Sunday, December 11, 2011

A Sense of the Collective Self

A SENSE OF THE COLLECTIVE SELF


By


Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate





“Cogito ergo sum”
Rene’ Descartes

Who are we? Where do we belong?
The French philosopher, Rene’ Descartes, set the stage for answers to these questions in 1637 when he proposed “Cogito ergo sum”. The English translation is “I think therefore I am”. Because we think, the above two identity questions will be answered in different ways depending on changes in the social, economic and physical environments.
Arguably since Amerigo Vespucci sailed to a new continent, the name “American” has identified an inhabitant of the northern part of that then unknown continent. Today a more legal description is “Citizen of the United States”, or “United States Citizen”; however, the single word “American” is most often used in common discourse.
America was proudly known as a “melting pot” where legal immigrants shared a common goal to become Americans. For the most part the place in the world where they originated was Europe but the land of freedom where they chose to live was America. Americans were ambitious, industrious and self-reliant with a belief that you own what you earn. Honor was a central virtue and Americans were optimistic and anticipated a bright future. They established a federal republic system of government that was more Jeffersonian with power vested in the people and states as opposed to the statist strong central government advocated by Alexander Hamilton. Americans lived in a country governed by a Constitution based on the enlightened thinking of the framers of the Constitution who reversed the traditional European hereditary kingship model of statist government by empowering the individual collectively as “the people” at the top of the pyramid.
This sense of the “collective self”changed with the election of Franklin Roosevelt who promised “a chicken in every pot” and increased federal employment opportunities to counteract the ravages of the Great Depression. His actions resulted in a social, paternalistic welfare state at the expense of social and economic liberty. As the federal government assumed ever increasing power during the New Deal, the roles of the states and individuals decreased. Thus began the characteristics of the entitlement mentality and the concept of the statist welfare state.
Prosperity slowly returned following World War II and a period of relatively comfortable living began that culminated with, as Alan Greenspan described, “irrational exuberance” that led to the Great Recession. This exuberance was evident in the social as well as economic aspects of life. Social Science and History teachers began teaching that Americans were “multicultural” and that the concept of a “melting pot” society was passé. Black citizens saw themselves as Black or African-Americans. And in 1988 Jesse Jackson led the move to institutionalize the official term, “Black-American” because “It puts us in our proper historical perspective”. Thus began the use of the “hyphenated-American”; e.g., Black-American, African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, etc. As an aside, it is interesting to note there are no White-Americans, European-Americans, German-Americans, English-Americans or Dutch-Americans, etc.
Living the life of irrational exuberance came to a jarring end with the Great Recession in 2007. President Barack Obama modeled Roosevelt by increasing the direct involvement of the federal government in the everyday lives of hyphenated-Americans. Statism ran amok with a veritable alphabet soup of entitlement programs leading to expectations followed by demands for ever increasingassistance from the welfare state.
As I write this in November, 2011 civil strife has spread around the world and demands for economic and social change have become more vocal and confrontational.America is not immune as evidenced by the so-called “Occupy”movement of the 99% “have-nots” versus the 1% “haves”. Current events are ripe for another Kent State tragedy where demonstrators were met with live ammunition. And the stage is being set for a potential civil war between schizophrenic hyphenated-American identity groups and other Americans.
According to a late Summer, 2011 Times/Money poll 60+ percent of respondents were pessimistic government officials would be able to spur economic growth. And more than 50+ percent were pessimistic about the next twelve months. Traditional American values of one nation and one flag are challenged daily. Previously cherished values of honor, self-reliance, independence, collective optimism, hard work, taking responsibility for our actions and the “we are Americans, let’s get it done” attitude are being replaced by an entitlement mentality nourished by statism plus an emphasis on social, racial and national identities. These changes are not free. They come at the tremendous expense of the loss of local control and personal, social and economic liberty.
Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am.

5 comments:

  1. I agree that this country has become “multicultural” in the sense that new arrivals retain more ties with their homelands than did previous generations. My own Irish grandparents never spoke much about the old country and had contact only through occasional letters…there was never a question of visiting back and forth. Nowadays, though, people have cheap airfares and phone cards, satellite tv and instant access to news of their homelands through the internet, so they can and do retain more interest and ties. This has its advantages and disadvantages, as you can readily see if you go to a place like Brighton Beach, Brooklyn…no need to learn English there, because you can get along quite nicely with only Russian. I don’t think this makes them less American, though. If they didn’t want to be part of this country, they wouldn’t be here, and you can’t say previous generations wouldn’t have taken advantage of these new opportunities. As far as I am concerned, being American means being free—to embrace completely the traditions of your new homeland, whatever they might be, to maintain some kind of identity connected with your point of origin, to salute the flag, to give the flag the finger, whatever you want to do as long as it’s not illegal and you pay your taxes.
    On the question of an “entitlement” mentality, I can’t imagine returning to the Darwinian landscape of the l9th century. Social Security and Medicare guarantee that people of modest means can enjoy a decent retirement, and they make for greater stability in society. I don’t think people begrudge high earners, for example, if they themselves have the chance for a reasonably comfortable life and a reasonable expectation that their children might do better than they did. Historically, a social safety net has proved to be a bulwark against radicalism. Wilhelmine Germany understood that, so did Victorian Britain, but late imperial Russia didn’t, and you saw the results of that lack of awareness. Similarly, I think Europe’s generous social benefits scheme is directly attributable to the circumstances that made Hitler possible in depression-era Germany. To paraphrase President Kennedy, those who make peaceful revolution, or a decent life, impossible, make violent revolution or conflict inevitable.
    On the question of “hyphenation,” or embracing one’s ethnic identity, I don’t view that as a bad thing…I think that honoring individual ethnic groups is a way of making people feel welcome and acknowledged in this big, impersonal and occasionally overwhelming country. For African-Americans, if celebrating their heritage, those individuals who succeeded here despite the damaging legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, makes modern life better, so much the better. If there’s one way in which America truly is exceptional, it’s in managing diversity…

    cogito, ergo sum.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Buckarooskidoo is an appropriate alias for a PHS alum.
    I appreciate and respect your thoughts and the way you expressed them.
    Do I understand correctly you prefer the “multicultural” emphasis rather than the “melting pot” process that resulted in the Americans who fulfilled the “shining city on a hill” ideal? I believe you do even though you write that “….being an American means being free –to embrace completely the traditions of your new homeland.” In the same sentence you say it is OK “…to give the flag the finger”. Would you also accept; e.g., stomping on the flag, burning the flag, ripping the flag in pieces, raising another country’s flag above the flag of the United States and/or refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? I believe your position is that those, and other similar actions, are OK “as long as it’s not illegal and you pay your taxes.”
    Might it be that the characteristics of an American are internal and rooted in the psyche, and are deep seated attitudinal beliefs that result in actions that are characteristic of a true American? It is clear from our respective positions that we must agree to disagree. You write in the last sentence that “If there’s one way in which America truly is exceptional it’s in managing diversity….”. IMHO, we rapidly are losing our historic American exceptionalism as a direct result of a typical 60’s “let me be me” attitude that is encouraged by multiculturalism.
    Cogito, ergo sum.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim, out from under cover, it's Brigit...glad to see you've debuted as a blogger. I've got one, too, but I use it primarily for classes since i can't stand the online course management system they have at school.

    i DO think it's okay, though not desirable, to burn the flag and engage in similar conduct, just because i've spent time in places where the leaders are so paranoid and insecure and narcissistic that they impose draconian punishments for people who express their distaste in that manner. I'm all for anything that distinguishes us from Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. at the same time, i don't advocate that type of behavior, nor would I engage in it myself, because it's extremism, and i very much dislike extremism. If i had to characterize myself, i'd say I'm a radical moderate. of course, my late, great grad advisor, Mrs. Jelavich, called stances like that "wishy-washy!"

    And yes, I think I'm basically laissez-faire, "let me be me" in my relations with this culture and society, except, interestingly enough, in academia, where i would love to see a strict, well-balanced curriculum with pre-requisites, a thorough grounding in WESTERN culture and WESTERN institutions before people go off to their microspecializations and enclaves. I recall as a kid being enchanted with the idea of kids dictating the curriculum, demanding and getting Big Changes, etc. Now that I am on the other side of the podium, my motto is, "the inmates should NOT run the asylum," and "get out of my office!" with talk like "tear down the walls."

    We will definitely agree to disagree, but we might find more common ground than we think! In any case, i will stay tuned...I've got you bookmarked.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PS, thank you very much for providing me an excuse to put grading down for a short while!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jimmie, love it.
    Kirk

    ReplyDelete