As I have previously
written, we are in the midst of an ideological crisis. There amounts to a three cornered war between
liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism.
Adherents of each side are convinced that they are in the right and that
the only way for society to be saved is for them to win.
Unfortunately all of their
conceptual frameworks derive from times very different than our own. None furnish answers to problems significantly
unlike the ones their dogmas were designed to solve. Their ideas developed in less complex times,
whereas we live in a mass techno-commercial civilization.
Thus, religious conservatism
traces back two thousand years to the agricultural empires, libertarianism
arose during the enlightenment when commerce began to flourish, and liberalism,
better described as bureaucratic collectivism, arrived on the scene concurrent
with industrialization.
Their mismatch with
post-modernism is therefore striking.
None supply the tools needed to maintain social integrity in extremely
populous states where millions of people are dependent upon strangers for
survival. Neither love, nor social
justice, nor prosperity can do the job alone.
This is not to say, however,
that each cannot make valuable contributions.
The world would be in desperate shape if any one of these ideologies completely
vanquished the others. In fact, if they
collaborate—much to the distress of their sponsors—they can complement each
other.
The question then remains as
to how we can achieve this balance. What
is the fulcrum upon which these idea systems might find an equilibrium? As I have previously suggested, I believe we
are moving toward “social individualism.”
Each of us must become personally strong enough, and realistic enough,
to make choices as circumstances transform.
There may be times when
government interventions are necessary, but there may be others where the free
marketplace requires greater latitude.
Similarly, for some, their religious convictions provide the guidance to
endure what seems unendurable.
The best solutions vary with
the time, the players, and the challenges.
So how are strong individuals to decide?
What qualities do they need in order to choose wisely? These radically diverge from those required
of our ancestors. Moreover, they are not
easy to cultivate.
First, social individualists
must be emotionally mature. They need to
be adults who can deal with powerful emotions without falling apart. More specifically, their passions cannot be
so intense that they cloud their judgment.
Whether they are afraid, or angry, or sad, they must not revert to the
primitive impulses of children. In other
words, they need self-control.
Second, they must be
principled realists. They require a
moral compass that enables strangers to resolve their inevitably clashing
interests. This entails a commitment to
honesty, personal responsibility, fairness as defined by universality, liberty,
and family values. Without these trust
is impossible.
But they must also be
realists. Their idealism must be
tempered by the constraints placed on us by nature and social imperatives. They have to understand, for instance, that
universal love is impossible, as is complete equality. For humans, love is always circumscribed,
whereas we all want to be winners, which ensures that some will be losers. What counts is unobstructed social mobility,
not exact parity.
Third, more of us must
become professionalized. Both at home
and at work, we need to be self-motivated experts at what we do. If we cannot make competent decisions in
environments of uncertainty, others will make these for us. When this is the case, they control our
destinies.
All of this is a tall
order. Social individualism is not
automatic. It must be cultivated and
protected. For us to achieve it, whether
for ourselves or society, we have to begin by understanding what is needed and
recognizing that it will not be attained unless we tenaciously pursue it.
We are today better educated
than our ancestors. We also live more
comfortably. As a consequence, we have
the time and the resources to nurture our best selves. But this is up to us. No one can do it for us.
Happily, this means there is
a way out of our ideological predicament.
Yet it entails seeing what we may want to see and doing what we may not
want to do. Nonetheless, our salvation
is in our own hands.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment