Why It's Painful to Live In A Pain-Free Society

Is it truly beneficial to bubble-wrap our lives and avoid all forms of potential discomfort?

“Of all the corporeal feelings, pain alone is like a navigable river which never dries up and which leads man down to the sea. Pleasure, in contrast, turns out to be a dead end, wherever man tries to follow its lead.” - Walter Benjamin

Pain. We all hate it.

I think pain is one of those things that humans are united in hating, as divided of a species as we are. Pain is uncomfortable, it ruins things, it’s a stark reminder that our lives are finite - why would we not loathe it?

Pain is a universal part of the human experience, but what would happen if we were to completely devoid our lives of it?

According to Byung-Chul Han, the answer is right outside your window.

In today’s post, we’ll be exploring a few ideas from Byung-Chul Han, a South-Korean born philosopher based out of Germany. Specifically, we’ll be diving into why he believes our society has been consumed by algophobia (the fear of pain), and the subsequent negative effects produced by this. According to Han, today’s society is a perfect example of what can go wrong if pain is completely erased and avoided. Spoiler alert; it’s not as nice of a world as it may sound.

Let’s dive in.

As a quick note; when I use the word ‘pain’ throughout this post, I’m referring to a type of semi-inevitable pain that is universal to the human experience. This type of pain usually catalyzes growth and development. Examples of this include being rejected from your dream job, the public humiliation and failure of a personal venture not working out, or not succeeding at something on your first, second, or third try. In other words, a great example of this ‘pain’ that I refer to is the pain that comes along with failure. It’s a form of suffering that we technically could avoid because it’s the easier thing to do, but sometimes don’t in the spirit of long-term benefit. What I am not referring to, is things like chronic, physical pain, to which this post probably isn’t that relevant.

Before I get into the ‘meat’ of today’s post, I want to provide a bit more info about the philosopher behind these ideas.

Byung-Chul Han is probably one of my favorite philosophers. He’s a unique individual; he rarely does interviews, he stays out of the public eye, and he only writes 3 sentences a day which eventually add up to create his philosophical texts. Being a solitary individual, he spends his time gardening and pursuing various hobbies. Han often refuses to answer questions pertaining to his writings, as he believes that his texts speak for themselves. His works are ‘meant to be read’, rather than asked about or explained. In my opinion, Han is an exemplary philosopher; he’s in a lane of his own and could care less about what the world thinks about him and his ideas.

His books are quite short - typically only about 50 to 100 pages long - yet they convey immensely profound ideas. This is partly why I’m going to be covering his ideas one chapter at a time, rather than book by book. It would simply be impossible to cover the entirety of one of his books within a single Substack post. The depth of his ideas, paired with his talent for conciseness, make his writings quite dense. There’s a lot to unpack and reflect upon within each sentence.

Within this post, we’ll be exploring a chapter from The Palliative Society, a book by Han that outlines the harms of our societal fear of pain. The chapter we’ll be taking a look at is called The Compulsion of Happiness.

Within The Palliative Society, Han argues that algophobia (the fear of pain) has infiltrated virtually every aspect of modern society. From culture to politics to education, many aspects of our society have an emphasis on minimizing and avoiding pain. The problem with this, according to Han, is that this societal avoidance of pain has rendered us unable to deal with nor benefit from it. Pain plays an important role within all of our lives, whether we recognize it or not, and as Han goes on to illustrate later in the book, a lack of it can have devastating consequences.

“Our relation to pain reveals what kind of society we are. Pain is a cipher. It contains the key to understanding any society. Every critique of society must therefore provide a hermeneutics of pain. If pain is left to medicine, we neglect its character as a sign.” - The Palliative Society, pg. 1

“Today, a universal algophobia rules; a generalized fear of pain. The ability to tolerate pain is rapidly diminishing. The consequence of this algophobia is a permanent anesthesia. All painful conditions are avoided. Even the pain of love is treated as suspect.” - The Palliative Society, pg. 1

The reason for this severe, societal algophobia? An unhealthy amount of positivity.

Han argues that due to our current society pushing relentless and unhealthy positivity, pain has become increasingly feared and erased.

“We live in a society of positivity that tries to extinguish any form of negativity. Pain is negativity par excellence.” - The Palliative Society, pg. 2

Within modern society, “less and less” space is given to conflicts and controversies that might prompt painful discussions. For example, within our politics, we’ve grown increasingly tribalistic and have all been forced to ‘pick a side’ - this allows for maximized comfort and the erasure of pain by being able to stay within our own echo chambers and epistemic bubbles, and ultimately allows for contact with anyone who disagrees with us to stay at a minimum.

As Han illustrates; “Instead of argument and competition over the better ideas, there is a surrender to systemic compulsion…Palliative politics is incapable of implementing radical reforms that might be painful. It prefers quick-acting analgesics, which only mask systemic dysfunctionality and distortion.” Han also points out the fact that our current politics “lacks the courage to endure pain”.

I definitely agree with Han here - we’re so focused on identifying as ‘right’ or ‘left’ that we’ve lost the ability to critically engage with those who have differing opinions from us. Why? Probably because it’s easier to be tribalistic than critically engage with those who disagree with you. In other words, we run away from political pain.

This societal algophobia that Han speaks of is present everywhere. I’m sure you can identify a few examples yourself. Participation trophies, mind-numbing video games and media, the artificiality of social media, and more, are all examples of our growing fear of pain as a society. As Han states; “Not just art but life itself should be instagrammable, that is, free of rough edges, of conflicts or contradictions that could cause pain.”

The problem with this algophobia is that we lose access to the benefits that pain can provide. What’s often forgotten about pain is that it’s a catalyst for change, it tells us when something is wrong, it offers a form of contrast that allows us to feel joy, it’s a reminder that we’re human. Most importantly, it unites us. There’s many aspects of pain that are beneficial. Han takes this one step further and argues that a consciousness that cannot feel pain or is completely isolated from it is incapable of experience itself. You can interpret that in a variety of ways, but how I see it is this; pain offers a required contrast for life itself. Without pain, we wouldn’t know what joy is. We wouldn’t know when something is wrong, and we wouldn’t seek to correct things. It’s a reminder that we’re mortal; in a weird, twisted sort of way, it motivates us. I mean, I could go on and on in regards to why I think pain is beneficial, but I would also urge you to do your own interpreting and reflecting. As Han states, pain is a reminder that we’re alive, and a life without pain is at risk of being “a captive in the hell of the same”. Put it this way; there’s a reason why the complete inability to feel pain at a biological level is considered a health risk and not a superpower. I think the same logic can be applied to society as a whole.

Within the chapter The Compulsion of Happiness, Han introduces a variety of ideas, all of which center around the dangers of our society’s total focus on positivity. I absolutely cannot do the entire chapter justice within this post, so if you’ve enjoyed so far, I would really urge you to give the book a read. One idea that I found particularly interesting was Han’s commentary on the socially mediated nature of pain. He highlights the fact that pain can be a socio-economic indicator - it can tell us when something’s wrong.

“Pain is a reflection of socio-economic conditions which leave psychological traces. Analgesics, prescribed by the dozen, mask the social conditions that create the pain in the first place… The palliative society immunizes itself against criticism through medically induced numbness or numbness produced through media consumption.” - The Palliative Society, pg. 11-12

Han is essentially arguing that due to our obsession with positivity, including our obsession with ‘analgesics’, we’ve become blind to the root of many of our problems and have, in some cases, made them worse. This is how I see it; if you broke your leg, and your solution is simply to take strong painkillers rather than get a cast or some other long-term solution, you wouldn’t exactly be fixing your problem. Moreover, if you happened to be taking these painkillers before you broke your leg, you wouldn’t even know that you broke something in the first place!

“Permanent social anesthesia prevents insight and reflection; it even represses the truth.” - The Palliative Society, pg. 12

He goes on to illustrate how our constant pursuit of happiness is actually quite isolating. Han argues that, within our society, each person is responsible for their own happiness. Happiness has become a ‘private matter’, and so if you’re suffering, it’s perceived as a personal failure rather than something else.

“Instead of revolution we thus get depression. Working on our own soul as best we can, we lose sight of the social relations that lead to social malformations. Tortured by fear and anxiety, we blame not society but ourselves. The catalyst for revolution, however, is shared pain.” - The Palliative Society, pg. 12

How I interpret this is the following; when happiness becomes privatized and is viewed as a personal matter, it can make us blind to external, societal forces and circumstances. Failures are almost always our fault, rather than a result of something bigger than us. When Han uses the word ‘revolution’, I think he’s referring to change in general, rather than a large-scale, cinematic revolution that many of us may think of. Small but desperately needed changes within society may be hindered by this ‘privatization’ of happiness.

Han ends off the chapter by emphasizing the fact that the ‘happiness’ pushed by society may not even be true happiness. According to him, the ‘mainstream’ definition of happiness is a collection of positive feelings that enhances your performance as a worker and as a contributor to society. This is not true happiness, though. As he states; “what characterizes happiness is the fact that it is not at one’s disposal. Inherent in it is a certain negativity. True happiness is only possible as fractured… Pain gives happiness endurance.”

What Han is trying to say here, in my opinion, is that pain actually allows us to experience true happiness. Mainstream society has an emphasis on constant, relentless positivity, but this isn’t how true happiness operates. You can’t be happy all the time, nor can you simply just ‘command’ yourself to be happy, hence why Han describes true happiness as being ‘not at one’s disposal’ and something that is ‘fractured’. If you’ve ever taken an introductory economics course, you’d know that scarcity equals value. The scarcity of happiness, including our inability to ‘be happy’ whenever we want, is what makes it so valuable to us. This is perhaps the ‘inherent negativity’ that Han is talking about; the fact that ‘true happiness’ isn’t actually completely in our control - it requires some sort of pain or suffering to exist. This distinction between ‘true happiness’ and the definition of happiness that is held within mainstream society is important because it calls into question if our society of ‘positivity’ is truly, authentically positive.

I personally find Han’s ideas within this chapter to be fascinating for two reasons; it’s an important reminder that pain is valuable, and his ideas as a whole actually make pain more tolerable in the first place. To begin, Han’s ideas remind us that pain plays an important role both within our lives and within society. As I mentioned earlier, pain helps us grow, it’s a signal that something’s wrong or needs to be changed, and most importantly - it offers us an important contrast.

What I mean by this is the following; if we didn’t have pain and suffering, we wouldn’t have joy or happiness. The way I see it, pain is sort of like the white pages of a book. In order to be able to read and enjoy a book, you need a white page to offer a contrast to the black letters. Both the page and the letters are equally important. Pain is similar to a white page. If we didn’t have pain, we wouldn’t be able to identify nor know what joy or happiness is. In other words, pain allows us to have happiness and joy. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that pain is the key to happiness and joy.

I also believe that Han’s remarks make pain more tolerable (this is the case for me at least). By highlighting the beneficial aspects of pain, I now approach it with a sort of openness. This isn’t to say that I somehow love pain now, or that I’ll intentionally seek it out, but rather, that I’ll be a stronger individual when I inevitably face pain again in the future. Pain is inevitable throughout our lives, so why not try to find a silver-lining rather than make our ‘run-ins’ with suffering any more painful than they have to be.

An additional point which I believe Han is advocating for is the pursuit of true happiness, rather than the definition of ‘happiness’ that’s given to you.

I think aiming to minimize pain and suffering is a good thing. In my mind, this is a net-positive course of action. To have a generalized, chronic fear of pain however, and to want to erase it completely, both within our lives and within society, would be a tragedy. Have those difficult discussions, apply for that intimidating job, make those radical changes within your life that may be painful in the short-term but beneficial in the long-term - I believe pursuing pleasure has a capped upside whereas pursuing things that risk discomfort can facilitate growth in an unlimited amount of ways.

Pain is what fuels change, so it’s not surprising to me that our stagnating society just so happens to be an algophobic one.

---

Enjoyed today’s post? Feel free to show your support by buying me a coffee using the button below!