Self-reliance Reveries

Discussion in 'Politics Discussion' started by Consider This, Jun 12, 2017.

  1. Consider This

    Consider This Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2016
    Posts:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Emerson’s 1841 essay Self-Reliance is an iconic classic of American thought. In it he asserts, among other things, the importance of transcending mere conformity and false consistency. He urges us instead to follow our inner compass. His ideal has survived, at least for many Americans, for over 175 years.

    Of course self-reliance in some form is an important issue in all societies. But it is the individualist cultures of the West that place it front and center. And among those Western peoples none fetishize self-reliance more than Americans.

    This is undoubtedly a function of the American backstory. The quest for religious liberty that drew some of the earliest settlers. The quest for economic and political self-determination that helped spawn the republic. And of course the quest for radically different lives, crafted from whole cloth, that motivated millions of immigrants and wilderness pioneers.

    I would label Emerson’s concept as primarily “existential” self-reliance: that is, taking personal responsibility for one’s beliefs, values, life choices and goals. But there are also other versions, including the more mundane concept of “economic” self-reliance. That is, taking responsibility for making a living, and for coping with the practical details of life. People are self-reliant in this sense when they earn their own money and navigate related daily challenges on their own initiative.

    Self-reliance is closely tied to conceptions of liberty or freedom. As discussed by various scholars, this includes both “negative liberty”, or freedom from constraints imposed by others, and “positive liberty”, or having the capacity and resources to act upon one’s will. If you wish to buy something and the government allows it, you have negative liberty. If you also have money for and access to the product, you have positive liberty as well.

    Self-reliance bears crucially on the issue of social cohesion. Nowhere is this summed up more succinctly than in this famous quote from Bertrand Russel: “Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conquest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes cooperation impossible.”

    In my view this is the central question of political philosophy. We must have society, we’re built for it. We must also have independence; we’re built even more decisively for that. The question is, how far can we move away from cooperation with others and still maintain society? Borrowing a metaphor from our cell phones, where do we set the switch on the social cohesion slider?

    In the U.S. leftists place their emphasis on existential self-reliance, on increasing both negative and positive liberty so persons can choose their own beliefs, values, and lifestyles. Conservatives, on the other hand, stress more economic self-reliance, recommending reductions in welfare, taxes, and business regulations. Libertarians (in Europe more often known as Liberals) emphasize both goals, although in the existential realm they countenance only negative liberty.

    Leftists and Conservatives tune the social cohesion slider in different ways. Leftists balance the divisiveness of non-traditional choices with the bonds of an economic safety net. Conservatives balance the constraints of tradition and religion with the freedom of the lone entrepreneur. And Libertarians? Admittedly, in their case there is not much balancing of the slider. It is set as far as feasible to the independence pole. This has led some, including the current author, to wonder if they flirt too much with the societal dissolution referenced by Russel.

    To add to the complexity, self-reliance as a concept is fraught with irony. It’s something most of us want, at least most of the time, and yet its very existence is impossible to demonstrate. What we find when we examine the social evidence is a web of interconnection, not the emptiness of isolation. No one ever relies solely on herself. Ever. But be careful when pointing this out. People are touchy about self-reliance. The phrase carries implications of courage, maturity, and tenacity. Those who are not self-reliant can be seen as cowardly, or childish, or lazy. Or perhaps all three. It is one of our most inflammatory moral issues.

    So here are the perils in our self-reliance wars: Most of us want this thing, yet it seems to be a myth. We all claim to know what it is, but in fact we use the term in very different ways, and we often don’t acknowledging those differences. Furthermore we are extremely sensitive on the subject, and bitterness frequently ensues. Finally, how much we attempt to promote this debatable, divisive thing is literally a matter of life and death. Too little and the society strangles on authority; too much and it dissolves in anomie.

    What could go wrong?
     
  2. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    As someone who lives in the US, I would caution anyone from trying to generalize too much and pigeonhole people.

    We are a complex and highly diverse country of 50 separate states that are almost like their own little countries. And even among each of those 50 states, we are far from homogeneous.

    I live in a city in the deep south that is about 50/50 black/white. I live in a very affluent neighborhood where everyone is a homeowner and the average household income is 6 figures, but I can drive a couple of miles into neighborhoods that are quite poor and consist of mostly modest rental homes and apartment complexes.

    I can go to other fairly large cities in my state that are similar in size to mine that are 50, 100, 200+ miles away from my own that are very different from mine. Some cities in the US that are relatively close together are often practically like they're on different planets.

    Not all US southerners live up to the largely inaccurate stereotypes - many of us don't wear cowboy hats and boots, don't drive pickup trucks, and don't live on farms - not that there is anything at all wrong with any of those things.

    And not all US southerners are uneducated, inbred, racist, klansmen, rednecks, etc who marry our siblings and cousins the way much of the US left and many foreigners assume.

    I consider myself to be conservative on matters such as the Constitution, economics and national defense... and for the federal government to be limited in size and function.

    I'm also pretty libertarian on social issues and whatnot. I am not religious. Not all Republicans are evangelicals, and not all evangelicals are Republican. I know many dems who are "blue dog" social conservatives and evangelical Christians.

    Many American leftists have gotten far away from the "classical liberalism" - today's classical liberals in the US such as myself tend to be libertarians and even more conservative. Many US leftists are no longer "liberal".

    The US democrat party has largely gone far left in the last 8 years, and is more fascist than many realize. Many of them only believe in "liberty" and that "persons can choose their own beliefs, values, and lifestyles." ONLY if that liberty and those "choices" are in line with what the left believes to be politically correct.

    Many of today's US leftists seem to despise Christians, whites, Jews, Republicans, heterosexuals, business people, US southerners, etc (even among themselves)... while they embrace islamists (even the radicals who want to kill them) and see them as "victims", since the US is supposedly the bad guy who causes those people to behave in those ways.

    The US leftists also tend to worship entertainers, democrat politicians, and even brutal socialist dictators such as the Castros, Chavez, et al - supposedly because those dictators "took care of" their people by providing them "free" (but of course poor quality) education, healthcare, food, etc.
     
  3. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    As far as self-reliance, many US leftists have come to believe that the federal government should provide everything for them, and that it should all be "free" - not realizing the impracticality and negative consequences of such a system.

    Some on the left often like to remind those of us who want less government in our lives that "we didn't build that" - that government infrastructure "paved the way"... But of course it's the taxes we pay that provide the existence of such a government and the resources needed for such infrastructure to be put into place in the first place.

    Many on the left don't want equal opportunity - they wan't guaranteed equal OUTCOMES.
     

Share This Page