F
or anyone who, like me, is obsessed
with the British royal family, the
CBS broadcast of Oprah Winfrey’s
interview with Meghan Markle and
Prince Harry on Sunday night was merely
another episode in the Netflix series “The
Crown.” However, the interview had a
subtlety that transforms the royal family’s
drama into an experience that is relatable
to many Americans: a dysfunctional
family.
In an attempt to create common ground
following World War II, the monarchy
shifted its cultural focus toward children
and families. Consequently, when Prince
Charles was born in 1948, Queen Elizabeth
and Prince Phillip were portrayed as
models for how a contemporary family
should function. In every perceivable way,
they were a young, powerful and flawless
family. Seeing the opportunity, the British
government used Queen Elizabeth and
her family to promote the idea that family
connects the British people to one another.
For the family emphasis to follow,
the royal family was made into the
archetype for all British families to
strive for. Significant events such as
Queen Elizabeth’s coronation in 1953
intentionally centered on family. Being the
first televised coronation, over 27 million
British people watched the ceremony,
which included shots of Prince Charles
and Princess Anne. British children were
given commemorative coronation mugs
to ensure every family felt personally
included in the celebration.
However, in the decades that have
followed, the public has become aware
of various fractures and scandals within
the royal family, with none being more
infamous than the clash between Princess
Diana and Prince Charles. Their messy
divorce further damaged the facade of
the happy family when public opinion
of the royal family was at a low due to
accusations of numerous marital affairs
and extravagant lifestyles. The tell-
all book “Diana: Her True Story” and
several television interviews described
the inevitable collapse of the Prince and
Princess of Wales’ marriage and how her
cries for help with her mental health were
ignored. BBC documentaries were no
longer enough to fill the cracks that had
appeared in the world’s most iconic family.
But in its own unique way, the royal family
has modernized with the rest of the world.
During the two-hour special, Meghan
and Harry revealed a heavily flawed
family, which stands in stark contrast to
the image of the royal family projected
during the 1950s. Altogether, the lack of
support and understanding from the rest
of the royal family — in regards to Meghan
and Harry’s requests for assistance
with their mental health and security —
demonstrates a clear example of a divided
family.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s
decision to speak publicly about their
situation does a lot more than just expose
the royal family’s internal affairs. More
importantly, their interview testifies
to the importance of discussing your
own family dynamics. In many ways,
Markle’s experience parallels that of
Princess Diana. Both were brought into
the family that treated them unfairly,
which led them to speak out and call
attention to the circumstances they
struggled with. By doing so, Meghan
and Diana demonstrated the importance
of holding the monarchy accountable
for their actions, regardless of familial
relationships.
In America, family life has changed
dramatically,
with
an
increasing
number of children from single-parent
households and families becoming
smaller overall. Due to these shifts, a
dominant family form no longer exists in
America as it did in the 1960s. Research
shows that the structure of modern
families can be tied to the existence of
dysfunctional families. While not all
single-parent or blended families are
dysfunctional, they are less likely to have
“standard” relationships due to outside
factors, including social environment
and inability to provide adequate
childcare.
Dysfunction within a family setting
can take multiple forms, including mental
and physical abuse, yet many children
are unaware their family environment is
not considered standard. Unfortunately,
these
conditions
have
long-lasting
effects on children, including low self-
esteem, absence of identity and difficulty
cultivating relationships. Furthermore,
children from dysfunctional families
regularly justify their parent’s actions and
are never taught signs of unhealthy family
dynamics because this is rarely discussed.
In the United States, there remains a
preference for households of two parents
in their first marriage with multiple
children. Yet, as divorce and single
parenting have become more socially
acceptable, the typical suburban family
with a white picket fence is no longer a
realistic model. Consequently, neither is a
family that gets along perfectly with one
another.
By revealing the undercurrents of
the royal family, Meghan Markle and
Prince Harry’s interview has helped
normalize the discussion of family
dynamics — whether good or bad. For
too long, people have hidden away
their experiences with their family
by adhering to the cliché that blood
is thicker than water. Openly talking
about family, regardless of structure or
dynamic, should be more common and
acceptable. Continuing the belief that
the only respectable household form is
one dating back to the post-World War II
era is outdated and harmful for children.
Having more frequent and open
conversations
allows
children
and
teenagers to learn acceptable treatment
from
family
members.
Moreover,
discussions about the reality of family
erode the social stigma of being raised
in an imperfect family. Hearing people
around you only talk about the good parts
of their family creates a false sense of the
lives others live — which can be further
augmented if one has to return to a home
that seems the opposite. The family
experience you portray to your friends
and peers should be representative of your
reality, not merely what you believe the
rest of society wants to hear.
A
fter Sens. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.,
and
Raphael
Warnock,
D-Ga., won their Georgia
runoff races in early January and
gave Democrats a slim majority in the
Senate, advocates of raising the federal
minimum wage saw an opportunity
to finally pass a wage hike. However,
those hopes were quickly dashed
when the Senate voted 58-42 against
a proposal sponsored by Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., to increase the wage to
$15 an hour.
This vote not only deals a major blow
to those rallying behind a minimum
wage hike, but could also force President
Joe Biden to make compromises with his
his promise to raise the minimum wage,
unless he can influence Republicans
and moderate Democrats like Sen. Joe
Manchin, D-W.Va.
Regardless of the Senate’s rejection
of a $15 minimum wage, it’s obvious
that a minimum wage increase is
warranted in certain areas across the
country. A recent poll conducted by
Monmouth University finds that 53% of
Americans support raising the federal
minimum wage to $15 an hour. The
minimum wage has been fixed at $7.25
an hour since 2009, and our country
has experienced inflation since then. At
the same time, our problems of wealth
and income inequality have worsened;
according to the Pew Research Center,
the wealthiest Americans are getting
richer fastest while lower and middle-
income households are falling behind.
With sky-high costs of living in many
locations, raising the minimum wage
would lower poverty levels and seems
like a common-sense measure.
But while raising the minimum
wage would be beneficial on a number
of fronts, there are also issues with
raising the federal minimum wage
to $15, as evidenced by the bipartisan
vote against it in the Senate. One
of the clearest arguments against a
minimum wage increase is that it would
precipitate broad job losses across the
entire economy. In a recent report, the
Congressional Budget Office estimated
that a hike to $15 would slash a total
of 1.4 million jobs, reducing national
employment levels by almost 1% due to
employee layoffs, signifying a notable
hit to the labor force. As the economy
begins to recover from the disastrous
COVID-19 pandemic, a minimum
wage increase could undermine much-
needed economic growth by forcing
over a million people out of work.
There are valid arguments for
raising the wage to $15 or keeping it as
is, and we should give all viewpoints
attention. But what is indisputable is
that select areas of the country would
benefit from a minimum wage hike of
some sort. Instead of waiting for our
representatives and senators to sort out
their policy differences in Congress —
something that could take years — each
state should address its own minimum
wage.
Handing over responsibility on the
minimum wage to states makes sense
on a lot of levels. Individual states
already have the power to regulate their
own minimum wages, although there
currently isn’t a great incentive to do so
since the federal government is trying to
control the minimum wage for the entire
nation. Encouraging states to address
their own minimum wages would offer
a major boost to employees around the
country; workers subject to both federal
and state rates are “entitled to the higher
of the two minimum wages,” according
to Cornell Law School.
While state action doesn’t deliver
the broad $15 hourly rate that many
have been fighting for, it gives the
power to state governments to assess
their own economies and make their
own informed decisions. It allows
states in need of an increase to do
so; at the same time, it will allow
states to opt out based on their own
circumstances. California sets a
good example for how states should
use their powers in response to
the unique conditions within their
borders; At the beginning of this year,
the Golden State raised its minimum
wage to $14 an hour.
One of the best arguments for this
approach is that the median cost of
living differs dramatically from state
to state, as does the current median
wage. Instead of painting with a
broad brush, giving authority to each
state acknowledges these economic
differences and promotes a stronger,
more detailed solution.
For instance, the average cost of
living in the state of Mississippi is over
15% lower than the national average.
By contrast, the state of California,
notorious for its high cost of living,
exceeds the national average cost
of living by almost 50%. Whereas a
minimum wage hike to $15 may do
more harm than good in Mississippi
and similar states due to their low
costs of living, it would be beneficial in
the entire state of California, not just a
select few areas.
Moreover, the living wage — the
amount necessary to live a comfortable
lifestyle — comes out to about $58,000
per year in Mississippi, compared
to nearly $100,000 in California. It
makes sense that workers in these
two states should make considerably
different amounts since their costs
of living are quite different. Why
should these two states have the same
minimum wage?
Without a doubt, the current
minimum wage from 2009 is
inappropriate for certain parts of
our country. Particularly for those
with skyrocketing living costs,
this glaring problem needs to be
addressed. But rather than institute
a national measure, something that
the Senate has already tried and
rejected, states should revise their
own minimum wages in response to
their unique and evolving needs. In
the end, delegating the power to each
state will pave the way for a solution
that acknowledges our differences
while supporting America’s workers
at every turn.
12 — Wednesday, March 17, 2021
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
EVAN STERN | COLUMNIST
KATHERINE KIESSLING
| COLUMNMIST
Katherine Kiessling can be reached
at katkiess@umich.edu.
Normalize discussing the reality of family dynamics
Minimum wage hikes should be left to the states
MEERA KUMAR | COLUMNIST
W
henever people ask, “How
are you?” I reflexively
respond with, “Good!
How ‘bout you?” I never take time to think
about how I’m truly doing. Generally,
asking someone how they are is simply an
easy greeting — often, people don’t care
for a genuine answer. So, we tell everyone,
including ourselves, that we’re good.
Even though we preface nearly every
conversation with a “How’s it going?” —
nobody seems to pay attention to their
state of being. “Good,” we say. “Fine.” Our
reflex is to lie without searching for an
answer.
When I ask how you are, I want your
honest answer. Really, truly, how are you?
Because, in all honesty, I’m terribly, totally,
utterly burnt out.
These days, so are most people I know.
Every day, when I call my best friend
Nandini, we describe our plans for the
rest of the day. Pretty much daily, we
work from when we rise to when we go
to sleep. Often 18 hours later, both of us
accidentally fall asleep on FaceTime calls.
Nearly every student I’ve spoken to at the
University of Michigan has mentioned
their exhaustion with the overwhelming
workload of online school. The entire
world seems to be weighed down with
Zoom fatigue.
Yet, we continue to chip away at
our seemingly endless pile of work. We
convince ourselves that we need to be a
certain amount of “productive” each day.
Otherwise, the day is a waste. In our quest
to simulate a seemingly “normal” virtual
learning experience, we sacrifice our
mental health. In our haze, we spend all
of our time in a single cramped place, lost
in the small details and unable to see the
big picture.
Nowadays, our contact with the
outside world is limited. The only time
we get asked how we are is when a friend
or professor asks at the beginning of a
conversation or class and it can feel nice to
know that someone cares about us, even
in the form of a trivial greeting. We search
high and low for empathy in any location
we can find. Without even realizing it, I’ve
relied on others to ask me how I am.
My friends and I, often concerned for
each other’s mental health, advise each
other to take a nap, and go for a walk.
However, we seldom give the same advice
to ourselves. Why are we so incapable of
taking care of ourselves in the way we
take care of others?
The noted Australian psychologist
Godfrey Barrett-Lennard has an answer:
we lack empathy toward ourselves.
Due to our emotional involvement with
our problems, it can be challenging
to understand what’s really going on.
Self-empathy, a valuable skill, allows us
to zoom out and view a situation with
impartiality. We can figure out how we’re
doing, and if we’re not doing well, we can
find necessary solutions. Barrett-Lennard
says the goal of therapy is to gain more
empathy for oneself and others.
It would be easy to dismiss this concept
as part of the recent commercialized,
extremely-hyped self-care movement.
However, it’s important to note that self-
empathy and self-compassion are not
the same things. Self-compassion (which
is also extremely important) involves
showing love and kindness to oneself. In
contrast, self-empathy involves simply
observing the patterns of emotions we
experience — it sounds like a no-brainer
but is actually incredibly hard to maintain.
Having the skill of self-empathy is
empowering. Instead of depending on
others for superficial care to (barely)
check-in with yourself, you’re able to give
yourself empathy and solve problems in
emotionally charged situations. When
you’re overwhelmed, instead of staring at
a screen for hours, take a break.
When you’re tired, instead of forcing
yourself to work even longer, take a nap.
In our “hustle-obsessed” culture, forcing
yourself to struggle is seen as a positive
concept. But this has extremely harmful
effects. Instead of ignoring our feelings,
we should encourage people to be
conscious of them and deal with complex
emotions accordingly.
Commonly cited ways to get in touch
with oneself include therapy, meditation,
journaling and more. However, these are
easier said than done — it’s important to
remember that taking care of one’s mental
health can sometimes require active effort.
It’s necessary to ask yourself: How am I? If
you’re honest with yourself, there’s a good
chance you’re doing less than stellar. Think
about it. Talk it out. Write it down. Leave
yourself a voice memo on your phone. And
try not to hate yourself for your negative
feelings or your perceived inability to do
work. While figuring out one’s feelings,
it’s essential to lead with empathy and not
idealistic expectations.
If you’re burnt out, like most college
students right now, I implore you to
take a step back. In fact, I’m currently
encouraging you to do the bare minimum
of the work needed to get through the
week. Skip a class or two if you need to —
forcing yourself to go to class exhausted
won’t help your learning. When I mention
this to friends, they guiltily say, “I would,
but I’ve already been slacking off this
week…” — good for you for taking time
off for yourself! If you’re still stressed,
I’m begging you to take more time off
to recharge. To force yourself to be
productive while burnt-out is unrealistic.
When we step off the treadmill,
we feel incredibly guilty. However, it’s
important to ask yourself: Who is this
guilt benefitting? (Hint: it doesn’t look like
the guilt is good for you). Your insecurity
over how much work you’ve completed
that day has been perpetuated by
companies obsessed with “productivity”
to maximize profit — by creating a culture
where destroying yourself to please your
boss feels necessary. We must unlearn
this mindset. Stop expecting yourself
to operate at full capacity at all times,
especially during a pandemic — seriously,
show yourself some empathy.
In this age, we measure our self-worth
by how “productive” we were earlier
in the day. I urge you to rebel and see
yourself as worth more than a machine
that cranks out essay after essay. Distance
yourself from your work — you deserve a
break.
Meera Kumar can be reached at
kmeera@umich.edu.
Design by Man Lem Cheng
Seriously, show yourself some empathy
ALEX NOBEL | COLUMNIST
Preventing the next pandemic
T
hroughout human history, the
main determinant separating
humans from other species has
been our ability to adapt the environment
to address our needs. Whether harnessing
fire to stay warm in cold temperatures,
inventing the wheel to transport things
long distances or utilizing the earth’s
magnetic field to guide navigation,
humans have made advancements that
make it easier for us to live. But what
happens when we overstep and go too far?
Since the 1980s there has been a “steep
rise in the number of outbreaks globally.”
A Brown University study found that
between the years 1980 and 2014, there
were more than 12,000 infection outbreaks
affecting 44 million people around the
world. In order to stop disease outbreaks
from becoming more and more common,
human society needs to drastically rethink
how it interacts with nature.
One of the forces driving the increasing
number of infectious outbreaks is how
land is used. It is estimated that humans
have changed 75% of all land globally.
What that looks like depends on the
region. It could mean urbanization and
suburban sprawl or deforestation and
mining, all of which make outbreaks
more likely. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention estimate that
three out of every four new diseases begin
with animals. These are called zoonotic
diseases — scientists believe there are
more than 1.7 million undiscovered
zoonotic viruses, of which roughly half
are predicted to be able to infect humans.
Changes to the land bring humans and
animals closer together. Deforestation and
other land-use changes are responsible
for about one-third of new diseases. As
habitats are destroyed for thousands of
species, they are forced to migrate into
new ecosystems, potentially disrupting
the food chain or being exposed to new
toxins. Eventually, they come in contact
with humans, increasing the risk of a
zoonotic disease outbreak amongst people.
An example of this is the origins of the 2014
Ebola outbreak in Guinea. One of the first
people to contract Ebola was a little boy
playing under a tree where a large number
of bats had begun to live. Bats do not like
living near humans — they had been forced
out of their homes by forest clearing and
mining done by foreign companies.
Urbanization contributes to the spread
of disease by concentrating 4 billion people
globally into small areas, sometimes living
in very unclean conditions. As the world
becomes increasingly urban and more
people move to cities, it presents the
perfect opportunity for diseases to reach
the level of an outbreak.
Suburban areas pose a different
threat to public health. Since the 1970s,
Lyme disease has affected the Northeast
United States. Lyme disease is caused
by ticks feeding on white-footed mice
where they become infected and then
transfer the bacteria to humans. When
people started moving out of cities and the
suburbs began to expand, formerly forest
and agricultural land was repurposed.
This disrupted the ecosystem and
harmed predators of the white-footed
mouse, allowing the mice to grow their
population and thereby increasing the
frequency of Lyme disease.
Another contributor to the increase of
infectious diseases is climate change. Like
many things, climate change seems to just
exacerbate existing problems, making
them more harmful and harder to solve.
As climate change leads to hotter and
wetter climates, the spread of infectious
diseases becomes easier. Infections that
are transmitted through water, food,
mosquitos and ticks are transmitted more
easily in warmer and wetter climates.
Studies have found that diseases such
as dengue, malaria and cholera have
already become more contagious with the
changing climate. Warmer temperatures
also are forcing thousands of species to
migrate from areas they had lived in for
centuries. The migration of these species
brings them closer to humans, which
again contributes to the spread of disease.
While these changes are scary, the
good thing is that there are actions
humans can take. One major step is to
stop deforestation. This would help keep
many habitats intact, and in turn prevent
species from being forced to migrate.
Additionally, millions of people around the
world call forests their home. Forests also
help to reduce carbon in the atmosphere
— absorbing more carbon than the U.S.
emits every year — which helps mitigate
climate change and therefore helps limit
the spread of infectious diseases.
Another thing that humans can do
is to adopt the One Health approach to
governing. This plan looks at humans,
animals, plants and their common
environment holistically. When using
a lens that assumes we are all part of
nature, we are all unhealthy when one
part is unhealthy. By designing policies
and programs that place the health
of everything into consideration, it
will result in a healthier public. This
approach, comprised of thorough policy
proposals rooted in research, can be used
in environmental regulations to ensure
air and water quality are not making
anyone sick.
Urban planning can also use this
to design cities in a way that will best
decrease opportunities for diseases to
spread. Lastly, the One Health approach
can be used for epidemiology. Unhealthy
environments can cause asthma or other
respiratory issues, and sick animals
have caused Ebola, Lyme disease, Zika
and plenty of other infectious diseases.
Looking at public health through a holistic
lens will allow us to identify and address
many of the factors that contribute to
human illness and sickness.
Something important to mention
about outbreak prevention is that it
looks different everywhere. A region’s
development, population, culture, climate
and countless other factors will influence
how people decide to approach fending
off disease outbreaks. In Thailand, for
example, this took the form of an app.
Residents use the app to send pictures of
any animals or plants that look suspicious
to public health officials and scientists
who are then made aware of diseases and
can research or contain them before they
become outbreaks.
Officials estimate that preventing
the next pandemic will cost around
$22 billion per year. While this is a
large amount, it is irresponsible not to
consider, given that the economic costs of
COVID-19 are predicted to be upwards
of $10 trillion. Investing in pandemic
prevention is not only the smart thing
to do because it will save lives, but it
is the economically smart decision
too. COVID-19 has shown us that we
must put an emphasis on public health
and need to be adequately funded and
address infectious disease prevention.
We cannot forget that we live within
nature and are not immune to nature’s
consequences.
Design by Mellisa Lee
Evan Stern can be reached at
erstern@umich.edu.
Alex Nobel can be reached at
anobel@umich.edu.