Me, Myself, And I

                                                                                                                   

The most famous exponent of self-interest was Narcissus. Perhaps he never existed, however it is from him that we get the concept of personal concern to the exclusion of anything else. But such an outlook is not unique. We've all experienced it.

As babies we were unaware that there was anything outside of ourselves. Our experience didn't include anything else. Even the few sights and sounds we experienced were only relevant to the extent that they affected us. Eventually, when we got older, we began to appreciate the world around us; only then did we recognize that there were others who were not part of us or answerable to us, and they saw us in the same light. We were becoming socialized.

Unfortunately, many never complete the process. Tom Wolfe coined the term “Me Generation” to refer to self-absorbed “baby boomers”ⁱ whose primary focus was themselves. And it was not a small number of people. There was a culture of narcissism that saw the world only as it related to them – individually. That was the prism for seeing, and then judging, everything around them, from politics to personal appearance to the “relevance” of college courses. It was a self-indulgent generationⁱⁱ that promoted the “sexual revolution” and anything else that felt good. Instant gratification and personal satisfaction took precedence over patience and community development. And, to a significant degree, such a perspective persists.

The more common “self-interest” though – the one on which most people focus – is that related to living our lives in a world that is not always to our liking. We need jobs and we seek advancement. We want what's best for us – the “good things.” We look for shortcuts around problems – at least those we choose to see or those we simply can't avoid. It isn't a matter of not recognizing others. Rather we are seeking to improve our own lot – even if it's at their expense. “What's in it for me?” That often involves negotiating with those around us – in the workplace, on the street, and at home. Our goal is to stay ahead of the Joneses. The Me Generation didn't care about others. We compete with them. Our world is a little larger than that of the narcissistic individual. Our kind of attitude probably predominates among most people. For some – the poor and starving, especially in the “Third World”– it's a matter of survival rather than advantage, and it's less focused on competition with neighbors. The focus is entirely on the self.

Another level is inhabited by those whose self-interest extends beyond their own time. For them, the future – and, specifically, the future of their own families – is their concern. They feel an obligation to provide for those who come after them. They, too, want to improve “their” lot, but it will be through their descendants. They are concerned for what follows, since it is an extension of themselves; they want to provide for their heritageⁱⁱⁱ – for their children and grandchildren. Like the self-interest that tells them they must beat out everyone around them – that they must win in the competition – this need is to be sure that their offspring are better off than anyone else's. It's selfish, but it's more forward thinking than a desire for personal gains.

Guilt elimination may be another need in the quest for self-interest. Thus, in addition to the premium placed on altruistic behavior by religions, regret and a (rational or irrational) feeling of responsibility, as well as the need to drive it away, are important factors in the generosity of these angels. Their interest in others may seem to be more widely aimed and selfless, but the source remains very personal. Too often it's a matter of self-interest, as perceived by the well-off.

That's not such a big surprise. We all have free will, and we exercise it in every decision we make,^iv even those that involve bad choices. When we choose the lesser of evils, we choose what we think will be less harmful to us. We decide what is in our best interests. And giving away money doesn't present people with unwelcome choices. In addition to fulfilling a religious precept or ridding ourselves of guilt, we enjoy basking in the admiration by others of our generosity. Win, win. Anonymous donations happen, but not very often.

But if we look at the total picture of self-interest, the actions of the majority of people whether rich or poor, we're not very different from the “lower” animals. You may be a Darwinian or a Creationist,^v but it's hard not to see people's actions as aimed at the continuity of the human species. However we reached the point we're now at,^vi the goal for all groups is making things better – for ourselves and our children. And if our designs work, the entire human race will benefit. That may not be our intent, but it is the likely result.

As humans, we're all^vii narcissists.

Next episode: “DABDA” -- I dare you to figure that one out. (Please forgive the terminal preposition.)

I       And the generations since. Nowadays people become so lost in their electronic devices that they have little time for others. Perhaps some use the devices as a way of shutting others out of their lives. In any event, they may spend so much time in this private reverie that they never learn the skills necessary to interact with others.

ii      You're thinking “There he goes again. Things were bad before that. They're no different from what they've always been.” That may be a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that behavior wasn't ideal in the past. But I really think personal behavior is worse now and we, and our predecessors, knew what was bad and we didn't flaunt our actions and lose ourselves in them as much.

iii     That seems to be a major consideration of Presidents. Some seem more concerned with how they'll be judged in the future than how they perform now.

iv      Of course some things are out of our hands. We don't decide when a flood is going to wipe us out, so we cannot act in our self-interest. But we always do so when given the opportunity. Those who choose an oath of poverty see it as in their interest to do so. No one gives away his possessions without a reason. Whether prompted by religion, guilt, or the tax codes, the giver considers it as in his best interests to do so.

v      Unless you're a hard line fundamentalist, the two are not incompatible. Evolution (Darwin's explanation of life's development) is a scientific description of a means. Creationism (“Intelligent Design”) speaks of an end. Most religious people do not view the Bible as a scientific text and accept the idea that some of its content is metaphorical. Many are willing to view evolution as G-d's means of producing life on earth.

vi      It's reasonable to assume that our current state results from the interest of our predecessors in their best-interests and in those of their children.

vii     Almost all. There are some who, like the Lorax (in Dr. Seuss's book of the same name) speak for others, but they, as is true of everyone else, have chosen to do so because they consider that a good choice among the possibilities available to them. From their perspective, it is in their best interests. They may even believe that it is in everyone's best interests, but their concern is really only regarding their own views. They will act for those who don't know better, but who, in their view, will benefit from moves designed to better the world. Whether the ones for whom they are acting like it or not. In a way, those who think they are idealists are actually narcissists. They're assuaging their guilt and fooling themselves.

One Mind With But A Single Thought

Confession time: I'm a single-issue voter.

I know it's not fashionable to admit to such an approach. It marks me as a closed-minded bigot. I should make my decisions based on a full analysis of all issues rather than to use a single one as a benchmark. However I don't. I'm a single-issue voter.

But then, of course, so are you.

Perhaps our issues are different,ⁱ and the scope of our concerns as well, but when it comes down to making a choice there is usually some overriding point directing our decision. That point may be agreement or disagreement about a particular policy, or it may be party membership and a general political philosophy.ⁱⁱ It may even be our view of the trustworthiness of the candidate, possibly based on previous experience or performance and his record.ⁱⁱⁱ But when the time comes, one point will take precedence over everything else.^iv

(This state of affairs, by the way, is not limited to affairs of state, like politics. We make decisions whatever we do, not just in the voting booth. We do that whenever we buy something. And advertisers form focus groups all the time to try to determine what we're looking for – what will control our decisions. Is it price, a specific characteristic of a product, a combination of features, an overall impression, a dream, or something else? Perhaps we want a car that gets good gas mileage,^v or maybe it's a shampoo or skin cream made with some particular vegetable.^vi Possibly what is being sought is a fantasy of love or a feeling of patriotism. Or it could be brand loyalty. Maybe we identify with a famous entertainment or athletic star and will imitate him.^vii If he uses^viii a particular brand, so will we. In any event, we have to make a decision, and one of those factors will dominate our choice. And the advertisers want to know what it is.)

Advertisers like us single-issue people – as long as they can determine what that issue is and how to satisfy it.^ix As they say in politics, “It's the economy, stupid.” Some matter has gained the public's attention. It may not be limited to politics, but it's effective there. Once an area of concern is determined, it becomes the only one fit for discussion. It may, however, vary from one group to another. What sells in the rust belt may be of no concern in the Bible belt. The poor and the rich see the world differently, and political candidates either have to find a way to please both, or pick a group – which risks the alienation of a large number of voters.

It was easier in the old days. When speeches were give in different localities and had no effect on the larger population you could make different promises in different areas – even contradictory ones – and no one would be the wiser. National television makes that harder. So candidates have to hedge their bets by being as unclear as possible, while looking strong to all viewers. Charisma and “character” are emphasized, while positions and opinions are ambiguous.

And politicians, in their advertisements, denigrate their opponents rather than state their own records and positions. It's true that someone who has never held office won't have a record on which to run, but if he doesn't have opinions on current problems, or proposals on the way to improve things, the simple solution is to turn us against the other candidate(s). He is promoting our single-issue approach by trying to make our choice the rejection of the opposition. The issues may be complex, but the argument is that voting for someone else is a bad decision. Everything is incorporated into that one idea.

So having an issue – a benchmark – which will help you decide is a good thing. It's usually easier to get meaningful information if you focus on a single idea than if you try to learn about everything, or if you base your decision on some generalized, but vague, feature. As long as you're aware that the seller – politician, advertiser or whoever – is trying to outfox you, and you'll have to discount claims which seem to be bogus.

And that's the way it has to be with us all; that's the strategy we have to use. We may be concerned about a lot of things, but after considering them all one issue must tip the balance. It is our single-issue – the one on which we make our decision. But that's not a bad thing. We're fortunate to live in a democracy where we'll have the chance to change what didn't work out. Not everyone has that option. So we can choose to take a particular stance today knowing we can change our minds tomorrow. Today's single-issue needn't be tomorrow's, but in each case we have to have some deciding factor on which we will base our decision. That's certainly better than standing in the voting booth for hours and never reaching a conclusion.

Next episode: “Second Nature” – Sort of continuing the thought.

i     My single issue changes from time to time depending on the subject being discussed, the position(s) of the candidates (do they agree or disagree?), the general tenor of society, and a host of other considerations.

ii     For example a concern for the poor, or a libertarian approach.

iii    But, more likely, based on his good looks, or how he comes across on television.

iv     Even the decision to accept the Constitution was based on a Yes/No vote.

v     Of course when buying a car that uses more “non-polluting” electricity and less gasoline, very few people worry about the source of the electricity or the pollution that its production may cause.

vi    Vegetables seem to be popular whether or not they have any effect on your hair or skin.

vii   Or her.

viii   At least if he claims he uses it.

ix    Read “pander to it.” Advertisers and politicians have no fixed principles, except that of convincing their targets. And it doesn't matter how they do it.