outsidein

Get rich, or die trying?

October 29, 2009 @ 12:03 pm | by Bryan

I had an interesting conversation in a Belfast classroom last night. A debate over which leads to a better society, individualism or something more communitarian, led to the question of national purpose.

A self-identified Brit (who I think comes from somewhere in Northern Ireland) claimed that what separated the Britain of the past from other nations, like America or the Republic of Ireland, was that it used to have a sense of national purpose. A sense which, according to this individual, immigration has unfortunately undermined (I think that purpose was the expansion of empire, of which inward migration from acquired territories is a natural consequence, but that’s another debate).

Do most nations have a sense of purpose? Is there a collective vision that the modern nation state subscribes to? Would that even be a good thing? In response to those questions, someone from Limerick claimed that Ireland did indeed have a collective purpose, he just couldn’t say exactly what that was.

Another Irishman jumped in at that point. The nation’s collective purpose over the last few years, claimed Cillian, was, “Get rich, or die trying.”

50-cent would have been proud.

10 Comments »

October 29, 2009
12:46 pm

Bryan,

I will kick off with two little cut and pastes which sum up why we have moved from the communitarian to the individualistic way of seeing and doing things. First from John Gibbons excellent article in todays IT. He says

“Shows like the X Factor fuel the fantasy that anyone could, if they tried hard enough, be the next big thing. Positive thinking sounds innocuous, even benign, but it differs from cheerfulness or normal optimism in that it often extends to believing that the world is shaped by our wants and desires, and that these can be willed, genie-like, into existence.

One volume I recently saw in Waterstone’s that peddled positivity was entitled: Think Like A Winner. It promised to “ . . . give you the advantage over other people”. And the rewards? “Winning the respect of others, clinching that promotion at work or winning in love, money and health.” The unspoken corollary is that failure – in love, money or health – has nothing to do with bankers looting your pension fund, with HSE cutbacks or that you look after a child with special needs. It’s because you are – whisper it – a loser.

Positive thinking has also infected the corporate world. Many business tomes are now muddy amalgams of management advice peppered with self-help slogans. The delusional power of positive thinking was articulated in this newspaper last Friday, in an article by a recruitment company executive that sidestepped the mountains of contrary evidence to conclude that “the long-term outlook for the economy is fantastic”.

In Generation Me, psychologist Jean Twenge points out that “we simply take it for granted that we should all feel good about ourselves, we are all special and we all deserve to follow our dreams”. Over the last 25 years, international studies have tracked a strong rise in narcissistic belief among young people.”

And then read from what can only be the international anthem of the past 20 years I am what I am. Now please read these Gloria Gaynors words like a meditation. Here they are:
“I am what I am
I am my own special creation
So come take a look
Give me the hook
Or the ovation
It’s my world
That I want to have a little pride
My world
And it’s not a place I have to hide in
Life’s not worth a dam
Till I can say
I am what I am

I am what I am
I don’t want praise I don’t want pity
I bang my own drum
Some think it’s noise I think it’s pretty
And so what if I love each sparkle and each bangle
Why not see things from a different angle
Your life is a shame
Till you can shout out I am what I am

I am what I am
And what I am needs no excuses
I deal my own deck
Sometimes the aces sometimes the deuces
It’s one life and there’s no return and no deposit
One life so it’s time to open up your closet
Life’s not worth a dam till you can shout out
I am what I am

I am what I am
I am I am I am good
I am I am I am strong
I am I am I am worthy
I am I am I belong ”

If this narcissistic ethos Bryan is what has led to modern individualism it cannot be good for society or in the long term the individual.

Generation me is not the way to go.

Patrick

Bangkok

Comment by Patrick Hennessy

October 29, 2009
1:36 pm

The community, or the individual, its a false choice in my opinion. Each individual is part of a community, whether like it or not, and every community is made entirely from individuals, which again cant be ignored. There’s no question that the “generation me” ethos is essentially narcissistic and basically untrue, as discussed above by Patrick and in todays paper by John Gibbons. The thing is though, this focus on the individual clearly arose as a response to the negative emphasis placed on the community / the state by socials systems such as facism and communism. That kind of communal ethos isnt very appealing either.
As always, its not an either or situation, its both. We really need to get over these Cold War ideological (left v right, individual v community) hangups and get to something new. I’m not holding my breath on that one however….

Comment by E

October 29, 2009
2:26 pm

Partrick , I’d agree, on one of the other blogs here a while back I suggested that Facebook was narcissistic and got a rebuke that I was being too harsh. Was it Time magazine that a couple of years back had the person of the year “You!” However this is not the individualism that anyone pre 1950’s would recognise. Why has it occured? to turn Marx’s argument around its the long upswing in economic wealth since WW2 that has led to complanacy and is the biggest risk to the system. I’d wager that generation “me” will take a back seat in the years ahead.

Brian, as for your British friend, surely the “national purpose” idea was a myth to justify the mercantilist policies of Britain over the last couple of hundred year. It’s got to be up there with the Protestant work ethic as a way of keeping the proles in line.

I hope Ireland doesnt have a national purpose to be honest. I’ll happily take the rudderless politics of Ireland, Belgium or Luxembourg over Neocon or the other guff that eminates out of the US or the UK

Comment by Liam

October 29, 2009
2:41 pm

Not to undermine you Bryan, but that was a fantastic read from Patrick… R. Kelly’s “I’m the Greatest” might even trump Gloria Gaynor though.

I think it’s fair to say that there isn’t really a collective vision for nation states today. On a purely ideological level, with regards to any society, I think that’s a good thing but it opens the door for extreme individualism and the variety that entails for better and worse. So for the excesses of Patrick’s “me generation”, you get its opposition which can manifest itself (arguably) in anything from depression to crime.

Of course where a nation state (ahem) decides to effectively sponsor such extreme individualism on an economic front than I guess that amounts to a “collective vision”. Can a collective vision be short-sighted right?

Comment by brian

October 29, 2009
10:19 pm

Few European states have the political or military capacity to influence global (or even regional) politics on their own so even if they did have a national purpose it would be a largely introspective concept. If the EU is to collectively develop a sense of (trans)-national purpose, I would argue that it should aim to robustly defend enlightenment values and human rights from the encroachments of real-politik, which is increasingly becoming the norm as global politics moves towards a multi-polar diplomatic sphere in which China, Russia, the BRIC nations and the US are the other major players.

Whether this “purpose” can be said to exist in the populace at large and not just among a portion of the political class, however, is admittedly very dubious.

I remember that a poster (sorry, I cannot remember who) mentioned before that the core values of a nation become more apparent when those values are severely threatened. In this respect, the dormant sense of national purpose in the core European nations is a symptom of the relative success and stability of mixed-market economics coupled with permissive (i.e. liberal) social policy.

Comment by getoffmycloud

October 29, 2009
10:33 pm

Apologies, I meant to write “the other BRIC nations” - i.e. Brazil and India.

Comment by getoffmycloud

October 30, 2009
7:58 am

What interersts me is how subtly the “collective” mindset moves along at quiet a fast clip without really attracting the attention it should.

If my granny 60 years ago sat on a barstool in Tullamore singing “I am what I am” they would have hauled her away to the “mental” and sent the priest after her to get the “divil” out of her.

Todays its the national anthem of everyone, even grannys.

To me that national mindset is the nearest we get to a “collective vision”

And it is not coming top down from the State apparatus or political leaders. They are caught up in it. And if they don’t stay abreast of the mindset or run ahead of it they are laughed at or ostracised.

Oliver j. Flanagan was running behind it so when he said on the Late Late in the 60ies that “television brought sex into Ireland” he was laughed at. Noel Brown was ahead so when he pushed the mother and child scheme they ostracised him.

Todays it is “i am what I am” and political correctness and pilates. Well I exagerate to make a point. Tomorrow?

There is one or two people who write occasionally on this blog who remind me of Oliver j. and as I write this I remind myself that I should not get angry when they betray a mindset which is from the 1930″s. Why?. Because does any of the “collective mindsets” have superiority over another? Yes you may say. Thats what progress is . Thats why they called Noel Brown “progressive” and Oliver j. ‘reactionary” or maybe “regressive”. Noel was pushing the collective mindset forward and Oliver J. holding it back.

What pushes these mindsets along at a fast clip. ? Its probably a bunch of things but i think i would get a much better understanding of what changed ireland by reading Macolm Gladwell than the autobiography of C. J Haughey. I believe we put too much emphasis on the role of politicans and leaders in causing change. They respond more than they lead. What leads change is down in the streets and twittering around like a chaotic out of tune symphony.

So bryan get those guys up there in Queens down from the political debates to street watching in search of the sound of a chaotic symphony. There is the emerging collective national vision.

Patrick

Bangkok

Comment by Patrick Hennessy

October 30, 2009
2:18 pm

Bryan, I think your Brit class-mate got it badly wrong. What Britain had wasn’t anything visionary, but an upper-class-imposed set of harsh laws (c.f. the press gang) backed by bread and circuses. (Anyone remember the film The Hill? A young Sean Connery getting a kicking in a military prison, while the jailer calmed the other prisoners with a promise of cheese for tea? A mind-set alright!)

Brits loved their superiority and the empire that gave them that superiority. Some had to be taught superiority of course, otherwise how could decent people treat other human beings as sub-human and worthy of savagery?

All western countries have left the nation-state behind. Memories of existential threats are in the past. Hedonism rules. Corporate control and exploitation have replaced aristocratic dittos.

Irish mind-set? Where’s the freakin’ mind in Ireland now?Tribal customs more likely.

Where you have money-grubbing consultants putting paying patients in public beds, and an American comic teaching politicians a few more focla, yet the main thing that riles up the troglodytes from the hills is the threat of stricter drink-driving laws… well, Yeats put it nicely when commenting on “the rise of our new middle class which made its first public display during the nine years of the Parnellite split, showing how base at moments of excitement are minds without culture…”

Culture? Isn’t that something in a good yoghurt?

Comment by DesJay

October 31, 2009
3:28 pm

Michael Burleigh’s flawed book sacred causes touches on these themes. Nationalism was a new religion that gave some colonial powers a sense of national purpose whether that is the Emperor’s Japan, the “American” 20th century or the grab for Africa of the dwindling European powers.

I think DesJay gets it right in many places. My own view is that in Ireland people are fundamentally lazy and we are not great at rationalism. Many of my friends have no passionate views or interests in anything that relates to society. They have no strong politics and no strong views.

The is also a romanticism to how we view the world and our place in it. We forget that there is only one way from the penthouse to the basement and back up again and it is not an elevator. We have to be willing to work our way back up the ladder and accept that pain and sacrifice are part of the deal.

We knew this once of course but never really appreciated cause and effect. It is not a case of get rich or die trying. That is the sentimental, selfish claptrap of entitlement that got us to where we are.

The Ireland I would like to see is one which is wiser, aware of its limitations and accepting that there is no free ride in life. If you make bad choices you must live with and work through them. Sin é. There is no short cut in doing anything worthwhile.

Comment by Robespierre

10.

November 1, 2009
7:24 pm

E has it right: community versus individual is a false dichotomy (although I don’t think that left versus right can be dismissed in the same way).

Bryan, you say the discussion began about what makes a better society, but then moved to a discussion of nations. It’s worth dwelling on the idea that societies are not necessarily nations, and arguably vice-versa.

Patrick, I think displays of what you term ‘narcissim’ are sometimes claims of emancipation from a sifling social ethic. Sometimes declaring and affirming who you are is not self-regarding or narcissistic, but is directed to others. For example, think of two men holding hands or kissing in public: self-affirmations which are an issue not because of an implicit narcissim, but becasue of theclose-mindedness of others.

Comment by jimmy1