The Dangers of Rampant Individualism

36Historically Speaking · January/February 2005 The Dangers of Rampant Individualism Richard Ned Lebow Only two ofthe commentators engage my article or book: Loren Samons and Barry Strauss. Samons misunderstands my argument . He unjustly accuses me of reading Thucydides's accountof"the advantage-seeking power poUtics pursued by the Athenians" as an endorsement of those policies. I do nothing ofthe kind. I argue that the MeUan Dialogue, an expression ofRealpolitik, is presented as a pathology. The Athenians dispense with anyprophasis, invert a core Greek value by teUing the MeUans that nothing can harm them as much as their friendship, and make arguments that mirror those made by the Persians when they tried to discourage Athens and other Greeks from resisting their domination. Thucydides portrays the Athens ofthe MeUan Dialogue as a tyranny that can sustain itself only by constant displays of power (dunamis) that push it into increasingly reckless forms of expansion. It is no coincidence that the SiciUan expedition comes hard on the heels ofthe MeUan Dialogue. Samons fails to grasp my argument Unking interest, ethics, and community. It does not follow logically, he writes, that one must be a member of a society in order to define one's identity as embracing or opposing it. I never said it did. Individuals and societies can certainly define themselves in contrastto others . To do so, one need not have anything other than a stereotypical understanding of the "other." 5th- and 4th-century Greeks understood that multiple discourses had important consequences: awareness ofother discourses and practices encouraged recognition ofthe conventional nature ofone's own nomos, which in turn made it more difficult to sustain. Challenges to nomos had serious poUtical consequences; they allowed individuals and poleis to construct self-centered identities for themselves. Membership in a community encouraged self-restraint, as did the affective bonds that created and sustained common practices among actors. For the tragic playwrights, Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle, actorswho divorce themselves from their respective communities—usually because they feel unduly constrained by their norms—are likelyto behave in ways that are destructive to themselves and those around them. The Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is a recent example of this ancient truth. Samons seems surprised that I describe all first principles as arbitrary. He seems to think they are necessary for societies to cohere and maintain themselves. Most philosophers recognize the logical impossibiUty ofgrounding anyset offirstprinciples. Nor do people accept first principles on philosophical grounds; most members of most societies never think about first principles and could notidentifyanyifasked. People are socialized into patterns of behavior, and the most stable societies, as Aristotle recognized , are those in which norms have become deeply ingrained habits. We defend our societies against chaUenges because they are "our" societies, and we understand that membership in them helps to make us who we are. The absence ofdiscussions about first principles is beneficial when it mutes value conflicts within societies and allows norms and practices to become more pluralistic, inclusive, and appropriate to contemporary circumstances. The interaction between actors and their societies is always dynamic, akin to the evolution oflanguages. It does not foUow, nor do I claim, thatwithout firstprinciples we are victims of"historical determinism . Barry Strauss haswritten a more thoughtful critique that turns my argument on its head. RampantindividuaUsm is a good, not a bad thing, he asserts, because it is the psychological engine thathas made America the economic powerhouse of the world. The value of individualism is indisputable, but extreme individuaUsm, Uke anygood character trait, can have negative consequences for the actor and the larger societywhen carried to excess. This is a central theme of Greek tragedy. The struggle betweenAntigone and Creon, for example, pits unyielding adherence to reUgion and family against an equal commitment to civic order and the city, and ends up destroying their family and nearly their polis. Thucydides, I argue in Tragic Vision ofPolitics, develops a variation on this theme. He shows how excessive pursuit of honor or wealth, by the individual and the polis, was responsible for the Peloponnesian War and most of the horrors that followed. Something similar, I contend, is happening in our society, where it finds expression in such behavior as running red Ughts...