented,
    0:04:36 “I think about the Roman Empire involuntarily every day.”
    0:04:38 I’ve never heard the phrase “thought world.”
    0:04:41 I think I’m gonna steal that.
    0:04:44 Were you always into the Roman Empire?
    0:04:45 I mean, when you got into history,
    0:04:47 I mean, was there a chance you were gonna do the Ottoman Empire
    0:04:49 or ancient Greece or whatever?
    0:04:52 Or was it just Rome all the way?
    0:04:55 Yeah, I think what got me interested,
    0:04:58 like a lot of people was to go to the Roman Forum,
    0:05:01 walk around there and just realize how much we have
    0:05:04 and how we have this ability to interact
    0:05:08 with this civilization and these people
    0:05:12 who exist in this deep past that seems so remote.
    0:05:17 But it resonates with us in a really powerful way
    0:05:19 because we can have that experience
    0:05:21 of walking through this space.
    0:05:23 And so I became interested in figuring out
    0:05:26 how to understand that connection.
    0:05:28 I started assuming we didn’t know all that much
    0:05:30 about the Roman Empire.
    0:05:32 And so I started on a journey
    0:05:35 assuming I would run out of stuff to look at.
    0:05:37 And I haven’t run out of stuff to look at.
    0:05:40 So I think I’m still on that.
    0:05:42 I think what I later learned
    0:05:45 is that whole experience was basically creation of Mussolini.
    0:05:48 I mean, the space was cultivated to do exactly that.
    0:05:53 And so in a way, the interaction that I have
    0:05:56 with the Roman past is a kind of conflicted interaction
    0:06:01 where I fell into a trap that Mussolini had set for us
    0:06:05 to create a world where the modern sort of
    0:06:07 20th, 21st century reality
    0:06:10 links to this first century BC reality
    0:06:12 and we’re supposed to feel what I felt.
    0:06:16 And so I have really come to believe
    0:06:17 that part of the mission of a Roman historian
    0:06:19 is to understand why that works
    0:06:22 and what obligations we have to acknowledge
    0:06:25 that that’s an experience that was created for us
    0:06:26 very deliberately.
    0:06:28 It works really well.
    0:06:32 And there are things that we can learn about our world
    0:06:33 and about our experience living in this world
    0:06:37 because of the way that Rome resonates for us.
    0:06:40 – You wrote what is still my favorite book about Rome,
    0:06:42 “Mortal Republic.”
    0:06:44 But I do know you’re working on a new book
    0:06:47 and I’d love for you to just say a bit about what that is
    0:06:50 and how it relates to your other book, your first book.
    0:06:52 – The project I’m working on now
    0:06:55 is a history of the Roman state from beginning to end.
    0:06:58 And it starts with the city of Rome
    0:07:03 as basically a set of huts in the early, early Iron Age
    0:07:06 and it ends in Constantinople
    0:07:08 at the dawning of the gunpowder age.
    0:07:12 And so the idea is you have a society and a state
    0:07:14 that lasts for 2000 years
    0:07:16 and every aspect of that state is different, right?
    0:07:19 It starts out as a pagan Latin speaking,
    0:07:22 small settlement in the central part of Italy
    0:07:26 and it ends up a Christian Greek speaking settlement
    0:07:30 in Constantinople, 1,000 miles away from where it started.
    0:07:32 Everything about that state changes
    0:07:34 but that state still remains.
    0:07:37 And so “Mortal Republic” was a way to think about
    0:07:40 political collapse, “Resilient Rome,”
    0:07:42 which is the working title of the book,
    0:07:44 is a way to think about how a society
    0:07:48 can create that ability to remake itself.
    0:07:50 – 2000 years is a hell of a run.
    0:07:55 It really is, but it’ll probably come as no surprise
    0:07:58 to this audience that I’m really
    0:08:01 into the collapse part of the story.
    0:08:03 I think it’s safe to say
    0:08:08 that America is in a politically unstable period,
    0:08:14 not the most unstable in our history, but it’s shaky.
    0:08:16 And people like to invoke the fall of Rome
    0:08:21 as a cautionary tale of how republics break apart.
    0:08:25 Do you, an actual expert in Roman history,
    0:08:28 see parallels between us and Rome?
    0:08:34 – Yeah, I think historians tend to want
    0:08:36 to understate the connections they see
    0:08:39 because the connections are not 100%.
    0:08:41 But the connections I think between the fall
    0:08:42 of the Roman Republic and the things
    0:08:45 that we’re experiencing right now are pretty close.
    0:08:50 For reasons that both relate to how our republic was created
    0:08:54 and the fact that the founding fathers grew up
    0:08:57 in an educational system that drilled down
    0:09:01 the function of the Roman Republic as an ideal.
    0:09:03 And they deliberately emulated it.
    0:09:06 And they deliberately emulated even the actions
    0:09:08 of some individual Romans.
    0:09:10 This Roman model is so deeply drilled
    0:09:13 into what our republic is supposed to be
    0:09:17 that the structural weaknesses of the Roman Republic
    0:09:20 are also present in our republic.
    0:09:22 So I think the risk that we face in the United States
    0:09:25 is in a sense similar to what the Roman Republic faced.
    0:09:30 There’s a lack of connection between what the ruling
    0:09:34 and administrative class believes the society ought to do
    0:09:37 and what the majority of Romans believe ought to be done.
    0:09:39 And this is something created in part
    0:09:44 by economic dislocation and economic inequality.
    0:09:45 It’s also created in part
    0:09:48 by the fundamental unfairness of the system
    0:09:51 that most of the time people acknowledged was there
    0:09:52 but were willing to accept
    0:09:54 because the system seemed devoted
    0:09:59 to the betterment of everybody’s lives in that state.
    0:10:01 What happened in Rome
    0:10:03 that I think is very similar to what’s happening here
    0:10:05 is eventually people became frustrated
    0:10:08 with the ineffectiveness of that system
    0:10:13 and resorted to intimidation and eventually to violence
    0:10:17 to overcome the restrictions that you have placed
    0:10:18 on you by that system.
    0:10:21 I think what’s so alarming in the United States
    0:10:24 is in Rome, the first outbreak of political violence
    0:10:27 that you have after 300 years
    0:10:31 of peacefully resolving conflict occurs in 133.
    0:10:34 It takes two generations before you get to the point
    0:10:36 where people are actually fighting a civil war.
    0:10:40 It takes one generation before somebody has actually tried
    0:10:43 to disrupt the counting of votes in an election.
    0:10:48 In the United States, the threats in Trump rallies in 2016
    0:10:52 within four years have a mob trying to attack
    0:10:55 the counting of votes and the casting of votes
    0:10:57 in an election to determine presidencies.
    0:11:02 So what took Rome a generation took us a presidential term.
    0:11:04 And I think that’s what’s particularly alarming, right?
    0:11:07 We have the same imbalances.
    0:11:10 We are seeing some of the same tensions
    0:11:13 and we’re courting the kind of violence
    0:11:15 that ultimately destroyed the Roman state
    0:11:18 but it’s happening much faster.
    0:11:22 – So the political class in Rome became corrupt
    0:11:25 and self-dealing, which is a pretty familiar story
    0:11:29 in the history of declining civilizations.
    0:11:32 How quickly did that happen in Rome?
    0:11:36 Was it a gradual thing or was it more abrupt?
    0:11:43 – In Rome, the entire makeup of the society changed
    0:11:44 after the victory over Hannibal.
    0:11:46 So the second Pinoch war is the,
    0:11:48 it’s the World War II moment for Rome, right?
    0:11:52 It’s the great war where everybody was fighting
    0:11:55 on the side of good against the aggressor,
    0:11:57 the evil sort of Carthaginians.
    0:11:59 And it was incredibly devastating.
    0:12:02 It was something where at one point
    0:12:05 it’s estimated like 70% of the fighting age men
    0:12:08 in all of Italy were enrolled in the army.
    0:12:09 Many of them died.
    0:12:12 You have in a three year span,
    0:12:14 the Roman army loses more people
    0:12:16 than the United States has lost in every war
    0:12:18 combined since World War II.
    0:12:23 And that’s in a population where the male citizen population
    0:12:24 is about 300,000 people.
    0:12:26 Once they win that war,
    0:12:28 they have to figure out how you rebuild a society
    0:12:30 that suffered all of that devastation.
    0:12:33 And there are all kinds of dramatic shifts
    0:12:35 in the way Romans live their lives.
    0:12:39 The marriage age drops, the size of family increases.
    0:12:42 The Roman state starts providing supplements
    0:12:46 and land for people to go out and farm again
    0:12:49 because Italy has been emptied by this war.
    0:12:52 And so for two generations,
    0:12:55 you have everybody in Rome has an opportunity
    0:12:57 to have a better and more productive
    0:13:00 and more lucrative career
    0:13:02 than their fathers or their ancestors had.
    0:13:05 And so you have generations that are now
    0:13:09 as wealthy or wealthier than Romans before.
    0:13:11 But this stops after about two generations
    0:13:14 because Italy fills out.
    0:13:17 These people have settled the empty spaces.
    0:13:21 And what then happens is a financial sector
    0:13:24 that had developed to support these activities
    0:13:26 continues to grow.
    0:13:28 And so the people who understand that financial sector
    0:13:30 become very, very rich
    0:13:33 while regular people’s opportunities have dried up.
    0:13:35 And this creates an imbalance,
    0:13:37 but it takes a while for this imbalance
    0:13:39 to result in actual conflict.
    0:13:42 So what’s remarkable is for 20 years,
    0:13:45 the people in the middle, the upper middle,
    0:13:47 people who are doing well,
    0:13:50 but not doing as well as the financiers,
    0:13:53 they believe that the system can somehow fix itself.
    0:13:55 And so they play along with it.
    0:13:58 But starting in the 130s, they will not play along anymore.
    0:14:03 And so when you start seeing elections swinging
    0:14:06 on the basis of economic inequality,
    0:14:10 the inequality is not just affecting poor people.
    0:14:13 It’s actually affecting people who are relatively well off,
    0:14:15 who are feeling squeezed.
    0:14:18 And so I think that’s what’s remarkable, right?
    0:14:20 And it’s also, I think, a good analog
    0:14:22 to what we see in the United States
    0:14:26 where after 2016, when you looked at the sort of
    0:14:30 economic factors and the breakdown of votes,
    0:14:33 you saw a lot of Trump voters actually weren’t poor.
    0:14:37 They were upper middle class or lower upper class people.
    0:14:41 A lot of people making six figures and more
    0:14:43 voted for Trump in 2016,
    0:14:48 not because they were economically impoverished,
    0:14:50 but because they were frustrated
    0:14:51 that the system seemed broken.
    0:14:57 – We have known for a very long time, hell,
    0:14:59 Aristotle was writing about this,
    0:15:02 that you can have some rich people
    0:15:04 and you can have some poor people.
    0:15:08 But if you want a sustainable democracy or republic,
    0:15:10 you better have a robust middle class
    0:15:13 that’s invested in the system.
    0:15:16 And if you don’t, it’s not gonna work.
    0:15:20 And maybe it’s just simple greed and stupidity.
    0:15:23 I mean, that does seem to be the answer very often,
    0:15:25 but it just never ceases to amaze me
    0:15:28 how willing people empower then and now,
    0:15:30 and I guess forever,
    0:15:33 how willing they are to destabilize the system
    0:15:35 that allowed them to be so successful
    0:15:37 and wealthy in the first place,
    0:15:40 just to hoard a few more resources.
    0:15:42 I mean, it’s just, it’s mind boggling.
    0:15:44 It shouldn’t be, but it is.
    0:15:47 – I think that the thing that really strikes me
    0:15:53 is you need to maintain an optimism in that group of people.
    0:15:58 And you need to make them believe that things are fair
    0:16:02 and that the system is unequal.
    0:16:04 They’re okay with inequality, right?
    0:16:06 I mean, they benefit from inequality,
    0:16:08 but they do not like a system that seems unfair.
    0:16:11 They do not like a system that seems rigged.
    0:16:13 And in Rome, in the middle part of the second century BC,
    0:16:15 the system seemed rigged.
    0:16:17 And as they voted for people
    0:16:20 who were supposed to fix the system,
    0:16:22 they ran into a really significant problem
    0:16:25 because the Roman Republic worked on consensus
    0:16:27 and it worked on compromise.
    0:16:30 And the big issue that these people faced
    0:16:32 was the people who are rich,
    0:16:34 the financiers who are wealthy,
    0:16:36 they got their money legally, right?
    0:16:40 They do not have to give that money up
    0:16:42 and they cannot be compelled to give that money up
    0:16:44 unless you’re gonna undermine the rule of law
    0:16:46 and the rights of property.
    0:16:49 And so there is no legal solution to this,
    0:16:51 but there is an ethical problem
    0:16:53 that these people don’t acknowledge.
    0:16:55 And so you have an imbalance
    0:16:58 between what’s legal and what’s fair.
    0:17:00 And this imbalance longer, it persists.
    0:17:02 The more it creates this sense of, you know,
    0:17:05 a lack of optimism and a lack of fairness
    0:17:08 that just further fuels a suspicion
    0:17:10 that the system can’t fix itself.
    0:17:13 – So would you say even more than inequality,
    0:17:15 that maybe the biggest problem in Rome
    0:17:19 was the collapse of trust and faith
    0:17:20 in the government itself
    0:17:22 and public institutions and the whole thing?
    0:17:23 – Absolutely.
    0:17:27 I think there’s a sense that the system’s supposed to work
    0:17:29 and it’s not.
    0:17:30 And when it’s not working,
    0:17:32 it’s supposed to have mechanisms to fix itself
    0:17:36 and it’s not, you know, I think, again,
    0:17:38 I mean, it’s not a hundred percent parallel,
    0:17:40 but the situation in the United States
    0:17:44 between say Reagan and Trump,
    0:17:46 you see moments where people try to fix things, right?
    0:17:48 I mean, Occupy Wall Street was a moment
    0:17:50 where people tried to fix things.
    0:17:52 The aftermath of 2008 was a moment
    0:17:55 where people wanted to actually fix things.
    0:17:58 What instead you get is a doubling down on that system
    0:18:02 where you try to fix things within the context of a system
    0:18:05 most people feel is unfair and broken.
    0:18:07 And ultimately you get people saying,
    0:18:09 you know what, I just wanna scrap this thing.
    0:18:10 It’s not working.
    0:18:14 I would rather have anything else than this.
    0:18:16 I would rather have violence than this.
    0:18:20 And I think that actually points to a really important thing
    0:18:22 we need to understand about Rome too.
    0:18:25 Rome actually got lucky when it blew up the republic
    0:18:28 that it had a figure who could create something
    0:18:32 that could rebuild a system that functioned.
    0:18:39 You got someone in Augustus who was a genocidal maniac
    0:18:42 willing to do whatever it took,
    0:18:46 kill as many people as possible to take power,
    0:18:47 but he also somehow had a talent
    0:18:52 to build something on the ruins that was sustainable.
    0:18:54 You cannot guarantee you’re gonna get that.
    0:18:57 You know, if you blow up a republic,
    0:18:59 the chances you get in Augustus
    0:19:03 who builds a system that actually could work are very low.
    0:19:07 And so if that’s what we’re hoping for
    0:19:09 or thinking we’re gonna get,
    0:19:13 the chances are very high that we are not getting that.
    0:19:15 We’re just gonna blow up a system and get nothing.
    0:19:18 (upbeat music)
    0:19:32 Support for the gray area comes from Shopify.
    0:19:35 Every great business starts with a great idea
    0:19:37 or a kind of meh idea that’s so bizarre
    0:19:39 it becomes weirdly successful
    0:19:41 like that singing big mouth bass
    0:19:43 that’s been installed in a million garages.
    0:19:46 But to make your business successful over time,
    0:19:48 you need more than an idea.
    0:19:50 You need a partner who can help you achieve
    0:19:53 sustainable growth, a partner like Shopify.
    0:19:56 Shopify is an all-in-one digital commerce platform
    0:19:59 that may help your business sell better than ever before.
    0:20:01 No matter where your customers spend their time,
    0:20:03 scrolling through your digital feed
    0:20:06 or strolling past your physical actual storefront,
    0:20:09 Shopify may help you convert those browsers into buyers
    0:20:11 and to sell more over time.
    0:20:13 There’s a reason companies like Allbirds
    0:20:16 turn to Shopify to sell more products to more customers.
    0:20:19 Businesses that sell more sell with Shopify.
    0:20:20 Want to upgrade your business
    0:20:22 and get the same checkout Allbirds uses?
    0:20:25 You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period
    0:20:27 at Shopify.com/Vox.
    0:20:30 You can go to Shopify.com/Vox
    0:20:31 to upgrade your selling today.
    0:20:34 Shopify.com/Vox.
    0:20:40 Support for the gray area comes from Mint Mobile.
    0:20:42 Sometimes a deal is too good to be true.
    0:20:43 You know the feeling.
    0:20:45 You find that great deal on a rental car
    0:20:48 only to realize the lock is broken
    0:20:50 and the windows won’t roll up.
    0:20:52 Well, Mint Mobile says with their deals,
    0:20:53 there are no catches.
    0:20:55 What you see is what you get.
    0:20:58 When you purchase a new three-month plan with Mint Mobile,
    0:21:00 you’ll pay just $15 a month.
    0:21:01 That’s it.
    0:21:02 No hoops to jump through,
    0:21:06 no sneaky fine print that you can barely read.
    0:21:07 Just a great deal.
    0:21:10 All Mint Mobile plans come with a high-speed data
    0:21:12 and unlimited talk and text delivered
    0:21:15 on the nation’s largest 5G network.
    0:21:17 You can even keep your phone, your contacts,
    0:21:18 and your number.
    0:21:20 You can get this new customer offer
    0:21:22 and a three-month premium wireless plan
    0:21:24 for just 15 bucks a month
    0:21:28 by going to mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:21:31 That’s mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:21:34 You can cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month
    0:21:37 at mintmobile.com/grayarea.
    0:21:39 $45 upfront payment required,
    0:21:42 equivalent to $15 per month.
    0:21:45 New customers on first three-month plan only.
    0:21:48 Speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan,
    0:21:51 additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply.
    0:21:52 See Mint Mobile for details.
    0:21:56 Support for the show comes from Quince.
    0:21:59 That summer heat is finally starting to cool off.
    0:22:02 Time to swap the tank tops for the cozy sweaters.
    0:22:04 But if you’re dreading those relics
    0:22:05 that are sitting in your closet,
    0:22:09 then maybe it’s time for a wardrobe overhaul with Quince.
    0:22:11 Quince offers luxury clothing essentials
    0:22:14 for any wardrobe at reasonable prices.
    0:22:17 Fine seasonal must-haves like Mongolian cashmere sweaters
    0:22:21 from $60 and comfortable pants for any occasion.
    0:22:23 And by partnering with them directly,
    0:22:26 Quince is able to offer super high quality items
    0:22:29 at 50 to 80% less than similar brands.
    0:22:32 Our colleague Claire White got to try out Quince for herself.
    0:22:34 – I’ve found myself really reaching for the items
    0:22:35 that I’ve gotten from Quince,
    0:22:40 whether it’s wearing the organic cotton line to work
    0:22:42 or the boyfriend sweater on the weekends.
    0:22:45 I’ve loved every piece that I’ve got.
    0:22:48 – Upgrade your wardrobe with pieces made to last with Quince.
    0:22:52 Go to quince.com/grayarea for free shipping on your order
    0:22:55 and 365 day returns.
    0:23:00 That’s Q-U-I-N-C-E.com/grayarea to get free shipping
    0:23:03 and 365 day returns.
    0:23:05 Quince.com/grayarea.
    0:23:14 (gentle music)
    0:23:28 – We spoke a few years ago and you told me then
    0:23:33 that you thought America could be in the beginning stages
    0:23:38 of a similar decline as Rome.
    0:23:40 How do you feel about that now?
    0:23:44 Where do you think, where are we in that process?
    0:23:49 – I was much more optimistic in 2018 than I am now.
    0:23:54 What I saw in 2018 was a set of imbalances.
    0:23:57 I saw a sort of primal scream by the American electorate
    0:24:01 that said, “We do not like what we’ve got.”
    0:24:06 And I saw hints that we might have violence injected
    0:24:08 into our political life.
    0:24:12 I had no idea that within two years
    0:24:14 that violence would take the form that it did.
    0:24:18 And it would come so close
    0:24:20 to actually destroying the political system.
    0:24:23 I mean, I was talking to a friend from Italy
    0:24:28 a couple of weeks ago who was talking about January 6th
    0:24:30 and he was like, “Oh yeah, it’s a blip.”
    0:24:32 And I said, “Well, let’s game this out.”
    0:24:36 They came very close to actually getting in there
    0:24:39 when the representatives were present in the chamber.
    0:24:42 It was something like 15 minutes or something
    0:24:44 between when the representatives left
    0:24:47 and when the rioters got in.
    0:24:50 What would happen if they actually had gotten in
    0:24:54 and seized some representatives or disrupted the vote?
    0:24:57 And my friend said, “Well, they would call in the army.”
    0:24:59 Who would call in the army?
    0:25:01 Who is actually legitimately in charge at that point?
    0:25:03 Who does the army answer to?
    0:25:06 How do we answer those questions?
    0:25:10 If it is January 21st, is Biden in charge of the army
    0:25:12 even though we didn’t have an electoral college vote
    0:25:14 or is Trump in charge of the army?
    0:25:15 Who’s giving the orders?
    0:25:18 We don’t have answers to any of this.
    0:25:21 This was the situation Rome found itself in.
    0:25:23 Once you break a system,
    0:25:26 there are no rules governing what happens.
    0:25:29 And all of the institutions that depend on that system
    0:25:34 free float and people start making choices as individuals
    0:25:36 not governed by any set of rules that exist
    0:25:40 because there is no overarching structure to those rules.
    0:25:43 And I think we don’t appreciate how close we came
    0:25:46 to a moment where that was our government
    0:25:47 or our lack of government.
    0:25:50 And in Rome, that happened.
    0:25:55 And it was profoundly devastating.
    0:25:58 Hundreds of thousands of people died because of that
    0:26:01 in a population that is one-fifth of the population
    0:26:02 of the United States.
    0:26:04 It’s not something that we should play with.
    0:26:08 It really is pretty sobering how contingent and fragile
    0:26:09 the whole thing is.
    0:26:12 And as you said, if just something broke,
    0:26:14 a couple of things broke differently here or there,
    0:26:19 it could have become something so much worse than it was.
    0:26:21 And it was already bad.
    0:26:25 And you just can’t count on being that lucky
    0:26:27 the next time and the next time and the next time.
    0:26:30 And so after Caesar’s assassination,
    0:26:33 there’s a five-day span in the city of Rome
    0:26:34 where nobody knows what it means.
    0:26:36 Nobody knows what’s gonna come next
    0:26:41 because Caesar had been the linchpin of a system
    0:26:44 that brought order in the chaos of the later republic.
    0:26:45 And when Brutus destroyed Caesar,
    0:26:47 he destroyed that system.
    0:26:48 It all collapsed.
    0:26:52 And once that happens, you do not have any say
    0:26:53 over what people are gonna do
    0:26:56 and how they’re gonna respond to the stimuli
    0:26:57 that now are not controlled.
    0:27:00 – So both the Roman political system
    0:27:05 and our own system were designed to be slow moving
    0:27:10 with the idea that change should happen
    0:27:12 plottingly and deliberately.
    0:27:16 Do you think in retrospect that that trade-off
    0:27:18 wasn’t worth it for Rome?
    0:27:21 That it was too hard and too convoluted
    0:27:24 and therefore incapable of being responsive enough
    0:27:28 to what was happening to do what needed to be done
    0:27:31 before things careened too far off the tracks?
    0:27:34 – Yeah, this is I think where the 2000 year span
    0:27:36 is so important.
    0:27:38 So over and over again in Roman history,
    0:27:40 there are these moments where people step back
    0:27:42 and say what we have is broken.
    0:27:44 But because you have leaders
    0:27:47 and because you have a tradition of adapting that,
    0:27:50 most of the time what Rome does is it doesn’t blow up
    0:27:53 all of these traditions and systems it inherited.
    0:27:57 It tries to find ways to amend them and to adapt them
    0:27:59 and to create kind of new ways
    0:28:02 to make them more responsive to the needs of its citizens.
    0:28:05 And so I think a great example of this
    0:28:06 is in the third century AD
    0:28:09 where the empire was built initially
    0:28:12 as a kind of Italian enterprise to extract stuff
    0:28:15 from all of these other places that it controlled.
    0:28:17 But by the early part of the third century,
    0:28:19 every single free person in the Roman Empire
    0:28:21 was a citizen of the Roman state.
    0:28:24 And so this model of Italians extracting things
    0:28:27 from colonial subjects was gone.
    0:28:29 You couldn’t run an empire that way anymore
    0:28:31 because you have six million Italians
    0:28:34 and 60 million other Roman citizens.
    0:28:36 And so the third century was a process
    0:28:39 of trying to figure out how you make a society,
    0:28:43 how you remake a society that was originally devoted
    0:28:45 to sending resources into Italy,
    0:28:47 make it responsive to the needs
    0:28:49 of all of those people everywhere.
    0:28:52 – Would you say that adaptability,
    0:28:56 that expansion of the circle of citizenship
    0:29:00 was maybe the key to Rome’s survival for that long?
    0:29:02 – Yeah, and I think that’s a lesson
    0:29:06 we should really fundamentally take away from Rome.
    0:29:09 What Rome was able to do from its very earliest point,
    0:29:12 I mean, from the point when there were Roman kings,
    0:29:14 was it was able to identify who could contribute
    0:29:18 to its society and find ways to empower people
    0:29:20 who maybe were initially outside of the inner circle
    0:29:22 or even outside of the citizen body,
    0:29:25 who you could incorporate and bring in
    0:29:27 and allow their talents to serve Rome.
    0:29:31 So some of the first Roman kings actually weren’t Roman.
    0:29:33 They were chosen because they were the best people
    0:29:34 for the job.
    0:29:39 The third to last king, Tarquinius Priscus,
    0:29:41 he wasn’t even born in Rome.
    0:29:45 He was actually grew up in a city in Naturia
    0:29:47 and his prospects were limited in that city.
    0:29:49 And he moved to Rome because Rome was a place
    0:29:52 where your talents would allow you to rise
    0:29:54 as high as your talents would permit.
    0:29:55 This society wouldn’t block you
    0:29:58 because you weren’t of the right background.
    0:30:02 And so that’s deeply ingrained in what Roman society was.
    0:30:04 And I think that’s a lesson for us, right?
    0:30:07 You have to remain grounded in the things
    0:30:10 that make your country function.
    0:30:13 But you have to also acknowledge that there are people
    0:30:16 who may not have been born in a position of authority
    0:30:18 who have something to contribute.
    0:30:19 And if you’re gonna make your society function
    0:30:23 in the longterm, you have to find a way to bring them in,
    0:30:25 not just because it’s fair,
    0:30:27 but because if you’re being sort of naked
    0:30:30 in your calculations about what’s good for your country,
    0:30:32 they make your country better.
    0:30:35 – So you’re saying if Rome built a wall
    0:30:37 and made Mexico pay for it,
    0:30:40 it would not have worked out well for them?
    0:30:41 Is that what you’re saying?
    0:30:45 – Rome did build walls, but Rome also let people in.
    0:30:49 And Rome also said, you have a talent,
    0:30:54 I want you to have a position where you can make things better.
    0:30:57 And so Rome did those sorts of things,
    0:30:59 but not in a way that said, we’re not letting anyone in.
    0:31:01 It never worked when they did that.
    0:31:04 (upbeat music)
    0:31:24 – At Apple Podcasts, we’re obsessed with good stories.
    0:31:27 That’s why this fall, we’re introducing series essentials.
    0:31:29 Each month, our editors choose one series
    0:31:32 that we think will captivate you from start to finish,
    0:31:34 presented completely ad-free.
    0:31:38 This month, we invite you to check out Wondery’s ghost story.
    0:31:41 In this gripping tale, journalist Tristan Redman’s
    0:31:43 investigation into a haunted bedroom
    0:31:46 takes a surprising turn when he discovers a dark secret
    0:31:49 connecting his own family to the ghost.
    0:31:52 The story features homicide detectives, ghost hunters,
    0:31:56 and even psychic mediums, Apple Podcast series essentials.
    0:31:59 One story you won’t want to miss, selected each month.
    0:32:03 Listen completely ad-free, only on Apple Podcasts.
    0:32:10 – Fox Creative.
    0:32:13 – This is advertiser content from Zell.
    0:32:19 When you picture an online scammer, what do you see?
    0:32:21 – For the longest time, we have these images of somebody
    0:32:23 sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on,
    0:32:25 just kind of typing away in the middle of the night.
    0:32:28 And honestly, that’s not what it is anymore.
    0:32:32 – That’s Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.
    0:32:35 These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates
    0:32:39 than individual con artists, and they’re making bank.
    0:32:43 Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion.
    0:32:46 – It’s mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure
    0:32:50 that’s been built to facilitate scamming at scale.
    0:32:52 There are hundreds, if not thousands,
    0:32:54 of scam centers all around the world.
    0:32:57 These are very savvy business people.
    0:32:58 These are organized criminal rings.
    0:33:02 And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem,
    0:33:03 we can protect people better.
    0:33:07 – One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face
    0:33:11 is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed
    0:33:12 to discuss what happened to them.
    0:33:16 But Ian says, one of our best defenses is simple.
    0:33:18 We need to talk to each other.
    0:33:20 – We need to have those awkward conversations around,
    0:33:22 what do you do if you have text messages
    0:33:24 you don’t recognize?
    0:33:25 What do you do if you start getting asked
    0:33:28 to send information that’s more sensitive?
    0:33:31 Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness,
    0:33:33 a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim,
    0:33:35 and we have these conversations all the time.
    0:33:38 So we are all at risk,
    0:33:41 and we all need to work together to protect each other.
    0:33:43 – Learn more about how to protect yourself
    0:33:46 at vox.com/zel.
    0:33:48 And when using digital payment platforms,
    0:33:51 remember to only send money to people you know and trust.
    0:33:55 Robinhood is introducing forecast contracts
    0:33:58 so you can trade the presidential election.
    0:33:59 Through Robinhood, you can now trade
    0:34:01 financial derivatives contracts
    0:34:04 on who will win the U.S. presidential election,
    0:34:07 Harris or Trump, and watch as contract prices
    0:34:09 react to real-time market sentiment.
    0:34:13 Each contract you own will pay $1 on January 8th, 2025,
    0:34:15 if that candidate is confirmed
    0:34:17 as the next U.S. president by Congress.
    0:34:20 Learn more about the presidential election contracts
    0:34:25 on robinhood@www.robinhood.com/election.
    0:34:27 The risk of loss in trading commodity interests
    0:34:28 can be substantial.
    0:34:30 You should therefore carefully consider
    0:34:31 whether such trading is suitable for you
    0:34:33 in light of your financial condition.
    0:34:36 Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply.
    0:34:39 Commodity interest trading is not appropriate for everyone.
    0:34:41 Displayed prices are based on real-time market sentiment.
    0:34:44 This event contract is offered by Robinhood derivatives,
    0:34:47 a registered Futures Commission merchant and SWAP firm.
    0:34:49 Exchange and regulatory fees apply.
    0:34:53 Learn more at www.robinhood.com/election.
    0:35:01 (upbeat music)
    0:35:12 – So when we spoke back in 2019,
    0:35:13 and we were talking about whether America
    0:35:17 was on a similar glide path as Rome,
    0:35:19 you said to me, and now I’m quoting,
    0:35:22 I think that we’re in the early stages
    0:35:24 of a process that could lead to that.
    0:35:27 The point at which Romans were willing to make that trade
    0:35:32 occurred after almost 150 years of political dysfunction,
    0:35:34 but it also occurred after a generation
    0:35:36 of really brutal civil war.
    0:35:40 It’s almost encouraging that it took the Romans that long
    0:35:43 to finally decide they were done
    0:35:44 with the whole Republic thing.
    0:35:48 For the reasons you mentioned earlier,
    0:35:50 my sense is that Americans will not wait that long
    0:35:55 before making a comparable choice today.
    0:35:57 And when you look around the world
    0:36:00 and notice how many democracies are in decline,
    0:36:05 you don’t find many reasons to feel more optimistic
    0:36:05 about that.
    0:36:08 I think what I’m really asking you is,
    0:36:14 do you believe we have that much time
    0:36:17 to get our political affairs in order as a country?
    0:36:21 – I think where I’m different in my thinking
    0:36:26 from then is first, I did not imagine
    0:36:30 the level of political violence that we’re seeing now, right?
    0:36:32 I mean, just in the last four years,
    0:36:34 we’ve had people try to storm Congress
    0:36:35 in two assassination attempts,
    0:36:39 one that within a couple inches almost succeeded.
    0:36:42 It took Rome a really long time to get to the point
    0:36:44 where they were willing to do that.
    0:36:46 And the fact that we’re barely talking
    0:36:48 about those two assassination attempts right now
    0:36:50 is, I think, stunning.
    0:36:55 But I think what I also realized is,
    0:36:59 in 2018, I thought that systems were strong
    0:37:02 and individuals needed those systems to become weak
    0:37:05 before they could take advantage of that weakness.
    0:37:08 What I think now about Rome
    0:37:11 is that there’s a sort of creative tension
    0:37:14 that usually functions well, but sometimes doesn’t
    0:37:17 between individuals who wanna push change
    0:37:20 and systems that are designed to resist this,
    0:37:22 designed to resist rapid change.
    0:37:26 And I think there are a couple moments in that period
    0:37:28 between the introduction of political violence
    0:37:32 and assassination with Tiberius Gragas in 133 BC,
    0:37:35 and the moment in really 27 BC
    0:37:39 where Augustus figures out how to create a regime
    0:37:40 where he is the dominant figure
    0:37:42 for the rest of his life.
    0:37:47 There are a couple moments where individuals make choices
    0:37:49 that could have gone differently,
    0:37:54 but they have enough faith in the integrity of the system
    0:37:56 and they have enough trust,
    0:38:00 that they trust the aesthetics of that system,
    0:38:02 that they do not go that far.
    0:38:04 So I think the moment that jumps out to me immediately
    0:38:07 is Silla, who is a dictator, he wins a civil war,
    0:38:10 he murders Roman citizens in a fashion
    0:38:13 that is totally contrary to what a Roman state
    0:38:16 is supposed to do or what any state really is supposed to do.
    0:38:19 But what Silla fundamentally believed is,
    0:38:21 a republic is important.
    0:38:24 It was important to him that Rome had a republic.
    0:38:27 And so he seized power and he occupied a position
    0:38:31 of authority as an autocrat for a couple of years
    0:38:33 and then gave the republic back
    0:38:35 because he believed that was important to do.
    0:38:37 He did not need to do that.
    0:38:43 And I think that’s a moment where we should reflect
    0:38:47 on whether some of the people who could find themselves
    0:38:50 in a position similar to Silla in the United States
    0:38:52 would make that same choice.
    0:38:53 Would they walk away?
    0:38:54 Because they feel like, okay,
    0:38:56 I changed what I wanted to change.
    0:38:57 I don’t think so.
    0:39:02 – You said something else to me last time.
    0:39:03 We spoke, that really lingered.
    0:39:08 And you said that people like Trump pop up
    0:39:12 in an old republic, every generation or so,
    0:39:14 when things reach a certain point
    0:39:18 and either the system reboots and gets back on the tracks
    0:39:21 or it goes the other way.
    0:39:24 And here we are, Trump is running again.
    0:39:28 It’s entirely possible that he wins again.
    0:39:30 What do you make of that?
    0:39:32 And know that I’m not really asking you to weigh in
    0:39:33 on the politics here.
    0:39:38 I’m asking what you as a historian make of Trump
    0:39:44 as a symptom of these deeper problems in the country.
    0:39:50 – Yeah, I think that this is where the tension
    0:39:55 between the system and the individual becomes so important
    0:39:59 because there are moments where Republican systems
    0:40:04 are not working and an individual does seize the momentum
    0:40:08 and seize the opportunity to potentially refashion them
    0:40:10 in whatever way that person wants.
    0:40:15 They could do like Silla or Caesar, right?
    0:40:17 I mean, Silla seizes the republic.
    0:40:19 He kills a lot of people, but he turns it back.
    0:40:21 He restructures it.
    0:40:23 He believes in the republic.
    0:40:25 Caesar also takes over the republic
    0:40:27 and what he wants to do is create a republic
    0:40:30 that is, you know, a republic.
    0:40:33 Caesar, I think, deeply, deeply believed
    0:40:37 that there are certain aspects of the Republican structure
    0:40:38 and certain aspects of this idea
    0:40:41 of a citizen-held political community
    0:40:43 that he did not wanna transgress
    0:40:45 even if it would cost him his life.
    0:40:47 He understood that there’s a real danger
    0:40:49 that by pardoning Brutus and Cassius,
    0:40:51 they could come back and kill him
    0:40:54 or some of the other people could come back and kill him.
    0:40:57 It’s much more important to him to have a republic
    0:41:02 than it is to make himself safe, right?
    0:41:03 He made that choice, knowing full well
    0:41:05 that it was a choice.
    0:41:07 What I think is alarming to me about Trump
    0:41:09 is I do not believe he cares
    0:41:11 whether this country is a republic or not.
    0:41:15 And so if he takes power and he has the ability
    0:41:19 to remake the state, he’s not gonna remake it as a republic.
    0:41:21 He’ll remake it as whatever he decides he wants it to be,
    0:41:26 but he has no deep commitment to the idea of the republic.
    0:41:30 And that’s different from every Roman who takes power.
    0:41:33 – Look, I don’t care for Trump.
    0:41:36 Anyone who listens to the show knows that.
    0:41:39 I don’t make any efforts to hide that,
    0:41:42 but I’ve always been frustrated
    0:41:44 by some of the discourse around him,
    0:41:47 where it’s, you just wanna write it off.
    0:41:51 Oh, it’s because most of the country is racist
    0:41:55 and that’s it, or it’s because economic anxiety or whatever.
    0:41:57 And there’s some truth in all of that.
    0:41:59 But if you just set that aside
    0:42:03 and just set him in particular aside,
    0:42:08 the fact that his political existence is possible at all
    0:42:12 is a huge blinking red sign
    0:42:15 that something has gone really wrong.
    0:42:20 Like there is a rot at the center of our political life
    0:42:26 that whether it’s Trump, it’ll be someone else like Trump,
    0:42:27 maybe worse, maybe better.
    0:42:30 But the fact that his political existence is possible
    0:42:35 is indicative of the fact that we’ve got a real problem.
    0:42:39 And if it doesn’t get addressed,
    0:42:45 Trump is not the last of this type of figure
    0:42:46 we’re gonna deal with.
    0:42:49 – No, I think that’s exactly right.
    0:42:51 Because I think again, what Rome shows
    0:42:54 is these things are technologies.
    0:43:00 Everybody who sees a political action learns from it.
    0:43:04 And if you’re particularly ambitious,
    0:43:06 you learn how to do something better
    0:43:08 than the person who did it the first time.
    0:43:14 And the fact that we basically now have the idea
    0:43:17 that you can disrupt an electoral college vote,
    0:43:20 the counting of an electoral college vote,
    0:43:25 as part of the way we now can imagine political directions,
    0:43:28 somebody is gonna do that and do it better.
    0:43:29 And we can see that
    0:43:31 because they’re already talking pretty openly
    0:43:32 about how they will.
    0:43:40 That should be a really, really significant red flag.
    0:43:43 Because whatever Trump has done,
    0:43:47 I think that logistics for that kind of operation,
    0:43:49 he hasn’t done particularly well.
    0:43:54 Somebody will do it better and somebody will try
    0:43:57 because it’s out there now.
    0:43:58 – And as you said earlier,
    0:44:02 Rome was dynamic and survived
    0:44:05 because it was able to adapt to a lot of change.
    0:44:09 But that change is part of the reason you get tyrants
    0:44:12 because that change creates a lot of discomfort
    0:44:14 and uncertainty and anxiety.
    0:44:17 And that is a very easy thing to weaponize and channel
    0:44:19 if you’re a figure of that ilk.
    0:44:24 And things change much faster today
    0:44:25 than they did back then.
    0:44:29 Which again, is another reason to be alarmed.
    0:44:33 – I think that that’s one thing I would push back on.
    0:44:34 – Yeah, please do.
    0:44:36 – I mean, things changed rapidly there too.
    0:44:41 Human life moves as human life does,
    0:44:43 according to rhythms of 24 hours
    0:44:46 and days and months and years.
    0:44:49 And Rome could change very, very quickly.
    0:44:53 And people could feel very disoriented
    0:44:54 at the pace of that change
    0:44:57 and did feel very disoriented at the pace of that change.
    0:44:58 – It may be right.
    0:45:02 I guess I’m thinking mostly in terms of technology
    0:45:03 and technological change.
    0:45:07 I mean, I think for most of human history,
    0:45:09 the world that people died in looked a lot
    0:45:11 like the world they were born into.
    0:45:13 Whereas, I mean, I’m 42 years old.
    0:45:19 The idea of TikTok and Twitter and smartphones
    0:45:22 when I was a kid was just the stuff of science fiction.
    0:45:27 And think how much those technologies have changed us
    0:45:29 and the world we live in, how we think,
    0:45:31 how we communicate, how we do politics,
    0:45:34 how we consume content.
    0:45:38 That is a bewildering kind of change
    0:45:42 that I don’t think was possible then.
    0:45:45 But maybe I’m thinking of this too narrowly.
    0:45:48 – So where I’ll agree with you is,
    0:45:50 we can now send messages
    0:45:53 to much larger groups of people worldwide.
    0:45:55 They couldn’t do that, that’s for sure.
    0:45:59 But one of the things that Caesar learned in particular
    0:46:02 was you can manage the messaging
    0:46:04 in the city of Rome very effectively.
    0:46:06 So he created a daily newspaper
    0:46:08 that was posted at sort of corners
    0:46:10 in every kind of neighborhood in the city of Rome
    0:46:12 with news that he curated.
    0:46:15 That didn’t exist before.
    0:46:17 And now all of a sudden, you have a news source
    0:46:20 that is providing you with a sort of steady curated narrative
    0:46:23 about what’s going on in the world around you.
    0:46:26 It’s no surprise that then you have somebody
    0:46:29 who is able to really seize the popular imagination
    0:46:32 in a fashion that no Roman had before.
    0:46:35 Rome does show us that you can, like you just said,
    0:46:36 blow the minds of the people
    0:46:40 who are consuming the information you’re presenting
    0:46:44 in a fashion that makes it impossible for them
    0:46:46 to really evaluate the truth
    0:46:49 of what you’re actually telling them
    0:46:51 and why you might be choosing to tell them
    0:46:52 what you have chosen.
    0:46:55 And it’s no surprise that when Caesar’s gone,
    0:46:57 you have utter chaos in the city of Rome
    0:46:59 ’cause nobody’s managing the message
    0:47:02 and people expect there to be a message.
    0:47:05 – There are obviously many lessons that we can draw
    0:47:07 from Rome’s fall.
    0:47:11 And as we sort of wind down here,
    0:47:14 I just wanted to know if you thought
    0:47:16 there was anything in particular,
    0:47:18 maybe one or two lessons
    0:47:20 that we really should be thinking about
    0:47:23 right now in this political moment.
    0:47:25 – Yeah, I think the biggest point,
    0:47:29 and I’m afraid the ship has already sailed,
    0:47:32 but violence should never be a part of politics.
    0:47:37 Once it’s there, it is very hard to make it go away
    0:47:39 without even more violence
    0:47:42 that ultimately neutralizes the people willing to do it.
    0:47:45 Violence has no part in a political system
    0:47:48 and especially in a representative political system.
    0:47:49 But I think the other thing
    0:47:52 that I think is really important for us to understand,
    0:47:57 you cannot wait or hope that a single individual
    0:47:59 is going to fix the problems in a society.
    0:48:01 And you certainly cannot wait or hope
    0:48:03 that a single individual will fix the problems
    0:48:05 in a political system.
    0:48:06 If you have a political system
    0:48:08 that has functioned reasonably well
    0:48:10 and has been adaptable
    0:48:13 over the course of decades or centuries,
    0:48:14 that’s a very valuable thing.
    0:48:18 It creates rules, it creates assumptions,
    0:48:20 it creates a kind of state of play
    0:48:23 where everybody more or less knows
    0:48:27 when you do X, this is kind of how the system
    0:48:28 is going to respond.
    0:48:31 If you destroy that, you have nothing.
    0:48:33 And if you destroy that because of an individual,
    0:48:36 you just have that individual.
    0:48:39 Occasionally, you will get an individual,
    0:48:40 I mean, very occasionally,
    0:48:42 you will get an individual who creates something
    0:48:46 that maybe isn’t even better, but is at least something.
    0:48:49 Most of the time, the person who destroys this
    0:48:52 not have the capacity to create.
    0:48:54 And so you’re gonna replace something
    0:48:57 that has governed just about every aspect
    0:48:59 of your civic and personal lives
    0:49:01 for your entire existence,
    0:49:03 and probably in the United States,
    0:49:06 for the existence of 10 generations
    0:49:08 of your ancestors potentially.
    0:49:12 If you throw that away for an individual,
    0:49:15 you’re making a really significant bet.
    0:49:16 And if that individual is somebody
    0:49:19 that you don’t 100% trust is capable
    0:49:22 of creating something different,
    0:49:25 you are throwing away an incredibly valuable thing
    0:49:26 for nothing.
    0:49:30 And you’re not gonna have somebody miraculously
    0:49:32 pop up to fix it.
    0:49:35 – It is far easier to break than it is to build.
    0:49:37 You shouldn’t forget that.
    0:49:39 Edward Watts, this is great.
    0:49:40 Thanks for doing it.
    0:49:41 – Thank you.
    0:49:46 – And if you’re listening and you haven’t read Ed’s 2018 book,
    0:49:50 Moral Republic, do it immediately
    0:49:53 and when is your next book gonna come out?
    0:49:55 – It will come out in the fall of ’25.
    0:49:56 – Okay, read that too.
    0:50:09 All right, I hope you enjoyed that episode.
    0:50:11 You know I did.
    0:50:13 As always, you know, we wanna know what you think.
    0:50:17 So drop us the line at the gray area at box.com.
    0:50:18 And once you’ve done that,
    0:50:21 go ahead, rate, review, and subscribe to the podcast.
    0:50:24 All of that really helps our show reach more people.
    0:50:28 This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey
    0:50:30 and Travis Larchuk.
    0:50:34 Today’s episode was engineered by Christian Ayala,
    0:50:38 fact checked by Anouk Dusso, edited by Jorge Just
    0:50:40 and Alex Overeington wrote our theme music.
    0:50:43 New episodes of the gray area drop on Mondays,
    0:50:45 listen and subscribe.
    0:50:46 This show is part of Vox,
    0:50:49 support Vox’s journalism by joining our membership program
    0:50:50 today.
    0:50:53 Go to box.com/members to sign up.
    0:50:55 And if you decide to sign up because of this show,
    0:50:56 let us know.
    0:51:14 – Robinhood is introducing forecast contracts
    0:51:16 so you can trade the presidential election
    0:51:17 through Robinhood,
    0:51:20 you can now trade financial derivatives contracts
    0:51:22 on who will win the US presidential election,
    0:51:23 Harris or Trump,
    0:51:25 and watch as contract prices
    0:51:28 react to real-time market sentiment.
    0:51:32 Each contract you own will pay $1 on January 8th, 2025,
    0:51:33 if that candidate is confirmed
    0:51:36 as the next US president by Congress.
    0:51:38 Learn more about the presidential election contracts
    0:51:43 on Robinhood at www.robinhood.com/election.
    0:51:45 The risk of loss and trading commodity interests
    0:51:46 can be substantial.
    0:51:48 You should therefore carefully consider
    0:51:50 whether such trading is suitable for you
    0:51:52 in light of your financial condition.
    0:51:54 Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply.
    0:51:57 Commodity interest trading is not appropriate for everyone.
    0:52:00 Displayed prices are based on real-time market sentiment.
    0:52:03 This event contract is offered by Robinhood derivatives,
    0:52:05 a registered Futures Commission merchant and SWAC firm.
    0:52:07 Exchange and regulatory fees apply.
    0:52:12 Learn more at www.robinhood.com/election.
    0:52:14 (upbeat music)

    What can ancient Rome teach us about American democracy?

    The Roman Republic fell for a lot of reasons: The state became too big and chaotic; the influence of money and private interests corrupted public institutions; and social and economic inequalities became so large that citizens lost faith in the system altogether and gradually fell into the arms of tyrants and demagogues. It sounds a lot like the problems America is facing today.

    This week’s guest, historian Edward Watts, tells us what we can learn about America’s future by studying Rome’s past.

    Host: Sean Illing, (@SeanIlling), host, The Gray Area

    Guest: Edward Watts, author, Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny and The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices