Mudita Journal

Individualism and Family

December 20, 2002 · Filed under: Intellectual
Share

Being a late-bloomer when it comes to the blog world, I’ve only recently discovered the wonderful offerings available on Arthur Silber’s site, The Light of Reason.

In addition to being articulate and well-informed, Arthur has the advantage of being a skilled typist who is under-employed. Reading the site, I see how lucky we are that Arthur has so much spare time to invest in intellectual pursuits!

One nice feature of Arthur’s site is his Manifesto explaining “who we are, what we think, and the perspective from which we view the world.” At some point I will create a similar document, or series of documents, for Mudita Journal, since the synergy of certain individualist and Buddhist teachings is, well, not obvious for many people.

Reading over LOR’s Manifesto, I find it a nice distillation of many key Objectivist values (with which I have no quarrel). In fact, Arthur presents them in just the kind of passionate, life-affirming light that makes Rand’s ideas most appealing to Objectivists and non-Objectivists alike.

I do have a minor quibble with the Manifesto, however, and a recommendation.

The Manifesto states that the commitment to individualism includes “the knowledge that other people — whether they are spouses, partners, friends or colleagues — are an incomparable and irreplaceable blessing in our lives, but only when they are freely chosen, and when their values and goals match our own.”

I appreciate what I take to be the author’s intention, which is to explain the joy that an individualist finds in the kinship of shared values. This is one aspect of why enlightened individualists don’t assume the “I Am a Rock” stance leading to personal isolation and a disrespect for others’ rights. Some of the most ardent individualists I know are highly evolved social beings, and yet it’s an outlook that is often difficult for non-individualists to understand: Why would an individualist be nice to anybody?

This line from the manifesto, however, conspicuously omits reference to the “other people” that we call family; and, by implication, states they they cannot be a “blessing” if they do not share our values.

The question of how to relate to one’s family is a challenging subject for many Objectivists, and raises thorny questions about how much love, support, and approval we can morally (or practically) give to people whose interests and values may be very opposed to our own. And certainly, one could not resolve such questions in a short manifesto of principles.

But the Manifesto’s wording indicates that only those people who are “freely chosen” and whose “values and goals match our own” should be cherished for their contributions to our life. The particular phrasing (“incomparable and irreplaceable blessing”) leaves open the possibility that there may be some people who are only a rung or two lower on the ladder; yet the value of family (or anyone who is “unchosen” or of a different philosophical orientation) is inherently limited.

And yet, those of us who have good relationships with our parents and siblings know that they, above all, can be exemplars of an “incomparable and irreplaceable blessing in our lives.” True enough, their blessing may not come through conscious values and goals that match our own. Perhaps, instead, they have a combination of an intimate and very caring understanding of who I am as a person. Or they have been there for me in times of crisis that no mere friend has ever been. And they have provided this understanding and support to me even though I may be quite rejecting of their religious and political beliefs. (The particulars in this example may have been changed to protect the innocent and/or guilty!)

In some ways, the blessings of such people can rise above the blessings of people who, whether by chance or by choice, would cite the same “values and goals” that I do.

I do not argue that family is inherently good; clearly, for some people, it is not. But for the rest of us — those of us who have a basically healthy relationship with our family in spite of philosophical differences — these relationships can in fact be an incomparable and irreplaceable blessing; and our misunderstandings of the requirements of individualism can lead us to disvalue, or harm, such family relationships in ways that are unnecessary. It’s been known to happen, in fact, to Rand admirers.

In summary, when we tell ourselves that only those whose values and goals match our own can be let into the highest chambers of our consciousness, we set ourselves up to shut out some people who have the most to contribute. And perhaps this is more true for young students of philosophy than for those who have already matured and settled on whatever relationship (or lack thereof) they will have with their parents.

Not all these points can or should be addressed in a short Manifesto. But with some minor modifications (such as changing the words “but only when” to “and especially when”) one could avoid some of the worse implications I point out above. In a larger sense, however, is it really that important to limit the type of people who can be valuable in our lives?

At any rate, I encourage Arthur to give these issues some thought, and consider adopting language that would not reflect a bias against family members. The Light of Reason web site has much to offer and this was the only quibble that I found with his otherwise excellent Manifesto.

I think this topic could make for some fascinating discussion, and I invite comments.

Posted by Joshua Zader · Trackback URL · Link
  • http://www.facebook.com/mlnrao लक्ष्मी नरसिम्हा राव

    **I do not argue that family is inherently good;**
    I agree with you. In the context of being from family background sometimes we feel that it is confining. But it is just a feeling, in reality it gives worthy secure and happiness.
    **and our misunderstandings of the requirements of individualism can lead us to disvalue, or harm, such family relationships in ways that are unnecessary. It’s been known to happen, in fact, to Rand admirers.**
    People who misunderstands individualism from family finds often in their late ages alone, even though they put brave face as nothing wrong with their approach.
    ** we tell ourselves that only those whose values and goals match our own can be let into the highest chambers of our consciousness, we set ourselves up to shut out some people who have the most to contribute**
    In the pursuit of misunderstood individualism, people often choose wrong things in life and leave those who are righteous.

    Thanks for the nice aritcle.

blog comments powered by Disqus