The Experience of Suffering

The whole experience of suffering and the way in which we understand and provide meaning to it is very much influenced by cultural and social elements. This project is dedicated to interpreting how two crucial cultural resources influence and intervene in individuals and groups experience of suffering in current European societies: the mystic-ascetic Christian tradition and techno-science (particularly medicine). The final aims of such an interpretation are both to enable better informed decisions when facing suffering in bioethical contexts and to propose resources for a new management of suffering. The first goal of this research project consists in explaining how the tradition of mystic-ascetic Christians (particularly Teresa of vila, Gemma Galgani and Simone Weil) interprets suffering. It will be shown how and why such interpretation is still a resource for the experience (perception, management and expression) of suffering. The second goal is to explain the medical perception, management and expression of suffering, its assumptions, limitations and challenges. Thirdly, the success and failure of both perspectives as cultural resources to manage suffering will be evaluated in the search for two further aims: (1) to illuminate the underlying cultural elements affecting personal, professional and political choices when people face suffering nowadays, particularly in bioethical contexts; and (2) to propose resources for a new management of suffering under the present historical and sociological conditions, taking into account the positive aspects of both traditions. A philosophical methodology based on the hermeneutical approach to classical texts and the inclusion of sociological, historical and anthropological data in the argumentations will be used. The novelty of this project resides in its articulation of a philosophical perspective formed by the results of other disciplines about the experience of suffering and the understanding of suffering as a meaning-dependent phenomenon which is strongly influenced by cultural elements. A practical dimension is included, which aims to contribute to the cultural and the participatory turn in bioethics, by illuminating the origin of the reasons which are used to take decisions and to justify them in bioethical contexts.

These are the most important research questions developed in correlation with the result achieved and conclusions drawn. (1) The conceptualization of suffering and pain. Contributions of classical evidence-based medicine, the humanistic turn in medicine, as well as the phenomenology and narrative theories of suffering and pain, together with certain conceptions of the person beyond them were critically discussed with the purpose of offering good definitions of suffering and pain. Such definitions will be useful to the identification of both phenomena, to the discussion of how to relieve them, and to a better understanding of how they are expressed and experienced. Suffering is proposed to be defined as an unpleasant or even anguishing experience, severely affecting a person at a psychophysical and existential level. (2) The Christian ascetic-mystic understanding and management of suffering are crucial to understanding the culture of suffering in contemporary Europe. On the one hand, this management depends on a theodicy that reinforces its capacity to comfort because it is able to situate suffering in a powerful universe of meaning; however, one can only profit from such a consolation by accepting the underlying theodicy. On the other hand, suffering is positively valued as a part of the spiritual development of the believer, which may present a justification of suffering even when it is avoidable. Teresa of Avilas, Gemma of Galganis and Martha Robin's attitude of desiring suffering can be seen as a reaffirmation of the self and one's own strength to bear it, even if the ascetic subordination of one's own will to a pastoral power can leave a person in a very vulnerable position. Even if it is found to be better to frame suffering in a negative way, as something to be confronted (in order to avoid its justification when it is avoidable), it deserves consideration of the mystics capacity to integrate their sufferings in a good life (as they understood it). (3) There is a particular kind of suffering caused by institutions, the organization of social systems and other social conditions, so-called social suffering. I have argued for the advantages of minimizing hierarchical power structures and other sources of social suffering, proposing affirmative politics that can integrate life instead of appropiating life by taking into account some ideas of Rabinadah Tagore.1 In this sense, artistic social criticism is found to be possible and desirable in the context of new communication media like Internet. These three groups of results were presented in several publications and scientific meetings, and the international conference The Experience of Suffering. Philosophical, cultural and social dimensions was organized in Innsbruck on June 22-23, 2017.2 1 The concepts affirmative biopolitics and negative biopolitics were formulated by Roberto Esposito. 2 https://www.uibk.ac.at/philosophie/projekte/bueno-the-experience-of-suffering/tagung-suffering.html.