Submitted By: Mike Spindell. Guest Blogger
Mythology can be seen as the social glue of diverse groups. It is the accumulation of tales, beliefs, moral strictures and mores that gives a specific population a sense of homogeneity, allowing it to exist with synergy. This is true of nations, ethnic groups, religions and even political movements. One of the defining conditions in our nation is that we are one of the most diverse on this planet when it comes to religions and ethnicities. All of our original thirteen states came into existence via individual peculiarities of settlers, religious sects, slavery, climate and the spoils system of colonialism. About a third of the citizens of those thirteen colonies, of the nascent United States, chafed under foreign domination and engendered a rebellion against the British Empire’s exploitation. Among that fractional populace, there fortunately resided a group of the colonies wealthiest citizens and greatest minds. The rebellion succeeded and a decade later a government emerged created by the novelty of a Constitution delineating how it was to be run.
As improbable as the rebellion against the world’s greatest power might have seemed, the ongoing success of this enterprise is even more of an improbability. From the beginning most citizens saw themselves as attached more to their individual states, than to the Federal Government. The subsequent history of this country is well-known, but what I think often gets missed is that the history as we know it is mostly a creation of an American mythology, which has given consistency to this diverse enterprise and served to inculcate waves of immigrants into seeing themselves as part of America. While a nation’s mythology may serve it as “social glue” it can also contain within it seeds of social dysfunction. What follows is my take on the American Myth of the “Rugged Individualist” and why though it may have had initial utilitarian value; it has become cancerous within our country and may lead to the disintegration of America as we know it.
The initial inspiration for this piece came from this source: http://www.nationofchange.org/right-s-sham-religion-rugged-individualism-1355328952 and it is an article well worth reading. Robert Becker’s OpEd in The Nation of Change “The Right’s Sham Religion of Rugged Individualism” presents an excellent short essay. Rather than sprinkle this essay with quotations I urge you to read it, while I spin off in a less political direction. The study of Mythology in the tradition of Joseph Campbell, Robert Graves, Sir James George Frazer and Richard Slotkin has been a lifelong avocation of mine. Using Mr. Becker’s article as a kind of muse, I will look at “rugged individualism” from my synthesis of the ideas I’ve absorbed through the years. I first touched on this theme on 7/22/11 in this guest blog: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/23/the-american-quest-for-empire/#more-37487 and it is an insight that influences much of the way I view America’s current situation.
“Rugged Individualism definition:
The belief that all individuals, or nearly all individuals, can succeed on their own and that government help for people should be minimal. The phrase is often associated with policies of the Republican party and was widely used by the Republican president Herbert Hoover. The phrase was later used in scorn by the Democratic presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman to refer to the disasters of Hoover’s administration, during which the stock market Crash of 1929 occurred and the Great Depression began.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rugged+individualism
While it is true that Herbert Hoover is given credit for the coinage and usage of the words “rugged individualism”, in my view the concept and connotation of these words goes further back into American history as a mythological theme. With the advent of the “Social Darwinist” philosophical movement, that “pseudo-science” lent credence to the concept and helped blend it into the common wisdom of the country.
One way to view history is from a conspiratorial perspective. While I do think there have been many conspiracy’s that have indeed influenced the course of human events, I think that to view them as the result of evil cabals plotting their execution is to be naive as to the way we humans act and think. It is certainly true that the NAZI’s in Germany and the Communists in the USSR, conspired to gain power and then used propaganda to create national mythologies that were ultimately destructive in nature. Similarly, FDR’s Administration used ideology, and mythology to create propaganda to defend against these foreign forces. My thinking is that propaganda and its creator’s, no matter how cynical, ultimately starts out with a set of mythological beliefs, sincerely understood to be ultimate truths by the propagandists. Julius Streicher and then Joseph Goebbels of the NAZI Party really believed that Jews were an evil plague upon humanity and then created propaganda to convince others of its truth. The unexamined acceptance of mythology, common wisdom if you will, is perhaps a person’s greatest handicap in trying to understand the world they live in.
Central to American mythology is the idea of the “rugged individualist” as the driving force behind our country’s success. This myth holds that all of American progress came through the exertions of extraordinary men, going their own way, charting their own courses and bringing the rest of the populace along with them as followers of their iconoclastic natures. We have the legends of Daniel Boone, “Johnny Appleseed” and Paul Bunyan to represent how individualists helped spread the White Man in his quest to claim all of our “manifest destiny”. Like most mythology the process of the accretion of heroic stature onto real people came from a need to find “men” the populace could emulate and follow. This need came from the loose alliance of business and political interests seeking to make this country into a world power and seeking to exploit the bounty of its natural resources as they each pursued their selfish interests.
In the Revolutionary War we saw the creation of heroic myths used to rally people to the cause and then glorify the revolution to a population that did not overwhelmingly support it. Once the battle had been won a national mythology was needed to make this collection of localities and populations coherent. Think of Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys in upper New England. Remember Nathan Hale’s speech on the gallows; Sam Adams radically rousing the people of Boston; Paul Reveres’ Ride; “The Shot Heard Round the World”; and of course the Boston Tea Party. These people and instances, along with the individual mythology surrounding the wisdom of our “Founding Father’s”, were used as a common mythology to take a collection of diverse localities and meld them into a national whole. That there was much truth to the fact of the extraordinary talents of some of these individuals does not diminish their mythological aspect, merely it enhances it.
To briefly bring us forward in time we see the mythology of the “rugged individualist” as the driving force of the American success story throughout our subsequent history. Behind that of course, is the belief in “great men” doing “heroic deeds” as being those who impel history, leading along the rest of us who lack their stature. We see this mythmaking in the “Taming of The West”; in the Civil War; in our “Industrial Revolution”, in fact this theme of individual greatness runs through the entire history of this country and to illustrate it let me just list a bunch of names and allow you to conjure the images these names produce:
Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, Sam Houston, Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, George Armstrong Custer, John Jacob Astor, Eli Whitney, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Wyatt Earp, Jesse James, Thomas Alva Edison, Henry Ford, Teddy Roosevelt, William Randolph Hearst, FDR, Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK, MLK, RFK, Ronald Reagan, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
I’m sure as you read these names all of them are familiar to you, but beyond that familiarity there comes to your mind a back-story that is full of detail. Though all of these were real people, they have already passed into American Mythology because of the mental associations you have with them and the partially mythologized detail of their particular life stories. I specifically chose those names because all of them can be associated with “rugged individualism”, American History, American Progress and the belief that great “Men” impel progress. The “Great Man” theme is certainly not unique to our country; it is in fact a common thread throughout humanity. Where America has taken this theme though, in the minds of many powerful political and economic forces in this country, is into the sense of “rugged individualism” representing the backbone of the “great men” who drive our history and create the mythology of “American Exceptionalism”.
If you accept “rugged individualism”, as exemplified by “Great Men”, as the driving force of progress and growth of our society, then logically it is to the needs of these “great men” that we must all cater. We see the truth of this today in the popularity of the works of Ayn Rand and the pervasive influence of libertarian philosophy. Viewing issues from this perspective leads one to the conclusion that any attempt by the government (or society) to restrain the individual rights of any person, or corporate entity, creates stifling counter-productive effects on our country. If we are all merely individuals ultimately responsible to ourselves, then we must be the sole guardians of our personal interests, without any mediation from the “nanny state”.
In this past election there was a recurring theme of much Republican and Libertarian argument that is the outgrowth of the “rugged individualism” mythology. The counterpoint between the people who “produced” for our economy and the 47% of those who merely took from it was put forth repeatedly. The idea of the entrepreneur as the modern “rugged individualist” hero creating wealth for all of us, was so common as to be a “given” in much political debate. Even the ultimate representative of collectivist bureaucracy, the Corporation, was seen from a “rugged individualist’s” perspective; since they were run by “entrepreneurial hero” CEO’s, who with their strength of leadership and wisdom provided for their workers.
I believe that the idea of the “rugged individual”, seen through the lens of American History, is not only dangerous but utterly false. I assert that it is contrary to the history of humanity from pre-historic ages unremembered. Humans are by nature “social” animals and humanity’s ascension to dominance on this planet is the result of building societies of ever greater complexity. Yes, to be sure, the actions of great individuals have spurred progress and change for better or worse, but all change occurs limned by the social structure where it occurs. We have had “great people”, geniuses perhaps, moving us forward via innovation due to their thinking outside the box. Yet this genius was nurtured in a particular social context that allowed it to grow. Michelangelo was a genius in his time, but his time included Leonardo Da Vinci and was after all “The Renaissance”. Sir Isaac Newton was a singular genius, but then too Gottfried Liebnitz was his contemporary and their time was the beginning of the “Enlightenment”. Thomas Edison was a genius electrical inventor, but his contemporary of no mean skills and accomplishments was Nikola Tesla and their time was the height of the “Industrial Revolution”.
Despite common belief to the contrary, Henry Ford invented neither the automobile, nor the “assembly line”, but he certainly helped to perfect both, again in the context of an ongoing “Industrial/Technological” Revolution. I celebrate the “individual” who has the ability to think counter to the myths they are born with and who strives to introduce new ways of looking at the world. For better, or ill, I’ve tried to act that way in my own life, so I certainly am no justifier of collective thought and action. Yet no matter how much I would like to believe that I am not the product of my heredity, my social milieu and the country of my birth, I must accept that all of those elements and many more shaped me.
The specious philosophy of “rugged individualism” has caused much ill to this country. It has lent itself to the companion myth of “American Exceptionalism”, because the thinking goes that with our “ruggedly individualistic” natures this country has been raised above all others and it is our destiny to enforce our hegemony. This myth has actually allowed us to create a mythology similar to the mythologies created in countries with overwhelming ethnic homogeneity, like Hitler’s Aryan purity premise in Germany, French “cultural superiority” and/or the Serbs vs. the Croats and vice versa.
We humans do have a need for mythology as a means of establishing societal connectivity. At the same time though, when we allow ourselves to become blinded by the myths we live by, we lose the ability to see our world clearly enough to make logical decisions on the issues that we face. To me the scariest thing about politics in the world today is that our discussions and our debates are muddied by mythological premises to such an extent that we can’t hear other points of view, or allow ourselves to consider them. While this has been generally true throughout human history, our species has never had the power before to destroy everything and everyone. Because of that destructive ability it is imperative that we look beyond our myths to see our present world as it really is. We are on the brink of so many disasters like climate change, over-population and water shortage, that we must seek means of dealing with them. Yet due to the inhalation of various counter productive mythologies we merely talk at each other, allowing events to overwhelm us, as we remain in a state of inaction.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Atnor,
Libertarian much? 🙂
Scott,
Hunter Thompson was one of the great minds of our time and yet so little appreciated by those that call themselves informed. How apt that 33 years ago he describes today’s situation to a “T”.
I’m not sure I get the author’s idea of individualism, rugged or otherwise… at least not as how the idea sits in my own brain. 🙂 It’s not a guy living on an island… unless the guy chose to live on an island. There are multiple references here to “extraordinary” men doing extraordinary things, but I think that misses the point. Their appeal isnt that they were “extraordinary” men that dragged us all to a better tomorrow, but that they’re excellent examples of “ordinary” men achieving “extraordinary” results due to their own drive and interests, either without or in spite of, “the state”. When I think “rugged individualist”, that’s a big part of what comes to mind.
Yet no matter how much I would like to believe that I am not the product of my heredity, my social milieu and the country of my birth, I must accept that all of those elements and many more shaped me.
Yeah, they can shape you… but they dont “define” you. You generally arent limited by or totally accountable to those factors. I usually dont see a need to make amends for them, and there’s a limit to how much they can be used as a crutch or an excuse, and you pretty much dont owe or are owed anything for them.
Yet this genius was nurtured in a particular social context that allowed it to grow.
Ye olde “You didnt build that” argument, eh? 🙂 Yeah, every human operates within their particular environment. If Rockefeller had been born a cave-man, he wouldnt have “achieved” as much. But many people lived in Rockefeller’s era, with similar advantages or drawbacks, some greater, some less. All those guys mentioned here had notable achievement within their environment – to a much “greater” degree than their contemporaries. It’s what you do with the tools available, towards what you perceive as your own individual priorities and goals and desires.
It has lent itself to the companion myth of “American Exceptionalism”, because the thinking goes that with our “ruggedly individualistic” natures this country has been raised above all others and it is our destiny to enforce our hegemony.
Yep… but that’s a problem with “American Exceptionalism”, not “rugged individualism” – it’s a misapplication. I’m not a believer in “American” exceptionalism. I am a believer though, in “exceptionalism” – ie, that humans, from any tribe, would be well served by allowing the freedom of individualism and voluntary cooperation within a society. Thus sure, *shrug*, systems that dont allow for that are inferior, and dont serve their citizens as well. Americans arent “special” or “entitled” somehow because they have an “American” label above their head, but because this system provides a better environment than many for humans to maximize their human potential.
Humans are by nature “social” animals and humanity’s ascension to dominance on this planet is the result of building societies of ever greater complexity.
Yeah… but those social interactions should be voluntary, not forced. Humans working together because they choose to is excellent, but there’s always the danger of “the forgotten man” argument. Also, society isnt an entity unto itself – it’s a collection of individuals operating in their own self-interest. The problem with many societal organization systems is that some interactions are deemed compulsory, and they go beyond the single purpose of government, to protect the individual rights of its citizens… like some of the ones the author mentions he advocates. 🙂
Interesting article though, thanks 🙂
Here is the best take on “rugged individualism” I’ve ever read:
“I returned to the Holiday Inn — where they have a swimming pool and air-conditioned rooms — to consider the paradox of a nation that has given so much to those who preach the glories of rugged individualism from the security of countless corporate sinecures, and so little to that diminishing band of yesterday’s refugees who still practice it, day by day, in a tough, rootless and sometimes witless style that most of us have long since been weaned away from.”–Hunter S. Thompson, Gonzo Papers, Vol. 1: The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales from a Strange Time (1979)
The rugged individualist myth underlies the effort to break the New Deal and social safety net. It’s libertarian affiliation gives it a patina of intellectual respectability. Even if it were ever true — that we are not a fundamentally interdependent society — the complexity of the modern state, nation, infrastructure, etc., make laughable the notion each individual can thrive on his/her own. Of course, those who can’t, and are drowned by the systems, just go to reinforce the notion — in this version — that they were a poor bet to begin with..
An associated myth, bred by the contempt that only money can buy, is that the rich are not also fundamentally dependent on the structure of the state, and the relative predictability that brings, to thrive.
Justice Holmes ties things up nicely and succinctly…
========
‘Former NSA head Thomas Blanton called him “the guy who saved the world”’:
http://www.mandatory.com/2012/12/28/10-people-youve-never-heard-of-who-changed-history/10
VASILI ARKHIPOV
A poor kid from the outskirts of Moscow, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov got his start in the Soviet Navy during its brief war with Japan at the tail end of WWII. From there he eventually transferred to submarines, and then to the Black Sea, Baltic, and North Sea fleets, where he ended up executive officer of the pride of the Soviet Navy, the brand-new Hotel-class nuclear submarine K-19, which Americans know of as “The Widowmaker” while Russians always just called it by the pithier nickname “Hiroshima.”
After successfully handling K-19’s first and most famous accident, the newly respected and mildly radioactive Arkhipov was dispatched to the Caribbean to command a quartet of nuke-armed Foxtrot-class patrol subs. There he found himself in yet another sticky situation, as his Foxtrot came under what seemed very much like an American attack (supposedly the Navy was only dropping “practice” depth charges in an ill-considered attempt to flush the sub to the surface) and the sub’s captain and political officer both demanded that they retaliate with nuclear torpedoes.
They hadn’t had contact with Moscow for days and had no idea whether or not World War III had actually started or would simply start as soon as they fired back, but Arkhipov refused to authorize the launch with the sort of determined resistance to nuclear war one can only find in somebody that glows in the dark.
Eventually the sub surfaced and scampered away from the American task force with no further violent action. Vasili Alexandrovich continued to make his way through the Russian submarine service, retiring a vice-admiral and dying peacefully in 1998, four years before former NSA head Thomas Blanton called him “the guy who saved the world” and Liam Neeson played him in an unsuccessful movie.
“There is a parallel yet contradictory thread in American lore. It is that of the great families, the amost sainted elite families. In the south it was plantation slave owners, in the north sainted families of wealth,”
IBDog,
A good point and I don’t think contradictory, since the scions of the “Great Families” were also considered “great men” and “rugged individualists” ala Teddy Roosevelt.
I don’t know if Russ Feingold is an uber introvert but I pretty sure that he doesn’t believe that any one person, man or women, succeeds on his or her own. Also from what I know of Russ he believes in collective action and mutual support. Even introverts benefit from what society collectively creates.
To be honest, I wasn’t aware that there was this uneasy tension between introverts and extroverts. My universe of acquaintances includes both and we associate rather nicely. Difference is good; its the belief that one type is better in someway or deserving of special privilege that is troubling and in the “rugged individual” myth particularly of the messianic variety results in problems for the Genral welfare.
I like this article and the topic very much.
There is a parallel yet contradictory thread in American lore. It is that of the great families, the amost sainted elite families. In the south it was plantation slave owners, in the north sainted families of wealth, and later sainted families with a scion who earned or stole the wealth and sired children who are then worshiped. Of the list of names of rugged individualists in the article, I can name several who were born with a silver spoon in the arse. Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Kennedy, his brother Bobby (one must say it with a half arsed spoon in the arse Boston accent), and Hearst. Jesse James was a good outlaw, a rebel of sorts, rugged but not really a “rugged individualist” in some idealized concept. The Kennedy family is more aligned with outlaw Jesse. The kids more aligned with the Royal Family of England.
Another thought-provoking piece, Mike S.
From the Robert Becker link:
“We don’t accomplish anything in this world alone . . . and whatever happens is the result of the whole tapestry of one’s life and all the weavings of individual threads from one to another that creates something.” -Sandra Day O’Connor
Yes, “it takes a village”, but a village of people who are willing (and able) to do the right thing, as opposed to a village of idiots.
10 People You’ve Never Heard Of Who Changed History
http://www.mandatory.com/2012/12/28/10-people-youve-never-heard-of-who-changed-history/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl4|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D250784
FRANK WILLS
“On the night of June 17th, 1972, DC security guard Frank Wills was making his rounds when he noticed a bit of duct tape on a door of an office complex. Since it wasn’t holding the door together or doing any of the useful things duct tape is known for doing, Wills removed it, only to find it had been replaced when he came by on the next round of his patrol.
Wills immediately called the cops, who arrived at the Watergate hotel/office/apartment complex minutes later to find five middle-aged men ransacking the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee—the beginning of the scandal that would finally sink the Nixon presidency. Wills would later play himself in the film “All The President’s Men,” but sadly that was the last time his newfound fame worked to his advantage—after quitting Watergate when he was turned down for a raise (and really if you’re not going to give him a raise, who are you ever going to give a raise to?) Wills found that many public institutions were too afraid of vengeful Republican politicians to hire him as a guard.
Wills drifted from job to job (including a gig working for legendary black stand-up Dick Gregory) before the pressures of caring for his ailing mother landed him in prison and then the poorhouse. He died of a brain tumor in September of 2000.”
America needs another “Frank Wills” moment.
“MikeS, what your polemic excludes is the very basic concept of introverts. Introverts are not “by nature social”.”
Nick,
As usual your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired, perhaps mainly because you use your pre-conceptions to not only imagine what is not there, but to then impose your own pre-disposition onto the framework. You talk of “introverts” and “extroverts”, with the rather silly assertion that “Introverts are by definition “rugged individualists.” Whose definition, your own singular one perhaps because it suits what you deem your personal personality type? Perhaps you might refresh your understanding here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion
“Introverts are not “by nature social”. Your piece is from the very biased extrovert point of view that permeates our culture ”
The problem is Nick, that I am and have always been an introvert. Most of those who know me will attest to that. So being lectured about that state of being by you seems a rather puerile exercise, done because you again are talking incorrectly about something that you pull from your behind. Not being a “social” person has little to do with what I’m talking about. As OS makes the point above, we are all part of society at large, without regard to the our ability to enjoy parties and/or the company of people. When you are able to come up with some valid on point criticism of something I actually wrote, I’d be willing to discuss it. Your use of the term “polemic” is more suited to your comment, rather than my essay. The problem is that by upending the concept of society into introvert/extrovert you don’t refute my argument because you in fact prove that you don’t understand what I’m saying.
“We are a distinct minority..~35%. However we comprise 60% of gifted and talented. A high % of parents who home school their child have introverted kids. They don’t fit the cookie cutter, union, educational system. You might know these kids soon, they go to Ivy League schools and will be running this country in short order. So sit tight MikeS, the following decades might be a rough ride for you.”
Where exactly Nick did you get your seemingly precise statistics, out of your behind again? As far as schools go I have a Masters Degree from an Ivy League school, so please tell me about them from your vast experience. Also, I didn’t fit in well with my own public education and found social situations difficult. Now since you claim introvert status, whatever that is, I suppose you have similar feelings. Yet given your putative chosen profession I would think that interacting with people would be a requisite for doing the job properly. The point being that introvert/extrovert does not lend itself to convenient definitions, but describes a continuum. It certainly does not pertain to the issue of whether we are members of a society and how that society assists, or deters us, from pursuing our individual endeavors. How about dropping the political polemic Nick, for once, ad actually engaging in a real discussion?
Very interesting perspective Mike S, and very well articulated.
I had to look up a couple of words, so thanks for expanding my vocabulary a bit.
I noticed that Nick Spinelli took exception, which will enhance the discussion.
While I am not going to take exception to your guest post, because I do think it takes a village to produce an amygdala, I do want to mention another myth that ties in with your guest post subject matter.
That is the myth of Rugged American Individual Intelligence:
(Human Intelligence & The Environment). I know that there are those here on this blog who feel human intelligence is the be all against which all other things are to be measured.
Like Nick offering a counter argument, Mayr (R.I.P.) was not convinced of our rugged individual intelligence as a good thing.
Just sayin’ …
Well done Mike. The Right hates it, but it does take a Village.
…and what of the myth of “centralized government?”
“Humans are by nature social animals.” True. However, women are more social than men. MikeS, what your polemic excludes is the very basic concept of introverts. Introverts are not “by nature social”. Your piece is from the very biased extrovert point of view that permeates our culture. This culture looks down on introverts and considers them inferior. Intoverts are by definition “rugged individualists.” Unlike extroverts, we are self sufficient when it comes to creating energy, being w/ the most extroverts depletes our energy because it’s just being “social” for the sake of being social. We introverts do get energy from substantive people but the “small talk” which extroverts crave is horseshit to us. Any list of the “rugged individualists” you scoff includes a high % of introverts. We are a distinct minority..~35%. However we comprise 60% of gifted and talented. A high % of parents who home school their child have introverted kids. They don’t fit the cookie cutter, union, educational system. You might know these kids soon, they go to Ivy League schools and will be running this country in short order. So sit tight MikeS, the following decades might be a rough ride for you. This is a quiet revolution, almost guerilla like. Ironically, it was started by the bestseller, Quiet. But, there are many other books out there. I also suggest the Intovert’s Advantage. Very few introverts go into politics, but that’s going to change as the US craves people of substance. The best US Senator in the past decades was Russ Feingold, an uber introvert.
Mike,
Excellent as usual. You are correct that there is no such thing as a “rugged individualist” unless they are talking about a hermit living in a cave somewhere. My gggg-grandfather was a friend of Daniel Boone and they went long hunting together several times. Long hunting did not refer to the long-barrel rifles of the day, but to the fact the were gone a long time. That might be anywhere from weeks to several months. These men were definitely rugged, but they were not totally self-sufficient. They depended on each other, because they could not have harvested hundreds of pounds of meat, smoked and salted it, and brought it back to their families alone.
As the poet says, no man is an island.
I am reminded of the “new” American myths as I read this excellent essay. Obama is a Muslim and foreign born, Reagan Revolution, Bush II’s WMDs, the wealthy as job creators, minimal universal healthcare as a socialist plot to undermine state’s rights, etc. All are destructive myths and all are pushed by the pundits that need the myth to survive in order to prosper financially and politically, even at the cost of the greater good.
The ideas here tie in nicely with the contrast between two ethical viewpoints. The first more traditional ethic takes good behavior to result mainly from individual virtues; better people do better things. The second ethic takes better or worse behavior to result very largely from better or worse psycho-social situations. This latter situationist ethic is very difficult for people to accept. Confidence in the power of individual virtues is high, yet roughly 50 years of social psychology research provides strongly compelling evidence favoring the situationist view.
Great post Mike, really great.
The great man myth is truly dangerous in large part because of the climate and society it creates that allows some allegedly great men to do very destructive things the consequences of which they rarely suffer and when you add to this the corrosive idea that corporations are people too the rest of us are cooked.
Myths die hard. Thanks for the timely essay, Mike.
No longer should people refer to Social Darwinism but instead to Social Spencerism after Herbert Spencer. The old term demeans Darwin! Also, one can call it Spencer- Randism.
Mike, would you agree?
Skeptic G,
Spencer has the qualifications and it would be a relief to remove Darwin from the quation.
That is one of my purposes to take that insult against his name from the literature.