>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
>>[no cheating]
>>
>>The idea of freedom - the freedom that we in the United States know and love
>>so well - is derived from the Bible with its extraordinary emphasis on the
>>dignity of the individual.
But what Wallace says, isn't all that uncontroversial -- as long as you don't get into the nitty gritty details of the dispute between idealism and materialism which would, indeed, be uncalled for in what was a public speech, IIRC.
The bible does put an "extraordinary emphasis on the dignity of the individual." The secularists among us don't have to deny that. While I don't know Wallace well enough to know what he meant by invoking the bible, plenty of other scholars have worked on similar theses, tracing the history of the rise of individualism from what Bellah et al. call the civic republican and biblical strands of Western European thought. They posit these two strands of individualism as distinct from what they call expressive and utilitarian individualism which emerged with capitalism.
The languages of civic republic individualism and biblical individualism see the dignity of the individual as being realized _in_ and _through_ communities and their attendant practices of commitment (understood in the ARistotelian sense of 'praxis'). These older traditions of individualism stand in contrast to expressive and utilitarian languages where the individual is realized in opposition to communities and practices of commitment.
In the u.s. with the traditions of expressive and utilitarian now dominant, "the individual is suspended in a glorified but terrifying state of isolation." (This does not mean that Bellah et al want to revert older traditions of individualism. For those traditions are inadequate to a capitalist society and, at times, obscure the real sources of the problems we face.) I highly recommend this book to John Thornton too. If you want to understand how biblical traditions operate in u.s. life, if you want to understand how christians could go shopping, this is the book. Bellah et al provide a _sympathetic_ critique of these folks. It's not from some moral failing on their part that they shop around. In some ways, it is _part of_ their very understanding of being a non-denominational christian. the particular church doesn't matter, the denomination doesn't matter, it is your _personal_ relationship with christ. Anyway....
Here are a few snippets from the book, for those interested in understanding how "values" play out in u.s. life -- why the languages we use -- even the evangelicals -- is inadequate and contradictory -- if anyone ever presses someone on their values:
"For Brian Palmer, the goal of a good life is to achieve the priorities you have set for yourself. But how do you know that your present priorities are better than those of your past, or better than those of other people?" (Brian speaks the lang. of utilitarian individualism, but cannot make moral sense of his life.)
"For Joe Gorman, the goal of a good life is intimate involvement with the community and family into which he happens to have been born,. But how do you know that in this complicated world, the inherited conventions of your community and your family are better and more important than those of others communities and families?" (Joe speak the language of biblical individualism, but falls short when he tries to think about what would happen if his company transferred him to another community where he doesn't have roots. Thus, Joe is unable to think about the ways capitalist society destroys the community and traditions he so cherishes)
"For Margaret Oldhan, the goal of a good life is liberation from precisely the kinds of conventions that Joe Gorman holds dear. But what do you aim for once you have been liberated?" Margaret speaks the language of the therapist--expressive individualism--where the individual rejects ties that bind. In her world, you are responsible for yourself and no one else, not even your children. It is a constant flight from any ties that bind.)
"For Wayne Bauer, the goal of a good life is participation in political struggle to create a more just society. But where should political struggle lead? ... What should people _do_ with that power (once they have it in a free society)?" Wayne speaks the language of civic republican individualism--what Doug and Liza call activistism. For those of us on the left, he is the most admirable character in the book but, if we are honest, we'll see ourselves in him -- or at least see our younger selves.
"The common difficulties these four people face in justifying the goals of a morally good life point to a characteristic problem of people in our culture. For most of us, it is easier to think about how to get what we want than to know what exactly we should want. Thus, (the people in our study_ are each in his or her own way confused about how to define for themselves such things as the nature of success, the meaning of freedom, and the requirements of justice. Those difficulties are in an important way created by the limitations in the common tradition of moral discourse the--and we--share." (p 21, Habits of the Heart)
"Freedom is the most resonant, deeply held American value. In some ways, it defines the good in both personal and political life. Yet, freedom turns out to mean being left alone by others, not having other people's values, ideas, or styles of life forced upon one, being free of arbitrary authority in work, family, and political life. What it is that one might do with that freedom is much more difficult for Americans to define. ... The difficulty is that this vision of freedom as freedom _from_ the demands of others provides no vocabulary in which...Americans can address common conceptions of the ends of a good life or ways to coordinate cooperative action with others. ...
Americans think "of freedom as freedom _from_ -- from other people who have economic power over you, from people who try to limit what you can do or say. This ideal of freedom has historically given Americans a respect for individuals; it has, no doubt, stimulated their initiative and creativity; it has sometimes even made them tolerant of differences...and resistant to overt forms of political oppression. But it is an ideal of freedom that leaves Americans with a stubborn fear of acknowledging structures of power and interdependence in a technologically complex society dominated by giant corporations and an increasingly powerful state. The ideal of freedom makes Americans nostalgic for their past, but provides few resources for talking about their collective futures." (p 23-26)
>> Democracy is the only true political expression
>>of Christianity.
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling