ReportWire

Tag: American life

  • Income inequality dipped and fewer people moved, according to largest survey of US life

    [ad_1]

    By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press

    Income inequality dipped, more people had college degrees, fewer people moved to a different home and the share of Asian and Hispanic residents increased in the United States last year, according to figures released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

    These year-to-year changes, big and small, from 2023 to 2024 were captured in the bureau’s data from the American Community Survey, the largest annual audit of American life. The survey of 3.5 million households asks about more than 40 topics, including income, housing costs, veterans status, computer use, commuting, and education.

    Here’s a look at how the United States changed last year.

    Income inequality dips

    Income inequality — or the gap between the highest and lowest earners — in the United States fell nationwide by nearly a half percent from 2023 to 2024, as median household income rose slightly, from $80,002 to $81,604.

    Five Midwestern states — Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin — had statistically significant dips, along with Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Puerto Rico.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • The Narcissistic Culture of “Image” and Excessive Self-Monitoring

    The Narcissistic Culture of “Image” and Excessive Self-Monitoring

    [ad_1]

    In a world obsessed with public image and attention-seeking, learn about the cultural forces propelling society to become more narcissistic – and how this influences us to be in a constant state of self-scrutiny.



    The idea that our culture is becoming more narcissistic and self-centered is not new.

    Historian and social critic Christopher Lasch’s book The Culture of Narcissism was first published in 1979. By that time, the 1970s were already dubbed the “Me-generation.” Americans were increasingly shifting focus to concepts like “self-liberation,” “self-expression,” and “self-actualization,” while untethering themselves from past traditions and social responsibilities.

    Interestingly, Lasch traces the narcissistic roots in America back way further, starting with the early days of the Protestant work ethic and its singular focus on labor, money, and wealth-building, including the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mantra.

    This early thread of American hyper-individualism continues into the New Age movement at the turn of the 20th century with its focus on personal happiness and spiritual fulfillment, as well as the popularity of Ayn Rand’s “virtue of selfishness,” and the rise of celebrity-worship and fame-seeking that still characterizes much of American life today whether it be in politics, sports, art, or entertainment.

    Things appear to be getting worse. The book was written over 40 years ago, but a lot of the observations in it seem strangely prophetic when looking at the world today. Lasch accurately describes how narcissistic trends have evolved on a societal and cultural level, and you can perfectly extend his theories to explain our modern culture.

    Before you continue reading, remember this is a cultural analysis of narcissistic tendencies and it isn’t focused on clinical or psychological definitions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

    Many people act more narcissistic because that’s what our society rewards and that’s how people think they need to act to get ahead in today’s world.

    One can even look at certain narcissistic tendencies as a survival strategy in an otherwise competitive, atomized, isolated – “every man for himself” – world.

    Now let’s dive into how our modern culture amplifies and rewards narcissism.

    The narcissist craves an audience

    First, the most defining characteristic of a narcissist is that they depend on the attention and validation of others to feel good about themselves.

    Contrary to the popular myth that the narcissist suffers from excessive self-love, the truth is they are deeply insecure and lack true confidence and self-esteem. The main reason they brag, show off, or puff-up-their-chests is only to appear strong when deep down they feel weak.

    As a result the narcissist is obsessed with their image and appearance. They feel they need to “win people over” to be accepted and liked by others, and this requires a carefully manufactured persona they create for the public.

    This deeply rooted “need for attention” plays a central theme in Lasch’s analysis:

      “Narcissism represents a psychological dimension of dependence. Notwithstanding his occasional illusions of omnipotence, the narcissist depends on others to validate his self-esteem. He cannot live without an admiring audience. His apparent freedom from family ties and institutional constraints does not free him to stand alone or to glory in his individuality. On the contrary, it contributes to his insecurity, which he can overcome only by seeing his ‘grandiose self’ reflected in the attention of others, or by attaching himself to those who radiate celebrity, power, and charisma.”

    Without an audience to appreciate them, the narcissist struggles to find their self-worth. They don’t believe in themselves – they need “proof” they are a good or important person through the eyes of others.

    To the narcissist, any attention is better than none at all; even negative attention like gossip, drama, and criticism feeds into their egos by letting them know they are still front and center.

    In a society that rewards attention for the sake of attention (including fame and notoriety), the narcissist grows and thrives. Who knows, that next scandal with a famous celebrity may be their big breakthrough – whatever gets them into the limelight!

    Image-centrism: The society of the spectacle

    One major contributor to the rise of narcissistic tendencies is that our culture is becoming more image-centric.

    Popular ideas on what true “happiness,” “success,” “fame,” “beauty,” and “achievement” look like are based on outward images and appearances increasingly fed into our culture through photographs, movies, television, and advertising:

      “[One] influence is the mechanical reproduction of culture, the proliferation of visual and audial images in the ‘society of the spectacle.’ We live in a swirl of images and echoes that arrest experience and play it back in slow motion. Cameras and recording machines not only transcribe experience but alter its quality, giving to much of modern life the character of an enormous echo chamber, a hall of mirrors. Life presents itself as a succession of images or electronic signals, of impressions recorded and reproduced by means of photography, motion pictures, television, and sophisticated recording devices.”

    This book was written before the internet and social media which have only increased our “image-centrism” tenfold. Selfies, avatars, memes, filters, photoshop, and AI have all continued to add more layers to this hyper-reality between manipulated images and how we choose to present ourselves.

    This constant barrage of cultural images shapes our beliefs and map of reality. It subconsciously puts ideas in our heads about what “happiness,” “success,” and “beauty” are supposed to look like.

    Once these social images are set in our minds, we naturally feel the desire to live up to them.

    Narcissists can often be the most sensitive to these social images because they fear their true self isn’t good enough, so they take society’s picture of “success” and try to mirror that image back to others.

    On the surface, the narcissist is a crowd-pleaser. They don’t trust their own judgement, so if society says this is what “happiness” or “success” looks like, then they will try to mimic it the best they can.

    Everyone has an audience now

    Technology, internet, social media, cameras, and recording devices have created a world where everyone feels like they have an audience all-the-time.

    Family photo albums and home videos were early stages in turning “private moments” into “public consumption,” but now we have people over-sharing every meal, date, and shopping spree on their social media feeds.

    Lasch correctly identifies this trend back in the 1960s-70s, including a mention of the popular show Candid Camera, which was one of the first “hidden camera” TV shows:

      “Modern life is so thoroughly mediated by electronic images that we cannot help responding to others as if their actions – and our own – were being recorded and simultaneously transmitted to an unseen audience or stored up for close scrutiny at some later time. ‘Smile you’re on candid camera!’ The intrusion into everyday life of this all-seeing eye no longer takes us by surprise or catches us with our defenses down. We need no reminder to smile, a smile is permanently graven on our features, and we already know from which of several angles it photographs to best advantage.”

    Life is recorded and shared now more than ever before. Today everyone has an audience and many people can’t help but see themselves as the “main character” of their own carefully edited movie.

    Unfortunately, we have this audience whether we like it or not. Every time we are out in public, someone may whip out their phones, capture an embarrassing moment, and upload it to the internet for millions to watch. You never know when you may go “viral” for the wrong reasons. The rise of online shaming, doxing, and harassment puts people in a perpetual state of high alert.

    That’s a stressful thought, but it perfectly represents this state of hyper-surveillance we are all in, where there’s always a potential audience and you feel constant pressure to showcase the “best version of yourself” in every waking moment, because you never know who is watching.

    Self-image and excessive self-monitoring

    In a world that rewards people solely based on the “image” they present, we naturally become more self-conscious of the image we are projecting to others.

    This leads to a state of endless self-monitoring and self-surveillance. We see ourselves through the eyes of others and try to fit their image of what we are supposed to be. No matter what we choose to do with our lives, the most pressing questions become, “How will this make me look?” or “What will people think of me?”

    While people naturally want to present themselves in the best way possible and form strong first impressions, an excessive degree of self-filtering and self-management can cause us to lose our sense of identity for the sake of superficial acceptance, internet fame, or corporate climbing.

    At worst, we increasingly depend on this these manufactured images to understand ourselves and reality:

      “The proliferation of recorded images undermines our sense of reality. As Susan Sontag observes in her study of photography, ‘Reality has come to seem more and more like what we are shown by cameras.’ We distrust our perceptions until the camera verifies them. Photographic images provide us with the proof of our existence, without which we would find it difficult even to reconstruct a personal history…

      Among the ‘many narcissistic uses’ that Sontag attributes to the camera, ‘’self-surveillance’ ranks among the most important, not only because it provides the technical means of ceaseless self-scrutiny but because it renders the sense of selfhood dependent on the consumption of images of the self, at the same time calling into question the reality of the external world.”

    If you didn’t share your meal on social media, did you really eat it? If you didn’t update your relationship status online, are you really dating someone?

    For many people, the internet world has become “more real” than the real world. People don’t go out and do adventurous things to live their lives, but to “create content” for their following.

    Who looks like their living their best life? Who is experiencing the most FOMO on the internet? In a narcissistic world, we start seeing our “digital self” in competition with everyone else – and the only thing that matters is that it looks like we are having a good time.

    More and more, we consume and understand ourselves through these technologies and images. We depend on photo galleries, reel clips, and social media posts to chronicle our life story and present the best version of ourselves to the world. If the internet didn’t exist, then neither would we.

    In the sci-fi movie The Final Cut people have their entire lives recorded through their eyes; then after they die, their happy memories are spliced together to give a “final edit” of the person’s life. Many of us are perpetually scrutinizing and editing this “final cut” of our own lives.

    The invention of new insecurities

    Everything is being observed, recorded, and measured, so we have more tools than ever to compare ourselves against others.

    This leads to the invention of all types of new insecurities. We are more aware of the ways we’re different from others, whether it’s our jobs, homes, relationships, health, appearances, or lifestyles. We can always find new ways we don’t “measure up” to the ideal.

    New technologies create new ways to compare. Before you know it, you have people in heated competitions over who can do the most steps on their Fitbit, or consume the least amount of calories in a week, or receives the most likes on their gym posts. The internet becomes a never-ending competition.

    Of course, measuring your progress can be a valuable tool for motivation and reaching goals. The problem is when we use these numbers to measure up against others vs. measure up against our past self. Always remember that everyone is on a completely different path.

    It’s well-known that social comparison is one of the ultimate traps when it comes to happiness and well-being. You’ll always be able to find someone who has it better than you in some area of life, and with the internet that’s usually an easy search.

    These endless comparisons touch on all aspects of life and heighten self-scrutiny and self-criticism. Finding and dwelling on even “minor differences” can spiral into a cycle of self-pity and self-hate. If we don’t remove ourselves from these comparisons, then we have no choice but to try to live up to them and beat ourselves up when we fail.

    Conclusion

    The goal of this article was to describe some of the key forces that are making society more narcissistic and self-centered.

    Different cultural beliefs and attitudes incentive certain personality traits over others. Our current world seems to continue moving down a more narcissistic path, especially with the increased focus on “image” (or “personal brand”) that we build for ourselves through the internet and social media.

    Most of the ideas in this article are based on the book The Culture of Narcissism which, despite being written over 40 years, is an insightful look into how these social forces continue to grow and evolve.

    Do you feel like our current society is getting more narcissistic? How have these social forces influenced the way you live?


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • What the DeSantis and Newsom Debate Really Revealed

    What the DeSantis and Newsom Debate Really Revealed

    [ad_1]

    The best way to understand last week’s unusual debate between Governors Gavin Newsom of California and Ron DeSantis of Florida is to think of them less as representatives of different political parties than as ambassadors from different countries.

    Thursday night’s debate on Fox News probably won’t much change the arc of either man’s career. DeSantis is still losing altitude in the 2024 GOP presidential race, and Newsom still faces years of auditioning before Democratic leaders and voters for a possible 2028 presidential-nomination run.

    What the debate did reveal was how wide a chasm has opened between red and blue states. The governors spent the session wrangling over the relative merits of two utterly divergent models for organizing government and society. It was something like watching an argument over whether the liberal government in France or the conservative government in England produces better outcomes for its people.

    “The way the debate will be heard is the nationals of each country cheering their guy on,” Michael Podhorzer, a progressive political strategist and a former political director for the AFL-CIO, told me.

    The sharp disagreements between the governors pointed toward a future of widening separation between red and blue blocs whose differences are growing so profound that Podhorzer has argued the sections should be understood as fundamentally different nations.

    As Podhorzer and other analysts have noted, this accelerating separation marks a fundamental reversal from the generally centralizing trends in American life through the late 20th century. Beginning with the New Deal investments under Franklin D. Roosevelt (such as agricultural price supports, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Social Security), and continuing with massive expenditures on defense, infrastructure, and the social safety net after World War II (including Medicare, Medicaid, and federal aid for K–12 and higher education), federal spending for decades tended to narrow the income gaps between the southern states at the core of red America and the rest of the country.

    After World War II, in a dynamic that legal scholars call the rights revolution, the federal government nationalized more civil rights and liberties and limited the ability of states to constrain those rights. Through Supreme Court and congressional actions that unfolded over more than half a century, Washington struck down state-sponsored segregation and racial barriers to voting across the South, and invalidated a procession of state restrictions on abortion, contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex relationships, among other things.

    But both big unifying trends reshaping the economy and the rules of social life have stalled and are moving in the opposite direction. Podhorzer has calculated that the convergence in per capita income between the South and other regions plateaued in 1980 and then started widening again around 2008. And, as I’ve written, the axis of Republican-controlled state governments, the GOP-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, and Republican senators wielding the filibuster are actively reversing the rights revolution that raised the floor of personal freedoms guaranteed in all 50 states.

    On issues including voting, LGBTQ rights, classroom censorship, book bans, public protest, and, most prominent, access to abortion, red states are imposing restrictions that are universally rejected in blue states. As Newsom argued in an interview with me a few hours before he went onstage, “This assault on our rights and the weaponization of grievance” is designed to “bring us back to … the pre-1960s world” in which people’s rights depended on their zip code. Under DeSantis, Florida has been a leader in that process, creating policies, such as limits on classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, widely emulated across other red states.

    Thursday night’s debate revolved around the differences between Florida and California, though the Fox moderator Sean Hannity hardly presented an accurate picture of the comparison. Both states have their successes and failures. But Hannity focused his questions entirely on measures that favor Florida (such as unemployment rate, violent-crime rate, and homelessness numbers) while ignoring all the contrasts that favor California (which has a much higher median income, far fewer residents without health insurance, and, according to the CDC, much lower rates of teen birth, infant mortality, and death from firearms, as well as a longer life expectancy). Hannity essentially joined in a tag team with DeSantis to frame the debate in terms familiar to his Fox audience that blue states are a chaotic hellhole of crime and “woke” liberalism; when Newsom pushed back against that characterization, or challenged DeSantis’s approach, Hannity often cut him off or steered the conversation in a different direction.

    The narrow focus on California and Florida made sense in a debate between their two governors. But those comparisons can obscure the bigger story, which is the expanding divergence between all the states in the red and blue sections.

    Podhorzer has documented that gap in an array of revealing measures. He divides the nation between states in which Republicans or Democrats usually hold unified control of the governorship and state legislature, and those in which control of state government is usually divided or frequently changes hands. That classification system yields 27 red states, 17 blue states (plus the District of Columbia), and six purple states. By these definitions, the red states account for just under half the population and the blue states just below two-fifths, while the blue states contribute slightly more of the nation’s GDP.

    Podhorzer’s data show that on many key measures, blue states as a group are producing far better outcomes than the red states.

    In new results provided exclusively to The Atlantic, Podhorzer calculates that the economic output per capita and the median family income are both now 27 percent higher in the blue section than in the red, while the share of children in poverty is 27 percent higher in the red states. The share of people without health insurance is more than 80 percent higher in the red states than in the blue, as are the rates of teen pregnancy and maternal death in childbirth. The homicide rate across the red states is more than one-third higher than in the blue, and the rate of death from firearms is nearly double in the red. Average life expectancy at birth is now about two and a half years higher in the blue states. On most of these measures, the purple states fall between red and blue.

    (Podhorzer also groups the states by their voting behavior in federal elections, which results in 24 red-leaning states, 18 blue ones, and eight purple states. But the comparisons between the two big sections don’t change much under that definition.)

    On most of these measures, Podhorzer calculates, the gap between the red and blue states has widened over the past 15 years. He attributes the expansion mostly to the kind of policy differences that DeSantis and Newsom debated. The difference in health outcomes, for instance, is rooted in disparities such as the continuing refusal of 10 red states, including Florida, to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (which every blue state has done). As other economic analysts have noted, with their higher concentrations of college graduates, blue states—and the large blue metropolitan areas of red states—are benefiting the most from the nation’s transition into an information-age economy.

    As DeSantis and Hannity did in the debate, defenders of the red-state approach point to other measures. Housing costs are typically much lower in red states than in blue, as are taxes. Those are probably the central reasons many of the blue states, despite their stronger results on many important yardsticks, are stagnant or shrinking in population, while several of the red states, especially those across the Sun Belt, have been adding middle-income families. Lower housing costs are also one reason homelessness is less of a problem in red states than in blue metros, especially along the West Coast.

    But the relative superiority of either model is probably less important to the nation’s future than the widening separation, and growing antagonism, between them that was displayed so vividly in the debate.

    Most experts I spoke with agree that there is now no single difference between the red and blue sections as great as the gulf during most of the 20th century between the states with and without Jim Crow racial segregation, much less the 19th-century distance between the slave and free states.

    But the number of issues dividing the states is reaching a historic peak, many of those same experts agree. Although civil rights and racial equity have made up the most important dividing line between the states for most of U.S. history, “the way in which these issues line up today—on everything from abortion to library books to the question of how much power states ought to have over their local governments … I think there’s not been since the founding such a far-reaching debate,” Donald Kettl, a former dean of the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, told me.

    To Kettl, the new wave of restrictive social legislation spreading across red states challenges the traditional idea that local variation benefits the country by allowing states to function as the fabled “laboratories of democracy.” “It strikes me as being incredibly dangerous,” Kettl said. “The good old arguments about the laboratories of democracy is that individual states would try different ideas, find out what works, and throw out the ones that didn’t work. We are not talking about that at all. We are talking about an effort to push a particular agenda and to push it as far as possible.”

    David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director, likewise sees the erosion of a national floor of civil rights and liberties as the most ominous element of the widening red-blue separation. “We are supposed to be one nation, committed to a common set of fundamental rights,” Cole told me in an email. “But we have increasingly become two nations, with substantial rights protections for some, and robust repression for others. Federalism was designed to allow for some play in the joints, some variations among states—but not on the fundamental constitutional rights to which we are all entitled as human beings and U.S. residents.”

    It’s not clear that in the near term anything will close the space between red and blue states. Neither party has many realistic chances to win power in states that now prefer the other side. And particularly in red states, the dominance of the conservative media ecosystem makes it difficult for Democrats even to present their arguments, as the debate demonstrated.

    In the interview a few hours before he went onstage, Newsom told me that the principal reason he accepted the debate was not so much to rebut DeSantis as to reach Fox viewers. “I want to make the case in their filter bubble,” he told me. “We’ve got to get into their platforms.” Though the forum allowed Newsom to assert some positive facts about President Joe Biden’s record rarely heard on the network, any progress in reaching Fox viewers was likely blunted by Hannity’s framing of every issue as proof of the superiority of red over blue. After the debate, Newsom’s aides said they believed he had achieved his mission of evangelizing to Fox’s audience. But in the end, the evening may have validated Barack Obama’s lament during his presidency that it was virtually impossible for Democrats to communicate with red-state voters except through the negative filter that conservative media build around them.

    Podhorzer is among those skeptical that anything will reverse this process of separation in the foreseeable future. He views the late-20th-century trend toward convergence as the anomaly; “the default position” through most of American history has been for the states we now consider the red bloc to pursue very different visions of moral order, economic progress, and the role of government than those we now label as blue. To Podhorzer, the disagreements on display at the DeSantis-Newsom debate were just the modern manifestation of the deep divisions between the free and slave states, or the Union and the Confederacy.

    In the 2024 presidential race, Biden and the leading Republican candidates have each endorsed new national laws that would reverse our separation by imposing the dominant laws in one section on the other. Biden and other Democrats are backing federal bills to restore a national floor of abortion, LGBTQ, and voting rights in every state; Republicans in turn want to impose red-state restrictions on all those issues in blue states.

    Podhorzer believes that the differences between the states have hardened to the point where setting common national rules on these issues in either direction has become extremely risky. “Any compromise on any of these big issues,” he told me, “means half the country will see a loss in some aspect of what they like about the way they live.” From his perspective, courting that backlash might be worth the effort to restore core civil rights, such as access to abortion, nationally. But he warns that no one should underestimate the potential for fierce red-state resistance to such an effort, extending even to violence.

    It won’t be easy for either side to pass legislation nationalizing the social- and civil-liberties regime in their section; at the least, it would require them to not only hold unified control of the White House and Congress but also end the Senate filibuster, which remains an uncertain proposition. The more likely trajectory is for red and blue states to continue careening away from each other along the pathways that Newsom and DeSantis so passionately defended last week. “Without some major disruption, this cycle” of separation “hasn’t played itself out fully,” Podhorzer told me, in a view echoed by the other experts I spoke with. “There are hurricane-force winds in that direction.” Thursday’s gusty debate between these two ambitious governors only hinted at how hard those gales may blow in the years ahead.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link