“It is the function of art to renew our perception. What we are familiar with we cease to see. The writer shakes up thby magic, we see a new meaning in it.”
― Anaïs Nin
Angela Anaïs Juana Antolina Rosa Edelmira Nin y Culmell was a French-born American diarist, essayist, novelist, and writer of short stories and erotica. Born to Cuban parents in France, Nin was the daughter of the composer Joaquín Nin and the classically trained singer Rosa Culmell. Wikipedia
President Donald J. Trump speaks to the press before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2026. Photo credit: The White House / Flickr (PD)
A lot has changed since the golden age of journalism.
In the mid-1970s, not long after a couple of reporters broke the story that ended up bringing down a crooked, lying president, an overwhelming majority of Americans trusted the news media.
A lot has changed since then, and most of it was bad for journalism.
The public’s faith in the media has completely reversed in the intervening 50 years — from a high of 72 percent in 1976 to a mere 28 percent now. That is less than the 34 percent who say they have no trust at all.
Perhaps without meaning to, Vice President JD Vance recently summed it up perfectly.
“If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story,” he said. “The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy.”
We don’t know whether this was a rare honest assessment of the crookedness of his boss, a testament to the ideological entrenchment of GOP voters, or a comment on the waning influence of journalists. In any of those cases, it is a scary thought.
What is even more frightening, however, is that Vance is totally right.
On the journalism side of things, the issue isn’t that reporters aren’t uncovering major stories anymore. They do, including some that dwarf the revelation that Richard Nixon helped cover up his campaign’s involvement in trying to bug the opposing party’s headquarters.
So, what has changed?
What sounds like a simple question is actually very complicated, and it seems quite obvious the big news organizations don’t have an answer — at least not those that are still interested in providing a public service (of which there aren’t all that many anymore).
That last bit is part of the answer. The role of journalism and journalists has changed. But so have Americans… and so has the world.
The news media hasn’t done a very good job adjusting to these changes, and that’s a big part of the problem.
What Has Changed? Everything.
While journalism has always been a business, reputable media outlets were much more than just that during those heydays.
Correspondents all over the world kept Americans informed about what was going on in faraway places like Vietnam, and local newspapers told them where the next farmer’s market was going to be, how the high school football team was faring, who had been born, and who had died.
In other words, they were an integral part of the fabric of the country, and often the only source of reliable information outside of that provided by the government.
That’s simply no longer the case.
First, let’s look at how news organizations have changed since then.
Over the past few decades, journalism has unquestioningly become less serious. That began in the early ’80s with the emergence of CNN and USA Today, which turned news into a consumable.
But that wasn’t the end of it.
The internet accelerated that trend, and before you knew it, audiences were turning to the trough of BuzzFeed and its listicles.
In addition, while it was now possible to get the news to people more quickly, this also meant that many journalists and their outlets began valuing speed over accuracy and putting news events into context.
Finally, there was the challenge of monetizing this online content. Some media organizations opted for paywalls while others turned to “clickbait” to generate revenue with ads.
And then things got much, much worse with the advent of social media companies like Facebook and Twitter because, all of a sudden, news outlets no longer controlled and hosted their own content.
That wasn’t the only problem. In the past, “the news” was generated by trained journalists and (generally) presented in a fairly objective manner with safeguards against misinformation.
That’s not what happened on social media platforms, where any yokel with an opinion (or, for that matter, a Russian troll farm) could present “the news.” This usually doesn’t involve any original reporting but rather the regurgitation of the work of the aforementioned journalists. Or, of course, just misinformation and disinformation.
And because the tech companies were not worried about providing a service for the public good but rather just wanted to make a lot of money, they tweaked their algorithms to maximize engagement and push content that stirred emotions, very often rage and grievance, in their users.
A byproduct of all of this was that journalists themselves changed.
While the anchors of network news shows had always been celebrities in their own right (just more along the lines of a trusted family member), the past few decades have also seen the emergence of brand-conscious celebrity journalists.
That began with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, and continued on, for example, with CNN covering Desert Storm.
Once again, the internet and social media made things worse as journalists sought to amass their own personal following.
Back in that golden age in the 1970s, nobody went into the news business to get rich or famous. There wasn’t even a mechanism to do so. Nowadays, however, there are plenty of journalists who seem to view their day jobs as a springboard to internet fame, cable news stardom, or getting that book contract for which they would reserve their juiciest scoops.
That last part is especially maddening because it shows that excellent, Watergate-level investigative journalism is still being done.
And then there are the news outlets themselves.
Many of the biggest ones are now owned and run by billionaires who want to shape the world to their liking. While Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch is the most egregious example, there are now many more.
Obviously, journalism didn’t change in a vacuum.
The news media was forced to react to massive societal changes, such as the emergence of the internet and social media, how Americans consume news, and the arrival of an authoritarian political force that tried to undermine journalism as a potential source for truth.
In every one of these cases, that response has been disastrous.
That is not always the media’s fault, and we are not saying there are easy answers. In some cases, there aren’t any.
For example, there is nothing the horse & buggy operators at the turn of the last century could have done to stay in business, just like it was always clear that the existence of the internet would disrupt journalism.
But news outlets didn’t sufficiently meet the moment.
They never figured out how to use the internet to their advantage instead of being taken advantage of by Facebook and other social media platforms that pilfered their content.
They never made the case to consumers that producing quality journalism comes at a cost.
And too many of them participated in the race to the bottom for clicks.
To be fair, the American people didn’t help. Their appetite for investigative journalism or wonky political coverage has waned. Instead, they are hungry for the kind of slop that propaganda outlets and influencers are dressing up as news.
In other areas, however, the blame squarely falls on the shoulders of the major news outlets.
They failed to address Donald Trump’s endless lies and to unequivocally call out his anti-democratic views and his corruption. Most importantly, they kept giving him a platform because it was good for ratings.
The media’s insistence on treating Trump with kid gloves has done incalculable damage to the country (and to journalism itself).
There are not two sides to every story, and calling out immoral and criminal behavior as such is objectivity.
This is something that the same reporters Trump refers to as “the enemy of the people” still don’t get. They are hanging on to a nostalgic notion of journalism that existed when people were mostly telling the truth and largely acting in good faith, and when the unmasking of a corrupt president could still end a presidency.
But that’s not the time we are living in, and, in order to survive and to continue being one of the few remaining institutions that can hold another crooked president to account, the news media has to find ways to be relevant and trusted again… before every important outlet gets gobbled up by another billionaire who wants to control the news instead of reporting it.
Klaus Marre Klaus Marre, a former congressional reporter, is a senior editor for US politics at WhoWhatWhy. He writes regularly here, and you can also follow him on Bluesky and Substack.
New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove Aug 17, 2026 New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast Betty J. Kovács, PhD, taught symbolic/mythic language for twenty-five years. She has served as Chair of the Board of Directors of the Jung Society of Claremont, California, and sits on the Academic Advisory Board of Forever Family Foundation. Dr. Kovács is author of Merchants of Light: The Consciousness That Is Changing the World, winner of The Scientific and Medical Network 2019 Book Prize and a Nautilus Silver Award. She has also written The Miracle of Death: There Is Nothing But Life. Her website is www.kamlak.com. Here she explains that consciousness is infinite and that, ultimately, there is no real separation between our waking consciousness, our subconscious mind, and the afterlife. It is all one. However, that realization is difficult to maintain in the face of daily life’s necessities. She describes several powerful examples of both archetypal, visionary experiences and after-death communications. They blend into each other. She closes with a riveting prophetic vision. New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “Parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. He is Co-Director of Parapsychology Education at the California Institute for Human Science. (Recorded on April 17, 2021)
New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove Aug 18, 2026 New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast David Hanscom, M.D. is an orthopedic complex spinal deformity surgeon who quit his surgical practice in 2019 to focus on teaching people how to break loose from the grip of chronic mental and physical pain – with and without surgery. His insights arose out of escaping from his own 15-year ordeal of suffering with severe chronic pain. As he began to share his approaches with his patients, a predictable sequence of learning evolved. It is reflected in the self-directed action plan that he created, The DOC (Direct your Own Care) Journey. He is author of Back in Control: A Surgeon’s Roadmap Out of Chronic Pain; Do You Really Need Spine Surgery?: Take Control with a Spine Surgeon’s Advice; and Calm Your Body, Heal Your Mind: Transcend Pain, Anxiety, Anger, and Repetitive Unwanted Thoughts. His website is backincontrol.com. David explains how the ego is often a fragile story that is created in response to criticism, survival anxiety, and the need to feel safe. Many of these stories are cognitive distortions that can keep people trapped in repetitive unwanted thoughts, pain, and anxiety. He shares ways to soften the ego and move from surviving to thriving with flexibility, awareness, and compassion. 00:00 Introduction 02:48 Reasons for the ego 08:32 Defending the identity 14:03 Mental pain and cognitive distortions 25:40 Stress physiology 28:28 Thriving vs. survival 38:52 Awareness and attachments 47:05 Compassion focused therapy 53:33 Safety 56:19 Conclusion New Thinking Allowed CoHost, Emmy Vadnais, OTR/L, is a licensed occupational therapist, intuitive healer and coach, and spiritual guide based in St. Paul, Minnesota. Emmy is the founder of the Intuitive Connections and Holistic OT communities. She is the author of Intuitive Development: How to Trust Your Inner Knowing for Guidance With Relationships, Health, and Spirituality. She offers intuitive coaching to help individuals access their inner guidance for clarity, healing, and meaningful decision-making. Her website is https://emmyvadnais.com (Recorded on June 1, 2026)
The Interview and 2 more Jul 11, 2026 The Interview | A Podcast From The New York Times Mick Jagger, 82, joined David Marchese, to talk about Jagger’s decades-long career as the frontman for the Rolling Stones. The band’s 25th studio album, “Foreign Tongues,” was released on July 10. Marchese is a huge Stones fan, and during their conversations, he found Jagger to be chattier, warmer and more playful than he expected. Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/11/ma… [00:00] Interviewing Mick Jagger [01:06] A question about “Sway” lyrics [02:10] Why the new album came together quickly [07:46] Mixing politics into his songs [08:38] How decades of fame changes you [15:19] “Ringing Hollow,” a song about America [18:05] Elon Musk and the term “rockstar” [23:17] What the job means to Mick Jagger [20:24] Little Richard and building a relationship with an audience [27:37] A Stevie Wonder story [33:35] What’s good about getting older? [38:15] “I’m not saying sex is like art. Well, I am.” [41:09] The “Rolling Stones sound” [46:55] The band Geese and rock’s vitality [51:00] Will the Rolling Stones do more live shows? [54:00] Singing backup on “You’re So Vain” [57:28] Talking philosophy “The Interview” features conversations with the world’s most fascinating people. Each week, co-hosts David Marchese and Lulu Garcia-Navarro talk to compelling, influential figures in culture, politics, business, sports and beyond — illuminating who they are, why they do what they do and how they impact the rest of us.
When thinking about the most famous philosophers over the course of history, the majority of the well-known figures are men. Some women’s voices managed to emerge despite the odds being stacked against them. One of those voices was Hypatia, a famous philosopher, as well as an astronomer, mathematician, and teacher during the Roman Empire. Hypatia was born around 355 CE in Alexandria, Egypt and was the daughter of fellow famous philosopher and mathematician Theon of Alexandria.
The importance of every individual’s right to think freely and form unique opinions was a core tenet of Hypatia’s philosophy. This influenced her take on religion and spirituality, which she believed were best pursued through reasoning, logic, and thought. At the time, Christianity was increasingly taking hold in Alexandria. Hypatia was popular with many followers who would attend her lectures. Yet, her way of thinking threatened organized religion. Receiving backlash for her opinions didn’t prompt her to shy away from speaking them. It is believed that a mob of religious extremists ultimately attacked and murdered Hypatia. Today, the shocking tragedy is thought of as the final act that brought the classical era of Greek philosophy to its end. That’s why Hypatia’s trailblazing way of thinking gave us today’s quote of the day.
“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.” Some attribute this quote directly to Hypatia, while Elbert Hubbard’s 1916 book, “Little Journeys to the Homes of Great Teachers,” attributes the quote to her father, Theon of Alexandria, while discussing her life story. In either case, this quote is perfectly aligned with Hypatia’s passion for free thinking and the importance of taking nothing at face value.
Deeper Meaning of Hypatia’s Quote — Trust your own ability to reflect and evaluate over the ability of others
Print Collector/Getty Images
We’ve all heard the expression “perfect is the enemy of good.” This is precisely how Hypatia thought we should view our own ability to think. You don’t have to be a famous philosopher to be able to parse out truths about the world around you. Don’t let self-doubt prompt you to outsource your thinking to someone else. Always retain your ability to think through things, rather than simply assuming that what you others tell you is true.
This belief was fundamental to Hypatia’s way of thinking. She was vehemently against notions that weren’t proven being taught or treated as established facts. She encouraged people to use their own analysis, rather than falling prey to superstition or religious beliefs that relied on suspension of disbelief over reason.
From political figures, advertising, and the internet, in our society these days, propaganda and misinformation are rampant. Yet, just because folks who are meant to be authority figures tell us something doesn’t make it a fact. Falsehoods are sometimes shared to the public for ulterior motives. In some ways, it’s more important now than ever to hold onto your ability to reason and think critically about what you see or hear.
More Quotes From Hypatia
Christine_kohler/Getty Images
“All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final.”
“Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them.”
“In fact human beings will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.”
“Life is an unfoldment, and the further we travel the more truth we can comprehend. To understand the things that are at our door is the best preparation for understanding those that lie beyond.”
Hypatia[a] (born c. 350–370 – March 415 AD)[1][4] was a Neoplatonist philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician who lived in Alexandria, at that time in the province of Egypt and a major city of the Roman Empire. In Alexandria, Hypatia was a prominent thinker who taught subjects including philosophy and astronomy,[5] and in her lifetime was renowned as a great teacher and a wise counselor. Not the only fourth century Alexandrian female mathematician, Hypatia was preceded by Pandrosion.[6] However, Hypatia is the first female mathematician whose life is reasonably well recorded.[7] She wrote a commentary on Diophantus‘s thirteen-volume Arithmetica, which may survive in part, having been interpolated into Diophantus’s original text, and another commentary on Apollonius of Perga‘s treatise on conic sections, which has not survived. Many modern scholars also believe that Hypatia may have edited the surviving text of Ptolemy‘s Almagest, based on the title of her father Theon‘s commentary on Book III of the Almagest. (Wikipedia.org)
The official online home for Humanae—the acclaimed chromatic skin-color photography project by artist Angélica Dass—can be viewed directly at the Angélica Dass Humanae Portfolio. [1, 2, 3, 4]
About the Project
Concept: A global photographic inventory matching human skin tones to Pantone® color swatches.
Goal: Challenge racial stereotypes and highlight human diversity.
Method: Portrait backgrounds are color-matched to an 11×11 pixel sample from each subject’s nose. [1, 2]
Dividual is an adjective that primarily means divisible, divided, or shared in common with others. While traditionally classified as an archaic linguistic term, it has experienced a modern resurgence in philosophy and anthropology to describe social identity and data tracking. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Core Definitions
Archaic Definition: Capable of being divided, separate, or distributed among multiple entities (e.g., John Milton famously wrote of the moon holding its “dividual” reign with lesser lights). [1, 2]
Philosophical & Digital Definition: An entity that is not an indivisible whole (unlike an individual), but is instead constantly split, quantified, and reduced into data points, tracked behaviors, or component parts. [1, 2]
Anthropological Definition: A person whose identity is interlinked with and inseparable from their community relationships, obligations, and shared responsibilities. [1]
Key Differences: Individual vs. Dividual
Feature
Individual
Dividual
Core Meaning
Indivisible; a single autonomous unit.
Divisible; split into parts or networks.
Modern Context
A unique human being with personal rights.
A user profile broken into tracking data points.
Social Focus
Independence and self-reliance.
Interdependence and shared connection.
The metaphysical implications of the dividual challenge the foundational Western assumption of the “individual” as a solid, indivisible, and autonomous substance. Instead of viewing existence as a collection of isolated “things,” a dividual metaphysics views reality as a fluid network of relations, flows, and constant transformations. [1, 2, 3]
Here are the primary metaphysical implications of the dividual concept:
1. Relational Ontology (Being-as-Relation)
The Shift: Traditional metaphysics (from Aristotle to Descartes) is based on substance ontology, where a thing exists independently on its own. Dividual metaphysics uses relational ontology. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Implication: A person or object does not have relationships; they are the sum of their relationships. Existence is not a collection of separate dots, but the lines connecting them. You do not exist prior to your interactions; you are continuously produced by them. [1, 2]
2. The Illusion of the Boundless Self
The Shift: It dissolves the strict metaphysical boundary between the “inside” (the mind, soul, or self) and the “outside” (the world, others, and nature). [1]
Implication: The skin is no longer a hard metaphysical border. Thoughts, emotions, and bodily states are seen as porous, constantly absorbing and transmitting elements from the environment. The self is an open ecosystem, not a closed fortress. [1]
3. Process Philosophy (Becoming vs. Being)
The Shift: It aligns heavily with process philosophy (such as the work of Alfred North Whitehead). It prioritizes becoming over static being. [1]
Implication: Because a dividual is constantly being divided, distributed, and recombined, identity is never fixed. You are not a permanent noun; you are a continuous verb. Change is the fundamental reality, while stability is just a temporary plateau. [1, 2, 3]
4. Distributed Agency
The Shift: Traditional metaphysics places “agency” (the power to act and choose) squarely inside the individual consciousness.
Implication: Dividualism implies that agency is distributed across networks. A choice is never purely your own; it is co-produced by your biology, your cultural tools, your digital algorithms, and your physical environment. Human and non-human elements fuse to create action. [1]
5. Multiplicity and Assemblages
The Shift: It replaces the metaphysical ideal of the “One” (unity, purity, wholeness) with the reality of the “Many” (multiplicity, fragmentation). [1, 2, 3]
Implication: As philosophers like Gilles Deleuze argued, entities are “assemblages”—temporary collections of heterogeneous parts. A human being is a dividual assemblage of organs, bacteria, digital data profiles, ancestral memories, and social roles, all operating simultaneously without needing a single, central “core.” [1, 2, 3]
Summary of Metaphysical Shifts
Concept
Individual Metaphysics
Dividual Metaphysics
Fundamental Unit
Substance (The thing itself)
Relation (The space between things)
Identity
Fixed, permanent, unified
Fluid, temporary, multiple
Reality
Being (Static)
Becoming (Dynamic process)
Boundaries
Closed, independent
Porous, interdependent
The concept of the dividual aligns profoundly with Eastern metaphysics. While Western philosophy historically prioritized the independent “substance” of the self, Eastern traditions have spent millennia mapping reality as a fluid, interconnected web.
Here is how the metaphysical implications of the dividual manifest across major Eastern traditions:
1. Buddhism: Anatta (Non-Self) and Pratītyasamutpāda
Buddhism offers perhaps the most direct metaphysical parallel to the dividual by explicitly denying the existence of a permanent, indivisible individual soul.
The Five Skandhas (Aggregates): Buddhism teaches that what we call the “self” is actually a temporary assemblage of five constantly changing parts: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. You are a dividual process, split into these fluctuating components.
Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda): Nothing exists in isolation. Everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions. The individual is an illusion; reality consists entirely of relational links.
2. Hinduism: Advaita Vedanta and Indra’s Net
While certain schools of Hinduism affirm an ultimate soul (Atman), its relationship to the universe mirrors dividual metaphysics through radical interconnectedness.
Indra’s Net: This famous metaphor describes a vast cosmic web where every knot contains a jewel. Each jewel reflects all other jewels in the net. No single jewel possesses independent identity; its very existence is a reflection of the whole. [1]
The Illusion of Separation (Maya): The belief that you are a separate, autonomous individual is considered cosmic ignorance (Maya). Metaphysically, your boundaries are porous, and your true nature is seamlessly integrated with the absolute whole (Brahman).
3. Daoism: The Flow of Qi and Yin-Yang
Daoism rejects static categories of “being” in favor of constant transformation, viewing humans not as fixed individuals but as knots in a cosmic current.
The Self as a Vortex: In Daoism, a human being is a temporary concentration of cosmic energy (Qi). Just like a whirlpool in a river, it has a recognizable shape for a moment, but it is never separate from the water flowing through it.
Dynamic Interdependence: The Yin-Yang shows that opposites are not separate entities but mutually constituting parts of a single process. You cannot define the self without the “other.”
4. Confucianism: The Relational Self
While less focused on cosmic metaphysics and more on social metaphysics, Confucianism defines a human being entirely by their social location.
Identity as a Matrix: In Confucian thought, you do not exist prior to your roles as a child, parent, sibling, or citizen. You are the intersection of your obligations. If you strip away all relationships, there is no hidden “individual” left underneath; the relations are the essence of the person.
Comparison: Western Dividualism vs. Eastern Metaphysics
Dimension
Modern Western Dividualism (Deleuze/Data)
Eastern Metaphysics (Buddhism/Daoism)
The Cause of Division
External forces (Algorithms, capital, tracking).
Internal and cosmic reality (Nature of existence).
The hard work required to make God real, how it changes the people who do it, and why it helps explain the enduring power of faith
How do gods and spirits come to feel vividly real to people–as if they were standing right next to them? Humans tend to see supernatural agents everywhere, as the cognitive science of religion has shown. But it isn’t easy to maintain a sense that there are invisible spirits who care about you. In How God Becomes Real, acclaimed anthropologist and scholar of religion T. M. Luhrmann argues that people must work incredibly hard to make gods real and that this effort–by changing the people who do it and giving them the benefits they seek from invisible others–helps to explain the enduring power of faith.
Drawing on ethnographic studies of evangelical Christians, pagans, magicians, Zoroastrians, Black Catholics, Santeria initiates, and newly orthodox Jews, Luhrmann notes that none of these people behave as if gods and spirits are simply there. Rather, these worshippers make strenuous efforts to create a world in which invisible others matter and can become intensely present and real. The faithful accomplish this through detailed stories, absorption, the cultivation of inner senses, belief in a porous mind, strong sensory experiences, prayer, and other practices. Along the way, Luhrmann shows why faith is harder than belief, why prayer is a metacognitive activity like therapy, why becoming religious is like getting engrossed in a book, and much more.
A fascinating account of why religious practices are more powerful than religious beliefs, How God Becomes Real suggests that faith is resilient not because it provides intuitions about gods and spirits–but because it changes the faithful in profound ways.
Tanya Marie Luhrmann is currently the Watkins University Professor in the Anthropology Department at Stanford University. She has been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and has been the recipient of a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship.
Tanya Marie Luhrmann (born 1959) is an American psychological anthropologist best known for her studies of modern-day witches, charismatic Christians, and psychiatrists. She received her AB summa cum laude in Folklore and Mythology from Harvard-Radcliffe in 1981, working with Stanley Tambiah. She then studied Social Anthropology at Cambridge University, working with Jack Goody and Ernest Gellner. In 1986 she received her PhD for work on modern-day witches in England, later published as Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft (1989). In this book, she described the ways in which magic and other esoteric techniques both serve emotional needs and come to seem reasonable through the experience of practice.
Her second research project looked at the situation of contemporary Parsis, a Zoroastrian community in India. The Parsi community enjoyed a privileged position under the British Raj; although by many standards, Parsis have continued to do quite well economically in post-colonial India, they have become politically marginal in comparison to their previous position, and many Parsis speak pessimistically about the future of their community. Luhrmann’s book The Good Parsi (1996) explored the contradictions inherent in the social psychology of a post-colonial elite.
Her third book, and the most widely acclaimed, explored the contradictions and tensions between two models of psychiatry, the psychodynamic (psychoanalytic) and the biomedical, through the ethnographic study of the training of American psychiatry residents during the health care transition of the early 1990s. Of Two Minds (2000) received several awards, including the Victor Turner Prize for Ethnographic Writing and the Boyer Prize for Psychological Anthropology (2001).
Her fourth book, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God (March 2012), examines the growing movement of evangelical and charismatic Christianity, and specifically how practitioners come to experience God as someone with whom they can communicate on a daily basis through prayer and visualization.
Other projects she is working on include a NIMH-funded study of how life on the streets (chronically or periodically homeless) contributes to the experience and morbidity of schizophrenia.
The secretary of war puts the T in toxic masculinity.
Last month, Pete Hegseth, US secretary of war — and I do mean war— further polluted the air already fouled with misinformation: He amplified the false impression circulated by the online manosphere that high testosterone levels make one a better fighter.
This seems to have led many civilian men to seek out sources — legitimate or not — to get this manly hormone into their systems, whether they need it or not. (And if they don’t need it, they may suffer the dreadful effects of its abuse — such as testicle shrinkage!)
As you probably know, Hegseth demanded that all soldiers over the age of 30 have their testosterone levels tested. And look at the language he used:
He wants a “High-T Department of War.”
He wants soldiers on the “leading edge of lethality.”
And if a “warfighter’s” testosterone is found to be deficient, he has the “option” of getting hormone replacement therapy. (Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gets such therapy, and he is definitely lethal, though not as a soldier. His decisions on vaccines have resulted in untold death and misery.)
Since our soldiers in the Middle East do their killing not by hand-to-hand combat but by operating lethal machinery — the role of “High T” in modern warfare is not clear to me.
Possibly Hegseth believes a man with high testosterone will be not only physically, but psychologically fit; that is, he should have the right lethal attitude. Kill! Kill! Kill!
Ironically, some of the most lethal, most murderous leaders in history — men who ordered others to kill — apparently had low levels of testosterone themselves. There is some truth in this British World War II song, at least as it applies to Hitler:
And then there’s Napoleon, another killer. He had a condition known as “micropenis.” His doctor surreptitiously removed the organ during his autopsy and, ever since, it has been passed around, unpreserved, in a small presentation box, to various collectors.
The organ has been described as a “shriveled eel” and “a bit of beef jerky.” Of course in its dried out state, it wouldn’t look its best, but indications are, his equipment was abnormally small.
And there’s other evidence Napoleon’s testosterone levels may have been beneath Hegseth’s standards. According to Napoleon’s doctor, François Antommarchi, after stepping out of his bath, the Emperor said to him (translations vary):
“See Doctor, what lovely arms, what smooth white skin without a single hair! What rounded breasts — any beauty would be proud of a bosom like mine.”
In addition to Hitler and Napoleon, there are droll stories about lethal contemporary characters — men you can’t avoid reading about every day — men whose names I shall not mention.
These stories describe in detail what some would characterize as “embarrassing inadequacies” (not necessarily hormone related), that could be especially triggering to an appearance-obsessed, malignant narcissist. You can guess who they are. Google is gagging over the inquiries.
But what these unmentioned men — with their unmentionable private issues — truly lack is a conscience. And to a degree that is grotesque. Their actions have resulted in countless deaths and ruined lives.
***
I wonder what Hegseth’s own testosterone levels are.
And I wonder if he knows how much alcohol diminishes one’s testosterone levels.
A doctor once told me about all the drunks he’d seen down in the Bowery who had full heads of hair — owing to low levels of testosterone thanks to booze. According to the peer-reviewed medical journal Andrology, which reported the results of multiple analyses involving 10,199 men:
“The meta-analysis showed that alcohol consumption overall is related to significant reduction in circulating concentrations of total testosterone.”
(Note to the technically inclined: Men and women both have testosterone and estrogen, but in different proportions. In a man, low testosterone results in “unopposed estrogen,” which in turn results in nice head hair, but low body hair. On the other hand, if a woman is very low in estrogen, she has “unopposed testosterone” and may have sparse head hair, but a full mustache.)
Pete Hegseth certainly has plenty of hair on his head that is probably his own — and for decades, apparently, he’s had plenty of alcohol in his system.
Whistleblowers from the Concerned Veterans for America (CVA), led by Hegseth until 2016, alleged that he was repeatedly drunk while performing official duties. More recently (December 3, 2024), NBC News published this story, based on interviews with 10 current and former Fox employees: “Pete Hegseth’s Drinking Worried Colleagues at Fox News.” And Hegseth’s former sister-in-law alleged in an affidavit that Hegseth was frequently drunk, during which time he abused his wife.
In any case, it sounds like he’s had more than a drink or two.
Besides alcohol, recreational drugs like heroin and cocaine affect testosterone levels, which may explain why former drug user Kennedy needs hormone replacement therapy. (He also needs brain replacement therapy, but none is available.)
But there is something far more dangerous to your masculinity and, indeed, to the entire human race and other forms of life on this planet. Namely, petroleum, aka oil.
***
Sooner or later, in one form or another, oil seeps into everything in our lives.
It seeps into nearly everything around us — in the form of tiny bits of plastic — which are made from fossil fuels.
Microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs), which are even smaller, abound in the air, the soil, the water, our food, and not just from the plastic packaging. MPs have been found in the animals we eat (fish muscle, for example) and in the fibers of fruits and vegetables.
And MP/NPs are in nearly every organ of your body. They are in your brain (7 grams in the frontal cortex, where you do your thinking), in your retinas, in your blood vessels, your heart, liver, and so on. And in your reproductive equipment, male and female.
In this story, I am focusing on males because, according to our secretary of war, males need their testosterone in order to be on the “leading edge of lethality.”
NPs have been found in human semen, in human testicles (and in the testicles of dogs, studied because their lives are deeply intertwined with ours), and in human penises. To see more proof of the danger, go here, here, and here.)
The drop in sperm count in developed countries began approximately 50 years ago. The subject is controversial, and different causes are cited, but I can’t help noticing that 50 years ago happens to be about the same time we started using really humongous amounts of plastics.
And plastics seem to be here to stay. The world is shifting toward renewable power, and to offset declining fuel sales, major oil and gas companies are turning to plastics as “Plan B.” According to the Center for International Environmental Law, “Just as the world begins to realize the dangers of plastic pollution and take action to reduce it, industry is poised to invest billions in expanding plastic production.”
***
In the meantime, though infested with plastic, we should all try to take good care of ourselves.
Men, if you suspect you have abnormally low testosterone levels — or if you’re an accomplished hypochondriac — you can view this long list of symptoms presented by the Mayo Clinic — but bear in mind that many of these same symptoms are caused by psychological factors. Better to discuss the issue with a urologist.
Here are some good, up-to-date articles on the safety of testosterone therapy:
Your lifestyle can greatly affect your hormone levels (as well as everything else) — high stress, inadequate sleep, poor nutrition, lack of exercise, and, as previously mentioned, drugs and alcohol. You’ve heard it all before.
Avoid this book: Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs, by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who believes “No menace to this nation is greater than the collapse of American manhood, the collapse of masculine strength.”
Milicent CranorMilicent Cranor is a senior editor at WhoWhatWhy. She has worked as a creative editor at E.P. Dutton, a comedy ghostwriter, and editor of consequential legal and scientific documents. She has also co-authored numerous peer-reviewed articles for medical journals.
Consciousness, spirituality, biography, sexuality, androgyny, futurism, space, the arts, science, astrology, democracy, humor, books, movies and more
