A lot of people talk about Catholic Social Teaching (CST) in the same way they talk about Theology of the Body; that is, they seem to read what the others write; they don’t seem to scrutinize the original texts very closely.
Very very good, a lot of excellent points. Unfortunately what drives the conversation at present will have to be the fact that fewer and fewer people think in terms of the family unit, with more opting to avoid marriage and children (though sometimes one without the other). “Rugged individualism” was an ideal in the early 19th century, and we’re still sucking the fumes. Constitutional principles don’t help much, so advocates of real CST may be that reedy voice in the wilderness for a while, I fear.
I think rugged individualism will save us from feminism, the real problem, or at least give an assist. It's not the best attitude but it's *our* attitude and it's better than whining until the government agrees to take care of your children!
Hmmm, I guess I'd always thought of feminism as flowing out from individualism. Seemed like the focus had been so centrally placed on the individual self/whims/aspirations (divorced from God, His will, or the good of the family/others/community beyond the individual self), and from there it was then just not a hard step to make "my 'rights' as a *woman*!" central either, having been focused on my self in isolation anyway.
I definitely don't think the government (or other) systems and programs should be expected to provide for or raise our kids (or be entrusted with them, wherever at all we can help it), nor do I at all think we should expect to get our living from the government or tax-payers (I've been playing with the question of, what if we even stretched our minds so far as to see getting our living from employers/corporations as an exception, not the default/ideal?). My aspirational approach is to try to rely on government and systems/programs as little as we can, to have a mentality of truly being provider over consumer, to the extent that we are actually able (we cannot fully grasp that ideal, of course, but if we actually embraced the idea *as* ideal, how much closer could we come?).
So, just to say, not disagreeing with you over here. I am truly wondering, though, your further thoughts on this stated good of individualism, and how it could really help, if you'd be willing to share further thoughts on the topic? (Not a snark or trolling question. Just honest.)
I had been of the thought that individualism itself was probably driving things like wonky CST as well.... 🤔
I think feminism is a kind of Marxism and is also Hobbesian, seeing everything through the lens of conflict. I think of "rugged individualism" as an outgrowth of our Puritan roots -- perhaps because I am a New Englander.
I can see how Marxism can thrive in individualism, but I do think that our particular brand of that mode offers some resistance because of its grounding in independence, which is also not the most wonderful attitude, but can come in handy.
Certainly *Puritan* rugged individualism was compatible with hierarchy in marriage and I love to think of colonial America with its large families (families of 12 children were not unheard of; the average was 7-10!) and low levels of poverty, if any.
Our founding societies could not have existed or flourished without men and women working together, cooperating rather than being in conflict the way we are today. (I agree with your thought about corporations; Harvey Mansfield is so right that feminism, for all its revolutionary rhetoric, primarily wishes to see women take their rightful places in middle management!)
Individualism as a broader ideology is toxic and would be vulnerable to feminism; I just think the traditional American sort ("rugged") is not exactly the same as the Enlightenment, European variety.
Have you ever read the book Hannah Fowler? As a work of historical fiction set in the frontier of Kentucky, it sort of exemplifies the brand I'm thinking of. It's not a mindset of conflict at all. But it does wish to be left alone!
Thank you kindly for sharing your further thoughts. And I do see your point and distinction. I guess I think my hang up is mainly with the word "individualism," and I just wouldn't align that "rugged" historic American independence (for lack of a better word here) necessarily with true individualism. The latter seems fundamentally tied to a philosophy of the person that puts him at the center of his world, essentially *for* the promotion/benefit of himself. And I question whether any of its branches ever truly shake that "my-central-purpose-is-my-own-wants-and-promotion" orientation, even if they appear to. And I think one can be independent, and...hmmm, "self-responsible," I guess perhaps we could say? without being strictly individualistic. The individual does have intrinsic worth, of course, but he also, of course, has a purpose to give himself for other than himself ("love"), and the latter seems lost on real individualism. At least that has been my understanding and what I have seen.
So, I think this is kind of just a language game/problem then, but seeing individualism this way, I don't think it could truly support the natural heirarchy in marriage (or not for long, or only as long as that heirarchical structure also gave enough valued benefit to the individuals involved). It seems to me that individualism's real redemption would only be found in ceasing to focus its whole world around the individual-for-himself (so, putting the self towards its real created purpose and fulfillment: God and neighbor)...but then at that point it seems like it would just cease to be "individualism" anymore.
I certainly am not straight up against that independent, self-responsible spirit which gave us our colonists and pioneers (though as you said, it's not perfect either, and certainly anything to excess is vicious), but I haven't seen that necessarily as the seemingly ever-ugly individualism either, and I don't think it even would be a truly good spirit where it persisted as a truly individualist orientation (of course, even bad philosophies can at times produce some good effects, though, for God works all things to the true good).
I'm all about "rugged" Catholic/Christian self-responsibility, though. 🙂 I have just seen it valuable and rightly ordered with an underlying philosophy of the person that views the purpose of the self as being for giving away (love), *not* for filling up (self-absorption). And I guess I'm not convinced that any truly individualist philosophy would or could assent to that, as I have been under the impression that this fallacious philosophy of the person pretty much always underlies it. 🤷
The individualist philosophies probably always end up conflict-oriented because, as long as I put myself up at the center of the world, I *am* truly going to be in potentially constant conflict...with that pesky reality of things! Being as how the world doesn't in actuality revolve around me. Everyone and everything else can/will potentially always be getting in my way! I certainly would feel violated, infringed upon, attacked, like my rights were at stake easily any or all of the time.
(Of course, to be consistent, I would essentially need to think this way about *everyone* -- not just select groups like men, children, or the upper class -- but then we just aren't very consistent, are we? And I think humans in general feel the personal benefit in having a sympathetic "tribe" to align ourselves with, and all the more as we are feeling ourselves the victim of whomever we've decided are the oppressors of our rights. 🤷 )
Mainly, I was just surprised that you located the origin of feminism in individualism -- I wouldn't have said it that way, but I see your point; it's a form of rationalism, of the Enlightenment idea that we must doubt anything transcendent and proceed as if the Will is the only way to approach reality.
Mainly, like Marxism, feminism thinks it can change human nature (something all rationalists assume to be true).
I guess I think the "rugged" (American) form of individualism at least takes responsibility for oneself. But yes, it's not a good approach.
The Catholic idea is that the family, not the individual, is the basis for our life together here on earth, and that idea implies cooperation and complementarity, not a self-sufficiency to be put over against life itself.
"...the Enlightenment idea that we must doubt anything transcendent and proceed as if the Will is the only way to approach reality." Right, and not just the will, but also, to my understanding, the mind. And the *individual* will, mind, self, of course, divorced from the collective. Each individual will and mind to rationalize and determine for his individual self what is real and true for him. (Every man his own pope and savior.) Because he can/will only trust himself and his own will/mind. And through, with, and for that individual self, he will make his decisions and decide his beliefs/what is true. (My understanding of it anyway.)
So from that stance it makes perfect sense that they'd be trying to change how human nature actually is (as you cited with the feminists and Marxists). It's not that they actually think they're *changing* anything, though; they just don't believe it had any objectivity to it to begin with. Because individual man makes himself what he is.
Individualism reigns under all. And it's utterly Satanic.
And I know the article that brought us to this discussion was all the empty talk on "fair" wages...but a further tangential question here: I guess I haven't identified feminism itself with a not taking responsibility for oneself? Wondering what you see that flowing from? Not a feminist defender here by any means; I guess I just haven't identified that piece of the feminism picture, and I'm trying to place it.... 🤔 Where/why would that come out in their ideology, and from what? As in, what in feminism's belief system would have them not taking responsibility for themselves? 🤔
This is a really good reminder that defrauding workers out of just wages is one of the four sins that “cry out to heaven” (James 5:4).
Sadly some of the worst offenders though are actually “professional catholic” employers (schools, parishes, organisations etc) which take undue financial advantage people’s good will and faith commitment so perhaps there is a vested interest in misconstruing this issue as a “government problem” :p
I have always said that Roman Catholic doctrine insists that all women are in things inferior to men, and that if a woman has one spot of self-respect she would never be a Roman Catholic. Thank you for confirming my assertion.
Very very good, a lot of excellent points. Unfortunately what drives the conversation at present will have to be the fact that fewer and fewer people think in terms of the family unit, with more opting to avoid marriage and children (though sometimes one without the other). “Rugged individualism” was an ideal in the early 19th century, and we’re still sucking the fumes. Constitutional principles don’t help much, so advocates of real CST may be that reedy voice in the wilderness for a while, I fear.
I think rugged individualism will save us from feminism, the real problem, or at least give an assist. It's not the best attitude but it's *our* attitude and it's better than whining until the government agrees to take care of your children!
Hmmm, I guess I'd always thought of feminism as flowing out from individualism. Seemed like the focus had been so centrally placed on the individual self/whims/aspirations (divorced from God, His will, or the good of the family/others/community beyond the individual self), and from there it was then just not a hard step to make "my 'rights' as a *woman*!" central either, having been focused on my self in isolation anyway.
I definitely don't think the government (or other) systems and programs should be expected to provide for or raise our kids (or be entrusted with them, wherever at all we can help it), nor do I at all think we should expect to get our living from the government or tax-payers (I've been playing with the question of, what if we even stretched our minds so far as to see getting our living from employers/corporations as an exception, not the default/ideal?). My aspirational approach is to try to rely on government and systems/programs as little as we can, to have a mentality of truly being provider over consumer, to the extent that we are actually able (we cannot fully grasp that ideal, of course, but if we actually embraced the idea *as* ideal, how much closer could we come?).
So, just to say, not disagreeing with you over here. I am truly wondering, though, your further thoughts on this stated good of individualism, and how it could really help, if you'd be willing to share further thoughts on the topic? (Not a snark or trolling question. Just honest.)
I had been of the thought that individualism itself was probably driving things like wonky CST as well.... 🤔
I think feminism is a kind of Marxism and is also Hobbesian, seeing everything through the lens of conflict. I think of "rugged individualism" as an outgrowth of our Puritan roots -- perhaps because I am a New Englander.
I can see how Marxism can thrive in individualism, but I do think that our particular brand of that mode offers some resistance because of its grounding in independence, which is also not the most wonderful attitude, but can come in handy.
Certainly *Puritan* rugged individualism was compatible with hierarchy in marriage and I love to think of colonial America with its large families (families of 12 children were not unheard of; the average was 7-10!) and low levels of poverty, if any.
Our founding societies could not have existed or flourished without men and women working together, cooperating rather than being in conflict the way we are today. (I agree with your thought about corporations; Harvey Mansfield is so right that feminism, for all its revolutionary rhetoric, primarily wishes to see women take their rightful places in middle management!)
Individualism as a broader ideology is toxic and would be vulnerable to feminism; I just think the traditional American sort ("rugged") is not exactly the same as the Enlightenment, European variety.
Have you ever read the book Hannah Fowler? As a work of historical fiction set in the frontier of Kentucky, it sort of exemplifies the brand I'm thinking of. It's not a mindset of conflict at all. But it does wish to be left alone!
Thank you kindly for sharing your further thoughts. And I do see your point and distinction. I guess I think my hang up is mainly with the word "individualism," and I just wouldn't align that "rugged" historic American independence (for lack of a better word here) necessarily with true individualism. The latter seems fundamentally tied to a philosophy of the person that puts him at the center of his world, essentially *for* the promotion/benefit of himself. And I question whether any of its branches ever truly shake that "my-central-purpose-is-my-own-wants-and-promotion" orientation, even if they appear to. And I think one can be independent, and...hmmm, "self-responsible," I guess perhaps we could say? without being strictly individualistic. The individual does have intrinsic worth, of course, but he also, of course, has a purpose to give himself for other than himself ("love"), and the latter seems lost on real individualism. At least that has been my understanding and what I have seen.
So, I think this is kind of just a language game/problem then, but seeing individualism this way, I don't think it could truly support the natural heirarchy in marriage (or not for long, or only as long as that heirarchical structure also gave enough valued benefit to the individuals involved). It seems to me that individualism's real redemption would only be found in ceasing to focus its whole world around the individual-for-himself (so, putting the self towards its real created purpose and fulfillment: God and neighbor)...but then at that point it seems like it would just cease to be "individualism" anymore.
I certainly am not straight up against that independent, self-responsible spirit which gave us our colonists and pioneers (though as you said, it's not perfect either, and certainly anything to excess is vicious), but I haven't seen that necessarily as the seemingly ever-ugly individualism either, and I don't think it even would be a truly good spirit where it persisted as a truly individualist orientation (of course, even bad philosophies can at times produce some good effects, though, for God works all things to the true good).
I'm all about "rugged" Catholic/Christian self-responsibility, though. 🙂 I have just seen it valuable and rightly ordered with an underlying philosophy of the person that views the purpose of the self as being for giving away (love), *not* for filling up (self-absorption). And I guess I'm not convinced that any truly individualist philosophy would or could assent to that, as I have been under the impression that this fallacious philosophy of the person pretty much always underlies it. 🤷
The individualist philosophies probably always end up conflict-oriented because, as long as I put myself up at the center of the world, I *am* truly going to be in potentially constant conflict...with that pesky reality of things! Being as how the world doesn't in actuality revolve around me. Everyone and everything else can/will potentially always be getting in my way! I certainly would feel violated, infringed upon, attacked, like my rights were at stake easily any or all of the time.
(Of course, to be consistent, I would essentially need to think this way about *everyone* -- not just select groups like men, children, or the upper class -- but then we just aren't very consistent, are we? And I think humans in general feel the personal benefit in having a sympathetic "tribe" to align ourselves with, and all the more as we are feeling ourselves the victim of whomever we've decided are the oppressors of our rights. 🤷 )
Mainly, I was just surprised that you located the origin of feminism in individualism -- I wouldn't have said it that way, but I see your point; it's a form of rationalism, of the Enlightenment idea that we must doubt anything transcendent and proceed as if the Will is the only way to approach reality.
Mainly, like Marxism, feminism thinks it can change human nature (something all rationalists assume to be true).
I guess I think the "rugged" (American) form of individualism at least takes responsibility for oneself. But yes, it's not a good approach.
The Catholic idea is that the family, not the individual, is the basis for our life together here on earth, and that idea implies cooperation and complementarity, not a self-sufficiency to be put over against life itself.
"...the Enlightenment idea that we must doubt anything transcendent and proceed as if the Will is the only way to approach reality." Right, and not just the will, but also, to my understanding, the mind. And the *individual* will, mind, self, of course, divorced from the collective. Each individual will and mind to rationalize and determine for his individual self what is real and true for him. (Every man his own pope and savior.) Because he can/will only trust himself and his own will/mind. And through, with, and for that individual self, he will make his decisions and decide his beliefs/what is true. (My understanding of it anyway.)
So from that stance it makes perfect sense that they'd be trying to change how human nature actually is (as you cited with the feminists and Marxists). It's not that they actually think they're *changing* anything, though; they just don't believe it had any objectivity to it to begin with. Because individual man makes himself what he is.
Individualism reigns under all. And it's utterly Satanic.
And I know the article that brought us to this discussion was all the empty talk on "fair" wages...but a further tangential question here: I guess I haven't identified feminism itself with a not taking responsibility for oneself? Wondering what you see that flowing from? Not a feminist defender here by any means; I guess I just haven't identified that piece of the feminism picture, and I'm trying to place it.... 🤔 Where/why would that come out in their ideology, and from what? As in, what in feminism's belief system would have them not taking responsibility for themselves? 🤔
This is a really good reminder that defrauding workers out of just wages is one of the four sins that “cry out to heaven” (James 5:4).
Sadly some of the worst offenders though are actually “professional catholic” employers (schools, parishes, organisations etc) which take undue financial advantage people’s good will and faith commitment so perhaps there is a vested interest in misconstruing this issue as a “government problem” :p
Good observation. My unpopular opinion: Catholic institutions should employ very VERY few "professionals." Musicians perhaps. The list is very short.
If we had active religious orders again, maybe mothers wouldn't be so tempted to monetize their time.
I have always said that Roman Catholic doctrine insists that all women are in things inferior to men, and that if a woman has one spot of self-respect she would never be a Roman Catholic. Thank you for confirming my assertion.
Well, if you are trolling, goodbye.
If you are strangely twisting my words, how about showing where I used the word inferior, or implied it?
You trach that women should be helplessly dependent on men. Tell me, if wives are to obey husbands, how can the husbamd punish her disobedience?