tag:theconversation.com,2011:/institutions/western-carolina-university-2695/articlesWestern Carolina University2023-07-20T12:29:59Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2098472023-07-20T12:29:59Z2023-07-20T12:29:59ZThis year’s debate over defense spending threatens to disrupt a tradition of bipartisan consensus-building over funding the military<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538105/original/file-20230718-27-y980og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C34%2C5710%2C3752&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Members of the House Freedom Caucus speak to reporters on July 14, 2023, hours before the House passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-lauren-boebert-speaks-during-a-press-conference-on-the-news-photo/1543094372?adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images News/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Each year for the past six decades, congressional representatives from both sides of the aisle have come together to pass the National Defense Authorization Act. Because the bill involves the military – <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx">a traditionally popular institution</a> – it has historically received bipartisan support. </p>
<p>But that record was threatened in the Republican-led House of Representatives on July 14, 2023, when <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/14/house-passes-defense-bill-despite-controversial-abortion-transgender-policies-00106373">members passed the US$886 billion bill by a 219-210 mostly party-line vote</a>. Reflecting the current polarized politics of the U.S., the bill stands virtually no chance of passing in the Democratic-controlled Senate without major modifications. </p>
<p>The measure lacked full support in the House not because of differences over military funding itself, but because it included Republican amendments that <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/politics/house-ndaa-vote-amendments/index.html">put restrictions on diversity training</a>, abortion access and medical care for transgender troops.</p>
<p>Just after the bill’s passage, <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerMcCarthy/status/1679890062148874241">House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tweeted</a>, “We don’t want Disneyland to train our military,” and “House Republicans just passed the bill that ENDS the wokism in the military and gives our troops the biggest pay raise in decades.”</p>
<p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=6P3QreQAAAAJ">scholars of American politics</a>, we study Congress and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=lQycyuAAAAAJ">believe that this unusual politicization of the defense budget</a> could affect other important legislation in Washington.</p>
<h2>A look at the National Defense Authorization Act and what’s happening in 2023</h2>
<p>Since 1961, <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10515">Congress has approved defense spending</a> annually using a two-step process. The first and current step, the National Defense Authorization Act, sets defense policies and provides guidance on how money can be spent. In the second step, which will come after the Senate votes on its version of the bill and the two chambers reach a compromise version, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees approve the spending. </p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/">Congress has become increasingly polarized</a> over the years. Congressional Republicans have grown more conservative, congressional Democrats have become more liberal, and <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/03/17/polarization-congress-democrats-republicans-house-senate-data">members of the two parties agree on less and less</a>. </p>
<p>In the first year of the Biden administration, <a href="https://rollcall.com/2021/09/23/house-nears-vote-on-final-passage-of-defense-policy-bill/">the House approved the National Defense Authorization Act</a> by a 316-113 margin. In 2022, the act <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2022/12/08/house-passes-defense-bill-with-more-taiwan-ukraine-security-aid/">passed the House by a 350-80 margin</a>. As points of comparison, the <a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002158">2002 version of the bill passed 359-58 in the House</a>, and the <a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2003221">2003 version passed 361-68 in the House</a>. The reauthorization process happens the year before the act goes into effect.</p>
<p>During the 2023 reauthorization process, the bill included amendments from the most conservative members of the Republican Party, many of them from the House Freedom Caucus, who, according to their Twitter profile, support, in part, <a href="https://twitter.com/freedomcaucus?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">open, accountable and limited government</a>. The amendments seek to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-passage-defense-bill-question-gop-abortion-transgender-surgery-a-rcna94196">ban the Department of Defense from paying</a> <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/4100215-mccaul-very-confident-ndaa-will-be-a-bipartisan-bill/">travel expense reimbursements</a> for service members getting an abortion or transgender surgeries and hormone treatments. </p>
<p>The debates over the amendments were particularly heated. As just one example, <a href="https://twitter.com/RepRosendale/status/1679603332732669952">House Freedom Caucus member Matt Rosendale tweeted</a>, “If someone does not know if they are a man or a woman, they should not be having their hand on a missile launch button.” </p>
<p>Democrats like Rep. Jim McGovern decried House Freedom Caucus tactics: “It’s outrageous that a small <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mccarthy-working-satisfy-gop-hard-liners-demanding-culture/story?id=101170953">minority of MAGA extremists is dictating</a> how we’ll proceed.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538170/original/file-20230719-23-drknta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A suited man holds his hands parallel and chest-height as speaks from behind a lectern. American flags stand behind him." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538170/original/file-20230719-23-drknta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538170/original/file-20230719-23-drknta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538170/original/file-20230719-23-drknta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538170/original/file-20230719-23-drknta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538170/original/file-20230719-23-drknta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538170/original/file-20230719-23-drknta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538170/original/file-20230719-23-drknta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks about amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act during a July 14, 2023, news conference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/collaboration/boards/5WSzd8tLIECJ7OsnBsq1Mg">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images News/Getty Image</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For the <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/legislative-hardball/37488C1E94117DFBFF924E5B67188E07">House Freedom Caucus</a>, this was an opportunity to advance its conservative agenda and try to reverse the policies of the Democratic administration. At the same time, these types of amendments decreased the odds that the bill would receive bipartisan support. </p>
<h2>Previous defense spending bills have addressed social policy, too</h2>
<p>This is not the first version of the defense authorization bill that included language about social issues. One reporter wrote in 2022 that the National Defense Authorization Act’s record of bipartisan support “has also made the bill a popular vehicle <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/national-defense-authorization-act-5113289">for tacking on legislation that</a> has little to do with defense.”</p>
<p>In one notable example, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/5006/text">1993 National Defense Authorization Act</a> included the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise, which allowed gay and lesbian citizens to serve in the military if they did not make their sexual orientation public. The measure <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg1056osd.10?seq=4">stemmed from President Bill Clinton’s campaign pledge</a> to lift the ban on gay people serving in the military. But once in office, Clinton met substantial opposition to his proposal from military leaders and their congressional allies. </p>
<p>The stalemate could have been resolved only by an executive order, which Congress opposed, or legislation, which Clinton opposed. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” <a href="https://time.com/5339634/dont-ask-dont-tell-25-year-anniversary/">was middle ground</a>. Seventeen years later, Democratic President Barack Obama <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/12/22/president-signs-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-out-many-we-are-one">signed a bill ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell</a>. </p>
<p>Another example of social policy’s being embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act occurred in 2009, when Senate Democrats attached <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/matthew-shepard-and-james-byrd-jr-hate-crimes-prevention-act-2009-0">the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act</a>, which strengthened federal protections against crimes based on race, religion or nationality and added protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation, to the annual defense authorization bill. It <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2009/10/senate-passes-hate-crimes-bill-028640">passed by a 68-29 vote in the Senate</a>, but since the House and Senate had different versions of the bill, a conference committee reconciled the differences. The hate crimes provision remained, and the legislation <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/">was signed by President Obama</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A smiling man speaks while standing at a lectern in a room full of smiling people." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538354/original/file-20230719-17-ijicx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538354/original/file-20230719-17-ijicx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538354/original/file-20230719-17-ijicx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538354/original/file-20230719-17-ijicx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538354/original/file-20230719-17-ijicx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538354/original/file-20230719-17-ijicx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538354/original/file-20230719-17-ijicx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Obama speaks in 2009 about the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/surrounded-by-human-rights-supporters-u-s-president-barack-news-photo/92430581?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act included several provisions added by the Democratic-controlled Senate addressing the equitable treatment of women in the military. Among them: <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2012/12/women-military-defense-authorization-bill/">insurance coverage for abortions in cases of rape and incest</a>; mandatory discharge of convicted sex offenders; and mandatory sexual assault prevention training. The Senate version of the bill <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/defense/136164-senate-passes-631b-defense-policy-bill-98-0/">passed 98-0</a>. The provisions remained after the House and Senate reconciled their versions and were <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/4310/text">part of the bill President Obama signed</a>. </p>
<p>More recently, the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/pentagon-confederate-name-bases-455180">2021 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision to remove</a> Confederate names, symbols and monuments from Department of Defense property. <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/23/senate-defense-bill-ndaa-bases-trump-380362">Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren sponsored</a> the measure in the Senate, and <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/06/11/congress-could-force-name-change-at-military-bases-honoring-confederate-generals/">Rep. Anthony Brown, Democrat from Maryland, and Rep. Don Bacon, Republican from Nebraska</a>, sponsored it in the House. There was enough bipartisan support for that legislation that the House and Senate <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/01/01/952450018/congress-overturns-trump-veto-on-defense-bill-after-political-detour">overrode President Donald Trump’s veto</a>.</p>
<h2>What each party stands to gain or lose from this fight</h2>
<p>The narrow House victory will represent a policy win for the House Freedom Caucus, help members raise money for future election cycles and lessen the likelihood that members will be <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/5181079/getting_primaried">challenged in a primary</a> from the right flank of their party. </p>
<p>At the same time, these tactics may make it easier for Democrats to win in crucial <a href="https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/2023-partisan-voting-index/118-district-map-and-list">swing districts</a> during the 2024 election cycle. Likely providing a preview of talking points Democrats will use against Republicans in swing districts, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/1187660777/house-passes-defense-bill-mostly-along-party-lines-with-culture-war-measures-att">Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said</a>, “Extreme MAGA Republicans have chosen to hijack the historically bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to continue attacking reproductive freedom and jamming the right-wing ideology down the throats of the American people.” </p>
<p>Defense reauthorization was once considered a rare policy issue on which the parties could agree. But, the Republican-led House’s passage of a bill with little Democratic support most likely renders the bill dead on arrival in the Senate, where Democrats are in the majority. </p>
<p>It’s an important sign that there’s no longer an issue that’s immune from the hyperpolarization that defines today’s American politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209847/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The National Defense Authorization Act has long had bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. But that died in the House this year.Gibbs Knotts, Professor of Political Science, College of CharlestonChristopher A. Cooper, Professor of Political Science, Western Carolina UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/926522018-06-04T10:40:56Z2018-06-04T10:40:56ZSpending time alone in nature is good for your mental and emotional health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220862/original/file-20180529-80633-loc9im.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hiking the Savage River Loop in Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nps.gov/locations/alaska/leave-no-trace.htm">Lian Law/NPS</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today Americans live in a world that thrives on being busy, productive and overscheduled. Further, they have developed the technological means to be constantly connected to others and to vast options for information and entertainment through social media. For many, smartphones demand their attention day and night with constant notifications. </p>
<p>As a result, naturally occurring periods of solitude and silence that were once commonplace have been squeezed out of their lives. Music, reality TV shows, YouTube, video games, tweeting and texting are displacing quiet and solitary spaces. Silence and solitude are increasingly viewed as “dead” or “unproductive” time, and being alone makes many Americans uncomfortable and anxious. </p>
<p>But while some equate solitude with loneliness, there is a big difference between being lonely and being alone. The latter is <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/lead-yourself-first-9781632866332/">essential for mental health and effective leadership</a>.</p>
<p>We study and teach outdoor education and related fields at several colleges and organizations in North Carolina, through and with other scholars at <a href="https://www.2ndnaturetrec.com/">2nd Nature TREC, LLC</a>, a training, research, education and consulting firm. We became interested in the broader implications of alone time after studying intentionally designed solitude experiences during wilderness programs, such as those run by <a href="https://www.outwardbound.org">Outward Bound</a>. Our findings reveal that time alone in nature is beneficial for many participants in a variety of ways, and is something they wish they had more of in their daily life. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221009/original/file-20180530-120508-emlwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221009/original/file-20180530-120508-emlwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221009/original/file-20180530-120508-emlwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221009/original/file-20180530-120508-emlwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221009/original/file-20180530-120508-emlwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221009/original/file-20180530-120508-emlwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221009/original/file-20180530-120508-emlwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221009/original/file-20180530-120508-emlwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On an average day in 2015, individuals aged 15 and over spent more than half of their leisure time watching TV.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.bls.gov/TUS/CHARTS/LEISURE.HTM">Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans Time Use Survey</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reflection and challenge</h2>
<p>We have conducted research for almost two decades on <a href="https://www.outwardbound.org">Outward Bound</a> and undergraduate wilderness programs at <a href="https://www.montreat.edu/">Montreat College</a> in North Carolina and <a href="https://www.wheaton.edu/">Wheaton College</a> in Illinois. For each program, we studied participants’ experiences using multiple methods, including written surveys, focus group interviews, one-on-one interviews and field notes. In some cases, we asked subjects years later to look back and reflect on how the programs had affected them. Among other questions, our research looked at participant perceptions of the value of <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491758">solo time outdoors</a>. </p>
<p>Our studies showed that people who took part in these programs benefited both from the outdoor settings and from the experience of being alone. These findings build on previous research that has clearly demonstrated the value of spending time in nature.</p>
<p>Scholars in fields including wilderness therapy and environmental psychology have shown that time outdoors benefits our lives in many ways. It has a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2006.25.2.80">therapeutic effect</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509347248">relieves stress</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2">restores attention</a>. Alone time in nature can have a calming effect on the mind because it occurs in beautiful, natural and inspirational settings. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221019/original/file-20180530-120487-1aqsvax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221019/original/file-20180530-120487-1aqsvax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221019/original/file-20180530-120487-1aqsvax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221019/original/file-20180530-120487-1aqsvax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221019/original/file-20180530-120487-1aqsvax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221019/original/file-20180530-120487-1aqsvax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221019/original/file-20180530-120487-1aqsvax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221019/original/file-20180530-120487-1aqsvax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spending time in city parks like Audubon Park in New Orleans provides some of the same benefits as time in wilderness areas, including reduced stress levels and increased energy levels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Audubon_Park%2C_New_Orleans_May_2010.jpg">InSapphoWeTrust</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nature also provides <a href="http://js.sagamorepub.com/jorel/article/view/6610">challenges</a> that spur individuals to creative problem-solving and increased self-confidence. For example, some find that being alone in the outdoors, particularly at night, is a challenging situation. Mental, physical and emotional challenges in moderation encourage personal growth that is manifested in an increased comfort with one’s self in the absence of others. </p>
<p>Being alone also can have great value. It can allow issues to surface that people spend energy holding at bay, and offer an opportunity to clarify thoughts, hopes, dreams and desires. It provides time and space for people to step back, evaluate their lives and learn from their experiences. Spending time this way prepares them to re-engage with their community relationships and full work schedules. </p>
<h2>Putting it together: The outdoor solo</h2>
<p>Participants in programmed wilderness expeditions often experience a component known as “Solo,” a time of intentional solitude lasting approximately 24-72 hours. Extensive <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491758">research</a> has been conducted on solitude in the outdoors because many wilderness education programs have embraced the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825913518892">educational value</a> of solitude and silence. </p>
<p>Solo often emerges as one of the most significant parts of wilderness programs, for a variety of reasons. Alone time creates a contrasting experience to normal living that enriches people mentally, physically and emotionally. As they examine themselves in relation to nature, others, and in some cases, God, people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590702900312">become more attuned to the important matters</a> in their lives and in the world of which they are part. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YtpK_SrqzHk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Solo, an integral part of Outward Bound wilderness trips, can last from a few hours to 72 hours. The experience is designed to give participants an opportunity to reflect on their own thoughts and critically analyze their actions and decisions.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Solitary reflection enhances recognition and appreciation of key personal relationships, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591103400102">encourages reorganization of life priorities</a>, and increases appreciation for alone time, silence, and reflection. People learn <a href="https://doi.org/10.7768/1948-5123.1032">lessons they want to transfer to their daily living</a>, because they have had the opportunity to clarify, evaluate and redirect themselves by setting goals for the future.</p>
<p>For some participants, time alone outdoors provides opportunity to consider the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590702900312">spiritual and/or religious dimension</a> of life. Reflective time, especially in nature, often enhances spiritual awareness and makes people feel closer to God. Further, it encourages their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591003300403">increased faith and trust in God</a>. This often occurs through providing ample opportunities for prayer, meditation, fasting, Scripture-reading, journaling and reflection time. </p>
<h2>Retreating to lead</h2>
<p>As Thomas Carlyle has written, “In (solitary) silence, great things fashion themselves together.” Whether these escapes are called alone time, solitude or Solo, it seems clear that humans experience many benefits when they retreat from the “rat race” to a place apart and gather their thoughts in quietness. </p>
<p>In order to live and lead effectively, it is important to be intentional about taking the time for solitary reflection. Otherwise, gaps in schedules will always fill up, and even people with the best intentions may never fully realize the life-giving value of being alone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92652/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brad Daniel is Executive Director of 2nd Nature TREC LLC, which provides training, research, education and consulting to various outdoor-oriented organizations. He serves on the Board of the Environmental Educators of North Carolina (EENC), as Chair of the Leadership Team for the Southeastern Environmental Education Alliance (SEEA), and as Co-Chair of the Symposium on Experiential Education Research (SEER) for the Association for Experiential Education (AEE). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Bobilya is co-founder and director of training and education at 2nd Nature TREC LLC, which provides training, research, education and consulting to various outdoor-oriented organizations. He is Co-chair of the Symposium on Experiential Education Research (SEER) for the Association for Experiential Education (AEE). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ken Kalisch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many studies have shown that time outdoors is good for our physical health. Three wilderness education experts explain why periods alone in nature also provide mental and spiritual benefits.Brad Daniel, Professor of Outdoor Education, Montreat CollegeAndrew Bobilya, Associate Professor and Program Director of Parks and Recreation Management, Western Carolina UniversityKen Kalisch, Associate Professor of Outdoor Education, Montreat CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/638552016-09-07T02:45:43Z2016-09-07T02:45:43ZPsychology behind the unfunny consequences of jokes that denigrate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136477/original/image-20160902-20232-1irrld7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=222%2C175%2C2380%2C1328&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A joke isn't just a joke.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/elycefeliz/6354197379">elycefeliz</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>Q: Why did the woman cross the road?</p>
<p>A: Who cares! What the hell is she doing out of the kitchen?</p>
<p>Q: Why hasn’t NASA sent a woman to the moon?</p>
<p>A: It doesn’t need cleaning yet!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These two jokes represent <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2008.014">disparagement humor</a> – any attempt to amuse through the denigration of a social group or its representatives. You know it as sexist or racist jokes – basically anything that makes a punchline out of a marginalized group.</p>
<p>Disparagement humor is paradoxical: It <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90111-2">simultaneously communicates two conflicting messages</a>. One is an <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000052">explicit hostile or prejudiced message</a>. But delivered alongside is a second implicit message that “it doesn’t count as hostility or prejudice because I didn’t mean it — <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0017">it’s just a joke</a>.” </p>
<p>By disguising expressions of prejudice in a cloak of fun and frivolity, disparagement humor, like the jokes above, appears harmless and trivial. However, a large and growing body of psychology research suggests just the opposite – that disparagement humor can foster discrimination against targeted groups.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136814/original/image-20160906-25272-1dm9zwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136814/original/image-20160906-25272-1dm9zwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136814/original/image-20160906-25272-1dm9zwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136814/original/image-20160906-25272-1dm9zwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136814/original/image-20160906-25272-1dm9zwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136814/original/image-20160906-25272-1dm9zwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136814/original/image-20160906-25272-1dm9zwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136814/original/image-20160906-25272-1dm9zwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Laughing together at others’ expense?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=303185990">Laughing image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Jokes that release restraints</h2>
<p>Most of the time <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00244">prejudiced people conceal their true beliefs and attitudes</a> because they fear others’ criticism. They <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414">express prejudice only when</a> the norms in a given context clearly communicate approval to do so. They need something in the immediate environment to signal that it is safe to freely express their prejudice.</p>
<p>Disparagement humor appears to do just that by affecting people’s understanding of the social norms – implicit rules of acceptable conduct – in the immediate context. And in a variety of experiments, my colleagues and I have found support for this idea, which we call <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4">prejudiced norm theory</a>.</p>
<p>For instance, in studies, men higher in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491">hostile sexism</a> – antagonism against women – reported greater tolerance of gender harassment in the workplace upon <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.56">exposure to sexist versus neutral (nonsexist) jokes</a>. Men higher in hostile sexism also recommended greater funding cuts to a women’s organization at their university <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207310022">after watching sexist versus neutral comedy skits</a>. Even more disturbing, other researchers found that men higher in hostile sexism <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0099198">expressed greater willingness to rape a woman</a> upon exposure to sexist versus nonsexist humor.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136817/original/image-20160906-25272-3hvpnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136817/original/image-20160906-25272-3hvpnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136817/original/image-20160906-25272-3hvpnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136817/original/image-20160906-25272-3hvpnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136817/original/image-20160906-25272-3hvpnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136817/original/image-20160906-25272-3hvpnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136817/original/image-20160906-25272-3hvpnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136817/original/image-20160906-25272-3hvpnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sexist humor can expand the bounds of what’s an acceptable way to treat women.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Thomas E. Ford</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>How did sexist humor make the sexist men in these studies feel freer to express their sexist attitudes? Imagine that the social norms about acceptable and unacceptable ways of treating women are represented by a rubber band. Everything on the inside of the rubber band is socially acceptable; everything on the outside is unacceptable.</p>
<p>Sexist humor essentially stretched the rubber band; it expanded the bounds of acceptable behavior to include responses that would otherwise be considered wrong or inappropriate. So, in this context of expanded acceptability, sexist men felt free to express their antagonism without the risk of violating social norms and facing disapproval from others. Sexist humor signaled that it’s safe to express sexist attitudes.</p>
<h2>Who’s the target?</h2>
<p>In another study, my colleagues and I demonstrated that this prejudice-releasing effect of disparagement humor varies depending on the position in society occupied by the butt of the joke. Social groups are <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430213502558">vulnerable to different degrees</a> depending on their overall status. </p>
<p>Some groups occupy a <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Stereotyping-and-Prejudice/Stangor-Crandall/p/book/9781848726444">unique social position of what social psychologists call “shifting acceptability.”</a> For these groups, the overall culture is changing from considering prejudice and discrimination against them completely justified to considering them completely unjustified. But even as society as a whole becomes increasingly accepting of them, many individuals still harbor mixed feelings. </p>
<p>For instance, over the past 60 years or so, the United States has seen a dramatic decline in overt and institutional racism. Public opinion polls over the same period have shown whites holding progressively <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1986-98698-003">less prejudiced views of minorities</a>, particularly blacks. At the same time, however, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00183.x">many whites still covertly</a> have negative associations with and feelings toward blacks – feelings they largely don’t acknowledge because they conflict with their ideas about themselves being egalitarian.</p>
<p>Disparagement humor fosters discrimination against social groups – like black Americans – that occupy this kind of shifting ground. In our study, we found that off-color jokes <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213502558">promoted discrimination against Muslims and gay men</a> – which we measured in greater recommended budget cuts to a gay student organization, for instance. However, disparagement humor didn’t have the same effect against two “justified prejudice” groups: terrorists and racists. Social norms are such that people didn’t need to wait for jokes to justify expressions of prejudice against these groups.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136815/original/image-20160906-25266-ocnugf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136815/original/image-20160906-25266-ocnugf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136815/original/image-20160906-25266-ocnugf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136815/original/image-20160906-25266-ocnugf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136815/original/image-20160906-25266-ocnugf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136815/original/image-20160906-25266-ocnugf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136815/original/image-20160906-25266-ocnugf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136815/original/image-20160906-25266-ocnugf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">I’m not sure I see the humor….</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=385843477">Woman image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An important implication of these findings is that disparagement humor can be more or less detrimental based on the social position occupied by the targeted groups. Movies, television programs or comedy clips that humorously disparage groups such as gays, Muslims or women can potentially foster discrimination and social injustice, whereas those that target groups such as racists will have little social consequence.</p>
<p>On the basis of these findings, one might conclude that disparagement humor targeting oppressed or disadvantaged groups is inherently destructive and thus should be censured. However, the real problem might not be with the humor itself but rather with an audience’s dismissive viewpoint that “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000052">a joke is just a joke</a>,” even if disparaging. One study found that such a “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019627">cavalier humor belief</a>” might indeed be responsible for some of the negative effects of disparagement humor. For prejudiced people, the belief that “a disparaging joke is just a joke” trivializes the mistreatment of historically oppressed social groups – including women, gay people, racial minorities and religious minorities – which further contributes to their prejudiced attitude.</p>
<h2>Can you be ‘in on the joke’?</h2>
<p>In addition, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000057">if one initiates disparagement humor</a> with the positive intention of <a href="http://www.abc-clio.com/ABC-CLIOCorporate/product.aspx?pc=D6591C">exposing the absurdity of stereotypes and prejudice</a>, the humor ironically might have the potential to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000059">subvert or undermine prejudice</a>.</p>
<p>Chris Rock is one comedian well-known for using subversive disparagement humor to challenge the status quo of racial inequality in the United States. For instance, in his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/movies/chris-rock-monologue.html?_r=0">opening monologue for the 2016 Academy Awards</a>, he used humor to call attention to racism in the film industry and hierarchical race relations more generally: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’m here at the Academy Awards, otherwise known as the White People’s Choice Awards. You realize if they nominated hosts, I wouldn’t even get this job. So y’all would be watching Neil Patrick Harris right now.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem is that in order for the humor to realize its goal of subverting prejudice, the audience must understand and appreciate that intention. And there’s <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000059">no guarantee that they will</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/chappelles-story#ixzz4HFUHcnHg">Comedian Dave Chappelle described</a> this interpretation problem in an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2006. He discussed a skit in which he played a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xprpXDnIU6A">pixie who appeared in black face</a>. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There was a good-spirited intention behind it. So then when I’m on the set, and we’re finally taping the sketch, somebody on the set [who] was white laughed in such a way – I know the difference of people laughing with me and people laughing at me – and it was the first time I had ever gotten a laugh that I was uncomfortable with. Not just uncomfortable, but like, should I fire this person?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Chapelle’s intentions with his racially charged comedy were misunderstood. By lampooning the stereotype, he meant to call attention to the ridiculousness of racism. However, it became apparent that not everyone was capable of or motivated to look past Chapelle’s comic stereotypical portrayal to get his subversive intent. </p>
<p>One study found that people higher in prejudice are particularly <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00353.x">prone to misinterpret subversive humor</a>. Researchers in the 1970s studied amusement with the television show “All in the Family,” which focused on the bigoted character Archie Bunker. They found that low-prejudiced people perceived “All in the Family” as a satire on bigotry and that Archie Bunker was the target of the humor. They “got” the true subversive intent of the show.</p>
<p>In contrast, high-prejudiced people enjoyed the show for satirizing the targets of Archie’s prejudice. Thus, for high-prejudiced people, the subversive disparagement humor of the show backfired. Rather than calling attention to the absurdity of prejudice, for them the show communicated an implicit prejudiced norm, conveying a tolerance of discrimination.</p>
<p>Psychology research suggests that disparagement humor is far more than “just a joke.” Regardless of its intent, when prejudiced people interpret disparagement humor as “just a joke” intended to make fun of its target and not prejudice itself, it can have serious social consequences as a releaser of prejudice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63855/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas E. Ford has received funding for research described in this article from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>Disparagement humor makes a punchline out of a marginalized group. Racist or sexist jokes, for instance, aren’t just harmless fun – psychologists find they can foster discrimination.Thomas E. Ford, Professor of Social Psychology, Western Carolina UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.