What Really Matters?

The Buddhists were right about one thing when they said that nothing really exists, but only relationships give things meaning. It's a curious metaphysical argument that never really resonated with me, because, after all, relationships must exist between "things", right? But maybe it gets at something deeper. Look at the proclivity of the American religious milieu. Our utilitarian individualistic culture has isolated ourselves from our communities so much with valuing the pursuit of self-actualization above all other things. As a result, communities have become what in Habits of the Heart Robert Bellah calls "lifestyle enclaves," which is to say that while individuals have privatized many of the meaning-making aspects of their lives, they can engage others publicly through the venue of shared interest. Think fantasy football or a local bowling team. Sadly, religion sometimes falls into this category as well. What we are seeing, however, is a rejection of utilitarian individualism, what has been called expressive individualism, which is to say a feminization of our culture in which the innate human longing for community, companionship, nurturing support, etc. can newly be found in Protestant churches catering to such a constituency. Catholics confess that they would like more accessible, warmer priests. Even Evangelicals are seeing a paradigm shift as indicated by Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins. When Evangelicals no longer believe in Hell, it truly has frozen over!

My point though is that relationships are what really matter. We are, what David Brooks has correctly identified: the social animal. We thrive for human contact and a family setting. This backwards, misguided culture of ours that seems to want to have its cake but eat it too – that is, self-actualize yet remain tied to the family/community – cannot continue this way before it has a collective breakdown: a mid-capitalist crisis, if you will. Individuals who go off on their own – monks, affluent bachelors, etc. – are not normal humans. They betray the intrinsic drive for community found in all of us and while they have achieved success in their ambitions, how many can be said to be actually happy? That's where the culture of historical materialism comes in. Individuals try to make up for what they lack (and often what they are unaware that they lack) by purchasing new toys to occupy their free time until they go back to work. Sooner or later, with enough pregnant moments, the illusion will collapse. That is why the self-help industry in America is not just so successful, but is largely unique to American culture.

I wonder if this speaks to a greater problem: America as a collective has isolated itself from the world community. We are largely so desensitized to violence going on in other countries, so indifferent to foreign affairs, so self-serving and myopic in our interests that the malady of selfishness can be said to afflict the whole nation. Europe can be said to be a union of sorts, despite the vast differences between and within its countries. They are largely civilized and maintain a higher quality of life, with less depression, less general anxiety, and less work than in America. Yet over here, we are more a confederation of often backward states that couldn't care less about our neighbors unless we want to make examples of their moral degeneracy to assert our our own shallow, moral superiority. If only morals mattered! And when I say morals, I mean those grounded in the biblical tradition that evangelicals seek to impose normatively on the rest of the population. If we did indeed live in a biblical society, that is, a society more or less driven by those values, then it would be one thing. But this is America, birthplace of pluralism. It is true that religious pluralism presents a challenge to Americans, as Peter Berger states in his article "From the Crisis of Religion to the Crisis of Secularity", but the real challenge is in the moral pluralism embedded in the religions and then polarized through the two-party system. Religions can co-exist peacefully. They have done so for many centuries despite a rich history of religiously-charged bloodshed. However, in a civil society, it is not religions that conflict with each other, but variance in morals. The two-party system doesn't help either, because as one party panders to one side of an issue, in order to get support for that side, those who feel strongly for it must join the party and thereby co-opt the rest of the stances espouses by the party. Generally speaking, of course. It's an odd example of people thinking they are standing on the shoulders of giants when those giants are actually dwarves compared to the true giants of united civilizations with citizens who actually identity with each other over the same issues and work together toward progress – and not some false notion thereof as purported by the Enlightenment and still fully infiltrated into the American ethos. This country was built on lies even before politics usurped the rights to the art. Eminem may have said it best when he called us the Divided States of Embarrassment.