In The Moral Psychology of Boredom. Rowman & Littlefield (forthcoming)

Authors
Andreas Elpidorou
University of Louisville
Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to articulate the ways in which our social standing, and particularly our socio-economic status (SES), affects, even transforms, the experience of boredom. Even if boredom can be said to be democratic, in the sense that it can potentially affect all of us, it does not actually affect all of us in the same way. Boredom, I argue, is unjust—some groups are disproportionately negatively impacted by boredom through no fault of their own. Depending on our social position and self and others’ perceptions of our SES, we can experience it more frequently, more intensely, and in ways that either leave us incapable of alleviating it or push us to harmful and maladaptive responses to it. Hence, seen in a socio-economic light, boredom can become a serious threat to our physical and psychological well-being. Insofar as freedom to pursue and achieve one’s well-being is essential to human life and a primary concern of contemporary liberal societies, boredom should be considered to be a social justice issue. The disproportionately negative effects of boredom on lower SES groups indicate the profound ways that boredom affects individuals and further disadvantages those who are already in marginalized positions. Contrary to many historical accounts, boredom is not only the experience of the elite, the wealthy, or those with ample free time. In our current political, social, and economic climate, boredom is primarily the experience of the less privileged, the disadvantaged, and the marginalized.
Keywords boredom  poverty  scarcity  social justice  self-regulation  emotion  affect
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Women and Human Development.Martha C. Nussbaum - 2003 - Mind 112 (446):372-375.
The Good of Boredom.Andreas Elpidorou - 2018 - Philosophical Psychology 31 (3):323-351.
The Bored Mind is a Guiding Mind: Toward a Regulatory Theory of Boredom.Andreas Elpidorou - 2018 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 17 (3):455-484.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Bored Mind is a Guiding Mind: Toward a Regulatory Theory of Boredom.Andreas Elpidorou - 2018 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 17 (3):455-484.
The Good of Boredom.Andreas Elpidorou - 2018 - Philosophical Psychology 31 (3):323-351.
Is Profound Boredom Boredom?Andreas Elpidorou & Lauren Freeman - 2019 - In Christos Hadjioannou (ed.), Heidegger on Affect. Palgrave.
Living with Boredom.Cheshire Calhoun - 2011 - Sophia 50 (2):269-279.
The Moral Dimensions of Boredom: A Call for Research.Andreas Elpidorou - 2017 - Review of General Psychology 21 (1):30-48.
The Moral Psychology of Boredom.Andreas Elpidorou (ed.) - 2022 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Boredom, Human Psychology, and Immortality.Andreas Elpidorou - 2021 - American Philosophical Quarterly 58 (4):259-372.
Immortality and Boredom.John Martin Fischer & Benjamin Mitchell-Yellin - 2014 - The Journal of Ethics 18 (4):353-372.
Philosophy of Boredom.Andreas Elpidorou & Josefa Velasco - forthcoming - Oxford Bibliographies in Philosophy.
Boredom in Art.Andreas Elpidorou - 2017 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-07-27

Total views
101 ( #109,913 of 2,462,240 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
101 ( #6,544 of 2,462,240 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes