Overcoming Fear and Getting to a Better Place
Lately, I’ve seen multiple mentions of Robert Putnam’s 2000 book Bowling Alone. His thesis then, apparently recently revived, was that major structural changes to American society over the last half-century have combined to reduce civic participation, and overall value of social interaction. Technology (for him, television) played a role, as did the changing economic structure of the country, suburbanization, and various other dimensions of social change. Growing inequality was not a primary concern for Putnam but does seem today to underscore much of our preoccupation with loss of community and growing social isolation. I think we have now split into two mutually hostile ideological camps: the Libertarian individualists vs. the Communitarian power builders.
Distrust lies at the root of their conflict. Looking at the elements of social trust — what enhances it, what limits it — Libertarian individualists believe that free choice is the key. In economics, that means market supremacy, neoliberalism; whereas the Communitarian power builder wants to build ever larger “circles of trust,” continually expanding borders of what we call our “community,” coupled with a high degree of social support. Not just real events, but our perception of those events, determine which camp we inhabit.
The default position of the individualist toward all social interaction is that if the other person is a stranger, you must ask yourself what are their motivations in interacting with you? Yes, some level of trust may be established with certain specific others, after much continued interaction with them – but it doesn’t come easily! Hence, immediate family, or other residents of your town, or members of your church, will be the first rungs on the trust ladder. On the other hand, the power builder cares less about the motivations of the other, and dwells more on the opportunities potentially unleashed by this interaction. Note that self-interest lies behind both individualist and power builder. In this model, the power builder is more active (assertive), the individualist more passive (wary). But there is another model for social interaction: the individualists may be seen as defiant (of social norms) in their dedication to free choice, while the power builders may be the schemers (manipulative) in their employment of organizing through superior social skills. Here is where the two camps may be at loggerheads – clearly signaling political and social polarization.
Whichever model you choose, and there are likely others in between, it’s clear that overcoming fears associated with social interaction is beneficial to society. It’s equally clear that a certain level of social support must discourage exploitative behavior by some manipulators, perhaps through laws. Getting to a better place requires increasing the level of security we all feel. Why are institutional social groupings losing their grip? Surely, technology itself cannot be the cause. (Even the Luddites are now interpreted as smashing those looms not because they believed something evil about the mechanization, but because they understood ownership of that capital was not theirs.) There must be something else stoking our fears.
Does it start in childhood? Was there something wrong, even decadent, in the mid-century American norms of childrearing? This might explain social isolation for Boomers and Gen-Xers. But popular concern now is directed more at Gen-Z and the Alphas to follow. We always fret about our kids, and what we will leave them. Where are we leading them? … And who will they become? My two Millennial sons both seem to be experiencing the sort of anomie first articulated by Emile Durkheim more than 100 years ago. I, their Boomer dad, do not feel the same sense – although I do confess to an age-related diminishment of social interaction. (Retirement has been rather isolating for me). Robert Putnam had no concrete answers to Durkheim in Bowling Alone, but we can clearly see that anomie all around us. Writing off youth addiction to social media, games and vertical videos as the fault of technology seems pointless; as it was with TV a couple of generations ago. Perhaps that post-war childrearing ethos was more about overconfidence in what we now see as Libertarian individualism: less belief by our own parents in communitarian activity. Bowling Alone’s thesis has now carried over to multiple younger generations; to the point where we’re left with only a vague fanciful image of the society we used to have – the one portrayed by Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Of course, it’s highly questionable that world ever existed – even when Frank Capra directed those films. But the important thing is that people believed in them, even aspired to that world. By the time Thomas Piketty wrote his magisterial Capital in the 21st Century (2013), the historical epoch following Capra’s work had taken the name, “Les Trentes Glorieuses”. Thirty glorious postwar years of lessening inequality due to fantastic economic growth in the Western world, with succeeding generations of kids brought up to believe in it. But those thirty glorious years faded with the Millennial generation – my kids – and much commentary revolves around how succeeding generations have it even worse! So, where do we go from here? Growth, trust, fulfillment in personal relationships, all seem to weigh heavily on today’s youth. Not that we old folks are necessarily so much better off in those areas (although we do probably control more material wealth).
If the main problem now is that many of the old social institutions have fallen into decline or disrepair, then we should look to those Communitarian power builders to either revitalize them or build new institutions. If the problem is, instead, one where the world is becoming less safe – think pandemics, nuclear weapons, climate change – then the Libertarian individualists may have the last word, toward wariness and caution. Their project is suspicion of establishment norms – even to the point of being reactionary. As one who prefers the communitarian bent, I can usually persuade myself to find some common ground between the two camps (I call it compromise). It seems to me the resolution of the conflict lies in politics, but perhaps politics is, itself, solely a communitarian interest. If I were a true Libertarian individualist, I would likely avoid politics because I didn’t trust the politicians, but then I’d be paying the price of my individualism with social isolation, hence powerlessness. At least that’s the way it looks from my mostly communitarian world view. Where do you belong?
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 