CRITIQUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, V

 

This blog is in the midst of critiquing the natural rights view, the dominant view of governance and politics in the US and as such, the guiding construct that civics education employs to determine its content.  A concern of central importance to this critique, and one in which the dysfunctional nature of the natural rights construct is felt, is in its discouragement of the development of associations in political as well as social settings.

          Again, as with other aspects of this construct, its emphasis on individualism, people are encouraged to regard their own interests as paramount and to the exclusion of any meaningful concern for communal interests.  And with that, its bias to pursue those personal interests, one finds a degradation of what this blogger calls the three “C’s”:  community, collaboration, and cooperation. 

The message tends to be that if one must engage politically, it is to advance one’s self-interests.  Acting politically or even socially, individually or in groups, people are not depicted as engaging in processes to advance truly collective needs, wants, or ambitions.  That is, the collective activity does not transcend the individual beyond that person’s immediate needs and wants.  Regarding this, here is what the late Robert H. Wiebe wrote in the mid-1990s,

 

Its focus, modern society’s atomized individuals, has penetrated the farthest into American culture, and among the alternatives still lively in the 1990s its critique envisages the most profound changes.  Although the ties between democracy and the individual have been matters of discussion throughout the 20^th century, until well after mid-century almost no one challenged the individual’s right to the central place … Two late-20^th-century key words popularly linked with democracy – meritocracy and the market – celebrate the lone achiever and lone decision-maker respectively.[1]

 

Is this bias growing or being tamed since Wiebe wrote these words?  Of late, here is a summary statement from a leading medical institution,

 

Americans usually view every person as a self-sufficient individual, and this idea is important to understanding the American value system. Everyone is their own person, not a representative of a family, community, or any other group.

You may view this as rather selfish and egotistical, or as a welcomed freedom from the restraints of family, community, social class, etc. Yet, this self-centered attitude prevails in American culture—placing the most importance on the individual, not the group.

Likewise, … Americans do not like to think of themselves as being dependent upon others or as others being dependent upon them. This can affect the boundaries placed on personal relationships, which starts with friendships.[2]

 

Not exactly a clarion call for the three C’s.

          This cultural predisposition among Americans makes it difficult to build political and social associations.  An interesting comparative study, one in which the researcher compared, within one nation, two geographic areas in which one is more communal and the other more individualistic, is offered by Robert Putnam.  He studied the civic behavior of Italians and the factors that led to the viability of regional governmental structures.

He noted that the factors of collective behavior in the form of associational arrangements had been crucial towards one of the regions experiencing significantly higher levels of viability and success.  He writes about the socializing effect such arrangements contribute, how they bolster common shared values and symbols of unity, and how they encourage social trust.

This assists in the development of “social capital” – a civil, societal quality characterized as having an active citizenry which is motivated by a public spirit and egalitarian political values, as one would find in a civic community.  In his study, he describes the northern regions of Italy having higher levels of this social capital.[3]  Yet in subsequent writing, Putnam warns that the US is shifting away from enjoying healthy levels of that quality.[4]

In its stead, Americans have shifted to a citizenry which is atomized.

 

In his 1995 essay, sociologist Robert Putnam warned of the increasing atomization of American society. The institutions of American social capital, he wrote, are on the decline: Attendance at public forums, religious groups, civic organizations, and even his eponymous bowling leagues have been steadily declining since the … heyday of the 1950s American suburban community. The social fabric of America is coming apart on the neighborhood level, wrote Putnam—and it’s only going to get worse.

Unfortunately, it seems Putnam was on to something. In a report …economist Joe Cortright tracks the decline of American social capital over the past 40 years not simply in terms of membership to voluntary organizations, but also through the relationships Americans have with their geographical neighbors. Data used in the report from the General Social Survey doesn’t paint a pretty picture: According to Cortright, the degree to which Americans trust one another is at a 40-year low.

It’s not only trust, but actual relationships, too: Americans now are less likely than ever before to "socialize regularly" with their neighbors. This is the case even in large cities, where you might expect proximity to breed familiarity; the Washington Post notes that population density in major American cities dropped rapidly as primarily white, well-off citizens fled for the extra room (and distance) of the suburbs during the 1950s.[5]

 

Not only has this made it more difficult to develop the social capital that Putnam writes of, but it has made it counterproductive to many aims that Americans share.

          It has made it more difficult to formulate effective interest groups among like-minded Americans.  In their individualism, they hold public officials in contempt for the gaps they feel between their individual demands and government policy without the seemingly necessary resources to accomplish effective demand articulation to the system.

          As Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell point out, interest articulation and interest aggregation are important functions to the political system.[6]  These functions must be met by the actions of collectives, not individuals.  The net result is frustration by many in the citizenry for the apparent inaction of government.

          The next posting will add to this notion of discouraged association, but before ending this posting, this blogger would add that an interesting development seems to be happening.  That is, within the radical right, to varying degrees, certain efforts to organize armed groups have been progressing.  One needs to think only of the January 6^th insurrection event to note this.  It will be of interest to follow these efforts and note how strongly such groupings are able to maintain loyalty among those groups’ memberships.[7]

---

[1] Robert H. Wiebe, Self Rule:  A Cultural History of American Democracy (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 1995), 245-250 (emphasis in the original).

[2] “Individualism,” Partners Healthcare, (n.d.) – Founded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital – accessed February 18, 2023, https://pips.partners.org/life-in-the-united-states/american-culture/individualism.aspx#:~:text=Americans%20usually%20view%20every%20person,community%2C%20or%20any%20other%20group. See more at: https://pips.partners.org/life-in-the-united-states/american-culture/individualism.aspx#sthash.K0bgEruW.dpuf.

[3] Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work:  Civic Tradition in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1993).

[4] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

[5] Jared Keller, “Americans Are Staying as Far Away from Each Other as Possible,” Pacific Standard (June 14, 2017), accessed February 19, 2023, https://psmag.com/social-justice/americans-are-staying-as-far-away-from-each-other-as-possible.  For another book further expanding this theme, see Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart:  Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985), dated but worth it.

[6] Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown. 1966).

[7] According to one source, roughly three in eight individuals arrested as a result of the January 6^th riot have pled guilty.  Is this telling of a significant level of regret in participating in such an event?  Time will tell.  See Alexander Allin, “Just before Jan. 6 Hearing, 3 Capitol Rioters Express Regret, Ask for Mercy (January 9, 2022), accessed February 19, 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-hearing-capitol-rioters-express-regret-mercy/story?id=85290390.