Jill Szoo Wilson

The Four Types of Listening: Understanding the Art of Attention

By Jill Szoo Wilson

“The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them.”
— Ralph G. Nichols, often called the father of listening research

Listening is the most underestimated of the communication arts. We are trained to write, to speak, to persuade, and to present, yet few are ever taught how to listen with intention. To listen well is not a passive act but an active form of attention that shapes meaning, relationship, and understanding. It’s the moment where perception meets interpretation and where human connection either succeeds or fails.

Communication theory defines this exchange as transactional, meaning that communication is not simply sent and received but created between people. As Adler, Rosenfeld, and Proctor describe, it is “the process of creating meaning through symbolic interaction.” Within this transactional exchange, listening becomes the point of highest concentration, where attention turns into understanding. Carl Rogers called it dangerous, precisely because true listening requires vulnerability; it asks us to suspend judgment and risk being changed by what we hear.

Listening, then, is not one behavior but many. Research by Kittie Watson, Larry Barker, and James Weaver III identifies four dominant listening orientations: time-focused, task-focused, relational, and analytical. Each reflects a distinct way of processing information and a different set of underlying values. This essay examines these four types of listening as a framework for understanding how we attend, interpret, and ultimately connect with one another.

Time-Focused Listening (Chronemic Listening)

Time-focused listening is driven by the belief that attention should move quickly, clearly, and without excess. It values brevity, structure, and the efficient use of minutes. In communication studies, this approach is linked to chronemics, the study of how time itself communicates meaning. Anthropologist Edward T. Hall observed that we “speak” through time as much as through language; we reveal respect, impatience, or control by how we manage it. To those who listen in a time-focused way, punctuality and precision are signals of competence. Listening, in this sense, is a tool for progress.

There are contexts in which this style works beautifully. In an emergency room, efficiency can save a life. In an executive meeting, it can save a company hour after hour of unproductive debate. A time-focused listener cuts through digression and demands the essential: What happened? What’s next? The conversation moves forward.

Yet the very strength of this style can also be its undoing. When efficiency becomes the highest good, conversation risks losing its depth. Meaning is trimmed, edited, and sometimes distorted in the rush to move forward. A dialogue that might have opened into understanding ends the moment it becomes inconvenient. The drive to stay on schedule can flatten nuance and quiet emotion, both of which need more time than the time-focused listener is willing to allow.

Chronemic listening reminds us that time is both a boundary and a message. The length of a pause, the patience of silence, and the willingness to let another person finish communicate as powerfully as the words being used. The discipline of listening does not reject efficiency, but it resists hurry. To listen well is to know when time serves clarity and when it threatens understanding. The best listeners master both.

Most people do not choose their listening style any more than they choose their accent. It develops quietly, shaped by what life has required of them. A nurse learns to listen for urgency. A parent learns to listen for need. An executive learns to listen for solutions. Over time, those habits start to feel like personality, when in fact they are responses to circumstance. Yet habits can shift. Once a person becomes aware of how they listen, they begin to notice the moments when that habit no longer serves them. They begin to recognize what once went unnoticed — the pause that deserves patience, and the silence that carries meaning — and in that awareness, the act of listening becomes less about efficiency and more about presence.

Behaviors you might observe:

Interrupts or redirects when conversation feels too slow or repetitive
Prefers summaries, timelines, and concise explanations
Checks the time or shifts body posture when discussions run long
Emphasizes deadlines and next steps over reflection
Speaks in short, efficient bursts rather than elaborating

Literary Reflections:

In Hamlet, impatience with words that circle without arriving at meaning captures the time-focused listener’s need for progress.
Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants turns brevity into both virtue and limitation; its spare dialogue mirrors the efficiency and avoidance of this style.
The clipped exchanges in Beckett’s Endgame reveal how the desire to finish speaking can become indistinguishable from despair.

Task-Focused Listening (Action-Oriented Listening)

Task-focused listening approaches communication as a means to an end. It listens for action, not for feeling, and measures success by what gets done rather than what gets understood. Communication scholars often describe this as action-oriented listening because it privileges the completion of tasks over the exploration of emotions. Its central question is simple: What are the steps?

This listening style is common in professional and technical environments where precision matters. Engineers, coaches, and project managers often exemplify it. They listen for data, instructions, and solutions. They want structure, not story. The speaker who wanders into emotion or ambiguity risks losing their attention, not because they lack empathy, but because their focus has already shifted to implementation.

There is an undeniable efficiency in this approach. It brings order to complex projects and gives structure to communication. Teams stay aligned, and goals become measurable. A task-focused listener reduces confusion and promotes accountability, turning discussion into direction. Meetings that might once have drifted end with decisions. In a culture that prizes productivity, this kind of clarity can feel like mastery, the mark of someone who not only listens but delivers.

Yet the strength of this style can slip into excess. When listening becomes purely instrumental, every exchange is measured by its outcome. People start to feel like problems to be solved rather than voices to be heard. A colleague seeking understanding may receive a solution instead. A partner expressing worry may be met with advice. The task-focused listener hears information but misses emotion, and what is efficient begins to feel detached.

Good communicators learn to adjust. They sense when a conversation needs movement and when it needs mercy. In a crisis, this style can bring direction and calm. In a moment of fear or doubt, it can create distance. The art lies in knowing the difference. True listening asks for patience, for the courage to stay with what is unresolved. The task-focused listener grows when they learn that not every question requires an answer, and not every silence demands a plan. Sometimes the most skillful action is to wait, to hear fully, and to let meaning unfold on its own.

Behaviors you might observe:

Asks solution-driven questions such as “What do we need to do?”
Takes notes or creates lists while others are still talking
Moves quickly from discussion to implementation
Rephrases statements into actions or instructions
Struggles to remain engaged when the conversation turns emotional or abstract

Literary Reflections:

In Kafka’s The Trial, listening collapses into procedure. Every response is measured against a task no one fully understands.
George and Lennie in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men illustrate how pragmatic listening preserves survival but erodes tenderness.
Camus’ The Stranger exposes the sterility of communication reduced to function, where understanding gives way to process.

Relational Listening (People-Oriented Listening)

Relational listening is the art of hearing people, not just words. It centers on empathy, emotional nuance, and the subtle cues that reveal what someone truly means. Communication scholars describe this as people-oriented listening because it prioritizes understanding the person behind the message rather than the message alone. The relational listener’s guiding question is not What happened? or What should I do? but How does this person feel?

Where time-focused and task-focused listeners aim for progress, relational listeners aim for connection. Their attention is tuned to tone, pacing, pauses, and body language — the invisible grammar of emotion. They notice when a voice tightens, when silence stretches too long, or when laughter masks discomfort. To them, listening is a form of care. They listen to affirm dignity, create safety, and remind others that their experience matters.

The strength of this style lies in its generosity. When people feel heard, they relax into honesty. When they sense genuine empathy, they risk saying more. In counseling, teaching, and ministry, relational listening is often the bridge that allows difficult truths to surface. The listener’s patience becomes a kind of hospitality, a quiet invitation that says, Go ahead, and finish your thought.

Even empathy needs structure. When relational listening stretches too far, compassion can turn into depletion. The listener begins to carry emotions that do not belong to them, mistaking absorption for understanding. Out of kindness, they may soften hard truths or avoid conflict altogether. What begins as care can quietly become a burden. Over time, the constant pull to soothe and affirm leaves the listener weary. True empathy does not require taking on another person’s pain; it asks for presence without possession. Skilled relational listeners learn to stay open without being overtaken.

To listen relationally is to recognize that communication is not merely an exchange of information but an encounter between human lives. It transforms listening from a polite gesture into a moral act that honors both the speaker’s story and the listener’s limits.

Behaviors you might observe:

Maintains gentle eye contact and open posture
Uses verbal affirmations such as “I understand” or “That sounds difficult”
Allows silence to stretch without rushing to fill it
Mirrors emotion through tone or facial expression
Notices changes in energy, mood, or body language and adjusts response accordingly

Literary Reflections:

In Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, characters listen less to words than to the emotional current beneath them. Connection emerges in the space between sentences.
Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard depicts the fatigue of constant empathy; everyone listens, yet no one is truly heard.
In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet’s insight arises from learning to listen without projection. Misunderstanding gives way to recognition.

Analytical Listening (Content-Oriented Listening)

Analytical listening seeks to understand before it judges. It is a methodical and often contemplative way of attending to information. Communication researchers describe this as content-oriented listening because it focuses on ideas, evidence, and reasoning rather than emotion or efficiency. The analytical listener’s question is, What is true here, and how do I know?

This orientation thrives in environments that prize depth of thought such as universities, courtrooms, laboratories, and newsrooms. Analytical listeners are comfortable with ambiguity. They prefer complexity to certainty and are willing to hold competing ideas in tension until clarity emerges. Their patience for uncertainty can feel unsettling to those who want quick answers, yet this restraint is precisely what allows analysis to deepen understanding.

Analytical listeners excel in situations that demand discernment. They attend to structure, logic, and supporting detail. They look for patterns in language, for assumptions buried inside arguments, and for evidence that distinguishes opinion from fact. They are often the ones who pause before responding, not because they are disengaged, but because they are still listening, not only to the speaker but to their own developing understanding.

Still, this style carries its own risks. The analytical listener may appear detached or overly cerebral. In a commitment to objectivity, they can miss the emotional undercurrents that shape how meaning is received. A purely analytical approach to human conversation can flatten what should be relational. Understanding the content of a message is not the same as understanding its impact.

The discipline of analytical listening reminds us that comprehension and empathy are not opposites but partners. Thought without empathy becomes sterile; empathy without thought becomes unmoored. The most effective communicators are those who can think critically without ceasing to care.

Behaviors you might observe:

Asks clarifying or probing questions before responding
Takes time to process before speaking
Analyzes the logic or structure of what is being said
References evidence, examples, or inconsistencies in arguments
Appears calm or neutral even during emotionally charged discussions

Literary Reflections:

In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight models analytical listening as moral discipline, withholding judgment until comprehension is complete.
T. S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock portrays a mind so devoted to precision that it loses the ability to act.
Orwell’s 1984 presents analytical listening under constraint, where discernment itself becomes an act of rebellion.

Conclusion

Listening represents a continuum of attentional choice. Each orientation, time-focused, task-focused, relational, and analytical, highlights a distinct way of organizing perception and constructing meaning. Together, they illustrate how listeners shape understanding through focus, habit, and value.

Within the transactional model of communication, meaning arises through interaction. Listener and speaker participate equally in that exchange, shaping one another’s interpretations as the dialogue unfolds. Listening functions as the center of communication, the place where awareness becomes understanding and understanding becomes relationship.

To study listening is to study connection itself. Every exchange of attention expands the shared field of meaning between people, allowing communication to do what it was designed to do: create understanding that endures beyond words.

From Realism to Meta-Absurdism: The Evolution of the Modern Stage

By Jill Szoo Wilson

Prologue: A New Theatre Movement

In a series of conversations on modern theatre, my students and I began to notice a pattern: the world seems to be circling back to Absurdism. Yet we agreed that the cycle could not simply repeat itself. The conditions of the twenty-first century—the digital landscape, the collapse of attention, the constant performance of self—have altered the human experience too profoundly. What was once silence has become noise; what was once absence has become overload.

Together, we set out to name what is now taking shape: a new movement of theatre and art that inherits the Absurd but transforms it. We call this emerging sensibility Meta-Absurdism. This essay traces the lineage that led to it and considers what it means for artists, audiences, and a culture learning to see itself again through performance.

This essay is dedicated to my students, whose insight and curiosity continue to make the stage—and the world—new.

Introduction: Theatre as a Record of Disenchantment

From the candlelit realism of Ibsen’s drawing rooms to the barren wastelands of Beckett’s imagination, modern theatre traces a steady movement from certainty toward fragmentation. Each major development that followed the nineteenth century—Realism, Naturalism, Expressionism, Surrealism, and Absurdism—marks both an artistic and a philosophical transformation. Theatre has always reflected what it means to be human within its own age.

In the nineteenth century, dramatists could still study human behavior with confidence. By the middle of the twentieth century, they could only endure it. Today, we stand at another threshold. Our culture’s relationship with reality, shaped by screens, fragmented by algorithms, and shadowed by irony, points toward a new theatrical age. In this context, irony does not mean humor. It means the self-conscious detachment that defines a society aware of its own performance, a way of speaking and living that protects sincerity by disguising it. We perform authenticity while knowing it is a performance.

This era mirrors Absurdism yet extends beyond it. If the theatre of the absurd revealed a world stripped of meaning, the theatre now emerging exposes a world overwhelmed by it: too much meaning, too many truths, too much noise.

This essay traces the major movements of modern theatre, from the moral candor of Realism to the existential collapse of Absurdism, and considers how these patterns have begun to repeat. The arts seem to have circled once more through the same questions—about truth, emotion, and meaning—and returned to the threshold of absurdity. Yet what emerges now is not a simple repetition but an evolution: a post-Absurd theatre that laughs at chaos while still, against all odds, searching for coherence.

I. Realism: The Mirror and the Moral Self

Approximate dates: 1870s–early 1900s

Realism developed in Europe in the late nineteenth century as artists, novelists, and playwrights grew restless with the emotional exaggeration of Romanticism and the moral simplicity of melodrama. Before Realism, melodrama had dominated the popular stage. Its world was one of pure heroes and villains, where virtue always triumphed and vice was punished. Emotion was heightened through sweeping gestures, musical underscoring, and spectacular rescues or coincidences that resolved every conflict. Such plays invited audiences to feel deeply but not to think critically. The characters embodied moral lessons rather than psychological truth. By contrast, the emerging Realists wanted to replace this emotional excess and moral certainty with complexity. They turned their attention to ordinary people whose lives unfolded in shades of gray rather than black and white, creating stories that demanded reflection rather than reassurance.

Several cultural shifts shaped this turn.

Industrialization and Urbanization. Industrialization and urbanization transformed daily life. Cities expanded, and factories restructured work, family, and community. People began to speak more openly about labor conditions, gender roles, and class disparity. Society no longer appeared as a divinely fixed hierarchy ordained from above; it now looked like a system built by human hands, and therefore one that could be questioned and changed.

The Rise of the Social Sciences. Thinkers in psychology and sociology began to treat human behavior as something that could be studied systematically rather than assumed. This new way of understanding people—as subjects shaped by environment, emotion, and motive—encouraged playwrights to create characters with psychological depth instead of relying on stock types such as the virtuous maiden, the dastardly villain, or the comic servant.

A New Appetite for Truth. Readers and audiences had grown accustomed to novels by writers like Flaubert, Tolstoy, and Dickens, who depicted ordinary people in intricate detail. Theatre began to follow that path. The stage shifted from spectacle toward scrutiny.

Realism did not simply aim to look more “real.” It made a specific argument: if theatre shows people as they actually live, then audiences can confront the real moral and social problems of their time.

Key Features of Realist Theatre

Ordinary settings. The action often unfolds in living rooms, studies, dining rooms, or modest interiors that feel lived in. These spaces suggest that important moral events happen in private life, not only in palaces or battlefields.

Complex, believable characters. Realist characters possess mixed motives. They speak in everyday language rather than in verse. They struggle with marriage, money, vocation, family loyalty, and personal integrity.

Cause and effect. The plot grows out of choices, secrets, and pressures that feel logical rather than arbitrary. When something happens, it usually has a clear reason grounded in character and circumstance.

Moral pressure. Realist plays often expose hypocrisy. They show how respectable surfaces hide injustice or denial. The question beneath many Realist plays sounds like this: “What happens when truth knocks on the door of a comfortable lie?”

Ibsen: Realism as Moral Confrontation

Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906) stands at the center of theatrical Realism.

In A Doll’s House (1879), Nora Helmer lives as the cheerful, obedient wife in a carefully ordered home. The play gradually reveals that her lightness masks a lifetime of dependence, first on her father and then on her husband, Torvald. She has learned to please, to perform, and to survive through charm rather than autonomy. When a secret loan she once took to save Torvald’s life threatens to come to light, the illusion of their marriage begins to crumble. Torvald’s reaction exposes not gratitude but possessiveness; he cares more for his reputation than her sacrifice. Confronted with the truth of her own confinement, Nora recognizes that she has never been treated as an equal or allowed to think for herself. The final scene, in which she closes the door behind her, is both literal and symbolic: a woman stepping out of her father’s and husband’s authority to begin life as her own person.

The famous ending, when Nora chooses to leave her husband and children, shocked audiences. Many saw it as scandalous, but Ibsen was not simply trying to provoke. He used a realistic situation to expose how a “good” marriage could rest on control, performance, and inequality. The play suggests that a woman cannot live as a full moral agent if she exists only as someone else’s doll.

Nora’s final choice marks a key Realist moment. She does not die in melodramatic fashion. She does not reconcile in a sentimental embrace. She walks out. The action arises from her growing awareness of herself as a thinking, responsible person. Realism turns the spotlight on that inner awakening.

Chekhov: Realism as Quiet Ruin

Anton Chekhov (1860–1904) offers a different, more subtle version of Realism.

In The Cherry Orchard (1904), Madame Ranevskaya and her family return to their estate, burdened by debt. The family clings to its memories and status. Lopakhin, the son of a former serf who has become a successful businessman, urges them to cut down the orchard and build rental cottages to survive financially. They delay, avoid, reminisce, and refuse to act. In the end, they lose the estate.

Very little “happens” in the melodramatic sense. No villain engineers their doom. No miracle saves them. The tragedy comes from inaction, denial, and nostalgia. Chekhov shows how people talk around their problems, retreat into sentiment, and fail to adapt to changing social realities.

The Cherry Orchard introduces a central Realist idea: the most devastating conflicts often unfold in interrupted conversations, small evasions, and postponed decisions. The play invites the audience to listen closely and notice what characters cannot say.

The Significance of Realism

Realism replaced the mask with the mirror. It insisted that the lives of women, workers, professionals, and families deserved serious, dramatic attention. It suggested that theatre could function as a moral and social instrument without preaching. By inviting audiences to recognize themselves in the characters, Realism created a space for self-examination.

Almost every “serious” television drama or film that focuses on believable characters in everyday settings inherits something from Realism. When audiences watch a courtroom drama, a family story, or a workplace series that treats motives and consequences seriously, they are seeing Realism’s legacy.

In the larger arc of this essay, Realism marks the last confident moment when many playwrights believed that if we looked closely enough at ordinary life, we could discover truth, make sense of behavior, and correct injustice. The movements that follow will test, fracture, and eventually abandon that confidence.

II. Naturalism: The Laboratory of Life

Approximate dates: 1880s–1910s

If Realism served as the mirror, Naturalism served as the microscope. Inspired by Charles Darwin and Émile Zola, Naturalism treated human behavior as a phenomenon shaped by heredity and environment. Life appeared not as a moral choice but as a biological outcome.

Zola called the stage a “slice of life,” demanding scientific precision from playwrights and directors. August Strindberg’s Miss Julie (1888) became a model of the form: a claustrophobic dissection of class, gender, and instinct, set on Midsummer’s Eve when social boundaries briefly dissolve. The characters act less from will than from the forces that shape them—namely, lust, resentment, and social conditioning.

Naturalism rejected the artifice of plot and heroism, seeking instead to record life with scientific accuracy. Its goal was observation rather than judgment. Playwrights treated the stage like a laboratory where heredity, class, and environment could be tested as forces shaping human behavior. Characters acted not from moral choice but from the pressures of instinct, poverty, social expectation, or desire. The playwright’s task was to show how these forces collided, not to offer solutions. Yet this commitment to objectivity created its own unease. When every action can be traced to circumstance, freedom begins to disappear. The stage, once a space of moral decision, becomes a specimen jar. Human beings are observed rather than understood. The soul, once dramatized, is diagnosed.

IV. Surrealism: Dream Logic and the Unconscious

Approximate dates: 1920s–1940s

Surrealism emerged after the devastation of World War I, when reason itself seemed to have failed. If logic could lead to such destruction, perhaps truth lay elsewhere, not in rational order but in the hidden language of dreams. Influenced by Sigmund Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), artists and writers turned to the subconscious as a source of creativity. They believed that genuine expression came from the mind set free from social rules, logic, and moral restraint.

In his Manifesto of Surrealism (1924), André Breton defined the movement as “pure psychic automatism,” the act of letting thought flow without censorship or control. In painting, this meant spontaneous, dreamlike imagery; in theatre, it meant abandoning conventional plot and sequence. Events could unfold as they do in a dream, connected not by cause and effect but by association and emotion. Characters might shift identity, time might collapse, and familiar objects could appear strange or symbolic.

Guillaume Apollinaire’s The Breasts of Tiresias (1917) embodies this new freedom. The play reverses gender roles as its heroine transforms into a man and her husband gives birth to thousands of children. These plot points were a surreal satire on war, gender, and creativity. Nothing follows a logical sequence; instead, the play operates on metaphor and imagination. Jean Cocteau’s Orpheus (1926) takes a classical myth and renders it dreamlike: mirrors become doorways between life and death, and the poet speaks with the underworld as though in a trance.

In Surrealist theatre, logic steps aside so imagination can lead. The stage becomes a dream world where time bends, meaning shifts, and the unconscious speaks aloud. What seems strange or impossible points to deeper truths found not in reason but in symbols, emotion, and the language of dreams.

V. Absurdism: The Collapse of Meaning

Approximate dates: 1950s–1970s

After two world wars, faith in progress and reason could no longer stand. The existential philosophy of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre defined the new condition: life without inherent meaning. Theatre responded with silence, repetition, and dark humor, using pauses and empty dialogue to reflect a world where language itself had lost power.

Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (1953) redefined dramatic form. Two men wait endlessly for a figure who never arrives, filling the void with circular talk and fleeting hope. Eugène Ionesco’s The Bald Soprano (1950) turns conversation into nonsense, exposing the emptiness beneath polite language. Edward Albee’s The Zoo Story (1958) stages the brutality of human isolation in a single park bench encounter.

These plays offer no resolution. They simply continue, mirroring the endurance of life itself. Absurdism exposes the collapse of structure and certainty, showing that meaning, if it exists at all, must be created moment by moment. The laughter that arises is uneasy, the sound of people confronting despair and choosing, somehow, to keep going.

VI. The Digital Turn and the Rise of Meta-Absurdism

Approximate era: early twenty-first century to the present

If modernism once faced the silence of a world stripped of meaning, contemporary art now faces the noise of one drowning in it. For playwrights like Samuel Beckett and Eugène Ionesco, “silence” did not mean the literal absence of sound but the absence of response. After two world wars, faith in reason, progress, and even God had fractured. Humanity continued to ask the ancient questions—Why are we here? What gives life purpose?—and the universe offered no reply. The stage became the echo chamber of that unanswered search. Beckett’s tramps wait for a figure who never arrives. Ionesco’s couples speak in circles until language collapses. The silence is existential: a world that listens but does not speak back.

The modern imagination inherits Beckett’s emptiness but fills it with light: the artificial glow of phones, computers, and screens that both illuminate and distort our sense of presence. What was once shared in the immediacy of physical space now unfolds through pixels and algorithms. We watch others and are watched in return, performing our identities within the same systems that promise connection while deepening isolation.

Where Absurdism once mourned the loss of meaning, our age wrestles with its excess. Meaning now multiplies endlessly, scattered across feeds, refracted through commentary, and layered beneath irony. The result is not understanding but saturation. We no longer face an empty stage; we face one crowded with competing performances. The question is no longer What does it all mean? But which version of meaning can we trust? The existential anxiety of mid-century theatre has evolved into a distinctly digital unease, marked by overstimulation, fragmentation, and self-surveillance mistaken for participation.

The arts have begun to absorb and interpret this condition. Annie Baker’s The Flick (2013) quietly captures the loneliness of the digital age through the monotony of a failing movie theatre. The characters, three minimum-wage employees sweeping popcorn and trading fragments of conversation, inhabit a world both intimate and estranged. Their dialogue mimics the broken syntax of online life: hesitant, elliptical, punctuated by silence. Baker’s realism feels almost radical in its slowness. In a culture of constant refresh, she offers duration by way of a space to feel boredom, tenderness, and human distance without a glowing screen between the characters and their own emotional lives, or between the audience and the immediacy of human presence.

In contrast, Bo Burnham’s Inside (2021) transforms isolation itself into performance. Alone in a single room, surrounded by cameras and lights of his own making, Burnham becomes actor, director, and audience. His songs move from irony to despair to laughter, mapping the exhaustion of a generation trapped in perpetual self-broadcast. The work’s brilliance lies in its recursion: a performer trying to escape the very performance that defines him.

A similar unease unfolds in Apple TV’s Severance (2022), a television series that extends Absurdist logic into the architecture of the modern workplace. Employees undergo a surgical procedure that divides their consciousness in two—one self that exists only at work, and another that knows nothing of it. The result is a haunting allegory of digital compartmentalization: the algorithmic partitioning of identity and the surrender of autonomy to systems we barely understand. Visually, Severance resembles an Expressionist office dream, full of sterile corridors, circular routines, and bureaucratic doublespeak. Yet beneath its corporate absurdity lies a distinctly modern question: what happens when convenience and control demand the sacrifice of consciousness itself?

This emerging aesthetic might be called Meta-Absurdism. If the Absurd dramatized the impossibility of meaning, the Meta-Absurd dramatizes the impossibility of escaping it. Where the Absurd offered silence, the Meta-Absurd offers feedback loops; where Beckett’s tramps waited for revelation, our digital selves livestream the waiting in real time.

Meta-Absurdism thrives on contradiction. It acknowledges the void but fills it with data. It mocks the spectacle yet depends on it. It laughs at sincerity while longing for it. Its characters and creators understand that the stage has expanded beyond theatre walls into every public and private performance of self. We live lives that are continually streamed, curated, revised, and replayed. Every post meant to reveal something of ourselves also conceals something else. In the digital theatre of the self, confession and disguise have become the same act.

In this context, the artist’s task shifts from depicting reality to navigating mediation. The playwright no longer asks, What is real? but What is performed? The actor no longer strives only for truth but for authenticity within layers of simulation. The audience no longer gathers simply to witness but to reflect, recognize its own gaze, and its complicity in the performance of modern life.

Meta-Absurdism, then, is not an abandonment of art’s past but its synthesis. It inherits the Realist’s eye for detail, the Expressionist’s distortion of feeling, the Surrealist’s dream logic, and the Absurdist’s existential wit. Yet it places them within a new environment defined by speed, multiplicity, and hyperawareness. Its power lies in revealing what it feels like to be alive in a world that never stops performing itself.

The ultimate question this movement poses is neither moral nor metaphysical but phenomenological: what does it mean to be present when presence itself is a performance? The answer may not come through clarity but through recognition of a shared awareness that we are all both audience and actor, scrolling and watched, real and constructed, alone and connected. Yet even within that self-consciousness, the longing for truth persists. The human impulse to seek coherence, to love what is real, and to reach beyond imitation, remains the quiet rebellion at the heart of art.

The cycle has not ended; it has multiplied.

Teaching Gen Z in the Age of AI

For as much as my university colleagues are talking about how AI affects students, and how it’s either sharpening or dulling their cognitive tools for research, I find it curious how little the students themselves are actually using AI or even talking about it. When I brought the topic up with my freshmen, one of them said, “When you say AI, do you mean TikTok?”

That response startled me, but it didn’t entirely surprise me. I work with students ranging from middle school to college: teens and young adults who are bright, creative, curious, and digitally native. They live online. They edit videos, write fanfiction, build memes, and scroll endlessly. They’ve never known a world without the internet. So I assumed, perhaps naively, that when ChatGPT exploded onto the scene, they’d have thoughts, opinions, even fears.

What I’ve seen instead is something more slippery; a kind of casual indifference. AI is in their world, sure, but it doesn’t seem to register as world-changing, at least not in a way they can name.

Surface-Level Familiarity

Most of the students I work with know about AI in the same way they know about autocorrect or Spotify recommendations: it’s background noise. They joke about using ChatGPT to write essays. They’ve seen their favorite YouTubers feed prompts into image generators. They might even follow meme pages that poke fun at AI’s awkwardness.

When I ask how they feel about it—what it means for their future, for creativity, for work—I get blank stares, or shrugs, or “I don’t know, I guess it’s just part of life now.”

This isn’t ignorance. It’s ambient awareness without urgency. Which, ironically, might be even more dangerous.

Apathy or Adaptation?

There’s a fine line between not caring and not questioning because something feels inevitable.

What I’ve come to believe is that many young people are already adapting to AI, but without the language or guidance to examine what that adaptation means. They are, in a sense, growing up alongside the machine and assuming this is simply how things are. As tech philosopher Douglas Rushkoff puts it, “We are living in a world that is no longer about us. We are living in a world designed for technology” (Rushkoff, Program or Be Programmed, 2010).

To them, AI isn’t a disruption. It’s just Tuesday.

What Schools Aren’t Teaching

One college student told me, “We never really talk about AI in class unless it’s to say don’t cheat with it.” This reflects a larger issue: many schools are still struggling to update their policies on AI use, and even more so when it comes to adapting their teaching methods. Instead of exploring AI as a tool for learning, the focus tends to be on warning students about using it dishonestly.

While some educators are doing meaningful work to incorporate tech conversations, many schools, especially in the humanities and arts, haven’t integrated AI into their curricula at all. When AI is addressed, it’s often treated as a threat: “Don’t use this to plagiarize.” But that’s not education; it’s a warning label.

Topics like algorithmic bias, the ethics of automation, surveillance capitalism, copyright confusion, and the commodification of creativity are rarely discussed, yet these are exactly the areas that today’s students will inherit. The limited discourse tends to be reactive rather than proactive. In many cases, teachers themselves (me included!) are still figuring out what these tools mean.

And there’s a gap here that’s worth naming: students are increasingly using AI informally (for brainstorming, summarizing, solving equations), but they’re not being taught how to assess its limitations, how it was trained, or what implications it carries. Without structured critical thinking exercises or media literacy units built around AI, students are left to sort fact from fiction on their own. Unsurprisingly, many disengage altogether.

Even though organizations like Common Sense Media and UNESCO have called for AI literacy education (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research, 2023), most students are still being handed tools without blueprints. They’re digital natives, but that doesn’t mean they’re digitally literate.

In a discussion with my college freshmen about potential dangers in using AI, one of the students astutely said, “I don’t fear being repetitive, I fear never being able to say something unique because everything has already been said.” Philosophically, I empathized with her statement. I think in some ways we all feel this. But what struck me was that I wondered if she was right.

One of my high school students told me that his father works with AI software and let him use it to write an essay for school—not one he actually turned in, but as a means to demonstrate how AI generation works. The student’s final analysis was that it caused him anxiety. He said, “How can I ever write anything that will be truly helpful to the world? I feel like my brain would have to speed up and get to the point more quickly than AI, and I don’t think that’s possible.” Another student responded, “Calm down, bruh. Just keep playing The Last of Us.” The class laughed. I laughed too. But I also felt a sense of foreboding that I didn’t want to introduce into these fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds.

A Creative Way In

What’s worked best in my world isn’t lecturing about AI ethics; it’s storytelling. And more specifically, asking “what if” questions that make the abstract personal.

For example:

“What if an AI wrote your favorite show, and it was good enough that you didn’t notice?”
“What if your voice was cloned and used in a YouTube ad you never recorded?”
“What if your college application essay was flagged because someone assumed AI wrote it?”
“What if AI generated a fake video of you doing something you didn’t do?”

These questions shift the conversation from distant tech talk to immediate personal stakes. I’ve watched students, middle schoolers even, go from smirking to stunned in a matter of seconds when shown a real deepfake. It’s not just about explaining what generative AI is; it’s about helping them feel the implications of it.

Creative expression helps unlock that shift.

In one class, I asked students to write short monologues from the perspective of someone living in a world where human art is outlawed because AI does it faster. The results were moving. Several wrote about grief. Some wrote about rage. One student wrote about forgetting what real creativity feels like: “I lifted my hand to paint a flower, and the petals reminded me of a flower I saw online. I stopped seeing the real flower and tried to paint the one I remembered instead.”

I don’t know about you, but that still gives me goosebumps.

This kind of imaginative work invites empathy, agency, and reflection—all of which are in short supply when the conversation stays stuck at “AI is just a tool.”

Art-based learning has always been a mirror to society. When we let students look into that mirror through theatre, creative writing, or design, they begin to see their own digital landscape more clearly.

The Urgency of AI Awareness

Middle schoolers, high schoolers, and college students are not just future workers in an AI-saturated economy. They are future parents, pastors, teachers, lawmakers, and ethicists. If they are passive now, the consequences will be exponential later.

And here’s the thing: they don’t need to become experts. They don’t even need to have polished positions. But they do need space to ask questions, and adults who are willing to ask those questions with them.

The rise of AI in their lives is not a looming threat on the horizon. It’s already here, shaping how they search, think, interact, and create. If we want them to be active participants in this moment rather than silent subjects of it, we would serve them well to begin where they are: with curiosity, with context, and with imagination.

The future of AI won’t be written by algorithms. It will be written by the choices we make and by whether we prepare students to shape what comes next.

The Glass Garden

By Jill Szoo Wilson

She wanders through the glass garden,
its delicate beauty responding, finger to mirrored finger’s touch.
Strange, crystalline flowers stretch toward the light,
their petals refracting into soft spectrums
that dance along smooth pathways.

Silence presses in, heavy and expectant,
as if the air itself holds its breath.

At the garden’s center, he waits. He always does.
Shadows cling to him, his form barely tethered to solidity,
a presence stitched together by longing and careful restraint.
A faint smile flickers, never quite full enough to trust,
yet just enough to draw her closer.

“You belong here,” he murmurs,
his voice gliding through the stillness
like wind through hollow reeds in minor tones.

She hesitates.
Once, she believed him.
The garden felt like a sanctuary then,
each shimmering petal a promise,
each whispered word an anchor.
He held her attention gently,
but never her truths.

Now, something has shifted.
A fissure in the glass,
a hairline chime so subtle she almost doubts it.
Light catches differently, harsh, revealing.
What once dazzled now glares too bright, too sharp.

She touches a flower, glass petals cold and rigid.
A faint metallic sigh lifts from the bloom, out of tune with everything lovely.
Smooth. Perfect. Unchanging.
It does not bend or breathe.
It is made to be admired,
not to grow.

A crack splinters outward from her fingertip.

His expression stutters.
His outline wavers,
a reflection fractured,
more silhouette than man.

“Stay,” he says, voice tightening.
“Stay as long as you like.”

But she sees the architecture now,
paths that always loop back to him,
walls that glitter like freedom
while holding her in place.

He offers comfort without courage,
intimacy without vulnerability,
presence without entrance.
He keeps her not with chains,
but with the fear
that beyond these fragile walls
nothing will care for her as he once did.

The glass beneath her feet trembles.

The garden shudders.
Light bursts into chaos,
not radiant but blinding.
Stepping stones split apart.
The sharp sound of rupture
erases memory faster than she can cling to it.

He reaches for her
but his hand halts midair.
He can summon, but not hold.
He exists only within the shimmer,
never in the world where things grow.

“You beckon,” she says,
“yet drift backward from the place you call me to.”

She inhales.
A quiet instinct rises,
not a thought, not a plan,
just the first pulse of something living.

Without another glance,
she moves beyond,
through ruin and release.

Beyond the garden,
the world stretches wild and untamed.
Sifted earth rises to meet her feet,
unsteady but real.
Wind tangles through her hair.
The scent of something alive,
dirt, leaves, wildflowers,
fills her lungs.

Behind her,
a world of tinkling glass
cascades and shatters,
a thousand tiny bells
collapsing at once.

Sharp edges melt into curves.
Memories smolder into ash.

A single birdcall,
bright and unfamiliar,
breaks open the quiet.

She pauses.
Listening.
Unsure.

The wild ahead
waits without promise
and without fear.

Poem: Things That Grow

This poem was inspired by German artist Ruprecht von Kaufmann‘s piece, Die Welle.

There are things that fly

They twist and bend

Against blue sky illumined yellow

Black splattered with white

Gray interrupted by scatters of light—

Flap their wings

Or float

Like dreams

Stretching long on

Currents of wind

Winding through branches

And higher still

Playing with the stars

Before floating

Softly

Down.


There are things that stay

They cut the horizon with Always—

Mountaintops jutting high

Above valleys cradling

As seasons pass,

Children with wild hair

Wrinkle and fade

While limbs of Earth

Press toward

Eternity

Wrapping themselves

Around, holding together

The pieces that

Neither

Ascend nor

Sink.


There are things that rest

They are supple and sway

Discover stillness and move

Both in a single day—

Blades of grass yawning

Amidst beds of life,

Frogs lazy as clock towers strike

Croaking songs of love

In the dark of night,

Dogs whose paws

Chase squirrels inside dreams

Awakened

By flies frenetic

Then alighting

To sow, slowly,

Life.


There are things that fall

They rise and are pulled

Held close by the moon

Then dropped in cascades—

Swells shrouded by waves

Climbing and crashing low

Furious contrast tempered by

Mystery of falling—

Petals, eyelids, snowflakes, the sun—

Or, he whose courage inflates

Buoyant inside his soul

And on the surge

Not treading but digging

Through cold

Slicing holes in which

To plant his teardrop heart—


© Jill Szoo Wilson, 2025

Poem: Undone

One layer at a time he peeled me

Like an onion

His hands wrapped around my outer skin

From top to bottom he found my flesh

And I made him cry

Like water

Running down the side of rock

In a cascade of drops becoming

A river below

Into which we jumped

His tears breaking our fall.



One page at a time he turned me

Like a book

His hands against the leather

Bound around my story, all my words

Unspoken and broken

He read and knew and studied

Like art

Smeared across a canvas

With descriptions written below

Telling of the image

Sitting still and wanting

To be known.



One note at a time he sang me

Like a song

Released from the beak of a bird

Whose daily life is filled

With music because music is

Like emotion

Strong and loud when the air is enough

And slow and soft

When there is tenderness in the touch

A balance of adagio and

A quickening of the pulse.



One sip at a time he drank me

Like wine

Held inside a carafe

Until the day my breath met his

At the edge of a glass

And stained our mouths with red

Like a flower

Vibrant with color and life

Not pulled but watered instead

By attentive hands

That understand

Petals cut or plucked

Are already dying.



Whatever the measures by which he moves

Whatever the story he tells

Whatever the words he says or unzips

I am undone

And his.

© Jill Szoo Wilson

Slow Art: Unhurrying Your Mind

Museums invite looking, yet most visitors treat art the way they treat emails: a quick skim, a polite nod, and on to the next thing. We spot a recognizable subject or a pleasing color, think, “Ah yes, culture,” and keep walking. Studies suggest that viewers spend less than thirty seconds with a work of art before moving on. It is possible to tour an entire gallery without truly arriving anywhere at all.

Slow Art suggests another way to exist among masterpieces.

Rooted in the broader Slow Movement and formally organized with Slow Art Day in 2010, the practice encourages viewers to remain with a single artwork long enough for something meaningful to happen. The idea is simple: stop rushing. Stop conquering exhibitions like they’re errands. Let a painting interrupt the pace of your day.

Of course, the mind resists immediately. The moment we sit down and dare to look, our thoughts fling themselves into crisis: seventeen neglected texts, three unpurchased groceries, and the intrusive belief that productivity is our moral duty, and this bench is a crime scene. Apparently, stillness is very dramatic.

Yet if we continue to sit, the noise eventually settles. We start to notice the obvious things we missed when our thoughts were busy staging a coup: light falling across a shoulder, a line of color we would have sworn was not there a moment ago. Philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty argued that seeing is never passive; we do not merely observe the world. We are in conversation with it. Given time, a painting stops acting like an object and begins to behave like a presence. It answers back.

Meanwhile, neuroscience is offering evidence for what artists have always suspected. When we linger with an artwork, the brain does more than register shape and shade. Regions connected to memory, imagination, and empathy start sparking awake, as though the mind suddenly recalls it has a richer job than survival. Interpretation emerges. Emotion slips in without asking permission. You are no longer deciphering the art. You are encountering yourself.

Slow looking becomes a decision to let meaning unfold at its own pace.

It is a tiny rebellion against the cult of efficiency. Instead of demanding results from a painting — explain yourself, be profound, hurry up — we allow the experience to be unmeasurable. Sometimes revelation arrives. Sometimes quiet does. Both are victories over the museum sprint that ends with a gift shop purchase and no recollection of the gallery that preceded it.

This week, I sat with a painting of moonlit fields and distant wind. Nothing moved, yet somehow everything did. The air itself seemed to stretch across my skin, my breath eased, and the horizon widened inside me. It felt like remembering how to be a person rather than a calendar.

I answered the art’s invitation in the only way I know:
by writing.

Hush
By Jill Szoo Wilson

My dear, now hush. Unburden every care;
The silent fields invite your breath to slow.
The wind lifts strands of worry from your hair
And strokes your cheek with touches soft and low.

O moon, shine steady, hold your silver ground;
A lantern calm above the world’s unrest.
Pour down a peace too deep for any sound
And press a quiet knowing to the chest.

Kind wind — sweet wanderer — move as you will;
Let coolness glide along these open hands.
Brush thought from thought, invite my heart to still,
And ferry calm across the quiet lands.

Here, nothing strives. The wide horizon sighs—
At last, the soul grows spacious as the skies.

Block 10 in Auschwitz

By Jill Szoo Wilson

At the end of our first day in Auschwitz I, after our hour-long bus ride back to the safety of our hotel, after a nourishing dinner shared with friends, after showers and moments of silence and feeling the safety of “the group” wrap around us like a blanket that protects not from cold but fright, we spoke. We questioned. We looked into one another’s eyes for answers that no one had—in this way, there were long stretches of time, like a ticking clock, during which the windows of the souls sharing this journey reflected both confusion and comfort back and forth. Back and forth.

During a discussion in the hotel lobby on this particular night, I felt a shift in our collective journey. At the beginning of the trip, we all understood the events of the Holocaust, some in more detail than others, and we knew the basic story that unfolded under the trees and sky, and over the dirt through which we were treading. We had seen Schindler’s List, read books carefully penned by survivors, poured over documentaries and songs and poetry . . . even with our individual knowledge and experience acting as tent poles to our individual decisions to travel to this place, there was one thing we could have never fully anticipated: Auschwitz I looks like an idyllic place to be and there is something terrifying about that. The beauty of the camp is more reminiscent of a college campus neatly organized for the sharing of ideas than for the ripping apart of lives. It’s like a lake whose surface grabs hold of the sun in tiny mirrors of brilliant warmth but swarms with leeches in the darkness below. The hypocrisy that exists between the visual stimulus and the cognitive understanding begs the question: What other places look perfect but are not? Can we ever really know what lies behind windows, doors and walls?

While all the buildings in Auschwitz I that are open to the public have been renovated and turned into memorial museums dedicated to different groups of victims, aspects of the Holocaust and exhibits that make connections between the past and the present, there is one building through which we walked that had not been touched for almost 70 years: Block 10. Even as I type those words, my breath changes. There is heaviness in my chest that isn’t dropped there merely by the memories of the building itself but also by the disconcerting and shadowy questions that pressed my understanding against its walls, like thumb tacks of fear, bewilderment and the kind of silence that is erected by the words, “If you tell anyone, I will kill your family.” The public is not welcome into this building as a means of respecting the lives that were lost there. Because we were with Eva, we were given entrance into this building, much like a cemetery, and we all tripped over the invisible headstones that filled the space where air would otherwise reside. Only 10 of us were allowed to enter the building at a time.

Block 10 is the building in which physical experiments and autopsies were performed. Eva and her sister Miriam were made to walk from Birkenau to Auschwitz I several times a week, no matter what the weather, knowing the physical scrutiny that awaited them.

Before I go on, I feel the need to explain that this particular blog has been the most difficult for me to compose. I have gone through so many starts and stops in trying to describe Block 10 that the place itself is growing larger in my mind as I fight the discomfort with which writing about it has plagued me. I admit this to you, my reader, not as a means of justifying any inadequacies in my descriptions but as an admission of how the mere topic is one from which I want to run. I want to stop writing, again. Alas, I am going to lean into the discomfort and shine a light on the darkness I witnessed there.

Walking into block 10 was like walking into a crowd of spectators circled around a little girl who had fallen from the top of a Ferris-wheel to her death on a dirty carnival ground. Picture men with dirty hair who smell of body odor and rancid chewing tobacco; tarnished silver rings bearing the images of skulls; moldy mobile homes filled with dishes heavy laden with crusted leftovers, and pornographic magazines tattered with use. None of this existed inside Block 10 but the atmosphere inside the building reminded me of the transient, restless nature of a traveling carnival. It was unsettled, foul, dark, obscene—and it echoed—those of us who walked through the cavernous space instinctively grew quiet as children trying to hide from an intruder and yet, somehow, our voices reverberated more loudly here than they did anywhere else in the camp.

The windows on one side of Block 10 are all covered with boards—the side of the building that faces the Execution Wall. The Auschwitz guide explained to us that the reason for the boards was to shield the eyes of those inside the building from seeing the fate of those standing on the other side of the glass. “Shielding” in this case was not an act of protection or extending comfort, it was simply a means of trying to avoid a heightened and spontaneous sense of panic. What this implies is that the doctors inside the building exacted control over their subjects in as much as they controlled their bodies, but they could not control their minds, their imaginations. For a subject to sit still while her eyes were being propped open by two pieces of steel was to control her by insinuating that her cooperation might keep her alive inside this makeshift doctor’s office—to let her shift her focus to the blatant executions 5 feet from her gaze might relinquish her motivation for compliance altogether. These boards that once shielded the eyes of those whose bodies were being used for experiments now serve to cast an eerie shadow on rooms that would be dark in the midst of a million candles lit in memorial to the lives that were lost there.

The hallways and each of the rooms have been stripped of the tables and chairs that once held prisoners there. Emptied except for one remaining table that sat, seemingly innocently at the end of one room. This table was used to conduct autopsies. The only other specific items existing in the space was a small windowless square room, about 7×7 feet, in which there was a concrete shower and what seemed to be a broken pipe hanging from the ceiling, and there were a series of drawings on the walls in two of the rooms. The first drawing I noticed was crassly drawn in the 7×7 room. It was an illustration of a man gawking at a woman’s bare chest. The second drawing I saw was of a small cottage sitting on what seemed to be a serene field. The first drawing made me angry. The second simply confused me. I could imagine the artist of the first but I had no idea whose hand to imagine as I looked at the second. This is to say that looking at the cartoonish pornography in the small square room as I felt the heaviness of evil that still rests upon that building like a fog filled with gnats and poison, the juxtaposition of the torture and the illustrated character made me feel like vomiting. I covered my mouth and squinted my eyes and shook my head and leaned back onto one of the walls . . . until I realized I was leaning back onto one of the walls. Quickly, I jolted my body away from the wall and felt dust particles and flakes of old, dead skin clawing at my back. The person who drew this image of a woman’s bare breasts was immersed in a world of bare breasts and naked bodies that were exposed to him in one of the most vulnerable and unwilling seasons of any number of women’s doomed lives—I was seeing sexual and physical abuse in its most raw form, without actually seeing it. What’s worse is that I could feel it inside that building. Even now, as I type these words my hands shake and my body feels cold. Being this close to the bawdiness of evil is an experience I will never forget. Nor should I.

The second drawing, as I stated above, simply confused me. I didn’t have any emotion left with which to interpret it after having been so repulsed by the first. I couldn’t tell whether it was drawn by a prisoner longing for home or by the same hand that had moments before drawn the naked woman. Either way, I came to hate the drawings on the walls.

There was a period of about 5 five minutes in which I stood by myself in one of the rooms whose windows were boarded. My eyes were wide as I studied the walls, the ceiling, the floor, the lighting fixtures. I noticed there was wallpaper on one side of the room. The presence of wallpaper struck me as laughable, so I laughed. Why in the world would someone find it necessary to cover this wall with wallpaper? Who were they kidding? Why decorate a room in which human souls were being stripped of their dignity and in some cases, their breath? I considered the sinful nature of man and the ways in which we paper over our own ugliness in an effort to either hide it or to numb ourselves from feeling the shame of our own indiscretions. Using the tools of my art as an actress I looked around the room as a child patient, then as an adult patient, then as a nurse, then as a doctor. I allowed the thoughts of each to build themselves in my mind—some of them constructed themselves quickly and with a strength that forced me to close my eyes. Some of these thoughts were quiet and slow—they peaked around the corners of my mind and then slid out the sides of my consciousness like children racing down laundry shoots and into dirty piles of laundry. I was inside the environment and the environment tried to force its way inside of me. The air punched me and the ghosts cried out to me for help and, eventually, the evil of the place began to laugh at me. It was in this moment, when the crescendo of reality drummed loudly in my ears that I stopped feeling the heaviness and I stood up straight, pounded my feet as I moved to the center of the room with the boarded windows and I prayed, “Jesus, I am sorry for what happened here. On behalf of humanity gone completely awry, I am sorry. You are omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent . . . what did it do to your heart to watch all of this happen?” This was a turning point for me. Before this moment I was asking, “God, how did you let this happen? Why did you let this happen?” I wasn’t angry with God, but the deeper I walked into the horror, into the darkness, the more I looked for the Light. The more I looked for the Light, the darker the darkness became; until I stood in the darkest place in Auschwitz. That is when I tangibly felt the weight of sin and the absolute Love of God. My heart broke for the people who stood, sat, died in that room and I realized that what the Bible says is true, “God is near the broken hearted.” His heart breaks for us.

Inside Block 10, there was no hypocrisy existing between the visual stimulus and the cognitive understanding of what I saw. It was, and remains to this day, a haunted house lined with memories that shout through the revelation of pain; floorboards that creak with dried tears; walls that are shedding their floral patterns under the pressure of shame and anger; windows that shield their eyes from the sun and have lost their ability to see.

Jill Szoo Wilson essay about Block 10 in Auschwitz — This is the entrance to Auschwitz I.

The Mind-Body-Emotion Circuit: Learning How to Respond on Purpose

By Jill Szoo Wilson

In acting, emotion is often treated as the goal. Many students arrive hoping to unlock a secret reservoir of feeling, as if tears or rage or heartbreak could be summoned by force of will alone. Yet experienced artists and psychological researchers alike know that emotion resists direct manipulation. The human heart refuses to be commanded. Instead, emotion tends to emerge as a consequence of the way we think and move through the world. This reality, long understood intuitively by actors, has now been documented in cognitive and behavioral science. As Meisner observed, performance becomes truthful only when the actor lives with authenticity inside imagined circumstances rather than attempting to manufacture emotional display on cue (Meisner & Longwell, 1987).

This understanding is essential in my work as an acting teacher. One of my current private students, whom I will call Paige, embodies the determination required to bridge intellect, body, and imagination. She asks thoughtful questions, listens without pretense, and possesses a grounded confidence that draws others toward her. In the studio, she is learning that the actor’s instrument is not the voice alone, nor the body alone, nor even the mind alone, but the constant interplay among them. When that interplay is disrupted, performance becomes flat and disconnected. When it flows, the actor’s work becomes alive.

To explain this interplay, I teach what I call the mind-body circuit, a cycle rooted in both performance pedagogy and psychology: thought → emotion → action → new thought → emotion → action, and so on. The sequence appears simple, yet it reveals something profound. The actor can enter it through thought or action, but rarely through emotion alone. Emotion depends on a catalyst. It responds to meaning and circumstance. This is why actors who begin with the desire to “feel sad” or “play anger” inevitably fall into generalization. They are grasping at the byproduct rather than engaging the cause.

Directors and psychologists alike recognize that embodied behavior shapes inner life. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio describes the body as a “theater of feeling,” where emotion is both generated and displayed through motion and sensation (1999). Onstage, this principle becomes visible in dramatic form. To demonstrate this, I once handed a student a hammer and instructed him to break scrap wood in character for thirty seconds. The task was intentionally physical, forceful, and resistant, because the body cannot remain neutral when exerting strength against an object that pushes back. There was no discussion of backstory or psychology. The action demanded urgency and focus, which silenced self-consciousness and awakened the nervous system. As the student swung the hammer, his breath shifted, muscles tensed, and emotion surfaced unbidden. Within moments, he found himself articulating thoughts and personal stakes that had felt inaccessible when he tried to intellectualize his way toward feeling. Stanislavski identified this phenomenon nearly a century ago: “In the beginning, you must not settle matters of feeling. Begin with the action” (1936).

There are other occasions when thought becomes the most generative entry point into the mind-body circuit. During rehearsals for Hamlet, Paige and I worked through a scene in which Ophelia confronts a lover who, until recently, adored her. Before this scene, Hamlet has pursued Ophelia with gentle attention and romantic promise. He has spoken of love and a future together. Then suddenly, with no explanation she can understand, he turns on her. He tells her she should enter a convent, that she should never marry, never bear children, never bring more life into a world he now condemns. At first, Paige named her character’s feelings: confusion, concern, hurt. These were legitimate emotional states, but they did not yet clarify what Ophelia believed was happening or what she needed in response. We returned to the text to articulate the specific rupture: this is not Hamlet being odd or distracted; this is Hamlet erasing their entire future with a single, devastating reversal. Once Paige understood that she was experiencing rejection not only of affection but of identity, legacy, and security, her body changed. Her posture leaned forward, breath tightened, and she instinctively reached toward her scene partner, trying to recover the man she once knew. Thought created meaning. Meaning triggered emotion. Emotion propelled action. The circuit closed into a continuous chain.

Psychologist Richard Lazarus offers a framework in which emotion arises from the mind’s effort to interpret and evaluate experience. He proposed that individuals engage in a form of cognitive appraisal, a rapid assessment of what an event means for one’s safety, identity, or sense of belonging, followed by an assessment of whether one has the capacity to respond (Lazarus, 1991). Through this process, emotion becomes a reflection of significance. Fear signals the presence of danger. Grief testifies to the worth of what was lost. Anger reveals a boundary that matters. These meanings take shape first in the mind, then move through the body as behavior and physiological response. Acting technique embraces this sequence. When the actor fully recognizes the stakes—the value of the moment, the cost of failure, and the depth of desire—inner life begins to organize itself accordingly. The heartbeat quickens, posture shifts, and voice carries urgency. Stella Adler emphasized this principle in her own vocabulary, insisting that powerful performance grows from vivid circumstances and clearly drawn stakes. “You have to have a life,” she wrote, “so that you can bring something to the stage” (Adler, 2000). Through this kind of interpretation, the actor does not strive for emotion; instead, the emotional experience grows naturally from an understanding of what the story demands.

The insights found in performance theory also apply broadly to human interaction. Consider a common moment of betrayal between friends. One friend learns that another has broken confidence. Immediately, thought begins to organize meaning: She violated our trust. That thought produces feeling: anger, hurt, humiliation. The emotion then provokes action: perhaps a confrontational text or a cold withdrawal. In ordinary life, we navigate this circuit constantly, often unconsciously. Acting simply requires that we notice, name, and render the process visible.

Actors become investigators of cause and effect, tracing the thread from impulse to action with the curiosity of scientists and the sensitivity of artists. Within the rehearsal room, questions take on the weight of inquiry: What shift redefines the moment? What desire rises beneath the surface of my breath? What force complicates that desire? Which strategy carries the greatest hope of success? These questions reach beyond technique. They cultivate a heightened awareness of the subtle negotiations between inner experience and outward behavior. Through this discipline, actors recognize emotion as a current generated by the convergence of thought, intention, and physical choice. When these elements align, audiences engage instinctively with the authenticity of the performance, sensing a unified direction in every gesture and word. Emotional truth grows from coherence, and the stage becomes a place where meaning moves through a living body.

When Paige recently completed a difficult scene, she paused and said with surprise, “I finally felt something I wasn’t trying to feel! That was amazing! And terrifying.” In that moment, she encountered the paradox that defines the work. Emotion, once chased, becomes elusive. Emotion, once approached through purposeful action and clarified meaning, becomes inevitable. The mind-body circuit had connected, and she no longer had to reach for authenticity. It arrived.

Actors remind us that the human body carries intelligence of its own. Thought shapes emotion. Emotion prepares movement. Action generates new meaning. The circuit continues, alive and responsive. When actors understand this relationship, they work with the grain of their own humanity rather than pushing against it. They can shape a truthful inner life by pursuing clear objectives, taking bold physical action, and recognizing what matters in each moment of the story.

This is the heartbeat of the craft. Acting trains us to observe how feelings arise, how impulses travel, how the body communicates meaning long before words appear. Performers practice this awareness with intention, so audiences can recognize themselves in the characters before them. The mind-body circuit is not only a technique; it is a reminder of how people operate in the real world. We feel because something has happened. We respond because something matters.

Paige experienced this discovery in rehearsal. She did not demand emotion. She followed the logic of the moment, committed to the physical truth of the scene, and allowed meaning to do its work. The emotion arrived when it had something to say.

References

Adler, S. (2000). The Art of Acting. Applause Books.
Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harcourt.
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press.
Meisner, S., & Longwell, D. (1987). Sanford Meisner on Acting. Vintage Books.
Stanislavski, K. (1936). An Actor Prepares. Theatre Arts.

Eva Mozes Kor and the Price of Forgiveness

By Jill Szoo Wilson

Eva Mozes Kor often said, “Anger is a seed for war, forgiveness is a seed for peace.” It was more than a slogan. It was a theology, a philosophy, and a daily discipline forged from one of the darkest chapters in human history. As a child imprisoned in Auschwitz and subjected to the medical experiments of Josef Mengele, Eva discovered that survival demanded a defiant hope. Decades later, she chose forgiveness as a form of liberation that offered survivors a path toward healing. Her decision inspired admiration and deep respect, and it also sparked fierce debate about justice, memory, and the boundaries of human compassion. The peace she pursued required extraordinary courage, because every step forward in forgiveness carried a cost.

I recently revisited one of Eva’s emails, a message filled with the kind of raw honesty that few people ever achieve. It was written in her unmistakable, unpolished style: urgent, passionate, and deeply personal. In it, she reflected on the consequences of her decision to forgive a former Nazi doctor, Dr. Hans Münch, and the relentless challenges she faced in opening CANDLES Holocaust Museum.

Reading it now, years after her passing, I am struck by how unyielding she was in the face of criticism, injustice, and personal danger. She did not simply speak about forgiveness. She lived it, even when it cost her dearly.

The Controversy Over Forgiving a Nazi

In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Eva Mozes Kor did something unthinkable to many: she publicly forgave the Nazis. More than that, she stood beside Dr. Hans Münch, a former SS doctor at Auschwitz, and signed a declaration of forgiveness.

The backlash was immediate and fierce.

Israeli media framed the moment as a betrayal. Footage of Eva walking with Münch was broadcast again and again, without the context behind it.

A major Israeli newspaper published a scathing article, questioning whether any publicity was better than being ignored entirely.

In 1998, journalist Bruno Schirra published an interview with Münch in Der Spiegel, where the former SS doctor made remarks about his time in Auschwitz. The interview triggered a criminal investigation in Germany.

Around the same time, a French radio interview with Münch led to an even more explosive controversy. His derogatory remarks about Roma and Sinti people resulted in criminal charges in France for inciting racial hatred.

The consequences were devastating.

Münch and his family faced public scrutiny, threats, and harassment. In Germany, legal action pushed toward trial despite his diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.

In a personal email to me, Eva shared that Münch’s home was firebombed three times after his address was published in an article, requiring police protection for his family. I have not been able to verify this in any public record or independent source. It was her own account, offered behind the scenes, reflecting the weight she felt over what was happening to Münch and his loved ones.

Eva was horrified by what was unfolding. She had spent years advocating for justice. Now, she found herself advocating for mercy.

She sent more than 50 letters pleading with authorities to drop the lawsuits against Münch, but the legal proceedings continued.

In 2001, Münch was convicted in France. His sentence was waived due to his age and deteriorating mental state. He passed away later that year.

Eva felt a complicated kind of relief. Münch’s family was finally free from further attacks, and she no longer carried the guilt of contributing to their suffering.

The Fight to Build CANDLES Holocaust Museum

By 1995, Eva Mozes Kor had already reinvented herself many times: Holocaust survivor, public speaker, and founder of CANDLES (Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments Survivors) in 1984. That year, she took on yet another role as a museum founder.

The CANDLES Holocaust Museum and Education Center was an extension of Eva’s mission to teach others about the Holocaust and the experiments performed on her and other Mengele Twins. She wanted to create a permanent place of education, remembrance, and dialogue.

Opening the museum was no small feat.

She found a commercial building in Terre Haute, Indiana, but it was too large and too expensive for the original client she was working with as a realtor. Instead, she made a bold and risky decision to secure financing under her own name, her husband’s name, and a partner’s name to purchase the building herself.

At 61 years old, she signed a $168,000 mortgage, despite her husband’s hesitation.

With limited funds for exhibits, she handmade decorations, including a wall of blue paper strips that read:

“LET US REMOVE ALL HATRED AND PREJUDICE IN THE WORLD, AND LET IT BEGIN WITH ME!”

When the museum opened on April 30, 1995, it quickly became a vital educational resource, drawing teachers, students, and community members eager to learn from Eva’s story.

Then everything changed after 9/11.

Her business partner, who owned a travel agency, struggled to keep her business afloat. The economic downturn was crushing. Eva was forced to buy out her partner’s share of the building at a much higher price, not to expand but simply to save the museum.

By 2002, at age 68, she and her husband took out a $222,000 mortgage to keep CANDLES alive.

The Fire That Could Not Destroy Her Mission

In November 2003, Eva Mozes Kor received a phone call in the middle of the night.

“Mrs. Kor, this is the police department. You need to come to the museum. There is a fire.”

She and her husband rushed to the scene. By the time they arrived, flames were already devouring the building. Firefighters battled the blaze, but it was too late. Everything inside was lost: photographs, historical documents, survivor testimonies, and artifacts.

She stood there watching as the place she had built with her own hands, her own money, and her own pain collapsed into smoldering rubble.

Investigators then found a message spray-painted on an exterior wall in black:

“REMEMBER TIMMY MCVEIGH.”

Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist behind the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, had been executed in Terre Haute just two years earlier. The implication was chilling. This was an act of hatred and intimidation meant to silence her.

But Eva had spent her entire life surviving the worst of humanity.

The next morning, standing in front of the ashes, she made a decision.

“We will rebuild.”

And she did.

With support from the community, from Holocaust educators, and from donors around the world, CANDLES Holocaust Museum rose from the ruins and reopened in 2005, stronger than before.

You can burn down a building. You cannot destroy a mission.

The Legacy of a Fighter

Most people would have stopped. Most would have looked at the destruction of their museum as a sign to walk away.

But Eva rebuilt.

The email she sent me that recounted this event, full of spelling errors, fragmented sentences, and scattered thoughts, perfectly reflected who she was:

Unpolished, yet utterly real.
Wounded, yet relentless.
Misunderstood, yet unwilling to back down.

Eva Mozes Kor understood something most people do not. Forgiveness does not rewrite the past. It does not fix what was broken. But it allows a person to stop carrying what cannot be undone.

She was never naive. She knew the world was cruel, unjust, indifferent.

She fought anyway.

She did not stop.

What This Means for Us

Eva’s story is not only about forgiveness. It is about resilience in the face of resistance. It is about choosing to build when the world wants to destroy.

Her words still challenge me.

Could I have made the same choices? Would I have kept going? Would I have had the courage to stand alone?

Perhaps that is the lesson she left for us.

Forgiveness is a gift. The fight for something bigger than yourself is what makes history.

Featured Image photo credit: WFYI Indianapolis, 2021

Author: Jill Szoo Wilson

The Four Types of Listening: Understanding the Art of Attention

Time-Focused Listening (Chronemic Listening)

Task-Focused Listening (Action-Oriented Listening)

Relational Listening (People-Oriented Listening)

Analytical Listening (Content-Oriented Listening)

Conclusion

Further Reading

From Realism to Meta-Absurdism: The Evolution of the Modern Stage

Introduction: Theatre as a Record of Disenchantment

I. Realism: The Mirror and the Moral Self

II. Naturalism: The Laboratory of Life

IV. Surrealism: Dream Logic and the Unconscious

V. Absurdism: The Collapse of Meaning

VI. The Digital Turn and the Rise of Meta-Absurdism

Further Reading

Teaching Gen Z in the Age of AI

Surface-Level Familiarity

Apathy or Adaptation?

What Schools Aren’t Teaching

A Creative Way In

The Urgency of AI Awareness

The Glass Garden

Poem: Things That Grow

Poem: Undone

Slow Art: Unhurrying Your Mind

Block 10 in Auschwitz

The Mind-Body-Emotion Circuit: Learning How to Respond on Purpose

References

Eva Mozes Kor and the Price of Forgiveness

The Controversy Over Forgiving a Nazi

The Fight to Build CANDLES Holocaust Museum

The Fire That Could Not Destroy Her Mission

The Legacy of a Fighter

What This Means for Us