Descriptions:
Video Description
We live longer, safer, and more secure than ever — and yet we are more afraid. This lecture from Academy of Ideas asks whether the modern West is caught in a fear psychosis, and whether a ‘cult of safety’ has quietly taken hold. It shows how fear is profitable, how worst-case thinking has invaded policy, and how treating risk as evil turns ‘the science says’ into a gospel no one may question. The result is an infantilized population that trades freedom for the illusion of protection. The alternative is a braver, truer picture of human nature: resilient, adaptable, and built for uncertainty.
Full Video Transcript
This content is made possible by individuals like you. Become a supporting member and access
our growing library of membership courses and videos. Learn more at academyofideas.com
slash members. Is the modern world caught in the grip of a fear psychosis? And has a cult of safety
entrenched itself in the West? In this video, we are going to explore these questions. Quite an
experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave. Today, we live longer than
ever before. Our chance of dying from war, natural disaster, pandemics, or starvation are at levels
our ancestors could only have dreamed of. But given all this security, we are more fearful than
ever before. From all corners of society, there are warnings of potential dangers and imminent
disaster. And as the sociologist Barry Glasner observed, we are living in the most fear-mongering
time in human history. And the main reason for this is that there’s a lot of power and money
available to individuals and organizations who can perpetuate these fears.
But it is not just manipulative fear-mongering that is responsible for the disproportionate
fear that infects our society.
For in one way or another, we all accept and reinforce the normality of fearing.
We continually remind ourselves and others that threats exist everywhere.
In the streets, in the food we eat, in the technology we use, in our fellow man and woman,
and even in the air we breathe.
The cultural narratives which inform how we make sense of the world seamlessly move from
one fear to another.
Hardly anyone questions, however, whether we should be so fearful.
In his book How Fear Works, the sociologist Frank Ferretti exposes our culture of fear,
and as he writes,
In the current era, fearing appears to be such a volatile and directionless activity.
It seems as if one threat begets another, only to be contradicted by yet another newly
discovered target of fear, or as the philosopher Lars Svensson likewise notes,
There no longer seems to be anything that is really secure. We seem to be obsessed with
every conceivable danger. Fear has become a basic characteristic of our entire culture.
Life is unpredictable, and the world is littered with dangers and threats to both our security
and well-being, and so fearing is not unique to modern society. However, in some of the
most flourishing civilizations of the past, fear was counterbalanced by hope and by an optimistic
belief in the human potential. During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, the idea that
individuals and communities, through bold and creative action, could ward off dangers and shape
the uncertain future flourished. In ancient Greece and Rome, courage was held in high regard,
and so individuals were proactive in the face of risks and daring in the presence of the unknown.
Fortune favors the brave, according to the Latin proverb.
Furthermore, in many past civilizations it was acknowledged that uncertainty is not only a
source of potential danger, but also of opportunity. But as Frank Ferretti writes,
that was then. In the 21st century, the optimistic belief in humankind’s ability to subdue the
unknown has given way to a belief that it is powerless to deal with the perils that confront
it. The flame of hope still flickers on, but it is increasingly overshadowed by a dark
mood of intangible anxiety. The courage, hope, and optimism that in civilizations past kept
fear in check is all but lost in the modern world, and so the lives of many of us are
consumed by fear. We see everything through the distorted lens of fear. And regarding
this perspective, Frank Ferretti elaborates,
This perspective of fear has been so thoroughly internalized
that many people who adopt this outlook are not aware of its influence on their behavior.
For most people, such a perspective comes across as common sense.
This does not mean that people are perpetually scared or fearful.
Rather, the perspective of fear works by sensitizing people to focus on potential threats and dangers,
while distracting attention from the probable positive outcome of engaging with uncertainty.
In viewing the world through a perspective of fear, people see risks in things, behaviors,
and activities which in generations past were not considered risky.
They are overly fearful of threats which are an inevitable part of life, and they evaluate
experiences first and foremost on the basis of the potential risks they entail.
One of the accomplishments of the fear perspective is that it continually expands the number
of issues that constitute a hazard and are therefore represented as risk. Since the 1980s,
numerous commentators have commented on the explosion of risks.
What is more, the meaning of risk has taken on a largely negative connotation. Up until
the latter half of the 20th century, it was common sense that many risks are worth taking,
so long as one was motivated by a noble enterprise, self-realization, by the spirit of adventure
or by values such as freedom and truth. Facing up to risks was acknowledged to be a precondition
for the cultivation of character and even the accomplishment of greatness. Or as Nietzsche put
it, the devotion of the greatest is to encounter risk and danger and play dice for death. Instead
of being celebrated, today the risk-taker is often castigated as foolish, selfish, and a danger to
both himself and others. This negative perception of risk-taking is driven by worst-case thinking.
Many people are predisposed to think of the worst that can happen and then they behave
as if it is likely to happen. This worst-case thinking has even infiltrated the highest
levels of government. As some politicians and policymakers have adopted the utopian
goal of socially engineering a zero-risk society, into the applause of the fearful masses, an
An ever-expanding obsession with risk is one of the most striking features of the culture
of fear.
In its most irrational version, some people demand zero risk, a project that would require
abolishing uncertainty completely, explains Ferdi.
In seeing risks almost everywhere and in being highly risk-averse, many people, without explicitly
knowing it, are guided by the precautionary principle.
According to the precautionary principle, when faced with any degree of uncertainty,
The best option is to protect oneself and others and to side with caution.
In recent years the precautionary principle has entrenched itself in public policy in
the form of the inverted quarantine.
While the purpose of a traditional quarantine is to seclude a sick person to prevent a disease
from spreading to others, an inverted quarantine, in contrast, involves healthy people isolating
themselves from the dangers they perceive as threatening.
And as Faraday writes, Inverted quarantine constitutes a response
to the fear that the human condition is inherently unsafe.
The belief that the human condition is inherently unsafe is the fundamental creed of the cult
of safety, which has solidified itself in our society.
In the last few decades, safety has, in the words of Faraday, taken on a quasi-religious
quality.
The quest for safety has become the raison d’etre of the West, and the rules and restrictions
erected at the altar of safety have ballooned to absurd proportions and intruded on evermore
areas of life, to make matters worse, no matter how irrational or authoritarian they are,
and no matter whether there is any evidence they are effective. Safety rules and restrictions
are held by most people to be essential and beyond question. Safety and security have
become their own arguments. Officials and organizations seem to believe that the mere
mention of these words is enough. No further justification is needed. Safety rules are often
assumed to be doing something good just because they exist. Safety and security theater describes
procedures whose main role is to convince everyone that someone somewhere is dealing with a threat,
regardless of whether they are or not. An abundance of safety rules and restrictions
are not making people feel safer. They are contributing to our culture of fear,
for safety rules and restrictions communicate signals about potential dangers and threats.
And so the more a society is inundated with them, the more people assume that the environment is
inherently unsafe. Furthermore, in placing limitations on the freedom to explore,
experiment, and make one’s own choices, rules and restrictions implicitly communicate to people
that they are incapable of making their own risk assessments and assuming responsibility for their
own life. The modern cult of safety is infantilizing people and increasing the
chances that, from cradle to grave, they remain dependent on overbearing authority figures to
keep them safe from what they have been socialized to believe to be a dangerous world.
The act of trading in freedom does not make people feel safe. It heightens people’s awareness of
their lack of control over their lives and thereby enhances their sense of insecurity.
The loss of any of our freedoms simply undermines people’s capacity to deal with the threats they face.
Many safety rules and restrictions derive their perceived legitimacy from the authority of the science.
In contrast to science, which relies on evidence, experimentation, the testing of ideas,
and whose conclusions are open to doubt and reinterpretation,
the science relies on trust and authority and does not tolerate skepticism.
If the science alerts us to a threat, or if politicians invoke the science to justify
heavy-handed measures, then those who refuse to blindly follow the science are treated
as the modern equivalent of a heretic.
Statements like, the science says, writes Ferdi, serve as the 21st century equivalent
of the exhortation God said.
Unlike science, the term, the science, serves a moralistic and political project.
It has more in common with a pre-modern revealed truth than with the spirit of experimentation
that emerged with modernity.
The constant refrain of scientists tell us serves as a prelude for a lecture on what
threat to fear.
Those who do not heed the warnings of experts are frequently castigated as irresponsible,
if not evil.
The fear that is infecting society is socially conditioned into us from a young age, and
It is fueled by a pessimistic conception of what it means to be human that is deeply entrenched
in our society.
People are educated to be preoccupied with their safety, and to regard being fearful
as a sensible and responsible orientation toward the world.
Policymakers, opinion-formers, and advertisers act on the basis that people are risk-averse
and feel powerless, and their messages normalize the perception that people are vulnerable.
This pessimistic conception of the human being is fundamentally flawed, for if vulnerability
was the essential feature of the human being, the human race would have perished long ago.
Although our lives are unpredictable and exposed, as humans we are more defined by our resilience
and adaptability.
Not only do we have a remarkable capacity to withstand threats, dangers, and hardships,
but sometimes these even fast-track individual, familial, and societal growth.
The pessimistic pull of our culture of fear is strong.
But if we can become more aware of how it operates, influences us, and shapes society,
and if we can cultivate a more optimistic vision of the human condition and a courageous
attitude toward the future, then it is possible to free ourselves from its crippling influence.
Or as Ferdi concludes in How Fear Works,
Must we be defined by our vulnerability?
Must we be fearful?
The moment we ask these questions, we are well on the way to intuiting that there is
always an alternative.
Whether we adopt the philosophy of precaution or embrace a more courageous risk-taking approach
depends on how we perceive what it means to be a human.
Learn more about our membership, access transcripts, and the art we use in the videos by visiting
academyofideas.com
Source: Academy of Ideas