An Experiment: Stress, Epictetus, and Burnout
(While I’m not officially participating in Blaugust, I’m taking advantage of the momentum to try more off-the-cuff writing.)
I didn’t expect to see an overlap between the First Discourse of Epictetus and Burnout by Emily and Amelia Nagoski. But a common theme seems to be “know the difference between what you can and can’t affect.”
Epictetus: know what is up to you and what isn’t; only give your attention to what is.
The Nagoskis: the biological process of stress is separate from the stressor causing it. Stressors may or may not be in your power to change, but you can affect whether you get stuck in the stress response.
Epictetus’s approach is rational; the Nagoskis’ is physiological. Epictetus focuses on clarity: discerning what is up to you. The Nagoskis focus on release: completing the stress cycle.
Together they seem like a powerful one-two punch.
This week I’ll run a tiny experiment. On my to-do list I’ll note the aspects of a task that aren’t within my control.1 I’ll also note stress symptoms and finish stress cycles with brief deep breathing or qigong.2 I’ll gauge their success in (let’s be real) a vague, qualitative way, comparing the effort the experiment costs to the ease it gives.
This isn’t a self-improvement project, just something my life tells me it needs.
Whether because they require a response from others, my body and mind aren’t cooperative, or things go sideways generally.↩
Very little that the Nagoskis suggest—like 30-60 minutes of intense exercise, long moments of physical affection, or social activity—is accessible to me. I don’t know if that reflects a genuine limit: that chronic illness can make the body’s safety-restoring mechanisms unavailable and become a self-perpetuating stressor.↩