Theory and Practice

What does the word Individualism mean to us as human beings living in these United States of America in the 21st century? It is a word and concept that is thrown around a lot by politicians and pundits, punks, plumbers, and proles of all sorts—but is there any content to this seemingly thoughtless verbiage? Invididual Liberty—solidified in Private Property—is the foundation of our system and the supposed guarantor of all our Rights, but this has been seriously undermined by not only modern theory but also modern practice. This is a forum to open up the discussion about what exactly this abstract idea—Individualism and its corollary Freedom—means or can mean in the context of the situation we as a people now find ourselves in.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Come As You Are

I love myself better than you. I know it’s wrong but what can I do.”—Kurt Cobain

The “Voice of a Generation” so perfectly and simply summing up the Modern Human Condition that has pervaded all discussions of Modern Political Philosophy since Rousseau’s dismantling of the basic premises, which were to make it work.

How does one construct a Society out of naturally selfish, therefore, Self-Interested Men? Is Reason a sufficient basis to found a Society upon, when Reason can conceive of no greater goal than comfortable Self-Preservation? Is the Social Contract even possible without the conception of some sort of Common Good?

In order to try and remedy this situation Rousseau comes up with the ideas of Amour de Soi and Amour Propre, which are unfortunately inarticulable in English because they both translate as “Self-Love.” Rousseau accepts that Man is by Nature a selfish being, so, instead of dividing Man between the demands of Egoism and Altruism (the failed remedy of the Christians) he distinguishes between good and bad forms of Self-Love.

He believes that in order to create an effective morality, it cannot be rooted in imaginary oughts, but instead should take into account Man’s full range of natural sentiments and attempt to redirect them into socially acceptable modes of behavior—known as Sublimation. (This probably sounds quite tyrannical to our modern American ears because we now believe it is not our Right to judge the values of Others, but you must keep in mind that conforming to the dictates of Nature is a lot different than conforming to false convention or tradition.)

Amour de Soi is the type of Self-Love that Man has while he is still in the State of Nature. It is born of a complete self-reliance that requires nothing from anyone else (except for a sexual partner every now and again, but merely for the physical act and nothing else). Man is absolute unto himself and is able to provide perfectly for himself. He was “without industry, without speech, without domicile, without war and without liaisons, with no need of his fellow men, likewise with no desire to harm them…he felt only his true needs, saw only what he needed to see; and his intelligence made no more progress than his vanity.”

The other type of Self-Love is Amour Propre, which is the type of Self-Love Man can experience only once he has entered into a Society. He only knows “how to be happy and content with himself on the testimony of others rather than on his own.” This “sociable man, always outside of himself, knows how to live only in the opinions of others.” It is a form of Self-Esteem that has no inner-content and is completely relative based on the Others to which one is constantly comparing oneself. This form of Self-Love is the source of the misery of Social Man because it is the root of Vanity and Pride, and their effects: competitiveness, ambition, anger, jealousy, envy, hypocrisy, and deceitfulness which distort our relations with our fellow Man.

Rousseau’s prescription, which he sets forth in the Emile—his guide for a new form of education—is a relatively simple one: “What makes Man essentially good is to have few needs and to compare himself little to others; what makes him essentially wicked is to have many needs and to depend very much on opinion…It is true that since they are not able always to live alone, it will be difficult for them to always be good. This same difficulty will necessarily increase with their relations; and this, above all, is why the dangers of Society make Art and Care all the more indispensable for us to forestall in the human heart the depravity born of their new needs.”

The Emile is Rousseau’s attempt to create a bond between Men that could hopefully correct the wickedness that has enslaved Man ever since he contracted—or possibly was forced to settle down—into the first nascent communities. In it he declares that the Imagination is the true source of all of Man’s misery because, once it is aroused, thus begins Man’s separation from Nature and with it an infinite number of fears and hopes arise transforming our true needs into artificial ones distorted by comparative ideas of Merit and Beauty. But, paradoxically, the Imagination may also be the best device to reconcile Man to Society and to create a needy, relative Social Being out of a natural, independent Solitary Being.

Although Amour Propre may be the source of Man’s greatest pains and sorrows, it may also be the source of Man’s greatest achievements—either in politics, literature, art, sports, science, or even, love. Despite being a perversion of our Nature, it at least forms some sort of connection between Men that if properly educated can make Man truly care for one another. For Rousseau, all those pursuits have no other reward than the desire to be recognized as number One. And the main motivation behind all these other goals is actually Sex. Man wants to acquire and perfect all these seemingly useless, vain skills in order to differentiate himself from his sexual competitors, so that a potential mate will prefer him over everyone else.

“One loves only after having judged; one prefers only after having compared. These judgments are made without one’s being aware of it, but they are nonetheless real. True love, whatever is said of it, will always be honored by men; for although its transports lead us astray, although it does not exclude odious qualities from the heart that feels it—and even produces them—it nevertheless always presupposes estimable qualities without which one would not be in a condition to feel it. This choosing, is held to be the opposite of Reason, but [actually] comes to us from it.”

So for Rousseau, the goal of Education (cultivating Reason) is to teach Man how to Love and how to properly order the Passions, allowing Man to be happy within the confines of Society—for which, to Rousseau, he is ill-fit. Civilized Sex can never simply be physical. It is always tied with the image one holds of what constitutes Merit and Beauty, therefore it is Imagination (Spirit) that moves the flesh—the Immaterial which moves the Material. And, by properly directing the objects of the Imagination, it is Rousseau’s hope to shape Men’s preferences toward good and noble objects, as well as decent and peaceful Social relations.

Rousseau also feels that even in the State of Nature Man has an innate repugnance to the suffering of Others—which can be endlessly debated in light of the horrors of the 20th Century—and it is this Compassion that will also help to shape the relations of Civilized Men.

But, although Man has an abstract Compassion for Other Men, it is certainly not the same as Care for their well-being or Standard of Living and has absolutely no relation to Love. To him, there is a causal chain, which begins with the Love within a Family, then extends to Friends and then out to the Community at large—the Family plays as an intermediary which unites the Individual with Society. And, at the final stage, there is a substitution: pure Amour Propre, becomes Sublimated Amour Propre. The desire that one feels to be number One is transformed into the goal of having your Community/Country be number One, and this sentiment is expressed through the feeling of Patriotism. This can make one feel much better about not being the best at everything, but also allows you to feel the glory of being number One.

These are all very dangerous ideas that have resulted in some extreme events throughout the History that has succeeded them, but ones I think that we ignore at our peril. The easiest solution that people have come up with to this problem is simply to deny that there even is such a thing as Human Nature and to simply prescribe “to each his own, whom am I to judge?” But if you will notice, the very people who teach this are the self-same people who never shut the hell up about Nature. The environment, global warming, endangered species, organic food: everything must be natural. If Nature is so damn important, then why do they close their ears to what She has to teach us about our-selves? Every other species in the Animal Kingdom has a Nature and Instincts, why do we think we are so special?

This problem will not go away simply by hiding our heads in the ground and there is absolutely no possibility of a return to the State of Nature (unless of course we allow our leaders to use those Weapons of Mass Destruction they are so fond of speaking of). There are very definite reasons for this disorderly mess that we are presented with everyday and unless we are willing to put in the work to sort it all out, then we can hope for all the change we want, but all we’ll ever get is just more of the same.

3 comments:

  1. I think it's interesting to think about the possibility for the relationship between concepts of intellectual sovereignty and the human instincts for self-preservation in correlation with one's concern for the greater good to be symbiotic, as opposed to mutually exclusive or at best conflicting.

    It seems like so many points, and facts, would indicate the later as the only viably realistic option, and dismiss the alternative simply as easy idealism.
    But then I think about things on this sort of microcosmic level, and then wonder about the possibility of certain truths being transferable to a larger spectrum.
    I know that to truly give of one's self is to receive. I know that when I feel edgy in this competitive kind of way, or jealous, or petty- this indicates some sort of lacking that's going on internally and I stop to check myself- because I know when I'm not threatened, when I'm not reacting; things are usually better for me. I'm also more powerful. I think most people can relate to this sort of concept; Oprah and Depak have made millions pawning it. The truthful ability to regularly put this stuff in to practice, and honestly, is a whole other matter.

    But anyways: So if there's one loaf of bread for dinner, and me and you are both sitting there, starving; yes, of course, sorry- I want the whole loaf. Especially if I don't know you, if "there is nothing invested" in you. This better for me. But I also know what is still better for me is if we are both fed. I don't have to worry about you killing me and eating me or something. Along with other more theological/existential sort of reasonings that are less tangible but still I know they probably exist.
    So what is bad for you may be good for me. But what is good for you as well as me is always better. So a state not neccessarily of mutual interdependance, but of reaching optimum results and from a completely self-interested perspective. Sort of like prisoner's dilemma with a re-defined rule of what's "best"- for me, overall, all possible options considered.
    It's somehow related to the advantages of specialization.

    It's interesting to think of this while also considering these metaphysical/physical properties that acknowledge how really; we are all the same thing- and nothing's really solid nor are objects distinctively separate from one another in the manner we typically perceive them to be. Like basically I'm made up if the exact same ingredients as you- the materials coming from the same origin- but just in slightly different proportions. Put together only slightly differently.

    So this thought- maintained in some theoretical future society where we have absolved a good deal of the imbalance created by the individuals confusion over what we "are"; vs. what or who we "should be"; I think it's interesting to think of that in relation to the ongoing process of our species evolution, and in relation to a potential balance that allows for these seemingly conflicting ideologies to instead exist as mutually beneficial paradigms. Like super long-term- but ultimately, an evolutionary result that is in any way a potentially feasible one.

    I also think it's interesting to think about all this in correlation with the main principals behind various major religions throughout time. Especially when looking at these religions as institutions that were created to provide guidelines for a more beneficial and productive way to live.
    I think I was talking to my brother about this idea and he pointed something out about my thoughts on evolution being reminiscent of like Malthus or neo-conservatism or something (I dont totally get the neo-cconservative thing) and me seeing what he was saying and being slightly horrified by it- but i'm not sure. That may have been more related to some conversation we were having about homosexuality in which I brought up evolution or something.
    Thoughts????

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh! After thinking about it for a second- a conclusion: So- thinking about all these things, and then again with a focus on individual sovereignty and trust in one's own innate understandings- achieving a society where this norm is more prevalent than it is today- and how they relate to art: (re: the Emerson quote from earlier)
    so Art- as a clearly defined component of on-going and productive evolution of the Human Species.
    And to add God; the "sublime" into the mix....(!)

    ART
    and
    EVOLUTION
    and
    GOD

    viewed as completely separate entities in many if not most respects; all being actually just closely related perpetuates of the same end.
    THATS a freaking crazy thing to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, let's see, where do I begin my reply?

    I agree with your first premise about reaching a rational level of optimal output that can be mutually beneficial, even from a self-preservative standpoint. This idea, however, flies in the face of our current system of production, which is based on stimulating irrational desire as the driving engine of our economic prosperity--now to the point where we produce an artificial overabundance, which has an affect on everything from our health to our national foreign policy.

    This would also require either a much more tyrannical form of government to impose quotas from above or much more freedom of participation in the government (at least at a local level) that allows citizens through the public sphere to control the private one in order to have more control over their communities.

    As far as the possibility of using metaphysical oneness as a basis for mutual respect and peace, I find it to be too abstract to actually have an effect on the heart's of Men. Only nearness can create dearness, and, as Rousseau puts it, "we really only begin to be Men after having first been citizens...so-called cosmopolitans who, justifying their love of their country through their love of the human race, boast of loving the whole world so as to have the right to love no one at all."

    Love between Men has to start at the basest level before it can be extended to the rest of the world, unless you are willing to make some sort of religious claim, as you alluded to at the end, then I would say it is unfounded by what we can observe about Human Nature and psychology.

    And, finally, the Art, Evolution and God consortium...

    I definitely think that Art and its power to direct and refine the imagination and its correlating passions is our best hope. However, I don't believe that every-man, or just any-man is or can be an artist. They are persons of a higher rank and through their talent shape the world. I don't know about everyone else, but I for one and not willing to put that amount of power into the hands of just anyone. So in order to create a better world, we must therefore educate and produce better artists!

    ReplyDelete