Something that has been asserted in both the Introduction and A General Overview is the idea that modernity “presses upon us certain presuppositions, paradigms, and ways of thinking about our world and ourselves”. What this means, exactly, and how it happens may not be entirely clear. Nor is it obvious what sort of things I am referring to, though the list of ideas and circumstances mentioned in the overview should offer some clues.
Over time, we come to embody theories and values that are unique to the circumstances of the age, as well as the place, we inhabit. We inhabit modernity, and thus many of the theories and values we embody will be modern. This is not to say they will be exclusively modern (though that may be nearly the case for some people); pre-modern ideas still yield a certain amount of influence, though often in new and unique ways.1 The tendency-to-embody-theories-and-values specific to the age one inhabits is, of course, true for past ages as well. There were uniquely medieval and ancient modes of thinking and understanding, just as there have been differences between East and West.2 What is different–uniquely different–about modernity, however, is that modern theories and values form a very radical departure from those ages of the past which predate it.3 In this essay I will discuss two examples, one political, one economic, yet both bound up with that of the social.
For the first example, consider the structure4 and form of the American government, and the affect it has on generations of Americans living today. Central to the American experiment and founding are notions such as individual rights, private property, limited government, freedom of religion, et al., which together play a role in the common understanding of contemporary Americans. When we enter the workforce as young adults and cash our first paycheck, there is no question about whose money it is, or who owns what is purchased with it. If law enforcement arrived at my house and arrested me because I had spoken out against a local politician–the response of my neighbors would certainly be confusion and astonishment. If an Eastern Orthodox woman desires to become a Roman Catholic, there is no government tribunal which must approve the conversion. There is banality in making these points, I know, but that just is the point–they are obvious: We own our paychecks and property, we enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religion as constitutional rights. Yet this way of life is largely unique to the modern contemporary West.
This state of affairs is the result of a specific structure of society and government, which in turn is the result of specific and articulated theories and philosophies.5 In other words, much of the structure of our society and government presupposes certain theories and philosophies. Thus, our living within a given society “presses upon us certain presuppositions, paradigms, and ways of thinking about our world and ourselves”. By being born and growing up in a given society, we come to “embody” its paradigms and presuppositions.6
Of course the structures, and therefore the common understanding, of societies will vary from place to place. We could imagine being born into a different society with different structures and therefore adopt different paradigms and presuppositions. North Korea, for instance. But inhabiting a society does not thereby validate its structures and presuppositions. Indeed, North Korea is an example of a country where its citizens are severely oppressed, and its inhabitants need not endorse the structures which oppress them. In fact, it is likely that North Korean citizens are more aware of the structures which influence their lives, if for no other reason than they suffer because of them. Here in the West, we take the structures of our society for granted, because we see them (if we see them) as liberating and not oppressive. Nonetheless, the evaluation of such structures–and therefore their underlying presuppositions–is a separate question. The point is to show that we simply adopt them, even if unconsciously.7
The second–much more complex example–which lies deeper and is more encompassing of the modern contemporary West, is what I will call the “ethic of success or wealth”. What Max Weber calls “the spirit of capitalism”. Though this ethic (or way of life) is most fully embodied in the United States, its existence predates the formal founding of the government. It did exist in the common understanding of society in the colonies, the same common understanding which ultimately produced the U.S. government.8
Today, the “ethic of success or wealth” is simply the fact that our life is organized in such a way that the acquisition and management of money is our primary task, or that which requires the majority of our time–or if not the majority, still commands significant attention.9 Included in this is the idea that it is our duty to be productive–that is, money-making–members of society.
Humans are corporeal–we have bodies–and thus need a certain amount of food, water, and shelter, to survive. Food and shelter must be purchased, and the medium of exchange for such things is money. Unless you always have it at your disposal, which is unlikely, you will be required to devise some way to get it. Working as an employee is the most common way to do this, though obviously being self-employed, owning a business, or generating income from investments are options as well. Income must also be managed, it must be spent, saved, invested, always with an eye to the future. Few who work for a living would contest that such concerns occupy much if not most of their time today.10 Of course, we take this for granted. This is the way the world is, we say–at least our world–and there is no changing it. Some way of supporting yourself and/or your family must be devised. Period. Corresponding to this fact are a web or network of others:
- The organization of life on the basis of linear time, i.e., by the clock.
- The rise of the concept of career. Adopting a profession as one’s own, and deliberately specializing in it for the entirety of one’s working life.
- The view that rising incomes are unqualifiedly good, and that rising GDP is correspondingly good.
- Personal worth becomes tied up with income, consumption, and general monetary concerns.
- The view that unemployment is unqualifiedly bad.
- The view that being a good citizen is bound up with being a productive member of society.
- The rise of consumerism, and the view that spending money is good for the economy.
This is only a partial list, but it is enough to give us an idea of the scale and role that the permeation of money plays in our society. Money is the ideal abstraction of means, it is a socially constructed medium of exchange. It is something we use, in order to get something else. It is useful, and those who acquire it and spend it are viewed as useful to society. It is often paid out at an hourly rate, and thus the linear time of the ticking clock emerges. The better we are at something, the more money we will likely make doing it, and thus the rise of specialization and careerism is brought into being. If money is useful, more money is more useful, and the worst thing is the useless thing–idealized and abstracted as the unemployed member of society. Correspondingly, personal worth (for many) becomes tied to economic factors. The drive to make money leads human ingenuity and creativity to new heights, producing and developing new products and services, in turn leading to increasing rates of consumption.
I am well aware that this story is a crass simplification. The amount of overlapping causal factors that have played a role in creating this modern paradigm is indeed staggering, and I will attempt to explore some of these in future essays. What I am interested in doing here is simply observing this as yet another aspect of the overall structure of society, especially that of the United States. This “ethic of success and wealth” is indeed another instance of the modern world pressing upon us certain “presuppositions, paradigms, and ways of thinking about our world and ourselves”.
However, it is tempting to think that this ethic or way of life has always existed, albeit under slightly or even dramatically different conditions. After all, humans have always needed to work in order to survive. The existence of money can be traced back for thousands of years. Everyone would rather be well-off than poor. The only difference between now and then is that today people actually have a chance to make money, whereas before they were tied down by oppressive social hierarchies and norms. There is some truth to this, of course, but the plausibility of this argument lies in the fact that we are looking back across history with modern eyes. It is not the case that our ancestors viewed things the same way we do. They in fact inhabited a different historical milieu, and thus embodied different paradigms and presuppositions. The so-called virtues of thrift and work that so powerfully embody the capitalist spirit in modernity were, in past epochs, largely seen as vices.11
Some writers obviously disagree, instead holding–and here I am mainly thinking of Ayn Rand and her followers–that during the premodern ages (especially the middle ages) man was oppressed by religion and superstition, and it was only with the Enlightenment that man’s mind was set free, and thus the great progress of the modern age was unleashed–of trade, invention and wealth: of Capitalism. But to my mind, this argument is utterly destroyed by Max Weber, who offers a much more subtle and comprehensive analysis of the rise of capitalism.
How this ethic or way of life came about is, I think, extremely subtle and complicated, and I will not attempt to do so here, though again, much of this will be attempted in the future. Let it suffice that in answering these questions I am heavily indebted and influenced by Max Weber, Jacques Ellul, and Charles Taylor.
Notes:
1. Stoic writers from Ancient Rome, such as Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, remain influential even in non-academic circles, and are even highly regarded by some popular contemporary writers, such as Tim Ferriss. There is also the observation that much modern thought is a synthesized or blended combination of the pre-modern and modern.
2. Although there are clear, particularly social, differences, there is much common ground between ancient writing in India and China and those of the ancient West. For example, there are certain similarities between aspects of the Bhagavad Gita and Platonism, as well as between Confucian and Aristotelian thought. For a contemporary account of some of the differences between Eastern and Western thought, see Richard E. Nisbett, The Geography of Thought.
3. At this time I do not think that these changes should be credited exclusively to philosophers or their writings. The changes are likely a combination of early modern theories and philosophies as well as changes in the sociological, religious, political, and economic circumstances of the era.
4. I am using the word “structure” here in a somewhat novel sense. What I mean by structure is both the content and the way something is organized–in this case the federal government of the United States. The separation of powers, the separation of chuch and state, the Bill of Rights, et al., would all be examples of this. But before such things formally came into being, they existed in the minds of those Founding Fathers who actively debated them, and who were members of a society who shared a common understanding. It was this common understanding, combined with the acumen of the founders, that created the system of government of the United States. And this system of government in turn affects generations who know not the reasons for it or the debates had on its behalf. The totality of these examples–the common psyche of pre-revolutionary American society, that of the founders in organizing the government in a specific way, that of the affect this organization of government has on future generations–is what I mean by “structure”.
5. It is well-known that the Founding Fathers of the United States drew upon many and diverse sources, and debated endlessly about the merits and drawbacks contained in them. The structure of government that emerged from this was extraordinarily well-thought-out, and one ideally suited for a pluralist society. Perhaps the best example is the philosophy of John Locke, insofar as much of our understanding of individual rights, limited government, and freedom of religion, stem from Locke’s thinking. More broadly still, the modern contemporary West has largely been built on Lockean ideas. For a fair and balanced introduction to the philosophy of John Locke, see Edward Feser, Locke.
6. It should be noted that America is a very young society, and one unique aspect of America is that its government was essentially designed and built from the ground up. The very old traditions and deep cultural roots in which other countries are steeped–and I am here thinking of those in Europe–did not play the same role in America. Where other countries sought to break free from past traditions, America in many ways started with a clean slate. In some ways this was good, but as we will see, in others it may not be.
7. Notice that once we are aware of the structures and underlying presuppositions of our society, we are capable of consciously endorsing or rejecting them. But even if we reject them, we must still inhabit our society, and thus cannot entirely escape. On the other hand, those who are ignorant, who remain unaware of the structures of the society they inhabit, will likely adopt them automatically and without reflection.
8. Those who may doubt this are encouraged to read Benjamin Franklin’s Advice to a Young Tradesman [21 July, 1748], and “Necessary Hints To Those That Would Be Rich”, found in The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. II Letters and Misc. Writings 1735-1753.
9. Exceptions may include children, housewives, retirees, the independently wealthy, and others. But it must be noted that even within these examples, entire independence or non-contact with monetary concerns must be extremely rare: Many housewives handle budgets and finances, as do retirees and the independently wealthy.
10. It is worth mentioning that those who suffer from insufficient amounts of income spend a great deal of time thinking about, and worrying over, monetary concerns. It has also been observed that the more money one makes, the more one worries over its potential loss, and the more one is plagued by its management. For an illuminating discussion of the latter, see “The Morals of Money”, in J. Paul Getty, How To Be Rich.
11. See Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.