FAMOUS (OR INFAMOUS)

This is a short holiday read.  It addresses an oft ignored element of federation theory.  That is its support for individualism.  Oh, that’s not the individualism one finds glorified by the natural rights view, but a more, what this blogger considers, substantive view.  It sees individualism as every person self-fulling his/her potentials. 

          Perhaps this shift to this concern is prompted by the nation shifting from what one can a consider a more communal holiday, Christmas, to the more raucous holiday, New Year.  This might be a comparison only held by this blogger, but Christmas always seemed as that day one visits family and even neighbors, sharing gifts and best wishes.  A wholesome emotional state of mind pervades and seems to be, to a great deal, consumed by the American public. 

Heck, people see films like “It’s a Wonderful Life” and donate a lot of money to all sorts of charities – one knows this since it’s one ad for such charities after another on TV.  But now that all those gifts are open and all those gatherings are done, one looks forward to that night of “debauchery” – New Year’s Eve will be here within the week.  Family-“shamily,” it’s time to have a good time and that means favoring what one finds as a good time even if it skirts the outer limits of “appropriate” behavior.  One word of caution:  “be safe out there.”

So, what can one say about individualism that still falls within the more communal sense that federation theory promotes?  Federation theory, as presented in this blog, supports the individual pursuing his/her interests.  What it asks is only that those interests not offend the common good by harming it or hindering it.

Those who hold on to natural rights values, in part, defend their policy choices – minimal government programs, low taxes, and a scarcity of regulations especially on businesses – as claiming such policies intrude on mostly individual economic choices.  This is the part of natural rights one can categorize as its conservative face while it’s aversion to governmental laws restricting personal choices – e.g., alternative lifestyles – is its liberal face.  In short, one should be able to do his/her own thing as he/she defines it if by doing so he/she does not prohibit others the same latitude.

And that might mean – if truly sough after – to be exceptional in some endeavor such as a skill or occupational pursuit.  That is, to seek success in a competitive environment.  One might ask:  what allows one to achieve success in any endeavor that one might consider challenging such as a sport, a technical field of employment, or some area of voluntourism? 

As this blog has stated before, John Rawls, the philosopher, has something to say about this.  Rawls identified his idea of success via his view of equality.  He argues that what leads to success can only be attributed to a person’s effort to a limited degree.  Most of the factors are really beyond a person’s ability to acquire or control.[1]  They are present in one’s life or they are not.  A more recent writer, who picks up on this claim, is Malcolm Gladwell.[2]

Gladwell accepts Rawls’ argument, but he qualifies it by citing his famous (or infamous – for those who see it as a drudgery) 10,000 hours of practice in which one needs engage to become proficient in any demanding skill or endeavor.  And this goes for naturally talented practitioners as well.  Gladwell writes:

The question is this:  is there such a thing as innate talent?  The obvious answer is yes … Achievement is talent plus preparation.  The problem with this view is that the closer psychologists look at the careers of the gifted, the smaller role innate talent seems to play and the bigger the role preparation seems to play.[3]

And this blog has cited the work of Carol S. Dweck whose work has demonstrated that even the common view of intelligence – usually measured by I.Q. testing and seen as each person having a given amount – can improve with the right practice which, in part, convinces a subject that intelligence can be improved.[4]

          But even here, even with an individual putting in the effort and time to achieve those 10,000 hours, community has its role.  One benefits by having the parents who encourage a youngsters putting in a lot of those hours.  The person needs the wealth base to allow time away from non-related employment to be able to practice.  And then there is the program at school or after-school where one can practice under appropriate supervision or coaching or tutoring that point out the mistakes and demonstrate the “correct” ways of motion or thinking.

          And probably to top off what a community can offer is exposure.  That is, exposure to the skill or sport or profession in which the practice occurs.  If one is fortunate and one can run across that activity that spurs the interest that reflects what one is willing to do for those 10,000 hours, then one can count him/herself truly fortunate.  This blogger has not run across a truly successful person who at some level doesn’t enjoy the activity he/she performs.  10,000 hours is a long time.

---

[1] See Chandran Kukathas and Philip Pettit, Rawls:  A Theory of Justice and Its Critics, (Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press, 1990).

[2] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, (New York, NY:  Little, Brown and Company, 2008).

[3] Ibid., 38.

[4] Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories:  Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Philadelphia, PA:  Psychology Press, 2000).  Dweck goes on to even claim that a belief that intelligence is held by individuals at a given amount functions as a negative factors when a person eventually encounters a challenge, he/she cannot readily solve or achieve.

WHEN THINGS GET BEYOND “STICKY”

[Note:  Happy Holidays to All!]

This posting continues the theme of the last posting – entitled “It’s a Rainforrest Out There.”  That is, that posting addressed how a polity needs for its citizens and other residents to share certain motivations to initiate and sustain a general communal society – a society in which people generally cooperate.  Citing Michael Sandel,[1] it identified three types of motivations toward that end; those being reciprocity, sentiment, and self-fulfillment. 

Richard Dagger’s[2] view concerning the function communal modes of behaviors play chooses to concentrate on reciprocity as a baseline motivation that one can count on if the other types fail.  The other types are great, but one can realistically get people to worry about how they will be treated by others whether those acts are reactions to positive or negative experiences when either sentiment is missing or lacking, and self-fulfillment is ill-defined or not appreciated. 

Being able to anticipate an enjoyable treatment or a punitive treatment will get most people’s attention; they will seek the former and avoid the latter.  Therefore, they are apt to behave in ways to solicit the former and stay clear of the latter.  And the last posting reported what the implications of these reactions are even when one is observing a group or individual dealing with conflicting interests.

That is, the last posting delved into what these general dispositions need to confront in what could possibly be challenging interactions between or among individuals or groups.  While these less than optimal situations were looked at, the assumption was that generally the overall social landscape in which they take place is fairly tranquil.  It is one that can be described as cooperative and not experiencing, say, common violence and terror.  But what if that is not the case?  What if that landscape is characterized by turmoil?

First, one needs a comparison.  How is one going to treat a fellow organizational or association-al person – a person one has joined in a common effort like a fellow citizen – as compared to someone else – a person, for example, of another country?  Does one place in priority the needs of a co-participant over a foreign person?  Intuitively, one is disposed to do so.  But is this a blank commitment?  If the needs of one of them is not extreme, but within the normal needs of life, then claims of co-participants will likely be placed in a higher priority.

This comparison is important because societal efforts depend on cooperative relationships especially from co-participants.  Therefore, biased choices in favor of co-participants enhance the probability – on merely reciprocal grounds – of cooperative results.  But that is in normal conditions.  If instead, say, a polity is one experiencing excessive violence, or high levels of terror, or the people live lives that demonstrate little respect for law and order, then one finds it less likely that any intuitive priority toward co-participants – fellow citizens – is felt as a viable motivation. 

This priority to favor co-participants relies on a cooperative social/political landscape.  And when this general sense is challenged or, in the extreme, evaporates, then other means to secure general “cooperation” in carrying on the essential societal requisites – such as cars stopping at red lights – relies, in the main, on exploitation. 

In short, in those cases people do what is necessary out of fear of oppressive police actions.  Of course, this does not only refer to traffic.  It particularly becomes a contentious issue when what is at stake are those policies having to do with the distribution of resources.  Dagger writes:

When access to property or wealth or positions of political power is effectively denied to some members, those without access will have little choice but to labor for the benefit of those who dominate their lives – hardly the hallmark of a cooperative enterprise that gives rise to special rights and obligations among its participants.  There is critical edge to the argument from reciprocity, then, an edge that suggests that fellow citizens in many cases simply have no moral claim to priority.[3]

That is, when the choice arises between choosing the interests of a co-participant and a foreign person, the co-participant has no priority claim when the motivation is to avoid the punishment of an authoritarian power.  And given how basic reciprocity is in motivating cooperative behavior, one can see how uncooperative such social landscapes can become.

          For the sake of placing such an understanding to everyday American experience, consider the workplace where the rules of the game either are insufficient or not respected.  How will the workforce react?  No, it will not usually shift over to violence, but unless a policing regime is put in place, one that can detect deviance and has the resources to impart hurtful punishments, the workers will not act or feel they need to act cooperatively. 

They will instead strike out to either advance only personal interests and/or act in ways that seek revenge for abusive acts of others.  The mindset of each abandons any sense of “we” and only thinks in terms of “I.”  Conditions will definitely devolve beyond sticky or uncomfortable, but reach in what one can, at least, consider exploitive.

          Therefore, if one wants to advance the motivation of co-participants toward modes of behavior that allow for a cooperative organizational or association-al arrangement, then a viable rule-based structure and related processes need to be established and maintained.  That entity’s workforce – or citizenry – also needs to be nurtured so it recognizes the reciprocal relationships that exist. 

And that calls for appropriate – what sociologists might call – system maintenance.  That consists of functional socializing and successful recruitment of personnel that, at least, populate the arrangement with people harboring a fundamental understanding of what reciprocal relationships are.  Of course, this all depends on norms within the arrangement and can be carried on too far stifling original thought and innovated proposals.  A balance is called for.

          With that basic level of understanding, a leader can work toward encouraging the other motivations; that is, encouraging positive sentiments and general understanding that legitimate participation in the arrangement can advance individual capacities.  These “higher” aims can be considered and acted upon when the foundation is well entrenched within the realm of the arrangement.

          If the arrangement is a polity and the above aims are met, then it approaches what Dagger refers to as a polity that operates under the auspices of republican liberalism.  This blog considers such a polity being guided by liberated federalism as it implements the elements of federation theory.

---

[1] As reported by Richard Dagger.  Richard Dagger, Civic Virtue:  Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism (New York, NY:  Oxford, 1997).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 60.