The September Atlantic features an article by David Brooks titled “How America Got Mean.” He writes for both he NYT and the Atlantic and is a “centrist.” His article is not rigorous or deep but did stimulate me a bit and just a few days after reading it found me siding with a related opinion by General Billy McChrystal (of Rolling Stone / resignation fame)!
The case for American’s becoming “mean.”
National statistics demonstrate increases in depression and loneliness since 1990.
Service employees (nurses and restaurant servers) report unusual increases in abrasive interactions with those they serve.
Donations to charities are down.
Crime rates and gun sales are on the rise.
Theories for this dysfunction:
Technology and its pace is driving us literally crazy. Social Media is the enemy.
Traditional social tools are underused—we don’t gather socially as in previous decades or participate in group functions such as church or Rotary.
Demography: Diversity throws us into chaos and if you are white, panic.
Economy: there is undeniable concentration of wealth and economic pressure on the middle class.
I would add a favorite since the 1960’s: too many damned people/rats in a cage—by this I reference John B Calhoun’s work showing that well resourced (plenty of food and water—climate controlled cages) rats in an overcrowded environment become “socially” dysfunctional with deterioration of the overall population, birth rates, and behaviors.
His presentation and analysis are in my mind, a bit sketchy. We do agree there is a problem.
We all have anecdotes about how people are different now; here is mine: Years ago, in Aswan, Egypt, I observed two young men in a corner cafe get angry and then began to fight each other in the street. Perhaps one blow landed before fifteen unrelated people stopped what they were doing, separated them, and calmed them down. I remember thinking, “You would not see that happen where I live!” It was an interesting cross-cultural experience worth considering.
Egyptian culture has something we currently do not: a uniform religion and social code supported by families, mosques, community organizations, schools, and work places. There is a common social code that assumes specific behaviors. The price for falling out of sorts with this code is steep. The United States of our great grandparents was such a place with winners and losers— but the majority reaped the rewards of this common culture. The United States I live in has lost such moorings and engagement with families, churches, organizations, schools, and community organizations is a shadow of what used to be. Clearly some people value and use these resources but they are not always aligned with each other or the rest of us and failure to participate does not have a clear downside. It is every man and woman for him/herself.
The article asserts something I believe: that selfishness and the restraint of selfishness can be taught and mastered. The restraint of selfishness does not just happen—it requires a system, structure, and discipline with the application of lessons day by day to be successful. Regarding your system of government, he reminds us that the Founding Fathers (in the United States, the Founding Fathers take on the role of old testament prophets and the Constitution, the Torah/Bible), were cynical about human behavior: for example, Ben Franklin wrote, “Men I find to be a sort of being very badly constructed, as they are generally more easily provoke’d than reconciled, more disposed to do mischief to each other than to make reparation, and much more easily deceived than undeceived’d.”
Mr. Brooks: Schools are a place to build morals and character on a common foundation. In the past, reading texts often had moral quandaries and answers within them. My newsfeed can’t provide enough headlines on what books with what moral quandaries are being taken off the shelves of school libraries—books readily available and assigned when I was a young reader. He then provides a history of the Buildung tradition from Northern Europe which inspired the Great Books programs that are now in various stages of ill repute.
He is nostalgic: common values of the majority included assumptions about race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation that were “outside” the teachings. He suggests despite this flaw, the common values made the majority better than they would have otherwise been. Perhaps our modern society tests this thesis as we are now, as a society, more inclusive with fewer outsiders, but with no tangible means to find common agreement on shaping character—moral codes in a crowded world—or tangibly supporting resilience in the face of our many challenges. The old culture came down hard on self-centeredness and narcissism when publicly displayed-or so he asserts.
Did it really?
He asserts the change occurred after World War II; he ties this to two tracts of thought: The loser was led by Reinhold Niebuhr who after the war wanted to double down on the teaching of moral formation and humility—as personal and civic virtues. The winners follow Carl Rogers, a humanist who thought people naturally good but with a need to actualize this in their behaviors. The outflow was a growing belief that the point of our education and lives was self-actualization. The orientation in college became less about Socratic questions of living the good life (was it really?) and more about technical mastery and/or self indulgent interests.
He asks a good question: If you privatize morality, what common elements can you bank on? What happens to civility? How can a group of adults safely separate two fighting adolescents? He supports his concern with the above history by citing this: in 1967 85% entering college freshmen wanted to sort out a better philosophy of life as the object of their education. By 2015, the ability to acquire wealth was the top pick of 82%.
I don’t buy it. Assuming the polling as valid, my college experience and talking to college students now finds me believing that an overwhelming majority are not exactly clear about the point of their college education—they will say something if asked, but the depth of the answer is usually elusive. Another poll found students noting that teachers avoid specific discussions of right and wrong—-avoid it like the plague, he states. The vocabulary and reference points for these questions in this population is quite different than that of our grandparents.
And our Grandparents were resilient. No less than Viktor Frankl is quoted on this point: “He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how…”. This speaks to resilience (Viiktor Frankl survived Auschwitz) which is thought to be lacking in the up-coming generation. Anxiety and depression reflect a lack of resilience which does not just happen; it is not ordained by our genes for example. The lack of resilience translates into vindictiveness, pay back, and violence. Brooks thinks modern young adults are lonely and not resilient; history reflects poorly on societies where this is the case—-like the American West (historians point out that violence was not nearly as rampant as Hollywood makes us believe—with perhaps the exception of the Native American-settler experience-the equivalent of modern school shootings).
Another take on this is the thesis that if you put people in a moral vacuum, they will seek the closest comfort at hand. He thinks the political polarization and tribalism is reflecting such choice. Going back the the self-actuating movement, he suggests the hyper individualism of the 1960’s has evolved into group identification: Republican, Democrat, evangelical, person of color, LGBQT, Southerner, patriot, progressive, or conservative......
And that’s why we are mean…….or icky, or totally f*****ed.
It is possible that we are too close to the problems he identifies to clearly see where things are going. Mr Trump and Senator Tuberville reflect serious dysfunction and the polarities of our not-common cultural code(s), but this has happened before. Consider the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater or George Wallace in the 1960’s. If the world feels like it couldn’t get worse, consider being a farmer in the Ukraine in the 1930’s or a Jew in Poland in the 1940’s. A world where fascism, communism, and eugenics seemed to be viable intellectual and political pursuits found the contrarians wondering, “how could it get any worse?” We think the twin towers attack beyond evil. Consider being a citizen in the leading country of the world and accepting the premise that firebombing Tokyo leaving 100,000 civilians dead in one night was an acceptable and necessary tactic for ending the war? War, religion, political strife—all make populations “crazy,” with skewed points of view never to be understood by their children and grandchildren.
The article ends with a wish list:
HOW DO YOU BUILD A CULTURE THAT HELPS PEOPLE BE THE BEST THEY CAN BE?
Not the old model—for example, spare the rod…. He sites Iris Murdoch’s book The Sovereignty of Good, which does not strive for Jesus-like acts or sacrifice but rather, day-to-day accepted principles of behavior: treat people with consideration. Be just and loving as you consider other people. We are better personally and practically if we stop and ask and listen to who we don’t know: the stranger on the street.
Mandatory social skills courses: how to listen; how to disagree with respect. How to ask for and give forgiveness. How to cultivate a friendship. How to sit with someone who is grieving. How to be part of a conversation. We don’t teach that.
A new Core Curriculum: Examples from universities might look like Great Books but he suggests teaching venerated moral traditions: Buddhism, Judeo-Christian, and Enlightenment rationalism among others; read thinkers who discuss tough moral problems: Aristotle-Tutu-Nussbaum. What is the ruling passion of your soul? To whom are you responsible? What are your moral obligations? How can I make my life meaningful? What does it mean to be good in today’s world? THIS is not a curriculum in a University at present as the focus there is professional and technical knowledge. These issues should be core classes despite this focus.
Intergenerational Service: Consider how the armed forces achieve this! Mandatory sabbaticals to pursue and provide service. National services could mix different generations with such goals. You experience other-centered ways of being and develop practical moral habits ie cooperate with people not like you.
Moral Organizations: He points out that hospitals seek to do moral work-- heal the sick but they also seek to make money—the dynamic is a familiar one ie doctors pressed to do more (charge more) with less time--people bankrupted paying hospital bills. The press seeks to inform the public for decision making and also seeks to maximize clicks on surveys: the news becomes entertainment. He seeks a balance with the long term needs which includes attention to human relationships and their effect on the work processes.
Politics as a moral enterprise: currently, the end justifies the means. Authoritarian leaders see "reality" and react amorally. He suggest moral realism in politics: moral codes re treating each other well, ethical codes to prevent corruption, and rules of the world order that secure borders and peace. He would elevate the sense that character should play into destiny; elect people with standards. Statecraft as soul craft. An so on.
It is clear he would follow the “loser,” Reinhold Niebuhr ie doubling down on an education system and society focussed on morality and moral discipline.
Healthy moral ecologies don’t just happen; they need structure, seeds planted, and then tended by people who competently walk the walk. On our own, we are selfish and flawed. Morality is enhanced by giving people skills and habits that help them to be considerate of others who are in different situations. This in turn begs a question about the concentration of economic power and access to resources or support not currently available to many in America.
An anecdote and General McChrystal:
Going down a web site rabbit hole series of comments and pseudo conversations early in Covid, angry comments surfaced with what I thought were ridiculous takes on the nature of Covid and the government’s response. It was everything the Brook’s article references. The comments were polarizing, rude, and crazy——downright mean. One polarized participant let it be known that they had lost a father to Covid. I took a break and commented, “That’s hard; I am so sorry to hear that.” It was magic. I was thanked and the person left the exchange.
General McChrystal (of Rolling Stone and then resignation fame) wrote an editorial recently suggesting universal national service. I have been thinking of this as well. I think the military has done more to advance race relations and integrate disadvantaged people better than any other institution in our country. However, if school teachers flail at trying to get a group of thirty kids to share common “social contracts” in the classroom regarding behavior—and often failing—-maybe, before the brain is completely cooked (age 25), cross cultural work within a disciplined structure could be helpful to overcome the issue raised by Mr. Brooks. It just might make for better citizens. In the current Democracy, the challenges are clearly, vision (whose?), expense (how much would that cost?), the sponsorship of the government not being trusted, and the need for yet another huge bureaucracy to manage such a work. I is no more pie in the sky than the list above compiled by Mr. Brooks
Comments