American individualism is under attack. Or is it?
In Can We Put an End to America’s Most Dangerous Myth?, Alissa Quart explains:
From a child's earliest age, independence is extolled as a virtue, with “doing things on your own” as proof of maturity. I celebrated my daughter when she was little for picking out her books herself. She always wanted to go on the monkey bars without help and swung and did tricks until her hands were blistered. Now that she’s 12, I cheer her for taking herself home from school on the train and for climbing by herself at a gym for hours.
So, yes, some independence is worth honoring. But other strains are not as positive. For instance, being required to be “independent” when we are ill and without adequate health insurance coverage is not to be recommended. Neither is having to take care of our children entirely on our own, in the silo of our immediate family, without a state-supported nursery in sight. And going into debt for simply covering the cost of our own or our children’s college education is far from salutary.
But because Americans are taught that we must go it alone, we often force ourselves to slog through these — and other crucial human experiences — in solitude. And when we do get assistance, we may feel we must play down the help we receive from our government, our families or our neighbors.
Clearly, Quart is pushing for welfare statism. State-supported nurseries so parents don’t have to “take care of our children entirely on our own,” and the implied call for government funding of higher education so people can avoid the responsibility of “covering the cost of our own or our children’s college education,” are immoral socialistic schemes. It’s hard to figure out what the “some independence is worth honoring” includes if not basic responsibilities like raising one’s own children is too independent. Note also the equivocating between help from family and neighbors, and “help” from the government. The first is voluntary, the second coercive. Moral equivocation of this kind is typical disingenuousness of welfare statists.
But that’s not her main focus. That’s just table-setting. Consider these excerpts:
The “we” here is we Americans, as the notion we must do without support is ingrained in our nation’s culture. Our most toxic myth is our “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” individualism. In extreme cases, we see even asking for help as something to avoid at all costs, which can be deadly, as in the rising suicide rates of older men in this country who are some of the least likely to ask for psychological assistance. Or we sometimes still call leaning on our close friends and partners “codependence,” even after a pandemic raised depression and anxiety to record levels. We also are regularly told by self-help manuals that we need to look only to ourselves to achieve mental well-being, even though that state inevitably — and biologically — requires social connection.
That’s a sampling. There’s much more of this kind of talk. Accepting help on occasion, when needed, which is not in and of itself dishonorable, is not what Quart is promoting. Consider this:
“The art of dependence” means accepting aid with grace and, crucially, recognizing the importance of others. It takes dignity and skill to lean on friends, loved ones and colleagues — and even on the state. Resourcefulness is required for collaboration. We sometimes work hard to get what we demand: To secure aid from social services often requires what is known as the administrative burden — the effort, knowledge and sheer time it takes for citizens to obtain benefits. In a society that pathologizes dependence — even as every human being is born into it — being vulnerable takes courage.
Quart takes direct aim at independence, and by logical extension, human dignity. This, from a person who babbles about “recognizing the importance of others. Note the reference to children—the dependence that “every human being is born into it.” This is classic socialist tripe. Children are dependent. That’s a metaphysical fact. Quart wants to extend that dependence into a lifetime mission. Children, Quart holds, should not be raised to become independent, self-reliant adults. They should be kept in a perpetual state of childhood dependence—dependence, on what? In the end, the state, since dependence in Quart’s socialist world would be a universal attribute, congruent with everyone. Material dependence passes easily into intellectual dependence. Why think for yourself, the ultimate and most important form of independence? To what end, when “others”—ultimately, the government—is there at all times to “help?” Apparently, the only self-reliance Quart approves of is to overcome the “administrative burden,” which requires “resourcefulness” and “hard work” to “secure aid from social services.” The only independence Quart seems to approve of is that which is necessary to take advantage of others.
We all experience vulnerability at one time or another. It is not shameful to seek help from others in times of vulnerability. But Quart wants us to celebrate vulnerability. That takes courage, she claims. But what becomes of one’s self-esteem, pride, and dignity once you’ve turned yourself into a parasite who manufactures endless vulnerability in order to exploit others? That’s not what she means, you say? Then what do you make of her elevating dependence into an “art?” What takes courage is taking care of yourself, as much as possible. Paving the way for totalitarian socialism crepes into the back of my mind here: What kind of culture paves the way for socialism, a culture that “pathologizes dependence”—i.e. Celebrates independence—or one that reveres dependence?
To help make her case, Quart also equivocates between cooperation and dependence:
It can also take craft. In fact, the scholar William Huntting Howell, in his book “Against Self-Reliance,” used the phrase “arts of dependence” to describe crafts that were supposedly derivative and collective, like early American women’s embroidery.
But crafts that are “supposedly derivative and collective” depend on each individual pulling her own weight. The final product in Quart’s example, women’s embroidery, requires independence in the form of each individual contributing to the productive outcome through her own skill and self-motivation. Such productive ventures require independence, not people who are looking to shift the “burden” of self-responsibility onto the shoulders of co-workers.
Quart attacks a straw man. American individualism does not mean lone wolfism. We all depend on someone, but not in the way she means. Let’s celebrate that.. Indeed, America’s Founding ideals of individual rights and constitutionally limited government gave rise to the greatest social system of interdependent cooperation ever—Capitalism. When I look around my home , I see that my life is chock full of material goods that others made. That doesn’t mean I’m not independent. I acquired these goods through trade, which depends on others: you can’t trade with yourself. If I had to make this stuff myself, I’d never have them. Instead, I exchanged value for value. Trade is a transaction among independent individuals, each acting according to their own values and self-interest, even as they depend on the other to deliver the value you seek. Independence and shared prosperity do not conflict.
We all depend on Capitalism to protect the individual freedom that enables independent producers to continue to generate the products and services that make our lives amazingly prosperous. Likewise, cooperative ventures that enrich your life yet depend on cooperation with others does not compromise your independence as long as you pull your weight. Book clubs, bowling leagues, political action committees, fire departments on up to business ventures, charities, labor unions and professional associations, and the myriad other cooperative ventures are not precluded by independence. They complement each other, provided you choose these associations voluntarily.
All of this does not preclude independence. Independence starts with independent thinking—choosing your own values, goals, and careers. Independence does not preclude getting charitable assistance. That is not nullified if you need help—as long as you need it and it makes sense. We all need assistance at some point, and there is nothing inherently shameful about accepting voluntary help when you cannot do something for yourself. Good will is not a vice (Medicare and other government programs, being coercive, not voluntary, is a different debate). Accepting or giving help is fine under certain circumstances. When genuinely needed, such dependence doesn’t compromise independence. It’s common sense, and common sense is a personal, independent responsibility.
Rational dependence, whether trade-oriented or charitable, is not a vice, as long as you do for yourself what you can when you can. Being self-reliant is vital to one’s self-esteem, self-respect, and dignity. To celebrate dependence is to foster an entitlement mentality, which leads to thinking the world owes you your living and your happiness—a character-destroying blank check to take advantage of others. But parasitism is not the path to happiness, or a healthy society. Self-reliance and its corollary, respect for others, is. Rational dependence, within the proper context, need not be thought of as a necessary evil. But neither should it be celebrated. Celebrate independence. American individualism is America’s greatness. It defines America. Personal independence is foundational to a free, capitalist, democratic society. Most critically, independence and the freedom it relies on is the means of pursuing, and hopefully achieving, personal contentment and happiness.
In a sense, Quart is right. There is a dangerous myth infecting America—Quart’s own straw man, the myth of the lone wolf rugged individualist. We should not buy it. Quart’s political agenda is pretty clear. But more fundamentally, and more damaging, is her attack on individual character. The most fundamental need of humans, being the rational animal, is the confidence in his ability to deal with the world. That confidence, which manifests in virtues like self-esteem, pride, and honesty, is vital not just to living but to flourishing and happiness. Quart seeks to undermine that confidence. A dependent person—that is, dependency as a character trait—can not be in control of his life, and thus can never be happy. This is a mean, heartless piece that should not only be brushed off as nonsense but firmly condemned. It is dangerous.
Related Reading:
Obama’s Way vs. The American Way by me for The Objective Standard
Contra Hugh Hewitt, America Does have a Shared Morality
Books to Aid in Understanding Ayn Rand's Rational Selfishness
Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism? —my answer
Reply Responses to My Answer regarding QUORA: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’ - 3
No comments:
Post a Comment