Random thoughts on the American Dream
Jim Kalb
The United States is a country that exists because people chose to come
here, so people think it is a country with a purpose. Since one name
for that purpose is the "American Dream", conceptions of the American
Dream shed light on what we agree is important. It appears from recent
discussions that the American Dream has become the dream of career and
consumption. We believe that happiness consists in a steadily rising
social position, in moderate pleasure, and above all in comfort.
Such an outlook is natural in a peaceful and prosperous country with a
diverse population, with no aristocracy or established church, and with
political institutions based on consent and economic institutions based
on property rights and exchange. In such a country it is difficult to
accept any goals as superior to those that people in fact are generally
inclined to pursue in day-to-day life. The conventional conception of
happiness that arises in such a society is likely to have nothing
refined or demanding about it.
Many people find such an conception of happiness unsatisfying and try
to do better without having a very clear idea of what would constitute
an improvement. These attempts take several forms. Some people pursue
adventure -- experience that is not constrained by social conventions.
Others idealize equality -- the principle that career and consumption
must be equally accessible to everyone. However, neither adventure nor
equality remedy the defects of the American Dream. Adventure leads to
disillusionment because it leads nowhere. On the other hand,
thoroughgoing egalitarianism destroys everything it touches because to
exist is to be distinguishable from other things, while the more
limited idealization of equality we are familiar with in America leads
to weariness because of its promotion of mediocrity and its pettiness.
Of course, when not taken seriously adventure and equality have their
rewards. The pose of adventurousness is advantageous because it
presumes that one's goals are superior to what others are satisfied
with. Presenting oneself as an egalitarian has similar advantages
because it undercuts any presumptions of superiority other people may
may have while putting oneself in the position of dictating how the
world should be organized. The problem is that since these rewards are
fraudulent they are the rewards of waya of life that are even less
noble than the pursuit of the American Dream.
The radical flaw of the American Dream is that it locates the good
within experience rather than valuing experience for pointing to a good
outside itself. Its deficiencies are the deficiencies of experience
considered without regard to what it is experience of. Since our
experience of other people is determined more by how they treat us than
what they are, the American Dream is of social position rather than of
love. Since what we experience most immediately if our experience of
things is good is pleasure rather than the contemplation of reality,
the American Dream has no room for truth or beauty.
Experience is not of itself, but is of something that is not
experience. It follows that to devalue what is not experience is in
the end to devalue experience. Making experience intense does not make
it into a self-sufficient good, nor is equalizing experiences a
compensation for what experience in itself lacks.
It follows that the American Dream should be abandoned. Although it
may be viewed as the natural consequence of the American political,
economic and social order, we are not doomed to keep pursuing it after
we have realized its hollowness if we can see something better to put
in its place. What must be put in its place is a conception of
goodness, truth and beauty as goals that are transcendent but not
wholly inaccessible.
The difficulty with such a change is that transcendence is rather at
odds with a democratic capitalist order based on actual desires, on
counting, and on efficiency. But "actual desires" can include
anything, even the desire to know God. The search for transcendence
could transform even a society such as ours if we first accept it in
our individual lives and build it into our family life and our
friendships. And even if the effect on society generally is small or
nonexistent, the attempt can transform our own lives.
--
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein." (Rilke)
Richard A Chonak
A good posting, Jim.
Last week I heard the filmmaker/social critic Frank Schaeffer speaking
at MIT. You may or may not have heard of him -- his father was a
well-known Evangelical theologian, but the son has become a member of
the Orthodox Church over the past few years.
One of Schaeffer's themes, in his talk, was how the "American Dream" is
the exact opposite of a Christian sacramental vision of life. In fact,
it was the impotence of the Evangelical movement of the 1970s and '80s
to change the culture that motivated Schaeffer to make his spiritual
journey.
"...Protestantism itself had become part of the engine of secularism. It
had lost its own Christian sacramental tradition and was coming to society
with a thought system that was simply more of the same desacralized
cultural message that had been in the rest of society....A nation that is
based on a religion that cannot tell you what is sacred in a communion
chalice in one generation cannot tell you what is sacred in a human uterus
in the next generation."
"The Orthodox Church has its work cut out for it: it has to move as far
away as possible from the American materialistic experiment as the babushka
digging up the icons and teaching bits of the liturgy to the children."
"The tragedy of the immigrant church in this country is that they taught
their children to be good Americans and bad Orthodox."
In response to a question about "equality for women", women's ordination,
the perpetual "need to change", etc., he wondered: "Is *America* where we
want to cook up change for the church? The country that gave us in this
century the atom bomb and the International Planned Parenthood Federation's
war on impoverished women and children all over the world? Maybe Kenya or
Uganda can give us some change; maybe the Coptic church, which has endured
hundreds of years of Moslem torture --that's the word for it...."
[Disclaimer: The above quotes are only approximate, since the talk was not
recorded.]
---
Richard Aquinas Chonak, nor...@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
I have very exclusive and nuanced opinions. License info available on request.
Jim Kalb
>A good posting, Jim.
Thanks!
>"...Protestantism itself had become part of the engine of secularism. It
>had lost its own Christian sacramental tradition and was coming to society
>with a thought system that was simply more of the same desacralized
>cultural message that had been in the rest of society....A nation that is
>based on a religion that cannot tell you what is sacred in a communion
>chalice in one generation cannot tell you what is sacred in a human uterus
>in the next generation."
Mr. Deane's friends in the European New Right would agree with you, and
would add that Protestantism is the logical outcome of Christianity
just as the American Way of Life is the logical outcome of
Protestantism.
How do you deal with that claim? The Protestant reformers thought they
were restoring early Christianity, and there is some precedent in the
New Testament for anti-sacramentalism. I'm thinking specifically of
the rejection of Jewish dietary and similar laws, and of passages like
Romans 14, where Paul rejects in principle the view that any of the
things of daily life (foods offered to idols, days of the week) need be
treated as particularly pure or impure.
I suppose the answer might be an appeal to the authority of tradition.
But the Gospels can be critical of tradition as well. (See Matthew 15
and Mark 7.)
(I should say that I don't have a good position on any of this stuff
and don't know enough to contribute much to a discussion. Even a few
snappy one-liners on the issues would be helpful as points of
reference, though.)
--
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com)
"Every thing possible to be believ'd is an image of truth." (Blake)
Richard A Chonak
Well, I do hold (b): that the American way of thinking is the result of
the predominance of Puritan Protestantism in its origins. I keep
promising myself to dig up Prof. John Rao's article about Americanism
as based on secularized Puritanism: still individualistic and
anti-authoritarian, but now rejecting the idea of revealed knowledge or
even the existence of any absolute truth.
And, as for (a) one could fairly argue that Protestantism was the
result of the invention of movable type, strengthened by the prospect
of dissolving one's marriage vows, or one's religious vow of chastity,
and of dispossessing medieval church lands; so I suppose one might well
say that Protestantism was "historically" inevitable. (For the ENR's
purposes, this is probably all one needs to prove.)
[On the strictly religious point: I tend to doubt that the line from St
Paul to Zwingli is truly a straight one, mainly because I see the
sacramental principle as rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation, and
thus a permanent part of the Faith. From what we know about the early
church, it's hard to argue that they were anything other than
authoritative teachers and liturgical worshippers. But that's a topic
for e-mail rather than this group...]
---
Richard Chonak, nor...@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
No job ever made me as happy as poverty and unemployment have. -- Allan Adler
Mr. John T Jensen
>In <1kktdb...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> nor...@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak) writes:
>I'm not sure Puritan Protestantism really have all that much to do with
>the fundamentals of how things have turned out in the West, of which
>America is only part. If you want to see a depiction by a great writer
>of a world in which there is no revealed knowledge, or absolute truth,
>or truth of any kind, or even thought or language, read Samuel Beckett.
>If you want to see materialistic and hedonistic individualism logically
>worked out, read de Sade. If you want to see a call for the abolition
>of all institutions between the individual and the state, read Rousseau.
>If you want to see hatred of exploitation (which in the absence of an
>objective morality is simply the desire to destroy anything and anyone
>that interferes with having one's own way) made into the fundamental
>principle of politics, read Karl Marx. None of those guys were Puritan
>Protestants. (Rousseau was from Geneva, but I seem to recall that they
>didn't want anything to do with him.)
Yes, but isn't the point that Beckett, de Sade, Rousseau, and Marx are
essentially foreign to the _Geist_ of the west, though (God help us!) in
recent years, as the West has gradually abandoned its Christian (not to say
Puritan) roots, the influence of these men has increased?
jj
John Thayer Jensen 64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services 64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University jt.j...@auckland.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
Jim Kalb
>[I]sn't the point that [ . . . ] de Sade, Rousseau, and Marx are
>essentially foreign to the _Geist_ of the west, though (God help us!) in
>recent years, as the West has gradually abandoned its Christian (not to say
>Puritan) roots, the influence of these men has increased?
Are they so foreign to the spirit of the West? They were Westerners and
have been very influential in the West. Also, for me at any rate it's
hard to imagine them appearing anywhere else. Their thought has a
certain adventurousness and cold-blooded determination to reduce
everything to a rational system based on a few clear principles that I
don't think you often find elsewhere. (Are the Chinese Legalists an
exception?)
Admittedly, the Western tradition includes a lot of things that conflict
with each other, so what you may be saying is that writers like the ones
I mentioned leave out things that are essential to the value of that
tradition. To use a religious analogy, we could call them heretics
within the Western tradition, and add that their heresies have been
enormously successful.
Mr. John T Jensen
Got it! Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. They are heretics, and I
don't think the term is being used analogously. Certainly they could not
have arisen elsewhere. They represent a reaction AGAINST Christianity
(which, will-he, nill-he, defines the West) and Christian culture. And,
yes, they have been very influential --- God deliver us from their
influence!
David Matthew Deane
doing some reading for a history class on popular religion (actaully
this idea has been staring me in the face for some time). It is not
Protestantism as such which has "rationalized" Christianity, though
the Protestant Reformation started (or perhaps intensified) the pro-
cess - though it could be argued that the causes behind the Reforma-
tion stem from certain intrinsic factors of what we call "the West".
Anyway, the point is this: *both* Protestantism and Catholicism have
been "rationalizing" themselves (Catholicism via the Counter-Reforma-
tion) for a long time. Historains in this field observe that the
Reformation and Counter-Reformation were in many ways mirror images
of each other, in their need to appeal to the intellect as well as
the faith of their followers/believers/converts - old inconsistancies
and supersticions had to be swept away. Christianity before the Refor-
mation was very different from the Catholicism that came out of the
Counter-Reformation. The medieval Catholic Church was more a "way of
life" for most people (ritual observances tied to the harvest cycle,
annual holy days, baptism/marriage/burial, certain quasi-magical
practices, etc), with only a handful concerning themselves with
theology. The Counter-Reformation Catholic Church was more like the
Protestant Churches, in that it was a creed as much as, or more than,
it was a way of life. Now, it seems to me that if the "liberalization"
of the Protestant Churches is inevitable, than the same thing could
be said in regards to the Catholic Church. I think that contrary to
our assumptions, creedal religions (and we tend to assume that
religions are *by definition* creedal, which is purely a Western
assumption) are not more stable or more permanent than non-creedal
religions (i.e., ethnic "ways of life"), in fact, we could even argue
the reverse, based on recent history. I would even argue that unless
a creedal religion decides to completely freeze its docttrine and cut
off all debate (usually only posible for small, isolated sects), unless
this happens, the tendency is to drift towards whatever direction is
considered the doctrinal "core" of the belief...in Christianity, this
has tended towards the kind of egalitarianism which we see so prominently
displayed in liberal theology today, whether Protestant or Catholic
- a similar pattern can be seen in Judaism, and I suppose would be seen
in Islam as well, if the "Westernizing" influences penetrate that far.
Comments?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
David Matthew Deane "There's never a 12 guage around when you really want
one!"
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
"Wow! A real .sig!" This disclaimer serves no rational purpose whatsoever.
Jim Kalb
>Christianity before the Refor-
>mation was very different from the Catholicism that came out of the
>Counter-Reformation. The medieval Catholic Church was more a "way of
>life" for most people (ritual observances tied to the harvest cycle,
>annual holy days, baptism/marriage/burial, certain quasi-magical
>practices, etc), with only a handful concerning themselves with
>theology.
It's hard for me to sort all this out, possibly because I don't know
enough about the relevant history.
No doubt medieval society was more folkish than modern society in
religious as well as other respects. However, pre-medieval Christianity
was a creedal rather than a folk religion. Otherwise it would not have
spread to Greek, Jew, Latin and barbarian, and there would not have been
so much attention paid to defining the nature of Christ and the other
articles of belief. I believe that in Byzantium the interest in
theology remained quite general. And even during the medieval period in
the West there were heresies that were quite popular in some places
(like southern France), so creedal matters don't seem to have been the
concern solely of a few intellectuals.
On the other hand, even during the struggles of the Reformation for many
of the people religion was more a matter of loyalty to the institutions
of their country than of doctrine. I wish I could remember the name of
the Englishman who commented that in his time there were 100,000 country
fellows who were ready to fight to the death against popery, but
couldn't have said whether "popery" was a man or a horse.
Any comments from someone who's well-informed in these matters?
>I think that contrary to
>our assumptions, creedal religions (and we tend to assume that
>religions are *by definition* creedal, which is purely a Western
>assumption) are not more stable or more permanent than non-creedal
>religions (i.e., ethnic "ways of life"), in fact, we could even argue
>the reverse, based on recent history.
What are the examples from recent history? My _a priori_ reason for
believing the contrary is that thought is a means of adapting to changed
circumstances, and thought requires that essentials be distinguished
from non-essentials so that the essentials can be preserved through
change. A creed is a statement of the essentials of a religion.
>[T]he tendency is to drift towards whatever direction is
>considered the doctrinal "core" of the belief...in Christianity, this
>has tended towards the kind of egalitarianism which we see so prominently
>displayed in liberal theology today, whether Protestant or Catholic [ . . . ]
Why should modern egalitarianism be considered the doctrinal core of
Christianity? And what non-creedal folk religions have resisted
modernism better than doctrinal religions?
David Matthew Deane
university computer center and learn how to use this system properly,
as my modem and/or keyboard seem not to allow it. For now, I'll be
content to make the following responses to Mr. Kalb, and save any
detailed discussion until later when I've the time.
My comments on pre-reformation Christianity were based on the actual
practices of ordinary people (esp. peasants), based on historical
research in the area. The basic argument of social historians (and I
am not one of them, being interested in intellectual history) is that
concern with religious dogma was confined to small educated elites, and
later to the growing bourgeoisie (i.e., it was an urban phenomenon as
well). Social historians emphasize that for most, the Church was of
importance because of its function in daily life, not because of its
creed. Once Christianity was established, the concern for creed, dogma,
and "saving souls" was more and more confined to theologians and clerics
(precisely what Luther was rebelling against). Not that the Church was
always that concerned how thoroughly its adherents were converted to
the faith...sometimes such conversions consisted of little more than a
crowd of confused tribesmen being baptised in the nearest river at
sword point. Dogma could take second place to expediency. In any case,
it is a mistake to assume that the religous controversies going on in
this period give a full picture of the situation. It was after all, the
literate classes who were involved in religious discussions, not the
ordinary people, and it is these literate classes who left us the
written record of the period. In any case, the medieval church was con-
tent to keep religion to no more than the following of ritual acts for
the vast majority of people. Only in the early modern period did Christ-
ianity recover its original emphasis on individual adherence to a clear,
explicit creed or religious dogma. As for the issue of egalitarianism,
I would have thought that the connection was obvious, but I'll leave
that for another time.
Yes, I know jus primae noctis is a myth (though I suppose there might be
historians who might disagree - I'm not a medievalist), but it was too
good a joke to pass up. Lessee...how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin? Oh dear - that was a myth too, wasn't it? Debunkers are such spoil
sports.
By recent history, I mean of course the past 200 years or so and the de-
Christianization of the West (I'm not the only one to notice this, surely?)
and the failure of religions to deal with modernity - hence the liberaliz-
ing trend on the one hand, and the retreat to fundamentalism on the other.
Creeds have been no sure protection against this...even Islam is effected
(though they naturely seem to prefer fundamentalism...which is not necessar-
ily the best response, and it leaves the questions of modernity unanswererd).
As to non-creedal religions? Well, remember by this I mean "ways of life",
and I think, in spite of its current love affair wwith modernism, Japan ia
is indeed a good example of a "way of life" which is adaptable enough to
meet numerous challenges precisely because Japan exists due to its "sense of
itself", not due to adherence to any creed. Hinduism is an interesting case,
but I do not know enough on the subject to comment. Do they actually have a
creed, or is their system simply a mass of taboos and customs with several
mythological and philosophical systmes thrown in for good measure?
BTW, to what extent are the West and Christianity linked? An examination of
Spengler and "faustianism" would be appropriate at this point. It seems to
me that there are salient features of the West which are in conflict with
Christianity. Certainly, the Christianity of Europe has been different from
early Christianity and Christianity outside of Europe. Wht caused these
differences?
What about Chicken Little? Well, to see if the sky is falling or not, just
look up.
All this just skims the surface of these issues, I'm afraid. See you in a
couple of days.
Mr. John T Jensen
>A point concerning the question of protestantism just hit me while
>doing some reading for a history class on popular religion (actaully
>this idea has been staring me in the face for some time). It is not
>Protestantism as such which has "rationalized" Christianity, though
[body of excellent and interesting material deleted - see original!]
>Comments?
I would only add that this was around for a long time before Luther. Not
all of the Gregorian Revolution (so to call it) of the 11th Century was in
this direction. Nevertheless, the further trend toward scientification of
the world received an enormous acceleration there, reaching its height with
Thomas (of Aquino, I mean!).
There is a real dilemma here. I think it uncontestable that all this
systematisation (resulting in, amongst other things, email that enables us
all to engage in this decadent activity called usenet) is good, is part of
the 'cultural mandate' to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. Yet
when not re-presented to God as an offering it becomes daemonic and destroys
us. There is a hint in what I have just said about the solution to the
problem!
Jim Kalb
>The basic argument of social historians (and I
>am not one of them, being interested in intellectual history) is that
>concern with religious dogma was confined to small educated elites, and
>later to the growing bourgeoisie (i.e., it was an urban phenomenon as
>well).
I was under the impression that there were heresies that were locally
quite strong, as in the south of France. Is there a particular
explanation for such situations? Also, would _cuius regio eius religio_
(or whatever the expression was) have worked if religious dogma had not
continued to be mostly an elite concern?
>As for the issue of egalitarianism,
>I would have thought that the connection was obvious, but I'll leave
>that for another time.
I would agree that a sort of egalitarianism is an element of
Christianity. What I questioned is that the modern version (which
includes the notion that all desires are equal) corresponds to the
doctrinal core of Christianity.
>Yes, I know jus primae noctis is a myth (though I suppose there might be
>historians who might disagree - I'm not a medievalist), but it was too
>good a joke to pass up. Lessee...how many angels can dance on the head of
>a pin? Oh dear - that was a myth too, wasn't it? Debunkers are such spoil
>sports.
Sorry for being such a sobersides -- I felt bad about what I wrote after
I posted it but it was too late. Could I retrieve the situation by
saying that come the counterrevolution you'll be able to implement the
j.p.n. in your own domains if you want? (Maybe you could adopt a "this
time around it's no more Mr. Nice Guy" theory of ducal government.
Personally, I plan to style myself "the Old Oligarch" and be part of a
Council of Ten ruling New York with an iron grip.)
>As to non-creedal religions? Well, remember by this I mean "ways of life",
>and I think, in spite of its current love affair wwith modernism, Japan ia
>is indeed a good example of a "way of life" which is adaptable enough to
>meet numerous challenges precisely because Japan exists due to its "sense of
>itself", not due to adherence to any creed.
I'm not sure Japan is so special. Would a Japanese contemplating Europe
and his own country say "we've remained what we always were but they've
really changed"? Also, it seems likely to me that material abundance,
which is very recent there, will utterly transform the Japanese way of
life. It's perfectly true that habits can survive for a while the
conditions and beliefs that gave rise to them, but not forever, and when
outmoded social habits change they can change as suddenly as outmoded
theories.
Maybe I just don't grasp well enough what you mean by "non-creedal"
religion. Would you say that Europe has a creedal religion
(Christianity) that has all but disappeared and also a non-creedal
religion (its way of life) that survives?
As to creedal religions, I would say that Christianity is still with us
to some degree after almost 2000 years, which is more than you can say
for the folkways of the ancient Greeks, Romans or Visigoths, and when
Christianity has had to adapt to new conditions to my impression is that
the tendency has been to ditch the folkways and concentrate on doctrine.
>BTW, to what extent are the West and Christianity linked? An examination of
>Spengler and "faustianism" would be appropriate at this point. It seems to
>me that there are salient features of the West which are in conflict with
>Christianity. Certainly, the Christianity of Europe has been different from
>early Christianity and Christianity outside of Europe. Wht caused these
>differences?
One could also ask the extent to which it is the Christian or the
non-Christian features of the West that have led to our current
situation. The ENR and the integralists might disagree on that point.
My own view is that if Plato could predict the situation then it's not a
result of Christianity.
>What about Chicken Little? Well, to see if the sky is falling or not, just
>look up.
It's notoriously hard to predict the social future, though.
>All this just skims the surface of these issues, I'm afraid. See you in a
>couple of days.
In this post it seems that I've mostly just asked questions that I don't
know the answers to. I'm not sure that qualifies even as skimming the
surface. Which is nice in a way -- it means I've found some issues I
can stick with for a while.
Good luck in the computer center!