SPEAK INTO EXISTENCE

Does giving into our addictions make us human?

by Zachary Lee

One evening, after a particularly taxing day of writing about the religious undertones of Hamlet for my Shakespeare tutorial, I took a momentary bit of respite by watching the pilot of the TV show Brooklyn 99. The 22-minute premiere was a small—but necessary—break ahead of a long night of diving into the Prince of Denmark’s schizophrenic psyche. But, to my horror, minutes quickly turned to hours which turned to weeks until the seasons ran out and fear set in. Not only had I wasted time, but now there were more episodes! 

While I sought to cover my metaphorical nakedness and tangible shame with the fig leaves of vigorous essay writing, I initially reasoned that this habit of binging was not uncommon. A quick Google initially assuaged my worries; a 2017 survey by Netflix showed that “61 percent of users regularly watch between 2-6 episodes of a show in one sitting.”[1] Given this behavior, Netflix users could be watching anywhere from 4.5-42 hours a week, depending on the length of each episode.

Additionally, there was science underlying my agony. At the core of my cravings lay dopamine, a natural chemical response that gives the body a sense of reward and pleasure. Dopamine can activate in the body from something as simple (or difficult) as getting a good night’s rest to the more intense acts of running a 2,189-Mile Marathon.[2] The human brain is always on the lookout to experience this high. 

In her article for NBC, “What happens to your brain when you binge-watch a TV series?”, clinical psychologist Dr. Renee Carr shared that dopamine urges the body to continue engaging in your current behavior because said act feels good. For us streamers, our quest for more dopamine is as simple as lying motionless while Netflix begins the next episode automatically. Carr hauntingly stated, “Your body does not discriminate against pleasure. It can become addicted to any activity or substance that consistently produces dopamine. When binge-watching your favorite show … you experience a pseudo-addiction to the show because you develop cravings for dopamine.” 

Carr’s word “addiction” caught me off-guard and struck an uncomfortable chord. While the body may not discriminate against pleasure, not all substances or behaviors are created equal; I was initially hesitant to label myself as an addict because its connotations are linked with destructive drug and alcohol use. The official definition of Psychology Today likewise states addiction as “a condition in which a person engages in the use of a substance or in a behavior for which the rewarding effects provide a compelling incentive to repeatedly pursue the behavior despite detrimental consequences.”[3] A TV show obsession did not seem to have nearly as detrimental consequences as an infatuation with heavier substances. 

Carr’s use of the word reflects a larger linguistic shift as the words of “addict” and “addiction” have recently relapsed as their tamer and more colloquial use clashes with the austerity of the official definition. To be an addict may now apply to a variety of obscure cravings. Amy Fleming writes in her article “Constant Cravings: Is Addiction on the Rise?”[4] that “addiction was once viewed as an unsavory fringe disease, tethered to substances with killer withdrawal symptoms, such as alcohol and opium. But now the scope of what humans can be addicted to seems to have snowballed, from sugar to shopping to social media.”

Not only has the range of possible things—and behaviors—to be addicted to increased, the gravitas of the words has greatly diminished. Today, to confess that one is a “film addict” or a “foodie” will be most likely met with laughs or murmurs of agreement rather than concern or horror. Case in point: after confiding in my roommate that I had gotten addicted to Brooklyn 99 and binged it in its entirety, his counsel was simply a suggestion of other shows I should watch instead. 

This normalization of “addiction” points to a larger cultural attitude shift: that addiction is less anomalous and perhaps even integral to the human experience. While few would likely state that one’s addictions are inherent to who they are, people’s willingness to use the word “addiction” when describing themselves points to a deeper reality: that to be human is to be addicted. Our language here reflects our understanding of and relation to the substances and behaviors that underlie our addictions.

Though not a scientist by any means, David Foster Wallace described this aspect of human condition poignantly in his famed commencement speech to Kenyon College. “In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship,” he uttered with a preacher’s gravitas. Wallace deftly articulated how this penchant for attachment is deeply ingrained in the human consciousness for us all. 

This is where the modern use of “addiction” does get something right. By positioning addictions as extensions of one’s personality, it shows that human beings inherently latch themselves on to substances and things in order to find meaning or to survive—whether physically, mentally, or spiritually. Humanity has an inclination for finding meaning outside of ourselves. While human beings are not all diagnosed as addicts medically, we all share fundamental addictive tendencies.

However, the commonness of such tendencies does not lead to their justification. Stanford Anthropology Professor Ian Hodder in his book Where Are We Heading? The Evolution of Humans and Things researched how human beings have had a disproportionate attachment to outside substances and objects.[5] Hodder stresses that there are consequences if we continue to act out on these impulses, no matter how natural they may feel. He states, “We, as humans, depend on things in all sorts of ways, as tools to keep warm and gather food or as a way to show our social status. In my view, being dependent on things is what makes us human. We cannot be without things.” 

Swap “things” out for “substances” or “particular behaviors” and it is not hard to come to the conclusion that to be human is to be an addict (or have addictive tendencies). Yet some desires, no matter, how natural they seem, do not merit their actualization. Hodder’s research on the 9,000-year-old Neolithic city of Çatalhöyük in central Turkey shows how human beings have always subjugated the environment to suit their own methods. He shares, “If you recognize that impacting the environment is something that humans have always done, then solving it is not just a matter of dealing with current economic systems. It’s a matter of dealing much more deeply with who we are and how we relate to our world.” While Hodder never outright mentions addiction, the concepts of dependence and subjugation remain. Throughout history, human beings have willingly latched themselves to substances and behaviors in order to find meaning, purpose, and advancement.

Thus, mere abstinence is not enough. Nature always has a way of winning out over even the strongest of barriers that are set in place. A more permanent and long-lasting notion to combat addiction is to re-channel one’s energies and inclinations in positive ways. Philosopher David Dennett states that while “we have built-in desires to reproduce and to do pretty much whatever it takes to achieve this goal,” at the same time “we also have creeds, and the ability to transcend our genetic imperatives.” Perhaps, the key lies in thinking about creeds at large and refusing to simply talk about ourselves as users. That way, our definition lies in what we are and can be. 

The battle between suppressing one’s desires for something greater and better is frequently addressed in the Bible. Much of the Bible’s wisdom literature speaks to the dangers of unrestrained appetite and highlight the calamity that can come without self-control.[6] It would be a misnomer to think that the Christian faith does not celebrate or love things like sex, good food, and friends. These are all things that God has created and called good and are meant to be enjoyed. The danger with those who love “for all that is in the world–the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” is that they ultimately fail to provide lasting satisfaction.[7] The desire for physical intimacy, to taste good food, and to spend time with friends are all things that God has given human beings as a way to better know and love Him. But, when we make those things paramount, we elevate them to a messianic status they are never meant to fulfill.

On this, Wallace writes again: “If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you.” The worst  thing  about this human condition is that it is “unconscious,” or as Wallace puts it, our “default setting.”  It’s the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware of what you’re doing.”

Wallace was able to articulate the emptiness we all feel and the futility of the things we turn to satisfy but fail to answer the question of ultimate fulfillment. It is here where the Christian worldview states that the core of this is rightly ordered love. The desires we have are God-given but are meant to point to God as our ultimate provider and sustainer. What we turn to in the midst of our addictions will never truly satisfy.  

The church father St. Augustine says, “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee.” So, it is not that God does not want us to enjoy good gifts He has given but rather to order our desires rightly; by first desiring and loving Him are we better able to enjoy the gifts He has given. Thus, at our core, human beings are worshipers. Thus we must be mindful of what we ultimately subjugate ourselves too for these are not neutral forces; we are easily able to turn good things into masters that where we expect ultimate liberation and satisfaction and yet it never comes.

Ultimately, addiction is a spectrum, not a binary scale. At the level David Foster Wallace articulates, all humans are addicts in that we all worship something in the “trenches of adult life.” The only choice is what one gets to subject themselves to, whether that be a TV show or drug. But, human beings do not have to embody this aspect of their being in a way that is destructive for themselves and the environment. There is a difference between what is innate and what is acted upon; to quote Shakespeare, “tis one thing to be tempted, another thing to fall.” 

SOURCES

1. Danielle Page, “What happens to your brain when you binge-watch a TV series,” NBCNews, 4 June 2019 <https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/what-happens-your-brain-when-you-binge-watch-tv-series-ncna816991>

2. Paul Bisceglio, “The Wisdom of Running a 2,189-Mile Marathon”, The Atlantic, 4 June 2019, <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-2189-mile-marathon/559112/>

3. “What is Addiction?”, Psychology Today, 4 June 2019, <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/addiction>

4. Amy Fleming, “Constant cravings: is addiction on the rise?”, The Guardian, 4 June 2019, <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/09/constant-cravings-is-addiction-on-the-rise>

5. Chris Kark, “Archaeologists from Stanford find an 8,000-year-old ‘goddess figurine’ in central Turkey”, Stanford News, 4 June 2019, <https://news.stanford.edu/2016/09/29/archaeologists-find-8000-year-old-goddess-figurine-central-turkey/>

6. Verses such as Proverbs 23:1-3, 23:7, 23:20-21, 25:28, 16:26

7. 1 John 2:15-16 (NIV)