Too impatient
If Western society is known for anything, it is known for its impatience. Westerners are accustomed to obtaining instant results in virtually all areas of their lives. We buy microwave dinners and eat at fast-food restaurants regularly—not because we think the “food” tastes good or think that it is good for us (we all know it tastes like crap and makes our bodies feel the same), but because it is an instant remedy to the “problem” of hunger—and we even use drive-thru windows because it’s too much of a hassle to get out of the damn car. We prefer surgeries and medications to balanced diets and regular exercise because, frankly, why do things the long way when surgeons and pills can do the job instantly? We even charge our credit cards to oblivion because we think it is so much more important that we have the stupid thing now rather than wait until we, god forbid, actually have the money to pay for the stupid whatever-it-is up front.
Yes, we Westerners are impatient indeed. It is no wonder, then, that we tend to approach our social problems in much the same way. When something seems to be going wrong, we figure we can simply throw more money at it to make it better, cast more laws “out there” to hopefully “catch” the problem like a fish in a net, or, in some cases, we just create a new department of such and such and tell them it’s their job to fix the such and such, as if that ever does anything.
Westerners are so impatient, in fact, that they don’t even take the time to notice if their quick-fix solutions are even working. How much less prevalent are health problems and poverty issues now that we’ve had decades of social programs? How many airline terrorists had a change of heart now that laws prevent everyone (including non-terrorists believe it or not) from bringing full-size tubes of toothpaste onto an airplane? How much more secure is the “homeland” now that there is a Dept. of Homeland Security? If there have been any changes for the better at all in these areas, they have been negligible at best. Yet, we Westerners refuse to abandon our quick-fix methodology. If these strategies have performed poorly thus far, then the fault must be one of degree, not of kind. In other words, the methodology is sound; it’s just not strong enough. The poor performance can simply be remedied, like everything else, by an increase in volume, a hotter temperature, or a higher dose. That way, no one has to change their lifestyle, their beliefs or their thinking—it all stays the same and its all familiar. It also, unfortunately, just doesn’t work.
Just like the other aspects of Western living, quick-fix solutions to social problems always provide the feeling that “this time it’ll be different, this time it just might work,” but, in the long run, always prove to be shortsighted. “Maybe this time my bacon double whopper will make me feel energized” we say, “Maybe this time our military can spread democracy and peace with force and violence” we tell ourselves, or “Maybe this time the well-dressed candidate who says he ‘cares’ will make everyone’s life better.” Time and time again, we look for simple, one-step solutions to complicated problems.
I don’t think we’ll ever make any progress socially until more people decide to quit looking for simple solutions for the answers to society’s problems. The one thing Westerners avoid like the plague is taking personal responsibility for the ills of society. Many will say that someone should do something about poverty, but few actually nominate themselves to take action. Sure, they’ll vote for a guy who says that he’ll do the work for them, but that’s as far as it goes. Many will say that we should support local businesses and avoid third-world products, but nevertheless continue to shop at Wal-Mart because it’s cheaper and easier. Many will acknowledge that crime rates are way higher than they ought to be in Western society, but few decide to jettison the old belief that criminals are simply criminals by nature in favor of the more realistic view that our society (the one we all help to create) is contributing to the problem of crime. Sure, it’s a lot easier to just round up the “bad guys” and put them behind bars than it is to fully understand why they behave the way they do, but why continue to do it if it isn’t solving anything?
In my view, the impatience of our society is one of the biggest impediments to the resolution of social problems. In order for us to make any real progress socially, we have to deal with our impatience and take it personally. The first step is to recognize that it is there, and to recognize how pervasive it is. If we don’t, we’ll continue to see the same mediocre results of old. If we do, nothing any new politician, department or law could do would be more powerful.
May 5th, 2008 at 13:38
Excellent points. I agree totally. I am sorry I invited you out for fast food tonight. I do understand your refusal. It was not my impatience so much as buying into “you deserve a break today” advertising.
Excellent drawing!
May 11th, 2008 at 17:27
I assume, by ‘Western Society’, that you are referring to America. It seems inaccurate to say that a country like, say, France suffers generally from the sort of impatience you describe.
Impatience can also be swapped out for dynamism, which has more positive connotations. The restless energy associated with America has its uses, as well. I think balancing the consequences of impatience as you’ve listed with dynamism’s creative benefits affords serious insight into one central paradox of American culture.
May 11th, 2008 at 23:05
Yeah, I was thinking more of America/England when I was writing this, but I didn’t want to limit it to just America because the concept is broader than one country. I think of Western society as more empirically minded and hedonistic as opposed to the mystical, reincarnationally minded East.
Dynamism? Hmm, that’s a new term for me. If it has a creative element woven into it then that would certainly be beneficial. I don’t mean to confuse impatience with spontaneity and the like. By impatience I mean to say that it is the lack of patience where patience would be a virtue. That is, where a desirable result would be obtained IF one were to allow natural forces to run their course, but one nevertheless takes action or passes judgment prematurely due to restlessness–a sort of working-with rather than working-over mentality is what I favor.
May 13th, 2008 at 20:54
Fair enough. However, if your definition of impatience is the lack of patience where patience would be a virtue, then impatience would, of course, always be detrimental. This would then be a constitutive element of the defintion of ‘impatience’ and would not require explanation. Also, I would definitely avoid the east/west division employed above. That seems to me classic orientalism, and simply not applicable to places like Dubai, China, and even Russia, all of whom are adopting an impatient american model, whether their leaders want to admit it or not.
But enough language games. My larger point was put best by Carlyle…I’ll have to paraphrase, but it’s something to the effect that the great thing about western-style secular democracies (and I believe he was here speaking especially of America and probably revolutionary france) is that they can change their minds so quickly, and without compunction. Spontaneity requires a bit of classically defined impatience, no? I was working off a different definition of impatience earlier, but one fascinating and endlessly frustrating thing about the states is how quickly it moves, changes itself, adapts and adopts without deference to the past. This can be great if moving away from bad policy, but is nerve-wracking when heading into it. Of course, as you rightly state, it’d be best to try and end this dance macabre entirely, but maybe America IS the dance (and there is nothing but the dance, as Eliot would have it).
I’ve gone way off your article here, but until you move to Chicago, this is the only way this shit will get done.
May 13th, 2008 at 22:56
Well stated. I think I see your point, and I do agree with it. However, I would like to poke at semantics a bit more.
I don’t think spontaneity requires an element of impatience. Although the actions that result from both are nearly indistinguishable, the mechanisms behind those actions are different enough to separate them. Impatience is the lack of something–namely patience–and spontaneity is the presence of something–namely impulsiveness. What they share is the quality of immediacy or rapid motion–qualities that, as you point out, lead to quick changes without deference to the past. However, I would argue that impatience and spontaneity need not always coexist–i.e. one could be impatient without being spontaneous and vice versa. I say this because, strictly speaking, the concept “lack of patience” implies that one is, in the moment, incapable of patience, regardless of its utility. Conversely, since spontaneity is the “presence of impulsiveness,” it need not exist to the exclusion of patience. Therefore, spontaneity allows for more flexibility in decision-making ability because one can choose between the qualities of patience and the qualities of impulsiveness per the situation at hand. Impatience, in my view, is more limiting in nature in that one loses the option of patience in a situation.
I do see your point in that my previous definition was circular; here I would like to say that impatience can appear to be virtuous in moments where immediate action is the best option, but, if indeed impatience is the primary agent at play, the utility of impatience is more coincidental than it is calculated. That is, it is only through post hoc awareness that one determines impatience to be a virtue, not ad hoc. Therefore, one does not choose impatience as the solution to a situation; rather one applies impatience to situations repeatedly as if one were pulling the handle on a slot machine.
I do see the danger in using grossly oversimplified words like east/west to denote lifestyle/philosophy of life etc, but I used them for lack of a better word. My intent was to be pithy with the concept “a myopic, fast-paced, popular culture with an empirical, secular and means-end value system” in order to comment on that culture…in 700-900 words. I certainly don’t mean the distinction to literally apply to modern day China, Russia, etc, but I see how my terminology could be confusing.
Just doing my part to get this shit done.