I have been exploring issues and themes from The Upswing by Robert D. Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garrett. My first post on this introduced the broad theme of the book and the next outlined key metrics Putnam and Romney documented as they traced the “I-We-I” Curve across 130 years of American sociological and cultural development. Shifting next to my reflections upon reading the book, in this post I discuss the tension between individualism and collectivism in American society. 

One of the more iconic American advertising images from my 1960’s youth was the Marlboro Man. Cigarette advertising is thankfully no longer so prevalent (except maybe for vaping). In its day, the Marlboro Man evoked an image of American as the mythic rugged individualist, riding through the natural beauty of pristine lands.  Contrast that with the equally iconic image of neighbors banding together in barn-raisings as neighbor helped neighbor.  So, which image is right? 

The United States is hardly the only country born of violent political conflict but what marked it from the start was a founding ideology rooted in individual rights.  The founders were focused on ensuring that the British empire wasn’t imposing an economic burden through taxation that the citizenry here had no voice in creating, and on ensuring freedom to worship the way one might choose without the “state” imposing a specific set of beliefs or practices.  It was a profound shift from the extant political realities of the time.  It was also imperfect, particularly regarding gender and racial equity.  But the articulation of such ideals at the outset laid a foundation for later progress towards greater access and equality. The cognitive dissonance between the espoused ideals, and actual policies that suppressed the rights of some, became more and more evident and difficult to sweep away. 

How do we reconcile this with the identity politics that became so strong beginning in the 1960’s, and which are at the heart of the culture wars we seem caught in today?  As The Upswing details, from the early part of the 20th century into the 1960’s, there was steady progress on expanded rights and access to economic opportunity, and participation in democracy for many who had been excluded.  It was true for immigrants, for the poor, for women, for blacks and other racial minorities.  Over successive decades the gaps grew smaller as progress was made.  But expectations on the part of those fighting for equity outstripped the progress. As groups long been subjugated pushed for more, the greater the counter-reaction grew. 

Today, battles related to identity and independence undergirding our dramatic culture war, in politics and other spheres, have seemingly overtaken all else.  You are with me or against me, and there is no middle ground.  If the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th was a wake-up call for some, the warning signs had been flashing for quite a while.  You could point to the armed march of white extremist groups in Charlottesville in 2017, or last May’s storming of the Michigan State House by armed militia groups, or the month’s long occupation of public spaces in last fall.  The conflicts are at a boiling pitch. We are intensely focused on how we are different from one another and allowing those differences to incite or fuel conflict. 

During my tenure as CEO of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver our most successful event, at least in terms of drawing interest across the community, was our campaign launch in 2012 featuring Elie Wiesel.  The famed author and human rights activist was asked how he balanced the push for particularism with the push for universalism.   The question was asked in reference to concern over declining Jewish connection or affiliation among younger generations more universally focused on global concerns; Wiesel offered a profound answer.  

He spoke about how people are best able to contribute towards progress on universal concerns if they are grounded in their own identity.  The aim isn’t a universalist world in which everyone is the same.  The aim is a society in which acceptance of others who are different and committed to fighting for a more just society is grounded in knowledge of, confidence and pride in one’s own self-identity.  You can champion your own identity without denigrating or seeking to destroy others, and you can champion the needs of others without negating your own identity.  These may seem like pretty radical ideas after watching rioters and insurrectionists parade through the US Capitol in a Camp Auschwitz t-shirt or carrying a Confederate flag.   

Putnam and Garrett describe the counter-reaction to the 60’s and how it progressed from Phyliss Schlafly and the Reagan conservatives to the alt-right extremism we see playing out today.  What will it take to get to a different balance of individualism and collectivism?   

As a whole, Americans have demonstrated a lot of selfishness during the COVID crisis, in contrast to some other countries. We’ve prioritized keeping bars, beauty salons and tattoo parlors open over schools.  Wearing masks became a highly politicized issue. Too many have ignored the entreaties of health professionals to moderate individual behaviors to save others’ lives and to avoid collapsing our public health systems.  It is a symptom of our being 50 years into a decline in collectivism. 

In an earlier stage of US history, the predominant social theory around personal responsibility held that if you were poor it was because of some personal failing – lack of faith, or unwillingness to work hard and apply oneself.  That gave way during the Depression to a recognition that many people were caught up in forces larger than themselves.  People could be poor because of circumstance, or tragedy, or because of structural barriers (education, racism, etc…).  Fix those problems and people would be lifted out of poverty, become more educated, live healthier and longer lives, engage in less crime.  Those are the reforms that drove the upswing between 1900 – 1960.  The gaps shrunk considerably. 

The counter-reaction of the 1970’s, as people pushed for greater self-expression, self-growth, and self-enrichment also contributed to an erosion of collective responsibility.  In our drive to break out of conformity and pursue individual wants and needs, people became less concerned about others.  Over five decades we’ve eroded the sense that as a society we have obligations to help everyone, and we have backslid from many of the genuine gains in closing gaps we had achieved. 

The COVID-19 crisis presents an opportunity as it reminds us that there are circumstances that catch us all, if unequally.  Even the most privileged are affected by social isolation and stress.  All of our kids are affected by disrupted education, and a burgeoning mental health crisis. 

I suspect that most of us aren’t looking to lose the gains we’ve made in personal expression, or the cultural bursts of creativity in the arts, or even our ability to stream the content we want, when we want, rather than be limited to three major networks. 

But how do we find the right balance between our individualistic impulses, wants and needs, and our collective responsibilities?  We start by being clear about the trade-offs, and by confronting head on the limits of individual freedom.  Individual liberty is a vital facet of our American values, but not an absolute one.   

The excesses of absolutist fantasies about individual liberty riveted us to our screens on January 6th.  Will we confront it or brush it under the rug?  It is time to think hard about what we really value, because in this moment, we are at serious risk losing a lot.  Our imperfect democracy may not survive the moment.  Much of what we prize about American ingenuity and drive for achievement, invention, and exploration is simply harder to foster in an authoritarian nation.   

For me, the most compelling line of President Biden’s speech on Inauguration Day was this quote: 

“Through civil war, the Great Depression, world war, 9/11, through struggle, sacrifices and setbacks, our better angels have always prevailed. In each of these moments, enough of us — ENOUGH OF US — have come together to carry all of us forward, and we can do that now.” 

The key word there is “us”.  He didn’t say, “me”.  Are we prepared to temper our individualistic needs and wants, so there that might still be a “we”?