As we have entered a global economy, the belief in that hard work and success are virtues as measured by socioeconomic status is certainly not unique to America. What is unique to America is the believe that growth is sustainable. That belief must be challenged. New means to generate growth must be created in order to devise the most prudent, compassionate, and enduring civil liberties, communal well being, and social goods from which all benefit.
The two dominant strains of thought in the United States have historically been Calvinist and Jeffersonian. Reinhold Niebuhr writes about the resolution of potential conflicts of interest and power in the community, the strain of thought most perfectly expressed by James Madison combined Christian realism in the interpretation of human motives and desires with Jeffersons passion for liberty. The difference between Madison and Jefferson is symbolized in the distinction between the presuppositions of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States" (which Jefferson and Madison inspired).
Jefferson envisioned a harmonious society in which government would interfere as little as possible with the economic ambitions of the individual. He presumed these ambitions would be moderate and that satisfying them without friction with the neighbor would be guaranteed by the wide opportunities of the new continent.
Madison feared the potential tyranny of government as much as Jefferson; but he understood the need for government much more. The Constitution protects the citizen against abuses of government, not so much by keeping government weak as by introducing the principle of balance of power into government.
Madisons most persuasive arguments for a federal union was that a wide community would so diffuse interests and passions as to prevent the welter of political strife that plagues small communities. Some of our social peace must be accredited to the fluid class structure of American society. The American class structure will become more fixed and the stratification of wealth will only increase as we move toward the final limits of an expanding economy. The fluidity of the American class structure is primarily the consequence of a constantly expanding economy. How can Americans have the opportunity to jump levels of wealth if our government does not remain a democratic republic?
Common sense tells us that democracy itself prevents either the Jeffersonian or the Calvinist strategy from being carried through to its logical conclusion. The essence of each position contains a core truth; yet each position becomes false, precisely when it is carried through too consistently.
The element of truth in each creed is required to do full justice to each person's real situation. In theory, every healthy human being may transcend the social and historical process sufficiently to make it possible to contrive, deliberately, common ends of life, particularly of justice. Inadvertence and the coincidence of private desires one their own will not achieve common ends.
On the other hand, I believe we may simply be too immersed in the turbulence of interest and passion in history. If we survey the total process, it is is too short-term and limited to justify the endowment of any group or institution of planners with complete power. The disinterest of their idealism and the pretensions of their science is suspect. The controversy between those who plan justice and order and those who trust in freedom to establish it is irresolvable. This is a theme to which I return again and again. This belief underscores the difficulties of achieving an integrated self, as each individual is pulled by self interest and concern and concern for an interest in others. Every healthy society will live with that tension and will prove its health by preventing either side from gaining complete victory.
The Puritan attitude toward the expanding opportunities of American life were historically three elements of the situation, of which two were derived from the creed of our Founding Fathers, and the third from the environment, gradually changed The third element was that once the first hardships had been endured it became obvious that the riches of the New Continent promised remarkably high standards of well-being. These were accepted as uncovenanted mercies. As Niebuhr states in The Irony of American History:
"We live in a more comfortable and plentiful manner than ever we did expect. This confession exposes the lack of material motives among the first Puritans and their gratitude for the unexpected material favor of the new ecology. From that day forward, it has remained one of the most difficult achievements for our nation to recognize the the good fortune upon which our situation rests.
"If either moral pride or the spirit of rationalism tries to draw every element in an historic situation into rational coherence, and persuades us to establish a direct congruity between our good fortune and our virtue or skill we will inevitably claim more for our contribution to our prosperity that the facts warrant. This has remained a source of moral confusion in American life. From the later Puritans to the present day we have variously attributed American prosperity to our superior diligence, our greater skill or (more recently) to our more fervent devotion to the ideals of freedom. We thereby have complicated our spiritual problem for the days of adversity which we are bound to experience.
"In Calvinist thought prosperity as a mark of divine favor is closely related to the idea that it must be sought as part of a godly discipline of life. The thesis of Max Weber and Talcott Parsons thesis in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism was that the intra-mundane asceticism of Calvinism was responsible for creating the standards of diligence, honesty and thrift which lie at the foundation of our capitalistic culture. The descent from Puritanism to Yankee in America was a rapid one. Prosperity which had been sought in the service of God was now sought for its own sake.
"Jeffersonians believed prosperity and well-being should be sought as the basis of virtue. The Puritans regarded virtue as the basis of prosperity rather than prosperity as the basis of virtue. The fusion of these two forces created a preoccupation with the material circumstances of life which expressed a more consistent bourgeois ethos than that of even the most advanced nations of Europe."
In 1835 De Tocqueville wrote American preachers are constantly referring to the earth. ... To touch their congregations they always show them how favorable religious opinion is to freedom and public tranquility; and it is often difficult to ascertain from their discourses whether the principal object of religion is to obtain eternal felicity or prosperity in this world."
De Tocqueville contrasted the extroverted activities of our democracy with the purer culture of the more traditional world. In ascribing preoccupation with the material basis of life to democracy de Tocqueville may not do justice to all aspects of the issue but he does put his finger on an unsolved problem of our democracy.
The character of our particular democracy was founded on a vast continent, expanding culturally with a seemingly-endless expanding frontier. Certainly this character created new frontiers of opportunity when former geographic frontiers ended. We used to believe, implicitly, ethical and social problem of a just distribution of the privileges of life would be solved by increasing the privileges that make an equitable distribution easier, or which render a lack of equity less noticeable. In this abundance the least privileged members of the community are still privileged, compared with less wealthy members.
Yet our culture has paid a considerable price for improving social tensions by constantly expanding production. It has created illusions about the ease with which the optimization of interests of the individual and society can be made on a social basis. These illusions make our religious, our secular, our social, and our political theories sentimental. They have also created a culture which makes living standards the final norm of the good life.
What do you think? Is growth sustainable?
The two dominant strains of thought in the United States have historically been Calvinist and Jeffersonian. Reinhold Niebuhr writes about the resolution of potential conflicts of interest and power in the community, the strain of thought most perfectly expressed by James Madison combined Christian realism in the interpretation of human motives and desires with Jeffersons passion for liberty. The difference between Madison and Jefferson is symbolized in the distinction between the presuppositions of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States" (which Jefferson and Madison inspired).
Jefferson envisioned a harmonious society in which government would interfere as little as possible with the economic ambitions of the individual. He presumed these ambitions would be moderate and that satisfying them without friction with the neighbor would be guaranteed by the wide opportunities of the new continent.
Madison feared the potential tyranny of government as much as Jefferson; but he understood the need for government much more. The Constitution protects the citizen against abuses of government, not so much by keeping government weak as by introducing the principle of balance of power into government.
Madisons most persuasive arguments for a federal union was that a wide community would so diffuse interests and passions as to prevent the welter of political strife that plagues small communities. Some of our social peace must be accredited to the fluid class structure of American society. The American class structure will become more fixed and the stratification of wealth will only increase as we move toward the final limits of an expanding economy. The fluidity of the American class structure is primarily the consequence of a constantly expanding economy. How can Americans have the opportunity to jump levels of wealth if our government does not remain a democratic republic?
Common sense tells us that democracy itself prevents either the Jeffersonian or the Calvinist strategy from being carried through to its logical conclusion. The essence of each position contains a core truth; yet each position becomes false, precisely when it is carried through too consistently.
The element of truth in each creed is required to do full justice to each person's real situation. In theory, every healthy human being may transcend the social and historical process sufficiently to make it possible to contrive, deliberately, common ends of life, particularly of justice. Inadvertence and the coincidence of private desires one their own will not achieve common ends.
On the other hand, I believe we may simply be too immersed in the turbulence of interest and passion in history. If we survey the total process, it is is too short-term and limited to justify the endowment of any group or institution of planners with complete power. The disinterest of their idealism and the pretensions of their science is suspect. The controversy between those who plan justice and order and those who trust in freedom to establish it is irresolvable. This is a theme to which I return again and again. This belief underscores the difficulties of achieving an integrated self, as each individual is pulled by self interest and concern and concern for an interest in others. Every healthy society will live with that tension and will prove its health by preventing either side from gaining complete victory.
The Puritan attitude toward the expanding opportunities of American life were historically three elements of the situation, of which two were derived from the creed of our Founding Fathers, and the third from the environment, gradually changed The third element was that once the first hardships had been endured it became obvious that the riches of the New Continent promised remarkably high standards of well-being. These were accepted as uncovenanted mercies. As Niebuhr states in The Irony of American History:
"We live in a more comfortable and plentiful manner than ever we did expect. This confession exposes the lack of material motives among the first Puritans and their gratitude for the unexpected material favor of the new ecology. From that day forward, it has remained one of the most difficult achievements for our nation to recognize the the good fortune upon which our situation rests.
"If either moral pride or the spirit of rationalism tries to draw every element in an historic situation into rational coherence, and persuades us to establish a direct congruity between our good fortune and our virtue or skill we will inevitably claim more for our contribution to our prosperity that the facts warrant. This has remained a source of moral confusion in American life. From the later Puritans to the present day we have variously attributed American prosperity to our superior diligence, our greater skill or (more recently) to our more fervent devotion to the ideals of freedom. We thereby have complicated our spiritual problem for the days of adversity which we are bound to experience.
"In Calvinist thought prosperity as a mark of divine favor is closely related to the idea that it must be sought as part of a godly discipline of life. The thesis of Max Weber and Talcott Parsons thesis in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism was that the intra-mundane asceticism of Calvinism was responsible for creating the standards of diligence, honesty and thrift which lie at the foundation of our capitalistic culture. The descent from Puritanism to Yankee in America was a rapid one. Prosperity which had been sought in the service of God was now sought for its own sake.
"Jeffersonians believed prosperity and well-being should be sought as the basis of virtue. The Puritans regarded virtue as the basis of prosperity rather than prosperity as the basis of virtue. The fusion of these two forces created a preoccupation with the material circumstances of life which expressed a more consistent bourgeois ethos than that of even the most advanced nations of Europe."
In 1835 De Tocqueville wrote American preachers are constantly referring to the earth. ... To touch their congregations they always show them how favorable religious opinion is to freedom and public tranquility; and it is often difficult to ascertain from their discourses whether the principal object of religion is to obtain eternal felicity or prosperity in this world."
De Tocqueville contrasted the extroverted activities of our democracy with the purer culture of the more traditional world. In ascribing preoccupation with the material basis of life to democracy de Tocqueville may not do justice to all aspects of the issue but he does put his finger on an unsolved problem of our democracy.
The character of our particular democracy was founded on a vast continent, expanding culturally with a seemingly-endless expanding frontier. Certainly this character created new frontiers of opportunity when former geographic frontiers ended. We used to believe, implicitly, ethical and social problem of a just distribution of the privileges of life would be solved by increasing the privileges that make an equitable distribution easier, or which render a lack of equity less noticeable. In this abundance the least privileged members of the community are still privileged, compared with less wealthy members.
Yet our culture has paid a considerable price for improving social tensions by constantly expanding production. It has created illusions about the ease with which the optimization of interests of the individual and society can be made on a social basis. These illusions make our religious, our secular, our social, and our political theories sentimental. They have also created a culture which makes living standards the final norm of the good life.
What do you think? Is growth sustainable?
SHARE
