Individualism as a concept suffers from a lack of consistent definition. In this book by Albrecht it is impossible to find any definition, especially of what he seems to call classic individualism. The intent of the work one gathers is to “reconstruct individualism” along the lines of Emerson, Dewey et al using a pragmatic bent most likely according to James. Strange choice to build a view of individualism upon, for at best Emerson looks at the individual in an inward sense, along the lines of being true to yourself and Dewey was in effect a Marxist in his world view, having been a member of the Defense team for Trotsky in his trial resulting with the break with Stalin. Thus even incorporating Dewey stretches the view of Individualism to an extreme, for even Dewey in his works on Individualism demonstrates at best contempt, and in his Sophist way often redefines his form in a manner disjoint from any Individualism coming from past thinkers.
The book argues that “our conceptions of individualism have
remained trapped within the assumptions of classic liberalism…” The author then
presents what he considers a reinterpreted individualism, called reconstructing
individualism, by examining the works of Emerson, James, Dewey and Ralph
Ellison. As I am familiar most with the first three, my comments shall be
limited to his observations thereto.
Let me start on p. 1. The author states “America has a
love-hate with individualism.” From this point on I have a problem, for the
author never seems to directly define what he means. Individualism has had an
ever changing set of concepts and constructs. One can argue, as does the
Marxist Meiksins-Wood, in Citizens to Lords p 226, that one of the first
individualists was Ockham, focusing both around his arguments regarding nominalism
as well as his opposition to the Avignon papacy. The Ockham school of
individualism is also best explained by McGrade in the volume by Tierney and
Linehan, Authority and Power; p. 149-165.
Individualism has many faces, not just the Lockean view or
that of the Scottish enlightenment. The quote on the last page by de
Tocqueville, wherein he criticizes individualism as he observed it was best
analyzed by Schleifer in his work The Making of de Tocqueville’s Democracy in
America, pp 305-322. Simply the Schleifer argument therein is that de
Tocqueville was reacting more to the change and threats in French society and
failed to adequately understand the American view. American individualism, in
the early 19th century, was note one of an isolated self-reliance
but one where the associations noted by de Tocqueville managed to assist
communities and individuals. It was no a society of separation but one of
association and cooperation.
Thus one is somewhat amazed by the title of the first
chapter, “Individualism has never been tried” since it not only was but became
the very foundation of the American spirit for a long period of time.
Thus the main critique is the lack of definition, especially
with any clarity, of what the author means by individualism. The argument he
makes is somewhat sophist in approach by incrementally alleging elements which
he then rejects.
On p 8 he speaks of Dewey’s democracy as community. Dewey
was anything but an individualist. The essence of is educational philosophy was
a centralized and common core of basic education. For example, Dewey was often
in mortal combat with the Catholic Church in New York City since the Church had
an education system disjoint from what Dewey wanted. Dewey vehemently opposed the
Church’s parochial schools. Dewey in so opposing any alternative was then
effectively rejecting any attempt at individualism. He sought standards, standards
that he and a select few would establish, to create a homogenized America.
Before continuing, again on p 8 the author describes what he
calls a broad set of assumptions common to the four individuals whose work he
intends to integrate. The first is an example of the style throughout:
“A pluralistic metaphysics that analyzes human activity,
truth, power, and value as emerging and existing only within and against the
limitations of specific conditions.”
Now frankly I have read this several dozen times, I have
even tried to diagram the sentence. It makes no sense. Give it a try. Each word
is a known term but placing them in this order seems to lead to an un-interpretable
collection of words.
The most telling element of the text is in Endnote 2 on p
312 where the author attempts to demonstrate the pragmatic individualism of the
current president while criticizing without any comment the opposing party. The
key rule in writing documents which would stand the test of time is not to put
such statements in the document. One now clearly understands the intent of the
author to be the justification of the administration in power at the time of
the writing and thus it may readily call into question the intellectual
substance in view of the blatant political nexus.
Now Chapter 1 is dealing with interpreting Emerson as a
Pragmatist, an interesting interpretation. On p 26 the author provides a
reasonable overview of the philosophy of Emerson. On p 31 the author constructs
a nexus between Emerson and William James, the son of a family friend and the
prime mover of the American pragmatism movement. The evolution in pragmatic
thought and the reification of religious thought can be readily seen in the
progression from Emerson to James to Dewey. Emerson was clearly a product of
the growing sense of American separatism, his speech at Harvard announcing the
break with Europe was in a way the temporal instant in which the split was
recognized, American was to “think” and thus act on its own, relying no longer
on what Europe what to proffer. Thus in a sense the break that Emerson was
creating even between his Universalism, anti-Trinitarian views, and the
beginning of pragmatism are patched together by the author in this chapter. On
p 36 there is a telling phrase when the author states:
“Here I depart from the assessment of Charles Mitchell, who
concludes that James “wanted to make use of Emerson, not make sense of him, and
his method was to mine Emerson for the valuable insights…” …James did conclude
that Emerson’s voicing of monist and pluralist perspective revealed a lack of
consistency…However … James went further … to “make sense” of the conflict
between Emerson’s monism and his pluralism.”
The issue may very well be at the
heart of Pragmatism as explored by the author, a reasonable nexus between
Emerson and James.
Chapter 2 deals with the individualism of Emerson. On p 55
the authors struggles with the issue of Emerson’s individualism. He states:
“Emerson’s individualism reflect is attempt to articulate
an ethics commensurate with a world of limitation and power.”
Now as with many other statements I did have some difficulty
here with what seems to be said. If this is an attempt to describe, define,
delimit the “ethics” or behavior norms of society, a society which exists in a
world with well-defined limits of wealth, goods, etc and a world controlled by
power, namely a few who exert control over the many, then Emerson may have done
so, albeit with limited success. On p 56 the author again continues this
discussion as he discusses the essays of Emerson. On p 57 the author also
discusses the idealism of Emerson, as a real practice of ethical and practical
behavior.
On p 67 the author states:
“…Emerson contends that individuality can only be
realized in a social context …. that the interaction between the individual and
society must allow for the nourishment and growth of individuals most vital
talents”
Classic individualism as seen in the time period would not
disagree with this. Somehow the individualism used as the straw target of the
author is some isolationism, a Thoreau like separatism at Walden, rather than
just what was said, an ability to allow each to maximize their talents within a
flexible community.
On p. 70 the author uses the classic quote from Emerson on “Self
Reliance” where he compares the Harvard dandy to the New Hampshire back
woodsman. The Harvard dandy fails and thus never gets the next chance but the
New Hampshire lad, despite lack of a great education, through individual drive
and fortitude succeeds again and again. In a close reading one sees the dandy
with his large “community” of friends and advocates, suffers an early and
permanent failure, but the lad from New Hampshire with no more that his own “self-reliance’
never sees a failure. This is both consistent with individualism yet the author
seems hard pressed to take it for what it says.
Chapter 3 begins the pragmatism of William James. Overall
his presentation of James flows well as does his discussion of James’ view of
individualism.
Chapter 4 is on Dewey, and here one may have some concern.
Dewey was a complex person who was often at odds with the institutions which he
was involved with, like his departure from Chicago, as well as his somewhat
alienated location at Columbia. He was a strong supporter of Marxist causes,
although not an outright Communist, he also was a key player in the general
attitude of gross anti-Catholicism rampant at Columbia. To even try to say
Dewey was in any way and individualist would at best be a stretch. Yes, there
is a nexus to James, a sense of pragmatism in his philosophy, and his approach
to epistemology was reasonable for its time, his political views, and
individualism is as political as it is philosophical, is nowhere like what one
would accept as true individualism.
On p 192 the author states:
“…Dewey is critical for understanding how pragmatism
allows, and indeed requires, us to reconceive individualism. Of all the writers
considered in the current study, Dewey articulates the most comprehensive
critique of classic liberal individualism, as well as the most systematic
argument why a reconstructed individualism is not merely compatible with, but
essential to, a democratic ideal of community.”
This is truly a powerful statement and most telling. Yes
indeed Dewey is a pragmatist, no one would deny that, but he is also in many
ways a communitarian. The Dewey ideal of community would reject any form of
individualism, it is more akin to Marxism, the individual disappears and the
class remains. Nominalism would be rejected in this class based society, class
as a conforming group not as a separatist set of associations. The author talks
on p. 194 of a "trial by experience”. Indeed, individualism as exhibited
in an entrepreneurial society, one where individuals are allowed to risk and if
successful obtain rewards, as individuals, would in Dewey’s sense be subsumed
into a group, a national pool of contributors to the whole.
On p 195 the author states:
“Dewey’s transactional model of selfhood leads him to reject
the tired dualism of “individual” versus “institutional” approaches to reform,
insisting instead that reform requires both the remaking of social conditions
so as to instill new habits of individuality and the necessary role that
individual imagination and choice play in so remaking social conditions.”
In a sense Dewey always saw “’society” as something moldable
and the individual first fitting in that remolded society. One need just read
Individualism Old and New by Dewey to fully understand his societal group think
view.
Chapter 5 is about Dewey and reconstructing individualism. The
bottom of p 245 has a most interesting statement:
“At the same time, the fact that an increasingly
collective system of production has remained tied to an outdated system of
individual property has alienated the vast majority of workers from meaningful
control over and understanding the larger ends that direct their labor, thereby
stripping their individuality of socially integrated meaning.”
This seems to be a Marxist view; society composed of
classes, workers deprived of their due, and the individual must be subsumed
under the integrated working class. The individual cannot exist except in the
group of a socially properly structure society. This is hardly individualism as
we understand it.
Then on p. 260 he states:
“An individualism that had at its core this goal of
effective liberty and equality would seek, above all, to create social
conditions that would afford all persons an equal opportunity to participate in
the associated activities through which individual’s capacities are educated
and liberated. So conceived, “individualism” describes an integral component of
democracy considered as a way of life or the ideal community…”
This is total rejection of individualism and an acceptance
of communitarian like systems. The author continues at length on p 261 a
detailed discussion of this point. He believes society must structure the
organizations to support individuals. He states:
“In an American context, be it Dewey’s of the 1930s or
ours of today. proposals involving a significant degree of socialism are in
danger of being pigeonholed, dismissed or vilified.”
Yes, because socialism is the very antithesis of
individualism, of entrepreneurial societies, allowing free and open creative
opportunities. I believe that here the author takes a clear and unambiguous position.
Chapter 6 deals with Ellison which I shall leave to the
reader since I have no insight to him at all.
Now if one desires to understand individualism one need read
many works which are available including Hayek, to name one. This book is in
reality a socialist’s view of what they would like individualism to become; it
in no way describes individualism.
Posts
