The Paradoxes of American Freedom

British anthropologist Tristram Riley-Smith looks at the state of American society through the prism of individual liberty in his new book The Cracked Bell: America and the Afflictions of Liberty.

The diagnosis, tentatively put forward, is that this thread of positivistic energetic passionate advocacy for liberty, which can at times become like a hyper-individualism, is what appears to be causing so many of the paradoxes.

I haven't read the book, and I'm not familiar with the author, so I can't say to what extent he gets things right or wrong. I would like to give it a read, though.

It seems to me that Liberty in the American sense initially meant something more like respect for the individual conscience, but has turned into the practical worship of the individual will ("conscience" having been tossed on the rubbish heap of history with outmoded concepts like "honor" and "self-sacrifice"). The conscience was implicitly informed by some common religious sensibility, but no longer.

Not that the American system was ever very close to the ideal, but at least the ideal was there in a foggy sort of way.

Then again, the sphere of liberty seems to have shrunk considerably in material terms. We have excessive moral license, but (thanks to heavy taxation) less and less real ownership of things like land and other productive property. It's as if a license for immorality is offered as a kind of sop to take our minds off the loss of self determination in material terms.

The definition of the Servile State is as follows: -

" That arrangement of society in which so consider-
able a number of the families and individuals are con-
strained by positive law to labour for the advantage of
other families and individuals as to stamp the whole
community with the mark of such labour we call THE
SERVILE STATE."

Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State

Comments

[M, B.]

My wife bought me a stack of Chesterton and Belloc books for Christmas. I finished "Napoleon of Notting Hill" today (I started it Monday in honor of the healthcare bill) and was leafing through "Servile State" today.

It's funny how modern American conservatives and liberals are mirror images of each other on the control/liberty issue. Conservatives advocate tighter moral control, and economic freedom; liberals advocate moral freedom and economic control. I tend to side with the conservatives, given what Peter Kreeft has called Colson's Law (after Chuck Colson): there's always a balance between cops and conscience, and the more conscience a society has, the less cops are needed, and vice versa.

I think the answer to both modern liberal and modern conservative excesses is to remember that it is the family that is the fundamental unit of society, not the individual or the state.

[Jeff Hendrix]

Full agreement with you, Brother Tim and Poobah of TLOBC.

Cf. Matthew's post on GKC, "The Midwest and the Middle Ages"

http://holywhapping.blogspot.com/2010/03/midwest-and-middle-ages.html

[Patrick]

@ M.B.: "given what Peter Kreeft has called Colson's Law (after Chuck Colson): there's always a balance between cops and conscience, and the more conscience a society has, the less cops are needed, and vice versa."

Haha! Spoken like a true Nixon Man, right? Unfortunately, they use "conscience" and "agreeing with the President" synonymously, which is why they all ended up convicted felons.

Ha! Colson's Law! I'm tempted to fornicate at the very thought of it!

[M. B.]

Patrick:

I suspect Mr. Colson would argue that it was precisely his own failure of conscience that led to the necessity of the intervention of cops in his own case. But I do hope you believe in the possibility or repentance.

In any case, if it makes you feel better, just call it Adams' Law, after John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[Patrick]

"But I do hope you believe in the possibility or repentance."

Of course I do and I didn't say anything about the quality of Chuck Colson's soul. Repentance for sins doesn't entitle Chuck Colson to credibility on public affairs, though.

However, I disagree with Colson not because he committed crimes to protect Richard Nixon, but because he's wrong where John Adams is right. He sees "cops" and "conscience" as an equation: conscience = X cops, whereas Adams rightly sees "conscience" as having no substitute in governance.

Colson gets it wrong in the way a Nixon Man would get things wrong; by equating "cops", in any number, with some sort of righteousness only "conscience" can give you. Why Nixonian? Only a Nixon Man would see "cops" as a sort of stand-in for goodness (while war protestors, political radicals, etc. - many of whom were acting out of "conscience", say what you will about the merits of their views- represented immorality.)

Of course John Adams gets it right: there are no number of cops, and no system of government, that can be a stand-in for "conscience". You could make everyone a "cop", and your system will still fail without "conscience". There is no "balance", as with Colson, where X "cops" equals some measure of "conscience", because they aren't substitutes. Society literally fails without "conscience", whereas an infinite number of "cops" can't make society function, and in fact, can be used to further the goals of immoral men.

So "Adams' Law" makes me feel quite a bit better, since it succeeds where Colson's Law fails.

[M. B.]

Patrick:

I see what you're saying. I agree, and Kreeft's use of the term is in line with what you are saying, but he's pointing out that despite the fact that they aren't equivalent, you will nonetheless find more cops in a conscience-less society, in a futile effort to "do something." Witness the TSA and air travel requirements today, for example....

[Patrick]

@ M.B.: "...but he's pointing out that despite the fact that they aren't equivalent, you will nonetheless find more cops in a conscience-less society, in a futile effort to 'do something'. Witness the TSA and air travel requirements today, for example..."

Aha! Then we agree entirely: I must have misinterpreted Kreeft's quote.

[Tristram Riley-Smith]

To TLOBC,

As an Englishman brought up on a diet of all four of your icons (especially the two that are less well-known in 21st Century Britain - Belloc and Chesterton) I just wanted to register my appreciation that a discussion about my book - "The Cracked Bell: America and the Afflictions of Liberty" has prompted a debate.

I do hope you will all peruse the book - which tries to be as readable as the works of T, L, B and C - and let me know what you think. [One chapter - "Trick or Treat" - is dedicated to Belief in America. Meanwhile, you can keep up with reviews, articles, extracts and even an occasional blog via www.thecrackedbell.com.

[Tim J.]

Many thanks, Mr. Riley-Smith (pardon me if you are a PhD) for dropping by and commenting. I do hope to read your book, and your blog and website look very interesting, as well.

We explore the light and dark places of American culture, here, from a traditional Catholic perspective... how each aspect tends toward or away from Life, Truth, Beauty and Unity.

On your website you state that the American social fabric is "riddled with conflict and paradox", and I would certainly agree, but I would also point out that in this it is precisely like every other culture in human history.

It is riddled with conflict because every single human person is riddled with conflict.

[Tristram Riley-Smith]

Tim (if I may)
That's a very fair point. In the book I quote Kant's dictum: "out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." And as an anthropologist I think my mission is to help us understand our common humanity through exploring the rich variegation of societies and cultures.