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.
Underwater Houses and Self-Reliance
15/03/11 16:30 Filed in: Popular Culture
In a post from the American Heritage Foundation about American exceptionalism, I found this little line:
All of these American ideals––political freedom and autonomy, citizen independence and self-reliance, limited government, religion, patriotism, and nationalist autonomy backed up by vigorous military power—comprise American exceptionalism.
Just before that, I heard on the radio that 20% of home foreclosures in the US are strategic ones: that is, even though the home owner has the capability to make the payments, they make the financial decision to walk away from a home that’s under water -- one on which they owe more than the home is valued at.
I thought about what this meant with respect to the idea of self-reliance. Yet, I was not thinking about how these people failed in self-reliance. Rather, I had in mind the way that the notion of self-reliance in fact keeps people in a situation which is financially untenable. Why?
We have an idea in America, broadcast on the movie screen over and over again, of the “man” who has “true grit” and is able to pull himself up by his boot straps. He is reliant -- no matter the cost to him, he will not fail in his obligations freely taken. This person is independent and autonomous in the strict meaning of the term: that is, the person is a law unto himself. AS my reference to Ture Grit shows, this idea applies to women as much as man, for the true hero of that book and movie is Mattie Ross, not Rooster Cogburn.
It is this idea that makes Americans pay untold prices to fulfill their obligations.
Yet, as America has evolved with the rise of capitalism, we’ve seen that corporations lack any notion of self-reliance. The corporate bail-out is only one example of such lack. In the case of under water houses, banks bear no costs and everyday citizens, who were most often swindled by a swift sales talk, bear the cost, while banks and others walk away stashing money away.
Why should the one least able to bear the burden be the sole one to bear it?
While self-reliance is a wonderful, bold idea, it is unrealistic in practice. Mattie would not have survived had it not been for Cogburn and Le Beouff. Our society cannot survive without a secure middle class of home owners. And banks could not survive except as free-riders on the backs of the rest of us.
I do not deny that people ought to honor their obligations. Rather, I suggest that honoring obligations must occur within a social milieu that makes the honoring of obligations a reasonable thing to do, rather than an irrational act in an irrational system.
All of these American ideals––political freedom and autonomy, citizen independence and self-reliance, limited government, religion, patriotism, and nationalist autonomy backed up by vigorous military power—comprise American exceptionalism.
Just before that, I heard on the radio that 20% of home foreclosures in the US are strategic ones: that is, even though the home owner has the capability to make the payments, they make the financial decision to walk away from a home that’s under water -- one on which they owe more than the home is valued at.
I thought about what this meant with respect to the idea of self-reliance. Yet, I was not thinking about how these people failed in self-reliance. Rather, I had in mind the way that the notion of self-reliance in fact keeps people in a situation which is financially untenable. Why?
We have an idea in America, broadcast on the movie screen over and over again, of the “man” who has “true grit” and is able to pull himself up by his boot straps. He is reliant -- no matter the cost to him, he will not fail in his obligations freely taken. This person is independent and autonomous in the strict meaning of the term: that is, the person is a law unto himself. AS my reference to Ture Grit shows, this idea applies to women as much as man, for the true hero of that book and movie is Mattie Ross, not Rooster Cogburn.
It is this idea that makes Americans pay untold prices to fulfill their obligations.
Yet, as America has evolved with the rise of capitalism, we’ve seen that corporations lack any notion of self-reliance. The corporate bail-out is only one example of such lack. In the case of under water houses, banks bear no costs and everyday citizens, who were most often swindled by a swift sales talk, bear the cost, while banks and others walk away stashing money away.
Why should the one least able to bear the burden be the sole one to bear it?
While self-reliance is a wonderful, bold idea, it is unrealistic in practice. Mattie would not have survived had it not been for Cogburn and Le Beouff. Our society cannot survive without a secure middle class of home owners. And banks could not survive except as free-riders on the backs of the rest of us.
I do not deny that people ought to honor their obligations. Rather, I suggest that honoring obligations must occur within a social milieu that makes the honoring of obligations a reasonable thing to do, rather than an irrational act in an irrational system.
Individual or Society: The Chicken and Egg Question
08/02/11 19:31 Filed in: Human Nature
Much of what I’ve been reading lately has focused on the common good and on the nature of society. Essential to these discussions is the question of the priority of the individual or the state. That is, is the individual anterior to -- logically at least -- society or the state so that the state must be limited in what it can demand or impose upon citizens; or is the state anterior to -- logically speaking -- the individual so that there are no limits on what it can demand of citizens.
The answer is both/and or neither/nor.
If we look at ourselves through the lens of evolution, we come to understand that human beings -- homo sapiens -- evolved as members of cohesive groups. We see the same pattern in all the great apes, except for the orangutans who forage for food in solitude and are much less aggressive than homo sapiens or other apes. If we want to understand our own nature, then, we have to put our species-specific nature in discussion with this evolutionary past. I do not mean this to follow the pattern of evolutionary psychology which tries to discover deep-seated genetic imperatives in our biology that we gained and haven’t lost since the emergence of homo sapiens on the African plains. Rather, I mean that we have to understand our biology -- which includes our evolution -- if we want to understand the kinds of creatures we are -- individuals with free choice.
If we speak of individuality, then, we must understand how individuality arises among a social creature like the great apes. It cannot be something divorced from that sociality, for it is the sociality that makes for individuals to develop identities. We cannot, of course, deny that these social groups are constituted by individuals.
Which brings us to the chicken and the egg. We cannot ask what came first, the individual or the society without leading us into the circular question of the chicken and the egg. Neither can be understood without the other; which means neither can exist without the other.
Individuals and societies are mutually constitutive elements.
Which means, at the political level, that societies can demand much of the individuals that belong to them and that individuals can place limits on what societies can demand. This position is the most realistic and the most liberating philosophies for it recognizes that we human beings determine our social existence through our free choices, and that we accept that society shapes the choices available to us.
When we speak of the common good, then, we can say both that the common good can be characterized independently and antecedently to individual interests and yet that the common good includes the full development of each and every member of society.
The answer is both/and or neither/nor.
If we look at ourselves through the lens of evolution, we come to understand that human beings -- homo sapiens -- evolved as members of cohesive groups. We see the same pattern in all the great apes, except for the orangutans who forage for food in solitude and are much less aggressive than homo sapiens or other apes. If we want to understand our own nature, then, we have to put our species-specific nature in discussion with this evolutionary past. I do not mean this to follow the pattern of evolutionary psychology which tries to discover deep-seated genetic imperatives in our biology that we gained and haven’t lost since the emergence of homo sapiens on the African plains. Rather, I mean that we have to understand our biology -- which includes our evolution -- if we want to understand the kinds of creatures we are -- individuals with free choice.
If we speak of individuality, then, we must understand how individuality arises among a social creature like the great apes. It cannot be something divorced from that sociality, for it is the sociality that makes for individuals to develop identities. We cannot, of course, deny that these social groups are constituted by individuals.
Which brings us to the chicken and the egg. We cannot ask what came first, the individual or the society without leading us into the circular question of the chicken and the egg. Neither can be understood without the other; which means neither can exist without the other.
Individuals and societies are mutually constitutive elements.
Which means, at the political level, that societies can demand much of the individuals that belong to them and that individuals can place limits on what societies can demand. This position is the most realistic and the most liberating philosophies for it recognizes that we human beings determine our social existence through our free choices, and that we accept that society shapes the choices available to us.
When we speak of the common good, then, we can say both that the common good can be characterized independently and antecedently to individual interests and yet that the common good includes the full development of each and every member of society.