Escape, Avoidance, Instant Gratification- The Culture of Spoiled Brats

Written by 

Spoiled Brat“Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.” – Peter Tosh


We’re a culture of babies. Our knowledge has been sprinting upward on an exponential curve, but our wisdom sighs and chuffs up a modest incline, pausing frequently for a deep fried snack and a nap. We don’t mind the planned obsolescence of new gadgetry; it gives us an excuse to upgrade to that snazzy newer version everyone else already has. We know our clothes come from sweatshops and our meat comes from factory farms, and these things are terrible, and someone should really do something about them. But we still want cheap food and clothes. Because we’re used to them. And we like them. And we want more. Because we’ve got a serious infection of narcissism.


Kevin Spacey, playing an abusive boss in the 1994 movie Swimming with Sharks, tells off his assistant with the words- “See, that's the trouble with your fucking MTV-microwave-Losing Contestant on American Idoldinner generation; you all want it now. You think you deserve it just because you want it? It doesn't work like that! You have to earn it.”


Losing contestants on American Idol often sound off bitterly against the injustice of having been eliminated, saying, through tears of rage, that they wanted to win so badly, more than anyone else there, as if that alone merited winning.


Jean Twenge, author of The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement, in an interview with Joel Pitney in Enlightennext Magazine, said that “when parents and teachers and media sources try to increase self-esteem [of children], they usually end up increasing narcissism. These self-esteem-boosting strategies create more of a narcissistic overconfidence than true self-esteem, because they’re often not based on reality. Take, for example, telling children things like ‘You can be anything you want to be.’ Well, it usually Peace is Every Steptakes a lot more than just wanting something to succeed in life. You need to try hard, and you need to have the talent for that to happen.”


Talent? Dedication?? Work??? Bah!! I want it now! And if we do get what we want, we want to keep it, even when it makes us miserable. The Vietnamese Zen monk Thich Naht Hahn wrote: “Many people want to get rid of their painful feelings, but they do not want to get rid of their beliefs, the viewpoints that are the very roots of their feelings.” We hold our beliefs close to our hearts and don’t examine them for flaws. Why should we? We know we’re right. It comforts us to know we’re right. We aren’t responsible for all the problems in the world. We’re right. Somebody else should fix that all that. None of which is my fault.


In his book In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, Gabor Mate describes why we’re so eager to find a genetic basis for addiction, for ADD, for any given deficiency:


Genes“We human beings don’t like feeling responsible: as individuals for our own actions; as parents for our children’s hurts; or as a society for our many failings. Genetics - that neutral, impassive, impersonal handmaiden of Nature - would absolve us of responsibility and of its ominous shadow, guilt. If genetics rules our fate, we would not need to blame ourselves or anyone else. Genetic explanations take us off the hook. The possibility does not occur to us that we can accept or assign responsibility without taking on the useless baggage of guilt or blame.”


A big theme in Mate’s books is how one’s environment (physical, emotional and societal) shapes a person. Substance abusers are addicted because of deep emotional wounds and needs. Our society then villainizes the addict, scolds her for making irresponsible choices, criminalizes her and imprisons her, compounding a lifetime of abuse and alienation, In the Realm of Hungry Ghostsmaking her problems many degrees worse. And who do I mean by “our society”? All of us. Unless we do something about our drug policies, of course. Mate goes on:


“More daunting for those who hope for scientific and social progress, the genetic argument is easily used to justify all kinds of inequalities and injustices that are otherwise hard to defend. It serves a deeply conservative function: if a phenomenon like addiction is determined mostly by biological heredity, we are spared from having to look at how our social environment supports, or does not support, the parents of young children; at how social attitudes, prejudices and policies burden, stress and exclude certain segments of the population and thereby increase their propensity for addiction.”


Nuh-uh. I didn’t get anyone addicted to anything. It’s their problem. Bad genes. Bad decisions. Bad luck. Tough shit. Nothin’ to do with me.


This tendency to want it all plays out quite readily in our eating habits. Headlines scream about obesity epidemics. Many articles describe the environmental impact of our meat-centred diet. In his book In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan relates an important incident in how we became this way. In 1977 South Dakota Senator George McGovern headed the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Following the evidence that rates of heart disease fell dramatically when meat and dairy products were rationed in A Delicious HamburgerWWII, but rose again when rationing stopped, the committee publicly recommended people cut down their consumption of red meat and dairy products. But those industries and their lobbyists pounced on him, and the committee’s recommendations were soon amended- now people were told to “choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated fat intake.”


“First notice that the stark message to ‘eat less’ of a particular food - in this case meat - had been deep-sixed; don’t look for it ever again in any official US government dietary pronouncement. Say what you will about this or that food, you are not allowed officially to tell people to eat less of it or the industry in question will have you for lunch... Notice too how the new language exonerates foods themselves. Now the culprit is an obscure, invisible, tasteless - and politically unconnected - substance that may or may not lurk in them called saturated fat.”


So the public got to keep eating what it always had, and the meat and dairy industries got to keep making money providing it to them. Nothing changed and no feathers were ruffled. And, as Pollan then describes, “In the very next election, in 1980, the beef lobby succeeded in rusticating the three-term senator, sending an unmistakable warning to anyone George HW Bushwho would challenge the American diet”. Our culture of babies includes bullies, herding the babies around. And bullies are really just babies with size and muscle.


The United States proved itself both a great baby and bully at the 1992 Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro, when representatives from 153 countries signed treaties to affect lasting change in pollution and climate change from economic activities. Then US president George H.W. Bush declined, saying “the American way of life is not negotiable.” It’s easy to picture him folding his arms like a five year old and stamping his foot as he said it, too. Maybe he pushed over some of the other delegates and ate their lunches. Why isn’t it negotiable, George? Or why is the American way of life, as whitehouse press secretary Ari Fleischer said a decade later, a blessed one? Because. It’s mine and I’m used to it and I want it.


A friend of mine once described the crowning virtue of Adam Sandler’s movies: “He does nothing, and he still gets the girl. And that’s why I like his movies!” Note - this is the case in the higher end Sandler movies too, likeAdam Sandler, icon of immaturity  Punch Drunk Love and Reign Over Me. Hollywood movies are famously aimed at 18 - 24 year old males. Benjamin Barber, in a talk at the headquarters of Demos about consumerism, describes how the most successful movies of 2004, worldwide, in all demographics, were Shrek 2, Spiderman 2, The Incredibles and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - teenage blockbusters, all of them. I’m a big fan of those four movies, incidentally, and thought they were cleverly scripted and well made. But think of the main draw in all four cases: action, animation, special effects, and main characters with special powers. It’s easier for Hollywood to sell us movies if we’ve got the maturity and taste of adolescents. An Adam Sandler who has to have what he wants right now is a great customer for those selling glossy, shiny things. That same guy isn’t so good at tackling the decades long work of solving serious problems.


Bill Maher recently railed against the lack of progress in America:


“We’re stuck on a wheel, having the same arguments about getting off oil we had in the 70s, the same arguments about ballooning debt we had in the 80s, the same arguments Blll Maherabout global warming that we had in the 90s, and we never do anything. Do you know we can’t even reform the way we make pennies and nickels? This week we learned that making a penny costs two cents, and making a nickel costs nine cents, which makes no sense... So the administration suggested we should start making our coins out of something cheaper, an idea first suggested under Nixon. But because this is America, where no one ever gives an inch on anything, and everybody has a lobbyist, including the people who run coin-operated laundromats - yes, those powerhouses, those you dare not cross, the titans of industry. Yes, the coin laundry association objected because they didn’t want to upgrade their machines, so once again, the whole country is made a little worse. We can’t even change change.”


Maher went on to recommend we put the US in the charge of Steve Jobs. “In 2001, Apple reinvented the record player, in 2007 the phone, and this year, the computer. I say, for 2011, we let them take a crack at America - our infrastructure, our business model, our institutions - get rid of the stuff that’s not working, replace it with something that does. Good-bye US Senate, hello Genius Bar!” And that brings up a significant point; the change we do like is technological advancement. The kind that gives us more to play with, that lets us play with our toys at higher speeds, for longer, in more places. The only good change is change that lets us keep acting infantile.


Worse yet, we don’t see anything wrong with childishness. We dread aging, and Catch 22romanticize childhood. In Catch-22, the character Dunbar describes the all too rapid march of time: “A second ago you were stepping into college with your lungs full of fresh air... A half minute before that you were stepping into high school, and an unhooked brassiere was as close as you ever hoped to get to Paradise. Only a fifth of a second before that you were a small kid with a ten-week summer vacation that lasted a hundred thousand years and still ended too soon.” The currents of postmodernism in contemporary thought have us firmly trumpet the belief that no one is better than anyone else. This belief is true, in the sense that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and no one should be deprived of their human rights. But there are stages of personal growth, as Dunbar describes- child, adolescent, young adult, adult.  Each developmental plateau has its own perceptions, values, priorities and capabilities. Going up the ladder does mean relinquishing the childish delights of a summer vacation that lasts a hundred thousand years, but greater satisfactions and achievements become possible.


Editor and essayist H.L. Mencken wrote an article about Beethoven, comparing him to Mr. BeethovenHaydn, and without saying as much, makes the point that as someone evolves up the scale, they can accomplish greater things, and bring back increasing benefits to everyone.


“What lifted Beethoven above the old master was simply his greater dignity as a man. The feelings that Haydn put into tone were the feelings of a country pastor, a rather civilized stockbroker, a viola player gently mellowed by Kulmbacher. When he wept it was with the tears of a woman who has discovered another wrinkle; when he rejoiced it was with the joy of a child on Christmas morning. But the feelings that Beethoven put into his music were the feelings of a god. There was something Olympian in his snarls and rages, and there was a touch of hell-fire in his mirth.”


The joy of a child on Christmas morning - that’s the lesser guy? When I first read that I remembered the all consuming joy of Christmas morning when I was a kid. Just like I remember the ecstatic promise of an unhooked brassiere in my thirteen year old erotic imagination. But if I look at it honestly, wasn’t the joy of Christmas morning pretty self-centred and materialistic? And my adolescent sexual fantasies didn’t involve anyone getting off but me.


the Hero's JourneyThe Hero’s Journey, a pattern common to the mythology of every culture, famously described by Joseph Campbell, tells the story of an individual who leaves the sheltered life, goes out into the great unknown, faces challenges he’d never dreamed of, and returns, forged into someone better, more capable, more knowing, selfless, courageous - in short, mature. Campbell says that, “To refuse the call means stagnation…If we fix on the old, we get stuck. When we hang onto any form, we are in danger of putrefaction.”


Our culture is steeped in narcissism, with no conscious association of this tendency with the rotting of our souls. It doesn’t make immediate sense that there are deeper pleasures than instant personal gratification. Why the hell should I give anything up? It’s mine! And I want it! Now!! But as Gabor Mate says elsewhere in In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: “In our own hearts most of us know that we experience the greatest satisfaction not when we receive or acquire something but when we make an authentic contribution to the well-being of others or to the social good, or when we create something original and beautiful or just something that represents a labour of love.”


Temper Tantrum adultBut don’t we need to think of ourselves first in order to succeed? How can we give back to society if we haven’t made it yet? Jean Twenge, in that same interview, describes how narcissism doesn’t actually help people succeed, and that self-esteem isn’t correlated with success. And not only that, but “getting along well with other people, having empathy for them, and being able to take their perspective are actually more likely to lead to success.” This could be where narcissism is hoist by its own petard. Tell a nation that wants more more more, now now now, that their best chance of getting everything they ever wanted and more is... to evolve past their narcissism.




End note by Trevor Malkinson


The Postmodern Superego Injunction- Enjoy!


When I read TJ’s piece one further corollary to his overall analysis jumped out for me. This comes from the work of the philosopher Slavoj Zizek. Zizek is probably the preeminent Zizekinterpreter and purveyor of the work of Jacques Lacan, the French psychoanalyst thinker who could be called the postmodern Freud. In psychoanalytic theory, the super-ego designates a faculty of the human mind that internalizes the rules and conventions of first the parents, and then society at large. This is also called by Lacan the social symbolic and the ‘big Other’. In integral terms we’re pretty much talking about the lower left quadrant, which of course takes on material forms in the lower right quadrant of visible society. The ‘big Other’ is internalized in each individual (upper left) and this leads to visible behavior in their lives (upper right). EnjoyAlthough in certain circumstances this socialization process can be stultifying and repressive, it’s also a mechanism by which we are civilized. The super-ego (e.g. the Ten Commandments) is often involved in policing or holding back desires that society has come to deem as unacceptable.


For Zizek (and I’m in agreement with his general analysis), (post)modern society has seen the dissolution of traditional values, customs and beliefs (the demise of the traditional big Other, or the demise of mythic-membership societies in integral terms). We now live in “liberal-permissive” societies where there’s no longer any collective mode of conduct at all, no longer any meta-code to guide our behavior. We’re now individuals who are free to choose whatever we want. And Zizek famously argues that the enjoypostmodern super-ego injunction today is to ‘Enjoy!’ This is basically an injunction that emanates from a certain consumer capitalism; the secular individualism of our liberal democracies creates the conditions (the clearing away of the traditional big Other) for a particular form of capitalism that implores us to ‘Consume!’ It tells us emphatically and repeatedly (and seductively) to enjoy ourselves to the max because that’s now our right as modern individuals.


There are a few problems with this situation. The super-ego often engenders a sense of guilt and duty in the individual; I must please my parents, be faithful to God and so on. Thus one of the paradoxes of the postmodern super-ego injunction to Enjoy! is that it actually starts to make people feel that they have a duty to enjoy, which begins to suck a lot of the joy out of enjoy!the enjoyment. It also makes people feel guilty and ashamed if they cannot be happy like they are told to do (and see so many images of). So we’re caught in a troublesome double bind- on the one hand a society that has no overarching meta-goals/code of any kind, and on the other a super-ego imperative that ultimately acts as a killjoy on the only thing left for us do, which is pleasure seeking.


In his book Consumed, the political scientist Benjamin Barber argues that consumer capitalism acts to “infantilize” adults. When the super-ego imperative of our culture is to ‘Enjoy!’, this opens the door for all sorts of regressive and childish enjoy cokebehavior. It allows for an eruption of what psychoanalytic theory calls the ‘id’, a cauldron of childish and primitive desires that previous super-ego constellations (lower left quadrant) were meant to inhibit, evolve and civilize. So what looks like a progressive advance into a higher order freedom- I’m now free to enjoy!- is actually acting to dismantle several stages of what I would consider positive, civilizing forces in human development. The result- alas, a culture of babies indeed.





Related items

Join the Discussion

Commenting Policy

Beams and Struts employs commenting guidelines that we expect all readers to bear in mind when commenting at the site. Please take a moment to read them before posting - Beams and Struts Commenting Policy


  • Comment Link KMP Tuesday, 22 June 2010 20:18 posted by KMP

    I agree with much of what's said here--but the argument about people becoming addicted to various substances because of deep emotional wounds, etc., can be just as head-up-the-arse (pardon the term, I'm Irish; we talk like this) as the genetic argument. I've had a couple of friends who became addicted because they were self-centred thrill-seekers who, for some reason, were pretty sure addictive substances wouldn't be addictive to them. Sadly, they were wrong--and after a certain point, addiction is a physical, chemical reality, period.

    As I say, I find most of the above spot-on--I just think that our tendency to avoid responsibility lurks pretty much everywhere.

  • Comment Link TJ Dawe Wednesday, 23 June 2010 02:08 posted by TJ Dawe

    I can't argue with that with any kind of authority. The point is from Gabor Mate's book In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, which I totally recommend. Here are a few quotes from it on the subject of addiction:

    “According to a US national survey, the highest rate of dependence after any use is for tobacco: 32 per cent of people who used nicotine even once went on to long-term habitual use. For alcohol, marijuana and cocaine the rate is about 15 percent and for heroin the rate is 23 percent. Taken together, American and Canadian population surveys indicate that merely having used cocaine a number of times is associated with an addiction risk of less than 10 percent” - pg 135

    "For all that, there is a factual basis to the durable notion of certain drugs being inexorably addictive: some people, a relatively small minority, are at grave risk for addiction if exposed to certain substances. For this minority, exposure to drugs really will trigger addiction, and the trajectory of drug dependence, once begun, is extremely difficult to stop." - pg 135

    "The research literature is unequivocal: most hard-core substance abusers come from abusive homes. The majority of my Skid Row patients suffered severe neglect and maltreatment early in life. Almost all the addicted women inhabiting the Downtown Eastside were sexually assaulted in childhood, as were many of the men. The autobiographical accounts and case files of Portland residents tell stories of pain upon pain: rape, beatings, humiliation, rejection, abandonment, relentless character assassination.” - pg 34

    I've got a full blog article on this book, with more quotes:

  • Comment Link Sarah Lockard Wednesday, 23 June 2010 04:13 posted by Sarah Lockard

    Do you think that this Enjoy It mentality is due to a lack of religion in our society, or perhaps that consumerism has become the new religion. Do you think that in this "liberal-permissive" society that religious institutions have lost a lot of their power to individualism and free thought? Can people be in charge of their own morality and development or do we have to rely on the "big Other" to guide us?

  • Comment Link Joel Pitney Wednesday, 23 June 2010 17:11 posted by Joel Pitney

    Dear TJ,

    Thanks for another great post. We seem to have quite a harmony going in our mutual inquiry (I interviewed Jean Twenge in the EnlightenNext magazine mentioned above).

    Narcissism truly is one of our culture's greatest obstacle right now. It's so ironic that people at the Worldcentric stage of development...that is those of us who see ourselves as global citizens more than citizens of a nation or members of a family...are the most narcissistic. That means that those of us who see the most potential for humanity aren't mature enough yet to really act on our idealism and go beyond ourselves.

    I think a lot of this has to do with the relativity and materialism of postmodern culture. Without something to truly give yourself to, how could you ever transcend your own narcissism?? We had the church and traditional dogma to keep us in check before, but what do we have now?

    I think it's absolutely imperative for us to create a new worldview...a metanarrative even...that can give us the perspective and moral courage to not give into our narcissism and become truly mature humans.

  • Comment Link TJ Dawe Wednesday, 23 June 2010 20:16 posted by TJ Dawe

    Joel - I agree. Irony writ large, and the stakes are too high for us to wallow in narcissism while the world burns. I've got another piece in the planning stages about how this tendency is brilliantly satirized in the blog and book Stuff White People Like, which could have been titled How Postmodernists Pat Themselves On the Back.

    Sarah - to leave us in charge of our own development has worked insofar as we're more advanced that we were fifty or two hundred years ago, when everyone believed in the big Other. But what do we do now? And how to we coalesce when we're averse to submitting to authority? I don't know. Maybe another Beams and Struts writer will chime in with the answer to that one.

  • Comment Link Trevor Malkinson Thursday, 24 June 2010 22:58 posted by Trevor Malkinson

    Hey Sarah, thanks for your thoughtful comments. In terms of consumer society being a surrogate religion, I personally think there's a deep truth in this. I took a first pass through that territory in parts II and III of my essay on modernity, if you are interested, and it'll be a theme I'll be writing about lots on the site. There's not enough room here to really do it any justice, so I'll be careful not to spontaneously break out into an article. But suffice it to say that this is a topic/theme that I'm deeply interested in. In terms of your other question, whether or not we even need a "big Other", or a shared cultural-values framework, I think this is a really intriguing question. When you add to it TJ's question in the comments above about how we can come together collectively in a post-individual society, I think this is the makings of an important inquiry. For now I'd like to sit with it for awhile, but thanks for zeroing in on an important site of inquiry.

  • Comment Link Jeff Sararas Thursday, 24 June 2010 23:27 posted by Jeff Sararas

    First of all, had your burger been encased by deep-fried chicken patties, I would have been just that much more engaged, and this post would have been a home run in my books. (Bread buns are so '90's.)

    But seamlessly integrating Thich Naht Hahn and Adam Sandler in the same piece? That's gotta be Pulitzer material..

    Seriously, what a great piece, and quite beautifully presented I might add. (except for the burger).

    The hard work ahead of us now is to take this knowledge, this view, this perspective and create applications to deploy in the world of the people being talked about here. We need to dislodge from our 30,000 foot view, and engage the minds and hearts of these self-centered, over-indulgent, adult-children responsible for the world continuing to burn.

    However, I suggest we approach the people that make up these constituencies with some less villianizing labels than those. We also need to account for *their* turbulent upbringings -emotionally and otherwise- *as well as* those of the addict.

    Beautiful work TJ et al!

  • Comment Link TJ Dawe Saturday, 26 June 2010 20:23 posted by TJ Dawe

    Jeff, I actually had a picture of KFC's Double Down (a sandwich with deep fried chicken patties instead of a bun:, but thought even the burger picture I chose wasn't the purest representation of the meat most people eat anyway - that monstrosity is Hardee's Monster Thickburger, and here's a wikipedia entry on it: The burger contains 1,410 calories (5,900 kJ), 107 grams of fat, and 2740 mg of sodium.[19]
    Ingredients include a sesame-seed bun, mayonnaise, bacon, cheese, butter-flavored shortening and two patties of ground beef made from Angus cattle for a total of 2/3 lb (300 g uncooked) of meat.
    The marketing of this burger may represent a neo-comfort food movement against alarms raised by nutritionists about the United States' obesity epidemic. In an interview on CNBC, Hardee's CEO Andrew Puzder said the sandwich was "not a burger for tree huggers." The burger was also parodied on an episode of the Late Show with David Letterman when the "CEO of Hardee's" came out to talk about the then-new Monster Thickburger to David Letterman, only to die from a heart attack after just taking one bite. Nevertheless, sales for the 63,067-restaurant chain have risen steadily since the introduction of the (Monster) Thickburger family in 2003, with same-store sales up 7.8% annually.

  • Comment Link Paul Duke Friday, 02 July 2010 13:54 posted by Paul Duke

    Wow. Fantastic insights everyone. I'm blown away.

  • Comment Link Frank Luke Monday, 05 July 2010 16:59 posted by Frank Luke

    If we pretend/intend to be fully and wholly conscious humans, there are four aspects of consciousness to be attended and developed:

    1) The personal, including physical, spiritual and mental health

    2) The interpersonal, encompassing our family and important relations including non-human sentient creatures

    3) The objective: our environment and science

    4) The Cosmos

    It seems many Americans have the mindset of spoiled kids, feeling resentment and getting all upset when denied what they've come to feel are entitlements. Most have gotten so used to living The Good Life that to do with less with cutbacks of any kind is a big drag, not enjoying the lifestyle to which we've come to be accustomed. This expectation is also reflected in the common "Take it easy", a reluctance to exert effort, taking easy jobs and just getting by, getting paid a much as possible for as little work as possible. As we see, obesity has become endemic to an overfed, overeating population. It's a metaphor for our malaise, becoming decadent and degenerating into people unfit physically and spiritually. It's said we're created in God's image but the image of Americans seems to be way overweight and with some really questionable spiritual attitudes, IMO.

    It's to be hoped our economic downturn will prove a revitalization of more essential values and concerns.

  • Comment Link Frank Luke Saturday, 10 July 2010 16:53 posted by Frank Luke

    Spoiled Brats:

    If we pretend/intend to be fully and wholly conscious humans, there are four aspects of consciousness to be attended and developed:

    1) The personal, including physical, spiritual and mental health, including monitoring your ego and narcissism

    2) The interpersonal, encompassing our family and important relations including non-human sentient creatures

    3) The objective: our environment and science

    4) The Cosmos

    Many Americans seem to have the mindset of spoiled kids, feeling resentment and getting all upset when denied what they’ve come to feel are entitlements. Most have gotten so used to living The Good Life that to do with less with cutbacks of any kind is a big drag, not enjoying the lifestyle to which we’ve come to be accustomed. This expectation is also reflected in the common “Take it easy”, a reluctance to exert effort, taking easy jobs and just getting by, getting paid a much as possible for as little work as possible. As we see, obesity has become endemic to an overfed, overeating population. It’s a metaphor for our malaise, becoming decadent and degenerating into people unfit physically and spiritually. It’s said we’re created in God’s image but the image of Americans seems to be way overweight and with some really questionable spiritual attitudes, IMO.

    It’s to be hoped our economic downturn will prove a revitalization of more essential values and concerns.

Login to post comments

Search Beams

Most Popular Discussions