Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life

Rating:
Summary: Lacks the Courage of Its Convictions
Review: "Habits of the Heart" is the authors' attempt to conduct a sociological study of "middle-class" American ideals and values. The book was somewhat revolutionary when first published (the early 1980s), primarily for exposing the pervasive individualism (and resulting alienation and isolation) in modern American life. The authors show how the classic myth of the rugged American individualist has been compounded by the modern pscyhotherapeutic culture, and simultaneously stripped of the more communitarian aspects of civic republicanism and biblical religion that provided an historical counter-balance. The result is the now-common (but poorly understood) view that one is totally autonomous, entering and conducting all social relations on the basis of pure self-interest - a view that is doing a great deal of damage to families and to the American social fabric as a whole.

The book, however, has a number of flaws. For a study based upon interviews with hundreds of individuals, the authors fail to support their assertions with either statistical data or detailed case studies (except for the first chapter, which is the most interesting part of the book). Instead, the text is a steady stream of broad generalizations, occasionally sprinkled with carefully-selected examples, and the authors' historical analysis. And, unfortunately, their analysis clearly reflects their positions in establishment-liberal academia. They reject (especially in the new Introduction) the logical suggestion that the rejection of traditional religion and morality is largely to blame for rampant individualism and social break-down. Instead, embracing an economic determinism worthy of Marx himself, they suggest that free-market capitalism and the decline of labor unions are to blame. Similarly, they call for greater communitarianism, and note that modern "therapeutic" worldviews provide no sound basis for such communitarianism. However, the authors are unwilling to embrace a sound basis for it, either, repeatedly pointing to the civic-minded and caring values of "biblical religion" (a.k.a. Christianity), but then declaring that a return to traditional religion is no longer a viable option. In short, the authors of this important work betray the same relativism and postmodernism that is behind the very individualism they decry.

Rating:
Summary: Lacks the Courage of Its Convictions
Review: "Habits of the Heart" is the authors' attempt to conduct a sociological study of "middle-class" American ideals and values. The book was somewhat revolutionary when first published (the early 1980s), primarily for exposing the pervasive individualism (and resulting alienation and isolation) in modern American life. The authors show how the classic myth of the rugged American individualist has been compounded by the modern pscyhotherapeutic culture, and simultaneously stripped of the more communitarian aspects of civic republicanism and biblical religion that provided an historical counter-balance. The result is the now-common (but poorly understood) view that one is totally autonomous, entering and conducting all social relations on the basis of pure self-interest - a view that is doing a great deal of damage to families and to the American social fabric as a whole.

The book, however, has a number of flaws. For a study based upon interviews with hundreds of individuals, the authors fail to support their assertions with either statistical data or detailed case studies (except for the first chapter, which is the most interesting part of the book). Instead, the text is a steady stream of broad generalizations, occasionally sprinkled with carefully-selected examples, and the authors' historical analysis. And, unfortunately, their analysis clearly reflects their positions in establishment-liberal academia. They reject (especially in the new Introduction) the logical suggestion that the rejection of traditional religion and morality is largely to blame for rampant individualism and social break-down. Instead, embracing an economic determinism worthy of Marx himself, they suggest that free-market capitalism and the decline of labor unions are to blame. Similarly, they call for greater communitarianism, and note that modern "therapeutic" worldviews provide no sound basis for such communitarianism. However, the authors are unwilling to embrace a sound basis for it, either, repeatedly pointing to the civic-minded and caring values of "biblical religion" (a.k.a. Christianity), but then declaring that a return to traditional religion is no longer a viable option. In short, the authors of this important work betray the same relativism and postmodernism that is behind the very individualism they decry.

Rating:
Summary: Current American Character - Individualism
Review: Habits of the Heart describes and analyzes the current American Character both in great breadth and with great depth. It gave me a lot to think about. And it gave me a framework to use for my thinking. Bits and pieces of information, some of which I'd noticed before but discounted, are fit into both a historical and a current context.

The book is not a call to arms, nor does it present a list of suggestions for how to behave. The authors' direct opinions are circumscribed to the few pages of the Conclusion and the Appendix. And many of those comments have to do with either how academic sociology should do research or how the book was written. How five authors jointly wrote a single book sounds like an interesting story, but isn't commented on any further than to say it happened and it was a good thing.

As analysis it really does rank right up there with Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America and David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd. As political tract it isn't in the race.

Rating:
Summary: Sorting It All Out
Review: HABITS OF THE HEART is a tour de force whose insights into America are as relevant today as they were nearly twenty years ago when the book was published. It was hailed at that time as an instant classic of sociology, and compared to such influential works as MIDDLETOWN and THE LONELY CROWD. If anything, its insights are even more pertinent now.

The subtitle "Individualism and Commitment in American Life" is the main trope guiding the book, a bipolar perspective that neatly describes the American inability to reconcile the "utilitarian individualism" of Hobbes' "war of all against all" as exemplified in the liberal economic philosophy that grew up with America, with the "expressive individualism" of Whitman and Emerson which developed as a reaction to (in Henry James'' words), the "grope of wealth." The final chapter which elucidates "Six American Visions of the Public Good" describing them as three pairs of conflicting visions: "The Establishment versus Populism," "Neocapitalism versus Welfare Liberalism" and "The Administered Society versus Economic Democracy" is the best example of this dualist view of America, but as Bellah and his fellow authors describe it, these competing visions often hold as many similarities as differences.

Specifically, from the latter 19th century until the depression both The Establishment and Populists recognized there was and needed to be a moral component in American public life. The Establishment side was represented Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth," while on the Populist side were economic socialists such as Eugene Debs. The mores of the that time, de Toqueville's "habits of the heart," were still moralistic, still partaking of the ideal of the legacy of Jefferson's freeholding citizen even capitalism shook America off its foundations.

Of the next pair, Neocapitalism (which rose to its greatest heights in the form of Ronald Reagan) and Welfare Liberalism (exemplified by FDR), while they have different means look to the same ends according the authors. The first seeks to empower citizens through the "war of all against all" and keep the country competitive by unraveling the safety net. Slackers and failures must not be encouraged to take advantage of the winners because it is morally debilitating for society as a whole. Welfare Liberalism on the other hand believes that the net should be stronger because it has less confidence in the Market God believes in better chances and social justice, but still views Americans as individuals who must be encouraged in the Hobbesian war.

Of the last two visions, Felix Rohatyn, is the poster boy for the Administered Society -- a continuation of the Progressive ideal of scientific "mastery" a la Lippman, while Michael Harrington represents Economic Democracy. As compared to Rohaytn, who endorses a "partnership" of elites who work to adjust and balance the multiplicitous machine of political, economic and social interests, Harrington would spread out the decision making to at least nominally include the people. Harrington admits this would require a massive reorientation of consciousness -- an unlikely event in the view of the authors. But ultimately the authors say both sides endorse a similar kind of governance by expert, without moral content. The authors saw this last pair dimly stirring when they wrote this book in the mid-80s. Their prediction is perhaps half true as we have also witnessed the covert reassertion of NeoCapitalism in the last three administrations, if especially the current administration.

This dualistic strategy is supplemented by the touchstone use of Alexis de Toqueville's political and sociological insights to show how the seeds of much of American life today were sown early on. A fairly effective narrative trope, it serves their often stated goal of showing that it is through our shared history, our communities of memory, that we may see how others confronted the shifting landscapes of political economy, that we may today find a way to stop or at least hold at bay, in the words of Habermas, the "invasion of the lifeworld by systems logic." They maintain that such a course cannot be found through nostalgia for older institutions that once stood athwart the Mega-State. Many of those institutions, such as traditional churches, were paternalistic and discriminatory. Still social movements such as abolitionism grew out of them and were sustained by them. To recognize how the message of freedom forged by the founding generation has been reforged into a double-edged sword to enforce radical individualism, and destroy religious and republican morality and virtue. Government by a managerial elite, a kind of "democratic despotism" which de Toqueville saw as a potential of individualistic American mores has arrived.

As an example of the earlier language of America, they cite as an example Martin Luther King deployment of the language of the Bible and republican virtue in his "I Have A Dream" speech. His ringing biblical cadences, his use of "My Country 'Tis of Thee," and the words of the old Negro spiritual: "free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty I'm free at last," evoked our foundational civic and religious language. Bellah, like King, helps us remember and recapture the earlier language of America.

Along the way they also trace the politically neutralizing penetration of the individualistic "therapeutic mode" into religious life, the loss of "communities of memory" based on shared values, along with the "second language" of religious and republican virtue. All have which have acted to depoliticize American culture. Where once there was a language of sin and redemption, there is now only the therapeutic language of the self, a radical self which is encouraged by the therapeutic mode to consider one's self and one's happiness as paramount and thus mirrors and supports the ideology of the free market. We richly deserve the oxymoronic label of "private citizen."

Rating:
Summary: Radical Individualism Smooths Birth of Mega-State
Review: HABITS OF THE HEART is a tour de force whose insights into America are as relevant today as they were nearly twenty years ago when the book was published. It was hailed at that time as an instant classic of sociology, and compared to such influential works as MIDDLETOWN and THE LONELY CROWD. If anything, its insights are even more pertinent now. It endures because it wrestles with America's eternal contradictions. Given the persistence of these contradictions and their cynical exploitation by those in power over the past two decades, it remains as fresh and compelling as the day it was published.

The subtitle "Individualism and Commitment in American Life" is the main trope guiding the book, a bipolar perspective that neatly describes the American inability to reconcile the "utilitarian individualism" of Hobbes' "war of all against all" as exemplified in the liberal economic philosophy that grew up with America, with the "expressive individualism" of Whitman and Emerson which developed as a reaction to (in Henry James'' words), the "grope of wealth." The final chapter which elucidates "Six American Visions of the Public Good" describing them as three pairs of conflicting visions: "The Establishment versus Populism," "Neocapitalism versus Welfare Liberalism" and "The Administered Society versus Economic Democracy." But because they are dualistic does not mean they are exclusive categories. As Bellah and his fellow authors describe it, these competing visions often hold as many similarities as differences.

Specifically, from the latter 19th century until the depression both The Establishment and Populists recognized there was and needed to be a moral component in American public life. The Establishment side was represented Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth," while on the Populist side were economic socialists such as Eugene Debs. The mores of the that time, de Toqueville's "habits of the heart," were still moralistic, still partaking of the ideal of the legacy of Jefferson's freeholding citizen even capitalism shook America off its foundations.

Of the next pair, Neocapitalism (which rose to its greatest heights in the form of Ronald Reagan) and Welfare Liberalism (exemplified by FDR), while they have different means look to the same ends according the authors. The first seeks to empower citizens through the "war of all against all" and keep the country competitive by unraveling the safety net. Slackers and failures must not be encouraged to take advantage of the winners because it is morally debilitating for society as a whole. Welfare Liberalism on the other hand believes that the net should be stronger because it has less confidence in the Market God believes in better chances and social justice, but still views Americans as individuals who must be encouraged in the Hobbesian war.

Of the last two visions, Felix Rohatyn, is the poster boy for the Administered Society -- a continuation of the Progressive ideal of scientific "mastery" a la Lippman, while Michael Harrington represents Economic Democracy. As compared to Rohaytn, who endorses a "partnership" of elites who work to adjust and balance the multiplicitous machine of political, economic and social interests, Harrington would spread out the decision making to at least nominally include the people. Harrington admits this would require a massive reorientation of consciousness -- an unlikely event in the view of the authors. But ultimately the authors say both sides endorse a similar kind of governance by expert, without moral content. The authors saw this last pair dimly stirring when they wrote this book in the mid-80s. Their prediction is perhaps half true as we have also witnessed the covert reassertion of NeoCapitalism in the last three administrations, if especially the current administration.

Along the way they also trace the politically neutralizing penetration of the individualistic "therapeutic mode" into religious life, the loss of "communities of memory" based on shared values, along with the "second language" of religious and republican virtue. All have which have acted to depoliticize American culture. Where once there was a language of sin and redemption, there is now only the therapeutic language of the self, a radical self which is encouraged by the therapeutic mode to consider one's self and one's happiness as paramount and thus mirrors and supports the ideology of the free market. We richly deserve the oxymoronic label of "private citizen."

This dualistic strategy is supplemented by the touchstone use of Alexis de Toqueville's political and sociological insights to show how the seeds of much of American life today were sown early on. A fairly effective narrative trope, it serves their often stated goal of showing that it is through our shared history, our communities of memory, that we may see how others confronted the shifting landscapes of political economy, that we may today find a way to stop or at least hold at bay, in the words of Habermas, the "invasion of the lifeworld by systems logic." They maintain that such a course cannot be found through nostalgia for older institutions that once stood athwart the Mega-State. Many of those institutions, such as traditional churches, were paternalistic and discriminatory. Still social movements such as abolitionism grew out of them and were sustained by them. To recognize how the message of freedom forged by the founding generation has been reforged into a double-edged sword to enforce radical individualism, and destroy religious and republican morality and virtue. Government by a managerial elite, a kind of "democratic despotism" which de Toqueville saw as a potential of individualistic American mores has arrived.

As an example of the earlier language of America, they cite as an example Martin Luther King deployment of the language of the Bible and republican virtue in his "I Have A Dream" speech. His ringing biblical cadences, his use of "My Country 'Tis of Thee," and the words of the old Negro spiritual: "free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty I'm free at last," evoked our foundational civic and religious language. Bellah, like King, helps us remember and recapture the earlier language of America.

Rating:
Summary: Read along with Stout's response to the book
Review: I think Steve Seim's review is excellent. The book is a famous statement of an editorial point of view, namely the communitarian claim that individualism has led to the incoherence of Americans' religious and moral claims. But like so many books, the authors vigorously dissemble to pretend they're scientifically reporting the kind of objective news you'd find on page 1, not in the editorial section. In this sense, the book is not substantially different from the kind of pseudo-science we've come to expect from sociologists, who, after conducting some interviews and handing out some loaded surveys, tell us "what's really going on" with the "modern American woman" or "Generation X" or, in this case, the "modern [misguided] liberal American." I, for one, view such work as social criticism vital to our society, and it makes thoughtful reading, but it is not social "science."

Considering this book represents more a kind of punditry than research, despite its claims, please consider reading the most famous response to the book, the chapters from Jeffrey Stout's "Ethics After Babel" devoted to the book. Stout, in one instance, close-reads one of the interviews, in which a guy is asked what's important to him, and whenever he talks about "being good" and "being honest," the interviewers grill him "but why? but why?" until after many replies, he finally says something like "it's good for me" so the authors end the interview and conclude he's a rabid individualist. They did not, for example, explore whether he has a rather rich concept of personal honor, which seems a more accurate way of describing his answers up to the point they choose to end on.

In any case, reading both this book and Stout, you're in a good position to come to your own conclusions.

Rating:
Summary: Ambiguous
Review: It's quite interesting in that is shows what makes the people of this nation tick, by looking at their traditions and examining their ideologies. It addresses the breakdown of traditional communities and human interactions. But the conclusions this book comes to should be quite horrifying to any RATIONAL Joe. The tone of the book is that we are all social animals that live, interact.... and work together in a community based on responsibility to care for others. It is true that we are social animals and that recently people have grown cold to each other...but the solution is not to enslave people with some "inherent responsibility" to others. The book's states that we will only become "human by accepting our essential poverty as a GIFT, and to share our material wealth with those in need."......this is the most anti-American book I've read which tries to fix the social climate in the most horrifying ways. This is SOCIALISM disguised as a Traditional American Way of Life.

Rating:
Summary: great book on American culture
Review: This book may not be very rigorous as a piece of social science--other Amazon reviewers have complained about this lack--but the material, interviews with Americans in different groups provides much insight into what Americans think about and how their lives are intertwined with institutions of politics, education, religion, and community. As such the book is highly readable and accessible to the average, college-educated reader and thought provoking as well.