It has long been a common practice for friends, co-workers and family members to divulge their troubles to one another. However, it seems there is some confusion on what constitutes a true problem.
With seemingly the same anguish used when discussing divorce or loss, people will outline troubles like deciding between Stanford and Harvard Law School, figuring out how to spend the remainder of an annual travel stipend, or having too many prospective lovers. These are not problems in the traditional sense — these are champagne problems.
The Mecca for nuanced terms, Urban Dictionary, defines a champagne problem as, “a trivial, middle-class grievance.” Obviously, a more expansive definition is in order. If a problem is presented where a decision must be made among a set of options where each is beneficial, then it is a champagne problem.
However, beneficial choices, while a basic requirement, are not enough; each problem must also evoke envy from those listening. Choosing between Cheerios and Captain Crunch, while both beneficial, doesn’t produce the envy for one’s situation that a choice between a month in Madrid and Rome does.
Finally, the most important aspect of any champagne problem lies in the examination of the subtext of each — life is good enough that one’s problems are not really problems.
It’s hard to imagine having the problems outlined here. Who can relate to a summer of jet setting or having to turn down Harvard? It seems these problems are only reserved for the elite; a handful of lucky souls, and this is generally true. It’s a relative rarity for one’s life to be filled to the brim with these problems. A person should be considered lucky to have a few every now and then; however, the importance of this investigation for the average person lies in the method it allows for examining one’s everyday problems.
Take students’ academic pursuits, for instance. On a bi-annual basis, some students have a week of elation following the posting of their grades while others enter into a month of despair. There is merit for the feelings of both students but the subtext for each is the same. One’s needs are taken care of to such an extent that one can care about another’s evaluation of their intellect.
As the situation becomes more defined and individualized, so does the subtext of one’s problem. A student’s despair involved in making an A versus an A+ provides the previous subtext along with the idea that one is so intelligent anything below perfection is a failure. These evaluations offer a reality check for one’s emotions. Is there any real reason to be that upset with a B versus an A? Moreover, these evaluations allow for almost every real problem to have their emotive weight softened in some way.
I have a great-uncle who was recently diagnosed with dementia, a precursor to Alzheimer’s. We are closer than our family tree would imply — he has been like a father to me. The situation I am faced with now is as tragic as it is common. It’s hard to say how many good years he has left. No matter his future course, my present feelings are paralyzing emotion. I do however take solace in examining the sub-text of my situation. I am quite lucky to have had so much quality time with a person that I find it inconceivable for it to end. Though my problem may be real or champagne depending on one’s perspective, one should attempt to examine the subtext of any problem and only then divulge their feelings.
