Okay, being from Atlanta, I just couldn't help it, I found myself setting aside time to watch the recent Tyler Perry interview on Oprah. The one where he now famously goes on and on about his much documented abuse as a young boy,  the beatings at the hands of his father, and a whole litany of other sufferings that have been visited upon him as a frail young black boy in a broken home in America. Now nothing against Tyler Perry, for he is definitely to be commended for all of his accomplishments, but the whole show reminded me of a troubling trend in society, this Oprah-ization of suffering.

Now we all know from pretty much every religious school of teaching, various philosophers and even personal anecdotes we've all heard - suffering is here to stay. It is just a part of life and something we all have to grit our teeth and just get through. Whether it be personal conflict and tragedy, economic hardship, even just a streak of bad luck? But is it really? How has it become so ingrained in us that suffering, and to the extent that we tolerate such a great extent of it, and it's pervasiveness, that it is not only tolerated but in many cases lionized and held up as a character builder.

Now I've frequently heard that old tired cliche "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger," but who do we hear that from? Those who have lived through whatever trials and tribulations to come out on the other side. What about all the other people that don't make it. For every Tyler Perry who "makes it" how many don't, how many young broken bodies, tragic deaths, and suicides have fallen to the wayside, faceless and forgotten? You hear these stories and people being so stoic about their suffering and it makes you wonder, just how strong do we all have to be? Just how tough do you have to be in this universe?

I also have to wonder, even in Mr. Perry's case, would he trade it all, the studios, the fame for a good relationship with his dad? We are programmed to choose the romanticized remarkable life replete with suffering over mundane everyday existence. But what's wrong with a quiet, productive and happy life? Why do we value the struggling, drama-ridden, tragic celebrity story, over the life of a happy, quiet family man, raising a loving family?

I'm reminded too all the recent publicity over the tragic teen gay and lesbian suicides. There's been this great outpouring in the "It Gets Better" project, yet I'm struck by the absence in those videos of anything approaching "your suffering will only make you stronger" these people know better. No one in the gay community glamorizes the bullying and suffering LGBT teens go through as any sort of character builder, we know better. We also know that even if it was, the price just isn't worth it. The success of a hundred Lance Basses, Ricky Martins, or Ellens, isn't worth a single teens life.  

In this country we don't like to talk about people suffering, we don't talk about poverty, suicide, depression. Then when we do it seems it takes on this almost mythic role as a positive influence. Suffering the great builder of toughness, perseverance, and character. Yet just what is the cost of our acceptance of such a great measure of suffering in our society? Those who suffer have gone from earning compassion to outright scorn and condemnation. Those on unemployment are lazy and probably on drugs. Those people losing their houses should have known better than to invest in what at the time was a sure thing. If a single mom can't feed her kids, she shouldn't have had them. People with AIDS deserve what they get for their life choices. The list of callous condemnations of real human suffering goes on and on. Have we really gotten that far off the track?

But to bring this back to my point. Is the Oprah-ization of suffering partially to blame? This lionization of suffering as ultimate character builder in those fortunate enough through hard work, talent, and a lot of luck, those who make it through the gauntlet where so many stumble? It seems to play right into the current Tea Party/Republican model that we all have it within us to do well, to make it, and manifest all the success we are capable of - yet, is this realistic? really? I'd really, really, really like to believe that, but have trouble buying into that anymore. In fact, it seems more and more like a load of crap every day. The great manifesto of individual accomplishment, turns it back on so many cruel facts in this country as far as race, class, and economic status. It also sidesteps the larger responsibilities of family, society, and yes, even government in building a society that is fair and holds justice for all. We seem to be perfectly willing to accept statistics where maybe out of every ten people, one suffers horribly, 2-3 suffer somewhat, another 3-4 muddle through, 2-3 do okay, and one maybe might shine like a beacon. But why are we willing to accept that math? It seems we're willing to accept anything as long as we believe we can be one of those top few, or even that one success story, but when does the math goes south? If 5 of the 10 suffer horribly, and 3 muddle through 1 does ok and 1 still succeeds dramatically do we still go along with the game? What the tipping point? When does the model fail? At what point do we take our ball home and refuse to continue to play a game where we always lose?

I'm reminded of an old Ursula LeGuin story that's always stuck with me, "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" where a utopian society exists, but at a great price. A single child is always locked away in a horrible dungeon to be starved, neglected, and tortured. Now the citizens all believe this is the source of their great success, this one sacrificial lamb to take on all their suffering for the greater good. When that child dies, the very next child born in the city is conscripted to take their place. Everyone seems to be okay with this, even school children go on field trips to see this child to learn how it all works for their benefit. Yet, as the title suggests, there are always those malcontents, those trouble makers, who walk away, deciding it is too high a price. Not that they can do anything about, it, that they can free the child, that anyone will listen to them, but they take what action they can by walking away into the desert to fend for themselves, refusing to take part in such a barbaric system.

In the end, we all hold two great responsibilities. Yes to express and realize our own individual potentials, but that must be done hand-in-hand with our other responsibilities to our society and fellow man. There is a point where we must decide, is the great distinction of man over brute animals, is it the utter ruthless competitiveness and struggle for dominance and survival, damn suffering and it's consequences? or is it our great capacity to form societies and band together for the good of all, to lessen the suffering of even the lesser among us?