68 pages • 2 hours read
Robert N. BellahHabits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1985A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 2, Chapters 9-11Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 2: “Public Life”
Part 2, Chapter 9 Summary: “Religion”
Americans engage with their communities and society through religion, contributing significantly in terms of both time and money to religious organizations. While the US upholds the separation of church and state, the majority still see religion playing a crucial public role. This relationship between religion and public life has evolved significantly throughout American history, moving from a period where religion was intertwined with public and political life to a more privatized and individualistic approach in contemporary times.
From the early colonists who viewed their settlement as a divine mission, religion has been a public affair. However, the diversity of religious beliefs and the principle of religious freedom gradually led to the disestablishment of religion, pushing it into a more private sphere. Despite this, religion has continuously influenced American public discourse and social initiatives, from education and charitable work to social and political activism.
In modern America, religion is often seen as a matter of individual choice, leading to a highly pluralistic and privatized religious landscape. This has not diminished the public functions of religion; rather, it has transformed how religion interacts with public life, with religious diversity being widely accepted due to the personal and voluntary nature of religious belief.
Local congregations play a significant role in providing community and support, acting as islands of piety amidst societal flux. Yet, they often struggle to extend their moral and ethical concerns beyond personal and familial spheres into broader social and political action. This tension reflects a broader trend of religious individualism, where personal spiritual experiences and beliefs take precedence over institutional religious affiliations.
"Sheilaism” exemplifies this individualistic approach to religion, where personal belief systems, even if they draw from traditional religious teachings, are tailored to individual preferences and experiences. Such individualism can foster a diverse array of spiritual beliefs and practices, including those that prioritize environmental stewardship or social justice, albeit often without the grounding or guidance of a religious community or tradition.
Despite the diversity and privatization of religious belief, the desire for personal connection and community remains strong within religious congregations, suggesting a continued search for meaning and belonging. However, the challenge remains to translate personal spiritual commitments into collective action that addresses broader societal and ethical concerns, moving beyond the limitations of an individualistic approach to religion.
American religious life oscillates between radical individualism, in which God is equated with an amplified self, and conservative or fundamentalist views, in which God is seen as an external entity dictating order. Both poles value personal religious experience but offer different paths to spiritual understanding. Sheila Larson’s personal faith, “Sheilaism,” exemplifies the quest for internal meaning, transforming external authority into a personal spiritual journey. Similarly, individuals like Larry Beckett find structure and clarity in the external authority of the New Testament after exploring more amorphous spiritual paths.
This duality in American religion reveals that while one approach emphasizes internal freedom and the other external control, both deeply value freedom, individuality, and personal religious experience. However, each approach has its limitations in offering a comprehensive language that effectively mediates between self, society, the natural world, and the divine. Mainline Protestant churches, despite their efforts to navigate a middle path, have struggled to maintain a relevant and unified voice in contemporary American culture.
The emergence of the “public church” concept, which includes major Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and parts of evangelical Christianity, represents an attempt to bring biblical religion back into public discourse. This “communion of communions” seeks to balance the strengths of church, sect, and mysticism to engage more effectively with societal issues. St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church exemplifies this attempt by combining worship and community service with individual spiritual discipline, striving to connect deeply with both traditional and contemporary societal needs.
Ernst Troeltsch’s categories of church, sect, and mysticism provide a framework for understanding the diverse expressions of American religion and their societal impacts. A vibrant public church could potentially harness these diverse religious energies to foster a sense of community that transcends individualism, encouraging a more integrated approach to faith, society, and the world. However, for this vision to materialize, there must be a renewed dialogue between religious individualists and established religious bodies, recognizing the mutual need for community and solitude in sustaining moral integrity and spiritual strength.
Part 2, Chapter 10 Summary: “The National Society”
Americans express a strong identification with their nation, yet they often hold negative views on “government” and “politics,” reflecting an ambivalence towards public life. This ambivalence stems from a societal predisposition towards individual experience and intimate relationships as the primary sources of truth and goodness. Despite this focus on the private sphere, there is a desire to extend personal moral understanding to the broader concept of a public good. However, articulating a vision for the public good in the modern United States poses a challenge, as seen in the struggles to maintain civic and religious involvement against the backdrop of commercial dynamics that prioritize personal success and career advancement.
The quest for a shared vision of the public good has led to the emergence of six distinct perspectives throughout American history, particularly during periods of economic and social upheaval. These visions include the Establishment versus Populism, Neocapitalism versus Welfare Liberalism, and the Administered Society versus Economic Democracy. Each pair reflects a response to the need for defining the national community and its values in the face of growing interdependence.
The Establishment vision, associated with industrial and financial elites of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emphasized the role of private institutions and a cosmopolitan ethic of public service and responsibility. In contrast, the Populist vision highlighted the dignity and wisdom of ordinary citizens, advocating for a more inclusive and democratic republic. Both visions, however, shared a commitment to embedding the emerging industrial economy within a moral order that values community and public trust.
As America transitioned into the 20th century, the debate shifted towards Neocapitalism, which defends private capital, versus Welfare Liberalism, which emerged from New Deal policies aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity. These discussions have evolved into the current debate between the Administered Society, which focuses on efficiency and technological mastery, and Economic Democracy, which seeks a more participatory approach to economic and political life.
Throughout these debates, a recurrent theme is the tension between individual autonomy and the collective good, reflecting a deep-seated ambivalence in American culture towards reconciling self-reliance with community and solidarity. This ongoing quest for a coherent vision of the public good underscores the complexity of American identity and the challenge of fostering a sense of national unity and purpose in a diverse and rapidly changing society.
The visions of Neocapitalism and Welfare Liberalism emerged from the Great Depression’s aftermath, focusing on securing material well-being and individual freedom through differing means. Neocapitalism, championed by Ronald Reagan, prioritizes minimal government intervention, emphasizing the role of self-reliant individuals in a market-driven economy. It envisions community as a private association of neighbors, underscoring work and family as central to dignity and freedom. Welfare Liberalism, rooted in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, advocates for government intervention to ensure economic growth and social harmony, aiming to provide citizens with equal opportunities and a safety net for the disadvantaged.
As economic challenges persisted into the 1970s, Neocapitalism gained traction, criticizing Welfare Liberalism for its perceived inefficiencies and advocating for a return to free-market principles. Both visions, however, share a fundamental agreement on the goal of fostering individual autonomy within a framework of physical security and material prosperity, differing primarily in their methods to achieve this end.
The Administered Society and Economic Democracy represent newer visions addressing the limitations of Neocapitalism and Welfare Liberalism. The Administered Society, proposed by figures like Felix Rohatyn, suggests centralized economic planning through tripartite boards comprising business, labor, and government representatives. This vision aims for social harmony and economic growth through partnership and expert management, emphasizing efficiency over democratic participation.
Economic Democracy, articulated by advocates like Michael Harrington, seeks to democratize economic decisions and empower citizens in shaping economic policies. It challenges corporate dominance and proposes a more participatory approach to economic governance, emphasizing the need for citizens to have a say in investment and economic development decisions.
These newer visions underscore a crucial debate over the role of government and citizen participation in managing a complex, interdependent society. They reflect an ongoing struggle to reconcile individual pursuits with the common good, highlighting the importance of civic virtue and political imagination in navigating the tensions between private interests and public welfare.
The unresolved tension between private autonomy and the public good underscores the need for a revival of civic virtue that can adapt to the challenges of a postindustrial, postmodern age. The future of a free society may depend on rekindling a political imagination that embraces the responsibilities of citizenship and the pursuit of a shared vision for the common good.
Part 2, Chapter 11 Summary: “Conclusion: Transforming American Culture”
The focus on political economy, while understandable given the influence of government and corporations, overlooks the dynamic nature of societal structures shaped by social movements, cultural shifts, and changes in consciousness. The study of mores, or “habits of the heart” (273), provides insight into societal coherence and potential shifts in vision, revealing where society may be heading. This approach recognizes that power in the short term lies with political and economic structures, but the deeper, longer-term vitality and direction of society are rooted in its cultural and moral fabric.
The modern era, characterized by a process of separation and individuation, has led to significant freedom, wealth, and power but also to challenges in societal coherence. Despite the achievements of modernity, there is a growing realization that without a renewal of commitment and community, the outcomes of individuation could be destructive. This realization calls for a balance between the freedoms gained through modernity and the need for community and shared commitment.
The culture of separation prevalent in modernity, as critiqued by John Donne and others, has fragmented our understanding of the world, making it difficult to envision a coherent path forward. This fragmentation is evident in both high intellectual culture, with its specialized disciplines lacking overarching integration, and popular culture, particularly in the mass media’s portrayal of disconnected sensations and relationships.
Despite the dominance of this culture of separation, there remains a culture of coherence sustained by enduring biblical and republican traditions. These traditions offer a sense of qualitative meaning to life, emphasizing the interconnectedness and moral obligations within society. The yearning for a more integrated, meaningful life, akin to the idealized small town, reflects a deep-seated desire for coherence and community.
The concept of “social ecology” parallels natural ecology, highlighting the interrelatedness of human beings and societies. Just as we recognize the need to address the impacts of technological advancements on natural ecology, there is a parallel need to address the impacts of modernity on social ecology. Americans must balance the drive for individual success and power with the recognition of common social obligations and the pursuit of a more integrated community.
The emergence of postmodern science and transdisciplinary studies, acknowledging the interconnectedness of all aspects of knowledge and existence, offers hope for overcoming the fragmentation of modern intellectual culture. This shift towards a more integrated understanding of the world, recognizing the inseparability of nature, society, and individual consciousness, may pave the way for a renewed social ecology that balances individuation with community and commitment.
The transformation of society requires action on multiple fronts: individual action, the nurturing of groups carrying moral traditions, and the development of a social movement aiming for a new social ecology. This transformation cannot solely originate from personal consciousness or state initiative without risking powerlessness or tyranny. The civil rights movement serves as an example of how a social movement can change consciousness and social structures, suggesting that a movement focused on transforming our social ecology would extend and fulfill its aspirations.
The transformation also entails altering the relationship between government and the economy to foster economic democracy and social responsibility, not necessarily through direct control but by changing the business climate to encourage new initiatives. This transformation would rejuvenate democratic politics, linking interests to a common good and allowing for a more substantive political discourse on justice.
Reducing the extreme rewards for success and penalties for failure could change the nature of work, emphasizing work as a contribution to the common good rather than a means for personal advancement. This shift would potentially allow vocational choices to be made based on intrinsic satisfaction, thereby transforming the meaning of work and improving social ecology.
Individuals are already seeking meaning beyond self-centered living, through self-cultivation, intense relationships, and consumerism aimed at creating a fulfilling lifestyle. There is a desire for a more integrated life that transcends the division between the competitive public world and the meaningful private world. This yearning reflects a deeper need for a coherent social ecology that balances modernity’s individuation with community and shared commitment.
The intellectual and educational institutions, while fragmented, still offer resources for reappropriating traditions and envisioning a more coherent societal future. Despite the challenges presented by mass media, particularly television, there are still traditions and practices that provide meaning and coherence, suggesting that not all is lost to the culture of separation.
The envisioned transformation calls for a reevaluation of our values, moving away from an exclusive focus on material accumulation towards practices of life that are intrinsically fulfilling. This vision is neither strictly conservative nor liberal but seeks a balance between social concern and ultimate concern, inviting discussion and experimentation. It acknowledges our shared human condition and the need to share our material wealth, rejoining the human race in accepting our essential poverty as a gift.
Part 2, Chapters 9-11 Analysis
Chapter 9 focuses on The Role of Religion and Public Life in Shaping Individual Identity, delving into the way that Increasing Individualism in the US has transformed the nature of American religion itself. The authors demonstrate that American religious experience has shifted from communal worship to a more privatized and individualistic faith experience. Instead of operating primarily as a source of communal connection and shared moral values, religion has become another mode of expressive individualism. The concept of “Sheilaism,” named after one of the authors’ interviewees who has developed her own creed, epitomizes this trend. While Sheilaism enables greater diversity in American religious life, it also raises questions about the capacity of such individualized faith to contribute to a broader societal dialogue and action. Personalized spiritual journeys, though deeply meaningful to individuals, lack the potential for religion to act as a cohesive force in public life. The authors argue that some form of “public religion” is necessary for certain kinds of public good, citing the role of churches in not only creating spaces for collective worship but also for community service. The question of The Balance Between Individualism and Community in American Life when it comes to religious autonomy and diversity is left somewhat open, the authors are more focused on articulating the social role religion has played in society that has not yet been filled by something new.
As the book moves to the issues of citizenship and civic involvement, the authors lament the erosion of a once vibrant tradition of local governance and community engagement. This change, attributed to the rise of metropolitan living and professional mobility, has led to a fragmentation of societal responsibility, where Increasing Individualism in the US and the pursuit of personal success overshadows community allegiance. The ideal of the “town father,” rooted in an ethos of public responsibility and community well-being, faces challenges in the contemporary landscape, marked by complex political systems and economic interdependence. The authors here point to other factors mitigating against older forms of collectivism, including corporate rather than individually driven economic changes that have broken up small communities as people leave to find new opportunities. Another factor is Americans’ ambivalence towards public life. Their strong sense of national identity coexists with skepticism towards government and politics. This ambivalence is rooted in a societal focus on individual experience and intimacy as primary sources of truth and goodness, complicating the articulation of a shared vision for the public good. The authors navigate through historical visions of public good, from the Establishment and Populism to Neocapitalism and Welfare Liberalism, highlighting the ongoing struggle to reconcile individual pursuits with collective welfare. Thus, the authors illustrate the complex interplay of cultural, personal, and broader socioeconomic changes in driving the fragmentation of American society. It is within this matrix of forces that each individual chooses if, when, and how to engage with the community.
In their call to transform American culture, the authors argue for a renewed commitment to community and shared values as antidotes to the culture of separation and individuation that characterizes modernity. They emphasize the importance of balancing the freedoms and achievements of the modern era with the need for a coherent social ecology that fosters community, commitment, and a sense of belonging. This transformation, they suggest, requires a reevaluation of values, a shift in the nature of work, and a revitalization of civic virtue and political imagination. The implications of these conclusions suggest that the path to a more integrated and cohesive American society lies in bridging the divide between personal fulfillment and communal well-being. The authors envision a society where individualism is balanced with collective responsibility, where the transformative potential of religion, civic engagement, and a shared vision of the national good can address the challenges of fragmentation and societal discord. This vision calls for a cultural and moral reawakening that embraces the complexities of modern life while striving for a communal harmony that transcends individual desires and aspirations.
