Love thy neighbor
Benjamin Disraeli once said, “Christianity teaches us to love our neighbor; modern society acknowledges no neighbor.”
This quote alludes to Charles Taylor’s work in The Ethics of Authenticity. In his work, Taylor demonstrates how modern society has fallen victim to three malaises, all of which strengthen Disraeli’s message.
The first malaise refers to individualism, a trait modern civilization sees as a positive change rather than a sense of discomfort. This source of worry stems from the history of individualistic thinking. Before the modern age, people saw themselves as part of a larger society, and for many, a part of a cosmic order. They reflected on the needs and wants of the figure head(s) rather than themselves. In doing this, they saw significance in all things and saw that life had a purpose beyond that day’s actions. They felt restricted by the beliefs of the Church or the hierarchy and with the turn to the modern age, many discredited these beliefs and turned inward to find such orders. With this, Taylor states, “The discrediting of these orders has been called the ‘disenchantment’ of the world. With it, things lost some of their magic” (14).
This shift has let individuals lose sight of a higher purpose, and what Taylor states, “something worth dying for” (14). This idea demonstrates the darker side of individualism. Though people are free to make their own choices and to live the lives that their ancestors had only dreamed of, individualism centers on oneself and does not allow for intrinsic participation in modern society. With this less concern for society comes a sense that the connection necessary for a successful society is non-existent and unattainable due to “regrettable self-absorption” (Taylor 15).
I have seen this shift in contemporary society when people mention that I am a part of the “me generation”. Many speculate that because I am under the age of 25, I cannot think past my own borders and am concerned with the interior and exterior of my self at all times. Though this is not true, I can’t help but to see the evidence set by my peers. The number of ‘likes’ a picture receives or how many re-tweets one gets in a popular posts defines one’s worth and importance in society. Social media has played a role in how people represent themselves as individuals to the group, participating when they want and if they want to. The “me generation” focuses on things that will increase their own individual happiness rather than that of the group.
Charles Taylor’s second malaise in his work refers to “instrumental reason” which dictates that “maximum efficiency, the best cost-output ratio, is its measure of success” (16). Though with the change to modern society came the liberation of instruments, a darkness came along with it: the idea of cost-benefit. The author gives the example of “the way these same demands make us insensitive to the needs of the environment, even to the point of potential disaster” (16–17).
This point is evident in Patricia Benner’s argument that this malaise works hand in hand with technology and treatment. She mentions that “the technological approach in medicine has often sidelined the kind of care that involves treating the patient as a whole person with a life story” (17). Society has turned medicine into a business and patients into customers. With this, she argues that the establishment undervalues the nurses who provide care and gives credit to specialists with technology based knowledge. The cost-benefit of making close relationships with few patients compared to a broad relationship with many has led modern society to choose the latter as a way to maximize efficiency.
Technology can be a friend or an enemy. In the eyes of Taylor, he sees it as a part of instrumental reason. In modern society, technology has become a base for happiness and general everyday activities. The other day my friend complained that her pictures were not the best quality and decided that the problem would be solved by buying the new IPhone. She saw herself as the problem and the solution, not looking at how that small action would have an impact on society.
In Taylor’s third malaise, he shows that institutions and industries that rely on technology restrict choices of society and force people “to give a weight to instrumental reason that in serious moral deliberation we would never do, and which may even be highly destructive” (19).
This idea is translated in Alexis de Tocqueville’s work as he recalls “soft” despotism. According to his work, this idea allows for a society to function with a government that makes the decisions and its people to act as individuals who rarely participate in self-government. These individuals enjoy the perks the government produces all from the comfort of their own home. This disillusioned sense of participation in modern society does not allow for a healthy political culture. With the opinions of few making the decisions for many, a society cannot stand in tranquility. Tocqueville agrees by stating that the only defense to soft despotism is “a vigorous political culture in which participation is valued” (20). However, the ability to make this change will not happen in an individualistic society, leaving people slaves of the system they created.
This idea can be illustrated in modern society in terms of voting. In my political science class, we were discussing the importance of voting. While the usual answers as to why we should take part in this age old tradition referred to our civic duty and opportunity to participate, one student thought otherwise. She complained that the process of voting was confusing and at the end of the day, it would not make a difference if she did or did not vote. She would rather sit on the sidelines and eat away at the policies decided by others than to stand up for her own beliefs.
Charles Taylor outlines three prudent malaises of modern society. He demonstrates his fear of individualism as things lose their true meaning. He demonstrates the concern for instrumental reason, and lastly, for the loss of freedom. Each malaise shows the importance of individual choice but with the mindset of the whole. By thinking of one’s impact in society and the ripple effect of one’s actions, these malaises will no longer hold fear as their center of power. They will become merely thoughts of an former age defined by “me” rather than “we”. It will be with that fulfillment of change in character and mindset that will allow us to see past our own barriers and extend a hand to our neighbor in equality.
