Allan G. Johnson
Allan G. Johnson
Navigation
  • Home
  • About
  • Books
    • Not From Here: A Memoir
    • The First Thing and the Last
    • Nothing Left to Lose
    • The Gender Knot
    • Privilege, Power, and Difference, 3rd edition
    • The Forest and the Trees
    • The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology
    • Foreign Editions
  • Essays
    • Allan’s Blog: Unraveling the Knot
    • Blog Posts
    • Fatal Distraction: Manhood, Guns, and Violence
    • Idiots, Morons, Lunatics, and Fools: When Worldviews Collide
    • It’s Different for Men
    • Manhood and War
    • Men’s Silence about Men’s Violence
    • Occupy This
    • Our House Is on Fire
    • The ‘Job Creator’ Myth
    • The Tree as Metaphor
    • Where White Privilege Came From
    • Who Me?
    • Why Is There Poverty?
  • Speaking
    • Audio & Video
      • Not from Here Interviews
      • The First Thing and the Last on NPR
      • Nothing Left to Lose on NPR
      • People, Systems, and Monopoly
      • Washington State Interview
    • The Work
    • What People Say
    • Sources
    • Speaking Venues
  • I’m Glad You Asked
    • If not capitalism, what?
    • Aren’t systems just people?
    • What is a ‘system of privilege’?
    • Are you just into white guilt?
    • Is affirmative action racist?
    • Why should I be punished?
    • Why wasn’t my comment posted?

Occupy This

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • Email

 
There is a great debate in this country that goes on and on with no sign of being resolved. One reason for this is that the debate is conducted in code, which wouldn’t be a problem if everyone knew what is was, but we do not. We do not know and we resist knowing because that would precipitate a crisis far greater than the one we think we’re in.

In its coded version, the debate is about the size of government, magnitudes of national debt, the future of capitalism, and that unassailable thing known as ‘freedom.’ These are of course important, but they are only the surface of what’s been bothering this nation for more than two hundred years.

What has dogged us is the question of who we are, which brings up two competing versions of what America is about.

According to the one, there is such a thing as ‘The American People’ who are part of a whole, a community and a nation. Among other things, being a People means that we’re all in the same boat. We depend on one another, and if your boat is sinking, so is mine, which compels us to look out for one another. In particular, we feel obliged to refrain from taking so much for ourselves that others have to go without. Because that’s how you behave when you’re in the same boat.

Being in the same boat, we all contribute as best we can to the production of the bounty on which we live and then we bring it to a common table, the pot-luck supper in the church hall where we sit down together and eat, the kind of scene Norman Rockwell liked to paint, thinking he was telling us who we are. In such a community, it would be unthinkable for a small group of people to commandeer most of the food and keep it for themselves just because they were stronger or more clever or luckier than everyone else They would be embarrassed, even ashamed to be caught at such a thing.

According to the other view of what America is about, we are each in our own separate boats and it’s everyone for themselves. You take as much as you can and then you hang onto it, believing that your right to it is more sacred than anything, more risky to criticize than even God. Anyone who questions the fairness of how much  you’ve taken for yourself or who suggests you give up some portion of it for the greater good is attacked as a socialist or a whiner or a sponger or even a thief, all acting from the politics of envy. Looking out on the world, those who have much may feel compassion for those ‘less fortunate’ who have little, and they might even perform acts of charity. But that’s a far cry from seeing ‘The American People’ as occupying the same boat.

The idea that the distribution of the national income and wealth might be subject to standards of fairness makes no sense in such a world, as when Mitt Romney declared to Charlie Rose not long ago that it was contrary to the American way even to suggest that some people might have ‘too much.’ In this worldview, there is no such thing. There is nothing wrong with taking as much as you can. On the contrary, it is a virtue to which everyone should aspire.

These two views of what America is about cannot both be true. We must decide which it’s going to be, because we cannot have it both ways. We keep telling ourselves that we can, believing the United States to be the exception to which normal rules of reality do not apply. But we are mistaken. We cannot encourage a free-for-all in which freedom means the license to take whatever you can and also have a society where equity and fairness and community and ‘The American People’ are more than expressions of some sentimental longing for what it means to live as true human beings.

We are warned that to be in same boat is socialism, which we are supposed to hate and fear because that’s what we’ve been told for as long as we can remember. At the same time, it takes no special training to be appalled by the effects of living as if it’s everyone for themselves. Just look around.

So, we are caught between the two, as we have been for most of our history and where we will stay, paralyzed, until we stop speaking in code and decide just who and what we are going to be.

_______________

Similar essays and more can be found at Allan’s blog, “Unraveling the Knot.” To visit, click here.

Copyright © 2013 by Allan G. Johnson. All rights reserved. This article may be quoted, reprinted, or distributed for noncommercial purposes only and with an attribution to Allan G. Johnson, www.agjohnson.com, and this copyright notice.

6 Responses to "Occupy This"

  1. Terry says:
    February 7, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    I find the irony in conservatives’ sentimental longing for all things 50’s. That was a time when the top income tax rate was over 90%.

    Yet life was much more egalitarian–taxes were high, but public schools and universities were cheap, public parks were free and most functioning people could make a living. Disfunctional people had facilities to live in–they weren’t homeless.

    I’ve lived in both eras–and I’ll take one of high taxes and healthcare, home and food for everyone.

    Reply
  2. Michael Greenwald says:
    February 7, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    I agree in general. However, I suggest that, in some realms, it is not an “either/or.”

    Rather, it’s a “both/and” or, better yet, a “transcend and include.”

    That is, in a more nuanced view of “America,” there is no conflict between massive individual achievement and enlightened investment in the well-being of society in general and the least among us specifically.

    It is not easy and it cannot be achieved as long as greed — rather than achievement — is the motivation.

    Reply
  3. ND says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:44 am

    Is this a question of high wealth folks giving something up for the greater good? Or is it that they used the government and the public in a way that needs to be compensated? This is more along the lines of the social contract that Elizabeth Warren has illustrated. She asks: if there are no teachers to teach your employees, no police to protect your property, no military to protect your right to acquire resources (such as the Koch Bros foreign mineral acquisitions or other people’s oil deals in the Middle East) (whether the military should be used for this purpose anyway being set aside for the moment), would you have this wealth?

    Reply
  4. ND says:
    March 17, 2012 at 9:36 am

    I definitely agree with the statement that “it would be unthinkable for a small group of people to commandeer most of the food and keep it for themselves just because they were stronger or more clever or luckier than everyone else.”

    I wonder if this could be extended to say that those who commandeer far more than their share are able to do so not out of strength or cleverness or luckiness, but out of aggression (i.e. violence of various kinds) toward those around them. They neglect or even abuse their own children, for example. They also do this to other people. This is not productivity or something of value that is being created; it’s just allocation of resources through aggression.

    Reply
  5. Dave says:
    May 11, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    A couple of reply comments:

    1. I agree that greed is bad; definitely a human vice. And I agree that to challenge it opens one up to cries of “socialist.” But no better is the other end of the spectrum: “envy.” But to call it that makes one just as much a target of criticism.

    2. Can ND substantiate the statement that those who “commandeer far more than their share” do it through aggression, to the point that they “neglect or abuse their own children”? What is the measurement and who is the measurer of “fair share?”

    Reply
  6. Robyn says:
    January 18, 2013 at 11:18 am

    I think that the main problem about this great debate is that it’s not a debate. Many have the resources to not even be involved in the discussion. Being involved means accepting that it needs to be discussed and this openness does not serve them.

    If the construct of what wealth means were pulled apart there might be a way to construct a new view of wealth. If the super rich were considered mentally ill like gamblers, alcoholics, compulsive eaters, then there would be a shamed response.

    Perhaps if the criminal actions of the bank managers in the subprime scandal had actually gone to jail, we could now be dialoguing with the others? This was an opportunity missed! We don’t seem to be able to stop courting wealth and so we always leave them with the power to say no and shun the discussion.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Terry Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





Fiction






On the Blog


Racist! The Politics of Labeling

America's Next Civil War

Bringing Trump Nation Down to Size

At Winter Solstice: Collecting Silence

After the Election: Wrestling the Angel of Fear

What Are We Afraid Of?

Donald Trump and the Normalization of Rape

And Now Orlando: Manhood, Guns, and Violence

The Spiritual Politics of Roadkill

It's Not about You

Hijacking the Middle Class

The Truth about Preaching to the Choir

The Racism of Good White People

Clueless in Columbia: The Unbearable Weight of White Inertia

The Myth of Peaceful Protest

The Luxury of Obliviousness

Should Men Open Doors for Women?

America, Love It or Leave It

Proud to Be White?

The Hijacking of Political Correctness

Photos by

Corey Lynn Tucker Photography

Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

Or use the RSS feed.

  • RSS - Posts

© 2016 Allan G. Johnson