Individualism: good or bad?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
On the Colbert Report tonight, Stephen Colbert's guest was Dick Meyer, who has written the book, Why We Hate Us: American Discontent in the New Millennium.
Colbert's interviews are always funny, but sometimes it is hard to tell exactly what the interviewee is trying to get across because of Colbert's mock attack dog approach. But at one point, when Dick Meyer was trying to distinguish between good and bad outcomes of the era of the 1960s, he said this:
"There's a big difference between individualism and narcissism and selfishness. Individualism is terrific. I mean ... the idea of the self-made man [and] the self-made woman is the idea of America. But there's a difference between individualism and selfism [sic] and selfishness and narcissism. So if you're just in it for yourself and you're not thinking about the person next door, that's not what morality's about."
I have read a little bit about a relatively new sub-discipline in psychology called "Positive Psychology". It advocates doing good for others because of the positive effects it will have on an individual's personal sense of well-being and self-worth, which is really just a way of co-opting altruism into a supporting pillar of selfish individualism. By advocating the view that the real value in the doing of good deeds lies in the way they ultimately benefit the individual, it relates everything back to self in a kind of enlightened narcissism.
I'm curious if that is what Meyer is espousing without realizing it (or maybe he is realizing it entirely; I haven't read his book). I have no firm answers myself, but my question for us is this:
Is it possible to embrace a robust understanding of individualism without that including narcissism or selfishness as well?
And if not, doesn't that present an enormous problem for the church when it is forced to exist in a consumer culture like the one we've got in America?
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 12:44 AM
7 Comments:
interesting...
Your short description of 'positive psychology' reminds me of some of the adds I hear on the local Christian radio station: "giving to/going on a trip with X mission organization doesn't just help others, it will make you feel so good/blessed" sometimes it seems as though THAT is the REAL selling point (not, say, feeding or clothing one who is Christ to you).
I think that individualism is a concept that is a bit to broad to give a universal "thumbs-up" or "thumbs down."
One could make the case that there are a range of terms wrapped up within the spectrum of individualism. At its worst, it may manifest itself as narcissism and selfishness (which you've focused on in this post), but at its best gives one a sense of self-worth and independence. Those of us not named Ayn Rand would agree that you should avoid the former, but history has proven that bad things happen when a people's self-worth is suppressed. So I guess that I agree with the quote you provided from the author - I don't think that individualism, narcissism, and selfishness are always directly synonymous.
As for your second question, I think that some churches aren't focused enough on the individual. In other words, some churches are more comfortable hiding behind their Soup Kitchens than they are challenging its members to really engage in starting down the road to Damascus. The church's real challenge is to find that balance between being community-focused without losing sight of each member's individual spiritual journey.
And I've got another word for the "positive psychology" concept. Being that I'm of the opinion that humans are incapable of doing ANYTHING that is purely altruistic, I'd tend to call it "reality." Now I endorse it, mind you, but just feel it's another symptom of humanity.
My head hurts.
Well, Ayn Rand argued that there's no such thing as altruism. People, at minimum, do good things because it makes them feel good about themselves.
Christianity is even predicated upon selfishness. For our allegiance and obedience to Christ, we are offered eternal life in Heaven.
Individualism works across a society if people value their own self-worth as a human being and values everyone else, also as a human being. When we stop valuing ourselves, we become a sacrifice on someone else's altar; when we stop valuing others, we start dehumanizing others on our own altars.
Hey John,
Now you've got the cogs turning in my head. This might be a non-sensical question (or unfairly speculative question to ask), but does that mean that the Christian life would not be 'worth it' if it did not include an eternal reward in The Kingdom of God? That is, if cross-shaped living were held to be "it's own reward" simply because it was a morally higher way to live, would you therefore not be a Christian?
Thanks for the comments on this post. I have been distracted or else I would have chimed in sooner.
Matthew, I think you problematize the word/concept 'individualism' in exactly the way it needs to be problematized. True saints are examples of individuals who stood out - often against persecution or at least a lot of pressure - and made contributions to the church and our understanding of the faith that would not have been possible without their willingness to go against the grain.
On the other hand, there is the concept of individualism that stems more from American consumer culture, where everything is related to the self and the self's perceived 'needs' (I put that in quotes, of course, because most of them aren't real needs at all). This form of individualism is a truly destructive force in the church and, I would add, for community in general. It teaches us that we are all really self-sufficient automatons who only exist with other people or institutions in temporary, voluntary arrangements. Among other ill effects, perhaps the most detrimental to the church is that this form of individualism renders baptism unintelligible.
John, I've got to second Daniel here in viewing some of your comments with skepticism. (You may have meant them in jest, and if so, disregard these comments.) I'm not sure I'd want to go with the Gospel According the Ayn Rand in viewing whether or not altruism is within the realm of human possibility. I'd rather go with Thomas Aquinas, or John Wesley, or some other faithful interpreter of the Christian tradition who focuses particularly on the way in which God's grace heals our sin-diseased will to the point where true Christian caritas becomes not only possible, but the guiding force in our lives. (Maybe part of the problem is that altruism isn't the best word to use here, anyway.)
We are offered eternal life because of the work of the triune God, who took on flesh in order to heal our nature, and who overcame sin and death through his crucifixion and resurrection. The problem with suggesting that our allegiance and obedience have something to do with salvation is that it drifts into a Pelagian understanding of salvation. It is an aspect of God's sovereignty to affirm that the predicated conditions for salvation have to do with God alone.
This seems to be a question around the logic of the incarnation, and for that I would recommend Athanasius' 'On the Incarnation' for anyone with an interest in these types of questions. It rocks.
Again, thanks for the great comments.
"Individualism" can have a lot of different meanings, which is why it often ends up being a rhetorical football. If by "individualism" we simply mean the recognition that individuals have the right and responsibility to make moral decisions, and that they each deserve dignity and respect as children of God, then it's possible to celebrate individualism without being selfish or narcissistic. But if, on the other hand, we see the individual as the primary mode of existence with no regard to how and individuals actions affect communities, then it is by definition selfish and narcissistic. I don't know what the proponents of "positive psychology" mean by individualism, but I would guess that the answer to your question lies largely in how we choose to define our terms.
Some amount of individualism is necessary if a person is to take moral responsibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home