It’s possible that comfort began its life as a verb, the praiseworthy human instinct to help ease and alleviate another’s suffering and distress. It’s life as a noun grew as the physical conditions of life became less arduous and people grew accustomed to a state of ease, of pleasant living conditions. And as physical ease became the standard of living in both public and private, it was a short leap to insist that any conversation about ideas be comfortable or else we’ll set off “you’re triggering my trauma!” alarm.
Of the three definitions, I’m all in on the first and okay up to a point with the second. I enjoy a nice chair and pleasant weather as much as the next person, but the most memorable moments of my life— running my first cross-country race, sitting meditation with crossed legs for some 15 hours a day, seven days in a row at a Zen Center, Day 2 of the Macchu Picchu hike at 61 years old, backpacking with my daughter and granddaughter at 70 years old eating meals sitting on hard granite—were as far from comfortable as possible. And thus forever remembered.
But it's the third obsession with comfort of all kinds— physical, emotional, intellectual— and at all costs, that worries me greatly. Everybody, be they to the left or the right of the political spectrum, seems to be jumping on that bandwagon. Trust me, the wheels are rickety and the band’s music is bad.
As far back as 1911, the composer Arnold Schoenberg was already worried about such things. In the Preface to his book Theory of Harmony, he writes:
Our age seeks many things. What is has found, however, is above all: comfort. Comfort, with all its implications, intrudes even into the world of ideas and makes us far more content that we ever should be. We understand better than ever today how to make life pleasant. We solve problems to remove an unpleasantness. But, how do we solve them? And what presumption, to think we have really solved them! Here we can see most distinctly what the prerequisite of comfort is; superficiality.
Comfort as a philosophy of life! The least possible commotion, nothing shocking.
Yet the first task of the teacher is to shake up the pupil thoroughly. The teacher’s own unrest must infect the students.’
The poet Miguel de Unamuno agrees:
“My aim is to agitate and disturb people. I'm not selling bread; I'm selling yeast.”
The sociological studies, first-hand reports from teachers and testimony of kids themselves reveal a picture of students of all ages who lack resilience, courage, drive, determination. They want their learning style served on a platter, their neurodivergent needs catered to,
their fragile emotions coddled.
I believe in all of the above—up to a point. I call it the 50-yard line, where I do my part to understand their needs and they do their part to step up to work through their challenges. That’s where we meet. But if one of us has to move further down the field, I prefer it to be the student. I’ll only teach them for a year or more, but they’re the ones who need to cultivate their lifetime learning habits and develop the strength, resilience, determination to meet life’s inevitable storms head-on.
The excessive coddling teachers are being encouraged to offer does exactly no one any good. Especially in these days where public policy is shaping itself around not disturbing the children. God forbid that they’re uncomfortable learning what people of one skin color have done to the other, when people of one gender have done to the other, what people of one privileged class have done to the other. If no unrest is set in motion, no shaking up happening in the lesson, no sense of disturbance or agitation, education is mere baby-sitting and mindless entertainment.
So to re-affirm my personal mission statement, I turn to The Irish journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne:
“The job of a journalist (teacher) is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.”