The Solitary Self
28/04/11 18:21 Filed in: Human Nature
I’m reading through Mary Midgley’s latest, The Solitary Self: Darwin and the Selfish Gene. I love Midgley’s work: it’s informed, it’s clearly written and accessible, and it’s trenchant in its commentary. What’s more, she takes the reductionists, like Dawkins, to task.
Midgley makes an interesting point on page 19: “‘Social Atomism’ is a combination of the deep individualism of our time -- something that will occupy us throughout the book -- and a prejudice about method: a general idea that it is always more scientific to consider separate components than the larger wholes to which they belong.” In other words, social atomism reflects both deep individualism and a prejudice about scientific method.
The point about scientific method makes some sense. It should be obvious, however, that we cannot understand human beings as isolated from their societies. Yet, this point is often rejected by political philosophers, especially in the analytic tradition, and it often rejected by our culture. We think we can understand human beings as single entities whole unto themselves.
The point should be, however, that individualism makes everything the same; it actually opposes individuality. When we analyze one atom to see what gold is like; we understand all atoms. Trying to understand things in their separate components means that, on the one hand, we identify component parts as identical and, on the other, that we ignore what individualizes the individuals of the whole. On the one hand, studying Adam tells us everything we need to know about Peter and Paul. On the other hand, when we study Adam, we miss out on what makes Adam different from Peter and Paul, and vice versa. We also tend to misunderstand some of the most important elements of Adam: his social nature.
And, of course, because we focus on studying “man,” we miss out on the particular social nature of “women” which could provide us even more insight into “man.”
Different levels of science, then, should study different aspects of reality. Some science must study the human being as individual-in-the-whole.
Midgley makes an interesting point on page 19: “‘Social Atomism’ is a combination of the deep individualism of our time -- something that will occupy us throughout the book -- and a prejudice about method: a general idea that it is always more scientific to consider separate components than the larger wholes to which they belong.” In other words, social atomism reflects both deep individualism and a prejudice about scientific method.
The point about scientific method makes some sense. It should be obvious, however, that we cannot understand human beings as isolated from their societies. Yet, this point is often rejected by political philosophers, especially in the analytic tradition, and it often rejected by our culture. We think we can understand human beings as single entities whole unto themselves.
The point should be, however, that individualism makes everything the same; it actually opposes individuality. When we analyze one atom to see what gold is like; we understand all atoms. Trying to understand things in their separate components means that, on the one hand, we identify component parts as identical and, on the other, that we ignore what individualizes the individuals of the whole. On the one hand, studying Adam tells us everything we need to know about Peter and Paul. On the other hand, when we study Adam, we miss out on what makes Adam different from Peter and Paul, and vice versa. We also tend to misunderstand some of the most important elements of Adam: his social nature.
And, of course, because we focus on studying “man,” we miss out on the particular social nature of “women” which could provide us even more insight into “man.”
Different levels of science, then, should study different aspects of reality. Some science must study the human being as individual-in-the-whole.
Comments
Self Help: Myth or Virtue
07/04/11 21:54 Filed in: Human Nature
Talk of the Nation aired a show discussing Manning Marable and Malcolm X. Marable died earlier this week. On the show, Eric Michael Dyson spoke. One of the questions centered on what African-Americans can do to help themselves. Dyson noted that Marable and Malcolm X, as well as MLK jr. and many other prominent African-Americans have insisted that African-Americans must work to improve their situations, including improving their neighborhoods and cities. Along with that call, however, many have pointed out the structures in society that prevent people from helping themselves.
First, I want to recognize that this issue of helping one’s self is very important, and that society does support structures which often make it difficult if not impossible for people to help themselves -- to practice virtues of independence like phronesis. Take, for instance, education: the way we’ve distributed money for education in this country means that children born or raised in poor school districts have less access to books and computers -- and even papers and pens -- that people born in wealthier neighborhoods have. Having an education is necessary for developing phronesis. More to the point: these schools are often over-crowded, and so, even if a student does show some promise, they often cannot make anything near like the headway that someone born in other circumstances could make. This constitutes structural injustice -- structural sin.
Second, however, I wonder if we are wise to talk about self-help in this way. It’s too easy to start talking about pulling one’s self up by one’s boot straps. But, of course, one has to have boot straps to begin with, and usually the rhetoric about self-help and boot-strapping is a mask for that fact.
Certainly we have to support structures --including community education -- that help individuals develop those virtues necessary for independence -- including phronesis and self-esteem. Yet, we have to recognize that those virtues develop only within contexts of acknowledged dependence. We are each, as individuals, dependent on someone at times in our lives -- whether that means only when we are newborns and children, or whether it means throughout our lives. Yet, trying to develop self-esteem without recognizing our dependence on others is to develop a deformity: a vice of self-importance or narcissism.
Individuals and communities grow hand in hand.
First, I want to recognize that this issue of helping one’s self is very important, and that society does support structures which often make it difficult if not impossible for people to help themselves -- to practice virtues of independence like phronesis. Take, for instance, education: the way we’ve distributed money for education in this country means that children born or raised in poor school districts have less access to books and computers -- and even papers and pens -- that people born in wealthier neighborhoods have. Having an education is necessary for developing phronesis. More to the point: these schools are often over-crowded, and so, even if a student does show some promise, they often cannot make anything near like the headway that someone born in other circumstances could make. This constitutes structural injustice -- structural sin.
Second, however, I wonder if we are wise to talk about self-help in this way. It’s too easy to start talking about pulling one’s self up by one’s boot straps. But, of course, one has to have boot straps to begin with, and usually the rhetoric about self-help and boot-strapping is a mask for that fact.
Certainly we have to support structures --including community education -- that help individuals develop those virtues necessary for independence -- including phronesis and self-esteem. Yet, we have to recognize that those virtues develop only within contexts of acknowledged dependence. We are each, as individuals, dependent on someone at times in our lives -- whether that means only when we are newborns and children, or whether it means throughout our lives. Yet, trying to develop self-esteem without recognizing our dependence on others is to develop a deformity: a vice of self-importance or narcissism.
Individuals and communities grow hand in hand.