Escapism, by definition, has become so commonplace that it has seemingly lost its bite. That is to say, if we take it to mean the act of distracting oneself in order to get away from the mundaneness of routine, then it would be quite hard finding what isn't a form of escapism in this day and age. The notion begins to wear: a man, getting a small taste of victory, toils away at the casino slot machines so often that it becomes his routine. Can it really be escapism if it instead becomes his life? And if it is, then this interpretation of escapism says nothing or little about the forces around it.

In order to have an easier time addressing such difficulties and see why a fundamental change in question is necessary, a new light is needed on the matter—a new interpretation will do the trick. There are two distinct kinds of escapism: one productive and active, and the other passive and reactive. But neither the active nor the passive types of escapism strictly belong to the realm of psychology; indeed, escapism as a phenomenon is problematically reduced when confined to mere psychological causes. A short distance from psychology is then required. As it is not just the so-called motivations behind why one must feel they need to escape that warrant what escapism is, it is also the interaction with one's surroundings. Escapism finds a better definition in active forces, passive forces, and activity. What this means is that escapism is determined by the impact it has on the world, including the self.

I. Magnitude

As a reminder, the self is not a lonely Cartesian ego onlooking existence as if it were separate from the environment around it. The self, instead, is both a creative, unique existence and deeply part of said environment. If that is the case, escapism doesn't arise between an individual and the social sphere; rather, it is an active force in the social sphere itself. I believe it consists of two main currents: one is passive, and the other is vibrant and active. What distinguishes the forces from one another is a matter of two key elements.

It is first crucial to understand that escapism is largely retrospective, and can be described by what I call magnitude. Magnitude is simply the consequences of an act and its context, and this is what most of the psychological perspectives on the subject tend to overlook. For instance, in a clean and well-written paper, Frode Stenseng, Jostein Rise & Pål Kraft (2012) outline that escapism takes on two forms: self-suppression and self-expansion. Self-expansion is characterized as the promotion and anticipation of a positive experience, while self-suppression is closer to the common notion of escapism: it is akin to running away from something like a memory or a stressor (p. 22).

The former seeks to maximize well-being, and the latter seeks to minimize ill-being (p. 33). Stenseng et al. rightly criticize the common misconception that escapism is a purely negative phenomenon, but their theory fails to consider the impact of the individual engaged in escapism beyond themselves. Indeed, the magnitude of their escapism is self-contained and only concerned with that of an individual. While its virtue is in isolating how it is manifested and characterized, it offers no critical and broader eye to show that escapism does not exist in a vacuum—it does not look at the practical effects left on the social sphere and its environment, and vice versa.

A better notion of escapism, on the other hand, does exactly this while keeping in mind that the world is not so cleanly divided between a subject and an object. A person who volunteers at the local food bank no doubt does so for the sake of others, as well as undeniably their own egoistic intentions, and this would be considered an escapism of self-expansion; but is there not a difference between the magnitude of their actions and other self-expansionist escapisms like going on a morning jog or attending a yoga session? The crucial difference is that escapism is not chained to that Cartesian subject and object relation—it belongs to the world and is within it; it is not a self-contained phenomenon.

Magnitude then is the interaction and context of said world: think of it as the ripples in a pond and how they kiss the edges of the water; in what possible way can it be isolated? The gambler at the slot machine, for instance, may be gambling as a distraction, but what about the effects of the action not only on his wallet or psyche but also on what it means for the casino, his family and friends, etc.? What are the consequences of his escapism? What does it "give back" or put out there into the world for himself, the environment, and others? A volunteer gives back more than the jogger, as its impact is larger than the self. That is magnitude, the first piece of the puzzle to understanding escapism proper.

II. Creativity

There is still as of yet something missing. Alone, the magnitude of an action would never be enough to determine what escapism is. It is just the context and consequences of an action after all. This is where the second and most important element is revealed: creativity. When one creates, they will into the world, even if that means retreating from the miasma of the everyday for just a bit of time. In other words, the force needed to set the grounds for magnitude is already there—creativity is the precondition for magnitude. Writing a book, for example, has a major effect not only on its writer but also on all who lay eyes on it (magnitude), and it would not be possible without the force of creativity driving the writer in the first place. It is exactly the drive that pushes one to difference and creation, with its potency allowing for escapism to not only exist but also take shape.

III. Twin Forces/Active and Passive

It is now that the two prominent forms of escapism reveal themselves: active and passive, and it is in the manner of how creativity and magnitude interact that determines one from the other. Creativity, at its height, always brings into existence. It is an active and flowing force that puts forward, and from there, the magnitude of its force is seen. And while it may be tempting to say that the magnitude, the "giving back" aspect, is the greater of the two, it is, in fact, creativity that is the final and greatest determinant of the quality of escapism. The lower the creativity, the more passive the force. The writer, for instance, has the creative vigor to pen a narrative not like any other; the type of escapism and effort put into making a piece of literature is fundamentally different from the escapism that wastes one's life in front of a screen.

The former is active; the latter is reactive. Why? The former's creativity wills into the world, and its magnitude "gives back" plentifully, if to no one else, to itself (and the consequences always extend beyond the self to a degree). The latter, however, gives little back, creates little, and wastes away. While creativity does not disappear when not active, it petrifies and is lethargic—becoming passive. Thus the magnitude of the passive force is best understood like stagnant water; the flow is artificially slowed. 

IV. Ethics/ Traditional Escapism/ The World

Ethics plays no part in active or passive escapism. If one wishes to whittle away at their life at the end of a computer and be destined for a state of passive escapism, then that's their choice to make. It is no evil or wrong way to live. By that same token, active forces are neither good nor evil. Their roles are not suitable for ethical prescriptions but are descriptions.

It must nonetheless be noted that one gains more than the other; one gives and wills and takes on more of a participatory role than its counterpart. In that sense, passive escapism can bear a similar mark to traditional escapism: a means of hiding or running away from a problem, even if passive escapism seeks to look into the consequences and creative factors while the other looks at intention. Active escapism, in contrast, is a noble variant. It is the escapism of the ambitious.

The revolutionaries, the artists, and the thinkers, escape so that something can be challenged and changed. Actually, In the example of the revolutionary, what better way to show force than to permanently alter the status quo? It is an active and high form of escapism to want to change the world. After all, what could be more desperate than to go after one's dreams and change the entire world itself—it is to both escape the current one, fashion another out of ideals, and chase it. Paradoxically, to first change the world requires retreating into it in order to then finally escape into a new one, by action.

Thus the revolutionaries are a type of escapist without knowing it. They are active and earth-shaking because they will and create out of their own visions a narrative of how society ought to be, much like the writer and storyteller. Let it stand, however, that in smaller-scale ambitions, there is also flowing and active creativity. Is not the volunteer changing the world actively in some way? They are no revolutionaries, but the will to change requires creativity, because creativity is needed to imagine difference. With that, there is even an inkling of creativity in our casino gambler; they can imagine what it would be like to win but are nonetheless inculcated into playing the same game, again and again, monotonously, to the point where their will to create and do something greater is confined to what is in front of them, formulaic and repetitive. 

V. Escapism and Open-endedness

Finally, the questions posed in the beginning can be answered. If escapism is based on activity, magnitude, and creativity , then the newfound gambler at the slot machines is indeed deep within escapism: the escapism of the passive man, whose creativity is zapped by the mind-numbing tedium of colorful lights, jingles, and the empty promises of a jackpot. His actions are impactful in the smallest sense—a cog in the machine—he is in passive escapism because his creativity is numbed, and the magnitude of his actions is kept small.

What then is escapism? It is the play of forces that varies in quality depending on both its magnitude and creativity. The more creativity, the more active, while the magnitude is the direct impact made including and beyond the individual. The two main currents of escapism arise from these elements—but at this point, a better question becomes, "Of what kind is it, and what does it do?" As one may have noticed, the two escapisms, both active and passive, can also subsume the traditional view of escapism as the metaphorical act of running away, while also leaving leeway for its broader consequences as a very real force in the social sphere. Thus the two escapisms can bring clarity and context to a subject that previously was viewed from but a single, psychological angle.

But it isn't beholden to that angle; it opens up the subject instead of narrowing it. In the same way that escapism is not limited to a strict dichotomy (hence why there are two 'main' currents, not that they are the only currents or possible interpretations), neither should interpretation or definition be relegated to a single, central meaning. As when they are, the idea begins to wear itself thin. Escapism, in the traditional sense, has worn itself out, and in this day and age, it must be asked what purposes escapism serves and gives back, instead of just asking 'why' and leaving it at that.

References

Stenseng, Frode. (2012). Stenseng, F., Rise, J., & Kraft, P. (2012). Activity Engagement as Escape from Self: The Role of Self-Suppression and Self-Expansion.. Leisure Sciences. 34. 19-38.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2012.633849

The Author: Rex Eloquens

"As an author and poet, Rex weaves writings from philosophy and history, all the way to poetry. He has published poems and articles in online and print magazines, as well as selected writings that explore the function of language in poetry and philosophy. He is fond of continental philosophy and has a focus on Nietzsche, as well as French post-structuralism. His essays and books number many—each of which weds philosophy across disciplines, revealing that they too have their philosophical foundations.

A true lifelong learner and student of literature, and despite how far his technical education took him, he's gotten much farther on his own merit. Nevertheless, he still cherishes the precious years spent at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, where he studied the works of influential thinkers and writers from different eras and disciplines. Currently a philosopher who works in metaphysics and epistemology, along with the occasional crossing into aesthetics, ethics, and general philosophy, he has written and published a select number of essays, ranging from a defense of Derrida's philosophy to the virtues of Walter Kauffman, and many more. Researching and focusing on the non-systematic philosophies that stem from Goethe, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard onwards—his philosophy and thinking are fragmented purposely to show that perhaps the state of life is not a monolithic, singular event—it is a process of comings and goings and many inner workings with no master body in sight."