One is linked to one's adult role, that is to say, by being identified with a myth—participating actually, physically, oneself, in a manifestation of mythological forms, these being visibly supplied by the roles and patterns of the rite, and the rite, in extension, supporting the form of the society. So that, in sum, we may say that whereas the energies of the psyche in their primary context of infantile concerns are directed to the crude ends of individual pleasure and power, in the rituals of initiation they are reorganized and implicated in a system of social duty, with such effect that the individual thenceforth can be safely trusted as an organ of the group. Pleasure, power, and duty: these are the systems of reference of all experience on the natural level of the primitive societies. And when such societies are in form, the first two are subordinated to the last, which, in turn, is mythologically supported and ritually enforced. Ritual is mythology made alive, and its effect is to convert men into angels. For archaic man was not a man at all, in the modern, individualistic sense of the term, but the incarnation of a socially determined archetype.(1)In 1978 I read Joseph Campbell’s Masks of God, all four volumes. What struck me most was the first volume, Primitive Mythology. Modern humans first appeared in Africa some 200,000 years ago and by about 60,000 to 40,000 years ago had spread over most of the planet. Agriculture started around 10,000 to 7,000 years ago and cities started 7,000 to 3,500 years ago, writing around 3,500 years ago. The printing press was invented around 1456, the industrial revolution in 1760. Electronic media started with the invention of the telegraph around 1840, the telephone in 1876, radio in 1896, television in 1927. Digital media with ARPANET in 1969, and the web in 1989. The dates, especially the earlier ones, are rather arbitrary but the point is the exponential nature of this change, the arc of human culture. Campbell’s idea is that the notion of the self has evolved as both human consciousness and culture have evolved. Mythology is a record of how evolving cultures have tried to both suppress and document the co-evolving rise of self. Campbell’s fourth volume Creative Mythology is about myths in modern life. I remember not being very attentive to this 4th volume and I don’t remember exactly why. It might be worth a reread. In the past, the modern concept of individuality has always had a negative connotation, something from childhood that is lost through the rituals of becoming an adult in one’s culture. The two-year-old and their tantrums are the ultimate individuals.
At first sight there is something surprising in this strange unrest of so many happy men, restless in the midst of abundance. The spectacle itself is however as old as the world; the novelty is to see a whole people furnish an exemplification of it. Their taste for physical gratifications must be regarded as the original source of that secret inquietude which the actions of the Americans betray, and of that inconstancy of which they afford fresh examples every day. He who has set his heart exclusively upon the pursuit of worldly welfare is always in a hurry, for he has but a limited time at his disposal to reach it, to grasp it, and to enjoy it. The recollection of the brevity of life is a constant spur to him. Besides the good things which he possesses, he every instant fancies a thousand others which death will prevent him from trying if he does not try them soon. This thought fills him with anxiety, fear, and regret, and keeps his mind in ceaseless trepidation, which leads him perpetually to change his plans and his abode. If in addition to the taste for physical well-being a social condition be superadded, in which the laws and customs make no condition permanent, here is a great additional stimulant to this restlessness of temper. Men will then be seen continually to change their track, for fear of missing the shortest cut to happiness. It may readily be conceived that if men, passionately bent upon physical gratifications, desire eagerly, they are also easily discouraged: as their ultimate object is to enjoy, the means to reach that object must be prompt and easy, or the trouble of acquiring the gratification would be greater than the gratification itself. Their prevailing frame of mind then is at once ardent and relaxed, violent and enervated. Death is often less dreaded than perseverance in continuous efforts to one end.(6)In Democracy in America, published in 1835, Alex de Tocqueville wrote about the American concept of individuality in both positive and negative terms.
I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest—his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not—he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances—what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits. (6)Notice again this warning that individualism and especially what is now called radical individualism, always devolves into an infantile state. Alex de Tocqueville seemed to think that religion would tone this danger and this is the thesis of many conservative thinkers. (3) What are their explanations for such things as “the gospel of prosperity” (5) and the support of some major religions for our recent man-baby in the White House? Or the cult of QAnon?
To sum up. The concept of self is a new development in the evolution of human consciousness and historically individuality is something from childhood that has to be given up when one becomes an adult and enters society. The American experiment has extended individuality into adulthood with both positive and negative results. The idea that individuality does not always equate to freedom may seem strange until we look closely at history. Whether individuality is necessary for freedom can still be successfully debated but I would argue strongly that it is not sufficient. (4)
Campbell, Joseph. The Masks of God. Penguin Books, 1976. https://www.jcf.org/works/series/the-masks-of-god/.
Sohst, Wolfgang. “The Discovery of Individuality. A Short History of Human Personal Identity,” 2015. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1079.3764.
Lawler, Peter Augustine. “The Problem of Democratic Individualism.” The Russell Kirk Center (blog), May 12, 2014. https://kirkcenter.org/essays/the-problem-of-democratic-individualism/.
Bellah, Robert N. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, 2014. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0520254198/?tag=kirkcenter-20.
Burton, Tara Isabella. “The Prosperity Gospel, Explained: Why Joel Osteen Believes That Prayer Can Make You Rich.” Vox, September 1, 2017. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/1/15951874/prosperity-gospel-explained-why-joel-osteen-believes-prayer-can-make-you-rich-trump.
de Tocqueville, Alexis. “Democracy in America, Part II.,” 1835. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm.
Kommentare