A Movement of Many

Madame:

Thank you for the good wishes.  I am back in whatever form readers feel I usually am (top, middle, askew, sideways, curmudgeonly?).  But I too shared the frustration of having the time to read and think—and having the physical disposition to do neither.

I am following a bit better what you mean on use of pioneer/frontier thought in American political speech.  Some work has been done, although primarily in relation to the notion of American exceptionalism (and its corresponding historical antecedent of “manifest destiny,”  or, as others would put it, American imperialism).  Richard Etulain did an examination in the 1990s.  James Ceaser (yes, that is spelled correctly) also had a relatively recent piece in the American Political Thought journal.  The Frontier Lab is an organization actively promoting such talk in the political lexicon (and founded long after Kennedy’s New Frontier vision, by the way).  Slatta’s work last decade on rugged individualism and how it is popularized in our culture and speech (and how we resist its questioning) may also have relevance in comparisons of frontier violence, rugged individualized justice, etc. and our mass shootings recurrences.   However, I’m not well-versed enough to know how extensive any work is, or what the present state (if any) of academic research is on the focus area you have outlined.  Your questions are pertinent.  Attention PhD prospects!  A possible dissertation thesis!

“Army of one” was a typical Army screwup.  It was supposed to be “Army of ONE,” meaning Officer, NCO, Enlisted, the three types of soldiers, but that was lost quickly, and even if it had remained, would still have confused the potential recruit (who would have presumably had little or no understanding of all that).  

Your words on the effects of isolation—and the implications—describe well the travails of our hyper-individualized society.   Those who are intense Facebook-philes mayhap should take heed.  Isolation and hyper individualism are also major contributing factors to the confirmation bias you note.

Your thoughts on the millenials: Let’s hope that is both the good trend and the results of that trend.  I like that gradual transformation better than the one that has been necessary to effect too many past transformations: calamity/tragedy/suffering.

How to avoid groupthink and rigid conformity in the achieving, you ask?  Perhaps we should look to the elves of fantasy (and possibly their real-life inspirations, the Finns) to see how to have both individual freedom and yet a sense of communal responsibility.

I am as hopeful as you that the trend toward smaller and more sustainable is long-lasting.  A question: What will all the industries—housing, mortgage, furnishing, remodeling, etc.—do when their prey are both no longer abundant and unwilling to expose themselves?

If those industries’ greed—or rather the results of their greed—end up hoisting them on their own petards, lovers of poetic justice may rejoice.

Of course, that doesn’t address what has—in many respects of the word—already been effectively stolen…

KISS

Professor J,

Hope you are feeling more like yourself again. The thing that made me the maddest when I was sick was that I finally had time to lounge around and read but my feverish brain couldn't focus on anything. Frustrating!

Today, in order not to overwhelm you, with more stuff to respond to, I'm keeping it simple.  This time of year I am in the mood to simplify. I cleaned out my clothes closet and pantry this week. It's always shocking to see how much can be accumulated and I'm not even a heavy shopper. Not surprisingly simplifying is one of those routine resolutions we make annually.

But it's becoming more than just a yearly personal challenge. I've noticed lately that in the media and among friends, the question of how much is enough and whether or not we could live with less is reaching a kind of tipping point. The attitude is less "can we do without some of this stuff?"  and more wouldn't we really be happier without some of this stuff?"

You and I discussed a few years back (that just sounds weird) the economic downturn and the likelihood that it would impact people's long term behavior. At the time we were talking specifically about debt and if we thought people had learned any lessons they'd been be applying to life after the recovery. But the learning to let go of material things, and order our lives in a way that is healthier, and simpler is apparently another side effect. Google "tiny houses" for images of just how small people are going. It's inspiring. They are not only tiny but affordable and sustainable. Only time will tell if it's a fad or if we are really moving past consumerism as a life style.

Here's a link to the Tiny House Blog. 

Classic

Professor J,

I do hope you are feeling better. I often wonder when I'm really ill, as I was recently, if our bodies don't just decide we've pushed them too far and they are going to stop us in our tracks, smack us in bed, and finally get the rest they need whether we think we have time for it or not.

I am reading Dale Carnegie's classic, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living. A friend actually gave it to me to give to my daughter, a chronic worrier, but I thought I'd read it before passing it on. I am always interested in how when I'm thinking about certain ideas I seem to encounter information from unlikely sources related to it. Kind of like when you've visited a city and then it seems to suddenly be mentioned everywhere. I always wonder if the universe is bringing me information to connect ideas I'm thinking about, or if I'm just paying attention to certain ideas and then I notice them. Perhaps both.

As I was reading the book I ran across this:

"...If a man will devote his time to securing facts in an impartial, objective way, his worries will usually evaporate in the light of knowledge.'

But what do most of us do? If we bother with facts at all--and Thomas Edison said in all seriousness, 'There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the labor of thinking'--if we bother with facts at all, we hunt like bird dogs after the facts that bolster up what we already think--and ignore all the others! We want only the facts that justify our acts--the facts that fit in conveniently with our wishful thinking and justify our preconceived prejudices!

As Andre Maurois put it: 'Everything that is in agreement with our personal desires seems true. Everything else puts us into a rage."

An early description of confirmation bias.

Our best thinking is done when we put our emotions aside but sadly the Maurois quote seems to pinpoint accurately the kind of "thinking" that is being done all around us. Some things it seems just never change. 

Another Maurois quote: "We appreciate frankness from those who like us. Frankness from others is called insolence."

Well, now. Isn't that the truth!:)

Speedy recovery, my friend! 

Going Around

Dear Readers,

We hope you are well, because our dear professor is not. I'll be posting tomorrow in his stead. Stay warm, everyone and wash your hands...and get well soon, Professor J!

Farewell, Pioneers Part II

Professor J,

As usual your nitpicking has made me think deeper about my ideas. I always find myself mentally clarifying, detailing things you've misunderstood, or backtracking on this or that because you've found an error in my thinking. Honing my thinking over and over. All of which are some of the reasons why I keep showing up. :)

But allow me a clarification: I'm sure the original inhabitants of this country would take issue with much of my phraseology and underlying ideas. I was however speaking to a particularly "American" idea and way of thinking that is ingrained deeply not as to whether or not it is correct to hold such a one sided historical view.

And thank you for pointing out Frederick Jackson Turner's writings to me. What I was looking for, though, was something related not to the spirit of the image but how the words and phrases related to it are used in political speech. I was on the hunt for research into how often that kind of terminology is used, by candidates holding which kind of views, and perhaps a study showing that certain words seem to pop up when particular things are happening in the culture or economy. Are there national events or cycles that cause speech writers to trot out certain words? And if we looked at all the correlations would there appear to be something formulaic about it?

This probably exists somewhere and everyone knows about it but me, if so please share. ;)

A few years back when the Army changed it's slogan from "Be all you can be" which was simple, direct, and inspiring to "An Army of one" I thought how inappropriate the motto was for the organization. If any group represents the idea of team building and camaraderie, it's the armed forces. Generally almost nothing about it says "go it alone" or "you don't need anyone else." I think it's a pretty good indication of just how pervasive the thinking is. The current, "Army strong" is probably the result of someone realizing that an army of one is an oxymoron.

We may be waking up to the psychological as well as physiological importance of connection to others. Any article or book about how to live a long, healthy life includes a focus on the importance of having a small group of friends who you can share problems and celebrate victories with. The lone wolf is much more likely to be depressed in his isolation, and I suspect stuck in his ideas which will remain unchallenged and therefore likely not well thought out, because he will never have to explain them or have them questioned by anyone else. The same danger exists in having relationships solely with people very much like one's self.

In one of my favorite books, Howard's End, E.M. Forster uses the phrase "Only connect!"  to emphasize the value of relationships. The phrase sounds almost comical with today's constant connection to others carried with us at all times. But of course Forster was referring to real connections with people, and not what sometimes passes for connection today. It seems he would have recognized what we've done though, even before the technology for it existed:

 "The more people one knows the easier it becomes to replace them," Margaret sighs. "It's one of the curses of London." 

So if scientists and mental health experts, doctors and healthy living experts are telling us that we need more connection for our overall physical and mental health is it possibly just a matter of time before we acquiesce some of our independent spirit for our own good? The hyper individualistic thinking may be something that cannot effectively be changed once it's is entrenched. If that is the case our best hope may be the next generation which is already much more adept at sharing and collaboration.  Companies that study trends are turning up the millenials' penchant for sharing instead of owning. They are more interested in access than ownership. Which will probably mean they'll clamor for things like better public transportation. Something their parents cared little about. So the value of us and the power of we may gain strength with time.

But of course, the constant companion question: How to do it optimally without tipping over into group think and rigid conformity?

One May Be The Easiest Number To Defeat

Madame M:

Excellent analysis.  Although I would think many Native American tribes could take issue with your terminology and some implications, the overall legacy problem seems to have tremendous validity.

The literature, while perhaps scant, is not entirely devoid of reference to the effect of pioneer thought.  Frederick Jackson Turner’s classic essay on it is practically required reading for many graduate school historians (and occasionally political scientists).  And you would find a number of congruent ideas to yours.

Sociologists talk about how we are atomizing, each expecting his own freedom and minimally concerned or unconcerned about the freedom of others—and often minimally concerned or unconcerned at all about others outside of very immediate family or a small circle of “friends”.

One too frequently hears this expressed in terms of the rest of the citizenry (not FELLOW citizenry, note) similar to “F’ them.  I earned my way, and they can too.”  Even though the circumstances are usually far different from when the individual supposedly “earned” his or her own way.  But even more importantly, there is no desire to change the underlying conditions that generate poverty. 

As you alluded to, the real powers sit back and feel comfortable every time they hear the talk they have seeded echo back to them.  They know they don’t need to do the conquering.  Divide, disconnect, and isolate, and the people—or more accurately, the fractured groups or disempowered individuals—will conquer themselves.

Aristocrats and now plutocrats have been using that technique throughout history.  And we keep falling for it.  Human emotions and psychology change too little or too slowly, it would seem.

I therefore applaud and support your standing in the middle of the tide of individualism to be a breakwater for cooperation.

Excellent thinking to start us off in 2014!

Farewell, Pioneers

 

Professor J, 

Staying home, and spending hours in bed with fun gadgets like humidifiers gives a girl time to think. I was a bit surprised when I tried to find research about the use of pioneer and cowboy imagery in American political speech no one seems to have written about it. (I'm talking to you, political science majors.)

I wonder if our self made man, every man for himself, pioneer spirit is killing America. And if we just don't see it yet. We are still enamored by the idea of cowboys and rags to riches stories. Work hard, don't give up, and keep chasing the American Dream.

The thing that made us great under completely different circumstances won't keep us great under the new interconnected conditions.

While reading about how standardized testing is harming our students' ability to think, discussing the sad concept of community our culture has (thanks, Rush), and wondering how we became such a great nation and achieved so many miraculous things something began to sink in. That pioneer spirit was grand. And necessary. It's part of our national psyche and identity still used in advertising and political speeches and we think it's a good thing. Much has been written about the image of the cowboy on American society. We are tied to it. Just think how often the term "pioneer" gets thrown around as a description of anyone who does anything unusually new. Except that now we are tied by it. The time for it (warning: sacrilege to follow) may have passed.

Here's why: A nation born out of a desire for liberty and personal freedom needs pioneers. A country with vast expanses that need to be tamed needs those willing to live alone with their families and be self sufficient. There was much hard work to do early on, nearly impossible work it seems at times, and a particular attitude of independence was necessary. Frontiers are opened up by those who are willing to forgo the comforts of community. Winds howling across open plains without a single other person must have whispered "You don't need anyone."

The problem is the frontier is gone, unless you are going to space. We live in well run cities and towns where people have been living and working together for over a hundred years. The pioneer spirit that was a necessity is now holding us back from finding solutions and working together. But the idea of it is tightly bound in our popular self image. I suspect it's the underlying attitude behind things like Doomsday Preppers, where people actually seem to look forward to an event where they envision they could ward off disaster for their families, alone.

In worst case scenarios, however, it isn't that you won't need anyone, it's that you'll need everyone.

I see this attitude as contributing to the polarization we are seeing as well. It's hard to be proven wrong in your own little fiefdom. You can insulate yourself from those who think differently while finding a channel to get your views reinforced. Not knowing anyone different than you, because your frontier (front yard) insulates you is convenient for maintaining those maverick attitudes. It keeps all of us from getting together to pinpoint real problems and forming alliances for solving them.

The people with the real power must love that. 

I love the picture I've included with this post. The solitude, toughness, and independent spirit it captures aren't bad things. But it may be time for that not to be worn on our collective sleeve anymore. We need that attitude deep down inside, to know that when things are really bad we have what it takes to go it alone if we have to.  But in our day to day lives the more valuable skill may be collaboration.

The time has come to embrace the power of us. 

How to do that without people succumbing to group think or losing their sense of individuality is an entirely different can of worms. :)