Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life

“Civic republicanism and biblical religion remind us that being an individual—being one’s own person—does not entail escaping our ties to others, and that real freedom lies not in rejecting our social nature but in fulfilling it in a critical and adult loyalty, as we acknowledge our common responsibility to contribute to the wider fellowship of life.”

This quote incorporates anaphora through the repetition of “being” at the beginning of successive clauses, creating a rhythm that draws attention to the evolving understanding of individuality. It contrasts the common perception of individualism as isolation with a more nuanced view that recognizes the importance of social bonds. The notion of “real freedom” is presented as a paradox, suggesting that true autonomy is found not in severing ties with others but in deepening them. The appeal to “civic republicanism and biblical religion” reinforces this counterintuitive argument, which serves as an allusion to broader philosophical and religious traditions that value community and mutual obligation. The final part of the quote, “acknowledge our common responsibility to contribute to the wider fellowship of life,” employs synecdoche, with “fellowship of life” representing the larger society or collective human existence, implying that individual actions are part of a greater whole.

“Individualism, the first language in which Americans tend to think about their lives, values independence and self-reliance above all else.”

The authors argue that individualism is not just a trait but a fundamental cognitive framework through which Americans interpret their existence. The prioritization of “independence and self-reliance” is presented as an intrinsic value, subtly critiqued through the implication that this value system might overshadow other equally important communal or relational values. The phrase “values independence and self-reliance above all else” uses hyperbole to stress the extreme degree to which these traits are esteemed, possibly at the expense of other virtues.

“‘Civic membership’ points to that critical intersection of personal identity with social identity. If we face a crisis of civic identity, it is not just a social crisis, it is a personal crisis as well.”

The phrase “civic membership” represents the broader idea of an individual’s role within society. The subsequent sentences leverage antithesis to juxtapose “social crisis” and “personal crisis,” illustrating how the challenges facing a community are inextricably linked to the personal identity of its members. This antithesis underscores the text’s argument that societal issues cannot be disentangled from individual experiences, emphasizing the impact of civic disengagement on personal identity.

“American cultural traditions define personality, achievement, and the purpose of human life in ways that leave the individual suspended in glorious, but terrifying, isolation.”

The authors use hyperbole in describing the individual as “suspended in glorious, but terrifying, isolation” to emphasize the extreme nature of American individualism. This exaggeration highlights the conflicting emotions of pride and fear that accompany the pursuit of personal achievement within American cultural traditions. The choice of adjectives “glorious” and “terrifying” creates a dichotomy, underscoring the double-edged sword of striving for individual success in a culture that simultaneously venerates and isolates the self.

“In Joe’s vocabulary, success is a very important word. But throughout our conversation with him, it was consistently applied not to any status he had gained for himself or even to any accomplishment he had realized by himself. Success rather applied to the experience of togetherness the community had created partially through his efforts.”

The repetition of the word “success” and its redefinition through Joe’s story is a form of anadiplosis, as it connects the end of one idea (“success is a very important word”) to the beginning of another (“Success rather applied to...”). The authors employ this device to illustrate the shift from a conventional understanding of success as individual achievement to a communal conception of success as collective togetherness. The contrast between individual achievements and communal experiences reframes the notion of success, highlighting the achievement of communal efforts and relationships as paramount.

“The most distinctive aspect of twentieth-century American society is the division of life into a number of separate functional sectors: home and workplace, work and leisure, white collar and blue collar, public and private.”

The enumeration of the divisions of 20th-century American life uses asyndeton by omitting conjunctions between phrases. This stylistic choice accelerates the rhythm of the sentence and emphasizes the fragmentation within American society. The juxtaposition of contrasting sectors (e.g., “home and workplace, work and leisure”) highlights the compartmentalization inherent in modern life, suggesting that such separations are not just logistical but ingrained in the societal structure, affecting how individuals navigate their identities within these disparate realms.

“Perhaps the crucial change in American life has been that we have moved from the local life of the nineteenth century—in which economic and social relationships were visible and, however imperfectly, morally interpreted as parts of a larger common life—to a society vastly more interrelated and integrated economically, technically, and functionally.”

The quote employs a temporal shift to contrast the “local life of the nineteenth century” with the present, more “interrelated and integrated” society. This contrast is a form of antithesis, setting up the past and present as opposing forces to underscore the evolution of American life. The passage introduces an element of nostalgia and critique to the authors’ argument, suggesting that despite the social issues that existed in the past in America, there was a moral cohesion that is lacking in the contemporary, fragmented society. The use of the terms “interrelated and integrated” paradoxically suggests that while society has become more connected technically and economically, these connections may not translate into stronger communal bonds or moral clarity.

“Separation and individuation are issues that must be faced by all human beings, but leaving home in its American sense is not. In many peasant societies, the problem is staying home—living with one’s parents until their death and worshipping parents and ancestors all one’s life.”

The authors explore the theme of separation and individuation through the prism of cultural relativism, contrasting the American experience of leaving home with that of other societies. This comparison serves as a metaphor for broader cultural differences in understanding individuality and community. The contrast between the American emphasis on independence and other cultures’ focus on familial and ancestral ties illuminates the unique social fabric of American identity, questioning the universality of American experiences of individuation and separation.

“Traditionally, Protestant piety demanded that a young person experience a unique conversion experience of his or her own, even while specifying more or less clearly the content of that experience. More recently we have come to expect even greater autonomy.”

The quote depicts the evolution of Protestant piety through the juxtaposition of historical and contemporary expectations of autonomy. The phrase “even while specifying more or less clearly the content of that experience” introduces an element of irony, highlighting the contradiction inherent in the expectation of a unique conversion experience that nonetheless adheres to predefined criteria. This irony underlines the balance between individual autonomy and communal norms within religious experiences, suggesting that the quest for personal authenticity is both facilitated and constrained by societal expectations.

“The absence of a sense of calling means an absence of a sense of moral meaning. When they do not find it in their work, people like Brian and Margaret seek for such meaning, as we might expect, in some form of expressive individualism, to be pursued with the like-minded and loved ones.”

The concept of “expressive individualism” is presented as one particularly widespread manifestation of broader societal trends towards self-expression and personal fulfillment. The quote portrays this shift towards expressive individualism as a natural consequence of the lack of a “sense of calling,” suggesting a direct link between vocational dissatisfaction and the pursuit of individualism.

“What seems to be a self is merely a series of social masks that change with each successive situation. An absolutely autonomous self and a self determined completely by the social situation do not, then, turn out to be opposites.”

This critique of the notion of an “absolutely autonomous self” employs paradox to challenge conventional understandings of selfhood. The statement “What seems to be a self is merely a series of social masks” uses metaphor to conceptualize identity as a construct of social interactions rather than an innate essence. This metaphorical depiction of the self as a collection of “social masks” suggests that individual identity is fluid and context-dependent, challenging the binary opposition between autonomy and social determinism. The conclusion that these seemingly contradictory concepts “do not, then, turn out to be opposites” employs antithesis to reconcile the tension between individual agency and social influence, proposing a more nuanced understanding of selfhood that encompasses both dimensions.

“In thinking they have freed themselves from tradition in the pursuit of rationality and personal authenticity, they do not understand the degree to which their views are themselves traditional. Even being anti-traditional is part of the individualist tradition. Nor do they realize that their minimalist insistence on justice, fairness, and respect for individuals is rooted in a much richer defense of the same things in the religious and civic philosophical traditions.”

This excerpt uses irony to critique the perception of modern individuals who believe they have escaped tradition. The irony lies in the revelation that their rejection of tradition is, in fact, a tradition within the individualist paradigm. This rhetorical strategy challenges the reconsideration of the nature of autonomy and the influence of historical patterns on contemporary thought. Additionally, the sentence structure that starts with “Even being anti-traditional” employs a form of paradox, as it presents the act of opposing tradition as a traditional act itself, further emphasizing the embedded nature of these customs in modern thought.

“Implicit in this penchant for ‘getting involved’ is the peculiarly American notion of the relationship between self and society. Individuals are expected to get involved—to choose for themselves to join social groups. They are not automatically involved in social relationships that impose obligations not of their choosing, and social institutions that are not the product of the voluntary choice of the individuals who constitute them are perceived as illegitimate.”

The notion that individuals “choose for themselves to join social groups” underscores the cultural valuation of autonomy and personal choice. The assertion that “social institutions [...] not the product of the voluntary choice of the individuals who constitute them are perceived as illegitimate” further reflects on the American ethos of voluntarism and the legitimacy derived from personal agency.

“When thinking of the imperative to ‘love thy neighbor,’ many metropolitan Americans like Ted thus consider that responsibility fulfilled when they love those compatible neighbors they have surrounded themselves with, fellow members of their own lifestyle enclave, while letting the rest of the world go its chaotic, mysterious way.”

In this quote, the examination of the imperative to “love thy neighbor” utilizes irony to critique the selective application of this principle. The authors point out the way individuals apply this ostensibly universal moral commandment in a narrowly self-serving way. The choice to “let the rest of the world go its chaotic, mysterious way” underscores a deliberate and ironic neglect of the broader implications of the commandment, revealing a preference for comfort and familiarity over the more challenging aspects of true neighborly love.

“One gets involved in public life only to protect one’s hearth and home and one’s decent friends and neighbors from the evils of a mysterious, threatening, complicated society composed of shadowy, sinister, immoral strangers.”

The quote employs hyperbole to dramatize the motivations behind involvement in public life. The description of society as “mysterious, threatening, complicated” and composed of “shadowy, sinister, immoral strangers” exaggerates the perception of external threats to personal and communal spaces. This hyperbolic characterization serves to critique the fear-based approach to civic engagement, implying that such involvement is more about defense than about the common good.

“What is paradoxical in this picture of the three types of American politics is that in an individualistic culture that highly values diversity and ‘pluralism,’ it is consensus that is appreciated and the conflict of interests that is suspect. There is something baffling and upsetting in the actual differences that divide us.”

The excerpt introduces a paradox, highlighting the contradiction between the cultural values of diversity and pluralism and Americans’ discomfort with actual ideological and interest-based conflict. The phrase “it is consensus that is appreciated and the conflict of interests that is suspect” captures this tension, suggesting that while people celebrate diversity in theory, in practice, people prefer uniformity. The passage reflects on the dissonance between the ideal of a pluralistic society and the unsettling reality of deep-seated divisions.

“However uncomfortable it makes us feel, all of us in the modern world depend on one another for our economic survival and for the avoidance of nuclear destruction. That delicate dependence is mediated by powerful governments that are not going to disappear. We will either humanize them or they will tyrannize over us.”

The text grapples with the theme of interdependence using antithesis. The juxtaposition of “economic survival” and “avoidance of nuclear destruction” against “powerful governments that are not going to disappear” contrasts the vulnerability of human existence with the formidable nature of political structures. This antithesis underlines the precarious balance between the need for governance and the threat of authoritarian control. The use of conditional mood in the sentence “We will either humanize them or they will tyrannize over us” presents a choice, suggesting that active engagement in the humanization of governmental power is the only alternative to oppression, thus calling into question the individual’s role in shaping these structures.

“Abraham Lincoln was known to be skeptical of church religion, yet he found in biblical language a way to express the most profound moral vision in nineteenth century America. He articulated both the moral justification for emancipation and the grounds for reconciliation with unrivaled profundity in prose that drew not only from biblical symbols but from the rhythms of the Authorized Version.”

The quote examines Abraham Lincoln’s rhetorical skills, which the authors portray through allusion. Lincoln’s skepticism towards “church religion” contrasts with his use of “biblical language,” which serves as an allusion to the moral and spiritual imagery found within the Bible. The phrase “the rhythms of the Authorized Version” likely refers to the King James Bible, hinting at the cadence and resonance of Lincoln’s speeches, which borrowed from its linguistic style.

“Frequently, they fall back on abstractions when talking about the most important things. They stress ‘communication’ as essential to relationships without adequately considering what is to be communicated. They talk about ‘relationships’ but cannot point to the personal virtues and cultural norms that give relationships meaning and value.”

The quote critiques the way the reliance on abstractions like “communication” and “relationships” fails to capture the essence of what truly sustains interpersonal connections, which the authors assert rely on “personal virtues and cultural norms.” The authors point out that such abstract terms lack substantive qualities, underscoring a disconnect between the language used to describe relationships and the meaningful attributes that constitute them.

“King’s oration reappropriated that classic strand of the American tradition that understands the true meaning of freedom to lie in the affirmation of responsibility for uniting all of the diverse members of society into a just social order.”

The authors characterize Martin Luther King Jr.’s rhetoric as a reappropriation of a “classic strand of the American tradition.” This reappropriation is another form of allusion, referring back to historical ideals and values that helped define the American conception of freedom. The term “reappropriated” suggests a deliberate and transformative reclaiming of these ideals, aligning them with the “affirmation of responsibility for uniting all of the diverse members of society into a just social order.” This phrase encapsulates a synthesis of freedom with social responsibility, where the authors’ conception of true liberty is intertwined with justice and unity, contrasting the often individualistic interpretation of freedom with a collective one.

“The wish for a harmonious community we heard from a variety of sources is a wish to transform the roughness of utilitarian dealings in the marketplace, the courts, and government administration into neighborly conciliation. But this nostalgia is belied by the strong focus of American individualism on economic success. The rules of the competitive market, not the practices of the town meeting or the fellowship of the church, are the real arbiters of living.”

The text employs juxtaposition and irony to contrast the “wish for a harmonious community” with the “strong focus of American individualism on economic success.” The “roughness of utilitarian dealings” is set against the idealized vision of “neighborly conciliation,” highlighting the disparity between the yearning for communal harmony and the reality of competitive individualism. The final sentence, which states that the “rules of the competitive market” are the true “arbiters of living,” underscores this irony, highlighting the societal values that prioritize economic competition over communal bonds.

“The way a free society meets its problems depends not only on its economic and administrative resources but on its political imagination. Political vision thus plays an indispensable role in providing understanding of the present and of the possibilities for change. Is it possible that we could become citizens again and together seek the common good in the post-industrial, postmodern age?”

This quote argues that “political imagination” and “political vision” are essential resources that a society must draw upon to function well, akin to “economic and administrative resources.” This framing emphasizes the idea that creative and visionary thinking is just as critical as material resources in addressing societal issues. The rhetorical question at the end invites contemplation of the potential for collective civic engagement and the pursuit of the “common good” in a rapidly changing world.

“There is a widespread feeling that the promise of the modern era is slipping away from us. A movement of enlightenment and liberation that was to have freed us from superstition and tyranny has led in the twentieth century to a world in which ideological fanaticism and political oppression have reached extremes unknown in previous history.”

The authors use hyperbole to express disillusionment with the modern era, stating that “ideological fanaticism and political oppression have reached extremes unknown in previous history.” This exaggerated statement emphasizes the perceived failure of the Enlightenment’s promise, suggesting that the era’s intent to eradicate ignorance and despotism has paradoxically led to unprecedented levels of extremism and control.