to live better to return by the West 4th Street subway stop and walk for Habits ofthe Heart, an influential study of American values through the busy streets of Greenwich Village than to use the in the mid-eighties put it this way Lexington avenue line. which would let me off closer to home but in territory too far east in the village to be safe. Such Everybody wants to be on top and get their own way. It's like naps of 'no-go' areas are now part of the education of every elationship.. I mean, I don,'t want to be the only one American city dweller. Something as natural as an evening who suffers. I don,'t want to be the only sucker. I don,'t want stroll in the local park has become, depending on the neigh bourhood, either risky or downright mad. On lower-floor s to be the fall guy for people who are not doing their part6 windows, one looks out through bars, the prison is on the In the United States today the social fabric of society has outside. Those who can afford it live in apartment buildings decayed to the point at which there are grounds for fearing with 24-hour security staff controlling who goes in and out that it has passed the point of no return. The problem is that Children are brought up to carry 'mugging moneywith them, people who begin with the attitude of not wanting to be the because muggers are more likely to turn nasty if they get only sucker are likely to treat each new encounter with sus- nothing. Time reports: 'Nursery-school teachers in some of the picion, and the more who hold this attitude, the more difficult citys tougher neighbourhoods train children barely old enough it is to make co-operative efforts work for the common good to talk to hit the floor at the sound of gunshots (as we shall see in more detail in Chapter 7). There are no Los Angeles has its own characteristic form of anonymous precedents for halting the decay of a society as populous, as killing: freeway shootings. Beginning in 1987, individuals or egoistic, and as heavily armed with lethal weapons as the parked on freeway bridges and shot at cars passing United States is today; so no-one working for change can be below. Others would take pot shots at cars as they passed on onfident of reversing the current drift towards social anarchy he road. The message went out from Los Angeles police t the same time, the alternative is so appalling to contem- don't look into the eyes of the driver of the car alongside plate that it would be crazy not to try, as long as there is a chance of Less threatening crime is almost ignored but it too carries The situation is not helped when the society's leaders them- a message. Every day 155,000 subway riders jump the turn- selves are busy making sure that they are not going to be suckers working for the common good while others line their stiles. In a year, this fare evasion costs the city at least $65 own pockets. In 1991 dozens of members of the United State million that could have been used to improve public trans- port. It also sets a very public example of scorn for the idea Congress, including the Speaker, the House Democratic Party that those who benefit from a public utility should play their leader and the House Republican Party whip were shown to have been overdrawing their bank accounts at the house bank part in supporting it. But why not ride for free, if you can get The overdrawals were often for substantial sums and incurred way with it? Isn't everyone else doing it? So wouldn 't you no interest or penalty. The cost of this interest-free money be stupid to behave differently? One American interviewed was being borne by the taxpayer. A poll showed that 83
28 How ar e we to liv e better to return by the West 4th Street subway stop and walk through the busy streets of Greenwich Village than to use the Lexington Avenue line, which would let me off closer to home, but in territory too far east in the Village to be safe. Such maps of 'no-go' areas are now part of the education of every American city dweller. Something as natural as an evening stroll in the local park has become, depending on the neighbourhood, either risky or downright mad. On lower-floor windows, one looks out through bars; the prison is on the outside. Those who can afford it live in apartment buildings with 24-hour security staff controlling who goes in and out. Children are brought up to carry 'mugging money' with them, because muggers are more likely to turn nasty if they get nothing. Time reports: 'Nursery-school teachers in some of the city's tougher neighbourhoods train children barely old enough to talk to hit the floor at the sound of gunshots'.3 Los Angeles has its own characteristic form of anonymous killing: freeway shootings. Beginning in 1987, individuals or gangs parked on freeway bridges and shot at cars passing below. Others would take pot shots at cars as they passed on the road. The message went out from Los Angeles police: don't look into the eyes of the driver of the car alongside you.4 Less threatening crime is almost ignored, but it too carries a message. Every day 155,000 subway riders jump the turnstiles. In a year, this fare evasion costs the city at least $65 million that could have been used to improve public transport.5 It also sets a very public example of scorn for the idea that those who benefit from a public utility should play their part in supporting it. But why not ride for free, if you can get away with it? Isn't everyone else doing it? So wouldn't you be stupid to behave differently? One American interviewed 'What' s in it for me? ' 29 for Habits of the Heart, an influential study of American values in the mid-eighties put it this way: Everybody wants to be on top and get their own way. It's like in a relationship .. . I mean, I don't want to be the only one who suffers. I don't want to be the only sucker. I don't want - to be the fall guy for people who are not doing their part.6 .<s !'"• In the United States today the social fabric of society has decayed to the point at which there are grounds for fearing that it has passed the point of no return. The problem is that people who begin with the attitude of not wanting to be the only sucker are likely to treat each new encounter with suspicion, and the more who hold this attitude, the more difficult it is to make co-operative efforts work for the common good (as we shall see in more detail in Chapter 7). There are no precedents for halting the decay of a society as populous, as egoistic, and as heavily armed with lethal weapons as the United States is today; so no-one working for change can be confident of reversing the current drift towards social anarchy. At the same time, the alternative is so appalling to contemplate that it would be crazy not to try, as long as there is a chance of success. The situation is not helped when the society's leaders themselves are busy making sure that they are not going to be suckers working for the common good while others line their own pockets. In 1991 dozens of members of the United States Congress, including the Speaker, the House Democratic Party leader and the House Republican Party whip were shown to have been overdrawing their bank accounts at the House Bank. The overdrawals were often for substantial sums, and incurred no interest or penalty. The cost of this interest-free money was being borne by the taxpayer. A poll showed that 83
30 How are we to live? What's in it for me?' 31 ercent of American adults believed that legislators who over dwarfed by those of Steven Ross and N. J. Nicholas, co-chief drew their bank accounts did so not by mistake but ' because executives of Time-Warner, Inc. who took home a combined they knew they could get away with it total of $99-6 million in 1990, a year in which Time-Warner These revelations about the United States Congress caused reported a loss. United States chief executives are paid at least a stir, but they were modest stuff compared to the attitudes eighty-five times as much as the average American worker and practices of state legislators revealed in an investigation up from a 1975 average ratio of 35: 1, which itself was higher in Arizona. Transcripts of police undercover videotapes show Japanese(16 1)or German(21: 1) the legislators being extraordinarily candid about their atti- suggest that the ratio in the tudes to life and ethics. Senator Carolyn Walker explained: T further in favour of the chief like the good life, and I'm trying to position myself so that I executive, and has risen as high as 160 times the pay of a an live the good life and have more money. As she reached worker across to accept a bribe of $25,000, she added, 'We all have Trade union leaders may be the natural opponents of cor- our prices. State Representative Bobby Raymond was blunter porate chiefs, but they are clearly capable of learning from still: There is not an issue in this world that I give a(exple the enemy. Gus Bevona, head of the New York building tive)about. My favorite line is, "What's in it for me? union,earned $412, 000 in 1989, while most of his Others who seem to care only about what they can get for members were earning less than $25,000. In February themselves include the chief executive officers of many of while municipal employees were being laid off by New America,'s largest corporations, who paid themselves enor York City, the municipal workers union chose to hold its mous increases while their corporations were losing money budget meeting in the Bahamas, booking more than 100 d firing employees. In 1990, for example rooms and luxury suites at a resort hotel, and picking up all ITT corporation fell 18 percent; yet in that year Rand Aras- the expenses for union officials attending the meeting kog, ITT's chairman, president and chief executive officer Even the universities were getting greedy. In 1991 a pre received a pay rise of 103 percent, taking s annu al earnings by a congressional sub-committee headed by John Dingell to SIl million. Joseph Nocera, a writer for G@, went to ITTs showed that Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Rutgers and many other annual meeting in order to hear Araskog respond to questions universities had charged to federal research funds- and thus saying that so long as he was in the position to be able to nothing to do with research. Dingell asked: ' I challenge you grab this kind of money, he was going to grab it, and he to tell me how fruitwood commodes. chauffeurs for the uni didn't much care what anyone else thought about it'. That versity president's wife, housing for dead university officials attitude must be common in the corporate ethos. Although retreats in Lake Tahoe and flowers for the president,'s house IBM shareholders gained less than I percent compounded are supportive of science!. No-one answered Dingells chal annual return over the six years to 1990, the salary of IBM,'s lenge. Further investigation showed that Harvard Medical head, John Akers, went up 400 percent in the same period, School charged the Federal Government, as 'research costs' rowing to S8 million 1990. Even these earnings are $1, 800 for a reception for a retiring dean. The University of
30 How are we to live ? percent of American adults believed that legislators who overdrew their bank accounts did so not by mistake but 'because they knew they could get away with it'.7 These revelations about the United States Congress caused a stir, but they were modest stuff compared to the attitudes and practices of state legislators revealed in an investigation in Arizona. Transcripts of police undercover videotapes show the legislators being extraordinarily candid about their attitudes to life and ethics. Senator Carolyn Walker explained: 'I like the good life, and I'm trying to position myself so that I can live the good life and have more money'. As she reached across to accept a bribe of $25,000, she added, 'We all have our prices'. State Representative Bobby Raymond was blunter still: 'There is not an issue in this world that I give a (expletive) about. My favorite line is, "What's in it for me?" '8 Others who seem to care only about what they can get for themselves include the chief executive officers of many of America's largest corporations, who paid themselves enormous increases while their corporations were losing money and firing employees. In 1990, for example, the stock price of ITT corporation fell 18 percent; yet in that year Rand Araskog, ITT's chairman, president and chief executive officer received a pay rise of 103 percent, taking his annual earnings to $11 million. Joseph Nocera, a writer for GQ, went to ITT's annual meeting in order to hear Araskog respond to questions about his pay. According to Nocera, Araskog 'seemed to be saying that so long as he was in the position to be able to grab this kind of money, he was going to grab it, and he didn't much care what anyone else thought about it'.9 That attitude must be common in the corporate ethos. Although IBM shareholders gained less than 1 percent compounded annual return over the six years to 1990, the salary of IBM's head, John Akers, went up 400 percent in the same period, growing to $8 million in 1990. Even these earnings are 'What' s in it for me? ' 31 dwarfed by those of Steven Ross and N. J. Nicholas, co-chief executives of Time-Warner, Inc., who took home a combined total of $99-6 million in 1990, a year in which Time-Warner reported a loss. United States chief executives are paid at least eighty-five times as much as the average American worker — up from a 1975 average ratio of 35:1, which itself was higher than comparable ratios for Japanese (16:1) or German (21:1) chiefs. Some recent estimates suggest that the ratio in the United States is still leaning further in favour of the chief executive, and has risen as high as 160 times the pay of a worker.in Trade union leaders may be the natural opponents of corporate chiefs, but they are clearly capable of learning from the enemy. Gus Bevona, head of the New York building service union, earned $412,000 in 1989, while most of his union members were earning less than $25,000." In February 1992, while municipal employees were being laid off by New York City, the municipal workers union chose to hold its budget meeting in the Bahamas, booking more than 100 rooms and luxury suites at a resort hotel, and picking up all the expenses for union officials attending the meeting.12 Even the universities were getting greedy. In 1991 a probe by a congressional sub-committee headed by John Dingell showed that Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Rutgers and many other universities had charged to federal research funds - and thus to taxpayers - millions of dollars worth of goods that had nothing to do with research. Dingell asked: 'I challenge you to tell me how fruitwood commodes, chauffeurs for the university president's wife, housing for dead university officials, retreats in Lake Tahoe and flowers for the president's house are supportive of science'. No-one answered Dingell's challenge. Further investigation showed that Harvard Medical School charged the Federal Government, as 'research costs', $1,800 for a reception for a retiring dean. The University of
32 How are we to live? What's in it for me? 33 Texas Medical Center in Dallas spent $2,095 of public funds talk about on their return from trips to India. Now it is hard for ten engraved decanters, Washington University in St Louis to walk down a New York street without being accosted charged for a sculpture that had already been paid for by either in a friendly manner or with a touch of aggression, by private donations, and the University of Pittsburgh received a street beggar. The dramatic increase in the number of the cost of trips to Ireland and Florida by the wife of the homeless people and beggars has many causes: rising rents President of the University. The Reagan-Bush era ended with a final demonstration unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, the decline of family that cynicism about ethics and justice extended right to the support networks, and the Reagan administration's hard- top. Less than a month from the end of his term of office, hearted changes to welfare laws and cuts in funding for President Bush granted pardons to six officials of the Reagan housing. If we are interested in the nature of a social system, administration for their role in the iran-Contra affair. Those however, it is the acceptance of the homeless that tells us pardoned included Caspar Weinberger, a former defence sec- more than its causes. When the numbers of people living on retary. The pardons saved Bush himself from being called as the streets began to rise dramatically during the reagan years a witness in any of the trials; they also demonstrated that the the first reaction was one of shock. and the demand that president put his own interests above justice being done, and something be done. But the shock soon ebbed. As Time put ing seen to be it, After years of running hurdles over bodies in train stations, Greed at the top is one side of a society that appears to of being hustled by panhandlers on the street, many urban losing any sense of a common good. The other side is easy to dwellers moved past pity to contempt, and are no longer see in any American city. Early one morning in Washington, scalded by the suffering they see 6 DC, I came across a group of people lying on pieces of card- The visible presence of the homeless is now just another board on top of a grating, try ing to warm themselves from facet of American life. Though there have been many local the air that was rising out of the subway. Looking through initiatives to do something about it, there has been no major the trees, I could discern the familiar shape of the White national effort to tackle the problem. the end ofthe Reagan House. The homeless and the president of the united states of America were neighbours. It wasn't a political protest. It years the federal government was spending $8 billion a year was just somewhere to sleep. Homelessness has become part of American life, and is increasing also in countries like Brit Carter adms ompared with $32 billion at the end of the Carter administration, when homelessness was far less wide- ain that have far better social support services. After photo- spread. During these same years, however, income tax rates for the book A Day in the Life of were falling. By then, even the very richest members of soci- America, Italian photographer Letizia Battaglia said: I have those earning a taxable income of more than $200,000 never experienced such a sense of sadness. Above were the a year- were paying federal income tax at a rate of only 24 Manhattan skyscrapers and down below the desperation. I percent. Had they been taxed at 1979 rates, an extra $82 have never seen such misery, even in Palermo IS billion would have been raised- far more than was saved by Beggars, too, were once something that Americans could cutting the housing budget. A society that prefers to cut tax
32 How ar e we to live ? Texas Medical Center in Dallas spent $2,095 of public funds for ten engraved decanters; Washington University in St Louis charged for a sculpture that had already been paid for by private donations; and the University of Pittsburgh received the cost of trips to Ireland and Florida by the wife of the President of the University.13 The Reagan—Bush era ended with a final demonstration that cynicism about ethics and justice extended right to the top. Less than a month from the end of his term of office, President Bush granted pardons to six officials of the Reagan administration for their role in the Iran-Contra affair. Those pardoned included Caspar Weinberger, a former defence secretary. The pardons saved Bush himself from being called as a witness in any of the trials; they also demonstrated that the president put his own interests above justice being done, and being seen to be done.'4 Greed at the top is one side of a society that appears to be losing any sense of a common good. The other side is easy to see in any American city. Early one morning in Washington, DC, I came across a group of people lying on pieces of cardboard on top of a grating, trying to warm themselves from the air that was rising out of the subway. Looking through the trees, I could discern the familiar shape of the White House. The homeless and the President of the United States of America were neighbours. It wasn't a political protest. It was just somewhere to sleep. Homelessness has become part of American life, and is increasing also in countries like Britain that have far better social support services. After photographing homeless people for the book A Day in the Life of America, Italian photographer Letizia Battaglia said: 'I have never experienced such a sense of sadness. Above were the Manhattan skyscrapers and down below the desperation. I have never seen such misery, even in Palermo'.15 Beggars, too, were once something that Americans could 'What' s i n i t fo r me ? ' 3 3 talk about on their return from trips to India. Now it is hard to walk down a New York street without being accosted, either in a friendly manner or with a touch of aggression, by a street beggar. The dramatic increase in the number of homeless people and beggars has many causes: rising rents, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, the decline of family support networks, and the Reagan administration's hardhearted changes to welfare laws and cuts in funding for housing. If we are interested in the nature of a social system, however, it is the acceptance of the homeless that tells us more than its causes. When the numbers of people living on the streets began to rise dramatically during the Reagan years the first reaction was one of shock, and the demand that something be done. But the shock soon ebbed. As Time put it, 'After years of running hurdles over bodies in train stations, of being hustled by panhandlers on the street, many urban dwellers moved past pity to contempt, and are no longer scalded by the suffering they see'.16 The visible presence of the homeless is now just another facet of American life. Though there have been many local initiatives to do something about it, there has been no major national effort to tackle the problem. By the end of the Reagan years the federal government was spending $8 billion a year on housing, as compared with $32 billion at the end of the Carter administration, when homelessness was far less widespread. During these same years, however, income tax rates were falling. By then, even the very richest members of society - those earning a taxable income of more than $200,000 a year — were paying federal income tax at a rate of only 24 percent. Had they been taxed at 1979 rates, an extra $82 billion would have been raised - far more than was saved by cutting the housing budget. A society that prefers to cut tax
34 How are we to live? What" s in it for me?’3 rates on the very rich rather than to help the poor and home to sacrifice five of good weather for three days less has ceased to be a community in any real sense of the Thanksgiving, CI as, and Easter?', thus giving eloquent term testimony to the idling significance of family bonds in American society, in or out of retirement villages In a remarkable work that diffe The loss of community eties around the world, Raoul Naroll, a pioneer of cross-cultura tor arrowing of the individual ou anthropology who taught at the State University of New the reduced sense of community that results from the fact York, Buffalo, has emphasized the importance of what he that so many Americans come from somewhere else and will calls'moralnets'-that is, family and community connections robably move on to somewhere else again in a few years. In that tie people together and provide an ethical background to eff hat each individual does. Moralnets support individuals in managerial staff around as it suits them. and to refuse an their ethical choices making it easier for them to choose what invitation to move is to risk being considered not to be serious he moralnet regards as the right thing to do. According to about ones career. The authors of Habits ofthe Heart noted Naroll, strong moralnets are built by deep social ties, emo that the people they interviewed often seemed to forget about tional warmth between members of the community, social what they had received from their parents, and were equally and economic support or 'insurance for those who fall on hard uneasy about being connected to their adult children. They times, and various common emblems, ceremonies, traditions, point out that while for the Japanese leaving home is a term myths and ideologies that bind the society together. An asso- that is used only for the rare event of going into a monastic ciation of isolated individuals bound together only by acquisi life and abandoning all ties of ordinary existence, for Ameri- tive self-interest is not likely to have a strong moralnet. Of cans leaving home is expected and childhood is seen as a course, strong moralnets are compatible with all sorts of preparation for it. This seems to be a long-standing tendency appallingly unethical conduct, especially against those outside in American society, for it was noted already by tocqueville, the net. So a strong moralnet is not enough to guarantee a who wrote that the American cultural heritage makes 'men good society. At the same time, when moralnets are weak louds their view of their descend Naroll argues, there is more crime, drug and alcohol abuse. ants and isolates them from their contemporaries suicide. domestic violence and mental illness. 9 It is a fright Frances Fitzgerald interviewed residents of Sun City,a ening thought that we may be witnessing, in the United Florida retirement community, and found that they saw tates today, the first large-scale society in which the moral pendence on children as a weakness. Living together wi nets have become too weak to support ethical ways of living. ne's children was, as one Sun City resident said, not for In 1887 Ferdinand Tonnies, a German sociologist, pub- them: 'Other people- Negroes and Cubans- all live together lished a work called Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaf, in which he but we,ve reached the point where we don't have to do it distinguished between two conceptions of society. A Gemein- Another, comparing the benefits of living near his children nglish as 'community in a northern state to life in Florida, said, Do you want is a traditional group bound by a strong communal sense. It
34 How are we to live ? rates on the very rich rather than to help the poor and homeless has ceased to be a community in any real sense of the term. The loss of community A major factor in the narrowing of the individual outlook is the reduced sense of community that results from the fact that so many Americans come from somewhere else and will probably move on to somewhere else again in a few years. In the name of economic efficiency, corporations move their managerial staff around as it suits them, and to refuse an invitation to move is to risk being considered not to be serious about one's career. The authors of Habits of the Heart noted that the people they interviewed often seemed to forget about what they had received from their parents, and were equally uneasy about being connected to their adult children. They point out that while for the Japanese leaving home' is a term that is used only for the rare event of going into a monastic life and abandoning all ties of ordinary existence, for Americans leaving home is expected and childhood is seen as a preparation for it. This seems to be a long-standing tendency in American society, for it was noted already by Tocqueville, who wrote that the American cultural heritage makes 'men forget their ancestors . . . clouds their view of their descendants and isolates them from their contemporaries'.17 Frances Fitzgerald interviewed residents of Sun City, a Florida retirement community, and found that they saw dependence on children as a weakness. Living together with one's children was, as one Sun City resident said, not for them: 'Other people - Negroes and Cubans - all live together, but we've reached the point where we don't have to do it'. Another, comparing the benefits of living near his children in a northern state to life in Florida, said, 'Do you want 'What' s in it for me? ' 35 to sacrifice five months of good weather for three days — Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter?', thus giving eloquent testimony to the dwindling significance of family bonds in American society, in or out of retirement villages.18 In a remarkable work that compares many different societies around the world, Raoul Naroll, a pioneer of cross-cultural anthropology who taught at the State University of New York, Buffalo, has emphasized the importance of what he calls 'moralnets' - that is, family and community connections that tie people together and provide an ethical background to what each individual does. Moralnets support individuals in their ethical choices, making it easier for them to choose what the moralnet regards as the right thing to do. According to Naroll, strong moralnets are built by deep social ties, emotional warmth between members of the community, social and economic support or 'insurance' for those who fall on hard times, and various common emblems, ceremonies, traditions, myths and ideologies that bind the society together. An association of isolated individuals bound together only by acquisitive self-interest is not likely to have a strong moralnet. Of course, strong moralnets are compatible with all sorts of appallingly unethical conduct, especially against those outside the net. So a strong moralnet is not enough to guarantee a good society. At the same time, when moralnets are weak, Naroll argues, there is more crime, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, domestic violence and mental illness.19 It is a frightening thought that we may be witnessing, in the United States today, the first large-scale society in which the moralnets have become too weak to support ethical ways of living. In 1887 Ferdinand Tonnies, a German sociologist, published a work called Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, in which he distinguished between two conceptions of society. A Gemeinschaft - a term usually rendered in English as 'community' - is a traditional group bound by a strong communal sense. It
36 How are we ' What's in it for me? 3 The first and in some ways still the most striking answer tify with the larger whole, and can scarcely ve of them- selves as having a meaningful life apart from it. A Gesellscbafr to this question was given by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes pub- on the other hand, is an association of individuals. They see lished his greatest work, Leviathan, in 1651, in the aftermath themselves as independent beings who could live easily enough of the English Civil war and the overthrow of the stuart outside the association. Society is therefore regarded as a monarchs who had claimed to rule by Divine right. Reflect ing the breakdown of traditional authority, Hobbes bega human creation, perhaps the result of some kind of social con- tract, and individuals may opt to join or leave as they see fit from the assumption that all mankind has one basic desire:a Tonnies's distinction between community and association perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceas- eth only in death.20 For this reason, in the natural condition derives in part from the work of one of the greatest of the German philosophers, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel of mankind all human beings would live in a state of war believed that in ancient Greece individuals did not see them. where every man is Enemy to every man.,. And the life of Ives as having interests separate from those of their com- solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. This munity. They could conceive of their own good only as part an immediate problem: from such uncompromisingly self- of the good of membership in a successful community. This directed beings, living in such an appalling situation, how can a society ever arise, or once it arises, survive? Hobbes's answe communal conception of self-interest existed, according to Hegel, because the Greeks had not yet become aware of as blunt as his view of human nature: society arises only by the application of superior force. Society exists because it the possibilities of individual freedom and individual self- consciousness. Socrates was, in Hegels view, the pivotal figure is in the interests of us all to have peace, and peace can prevail in making Athenians think critically about what they had only if we set up a sovereign with unlimited authority and ufficient power to punish those who breach the peace taken for granted. Hence he was rightly regarded by the Perhaps no society has ever been so pure an association of conservatives as a dangerous subversive: once the socratic questions had been raised, they could not be answered within individuals as that pictured by Hobbes. Most societies have the accepted framework of ancient Greek society. been, and still are, organic communities rather than associa- tions of free individuals. If we apply Tonnies's distinction to the modern world is necessarily destructive of a society based on custom. From nificant degree in Asia. Africa. the Middle east and Latin this point, the course of Western history led away from cus- tomary society and toward more reflective awareness of one- America. According to one estimate, perhaps 70 percent of the world's population live in societies in which loyalty to the elf as an individual. Yet in Hegel's philosophy this movement, family or tribe overrides personal goal which came to full fruition after the protestant reformation In contrast, Western society has been tending, at least since nd the rise of the market economy, also brought with it the problem with which this book is concerned: without the bonds the Protestant Reformation, away from community and unity, what reason does the individual towards a looser association of individuals Hobbes's authori- tarian theory of society as a social contract was followed by have for acting ethically that of John Locke. Locke was more optimistic in his view of
36 How ar e we to live ? is an organic community, in the sense that the members identify with the larger whole, and can scarcely conceive of themselves as having a meaningful life apart from it. A Gesellscbaft, on the other hand, is an association of individuals. They see themselves as independent beings who could live easily enough outside the association. Society is therefore regarded as a human creation, perhaps the result of some kind of social contract, and individuals may opt to join or leave as they see fit. Tonnies's distinction between community and association derives in part from the work of one of the greatest of the German philosophers, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel believed that in ancient Greece individuals did not see themselves as having interests separate from those of their community. They could conceive of their own good only as part of the good of membership in a successful community. This communal conception of self-interest existed, according to Hegel, because the Greeks had not yet become aware of the possibilities of individual freedom and individual selfconsciousness. Socrates was, in Hegel's view, the pivotal figure in making Athenians think critically about what they had taken for granted. Hence he was rightly regarded by the conservatives as a dangerous subversive: once the Socratic questions had been raised, they could not be answered within the accepted framework of ancient Greek society. Socrates represents the spirit of self-conscious thought that is necessarily destructive of a society based on custom. From this point, the course of Western history led away from customary society and toward more reflective awareness of oneself as an individual. Yet in Hegel's philosophy this movement, which came to full fruition after the Protestant reformation and the rise of the market economy, also brought with it the problem with which this book is concerned: without the bonds of custom and community, what reason does the individual have for acting ethically? 'What' s in it for me? ' 37 The first and in some ways still the most striking answer to this question was given by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes published his greatest work, Leviathan, in 1651, in the aftermath of the English Civil War and the overthrow of the Stuart monarchs who had claimed to rule by Divine Right. Reflecting the breakdown of traditional authority, Hobbes began from the assumption that all mankind has one basic desire: 'a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death'.20 For this reason, in the natural condition of mankind all human beings would live in a state of war: 'where every man is Enemy to every man . . . And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'.21 This posed an immediate problem: from such uncompromisingly selfdirected beings, living in such an appalling situation, how can a society ever arise, or once it arises, survive? Hobbes's answer was as blunt as his view of human nature: society arises only by the application of superior force. Society exists because it is in the interests of us all to have peace, and peace can prevail only if we set up a sovereign with unlimited authority and sufficient power to punish those who breach the peace. Perhaps no society has ever been so pure an association of individuals as that pictured by Hobbes. Most societies have been, and still are, organic communities rather than associations of free individuals. If we apply Tonnies's distinction to the modern world, the organic community survives to a significant degree in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. According to one estimate, perhaps 70 percent of the world's population live in societies in which loyalty to the family or tribe overrides personal goals.22 In contrast, Western society has been tending, at least since the Protestant Reformation, away from community and towards a looser association of individuals. Hobbes's authoritarian theory of society as a social contract was followed by that of John Locke. Locke was more optimistic in his view of