Skip to main content

Verified by Psychology Today

Philosophy

Agnes Callard's Socratic Case Against Travel

A quick Stoic response.

Key points

  • Stoic virtue ethicists don’t recommend transformational projects or general self-improvement, just virtue.
  • Stoics point out that we stay ourselves wherever we go, and the obstacle to happiness is us.
  • Stoics want us to think of ourselves as denizens of the world, not just our neighborhood.

The remarkably affable philosopher Agnes Callard, who has now gone “viral” a few times over, is unashamed to be didactic. She is a teacher, after all. But if there is no didact like a teacher, there is really no didact like an ethicist who is assured that we all—that is, every one of us—need to be living more “Socratic” lives. It’s not quite orthodox Platonism that Callard recommends; she does not recommend just virtue or word her advice, like Plato, to say that we become like God.

But she does recommend that we take up projects of transformation and that it is crucial we improve ourselves, resisting what is easiest, focusing like athletes in training (as Plato put it) on what is of ultimate good.

A Case Against Pleasure Travel

Her view is laid out mostly clearly in her book Aspiration: The Agency of Becoming, which is where you can see the kind of transformational projects she has in mind (having children or a career, regular kinds of things like that). It’s a little harder to figure out what she would approve of in her recent public philosophy making a case against pleasure travel.

The problem with pleasure travel is that it does not transform and self-improve us, but we brag about travel as if it did. She finds this supremely annoying, and that makes more sense when this is understood as being due to how deluding ourselves about transformational projects might keep us from finding real ones, from a thinker who believes such transformation is crucial.

Without this context, it is hard to figure out how hearing about a friend’s travel is so annoying, as annoying as hearing them describe a dream they had. (I love hearing about friends' travel but also, come to think of it, about their dreams.)

What kind of dreaming are we doing if we think that travel is good? She speculates that we enjoy trips abroad for these reasons:

You don’t like to think about the fact that someday you will do nothing and be nobody. You will only allow yourself to preview this experience when you can disguise it in a narrative about how you are doing many exciting and edifying things: you are experiencing, you are connecting, you are being transformed, and you have the trinkets and photos to prove it.

A Stoic Response

My response to Callard's Socratic-inspired concerns is a Stoic one. Stoic virtue ethicists stay more orthodox, even in these modern times, as they don’t recommend transformational projects or self-improvement in any general sense, but just virtue. In a way, that focus makes them a lot more flexible than Callard in her judgments of us, as I think we can see quickly.

But the first thing a Stoic would say to those feeling judged about her piece on travel is this: Why in the world would someone else’s judgment ever bother you? Think on that, a Stoic would instruct didactically. Why would you ever need everyone’s approval?

Her piece is a nice provocation for defenders of tourism. Her view is laid out so that, if you disagree, and if inclined, you can simply point out where she’s gone wrong and leaves her conclusions unsupported. That’s sporting of her!

A Stoic could also agree that travel (just like consumption, or a job, or any set of loved ones or friends, or any routine) is in no way some guaranteed path to happiness. They would never expect travel to somehow change us for the better on its own. They, too, point out that we stay ourselves wherever we go, and the obstacle to happiness is us. Emerson puts that this way:

I pack my trunk, embrace my friends, embark on the sea and at last wake up in Naples, and there beside me is the stern fact, the sad self, unrelenting, identical, that I fled from.

But a Stoic would be concerned with Callard’s reasons for finding love of travel so delusional. She talks about how we seem goofy and out of place as tourists. Of course, travelers can recognize this: They get lost, they can’t find toothpaste, they might need to ask for favors and help and feel pretty vulnerable. Travel is a challenge for even those who can afford 17-hour flights. But in two ways it can be an edifying challenge.

For one, Stoics want us to think of ourselves as denizens of the world, not just our neighborhood. We are pilgrims on this earth, brothers and sisters to every person here, far more vulnerable than we ever pretend to be. If travel makes us face these truths, that’s a big plus. Tourists not having their bearings counts as a good thing, and is a bad thing to complain about. As we are not defined by our lives when they are most comfortable or routine, we should not assume we can always have everything we need in place, and everyone knows us. When people act outrageously, harming others and themselves, the Stoics suggest it is because they have gotten confused about what they actually need; they got attached to what is comfortable. We always need to prepare for having less, and (even in these world-traveler cases she depicts) we do travel with less.

For two, successful travel is going to include the challenge of relating well to others. Travel is too hard for those of us who cannot feel vulnerable, trust, or open up to strangers, or who are too attached to our things at home, afraid of looking stupid or not knowing what to do. But these are not good excuses, as we would need to overcome these things to be virtuous anyway.

No Stoic would say world travel is necessary. We make connections with strangers during hospital stays, at shelters, and with people who have done the traveling to arrive here. The point is learning how much and what kind of benevolence is out there, waiting for us all. If we never experience that or learn the lesson, who do we picture when we consider humanity? What is involved when we try to figure out what counts as justice? (As we consider even whether our travel is just!)

What is the line? You can’t take it with you. The Stoics, at real odds with Callard’s proposal on why we like travel, could add: So, when you can, go and see what you still have without your normal routine and stuff. So pack a few things and go see what is on offer. There is a world of good out there.

advertisement
More from Jennifer Baker Ph.D.
More from Psychology Today