David Brooks vs. Moral Individualism

So I promised you proof that David Brooks is better than he says:  He doesn't really submit himself to the authority of the latest studies in neuroscience, and he still takes his bearings from a combination of sociology and political philosophy.  My initial strategy was to follow the lead of Ben Storey and find that evidence in Brooks' The Social Animal. 

But it turns out to be easier to make that point by saying a couple of things about David's latest column.  (Rather than quoting from the column this time, I'm urging to take a couple minutes out and read it RIGHT NOW.)

The first thing to note is that Brooks said nothing about neuroscience or any other form of hard science—that is, in this case, scientific studies about our natural hardwiring. 

Instead, we see that classic combination of sociology and philosophy.  He begins with the latest sociological study on the moral opinions about young Americans, finding that they, more than ever, regard moral choice as a matter of individual preference and so not really moral at all.

Brooks also cites philosophic authorities—Allan Bloom and Alasdair MacIntyre—who are famous for their polemics against relativism or emotivism.  Young people today, MacIntyre claims, live after virtue or in a world where there's no longer any common understanding of what being good or excellent is, and the result is, Bloom adds, that they have flat souls or lack the experiences and longings and even words that allow them to be more than competent conformists.   Can we say that this sort of analysis and worry isn't found among the neuorscientists and evolutionary psychologists?

We have to add that Bloom's big authority on what Americans are like is Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, which might be called a masterful synthesis of sociology and philosophy.  It's a book that was written in the 1830s, but its analysis, as Brooks surely knows, is more true now than when it was written.  What the sociologists discovered Tocqueville predicted they would have discovered in a really democratic, libertarian time such as ours.

And Brooks' analysis is basically the same as Tocqueville's, whom we might say is his silent authority.  According to Tocqueville (and Brooks), American kids have become too anti-authoritarian.  In Tocqueville's words, they have become Cartesians without ever having read a word of Descartes.  The Cartesian method is doubt, and doubt is also the democratic method.  The American democrats systematically, as the bumper sticker says, "question authority."  They refuse to be governed by the words of other persons, because then they would unfreely and undemocratically be ruled by others.  That's why American Cartesians never actually read a word of Descartes—they won't submit to the philospher's authority or that of any person who would recommend his great works.  (That last observation, almost all by itself, explains why American education is so one-dimensionally technical and otherwise screwed up today.) 

The result is that the individual becomes locked up in himself—in his puny mind and his contracted heart.  He (or she, obviously) becomes anxious and disoriented, and then passively impotent.  The good democratic news is that nobody is better than me.  The corresponding bad news is that I'm not better than anyone else.  Another piece of bad news is that no solitary individual has the intellectual or emotional resources to create himself out of nothing.  Not even God himself has to do that.

So the seemingly intelectually liberated or morally self-determining individual ends up, by rejecting personal authority, submitting to the impersonal forces that surround him.  Democrats or American "Cartesians," Tocqueville, observes, tend to be governed by "fashion" or impersonal public opinion—opinion that comes from no one in particular.  If we all submit equally to some impersonal force, then no offense has been committed against democracy.  But the offense against personal liberty and genuine moral responsibility, Tocqueville shows, is profound and actually unprecedented.

That's the explanation of a sociological fact Brooks draws from the study:  Young people today lack what it takes to resist rampant consumerism.  (Tocqueville adds that democratic people also too readily defer to the impersonal authority of popularized science—the experts who rule us through the allegedly impersonal authority of their studies.)

So what's wrong with young people these days is that they don't what it takes to think freely—or as freely as people can think.  And they don't have the spirit of resistance required to act morally against the impersonal, degrading forces that surround them.  As Tocqueville says, individualism culminates in apathetic passivity, in an indifference to the moral choices of others based on the perception that moral judgment is repressive cruelty.  The individualist refuses to love or hate—believing that they're both more trouble than they're worth.  (Think Seinfeld or Larry David for laughably extreme cases here.)

Brooks' article, after all, is really a polemic against the slacker libertarianism of young people today.  There's no better or truer way to insult them than by saying your obsession with "negative freedom" is keeping you from thinking or acting freely.  Let me just mention the names Ron Paul and Ayn Rand here just to increase the the size of the group that will feel the insult.

It turns out, Brooks and Tocqueville add, that genuinely religously observant Americans have, at least sometimes, a point of view by which consumerism can be resisted, as well as tradition in which moral responsibility has weight and makes sense.  The same can be said, Tocqueville adds, for anyone with a sense of class.

Most of us, in our moral individualism, have no idea who we are or what we're supposed to do.  And, in the crucial respects, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology don't offer us the help we need.  All honor to David Brooks for reminding us of the indispensability of philosophy, religion, and personal authority. 

Big Think
Sponsored by Lumina Foundation

Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!

As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.

Lumina Foundation and Big Think have partnered to bring this entrepreneurial competition to life, and we hope you'll participate! We have narrowed down the competition to four finalists and will be announcing an audience's choice award and a judges' choice award in May.

The creator of the winning video — chosen by Big Think's audience, the Lumina Foundation, and an independent panel of experts (bios below) — will be flown to New York for a taping in the Big Think studio as a way to further promote their vision for a new, disruptive idea in post-secondary education.

Thank you to all of the contestants who spent time submitting applications, and best of luck to our final four competitors.

Finalist: Greater Commons - Todd McLeod

Greater Commons, founded by Todd McLeod and Andrew Cull, is an organization that helps people live happier, more successful and fulfilling lives through agile learning. The current education system is inefficient and exclusionary, in which many students who end up earning a degree, if at all, enter a career not related to their field of study. Greater Commons solves this problem and gap in post-high school secondary education in a variety of ways. Passionately and diligently, Great Commons helps others obtain skills, knowledge, wisdom, motivation, and inspiration so that they may live better lives.

Finalist: PeerFoward - Keith Frome

PeerForward is an organization dedicated to increasing the education and career success rates of students in low-income schools and communities by mobilizing the power of positive peer influence. PeerForward works with partner schools to select influential students as a part of a team, systemizing the "peer effect." Research in the fields of sociology of schools, social-emotional learning, adult-youth partnerships, and civic education demonstrates that students can have a positive effect on the academic outcomes of their peers. PeerForward is unique through its systemic solutions to post-secondary education.

Finalist: Cogniss - Leon Young

Cogniss combines technology and best practice knowledge to enable anyone to innovate and share solutions that advance lifelong learning. Cogniss is the only platform to integrate neuroscience, through which it solves the problem of access by providing a low-code platform that enables both developers and non-developers to build sophisticated education apps fast, and at a much lower cost. It addresses the uneven quality of edtech solutions by embedding research-based learning design into its software. App creators can choose from a rich set of artificial intelligence, game, social and data analytics, and gamification to build their perfect customized solution.

Finalist: Practera - Nikki James

Practera's mission is to create a world where everyone can learn through experience. Today's workplaces are increasingly dynamic and diverse, however, costly and time-consuming experiential learning is not always able to offer the right opportunities at scale. Many students graduate without developing the essential skills for their chosen career. Practera's team of educators and technologists see this problem as an opportunity to transform the educational experience landscape, through a CPL pedagogical framework and opportunities to apply students' strengths through active feedback.

Thank you to our judges!

Our expert judges are Lorna Davis, Dan Rosensweig, and Stuart Yasgur.

Lorna Davis is the Senior Advisor to Danone CEO and is a Global Ambassador for the B Corp movement. Lorna has now joined B-Lab, the non-for-profit that supports the B Corporation movement on an assignment to support the journey of large multi nationals on the path to using business as a force of good.

Dan Rosensweig joined Chegg in 2010 with a vision for transforming the popular textbook rental service into a leading provider of digital learning services for high school and college students. As Chairman and CEO of Chegg, Dan commits the company to fulfilling its mission of putting students first and helping them save time, save money and get smarter.

Stuart Yasgur leads Ashoka's Social Financial Services globally. At Ashoka, Stuart works with others to initiate efforts that have mobilized more than $500 million in funding for social entrepreneurs, engaged the G20 through the Toronto, Seoul and Los Cabos summits and helped form partnerships with leading financial institutions and corporations.

Again, thank you to our incredible expert judges.

Behold, the face of a Neolithic dog

He was a very good boy.

Historic Environment Scotland
Surprising Science
  • A forensic artist in Scotland has made a hyper realistic model of an ancient dog.
  • It was based on the skull of a dog dug up in Orkney, Scotland, which lived and died 4,000 years ago.
  • The model gives us a glimpse of some of the first dogs humans befriended.
Keep reading Show less

After death, you’re aware that you’ve died, say scientists

Some evidence attributes a certain neurological phenomenon to a near death experience.

Credit: Petr Kratochvil. PublicDomainPictures.net.
Surprising Science

Time of death is considered when a person has gone into cardiac arrest. This is the cessation of the electrical impulse that drive the heartbeat. As a result, the heart locks up. The moment the heart stops is considered time of death. But does death overtake our mind immediately afterward or does it slowly creep in?

Keep reading Show less
  • Beethovan and Picasso are the perfect examples for mastering the creative process.
  • Behind each of their works are countless studies and sketches.
  • The lesson? Never erase anything, keep iterating, and find new paths to familiar destinations.