The First Step towards a Solution: Clearly Seeing Our Cultural Problem

When I was in my 20s, I actively embraced individualism as my philosophy of life. Now I view radical individualism as the single greatest threat to my spiritual well being as well as the very existence of America as a particular society with a shared moral-spiritual vision of life. It turns out that contrary to common belief, no man is an island. A "way of life" or a mind-set that suggests that "I" or "my family" are the only thing I am responsible to both imply that the rest of the nation can go to pot and I or my family can go on as we have. The problem with the philosophy of the last 28 years is not so much that it makes us selfish. The charge of greed and selfishness is not a serious basis of social critique. Only a critique of values and policies which unleash the worst elements in our natures are worthy of social-political critique. The problem is that when we treat individualism as a moral ideal; as a philosophy of life that we think it good to live by, we end up living in contradiction. And contradictions cannot be sustained. In our developing economic crisis we have begun to see the practical results of a philosophy actively cultivated as a moral deal for two decades or more, a philosophy that says that there is only "the individual"; only an "I"; only "my family unit."  This belief as a moral ideal has emanated particularly from the pre-destinarian-fundamentalist elements of our society, namely those that are grounded in Calvinist-Baptist Christianity, centered in the South and Texas. While it may seem impolitic to say this explicitly, the nature of the force behind our recent rage for self-destructive policy making both at home and abroad, a force grounded in a small yet morally zealous mind-set, requires that we counter it with language that meets it head on.

The Problem with Radical Individualism

What is wrong with radical individualism? One can look to George Bush's public proclamations, so often divorced from reality, most recently his strange claim that he could feel sorry for himself that he was President during the banking crises or not - unconsciously (!) suggesting that he was just a passive observer in "all of this." Starting with the image and reality of a President who has been constitutionally disconnected from his society, radical individualism brings Americans on both the far left and right to feel in their heart of hearts that there is no "we"; there is only an "I". On the far left earlier on in the 60's and 70s especially, radical individualism lead to indignation if anyone asserted that there needs to be ongoing public discussion of deep moral and spiritual realities. (Even now, I can hear the complaints, leading to summary rejection of my argument, because I've suggested that the United States has a shared moral-spiritual vision!) Since 1980 especially, on the right, radical individualism has lead to the notion that the individual alone is responsible for their economic level of well being. As I've argued elsewhere, however, the category of "the individual" is not informative or concrete. Once we have establised basic constititutional principles and respect in law for the individual, "the individual" is not meangful as a category, and excessive reference to it, as with the concept of freedom, must make us suspicious that a certain type of individual is attempting to conceal their activites behind the claim that we are all the same. The concretely meaningful reality is that there are types of individuals, just as there are societies we are born into and live in relation to, both morally-spiritually as well as politically-economically. The far-left rejection of any public discussion of morality and spirituality is just as harmful and a form of denial of the most basic requirements of a good society in the context of Western civilization as is the American "conservative" free marketer's claim that there is no need for robust regulation of all sorts of private economic activity.  Both of these felt-beliefs have the same roots: the Enlightenment stress on the mind of the individual as the sole source of truth. It is in the English-speaking world most of all that the stress on subjectivity; on what is going on in my mind as isolated from all other minds, where we see a literal interpretation of Descartes' famous dictum "I think, therefore I am". In the Anglo-Protestant world more than any other in the West, Americans stress the "I" to the economically as well as spiritually dangerous exclusion of a "we". One result of this is that for a hundred years or so, the very vehicle which carries the "I" - the "we" - American civilization - has begun to dissipate, wilting from lack of attention and care. We only approach the Good in the context of a concrete community, and never in isolation, and the Good begins to recede to the extent that we embrace individualism as a philosophy of life. While our economy has functioned fairly well and we have political stability, our moral-spiritual house is in serious disorder since we have been sold a morally bankrupt ideal.. This disorder is not explained or grounded in the causes that "conservative Christians" like to talk about, namely a decline in traditional morality. The decline in traditional morality is only a symptom of radical individualism, and cannot be dealt with without a critique of a primary source of that individualism, namely, the Protestant fundamentalist sects referred to in this article as well as Enlightenment rationalism and universalism. In short, the sources of our inner moral and spiritual confusion and "lost-ness" are much deeper, and closer to the heart of "conservative" religious and economic values in a way that would make criticis on the left uncomfortable as well.

It turns out the Descartes was wrong, on a moral and spiritual level most of all. While Catholic culture largely understands the integral relation between the individual and society - note the more communal nature of French, Italian and Hispanic cultures - American Anglo-Protestant society melds the Cartesian stress on the "I" with the Calvinist-Baptist radical stress on individual-as- responsible-for-his-sin-OR-redemption, leaving us with shopping as the sole moral value we express in common! Alas, this morally and spiritually empty philosophy-of-life is a residual of some seriously bad faith. Radical individualism is a consequence of excessive confidence placed on knowing I am right in my own personal philosophy and my isolated actions. It turns out, however, that I do not flourish by focusing on my "I"; by being conscious of my consciousness; on striving after my own ends as if I am not in relation to others. For it turns out that it is only in a concrete relation to others, both in my immediate life, but also in the moral-spiritual realm or that is, within a society grounded in a civilization, that I flourish and become truly happy, e.g. that I live in relation to my true spiritual ends. To be able to live practically in relation to our true spiritual ends, grounded upon a religious and moral sensibility specific to America, we must respond to the call to return to a sense of "we". In response to this call, we can anticipate the charge that stressing a "we" implies "socialism" or "collectivism", or something otherwise whimpy. We can also anticipate the charge that we are being exclusive or "closed-minded" to "other viewpoints". True independence of thought, the right kind of independence, requires that we are aware that such claims come from radical individualism itself, and keep us caught in a vicious circle.

The Role of Image in the American Mind

If this kind of individualism born in a misunderstanding of Christianity butressed by Enlightenment universalism and the "I" of a Cartesianism-on-steroids is a lie, why does it not get challenged more often? More simply asked: If a very influential social philosophy leads to disasterous consequences, shouldn't it be challenged? To answer this question, we need to try to understand the very powerful role of the ideal, or image as such, in the American mind. To understand American civilization, one must grasp the central role of the dream image in the mind of the individual American. Disney World and Hollywood are the core purveyors of this source of our mind-set. While many may speak sarcastically about these two forces in American civilization, to merely do so is to show a lack of understanding of the meaning and power of image and dream state for us. Simply dismissing Hollywood and Disney World as significant is to show a lack of awareness of those forces that shape our lives as individuals who happen to live in a particular society, e.g. American. Dismissing these forces makes it harder for us to see the way in which the category "American" is really experienced as a category of "the individual human being", core to whom is a degree and kind of dream-state found in no other human civilization in the history of humanity.  Dismissing Hollywood or Disney World as the sources of the dream image does not make them unreal or negate them. It simply expresses our personal view about them - namely that we feel they are insubstantial or shallow. Rather than focus on our own opinion about their meaning and seriousness, we would do better to see that they do exist and do have tremendous power. We should remain with this observation. Then we may begin to get a needed insight - that we have a serious moral, spiritual and psychological dilemma on our hands.

Why is it that a singular characteristic of American society is the wrenching resistance of Americans to charaterzie anything with moral or spiritual content - both good and bad - as specfically "American"? Why is it that so many in our educated class fail to distinguish between neutrally observing some characteristic and claiming that it is good or bad? Why, that is, do we so often conflate neutral observation with moral judgment? To answer this question is to also see the power of the image for us. To become more specific about the nature of the mage that is most powerful for us as a society, we need to see clearly the universalism that lies behind all American moral stance taking. Fast-fowarding to the end of a needed and much longer discussion of the role of universalism in American civilization: While we tend to look only at morally desirable aspects of Enlightenment universalism, there is a dark side to the stress on those aspects of human being that are true only of "all men", namely the possibility that we leave ourselves exposed to the more anti-social forces in human nature.  It is questionable whether human beings can organize an effective society on the basis of the category of "the individual", grounded in the power of an image attached to Enlightenment universalism - for philosophies of life must after all be concretizable and particular. Human beings do not access the truth of human existence in abstraction, as "all mankind", but as and through particular viewpoints and from particular places. All robust spirituality is particular and deals with concretes. The same truth shows up at the intersection of economic practices and the ethical realm in a society.

Our Dilemma

What, more exactly stated, is our dilemma resulting from radical individualism? I hinted at it in referring to the dark-side or world-wide individualism spread through the Enlightenment, rather than a Christian version of universalism. Our dilemma is one characterized by a confusion concerning the basis of the moral and spiritual meaning of our lives. For if we really believe that it is a Christian vision of the person and society that informs our lives, then that implies that we also acknowledge that our lives our connected in both the moral and spiritual realms, as well as the concrete realm of economics and law. The problem is that the kind of individualism that comes out of Enlightenment universalism in general and Anglo-Calvinist-Baptist Protestantism is contrary to this latter vision. For we cannot coherently hold the view that we are just "individuals" responsible for ourselves alone, and at the same time hold a Christian vision of the individual and society. For true Christianity holds that there is a moral and spiritual dimension that can only become meaningful in the context of our concrete relations to others in a social, political and economic set of arrangements informed by a shared moral and spiritual vision. The Calvinist-Baptist notion that all are pre-destined to hell or heaven must leave us with a very limited, impoverished understanding of Christianity and thereby of a shallow understanding of man and society, one which psychologically inclines its adherents to live out of a belief system that scares them into living out of those elements of their belief system that validate self-centeredness and isolation; that motivate them to isolate moral badness from goodness, and more generally isolate all moral qualities from their opposites. The tendency of Anglo-Protestant culture to reject ambiguity in life results in a social philosophy and a politics that leaves us all increasingly isolated, and a set of laws and regulations that leaves us exposed to the worst forces in our nature. It leaves us with the wrong kind of poverty of spirit. It leads some among us to define ourselves as rich when on the basis of the moral philosophy we tell ourselves we live by we are in fact poor, and others who from the pressure of the actual social philosophy dominant in our radically individualistic culture feel that they are poor when they are in fact rich.

How do we explain our Dilemma?

How can we explain the corrosive individualism that has come to dominate our society in the last 28 years especially? To understand the power of individualism beyond its Calvinist-Baptist confines we must seek to understand the overwhelming power of the Image of Happiness grounded in the consciousness of the Cartesian "I". The image of Happiness grounded in the "I" becomes a dilemma for any one of us when it leads us as an individual to reflexively dismiss any claim that I am not, after all, simply "an individual"; when it leads us to automatically reject the suggestion that we might actually live better in a moral, psychological and spiritual sense - and yes, economically- if we acknowledge and sought to live in the light of shared moral and spiritual values. In other words, the form of the image which constitutes the heart of the American mind, an image tied to Enlightenment and not Christian universalism, is bad for us when it makes us feel in our heart of hearts that we alone can and ought to give meaningful moral and spiritual content to our lives. While the task of leading American society in a direction of a more communal association based on shared moral and spiritual values is fraught with complexity, a complexity grounded in our history of Enlightenment universalism existing side by side Christian moral and spiritual values, it is a task we must undertake. That is to say, a task for our next century is for some among us to make explicit and thereby reveal those contradictory strands in American civilization as such; that fit incoherently together, and that as such lead us to increasing levels of scizophrenia in our public policies.

But before we attempt to bring about more clarity concerning the inconsistencies underlying our pubic philosophy, first we have to confront the power of the Dream Image in the American mind whose locus is the "I", an image tied tightly to Enlightenment universalism. The role of the dream image is so powerful for us that it can be understood to be what distinguishes an American from non-Americans. For the term "American" is more informative as a formal rather than substantial quality. I want to go so far as to say that if an individual has a passport of any other nation, if he places great weight on his own internal view of his life; his future, and if this image is imbued with a very specific yet general understanding of happiness, this individual is an American in spirit. To say that American individualism has tremendous influence is simply to say that a potential majority of individual human beings that make up the rest of the world actively embrace and grant power to an ideal image of a life. It is worth repeating: This image that becomes the basis of our lives individually and thus collectively is made up of two core components: an image, or dream, of a future, informed by a notion of happiness tied tightly to an externalized understanding of success. This vision of the person can be Universalized, which is to say, be thought of as potentially true of "all men". The core ingredient in radical individualism is the assumption that the "way" to the realization of this Dream image is my own will alone. The expression "where there's a will, there's a way" expresses the philosophy underlying this image-as-foundation of a life. The universalist quality of the vision is at once a key signiature of it, as well as a source of its dark side. Needless to say, I can only allude to this problem here.

Strangely, while most adults know from experience that this kind of individualism is not a serious foundation for life, many who see themselves as "conservative" still embrace radical individualism on an unconscious level. The irony is that this belief is the most un-conservative; anti-traditional; anti-religious; anti-spiritual belief system ever to be embraced by a society in the history of the West! I touched briefly on the Enlightenment-universalist strand existing side by side a Christian one as a source of a problem. The contradictory way of being-in-the-world that grows up from lack of clarity concerning the values underlying our society is a manifestation of a kind of Unreality that inheres in civilization that is at once grounded in a Dream Image as well as universalist. Our particular collective contradiction, that we Americans want to take a substantive Christian morality and spirituality seriously while at the same time holding the belief that only the "I" is real and that I alone formulate my philosophy, cannot be sustained. Such a stress on an "I", tied to Enlightenment universalism, can only lead to an impoverished social philosophy. This is what we are confronting at this point in our history, I propose. For some time now, we have been living a bit like the group viewing the Emperor in the fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes", trying to assert our "I" without accepting that our "I" exists in a particular society with a shared moral and spiritual vision of the person

Conclusion

The election of Barack Obama is a beautiful start on a road to a national renewal for a society that has sinned against itself and all mankind for some time now. The symbolism of the kind of call we must respond to today is present in the substantially changed human relations underlying the fact of Obama's election. This symbolic force is also present more concretely in the community-organization based form of Obama's campaign. It may be a stretch, but I want to suggest that this change can be characterized as one of movement towards what Henri Bergson calls the "open soul", away from the "closed soul".  This new vision is also captured nicely in the expression "Yes, we can". For the truth is not, after all, that "Yes, I can", or "I am saved" and "they are damned", but rather that I always live and have my being within a "we". Obama's election - achieved by a palpable sense of "we-ness" which is in sharp contrast to the Calvinist-fundamentalist dispensation dominant for 8 years now, potentially offers us a vision of American society that can express a shared moral and spiritual vision, manifested particularly in the form of renewed demand that profit seeking activity acknowledge that the most important thing is not the gaining of the profit as a way to get rich in the wrong kind of way, but having a society each of us wants to live in, one in which we are poor in the right kind of way - a way in which we acknowledge that we need other people, from our concrete relations all the way up to the level of a society with a shared moral-spritual vision. It is through this new practical philosophy that America might yet become better in a moral-spiritual sense, and more like one we can say we want to live and bring children up in. It is then that we can say we are rich, now in the right way. But first, we may have to do some dying to our selves.... and note, dear friend, that this dying is first to a collectively held self-understanding of a self which is isolated and which "makes it on our own"...

Terence Hoyt
January 19, 2009