By The Editorial Board
A couple of weeks ago, many students attended a mandatory lecture in which the guest speaker spoke about the importance of sleep. For those who managed to stay awake throughout, they would have told you something along the lines of “I didn’t see the point” and “Nothing was said that we didn’t already know”. Indeed, the lecturer spoke about the science of sleep deprivation and highlighted statistics that prove that less sleep results in worse performance. But did we really need to be reminded? Are we not already acutely aware of the importance of sleep, having to experience the consequences of incessant tiredness day after day?
It’s clear to many of us that starting school at 8:30 is the main culprit. However, defence against legitimate, widespread, institutional change, such as implementing later start times, is largely logistical. Although it has been proven by institutions such as the American Psychological Association that later start times do result in greater well-being, they’re assumed to bring about a whole slew of issues, such as later bedtimes, later extracurricular activities, lack of time for the ever-important private tutor, and clashes with traditional working schedules.
It’s certainly true that change can be difficult and bureaucratic, and, although it may be the best solution, it’s naive to assume that it can just happen right away. But in light of this inability, why does the school insist on things like lectures and self-care activities to make up for it?
At the Print, these ongoings reminded us of a phenomenon that philosophers such as Slavoj Zizek spoke about, known as “Western Buddhism”. According to him, there’s been a recourse in the West to Buddhist philosophy, stating that, though ostensibly at odds with one another, it’s actually the perfect ideological supplement to the late stages of capitalism. For those who cannot cope with the rapidity of technological development, it’s comforting to rely on a philosophy that assures that control of your environment is out of reach, the only way to contentment being to relinquish control and remain indifferent to capitalistic development. Thus, it’s “arguably the most efficient way for us to fully participate in capitalist dynamics while retaining the appearance of mental sanity”
As established rules go unquestioned and as embedded institutional problems go unaddressed, emphasis is placed on easy, individual, self-help philosophies to fix the problem. Thus, responsibility and blame are subtly placed on the students.
However, we want to reiterate that the lecture, as well as many of the mindfulness and self-care activities, are not merely malignant intents from the higher-ups to uphold the status quo. In fact, they’re useful tools through which we can understand ourselves better. They’re good ideas that encourage us to be content, understanding ourselves and our emotions as ephemeral phenomena and universal. However, they’re unfortunately often propped up as “the solution”, often becoming the resort of institutions that know people are miserable, but who also understand that real change is often too difficult, or for whom reformation is simply not profitable. In fact, the very idea that emotions are transient may serve as a useful veil for exploitative practices and justify unfair socio-economic circumstances.
The Print does not intend to slander these practices, though we do want to empathise with those unconvinced by the insincerity of its application in the school. Sometimes, happiness can only come from addressing the source and initiating change. We cannot do that on our own, but we can at the very least set a precedent for a culture of questioning and critically investigating some of the problems that plague the school, and the way those with power choose to respond.