|
index of papers
Individualism and the Impoverishment of Democracy
By Cliff DuRand
[This talk was presented to the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of San Miguel de Allende, April 26, 2009.]
June 11, 2009
Abstract: Individualism is the belief that I am the master of my own fate. This prompts us to think I don’t need social institutions to support me. But in reality we do each need social supports to flourish. In a democracy those institutions are the collective means by which society nurtures its members. The individualistic culture so predominant in the United States prompts us to devalue democracy and weakens those institutions.
In the face of the current economic crisis in the U.S. we are witnessing a sharp ideological struggle over the proper role of government. Most of the popular classes and much of the political elite and opinion makers call for an active intervention of government into markets that are no longer functioning well. But there are a few in political circles and the media (especially on Fox News) who advocate that government keep its hands off the market and let it work its magic, fearing that an activist government will lead to tyranny.
For older members of this Fellowship, this debate may sound familiar. It is reminiscent of the debate in the 1930’s. The laissez faire philosophy that prevailed during the roaring 20s was discredited by the economic collapse of the Great Depression. Pressed by popular demands, the Roosevelt Administration adopted an active role for the federal government in trying to rejuvenate the economy, regulate the market, and protect its victims.
The country learned that an activist, liberal state was necessary to protect people from the vicissitudes of capitalism and even to preserve capitalism itself. They learned that if left alone to themselves, individuals were too vulnerable to larger economic forces over which they had no control. One’s well being depended in no small measure on protective, supporting social institutions.
Well, that is a lesson that we are now relearning in the midst of the current economic crisis. But the question on my mind this morning is “how did we ever forget it?’ How did we ever forget that no man is an island unto himself, that we are social beings interconnected in a multiplicity of ways, that we need supportive institutions in order to flourish and to protect us from the market, and that we need institutions to protect the capitalist market from itself? My answer, in a word is individualism. The problem is the pervasive culture of individualism that leads us to devalue institutions and especially that institution called government. It is the culture of individualism that underlies the current debate over the proper role of government.
For the sake of clarity I need to distinguish individualism as an ideology and individuality. I am an individual, you are each an individual. That is, we are each a center of consciousness with a unique biography. That is what I mean by individuality. Individualism, on the other hand, is the belief that I have made myself through my own efforts, in effect, that I am my own creator. In the American experience this ideology goes back to the rugged frontiersman who made his own fortune in the wilderness. Daniel Boone is an example. It is said that when he could see the smoke from a neighbor’s chimney, things were getting too crowded for him and it was time to move on farther west. There is an anti-social aspect to this individualism.
That can also be seen in Henry David Thoreau. As the myth goes, Thoreau left civilization in order to commune with nature and get in touch with his inner self, building his cabin on the banks of Walden Pond, living the life of a hermit. I call this a myth because it expresses a vision of the authentic life, not a historical fact. The reality is that if you read his Journal you find that every afternoon Thoreau walked the short distance into Concord where he visited friends in the village commons. He was not a hermit; he was an early day suburbanite. And he remained at Walden Pond for just over one year, moving back into the comforts of town as a second winter approached. The Thoreau myth then celebrates the individual as an a-social atom – an atom with its own inner qualities independent of any social relations with others.
It is precisely this atomistic individualism that is fostered by the competitive market relations of capitalism where self interest reigns supreme. In fact, others are often seen as a threat to one’s individuality – to be myself I must be against others. This anti-social individualism is today represented by Ayn Rand’s heroic character in Atlas Shrugged and the unforgettable Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone’s Wall Street. The best current examples of the anti-social individualists are the financial gurus of Wall Street and the investment banks who have brought economic ruin to the U.S. and much of the rest of the world. With government off their backs, their unquenchable thirst for extravagant fees and even more extravagant bonuses held no regard for the social consequences of their risky schemes. “Greed is good” is in fact their motto. And even though the Obama Administration is throwing money at them to rescue them from their bad bets, they continue to put their own self interest first.
But the culture of individualism is more pervasive than that. It is not limited to the self proclaimed “best and the brightest.” The ideology of individualism is at the heart of The American Dream. While there are many variations on The American Dream, they all have certain elements in common. In its essence The American Dream is an aspiration for meritocratically achieved status through individual effort where opportunities are available. It reflects the desire to make something of oneself through ones own effort. It is an aspiration for success, for upward mobility. A key feature of The American Dream is what might be called meritocratic individualism. The American Dream envisions success as achieved by individual effort. Thus the rewards of success are seen as individually merited; it is the individual who is deserving. The rewards are seen as deserved because they are the result of a person’s demonstrated ability. While we may be born with certain talents, that by itself does not warrant reward since our genetic endowment is not of our own doing. So it is the development and use of these talents – matters that depend on one’s own efforts – that is to be rewarded. Thus The American Dream holds out the promise that an individual’s rewards will somehow be commensurate with his or her talents and efforts.
However, one of the factors that The American Dream tends to overlook is the importance of social institutions that support these efforts and thereby make the successes of individuals possible. These institutional supports may be provided by a community, by a social group or class, or by government. It is through them that the larger society nurtures its members. Meritocratic individualism tends to blind us to these social supports, enabling individuals to then take full credit to themselves for their successes.
We can see how the blinders of meritocratic individualism operate if we look at the suburban mentality in the U.S. That is where a growing majority of the middle classes are found in the U.S. and it is there that the political Right has found much of its electoral support since the 1980s. They are the ones who have been living The American Dream of material success and comfort. The prevailing attitude among these persons is that they deserve their lifestyle because they have worked for it and so it reflects their efforts and abilities. What they are far less conscious of is the role that social supports played in making their success possible. They don’t think about the federally insured mortgage that made it possible for them to buy that house in the suburbs, the federal highway program that made it feasible to live far from where they work, the union that won better pay for their job so they could afford to move out of the city, the student aid programs and the university itself that provided an educational opportunity and prepared them for better jobs. And I could go on and on with the list of social supports that undergird the lifestyle of the middle classes: the health system that keeps them alive, the food standards programs that protects against unsafe food, the occupational safety and health agencies that protect against unsafe working conditions, the social security program that lifts the burden of supporting elderly parents from the shoulders of young families and offers them some financial security in their own old age, federal regulation that protected one’s savings, etc., etc. Indeed there are myriad ways that are not fully appreciated in which society supports its members.
But when meritocratic individualism blinds us to the importance of these social supports, public support for them wanes. Institutions have the strength to support us only if we support them. It was due to the allure of meritocratic individualism that the political Right was able to dismantle much of the New Deal (with the help of the New Democrats). “Get government off our backs” was the rallying cry. In other words, make individuals responsible for their own well being. It is that individualistic ideology that has contributed to our present crisis. We are once again relearning the lessons of the last great depression.
From the individual’s point of view the great benefit of meritocratic individualism is that when you succeed, you can take full credit for yourself. This is what makes meritocratic individualism such an attractive ideology. If I can believe that my accomplishments are mine alone, achieved without social supports, maybe even in the face of adverse conditions, but certainly in competition with others who put forth their best efforts, then my accomplishments demonstrate my competency. Then I can feel confident that I have merited my success. By eschewing all other factors as contributing to that success, meritocratic individualism maximizes the rewards of success for the individual. He owes nothing to anyone else.
But there is a downside to this. If one fails, even if that is due to circumstances not of his own doing, then the meritocratic individualist ideology prompts one to blame himself, seeing that as a personal failure. Even in the current economic crisis where many find themselves no longer able to support their families, many experience this as an unfavorable reflection on their own abilities. “If the market rewards the competent and casts out the inefficient, unemployment is perforce a judgment of one’s abilities.” * By measuring the self by the degree of one’s success, meritocratic individualism magnifies ones rewards, but it also brings down a powerful negative judgment in the event of failure. Since failure is inevitable in a competitive society, the resulting human toll can be immense.
Let me illustrate the role of social institutions in making individual success possible with my own autobiography. With a little reflection I’m sure you can find similar lessons in your own life story. I like to tell people that I got my Ph. D. thanks to the Soviet Union. No, I didn’t get my doctorate from Moscow University. Rather, it was because while I was in college the Soviet Union sent the first manmade satellite into orbit around the earth. Sputnik shocked the political elite in the U.S. into a realization that they were loosing the space race. And so, in order to strengthen the nation’s scientific and technical capabilities, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, providing federal fellowships for graduate study. It was because of a NDEA fellowship that I was able to go to The Johns Hopkins University – something that would not have been otherwise possible for me, coming as I did from a working class family of modest means. Such social support made my academic success possible. Of course, talent and effort was also necessary. But without social support it is doubtful that I would have achieved the Ph. D.
Let me add another factor. I was also fortunate to be born in the depths of the Great Depression, in 1937. You might think it was not wise for my parents to start a family during such uncertain times. Indeed, birth rates were low as a result. But in the long run that worked to my advantage. It meant that in the early 1960s when my age cohort was coming out of graduate schools, there was a shortage of people with graduate degrees. And that was exactly when the post WWII baby boomers were entering colleges in great numbers. So the expansion of higher education, fueled by Cold War rivalries, ensured favorable job opportunities. It was easy to get good teaching jobs, promotions and tenure. Contrast that with the dimmer prospects for today’s new Ph.D.s, many of whom cannot find permanent full time teaching positions or end up driving taxis instead. Success depends not only on individual merit, but also changing social supports over time. We are not the masters of our own fate. We are part of a social web.
What does all of this have to do with the impoverishment of democracy? In a democratic polis, government is the instrument of the popular will. Government is not the enemy, it is the means by which the People collectively carry out projects to promote the common good. Properly understood, democracy is the possibility of collective decision-making about collective action for the common good. Its purpose is not to promote individual goods or the special interests of particular groups, except in so far as they are part of a larger common good. But our individualism prompts us to focus on self interest and private life. Government, rather than being seen as the means for a collective pursuit of a common good, is instead seen as limited to ensuring the conditions for individual initiative in the pursuit of self-interest. So when we enter the political sphere at all, it is to use government to advance special interests rather than a common good. The resulting interest group politics is the antithesis of democracy. It is only semi-legitimate because it lacks a moral foundation in shared values. Outcomes are determined by wealth and power and negotiated through professional politicians who patch together electoral alliances. Rather than uniting us through public dialog, interest group politics impoverishes democracy and turns government into the instrument of the most powerful interest groups rather than the People. No wonder that many conclude that government is the enemy and politics is a dirty business. Individualism makes it so by undermining our social office as citizens.
The health of a democratic society depends on the active participation of its citizens. Individualism tends to turn our attention inward, toward our own private affairs. And when we do venture forth into the political realm, it is to promote individual self interest rather than the common good. In this last election we saw a departure from this impoverishment of democracy. We saw millions of people engaging in politics not for self interested reasons but because they sought to reclaim the values of the nation which had been so grossly violated by the preceding government. It was recognized that the common good requires fixing much of the institutional structure of the society.
But democracy is about more than just elections. As I said, it requires the active participation of its citizens on an ongoing basis, not just in elections. It requires a commitment to what John Dewey called social action. Writing in the midst of the Great Depression, Dewey sought to redefine liberalism’s focus on the individual by emphasizing that we are social individuals, interconnected with one another, and are sustained by the institutions we create and must recreate in new ways in changing times. Government is one such institution. An active citizenry searching for a common good makes for an active government as the instrument of the general will. And that’s what democracy is all about. Democracy calls on us to be responsible to and for one another. Individualism only asks us to each be responsible for ourselves alone.
* Katherine S. Newman, Falling from Grace: The Experience of Downward Mobility in the American Middle Class (Random House, 1988), p. 77.
index of papers
| 
