The Analysis of Suffering

            The “universal suffering” phenomenon is a key aspect of both the American dream and humanitarian culture. As Fadlalla revealed, Western humanitarian efforts establish a “universal ‘suffering form’ in order to attract and push their own agenda” (80). In other terms, a group’s pain becomes the crucial catalyst of affirmative action and ‘do-gooder’ behavior. In relation to the American dream, suffering is not only rewarded, but expected in US society. I think back to my college applications and interviews; nearly every format asked about my biggest challenge, portraying an innate hope that I had somehow suffered in my life while pushing to determine the nature of my character by how successfully I overcame that suffering. The social expectation of suffering isn’t entirely a bad thing. It prescribes a reverence of perseverance and persistent hard work.  The social demand for suffering has helped to build the very framework of the American dream. The American dream, or the belief that anyone can be successful if they just work hard enough, is perfectly embodied by Mawi in Of Beetles and Angels. Of Beetles and Angels tells the story of how a naturally born Ethiopian refugee comes to reside in an affluent suburb in the United States, concluding the journey with an acceptance to Harvard University on a full-tuition scholarship. Mawi came with little monetary and social power, and reached a pivotal level of success. His story can be exploited by the US dominant culture, displaying “the sufferings of immigration [as] normalized so as to propagate the ideals of the multicultural nation” (Hron 37) and using “the generic immigrant narrative [to neutralize] immigrant suffering as a necessary part of the immigration process” (Hron 43). In essence, suffering is shed in a positive light as the mechanism by which people become worthy of success. According to Hron, self-sacrifice is an ideal kind of beauty in US culture (56). Even Mawi admits in Of Beetles and Angels, “Of course no worthy endeavor is without risks and pitfalls” (Asgedom 138). I have already mentioned previously that an expectation of suffering is not entirely destructive; however, the universality and grouping of all suffering beings builds a social tendency to “slow the move toward an accountable public sphere” (Fadlalla 81). It poses the dangerous question: if all beings are expected to suffer, why should humans take action to prevent suffering? Thus, just as suffering can “attract and push [the] own agenda” of humanitarians, it can also perpetuate a social condition that incubates a continued cycle of human pain and suffering, which in turn allows humanitarians to keep their jobs.