Individualism in the United States: A transformation in American political thought 9781623566715, 9781623560645, 9781501310058, 9781623562144

Citation preview

Individualism in the United States

ii

Individualism in the United States A transformation in American political thought Stephanie M. Walls

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc

N E W YOR K • LON DON • N E W DE L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 © Stephanie M. Walls, 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Walls, Stephanie M. Individualism in the United States: a transformation in American political thought/Stephanie M. Walls. pages cm Summary: “A comprehensive look at the foundations, and current state of individualism in the US, including an assessment of the implications for American democracy and citizenship” – Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-6235-6064-5 (pbk.) – ISBN 978-1-6235-6671-5 (hardback) 1. Individualism–United States. 2. Democracy–United States. 3. Citizenship–United States. I. Title. JC599.U6W35 2015 320.97301–dc23 2014036916 ISBN: HB: 978-1-6235-6671-5 PB: 978-1-6235-6064-5 ePDF: 978-1-6235-6214-4 ePub: 978-1-6235-6348-6

Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

For Liz

vi

Contents

Acknowledgments  ix Preface  xi

Part one  The background  1 1 Introduction to individualism  3 2 Foundational individualism  21 3 The individual in colonial America  37

PART TWO  The ideals  61 4 Political individualism: Individualism during the founding era  63 5 Economic individualism: Individualism and the Industrial Revolution  87 6 Social individualism: Individualism as a paradox  113

PART THREE  The implications  137 7 Individualism today  139 8 Reconstructing individualism  161 Bibliography  185 Index  193

viii

Acknowledgments

This is a project that has been a work in progress for many years. I must thank my undergraduate political science professor at Ohio University, John Gilliom, for first inspiring me to consider and explore the topic of individualism. Many thanks also to the graduate faculty at the University of Cincinnati, especially: Mike Margolis, Steve Mockabee, and George Bishop. Thanks to Jeffrey Johnson for his insight and contributions to earlier drafts of Chapter 2 when it was a conference paper presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. I want to thank my supportive colleagues at Bowling Green State University—Firelands College, who have been so encouraging and understanding throughout the time I have been working on this book. Thanks again to John Gilliom, Jeffrey Johnson, and also Stephen Mergner for reviewing my book proposal and giving me excellent feedback to create a solid project. I am also indebted to David Harding for reading drafts of these chapters and providing me with invaluable editorial advice. Many thanks to Mary Beth Wade-Jones, for her assistance with the formatting, endnotes, and bibliographic work, and to Joe Wagner, for providing editorial assistance on Chapter 1. I am also grateful to those who reviewed the manuscript and gave me very useful insights to strengthen my arguments. Lastly, and most importantly, I want to thank my family for their continued love and support of me and my career: my husband David, my children Lauren and Nick, and my mother, Janet. I could not have completed this book without you.

x

Preface

Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present. George Washington

It is with this one rule in mind that we embark on a study of the individual in the United States. We are not the first to the party, and we surely will not be the last. Our study of individualism will be with reference, and in deference, to those who have come before, but what we will accomplish in these pages will be unique in its design and approach. The topic of individualism is one of great political and social relevance to all, yet its discussion is scattered far and wide, in bits here and there, and almost always presented in a way that is only intellectually accessible to some. These pages are written and designed for the student of political science of any age, situation, or political orientation. Each chapter tells the story of a concept that has shaped our country and our way of life. Individualism is dynamic, and the chapters herein will explain that dynamism and show the ways it has changed and continues to change. The inspiration for this story began with observations made by a historian 100 years ago. Charles Merriam’s American Political Ideals planted the seeds for the framework I am presenting here. When I first began to seriously contemplate the concept of individualism over 15 years ago as a college undergraduate, I was struck by its apparent inconsistency with democracy and several questions immediately came to mind: What does individualism really mean? Can one ever be truly and completely individualistic in thought and deed? What about community and society? Do the individual rights of the founding era mean the same thing that individualism means to people in the United States today? Does a commitment to individualism automatically lead to disengagement with others? If so, what does this mean for the viability of our democracy? I soon realized that it would take years to sort all of these things out. Only years after that would I realize that the journey would never truly be complete. However, thinking about these ideas, understanding the American fascination with the individual, and proposing a framework for how this concept has changed has given me many opportunities to try.

xii

Preface

The purpose of this text is to bring individualism to the classroom, the coffee shop, the dinner table, and to make the topic come alive for those who do not yet know how important it is. Each chapter comes complete with discussion questions and suggested readings to aid in understanding the material. These tools will prove invaluable for contemplating and comprehending the ideas contained here. Discussion and application is vital to this pursuit, and it is my hope that this book will facilitate a worthwhile journey into this very important American ideal. There has been much worthwhile scholarship devoted to the topic of individualism, and my goal herein is to present these various perspectives in a new way and bring them all together using my own argument as to how individualism has changed over time. I am certainly not the first one to suggest that individualism has changed since the founding, but I am bringing something new to the discussion through the way I characterize the transformation of the concept. In earlier drafts of this book, I had referred to the change in individualism as an “evolution,” which one of my reviewers thought was a mischaracterization of my argument. Indeed, the reviewer was correct. An evolution could suggest an improvement, and my conception of the changes that have occurred do not reflect an improvement at all. In fact, I believe that individualism has suffered a progressive deterioration, which has the ability to impact the very viability of American democracy now and in the future. With this in mind, know that this text is not just a historical perspective. It is a combination of the past and present so that we as American citizens might best know how to proceed into the future with the health of our society and government in mind. I believe that by looking to the past and understanding the original conception of individualism in the United States, we will realize that we hold the answers to our own problems. There is some disagreement on this topic, but I believe that a healthy representative democracy requires an active citizenry: the more active, the better (not necessarily easier, but qualitatively better). The government must be responsive to the people, but understandably, it can reflect the will of only those who participate. Robert Putnam, in his influential work Bowling Alone, presents data to show how political activity has suffered a decline over the last several decades. I believe that the political process begins long before we step into the voting booth, and so the decrease in community participation that Putnam documents is of great concern to me as well. Many scholars have presented their explanation for why this decline has taken place, and I think that there is merit to these various explanations. The purpose of my book is not to refute these explanations. Rather, my objective is to provide the connections that bring all these explanations together under the umbrella of individualism. All the outwardly observable behaviors that serve to demonstrate and exacerbate the issue of disengagement are rooted in an internal ideological dilemma based on individualism.

PREFACE

xiii

In modern times, far too many people believe that the path to freedom is made clear by removing connections, obligations, and associations. We, as a people, have been taught these lessons for well over a century, but these lessons are as misguided as they are damaging for us as individuals and as a society. What many do not realize is that the lesson we have learned is not based on the political wisdom and goals of our Founding Fathers. The individualism that influences our attitudes today is the result of a great transformation and misapplication of the political individualism of the founding era. Though the term did not yet exist, the ideas of political individualism were of great importance to the Founders. The protection and advancement of the individual was something that made the American experiment unique and noteworthy, and it was a key component in creating the balance necessary between the government and the people, among the branches of government, and among the citizens themselves. The irony of this transformation is that individualism has been changed in such a way that this founding concept has now become the main threat to the viability of our democracy. Through a complete misunderstanding and mangling of the concept, some politicians today are actually calling for a return to the will of the Founders by reducing the role of the government to nil and encouraging people to go off the grid and take up arms against the government and one another. In reality, this is a great departure from what the Founders wanted. I completely agree that the United States would benefit from going back to the understanding of individualism that the Americans of the founding era had, but I (and they) mean something quite different from the individualism we see today. This text is divided into three sections: The background of individualism, the different ways that individualism has manifested itself (the “ideals”), and the implications of the transformation of individualism. Part 1 contains an introduction to the concept of individualism and how it fits in with other related concepts, an introduction to and discussion of the foundational political theory that laid the groundwork for the development of this concept, and a presentation and discussion of the various perspectives on life in colonial America. Part 2 contains the transformation of individualism I have developed. Individualism in the United States has varied greatly since the founding, and its current form deserves great understanding and close scrutiny to determine its compatibility with American democracy. To help guide and shape our study of American individualism, we will proceed with a basic typology proposed by Charles Merriam 100 years ago and build on it for our purposes. In his book, American Political Ideals, Merriam discusses the changing nature of individualism in the United States. He speaks of a founding era political individualism and then an economic and social individualism that he believes developed in the 1800s. I will build on these categories and use his suggested typology to flesh out an explanation of exactly how individualism has functioned in the United States since the founding. I do not necessarily

xiv

Preface

agree with Merriam’s assessment of Early Americans, but I believe that his understanding of American individualism as a changing concept is correct. The explanation of individualism’s transformation over time provides an invaluable tool for understanding this concept and its implications for democracy in the present and future. The three main phases in the transformation of individualism will be classified in terms of “ideals”: individualism as a political ideal, an economic ideal, and a social ideal. The literature documents the view of individualism as a political ideal and then as an economic ideal. The third category concerns individualism as a social ideal, and I believe that this is the phase Americans transitioned into during the second half of the twentieth century. Each individualism “ideal” has its implications for democracy, and I will address the implications of each phase. I have changed Merriam’s “industrial individualism” into economic individualism, but use his rough model to build up to my definition of “social individualism.” This framework, and the historical context in which it is placed, will provide us with the means to understand the complicated and important matter of individualism and the challenges it presents for Americans today. In Figure 1.1, political individualism, economic individualism, and social individualism are illustrated through a determination of their foundations. Each type of individualism is inherently different from the one before it, because its foundational blocks change with each transformation. My contention is that the social individualism of modern times is structurally different from both political and economic individualism. In Chapter 4, we will examine political individualism, and learn that it was based on a strong foundation of individual freedom and societal bonds. The individual freedom of this era was built on individual choice and individual opportunity, which existed for many with a structured societal network. These societal bonds served as the rest of the foundation that political individualism rested upon. The societal bonds comprised obligation to others, social stability and security, and the exercise of individual self-restraint. In Chapter 5, we will learn about the transformation of political individualism into economic individualism. The transformation resulted in an internal change in the concept of individualism. Economic individualism also rested on components of individual freedom and societal bonds, but as one can see, the role of societal bonds changes and weakens, in turn compromising, the structure. Its foundation changes to economic exchange and dependency (which introduces instability and insecurity) and the presence of class divisions. In Chapter 6, we will explore the third, and currently dominant, form of individualism: social individualism. With this last transformation, the societal bonds that were compromised under economic individualism fail completely. Social individualism now rests on a foundation that wholly comprises individual freedom, but those foundational blocks have now changed. Instead of resting on the assumptions and reality of individual

xv

PREFACE

Political individualism Individual freedom

Choice

Opportunity

Societal bonds

Selfrestraint

Stability/ Security

Obligation

Economic individualism Individual freedom

Choice

Opportunity

Societal bonds

Economic exchange/ dependency

Class identity

Social individualism

Individual freedom Choices for some

Opportunism

Social atomism

Limited intervention

Figure 1.1  The transformation of individualism. choice and freedom, social individualism rests on the need for choice and opportunity that is not realized by all. In addition, it is supported by the equally weak blocks of social isolation and limited intervention. If the past is any indicator, it would seem that freedom resting on such an unstable foundation will likely collapse. When it does, the future of individualism becomes quite uncertain. Finally, in Part 3, I deal with the implications of this transformation through an explanation of current American individualism and the ways in which I believe individualism can be drawn closer to its roots. The text herein does not represent an exhaustive review of the literature on individualism, though the suggested readings included at the end of each chapter provide the engaged reader the opportunity to delve into many other sources of information on this topic. I am a political scientist, but

xvi

Preface

this journey through individualism in the literature has taken me through a number of disciplines, including history, economics, psychology, and sociology. The gracious reader will humor me as I attempt to navigate these waters and create a cross-disciplinary explanation of individualism. This book represents my best attempt to explain what has happened to this vital feature of American political ideology, and one that will hopefully illuminate a path back to a time when the individual was truly protected and his or her freedom genuinely valued.

Pa r t o n e

The background While the topic of individualism may seem straightforward, it is actually quite complex in its history, its meaning, and its application. The conclusion one arrives at about individualism derives in large part from one’s perception of the history of the individual, how the individual has been established and defended in life and in the literature, and how one is able to reconcile the individual with the world around him. Thus, my conclusion is based on my perception of all of these issues. Therefore, it is critical to give the reader a tour of the landscape as I see it so that we may speak the same language in the chapters ahead. In order to do this, we will look at the background of individualism from a number of angles. In Chapter 1, I introduce the concept of individualism and ideology, and differentiate these concepts from others that are closely related and sometimes confusing. Then, in Chapter 2, I establish some of the political theories that had a great impact on the American Founding Fathers when creating the political system we have in the United States. Finally, Chapter 3 contains a historical overview of the colonial era and what life was like for the individual during this time. This chapter is intended to establish how hospitable an environment the early United States was for the concept for individualism. These first three chapters lay the groundwork for the typology and transformation of individualism I will explain in Part 2.

2

C h a p t e r ONE

Introduction to individualism

Chapter summary The individual, individuality, and individualism are independent concepts, though the individual and individualism are far more linked than individuality and individualism. We understand individuality to mean the difference between one person and a group of people with regard to personal preferences and characteristics, that is, one person is entitled to be distinctive from the group. We understand individualism to mean a “theory of society” in which the well-being of individuals is an always prominent, usually primary, and often the only politically relevant value; and the value of things is largely consequent to their value for human individuals. This approach opens up a world of possibilities and problems, as it is uncertain what happens to individualism if individuals choose to value the group. Matters are further complicated when one considers the role of the state in promoting or restricting individual rights. While individualism has been conceptualized in many ways, the terms “negative” and “positive” aptly cover these variations and categorize them on the basis of intervention or nonintervention as a way of preserving the individual. These conceptions, together with a historical overview and three-pronged ideal-based framework, will aid the reader in understanding individualism in the United States.

Chapter objectives

1 To become acquainted with the concept of individualism and

understand how it relates to other “individual” words such as individuality.

4

Individualism in the United States



2 To begin consideration of the tensions within individualism and



the competing schools of thought with regard to the individual. 3 To explore ways in which the individual relates to society and the state.

The scholarship on individualism is as diverse and varying as the individuals who have created it. An acceptance of individuality and a belief in its promotion leads one to expect and desire this variance of thought, though it makes our job as student and scholar far more difficult. The topic of individualism has been evaluated through a number of lenses by members of varying disciplines, including psychology, sociology, philosophy,1 and political science. Despite this variance, one theme is common: the concept of the individual self. The individual self refers to the way each person identifies and defines himself or herself that is distinct from his or her membership in any group.2 The acknowledgment that this self exists, as opposed to the collective or social self, is significant to establishing individualism as a viable social theory.3 We have to believe in the ability of an individual to exist, at least in theory, as an entity distinct from other individuals, groups, and institutions in his or her society in order to buy into individualism. Beyond that, we need not agree on much, and scholars have found many ways to disagree on how important this distinction is to individuals and how that self-perception affects individual expectations of the state and society. For instance, what do we expect of the relationships among and between citizens? What is the natural tendency here? Are we naturally compassionate? Are we naturally selfish? What is in our own best interest? These answers are not nearly as clear cut, even among those who would agree that individual primacy is a natural condition. The political discussion requires us to consider the individual in concert with others, and working toward the creation and maintenance of a functional state. We must determine what the needs of the individual are in this regard, and how best to meet those needs in the context of the society we live in. For example, does the ideal political system have a citizenry that serves its government or a government that serves its citizenry? Are individuals intelligent and reasonable enough to retain some inborn desire to control themselves and their destiny? Or are there others who are more capable of making these choices for them?4 From an American perspective, some things are clear regarding the relationship between the people and the state. American individualism promotes and protects the individual’s rights and abilities to control his or her own destiny free of unreasonable governmental intervention.5 It can also be consistent with the creation of a government, given that such a government reflects and protects those individual desires. Thomas Jefferson’s Lockean defense of revolution, which he documents in the Declaration of Independence, together with the Constitution’s commitment to a separation

INTRODUCTION TO INDIVIDUALISM

5

of powers and checks and balances, supports a founding commitment to protecting the individual from an oppressive government. There are two main circumstances in which this discussion begins: in the course of the education of American-born children, or in the civic education of those wishing to become American citizens. In both cases, it appears that the topic of the individual comes up early and often. From a social standpoint, children are taught and encouraged to share, to be considerate, to think of the group. However, as their political socialization progresses, the emphasis in this realm focuses on the individual, what rights he or she has, how other people (especially the government) might deprive him or her of these rights, and what recourse he or she has in the event that this occurs. Likewise, when immigrants wish to become US citizens, confusing messages abound. On the one hand, the need to conform to the ideological unity of this country is stressed, along with the need for each person to reject other ideological perspectives. In accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applicants for citizenship are asked if they have been members of a communist party, and will be denied citizenship if they answer yes. On the other, people are taught that our society is oriented around the individual and not the group, and that it is constitutionally supportive of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. The meaning of these freedoms can seem somewhat diluted when they are delivered in a rather limited ideological package. This new ideological orientation can be an adjustment for those favoring a more socialist or a more conservative perspective. To illustrate these educational experiences, I need look no further than my bookshelf, which is replete with American government textbooks. In a sampling of American government textbooks, the subject of individualism is approached in a number of ways. Some approaches root their definition in founding intent, and some speak of it in modern terms. From a historical perspective, students are taught that “. . . Americans highly value the idea of individualism, a belief that goes back to the earliest days of our republic.”6 Individualism is defined as “a commitment to personal initiative, selfsufficiency, and material accumulation;”7 and as “a belief that one’s fate is (and ought to be) in one’s own hands, rather than the product of impersonal social and economic forces beyond one’s own control.”8 These approaches have a set of assumptions in common. First, they all believe that individualism is a core concept in a discussion of American political principles, and that American students need to understand the importance of autonomous individual action in American society. One textbook goes as far as to say that “no political value has been more widely held in the United States than individual liberty.”9 Another text lists individual freedom as a principle of American democracy and defines it as “the greatest amount of freedom possible without interfering with the rights of others.”10 A second assumption is that it requires protection from societal interests. One textbook teaches the student that individual liberty is preserved through

6

Individualism in the United States

a rejection of the whole, and that any “ideas, practices, and institutions that submerge individuals into a larger whole” serve to “deprive them of their dignity.”11 Another uses the example of health insurance to demonstrate how individualistic tendencies lead Americans away from group-based decisions to problems: “Certainly, we Americans would like for everyone to have health insurance, but for the most part we do not believe it is the government’s role to fund universal health insurance programs.”12 The justification given for this attitude is that Americans see a distinction between “individual and community responsibility” and are more likely to believe that individuals are responsible for themselves.13 A third textbook states that individualism requires people to remain free of “unfair burdens” so that they may “attain their fullest potential.”14 A final assumption is that equality of opportunity is present to a degree that individual accomplishments can and should be the responsibility of each individual person. This assumption is necessary to support the inequality of outcomes that we observe in society. This belief led one textbook to state: “Americans tend to assume that people generally get what they deserve in the long run.”15 Though these authors present individualism in varying contexts, these approaches to American individualism have a significant commonality: they convey to the student that individualism requires negative liberty (being left alone) and it can be traced back to the founding era. The individual has a right to make his or her own decisions without undue “burdens” from outside interests or demands. The other main circumstance concerns the civic education of those who might become citizens. In the education materials provided by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, one can find references made to the individual and individual rights no fewer than eight times in 16 pages, with numerous other allusions to the concept.16 The study guide for the naturalization test provides an explanation of natural rights, the meaning of consent, and the importance of a government in place to protect those rights and acknowledge the significance of the consent. In each of these instances of political socialization, the ability of an individual to identify and pursue what is best for him or her is stressed. Both types of education seek to impress upon the student the significance of protecting that ability. This type of civic education is based upon the assumption that one is living in conjunction with others, whether joined by physical proximity, common pursuits, or a commitment to common ideals. Since we assume this coexistence, the lesson quickly takes up the topic of how we coexist. Certainly, the discussion of rights is first and foremost in any discussion of the colonial strife between the colonists and the British government, and of the subsequent revolution and state building that then took place. Beyond any personal notions of selfishness or putting one’s self first, proponents of individualism seek to establish and promote a societal and

INTRODUCTION TO INDIVIDUALISM

7

governmental system that puts the individual first. While this may sound simple enough, the American experience has demonstrated that it is not simple at all. To begin with, many have taken it upon themselves to define individualism, its origins, and its purposes. This may be great fun for scholars to sort through, but not necessarily as much fun for the student. Second, much of the modern Western theory that scholars and historical figures have relied upon to support the development of institutionalized individualism has been used to support a wide variety of views. There is no place we can go to find “the” answer as to how the individual best relates to society or should relate to society. There is no one answer as to how the individual fares best in society, or any agreed upon notion as to what that even means. Lastly, scholars have not been able to agree on how to characterize individualism in the United States. The descriptions of American individualism run the gamut from a rights-based yet service-balanced philosophy committed to the wellness of society as a whole to an atomistic isolated justification for the inequality of results many have become politically and ideologically committed to. It is not the claim now or anywhere in this text that a reconciliation of these descriptions is possible. What is possible, however, is the development of an understanding of these positions and the proposed ways in which American individualism has changed over time. Certainly, it is not possible to agree with all the arguments and explanations that have been put forth, and indeed, one might find oneself in conflict with some of the conclusions drawn herein. The potential for ideological and intellectual conflict is ingrained in any discussion of individualism, and it is in this spirit that we will proceed with our study.

First things first When considering individualism, one must first disentangle a number of terms involving the word “individual.” Though these terms have obvious commonalities, their differences are significant to our ultimate understanding of individualism. To this end, let us consider individuality; the individual; individualism; individualism and society; and individualism and the state.

Individuality, individual, individualism In the course of discussing individualism, it can be easy to confuse and conflate a number of concepts. It is not difficult to see how this can happen, particularly when it comes down to understanding the individual, individuality, and individualism. Understanding and distinguishing concepts from one another can be challenging enough without dealing in words that have ten letters in common. Be that as it may, it is incumbent upon us to sort

8

Individualism in the United States

these concepts out. Individuality and individualism are reasonably different in their definitions and applications, while the individual and individualism are far more connected.

Individuality Individuality is a term that could reasonably come up when discussing the individual, though the scope of what it refers to is rather limited from our perspective. We can see the distinction between individuality and individualism with regard to what these terms are describing. Individuality describes the differences between one person and a group of people with regard to personal preferences and characteristics.17 If one supports the ability of an individual to exhibit individuality, then that simply indicates a belief that one person is entitled to be distinctive from the group. This does not suggest anything about the group dynamic or how it is managed. An acceptance of individuality simply means that conformity is not systemically enforced, and the people in this particular group or society are allowed reasonable freedom to demonstrate different preferences and characteristics.

The individual Let us then consider the individual. Though the individual and individualism mean different things, the definition of the individual and what we believe are inherently human characteristics and tendencies are significant to how we understand the concept, and the implementation, of individualism as a social theory. There is a general agreement in liberal thought that the individual is a rational, reasonable being capable of making choices, learning from experience, and constantly improving, but what shapes those rational choices? What motivates individuals in their actions? We can learn more about the ideas of the individual from the social psychology literature. There are two main approaches to the topic of human nature that are relevant to our discussion. First, there is the assumption that individuals are selfish and self-interested and make choices accordingly.18 Second, there is the assumption that individuals are social and make choices based on considerations including other people.19 Scholars seeking to explain individual motivation and orientation have started from the psychological premise of a self-concept (comprising a collective self and an individual self) and sought to discover which of these representations is more significant. Again, the collective self is a component of self-concept based on one’s membership in a group, while the individual self is a component of self-concept grounded in one’s characteristics as an individual.20 The bulk of this research is summarized

INTRODUCTION TO INDIVIDUALISM

9

by Lowell Gaertner et al. in a 1999 article on the topic of self-definition. Two hypotheses they identify are the Individual-Self Primacy hypothesis and the Collective-Self Primacy hypothesis.21 The authors lay out the support for each hypothesis in terms of previous studies that have been conducted in order to set the stage for their own project to determine who is right. The premise of their article is that previous research conducted to support either of these hypotheses has been largely successful in demonstrating the primacy of each approach.22 While the question of individual motivation is one that they wish to answer (as they would like to arrive at a final answer as to which definition really is primary), this tension is actually good news from a political standpoint as the tension exists in political science as well. There is evidence for both of these definitions from a political standpoint, and each of the types of individualism that we will discuss builds from varying beliefs about the individual.

Individualism The term individualism has far greater depth and meaningful implications for the individual and the society in which he or she lives. To the extent that individualism prescribes the rules and conditions in which the individual can best flourish, individualism can be considered a “theory of society.”23 As such, we expect it to contain far more than just a discussion of individuality. Individualism is a condition in which the well-being of individuals is the only politically relevant value.24 Otherwise stated, the promotion of the individual and his or her rights is the primary objective for the political system and the state that oversees it. This definition of individualism is generally accepted, but it leaves many questions unanswered. How do we determine individual well-being? If we determine that the only things that have value are those that are valued by human individuals, what happens if human individuals value the wellness of the group?25 What if individuals in a society take on the plight of their neighbor to ensure that the group as a whole is able to succeed? According to this definition, an individualistic theory of society can entertain notions of the whole, if the individuals in that society value the whole. On the other hand, what if we conceive of individualism as a condition in which the moral value of the individual is found to be far greater than that of any assemblage of individuals?26 If society is seen as a set of institutions that exist purely at the whim of individual actors, yet the individuals that comprise them are inherently antisocial and desire not to serve society, then what will maintain these institutions? Certainly these varying conceptions of individualism are dependent on notions of the individual. Edward Scribner Ames, a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago, created a useful dichotomy for understanding these different

10

Individualism in the United States

assumptions about human nature nearly a century ago. In a collection of sermons entitled The Higher Individualism, he provided a description of the tendencies and potential of individual human beings. His ultimate goal was to move his students (and his congregation, as he was also a church pastor) toward the latter assumption, but in doing so he gives the reader a sense of where we as individuals naturally begin. Ames referred to this original, or natural, form of individualism as “elemental individualism.”27 He believed that people, like any number of wild animals, are initially and naturally selfish beings driven by a need to survive and by their own individual needs. Untouched by socialization, individuals are “self-centered, grasping, tyrannical.”28 It is out of an inborn need to dominate their surroundings and have their way that individuals seek to subdue others and their preferences. In this elemental condition, it is only through the subordination of others that individuals feel they can best pursue what is determined to be their own best interest. Since this is a natural tendency, those who have been subdued possess it as well. They wait for the opportunities in which they might exercise their individual will, either through violence against those who have subdued them or through finding others over whom they might wield power and control.29 Echoing this sentiment, former Columbia University president Nicholas Murray Butler described individuals as being born with “egoistic impulses.” He thought, however, that they could be taught otherwise through a moral education.30 Absent that education, Butler contended that selfishness would remain an “influential enemy of human happiness and human order.”31 From this perspective, rational individuals will pursue only what is in their best interest with no concern for others, unless they are acted upon by outside influences to compel them to act otherwise. From the perspective of Ames and others, the acknowledgment of this natural predisposition toward selfish activity was in no way meant to condone the behavior. Rather, individuals could overcome these tendencies. Ames referred to this type of aspirational individualism as “higher individualism.”32 Rather than focusing solely on the selfish tendencies of man, this “higher” conception of the individual acknowledges his social side as well. Ames argued that due to the varied social needs of man, people can choose to grow up and away from the inborn elemental individualism. Unlike wild animals, people can learn to enhance themselves as individuals while rejecting selfish tendencies. Further, people have an inherent desire to learn to be social.33 This take on the individual is far more compatible with the notion of individualism as a social theory. Ames contends that the individual does not lose himself in society, but rather discovers a better self through service: “It is in the fellowship of mutual service that men are losing their narrow and lesser selves and finding their larger and diviner selves.”34 The lesson learned is that individualism as a social theory requires involvement with and service

INTRODUCTION TO INDIVIDUALISM

11

to society. The group is not a threat to individuality; thus it follows that society and societal involvement are not a threat to individualism.35 On the contrary, society defines and protects it. This higher individualism is really far more compatible with the classical conservative conception of the individual than the liberal one, as Ames characterizes the individual as part of a larger body.36 Given his background in religion, this is not surprising. At the same time, he does manage to maintain some elements of the liberal individual, including the ability to engage in rational thought and learn and benefit from individual experience. From his perspective, rational individuals will recognize a place for themselves in society and will make choices that take society into account (believing that the fate of the individual and society are linked). While Ames does quite a bit to help us understand different ways in which individuals think of themselves and their place in society, he falls short on linking such insight to a more comprehensive social theory.

Individualism, the individual, and society This brings us to a discussion of individualism and the relationship between the individual and society. One’s conception of the individual will impact how individualism is defined and applied as a social theory. What we come to expect from individuals regarding their preferences and aptitudes shapes what we think they will need and want from a societal arrangement. Contemporary theorists such as Michael Sandel have argued that individualism has become a rights-based philosophy, but it is how one perceives these rights that impacts how the philosophy is applied. We can think of individual needs in terms of rights, but which individual preferences do we have a right to? Which are merely wants that we need to individually fulfill? To what extent does/should society help us realize these rights and protections for them? How best can society do this? In order to pursue this line of questioning, we must reject the possibility that one would choose to remain an “elemental” individual, one who is concerned with himself to the complete exclusion of any social interests or desires. This animalistic conception of the individual is far more compatible with how one would behave in the state of nature. While it is useful in understanding the internal struggles individuals face once they have decided to become social, we must assume that people in general do choose to move on from it.37 How they move on from it and how they reconcile these natural impulses with a rational and informed desire to engage in society are entirely separate considerations. From a liberal perspective, we agree both on the need for a state to provide safety and security to the individual and on the need for those powers to be limited in order to protect the individual. If we regard individualism as

12

Individualism in the United States

a theory of society, then we can see the inherent debate on the topic: what is the relationship between the individual and society that maximizes individual rights, promotes the well-being of the individual, and allows individual preferences to be honored and promoted in the public realm? Some have offered answers as to how these two entities can most effectively relate, while others have been inclined to think that the contradictions in the underlying theory create an unstable connection at best. What if the very definition of individualism suggests a contentious relationship between the individual and society? First, the relationship between the individual and society can be conceptualized as inherently contradictory. This argument is based on contradictions about the individual that can be traced back to classical liberalism. It is generally agreed upon that the individual’s ability to create a life, government, and society centered on individual rights is dependent on a general acceptance of the equality of man.38 Some conceptions of the individual describe him as being quite self-centered, however. When we try to reconcile this liberal notion of equality with this conception of human nature, we are forced to consider a society that is willing to protect and uphold the rights of others while our natural inclination is to use each other to accomplish our own selfish goals.39 Any suggestion that these self-centered tendencies should be discouraged or overcome suggests a state or society far too oppressive to be compatible with truly classical liberal notions of proper governance. How then can society be a collection of individuals whose identity is completely created by those who comprise it AND at the same time be at odds with the individual?40 How can societal institutions exist when they are completely at the mercy of the individuals who form them, when the individuals supposedly have no obligation or desire to maintain them? These different approaches can be thought of in positive and negative terms, much as how we conceive of liberty in positive and negative terms.41 The “elemental,” or self-interested, individual corresponds with a negative individualism, and the “higher,” other-interested, individual corresponds with positive individualism. As in discussions of liberty, negative and positive are not used here in a normative sense. Rather, we think of negative and positive in terms of the absence or presence of something. In this case, we are looking to find the absence or presence of societal involvement and how that enhances individual rights. Bear in mind that society exists no matter how one conceives of it; it is the relationship the individual pursues with it that is significant here.

Negative individualism Negative individualism has been represented in many ways over the years. Our treatment of the topic here is more snapshot than mural, but the intent is to convey the varying ways that the individual and society have

INTRODUCTION TO INDIVIDUALISM

13

been at odds. Some illustrations of this position include the primacy of individual rights over societal interests, the societal advantage of a selfinterested citizenry, and the benefit of freeing the individual from societal concerns. First, negative individualism as a social theory refers to a society that comprises individuals whose individual rights to private fulfillment supersede any notion of societal obligation.42 This take on individualism implies the ability to separate one’s own needs and the satisfaction thereof from what could be deemed “societal” needs.43 Further, we assume that one is able to achieve private fulfillment independently of anything society might have to offer to this end. The idea that one might compromise (or be asked to compromise) on a personal need or want for the good of others is rejected. Negative individualism does not refer to circumstances in which there are no societal bonds; it simply states that if the needs of the individual and society conflict, the individual takes priority. In principle, this conception of individualism relates the individual to society much as the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause relates the national government to the states: they each have the power to function, but should they come into conflict, the individual (like the national government) will reign supreme. Another way of conceptualizing negative individualism borrows from free market economic theory. Here we can broaden the concept of an economy progressing on the basis of each person pursuing his own good to an entire society progressing. The spirit of individualism is illustrated in the economic theory of Adam Smith. He believed that when each person individually sought what was in his best interest, then the best interest of society would be served as well. This assumes that individuals are always aware of their best interest. Specifically, a good society is one which is made up of unique individuals pursuing that which they believe is good for them individually.44 In both the economic and social versions of this concept, the greater good is not a motivational concern and should not be a motivational concern. The belief is that the greater good will be served when each individual does what is best for him. It is a by-product of self-centered action, though, and not a goal in and of itself. Lastly, negative individualism has focused on the burden that societal concern places on the individual, and the necessity of removing that pressure. This negative individualism places no emphasis on the community and focuses only on individual wants and needs. In his book, Individualism, Steven Lukes claimed that these individual concerns must be addressed for a people to be truly free. Any requirement or expectation that the individual should consider community concerns would decrease that individual’s freedom.45 He argued that a person can be free only when he or she is left completely alone to do whatever he or she wants to do. It is obvious that Lukes advocated for an individualism based on self-interest and for the maintenance of such self-interest in order to preserve liberty and equality as he defined them.

14

Individualism in the United States

Positive individualism On the other hand, we can argue that the individual and his rights are promoted by societal involvement. This is the concept of positive individualism. This conception of individualism is supported by the argument that societal interests should come before individual rights: the role that society plays in helping individuals realize and protect their rights and individual identity, and the connection between the health of the individual and the health of society. First, positive individualism takes a different approach to the individual primacy debate. Philip Brown identifies this approach as “authentic individualism,” and states that it teaches citizens to be interested in the welfare of others. The individual quality of being “other-interested” is the distinguishing factor between positive and negative individualism. It is important that the individuals perceive themselves as pivotal players in the advancement of society’s interests, not just in the advancement of their own interests. Due to such a connection, the services owed to others should be viewed as required, not optional. Brown does not seek to de-emphasize the individual. He only wants to maintain the “other-interest” that is neglected in popular individualism as necessary for society. Brown believes that modern American individualism does not consider the necessity of this responsibility. Specifically, group interests must be given primacy over individual interests, and this shift must be caused by individual initiative for a truly authentic individualism to exist. Second, proponents of positive individualism acknowledge the positive benefits that society can give to the individual, rather than seeing society as an entity that can only hurt the individual. These benefits can be grouped into two categories: the realization of individual identity and the protection of individual rights. The idea that society can provide individual definition and identity is a far cry from the adversarial relationship that negative individualism describes. Here, we do not see society acting as a constraint on the individual, but rather as a facilitator for individual betterment. Society creates the opportunities for individuals to interact with one another, and these interactions carve out a niche for each person. The individual is realized through service to others, and we are preserved as individuals through establishing our place in society.46 The next category of benefits concerns the protection of individual rights, and the role that society plays in providing these protections. Again, society is not perceived as acting contrary to individual activity. It is through involvement in society that one is able to protect one’s individual rights. One could argue that this thinking is similar to that which people use to promote involvement in participatory democracies: one cannot speak up to protect one’s rights if one does not take the opportunities to participate in the political process. Likewise, one cannot hope to defend and speak up

INTRODUCTION TO INDIVIDUALISM

15

to protect one’s individual rights and prerogatives if one withdraws from societal activity. The group does not inhibit individual activity and rights, but rather, engaging in social duties enhances our individual rights.47 Lastly, positive individualism encompasses the view that liberalism and the individualism it promotes—in any form—can only exist in societal circumstances in which major problems and dysfunctions have already been overcome. The success of individualism and the promotion of individual rights are seen as luxuries that can only be realized in circumstances where social problems of safety and security have been addressed and solved.48 Individualism, and the very possibility of individualism, thereby hinges on societal cooperation to first make sure that our basic natural needs for security and survival are met. Once this cooperative foundation is set, it becomes possible to allow individual discretions and freedoms to rise to the fore of a political and social system. These two models of individualism acknowledge that individuals must coexist, but they disagree on the nature of that coexistence. This disagreement has serious implications for the type of state that is in place. If we are in agreement that the legitimate role of the state is to promote the individual, but we disagree on how best the individual’s interests are promoted, then we are certainly going to have a hard time agreeing on the appropriate scope and strength of state power.

Individualism and the state Understanding individualism requires us to consider not just human nature and the relationships that individuals have with one another and society in general. We must also consider the role that the state can and should play in preserving individual rights. The way we define the proper role of the state is going to depend on how we have resolved these other issues. Due to this dependent relationship, there are multiple ways to think of the state. To begin, we must understand what a state is. Then we can explore what obligations, if any, it has to the individual. The state is broadly understood as the administrative organization that has sovereign power over a certain geographic area and that has a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence.49 The definition of a state does not contain any normative components about how best to do this job. Certainly, any consideration given to what the state should do (or not do) to best promote the individual and individual rights builds on the “what” it should do and adds a “how.” Given the definition of the state, however, and the power it possesses, problems can develop with regard to the individual. These possibilities become even more pronounced from the view of negative individualism, which has become the dominant interpretation and application of the concept.

16

Individualism in the United States

The state and individual rights When considering the relationship between the state and the individual, we must consider what the nature of the state is. Since we are talking about individualism and the promotion of the individual, this automatically limits the conceptions of the state we need to entertain. Surely, we can agree without going into much detail that an authoritarian state of any ilk would neither desire to nor strive to protect the rights of the individual. From a liberal perspective, we are not just concerned with the fact that a state provides stability and security; we are also concerned with how this stability and security is provided. This leaves us to consider strong states that conduct themselves according to at least somewhat democratic principles, and contain a number of processes and institutions that facilitate such participation. Even when we limit our analysis to these types of states, we still face the question as to whether the state is better suited to protecting individual rights or to violating them. By definition, even the most democratic state will find it necessary to exercise sovereign power over its citizens and a monopoly over the legitimate means of violence. This leaves us to decide if these characteristics of the state will automatically serve to suppress the rights of the individual, or if they can be used to provide the safety and stability needed to protect individual rights. Can a state (any state) function in a way that promotes individual well-being and supports a society that values individual decisions and preferences?

Preferred states, individualism, and liberty Within the realm of democratic states, there are many ways that a state can use its power. What is considered a legitimate use of power will be based on the type of individualism and liberty that is considered legitimate. For example, going back to negative individualism and negative liberty, we understand a need to let people alone to do what they think is best. Some based this argument on the moral primacy of the individual’s will and others based it on a belief that society would better benefit from a self-interested population. In either event, the preferred state is one that would remain less involved in the daily lives and decisions of its citizens so that this individual discretion could be protected. To this end, laws and regulations that compel us to consider others would be seen as unnecessary at best and oppressive at worst. This version of state development is based on the belief that people need to be left alone to be free. The state needs to provide a basic level of physical safety and security, and then withdraw itself otherwise from the interactions among individuals and groups in society. On the other hand, proponents of positive individualism and positive liberty would envision a very different ideal state that would actively work to promote and compel interaction and consideration for others. Of course,

INTRODUCTION TO INDIVIDUALISM

17

based on the underlying assumptions, the necessity of compulsion would be minimal, as individuals are naturally more other-interested and feel a vested interest in their communities and in society in general. In this case, the preferred state would be one that would work to provide opportunities, and perhaps even requirements, for participation; it would provide more codified standards of behavior to guide individuals to be their best selves, and it would seek ways to compensate for shortcomings of modern democratic and economic processes that may lead to various inequalities among the people. This notion of state development is based on the belief that people need help to be free. The state plays a role in moderating relationships among people and groups of people in society when these individuals and groups do not do what is in one another’s best interest. American history is rife with instances of the state stepping in to do just this. Examples of such action include civil rights legislation passed by Congress and antidiscrimination measures implemented by the bureaucracy. The proponents of positive individualism would argue that these types of intervention are necessary to make sure that each individual is free. Those who choose to discriminate are having their freedoms limited, but that is acceptable since they are rejecting equality, a key assumption behind individualism. A strong state is expected to provide security and stability for its citizens. According to classical liberalism, we expect this to happen in conjunction with protection of the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Both negative and positive individualism promote these ultimate goals of the state, but obviously prescribe very different ways of achieving them. The discussion of the role of the state will come up again when we consider individualism in a historical and changing context.

Understanding individualism in the United States With so many competing definitions and conceptions, it is no wonder that so many people have written on the topic of individualism. The goal herein is to bring many of these ideas together in such a way as to facilitate a greater understanding of American individualism. In the coming chapters, we will build on the basic concepts explored in Chapter 1. We will explore the theoretical foundations of the individual in political thought and explore the ways in which those foundations led to the development of individualistic thought in the United States. This will involve an analysis of the political conditions at the founding and an assessment of what Early American individualism looked like. There is disagreement as to exactly what Early Americans thought of the individual. Some have argued that Americans have always been inherently individualistic, while others have contended that the Founders simply relied

18

Individualism in the United States

on Enlightenment thought to justify the American Revolution with no real thoughts of individualism as we understand it today. Further, the ideological claims made by the Founders can seem less theoretically solid since people for and against revolution relied on many of the same philosophers (e.g. Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, among others) to make their arguments. Others have contended that the American people were quite communal at the outset, and it was only through changes in the nineteenth century that they became persuaded to pursue their own self-interest. In order to understand the nature of these changes, we will consider historical texts by Alexis de Tocqueville, Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and many others. This will bring us to a discussion of modern American individualism and a reconsideration of the role of the state and society in promoting individual rights. We will entertain modern debate on the topic and finish with thoughts on what is in store for the individual in twenty-first-century America.

Questions to consider

1 How do you conceive of the individual? Are individuals naturally

asocial or social? What leads you to believe this? 2 The United States government was formed to provide for the safety, security, and well-being of its citizens without becoming too overbearing in this pursuit. Is it more likely that a government such as this will do more to protect individual rights or to infringe upon individual rights? Why?

Notes 1 For a discussion of the ability of the individual to conceive of himself as an isolated individual, see Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice; John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. 2 Gaertner et al., “In search of self-definition: motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy?” 5. 3 The collective self refers to the way an individual defines himself as a member of a group. The relationship between the individual self and collective self is explored by Gaertner et al., “In search of self-definition: motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy?” 4 These questions are inherently ideological in nature. We will deal with the underlying ideological concepts more thoroughly in Chapter 2. 5 Interestingly, Americans have continually been preoccupied with government intervention to the exclusion of rational concerns regarding the restrictions on

INTRODUCTION TO INDIVIDUALISM

19

the control of one’s destiny originating from other individuals, civil society, or, especially, economic actors. 6 Shea et al., Living Democracy, 342. 7 Patterson, We the People, 10. 8 Greenberg and Page, The Struggle for Democracy, 110. 9 Dye and Sparrow, Politics in America, 26. 10 Sidlow and Henschen, GOVT 6, 11. 11 Dye and Sparrow, Politics in America, 26. 12 Shea et al., Living Democracy, 343. 13 Ibid. 14 Patterson, We the People, 10. 15 Greenberg and Page, The Struggle for Democracy, 110. 16 “Civics (History and Government) Questions for the Naturalization Test,” US Immigration Services, accessed 9/1/2013, http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ files/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20 Center%20Site/Publications/100q.pdf. 17 Crittenden, Beyond individualism: Reconstituting the Individual Self, 3. 18 See Baumeister et al., “Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem;” Bushman and Baumeister, “Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?;” Rhodewalt and Morf, “On self-aggrandizement and anger: a temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure.” 19 Sedikides et al., “The self-serving bias in relational context;” Stryker and Statham, “Symbolic interaction and role theory.” 20 Gaertner et al., “In search of self-definition: motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy?” 5. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., 5–7. In support of the Individual-Self Primacy theory, they cite supportive evidence which includes the stability and enhancement of the individual self and the role of the individual in evolutionary selection. In support of the Collective-Self Primacy theory, they cite the effect of the group on the individual, the role of the group in evolutionary selection, and the role of the group in providing self-definition. 23 Crittenden, Beyond Individualism: Reconstituting the Liberal Self, 3. 24 Geuss, History and Illusion in Politics, 98. 25 Ibid. 26 Arblaster, The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism, 15. 27 Ames, The Higher Individualism, 3. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., 4.

20

Individualism in the United States

30 Butler, Why Should We Change Our Form of Government? Studies in Practical Politics, 101. 31 Ibid. 32 Ames, The Higher Individualism, 11. 33 Baldwin, The Selected Works of James Mark Baldwin, 18. 34 Ames, The Higher Individualism, 19. 35 Ibid., 10. 36 Ibid., 8. 37 This does not require us to make a decision from a social psychology standpoint as to the natural tendency of the individual. Whether the individual is naturally social or antisocial matters not, if we can agree upon the fact that at some point individuals joined together in a consensual relationship to best provide for their needs and security. 38 Arblaster, The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism, 32. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid., 49. 41 For a detailed discussion of positive and negative liberty, see T. H. Green’s, “Liberalism and Positive Freedom” or Isaiah Berlin’s, Four Essays on Liberty. 42 Crittenden, Beyond Individualism: Reconstituting the Liberal Self, 3. 43 The individual’s ability to distinguish between that which affects the individual versus that which affects society in general should not be confused with the individual’s ability to step outside of himself and act separately from the beliefs and values that he holds. 44 Geuss, History and Illusion in Politics, 102. 45 We will return to this particular conception of individualism in Chapter 6. 46 Ames, The Higher Individualism, 11. 47 Baldwin, The Selected Works of James Mark Baldwin, 16. 48 Geuss, History and Illusion in Politics, 103. 49 Draper and Ramsay, The Good Society, 32.

Further reading Brown, R. Philip. Authentic Individualism: A Guide for Reclaiming the Best of America’s Heritage. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1996. Crittenden, Jack. Beyond Individualism: Reconstituting the Liberal Self. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Geuss, Raymond. History and Illusion in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Lukes, Steven. Individualism. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Merriam, Charles. American Political Ideals. New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1969 (1920).

chapter two

Foundational individualism

Chapter summary In a historical context, the interest of the individual has not always come first. In fact, the theories that originally supported this primacy were at once challenging, inspiring, and frightening at the time they were conceived. There are a number of historical, social, and religious factors that set the stage for this development. The political ideology that would come to embody the rights and primacy of the individual is known as classical liberalism. Through an exploration of the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, we will develop an understanding of how these theorists conceptualized the individual in nature and in society. Their arguments and rationale provide the theoretical bases for individualism that would be relied upon by those responsible for the American founding. Principal among these arguments are the existence of natural rights for the individual, the natural equality of individuals, and the role of individual consent in establishing a legitimate government.

Chapter objectives

1 To become acquainted with the concept of political ideology.



2 To begin consideration of the topic of individualism as an



ideological concept by way of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. 3 To develop an understanding of the individual and his or her role in nature and society in preparation to relate it to state and society building in the United States.

Our approach to the study of American individualism is much like assembling a puzzle. The concept is far too complex to take in if we try to

22

Individualism in the United States

look at the entire picture all at once. Now that we have established what individualism means and how the concept and related terms are defined, we have to evaluate and understand the political theory that inspired it. We are taking another step closer to understanding American individualism by understanding the ideas that inspired the Founding Fathers. Individualism is grounded in a particular body of ideological thought. The term ideology originated during the time of the French Revolution, and is specifically credited to the Enlightenment intellectual Antoine Louis Claude Destutt, Comte de Tracy.1 Though many people have defined ideology, the general view is that an ideology is a set of ideas or beliefs about human nature, social relations, government, and politics. The ideology that promotes the individual and identifies the individual as the core unit of any society is known as classical liberalism.2 Classical liberalism was the first ideology to be developed, and its main premises are individual rights, limited government, and consent of the governed. As we will see, each of the liberal theorists studied here takes on these issues and deals with them in his own unique way. Some of these approaches will seem to predict in large part how the Founders would ultimately proceed, while some of the theory simply serves as a foundation for others to build upon. In any event, these attempts at explaining the individual and the significance of individual actions are quite relevant to our pursuit. When we talk about the acknowledgment of the individual and individual human nature, it is important to be clear on why this is important and what exactly it is we are talking about. Certainly, people of any ideological persuasion will agree that people are physically separate, and that we each have our own bodies that we individually control. What we do not agree upon, however, is whether that power should be checked or controlled. Do individuals have a right to autonomous control? If so, where does it derive from?3 Are people smart enough to use it wisely? Do individuals care about others? If not, should they be made to? To what extent does the good of the group grow from or depend on individual actions? To what extent does the good of the individual depend on the wellness of the group? Through the Middle Ages, these questions were easy to answer, as conformity and ascribed status were the dominant social, religious, and political features of European culture. This order would eventually be upended by a variety of factors and changes, and this social and political shake-up would open the door to a renewed consideration of these questions.4

Early classical liberal thought In order to gain an understanding of what early classical liberal thought consisted of, we would be wise to consider the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes is thought to be the

FOUNDATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM

23

earliest of the liberal theorists, writing while in exile from England in the 1600s. Locke also wrote in the 1600s and built upon Hobbes’ theory, while Rousseau came along some time later in the 1700s. Despite the times and conditions these theorists were writing in, they all seemed to gravitate to the same core debates: Is man naturally social and/or political? Is foundational individualism morally neutral? Is individualism inherently atomistic or can the individual maintain the integrity of his or her identity in a social context? The early classical liberals developed a very specific form of individualism. For thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, individualism was first and foremost a morally neutral condition that presented the problem from which political theorizing began. Individualism is the basic condition of the state of nature in early liberal thought. But it is only a condition; it is not, in itself, a problem or a goal. It is this historical conception of individualism that inspired the political individualism of the American Founding. In order to understand this individualism, and ultimately understand how far we have moved away from it, we must go straight to the sources.

Thomas Hobbes Born in 1588, Thomas Hobbes lived his life during a time of great political and social upheaval. He worked as a tutor and an intellectual and associated with people of influence and relevance during a time when the legitimacy of the British government was being challenged.5 In fact, he went into exile during the English Civil Wars to preserve his own personal safety. Interestingly, what was controversial about Hobbes’ theory was his opposition to divine right,6 and not any particular emphasis on individuallevel rights. While Hobbes is relied upon, in modern times, for his support and defense of the individual, his views on statecraft actually seemed to be more sympathetic to the British crown at the expense of the individual citizen. In Leviathan,7 Hobbes does not begin with the topic of individuals but rather with the creation of “that great leviathan called a commonwealth, or state.”8 His primary concern is state building. However, the individual is important to Hobbes’ theory in that his state is created by a covenant of individuals. As a result, Hobbes is compelled to create an extensive theory of human nature to support his theory. This is because the condition of human nature, as in all social contract theories,9 is the foundation on which Hobbes builds his solution. That is to say, he develops a theory of governance based on how he thinks people naturally are and what they need. His take on the individual is “this is how it is” not “this is how it should be.” He actually finds the natural human condition to be problematic, because it leaves people in a constant state of violent selfcenteredness. Hobbes has been thought by some to be a defender of individual rights, and it is easy to understand why one might think this. His theory of

24

Individualism in the United States

governance and society rests on the individual autonomy that we each have. However, he did not truly advocate for the individual. His argument was not to create a state to support the individual’s rights and freedoms. Rather, he believed that because human beings are of a pronounced individualistic character, state and society must proceed accordingly. In Leviathan, Hobbes was not directly advocating for a world centered on the individual, but rather constructing a theory of society and a social contract based on the existence of the individual condition. In doing so, he had to deal with human nature and the natural condition of man. This is where we find his observations of the individual and the individual as the base unit of society. A world of free and equal individuals is not a goal to which Hobbes aspires; it is a set of circumstances to escape what Hobbes famously described as a war of all against all, a condition without security or the economic benefits of society, of fear and violence, in which life is, “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”10 Moreover, this individualism is by definition amoral, for in the state of war, that is man’s natural condition, actions are not moral or immoral. Justice and injustice “are Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude.”11 It is from these conditions that the commonwealth emerges in Part II of Leviathan, and the characteristics of the polity emerge not in relation to an attempt to preserve the characteristics of the world of solitary individuals but to prevent them from re-emerging. Though Hobbes is clear in his critique of this natural condition, there are many human characteristics he identifies that support and justify an early individualism. His theory of governance is not compatible with what the American Founders would ultimately settle upon, but his ideas about human nature would create a very suitable foundation. Included in the characteristics Hobbes identifies are humans’ capacities for knowledge and reasoning, their ability to consent, their love of competition, and the natural equality that exists among individuals. First, Hobbes identifies in human beings a capacity for reasoning and the ability to acquire knowledge through experience and demonstration. For Hobbes, the act of reasoning is one that “is nothing but reckoning, that is adding and subtracting, of the consequences of general names agreed upon for the marking and signifying of our thoughts . . .”12 Through reasoning, individuals are able to manipulate the information they receive and observe and then arrive at an answer. We can do this alone, which Hobbes would call marking, or we can do this in concert with others, which Hobbes refers to as signifying. In any event, we can actively accumulate and process information, which gives us significance as individuals. Additionally, Hobbes gives value to the conclusions that we each arrive at: “Knowledge, then, is an individual possession, which each of us can secure for himself or herself.”13 That is to say, one reasonable decision is not necessarily “right,” and the results of others’ reasoning could vary, yet represent an equally legitimate conclusion. Because of this equality of ideas among individuals, he suggests that an outside judge might be required if a resolution is necessary.14 Though this

FOUNDATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM

25

relationship among men can grow complicated, Hobbes’ acknowledgment of it is evidence of the capabilities, and the importance he sees, in the individual in relation to others. The legitimacy of one’s reasoning holds up in the face of dissenting opinions. In addition to acknowledging this capacity for reasoning, Hobbes sees value in the individual’s ability to gather knowledge through investigation. Again, we see Hobbes acknowledging both the importance of the ability to do this and the value of each individual observation. For Hobbes, the purpose of reasoning is to investigate the conclusions of others, rather than accepting them at face value. He is critical of those who might choose to merely believe what others have concluded, and believes that individuals ought to engage in this type of information gathering and analysis so that they might truly know for themselves.15 This indicates a belief that individuals are capable of such analysis, and that each and every challenge to a previous conclusion is legitimate.16 According to Hobbes, there is no such thing as an absolute conclusion or absolute knowledge, and so there is a value and necessity in the continual individual pursuit of information.17 A second human capability that Hobbes identifies that supports the significance of the individual is the human’s ability to consent to governance and the authority that the consent creates. In Leviathan, Hobbes speaks of a state of nature, in which man can live free from governmental power and societal constraint. However, Hobbes does not believe that this is a happy way for man to live. He believes that the creation of a political commonwealth is the answer to this dangerous and unstable condition. Hobbes defines a political commonwealth as “the multitude so united in one person.”18 This commonwealth is created when each person bestows his or her “power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will . . .”19 The reason a person would be willing to give up his or her power and will stems from Hobbes’ belief that only a common sovereign power can effectively provide security and safety for a population. There are two features of this situation that are important from the individualistic perspective. First, the individual is free to give or to not give this consent. Certainly, Hobbes believes that individual reason would lead one to give consent in order to escape the harsh violence of the state of nature. However, the choice is still left to the individual. The concept of consent for Hobbes is implicitly individualistic.20 Second, the sovereign has authority only if the individuals are willing to yield it to him or her. Power and will naturally exist with the individual. In order for a sovereign to have the power to act for others, the latter must empower him or her to do so.21 This transfer must take place in order to create a political commonwealth led by a sovereign ruler, and the transfer must take place in a manner that is voluntary for it to be legitimate. Connected to the concept of consent is the subsequent role that obligation plays in maintaining the stability of the commonwealth. Though consent is

26

Individualism in the United States

technically an act of submitting to another power, it is still a choice that one is free to make or not make. Thus, the ensuing obligation an individual has is also the result of choice. According to Hobbes, “there [is] no obligation on any man, which ariseth not from some act of his own.”22 Further, Hobbes does allow the individual to retain the power of self-preservation even after he or she has transferred his or her power to the sovereign. He or she cannot be made to hurt himself or herself or his or her interests, or to go to war, and may retain the right to defend himself or herself.23 Of course, the sovereign may exact punishment based on these actions. The significance here is that the individual always has the choice to obey or to not obey. There may be consequences for disobedience, but the individual still has the choice. A third human capability that Hobbes identifies that supports the significance of the individual is the human’s desire for power and love of contention. Hobbes makes many observations about how people live together and what factors contribute to this dynamic, which can be as collaborative as it can be contentious. He refers to these qualities as “manners.”24 First, he believes that man sees an inextricable link between the individual possession of power and the ability to provide a certain standard of living for himself. There is no notion here that the individual could or should rely on others to provide this for him or her. The more power one has, the more likely one will be able to consistently and continually provide oneself with the things one wants. Therefore, one can never truly amass enough power.25 This natural tendency toward self-preservation further bolsters the case for the individual. Additionally, Hobbes identifies man’s inherent love of contention, which arises from his competitive nature.26 Individuals naturally pit themselves against one another in an attempt to gain as much as they can with regard to material goods, power, honor, etc. We know that Hobbes believes that individuals can and will reason themselves out of this situation when the opportunity presents itself, but it is because of this dynamic that an alternative arrangement becomes necessary. A fourth human capability—or condition, rather—that Hobbes identifies is the existence of a natural equality among individuals. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable.”27 Hobbes allows for diversity of capability, and acknowledges that we are not all exactly the same. These differences, however, are not substantial. Further, based on our equality and our capacity for reasoning, we naturally have a right to everything.28 It is only after we enter into society that we yield that right, though that again is a choice that is based on individual will and reason. There are many components of Hobbes’ thought that ultimately run counter to what we consider as classical liberalism. Certainly, the notion of an absolute ruler (no matter how he or she got his or her power) does not

FOUNDATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM

27

jibe with later notions of individual rights and individual will. However, Hobbes makes many provisions for the individual in his writings. He acknowledges the power of the individual, the significance of individual choice and will, and the individual as the source of all legitimate political authority, no matter how it ultimately manifests itself.

John Locke John Locke was born in England in 1632. Though his education was in medicine and much of his professional life was spent working as a medical doctor, he became active in writing on government and politics later in life after he became the personal physician of a politician. Locke spent time in exile when he was suspected of subversive activity against the British government. Like Hobbes, Locke was not trying to prescribe an ideal type of governance to preserve the individual. Rather, Locke was describing the individual and assessing his capabilities so that he could arrive at the most suitable and legitimate form of governance for the individual. His treatment of the individual was thus incidental to his theory of social relations and legitimate governance, though this fact does not diminish the significance of his assessment of the individual for our study. Locke has a very different approach to the individual and to his condition in the state of nature. He tries to preserve some of the more redeeming characteristics of the individual in the state of nature, but nonetheless is far more concerned with the problem of legitimate authority in such a natural condition. Like Hobbes, Locke believes that the latter is the fundamental problem of political power. He begins his Second Treatise29 with the need to legitimate political authority when there is by nature no such authority. Having disposed of the theory of divine right in the First Treatise, Locke must then address how to provide order to a people otherwise disposed to anarchy. This means he must find a solution to the problem of political legitimacy.30 It is for this purpose that Locke examines the state of nature. When he describes humans as in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man,”31 he is establishing the basic conditions from which any legitimate political authority must arise. He describes an individual who is free to do what he or she likes and is able to own or possess property. This individual need not consult with others regarding these privileges nor does his or her enjoyment of these privileges depend on anyone else. Locke’s individual in the state of nature is far more accountable to himself or herself and others than is Hobbes’. Locke’s view of the individual is distinct from Hobbes’ in that the individual is constrained even in the state of nature by substantive moral

28

Individualism in the United States

bounds (i.e., the laws of nature), and it is from these that the force compelling humanity toward government arises.32 For Locke, man naturally lives under laws. The deficiency in the state of nature is that there is no consistent method to apply the law that is free from the passions of those involved. Each individual is expected to be the “executioner of the law of nature,” which suggests inconveniences presented by the partiality of people who are judges in their own cases. There is then wisdom in consenting to establish a neutral political authority, which will adequately protect the rights that individuals have under the laws of nature, by specifically giving up these rights.33 Though this makes sense, the only way that power and authority can be legitimately granted to the state must be through individual will and consent. Whatever may be the state of humanity in the state of nature, and whatever rights the individual may have to execute the laws of nature, entering into a political community fundamentally transforms these into a new set of rights and obligations. The act of forming a government is a surrendering of one’s natural liberty, a giving up of power to the community.34 The extent to which the characteristics of humanity in the state of nature are maintained in political society is largely determined by how the society is formed. What concerns us here, however, are these characteristics of humanity. Locke’s conception of human nature and the capabilities of the individual are critical in further establishing the significance of the individual in classical liberal thought. In fact, it is Locke who would ultimately have great influence over founding era political ideas. Among the many characteristics and conditions Locke identifies that are supportive of individualism, we find the existence of natural equality among men, the inability to yield control of one’s self to another (people must remain separate from others and under their own control), the individual’s capacity for reasoning (demonstrated by an acknowledgment that it is not acceptable to harm one another), the existence of natural rights, individual labor as a source of value and means for gaining private property, the role of consent and establishment of a social contract, and the notion of political society as a compact among individuals. Taking a similar approach as Hobbes, Locke argues that in order to understand what constitutes legitimate political power, we must first understand what people are like and what they are prone to on their own: “To understand political power right . . . we must consider, what state all men are naturally in.”35 To this end, Locke provides us with many thoughts about the capabilities of man outside of society and formal governance. First, Locke believes that people live in a state of natural equality with one another.36 All people are essentially cast from the same mold. We are all physically comparable. We all have the same potential and capabilities and awareness. Therefore, we are all entitled to the same level of power and authority over ourselves and the world around us, “no one having more

FOUNDATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM

29

than another.”37 This belief in natural equality is significant in protecting the individual from potential claims and infringements by those around him or her, and it also provides the basis for protecting the individual from himself or herself. This leads us to another assertion that is significant in establishing the autonomy of the individual. No individual has the authority to make claims on another person, nor does any individual have the authority to yield himself or herself or his or her freedom to another: “Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.”38 In an effort to preserve individual autonomy, Locke must theoretically strip the individual of his or her ability to surrender his or her freedom to another. Man is naturally free. Any bond with another of a servile nature cannot be legitimate, for we do not have the authority to create such a bond. Next, Locke contends that individuals are naturally governed by reason. Though in modern times this may not seem to be especially significant, the idea that an individual is capable of reasoning and of making sound decisions without being forcefully compelled to do so is a departure from previous assumptions. Human beings had long been thought to be quite malleable, emotional creatures who were prone to act based more on habit and custom than reason and experience. That Locke argued against these assumptions was very important as it laid the groundwork for a political system in which the people would not be dependent on others for such basic decision-making. In the state of nature, men make decisions based on reason. They understand that, as they are equal with others, they have no claim to make on another. They have no right to subordinate another, nor do they have the right to harm another.39 This is obviously a great departure from Hobbes who believed that men would act primarily on the emotion of fear in order to protect themselves. For Locke, the path to legitimate self-preservation must include a willingness and active effort to preserve the safety of others by not being a threat to others. The only exception that Locke sees to this is in the case of an individual acting contrary to the laws of nature and violating another’s freedom.40 Another element of Locke’s argument that supports the individual is his claim of natural rights, which he discusses in conjunction with the presence of reason. When he refers to the natural inclination toward preservation, it is the preservation of certain individual property that has meaning for him. Specifically, Locke refers to protection of “life, health, liberty or possessions.”41 These natural rights are quite important for the individual in the state of nature, and later under an agreed upon government, because they are inherent in each person. They are not granted by man or government, nor can they legitimately be taken away by man or government. It is the existence of natural rights that makes the state of nature a much more palatable alternative than it appears in Hobbes’ work. This raises the bar for what constitutes a legitimate government, for now the government must promise to protect these rights that man naturally has.

30

Individualism in the United States

Yet another argument we find in Locke’s Second Treatise that supports the value and significance of the individual is in his discussion of labor and private property. Locke believes that each individual has possession of his or her own body, and that this is initially all that is exclusively ours since everything else on earth was given to us in common by God.42 Since we individually have possession of our bodies, we likewise own the labor of our bodies. When we then use our labor to obtain items from nature for our selfpreservation, we make those items our own and they are no longer subject to legitimate claims by others. Once man has “mixed his labor” with anything provided in nature, it becomes his property.43 This is quite empowering for the individual, because it means that we each naturally have the ability to obtain those things provided in common for our survival. It attributes a high level of significance to the value of our individual labor, and our ability to appropriate things as we see fit. This is rooted in man’s natural equality and reason, and is a logical extension of each. Finally, the power of the individual is promoted in Locke’s discussion of the role of consent, the establishment of a social contract, and the notion of political society as a compact among individuals. This is a culmination of many of the factors we have covered so far. Because man is naturally “free, equal, and independent,” he cannot leave or be required to leave the absolute freedom of the state of nature without giving his consent.44 We understand “consent” to mean an “acceptance by the individual of ‘terms’ imposed upon him by society as a condition for his drawing benefits from it.”45 Man’s reason leads him to believe that his security will be best protected and served if he joins in a community with others who are equally committed to the preservation of that security.46 The agreement to give up the freedom man knows in the state of nature in exchange for the protection of natural rights is the essence of the social contract, as described by both Hobbes and Locke. The method by which those protections are delivered varies, of course, as Hobbes thinks the political power should be held by a sovereign who can essentially do whatever he or she thinks is best with no accountability. Locke reserves rights to the individuals, as they have recourse should the government cease to protect their natural rights. The people have a legitimate claim to revolt against such a power. Locke by no means uses the notion of consent to forfeit any of the individual’s naturally existing rights. Any legitimate political society requires the presence of individual consent, but once that consent is granted, the individual retains the right to resist unjust force. Whereas the individual does not naturally exist in a “state of license,”47 he or she does not have the ability to extend such power to another. There are bounds to power in nature, and they exist in consensual society as well.48 Locke leaves no room to doubt the importance of the individual. He provides us with the rationale and assumptions that provide the foundation for his notion of legitimate governance, and it is all based on the natural primacy of the individual.

FOUNDATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM

31

Jean-Jacques Rousseau The tendency to treat individualism as a metaphysical condition (how things are) rather than a moral condition (how things ought to be) is perhaps strongest in Rousseau. As with Hobbes and Locke, his fundamental question is not of the rights of man (as his American protégé Thomas Paine would explore only decades later) but rather whether there is a way for individual freedom and governmental and societal controls to exist in a complementary way.49 Indeed, he states explicitly, in perhaps the most quoted and least understood line from The Social Contract, that his goal is not to free humanity but to find a way to legitimize the social situation people find themselves in.50 Rousseau acknowledges the natural freedom that man is born into, yet we know that man has given that up. He lives in society and is bound to others in a number of ways. Rousseau is not looking to explain how this happened, but rather to explain how it can be an acceptable and defensible condition. Rousseau creates a challenge for those who want to define classical liberalism in strictly rational terms, because he was not overly enchanted with rationalism. If man could use his experience to reason his way to a better condition, then certainly he could reason his way to a worse condition if his information or experience was somehow compromised or incorrect. Due to this possibility, Rousseau focuses more on the “how” of social relations than the “what.” Since people have to live in relation to one another, the question remains of how to do this in a way that preserves the individual most effectively. Rousseau intends to legitimize the chains of humanity on the basis of social order.51 The chains he refers to have the ability to limit the individual with regard to physical and mental activity, and so the individual has to discover how he or she can live in society without realizing these limitations. Both Hobbes and Locke approach the relationship between the individual and society through a thorough discussion of the state of nature, but Rousseau presents the least detailed view of this condition.52 Rousseau’s state of nature is characterized by the absence of any relations. The only reason for leaving that state is that “the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual.”53 This means that the benefits of the freedom of the state of nature do not outweigh the risks. Rousseau speaks for most of the early liberals when he identifies the main problem of entering into association with others: how does one establish a political and social system that is protective of the individual, supportive of a unified group, and able to leave the individual free to make his own choices? This is the fundamental problem to which The Social Contract provides the solution.54 The act of creating legitimate political authority substitutes a new political individual for the free and equal but independent one. These

32

Individualism in the United States

are the terms on which the individuals in question have agreed, because the act of forming a political society necessitates it. The overarching problem of entering into society is the threat this can pose for individual freedom and individual will. The fact that this is Rousseau’s main reservation tells us of the primacy of the individual in his thought, which is our main concern. There are a number of human characteristics that Rousseau identifies in the course of his work that lend support to the political and social significance of the individual. His thoughts on the natural condition of man, the nature of authority, and the origins of individual will are all significant here. First, Rousseau believes that man is naturally free and, “for the most part solitary and independent . . .”55 He acknowledges the individual’s capability and duty to provide for himself or herself. It is man’s natural tendency to do so, and he is especially equipped and knowledgeable in making these decisions.56 Rousseau’s description of man’s natural condition not only acknowledges his natural autonomy, but it also provides the basis for his reasonable nature. The fact that he thinks the individual can and should be trusted to make decisions for himself or herself is notable. This implication further bolsters the case for individual judgment and independence. Rousseau’s individual does not need another’s judgment, as he or she is the one most capable and suitable to make his or her own choices. Even when man feels compelled to make an unwise choice (which Rousseau believes can happen), he can learn the discipline needed to steer away from such choices. Second, Rousseau rejects the existence of natural authority. This is consistent with his views on man’s natural condition. The only possibility of natural authority would be parental authority, but even that ceases once a child grows up: “. . . children remain tied to their father by nature only so long as they need him for their preservation. As soon as this need ends, the natural bond is dissolved.”57 Beyond this limited scope, there is no situation in which an individual could make the argument that he or she is somehow entitled to more power and authority than another, and certainly no situation in which he or she could argue that he or she is entitled to control over another. The idea of having authority over another only has meaning in society, once one has agreed to such a situation.58 Finally, Rousseau’s concept of the state or the sovereign is based upon and reinforces this understanding of the individual. He sees the formation of the state as an act of association in which each individual comes together with others to form an aggregate body in which each member maintains his or her own form. In entering into such a contract, one gives up no more than one gains from others, and ends up stronger by means of the association.59 Individuals make up the state, and therefore, the state retains the nature of the individual. It can do nothing that runs contrary to the good of the individual, because it is completely made of individuals: “. . . as the sovereign is formed entirely of the individuals who compose it, it has not, nor could it have, any interest contrary to theirs . . .”60

FOUNDATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM

33

The individual in political society is inherently connected to the other members of society by the social contract. The central theme of the early social contract is that it makes the acts of the state the acts of each of its individual members. This is most clearly the case for Rousseau, for whom submission to the general will is submission to one’s own will as a citizen. This act concentrates the individualism of the state of nature in a single being. The solitary individuals of the state of nature are politically unified into social individuals whose mere membership in the society binds them to each other, not simply through the necessity of interaction or a common self-interest but as common rulers of themselves and of each other. Rousseau’s contentions and assumptions about the individual and his or her nature provide support for the individual’s primacy in nature and society and for the individual as the source of political legitimacy.

Synthesis and conclusion In Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, we find many common threads. There are repeated claims for the existence of natural equality, the value of individual judgment, and the presence of reason. In each case, the author in question is building the case that the solitary individuals of the state of nature become politically unified into social individuals. For Hobbes, it is in the person of the sovereign that individuals are united.61 For Locke, the will of the majority takes the place of the general will, but the principle remains that obedience to the state is obedience to one’s self, the actions of the commonwealth being “his own judgments, they being made by himself, or his representative.”62 For our purposes, we find value in these arguments as they set the stage for the development of individualism as a unique ideological concept. It may not have been what these authors were working toward, but their reliance on the individual as a component of their political theories is, and has been, a source of political significance to many. The individualism of the early classical liberals that influenced the American founding is to be understood as a metaphysical characteristic of humanity in a state before government. This individualism is the basic condition from which political society emerges, and necessitates the creation of a particular form of society through the institution of the social contract. To be sure, that contract exists to serve a particular purpose, and to varying extents establishes certain protections for individuals who have joined the contract: the duty of the sovereign to preserve society against a return to the war of all against all as in Hobbes or to protect the basic property rights of each individual under the laws of nature as in Locke. Like Locke himself, many later theorists working within this framework would develop extensive arguments for procedural rights that ensure that citizens can fully exercise their right to participate as members of the governing body. But neither set of rights can be fully understood as rights that have carried over from the

34

Individualism in the United States

state of nature; they are consequences of the act of contract that ends the state of nature, and with it the natural individualism that is antithetical to political society. The individual remains the conceptual center of politics but is constrained by the need to make political society function.

Questions to consider

1 In formulating their arguments, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all



rely upon the idea of a pre-social condition known as the “state of nature.” Do you think this is a useful construct in discussing and determining the origins of social and political institutions? Why or why not? 2 All three authors emphasize the human capability for and reliance upon reasoning as a justification for individual autonomy and a source of political legitimacy. Do you think that individuals are inherently reasonable—do we consistently learn and improve based on experience and observation? Why or why not?

Notes 1 For a brief but comprehensive article on the origins and progression of ideology as a concept, see Terrell Carver’s article “Ideology: Career of a Concept.” 2 Classical liberalism should not be confused with notions of modern American Liberalism. Most mainstream American political ideals fall within the spectrum of classical liberalism, even those identified with modern American Conservatism. These modern terms will be discussed more in later chapters. 3 That is to say, is nature the source of the individual autonomy? Does someone have to grant it to us? 4 For a historical overview of the Protestant Reformation, see Balsama and Friedman, The Crisis of Reformation. 5 For a more detailed description of Hobbes’ experience, see the Introduction to Leviathan written by Richard S. Peters. Though he authored several works on political theory, he is best known for the Leviathan. Many of its provisions have been challenged over time, but it stands as a relevant and thorough approach to state building, society formation, and the nature of man. 6 Also known as the divine right of kings, this is an absolutist theory that claims monarchs get their authority directly from God. This makes it impossible for them to be challenged without it being a challenge to God. Based upon this theory, kings are not accountable to the people. They have absolute sovereignty, or ultimate governing authority, over all. 7 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1962 (1651).

FOUNDATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM 8 Hobbes, Leviathan, 19. 9 Social Contract theory is a subset of political philosophy that deals with the relationship between individuals and society. The main idea is that people give up something (usually some degree of freedom) in exchange for a set of protections (which we think of in terms of stability). 10 Hobbes, Leviathan, 100. 11 Ibid., 101. 12 Ibid., 41. 13 Ryan, “Hobbes and Individualism,” 87. 14 Hobbes, Leviathan, 42. 15 Ibid. 16 Hobbes further contends that, in the absence of individual thought and exploration of others’ ideas, people are demonstrating faith in the people giving them the information rather than true knowledge of the information that they have received (58). 17 Hobbes, Leviathan, 56. 18 Ibid., 132. 19 Ibid. 20 Ryan, “Hobbes and Individualism,” 82. 21 Ibid., 95–6. 22 Hobbes, Leviathan, 164. 23 Ibid., 164–5. 24 Ibid., 80. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid., 81. 27 Ibid., 98. 28 Ibid., 103. 29 John Locke, Second Treatise of Government. BN Publishing, 2008 (1698). 30 Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 11. 31 Ibid., 13. 32 These laws of nature should not be confused with Hobbes’ natural laws. 33 Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 69. 34 Ibid., 70. 35 Ibid., 13. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., 25. 39 Ibid., 14. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid.

35

36

Individualism in the United States

42 Ibid., 27. 43 Ibid., 28. 44 Ibid., 77. 45 Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, 134; Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 91–2. 46 Keep in mind that when we reference security and the ultimate ends of man and government, we are talking about the preservation of natural rights—life, liberty, and property. 47 Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 14. 48 Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, 143. 49 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract. New York: Penguin Books, 1968 (1762), 49. 50 Rousseau, The Social Contract, 49. 51 Ibid., 50. 52 See Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality for his treatment of the state of nature. 53 Rousseau, The Social Contract, 59. 54 Ibid. 55 Noone, Rousseau’s Social Contract: A Conceptual Analysis, 9. 56 Rousseau, The Social Contract, 50. 57 Ibid. 58 Noone, Rousseau’s Social Contract: A Conceptual Analysis, 13. 59 Rousseau, The Social Contract, 61. 60 Ibid., 62. 61 Hobbes, Leviathan, 135. 62 Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 69.

Further reading Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. New York: Touchstone, 1962 (1651). Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. London: Cambridge University Press, 1988 (1698). Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. New York: Penguin Books, 1968 (1762).

Chapter three

The individual in colonial America

Chapter summary In order to appreciate the impact of the ideological development of individualism in the United States, one must make some baseline observations of what people were like during the colonial period, before the American Revolution. This chapter explores what colonial Americans were like with regard to the role of the individual, and if there was anything particularly individualistic about this time period as to make this growing society ripe for further individualistic development. We will evaluate the competing claims that have been previously made about the nature and lives of colonial Americans, along with the evidence in the historical literature, in order to arrive at the conclusion that colonial Americans were not particularly individualistic people.

Chapter objectives

1 To explore and understand the nature of the American colonial

experience. 2 To identify and evaluate the debate in the literature regarding the individualistic nature of colonial Americans. 3 To identify and explore the cultural and regional factors that shaped colonial attitudes regarding the individual and individualism.

In modern times, the relationship between individualism and the United States can seem so natural, so obvious that it need not be questioned. The

38

Individualism in the United States

emphasis on individual rights, autonomy of the individual, and individual accountability is so engrained in the American political socialization process that it would be easy to just assume that those emphases developed organically and seamlessly, if not instantaneously, upon the individual’s setting foot on North American soil. It has been argued that this American experiment has been exceptional since its infancy.1 Others would caution the student of American politics and American history against jumping to this conclusion without a proper investigation of colonial life.2 There are two main reasons why one might presume that the colonists and Early Americans would have been naturally inclined toward an individualistic ethic. First, we tend to let the image of unity surrounding the American Revolution project backward onto a politically unified and consistent colonial citizenry. The Revolution certainly served as a rallying point and source of political unification for many colonial Americans. In our studies, we might just assume that colonial America was a “nursery” for the infant political system that would grow up to be the United States.3 Second, as Americans have become increasingly invested in classical liberal ideology, the temptation has grown to modify our history to be consistent with that ideology.4 Over time, we have shifted the attention off the illiberal components of the colonial era (e.g., the displacement/ removal of the indigenous population, the establishment and growth of slavery, the power and influence of the community, and concern for the group), and focused on the “industrious individuals” who just wanted to make it in a tough new world.5 The question then arises as to how justified or reasonable these tendencies are. Have historians and political scientists rewritten history to make it more concordant with our modern ideological realities? Our approach to individualism requires an understanding of the underlying theory, but we must also take a moment to consider how receptive an audience these theorists would have had in colonial America. That is to say, would the colonists’ beliefs and lifestyles have been compatible with the tenets of individualism? Before we proceed, I must offer one disclaimer: our discussion is limited to European-American colonists. Work has been carried out on the social and family structure of the indigenous population and the African slave population, but these dynamics arguably would not have been pervasive or influential cultural forces during this era since these groups were excluded from the social structures that shaped the dominant characteristics of American political culture. The importance of individual rights to classical liberalism and to the founding in general is understood. We will explore in the chapters to come how it has grown and changed. What we do not want to do is assume that individualism was always a natural fit. This assumption is not justified, and it robs us of the opportunity to truly understand and explore how the concept has developed over time.

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

39

The nature of the American colonial experience When the people of one era become historically detached from those of another era, it can become all too easy to generalize past experiences into one coherent truth. The commonalities of a people become more obvious and the differences can fade into history. However, what if the differences were what mattered? What if the differences among the people were what shaped them?6 What if, rather than representing one coherent truth, the colonies formed a rather “incoherent whole?”7 In this case, we could be missing out on some key information on and insights into a people and a time. We will resist this urge toward simplicity. Any sentence that begins with “The colonists believed that . . .” should probably give us some pause. Which colonists? Where? When? Says who? It is with this concern in mind that we proceed. If we can agree that the colonial experience was not universal in nature, then we cannot simply say that “yes, colonial Americans were individualistic and so further adoption of individualistic ideals and practices makes perfect sense” or “no, they were not and no, it does not.” In order to develop a better understanding of this topic, we must consider various times and various places during the colonial era. Only then can we establish with any certainty when the attachment to individualism began in earnest. There are three main factors that make generalizing about the colonists problematic: variations in culture, experience, and time period. First, there were many cultural influences at work during this era. The colonists themselves were of quite diverse backgrounds.8 People settled in the colonies from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Scotland, Switzerland, Sweden, and the Netherlands, to name just a few countries. These people settled in the colonies for economic and/or religious reasons, and were motivated by these varying interests upon their arrival. The tendency to settle together in culturally dominated communities created areas that maintained the customs and traditions of that particular heritage and nationality. For instance, the concentration of Dutch and Swedish settlers in New York and Delaware would create a much different cultural experience than one would have in Spanish-dominated Florida.9 Second, what we think of as the colonial era in American history was a time of great change and varying experience.10 These colonial experiences varied on the basis of geography, climate, and location.11 A more rugged landscape and harsher climate would discourage colonists from venturing too far from their town center for want of safety and resources. Living in close proximity to one another was conducive to building and maintaining communal bonds. Conversely, a more temperate climate and landscape would enhance the possibilities for self-sufficiency and reduce the need for nearby neighbors. People who were able to live and survive farther from

40

Individualism in the United States

town would automatically have fewer bonds and require less from others. The experiences that the colonists had depended a great deal on the land upon which they lived, whether they were in the towns or worked as farmers, and how much they were compelled to intermingle with others on the basis of where they lived.12 The colonies themselves were formed for a host of reasons, including a desire to create experimental religious refuges, to generate shareholder profit, and for personal benefit.13 The type of colony one lived in would greatly determine the nature of one’s existence there. For instance, in the 1600s, those who wanted the benefit of living in religiously oriented communities were likely to settle in a New England colony, while the economic opportunities found in tobacco cultivation in the Middle Colonies were appealing to others.14 In both circumstances, people might have found themselves dependent on others and part of a group, but for different reasons. These differences in motivation would lead to qualitatively different living conditions. Finally, the colonial era is usually discussed in terms of two main time periods: the early colonial era (roughly 1610–1740) and the late colonial era (1740–76). The prevailing ideas and beliefs and influences of the early era are not necessarily the same as the late era, and these differences had a significant impact on the role and perception of the individual in society. Most of the evidence provided so far comes from the early colonial era when the colonists were still influenced by the reasons that brought them here, be they religious or economic. These early colonists had made the choice to leave, and so they were by nature a group probably more open to and accepting of change and progress.15 At the same time, they felt compelled to recreate in America the religious, social, and political structures that were familiar in European society, which included a focus on the group and obligation.16 As time went on, colonial culture took on its own unique identity and characteristics. While this culture was still informed by its European foundation, the people and their circumstances grew increasingly different from their forbearers and the circumstances in which they had lived. For example, life in seventeenth-century Virginia differed from life in eighteenth-century Virginia. We cannot speak of this as one experience, because the experience of those early settlers was different from those who would come later. Life in seventeenth-century Virginia was quite primitive and difficult, particularly in the early years. Agricultural speculators and those who worked for them arrived for largely economic reasons and lived in a culture that lacked an element of familial and social bonding. Additionally, these early colonists faced much adversity, including rampant disease, malnutrition, and interpersonal conflict.17 The experience of the Virginia Company in the early seventeenth century was rife with violence between the colonists and the local indigenous population and among the colonists themselves.18 The people were vulnerable in many ways, and this

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

41

vulnerability created an experience peculiar to this era. It was not until much later that life would settle into some sort of coherent and sustainable order. With the growth of the population, the establishment of towns, and the incorporation of and growth of family, church, and community, the life of the individual grew far better and more secure. The violence that occurred between the colonists and the native population also decreased in this region, as the Native Americans were driven farther westward by colonial expansion. Clearly, there was a great deal of variation in the colonial experience. Despite this, scholars from a variety of disciplines have attempted to explain the nature of these people and how they related to one another. Unfortunately, they have not agreed on much as a result of this research.

Did colonial Americans value individualism? There is tension in the political science, history, and sociology literature regarding the notion of individualism in colonial America. Highly influential work by Seymour Martin Lipset and others has created the impression that liberal individualism as we understand it today was quite prevalent in the colonial era among the elites and the masses. However, Lipset’s work on American exceptionalism does not really address pre-Revolutionary conditions. It would be folly to assume that an adherence to individualistic principles at one point in time implies that a people have always adhered to them. In fact, critics of this assumption have argued that it just does not line up with the actual lifestyles of most colonial Americans.19 Further, there could be danger in applying modern definitions to old ideas. To enhance our study of the development of individualism in the United States, we will take the opportunity to borrow from historians who have studied the colonial era. Our goal in this endeavor is to see if we can detect elements of individualism before the American Revolution and the subsequent founding of the United States. In many ways, this is easier said than done. Scholars have approached this topic from many different angles, which creates challenges for the student of individualism. Some have written about the colonial era as if it were a homogenous time period with a homogenous people that we could consider in the most general of terms. Other research breaks this era in American history into different time periods that display significantly different types of social and cultural behavior.20 Other work considers different regions of the colonies and the varying conceptions of the community and the individual that existed.21 Taking all these sources of variation into consideration, we must inquire about the presence of individualism among colonial Americans. The main issue that drives this question is based on the formalization of individualistic

42

Individualism in the United States

habits and institutions subsequent to the colonial era. The assumption that challenges us is that American individualistic institutions must have derived from colonial individualistic passions and tendencies. For instance, both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights advocate for individual rights and arguably serve as the foundations for a rights-based system.22 The formal inclusion of such rights at this early and significant point in American history suggests to some that the groundwork must have been established during the colonial era. This is the assertion that we must deal with here. There are essentially three possible answers to the question of whether or not colonial Americans valued individualism: yes, always; no, never; and not at first, but eventually yes.

Yes, always There is one possible answer to this question: yes, Americans have always embraced some conception of individualism from the earliest of the colonial days. When we think of the concept of settling in a new place and seeking out new opportunities, the presence of an individualistic ethic does not seem too far-fetched. In fact, we might consider the drive for individual betterment one of the considerations of the early colonists, particularly those who settled here for financial gain or reputation. The argument that colonists were individualistic from an early time is based on three ideas: (1) colonial culture was always distinct from European culture; (2) feudalism was absent23; and (3) anticollectivist sentiment was rooted in religious determination. First, colonial individualism developed quite easily because colonial culture was inherently different from European culture from the very beginning. Specifically, there was something unique about the colonists that predisposed them to such individualistic passions. Those who chose to settle in the New World shared a number of characteristics that made the possibilities of life seem appealing. Specifically, their attitudes would be naturally less conservative than those who chose to stay behind. For instance, classical conservatives value tradition and stability and accepting and preserving one’s role in society. One who felt particularly strong about these ideas would be less likely to leave that society for an uncertain future in an unknown land with an unestablished society. Alternatively, those who did make the decision to leave would logically be more open to change and believe that they were deserving of a new life, with potential they perhaps did not have in their previous existence. Observations of colonial behavior, dating back to Edmund Burke,24 consistently validate the divergence of this new American culture from its European roots. The evidence of this divergence was observed most easily in the social relations of the colonists, and their willingness to shed class distinctions and limitations that inhibited social mobility in the old world.25 While this was seen by classical

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

43

conservatives (like Burke) as a threat to social order and stability, it was quite consistent with the classical liberalism that was later evident in the founding documents. Second, the lack of a feudal system in colonial America is evidence that there was always the respect for equality and individual rights necessary for individualism to flourish. This point is based on the premise that feudal relations only work where there is little to no value placed on individual rights. The logic then follows that when feudal relations are rejected or avoided, it must be because there is recognition of individual rights and equality. If this were not the case, then the colonists would have recreated some semblance of a feudal order in the New World. On the contrary, we could argue that the colonists were highly resistant to this idea, and wanted to create a new social order based on a general belief in humanism and universalism. The absence of feudalism opens the door to a new social and political order based on something other than class, and it introduces the power of the individual to determine what that social and political world will look like.26 The classical liberal conception of the individual would provide the ideological support needed to justify this deliberate shift away from a feudal social order. Third, the colonists were highly influenced by a religious determinism, which rejected collectivist organizations and solutions.27 Religious determinism is the belief that everything that happens to the individual is predetermined by God. A belief in predestination would certainly influence the way an individual perceives his or her choices and would greatly diminish any desire to try to alter that path. It would follow that outside interference in terms of a collective approach to problem solving would be rejected as well. Any such effort would be perceived as an attempt to change that which God has ordained. Through recognizing equality and the importance of the individual’s thoughts and actions in religion, many colonists would have rejected outside regulation of personal matters. They would have preferred individualistic solutions to political problems and a governmental system that would promote individual rights.

No, never Another possible answer to the question of colonial individualism is a simple no. For a number of reasons, scholars have seen no compatibility between colonial life and individualism. The anecdotal evidence and documentation available provides compelling evidence that colonial Americans would not and could not have valued individualism as we understand it today. The individual in colonial times was part of the community in a way that many would struggle to understand today.28 It was not until much later during the nineteenth century that individualism really gained popularity among

44

Individualism in the United States

the masses. In support of this final perspective, we can observe the social limitations on individualistic lifestyles in the colonial era, the tendency we have had in subsequent eras to rewrite history, and the historical compatibility between the individual and the community. There is a plentitude of anecdotal data that speaks of the social and political limitations imposed on those who lived and/or acted alone during the colonial era. In an urban setting, people coexisted in many ways given their close proximity to one another. In a rural setting, life was also defined by relationships and connections with others, though for arguably different reasons.29 Colonists lived together on the basis of familial relations, of course, but were known to live and work together with those outside of their families as well. The family was a very important component of colonial life, particularly in the New England colonies.30 Quite simply put, reputable people did not live or work alone.31 In the absence of obvious family relations, individuals were under social pressure to adopt a group or family and assimilate. There was not necessarily pressure to remain in one place indefinitely, as it was not unheard of for an individual to move on from a family. In the case of a voluntary or involuntary move, however, he or she would then move on to another.32 Individuals, or even couples, who had no connections and no family were seen as socially unacceptable.33 We will talk more about regional differences regarding the individual later, but let us acknowledge now that even in parts of the colonies that were more economically than religiously organized, the model was group based. A unique American social model did develop in the South based on plantation living, but it was still a group-based model.34 Women, in particular, faced limitations with regard to individual autonomy. The condition of women in colonial America was a mixed bag of familial dependence and autonomy dependent on marital status. Married women were in many ways legally prohibited from engaging in political life as individuals. The influence of common law provisions such as coverture made the husband the legal voice of the marriage, thereby stripping the married woman of the ability to speak for herself.35 The only real opportunity a woman had to exercise any legal or political rights was if she was unmarried, as single women had all the legal rights of a man.36 Of course, being an unmarried woman carried with it a host of social limitations, but such a woman was legally much freer than her married counterparts.37 The most ubiquitous representation of individualistic life in the colonial era exists on the frontier. It is here that we find the romanticized notion of the rugged individual beginning his long march to the Pacific. In retrospect, students and scholars may be tempted to see these people as respected and revered for their self-sacrifice and ambition. Upon closer inspection, however, it seems that these frontier folk were not typically held up as an example of anything other than an unwashed, untamed mass of antisocial miscreants.

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

45

The “frontier” settlers were really the only ones who lived outside of communities, and they were viewed quite negatively. George Washington wrote in his journal in 1748 that frontier settlers “were a parcel of barbarians and an uncouth set of people, as ignorant as the Indians.”38 The frontier was seen as a lawless and dangerous place, and the comparative few who chose to live there were viewed with suspicion by the masses that did not.

Rewriting history A source of tension in the literature on liberalism and the American story is the extent to which scholars have projected modern liberal notions onto the past. Historians once assumed the historical American to be liberal, but there has been a movement over the last several decades to debunk that thinking.39 The former set of beliefs could not reconcile modern liberal notions with an illiberal past, thereby eliminating many assumed realities of the colonial era from the official record.40 This recollection failed to consider the “cultural baggage” of the settlers.41 The alternative perspective that has developed contends that rationalism and self-interest, both valued by liberalism, were viewed differently in colonial times. Rationalism was not viewed as being naturally occurring, but as gained and derived from education. Self-interest was viewed as a “lamentable human failing.”42 As social historians tried to uncover the facts of true colonial life, they discovered the “power of community.”43 If the colonial reality of the individual differs greatly from the stories we have come to believe about the colonists, why would this discrepancy in accounts occur? It has been traced to the human tendency to reconcile conflicting ideas. In this case, rather than changing their understanding of the facts, people have come to change the facts. A collectivist and communal past would seem a poor foundation for an individualistic society, and so the temptation has persisted to remake the foundation.44 Progress and change are also easier to understand and embrace by weaving liberalism into colonial history. If one believes in progressivism,45 that view is validated by believing that those who came before believed in it, too. It makes change appear more natural and less intimidating when it can be tied to progress and betterment.46

The community and the individual The colonial record shows that most individuals lived in communities; these communities were culturally unified; and, government regulation and intervention were commonly seen as a valued part of colonial life.47 From this perspective, the tension between the colonial individual and the community is imagined, as these entities are quite compatible and mutually supportive.

46

Individualism in the United States

First, it is estimated that fewer than 10 percent of colonists lived on the frontier in the late colonial era.48 Most people lived in long-established and relatively sophisticated communities.49 Second, there was deeply ingrained cultural value in remaining in and participating in a community. If one’s goal was to accomplish and contribute as much as possible, then that goal would be facilitated by community life.50 Lastly, government regulation and intervention were seen as a path to wellness and stability. This belief was common and pervasive in colonial life, and it persisted through the American Revolution and beyond. Colonial Americans valued their communities and therefore valued any institution or practice that had the goal of protecting and preserving those communities.51 In this regard, intervention was seen as a requirement for the positive enhancement of individual life and not as an infringement.

Not at first, but eventually yes The third possible answer is that the early colonists were originally more communalistic, either out of a moral concern or out of a logistical concern, but grew more individualistic as circumstances allowed them. When the colonists first immigrated and established modes of organization and governance,52 their goals were community cohesion and stability.53 Even if the colonists were somewhat more adventurous and open to new experiences than the average person during this era, it was only natural that they would want to create communities for security and a sense of familiarity. Through settling with like people and creating a sense of community, the colonists could feel safe and established in an unfamiliar place. Much of what the colonists had to do required cooperation, from building homes to growing crops to organizing churches. Behaving autonomously and competitively during these early years would have inhibited societal growth and individual freedom. It was not until much later that the colonial American felt secure enough to support the type of competition and individual advancement we are familiar with in modern times. It eventually developed from a need and desire to build the colonial economy.54 There were a number of economic and social factors that aided this change from a group-based mentality to the individual-centered perspective characteristic of an individualistic society.55 In the absence of a truly unifying colonial experience, the people of this era would have made their way through the changing times at various rates and in response to various stimuli. Historians estimate that a noticeable shift occurred sometime between 1730 and 1740.56 Even as this shift took place, however, the rate and nature of change was as variable as the people and places of colonial America. In fact, it is thought that the American Revolution was the first unifying American experience.57 Before the Revolution, “America was a place, not a people,” so what factors led to the development of this people?58

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

47

The colonists were European by birth or descent, and these old world influences were pervasive for some time.59 The tendencies toward social obligation to others informed their creation and maintenance of the family unit, the church organization, and governmental structure.60 Over time, however, the changing social, economic, and political environment led individuals to perceive weaknesses in these old structures. The weaknesses of these structures were largely related to the obligations they created and the extent to which meeting those obligations took away from one’s ability to meet one’s personal needs and wants. First, the social environment became more uniquely American and began to shed some of the cultural traditions that had been preserved by the early colonists, including obligations to family and elders. Second, increased economic opportunities made it increasingly possible for individuals to become successful outside of the cocoon of their family and community. In the early years from 1610–1740, many colonial individuals’ relationships to their communities were informed by religious values.61 The focus had been on what social and political limitations were needed to control the individual’s negative tendencies. As people became more aware and impressed with their economic potential, the focus began to shift toward freedoms rather than limitations. This new understanding of and desire for economic freedom grew into a desire for political and social freedom as well.62 The idea of working together and sharing the profit or product creates sounds that are much more appealing when one has few prospects for success working alone. However, if one can be successful alone, then these connections can begin to feel limiting. Specifically, one might be concerned about being asked to give more to one’s family or community than one is getting in return. Third, the political environment became increasingly liberal, which placed a premium on the role of the individual. This political development made the social fabric of classical conservatism feel constricting. Obligations and commitments that had not previously been questioned began to be gradually challenged and their vulnerability was exposed.63 The nature of the connections among individuals changed as a result of this. We can observe it through an examination of how colonists bound themselves to one another and how they defined their communities. There had always been an individual and societal need for people to enter into agreements with one another, but that need was served in varying ways over time. In the early colonial era, this need was served through the creation and development of covenantal communities, and in the late colonial era, colonists began to move toward the concept of civil society. Covenantal communities were based on notions of community and obligation, while civil society allowed individuals to separate their interests from those of the greater whole. As colonists settled in the New World, they relied on covenants to bind themselves to one another and to provide order. These “morally-informed agreement(s)” were based on individual consent and respect, and were binding

48

Individualism in the United States

because they were witnessed by God.64 Though these covenants were limiting, the limitations were welcomed by colonists for two main reasons: (1) They ensured a degree of freedom for all by making sure that everyone was living by the same standard and no one would engage in activities that could be detrimental to the freedom of others or to the groups as a whole65; and (2) they provided an internal balance for each person by keeping him or her ever mindful of his or her conscience and never too consumed by his or her own self-interest.66 In a covenantal relationship, the individual’s identity is defined by his association with others. What preserves the integrity of the individual, however, is that this association is by choice, not by birth or compulsion.67 Because these agreements were morally binding and religiously based, they fostered and promoted community involvement and obligation. A major component of these covenants was community service. People were expected to make active contributions to the communities in which they lived.68 These contributions were made even more meaningful when they involved personal sacrifice for the betterment of the community.69 The end result of this participation and sacrifice, and the willingness of community members to engage in such a way, resulted in a unity among the individuals and families who lived there.70 The religious foundation for these covenants served to stabilize communities and individual behavior. The overriding belief, and one grounded in Puritan thought, was that the individual was best advised to always consider the community first and place his or her own needs in a subordinate position. If the individual failed to do this, God would punish the community in this world and the individual in the next.71 This fear led to individual compliance and the growth of strong communities. In the early colonial era, religious influences drove the notion that the individual’s will needed to be tempered by community involvement and individual sacrifice for the community. However, the legitimacy of a covenant depends on voluntary consent. Covenants, by their very nature, acknowledge the individual, for an individual must consent to the agreement for the covenant to be legitimate and binding.72 Though the difficulty of this situation was not realized right away, the individual’s role in creating the covenantal community resulted in a paradox.73 The creation of a covenant presupposed a free and (somewhat) equal individual, but resulted in a community with neither the freedom nor the opportunity to be truly free and equal. What resulted was a notion of individualism that acknowledged the significance of the individual while recognizing the ties that bind individuals together in each community.74 The tension between the individual and community would grow over time and ultimately contribute to the shift from covenantal community to civil society. Part of this shift would require a move away from covenants and toward constitutions.75 It should be said that there is nothing inherently selfserving or individualistic about a constitution. In fact, there is a historic constitutional tradition that is centered on matters of family governance

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

49

and regulation, which was something that the colonists had been very comfortable with early on.76 A covenant is most accurately thought of as a precursor to a constitution. The covenant represents the promises and commitments of the community members, while the constitution lays out the framework and structure of the government. It is quite logical to think that the constitution would be informed by the principles put forth in the covenant.77 The development of a colonial constitutional tradition represented a change in governing format, but it was additional cultural changes that would facilitate the trend toward individualism. The decline of Puritanism and the secularization of communities led away from the community- based component of the covenant. Recalling that a covenant is equal parts moral commitment and individual choice, removing the moral dimension leaves only the individual choice. This secularization was based on the separation of religious and civil authority, and this move became reflected in the documents and constitutionalism of the late colonial era.78 For these colonists, constitutionalism no longer focused on family and personal issues, but rather on public matters and relations. Before this time, the boundaries between the public and private were indistinct. In fact, most matters were considered public in some way.79 As people changed their expectations and behavior to reflect a desire for more well-defined boundaries, their documents changed as well.80 This secularization was necessary to move from the group-based covenantal community to an individual-based civil society, which was formally realized in the founding of the United States.81 While it is tempting to think of this as a drastic move, the individual was always important even in the early covenant tradition. The role and significance of the individual was integral to the success of the covenant. This significance had planted the seeds of individual autonomy long before the conditions became right for them to sprout. It provided the foundation for individuals to ultimately think of themselves as separate entities, rather than just components of a group.82 Secularization created the necessary growing conditions, for it allowed individuals to recognize their own will and interests without fear of reprisal or consequence. This explanation makes sense when we consider the sources of colonial variation discussed earlier. With people arriving from various countries at various times and settling in different places, it does not seem likely that they would all just automatically and instantaneously support an ideological concept so foreign to their experiences thus far. However, this explanation provides a rationale for these Early Americans arriving at a new and common ideology.

Did colonial Americans value individualism? Given the evidence presented, it seems that colonial Americans underwent a transition that opened the door to a more individualistic culture. This

50

Individualism in the United States

transitional explanation is the only one that truly reconciles the colonists’ cultural beginnings with their revolutionary ends. The compatibility of individualism with colonial life cannot be described with the simpler “yes, it was” or “no, it was not” answers. The people and the time were not monolithic by any means, and so an assessment of individualism levels cannot be conducted in such a way as to assume so. Not only is the middle ground more tenable and realistic, but it also allows us to reconcile many of the competing views on this era and what its people were like. It is not reasonable to think that this time was static and devoid of change and adaptation. The transition explanation is the only one that does not force us into a position to defend the claim that it was.

Factors that influenced colonial attitudes toward individualism We have now considered the nature of colonial life and the possible ways in which the colonists’ lives were compatible and/or incompatible with notions of individualism, but what was the nature of the influences on these people? The variety in observations about colonial Americans and the different perceptions regarding individualism provide evidence for at least one certainty regarding this topic: there were many factors that influenced and impacted the colonists’ attitudes toward individualism. When it comes to individualism, there were many competing factors that shaped colonial attitudes with varying results. As in modern times, people are impressionable and the culture, place, and time in which they live will undoubtedly influence their ideas and behavior.

The impact of culture on the colonial individual One such source of influence is culture. We can categorize colonial cultural influence into three main categories: religion, servitude and exploitation, and logistical factors.

The role of religion The colonists brought from their native countries the influence of European social structures such as family and religion. For most of the early colonial era, the way individuals conducted their relationship with others and the community was informed by their religious beliefs.83 Americans recognized the legitimate and necessary role of local religious, familial, social, and governmental forces in limiting, reforming, and shaping the sinful individual.84 This was not seen as a threat to autonomy but rather as a path to freedom from possibly destructive impulses.

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

51

In fact, the religious influence85 led individuals to actually define themselves by their relationships with others. The notion of individual identity was present, but it was closely related to group membership, which included church and governmental involvement.86 The synthesis of the individual and community transcended divisions within Protestantism, and persisted even as the population became more religiously diverse.87 The emphasis on community involvement would impact the expectations and definition of appropriate state involvement in societal problems. It was during the colonial era that the precedent was set for the government to take responsibility for some social problems.88 Examples of social problems addressed using collective solutions during the colonial era include care for the elderly, indigent, and infirm. As families became reluctant to care for their elderly and indigent members, local governments had to step in and set up housing and services.89 These colonial programs are thought to be the precursors to government care for the sick after the founding.90 The influence of the Protestant Ethic seems to run contrary to common notions of individualism. It focuses on the sinful tendencies of the individual acting in his or her own self-interest, and it compels a concern for others and the community. This influence suggests that the individual would be best served by subordinating his or her self-interest to the interests of the group, which could be taken as contrary to individualism. This strain of influence can be credited for establishing and maintaining for quite some time the more communal activities and attitudes that were common during the early colonial era.

The role of slavery, servitude, and exploitation Another factor that shaped and reflected colonial attitudes toward individualism was the condition of slavery, servitude, and exploitation that was present during the colonial era. Settlement of the Middle and Southern Colonies was largely driven by economics and the need for labor. This need was satisfied in a number of ways. First, of course, was the establishment and perpetuation of the African slave trade. This practice was based on the pervasive belief that it was morally acceptable and economically justified to kidnap people living in Africa and take them against their will to the American colonies where they were bought and sold as personal property. In order to further stabilize the supply of labor, it was common for European immigrant laborers to sign extended contracts obliging them to several years of work.91 Though these agreements were initially voluntary and consensual, the relationship between the planter and the laborer (also commonly referred to as the servant) became quite dysfunctional from the perspective of individual rights. The planter reigned supreme over a servant who was comparatively weak in all respects.92 The presence of slavery, servitude, and the exploitation of labor suggests that individual rights were little regarded, if at all. The institution of

52

Individualism in the United States

slavery remains an unconcealable stain on the fabric of American history. The abduction and brutalization of an entire race of people has been well documented and represents, in a particularly horrific way, the rejection of individualism. Conditions were bad even for those who voluntarily came to work in the early years. The planters/masters worked directly for the Virginia Company,93 but others who came to work were at the mercy of these masters. Many of those who came arrived as indentured servants, as others had paid for their passage to the New World. Though the concept of servitude was not foreign to these people, the conditions they lived in have been described as abusive and demeaning.94 The terms of the servitude could change as well, and individual agreements were not always honored. There were those who wanted to provide a haven for those leaving England, but most saw labor as a means to making profit, largely through the planting and harvesting of tobacco. Conditions in the early colonial era were arguably worse in some places than the conditions colonists had faced in England.95 Like the influence of the Protestant Ethic, these deplorable conditions ran contrary to notions of individualism, but for different reasons. Here, we saw at least a segment of society completely disregarding the value and significance of the individual and individual dignity. Slavery, exploitation, and servitude are not compatible with liberal ideas of universalism and humanism,96 and therefore cannot possibly support a truly individualistic position.

The role of logistical factors Logistical factors also shaped the attitudes of colonial Americans and created the practical parameters within which they lived. These logistical factors include physical conditions, political constraints, and family considerations. Family considerations seem to create an environment much more conducive to the development of individualism than do the influence of religion and presence of servitude, while the political constraints present at the time encouraged communalism. The physical conditions of the time worked to both support and oppose individualism during this time. First, the physical conditions of the time pushed people to be more mobile and self-reliant. The early colonial period was plagued by the problem of too many people with too little food.97 The dearth of resources made it impractical, in some cases, for families, particularly extended families, to stay together. Observations of life in the Plymouth colony, for instance, detail a very mobile and transient existence. These observations support the contention that the morality and stability of this time and place has been overstated. Land, church, and town records provide evidence for a very mobile society.98 Further, this mobility was individual based and was rarely a family event.99 As individuals relocated, new communities would spring up. Contrary to other accounts, these new communities would take in just about anyone.100

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

53

Second, in some cases family considerations actually created an atmosphere more reflective of an individualistic ethic. There was no unified practice of extended families living together, even in the event of parental death. Families were routinely broken up even if only one parent died.101 Many people grew up without the constancy of family or community, and so the expectation of it in their adult lives was not necessarily there. Additionally, many children were moved out of the home due to poverty or for fear of their becoming spoilt, and also for educational opportunities.102 One-third to one-half of children did not grow up with their biological parents.103 While the lack of food and burden of family considerations seemed to underscore, at the very least, a much weaker picture of the colonial community than we are accustomed to, the political constraints that were in place support that more communal image. In fact, most colonists were mandated to live within communities. This created challenges for New England farmers who wanted to move closer to their land holdings. If they did choose to move, they would frequently end up establishing new towns that could serve as new community centers for people who were too far from the other towns. This led to the proliferation of small towns in this region.104 Essentially, even when an individual made a choice to move based on his or her own personal convenience, the pull toward the community remained. Further, individual initiative was limited by the demands of British citizenship. Early settlers were obligated to carry out the directives of the British government, including directions on what crops to plant, and how and when to engage the Native American population in combat.105 Additionally, individual rights were in many cases de-emphasized by the physical constraints on the individual. Little, if anything, could be accomplished by one person alone. Even the masters needed others to help them make money. Individuals competed for land claims to grow tobacco, but could not do much else on their own.106 It is estimated that one person could only work roughly 4 acres, so it just was not feasible to go it alone. People had to work together in order to have a chance of success.107 The physical and social conditions the colonists lived in created the backdrop for their lives and choices. In some ways, these conditions seem to reflect a more individualistic value set, and in others, they support the presence of community. This variance is at least somewhat reflective of the concurrent regional influences on the colonists’ lives.

The impact of regional factors on the colonial individual The life of the colonial individual must not be discussed as if it were one person living one life in one place. It is certainly convenient to do so, but it does not portray colonial life in its entirety. We must consider the regional differences that impacted the life and potential of the colonial individual.

54

Individualism in the United States

It has been argued that New England most closely reflected European living and lifestyles. Its organization and composition reflected what many observers thought of as “community.” The Middle and Southern Colonies were organized, but in a way that appeared different than previous ideas of community. The inability to recognize actual community in these new social structures precipitated the myth of colonial individualism. These other colonies were communal in their own way, but were organized differently because of geography and diversity.108 These different forms of organization resulted in varying opportunities for individual development. Despite some conflicting reports of the transience of life in Plymouth, most anecdotal evidence points to a community-based life in the New England colonies. For the most part, social and familial life was stable, and people stayed near family and community.109 Most colonists in New England felt “the need of a central place.”110 This orientation was friendly to the maintenance of family and community. The Middle Colonies, however, tended toward a more economic focus, and this had implications for the individual. First, due to the economic pursuits of the Middle Colonies, the population largely comprised wage earners and a large section of indentured servants.111 These people were bound by economic goals, and so the connectivity among them was circumstantial and unstable. Since the Middle Colonies were not based on an overarching religious mission, there was also a growing amount of religious diversity within them.112 As this diversity of beliefs grew, the need to compartmentalize religious belief and practice into the realm of privacy and personal preference became stronger. If a community does not share a common religious bond, then the ability of those beliefs to provide any social connective tissue is greatly diminished, if not eliminated entirely. This factor, combined with the centralization of local governance at the developing county level, diminished the social and political significance of the local community in the Middle Colonies.113 The Southern Colonies featured a unique environment as well. These colonies were mostly occupied by large self-sufficient plantations. These plantations were in and of themselves centers of activity, which made the proliferation of towns unnecessary.114 Churches and courthouses were typically built at crossroads in areas that were thought to be easily accessible to the people who needed them.115 While other establishments developed around these buildings, the activity in and around them was limited to days in which either the churches or the courthouses were in session.116 There were also “crossroads stores” that popped up to meet the needs of residents and travelers.117 These stores were quite comprehensive in their offerings and compensated for the missing towns, and, more importantly, the town centers. These stores sold goods, facilitated trade, took items on consignment, sold drinks by the glass, loaned money, and took in deposits (much like a bank).118 All three of these colonial regions had elements of community, but the types of community present varied a great deal. This variation allowed for

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

55

types of individual participation and expression in the Middle and Southern Colonies that were not necessarily promoted in the New England colonies.

Conclusion In this chapter, we embarked to explore and understand the nature of the American colonial experience; to identify and evaluate the debate in the literature regarding the individualistic nature of colonial Americans; and to identify and explore the cultural and regional factors that shaped colonial attitudes toward the individual and individualism. The colonial experience was one of great variety, and that variety derived from a number of factors including time and place. When we consider the colonial Americans and the many factors that influenced their beliefs and attitudes toward the individual, it becomes very difficult to say with certainty that the colonists were individualistic or that they were not—that they would have been receptive to individualism or otherwise. There is evidence of a change among the colonists over time that indicates an increasing acceptance of individualism by the time of the American founding, but that individualism is not representative of individualism as we understand it in modern times. In fact, the individualism of that era would actually transform a couple of times before it would resemble the individualism of today.

Questions to consider

1 What is your position on the presence of individualism in colonial



America? Why do you find this position more compelling than the others? 2 What impact do you think the presence of servitude had on colonists’ attitudes toward the individual? Do you believe that it reflected a lack of concern for individual rights? Why or why not?

Notes 1 Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, 1996. 2 For one example, see Shain, The Myth of American Individualism. 3 Nellis, An Empire of Regions: A Brief History of Colonial British America, xvii. 4 Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination, 6–7. 5 Ibid.

56

Individualism in the United States

6 Nellis, An Empire of Regions: A Brief History of Colonial British America, xviii. 7 Ibid. 8 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 5–6. 9 Middleton, Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776, 103. 10 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 5; Katz, Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development. 11 Nellis, An Empire of Regions: A Brief History of Colonial British America, xix. 12 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 6. 13 Nellis, An Empire of Regions: A Brief History of Colonial British America, xix. 14 Ibid., 108. 15 Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, 143. 16 Ibid. 17 Middleton, Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776, 49. 18 Ibid., 52–3. 19 Shain, The Myth of American Individualism, 21. 20 Middleton, Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776. 21 Nellis, An Empire of Regions: A Brief History of Colonial British America; Katz, Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development. 22 Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, 20. 23 In modern times, the term “feudalism” is used to refer to the dominant social and political structure in Europe in the Middle Ages. It comprised lords, vassals, and serfs. The lords were nobility who owned the land, vassals supported the lords with regard to safety and security, and serfs were the peasants who were bound to the land and compelled to work it. 24 Edmund Burke is known as the father of classical conservatism. He wrote in opposition to the French Revolution and was very suspicious of revolutionaries who were willing to cast off a tried form of governance in favor of something with no history, no credibility, and no guarantee that it would work or be better. 25 Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, 33–4; Lipset provides a detailed commentary on several outside observers who believed they were witnessing a distinctly new American culture rather than the extension or continuation of European culture. 26 Ibid., 84; Lipset references the impact of the absence of feudalism, though not exactly in this context. 27 Ibid., 31, 84. 28 Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, 147.

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

57

29 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 18. 30 Ibid., 17. 31 Ibid., 15. 32 Ibid., 19. 33 Ibid., 47. 34 Ibid., 30. 35 Wulf, Not All Wives: Women of Colonial Philadelphia, 3. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., 5. 38 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 226. 39 Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination, 10. 40 Ibid., 11. 41 Ibid., 15. 42 Ibid., 182. 43 Ibid., 15. 44 Ibid., 4. 45 Progressivism is a philosophy based on the inevitable improvement of the human condition, which stems from experience, innovation, and practical processes. 46 Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination, 8, 29. 47 Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 71. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 We can consider the Mayflower Compact and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut as primary and significant examples of this type of establishment. 53 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 496. 54 Ibid. 55 Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination, 150. 56 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 143. 57 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 9. 58 Ibid., 10. 59 Ibid., 8. 60 Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, 276.

58

Individualism in the United States

61 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 498; Shain, The Myth of American Individualism; Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism; P. Miller, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century and Errand into the Wilderness; Morgan, Puritan Political Ideas and Visible Saints. 62 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 498. 63 Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, 276; The word “vulnerable” in this sentence comes from Habits of the Heart and it is truly a great way to conceptualize what happens when we begin to question an idea that was at one time beyond questioning. The idea is akin to the human transition from childhood to adulthood when all rules that had previously been followed blindly appear to be up for discussion at long last. 64 Elazar, Covenant & Constitutionalism: The Great Frontier and the Matrix of Federal Democracy, 7. 65 Ibid., 5. 66 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 498. 67 Elazar, Covenant & Constitutionalism: The Great Frontier and the Matrix of Federal Democracy, 22. 68 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 493. 69 Ibid., 495. 70 Elazar, Covenant & Constitutionalism: The Great Frontier and the Matrix of Federal Democracy, 29. 71 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 494; Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805; Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism. 72 Elazar, Covenant & Constitutionalism: The Great Frontier and the Matrix of Federal Democracy, 43. 73 Ibid., 10. 74 Ibid., 31. 75 Ibid., 32. 76 Ibid., 41. 77 Ibid., 8. 78 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 496. 79 An example of an invasive regulation and the punitive measure used to control personal behavior during the colonial era had to do with church attendance. Virginians were required to attend their parish church at least once per month. Failure to comply with this law without a reasonable excuse was punishable by a fine of 5 shillings [English coins], 50 pounds of tobacco, or a whipping of ten lashes.

THE INDIVIDUAL IN COLONIAL AMERICA

59

80 Elazar, Covenant & Constitutionalism: The Great Frontier and the Matrix of Federal Democracy, 41. 81 Ibid., 10; Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 491. 82 Elazar, Covenant & Constitutionalism: The Great Frontier and the Matrix of Federal Democracy, 21. 83 Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life; Shain, The Myth of American Individualism; Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism; P. Miller, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century and Errand into the Wilderness; Morgan, Puritan Political Ideas and Visible Saints. 84 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 498. 85 By religious, we are referring to a Protestant Ethic. 86 Kaufmann, Institutional Individualism: Conversion, Exile, and Nostalgia in Puritan New England, 3. 87 Nellis, An Empire of Regions: A Brief History of Colonial British America, 281. 88 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 242. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid., 244. 91 Nellis, An Empire of Regions: A Brief History of Colonial British America, 108. 92 Ibid. 93 The Virginia Company was a shareholder-owned company chartered by James I in the spring of 1606 to establish settlements on the coast of North America. 94 Morgan, “The First American Boom: Virginia 1618-1630,” 55. 95 Ibid., 54. 96 By universalism, I am referring to a philosophy based on the belief that human beings share a set of universal qualities that transcend superficial characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religious preference, etc. People are all inherently the same. Humanism is a philosophy that values and emphasizes the primacy of human beings in the world. 97 Morgan, “The First American Boom: Virginia 1618-1630,” 37. 98 Demos, “Notes on Life in Plymouth Colony,” 61. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid., 60. 101 Ibid., 72. 102 Ibid., 76. 103 Ibid., 77. 104 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 215.

60

Individualism in the United States

105 Morgan, “The First American Boom: Virginia 1618-1630,” 41. 106 Ibid., 47. 107 Ibid., 39. 108 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 217. 109 Greven, “Family Structure in Seventeenth-Century Andover, Massachusetts,” 98. 110 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 216. 111 Morgan, “The First American Boom: Virginia 1618-1630,” 37. 112 Wolf, As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth Century Americans, 218. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid., 221. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid., 222. 118 Ibid.

Further reading Appleby, Joyce. Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Barkalow, Jordon B. “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought.” Political Research Quarterly 57, no. 3 (September 2004): 491–500. Elazar, Daniel J. Covenant & Constitutionalism: The Great Frontier and the Matrix of Federal Democracy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Wolf, Stephanie Grauman. As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth-Century Americans. Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, 2000.

PART T W O

The ideals The concept of individualism has been explained in many ways, by many people, and at many different points in time. While each of these attempts to clarify the concept has been beneficial to our understanding, I hope to shed even more light on the development of this concept through the construction and elaboration of individualism as a series of “ideals.” The idea of using ideals to discuss American politics was put forth by historian Charles Merriam in his 1920 text American Political Ideals. In this book, he proposed that the individualism of the Founding Era and later individualism were not the same at all, and he draws a distinction between an individualism born of philosophy and one that was derived from sociology. While I do not agree with Merriam’s description of Founding Era individualism (and will proceed to define it quite differently), I do agree that individualism has changed over time. In Part 1, we explored the foundation of individualism, and it is a very complicated foundation. The idea that one unified and agreed upon conception of individualism could arise from such varied experiences and ideas does not seem reasonable to me. In order to understand American individualism as it has developed and grown since the late 1700s, I propose thinking of individualism in terms of three main ideals: political individualism, economic individualism, and social individualism. It is my argument that each conception of individualism is distinct in its foundation and application. To this end, I will present a visual depiction of each of these

62

Individualism in the United States

models, and will explain how the foundational blocks of each manifestation of individualism have changed over time. In Chapter 4, we will explore the original type of individualism: political individualism. This is the individualism of the Founders and our founding documents. In Chapter 5, I will explain the factors and results of the first main transformation of individualism from political individualism to economic individualism. Chapter 6 then addresses the next transformation from economic individualism to social individualism through an exploration of the causes, features, and results of the transformation. I reject the notion that each of these versions of individualism sprang up instantaneously and independently of the one before it. Unlike other explanations of this change, my explanation is based on the assumption that each of these manifestations of individualism is based on the one before it.

C h a p t e r FOUR

Political individualism: Individualism during the founding era

Chapter summary Chapter 4 begins the exploration of how the concept of individualism has been applied in the United States. Herein, the reader will find an explanation of the first manifestation of individualism: political individualism or individualism as a political ideal. The main argument is that political individualism was very closely tied to the theory that inspired it. It was representative of a significant ideological movement from earlier in the colonial era, but it worked to bridge the gap between notions of community and the individual without substantively altering either. Political individualism was built upon a foundation of both individual freedom and societal bonds. Each of these rested on the stable components of opportunity, obligation, and curbing of individual impulses. The end result was a healthy form of individualism that protected individual rights and sustained an interconnected American society.

Chapter objectives

1 To define political individualism and explore its presence in

founding era political thought. 2 To identify and explain the debate over the influences on the Founders. 3 To assess the significance of political individualism and its compatibility with societal and governmental involvement.

64

Individualism in the United States

It can be unsettling for the student of political science—or really any student, for that matter—to discover that not all questions can be answered. What can be even more unsettling is to discover that a question has countless answers. Such is the case when one embarks on an exploration of founding era individualism. The debate in the literature regarding the influences on the Founding Fathers is extensive and inconclusive. While we may have trouble agreeing on the means by which these men arrived at their political ends, there seems to be at least some agreement on the ends at which they arrived. As we discovered in the last chapter, colonial conditions created a multitude of social, economic, and cultural environments in which the colonists grew and changed. The late colonial era was far more supportive of an individualistic ethic than the early colonial era, but this does not mean that the founding represented the formal shift to an individualistic system. Moving to the founding era, we find that there were a host of competing philosophical, religious, and logistical preferences that guided the leading men of that time. Certainly, the individual—his or her needs, capabilities, rights, etc.—was significant in determining the nature and role of the state as constructed by our Founding Fathers. However, the individualism of this time was distinct from modern notions of individualism and the ways the concept would ultimately be transformed. This political individualism had philosophical grounding based on the presumed rationality of the individual, and it also reflected a desire to protect the individual and provide structure for individual choice. In this chapter, we will discover the ways in which individualistic thought was embraced and utilized by the Founders. This initially occurred in a political context, and it did not create an immediate challenge to the cultural norms that were in place at the time. By “political context,” I am referring to the actual creation of a state. The era that we will focus on here has been defined and described in many ways. One may read of the “founding era” or the “revolutionary era.” Of course, there is also a division between revolutionary activities (involving the rejection of a state) and constitutional activities (involving the building of a state), and these activities have varying theoretical bases. Understanding this era in our country’s history as broadly as possible, we can consider the years from 1764 through the Revolution, culminating with the implementation of the Constitution in 1789.1

What is political individualism? Of the three manifestations of individualism we will explore, political individualism is the most limited in its perspective on individual activity. It is certainly the one most disconnected to modern notions of individualism, as one might suspect. Those inclined to discuss individualism and speculate about its origins have sometimes been tempted to project a modern notion

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

65

of individualism onto the past.2 To this end, individualism has been defined strictly in terms of freedom of thought and action, and this definition has been unjustifiably applied to the attitudes of the Early Americans.3 This definition of individualism suggests a negative conception of freedom. Negative liberty is the absence of interference on the part of the state or other private individuals.4 The absence of state and community interference is not compatible with the influential ideology, attitudes, and living conditions of this historic time.5 Rather, Early Americans would more likely have embraced a positive conception of liberty in which freedom was enhanced by intervention and active protection of the individual. My transformation thesis requires us to reject the application of an individualism defined by negative liberty (which is the more prevalent understanding of the concept in modern times) and to consider the idea that individualism has changed over time. By differentiating conceptions of individualism in terms of the types of liberty they encompass, we can think of this shift in terms of positive and negative individualism. We must pause to recognize a significant issue that arises when discussing the individualism of this era: the word individualism did not exist yet. Remember that the concept was first discussed by the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s, and the word did not appear in English until 1839.6 Since the term did not exist during the founding era, it must challenge us to consider if the negative conception of individualism could have truly resonated with Early Americans—the elites or the masses.7 Political individualism is about active protection of the individual,8 not about facilitating unencumbered action (as negative liberty would require). This conception of individualism contains elements of individual freedom and societal bonds, both of which were very important to Americans during this era.9 Though we know from Chapter 3 that the late colonial culture changed somewhat to be more accommodating of an individual-based society (as opposed to a group-based one), this transition was nowhere near complete by the founding era. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that indicates that the people of this era were still driven by community concerns and spiritual motivations, which kept them connected with others. Their concern for the individual pertained to individual rights and the ways these could be protected by a government. The colonists recognized that politics was about power and that liberty was possible only when there was a balance of power. Power itself is or may be legitimate but is inevitably corrupted by man.10 The ongoing debate from the time of the American Revolution to the ratification of the Constitution was concerned with the amount of government needed to provide that protection and the best governmental power distribution for that purpose.11 In Figure 4.1, the concept of individualism is shown as supported by a foundation of both individual freedom and societal bonds. This original manifestation of individualism relies quite heavily on the strength of society to support the rights of the individual. Further, these two main support

66

Individualism in the United States

Political individualism

Individual freedom

Choice

Opportunity

Societal bonds

Selfrestraint

Stability/ Security

Obligation

Figure 4.1  The components of political individualism. blocks rest upon a stable foundation of individual choice and opportunity, societal obligation, stability, and self-restraint. There was compatibility between individual freedom and societal bonds, and these components worked together to ensure the success of the individual and the cohesiveness of society. Political individualism did not require or justify any type of social stratification or atomism.

Evidence of political individualism There is evidence aplenty that supports the presence of this interpretation of political individualism during this era. Though the term did not exist then, we can find evidence that protection of the individual was of importance to the Early Americans. When we examine the theory and ideas that inspired the Founders, the historical records, key founding documents, and prevailing social conditions of this era, the presence of a political individualism based on individual freedom coupled with societal bonds becomes very apparent.

Underlying theory There are varying interpretations of the Revolution and the dominant intellectual influences on the Founding Fathers. Scholars have cited the significance of liberalism, republicanism, and Scottish moral philosophy.12 Even a few pre-Marxist explanations have been offered.13 The most heated debate has taken place between those who have advocated for a strong liberal influence and those who have countered with the importance of republicanism. The landscape is further complicated by competing interpretations of liberal writings and intellectual conflict over the actual presence of republican principles. We will sort out these competing views, and will arrive at a synthesis that provides support for the presence and

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

67

acceptance of political individualism. Providing a thorough elaboration of all these positions would require a book unto itself. The plan is to establish a firm enough footing for political individualism to stand. Any discussion of the intellectual influences on the Founders must include a consideration for liberal theory. In fact, there was a time when such a discussion began and ended in this exact ideological spot. The importance of liberalism was agreed upon, with John Locke designated as its chief spokesman. Preeminent scholars of political science and sociology established this position and agreement soon followed.14 This “Lockean consensus,”15 as it is known, was significant to our understanding of the founding era for a couple of reasons. First, it cast the causes and effects of the Revolution in a strictly liberal mold without allowing for the possibility of other influences. Second, it relied on a particular interpretation of Locke’s theory, which may have been unjustifiably simplified and modernized. This explanation, as it were, actually served to limit our understanding of the political, social, and religious impulses of these Early Americans. I do not take issue with Locke’s significance. His words and ideas are easily detectable in the writings of this era, and his influence is clear. The Declaration of Independence is the most high-profile and obvious example of this influence. References to natural law, equality, natural rights, and the justifiable causes of revolution abound, and in several instances are lifted verbatim from Locke’s Second Treatise. The problem arises with regard to interpretation and application of his ideas, now and then. Then, authors could shape Locke’s meaning to support their position.16 It has also been argued that Locke and others were not truly read and understood. Rather, lip service was paid to them and their names were dropped in ways that did not always make sense.17 Liberalism was relied upon to the exclusion of other factors and explanations. Prime examples of this limited interpretation are contained in Seymour Martin Lipset’s concept of the “American Creed” in American Exceptionalism and Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America. First, Lipset contends that Americans are, and have always been, politically and socially unique creatures, and that a five-part creed can be used to describe this uniqueness. This creed includes a commitment to liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire principles.18 While one can argue for the presence of these principles among some people at various points in time, Lipset’s thesis rests on the idea, and widespread acceptance, of negative individualism— the idea that one’s individual rights are best preserved through one’s being left alone.19 Implicit in this assumption is that the absence of “collective constraint” is (and was) desirable and possible, which is a highly contestable assumption.20 Lipset has been criticized on many grounds, including his failing to consider different types of individualism and to acknowledge evidence of influential collectivist ideas during this era.21 Though critics of this position have not all agreed on the bases of their criticism, there is a general agreement that Lipset’s position is unnecessarily restrictive.22

68

Individualism in the United States

Second, Hartz believed that Americans had an instinct of “atomistic social freedom” that was built into the American psyche.23 His treatment and inclusion of Locke’s ideas was to reduce them to generic support for what are actually principles of economic individualism, not the political individualism that I align Locke with here. Hartz provided a rather simplified view of American ideological development, and critics have been ready and willing to point out the issues with this simplification. Retrospective reviews of his work have indicated that he did not truly understand Locke’s writings, that he wrongly diminished the ideological significance of the American Revolution, and that he portrayed all nineteenth-century Americans as laissez faire–loving free market capitalists.24 The type of liberalism emphasized by scholars such as Lipset and Hartz has a negative emphasis, and as such, seeks to maximize freedom through minimizing intervention. The key to making this conception of liberalism work in the context of Early America has been to portray the people of this time as being inherently individualistic and distinct from their European roots, and to make the political theory that inspired the Founders more compatible with this vision. One way to do this was to focus on frontier life and self-reliance, which that lifestyle would necessitate. There is a popular image of the people of this era living alone and independently on the frontier. When we think back on what it must have been like for people to settle in this country, we tend to think of large numbers of individualistic people who felt driven to move and explore. These people must have lived with little to no governmental intervention and surely pursued their own self-interest and valued their ability to exist on their own.25 This view of Early America is problematic, as I demonstrated in Chapter 3. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the existence of these individuals with the historical record. Another way was to suggest that there was something innate in the colonial experience that would lead people toward a negative individualism. Specifically, the gradual secularization of colonial society has been credited with the establishment of individualism.26 This shift was discussed in Chapter 3, and is acknowledged as a significant colonial dynamic. However, whether or not this secularization was complete by the founding (or ever) is still in question. More recent scholarship has contended that this transition was complete by the founding and set the stage for the socially inhibiting individualism that exists today.27 Finally, Locke could be read and interpreted in a way that would be compatible with negative liberalism. An example of this can be found in reading interpretations of Locke’s ideas on economy and the accumulation of wealth. Locke’s emphasis on the role of labor is unique and many have tried to arrive at a definite meaning for this passage in the Second Treatise.28 Private property is significant for the individual because its existence makes life in the state of nature much more tenable. Of course, this does not mean that man should want to live this way, but it opens the door for regress in

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

69

the event of a state becoming unlivable. Locke contends that man creates private property through his labor and mixing that labor with the things he wishes to possess. His right to protect and maintain control of those items is then present through natural law. If someone attempts to deprive another of his private property, it is an affront to that person’s “moral being,” since that property is an extension of his person.29 These ideas have been interpreted as a defense of capitalism. Since Locke believes that people create property through labor, he must believe that accumulation of property is just and should be unlimited.30 Individuals are then defined by how hard they work, how much they accumulate, and how much they retain.31 All these actions and the inequalities that result have been defended using Locke’s theory of private property. In fact, the term “economic individualism”32 has been linked to the founding era, because of the Founders’ belief (on Lockean grounds) that the individual had the right to “acquire, protect, and dispose” of property however he chose.33 This interpretation of Locke is so pervasive that it is even found in the literature that is otherwise sympathetic to the assertion that the founding has been misunderstood as regards its foundation and goals. The issue of interpretation is a significant one, however, and the topic of private property is a prime example of how interpretation can alter the meaning significantly. For instance, Locke qualifies the “just” accumulation of goods in both civil society and the state of nature.34 In the state of nature, Locke believed that a “just” accumulation of goods was limited to what an individual could reasonably use before the goods would spoil. In society, a “just” protection of private property required a consideration of the common good.35 In neither event did Locke promote the idea that the individual had the right to gather and accumulate goods no matter what. To what extent we entertain these qualifications can greatly change the meaning of his words. Additionally, the vision of the founding era provided by this consensus requires one to make a number of assumptions, many of which are subject to contention. This consensus, which went unchallenged for a time, has fallen on hard times due to historical research and competing interpretations of the foundational theory. The critics of this approach do not all agree, but they raise many good questions and concerns about the role and meaning of liberalism for the Founders. Over the last several decades, there has been a reconsideration of the United States’ founding era and the theory that inspired it. Historians and political scientists36 have discovered a colonial and revolution-era culture that does not appear to be compatible with the picture others have painted. The self-reliant and independent individual picking his or her way through the wilderness does not really fit into this reconfigured picture. This does not mean that there were no self-reliant and independent individuals picking their way through the wilderness (certainly, there were), but it means that they may have been the exception and not the rule.

70

Individualism in the United States

With the emergence of this more communalistic version of Early American life, critics of the earlier consensus have searched for explanations for this communalism. Some have taken the approach that the Lockean consensus was wrong in that Locke was not as influential as once thought. These scholars have looked for other influences such as republicanism and the role of the Protestant Ethic. One alternative explanation for political and societal relations in the founding era is an acceptance of republicanism. There is certainly evidence in the Constitution that the Federalists, in particular, were in favor of using the republican concept of mixed government to create order and political stability. Further, the level of social obligation observed among the masses has been attributed to the importance of virtue, which republicanism also promotes.37 Republicanism promotes a type of individualism, but it is the positive conception, which is definitely more consistent with political individualism. This type of individualism is not about doing whatever one wants, but choosing to use individual action for the betterment of all.38 One possible reason for why this republican explanation for founding behavior had been neglected for so long is just that it is so inconsistent with how people view the individual today. Historians have sought to create a narrative that better explains change and development, and liberalism— with its emphasis on progress and improvement—is well suited for this purpose.39 Those who wanted to justify growth and change wanted to believe that change was an inherently American ideal.40 As liberalism and an increasingly negative form of individualism developed during the course of American history, the tendency has been to rewrite the past through the application of “liberal affirmations.”41 These affirmations included ideas such as the presence of human rationality, the legitimacy of law given its accordance with natural law, and the assumption that people are constantly looking for ways to be free.42 The problem with this approach is that it led to an oversimplified view of the individual and neglected to deal with much of how life actually was for individuals during these years.43 Over the last 50 years or so, however, historians have become increasingly dissatisfied with this “first national history,” and have sought to discover the truth of these eras.44 What social historians have found is a world much different than the one the Lockean consensus scholars had created. First, the idea that all immigrants to the New World came as a demonstration of rejection of their old European ways of life was shown to be overstated. These historians found that many immigrants simply wanted to come to someplace new and not necessarily to transform into something new. They brought with them considerable “cultural baggage,” which informed their way of life in this new place.45 Part of that baggage included a desire to create or recreate and maintain meaningful communities.46 The communities provided structure and systems of guidance and restraint for a people who believed they were in need of these things. Rationalism and self-interest, both valued by liberalism, were

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

71

viewed differently in colonial times and during the founding era. Rationalism was not believed by all to be naturally occurring, but rather that it was derived from education and probably defined by class. Self-interest was viewed as a “lamentable human failing.”47 In response to these observations, republicanism developed as a logical alternative to liberalism to explain “colonial support for a political order that emphasizes virtue, participation, and deliberation . . .”48 Another alternative explanation of founding era social and political behavior, which is more consistent with these revised observations, is the power of the Protestant (or Puritan) Ethic.49 Though there were various Protestant denominations, the teachings on individual will were fairly consistent and equally unfavorable.50 The unrestrained individual was seen as problematic, as there was much doubt as to whether he would make good choices. In fact, the argument is made that this ethic is actually what drove popular support of the Revolution and not the people’s growing need to be free-range individuals.51 The industry and productivity that was demonstrated during this time has a very logical home with this Protestant Ethic. This ethic supported the idea that God ordained man’s individual purpose. Serving God required one to answer the call through productive work.52 Engaging in work served multiple purposes, including providing for one’s needs and the needs of others and occupying one’s time so that temptation toward sinful activity could be reduced, and provided opportunities for individual betterment through service. Other components of the Protestant Ethic run contrary to the Liberal consensus and help define the departure from it. For example, man was to demonstrate frugality and consume with regard to need, not want.53 The unlimited accumulation of goods was frowned upon and discouraged. It was seen as wasteful and ostentatious. It neither benefited the individual nor did anything to benefit the public good. These people believed that excess could actually represent a test of God to see if they would fall prey to such indulgences.54 Because of this fear, people developed a “suspicion of prosperity,”55 which made them leery of profit-driven people and enterprise. This ethic was also represented in the private writings of Thomas Jefferson, who spoke of the value of industry in letters written to his daughters, which were presented by Edmund S. Morgan in his work on the Puritan Ethic.56 Much like the republican critique, the Protestant Ethic critique provides explanations for some behavior that the Lockean consensus ignores. Despite these alternative explanations, we are still left with the problem of determining who is right. Many scholars have thrown their hands up and decided that we just cannot pinpoint one smoking ideological gun.57 If we cannot get these explanations to work together, then we must be satisfied that the Founders and the people who lived and died by their decisions were just responding to multiple (conflicting) influences.

72

Individualism in the United States

There is one remaining possibility, however. These critics rejected the Lockean consensus on the grounds that Locke’s importance was overstated. They did not consider the possibility that perhaps the importance was not as much overstated as the meaning was misunderstood. It is this perspective that creates the stable ideological basis for the political individualism of this time: an individualism that is consistent with the behavior of the Early Americans (masses and elite) and the documents that established their state. Before we string all these ideas together, let us review what we are trying to connect. First, we have a society of people who value the role and rights of the individual. Second, we have documents that support the protection of individual rights. Third, we have a colonial and Early American culture that is rich in political, economic, and religious overtones, which stress the individual, the common good, industry, frugality, virtue, self-denial, and freedom, both positive and negative. Fourth, we have a culture that supports and requires adventurous, rugged, wandering, grounded, individually motivated, community-based townspeople. The challenge before us should be clear at this point. The answer to the problem scholars have been struggling with can be found in a different interpretation and application of Locke’s theory. The critics abandoned Locke as the main inspiration for the Founders’ thought when the conventional interpretations did not mesh with the Early American reality unearthed by historians. Unfortunately, these alternative explanations obscured as much as they were able to explain, and ended up being an intellectual wash. The answer to this problem is found in a school of thought known as the Lockean Sympathy.58 The development of the Lockean Sympathy was born of a desire to reconcile these competing perspectives and provide an explanation for the diversity of thought and action rightly observed by the scholars of republicanism and Protestantism.59 This concept is further based on the idea that it is not enough to simply say the Founders were liberal and define the term using rather limited and modern notions.60 The key to understanding the Lockean Sympathy involves toning down the negative individualistic rhetoric that has typically accompanied interpretations and celebrations of Locke. For every right that Locke concedes to the individual, he provides protections and restrictions for individual behavior through the imposition of virtue and self-discipline.61 All these concepts are present and cooperating in Locke’s writings, and therein lies the synthesis political individualism requires. Evidence of this cooperation is further provided to the extent that Jefferson and Adams incorporated similar concepts in their writings.62 According to the Lockean Sympathy, the only theoretical limitations that have been present have been among those who could not reconcile these various strains in Locke’s thought. This position actually links together many ideas we have already discussed. First, political individualism needs an underlying theory that supports the individual, justifies individual action, and empowers individual activity.

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

73

We have already covered the ways in which Locke does this, so I will not belabor these points. Locke succeeds at providing the foundation for individual rights and empowerment that political individualism requires. Second, political individualism needs a theory that supports the community, controlled action, restraint, and other-interestedness, for we are interested in the protection of the individual against the state and others. Locke provides us with this grounding as well through his acceptance and promotion of the Protestant Ethic.63 According to the Lockean Sympathy, we need not abandon liberalism to access this ethic. It was here all along. For Locke, labor requires work of the mind and of the body, and both these types of labor connect the individual with God.64 Man and God have the capacity to work in common with one another, and so labor takes on a moral dimension. Working—giving of one’s mind and body to a pursuit or goal—is not just about what can be gained, as it would be in a purely economic context. Rather, work is about the giving and committing of one’s self, as God did when He worked to create man.65 Locke also provides the basis for individual freedom through restraint in his promotion of self-discipline and self-denial.66 He believed that self-denial was a virtuous activity that would greatly benefit the individual. Here, the support for political individualism is clear, because Locke is definitely not arguing for the absence of a restraint as the path to freedom. His promotion of the individual maintains the emphasis on restraint and on ways that this restraint could be taught through formal education.67 Self-denial clears the way for individual freedom in three main ways: First, self-denial makes frugality and industry possible, and Locke sees these as necessary for gaining those material things one needs to be happy and successful. He supports the idea that one reaps rewards through sacrifice.68 Second, self-denial prevents a person from becoming a slave to his or her own wants. The individual must be cognizant of the aspirations that drive him or her and must make the conscious effort to pick and choose those aspirations that are most constructive and beneficial. Self-denial is a show of control and restraint and frees one of one’s natural inclinations.69 Third, self-denial allows the individual to focus on the duties he or she has to his or her family and others, and leads him or her to seek freedom so that he or she may adequately engage in and fulfill those duties to others.70 Locke supports individual freedom and protection of the individual through his adherence to the Protestant Ethic and the views on labor and self-denial it contains. The Lockean Sympathy that was present among the Founders supports the concept of political individualism. It brings together the emphasis on the individual and his or her rights without abandoning the need for restraint, regulation, and obligation. Further, this interpretation can be detected in the writings of Jefferson and Adams.71 They illustrated time and again the need for labor and industry and spoke ill of the individual who did not work hard and do his or her duty. Their discussion of individual freedom was not

74

Individualism in the United States

in the negative context. They did not promote the idea that an individual was free by doing exactly what he or she wanted to do regardless of what was expected of him or her. Either one could work hard or one could be a sloth.72 There is not much gray area here. In order to be free, one must become educated as to one’s best interest and the best interest of others. These interests are served through hard work, duty, and self-denial. Through these constraints, the individual could be free. Locke promotes this idea, and Jefferson and Adams recognize it and carry it through.73 This synthesis of ideas brings together the theoretical support for political individualism. The only theory that ever really posed a challenge was the oversimplified and inappropriately negative conception of liberty that was superimposed onto Locke’s liberalism. By reexamining Locke’s ideas, the compatibility of all the components of individual freedom and community can be realized and used in support of political individualism.

Historical record and key documents Since the definition of political individualism concerns the way a state protects individuals and provides structure for their activities, it is appropriate to look at the revolutionary activity and state-building efforts of this era. To this end, we will consider the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. All three documents display evidence of individualism, but they were written at different times and for different purposes. They each promote and protect the individual, but in different ways and with varying levels of success. The Declaration of Independence is frequently referred to by those in modern times who look for the foundational roots of individualism. They try to find evidence for the negative individualism that is popular today, but it is not there. Though the importance of the individual and individual rights pervades the document, the purpose of this document was not to promote and defend the individual. The goal of this document was to denounce and reject an illegitimate state.74 The Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Second Continental Congress in 1776. This document did not begin hostilities between the British government and the colonies, but it formalized them and paved the way toward creating a new governing document. This is a revolutionary document, which means that its focus was on the rejection of a state. As such, its purpose was to justify the revolution through a persuasive use and application of classical liberal theory. This justification was based on the assumption that any state that consistently violates individual rights is not legitimate and should be rejected. To this end, Thomas Jefferson, who is credited as being the primary author of this document, presented an argument that the individual was not being protected.

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

75

First, Jefferson cites Locke’s natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,75 and establishes that it was the purpose of a legitimate government to protect these rights. The acknowledgment of natural rights is a significant component of political individualism, because it creates a state obligation to protect these rights and prohibits a state from violating them or establishing contrary rights. Second, Jefferson provides in the list of grievances many examples of how individual rights have been violated. In each case, the grievance pertains to a way in which the state has failed to provide protection, which is also consistent with the definition of political individualism. For example, several grievances deal with the lack of procedural due process in dealing with colonists accused of crimes. The issue of unjust taxation is mentioned, which would be considered the deprivation of property. Third, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges the government’s role in providing for the public good through lawmaking by criticizing King George for not doing so. The document alleges that “he has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” This is very consistent with the positive notion of political individualism in that it stresses the role of the government in protecting the individual and providing for the good of the people through intervention (lawmaking). The Founders believed that all these crimes against the colonists were rooted in a slow but certain corruption of the British government, which resulted from an abandonment of its own constitutional principles.76 Further, they believed that this corruption resulted from a ruling class that had become greedy and materialistic.77 The Founders saw this corruption play out through the ongoing attempts of the British government to collect taxes without consent, and their response, through boycotts and the nonimportation of goods, was grounded in a desire to grow through self-denial and industry.78 The Declaration of Independence justified revolution against England and the corruption she had perpetrated by not protecting the individual. In arguing against this unjust state, the Declaration advocates for political individualism. At the same time that the Continental Congress was approving the Declaration, members were also working on a draft of the first American constitution. The Articles of Confederation were drafted and ratified during the American Revolution, roughly from 1776 to 1781. This original constitution was intended to coordinate the states and achieve some semblance of legitimacy from the perspective of other countries. What is noteworthy about this document is the power structure it established: a loose association of sovereign states with a weak central government. The content and purpose of the Articles of Confederation represent a  marked departure from the Declaration of Independence. Logically, a revolutionary document that aims to reject state legitimacy is going to proceed differently than a constitutional document that aims to establish it.

76

Individualism in the United States

However, we would expect these two documents to, at least, be based on the same underlying assumptions and principles.79 We do not find this consistency between the Articles and the Declaration. For example, the major shortcoming of the British government was a failure to protect the individual, yet the Articles of Confederation created a government that was incapable of providing such protection. It is apparent that this document is a better statement of the general level of fear regarding government than it is an ideologically consistent application of the revolutionary principles. At the time, a confederal system was the only known alternative to a unitary system, and it proved itself unworkable in a short period of time. Unfortunately, this power distribution and institutional structure did not sufficiently protect individual interests or societal interests.80 This was the major defect that the Constitutional Convention delegates met to correct. The Articles did not provide enough structure to regulate individual activity and did not give enough power to the national government. Arguably, this void created a level of autonomy, among individuals and the states, that was undesirable and unsustainable given the conception of political individualism prevalent at the time. The failure of the Articles of Confederation led to a more restricted view of individualism and the role of individual rights and how they would be best protected. The type of liberty shifted from negative to positive.81 In the ongoing debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, there was agreement that individual action should or would be restrained. There was a common set of values that brought both sides together and helped smooth the way toward compromise and, ultimately, ratification.82 Their differences centered on their conflicting assumptions about human nature and what should be the source of individual restraint. For example, the Federalists favored a stronger centralized government that featured checks and balances and controls to limit the power of factions and represent the best interests of the citizenry. This position has been equated with a more pessimistic view of human nature than the Anti-Federalists had. Because the Anti-Federalists wanted less government, it is reasonable to assume that it was due to a more positive sense of human nature, that is, less government would suffice because people did not need interference to control their behavior, guide their decisions, or enhance their freedom. This position is debatable. It could be that the Anti-Federalists believed that there were other factors that controlled behavior, rendering increased governmental intervention unnecessary. They believed in the importance of community, obligation, and duty, and contended that these elements would provide the structure individuals needed to ensure responsible decision-making and order. It is because of these assumptions that the Anti-Federalists did not see a need for a larger centralized government. It was not because the Anti-Federalists did not think the people needed or wanted interference; it was because they believed it was being provided by other sources that were morally informed and community based.

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

77

Like the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was written as a state-building document. Its purpose was to create the blueprint of the American government, including its powers and its institutions, in a way more thorough and adequate than the Articles of Confederation. The people and ideas that inspired this document are up for discussion and have been the subject of vigorous debate in the literature. It has been argued that the Founders changed their view of human nature from the time the Declaration of Independence was written to when the Constitution was written.83 I contend that the Constitution represents a formal return to political individualism after the failure of the Articles of Confederation to protect the individual. This return actually represents a consistency with the Declaration of Independence rather than a departure from it. The incorporation of individualism in the Constitution rests primarily on the protection of the individual and individual liberty.84 While it is true that the purposes of a revolutionary document differ from the purposes of a constitutional document,85 they need not be restricted in the issues that they address. Both can speak of lofty goals and higher aspirations; both can acknowledge human challenges and lowly temptations.86 The Declaration does all of these things, and the Constitution builds upon it. The disjointedness that others have detected between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions stems from a misunderstanding about the nature of individualism and an attempt to apply a modern definition to this concept. Individualism need not be separated out and isolated from organized attempts to protect the individual and impose regulation and order. In fact, political individualism brings these ideas together. The Constitution promotes the positive liberty contained in political individualism through many principles and institutional devices. There are examples of this political individualism in the document and in the Federalist, which was written to support it. We can find these examples in the structure of the federal government, the provision of civil liberties, and in the expressed and inherent powers granted to the national government. First, the implementation of mixed government supplemented with checks and balances of power serves to protect the individual. As laid out in Articles I through III of the Constitution and defended in Federalist No. 10, there is a benefit to the individual in dividing governmental authority across different types of governance and providing ways for those different branches to check the others’ authority. As Publius explains in Federalist No. 10, it is part of human nature to gather with like-minded people and advance the causes thereof, even if it is not good for everyone. He referred to these gatherings as factions. This human tendency to organize into factions cannot be stopped but must be subdued in order to ensure the protection of all. If the faction is in the minority, then it will be controlled through the use of majority rule. If the faction is in the majority, the effects can be controlled through the use of republican government.87

78

Individualism in the United States

The idea that the government has a role to play in protecting the community is present in this defense of the Constitution88 and is consistent with political individualism. The rights of the individual are further protected by specific denials of power and grants of power applied to the national government, along with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. We can see the tension between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists manifest itself through these provisions, but we can also see them working toward the same goal of protecting the individual. For instance, the denials of power restricted the actions of the federal government in order to protect the individual’s rights. The rights of the individual are promoted and protected through maintaining the use of the writ of habeas corpus and prohibiting Congress from passing bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.89 These denials of power are more conventionally linked with individualism, but there are other provisions in the Constitution that have the same end. Lastly, we can look to grants of power in the Constitution as a source of individual protection. In Federalist No. 54, Publius contends that the government has a role to play in protecting the individual.90 This role is delineated through the expressed powers and implied powers of Congress. With regard to the expressed powers, the Supremacy Clause gives the Constitution and federal law ultimate authority over the states if there is a conflict. This clause has been historically interpreted to work against the individual, but it can be construed in a more positive light with regard to political individualism. If one considers the Supremacy Clause as a way of controlling regional (state-based) factions, it is a precursor to the Equal Protection Clause later included in the 14th Amendment. Certainly, this is a protection for individual rights and insurance against those factions that might create unequal conditions at the state level. Further, the inherent powers of the government related to the common defense and provisions for the general welfare of the people are individual protections, as well. The content of these documents, and the success and failure that resulted, demonstrates and validates the presence of political individualism during the founding era.

The role of the community There is additional evidence for political individualism to be found by investigating the actual living conditions of these Early Americans. The romantic idea of this era places the adventurous individual on the wild frontier. This image has strengthened the idea that these people were individualistic in a modern sense. However, life on the frontier was not at all common or representative. It has been estimated that, since the mid-1700s, less than 10 percent of the population has lived in any kind of frontier scenario at any given time.91 Further, most of the communities that existed during the

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

79

founding era were long since established, having existed for a 100 years or more.92 There is a great deal of evidence to support the assertion that colonial and Early America was a community-based culture that understood the importance of the individual and had methods in place to protect and nurture him or her. Early America has been referred to as a “nation of communities rather than of individuals.”93 Additionally, a vast majority of these communities were small (with fewer than 2,500 people), and this level of social intimacy created high levels of individual accountability.94 While the existence of these small communities is important in refuting previous notions of life during this time, the role of the community in the lives of the individuals is even more significant. Many communities developed as the result of common values, and upholding these values was often both an individual and community goal. What was good for the community would arguably be good for everyone in it, but if a conflict ever arose, the general belief was that the needs of the community would come first.95 These values were commonly maintained through the churches in the community and an individual desire to adhere to the standards set by the church for that community.96 These communities were designed to protect and promote the interests of the community members, but there was no idea of individuals being left to do whatever they wished.97 With regard to protecting the individual, the community was a considerable source of oversight and regulation. In fact, those who look to the past to bolster modern claims to individual autonomy would probably be very surprised to see the level of governmental activity at the local level.98 These regulations ranged from practical considerations that we would think of as zoning issues today (e.g., lot size, fence height) to moral issues and the ability of individuals to join the community.99 These regulations were intended to create a certain quality of life that was beneficial to all. The need for them was based on a belief that individual freedom was maximized in such a setting. Early Americans enjoyed these communities, by and large, and chose this lifestyle. This was far more appealing than less intervention outside of the community.100 To the extent that autonomy was acknowledged as a principle of political and societal importance, it almost always referred to the autonomy of the community, not the individual.101 The individual was not viewed as a politically or socially viable unit. Persons as individuals only have meaning and effectiveness and freedom to the extent that they belong to and participate in communities. Freedom for the individual existed in a protected and defined space in a positive sense and by virtue of community membership.102 The community was seen as compatible with individual goals and development. The individual needed help to realize freedom. Communities, regulation, and intervention were not seen as enemies of individual freedom and rights.103 These social and political features were seen as paths to freedom and political individualism.

80

Individualism in the United States

The existence of communities, the prevalence of communities, and the role these communities played in the lives of individuals all support the existence of political individualism as a distinct form of individualism that involved intervention and protections in a positive sense.

Significance of political individualism This type of individualism is historically significant for several reasons. First, it represents a reconciliation of many views and attempts to explain the behavior and preferences of this early era in American history. Political individualism bridges the gap between previous notions of liberal individualism, republicanism, and the Protestant Ethic. Second, it is more historically accurate than other conceptions of early individualism in that it takes into account the work done by historians over the last several decades to clarify the predominant ways of life during this era. Third, it establishes the importance of individualism during this foundational time, while emphasizing a positive conception of freedom and individualism that can be contrasted with the developing types of individualism, as we explain the transformation moving forward. Political individualism emphasizes and promotes the relationship between the individual and society and the individual and government, because it embraces this interaction and characterizes community involvement as a legitimate way to promote and protect individual interests. As originally understood and applied, individualism and individual rights required structure and regulation to thrive. Through a better understanding of the ideas that inspired the Founders, the documents they wrote, and the political systems that failed and succeeded, we can see this political individualism manifest itself during this time period. From a social and political standpoint, there was nothing adversarial about the relationship between the individual and his or her community. It was not until individuals began pursuing more individual economic interests that the concept of the individual and the nature of that relationship began to change.

Questions to consider



1 How do you think political individualism challenges modern

notions of individualism? In what ways could negative and positive individualism work together or be reconciled? 2 Why do you think there is an impulse to create a past that is harmonious with the present?

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

81

Notes 1 Morgan, “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution,” 3, 7. 2 See Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America; Lipset, American Exceptionalism. 3 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 513. 4 Green, T. H., The Works of Thomas Green; Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty. 5 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 525; Shain, The Myth of American Individualism, 84–5, 90–3, 117. 6 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 524; Shain, The Myth of American Individualism, 84, 91–2. 7 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 524–5. 8 The main perceived threats were the government and/or a faction. An overly powerful government could pose a threat to an individual’s civil liberties, and there are many denials of power in the main body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to address this concern. As discussed in Federalist No. 10, a faction is a group of people who act in their own interest in a way that creates a disadvantage for society as a whole. A faction can be found in the minority or majority. Majority factions are the most problematic. 9 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 519. 10 Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, ch. 3. 11 The Articles of Confederation created a government with a confederal structure—sovereign states with a weak national government. The Constitution established a federal system with divided sovereignty between the national and subnational (state) governments. 12 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 9. 13 Ibid. 14 For explanations of this position, see Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America; Lipset, American Exceptionalism. 15 See Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America; Dienstag, “Serving God and Mammon.” 16 Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 72. 17 See Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. 18 Lipset, American Exceptionalism. 19 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 516. 20 Ibid., 518.

82

Individualism in the United States

21 Ibid., 513–14. 22 Ibid., 522. 23 Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America, 62. 24 See Kloppenberg, “In Retrospect: Louis Hartz’s ‘The Liberal Tradition in America’.” 25 Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 71. 26 Barkalow, “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought,” 498. 27 Ibid. 28 Wood, John Locke and Agrarian Capitalism, 53. 29 Ibid., 54. 30 Kramnick, Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-century England and America, 7. 31 Ibid. 32 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 5. 33 Ibid. 34 Wood, John Locke and Agrarian Capitalism, 54–5. 35 Ibid. 36 For an example, see Barry Shain, The Myth of American Individualism. 37 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 518. 38 Ibid., 519; Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart, 252–4, 335; Shain, The Myth of American Individualism, 272–3; Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 104; Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination, 21–3, 290–1. 39 Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination, 29–30. 40 Ibid., 8. 41 Ibid., 1. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid., 11. 44 Ibid., 6, 12. 45 Ibid., 15. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., 182. 48 Ibid., 23. 49 The term “Puritan Ethic” is used here simply as an appropriate shorthand phrase to designate them, and should not be taken to imply that the American Revolutionists were Puritans. Morgan, “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution,” 3, 6. 50 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 523; Shain, The Myth of American Individualism, xvi,

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

83

3, 37–8, 86. It should be noted, however, that this claim is truer for those denominations influenced primarily by Calvin, as opposed to Anglican and Lutheran-influenced groups, who rejected predestination. 51 Morgan, “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution,” 3. 52 Ibid., 4. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., 5. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid., 7; Boyd et al., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, xi, 250, 349. 57 Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution; Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics. 58 Dienstag, “Serving God and Mammon: The Lockean Sympathy in Early American Political Thought,” 497–511. 59 Ibid., 497. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid., 498. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid., 501. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., 501–2; Kramnick, Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-century England and America. 68 Dienstag, “Serving God and Mammon: The Lockean Sympathy in Early American Political Thought,” 502. 69 Ibid., 503. 70 Ibid. 71 For an enlightening discussion of these views, see Dienstag, “Serving God and Mammon: The Lockean Sympathy in Early American Political Thought.” 72 Dienstag, “Serving God and Mammon: The Lockean Sympathy in Early American Political Thought,” 507. 73 Ibid. 74 Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 78. 75 Locke’s discussion of the pursuit of happiness can be found in Book II, Section 51 of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. 76 Morgan, “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution,” 14; It should be noted that English Common Law is the primary source for American due process. 77 Morgan, “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution,” 18. 78 Ibid., 9. 79 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 85.

84

Individualism in the United States

80 In fact, the purpose of the Annapolis Convention was to address the issues of commerce among the states, which the Articles were ill-equipped to manage. 81 Rodgers, “Republicanism: The Career of a Concept.” 82 Morgan, “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution,” 20. 83 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 86. 84 McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, ch. 5. 85 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 86. 86 Ibid. Diggins identifies these different components, but suggests that revolutionary documents are restricted to the lofty goals, while constitutional documents must grapple with the human challenges. I do not agree that these objectives have to be separated in this way. 87 Hamilton et al., The Federalist Papers, 46–7. 88 Ibid. 89 Habeas corpus is the constitutional provision that keeps individuals from being imprisoned indefinitely without being charged with a crime; the prohibition of bills of attainder keeps Congress from passing laws that are designed to punish an individual or group of people; and the prohibition of ex post facto laws means that Congress cannot pass a law and apply it retroactively. If an activity was legal when an individual engaged in it, he or she cannot be prosecuted for it at a later date if the activity was subsequently made illegal. 90 Hamilton et al., The Federalist Papers, 307. 91 Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 71. 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid. 94 Chandler, The Visible Hand, 17; Stuart, United States Expansion and British North America, 46, 55; Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 58, 131, 312; Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 523. 95 Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 76. 96 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 523. 97 Ibid., 522; Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 20. 98 Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 71. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid. 101 Grabb et al., “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering Historical Evidence,” 524. 102 Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 76. 103 Ibid.

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM

85

Further reading Appleby, Joyce Oldham. Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Enlarged edn. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992. Dienstag, Joshua. “Serving God and Mammon: The Lockean Sympathy in Early American Political Thought.” The American Political Science Review 90, no. 3 (September 1996): 497–511. Diggins, John Patrick. The Lost Soul of American Politics. New York: Basic Book Publishers, 1984.

86

Chapter five

Economic individualism: Individualism and the Industrial Revolution

Chapter summary Chapter 5 details the second phase in the transformation of American individualism: the development of economic individualism or individualism as an economic ideal. Individualism changed from a political ideal to an economic ideal in response to the Industrial Revolution and the resulting social and economic changes in American society. This transformation had a significant impact on the very definition of American individualism. Whereas a belief in political individualism did not require one to turn against the best interests of others, economic individualism was understood as a zero-sum game in which one must lose for another to win. Contrary to other accounts of this different type of individualism, I assert that it did not just spontaneously arise due to industrialization. We can find its roots in an earlier time. Thus, economic individualism represents a transformation of the political individualism of the founding era. Individualism grew and changed into a new form—a form with serious and detrimental consequences for democracy.

Chapter objectives

1 To define economic individualism and explore its development with



regard to the founding era, capitalism, and industrialization. 2 To identify and evaluate the causes of the transformation from political individualism to economic individualism.

88



Individualism in the United States 3 To identify the implications of this transformation for the viability

of democracy. At the core of individualism is the desire to protect the individual and his or her rights. How we go about doing this will vary based on the answers to two key questions: (1) where is the greatest threat to the individual coming from? (2) how are we defining individual liberty? During the founding era, the greatest perceived threat to the individual was the national government, and liberty was clearly defined in positive terms (i.e., the individual needs active help and intervention in order to be free). In this chapter, we will explore the economic, cultural, and political changes that led to the first major transformation in individualism since the founding. The answers to these two questions changed, which led to a new American understanding of the individual and his or her rights. The term we will use to discuss this nineteenth-century individualism is economic individualism. The transformation of individualism as a political concern to an economic concern mirrors the change in the perceived threat to the individual. During the late eighteenth century, the perceived threat was from the national government and ways in which it could inhibit individual political freedom. During the nineteenth century, the perceived threat was from the national government and ways in which it could inhibit individual economic freedom. The suggestion that the individualism of the nineteenth century differed from the individualism of the eighteenth century has been made before. However, each of the attempts to explain these changes seems to exclude the others, leaving students of this phenomenon in a position to have to pick one over the other. I believe that there is truth in each of them, and it is in this spirit that we shall proceed. Previous research has explained the nineteenth-century transformation in individualism in a few ways: (1) as a complete philosophical shift away from Locke, (2) as a by-product of American industrialization, and (3) as a result of the success and prosperity of capitalism. We need not choose just one of these, as they are all partially correct. First, this transformation is reflective of a philosophical shift among many Americans during this time.1 Previous research has suggested that the shift toward economic individualism represented an abandonment of Locke and an acceptance of the economic theories of Adam Smith and the sociological theories of Herbert Spencer.2 Both these bodies of thought were interpreted in a way that promoted and justified a level of individual competition that was not really a part of political individualism.3 This message of competition and the resulting inequality of results had not been widely spoken of before. The equality that was discussed in the late eighteenth century had to do with equality of opportunity and ways in which that could be created and sustained in a political society. Certainly, the government had a role to play in that. This belief in the existence of equality of opportunity was part of

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

89

political individualism (i.e. protecting the individual so that he may be free to participate equally and freely in the political process). Part of the philosophical change involved applying this same logic to economic activity. That is to say, where there is political equality of opportunity there is surely economic equality of opportunity. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as individuals to make the most of this opportunity. Given the finite amount of resources available in any one place and at any one time, we then must engage in competition to maximize opportunity. This explanation is based on the idea that the perceived threat had changed. Locke’s theories had been relied upon to protect the people from the government when the government might be tempted to deprive them of their political rights; Smith and Spencer were relied upon to protect the people from the government when the government might be tempted to deprive them of their economic rights.4 The nature of the threat had changed, and so the theory that was required to justify individual freedom had changed as well. Additionally, the predominant definition of freedom had shifted. Freedom in the founding era had been much more positive in nature, that is people needed active intervention to be free. The natural political rights identified by Locke—life, liberty, and property—required active protection. In fact, that was the job of any legitimate government, which implies that it was intended to be an active pursuit. Economic individualism is based on a negative conception of liberty, that is, people need to be left alone in order to be free. When it came to economic pursuits, the individual needed to be left alone by government and the law and allowed to pursue his or her best interests as he or she saw fit. The active government that had been empowered to protect the individual before was now characterized as paternalistic if and when it tried to protect the individual in the economic realm.5 As the economic individual grew more complex in his or her economic organization, these rights and protections grew more complex as well. Before long, the political rights of the individual grew into the economic rights of the corporation.6 The freedom of the eighteenth-century individual to speak, to grow spiritually, and to give civically in order to enhance the community was replaced by the nineteenth-century individual who believed he or she could enhance the community through individual economic initiative and self-reliance.7 Secondly, economic individualism has been defined as a by-product of American industrialization. Rather than seeing industrialization as a separate explanation for the transformation in individualism, we can see how it works in tandem with the philosophical changes. Industrialization has been defined as “the creation and spread of mechanized and closely labor-divided forms of production.”8 This definition refers to the division of labor and increase in productive efficiency that resulted from the widespread mechanization of production processes. The Industrial Revolution began in England in the eighteenth century, and came later to the United States. From

90

Individualism in the United States

an economic standpoint, industrialization increased efficiency and capacity with regard to the production of goods, and these increases did a great deal to expand economic opportunity for producers and consumers alike. There is no doubt that these increases made positive contributions to the lives of individuals in the United States. However, the impact of industrialization could not be limited to the economic realm. Industrialization changed American values and priorities9 in a way that was unanticipated, and for a long time, unchecked. Industrialization also played a role in transforming the American conception of individualism in such a way that political and cultural ramifications were realized as well. One such ramification was the division of labor that industrialization created. The creation of industry brought people in from the farm and cast them in roles as owners of industry or as workers. These distinct groups of economic actors served as the foundation for new social classes and a new social order that had not previously existed.10 There was no question that the lives of owners and workers were different, and this growing disparity created a challenge for the concept of individual freedom. The justification for this economic disparity was to be found in reviving the discussion of equality of opportunity. If everyone truly has the same opportunity, then how could this new order infringe on individual freedom? It would be incumbent on each of us individually to find success, and that would be the definition of freedom: the freedom to be left alone to realize success (or not).11 At the heart of industrialization was the entrepreneur.12 The entrepreneur is the person who starts a business and who bears the full risk and benefit of that business. Unlike the worker, who draws a wage while he works and stands to only lose the wage should he choose to walk away, the entrepreneur carries the weight of the success or failure of the enterprise. Building upon the primacy of the individual that political individualism established, the economic individual was comparably rational and pragmatic. Created equally among others, he or she had the freedom to seek out opportunity. As American industrialization progressed, the profile of a successful entrepreneur developed. He or she has been described as persistent, driven, joyous and delighted by his or her work, energetic, strong-willed, and competitive.13 These words described the economic individual, and the desire to protect him or her and his or her freedom to seek out such success became the core of economic individualism. During this same time, however, not every individual was able to obtain success as an entrepreneur. There were those who were merely workers in the factories, and these people were ascribed a number of negative characteristics. The worker was not celebrated as a hero or a heroine, nor did he or she feel the joyous delight of the entrepreneur. The individual protections afforded to the business owner were somewhat slower in coming to his or her employees. However, the entrepreneurs were described as “folk heroes,”14 and the entrepreneur carried forth the spirit of individualism into economic pursuits, and the legitimacy of that claim

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

91

and the necessity of the protections were extended to that which he or she created: his or her business. Industrialization changed what the individual’s business looked like, however, and so further ramifications were realized as this change progressed. The small business run by the tradesperson of the eighteenth century could not maintain the status quo in this economic environment. Chances were that a small business either would grow into a large business or would be pushed out of business entirely.15 Entrepreneurs then needed greater and greater amounts of capital in order to stay viable, and these projects required corporate charters.16 The ability to become a corporation was then promoted as a way to advance the individual. In order to be competitive and realize economic success, the entrepreneur would need to incorporate. People began to think of incorporation as a right,17 sure as any right Locke talked about. As corporate power grew from entrepreneurial spirit, the economic individual developed with economic individualism to justify him or her. Of course, no one thought in terms of “economic individualism” at the time. It was just individualism, the same individualism that had been promoted by the Founders and incorporated into our founding documents. But was it really the same? Were the goals of the nineteenth-century economic individual and the goals of the eighteenth-century political individual the same? Arguably, the economic individual would be focused on earning money.18 Is this goal comparable to the many freedoms the political individual sought? Industrialization created an individual that Americans did not immediately understand. Rather than acknowledging a difference in political and economic pursuits (and perhaps then creating a different set of standards by which they could be protected and regulated), Americans sought to reconcile the political individual with the economic individual by making him or her one and the same. Dating back to the 1870s, the Supreme Court established the precedent of treating corporations as individuals, the business as an extension of one’s individual labor.19 In Chapter 8, we will give further consideration to the modern implications of this precedent. The role of the government in the way in which it promoted individual freedom then changed. Whereas the Founders had created many political practices and procedures to protect the individual in a positive and active way, the economic individual demanded negative liberty.20 Industrialization led to the conflation of political and economic freedom, thus opening the door to unbridled corporate growth. Since the legitimacy of this freedom went unquestioned, there was nothing to slow the advancement of the economic individual or diminish the economic individualism that justified his or her existence.21 The significance of this transference of principle was not wasted on those who represented corporate interests. In 1904, the American Association of Manufacturers declared in their constitution a commitment to the “maintenance of individualism.”22

92

Individualism in the United States

Thirdly, economic individualism can be defined as a result of the success and prosperity capitalism has been credited with, though I believe this connection is somewhat misguided. Discussions of industrialization and capitalism become unnecessarily muddled and this tendency derives from a misunderstanding of how these concepts relate. Industrialization refers to a revolution in productivity wherein the methods of production change based on mechanization and a division of labor. Capitalism is an ideological concept23 that justifies a distribution of profit and resources based on a (perceived) proportionate exchange of inputs and outputs. While these concepts are different, they can obviously work together. In the case of the United States, they work together to create and advance economic individualism. A capitalist economy is just a market system in which the state maintains market-creating, market-stabilizing, and market-legitimizing institutions.24 The only factor necessary for the creation of a market system is a cooperative and supportive state. Capitalism can and did exist without industrialization.25 It was the prosperity and productivity that industrialization generated that gave the capitalist distribution method a similar reputation. The affluence and efficiency that we ascribe to capitalism should really be credited to industrialization.26 Unfortunately, in any circumstance, this affluence may end up becoming concentrated in very few hands if the state does not engage in practices that allow it to disseminate among the people.27 Capitalism does have a role to play in the definition of economic individualism, but a better way to discuss it is in terms of how it calls for resources to be distributed. Capitalism calls for the state to maintain private property for the encouragement and betterment of the individual entrepreneur. This is about rewarding individual investment with benefits that justify the economic risk incurred by the individual. A successful market system also requires the state to provide rules and regulations to stabilize business relationships and protect individual interests in those relationships. This can be done through maintaining and enforcing contracts. Lastly, the state is responsible for counteracting the negative effects of capitalism (e.g., economic inequalities) so that the system is still seen as legitimate despite these problems. There are multiple ways to create and maintain a market system, but the negative attention that industrialization received from people like Karl Marx has forever connected the two concepts.28 Capitalism provides the economic individual with his or her structural integrity, but it is industrialization that allowed him or her to grow and expand into the powerful figure he or she would become.29 Contrary to other accounts of this different type of individualism, I assert that it did not just spontaneously arise due to industrialization. We can find its roots in an earlier time. Thus, economic individualism represents a transformation of the political individualism of the founding era. Individualism grew and changed into a new form—a form with serious and detrimental consequences for democracy.

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

93

The beginnings of economic individualism While the existence of an economic individualism has been acknowledged before, the tendency has been to think of it as a unique economic construction that represents a departure from earlier conceptions of individualism. I certainly agree that it is a departure, but I think we can see the beginnings of it in an early time. Rather than thinking of this type of individualism as something new, we should understand it as the transformation it truly is. Interestingly (and perhaps ironically), we need look no further than the Anti-Federalists to discover the roots of this transformation from political individualism to economic individualism. Understanding the risk we take anytime we try to consolidate an entire body of thought into a few talking points, we can describe anti federalism by a certain set of concerns and solutions. The conventional wisdom regarding the debate over governmental power and individual freedom tells us that the Anti-Federalists were more concerned with the preservation of individual rights than were the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were the ones who were pushing for more state and local power and less national power, because they believed that the individual would be better served if power was kept close to the people and the people were kept close to the land. The solutions that the Anti-Federalists proposed consist of a threestep sequence of ideas and actions that build upon one another. It is this sequence that would ultimately serve as the ideological foundation for the transformation. First, the Anti-Federalists embraced a governmental program based on negative liberty. This, of course, ran contrary to the Federalist vision of positive liberty and a people needing help and intervention to be free. The Anti-Federalists wanted formalized provisions to protect the people from governmental intervention when at all possible. This negative liberty is easily observable in the Bill of Rights, which the Anti-Federalists strongly advocated for. The Bill of Rights was added to promote freedom of thought, action, speech, defense, and privacy. In the event of an individual being accused of a crime and the government being inclined to intervene, the rest of the Bill of Rights provides for procedural due process so that these actions would be strictly regulated and restricted in order to preserve the individual’s rights as much as possible. Negative liberty is the underlying principle of all of these protections: individual freedom is defined by the extent to which we are left alone to do what we want. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect this ability. Second, the Anti-Federalists supported reducing the power of the national government in exchange for a system more concentrated on the state and local level. They believed that state and local governance was more meaningful and less likely to deprive individuals of their rights because it was closer to the people and more representative of their will. Remember that this was a very different time with regard to travel, communication,

94

Individualism in the United States

and regional differences. The idea that a national government could truly be in touch with the needs of the citizens in all places was somewhat unreasonable. It was logistically very difficult to provide for that kind of connectivity. Due to these difficulties, the political activity that seemed most relevant to the Anti-Federalists was the activity that took place where the people actually lived. In the early years of this republic, there were also many regional differences from state to state that superseded any sense of national unity. There were differences in culture, economy, heritage, and history that led the people of different states to believe that their needs were somehow different enough from those of others and that they required more localized governance. A centralized and powerful government would be challenged to represent these many different perspectives. It was on these grounds that the legitimacy of a strong national government was challenged. Third, the Anti-Federalists encouraged maintaining a connection to the land and agriculture as a way to promote individual freedom. The Federalist comfort with industrialization and urban development caused concern among the Anti-Federalists. Giving up a direct connection with the land and the ability to sustain one’s self with that land represented a loss of freedom. If one becomes dependent on another for one’s means of subsistence, then a sacrifice of individual freedom will inevitably follow. If one wanted to preserve one’s individual freedom, maintaining that connection with the land was an obvious way to do so. These components of Anti-Federalist thought were acknowledged and dealt with in different ways during the founding era and the early years of this country’s existence. First, negative liberty and the emphasis of state and local governance were largely represented by the Articles of Confederation, which did not work out so well. This history created challenges for the AntiFederalists in drafting the Constitution. They mostly lost this battle, though they did win some concessions. Namely, they won the addition of the Bill of Rights. We can also include habeas corpus, prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, and the inclusion of the Full Faith and Credit Clause as other concessions for the protection of individual rights. Even so, we know that the political position that won at the time was based on the positive liberty of political individualism and the active role of the government in providing quality of life and freedom for the people as put forth by the Federalists. After ratification, however, the Anti-Federalists and their take on individual rights did not fade away by any means. Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, this movement formalized into a political party initially known as the Republican Party.30 Jefferson would continue to push for the principles of negative liberty, limited national governmental power, and preservation of the connection between people and the land. What Jefferson did not anticipate was that these principles designed to promote individual rights in a political context would actually end up leading to the deprivation of individual rights in an economic context.

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

95

In a historical context, it did not take long for the elitist policies and positions of the Federalist Party to fall out of favor. By the 1800s, the role of the masses in the political realm had become more pronounced, thus diminishing the impact of the political elite.31 The Republicans were successful in persuading people that the root of this republic needed to be grounded in the will of the people rather than in the well-intentioned trustee the Federalists would have preferred. Jefferson has been quoted as saying that “the public good is best promoted by the exertion of each individual seeking his own good in his own way.”32 Jefferson had not abandoned the notion of the community or the public good in emphasizing the importance of individual choice. In fact, this rhetoric has been read as a synthesis of the community and the individual and ways in which all could enjoy the hope, prosperity, and abundance of this place.33 Jefferson’s goals were not inconsistent with the spirit of political individualism, in that both desired to promote individual freedom. His concerns about an overly powerful national government led him and others to explore other ways to protect the individual, and the methods worked quite well in a political context. As the “realities of the American environment” changed, however, these principles were changed as well.34 The promotion of negative liberty ended up providing the justification for fewer governmental protections, even as the changing economic environment increased the need for such protections. Negative liberty made sense from a Republican perspective, because the focus was on the inherent equality of individuals. From this perspective, the main threat to individual liberty comes from the government. If we can limit that power, then the people will be secure from such infringements. The Federalists anticipated a different kind of threat in that they acknowledged the possibility of people organizing against one another. Federalist No. 10 expresses this concern about the development of factions. It is for similar reasons that so many Founders were unenthusiastic about political parties. The potential of citizens organizing in such a way as to deprive one another of rights and freedoms was of real concern. The alternative model of liberty that the Anti-Federalists supported did not contain any contingencies to protect people from one another. Managing democracy became a political challenge in the early decades of the nineteenth century,35 and matters would only become more complicated as capitalism led to the creation of distinct economic classes with no guarantee of corresponding representation.36 Second, the Jeffersonian emphasis on the importance of land and the role that land played in promoting the individual became distorted as well. Keeping the people close to the land (and expanding the opportunities for land ownership) was intended to promote democracy. Land ownership provided the individual with the ability to provide for himself or herself, it gave him or her space to live the way in which he or she chose, and the value of the land would translate into some sort of political and social weight in American society.

96

Individualism in the United States

When Jefferson bought Louisiana in 1803, the motivation was largely political and based on a desire to remove French interests from the continent. The purchase was consistent with Jefferson’s views on the primacy of land ownership, and it melded with the developing American desire to move and settle westward. The main problem that developed with regard to the increasing importance of land ownership concerned the reconciliation of the social and political dimensions of land ownership. Jefferson believed that owning land would enhance individual freedom, but we have no evidence that he intended the land to impede one’s social relations. Nonetheless, as we progressed through the nineteenth century, the separation between the natural and the social became pronounced in many contexts.37 Individuals were made more virtuous and self-sufficient by withdrawing socially (and thus politically) and retreating to nature, to their land. Land ownership provided the people with more independence, which avoided some of the problems caused by industrialization, but it encouraged solitude and detachment from society. As individuals were increasingly encouraged to identify themselves by what they owned, they were discouraged to define themselves by their attachments and obligations. Expanding the American frontier was done with the best intentions of opening up opportunities for this country and the individuals in it, but is also blamed for creating an “intense individualism” that was a real departure from any sense of civic virtue.38 The Louisiana Purchase set the stage for a century of growth that emphasized the individual in new and unanticipated ways. It set the precedent for economic decisions being made in a shortsighted way based on what is perceived to be best at the time for the parties involved and with little concern for long-term consequences.39 The fast-paced economic growth of this era was enhanced by this acquisition of land, and it would lead to many conflicts and challenges for individuals during this time.40 The Anti-Federalists were seen as the champions of the individual and the protectors of individual freedom. The components of their ideological position—negative liberty, state and local governance, and land ownership— worked well with political individualism in that they created a balance with Federalist ideals in order to promote democratic participation. Within a short period of time, however, these same ideological components would be changed and serve as the foundation for the transformation from political to economic individualism.

What is economic individualism? Economic individualism changed the nature of societal bonds in American society, which ultimately caused them to weaken and in some ways collapse. A healthy and functional sense of individualism relies on a component of societal connectedness—but not just any kind of connectedness.

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

97

Economic individualism undermined this part of the foundation of political individualism in three main ways: it removed the element of self-restraint that had previously been a part of our social identity, it introduced a level of economic insecurity and instability that had not previously existed, and it changed the nature of societal cooperation and obligation to economic exchange and codependency. In Figure 5.1, one can see how the foundation of individualism changed as it transformed from political individualism to economic individualism. Societal bonds were still present, though their foundation had changed. Instead of resting on self-restraint, security and stability, and obligation, these bonds were now formed by economic exchange and dependency and class divisions. The development of economic individualism eroded this base for a few different reasons. First, the economic development of the nineteenth century redefined how citizens perceived themselves individually and socially. Prior to this time, individual interests were at least partially advanced through the practice of self-restraint and the societal stability this contributed to. However, industrialization and the expansion of capitalism required individuals to take risks with their resources, their livelihoods, and even their own lives.

Political individualism

Individual freedom

Choice

Societal bonds

Opportunity

Selfrestraint

Stability/ Security

Obligation

Economic individualism

Individual freedom

Choice

Opportunity

Societal bonds

Economic exchange/ dependency

Class identity

Figure 5.1  The transformation of political individualism into economic individualism.

98

Individualism in the United States

Those who had more resources to spare were rewarded through their speculations and investments. Those who were willing to take greater risks stood to benefit the most. Exercising self-restraint and caution could result in being left behind during this era of rapid progress. Likewise, those individuals with fewer resources who were looking for jobs were encouraged to put themselves first by leaving their communities and moving to urban areas where jobs were more plentiful. As competition for jobs increased, individuals could suffer loss of both opportunity and money if they stopped to consider the wellness of another. The smarter approach in this climate was to run headlong in the direction of opportunity lest another got there first. This desire undermined a key component of the societal bonds that individualism requires by discouraging self-restraint. Insofar as the individual’s economic success seemed to hinge on competition and the absence of self-restraint, people began to identify as individuals rather than as part of a group. Individual autonomy now required physical separateness and independence and a willingness to not conform to the norms of the group.41 Historically, self-restraint was valued and necessary to preserve one’s role in society (and thus buttress individual freedoms and rights), but with self-restraint devalued, the role of the individual in society changed as well. Society was no longer perceived as a way to protect the freedoms and rights of the individual, but as a threat to the individual. The state would force conformity, and this new individual wanted to do whatever he or she thought was good for him or her in the realm of economics and beyond. The sociology literature has documented a number of social implications for this changing mentality including a general withdrawal from other-interested activities.42 Second, economic development introduced a level of economic instability and insecurity that resulted in increased economic dependency and a more defined class structure. This component of the transformation is heavily based on Karl Marx’s understanding of capitalism. Critics of capitalism have repeatedly noted that the cyclical nature of this type of economic system creates periodic economic crises. Rapid industrialization combined with a capitalistic allocation of resources created a great deal of instability for a large portion of the population, most notably those with fewer resources. Basically, as more people went to work for others (instead of providing for themselves through agricultural work), more people suffered the negative effects of the economic system. An increasing number of people were subjected to these cyclical fluctuations, and the haves and have-nots became connected in an economic relationship of mutual dependency. People were sold on the idea that hard work would result in success, though the reality for many Americans was not this simple and the path to success not this clear cut.43 The reality was that some people had success and others did not, though all parties involved could have been working quite hard. Society began to stratify on the basis of these economic successes into workers and

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

99

owners. Though economic development would divide them in some ways, they would remain connected in a rather codependent way. The workers needed the capitalists to provide them with employment, and the capitalists needed the workers to provide them with labor. Marx bases the creation of classes upon this relationship, and the American experience is evidence of this. As people became separated into an ownership class and a working class, the individual identities of Americans changed. The bonds that held them together changed as well. The resulting change in individualism can be traced directly back to this changing self-image.44 Third, economic development had a lasting impact on the role and notion of social obligation in society. Membership in a community and feeling the obligation to help neighbors, family, and friends were not seen as a threat to the individual when political individualism was the norm. That connection was necessary for the wholeness and stability of the societal connections that individualism relied upon. Economic individualism removed that block with its assumption that freedom must be defined in negative terms. That is to say, truly free individuals must be free of obligations to others so that they are unencumbered in pursuing their own good.45 This transformation involved taking economic principles and applying them to social interactions, so if one is best left alone to pursue one’s economic good, then it only makes sense to leave him alone in social matters as well. Little thought was given during this transformation to whether or not this was a healthy or reasonable application of these principles. What we ended up with was a society of individuals who were encouraged to focus on their own affairs to the exclusion of those of others, who were offered elusive economic incentives to do so, and who were told that the path to self-discovery lies in isolation from others.46 The political individualism of the Founders was stripped of key foundational components during this transformation. The weakening and changing of societal bonds during this time resulted in an entirely different conception of individualism. This economic individualism would create a damaging legacy for American democracy in the years to come.

Causes of the transformation from political individualism to economic individualism I have identified what happened during this change, but the question remains: why did this happen? The ideological components of Anti-Federalism served as the foundation of this transformation, but there were many factors that caused this change to happen. I have already alluded to some of these causes, but will now provide more details and clarification. These causes can be placed into three main categories: the reinterpretation and reapplication of liberal ideas; the changing of American social structure; and economic

100

Individualism in the United States

development. The order of these causes is not sequential by any means. These events were happening concurrently and had a number of interactive effects. I am teasing them apart for ease in explaining and understanding them, but they really are all related to one another.

Reinterpretation of liberal ideas The reinterpretation of liberal ideas served as the foundation of this change in individualism, for without a reworking of these ideas, it would be nearly impossible to reconcile the theory of political individualism with the life of the economic individual of the nineteenth century. This has been a source of trouble for many as they have looked to the past to understand the present. As American individualism has changed, observers of this change have had difficulty with this reconciliation. The disconnection between these two conceptions of individualism manifested itself in the search for “moral community” during this later era.47 Previous assumptions have rested on one of two ideas: (1) nineteenth-century individualism was completely different from eighteenth-century individualism in its origins and premises and the two could not be linked, or (2) eighteenth- and nineteenth-century individualism were the same. My explanation rejects these assertions. These conceptions of individualism are not the same, but they are related. The Lockean individualism that prevailed at the founding has always been subjected to interpretation. It continues to be interpreted by various students and scholars, and this leads to a variety of applications. Additionally, other developments (e.g., shifts in religious and economic currents) impacted the way that Lockean thought developed in American culture.48 American individualism became a complicated amalgam of environmental factors, old and new. Liberal thought was reinterpreted and reapplied with regard to three main ideas: individual rights and freedom, property, and equality. First, ideas about individual rights had changed. Locke supported the existence of individual rights and freedom through his development of natural rights. Since individuals had rights inherent in them and not granted by a government, the role of the government was that of a protector of these rights. The reason why people would submit to the authority of a government was in order to have these rights protected, and so the Founders interpreted this in support of positive liberty—freedom as being provided for and protected by another entity. The spirit of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution demonstrate a belief in this conception of liberty. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges it because the document is about the failings of a government in protecting individual rights, and the Constitution acknowledges positive liberty by providing new and better protections. By the 1830s, however, Alexis de Tocqueville had observed a much different dynamic.

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

101

Remembering the Lockean Sympathy discussed in Chapter 4, we detect concurrent strains of virtue and liberty in Locke’s thought and they are detectable in the way he was interpreted at the founding. Not only did Tocqueville acknowledge the previously established connection between virtue and liberty, but he also believed that conditions in America had allowed these concepts to part ways.49 The fear of tyranny had motivated the Founders to impose a variety of constraints on power so that individuals would not be able to deprive one another of their rights.50 Tocqueville, however, observed the weakening, if not the absence, of virtue, the temptation to deprive others of rights, and the restraints to stop the deprivation. For him, the absence of these three things signified a major philosophical change in the way Americans were living. Tocqueville observed the rise of negative liberty, and he explained this shift in terms of the changing physical landscape of the United States. Basically, because there were so many opportunities in the Unites States, people did not feel tempted to infringe on each other’s rights.51 Without that temptation, virtue (which Tocqueville described as “the mastery of egoism”52)—functioning as an internal restraint—and governmental regulation—functioning as an external restraint—became equally unnecessary.53 Previous understandings of individual virtue were thus replaced by a new understanding of “liberal morality” based on individual equality.54 We will see, however, that notions of equality would also be changing during this time. Next, the liberal conception of property underwent a change. The significance of private property grew and in some ways was taken out of context. This application of the principle resulted in unintended societal consequences. Locke’s treatment of private property—how it was created and why it was important—had significant connections to individual freedom. Since individuals had the ability to create private property in the absence of the state, it made the individual less reliant on an illegitimate state. One of the terms of the social contract was the protection of private property. This governmental responsibility became very significant to the relationship between man and state and individual freedom. We know, however, that this was only one part of Locke’s position on property. He was also opposed to hoarding and taking more from the common store than could be reasonably used by an individual. Locke promoted a concept of self-denial, too, but these balancing positions were lost as the focus on attaining and maintaining private property became more limited. Since the time of the founding, the role of land in promoting and providing for individual liberty had been part of the political discussion. The AntiFederalists, in particular, emphasized the importance of this connection with the land.55 As long as individuals could remain close to the land, they would always have the ability to provide for themselves. Reduced reliance on others was desirable in order to maintain political and economic autonomy. Others have commented in retrospect about the significance of the land in

102

Individualism in the United States

creating a uniquely American social and political character.56 The idea of an ever-expanding frontier created a lifestyle and set of expectations among Americans that people of other countries could not necessarily relate to. There was always someplace new to go, if ever that option became appealing or necessary. Land provided for individual freedom through its abundance and availability and the opportunities it allowed for movement.57 As time progressed, the role of land in providing for individual upward economic mobility was further emphasized. The ownership of land provided a guarantee of sorts that this mobility could be realized.58 There is nothing inherently problematic in regarding the land as important to promoting individual liberty. The problem developed when the emphasis on the accumulation of private property grew too great and the private ownership of land became a path to social and political disconnection. The “Lockean Ethos” of this time period was based on a limited understanding of Locke’s position on private property and was advanced by people who had most likely never read Locke’s writings.59 When combined with the changing notion of individual freedom, land took on significance as a provider of privacy and a facilitator of isolation. Neither of these are traditional Lockean notions. Private property had been a tool by means of which individuals could secure and maintain their rights and freedom in society. In this era, it transformed into a tool by means of which individuals could withdraw and assume a defensive stance against society.60 Time would ultimately provide nothing but opportunity for such sentiments to grow among the people. Lastly, the liberal notion of equality grew murky and more difficult to apply and understand. Liberal equality is based on the concept of universalism— the idea that people share a universal human nature and are all created the same. If people are all created the same, then they arguably have the same aptitudes and potential. With this assumption in place, the amount of political and social freedom that United States aspired to made sense. The state could take a step back and allow individuals to realize their potential, because—in principle—they all had the ability to do so. This idea, though unproven in large part, was not very problematic for political individualism at the time.61 The language and practices were in place to advance some type of political equality for at least part of the population, and this worked at the time. However, as economic opportunity grew in the nineteenth century, it became obvious that not everyone had the same opportunities, aptitudes, and potential. Though social classes had previously existed, their presence grew more obvious and the distinctions among the classes grew more pronounced. Under political individualism, one would perhaps consider that the state was not doing its part to protect private property since some individuals were having more success than others in accumulating and maintaining it. This is not how equality was understood in this new era. The state was not responsible for providing for and protecting equality. Rather, the individual

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

103

was responsible for it. Even as conditions became increasingly unequal, the idea that there was a true equality of opportunity remained strong. If an individual did not achieve the level of conditions he or she desired for himself or herself, then the weight of that failure rested solidly on the shoulders of the individual. This provided the justification for the growing distance among the social and economic classes and the legitimacy of the economic individual. The political equality of the individual in the eighteenth century did not translate to economic equality for the individual in the nineteenth century.

The changing of American social structure Another factor that contributed to the transformation from political individualism to economic individualism was the changing of the American social structure. This structural change can be attributed to the changing role of religion, population growth, urbanization, and sprawl. Historically, religion had been a path toward community building, community obligation, and cooperation among individuals. Though we know that religion played a larger role in community building in New England, religion was still a significant cultural factor in the development of American society. The role of religion in supporting community growth and obligation began to diminish. The increasing emphasis that Protestantism placed on rational thought and individual interests challenged these traditional notions of community reliance.62 Out of a desire to be compliant with the church’s teachings and the prevalent understanding of God’s will, some felt that the answer was to engage in more activities and pursuits that were centered on advancing the individual. The population growth of the nineteenth century also served to weaken the American social structure, because it served to change how people lived and associated with one another. This population growth was incompatible with the midsize towns that were more prevalent in the colonial and founding era. Instead, there were two main population shifts: people were pushed to either settle in increasingly large cities or leave the city altogether and move westward.63 Neither of these options was good for community building and both weakened the social structure in different ways. The speed of this population growth was conducive to urbanization, as immigrants and rural residents moved to the cities (and built new ones) to find job opportunities. At this point, the barriers to entry into an industrial job and urban life were far lower than the resources needed to create an agricultural livelihood. As a result, American cities proliferated, and the number of urban residents greatly increased.64 These quickly growing cities with increasingly diverse populations created a strain on the existing social structure. These residents did not know each other, and they did not necessarily have anything in common to create connections. There was not

104

Individualism in the United States

enough time to build those connections, and what resulted was a break between the interconnected communities of the political individual and the cities of the economic individual. The population here had never grown at such a rate, and urban social institutions simply could not keep pace with the growth. Like an accelerated game of Tetris, the blocks were dropping down with precious little time or opportunity to place them where they fit. Instead, the people grouped here and there with gaps and spaces, creating an unruly social scene.65 At the same time that urbanization was breaking down the community social structure that had been compatible with political individualism, it was actually stripping the individual of the power he or she had previously enjoyed. First, the economic individual who was now making his or her own way was quite often a wage-laborer who was dependent on another for his or her pay. He or she had no control over what that pay was or what his or her working conditions consisted of. Additionally, this individual rarely owned his or her own property in the city. By the end of the nineteenth century, only one-third of urban housing was owned by the person who occupied it.66 This population growth was also conducive to land acquisition and rural sprawl. As economic conditions became more competitive in the cities, people had to look outside of the city to generate resources so that they could compete. Beginning in New England and the Middle Atlantic states, people developed the existing individualistic subculture by using land acquisition as a way to build wealth and “provide access to the marketplace.”67 Prior to this time, land was acquired by those who wanted to farm it and use it directly for their support. Now, land was seen as a commodity that could be accumulated in order to gain economic power.68 Early attempts to make land acquisition a group venture grew unpopular. For example, the Land Ordinance of 1785 required a minimum of 640 acres for land sale.69 This would certainly require a number of investors who would actually be interested in working the land and living on it. This method did not last as an increasing number of individuals wanted to be able to accumulate their own land holdings for individual benefit and profit. The connection between urban development and rural land acquisition continued and the land policy that allowed it to grow was very protective of private activity.70 Land speculation generated a great deal of wealth for Early Americans.71 As the nineteenth century progressed, corporate interests also found ways to benefit from legislation that encouraged westward expansion. Only a small minority of individuals were able to buy and sell land in order to generate profit. This only served to increase the divide between the haves and havenots that urbanization had exacerbated.72 Of course, there were individuals who were still interested in farming and cultivating the land. As the cities grew, these individuals were pushed westward to find the space they needed to provide for themselves. By the end of the Civil War, American farmers were tilling a tremendous amount

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

105

of new land. It is estimated that in just one decade, land equal to the area of France was cultivated for the first time by Americans.73 Thanks to the Homestead Act,74 Americans had the opportunity to acquire land and move westward. Some saw this rural sprawl as a positive condition that encouraged “independence, self-reliance, and individualism . . .”75 Unfortunately, the type of individualism it encouraged was economic individualism. In this situation, the individual wanted to move away in order to secure his or her own financial success and isolate his or her holdings from others. Those who supported the Homestead Act believed that allowing for independent living would actually be good for democracy, because individuals would be able to guarantee their individual success and be a politically and socially viable part of the community.76 While this works in theory, the idea of spreading people out so that they can have more freedom and then use it to enhance democracy just does not seem to work in practice. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, it is estimated that more new land was cultivated than had been in all of the years since 1607.77 This type of rural sprawl was unprecedented in this country’s history, and as with urbanization, there were no social or political organizations that could keep pace with the growth. What is more, such organizations were not logistically feasible. Physical isolation led to social and political isolation for many. At a time when the American individual was beginning to realize a number of hardships associated with this new economic model, he or she found himself or herself in a variety of disconnected living situations. Further, these developments created new problems for communication, transportation, and the distribution of goods.78 These problems changed the social dynamic among individuals, because they put individuals at odds with one another as they tried to meet their needs. Without adequate social and cultural organizations to facilitate cooperation, individuals were more inclined to look out for their own needs in this competitive economic environment. The number of people competing for employment also contributed to this adversarial environment as the number of self-employed individuals spiraled downward from a high of 80 percent in 1820.79

Economic development Lastly, the shift from political individualism to economic individualism was caused by the economic development of the nineteenth century. The process of economic development and the level of development a country has achieved have implications for its social and political culture.80 In this case, the nature and level of economic development in the United States led to a reconsideration of the individual and what individualism meant. Nineteenth-century economic development can be characterized by rapid industrialization. As is the case with rapid population growth, rapid

106

Individualism in the United States

industrialization deprived Americans of the time they needed to adjust to the changing economic scene. The consequence of this was the transformation of their perception of the individual. The two main elements that enable rapid industrialization are well-funded and daring entrepreneurs and groundbreaking technology.81 The abundance of funding and knowledge collided to create a highly productive economic system, and the development of this new economy had far-reaching (and perhaps unanticipated) social and political effects.82 The technological advances of this era are credited with (or blamed for) the extremely fast pace of the economic, social, and political changes. The problem with rapid economic growth is that it encourages individuals to be opportunistic,83 and opportunism does not mesh well with the otherinterestedness and connectedness of political individualism. Due to the short time frame, the political individual did not have time to meld this economic opportunity with the structure and community of the previous time. When combined with the changing social structure and the reinterpretation of liberal ideas, this economic growth was the nail in the coffin for political individualism. There were no tools adequate to discourage the individual’s opportunism, and the economic individual was born. There is comparative evidence from other countries and other economic booms that substantiate the relationship between rapid economic growth and the increase in self-interested behavior.84 If a country is able to maintain other-interestedness and cooperation, then a “happy equilibrium” is reached; if not, then the society ends up at the “miserable equilibrium.”85 Unfortunately, the United States could not manage this rapid change. The consequences of this growth ranged from the abuse of resources and the environment, to corruption, a decline in quality of life for the workers, and a mangling of the American Dream.86 The reinterpretation and reapplication of liberal ideas, the weakening of American social structure, and the rapid economic development of the nineteenth century all came together to cause the first major transformation of American individualism. There were literally fewer physical places for political individualism to exist. All these factors pushed the individual inward to a place of less interaction, less intervention, and more competition. The individual was convinced that this was consistent with what the Founders wanted, though we can see how the ideas were manipulated to provide this justification.

Implications of this transformation for democracy A healthy democracy relies on various types of participation in community and politics so that many voices are heard and many individuals have a

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

107

vested interest in the political system. The shift to economic individualism did a great deal to diminish the number of voices that were heard by silencing them with money and/or physical distance. First, the growth in wealth and prosperity did not benefit everyone,87 and it resulted in the establishment of a class system that deprived people not only of economic equality but of political equality as well. Political individualism was grounded in some sense of political equality and protections for all so that all individuals might be treated the same under the law. Equality of opportunity, as we understand it from a political perspective, can work here to promote the individual and protect his or her freedoms because of the Constitutional expectation we have that it will culminate in political equality. However, economic individualism was grounded in economic activity and economic success and the individual’s being left alone to attain that success (or realize the failure). Equality of opportunity does not make as much sense here, because capitalism does not provide us a way to ensure equal economic footing at the starting line. Because we cannot guarantee equality of economic opportunity, we have no way to secure an economic equality of results. Further, when individuals are not able to secure economic success, we cannot limit that failure to the economic realm. The failure spills over into the political and social realm as well. When individuals find themselves cast out as a result of their economic failure, their political voice fades and disappears, and democracy suffers. Second, when individuals were encouraged to physically distance themselves by moving westward, they were politically and socially distancing themselves as well. The political individual could live happily in a community because freedom was defined by helping and being helped. The economic individual wanted to be left alone, but it is hard to just be left alone in one way. We continue to struggle with the idea of allowing the government to intervene in some ways and not others. It is conceptually conflicting and impossible to reconcile notions of interference and noninterference. In an effort to gain physical space and develop a connection with the land, individuals also sacrificed their ability to participate in communities and be part of a larger voice that could influence the government. Of course, there were exceptions, and westward expansion did not necessarily preclude the development of new communities, but it did nothing to ensure it either. Other individuals moved to the city, but the cities also faced challenges in providing individuals with the means by which they could connect with one another. This was particularly problematic with regard to connecting different ethnic communities where there were linguistic barriers. Even when people lived in close proximity, the rapid growth of these cities exceeded the pace at which community connections could grow. This delay also served to inhibit participation in the democratic process and influence on the government in general. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that democracy might not end up being very good at protecting equality, because it lacks a set social structure that

108

Individualism in the United States

connects the people together.88 He believed that equality could actually be self-defeating: when people believe they are all the same, they become selfish and disconnected, which leads to their falling into a condition of inequality.89 For Tocqueville, the solution was to encourage political activity at the local level, which would encourage community development and recognition of mutual dependence. If individuals develop a habit of public service, they can counter the “evils of equality” and actually have a chance of maintaining the equality they were so busy championing in the first place.90 Instead, the economic individual became convinced that ties to others, including family and community, would only stunt and inhibit his or her economic growth. He or she could be called upon to share his or her wealth with others to whom he or she was connected, which would discourage his or her individual financial activity.91 Those connections could also become a hindrance in the workplace and in governance if the individual felt he or she must use his or her advantages to help others with jobs and resources.92 As individual and societal wealth increased, the economic individual seized the opportunities for profit, and did so in a way that allowed him or her to protect that profit and insulate it from the claims of others.93 The individual lost the cooperative spirit he or she had under political individualism for economic individualism had become the new norm.

Questions to consider



1 Do you think the development of a stronger class structure

necessarily had to change the nature of societal bonds in American society? What could have happened differently to keep the connectedness of American society as strong as it had been before? 2 Had the Founders anticipated these types of changes? Is there some way that the Constitution could have been worded to protect individual rights regardless of economic standing?

Notes 1 Merriam, American Political Ideals, 324. 2 Ibid; Adam Smith, a proponent of laissez-faire policy (which means to leave the economic alone to operate freely) was a philosopher who believed that when each person individually sought what was in his or her best interest, then the best interest of society would be served as well. Herbert Spencer was

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

109

a sociologist and philosopher who argued for the “survival of the fittest,” and believed that the weak should be left to fend for themselves and the strong would only be wasting their energy and diminishing their own strength by helping the weak. He is linked with this concept of “Social Darwinism,” though he actually published his social theory before Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species. 3 Merriam, American Political Ideals, 324. “In this connection it is interesting to note that when Spencer visited America in 1882 he lamented the excesses to which competition had gone, and was willing to concede that there was need for governmental interference.” from “Life and Letters of John Fiske,” II, 248. Spencer’s Essays, Vol. III, 471. 4 Merriam, American Political Ideals, 325. 5 Ibid., 315. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., 314. 8 Rice, Minding the Machine, 4. 9 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 15. 10 Rice, Minding the Machine, 4. 11 Ibid., 10; Rice speaks to the need to reconcile these competing economic and political forces. 12 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 19. 13 Ibid., 23. 14 Ibid., 105. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., 108. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., 133. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 132. 21 Ibid., 133. 22 Merriam, American Political Ideals, 317. 23 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 65. 24 Draper and Ramsay, The Good Society, 208. 25 Grassby, The Idea of Capitalism before the Industrial Revolution, 63. 26 Ibid. 27 For example, as the USSR industrialized throughout the twentieth century, the wealth its economy generated was only enjoyed by the political elites while many more Soviet citizens lived in very poor conditions without access to basic consumer goods. Industrialization generated wealth, but governmental policy kept that wealth from being enjoyed by the masses. Similar scenarios have unfolded in capitalist economies as well.

110

Individualism in the United States

28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., 64. 30 This party would later be known as the Democratic-Republican Party and should not be confused with the modern Republican Party. 31 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 103; Wood, “The Democratization of Mind in the American Revolution,” 102–28. 32 Shalhope, “Individualism in the Early Republic,” 85; Wood, “Interests and Disinterestedness in the Making of the Constitution,” 102. 33 Shalhope, “Individualism in the Early Republic,” 85. 34 Ibid., 86. 35 The meltdown of the congressional caucus system in 1824 is just one example of these growing pains. 36 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 108. 37 Ibid., 119. 38 Ibid., 123. 39 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 9. 40 Ibid., 7–8. 41 Taviss Thomson, In Conflict No Longer, 12. 42 Ibid., 30. 43 Ibid., 10. 44 Ibid., 3. 45 Nisbet, The Quest for Community, 227. 46 The idea that we must discover ourselves through separation comes from Irene Taviss Thomson, In Conflict No Longer, 11. 47 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 5. 48 Henretta, “The Slow Triumph of Liberal Individualism: Law and Politics in New York, 1780-1860,” 105. 49 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 100. 50 Ibid., 101. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid., 100. 53 Ibid., 101. 54 Henretta, “The Slow Triumph of Liberal Individualism: Law and Politics in New York, 1780-1860,” 105. 55 Elazar, “Land and Liberty in American Civil Society,” 5. 56 Ibid., 2; Turner “The Significance of the Frontier in American History.” 57 Elazar, “Land and Liberty in American Civil Society,” 3. 58 Ibid., 6. 59 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 5.

ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM 60 Elazar, “Land and Liberty in American Civil Society,” 6. 61 Of course, from a modern perspective we know that this era suffered from many contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to political equality. 62 Ball, “Individualism, Collectivism, and Economic Development,” 59. 63 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 40. 64 Ibid., 15. 65 Ibid., 135–6. 66 Elazar, “Land and Liberty in American Civil Society,” 17. 67 Ibid., 8. 68 Ibid., 17. 69 Ibid., 8. 70 Ibid., 16. 71 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 36. 72 Ibid., 44. 73 Ibid., 41. 74 The Homestead Act of 1862 allowed public land to be converted to private land. Individuals could settle on unoccupied land and improve it with housing, by farming, etc. After 5 years, these individuals could file for ownership of the parcel. 75 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 35. 76 Ibid., 41. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid., 7. 79 Ibid., 137. 80 Ball, “Individualism, Collectivism, and Economic Development,” 58. 81 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 17. 82 Ibid. 83 Ball, “Individualism, Collectivism, and Economic Development,” 74. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 16. 87 Ibid., 135. 88 de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 192. 89 Ibid., 194. 90 Ibid. 91 Ball, “Individualism, Collectivism, and Economic Development,” 60. 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid., 74.

111

112

Individualism in the United States

Further reading Diggins, John Patrick. The Lost Soul of American Politics. New York: Basic Book Publishers, 1984. Klein, Maury. The Genesis of Industrial America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Merriam, Charles. American Political Ideals. New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1969 (1920). de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Mentor, 1984 (1835).

Chapter six

Social individualism: Individualism as a paradox

Chapter summary Chapter 6 explores the third phase in the transformation of American individualism: the development of social individualism. Social individualism continues in the same vein as economic individualism, but it has unique characteristics. This transformation was based on the transference of the principles of economic individualism to the social realm. As we established in Chapter 5, the development of economic individualism led to a loss of individual liberty for both the economically successful and unsuccessful. Those who were successful assumed a protective and defensive posture to secure their holdings. Their dependency on labor made them further vulnerable and defensive. Those who were economically unsuccessful and thus politically underrepresented found themselves melded into a new social mass wherein they had fewer powers, fewer freedoms, and fewer options. Out of a desire to maintain a sense of individualism in the face of these challenges, individualism sprang up in the only realm that people could really control—their social lives. They did not realize that in doing so they were further diminishing their liberty.

Chapter objectives

1 To define social individualism and explore its development with



regard to industrialization, class cleavages, and sociological theory. 2 To identify and evaluate the causes of the transformation from economic individualism to social individualism.

114



Individualism in the United States 3 To identify the implications of this transformation for the viability

of democracy. There is nothing inherently incompatible about the promotion of the individual and the development of a healthy society. In fact, we have seen how integral the protection of individual rights were to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—two documents that paved the way for the creation of an organized and stable society. It is only since the development of economic individualism that tension has developed in the United States between notions of societal good and the prerogatives of the individual. The idea that economic interests can be societally divisive is admittedly not a new idea.1 This shift has previously been studied in a number of contexts. The argument that is made to explain the destructive power of capitalism dates back to Karl Marx and beyond.2 Understandably, however, such an argument causes classical liberals to flinch when it is couched in communist terms. Others have detected the social changes that have been precipitated by economic development and have called the resulting type of individualism an “expressive individualism,” which is defined as an increased emphasis on the individual as being socially distinct from others when he or she is unable to become economically established or successful.3 The decline of political individualism has even been quantified, though not referred to in such terms, using survey data from the 1970s.4 Political individualism was based on protections and a government that was active in maintaining a level political playing field, which was largely all people needed at that point in the United States’ history. The transformation of individualism into an economic ideal made those protections seem antiliberal and contrary to individual freedom. People perceived the weakening of the protections and believed that the government was less willing and able to level the field. What is seldom acknowledged, however, is that these developments created a precarious social condition for both the entrepreneurs and the workers they employed. The idea that economic development and a capitalistic distribution of resources caused social disruption has been labeled the self-destruction thesis.5 The underlying assumption is that these factors undercut and ultimately replaced the moral foundations that American society had been built upon.6 The community, frugality, and cooperation that were desirable and necessary in an earlier and simpler time became outmoded in a time of plenty. They were gradually replaced with competition, efficiency, and self-interest, though none of these replacements had the goal of advancing the public good.7 Historically, this cycle is familiar. The problem is that people become distracted by the prosperity, and they neglect the ties that bound them together in the first place. The ties of community and social obligation are replaced with economic ties. These economic ties maintain the connection among the people, but the nature of that connection is now tenuous and uncertain. Individuals have the illusion of connectedness for a

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

115

time until the nature of economic transactions divides them into separate classes with separate interests. Sociologists have struggled with the nature of these market-based relationships and have debated their ability to maintain a healthy society. 8 In this chapter, we will determine what social individualism is, what caused the transformation of economic individualism into social individualism, and what the implications of this transformation are for the viability of American democracy. Though I am unable to confine the development of social individualism to a specific time period, most of the authors and ideas I reference come from the latter part of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century.

What is social individualism? Of the types of individualism we have dealt with so far, it is social individualism that presents us with the greatest conceptual challenge. One can see how political individualism makes sense, and how a government can be created and maintained with the interest of the individual in mind. Likewise, economic individualism also requires some level of cooperation, even if it is socially dysfunctional. While social individualism was derived from these earlier forms of individualism, it essentially rejects the foundational premises of each of them. Additionally, its basis in self-interestedness and isolation undermines the societal cohesion that a healthy democracy requires. Social individualism is the application of individualistic attitudes in the realm of one’s social activity. It involves rejecting interconnectedness and societal obligations; it encourages withdrawal from social and civic life; and it teaches individuals to see one another as competitive threats who will inhibit their ability to meet their own needs and wants. Figure 6.1 illustrates this final transformation from economic individualism to social individualism. The shaky societal bonds of economic individualism are now gone entirely, and the basis of individual freedom has completely changed. Even though individual freedom began to suffer under economic individualism, it was still based on a reality that was somewhat conducive to equal opportunity and choice. With the advent of social individualism, these expectations stayed in place, but reality has not measured up. The opportunity of political and economic individualism transformed into an opportunism that was pursued in political, economic, and social realms. Individual freedom took on elements of social atomism among individuals and insulation from governmental intervention. Never before was it so fully expected that society could live autonomously. This combination of foundational blocks truly changed the nature of individual freedom in American society. It put individual freedom on shaky ground, leaving us to wonder what will happen to the individual if this manifestation of individualism persists.

116

Individualism in the United States

Economic individualism Individual freedom

Choice

Opportunity

Societal bonds

Economic exchange/ dependency

Class identity

Social individualism

Individual freedom

Choices for some

Opportunism

Social atomism

Limited intervention

Figure 6.1  The transformation of economic individualism into social individualism. The concept of social individualism rests on three central assumptions that challenge the earlier notions of individualism and create this new unstable foundation. First, social individualism is based on the assumption that an individual is unable to understand and respond to the needs of society as a whole.9 This assumption sets up the social isolation block of the foundation. We, as individuals, face natural limitations in our ability to know what is good for others. Individuals are not necessarily selfish; rather, they are just more qualified to speak to what is good for them.10 This assumption justifies one’s decision to focus on the issues that are of utmost important to one personally, as opposed to attempting to ascertain what is good for society as a whole. It also justifies one’s resistance to others’ attempts to ascertain the same information. The assumption that one cannot know what is best for another protects individuals from encroachment from others, near and far.11 This assumption runs contrary to the foundation of political individualism, which was based on positive liberty. The creation of a stronger national government in order to protect individual rights and provide societal stability is based on the assumption that one can, in fact, know what is best for another. It involves trusting the government to identify and protect activities and choices that will best promote individual interests and the public good. For this to work, one certainly must be able to know what these interests are. Social individualism is based on the idea that this is not possible.

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

117

Second, social individualism is based on a negative conception of liberty, which justifies the creation of the limited intervention block. In this model, individual freedom (and a successful democracy) requires the individual’s being left alone to assume full responsibility for his or her successes and failures. The purpose of law for the social individualist is to create a sphere of unencumbered action around each individual so that he or she can essentially do whatever he or she thinks is best.12 Beyond this purpose, the state is not to act. It is not for others to help the individual, to provide a safety net, or to otherwise “pull him up.”13 Each individual is free when he or she is left to discover happiness for himself or herself, and he or she must assume all of the risk in this pursuit.14 This perspective of liberty cannot help but create a socially isolated individual that did not always exist in large numbers. Social individualism is based on the idea that democracy does not require a collaborative effort to help people be free. It does not consist of promises or pledges among individuals or between individuals and their government; it simply requires individuals to take care of their own business.15 This assumption is also inconsistent with political individualism in that negative liberty was political and culturally inconsistent with the founding era. The establishment of a stronger and more centralized government, as advocated by the Founders, is predicated on the notion that liberty can be facilitated by outside intervention rather than the complete absence of intervention. Social individualism rejects this notion. Third, social individualism is based on the assumption that every individual enjoys equality of opportunity, and no one has the benefit of class advantage in achieving success. However, this assumption is not reflective of reality, and is, thus, problematic as a foundational block. Understandably, equality of opportunity is seen as necessary to create a protective bubble within which one can thrive and progress using individual initiative for one’s sake and for the benefit of society.16 This belief was put forth by Herbert Hoover in 1922 when he was serving as the Secretary of Commerce. Interestingly, his take on American individualism was one of compromise and optimism that may have been somewhat misplaced. He believed that social, political, and economic advancement was made possible through individual activity and not through collaborative effort, though his personal experiences seem to demonstrate a belief in the usefulness of collaboration to help others in need. Nevertheless, his political writings promoted the need for individual initiative for advancement. Hoover believed that the equality of opportunity that was necessary for individual freedom existed and could be protected. In his text, American Individualism, he states that “we shall safeguard to every individual an equality of opportunity to take that position in the community to which his intelligence, character, ability, and ambition entitle him; that we keep the social solution free from frozen strata of classes . . .”17 He used President Warren G. Harding’s presidential administration as an example of the social mobility that was available to Americans and to support his belief that

118

Individualism in the United States

the United States did not have a defined class structure that would inhibit individual progress. As evidence, Hoover cited the fact that three-fourths of the top executives did not have the benefit of inheritance and had succeeded on their own merit.18 While this example is interesting and inspiring, the assumption of equal opportunity challenges what we know about the effects of economic individualism. Specifically, the development of economic individualism led to an economic and social stratification of the population that was observed in the nineteenth century19 and would have certainly been observable (though perhaps not obvious) to a twentieth-century political leader. By Hoover’s own admission, when given equality of opportunity, individuals can only progress within the limits of their own “intelligence, character, ability, and ambition.” After this first iteration of economic and political activity, society then contains people at many different stages of success or failure. These varying levels of success or failure then set the individual on a social trajectory that influences the fates and fortunes of not only that individual but future generations as well. The inequality of results that exists in such a situation inhibits the equality of opportunity moving forward unless there is some intervention to re-level the playing field. Allowing this type of intervention to preserve this third assumption of social individualism directly contradicts the second assumption (negative liberty), and so the internal contradictions of social individualism begin to show themselves. Social individualism is reliant upon both the limits on individual action and the limitless possibilities for the individual for it to be a viable concept. This creates an internal contradiction that only grows more complicated when one tries to envision (or live) the life it prescribes. Social individualism encourages citizens to withdraw from one another for their own individual betterment and for the benefit of the group. It assumes that we cannot know what is good for others; we do best when we are left alone; and we are each able to make the best of our own situations because we have the same opportunities to succeed. Social individualism strips out the elements of community and cooperation that were present in political individualism and in the beginning phases of economic individualism. Social individualists like William Graham Sumner even go as far as arguing that helping others actually hurts society, and our main duty to society is to only care for ourselves.20 This thinking is a dramatic departure from the political individualism of the founding era. Political individualism rested on a solid foundation of both individual freedom and societal bonds. Economic individualism also rested on both the individual and society, though the societal bonds were far more insecure and unstable than before. Social individualism completely sheds the societal component, and rests upon an unstable foundation of individual freedom that is insecure, unprotected, and unsupported. Social individualism, like economic individualism before it, resulted from a further transformation of the concept of individualism. We can discover the origins of social individualism within the context of economic individualism.

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

119

Causes of the transformation from economic individualism to social individualism Once the societal bonds of political individualism had been weakened by economic individualism, the transformation of economic individualism into social individualism happened all too easily. Since the foundations of the concept were eroded and changed by the economic dynamics at work, it is not a surprise that the concept itself was transformed. There is an established relationship between a country’s economic development and its culture.21 There is a body of research in the social psychology literature that has worked to connect cultural attitudes about individualism and collectivism to economic development. Successful economic development has been linked to individualistic attitudes, and it is not my objective to contest this finding.22 However, I do intend to demonstrate that these individualistic attitudes have damaging spillover effects when applied to the social realm. In fact, this is the nature of the transformation from economic individualism to social individualism. The main causes of this transformation can be traced to the social effects that resulted from industrialization, the creation of defined class divisions, the development of mass society, changing social norms, and trends in land settlement.

The social effects of industrialization First, industrialization has produced varying social effects. Previous research in a number of disciplines, including political science, sociology, and economics, has established a connection between economic processes and social behavior. The industrialization of the nineteenth century brought with it game-changing implications for the American individual and his or her image of self and relations with others. Industrialization has been credited for making the American “culture of individualism” so incredibly dominant.23 At the same time that industrialization was creating economic opportunities, it was changing the social structure of American society. Ironically, the process of industrialization that resulted from the work and initiative of individuals ultimately served to devalue the individual.24 Work has been done to illustrate this impact in terms of the opportunism and corporatism that industrialization created. Economic individualism led to the development of socially accepted economic opportunism that carried over into the social realm. Opportunism, generally understood, involves taking advantage of a set of circumstances to achieve the maximum individual benefit with little regard for others or even any ethical considerations. We discussed this basic concept in Chapter 5 in terms of the erosion of self-restraint. An opportunistic economic culture creates a social problem in that it diminishes the benefits of cooperation. If

120

Individualism in the United States

individuals are not punished, and are in fact encouraged and rewarded, for opportunistic behavior, then that behavior will become more prevalent.25 This tendency is consistent with a classical liberal assessment of human nature. If one is rewarded for a certain behavior, then it is quite rational that one will continue that particular behavior. Following this line of thought, it would only make sense for an individual to not pursue such an action if he or she were convinced that another course of action would be more beneficial. At this point, it would become incumbent on other societal structures to create and reinforce expectations of other-interestedness as opposed to selfinterestedness. The problem arises if a country’s economic progress outpaces its society’s ability to moderate the effects of these economic changes. Specifically, if a country’s economy develops too quickly, the material incentives to abandon social connections can become too tempting.26 Since a changing economy affects the culture, there has to be time for new behavioral norms to develop. Even in the absence of these new norms and social connections, an individual’s behavior can still be moderated by the hope of future business dealings. For instance, business partners may be disinclined to cheat one another for fear that the partner will then not want to do business with them again. However, in a rapidly growing market with an increasing number of participants, the pressure to cooperate diminishes as individuals can always find someone else to do business with.27 Such a society is not able to create a balance between the potential for economic gain and the benefits of an other-interested social network. This “miserable equilibrium” has severe implications for society.28 When this balance is off, it discourages any type of collectivism, or the prioritization of the wellness of the group. While the concept of collectivism has been specifically applied in a number of disciplines, we need only understand it as the general belief in the priority of the group over what might be in the best interest of one individual. Unfortunately, accelerated economic development has been linked to the decrease in collectivism in many comparative cases.29 Collectivism is important, though, as it serves as the basis of a strong society. In contemporary society, many Americans have been disinclined to recognize the value of collectivism, because they fail to understand its true meaning and relevance for their lives. It requires the individual to reject an opportunity that would benefit him or her, solely on the grounds that it would create negative consequences for others in that society. The negative perception of collectivism is due in large part to the growth of societally acceptable opportunism. If one believes that the people in society are interconnected, that they must work together to achieve common goals, and that their actions affect one another, it becomes difficult to sell them on the idea of the opportunism that capitalism promotes and requires. However, if one can convince them that collectivism is synonymous with socialism or communism and that such an acknowledgment of interconnectedness will eventually undermine their personal freedom, the sale becomes much easier. The economic isolation that opportunism promotes then spills over

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

121

into their social lives, and they begin to use the same philosophy across the board. Individuals will make decisions that benefit only them, with no regard for the implications of their actions on others.30 Indeed, not only are they unwilling to consider the benefits to other individuals, but they are also committed to a lifestyle devoted to denying any positive connections to the idea of collective action. This economic opportunism also has the effect of inhibiting familial and community connectedness. Prior to the widespread industrialization of the American economy (and the corresponding capitalistic economic culture), it was not uncommon for families to work together as a unit to meet their collective needs. Unfortunately, the “miserable equilibrium” leads individuals away from not only a notion of societal collectivism, but that of a familial collectivism as well. Familial obligations could actually discourage individuals from investing their resources in economic activities, because they will feel compromised in their ability to fully profit from their activities. In other words, if an individual feels that he or she will most likely have to share that which he or she earns, he or she may be less inclined to earn.31 Additionally, these connections were thought to compromise the individual’s ability to make fair choices with regard to job and resource allocation. He or she may feel inclined to favor his or her family and personal associates, rather than making objective choices. Cutting these ties would put the individual in a better position to make unbiased decisions.32 As a result, the individual found himself or herself pulled between these expectations: he or she was expected to seek out his or her own economic self-interest and pursue that interest exclusively and he or she was still expected to be a part of his or her family and community and recognize that interconnectedness. The transformation into social individualism resolved this tension in that it gave the individual permission and justification to shed the expectation of interconnectedness with family and community and just do what was best for him or her. Industrialization also led to the development of a corporate condition that undermined the role of the individual in society. The corporate condition described an economic and social condition in which the corporations, which were created by individuals, took on lives of their own and then threatened the freedom and autonomy of individuals.33 This development has been traced back to the 1880s and the social effects have been observed ever since.34 Corporations became able to accomplish economic success in ways that individuals could never dream of, but they also developed a power that individuals could not constrain.35 This condition was one discussed by John Dewey in his book, Individualism Old and New. As a philosopher, psychologist, and pragmatist,36 Dewey made observations of social and economic life in the early 1900s that were very influential and accurate. His belief was that the “earlier pioneered individualism” (the individualism that I would categorize under economic ­individualism) had been transformed from the freedom and power of individuals into the freedom and power of the corporation.37 This ­“corporateness”

122

Individualism in the United States

encompassed the influence and power of the corporation in the economic and social realms. The market that industrialization created also created greater interdependence of the masses,38 but for reasons earlier explained, they were reluctant to acknowledge it. This condition left corporate interests in a particularly powerful position to expand their control, and the average person became increasingly disadvantaged, economically and socially. It is here that we are more formally introduced to the connection between the resources that an individual has and the social choices that are at that person’s disposal. Dewey believed that as the individual’s economic choices and potential for economic success diminished, so did his or her choices in his or her leisure time outside of work.39 The development of this corporate society isolated the individual from opportunity and from others. This isolation deprived the individual of choice and opportunity and the benefits of social obligations. Even those who were economically successful became oppressed by this arrangement in that they became wrongly convinced that social obligations would diminish their freedom. They were able to separate their economic success from any obligation to improve the world around them, and in doing so failed to see the consequences of their actions.40 Individuals do not typically have the option of remaining in their own space that they improve solely for their own benefit. They must circulate in the world around them, and if they do not think of improving that space, then they do not really get the full benefits of their labor and profit. Through the development and promotion of opportunism and corporatism, industrialization had a great effect on the social life and connectedness of Americans. Though industrialization was rooted in the idea of individual freedom and initiative in the earlier era, it had the unintended and ironic social consequence of actually depriving people of many individual freedoms and choices. Removing the societal bonds that had been so important to the stability of the earlier types of individualism resulted in a social individualism that failed to promote or protect the individual.

The social effects of class divisions The social effects of class divisions also contributed to the transformation from economic individualism to social individualism. Under economic individualism, societal bonds became based in part on the strong class identities that developed during this time. Historically, the topic of class has posed many a challenge to politicians and social and political observers. We can find references to this issue in every century dating back to the founding. Going back to the ratification debates of the eighteenth century, both Madison and Hamilton anticipated ongoing tension between groups in society, and believed that this group identity would have its roots in economic disparity.41 This was one of the underlying reasons for the

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

123

Constitutional protections for minority (or underrepresented) interests.42 This fear did not partner comfortably with the ideological position that people were inherently equal. If we were truly equal, then how or why would one group separate from others? However, the possibility was acknowledged early on, and the reality became impossible to ignore as the nineteenth century progressed. As a topic of political debate, the creation of distinct social classes was prominent during the nineteenth century. The Whigs and Democrats stood on different sides of this particular issue. The Democrats believed that the rise of capitalism had created classes with distinct interests and disparate power, while the Whigs denied that these issues existed.43 The Democrats believed that the interests of the people who had power would not necessarily line up with the interests of the people who did not.44 These differences created fertile ground for conflict and tension, and created a separation between a large number of Americans and the political and individual empowerment they had been promised. This topic was also dealt with by twentieth-century progressives. The journalist and philosopher Herbert Croly wrote of this phenomenon from a contemporary standpoint in 1909 in his book, The Promise of American Life. Croly observed a direct connection between the economic, political, and social changes that had occurred and the changing social climate in the United States.45 He believed that these changes “impaired” the earlier social climate and culture because Americans were now greatly divided on the basis of interest, intellect, morality, and quality of life.46 Those who found themselves in a lower class with less economic success would then suffer from a diminished sense of purpose and reduced individual choices and freedoms. They would then be at odds with those who had more economic success, thus creating the social division. Croly believed that economic interests had been carving out their own areas of interest and concern that then transferred to the whole of “American social and intellectual life.”47 He contended, though, that even those who were economically successful suffered from these developing differences. Though they were under the impression that their success and their membership in this higher class enhanced their individual freedom, they were misled. Croly believed that they were actually stifled in that their motivation was solely based on profit and not on creation and societal benefit.48 The individual would never do more than he or she was required to do to maximize his or her profit, and this would limit his or her passion, creativity, and interest in anyone but himself or herself.49 He or she would not realize this, however, and would live under the false idea that he or she was different from others in a good way and even somehow better than others. The development of distinct social classes was damaging because of the chasm it created as well as the false premises upon which it was based. The development of these class divisions had further implications for social life in America. It resulted in a higher level of social and economic insecurity,

124

Individualism in the United States

the development of fatalistic attitudes, and a changing perspective on egalitarianism. Insofar as social divisions inhibited the feeling of belonging to a social whole, these divisions created a feeling of social and economic insecurity.50 People derived a sense of stability and confidence from existing in a fixed space, be that space physical, emotional, or social. Individuals felt supported when they believed that they existed in a strong consistent network of people who were committed to similar goals and were working together. Social divisions tore at this fabric and resulted in a feeling of unease and uncertainty. Those individuals who were part of a lower class became fixated on moving up in the social structure, while those who were part of the higher class became consumed with keeping their place. When people felt afraid and unsteady, they were not realizing individual freedom. In fact, these feelings inhibited the individual and his or her actions and freedoms.51 An individual’s social orientation also led to varying attitudes that affected how empowered or disempowered that person felt. The level of empowerment that an individual (or class of individuals) felt affected the likelihood of his or her participation in political and community activities. These different attitudes could then have implications for democratic participation. The grid-group theory is a sociological theory that has come to have great relevance in a number of social sciences, and is quite relevant for our study of the individual during a time of social individualism.52 The basis of the grid-group theory is that people are divided into different social categories based on perceptions of human nature and one’s role in society. These views then shape a person’s social orientation on the basis of two dimensions: how much external control over his or her choices he or she perceives and how connected to the group he or she feels. Figure 6.253 shows the possibilities that can result depending on these two dimensions. If we look to the left side of the group affiliation continuum, we can see that there are two ways to think of one’s self in an individualistic manner. If a person feels that he or she is subject to fewer external constraints on decision-making, then he or she feels empowered and protected in his or her personal choices and freedoms. If, however, a person feels that he or she is subjected to a greater number of external constraints, he or she develops a fatalist attitude in which he or she can control nothing and is connected to no one. Fatalism is regarded as a generally unhappy condition that leads one away from social activity and interaction.54 For our purposes, we can overlay the dynamic of economic and social class onto this grid. One source of cultural and political empowerment is economic success. Thus, those individuals who had more resources and more success were more likely to fall in the “individualist” quadrant. They felt (and pursued) a level of social isolation, but they felt empowered to make their own choices and affect the world around them. On the contrary, the lower classes with fewer resources felt more controlled by external factors. The less control they perceived over their own choices and freedom, the

125

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

Many external constraints on individual choice

Grid

The fatalist

Individualized

Collectivized Group

The individualist

No external constraints on individual choice

Figure 6.2  Two individualist social identities created by the varying perception of external control one has over his or her choices (grid-group theory).

less likely they were to participate in politics or community life. Essentially, the people who should have been actively trying to improve their condition were the ones least likely to do so. This social development derived from the establishment of economic classes. Lastly, the development of social classes resulted in changing views on egalitarianism, which had implications for the individual and his or her freedoms. The mere existence of social classes (and the acceptance of these differences) demonstrated the rejection of egalitarianism, but it does not necessarily spell out how that rejection occurred. Egalitarianism is a general belief in social, political, and economic equality. Under political individualism, egalitarianism did not create much conceptual dissonance. The belief in this idea of equality was supported by both the individual’s opportunities and choices and by the presence of healthy societal bonds, which supported the individual. Since individuals in society had previously been more likely to engage in self-restraint and to consider the best interest of the group, egalitarianism had been consistent with a less interventionist state as well. Therefore, the principles of limited government, individualism, and egalitarianism coexisted peacefully. This was not the case with social individualism, however. As we already know, economic individualism began to undermine societal bonds and encourage opportunism, which led to a general disregard for the common good. As individuals were encouraged to pursue their

126

Individualism in the United States

self-interest and a general inequality of results developed, the commitment to egalitarianism fell into disrepair. These ideas were incompatible, as egalitarianism would inhibit one’s ability to accumulate all one could.55 Due to this shift, a commitment to egalitarianism now required one to support a more coercive state in order to achieve the type of equality and cooperation that used to happen voluntarily.56 Egalitarianism was compatible with political individualism because it was supported by the foundational components. Egalitarianism became incompatible with social individualism because it was no longer supported by the foundational components and it required governmental and societal intervention to achieve it. Thus, the rejection of egalitarianism leads to fewer individual freedoms because individuals are discouraged from considering others and, worse yet, may be compelled to consider others by an external authority. This is another instance where the desire to gain more individual freedom actually resulted in a loss of liberty. The social classes that developed as a result of industrialization and the capitalistic distribution of resources are arguably the result of expanded individual economic freedom. In fact, people have defended the existence of social classes because they are a by-product of expanded economic freedom. Unfortunately, the development of social classes did more to inhibit individual freedom. As a component of social individualism, people were isolated and imprisoned by these social designations—even those who were by all accounts seen as financially successful. Class divisions hurt social unity and created an entire group of people who were more likely to avoid interaction because they felt so disempowered.

The social effects of the creation of mass society Another cause of the transformation from economic individualism to social individualism was the creation of mass society. This idea comes from a sociological theory known as mass society theory. The term “mass society” is used to refer to a society that has been homogenized, wherein all the members have become very much the same.57 The mass society theory asserts that this homogenization weakens the power of the individual because he or she suffers a great loss of uniqueness and a loss of the interpersonal bonds he or she enjoyed prior to industrialization. Industrialization changed the type of connections that people had with one another from personal to impersonal, which led to the development of mass society. Before industrialization, almost all economic and social matters were confined to the town one lived in.58 Due to this limited sphere of activity, no matter was exclusively economic or social. Rather, every matter involved some combination of factors. The people in the community lived and worked together and maintained relationships with one another. Even if the relationship was contentious, it was still based on the personal

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

127

characteristics of the individuals involved and the circumstances they found themselves in.59 This societal feature allowed individuals to maintain the integrity and uniqueness of their own identities. Industrialization completely changed the nature of these dealings and in doing so deprived individuals of these relationships and identities, which then weakened their power and threatened their freedom. Industrialization introduced an unprecedented level of “contractual bonding, economic planning and universalistic legal arrangements” that changed the cohesive nature of the community.60 Removing the personal bonds among individuals and replacing them with impersonal bonds served to actually weaken the social structures that had been in place. These structures actually promoted individual will, and their absence diminished it.61 There is a rich history in the sociological literature dating back to Emile Durkheim62 that connects associations among individuals to a healthy society.63 The study of sociology developed in large part as a response to the social changes that were caused by industrialization.64 Scholars observed the decline in interpersonal connections, and grew concerned about the impact this change in social organization would have on the individual. Their concern was validated as the decline in these personal connections led individuals to feel socially alienated and generally distrustful of others.65 Specifically, mass society theorists believed that industrialization and the rapid growth of society were responsible for the decline in group identity.66 These group associations provided individuals with the context they needed to meet their needs, fulfill their wants, and realize their optimum level of freedom. Industrialization took these away, but did not replace them with like associations. Rather, industrialization deprived individuals of their identity and cast them loose from their previous networks. It looked like freedom, but it was not freeing for the individual at all. The individual in mass society was devalued, disempowered, and distrustful. It has sometimes been difficult to convince people that mass society is problematic. The challenge is that mass society looks very cohesive. People appear to have a lot in common and live together harmoniously, but these signs are not indicative of an internal cohesion. These signs really just demonstrate conformity to a norm that has been imposed by an economic system the people cannot control. Worse yet, the government and controlling corporations increase their distance from the people, and individuals are less empowered than ever to effect change through organizations.67 The combination of damaged societal bonds and distrust had resulted in a population that felt very out of control, though they had been told they had so much individual freedom. The loss of social bonds had made people reluctant to organize for political and non-political purposes.68 It has been concluded again and again that the nature and character of man had changed from a secure, strong, and supported individual to one in which he or she was simply one of the crowd, alienated, and alone.69 This condition

128

Individualism in the United States

had diminished his or her choices and his or her freedom. Conspicuously absent in this condition were the societal bonds of political individualism. In their absence, people were left with only a misguided notion of individual freedom that produced little freedom at all.

The effects of changing social norms This transformation can also be attributed to the changing social norms of the twentieth century. This is where we can really see the individual trying to carve out a space for himself or herself, but in doing so he or she hurt his or her ability to inhabit that space in a meaningful way. Industrialization led to the creation of a mass society in which individuals lost their sense of themselves and became one of a muddled group of people. At the same time, they were told that they lived in an individualistic society that valued the rights and freedoms of the individual, though economic changes neither supported nor promoted those rights. In an effort to reclaim individual identities, individualism in the twentieth century became all about trying to break away from conformity. Unfortunately, casting aside social norms just reinforced the divisions that were already in place. From the flappers of the 1920s to the hippies of the 1960s, individualism was understood as autonomy, or the lack of external constraints. Any meaningful autonomy was long since out of the grasp of the individual, and so these efforts were superficial and counterproductive at best. In a desperate attempt to regain their sense of self, individuals shirked their duties and ignored their social obligations.70 Even in their relationships, individuals identified themselves as being ­distinct from the relationship and focused more on themselves and the impact the association had on them personally.71 These efforts can be observed as the demonstration of less self-control and the assumption of fewer responsibilities became more socially desirable in the twentieth century. There was a time when people were praised for exercising discipline and self-restraint. In fact, political individualism required it. As we moved into the twentieth century, it became desirable and praiseworthy to rebel against societal expectations of individual behavior and seek out one’s own definition of happiness. Individuals became convinced that these two objectives were mutually exclusive: either one could meet societal expectations of individual behavior or one could be happy.72 Acting in a way that was good for others meant subduing one’s “natural” impulse to do what was good for one and was not true to the spirit of social individualism. The abandonment of social expectations and societal obligation created problems for society, however.73 Rather than having a cohesive group of people living and working together to achieve what was in the best interest of society and to preserve individual will and freedom, we had a society made up of individuals who did not work together and were encouraged to

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

129

be slaves to their own unrestrained impulses.74 This was not good for society, and it was not good for the individual either. It was difficult to convince the individual of this, though, because it looked and felt like freedom. The American living in the time of social individualism does not know the extent to which he or she is not free. All the paths that were meant to develop his or her freedom have resulted in dead ends where freedom is diminished, but the blinders placed upon him or her by social individualism make it unlikely, if not impossible, for him or her to notice this.

The social effects of land settlement patterns Lastly, the transformation of economic individualism to social individualism was caused by the social effects of the land settlement patterns of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The connection between land and liberty has long since been established from the perspective of classical liberalism.75 The ways in which Americans have occupied the land as the United States has developed have had many implications for liberty and individualism.Through both urbanization and suburbanization, the damaging atomism of social individualism has been emphasized and maintained. I have suggested previously that the growth of social individualism was, in part, a response to the deprivation of individual liberty caused by industrialization, and American land settlement patterns support this idea. Through using physical space as a way to create social separation from others (with the hope of enhancing personal freedom), Americans were responding to the social changes that we have previously discussed.76 Perhaps this would not be such a problem in a different social and political climate, but when combined with the erosion of the other pillars of a functional individualism, the issue of land settlement becomes very significant.77 As we have discussed, one of the earliest social consequences of industrialization was the urbanization of the American population. As individuals faced economic pressure to abandon their agrarian ways, they moved to the cities to work in the factories. These workers faced economic disadvantages as they transitioned from being farmers to wage laborers, and they faced social disadvantages as their living situations changed. When individuals had more physical space to live in, they did not feel as threatened by their neighbors. They did not need to withdraw socially, because they literally had the space to live as they wished. This is not the case in an urban setting. When too many people live in the same physical area in close proximity to one another, the only space they can create for themselves is social space. This phenomenon, referred to as the “human-created wilderness,” is one in which people live close together but without meaningful connections.78 There are psychological consequences to this type of overcrowding, particularly for a people who are socialized into an individualistic culture.79

130

Individualism in the United States

The expectation of individual freedom is established in Americans at a young age. As the opportunities for that individual freedom have diminished over time, people have been left with fewer and fewer options of how best to realize it. Urbanization backed many people into their respective corners, which they were happy to inhabit in as isolated a fashion as possible. Under social individualism and in an urban setting, this is what individualism has come to mean. While some individuals have chosen to create their own space in an urban setting, others in more recent decades have chosen to flee the cities and try to reclaim some of the physical space they have desired. This has been a significant driver of suburbanization, and it has yielded mixed results for the individual. It is important to note, however, that none of these results seem to revive the societal bonds that have been lost. On the one hand, individuals who have left the city for the suburbs have been mostly successful in creating that larger realm of physical space in which they can create the quality of life they seek. The higher rate of home ownership and the trends toward home gardening and do-it-yourself home projects have symbolized for some a return to an earlier time or at least a reconciliation with some values from the past.80 It does not seem, however, that this increase in physical space has made people more likely to engage in social or political activity with one another. In fact, suburban living has generated its own way of reinforcing the disconnection of individuals in this time of social individualism. First, living in the suburbs has made many people feel that they have no real political voice in their immediate community or in the larger metropolitan area in which they live. These people are living in a political gray area, because they cannot make meaningful contributions to the politics of the city they live near (though its policies may have spillover effects on the suburbs), and the matters they can affect in their small town or more likely—residential development—may not seem important or worth the effort.81 Worse yet, these people may be reluctant to use their local governance to solve problems or provide services out of the fear they have learned to have of collective solutions. They might think that increasing the role of the government will recreate the same urban atmosphere they have left.82 Of course, none of this changes the fact that some sort of local governance is needed. Many people pursue this through the use of homeowners’ associations and restrictive property covenants. In many cases, these types of organizations end up arbitrarily infringing on individuals’ rights. Since they are extra-governmental associations, however, it is unclear what rights they have and what recourse individuals have in dealing with them. While the transformation from political individualism into economic individualism represented the first misapplication of this founding concept, it was the transformation of individualism into a social ideal that really undermined the freedom of the individual in American society. Once societal

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

131

bonds were so heavily damaged under economic individualism, people lost sight of the role these bonds needed to play to support the freedom of the individual. The main causes of this transformation can be traced to the social effects that resulted from industrialization, the creation of defined class divisions, the development of mass society, changing social norms, and trends in land settlement.

Implications of this transformation for democracy The path to individual freedom in a representative democracy is found through active and substantive participation in the political process. Contrary to what some choose to believe, the political process begins long before one steps into the voting booth. The political process begins with a general concern for and involvement with one’s community and the knowledge that what happens in the community has an effect on each and every member. It includes a belief that those who hold governmental authority make a difference and make decisions that shape the lives of the people who live in the community. The political process requires individuals who are aware of what is going on in the community and the surrounding area, the state, the country, and the world, so that they can provide meaningful feedback to those who are charged with their representation. If the people do not provide this feedback, then the representatives are forced to act as trustees and just do what they think is best. While this is one accepted form of representation, it should be balanced with the perspectives and opinions of those who are actually being represented. The political process involves voting for candidates who want to carry out the representative and administrative duties of the government at the local, state, and national level. Lastly, the political process involves oversight by the citizens to make sure that the members of government are doing what they said they were going to do. This requires the citizens to maintain an active interest in what is occurring in their community and in the government. Each of these steps in the political process requires individuals to be tuned in and connected with one another and with the needs of society at large. They must have the tools to influence the political process and a willingness to do so. Unfortunately, the transformation of political individualism into economic individualism stripped the individual of most of these tools, and the transformation into social individualism removed the willingness. What is worse, people have become quite confused as to where the path to individual freedom lies. Social individualism represents the misguided application of faulty economic principles to the social realm in a way that deprives the individual of the freedom he or she has been conditioned to

132

Individualism in the United States

want and expect. This final transformation (and current manifestation) of individualism has led the individual as far from his or her freedom and potential liberty as he or she could be, and yet he or she does not understand that this has happened. Under economic individualism, one person’s success meant another’s loss. Even though some people failed to thrive, there were many who made tremendous personal gains. Those personal gains translated into wealth and prosperity on a macro level, thereby making economic individualism tenable even for those who did not directly benefit. They lived with the hope of future economic success, and that hope sustained them through hard times. The application of this mentality to the social realm does not work for anyone, even those who appear successful. Social individualism differs from economic individualism in that nothing positive results from social isolation. No one benefits on a social level from withdrawing from society and being isolated from others, though individuals are encouraged to do so and feel justified in doing so. People might be economically motivated to refrain from helping others, but when they use that logic to withdraw from social life, they are depriving themselves of the benefits of interaction and depriving others of those benefits as well. This is damaging for democracy, because when individuals choose to withdraw from community life, they withdraw from political life as well. They do this with the hope of being free, but this action silences their voice and inhibits their freedom. It ensures that their opinions will not be heard by those who need to hear them. These individuals create the illusion of freedom in a world where they have no control or influence. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism to deal with the loss of power so many experienced in the nineteenth century, but it is self-destructive and does nothing to remedy the situation. Social individualism has created a dysfunctional American democracy. When people make the choice to step back from social and political life, they relinquish their right to determine their future and the future of this country. They hand that authority over to the economic powers that rose to positions of governmental authority under economic individualism. People are convinced that in giving up and pulling back they can be free. Unfortunately, this type of social and political withdrawal does not insulate us from the actions of others. We are still subject to their whims, be they members of our community, members of local or state government, or members of the national government. The path to individual freedom and empowerment—political individualism—requires genuine choices, opportunities, and access. It requires healthy societal bonds based on social obligation, self-restraint, and security. It requires participation and involvement and knowledge, and an interest in other people. Social individualism does nothing to provide for any of these components. It promises freedom, but it cannot deliver.

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

133

Questions to consider



1 Do you find the argument in support of the transformation of

economic individualism into social individualism convincing? Why or why not? 2 What can we as a society do to reverse the damage of social individualism?

Notes 1 Such was, for instance, the source of faction in Federalist No. 51. 2 See Marx’s Communist Manifesto. For a more thorough treatment of others who have held this position, see Hirschman, “Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble?” 1463–84. 3 Taviss Thomson, In Conflict No Longer, 11; Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart. 4 Taviss Thomson, In Conflict No Longer, 11. 5 Hirschman, “Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble?” 1466. 6 Ibid. 7 I do not mean to say that these things cannot inadvertently achieve some sort of public good; however, when and if that happens, it is a by-product of the activity and not a stated goal. 8 Hirschman, “Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble?” 1471; Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society. 9 Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 66. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, 30. 13 Ibid., 34. 14 Ibid., 31. 15 Ibid., 36. 16 Hoover, American Individualism, 22. 17 Ibid., 9. 18 Ibid., 21. 19 For an in depth treatment of this topic, see Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 20 Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other. 21 Ball, “Individualism, Collectivism, and Economic Development,” 58.

134

Individualism in the United States

22 For more on this connection, see Triandis, “Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism.” 23 Lockhart, “Political Culture, Patterns of American Political Development, and Distinctive Rationalities,” 532. 24 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 18. 25 Ball, “Individualism, Collectivism, and Economic Development,” 73. 26 Ibid., 74. 27 Ibid., 73. 28 Ibid., 74. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid., 58. 31 Ibid., 60. 32 Ibid. 33 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 132. 34 Ibid., 134. 35 Ibid., 135. 36 Pragmatism is a philosophical and political approach to problem solving and the study of behavior that relies on practical solutions, learning from experience and observations, and rejects the usefulness of abstract ideas. 37 Dewey, Individualism Old and New, 18. 38 Ibid., 19. 39 Ibid., 21. 40 Klein, The Genesis of Industrial America, 132. 41 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 109; Federalist No. 10. 42 Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics, 109. 43 Ibid., 108. 44 Ibid. 45 Croly, The Promise of American Life, 138. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid., 412. 49 Ibid. 50 Dewey, Individualism Old and New, 28. 51 Ibid. 52 Lockhart, “Political Culture, Patterns of American Political Development, and Distinctive Rationalities,” 521; Grid-group Theory was originally developed by Schwartz and Thompson in Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice. 53 This figure is based on the theory as discussed and presented by Schwartz and Thompson, Divided We Stand, 8–9.

SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM

135

54 Lockhart, “Political Culture, Patterns of American Political Development, and Distinctive Rationalities,” 523. 55 Ball, “Individualism, Collectivism, and Economic Development,” 60. 56 Lockhart, “Political Culture, Patterns of American Political Development, and Distinctive Rationalities,” 534. 57 Giner, Mass Society, 108. 58 Ibid., 119. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Nisbet, The Quest for Community, 241. 62 Emile Durkheim was a French sociologist who was trained in psychology and philosophy and is credited with founding the discipline of sociology. 63 Taviss Thomson, “The Theory That Won’t Die: From Mass Society to the Decline of Social Capital,” 421. 64 Ibid., 427. 65 Ibid., 422. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., 429. 68 Nisbet, The Quest for Community, 215. 69 Ibid., 223. 70 Taviss Thomson, In Conflict No Longer, 31. 71 Ibid., 107. 72 Ibid., 31. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid., 33. 75 Elazar, “Land and Liberty in American Civil Society,” 25. 76 Ibid., 17. 77 Ibid., 28. 78 Ibid., 22. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid., 18–20. 81 Taviss Thomson, In Conflict No Longer, 45; von Rohde, “The Suburban Mind,” 295. 82 Elazar, “Land and Liberty in American Civil Society,” 19.

Further reading Hayek, Friedrich A. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1944.

136

Individualism in the United States

Hoover, Herbert. American Individualism. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922. Sumner, William Graham. What Social Classes Owe to Each Other. Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1989 (1883). Taviss Thomson, Irene. In Conflict No Longer. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.

PART THREE

The implications What does the transformation of individualism mean for Americans today? The purpose of the book thus far has been to provide a new and coherent approach to the study and understanding of individualism in the United States. However, Chapter 6 leaves us with a rather broken and dysfunctional form of individualism that does not seem to have anything to do with the political individualism of the founding era, though the beliefs and values of the Founders are invoked to defend it on a regular basis. In this third and final part of the book, I will discuss the implications of the transformation of individualism. In Chapter 7, I will explain individualism in a modern context, the various attempts to explain what it is, and what the consequences of it are (understanding, of course, that not everyone thinks it is problematic). Finally, in Chapter 8, we can explore my conclusions in light of modern challenges to individualism and individual rights together with possible ways to move forward as a healthy and cohesive society that promotes and protects the individual.

138

Chapter seven

Individualism today

Chapter summary Scholars from a variety of disciplines have described the negative social, personal, and political trends of the twentieth century and beyond, though they have done so from varying perspectives and have arrived at numerous conclusions. It is my claim in this chapter that these explanations are not as different as they initially seem. The common thread that they share is social individualism, and they all derive from the transformation established herein. We will examine a number of theories and explanations for social and political disengagement including mass society theory, social capital theory, and the roles of many other external factors such as technology, consumerism, and competition. These are all valid explanations for disengagement and they all connect back to the transformation of individualism. The language of individualism bridges the apparent gaps in the literature and allows us to talk about the connection we must also recognize between the social connectedness and political health of a society.

Chapter objectives



1 To develop and understand modern conceptions of democracy and

individualism and the way they relate to social individualism. 2 To introduce other explanations of the social and political withdrawal evident in modern American society and relate them to social individualism. 3 To discuss the implications of modern individualism for the viability of democracy today.

140

Individualism in the United States

This entire project was born out of concern for the social, political, and economic condition Americans find themselves in today. It seemed clear to me several years ago that the literature, the data, and my own observations of American society all coalesced into a coherent and discouraging picture of American social and political connectedness. However, not everyone believes that this concern is justified. First, not everyone agrees that the data consistently show a decline in connectedness. For every study that has asserted that the United States has experienced a steady increase in cultural and political disengagement,1 another study has concluded that the downward trend is not so bad2 or is, at least, no worse than that observed in other developed democracies. This leads to the further debate as to whether or not that comparative context matters. There is also the issue of motivation for participation. Even when people are still participating in activities, we will most likely not know if their motivation is self-serving, and the possibility is certainly there that it is.3 Second, we must be reminded that not everyone will have the same response to the societal factors described herein.4 Even if we can agree on the stimuli behind each transformation, it is not reasonable to suggest that every single person has shown the same reaction. This is a reasonable and realistic observation that does not undermine my general thesis. Lastly, those who agree that this disengagement is real have put forth a multitude of explanations to make sense of why and how it has occurred. Essentially, even those who have agreed on the “what” have ultimately disagreed on the “how” and “why.” Critics have portrayed these recent explorations into disengagement as reactive, at best, and alarmist, at worst.5 The fact that scholars cannot seem to agree on why citizens are pulling back from politics and communities has led critics of this research to conclude that it must not be as big a problem as we are led to believe. The slight uptick in voter turnout over the last decade has also given footing to those who are disinclined to think that America has a problem with disengagement. As is the trend in social science research, we are discouraged from believing that which we cannot measure in a convincing way. Measures of disengagement are usually based on selfreports from survey respondents, who may be inclined to overstate their engagement. Even respondents who feel justified in withdrawing from social and political activities may feel this pressure, which can come from internal sources (a sense of duty or obligation), or relying on self-reported data could be highly problematic if the individuals are not reporting accurately as to their activities.6 I am of the mindset that healthy social, political, and economic behavior is not something we can always measure, but we can recognize it when we see it. Likewise, we miss it when it is gone. In this chapter, we will explore notions of individualism today, what it is and why it is problematic. In many ways, modern individualism appears to be a continuation of the social individualism that began to develop in the late nineteenth century. It is an individualism that lacks a “public-spirited”-ness

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

141

that would encourage the individual to demonstrate a concern for others, friends and strangers alike.7 Without this concern, the individual is far less likely to perceive any social benefit from participation in the community. The decline in community participation has negative ramifications for the individual’s social and political life. These problems have been identified and addressed by many schools of thought including mass society theorists, social capital theorists, and communitarians.8 It seems, however, that the main breakdown in the previous scholarship is the natural tendency to focus exclusively on one approach or perspective. The end result has been a disconnected set of explanations of individualistic behavior that do not adequately account for or integrate the full range of social and political factors at play. The truth is there is quite a bit of overlap. A healthy democracy requires social connectedness and the United States is falling short in this respect. Many Americans are experiencing social and political isolation. As we enter the twenty-first century, Americans continue to face issues of social isolation, which I addressed in Chapter 6 on Social Individualism.9 More recent scholarship has shown that the modern American individual is seen as being in need of more social connections, not fewer as social individualism would suggest. His or her condition has been described in terms of alienation and loneliness, and so it hardly makes sense to prescribe more isolation to solve this problem.10 The challenge remains to convince people that a socially and politically isolating condition will result in greater individual freedom, nor it is consistent with a healthy democratic system. Along with the rise in social isolation, Americans increasingly live in an environment of political isolation. Some have concluded that the decline in political participation is insignificant for our democracy. It can be argued that political and community participation is “merely symbolic,” the decline of which poses no real ramifications for American democratic society.11 I disagree with this argument, however, and stand by the assertion that the decline in participation is important and negative for our democracy. Political participation has “instrumental effects.”12 This means that political participation not only gives the people a direct hand in influencing and directing governmental activity, but it also contributes to the “maximum fulfillment of the human potential of all citizens.”13 Political participation actually improves the lives of the individuals who participate. Additionally, political participation is closely linked to the likelihood of participation in other activities, and the positive feelings that result from one’s effectiveness and impact on the world around one.14 Social capital theory contends that where social capital has eroded, people are not connected to one another, they have decreased levels of trust in each other and in the political process, and they are less likely to reciprocate acts of kindness and assistance.15 A critic of this perspective could counter by arguing that the United States has a functioning democratic government and, therefore, there is no

142

Individualism in the United States

problem. While I do not dispute the presence of democracy in the United States, I do contend that not all manifestations of democracy are the same. There are forms of democracy that are qualitatively better than others. Perhaps the differing assessments of the United States’ conditions stem from a lack of clarity regarding the types of democracy and how they are intended to function. There are many ways in which we can think of the practice of democracy. The most basic definition of democracy is a government by the people, or a system in which the people are sovereign (meaning the people have ultimate governing authority). From that point on, democracy can play out in many different ways, and there have been many political regimes that have claimed to be democratic based on their interpretation and application of the people’s will.16 In order to understand a particular application of democracy, we must know how “the people” are to identify or think of themselves, how they are to function in a political context, and to what end they perform those functions. In the 1950s, sociologist Robert Nisbet identified two views of democracy that are quite relevant for our discussion of modern individualism. According to Nisbet, there are two ways in which the people could identify in a democracy: they can identify as individuals or they can identify as members of groups. If society comprises people who see themselves as individuals and believe that the public will is nothing but an aggregation of all of these individuals’ views, then the result is a unitary democracy.17 This would be negative for the society and the people in it. The unitary view of democracy diminishes the role of connections and, ironically, reduces individuals into a mass which has neither individual identity nor optimal amounts of freedom and security. Conversely, if the members of society are encouraged and inclined to identify as part of that society’s culture and the groups contained therein, then the result is a pluralist democracy.18 For Nisbet, this is the preferable form of democracy and the one that best supports a liberal democracy.19 Remember that in a liberal democracy, such as the one created in the United States, the people are to rule in a way that preserves and promotes the liberal principles of limited government, consent of the governed, and individual rights.20 In order to have the societal awareness needed to ensure that these liberal components are being maintained, individuals must see themselves as being part of the society. In Chapter 4, I established the connection between this belief and the Founding Fathers. Public benefits are derived from a public awareness held by a publicly minded people.21 It is not enough to exercise the right to vote ever so often. A healthy liberal democracy requires the preservation of societal groups, culture, and interdependence, so that the people can work together to maintain everyone’s individual freedom. Scholarship and observations published during the last few decades have provided evidence that this is not happening.

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

143

Modern individualism The challenge in creating a definitional profile for modern individualism lies in the fact that many people who have observed individualistic tendencies have not always used the word “individualism” to describe the behaviors. The variation in terminology is one of the sources of disconnect in the literature among a group of people talking about the same thing, but not fully realizing that they are a part of the same conversation. As in previous chapters, my goal is to bring together a number of perspectives on individual behavior and see if we cannot create a coherent picture. There are some common themes that emerge from the literature written about individual behavior in the latter half of the twentieth century. Many of these themes contain internal inconsistencies, which indicate what a struggle it is to understand and pursue an individualistic existence in the United States today. In short, modern American individualism represents an individual who is reactive, autonomous, alienated, very concerned with the preservation of his or her rights and freedom, and defensive against anyone who might want to encroach on those rights for any reason. First, the twentieth- (and now the twenty-first-) century individual appears to be very reactive to the shifts in political and social culture in the latter half of the twentieth century. Factors of social alienation and self-alienation have hit the modern American individual with a one-two punch as both have driven him away from involvement.22 Social alienation is the distancing of one’s self from societal norms and expectations, and this has been observed from the beginning of the twentieth century. It seems that the trend began as an individual desire to escape from the obligations that resulted from one’s status and role in society.23 This desire for escape led to an active avoidance of social activities, though by the mid-twentieth century this avoidance had become less about rebellion and more about harboring a “vague discontent” regarding one’s obligations and roles.24 The second hit to engagement came from self-alienation. In the United States, self-alienation has also served to distance the individual from society. By definition, self-alienation refers to overriding one’s individual desires so as to be more in line with societal expectations.25 What happens, however, when the “prevailing social conditions” are ones of disengagement? It seems that the self-alienation that at one time reduced the distance between the individual and society can actually create it. I believe that the current cultural norm of political and social disengagement reinforces this tendency even among those who might want the situation to be different. In the case of both social alienation and self-alienation, the individual is making choices about his or her identify and actions based on what others are doing. The internal inconsistency in this first component of modern individualism is that the reactive individual is not typically a strong or empowered individual. Individualism of any time period contains a significant component of individual empowerment. When one is reacting to others’ actions,

144

Individualism in the United States

governmental action, social change, fear, etc., then one is not empowered. If anything, this individual is at a disadvantage because his or her next move is always determined by something other than his or her own personally generated initiative. Second, the modern individual aspires to autonomy, as that is the accepted sign of success in American society. While autonomy has traditionally been associated with physical independence, the modern individual defines it more in terms of the freedom to pursue his or her own wants and assume his or her own responsibilities, rather than those dictated by status and role in society. It is based on the belief that acknowledged membership in a community will only serve to limit one’s options. The freedom of the individual to engage or not engage in community or political activities becomes the necessary precursor to autonomy, and the primacy of the individual is established above any and all societal concerns. In fact, society only exists in the background, while the interests of the individual (as he or she alone determines them) dominate the foreground.26 This positioning of the individual and the importance of his or her preferences is reinforced by the modern technological and economic capacity to cater to those preferences.27 Modern individualism is rooted in the assumption that individuals express themselves through their preferences, and that when they cannot obtain a preferred item, destination, or outcome, their freedom is stifled. The inconsistencies here are twofold: (1) there is no reason to think that the generation of personal preferences occurs in some sort of cultural bubble. The developing of individual preferences is a social experience. The individual experiences pressure from society when developing his or her preferences, but then modern individualism encourages this individual to defend them as if he or she created them on his or her own; and (2) the technological and economic capacity to meet these individual needs requires cooperation that in many cases is subject to regulation by the government in order to protect the consumer’s interest. Without this intervention, the individual consumer would be liable to lose the rights that he or she is so interested in protecting from infringement. Lastly, modern individualism is defined largely in terms of individual rights.28 The problem, however, is that this individual wants all the protections of the state but none of the obligations. This is quite consistent with the shift toward negative liberty that has occurred over the years, but even this belief has been reconceptualized by many as a right—the right to be left alone to follow one’s own pursuits as one sees fit.29 This does not mean that modern individualism precludes social connections, but for any connection to be seen as acceptable and legitimate, it must be entered into voluntarily rather than as an obligation; social connections are ad hoc rather than systematic.30 The internal challenge to this last facet of modern individualism is based on two issues: (1) the preservation of individual rights requires active involvement in the system that is designed to protect them, and

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

145

(2) the preservation of individual rights requires an acknowledgment of others’ sphere of control and a demonstration of self-restraint so as to not violate their rights. For the protections of individual rights to be consistent, systematic, and fair, there must be provisions in place to ensure this. In a large complex society, none of this will happen just by people being “left alone.” The origin of this concept relates to the liberal objective of a limited government, not on any founding era expectation that people had any such right to abstain from interaction or obligation.31 These concerns were raised by nineteenth-century thinkers like Tocqueville and Mill who were worried about the social impact citizens could have on one another and what they could do to oppress each other.32 It is important to note, however, that both Tocqueville and Mill grew equally concerned with what the absence of social ties would mean for society as well. Modern individualism creates a number of problems for American society. These problems are realized on the societal level, the individual level, and the political level, and they all stem in some way from these components. There are a number of consequences that result from individualism today, and they all have implications for the quality of life in the United States. On the societal level, modern individualism’s emphasis on autonomy and alienation creates or exacerbates issues of insecurity, distrust, and an increasing reliance upon the state. These problems function in a destructive cycle and are mutually reinforcing. First, modern individualism creates a sense of social and economic instability by undermining the structures that traditionally provided stability: the family and the economy.33 Both these factors inhibit the cooperation that has been necessary for the maintenance of a strong familybased support network and a healthy and cooperative workplace. As people feel more isolated and insecure in their home life and work setting, they are not encouraged to overcome these feelings. Rather, they retreat further away from these institutions and adopt an increasingly individualistic attitude.34 As societal insecurity increases, the issue of distrust develops. When individuals retreat from one another and from the institutions that formally provide a connection among them, they lose touch with others’ goals, objectives, and perspectives. It becomes all too easy to then become mistrustful of others in society.35 A healthy society that is supportive of democratic goals typically has a high level of generalized trust, the belief that others will carry their share of the responsibility and can be trusted to do what they say they will do. Societies plagued with insecurity will ultimately suffer a decline in this generalized trust. Low levels of generalized trust are problematic on a societal level because they further inhibit participation. When people are not trusting, they are far less likely to reach out to others and cooperate on common goals. As individuals become accustomed to being self-sufficient, they have fewer and fewer practical reasons to cooperate with their neighbors.36 Ironically, this track of insecurity and distrustfulness ends up in an increased reliance on the state, which feeds back into the individual

146

Individualism in the United States

insecurity. For example, in a community where there are few options for social welfare assistance (e.g., community organizations, faith-based charity, etc.), individuals have no choice but to turn to the state for help. When people have to turn to the state for assistance or services, it challenges their socialized view of autonomy and frames them as failures in this regard. Due to this perception, these individuals will suffer from alienation and further feelings of insecurity. And the cycle persists. On the individual level, modern individualism negatively affects the quality of life for each person through promoting alienation, decreasing individual morality, and causing a general decline in the common good. When sociologist Irene Taviss Thomson wrote about alienation in the 1960s, she observed a change in the nature of social alienation during the first half of the twentieth century.37 She observed that the social alienation of the early 1900s was empowering and deliberate, which could arguably be viewed as positive for the modern individual in that it encompassed notions of both empowerment and voluntary association. However, by the 1950s, this alienation was no longer viewed as voluntary and it left people with a feeling of social malaise.38 I believe this malaise was a precursor for the social and political apathy that is observable in American society today. The same sociologist later wrote that she believed this course had been reversed by the early twenty-first century,39 but I think this assessment was premature. The role of alienation is still quite observable today, and the effect it has on quality of life through its reinforcement of apathy is problematic for American democracy. It also ties in with the reactive nature of the modern individual and the way he or she shapes his or her identity on the basis of others’ action or inaction. Second, the autonomy and alienation of modern individualism leads to diminished individual morality. This morality is based on the extent to which an individual is able to know himself or herself and the ability he or she has to form and honor attachments to others.40 In a culture that values individual autonomy, the individual is encouraged to sacrifice his or her connections for others. This separation comes at a personal cost in that the individual’s identity is partly constructed by the groups to which he or she belongs. If he or she fails to maintain his or her connection to these groups in society, he or she will fail to truly know himself or herself. This failure represents a decrease in his or her personal morality. Additionally, there is moral value in the ability to form attachments with others and to then use those attachments as the basis for one’s obligation to others. In the absence of these attachments, the individual sacrifices his or her “moral depth” and is reduced to only giving others what circumstances say they justly deserve.41 Lastly, modern individualism inhibits the individual’s ability to create, and benefit from, a healthy and ample common good. The product of a functional political process is a quality of life that the individual cannot realize alone.42 The emphasis on autonomy and alienation, together with the fear the modern American has of losing his or her individual rights,

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

147

keeps the individual from wanting to work together to accomplish such a goal. He or she mistakenly believes he or she can do as well, if not better, by insulating himself or herself from others. He or she ignores the progress that society has made through cooperation, and is insistent that the rhetoric of individual freedom—rather than the reality—is correct. This only serves to limit his or her individual potential. His or her continued resistance to cooperative solutions further exacerbates the societal implications of modern individualism and spills over into its political implications, as well. On the political level, modern individualism fosters the mistaken idea that participation in democracy is an individual-based pursuit. This faulty reasoning is based on the assumption that the product of individual thought and action is necessarily personal. John Dewey called this assumption indicative of “intellectual laziness.”43 Simply because the thought process is conducted at the individual level, we cannot assume that the subject of those thoughts or the implications of the ensuing action are limited to the individual. Unfortunately, modern individualism encourages people to think exactly that. This affects American political culture in a number of ways. This attitude leads people to misunderstand and underutilize their right to vote; to the weakening of democracy and the threat of its further dissolution; and to the reduction of the state to a mere service provider. First, modern individualism promotes the idea that individuals can act and think in isolation, and the decision to vote is one demonstration of this ability. While this ability is debatable in general,44 it creates an incorrect idea of what the political process looks like and the role that suffrage plays in it. John Dewey addressed this issue in The Public and its Problems several decades ago, but his points remain relevant today. He argued that it was not surprising that the system of democratic governance would end up being home to this type of attitude. After all, democracy is about the empowerment of the people and the expression of their will through governmental action. Unfortunately, the idea that the state is just an aggregation of individual will sounds much like the unitary conception of democracy introduced earlier in the chapter. The idea that “individuals in their untrammeled individual sovereignty make the state” is not realistic, nor is it compatible with the success of liberal democracy.45 For Dewey, this approach to democracy would not unite people in support of any common goal. The use of individualism as a premise for democracy would lead to its undoing.46 Second, insofar as modern individualism discourages the togetherness and identity of community membership, so too it undermines the foundations of democracy. As we discussed in Chapter 4, the political individualism that was present at the time of the founding had a strong foundation in societal bonds. American democracy developed upon a foundation that relied heavily on the strength of community and the associations the community supported and nurtured.47 In the absence of a strong sense of community, the future of democratic processes becomes uncertain. Democracy has both social and political elements that must be maintained.48 If the social connectedness in

148

Individualism in the United States

a democracy has deteriorated, we can but assume that the political practices of democracy alone may be insufficient to maintain the institution. The political impact of modern individualism also results in the reduction of the state to a service provider. If people do not participate in democratic governance, then the activities of the state became necessarily reduced. A (healthy) democratic state will only expand its operations and concerns at the behest of the people. In the absence of that vital input, the government becomes a service provider, approaching the citizens as a business does its customers. Instead of being the center of political discourse and debate, the state sells water. Instead of being an active moderator of public will and concern, the state delivers mail. Only through the maintenance of an active political community can the state hope to become something more and be an effective decision-making body.49 This is not a concern for modern individualism, and so this too falls by the wayside. I explain the general social and political disengagement of modern times in ideological terms as a manifestation of individualism, but many others have provided explanations for these same phenomena. I will present a number of these explanations, but not in an attempt to illuminate the alternatives. Rather, it is my claim that these explanations are not as different as they have previously seemed. These explanations share the common ideological thread of individualism, and they all derive from the transformation established herein.

Other explanations for social and political disengagement Dating back to the progressive era, people have been developing explanations and proposing solutions for the changing social and political dynamic in this country. While we will address some of the proposed solutions in the next chapter, we will use the remainder of this chapter to explore and unite many of these varying explanations. These explanations can be grouped into the two broader camps of social capital theory and mass society theory, though theorists of both schools of thought put forth a number of more specific explanations for why so many individuals demonstrate a limited willingness to engage in social and political activities. No matter what you call it, I believe that we are all talking about the transformation of individualism into the dysfunctional form it has assumed today. Though the idea of social capital did not gain real traction until the last couple of decades, the idea has been around since Tocqueville was writing.50 Though he did not reference it as such, he acknowledged the role of social connections among people in society and the value of those connections. Specifically, social capital theory is based on the idea that people build up trust and confidence in one another through interaction and cooperation

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

149

and those bonds provide the footing for future relations, productivity, and progress. As the level of interaction among people has declined, the push in the scholarship has been to formulate explanations as to why this has happened. Social capital theory is based on the belief that individuals have made the conscious decision to withdraw from their social relationships and obligations.51 The decision is deliberate and the responsibility for the decision rests entirely on the individual. This means that the individuals are also responsible for the social and political consequences of such actions.52 Mass society theory (discussed in Chapter 6) also has roots in the nineteenth century but explains the social changes in terms of the societal homogenization brought about through industrialization and the growth of bureaucratic processes. In this theory, the individuals are acted upon by outside forces and then must live in these circumstances, which are beyond their control. Both social capital theorists and mass society theorists agree that people are interacting less, cooperating less, and trusting less than previous generations, but they disagree about who is in control of this decline. Interestingly, it has been speculated that the success of social capital theory is due to the responsibility it places on the individual.53 The problem of social capital seems more manageable because it is created by the individual and thus can be changed by the individual. The problem itself seems more empowering because the options and solutions seem more obvious and accessible to the people, whereas mass society theory frames people as victims in a changing world they have long since lost control of. This is an uncomfortable idea for people living in an individualistic society, because it runs contrary to the spirit of individualism and is rather disempowering. The differences between these theories are significant, and I do not mean to discount them. However, I think both of these theories can be rooted in the transformation of individualism. I established the role of mass society theory in Chapter 6 as a social effect of industrialization and a part of social individualism. Likewise, the decline of social interactions and the resulting decline of social capital is part of the transformation, first from political individualism to economic individualism and then to social individualism. The nature of the change and decline of societal bonds can be thought of as the gradual decline in social capital that was feared by Tocqueville and then later realized in American society. There are a multitude of factors that have been blamed for the decline in social capital and the advance of mass society, and I believe there is truth in each and every one of them. Each of these factors is also a symptom of the transformation, though none of them have been presented in exactly this way before. The decline in social capital can be seen in changes in employment, technology, leisure, and residency patterns. First, there are a number of changes in the American work environment that have been blamed for the decline in civic and political engagement. The amount of time that people spend at their jobs has lengthened, and this amount of time takes away from time that could be spent on other activities.54 There

150

Individualism in the United States

are a number of factors that could be leading to this increase in time spent at work including the number of workers who earn hourly wages or salaries that do not comfortably meet their needs; the competitive job market, which may cause workers to feel pressure to do more and perform at a higher level to keep their jobs; and pressure on companies to extract as much labor from their workers as they can in order to be profitable and competitive. In any event, there are only so many hours in the day. More hours spent at work means fewer hours spent on community and political activities with neighbors and friends. There are also more women in the workplace, which further diminishes the collective time individuals and families have to spend on other activities.55 This time spent at work does double duty with regard to diminishing social capital. It decreases an individual’s free time and it also immerses the individual into an adversarial environment that is oftentimes based on individual competition.56 The success of a company is increased by motivating individuals through competition and personal incentives for individual achievements at work. Both these factors can separate workers from one another.57 If one is encouraged to exhibit these behaviors and practices in one’s environment, it is reasonable to think that these separations can spill over into the social realm as well. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that people’s social lives are suffering, and changes in the way people spend their leisure time have been blamed for the decrease in social capital. This downward trend has been documented in Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. In his research on the topic, he found numerous data from a number of sources that substantiate the claim that people are not using the free time they have to connect with one another in meaningful ways. Putnam documents both official and unofficial types of activities (i.e., organized vs. spontaneous) and finds a decline in both types. For example, rates of entertaining at home declined 45 percent over two decades from the 1970s to the 1990s.58 Card playing has dropped precipitously since 1975.59 And, of course, even as the raw number of bowlers has increased, the number of people bowling in leagues has drastically declined.60 With regard to residency, people are moving more often, are living farther from work, and are less connected with their place of residence as a result. It is no longer a foregone conclusion that a person is going to live in the community he or she grew up in. It is quite common for individuals to relocate for education, for jobs, or just for the sake of adventure. Once one has made that initial move, one is likely to move again.61 When individuals are new to a community, they are understandably less inclined to participate in civic and political activities.62 This is possibly due to a lack of information and a lack of connection and concern for the community. The decreased likelihood of voting and organization membership contributes to the destabilizing of the community.63 As individuals work outside of their community of residence in increasing numbers, they also become less likely to participate in activities due to lack of time. More time spent commuting to and from work leads to

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

151

less time available for other activities. Metropolitan areas have continued to grow in physical size, and this has led to a great increase in commute times for a great many workers. Less stable and more inconsistent community residency has also contributed to the “stranger danger phenomenon.”64 It is defined as a “wariness of others” and it is brought on by creating a disconnected community in which people are not sure who their neighbors are and do not feel motivated or incentivized to make those connections. When individuals are so pressed for time, it may not seem like the best use of time to invest energy in relationships with people one probably will not see in a few years because one or the other will move away. There are other factors that social capital theorists have used to illustrate the decline in social capital. Employment, leisure, and residency patterns are only a few examples, but they demonstrate my main argument: they are all evidence for the transformation of individualism. Every one of these factors was brought about by the transformation of individualism over time. They have been used as a way to explain disengagement, and they have certainly contributed to it. These factors, however, are not the cause. They are but symptoms of a much larger ideological problem. The pressures that individuals face in the workplace in terms of wages, time, and competition derive from economic individualism and have major implications for social individualism. They lead people to move frequently, to always seek the next opportunity—either out of necessity or socialization—and to pull back from others because they do not think it is worth their while to invest their time and care in nurturing these connections. These behaviors certainly contribute to the decline in social capital, but they did not cause the initial decline. In fact, these behaviors are symptoms of a greater problem. Trying to address and fix these behaviors will not solve the problem because these attempts would not get to the root. Likewise, mass society theorists identify a number of problems that have resulted in social and political disengagement and detachment. With regard to the advance of mass society, we can see changes attributed to consumerism, globalization, and communication. Consumerism is one way that mass society deprives people of the connections that they need. The concept of consumerism is based on the idea that individuals can be reduced to their ability to obtain goods. In a consumerist culture, individuals are encouraged to obtain these goods at as high a rate of frequency as they can sustain. People have always bought items they need, certainly, but the process of obtaining these items used to have a social dimension that it no longer has. There are a number of reasons for this. First, shopping once took place in the community in which people lived, and the consumers were most likely buying the product from the person who produced it. This immediately introduced a level of personal interaction. Second, they would be likely to see people they knew while shopping, and so it was a social occasion that people, as recently as the 1960s, would actually get dressed up for. Today, the emphasis is on obtaining the most goods for the lowest

152

Individualism in the United States

price. People are drawn to big-box stores with foreign-made goods or to farflung outlet malls where the environment is more competitive than anything else.65 Third, consumerism and advances in technology have contributed to the great appeal people find in online shopping.66 Now, people can get all the goods they need, for the lowest prices possible, without leaving the comfort of their home. The social dimension of shopping can be completely avoided, and the entire focus is on acquiring goods. Worse yet, all this catering to personal tastes creates the illusion that individuals are really and finally able to meet their needs in tailored and personalized ways. They fail to realize that everyone is online ordering the same dress that Duchess Katherine wore to a hospital opening last week. Individuals, indeed. Economic globalization is another development that has been touted as an opportunity for individuals to realize greater freedom, but it has actually done more to diminish quality of life for many individuals. Defenders of globalization say that it benefits producers and consumers alike, it frees the individual from the “tyranny of place,” it gives the individual leverage against the government, and it is the best expression of not only individual rights but also classical liberalism itself.67 Critics say that globalization has created a “race-to-the-bottom” in which developing countries sacrifice their workers in order to make goods cheaper and draw in more foreign investment, and developed countries are forced to de-industrialize as the manufacturing jobs move away.68 In this scenario, the United States would be the de-industrializing developed country that is realizing the negative social and economic effects of this process, including a declining standard of living for working-class individuals and the resulting decline of those communities.69 As I discussed in Chapter 5, this type of economic shift causes people to reach for control in any way they can. Those affected negatively by globalization are ill-equipped to do anything to turn that tide, and so it is not surprising that the experience leads to social and political disengagement.70 Even the way modern Americans communicate and get information does more to separate them than unite them.71 This serves to reduce our connections and our individuality in a few ways. With regard to communication, our modes and methods are far more impersonal than anything previous generations experienced. Through texting and emails and direct messages and instant messages, it is rare that people even have to speak on the telephone, much less meet in person. Applications and programs like FaceTime and Skype even make it possible to meet “face-to-face” in a virtual environment. The internet has increased the number of people an individual can meet, but it does more to diminish the individuality of the participants than enhance it. Individuals who are truly unique and worthy of distinction are reduced to lists of qualities and thumbnail pictures of various physical attributes. With regard to information, the internet homogenizes individual thought by reducing and consolidating the sources of information available. Ironically, the internet provides faster access to information while reducing the scope

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

153

of information people actually access. If one assigns a paper to a class of students, one quickly discovers that most of their internet searches yielded the same top five hits. The ease with which people can access information takes the place of effort of sorting through it. Again, these factors that lead to disengagement are just symptoms of individualism gone awry. There is other evidence in the literature that points to the creation of mass society, so these are just a few examples. The changes that have been observed with regard to consumerism, globalization, and communication can all be connected to the transformation in individualism. Both consumerism and globalization are natural offshoots of economic individualism and these trends in communication are consistent with the issues of social individualism. Though the social capital theory is somewhat at odds with the mass society theory with regard to blame placement, both agree on two very important things: (1) there has been an observable decline in the number and strength of social ties that connect people together in American society, beginning in the nineteenth century, and (2) this decline can have severe political consequences.

Implications for democracy The modern individual is woefully unprepared and all too unwilling to participate in democratic politics. Lost in a sea of choices, websites, commutes, lonely bowling, and distrust, he or she finds the prospect of political engagement daunting and unappealing. He or she lacks the social footing and support to overcome the barriers to entry. Even with a world of information available at his or her fingertips, he or she does not find the case for political engagement compelling. There are those who argue that there is no collective benefit in trying to get this person to participate. He or she does not know what is going on, he or she is not motivated to find out, and encouraging him to vote or otherwise participate does not guarantee a qualitative improvement to the political process. If we were only talking about one person, I might be inclined to agree. In 2008, the US Census Bureau estimates that 74.9 million eligible voters did not vote. And turnout was high that year. According to the 2012 American National Election Study,72 only 7.5 percent of respondents had contributed money to a political party.73 Only 5.6 percent had attended a political meeting, rally, or speech. This means that over 90 percent of respondents did not engage in these types of political activities to promote a candidate. Unfortunately, many people do not feel inclined to communicate their views to the government, or anyone else, for that matter. Roughly 80 percent of respondents reported not contacting their representative or senator in the last 4 years. Sixty percent of respondents did not even bother to talk about politics with anyone at all.

154

Individualism in the United States

The impact that these people have on society is more significant than one might think. Conventional wisdom might suggest that if one leaves an apathetic group of people alone, they will not have any effect on anything, because, well, they do not care. Unfortunately, this is not the case. When faced with 74.9 million of anything, we are bound to realize some societal effects. In this case, this group of people can have a significant impact on the stability of society, the stability of politics, and the public interest. All these impacts can produce a deleterious effect on democracy. Modern individualism compromises the stability of American society, and this has an adverse effect on democracy. Though individual autonomy is usually pitched as a way to promote the rights and freedoms of the individual, the insecurity and distrust that it breeds does much more to hurt the individual than help him or her. This destabilization weakens the position of the individual. It diminishes his or her likelihood of participating in the community and becoming aware of the issues that are important to his or her fellow citizens. When one is discouraged from civic participation, there are two possible results for the quality of democracy. First, the lack of civic engagement leads to a decreased likelihood of political participation. The government in a representative democracy is intended to be shaped by the input it receives from the citizens. As an increasingly smaller group of citizens cares to influence the process, the government cannot help but be reflective of that increasingly smaller group. Chances are this group of citizens is not going to be representative of the society in general. If we imagine the government as a mirror, it can only reflect the image it is presented with. If a person is not willing to stand in front of the mirror, he or she will never see his or her image looking back. A second possibility involves this socially disengaged person participating in politics anyway, though the activity would most likely be limited to voting. In this case, there is an uninformed individual who is out of touch with his or her community voicing his or her opinion though he or she does not really have a handle on what is going on. When the citizens do not have an understanding of the issues that face their community, state, and country, then the choice of yes or no on a ballot issue or the choice of candidate becomes an arbitrary decision based on how much money was spent promoting the issue or how someone’s name sounds. The third possibility, as I suggested earlier, is that the disengaged are also the disaffected and may, under the leadership of a demagogue, ultimately become engaged in very destructive ways. Next, modern individualism compromises the stability of the American political system, which has implications for the quality of our democracy as well. Since modern individualism perpetuates the decline of community first caused by economic individualism, it leaves people wanting some type of unity with others. Even though the citizens have been socialized to not seek out those obligations and connections, there is a human social need to feel a camaraderie and solidarity with members of their community. In

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

155

the United States, there are ideals that are supposed to create that unity and provide an ideological connection among the people to protect them from damaging interests or leaders. These ideals include majority rule and minority rights, equal protection of the law, and individual freedom.74 In the absence of a healthy connection based on a balance of these ideals, people may seek out political leaders or groups that are actually self-serving rather than interested in serving the public good. Disconnected individuals may be vulnerable to questionable interests or leaders and thus become part of “pseudo-communities” that do not advance their own interests at all.75 In fact, social capital theory and mass society theory openly agree that the individual needs social bonds to keep him or her from falling prey to demagoguery.76 A demagogue is a leader who wants power and will say and promise anything to the people to get that power. This leader is not publicly minded or other-interested, but gains support by pandering to the citizens. People are capable of seeing through these types of tactics, but they are empowered to do so through their connections within the community and the self-awareness that arises from those relationships. In the absence of those connections, the citizens are more likely to make poor choices with regard to political leadership. Self-interested leaders who are unknown and unchecked by the voters will not promote a healthy democracy. The election of these types of leaders and the advancement of similarly minded interest groups changes the focus of a democratic government and reinforces the idea that the government must only serve some of the people instead of all of the people. As the government becomes less responsive to the people (because the people are less willing and less able to demand responsiveness), political instability will increase. Those who are aware and are watching this degeneration occur will become increasingly unsettled and dissatisfied with the type of representation they are receiving. Lastly, modern individualism compromises the promotion and realization of the public interest. The Progressive thinker Herbert Croly wrote in 1909 that a “complete democracy” requires a synthesis between private interests and public interests.77 Modern individualism does not promote this synthesis. If anything, it discourages it by acculturating individuals into seeing their interests as being at odds with the public interest. People are taught that the “public” is something else and is separate from the individual. In the absence of that connection, the interest of the public (which is all of us, not someone else) will be neglected. As long as democracy is used for “evading collective responsibilities” and making them increasingly individual responsibilities, all citizens will suffer.78 The people will suffer from an inconsistency in problem solving, with some having the means to address their own problems and others not. The government will suffer from a lack of purpose as it is called upon less and less to provide the foundation for a comparable and good quality life for all citizens. The country will suffer from a lack of collective identity as Americans—the identity that the Founders worked so hard to establish.

156

Individualism in the United States

If we continue on this trajectory, we will move farther and farther away from the Founders’ vision of the American individual. When the substructure of a building is compromised, the building can only stand for so long. The substructure of American individualism has been compromised, and the signs of that transformation have been observable for some time. The change has been slow, but the modern effects are profound for Americans and the viability of American democracy. As a pillar of the American ideological foundation, individualism must be understood and repaired lest this democracy fall into irreversible disrepair.

Questions to consider



1 Of the societal, individual, and political problems that are caused

by modern individualism, which do you feel are most damaging for democracy? Why? 2 Many modern individuals perceive civic and political participation as being “work” and so they are reluctant to make time in their schedules to increase these types of activities. What can be done to increase the level of “public-interestedness” so that these activities do not seem so much like work?

Notes 1 Putnam, Bowling Alone. 2 Taviss Thomson, “The Theory That Won’t Die: From Mass Society to the Decline of Social Capital.” 3 Ibid., 436. 4 Hopper, Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism, 61. 5 Taviss Thomson, “The Theory That Won’t Die: From Mass Society to the Decline of Social Capital,” 431. 6 Ibid., 440. 7 The term “public-spirited” is used and defined by Hopper, Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism, 6. 8 Refer back to Chapter 6 for a discussion of mass society. We will talk about social capital and communitarianism later in this chapter and in Chapter 8. 9 For a presentation and discussion of this data, see Robert Putnam, “Civic Participation” in Bowling Alone. 10 Nisbet, The Quest for Community, 245. 11 Conway, Political Participation in the United States, 184–5. 12 Conway, Political Participation in the United States.

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

157

13 Ibid., 185. 14 Ibid., 186. 15 Ibid., 190; Putnam, “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America.” 16 For a more thorough review of democracy, see Ball and Dagger, “The Democratic Ideal,” in Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. 17 Nisbet, The Quest for Community, 249. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., 250. 20 Deutch, The Crisis of Liberal Democracy, 250. 21 Ibid., 253. 22 Taviss, “Changes in the Form of Alienation: The 1900’s vs. The 1950’s,” 46–7. 23 Taviss Thomson, In Conflict No Longer, 110. 24 Ibid. 25 Taviss, “Changes in the Form of Alienation: The 1900’s vs. The 1950’s,” 46–7. 26 Crittenden, Beyond Individualism: Reconstituting the Liberal Self, 77. 27 Elliott and Lemert, The New Individualism: The Emotional Costs of Globalization, 4. 28 For a discussion of the role of rights in American political culture, see Mary Ann Glendon’s Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. 29 Glendon, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse, 48. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid., 49. 32 Ibid., 52–3. 33 Hopper, Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism, 59. 34 Ibid., 60. 35 Ibid., 62. 36 Ibid., 61. 37 According to Taviss, in the early 1900s, 5 of 8 cases felt their alienation was voluntary, while in the 1950s, only 4 of 10 believed their alienation was voluntary. Taviss, “Changes in the Form of Alienation: The 1900’s vs. The 1950’s,” 48. 38 Ibid., 56. 39 See Thomson, No Longer in Conflict. 40 Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 179. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., 183. 43 Dewey, The Public and its Problems, 22. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., 101. 46 Ibid., 101–2.

158

Individualism in the United States

47 Ibid., 111. 48 Ibid., 143. 49 Elazar, “Land and Liberty in American Civil Society,” 28. 50 Thomson, “The Theory That Won’t Die: From Mass Society to the Decline of Social Capital,” 440. 51 Ibid., 435. 52 Ibid., 436. 53 Ibid., 433. 54 Wuthnow, “The United States: Bridging the Privileged and the Marginalized,” 76–7. 55 Ibid. 56 Hopper, Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism, 25. 57 Ibid. 58 Putnam, Bowling Alone, 98. He relies on data from the DDB Needham Life Style archive. 59 Ibid., 104–5. 60 Ibid., 112–13. 61 Ibid., 204. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Hopper, Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism, 64. 65 Ibid., 66. 66 Ibid., 67. 67 Micklethwait and Wooldridge, “The Hidden Promise of Globalization: Liberty Renewed,” 485–6. 68 See Buchanan, “Globalization as Economic Treason;” Hopper, Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism, 16. 69 Hopper, Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism, 15. 70 Ibid., 45. 71 Ibid., 16. 72 This data from the American National Election Study was accessed on 5/22/2014 at http://sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/analysis/?dataset=nes2012. 73 This is quite interesting given that the Democratic Party and Republican Party raised a combined total of 2 billion dollars during the 2012 election cycle. This data was retrieved on 5/22/2014 from https://www.opensecrets.org/ parties/index.php? cmte=&cycle=2012 and is based on figures generated by the Federal Election Commission and released on 4/16/2013. 74 Sidlow and Henschen, GOVT6, 11. 75 Taviss Thomson, “The Theory That Won’t Die: From Mass Society to the Decline of Social Capital,” 429.

INDIVIDUALISM TODAY

159

76 Ibid., 432. 77 Croly, The Promise of American Life, 418. 78 Ibid., 419.

Further reading Conway, M. Margaret. Political Participation in the United States. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000. Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: The Free Press, 1991. Nisbet, Robert A. The Quest for Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953. Putnam, Robert D. “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America.” The American Prospect 24 (Winter 1996): 34–48.

160

Chapter eight

Reconstructing individualism

Chapter summary Social individualism, with all its inherent problems, persists to this day. In this chapter, we shall consider current implications of social individualism and some solutions to the problems it raises. The modern problem of social individualism is not a new problem at all. In fact, the issues that I have identified were anticipated as long ago as de Tocqueville’s time. The concerns he had about the life of the individual materialized by the end of the nineteenth century, and they are the very concerns that created the American Progressive movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In this chapter, we will examine some of the threats to individual freedom in contemporary society. We will consider cures for the social and political ills of modern individualism and consider what the possibilities are—good and bad—for the future of American democracy.

Chapter objectives

1 To establish how social individualism creates problems for American



democracy in the twenty-first century and the possibilities for overcoming these problems. 2 To synthesize and propose solutions to the problems of civic and political disengagement perpetrated by modern individualism. 3 To determine the possibilities for recovering American individualism.



Proponents of social individualism believe that we must choose between a successful and free but radically individualist society or a collective society with neither wealth nor freedom. In order to preserve individual rights and

162

Individualism in the United States

freedoms, people are encouraged to maintain only the most basic forms of interaction with others. Many people do not perceive obligations toward others nor do they believe that it is in their self-interest to be more than incidentally connected to the interests of others. This current manifestation of individualism is not only substantively different than the individualism of the classical liberal theorists and of the founding era, but it is also weaker as a foundation for individual rights and individual freedom. Indeed, it serves to undermine democracy itself. This ultimate transformation of individualism runs contrary to the spirit of American community and society and poses an ongoing threat to the viability of American democracy. The characterization of individualism has changed over time, but its use as an American ideal has been quite consistent. Unfortunately, the concept of individualism was only constructively applied in the original political sense. It is an ideological concept with deep roots in classical liberalism and the American psyche, and the effects of individualism on individual activities have proved to be significant. One would think that with so much attention given to the individual and his or her rights over such a long period of time, the contemporary American individual would be secure and protected in these rights. Unfortunately, as this concept has been transformed, Americans have moved farther and farther away from freedom and have actively given up the tools they could utilize to preserve their rights. Americans are currently facing a number of threats to their individual freedom, but it seems that too many people fall into one of two ineffective camps: either they are in denial or oblivious to these threats or they recognize there are threats but completely misunderstand their origin and nature. Those who are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the threats to individual freedom can be further subdivided into people who believe individualism has remained unchanged in the face of corporatism, wealth disparity, class conflict, and racial tension,1 and people who just do not think that any of these societal factors affect their potential as individuals, even if the factors are socially problematic. This latter group is afflicted with the “malaise” referenced in Chapter 6. Of those people who believe that Americans have suffered a loss of their individual rights, the vast majority mistakenly believes that too much societal and governmental intervention has been at fault and the answer to the problem is less intervention. This assessment is actually the reverse of the truth: individuals have diminished their freedom as they have pulled back from one another, from their communities, and from the political process. The path back to individual freedom requires a rediscovery of the connections among individuals and between the individuals and the government that has been elected to serve and represent them. There is no doubt that individualism, generally understood, has enjoyed persistent support and popularity over the duration of this country’s existence.2 What has held Americans back since the nineteenth century,

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

163

however, is the inability to reconcile the different meanings of individual liberty. The economic, social, and political changes that have taken place throughout the United States’ history have impacted every person’s ability to be free, yet there is a persistent resistance to acknowledge that there is a problem. Too many people have become convinced over time that to question the definition and application of individualism is to express doubt about or disloyalty to American political culture. However, given how greatly individualism has been transformed since the founding, questioning it actually demonstrates a commitment to American political culture and a desire to restore it to what it once was and what it was designed to be. Social individualism and its predecessor, economic individualism, only benefit a small few whose interests are quite different from those of most Americans. The economic and political powers of contemporary America benefit from the disorder and passivity that result from a people who are convinced they are better off leaving one another alone. People have real social and political needs that are served through action and participation, but these needs run contrary to the “get off of my lawn” mentality that is so pervasive in America today. The contemporary American is left confused and conflicted, not knowing where the real path to freedom lies. While addressed to somewhat different issues, the influential 1950 sociology text, The Lonely Crowd, dealt with the topic of conflicting ideals and realities for individuals. The author, David Riesman, discussed the issues of people “living at once on two levels,” and argued for the need individuals had to reconcile their ideal existence with their reality.3 The spirit of this argument is quite relevant here. Too many Americans are aspiring to a definition of individualism that is politically unhealthy and does not work to expand their freedom. In rejecting the necessity for societal bonds, social individualism robs the individual of the practical means through which he or she can connect with others and advance his or her interests in society and in government. Further, when they are presented with ideas of collective action or the government doing something to advance the public good, they think that this is a step away from freedom. The message has been widely disseminated that being left alone is the way to be free, and anything else is an abandonment of American individualism, a rejection of the Founding Fathers, and a step down the road to socialism. This is far from the truth of the American founding and what was intended to be the American experience. The political individualism of the founding provides individuals with all the freedoms and protections they need to live happy and full lives. Individualism is not weakened by societal bonds and obligations. It is strengthened by them. There is no doubt that some will find fault with the claims I have made regarding social/modern individualism, as there are always going to be exceptions to the behavior I have described. There will be an organization that has high participation and a low free rider problem. There will be a town with exceedingly high participation and voter turnout; a business

164

Individualism in the United States

owner who makes sure that all his employees make well above the minimum wage and have excellent health care benefits; or an election cycle where voter turnout is up and more individuals are making donations and attending political rallies. Any of these instances are certainly cause for positive reflection, but they are not indicative of the general American experience at this time. If they were, then the American individual would not continue to be so vulnerable.

The vulnerability of the American individual In a society that supposedly values the individual so much, the individual should not be facing so many threats. There are more examples than I have pages to discuss them, but the examples of post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts, the defeat of campaign finance reform, the politics of deregulation, and the rise of splinter political groups will more than adequately illustrate the problems that face the American individual today. The factor that complicates the discussion of any of these issues is that they can each be argued either way. That is to say, one could argue that each of these activities actually enhances individual freedom in general. Given the low levels of participation that are reflected in these decisions, I must respectfully disagree and contend that the extent to which any of these activities enhances freedom is quite limited in scope. Each of these examples may lead to increased freedom for some, but in the United States we must focus on what is good for the majority. All these threats would be most effectively and efficiently addressed through increased societal and political participation and engagement. The transformation of individualism subverts this impulse. In an effort to be free, many individuals have given up the power to influence the world around them. This has left them weak and vulnerable against those whose power has grown. The rhetoric of social individualism is powerful, but the more the modern individual listens to its siren call, the more he or she tends to surrender his or her individual power and freedom. It is important to understand the ways in which this is happening.

Post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts The first example deals with the impact of post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts on individual freedom. In response to the multiple terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States government engaged in a number of activities directed at providing for and improving national security. These activities were certainly within the purview of an active and effective government; however, many of these activities have occurred with little oversight. What little consent the people were able to offer, they offered under conditions of fear and anxiety. Since that time, the government has

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

165

been able to assert claims on powers it did not previously have, because the United States has been in an official state of emergency since 2001. Many people do not know this, however, and are therefore ill-equipped to either offer consent or demand increased oversight through their representatives. American citizens have been told that they must be willing to give up some freedoms so that they may be safe. This may very well be true, but they really have no way of evaluating the merit of that claim. On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, better known as the USA PATRIOT Act. Some features of this law included expanding the government’s ability to conduct surveillance and searches. This law was reauthorized by Congress in 2005, 2006, and 2011. Those who support the government’s expansion of power agree with former Attorney General John Ashcroft in viewing certain civil liberties as security weaknesses.4 The consequences of this have included restrictions on a free press, denials of due process, and unprecedented amounts of surveillance and data mining. From the passage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966 until the turn of the century, the trend in information sharing between the government and the people was toward more openness and transparency.5 After 9/11, all this changed. Not only did the government immediately become less forthcoming about new “sensitive information,”6 but governmental officials also removed hundreds of thousands of previously available government documents from the internet.7 The application of the mosaic theory of intelligence gathering provided the justification for limiting the flow of all this unclassified and seemingly irrelevant and disconnected information. Though not a new approach to intelligence gathering, it gained new support after the terrorist attacks. This theory is named after the art form of creating pictures using small bits of materials (e.g., tile, glass, etc.). Mosaic theory is based on the idea that information that is insignificant on its own can gain meaning when combined with other pieces of information.8 A complete and meaningful picture can then be assembled using this information. The problem with this idea is that theoretically anyone can make the picture if they have all the pieces. Thus, the government wanted to start hoarding the pieces just in case they could be used to make a picture. These restrictions posed immediate problems for the press in reporting information back to the citizens regarding threats of terrorism and the government’s response to these threats. While the argument for classifying sensitive security-related information is obviously legitimate, the case for restricting access to information on the probability that it will become sensitive in the future is a bit harder to justify. An individual’s quality of political life is greatly dependent on his or her ability to make informed and rational decisions about political issues and about choosing politicians who will act on his or her behalf. To the extent that this information is limited, the individual suffers a loss of freedom and quality of political life,

166

Individualism in the United States

as he or she can no longer make these decisions as effectively as he or she once could. Another consequence of treating civil liberties as weaknesses in national security has been the increased number of due process violations. There are different types of due process in the American legal system, including substantive due process (which refers to making sure that the content of the laws is fair and consistent and nondiscriminatory) and procedural due process (which refers to making sure that people who have been accused of breaking a law are subjected to a fair and consistent process in determining if they are actually guilty). Roughly half of the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights are devoted to procedural due process. Procedural due process has been greatly compromised since 9/11. Many individuals have been jailed for indefinite periods on the basis of what they might know or what they might do, which is a violation of habeas corpus. This has been justified in two ways. First, the mosaic theory has been used to defend holding individuals who have committed non-terrorist immigration law violations.9 Basically, these individuals might know something that could contribute to the overall goal of combating terrorism, and so the government has kept hundreds of such individuals in custody.10 Second, the potential severity of a terrorist act requires the government to act proactively in order to stop it. If the government waits until they have enough legally gathered evidence (pursuant to the Fourth Amendment), then it may be too late to avert the act.11 In many cases, individuals of Middle Eastern origin or descent have not been presumed innocent.12 Rather, the government has chosen to err on the side of violating rights because it seemed the safest way to proceed to avoid future attacks. Additionally, if a US citizen is designated an “enemy combatant,” he is no longer eligible to benefit from any due process including the right to be charged or know why he or she is being held.13 This designation does not require objectively evaluated proof that the person is actually a threat. It is based on the assumption that a person could be a threat.14 The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011 gave the executive branch the unprecedented ability to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens thought to have ties to terrorism. This is a bill that is up for renewal every year, and the NDAA of 2014 was passed with this same continuing component. One of the most controversial and far-reaching impacts of this new security culture is the increasing intrusiveness of governmental surveillance. In mid-2013, it came to light that the National Security Agency (NSA), an agency in the Department of Defense, was collecting vast amounts of communications data on American citizens. This activity was revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.15 Though some people feel outraged about this activity and believe that this type of data collection and data mining is unconstitutional, the government has asserted that the activity is both constitutional and justified given our security concerns.16

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

167

Since the citizens became aware of this intelligence activity, President Obama and Congress have been under increasing pressure to stop this mass collection of communications data. In mid-2014, Congress debated the USA Freedom Act, which was originally intended to stop the NSA from collecting phone records.17 The version that passed the house, however, had been modified due to concerns from a number of intelligence agencies that believed such limits would have a detrimental impact on the United States’ effort to anticipate and thwart terrorist activity.18 The end result was the passage of a bill that actually expands the NSA’s ability to access mobile phone records in addition to landlines.19 Whether or not this bill becomes law is yet to be seen, but what is certain is that now is the time for the people to express their views to their representatives. Based on how infrequently people have done this in the past, however, there is not much reason to believe they are taking advantage of the opportunity at this particular juncture. The freedom of the individual remains at the core of this issue. Americans are told that they must give up some freedom in order to be secure. How are Americans to assess whether or not there is any truth to this claim? The government has not been able to provide any evidence that this type of data collection has actually prevented a terrorist attack.20 If that is the case, then to what end are Americans sacrificing their civil liberties? And once this precedent is set, how likely is it that the government will be willing to scale back its intelligence activities in the future so as to reinstate the freedoms and privacies that individuals once enjoyed? A 2012 study published by The University of Chicago Law School finds evidence for two disturbing claims regarding Americans’ civil liberties. First, the authors find that there has been a “systematic increase in rights violations in the United States” since 9/11.21 They cite the use of “coercive interrogation, ethnic profiling, interception of communications, and preventive arrests and detention” as evidence for these rights violations.22 Second, the study finds that the majoritarian and countermajoritarian checks on political power are not working effectively to stop these rights violations.23 Majoritarian checks are weakened by the power of the political parties to influence executive and legislative decision-making, and countermajoritarian checks carried out through the courts are weakened by the fact that Congress has already allowed for a number of civil rights violations.24 This is certainly not the first time that Americans have been asked to make sacrifices of their civil liberties during wartime.25 What should be of particular concern is the nature of the war that the United States is fighting. The war against terrorism does not have traditional boundaries of place and time.26 This effort is not against an easily identifiable enemy. Because the parameters of this war are so broad, the sacrifices that are demanded of Americans are broad and ill-defined as well. It is not clear when it will be considered safe to go back to the status quo pre-9/11. If enhancing the individual’s civil liberties represents decreasing national security, it is not clear if the time will ever be right to restore the liberties lost. These

168

Individualism in the United States

are very significant issues that face the Unites States regarding individual freedom. Regardless of the outcome, citizen input is justified and necessary and sorely lacking. The United States’ new normal is a state of emergency, and this cannot help but have lasting implications for the lives of American individuals.27 The topic of national security presents some conceptual challenges to notions of individual freedom. Certainly, people need to have a reasonable expectation of physical safety in order to realize and enjoy individual freedom, but it is troubling when that physical safety requires the sacrifice of our civil liberties. The problem is not that the government wants to protect its people. The problem is that the decisions are being made without the input or awareness of the American people. I am not suggesting that the government is always acting subversively, but rather that citizens are not assuming the responsibility for finding out what the government is doing. The lack of societal bonds and disconnectedness that social individualism promotes only serve to reinforce this absence of concern and motivation. A solitary individual will be little motivated and hardly able to take on an issue of this magnitude. In fact, if an individual is encouraged to only focus on himself or herself, the nature of his or her immediate concerns, pursuits, and goals will reflect that to the exclusion of societal concerns. This individual is attempting to enjoy an individualistic lifestyle by withdrawing from social and political life, but in doing so he or she is forfeiting his or her ability to protect his or her individual rights. Until he or she recognizes the interconnectedness of individuals in a healthy society, he or she is unlikely to see the benefit of increasing his or her societal and political engagement. Without that engagement, the individual and his or her freedom will remain in jeopardy.

The defeat of campaign finance reform Another threat that individuals are facing in modern times involves the resounding defeat of campaign finance reform over the last few years. Efforts at reforming campaign finance date back over 100 years to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The purpose of changing and regulating the way campaigns were financed has always been about limiting the role of money in elections. In the United States, elections have historically been about ideas, whether it was the ideas of the parties or the ideas of the candidates. Efforts at campaign finance reform have been guided by the notion that money can compromise the messages by amplifying, diminishing, or distorting the relative power of a political message. The creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 1974 represented Congress’ desire to formally regulate many of the rules put in place by previous laws regarding campaign expenditures. The Supreme Court took exception with one provision of

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

169

the Federal Election Campaign Finance Act of 1974 and struck down the provision that limited how much of a candidate’s personal funds he or she could spend on his or her campaign and the limit on overall campaign expenditures.28 This court case deemed these types of activities as protected forms of political expression under the First Amendment. At first blush, this decision sounds like a civil liberties win because the Supreme Court voted to expand the freedom of expression. Unfortunately, it set the stage for a further expansion of such rights that actually serve to diminish the power of the average individual in politics. The two recent Supreme Court decisions that represent problems for most individuals are Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). The Citizens United case removed existing bans and limitations on corporate spending on elections. This decision was consistent with the Buckley decision in that it linked spending to free speech; however, it provides a much louder voice for corporations in the political process.29 Outside of having to disclose the identity of the donors, these corporate interests are largely unaccountable to anyone. They can have a great impact by providing a megaphone to the ideas and candidates they support. The policies and positions that are advantageous to corporate interests are not likely to provide advantages to the average citizen, and could very well compromise the interests of others. This decision led to the creation of super-PACs (political action committees), which are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from business, unions, and individuals. They can spend the money whenever and however they want, but they just cannot give it to a candidate or actively collaborate with a candidate to determine how the money is spent. The problem is that there is nothing to suggest that these super-PACs are representative of a majority of Americans. These groups have a disproportionate amount of influence given the narrow interests they represent. The second recent Supreme Court decision that has hurt the power of the average individual in politics is McCutcheon v. FEC. There are limits as to how much money individuals can give to candidates, party organizations, etc., and these limits have been upheld. At issue in this case were the aggregate limits on individual spending. Before this decision, individual donors could only give roughly $123, 200 per election cycle to candidates, parties, and political committees.30 The case was brought by an Alabama businessman who had reached his contribution limit in 2012 and still had other candidates he wanted to contribute to. He felt that the limitation on his campaign contributions limited his right to free speech and political expression. The Supreme Court agreed. In response to the claim that money in the political process was a corruptive force, the Court ruled that the giving of money alone does not represent corruption. For the money given in politics to be seen as evidence of corruption, the donors have to be receiving a direct benefit for their donation. The Court asserted that allowing donors to access and influence politics is a protected democratic right.31 Further,

170

Individualism in the United States

“donors have the same right to influence officials as do the constituents those officials are elected to represent.”32 Again, one could argue that removing these limits is a victory for the individual, but the fact of the matter is, it actually gives disproportionate influence to the very few who have the resources to give that much money. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Steven Breyer, he points out that campaign finance laws were originally created to preserve democratic legitimacy.33 Invalidating these laws will do nothing but bring back the problems that politicians a century ago were wise enough to recognize. The basic problem here is that most voters are influenced by the messages they hear the most. The messages the voters hear the most are the messages with the most money behind them. In this day of increased voter apathy and decreased participation, many eligible voters will not take the time to fact-check commercials that they see and hear. They will not investigate where the money comes from to pay for the ads, and many of them will find themselves manipulated by the information they receive. Expanding the role of money in politics does not mean that everyone’s opinions will get more attention. It means that the opinions of corporate interests and wealthy individuals will get more attention, and it is quite reasonable to say that these interests are not necessarily in line with the interests of most Americans. There is a large part of the population that does not even know this has happened. The effects of the changing campaign finance landscape could be mitigated by increased societal and political engagement. People would feel more enthusiastic about, and less burdened by, the need to seek out information about all candidates and issues. They would, in turn, be less manipulated by the candidates and messages with access to more money.

The politics of deregulation Another current threat to individual rights takes the form of deregulation politics. This is another example that not all proponents of individual rights will agree with, but one that becomes a problem due to disagreements over the varying perspectives on whose rights in particular we should be concerned with. Governmental regulation of economic activity is done with the individual consumer in mind. There are independent regulatory agencies in the federal bureaucracy that are created and empowered through enabling legislation Congress passes when they see a need for intervention. A market economy is volatile, likely to generate economic inequality, and produces “spillover effects” such as pollution.34 It is common for governments to engage in the creation of market-legitimizing institutions to moderate these damaging effects that markets produce.35 The problem—once again—is that those actions that are in the best interest of corporations are not necessary in the best interest of the average American and vice versa. Maximizing profit is in the best interest of the corporation, and any efforts

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

171

that it is compelled to engage in to curb the spillover effects or protect the consumer will cost money and take away from the corporation’s bottom line. Governmental regulation of a number of business practices became necessary since many businesses would not voluntarily alter their practices for the benefit of others. The trend toward the deregulation of industry began picking up momentum in the 1980s, and interestingly the interests of the consumer were used to make the argument for deregulation. Specifically, people were told that businesses could be more competitive and efficient with fewer regulations, and this would lead to lower prices and better quality products for the consumer.36 Regulatory policy in a number of industries has been scaled back over the last few decades, including the airline industry and the banking industry. Further, environmental regulations that affect a number of industries have been the subject of much political debate, with a number of interests pushing to reduce the role of the government in regulating the relationship between industry and the environment. The problem with deregulation is that it is unquestionably good for business and not necessarily better for the individual. In fact, a study conducted by Consumer Reports of airline, telephone, banking, cable TV, and electricity industries found that consumers have not come out ahead.37 The existence of regulatory agencies represents a victory for the people against corporate interests.38 These agencies compel behavior from corporations that is good for the majority of people though it may be disadvantageous to the corporation itself. Much of the movement behind deregulation has been blamed on “capture theory,” which describes a phenomenon in which regulatory agencies are dominated and “taken over by the private interests they are empowered to regulate.”39 The deregulation of the airline industry is a prime example of this occurrence. The airline industry used to be regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), which Congress created in 1938 to provide stability to an increasingly volatile industry.40 For decades, the CAB worked to regulate who could operate an airline, where the routes would run, and how much fares would cost.41 By the 1970s, there were a number of economists arguing that the regulations were causing the airlines to operate more expensively, and so the trend away from regulation began. Interestingly, the airlines were not a part of this deregulation coalition. Under the leadership of President Gerald Ford and the then President Jimmy Carter, the membership of the CAB became dominated by presidential appointees who wanted to reform the airline industry and deregulate. In 1978, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act.42 Remembering that the intent of deregulation is both to benefit the people individually and to increase the public good by increasing competition, efficiency, and product quality and decreasing price, we would expect to see such results in the airline industry. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

172

Individualism in the United States

First, without regulation, airlines are not compelled to run routes that service smaller populations, and so many people who had reasonable access to air travel in less populated areas are now forced to travel to larger airports.43 Second, increased competition and deregulation of fares has led to price wars among air carriers.44 These price wars have been good for consumers in the short term if they are able to benefit from a discounted ticket, but not for all consumers and arguably, not for the general public good. In the long term, however, these price wars have compromised the financial stability of the airlines. In times of high fuel prices and high interest rates, the airlines have run deficits in order to provide the short-term discounts to passengers.45 Third, the new competitors who were supposed to benefit from the lowering of barriers to entry are struggling to be successful.46 It turns out that getting into the market is only half the battle. Industry watchers are actually concerned that the competition unleashed by deregulation could lead to further attrition in the airline industry as the major carriers may be compelled to merge or shut down. These events would limit choice and actually hurt the individual consumers and public good. The example of the airline industry is but one illustration of the effects of deregulation, but the same principles have been applied to banking, trucking, railroads, telecommunications, and environmental policy. In every instance, the people are told that they will benefit from deregulation, but the only people who will benefit are the people who own the businesses. And they will only benefit in that very limited context. In all other ways, they will suffer, too. For example, an automobile manufacturing company will realize a limited and short-term benefit if it is able to thwart more aggressive pollution restrictions. The company will not have to pay to rework the factory and change the product, and this will mean good things for the bottom line right now. However, the same people who financially benefited from the less stringent pollution restrictions must still breathe the same air when they leave work that day. Additionally, avoiding the stricter laws now also does not mean that the government might not change its mind down the road and implement tougher restrictions then. Corporate interests have done an excellent job persuading average Americans to align themselves with these interests, even though they have precious little in common. Corporate interests want fewer regulations, so they use their money and influence to convince members of government that fewer regulations are better. The corporate interests and politicians then convince the voters that fewer regulations are better. Most Americans do not realize that when they argue for fewer regulations, they are disempowering themselves as consumers and citizens. When the government steps back from regulating industries, the people lose their main advocate. Then, there is nothing to mitigate the damaging effects of an unaccountable and unrestrained market system. This loss of control has a deleterious impact on individual rights, freedoms, and quality of life in contemporary society. There are too many

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

173

ways in which the outspoken and overfunded minority interests are having a disproportionate impact on American political culture. Once again, individuals are told that the path to freedom is defined by less intervention, and the diminished societal bonds make it incredibly difficult for the concerned individuals to work together in a convincing and influential way. In the course of lobbying the government for favorable policy, citizens’ groups are outspent by economic groups by very large margins. Those who recognize that the government is growing less responsive to the people simply cannot get the footing to have their voices heard. Everyone else either does not care, or feels alienated from the political process, or actually believes that what benefits the 1 percent will benefit them, too. This all serves to hurt the individual and reduce his or her freedom.

The rise of political splinter groups Another threat to the individual today is the rise of political splinter groups that are trying to capitalize on those voters who feel disaffected in order to gain power for the political group. The main example of this phenomenon is the rise of “tea party politics” in the last several years. The Tea Party movement developed in 2004 and has gained a number of outspoken political supporters, mostly from the American political right. As with the other examples of threats in this chapter, American citizens are given conflicting messages with regard to how this group’s activities will enhance their freedom. According to the Tea Party website,47 the main ways they seek to advocate for the individual is by promoting a drastic reduction in taxes paid to the government, a reduction in services provided by the government, the advancement of traditional values as put forth through Christian teachings, and the maintenance of a powerful military. The Tea Party movement also promotes increasing access to governmental positions by “average” people, and stresses the importance of domestic goods and businesses. Their rhetoric is driven by the claim that they are promoting the will and intent of the Founding Fathers. There are a number of problems here from the perspective of individual rights and freedom. First, underfunding the government and dismantling of governmental programs will signify the people’s surrendering the institutions the Founders provided them with to enable governance and cooperation. Second, even if one conceded the point and agreed to just maintain the military, this is still a staggering amount of money that the government needs tax dollars to finance. In recent years, defense expenditures have accounted for about 20 percent of the federal budget.48 This was roughly $718 billion dollars in 2011.49 Third, calling for a reduction in the size of government could arguably apply to Congress, yet no members of Congress have put forward an aggressive plan to cut their own jobs. Fourth, they do not understand the individualism of the founding era. They want to return

174

Individualism in the United States

to it, but they have mischaracterized it, as so many have. So, if groups like this have their way, the voters will agree to fewer programs, less spending, and more military, and the politicians that supported this move will still get paid to do less for the people. It is unclear how this will improve or expand individual freedom. In the social void created by economic individualism and cemented into place under social individualism, this school of thought has created a community of sorts based on less government and increased disengagement of government and citizen alike. Since people do have a social need to associate with one another, they are finding connections based on leaving one another alone. All these threats taken together create a fairly uncertain scenario for the individual American moving forward. It is not the first time Americans have been in this situation. Law professor Geoffrey Stone gave a keynote address in 2004 in which he used the following words to describe the American people: We grew fearful not only about our national security but about the subversion of our religious, moral, and national values, our media, and our educational system. Fanned by unprincipled politicians, this fear of an insidious enemy led Americans to fear Americans, to confuse panic with patriotism, and to blindly repress others in a frantic bid to ensure our security.50 These words were used to describe the United States during the McCarthy era.51 Senator Joe McCarthy had been able to take the fears and concerns of a people about ideological differences and security threats and turn them into a witch hunt for anyone who might seek to undermine “American” principles. Fortunately, in just 4 years, the people—in and out of government—who had been able to scare and manipulate began to think rationally for themselves once more. Senator McCarthy was officially “condemned” by the Senate and died a short while later.52 There are many things that twenty-first-century Americans have in common with these mid-twentieth-century Americans. In fact, since the advent of social individualism in the late nineteenth century, many Americans have been trapped in a cycle in which their values do not line up with their realities and they are constantly undermining their own self-interest by being convinced that they are better off on their own. We continue to be plagued by a number of problems that we cannot find lasting solutions to: (1) we face a number of ideological foes in the world with different worldviews, values, principles, and assumptions than ours, and these foes pose a security threat to the United States; (2) we have an astronomically high amount of national debt and an unbalanced budget; and (3) we have a great number of disaffected voters who do not like politics or politicians. The post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts, the failure of campaign finance reform, deregulation, and the rise of political splinter groups are all

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

175

examples of threats to individual rights in contemporary society. They are especially problematic because the social individualism that is dominant today does not equip the individuals with the tools they need to assert and promote their rights and freedoms in each of these situations. In fact, the current political culture encourages them to participate in their own disempowerment by passing up opportunities to help their own cause in the name of being free.

Solutions Though I have cited modern examples of threats to individual liberty, the underlying problems are not new. This news is both good and bad. The bad news is that we seem reluctant to learn from the past and more prone to engaging in avoidance strategies to duck political, economic, and social problems that loom larger with each passing day. The good news is that we have a deeper understanding of individualism and ways to draw upon it to construct a course of action to recover our basic commitment to political individualism and to our democratic principles. We can draw inspiration from a diverse body of resources including progressivism, communitarianism, rights-based theory, and even the activism and passion of other modern grassroots organizations such as the Tea Party movement. Each of the components of the recovery plan requires active citizen participation, because knowledge and oversight are critical components. In the words of Circuit Judge Damon Keith, “Democracies die behind closed doors.”53 The following are suggestions as to how Americans can reopen the doors in a meaningful way.

Develop and maintain an understanding of individual rights, what they are, and how they are best protected In the United States, citizens enjoy rights as they are described and protected by the law. Though based on the more abstract idea of natural rights,54 there are specific individual rights that are protected and these fundamental rights are listed in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has the ability to recognize new rights as issues arise, per the Ninth Amendment.55 Therefore, this list is not static, but has the ability to adapt to new and changing circumstances. However, the power of individual rights is diluted by the abuse of the term “rights” and the desire to apply the term to any activity one feels entitled to engage in.56 Further, though individual rights are indeed possessed individually, they are best defended collectively. The image of the individual as the “lone rights bearer” is persistent in American political culture, but this

176

Individualism in the United States

image is not reflective of reality.57 Individual rights are created, defined, and maintained in conjunction with those of others. Rather than seeing others as a threat to our individual rights, Americans should rely on one another as co-defenders of these rights. Individual rights preserve the integrity of our freedom, but it is our borders with others that give us our individual shape. These interactions, unavoidable as they are, allow the individual to realize his or her identity and potential.58 Individual rights are most effectively protected through cooperation among citizens and an active utilization of the state to that end.59

Develop and maintain an understanding of democracy and what it requires As a form of governance, democracy requires input, participation, oversight, knowledge, and diligent maintenance. In a representative democracy, the people have ultimate governing authority, and they use that authority to designate representatives to carry out their will. Both the selection of these representatives and the oversight necessary to ensure they are doing their job requires an active and informed citizenry. Some have expressed concerns that emphasizing the need for knowledgeable citizens will either lead to the exclusion of those who have no information or pave the way to a coercive state in which people are made to become informed.60 First, people are excluding themselves now, so we must not fear the development of this condition for it has already occurred. Second, a successful democratic republic requires a citizenry that aspires to a higher moral and civic character.61 Perhaps it takes work to develop such a character, but the government can only give back what is put into it. To borrow a phrase from computer science: garbage in, garbage out. A successful democratic system requires active informed citizens, so that it can produce meaningful policy that reflects the will of the people. Democracy, properly executed, is a continuous pursuit, jointly conducted by a society of positive and energetic individuals who feel a responsibility for the success of the system.62

Re-create and cultivate a connection between private and public interests The division that is perceived between private interests and public interests has been generated as a result of the transformation of individualism, and it is as much a moral problem as it is a political problem.63 Part of restoring individualism to its original political manifestation state involves bringing these two sets of interests back together. During the transformation into economic individualism, individuals were freed from their ties to the community and in their place developed the bonds of economic exchange.64

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

177

Unfortunately, as long as individuals are acting solely in their own interest, there is no real community present, even though there is the appearance of cooperation.65 Democracy itself is defined by the presence and prevalence of individuals who recognize that what is good for society is good for them personally. However, there are far too many people today who believe that democracy is a way to take public problems and assign the responsibility for solving them to the individuals who are most affected by them.66 The merging of private and public interest would represent a return to a democracy “devoted to the welfare of the whole people.”67 The path to repairing this disconnection is through the establishment of new traditions via civic education and political discourse.68 Through education and socialization, people could once again learn about work and careers as a means to contribute to the world around them, and not just a way to advance themselves personally.69 Through political discourse, politicians and political parties could use their rhetoric for something beyond mere vote gathering, instead inspiring individuals to give back through work, voluntarism, and involvement in community and politics.

Reclaim the government and its officials so that governmental action does not function separately from the will of the people Another problem that must be overcome is the perceived and actual disconnect between the government and the people it represents and serves. In order to overcome this, people must be willing to increase their participation through voting, communication with representatives, and running for office. In the absence of this more widespread participation, the influence of those who do choose to participate grows greater. Those who are currently participating and influencing the political process are increasingly and disproportionately representative of interests that do not reflect the best interest of the majority of the population. Corporate interests in particular are displacing regular citizens away from the decision-making table, which is why people feel disconnected from the government. One of the reasons why some people feel so threatened by governmental action is that they feel it will not likely be in their best interest. This disconnect creates an adversarial relationship between the governed and those who govern, and that tension should not be present in a representative democracy. The only way to overcome this disconnection is to give those serving as representatives more input to inform their policy making and more incentives to listen to that input. The average citizen may not have the money that the corporate interests do, but he or she has the greatest tool available in politics: the vote. By using this tool effectively and strategically,

178

Individualism in the United States

citizens can create a government that is at once more responsive and more reflective of the majority of citizens.

Understand the foundational blocks of political individualism and actively seek ways to reconstruct modern individualism in its image The political individualism of the founding era rested on the foundational blocks of individual freedom and societal bonds. Individual freedom was bolstered by both individual choice and individual opportunity. Just as important, if not more important, was the presence of strong societal bonds. These bonds were based on self-restraint, social and economic stability and security, and a sense of social obligation. Modern individualism, which is just a progression of social individualism, lacks the societal bonds that political individualism relied so heavily upon. While the foundation of individual freedom remains in modern individualism, the blocks that support it have weakened and become unstable, which has jeopardized the long-term stability of that freedom. They are based on choice for some individuals, opportunism, social atomism, and limited societal and governmental intervention. Individualism requires Americans to get past the idea that reestablishing their connections with one another and recognizing the government’s duty to govern will diminish their freedom. Only through restoring the foundational blocks of political individualism can we recover the individualism that the country is based on.

Conclusion There are those who will disagree with this transformation thesis. There are those who will think the solutions proposed herein are not likely to work because the country has grown too large and the political culture has changed too much to go back to the previous conception of individualism.70 There are those who will say that efforts are already underway to repair the problems I have described, and I cannot disagree with this last point. There have been many localized efforts at restoring community involvement in politics including the creation of community development corporations that are “governed by boards of local residents and business leaders” in order to “promote the economic development of the neighborhoods they serve . . .”71 Various communities have tried their hand at “sprawlbusting” as an attempt to promote local businesses by shutting out large chain retailers.72 Since the 1990s, there has been a movement in city planning and design called “new urbanism” in which

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

179

planners are creating communities that are structured more like traditional towns that are pedestrian friendly with plazas and squares.73 These efforts all reflect the acknowledgment that there is a problem, but there is no confirmation that the people behind these efforts understand why the problem exists. Without this understanding, there is no reason to think that these efforts will be successful in the long term. Members of the Progressive movement proposed solving social and economic problems through decentralized and centralized means, respectively. However, in modern times, we are afraid of both sets of solutions. The decentralist vision of reform was best articulated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who called for the creation of industrial democracies in which the workers would have a role in running the businesses they worked for.74 However, we are afraid to empower the individual through this type of decentralization because we have such a negative conditioned response to anything that sounds like collectivism. The nationalist vision of reform that was articulated by President Theodore Roosevelt involved using the government more actively to preserve the integrity of the political process and insulate it from the corruption of economic interests. However, we are afraid to empower the individual through these nationalist means because we equate increased governmental power with less individual freedom. We live in fear of change, so we tolerate the status quo, which is the scariest of all. The average citizen has no power in the workplace, no power in politics, and no power in his or her community. This political culture based on individualism has yielded few benefits for the contemporary American individual. The term “rugged individualism” was coined by President Herbert Hoover, and it is a term that has been used time and again to describe the nature of the American individual. Hoover is known for his support of individual initiative and his belief and optimism regarding human nature and what American individuals, in particular, could accomplish. This is not, however, all that Hoover had to say. In 1922, before he became President, he wrote a book called American Individualism. In this book, he talked about the role of the government in preserving equal opportunity for all. He was mostly concerned with what he called the “autocracy of economic power.”75 He feared that powerful business could snuff out equality of opportunity for individuals, but he did not want government to act in such a way that anyone’s initiative or creativity would be inhibited.76 Hoover believed that the answer to this problem could be found in the discovery and application of “a better, brighter, broader individualism— an individualism that carries increasing responsibility and service to our fellows.”77 The spirit of this sentiment was carried into the New Deal programs of the following decades and by those who believed that the government could actually promote freedom by ensuring equality of opportunity.78 Perhaps the acceptance of these solutions was reinforced by the hardships that so many Americans faced as a result of the Great Depression. Americans once again find themselves faced with political, economic, and social hardships, but

180

Individualism in the United States

there is a reluctance to respond to these hardships in any collective way, in any way that recognizes community. As illustrated at the beginning of this chapter, the problems facing Americans are only growing more severe. The inaction of the majority is just fuel to the minority’s fire. People on all sides have now recognized that there is a problem in contemporary American society. From the communitarians on the left to the Tea Partiers on the right, people have been noticing that something is amiss, and they are correct. Something has been amiss for a very long time. An increasing number of people feel that the United States government is not as effective or responsive as it should be, and so the answer has been to figure out how to “deal with” the government. Some want to reform it by changing the procedures and regulations, while others want to strip it of its powers so that it cannot affect the lives of the citizens any more than necessary. What these approaches fail to realize is that in a representative democracy, the government is the people, the people are the government. The government is supposed to be a reflection of the people’s will. If a change in government is desired, then the people must be willing to change. We need not surrender our willingness to live together, work together, and cooperate in society in order to preserve our rights and freedoms to think for ourselves and act accordingly. As American individualism has transformed over time, the nature and role of the individual American has changed as well. In a basic misunderstanding and misapplication of a core American political ideal, the excitement of change and progress and a desire to protect the gains made as a result has led Americans astray. In an attempt to adapt to the many economic and social changes that have taken place since the founding, we as a people have latched on to the worst manifestations of these changes and used them to redefine what it means to be a free and protected American individual. It has led us to change the foundation of political individualism and ultimately replace it with a social individualism that does not sustain us. Many criticisms of modern politics and society involve a call to return to some former condition, and this book is not different in that regard. However, we need to understand what it is we are trying to return to. Yes, let us return to the individual, let us return to the intent of the Founders, let us revive our communities, let us encourage civic and political engagement, let us truly understand what inhibits and enhances individual freedom. Only when we understand how all these concepts work together can we recover the American individualism of our forefathers.

Questions to consider

1 Do you think it is possible and/or desirable for Americans to return



2 Of the suggestions made to facilitate this return, which do you think

to the values of political individualism? Why or why not? would be the most difficult? Why?

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

181

Notes 1 Goodheart and Curry, “A Confusion of Voices: The Crisis of Individualism in Twentieth-Century America,” 189. 2 Ibid. 3 Riesman, The Lonely Crowd, xx. 4 Baker, “National Security versus Civil Liberties,” 549. 5 Sidlow and Henschen, GOVT6, 302–3. 6 Baker, “National Security versus Civil Liberties,” 550. 7 Sidlow and Henschen, GOVT6, 303. 8 Pozen, “The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of Information Act,” 630. 9 Baker, “National Security versus Civil Liberties,” 554. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 555. 12 Ibid., 556. 13 Ibid., 558. 14 Ibid. 15 Miller and Nakashima, “Officials’ defenses of NSA phone program may be unraveling,” 1. 16 Ibid. 17 Dilanian, “House Passes Curbs on NSA Phone Surveillance,” 1. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., 2. 20 Miller and Nakashima, “Officials’ defenses of NSA phone program may be unraveling,” 1. 21 Goderis and Versteed, “Human Rights Violations after 9/11 and the Role of Constitutional Constraints,” 131. 22 Ibid., 132. 23 Ibid., 158; Majoritarian checks would include any ways in which the executive and legislative branches can check each other’s power, and countermajoritarian checks would include any checks that the judicial branch can carry out. 24 Ibid., 132, 134. 25 Baker, “National Security versus Civil Liberties,” 548. 26 Ibid. 27 Lieberman, “Infringement on Civil Liberties After 9/11,” 1126. 28 Buckley v. Valeo 424 US 1 (1976). 29 Liptak, “Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit,” 1. 30 “McCutcheon v. FEC,” 1.

182

Individualism in the United States

31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Draper and Ramsay, The Good Society, 115. 35 Ibid., 208. 36 Mogel, “Deregulation Trends in American Business.” 37 Ibid. 38 Horwitz, “Understanding Deregulation,” 139. 39 Ibid., 140. 40 Ibid., 149. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., 150. 43 Ibid., 151. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Visit www.teaparty.org. 48 Plumer, “American’s Staggering Defense Budget, in Charts.” 49 Ibid. 50 Stone, “Free Speech in the Age of McCarthy: A Cautionary Tale,” 1404. 51 The McCarthy era refers to a time when Senator Joe McCarthy caused mass hysteria by claiming that the American government had been infiltrated with communists. His claims were false, but his actions led to 11,000 people losing their jobs. For a discussion of this time, see Stone, “Free Speech in the Age of McCarthy: A Cautionary Tale.” 52 Stone, “Free Speech in the Age of McCarthy: A Cautionary Tale,” 1403. 53 This quote was reprinted in Baker, “National Security versus Civil Liberties,” and is originally found in Detroit Free Press, et al. v. Ashcroft 2002b). 54 Life, liberty, and property. See Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. 55 The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 56 See Glendon’s Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. 57 Glendon, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discoure, 48. 58 John Dewey, Individualism Old and New. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999, 82. 59 Goodheart and Curry, “A Confusion of Voices: The Crisis of Individualism in Twentieth-Century America,” 191. 60 Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 318–19. 61 Ibid., 209.

RECONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUALISM

183

62 Dewey, Individualism Old and New, 69; Croly, The Promise of American Life, 214. 63 Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, 295. 64 This is Dewey’s position in The Public and its Problems as articulated by Sandel in Democracy’s Discontent. 65 Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 207. 66 Croly, The Promise of American Life, 419. 67 Ibid., 214. 68 Ibid., 419. 69 Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, 288. 70 Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 318. 71 Ibid., 333. 72 Ibid., 334–35. 73 Ibid., 336. 74 Ibid., 213. 75 Hoover, American Individualism, 53. 76 Ibid., 54. 77 Ibid., 66. 78 Goodheart and Curry, “A Confusion of Voices: The Crisis of Individualism in Twentieth-Century America,” 195.

Further reading Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965 (1909). Dewey, John. Individualism Old and New. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1984 (1930). Goodheart, Lawrence B. and Richard O. Curry. “A Confusion of Voices: The Crisis of Individualism in Twentieth-Century America,” in Goodheart and Curry (eds), American Chameleon: Individualism in Trans-National Context. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1991. Sandel, Michael J. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998 (1982).

184

Bibliography The American National Election Studies (ANES; www.electionstudies.org). The ANES 2012 Time Series Study [dataset]. Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers].These materials are based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants SES-0937727 and SES-0937715, Stanford University, and the University of Michigan. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organizations. Ames, Edward Scribner. The Higher Individualism. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1915. Appleby, Joyce Oldham. Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Arblaster, Anthony. The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1984. Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Enlarged edn. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992. Baker, Nancy V. “National Security versus Civil Liberties.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 33, no. 3, The Permanent War (September 2003): 547–67. Baldwin, James Mark. The Selected Works of James Mark Baldwin: Darwin and the Humanities and The Individual and Society. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 2001. Ball, Richard. “Individualism, Collectivism, and Economic Development,” in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 573, Culture and Development: International Perspectives (January 2001): 57–84. Ball, Terrance and Richard Dagger. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. New York: Longman, 2011. Balsama, George D. and Jerome Friedman. The Crisis of the Reformation. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1972. Barkalow, Jordon B. “Changing Patterns of Obligation and the Emergence of Individualism in American Political Thought.” Political Research Quarterly 57, no. 3 (September 2004): 491–500. Baumeister, Roy F., Laura Smart, and Joseph M. Boden. “Relation of Threatened Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem.” Psychological Review 103, no. 1 (1996): 5–33. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985. Berlin, Isaiah. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. Boyd, Julian. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. 1965.

186

Bibliography

Buchanan, Patrick J. “Globalization as Economic Treason,” in Terrance Ball and Richard Dagger (eds), Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader, 8th edn. New York: Longman, 2011, 491–9. Bushman, Brad J. and Roy F. Baumeister. “Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, SelfEsteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to Violence?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75, no. 1 (1998): 219–29. Butler, Nicholas Murray. Why Should we Change our Form of Government? Studies in Practical Politics. Washington, DC: [Govt. Print. Off.], 1912. Carver, Terrell. “Ideology: The Career of a Concept,” in Terrance Ball and Richard Dagger (eds), Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader, 8th edn. New York: Longman, 2011, 3–10. Chandler, Alfred Dupont, Jr. The Visible Hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. Conway, M.Margaret. Political Participation in the United States. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000. Crittenden, Jack. Beyond Individualism: Reconstituting the Liberal Self. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965 (1909). Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: Gramercy Books, 1979 (1859). Demos, John. “Notes on Life in Plymouth Colony,” in Stanley N. Katz (ed.), Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1971. Deutch, Kenneth L. The Crisis of Liberal Democracy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987. Dewey, John. The Public and its Problems. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1927. —. Individualism Old and New. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1984 (1930). Dienstag, Joshua Foa. “Serving God and Mammon: The Lockean Sympathy in Early American Political Thought.” American Political Science Review 90, no. 3 (1996): 497–511. Diggins, John Patrick. The Lost Soul of American Politics. New York: Basic Book Publishers, 1984. Dilanian, Ken. “House Passes Curbs on NSA Phone Surveillance.” ABC News website. May 22, 2014. Accessed May 23, 2014. http://abcnews.go.com/ Technology/wireStory/house-poised-pass-curbs-nsa-surveillance-23820488. Draper, Alan and Ansil Ramsey. The Good Society: An Introduction to Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Dunn, John. The Political Thought of John Locke. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1947. Dye, Thomas and Bartholomew Sparrow. Politics in America: Alternate Edition. 9th edn. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. Elazar, Daniel J. “Land and Liberty in American Civil Society.” Publius 18, no. 4, Land and Liberty in American Society: The Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (Autumn 1988): 1–29. —. Covenant & Constitutionalism: The Great Frontier and the Matrix of Federal Democracy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

Elliott, Anthony and Charles Lemert. The New Individualism: The Emotional Costs of Globalization. New York: Routledge, 2006. Gaertner, Lowell, Constantine Sedikides, and Kenneth Graetz. “In Search of SelfDefinition: Motivational Primacy of the Individual Self, Motivational Primacy of the Collective Self, or Contextual Primacy?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, no. 1 (1999): 5–18. Geuss, Raymond. History and Illusion in Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Giner, Salvador. Mass Society. London: Martin Robertson & Company Ltd., 1976. Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: The Free Press, 1991. Goderis, Benedikt and Mila Versteeg. “Human Rights Violations After 9/11 and the Role of Constitutional Constraints.” The Journal of Legal Studies 41, no. 1 (January 2012): 131–64. Goodheart, Lawrence B. and Richard O. Curry, “A Confusion of Voices: The Crisis of Individualism in Twentieth-Century America,” in Goodheart and Curry (eds), American Chameleon: Individualism in Trans-National Context. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1991. Grabb, Edward, Douglas Baer, and James Curtis. “The Origins of American Individualism: Reconsidering the Historical Evidence.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 24, no. 4 (1999): 511–33. Grassby, Richard. The Idea of Capitalism before the Industrial Revolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999. Green, T. H. The Works of Thomas Green. R. L. Nettleship (ed.), vol. 3. London: Green and Co., 1888. Greenberg, Edward S. and Benjamin I. Page. The Struggle for Democracy. 9th edn. New York: Pearson Custom Pub., 2009. Greven, Philip J. “Family Structure in Seventeenth-Century Andover, Massachusetts,” in Stanley N. Katz (ed.), Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1971. Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. Charles Kesler and Clinton Rossiter (eds). New York: New American Library, 1961. Hartz, Louis. The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought since the Revolution. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1955. Hayek, Friedrich A. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1944. Henretta, James. “The Slow Triumph of Liberal Individualism: Law and Politics in New York, 1780–1860,” in Richard O. Curry and Lawrence B. Goodheart (eds), American Chameleon: Individualism in Trans-National Context. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1991. Hirschman, Albert O. “Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble?” Journal of Economic Literature 20, no. 4 (December 1982): 1463–84. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. New York: Touchstone, 1962 (1651). Hoover, Herbert. American Individualism. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922. Hopper, Paul. Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2003.

188

Bibliography

Horwitz, Robert B. “Understanding Deregulation.” Theory and Society 5, no. 1/2 (January 1986): 139–74. Katz, Stanley Nider. Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development. 2nd edn. New York: Knopf, 1976. Kaufmann, Michael W. Institutional Individualism: Conversion, Exile, and Nostalgia in Puritan New England. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1998. Klein, Maury. The Genesis of Industrial America, 1870-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Kloppenberg, James T. “In Retrospect: Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America.” Reviews in American History 29, no. 3 (September 2001): 460–78. Kramnick, Isaac. Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-century England and America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Lieberman, Donna. “Infringement on Civil Liberties After 9/11.” New York Law School Law Review 56 (2011/12): 1121–6. Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword. New York: W.W. Norton, 1996. Liptak, Adam. “Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit.” The New York Times website. January 21, 2010. Accessed May 25, 2014. http://www.nytimes. com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. London: Cambridge University Press, 1988 (1698). —. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Penguin Books, 2004 (1689). Lockhart, Charles. “Political Culture, Patterns of American Political Development, and Distinctive Rationalities.” The Review of Politics 63, no. 3 (Summer 2001): 517–48. Lutz, Donald S. The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988. Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1964 (1848). McCutcheon v. FEC. Brennan Center for Justice website, New York University School of Law. April 2, 2014. Accessed May 25, 2014. http://www. brennancenter.org/legal-work/mccutcheon-v-fec. McDonald, Forrest. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1985. Merriam, Charles. American Political Ideals. New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1969 (1920). Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge. “The Hidden Promise of Globalization: Liberty Renewed,” in Terrance Ball and Richard Dagger (eds), Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader, 8th edn. New York: Longman, 2011, 482–90. Middleton, Richard. Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Miller, Greg and Ellen Nakashima. “Officials’ defenses of NSA phone program may be unraveling.” The Washington Post website. December 19, 2013. Accessed May 22, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ world/national-security/officials-defenses-of-nsa-phone-program-may-beunraveling/2013/12/19/6927d8a2-68d3-11e3-ae56-22de072140a2_story.html.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Miller, Perry. Errand into the Wilderness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956. —. The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Mogel, Robert. “Deregulation Trends in American Business.” Aurora WDC website. Accessed May 22, 2014. http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_deregulation_ foreview.htm. Morgan, Edmund S. Visible Saints. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1963. —. Puritan Political Ideas. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965. —. “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution.” The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History 24 (1967): 4–43. —. “The First American Boom: Virginia 1618-1630,” in Stanley N. Katz (ed.), Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1971, 30–57. Nellis, Eric Guest. An Empire of Regions: A Brief History of Colonial British America. North York, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Nisbet, Robert A. The Quest for Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953. Noone, John B. Jr. Rousseau’s Social Contract: A Conceptual Analysis. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1980. Patterson, Thomas E. We the People: A Concise Introduction to American Politics. 6th edn. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. Plumer, Brad. “America’s Staggering Defense Budget, in Charts.” The Washington Post website, January 7, 2013. Accessed May 27, 2014. http://www. washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagelneeds-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/. Pozen, David E. “The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of Information Act.” Yale Law Journal 115, no. 3 (December 2005): 628–79. Putnam, Robert D. “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America.” The American Prospect 24 (Winter 1996): 34–48. —. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. Rhodewalt, Frederick and Carolyn C. Morf. “On Self-Aggrandizement and Anger: A Temporal Analysis of Narcissism and Affective Reactions to Success and Failure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 3 (1998): 672–85. Rice, Stephen P. Minding the Machine. Los Angeles: University of California, 2004. Riesman, David. The Lonely Crowd with Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denney. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961 (1950). Rodgers, Daniel T. “Republicanism: The Career of a Concept.” Journal of American History 79 (June): 12–38. Rogers, G. A. J. and Alan Ryan. Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The First and Second Discourses. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964 (1750). —. The Social Contract. New York: Penguin Books, 1968 (1762). Ryan, Alan. “Hobbes and Individualism,” in G. A. J., Rogers and Alan Ryan (eds), Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, 81–105.

190

Bibliography

Sandel, Michael J. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998 (1982). Sandoz, Ellis. Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1991. Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1950. Schwartz, Michiel and Michael Thompson. Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990. Sedikides, Constantine, W.Keith Campbell, Glenn D. Reeder, and Andrew J. Elliot. “The Self-Serving Bias in Relational Context.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 2 (1998): 378. Shain, Barry Alan. The Myth of American Individualism: The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. Shalhope, Robert E. “Individualism in the Early Republic” in Richard O. Curry and Lawrence B. Goodheart (eds), American Chameleon: Individualism in TransNational Context. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1991, 66–8. Shea, Daniel M., Joanne Conner Green, and Christopher E. Smith. Living Democracy. 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. Sidlow, Edward and Beth Henschen. GOVT 6. 6th edn; Instructor edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2015. Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. Blacksburg, VA: Thrifty Books, 2009 (1776). Spencer, Herbert. Social Statics. New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1970 (1850). Stone, Geoffrey R. “Free Speech in the Age of McCarthy: A Cautionary Tale.” California Law Review 93, no. 5 (October 2005): 1387–412. Stryker, Sheldon and Anne Statham. “Symbolic Interaction and Role Theory,” in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House, 1985, 311–78. Stuart, Reginald. United States Expansion and British North America, 1775-1871. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Sumner, William Graham. What Social Classes Owe to Each Other. Caldwell, ID: The Caxton Printers Ltd., 1989 (1883). Taviss, Irene. “Changes in the Form of Alienation: The 1900’s vs. The 1950’s.” American Sociological Review 34, no. 1 (February 1969): 46–7. Taviss Thomson, Irene. In Conflict No Longer. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000. —. “The Theory that Won’t Die: From Mass Society to the Decline of Social Capital.” Sociological Forum 20, no. 3 (September 2005): 421–8. de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Mentor, 1984 (1835). Triandis, Harry. “Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism.” Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 37 (1989): 41–133. Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Significance of the Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1920. Von Rhode, Carl. “The Suburban Mind.” Harper’s 192 (1946): 289–99. Wolf, Stephanie Grauman. As Various As Their Land: The Everyday Lives of Eighteenth-century Americans. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

Wood, Gordon S. “The Democratization of Mind in the American Revolution,” in Robert H. Horowitz (ed.), The Moral Foundations of the American Republic. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1979, 102–28. —. “Interests and Disinterestedness in the Making of the Constitution,” in Richard Beeman et al. (eds), Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987, 69–109. —. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Knopf, 1992. Wulf, Karin A. Not All Wives: Women of Colonial Philadelphia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000. Wuthnow, Robert. “The United States: Bridging the Privileged and the Marginalized,” in Robert Putnam (ed.), Democracies in Flux. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, 59–102.

192

Index

9th Amendment, US Constitution  175 14th Amendment, US Constitution  78 Adams, John (1743–1826), Founding Father and US President  72–4 alienation  141, 145–6 self-alienation  143 social alienation  143, 146 American Association of Manufacturers  91 American Creed  67 American Dream  106 American Founding  21, 23, 33, 55, 163 American National Election Study (ANES)  153 American Revolution  18, 37–8, 41, 46, 65, 68, 75 Ames, Edward Scribner (1870–1958), philosopher  9–11 Anti-Federalism  99 see also Anti-Federalists Anti-Federalists  76, 78, 93–6, 101 see also Anti-Federalism Articles of Confederation  74–7, 94 Ashcroft, John (1942) politician  165 authority  25, 27–9, 31–2, 49, 77–8, 100, 126, 131–2, 142, 176 Bill of Rights  42, 78, 93–4, 166, 175 Breyer, Steven (1938), Supreme Court Justice  170 Burke, Edmund (1729–1797), philosopher  42–3 Bush, George W. (1946), US President  165 Butler, Nicholas Murray (1862–1947), philosopher  10 capitalism  69, 87–8, 92, 95, 97–8, 107, 114, 120, 123 Carter, Jimmy (1924), US President  171

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)  169 civic education  5–6, 177 civic engagement  154 Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)  171 Civil War (American)  104 Civil War (English)  23 classical liberalism  12, 17, 21–2, 26, 31, 38, 43, 129, 152, 162 collectivism  119–21, 179 see also collectivist collectivist  42–3, 45, 67 see also collectivism communalism  52, 70 see also communalistic communalistic  46, 70 see also communalism consent  6, 21–2, 24–5, 28, 30, 47–8, 75, 142, 164–5 Constitutional Convention  76 constitutionalism  48–9, 75, 77 see also constitutions Constitution  4, 13, 64–5, 70, 74–5, 77–8, 94, 100, 107, 114, 123, 166 see also US Constitution constitutions  48–9, 91 see also constitutionalism counterterrorism  164, 174 covenants  47–8, 130 Croly, Herbert (1869–1930), philosopher  123, 155 Declaration of Independence  4, 42, 67, 74–5, 77, 100, 114 democracy  87–8, 92, 95, 99, 105–7, 114–15, 117, 131–2, 139, 141–2, 146–8, 153–6, 161–2, 176–7, 180 see also democratic democratic  16–17, 96, 107, 124, 141–2, 145, 147–8, 153, 155, 169–70, 175–6 see also democracy

194

Index

Democrats  123 Department of Defense  166 Dewey, John (1859–1952), philosopher and psychologist  18, 121–2, 147 divine right theory  23, 27 Durkheim, Emile (1858–1917), sociologist  127 egalitarianism  67, 124–6 Enlightenment  18, 22 Equal Protection Clause  78 equality  12–13, 17, 21, 24, 26, 28–30, 33, 43, 67, 88, 95, 100–3, 107–8, 125–6 equality of opportunity  6, 88–90, 107, 117–18, 179 exploitation  50–2 The Federalist Papers  77, 95 see also Federalist Party and Federalists Federalist Party  95 see also Federalists and The Federalist Papers Federalists  70, 76, 78, 93–5 see also Federalist Party and The Federalist Papers feudalism  42–3 Ford, Gerald (1913–2006), US President  171 Founders  17–18, 22, 24, 62–4, 66–9, 71–3, 75, 77, 80, 91, 95, 99–101, 106, 108, 117, 137, 155–6, 173, 180 see also Founding Fathers Founding Fathers  1, 22, 67, 74–5, 77, 100, 114 see also Founders Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)  165 French Revolution  22 frontier  44–6, 68, 78, 96, 102 Full Faith and Credit Clause  94 grid-group theory  124–5 Habeas corpus  78, 94, 166 Hamilton, Alexander (1755–1804), Founding Father  122 Harding, Warren G. (1865–1923), US President  117 Hartz, Louis (1919–1986), political scientist  67–8

Hoover, Herbert (1874–1964), US President  117–18, 179 human nature  8, 10, 12, 15, 22–4, 28, 76–7, 102, 120, 124, 179 ideology  21–2, 38, 49, 65 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952  5 individual will  10–11, 26–8, 32, 71, 127–8, 147, 168 individualism expressive  114 higher  10–11 negative  12–16, 65, 67–8, 74 positive  12, 14–17, 80 rugged  179 and women  44 individuality  3–4, 7–9, 11, 152 Industrial Revolution  87–9 see also industrialization and industry industrialization  87–92, 94, 96–8, 105, 113, 119, 121–2, 126–9, 131, 149 see also Industrial Revolution and industry industry  71–3, 75, 90, 171–2 see also Industrial Revolution and industrialization Jefferson, Thomas (1743–1826), Founding Father and US President  4, 71–5, 94–6 Jeffersonian Republican Party  94 laws of nature  28–9, 33 see also natural law liberty  5, 12–13, 17, 28–9, 67, 74–7, 88–9, 102, 113, 117, 126, 129, 132, 163, 175 negative  6, 16, 65, 91, 93–6, 101, 117–18, 144 positive  16, 77, 93–4, 100, 116 Lipset, Seymour Martin (1922–2006), political sociologist  41, 67–8 Locke, John (1632–1704), philosopher  4, 18, 21–3, 27–31, 33–4, 67–70, 72–5, 88–9, 91, 100–1 Lockean consensus  67, 70–2 Lockean Sympathy  72–3, 101 Louisiana Purchase  96

Index Madison, James (1751–1836), Founding Father and US President  122 Marx, Karl (1818–1883), philosopher and sociologist  66, 92, 98–9, 114 mass society theory  126, 139, 148–9, 153, 155 McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)  169 Middle Colonies  40, 54 Mill, John Stuart (1806–1873), philosopher  145 miserable equilibrium  106, 120–1 Montesquieu (1689–1755), philosopher  18 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) of 2011 and 2014  166 National Security Agency (NSA)  166 natural authority  32 natural freedom  31 natural law  67, 69–70 see also laws of nature natural rights  6, 17, 21, 28–30, 67, 75, 100, 175 New England  40, 44, 53–5, 103–4 Nisbet, Robert (1913–1966), sociologist  142 obligation  12–13, 15, 25, 28, 40, 47–8, 63, 66, 70, 73, 75–6, 96–7, 99, 103, 114–15, 121–2, 128, 132, 140, 143–6, 149, 154, 162–3, 178 Political action committees (PAC)  169 political socialization  5–6, 38 power  5, 10–11, 13, 15–16, 22, 25–32, 38, 43, 45, 65, 71–2, 75–8, 91, 93–5, 101, 104, 113–14, 121– 3, 126–7, 132, 155, 163–5, 167–9, 173, 175, 179–80 Progressive Movement  161, 179 progressivism  45, 175 Protestant  71 see also Protestantism and Protestant Ethic Protestant Ethic  51–2, 70–1, 73, 80 see also Protestant, Protestantism, and Puritan Ethic Protestantism  51, 72, 103 see also Protestant and Protestant Ethic Puritan  48 see also Puritanism and Puritan Ethic

195

Puritan Ethic  71 see also Puritan, Puritanism, and Protestant Ethic Puritanism  49 see also Puritan and Puritan Ethic Putnam, Robert (b. 1941), political scientist  150 race-to-the-bottom  152 rationalism  31, 45, 70–1 regulation  16, 43, 45–6, 49, 73, 77, 79–80, 92, 101, 144, 164, 170–2, 174, 180 religion  5, 11, 43, 50, 52, 103 republicanism  66, 70–2, 80 revolt  30 see also revolution revolution  4, 6, 18, 67, 74–7, 92 see also revolt Riesman, David (1909–2002), sociologist  163 Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1712–1778), philosopher  18, 21–3, 31–4 Sandel, Michael (b. 1953), political philosopher  11 Second Continental Congress  74 secularization  49, 68 self-denial  72–4, 101 self-interest  8, 12–13, 16, 18, 33, 45, 48, 51, 68, 70–1, 106, 115, 121, 126, 155, 162, 174 self-preservation  26, 29 self-reliance  68, 89, 105 see also self-reliant self-reliant  52, 69 see also self-reliance slavery  38, 51–2 Smith, Adam (1723–1790), philosopher  13, 18, 88–9 social bonds  40, 127, 155 social contract  23–4, 28, 30–1, 33, 101 social fabric  47 societal bonds  13, 63, 65–6, 96–9, 108, 115–16, 118–19, 122, 125, 127–8, 130, 132, 147–149, 163, 168, 173, 178 see also social bonds sovereign  15–16, 25–6, 30, 32–3, 75, 142 sovereignty  147 Spencer, Herbert (1820–1903), philosopher  18, 88–9 spillover effects  119, 130, 170–1

196

Index

stranger danger  151 Sumner, William Graham (1840–1910), sociologist  118 Supremacy Clause  13, 78 Tea Party movement  173, 175 Thomson, Irene Taviss, sociologist  146 de Tocqueville, Alexis (1805–1859), politician and philosopher  18, 65, 100, 107, 161

urbanization  103–5, 129–30 US Census Bureau  153 US Citizenship and Immigration Services  6 US Constitution  13 see also Constitution USA PATRIOT Act  165 Virginia  40 Virginia Company  40, 52 Whig Party  123

197

198

199

200