With this posting, I will complete a series of several
postings which review Richard C. Sinopoli’s[1] reaction
to certain criticisms people have leveled against the natural rights
perspective. The first criticism is what
Sinopoli calls the “rights illusion;” i.e., the criticism expands the natural
rights’ moral basis to encompass “the whole of morality.” In other words, as long as one lives within
his/her rights, he/she can go about doing whatever he/she wants and be able to
claim a moral posture by so doing. The
second criticism is the claim that since one has a right, one can insist on exercising
it even when such behavior is deleterious to others. The last two postings address these two
criticisms. This posting will look at a
third concern.
The third criticism is that there is in liberal societies a
proclivity to downgrade or deny the contributions of others in one’s
successes. As an aside, this proclivity
does not seem to ameliorate any tendency to blame others for one’s
failures. But the general sense that one
is solely responsible for one’s successes has become a sort of battle cry among
the political right. At least President
Obama was criticized for pointing out that no one is completely responsible for
his/her success. Again, as with the other
two claims, Sinopoli does not deny that people feel this way in our liberal
society, but that people who feel this way are not exclusive to liberal
societies and that liberal beliefs are not responsible for it. He certainly does not attribute a person’s
lack of understanding of how societies operate and create the conditions that
allow success to natural rights (what he calls liberal) thinking. I disagree.
I would associate this lack of attribution to any individualistic
society like our own and that, in our case, a causal link does exist between a bias
toward natural rights thinking and this sense of self-aggrandizement.
As with the other two contentions, Sinopoli cites John Locke
to bolster his position that natural rights thinking has no causal relationship
to the offending belief:
He who travels the road now, applauds
his own strength and legs that have carried him in such a scantling of time,
and ascribes his own vigor; little considering how much he owes their pains,
who cleared the woods, drained the bogs, built the bridges, and made the way
possible; without which he may have toiled much with little progress.[2]
But as I have indicated in previous postings, the ideas comprising
the natural rights perspective today, at least as it is generally held among
the populous, is not the natural rights of Locke in the seventeenth century. In this blog, I have cited expert opinion that
has placed Locke’s contributions in an era in which his main arguments were
against the legacy of feudal privilege and, in addition, against the idleness
of the poor (based on their misunderstanding of what caused poverty). As late as the nineteenth century, other
writers can still offer a greater appreciation for the social context for
success. Sinopoli reports this as he
cites the French writer Tocqueville.
Tocqueville could see how in aristocratic and classical republican
societies,[3] a clearer
sense of how the individual is well ensconced within the social matrix of
society prevailed. Who the individual is
or what that individual can accomplish is very much dependent on the social
milieus in which he/she is situated. We
had a sense of this in the TV show, Downton
Abbey, especially during the early years of the program. As a matter of fact, many of the story lines of
the show are about how the more liberal notions of the twentieth century constantly
conflicted with traditional, feudal beliefs and values. Generally, the show depicts the heroic
struggle of individual characters striving to be themselves – to become viable individuals
– and, by doing so, rejecting the more circumspective roles individuals were expected
to adopt in the good old days. What saves
the day in these plots is the binding relationships demanded by family, even
among two warring sisters. Again, there
is a surviving reliance on a collective source of strength and an inability to
totally shed the support a communal structure provides. This will come later on, at least in our
development in the US.
My point is simple: to
deny there is no relationship between a basic lack of understanding of how
society works when it comes to success or failure and a general belief system
that promotes the role of the individual in determining life’s values and goals
is unreasonable. Even, in the end,
Sinopoli has to hedge his bets. Let me
quote him:
The relation between liberalism and
community cuts in several different directions.
The more categorical claims of an inherent opposition between rights-based
liberalism and community are not sustainable.
In fact, liberalism can claim as one of its virtues a profound
recognition of the centrality of community to virtually any conception of the
good; further, a recognition of the inviolability of each person can enhance
community by assuring each member of the polity that her vital interests will
not be sacrificed for the sake of others.
Yet, if there is no inherent opposition, it is at least empirically plausible to contend that liberalism can be
destructive of community in some instances.[4]
You think this might be a little modest?
To begin with, the fact that Sinopoli claims a positive relation
between liberalism and community interests exists does not make it so. I agree that a respect for individual rights
is essential to a healthy society and its polity, but more needs to be
explained. Let me cite a problem or two.
First, Sinopoli does not explain how self-interests need to
be defined or somehow constrained in order for their pursuit not to negatively
affect the common good. When the
individual is not only allowed, but also encouraged, to shoot for the moon and
there is no sense of mutual responsibilities and accounting for mutual
contributions, we experience many of the self-indulgent views and behaviors we currently
see in our social interactions. But
beyond that, rudderless morality, our current history tells us, tends toward
sensationalism. Even the most important
aspects of life become stages for the thrill seeker who is always trying to
outdo the last escapade. The wanting of
something becomes more important than the satisfaction, partly because the
satisfaction is short-lived and the anticipation for the next thrill becomes
all-consuming. We are told by Donald
Trump, for example, I could act “presidential,” but if I did, only about twenty
percent of his audiences would show up; to be presidential would be so damn
boring. So there goes another
institution down the path of “barker-ism;” our lack of substance belittles another
essential process in our political and social landscape. Is this level of the problem just our version
of a common diversion found in many other times and places or is there reason
to believe we are embarking on a serious projection that will lead to highly
dysfunctional results? The contention of
this blog is that we have reason to worry.
As I have argued, civics education is a factor in all of this and we
need to change how we are going about “doing” civics if we hope to turn this
projection around. A good first lesson
in a more responsible civics classroom is an explanation of how we, as
individuals, are not totally responsible for our successes – or our failures –
but that we are part of a greater whole.
[1] Sinopoli, R.
C. (1992). The foundations of American
citizenship: Liberalism, the
constitution, and civic virtue. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[2]
Ibid., p. 32.
[3]
A federalist polity can be classified as a type
of classical republican society.
[4]
Op cit., Sinopoli, p. 33. Emphasis added.
No comments:
Post a Comment