At the same time as we attempt to disguise doom as merernaccident, the development of anesthetics, analgesics, and narcoticsrnhas helped us to dull the sensitivity in us that bears affliction.rnWe demand not only that we shall not suffer, but thatrnthe sufferings of others—carried beyond a certain point—rnshall be removed from our gaze. Wordsworth in his poem ThernOld Cumberland Beggar speaks of the beggar’s value to therncommunity in providing an opportunity for the exercise ofrncharity and compassion, but our definition of value is morernstrictly economic. Kafka’s Metamorphosis is a terrifying parablernof how compassion turns into indifference, as GregorrnSamsa’s family adjusts to his hideous transformation and getsrnon with its everyday life. But no one has more penetratinglyrncharted the process by which pity can turn into revulsion thanrnHerman Melville in his presentation of Bartleby, the palernyoung scrivener, “forlorncst of mankind,” who first moves hisrnemployer to compassion before becoming a “millstone,” an “intolerablernincubus,” someone who must somehow be got rid of.rn”Up to a certain point the thought or sight of misery enlists ourrnbest affections; but, in certain special cases, beyond that pointrnit does not. They err who assert that invariably this is owing tornthe inherent selfishness of the human heart. It rather proceedsrnfrom a certain hopelessness of remedying excessive and organicrnill. To a sensitive being, pity is not seldom pain. And whenrnat last it is perceived that such pity cannot lead to effectual succor,rncommon sense bids the soul be rid of it. That I saw thatrnmorning persuaded that the scrivener was the victim of innaternand incurable disorder.” This discovery precipitates thernlawyer’s resolve to separate forever from his incurable clerk.rnTrue, he cannot bring himself to “commit his innocent pallorrnto the common jail,” but he is pleased to let others do it forrnhim. The “wasted” Bartleby is led off to die in prison; sufferingrnis made invisible, taken where the sensitive lawyer need nornlonger see it.rnIn Samuel Butler’s Erewhon this process is carried to itsrnconclusion in the criminalization of illness, with pity replacedrnby condemnation. In Butler’s imaginary land suffering has becomerna matter of culpability. “You were convicted of aggravatedrnbronchitis last year,” says a magistrate to a consumptiverndefendant, “and I find that though you are now only twentythreernyears old, you have been imprisoned on no less than fourteenrnoccasions for illnesses of a more or less hateful character.”rnLIBERAL ARTSrnTHAT OLD-TIME RELIGIONrnGeorge Washington University’s second annual ReligionrnWeek, held from March 25 to April 1, was a big flop, reportsrnthe GW Hatchet. Chris Kristen I lolz, one of the organizers ofrnthe week’s events, blamed the low turnout on “how mainstreamrnthe week’s events have been.” Part of the troublernmay have been GW’s conception of “mainstream.” Thernweek’s events were cosponsored by the Lesbian Gay BisexualrnAlliance and Wimmin’s Issues Now. One of the events wasrna “theater interpretation” of the Garden of Eden entitledrn”Guarding the Garden: An Eco-Feminist Portrayal of Genesis.”rnEven if illness is not the patient’s fault, it is unquestionably arnfault in him. The idea, prevalent in older cultures, that sicknessrnmay be linked to sanctity, that the sufferer may be the specialrnchild of God, demanding respect or even veneration, has nornplace in Erewhon. “That dislike and even disgust should be feltrnby the fortunate for the unfortunate … is not only natural, butrndesirable for any society, whether of man or brute.” Beneathrnthe satire Butler is as serious as Nietzsche undoubtedly wasrnwhen he denounced Judaism, Christianity, and socialism asrndysgenic forces, making for unhealth in their perniciouslyrnmisplaced concern for the suffering, the weak, and the downtrodden.rnThe hints abroad today veer toward the Erewhonian ratherrnthan the religious view of suffering. The image of successfulrnhumanity increasingly held up by society is of healthy, confident,rnactive people. Our sick are sequestered in hospitals, to bernencountered only on “visits.” We educate people for healthrnand happiness; we have no equivalent disciplines for a trainingrnin pain; for the first time in human history the concept of therneducative value of pain is at risk of being culturally lost. Contrastingrnsharply with the domain of successful humanity is therndomain of suffering humanity, of sick, failed, inadequate people.rnThere is that ominous expression about the quality ofrnlife—those who, in whatever way, fall short of this quality arernto that extent judged to be less than human. Implicit here, reluctantrnthough we may be to admit it, is a secret convictionrnthat those who suffer pain are somehow diminished, that, atrncertain levels of intensity, suffering is incompatible with beingrnhuman. Such sufferers, having lost their own value as humanrnbeings, cannot possibly have anything of value to offer tornothers.rnPrior to the new developments in technology and aesthetics,rnthe chief lesson of our culture concerning pain was how to bearrnit with patience and fortitude. The impotence born of technologicalrnineptitude found its corresponding ethic in a view ofrnpain as the normal, the expected human condition; to live is tornsuffer—those who dream otherwise inhabit Cloudcuckooland.rnNow all is changed: how much so can be illustrated by certainrnwidespread reactions to the current epidemic of AIDS in thernWestern world. The platitudinous observation that certainrnlifestyles or modes of behavior tend to expose their exponentsrnto a high risk of infection provokes fury in certain quarters,rnalong with a demand that actions shall not have consequences,rnthat new technologies, serums, drugs shall be instantly foundrnto evade and frustrate the penalties of nature. We control nature:rnsome such conviction is at the root of much modernrnthinking on the question of pain. Of course, we must search forrnantidotes and cures, but, until such time as these are discovered,rnit might be wise to amend, so far as we can, the practicesrnthat science has identified as helping to spread the disease. Anrnolder wisdom warned that as a man sows, so shall he reap. Arnmodern faith in medical technology persuades us that we canrnact with impunity, with science always at hand to bail us out.rnAll suffering is theoretically avoidable: we need not suffer.rnThe result is that when suffering ineluctably comes, it strikesrnus like a betrayal, a brutal reneging on promises made and unreservedlyrntrusted. Those who have been educated solely forrnhealth will be helpless before hardship. The dual vocations ofrnhealer and sufferer, medical advances notwithstanding, arernharder than at any remembered period in our past; never has itrnbeen more difficult to endure pain or to comfort the victim.rn26/CHRONICLESrnrnrn