David Brooks' Anxiety

I can always count on the NYTimes columnist to come up with something provactive, and yesterday's piece was no exception. He was worried that American culture is moving toward the kind of "individualism" that reduces the sense of one's obligation to society - in this case its "institutions" - in favor of personal satisfaction. He cited a report from a Harvard faculty committee as evidence of this shift. The report advocated the value of challenging pre-existing "arrangements" from the institutions of society because they stand in the way of one's personal fulfillment.

Brooks feels that the primary commitment towards personal satisfaction, or, in other words, defining yourself by what you ask of life, is inferior to the life defined by what life asks of you. He mentions Hugh Heclo, a political scientist who promotes one's personal commitment to the values of institutions, such as the family, the school or community, as being the true source of America's strength.

Putting aside the question of which of these alleged opposites is better, the more intriguing question is why he thinks institutionalized thinking is losing ground. He mentions a recent decline in faith in society's institutions, not only in this country but worldwide. A cynicism has taken over that rests on the revelation of fraud and corruption by the power elites, and this undermines one's trust in established codes of conduct.

But even if this were true, where is the evidence that Americans are seeking refuge in a more individualistic philosophy? It is just as likely that the various institutions are in upheaval, and that this forebodes a conflict within the power hierarchies. When it's settled, we may find that Americans are continuing to find their identities in group affiliation, but that the institutions have been rearranged. This is a far cry from redefining oneself according to a personal code of values, as in a truly individualistic philosophy. Such movements have been around for decades - such as Ayn Rand's libertarianism, the Beatniks' revolt in the fifties, even the "do your own thing" gurus of the sixties - but they never for a moment challenged the dominance of mainstream American culture.

Finally, I must add that Brooks' use of the Harvard report as evidence of the "new individualism" is risible. The report sounds just like the blather that's come out of faculty committees everywhere for a hundred years. I don't think he can find a single Harvard student who pays any attention to it. The student is too busy hustling his or her Harvard degree for all it's worth in the career marketplace. Getting the best price for it demands institutionalized thinking of an Olympian discipline and dazzling nuance, and I see no signs that America has lost its appetite for its rewards.