I’m a Duke University graduate who has studied philosophy and currently working in digital scholarship and publishing.
The most memorable experiences that change us, that inspire us, that propel us into a transcendent mode, all result from our focus.
When you look up the word “focus” on Wikipedia, a whopping 80 entries come up. It ranges from titles of songs and albums to company names in data science and military operations. Curiously, the “focus” we more commonly think of and constantly look for in our professional life, can only be found in the bottom of the list, put in the after-thought category of “See Also.” The “focus” we think of and seek is, I am only assuming, the form of mental concentration that is considered a prerequisite for any productive work. In this listing, that kind of “focus” is not even called that; it is referred to as “hyperfocus.” Otherwise, all other non-specific references to that cognitive state we find so common only redirect to cultural entities that are named “focus,” such as titles of magazines from Germany, Italy, Poland, England, and Ukraine.
If we begin with the premise that “focus” as a form of mental concentration is its most common association and also the most desired, then this is a curious finding. Wikipedia, a crowd-sourced repository of entries, is sometimes taken to be a gauge on what kind of information is most popular. The length of an article on Ariana Grande is several times longer than one on Saint Yared, a medieval Ethiopian composer. It is fair to say that more people are interested in learning about Ariana Grande than Saint Yared. There is no need for any normative judgment here; that’s just the fact.
So, two initial questions arise: if focus-as-mental-concentration is “hyperfocus,” what is ‘normal’ focus? And if the kind of focus Wikipedia is most interested in is the cultural and social objects titled focus and not what we most commonly think of when we say “focus,” what explains the disproportion in attention?
Admittedly, those two are easily dismissible, almost scoff able, questions. On the first one, the kind of “focus” we are thinking of is actually called “attention” by psychologists. A good batch of Wikipedia articles intends to emulate scholarly encyclopedias, especially those within the sciences. “Focus” may not be the industry term that psychologists use, and so to reflect that, Wikipedia’s list of entries on “focus” pale in comparison to its list of entries on “attention,” which actually begin with the category of “In psychology and neuroscience” and even kindly offers a definition for it at the top of the page. ****All in all, why “focus” as focus-as-mental-activity is so little considered is because we are simply looking at the wrong place.
The second question can go two ways. One, we could say that because Wikipedia tries to pass as credible by emulating the discourses of the scholarly authority, it does not truly gauge the interest levels of the popular mainstream – only the level of popularity, probably related to funding, across the academic disciplines. Going back to the Ariana Grande and Saint Yared example, contemporary music, and related sociological topics are ‘hotter’ to study than medieval music history. Wikipedia then staves off attention on “focus” just as the academic community does in its discourse. Two, and I think this is the more interesting response, the focus is a word with a broader definition than Wikipedia allows. The focus could mean, of course, that sustained concentration, but it could also mean gaining clarity in insight or vision. It could also mean a concentrated physical point or a concentrated point of interest.
The reason why I think this is interesting is that by using the word “focus” to mean that sustained mental concentration instead of “hyperfocus” or even “attention,” we are able to draw upon all those different uses of the word “focus” to communicate a richer conception of what we mean by concentration. Hyperfocus is used as a criterion for diagnosing ADHD by psychiatrists. Attention is the mere act of directing your consciousness to a single point of interest from a state of non-attention – simply put, to suddenly direct your attention at something rather than nothing. Meanwhile, the focus is what one does after directing one’s attention to something, and the whole bunch of qualitative modes that goes into sustaining focus. It is much more complicated, and dare I say more to dig up, in focus than attention or hyperfocus.
There are varying degrees and types of focus. They can be distinguished by the location of the object of focus, the range of the object of focus, and the intensity of the focusing. For example, to focus on a physical object like a screen is a different experience than to focus on your own inner state and trying to understand it. To focus on a small detail in the corner of an artwork is a different experience than to focus on taking in an entire canvas as a whole. To focus on something as if your life depends on it is a different experience than to focus on something leisurely, like say understanding a difficult yet highly consequential technical report versus reading a book at the beach. It is difficult to establish any further taxonomies than that for fear of excluding by being too specific. But it is still worthwhile to note that focus can mean an entire range of cognitive experiences that a single word remarkably can uphold without being too fragmentary.
The diversity of experience of “focus” could actually be the key to understand the cultural significance of “focus.” Beyond the capitalist worship of ubiquitous productivity and thereby the glorification of focus as a productive activity, the focus has a special place in our experience of life. The most memorable experiences that change us, that inspire us, that propel us into a transcendent model, all result from our focus. First love, an intense moment of competition, watching a really good movie or a play, all require focus, and focus allows us to uncover a certain insight into something we normally wouldn’t have. And new insights are what makes life so dynamic, for better or for worse.
What we are then left with is with a conception of focus as not only a word for mental concentration but a word that is beautifully and meaningfully ambiguous – even phenomenological, to be fancy. It is too ambiguous for what the quasi-scholarly aim of Wikipedia allows, but because it is ambiguous in a rich and complex fashion there are loads to sing, write, and found a provocative company about. Now, a conclusion is only as far-reaching as the hypothesis, and so my cursory musing on Wikipedia entries on “focus” may not result in many new intellectual treasures. But, to be aware of this conception of focus as a rich experience compelled me to start focusing on my own process of focusing, and what kind of experience I have when I am focusing. To focus on focusing is a cliché, but at least to be cognizant that my experience of focus can serve as a site of exploration for its inherent ambiguity is certainly rewarding.
You can also read: