An extraordinary column by David Brooks last week, in which he relays his thoughts on reading Douglas Hofstadter’s new book, I Am a Strange Loop. Let’s join Mr. Brooks halfway through:
Most political and social disputes grow out of differing theories about the self, and I find Hofstadter’s social, dynamic, overlapping theory of self very congenial.
It emphasizes how profoundly we are shaped by relationships with others, but it’s not one of those stifling, collectivist theories that puts the community above the individual.
It exposes the errors of those Ayn Rand individualists who think that success is something they achieve through their own genius and willpower.
It exposes the fallacy of the New Age narcissists who believe they can find their true, authentic self by burrowing down into their inner being. There is no self that exists before society.
It explains why it’s so hard to tackle concentrated poverty. Human beings are permeable. The habits that are common in underclass areas get inside the brains of those who grow up there and undermine long-range thinking and social trust.
It illuminates the dangers of believing that there is a universal hunger for liberty. That universal hunger may exist in the abstract, but we’re embedded creatures and the way specific individuals perceive liberty depends on context.
It lampoons political zealotry. You may be a flaming liberal in New York, but it’s likely you’d be a flaming conservative if you grew up in Wyoming.
Finally, it points toward a modern way of understanding how people fit into society. In the 19th century, Marx thought that people were organized according to their material interests and their relationship to the means of production.
In the information age, it seems fitting that we’d see people bonded by communication. It’s not exactly new to say that no man is an island. But Hofstadter is one of hundreds of scientists and scholars showing how interconnectedness actually works. What’s being described is a vast web of information — some contained in genes, some in brain structure, some in the flow of dinner conversation — that joins us to our ancestors and reminds the living of the presence of the dead.
Here’s what I’ve turned up at Technorati.
Philosophy faculty at San Diego Mesa College: “Brooks is pulling the philosophical rug out from under decades (if not centuries) of conservative thought.”
Visiting associate professor of philosophy at George Mason University: “Brooks’s understanding is as compatible with his own neoconservatism as it is with my poststructuralist pragmatism.”
Social Capital Blog: “Although the field of social identity is just starting to become a bit more hard-nosed, it has appeared clear to us that people’s sense of identity is partly informed by their social capital … and their social identity in turn also influences their social capital. ”
My own take: A courageous piece. And while the stereotypes of stifling collectivists, Ayn Rand individualists, and New Age narcissists may sound trite, that word congenial lingers.
Here are the links to, “A Partnership of Minds” (TimesSelect), and to the reprint on Behind the Times. I confess I haven’t read A Strange Loop yet. You?
(Thanks to Matthew G.)
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
You must log in to post a comment.