One recurring concern among observers of
American society is the level of deviance that society experiences. At times deviance can be simple actions that counter
norms affecting few if anyone other than the perpetrators of such behaviors. On the other hand, there are examples that
cross legal bounds or central norms and are deemed serious and antisocial. Here is a general comment of current thought
over this subject:
Deviance in American
society is more prevalent unlike in other countries of the world. … The
American dream had a main theme of freedom for the Americans, something that
has been wrongly perceived as being free from the laws and regulations of the
society. This perception has made most people in America disobey the societal
norms in the name of achieving [their] dream[s]. The dream talks of people
being committed to the success of material goals under circumstances that are
open with individual competition …
To begin with is the fact that most Americans want to be
richer than they are despite their current income level, what is referred to as
maximization in the dream. …
Another issue of concern is greed among most Americans
which is also justified in the dream leading to a type of deviance known as
elite deviance committed by the powerful and wealthy people of the society
because of greed. From the above discussion, it is seen that the concept of the
American dream contributes so much to deviance and criminality in American
society.[1]
This quote is not offered as the last word on
deviance or even an authoritative one, but a reflection of how people in
general view deviance. And given that
Americans are judged as being on the high end on this mode of behavior, one can
ask why.
More
specifically: How did Americans get to
be judged to be highly deviant?
Unfortunately, the trends toward excessive deviance are not of recent
origin. They are instead the product of
a slow development that can be traced to the nation’s beginnings. What follows, and in upcoming postings, is
the product of research this blogger conducted a few decades ago. Upon reviewing earlier work, he feels it
would be helpful to share this work in understanding the main aim of this blog,
i.e., to promote federation theory.
Given
that context, this review begins with the contribution of George Santayana.[2] He wrote, in the earlier part of the last
century, an insightful view of the philosophical development of Americans up to
his time. He characterized the early
philosophical development as a two-sided Christian view: one was a harsh fire and brimstone Calvinism
that emphasized the dangers of sin and the impression of an “agonized conscience,”
and, on the other side, a gentler view, social transcendentalism (more formally
developed during the 18th century).
This
latter view was a European based philosophy.
It was quite sophisticated for an early American society given that
society’s inexperience as a new nation.
Santayana points out that Calvinism, while providing the necessary
discipline to prosper in the frontier environment, succumbed to the very
prosperity it helped produce.
This left a “genteel tradition” as the
prominent view, that being transcendentalism.
Transcendentalists, especially as their beliefs were defined in the
writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, became the prominent perspective among the
population and began Americans on their ever-increasing movement toward an
individualism second to none. Emerson
captured this reason-based tradition – what Santayana describes as Kantian – of
systematic subjectivism.
Here, one can start seeing extreme
individualism taking hold. Under a call
for honestly expressed self-initiative, romanticized in old Yankee lore, the
transcendentalists emphasized present needs and the function of will over
intellect. This train of thought harbored
a certain blindness to the evil this entailed individualism could encourage
Americans to adopt. It also promoted an “upbeat-ness”
in what Emerson’s called a “self-trust” which this newer philosophy supported.
Stated succinctly, it called for a sense of reality,
as a base, which had individuals transcending to what they, themselves, defined
as worthy to pursue and relied on what was intuitive in those same people: “the perspective of knowledge as [it] radiate[s]
from the self.”[3] One can see the origins of a “ME society”
developing.
But with diminishing the contextual foundation
of Calvinism, this form of individualism had its influence without any internal
check and balance. Instead, individualism,
through the years, became stronger as Calvinism became weaker. It became more legitimate to be deviant as
expressions of the self and that self-centeredness took the status of being an
ideal.
And
that transition has its own story. Each
century that follows – 19th and 20th – add to the story
in particular ways. The 1800s sees the advent
and growth of an industrial society and the 1900s as the growth of a consumer-based
economy. Santayana adds his thoughts to
the changes the first of these periods had on American thought and dispositions.
That is, up against this abstract, outer worldly
intellectualizing, i.e., Calvinism vs. transcendentalism, Santayana describes
the increasing hum of growing industry having its effect on Americans during
the first of these centuries. In doing
so, the demand for objectivity and empiricism hacks away at the genteel
tradition. This leads, finally, to
William James’ articulation of a rebellious message against intellectualism and
its pedantic rule making. The next
posting will address James’ contribution and how it encouraged the nation to
consider pragmatism.
[1] “Deviance Issue in the American Society/The ‘American
Dream’ Contribution to the Frequency of Deviance,’” Study Corgi (n.d.),
accessed February 10, 2024, URL: https://studycorgi.com/deviance-issue-in-the-american-society/.
[2] George Santayana, “The Genteel Tradition in America”
in The Annals of America, Vol. 13 (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1968),
277-288.
[3] Ibid., 281.
No comments:
Post a Comment