World in the Grip of an Idea; C. Carson

The point of the advertisement is, in part at least, to arouse sympathy and understanding for the handi capped. So far as that is its purpose, there is nothing exceptional about it. To sympathize with and have concern for the less fortunate is in keeping with the highest concept of charity. Moreover, to put oneself in the place of others, by way of the imagination, is laudable. However, the method used to do 593 594 THE FREEMAN October this in the advertisement is ques tionable. The method entails a re versal of the norms. The handi capped, because of their implicit normality, have changed from being subjects worthy of sympathy and concern into threats to those who have been normal. What is conven ient to their condition becomes the way things are to be arranged. This emerges as a threat because the people who have been handicapped show no sympathy or understanding for erstwhile normal people.

Reversing Normality The transformation that has been going on in the United States pro ceeds by reversing normality. In ef fect, new norms are created, and the old established norms are aban doned. This change is impelled by the idea that has the world in its grip. Just as in the above scenario, what was normal becomes excep tional and unusual, or, at least, not distinctively normal. What was formerly rare or unusual takes its place among the expected and· nor mal. The process by which this trans formation occurs should be familiar, for the pattern has been established by constant repetition and by ex pansive application into more and more areas. The change is advanced by relativistic arguments. In its bluntest formulation the argument goes something like this. What is normal? Who can say what is nor mal? At the ordinary level of dis course, these are unanswerable questions. They are difficult to an swer, in the first place, because we are unprepared to defend our con cepts of normality. We may be con vinced that we know what is nor mal, but proof is quite another mat ter.

There is good reason for this. In quisitive children usually learn at a fairly early age that questioning the norms is a fruitless and unreward ing undertaking. Far from being commended for being brilliant, they are apt to be maligned for their stupidity. After all, what kinds of questions can be raised about norms? Why do we walk on our feet instead of our hands? Why do we drive on the right instead of the left? Why do women have babies and men have hair on their chests? In most cases, no satisfactory answers can be given. Hence, children are discour aged from raising such questions. The best answer we can make in many cases is simply, UThat is just the way things are." And what we are apt to think after saying it a few times is: ~~If you weren't so stupid, you would have figured it out for yourself." There is yet another reason for our usual inability to make an apol ogy for our norms. One of the pri mary concerns of society is to main tain the norms. All social function 1978 THE UNITED STATES: A BEMUSED PEOPLE 595 depends upon norms and their gen eral acceptance. Take them away, or abandon them, and society disinte grates. All acts lose their meaning, and everything is unexpected and strange. To debate the validity of norms is to debate the validity of society. That is, of necessity, a de bate for which there are no rules, and one which society cannot toler ate. Society's business is to discover, preserve, and maintain the norms, not to challenge them.

That is not to say that norms are not well grounded. On the contrary, many of them are grounded in na ture. Where that is not the case where they arose as custom, for example-they have been instilled by nurture and have become second nature by usage and veneration. Our very social existence is grounded in norms. Their reason for being, if there is no other reason, is the smooth functioning of society. It is a sound instinct that resists dis carding a norm because we do not perceive its reason for being, for experience teaches that if we probe deep enough. we may discover rea sons we did not even suspect. None of this is acceptable to socialists, of course. The received norms stand athwart the path which both revolutionary and evolutionary socialism must tread. Socialism re quires that all efforts be concerted toward the achievement of human felicity on this earth. The great strength of the idea that has the world in its grip lies in that very conception. Its weakness lies in the conception, too, as well as elsewhere. The irony of it is that the achievement of human felicity, so far as is practicable, is a social norm.

More, the purpose of society is to provide the framework for achieving such felicity as is possible for man. But society does not define human felicity. That is left, in the main, to individual decision. In the same manner, individuals are left to a great variety of devices and means for achieving their own ends. This is anathema to socialists. They would transform society from a framework into the determinant of the content of felicity and the means by which it would be achieved. The individual would be confined and society politicized. Social norms would be come whatever appeared to be use- . ful in controlling the individual and politicizing society. Norms have to become what is decreed as normal by the political power. Gradualists, however, have no such absolute power as yet. In the United States, the communications industry has made forceful strides in determining what is normal. Breaking Down Distinctions The first stages of socialism are concerned mainly with breaking down the distinctions on which the norms are based. The breakdown of 596 THE FREEMAN October the norms proceeds along two lines.

One is intellectual, and the mode is relativism. The tendency of re lativism is to discredit all norms. Norms are, according to this line, simply matters of opinion. The au thority for them becomes either ma jority opinion or simply whatever is done by large numbers of people. Normality in America has become indistinguishable from the average, or better still, the lowest common denominator of behavior. The logic of such an approach is that if norms are relative there are no norms. There is only what happens to pre vail at the moment. The other line is to pose contin ual challenges to the established norms. Journalism is particularly well suited to this undertaking. There is an old saw to the effect that if a dog bites a man that is not news, but if a man bites a dog that is news. That is a way of saying that journalists focus on the odd, strange, curious, different, and unusual. But when journalism becomes pervasive, as it bids to do in America today, it be comes a continual assault on the norms. This is especially the case when the odd, strange, and curious are not presented as odd, strange, and curious but as commonplace and normal. It happens over and over again that radicals are interviewed in such a way as to make them appear normal.

The technique by which this is done is easy enough to discern. Let us suppose that an advocate of com munalliving arrangements is being interviewed. The act is cleaned up for television, for instance. There is no obscenity or profanity. The inter viewee is likely to be well enough dressed, be clean, well brushed, and reasonably neat. The impression prevails that he is different in one respect only-that is, that he be lieves the ~~nuclear family" is out moded and new and extended families are emerging. New norms are taking shape before our eyes, as it were, painlessly and with no ap parent wrench to a whole body of belief and practice. The odd, strange, and curious-the shifting and unsettled relationships in some sort of communal arrangement-are presented as an emerging norm. Individuality Assaulted Why is this assault on the norms made necessary by the idea that has the world in its grip? The reason is not difficult to grasp. There is one norm that must be wiped out if the idea is to prevail. It is the norm that individuals can, do, and will pursue their self-interest as they perceive it, ordinarily and generally. The pursuit of self-interest is the apple of discord in the socialist visionary Garden of Eden. It is the unpardon able sin, the source of man's fall, and the continuing obstacle to harmony and beatitude on this planet. So long 1978 THE UNITED STATES: A BEMUSED PEOPLE 597 as it remains normal, the vision of socialism is only a will-of-the-wisp.

On the face of it, the socialist problem would be easy enough to solve. All that would have to be done would be to get people to abandon the individual pursuit of self interest and devote themselves to the common good. Isolate self interest, pillory it, make it unac ceptable, and people will abandon it. There have been attempts to do this, of course. But the solution is not that easy. Self-interest is not a norm existing in splendid isolation from all other norms. Instead, it is in tertwined in the warp and woof of the whole fabric of the received normality. Socialists have generally understood this well enough and have grasped at least some of the dimensions of the problem confront ing them. The whole system of private prop erty buttresses and supports--even rewards-the pursuit of self-interest by individuals. Free enterprise in vites individuals to prosper by labor ing to advance themselves. The norm that a man should receive the fruits of his labor places a premium on the pursuit of self-interest. The family is an enclave of self-interest or at least limited interest seeking.

Members of the family are bidden to look after the family interest primarily. The institution of private property is so developed and con ceived that it is tied up with .the limited family interest-with in heritance, with wills, with shares for members of the family, and so on. Even religion has been generally entangled with individual self interest. (Indeed, Marx believed that organized religion was at the apex of the whole structure of capi talism.) The individual is bidden to take care of his interest in eternal beatitude in the hereafter by getting right with his Maker. The Hope of Heaven is, after all, a Hope primar ily for individual salvation. On the socialist view, then, the received norms are honeycombed with supports for and enticements to the individual to pursue his own self-interest. The pursuit of self interest is a norm, as they see it, because the whole fabric of normal ity makes it appear to be so. In order to cut away the pursuit of self interest, the whole structure of normality must be replaced. Those under the sway of the idea differ about means and, perhaps, about how drastic the surgery must be, but they basically agree over the prob lems presented by the received norms.

A Political Movement to Effect Economic Change There have been two major thrusts of socialism in the United States in the twentieth century, with many more smaller and inter related developments. The first 598 THE FREEMAN October thrust evinced itself primarily as a political movemeI\t aimed at bring ing about economic changes. This political thrust has gained momen tum several times, but it was most successful in making headway in the 1930s. Roosevelt' s New Deal succeeded in passing legislation which seriously altered the framework of economic normality and morality. The use of government power to redistribute the wealth was estab lished as a principle during the de cade of the 1930s. The Social Secu rity enactment turned out to be the centerpiece of the distributionist legislation. By means of it money was taxed from earners and distrib uted after retirement to those who had paid into it. It was, and is, redistributionist because benefits do not depend upon amount paid in; they are determined by Congress according to formulas which have been revised over the years.

Redistribution was also the opera tive principle in many other New Deal programs. The farm subsidy programs redistributed wealth. The government put its weight behind labor unions, and hence the use of coercion by unions to get higher wages and shorter hours. Subsidized houses and government supported loans were also redistributionist in character. The graduated income tax which, along with Social Secu rity, undergirds redistribution, had already been used, but it was much extended under the New Deal. New distributionist programs have been enacted over the years. The most notable, and notorious, have been the welfare programs. Less well publicized, but more ubiquitous, are the numerous sub sidies to everything from airports to local police to school lunch pro grams. The Federal hand is not only in every pocket but the Federal handout is extended in every direc tion. Monetary and Spending Policies to Achieve Control That government power should be used to control and direct the econ omy was also established as a prin ciple in the 1930s. Manipulation of the money supply was one of the earliest and main instruments of this control. Another major instru ment is government spending and it is linked with taxation to direct economic action. Government has so long concerned itself with employ ment and unemployment that for most people it must appear as legitimate a government function as is the apprehending and punishing of criminals. All these ways of con trolling and directing the economy have been steadily expanded and extended since that time.

The other major thrust to socialism came in the 1960s and has continued apace since. Although it, 1978 THE UNITED STATES: A BEMUSED PEOPLE 599 too, is political, the primary aim is not so much economic as social. This thrust is toward social transforma tion. It emerges as an effort to over turn the established norms as a means of changing the existing or der. Legislation is mainly a framework only for this transforma tion. Every norm is grist for the mill in this transformation. Indeed, it is not clear, in general, that overturning one norm is more important than another. Since all norms support the existing order, they must all be overturned or transformed. It hardly matters whether what is involved is sex, marriage, the family, the role and position of the husband, educa tion, military authority, the author ity of the President, ownership and control over property, or whatever. Every norm overturned weakens the authority of all norms.

In this sense, priority for destruc tion of norms may best be given to those most deeply entrenched. It is from this angle that the assault on sexual norms may be understood. Sexual norms have been long estab lished, and would appear to be most difficult to alter. Indeed, many ofthe sexual norms are rooted in nature, and some of them have been sur rounded by taboos. It is also the case that some of the most fundamen tal inequalities are sex related. It is reasonable to suppose that if the sexual norms could be destroyed, all other norms might fall in their wake. The attack on sexual norms has been blatant in recent years. Male dominance and authority have been under consistent assault. The norm has been that the male is dominant in male-female relationships-that his opinion is deferred to, his deci sion final, and that he is the fiscally responsible partner in the house hold. This norm is supported by cus tom and tradition, and has been supported by religious authority. A portion, at least, of this norm has a natural basis. Normally, men are taller, heavier, and stronger than women. Women are the child bearers by nature, and many of the skills and abilities which they have developed have been related to that role. The nuclear family, as monogamous marriage has been lately dubbed, is founded in the na ture of parental responsibility, and the desirable conditions of child bearing. The norms are threatened by what is called female liberation.

Aggressive homosexuality threat ens the whole concept of normal ity. If homosexuality is ((normal" there are no norms in sexual rela tionships. The male dominance takes on only a symbolic, and en tirely relative, significance. Par ental responsibility has no founda tion in homosexuality. The distinc tion between male and female is obliterated. Normal is cut loose from 600 THE FREEMAN October its foundation in nature. The whole framework of norms entailed in mar riage, the family, property inheri tance, loses its meaning when homo sexuality is accepted as normal. The Impact on Society: A Chaos of Relationships The reversal of the norms has a devastating impact on society. Norms are to society what the fixed points of a compass are to naviga tion. It can be argued that norms are relative, that some of them are even arbitrary, which they may be. In a similar fashion, it can be argued that the directions on a compass are relative, as indeed they are in some senses. But it is absolutely essential to agree upon and accept them else charts become worthless, and no definite course can be plotted to go from one place to another. The func tioning of society is equally depen dent upon agreement upon and ac ceptance of a set of norms. Norms are the foundation of privileges, po sitions and functions within a soci ety. When they are overturned, a chaos of relationships results. No one can any longer be sure what function he is to perform, or who has the right or authority to make any decision or perform any act.

Every body must have a head. Every household must have a head. Every undertaking involving two or more people must have someone who is in charge. Constructive act ivity depends upon each person know ing what he is to do. When the norms are overturned, constructive activity declines and debates and contests over authority ensue. Force tends to replace voluntary coopera tion, and the strongest or most de termined assert what is often enough entirely arbitrary authority. That is what is happening in large in the United States. The norms may not have been overturned in many instances, but they have been so seriously questioned that their val idity is in doubt, and there is no longer universal agreement upon and acceptance of them. Those who insist upon traditional male-female roles are denounced as ~~male chauvinist pigs." Those who are af fronted by open homosexuality are accused of being intolerant. Those who exercise firmly the authority of thei_r positions are charged with being dictatorial. Students would determine the content of their courses and formally evaluate their teachers. Prison inmates attempt to organize politically in order to run the prisons. Unions negotiate and enforce work rules.

What a man may do with and on his property is in such doubt that experts must be called upon to set matters right. The courts are bur dened down with litigation as civil suits burgeon. Court cases are in creasing in length and complexity, and no decision ever seems final as 1978 THE UNITED STATES: A BEMUSED PEOPLE 601 appeal follows upon appeal from whatever decision has been ren dered. Interminable hearings pre cede all sorts of undertakings. De bates and contests over who has the right and authority to do what supersede the constructive activity by which it might be accomplished. Rampant Confusion The American people are be mused. The word has two rather distinct meanings. It means ~~confused, muddled, stupefied" and it means ~~lost in thought" or ~~preoc cupied." Americans have every rea son to be confused. They have been repeatedly confronted and affronted by scandalous behavior that has gone unreproached. They have wit nessed in a span of little more than a decade the breakdown of social re straints as in the case of the public use of profanity and obscenities.

They have seen the breakdown of the proprieties as they apply to female behavior. On the day before four students were shot down by the National Guard at Kent State, teenage girls roamed the campus making lascivious invitations to the guardsmen, shouting unprintable obscenities at them, and otherwise behaving like tramps. People have witnessed the loosening.of all sorts of restraints and have felt powerless to do anything about it. The symbols of political authority-the military and the police-have been defied with impunity and subjected to ver bal and physical assault. Why would not people be confused? And, whether lost in thought or not, the American people have been preoccupied. Better, they have in creasingly occupied themselves with their own affairs and closed their eyes to what is going on with soci ety. It is understandable that they should. The disintegration of society means that the individual can no longer rely on support in bringing reproach and discredit on those who flout the norms and proclaim their disdain for social prescription. The disintegration of society means, too, that the individual had best look to his own protection and well-being.

But it also means that force will be brought to bear in more and more areas of life. The breakdown of au thority is not the prelude to libera tion, it is rather the precondition of the restoration of some sort of au thority by the exercise of force. Force Fills the Vacuum Today, that force evinces itself as government intruding ever more deeply into our lives. It manifests itself as the loss of control over our own affairs to those who hold the reins of political power. The New Deal type intervention has con tinued apace in conjunction with the assault on the norms. But in those areas where society is impotent, government is just about equally 602 THE FREEMAN impotent. Thus, the authority of government declines even as society disintegrates. The idea that has the world in its grip would replace the pursuit of self-interest by a pursuit of the common good. There is no evidence that this has resulted as yet. True, politicians and spokesmen in the communications industry speak a rhetoric of the common good. But the most obvious development thus far has been the disintegration of society and the decay of civilized behavior-the very instruments of the promotion of the common good.

There is much verbal evidence that the American people have lost con- ' fidence in government as an in strument of the general welfare and for the promotion of the common good. But in their bemused state, they do not readily grasp or believe in an effective alternative. Of course, the United States does not exist in a vacuum. The hold of the idea upon America is an integral part of its hold on the people and governments of the world. It· is ap propriate now to turn to an exami nation of it in that perspective. , Next: 23. The Cold War: Revolu tionary versus Evolutionary Social ism. Individualism Maximizes Freedoms FREEDOM,being an alloy of idealisms and realisms blending concep tions with actualities, challenges definition; even in the sense our Founding Fathers cited Liberty as a Right to freedom we have seen "freedoms from" obliterating "freedoms to" and "freedoms for," seen emphasis on freedom's idealisms displacing freedom's ac tualities and vice versa, even the pursuit of equal freedoms for all destroying the freedoms of all.

"Freedom" then, like itor not, has become a code word that is sub ject to abuse, while on the other hand individualism is something to which we can all relate. Where respect for individualism is maximized is where all i'ndividuals enjoy the maximum of freedoms, including among them the maximum freedoms of thought, speec,h and deed. J. KESNER KAHN ••••••••••••••••••••••••••Perry E. Gresham Liberty for Older Americans OLDER AMERICANS are in a serious identity crisis. Many of the norms for aging are not appropriate for bright and active older people. The norms are changing which adds to the problems of identity. The ac ceptable role for ~~grandparents," ~~senior citizens," and ~~older Ameri cans" is anything but clear; but even when it is clarified, it turns out to be objectionable to any person who has a mind of his own. One cannot fit the stereotypes that have accumulated through years of misunderstanding.