{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031942633637548894, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016297262059973925, 'mean_word_length': 5.290983606557377, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Anxiety and organization

‘Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom’ Kierkegaard (1980 [1844], 61) once remarked. The freedomwhich Kierkegaard avers is a set of possibilities experienced as an endless abyss that, whist imaginable, is unassimilable into human finitude. To feel this anxious dizziness is tantamount to succumbing to the weight of freedom. He portrays this surrender as a selfish and weak response to freedom that, eschewing the responsibility of choice and decision, retreats into anxious apathy. Anxiety, thus, is a rejection of freedom’s existential possibilities. With manly certainty, Kierkegaard asserts that ‘anxiety is a feminine weakness in which freedom faints’ (Kierkegaard (1980 [1844]). Kierkegaard’s sexism is telling in that while it praises those men whose strength of being enables them to use anxiety as a means to reflect on their true freedom and struggle for authenticity, for the feminine it shows the weakness of a self who can do little but to yield to freedom’s burden. Davidson (2001) makes Kierkegaard’s misogyny clear when she explains that his conviction is that ‘never having the potential to be a self in her own right “woman” seems destined to remain in anxiety’s purgatory’ (226). As Davidson goes on to discuss, Kierkegaard is largely ignorant of the feminine through his dismissiveness of its pejoratively perceived feebleness. Davidson contests this gendered contempt, arguing that if anxiety involves an acknowledgement of the forces that might undermine self-identity and autonomy, then: