Monday, September 3, 2012

Individualism and the Left: Reconstructing Individualism, A Review

In the book, Reconstructing Individualism, by Albrecht, one finds an interesting attempt by the left to redefine the concept. Although difficult to read, it is not well written, its portrays the mind of the left with some clarity.

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.