The Lost American Value, by selwynn

[Selwynn]

The Lost American Value
By Selwynn
On Tuesday night, a new man stepped up to the podium of the Democratic National Convention to speak. It was beautiful. His name is Barack Obama, and he spoke with passion and conviction the truths of our time.

And yet, while it was inspiring and satisfying to the soul on many levels, it also filled me with sorrow. One passage in particular evoked that emotion in my heart. He spoke,

…alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.- a belief that we’re all connected as one people.

If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief, it is that fundamental belief, I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

Nothing moves my heart more than this idea of relational solidarity with fellow Americans. And I would like nothing more than to believe that most Americans shared this commitment to community. But sadly, I do not believe this is really true in everyday America. In fact, if anything I think our society continues to go consistently in the direction of greater and greater selfishness at the expense of others in the name of "rugged individualism." Compassionate, Community-focused, relational concern for fellow people is a lost American value.

Who is Really to Blame?
Part of the reason we've had four years of George W. Bush is because at some level his policies resonate with enough of society to make that possible. Set aside the misleading justifications for war, and focus instead on the doctrine of unilateral action, destruction of social programs, removal of funding from community initiatives, from environmental protections for civil liberties. The philosophy of the President is a philosophy of every man for himself – women have little place.

Beyond the current President, why is it that the previous President felt that, after the disastrous runs of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis only a "new" democrat could get elected. “New” meaning standing for less and less of the relational and community driven features of progressive liberalism and more and more for individualistic entrepreneurialism the power elite. Why was it that before President Clinton came twelve years of Ronald Regan and George Bush senior, where the politics of rugged individualism and total disregard for social welfare, relational commitment, empowering communities and interdependence was the norm?

The answer is: because that's where our society is at, philosophically speaking. Or course that understanding is not true of every single American, but it is clearly true of enough people to be a pervasive pattern. It is the American individualistic attitude that says, “Why should I care for you, you are not my problem” which seems to be root of the mindset of our times. Most Americans today do not believe that they could and should be concerned about others as they pursue their own quest for life liberty and happiness. Most Americans do not believe that their greatest happiness and wellbeing is inseparable from their right relationship and compassionate concern for their neighbors and fellow country men and women.

We do need a change at the top. But we also desperately need a change at the very gut of our society. Away from rampant completely self-absorbed consumerism and back to real community - with real fellowship and inter-connectedness. Some other attribute like compassion or justice needs to replace what I believe are the two greatest attributes dominating American life today - relentless greed and all the consumerism/materialism and exploitation that goes with it, and a fixated pursuit of power, taking many different forms.

There are reasons why the divorce rate is over 50% and why families are broken up and broken down everywhere we go, and why psychologist say that the country as a whole has been suffering for years in a state of clinical depression, and why every time you turn around there is yet another person who seems unable to sustain real happiness or joy. That is not just because we have not had the right leaders. That is also because society has such a broken down perspective and philosophy that leaders like Bush or Regan seem like an acceptable option. We ought to live in a society where someone with a platform like Bush's or Regan’s would get lose in a landslide. But we don't. And we need to focus as much on that fact as we focus on our bad leadership at the top.

We live in a society where the majority of people seem to believe that they are islands unto themselves, and care little or nothing for anything outside of their immediate concerns for money/success, possessions/material and power/control over their surroundings and over others. Even your great neighbor, the nice guy, the guy with a good family and a friendly smile still lives a life that does not lift a finger to help anyone around him, or give back to society, or invest in making this world and this nation, a better place. Even nice guys can be part of the problem.

The American dream is still seen as individual achievement, with the only ultimate goal being more personal wealth. Success still seems to be primarily measured by how far you can climb up the ladder, and how much money you can make. That still seems to be the "good life" many people dream about. People believe that simply keeping to themselves and being a good provider for family and ignoring the rest of society is what it means to be a good person. The number of rationalizations given to justify selfishness gone wild are staggering. Some of them are cold and calculated – I don’t give a damn. Some of them are apologetic – I think we should do more, but what little ol’ me do? Some of them find a scapegoat – its not my responsibility, it’s the evil bad men in Washington’s fault. The fact remains – selfishness and exploitative perverse individualism abounds. Community, Brotherhood and Sisterhood, Fellowship, Relational compassion and a commitment to one another does not.

And over and over again, there is the persistent attitude that says, “I didn't do anything to cause my neighbor to suffer, therefore my neighbor's suffering is not my problem.” To me, this is the most selfish society in the history of the world, and I believe it is one of the key reasons why it is falling apart. Yes, electing John Kerry President in 2004 will save us from the insanity of Bush and his (mis)administration. But it does not get to the heart of the real problem. The skewed and destructive unhealthy fixation on self-centeredness in the American public is the ultimate cancer to a healthy society. If we could some how change that perspective, then the people would never elect leaders like Bush in the first place.

Closing Philosophical Fragments
It seems like American people are stuck in an old nineteenth century modernistic conception of the "self" as a radically detached, thoroughly autonomous, completely self-enclosed agent, needing no one and nothing. This is where "radical individualism" seems to come from. Enter on to the scene a combination of existentialism, process philosophy and - most importantly, feminist theory. Among the many things that feminist theory contributed to philosophy was a scathing indictment of modernisms conception of selfhood and self-identity.

The self is not radically detached from culture or context. Who I am today is dependent at least in part on where I live, who I am surrounded by and how they live. If I had grown up in Africa and had completely different contextual/relational experiences, I would not be completely the same person I am today. I would think differently and perceive the world through a different lens.

Human self-identity is a curious interplay between the individual elements of selfhood and the relational, communal elements of selfhood. In sharp contrast to the narrowly conceived limitations of modernistic thinking, feminist theory helped express the truth that the role of context on our own self-identity had been completely ignored, and until the reality of the impact of others on the self is more properly appreciated, no healthy picture of selfhood could be established. Our own identity emerges in interdependence and interconnectedness with the world around us. As such, the health and well-being of my neighbor is in fact in my very own interests. A better, more productive, safer, more equitable, more just, more peaceful society is in my direct best interests, because my selfhood is determined in part by the context in which I live – better context, better self.

The debate over the exact parameters of individual freedom in self-determination, and contextual determinism (i.e. the elements of culture and society that shape us beyond our ability to control it) will go on for a long time. But one thing that is clear – context matters. The social framework in which we exist has direct and personal impact on our own well-being. Healthy relationships and connectedness to others is a integral component of our own health and happiness. And while this is most certainly true, it is not something that I see evident in American society on the whole.

Obama spoke of an American in which the complimentary ideals of individual determination and community orientation exist in harmony. Can we honestly say we see anything close to that dream yet?

[jcldragon]

1. Just wanted you to know

That I read your piece, and I hope you are not right. ... because if you are, then everything that we do here at DU & other message boards, and offline, is a complete waste of time.

I know the people on my street. We have a block party every Labor Day. Everybody in my neighborhood keeps an eye out on the kids, and usually there are at least two parents out there with them.

When I go out in public on errands, I start up conversations with people. The clerks at the local stores all know me, and have developed an expectation that I will always have a new joke ready, whenever I come through. I make a point of giving people a "thumbs up", when they give me a break in traffic :)

Of course, I am not a mainstream thinker. Politically, I'm a left-wing radical (Progressive). Spiritually, I am a New Ager. I spend at least 1/2 hour a day in meditation. I've been practicing Tai Chi for over 30 years. I work as a Massage Therapist, and also as a Stand-Up Comic. I do a fair amount of writing, which you can find on my website : http://www.jamesclairlewis.com

[Selwynn]

2. I don't believe it is a waste of time, but...

..we may need to rethink our strategy. One of the reasons I get so angry a all or nothing fundamentalistic progressives who savagely attack anyone voting for Kerry and believe only people voting for Nader are intelligent is the fact that they seem to ignore the fact that changing leaders at the top is not even the most important thing to improving society.

Real change is only going to come as we "win the hearts and minds" of the people right here in this country to a better day, and build an honest grassroots, majority movement back toward community and compassion and away from exploitational selfishness.

I believe that our country would be better under the leadership of Kerry than under Bush, but I don't believe Kerry or Nader is going to "save" the country. The REAL work of change comes in the home towns and cities we all live in, as we have a revolution of ideology in average Americans. Personally, I believe voting for John Kerry and then voting for or supporting the campaigns of progressive candidates across the country to state and federal positions, combined with doing whatever we can in local communities to each a new ethic of social and communal responsibility - I believe that is the best hope for the future. But without changing the hearts and minds of the people - no leader, no matter how great, will succeed and taking American in the right direction.

[jcldragon]

8. Well, I freely admit that...

I don't have much patience for counter-revolutionary crypto-fascist ideologues. Politics is about results. So even if you are ahead of your time, (I began protesting the VietNam War in 1965), it only makes sense to support the most progressive people, who can also get elected. Thus, given the choise between bad government, decent government or an ideal cantidate who cannot muster enough of the public imagination to have a chance at getting into office, I will always vote for decent government.

If we can get JFK into Office, then I will begin agitating to drag him into a big Left Turn...

[Selwynn]

11. Very well said.

I agree with your analogy completely. I'm for "decent government" as a place to start :)

[Demonaut]

10. the opposite occurs here in my neighborhood, lived here 7 years

and no one interacts, like you I try to be friendly, acknowledge and engage people in conversations but there are few who do likewise.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Changing hearts is a slower but more profound process

than changing political leaders. And it usually only happens through individual human contact. All I can say is, keep the faith, and we will change the world, but don't expect it overnight. Cherish every small victory.

[skygazer]

4. Very thoughtful piece

I agree that it's sometimes hard to see that quality of community - nevertheless, I believe it's still there. Difficult to see in the big picture but when you look closely around you, it's just waiting to spring free. There's an every-man-for-himself attitude at large and I believe that much of it comes from the negative examples we're given in political life, both domestic and foreign. People fear for their jobs, their childrens' futures, their own retirement, the fate of the planet - it makes them less likely to be concerned about those around them.

I live in a small neighborhood. I know my neighbors keep an eye out for strangers around my home and I do the same for them. We feed each others' cats and water plants when one of us goes on vacation. If someone is ill, we help them out in any way we can. You can see that spirit in virtually any neighborhood. Can we expand it? I believe we can. I believe we can bring security back to people, allowing them to focus outwards instead of inwards. Yeah, I'm an optimist. But I truly believe that most Americans are optimists. They just need a leader.

[rucky]

5. You got to the heart of it, Selwynn

and it hit me very on a very personal level: the fact that something so basic, like The Golden Rule can be so elusive to people has troubled me for quite some time.

I would love for you to post a list of books you recommend that touch on what you're saying.

-rucky

[KittyWampus]

6. Selwyn, My Understanding Is That A Paradigm Shift Is Happening

even as we post.

Individualism and Materialism were necessary and important phases in Western Civilizations and Humanity's Evolution.

That things are changing has begun to become noticable.

And most likely, the Change will begin to accelerate.

Remember how many people protested BEFORE the bombs were dropped on Iraq.

Think of how far the Ecology Movement has gone. There WAS no such thing as Ecology 60 years ago.

I can now say in public that I study Kabbalah... once upon a time, I would have been put on the rack.

People are hungry for Spirituality... not Exoteric Religious Dogma... but UNITY. The sense of Community that comes from it.

That is why Howard Dean rose as far as he did. People like getting together to make a postive difference.

[Selwynn]

7. Lets us hope.

[stavka]

9. Selwynn - you've done it again.

A very compelling peace, inspired by some very inspiring words.

I think it is a problem that goes beyond borders, and hits on Arendt's notion from the "Banality of Evil" - that is that evil is the complete lack of empathy, a notion you've put in your own signature I've noticed.

[Jose Diablo]

12. What Obama described is an 'ideal'

that on an individual by individual basis may or may not be there. But again it is an 'ideal'.

It is up to the leaders in society to encourage this behavior and belief.

If all people hear is 'survival in the jungle', me first, I got mine then in most cases this will be the behavior people come to depend on. And we get plenty of encouragement for this form of behavior through movies, job experiences, TV, even watching our current president's behavior. To be sure, if leaders do not operate on the level Obama expressed, then you can be sure the rest of society will rarely deviate from what they see the leaders do.

However, if leaders, be they in church or on the job or in politics express the values talked about by Barrik Obama, then more people will exercise those 'community' values he expressed.

This is the purpose of leaders, to encourage those behaviors that as a society we admire.

We should also not discount the enviroment the corporations have created since the 80's of corporate 'downsizing'. I am reminded of the game we played as children called 'musical chairs'. The owners have a lot to do with what is going on also. We may wonder why the 80's marked the beginning of this. I have one name, "Reagan" and what he stood for.

I think our ideas about 'survival' have created the harsh world. We see the world through a lens of a perception stating the world is harsh thus we must also be harsh. Nothing personal, this is just business says Donald Trump. No Donald, this is not just business, this is life. That is the game we are playing. And your perception, Donald, is as warped as the corporate entity you represent and bring to life. You Donald are warped just like the corporation you breath life into.

Behavior is a learned process. If the world we live in embraces a certain behavior as 'normal' then that behavior is self-reinforcing. Again, it is the leaders responsibility to create the environment that will encourage the 'proper' belief.

Observe children as they play, without interference from adults. You can see both selfish and altruistic behavior. The children train each other for altruistic behavior if left to their own devices. The group will enforce 'proper' behavior when one individual goes out of line. The group will reward altruistic behavior with ego strokes and companionship.

Notwithstanding "Lord of the Flies" which already had its Nazi's trained to takeover the island from the natural leader (Ralph) selected by the normal boys. Then this would be the time for an adult to step into the childs world and explain the behavior as unacceptable, as happened in the book.

I am reminded of Jody Foster in the movie "Contact" where her protagonist tells her it is a ruthless world and she responds, "I thought the world is what we make it."

Now, more than anytime in the past, we make our own world. We can make it harsh and brutal or we can make it supportive. We can choose what we want, collectively.

[Selwynn]

14. No, I'm afraid I don't believe it is a one way street.

"It is up to the leaders in society to encourage this behavior and belief." (and you said several more things that were well said, but this catches the gist)

Hmm... Well, let me think about how to respond. I think you reflect one side of the coin, what I wrote about reflects the other side. The place of leaders seems paradoxical to me. On one hand yes, leaders can "lead" society in a certain direction. At the same time however, it is circular - we put those who lead into places of leadership, and we do that based on what we value and what our beliefs as a society are.

Don't mistake what I'm writing as saying I'm disagreeing with you. But right now, at this point in history, this is like a which came first - the chicken or the egg question. While on one hand it is necessary that our leaders "lead" in the right direction, it is a fact on the other hand that we exist in a midpoint, and not at the clean beginning, of a society - a society in which the principles of intolerance and fanatical exploitating individualistic extremism are often the norm. From that base we elect leaders - the leaders we elect tend to be leaders who share the popular values of the people who elect them. Now explain to me how that is a recipe for change?

I believe at this point in the cycle, greater empahsis should be placed on more fundamental and grassroots changes at the most basic and simple levels of everyday people and everyday life. Of course, we might call the people standing up at local levels and preaching a new message of love, hope and community "leaders" - and I guess that's fair. In that sense what you say is true. But on the other hand, at the national level, change is not going to come by a selfish people electing leaders that to greater or lesser degrees share their values. Real change is going to come from the grassroots level as the hearts and minds of the people who do the national electing gets changed. And I guess the point I am trying to make is that I don't believe it will be the President of the United States who inspires those changes. I think instead it will be the wonderful neighbor right next door who is a living witness of a better way, and inspires you to become more than the sum of your parts.

Hope that makes sense.

[noiretextatique]

13. the dream: yes and no

i do think it's close because i don't think we can continue to sustain the old paradigm much longer. and, of course: it's based on completely FALSE assumptions about the nature of the world around us and our place in it. it's not surprising that so many of our social constructions are unsustainable, even though there is still much resistance to change.
education is the key, since so much of "what is" and "what can be" is learned in schools and in families. family dynamics have certainly changed, but i don't know that educational theory has evolved much. i was blessed to study systems thinking in graduate school, and it forced me the change my view of the world...and just about everything else.

there are people out there changing and shifting the paradigm. that makes this an exciting time to be alive. bush, inc was merely a temporary setback, or more like the death throes of a dying paradigm...one that simply cannot be the dominant paradigm any longer.

great article, selwynn...thanks for sharing it.