 | GetTextbooks.co.uk Compare Prices & Save up to 90% | | |
|
| Login | Sign up | Settings | New! iPhone App | My Wish List | My iBundle |
 | | Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life by Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, Steven M. Tipton ISBN-10: 9780520205680 ISBN-10: 0-520-20568-5 ISBN-13: 9780520205680 ISBN-13: 978-0-520-20568-0 Paperback 1996-05-13 University of California Press Find Lowest Price |
Editorials | ||
Product Description . . holds up a mirror to American values, makes us examine ourselves, and dares us to question where our society is going" (George Keller, Baltimore Sun). | ||
Amazon.com Review Habits of the Heart is required reading for anyone who wants to understand how religion contributes to and detracts from America's common good. An instant classic upon publication in 1985, it was reissued in 1996 with a new introduction describing the book's continuing relevance for a time when the country's racial and class divisions are being continually healed and ripped open again by religious people. Habits of the Heart describes the social significance of faiths ranging from "Sheilaism" (practiced by a California nurse named Sheila) to conservative Christianity. It's thoroughly readable, theologically respectful, and academically irreproachable. --Michael Joseph Gross | ||
Reviews | ||
The costs of modernity and individualism I've published a number of modest empirical pieces purporting to explain differences among school districts with regard to things like dropping out, teen pregnancy, early teen pregnancy, crime on school property, and reckless behavior among adolescents. Without exception, a composite variable constructed to measure modernity, meaning departures from traditional ways of living, learning, and working, has been the most powerful predictor of these unwanted outcomes. Given that much of this research was done using data from West Virginia, these findings seem paradoxical indeed. Within its borders and without, West Virginia has a reputation for being a hopelessly retrograde state. How could departures from conventions which are widely held to be outmoded and limiting have the pernicious effects I tentatively identified. The answer is presented in compelling fashion in Habits of the Heart. Modernity, at least as I measured it, meant exaggerated individuation and increased diversity of experience from one person to another. It included factors such as population density, percent minority, percent working in service sector occupations, percent college graduates, and percent of high school students planning to matriculate out of state. High values on any or all of these variables indicated departures from traditional West Virginia patterns and practices, with increased experiential diversity diminishing the content and efficacy of cultural commonality, and diminishing a shared sense of belonging. Ideas such as this are not new, going back at least as far as Durkheim's Division of Labor in Society. Habits of the Heart, however, brings them to life in a wide variety of ways, making a concrete and compelling argument that individualism, commonly fostered by developments we regard as modern, is far from being an unmixed blessing. | ||
HABITS OF THE HEART We daily wonder where are we going as individuals, as family, as a society and as an american citilization. This title gives us the opportunity to make a deeper analysis on how our habits affect our daily behavior and the major decisions we make in our journey through life. | ||
More of an analysis than a vision? "Habits of the Heart" is not an easy read. There are five authors, none of whom seem to identify themselves. For example, in the edition I've read, there are three Prefaces, none of which ends with the name of an author. Because of this, there may be less coherence in the flow of the book than there could be. But there is so much "meat" in the book that it is still a good read. But because there are so many quotable areas, and so many opinions expressed, I'm sure a variety of reviews could flow from the book. Here's mine: The thesis of the book appears to be the argument that in a simpler America, we were tied by obvious economic and social interactions. We could be fiercely individualistic, e.g., as the Blacksmith of a small community, but we were linked because our livelihood was probably dependent on neighbors, and our social base, probably our church, was common to the community. But, today, with our "utilitarian individualism" remaining, we have spread out and now are confused by our links to our neighbors and communities. We move more often. We are not as likely to be economically dependent on our immediate neighbors. We can easily be convinced that the "success" we have achieved has been via our own hard work and ambition and that we may not have much responsibility to contribute back to our immediate neighbors or communities. The book mentions, but does not dwell on, the Biblical tradition/obligation to respect and acknowledge the dignity of all. It also talks about the "underclass," saying at one point that solving its plight is one of the greatest challenges of all and that this will take an enormous amount of money. But it also points out that in today's world, it is also easy for successful individuals to convince themselves that those in the underclass have only themselves to blame and/or to think that welfare reform efforts do more harm than good. The authors seem to come from a personal therapy background and viewpoint that may have been gathered first-hand: "Many people feel empty and don't know \why they feel that way. They have been sold a bill of goods by our system: cash, convenience and consumerism....The reason you don't feel part of it is because nobody is a part of it." But, at the same time, they appear to be more than willing to look at various sides of an issue, and not take a "hard," simplistic stand: Values: There are skeptical references about how people form "values" and if they can be trusted to be anything more than based on self-interest. Marriage and family: There is support for marriage and family responsibilities, but it is pointed out that "to imagine that society's problems can be traced to individuals with inadequate family values seems to us sadly mistaken." Next to religious commitment, kinship and family provides another basis of "social solidarity." Being single: It is no longer disgraceful to remain unmarried. Further, no one HAS to have children. And one can leave a marriage one doesn't like even when young children are involved. Government programs: "Neocapitalist ideology aims to convince us that all government social programs have been disastrous failures." Religion: "Major religious can move people away from the preoccupation with self toward some larger identity." Religion is one of he most important ways that American's "get involved." Television: "...it would be difficult to argue that there is any coherent ideology or overall message that it communicates." Business Leadership: "Leaders are frequently power-hungry bullies without any moral restraints." Childrearing: Children are trained to be independent self-sufficient individuals. Leaving home involves separation and renewed identity. "Leaving home" may include also leaving the parents' church. Trend to liberalization: "Younger folks tend to be more liberal, less accepting of hypocrisy, e.g., rejecting the belief that only Christians get to heaven." Public Service: "Most people involve themselves in social institutions to achieve self-interests or because they feel an affinity with certain others." Today's metropolitan world: "...a wold of diverse, often hostile groups, interdependent in ways too complex for an individual to comprehend." "...we spend most of our time navigating through immense bureaucratic structures - multiversities, corporations, government agencies." And, don't forget those megachurches! Get the drift? A ton of subject areas are covered and tons of ideas and opinions expressed. Plus, throughout the book there are references to Tocqueville's studies of America. He found Americans to be "restless in the midst of prosperity." He also found the "new individualism" strangely compatible with conformism. Reference to Tocqueville weaves in and out in the book. There is also a sense of limits to what can be done: "The individual's need to be successful in work becomes the enemy of the need to find meaning of one's work in service to others." And "Americans know that society is rigged, as is the marketplace." And an occasional dose of reality: "Midlife, especially for middle-class American men often marks the end of the dream of being able to move forward without compromise, to achieve `perfection.' Unemployment can be particularly painful." (Or, how about a kid or two with "problems?") But let's end by getting back to what appears to be the book's thesis, by stringing some quotes from the book together: "What has failed at every level...is integration...we have failed to remember our community as members of the same body." In an ideal world "it would become part of the ethos of work to be aware of our intricate connectness and interdependence." "...traditions help us to know that it does make a difference who we are and how we treat one another." And, "...in our desperate effort to free ourselves from the constrictions of the past, we have jettisoned too much, forgetting a history that we cannot abandon." "In a healthy society, the private and public life are not mutually exclusive...they are two halves of a whole, two poles of a paradox." "Taking cared of one's own is an admirable motive. But when it combines with suspicion of and withdrawal from the public world, it is one of the conditions of despotism Tocqueville feared." Another suggestion is that "only effective institutions - economic, political and social - make complex, modern societies livable." Another: "We are facing trends that threaten our basic sense of solidarity with others." And: "The erosion of meaning and coherence in our lives is not something Americans desire." But a coherent, confident plan to get us "back" to some state of integration is not really convincing in the book. Instead, we get: "it is not clear that many Americans are prepared to consider a significant change in the way we have been living. The allure of the packaged good life is still strong"...even though..."our material belongs have not brought us happiness." And, there is "no question that many Americans find their contribution of work and private lifestyle satisfying." Today's politicians of all stripes can score points by saying that "America is not headed in the right direction." The statement is broad and open to interpretation. The statement assumes that government leaders are not to be trusted to make the "right" decisions. But the statement is also shallow and meaningless without specific suggestions/recommendations. For the most part, this is the problem with "Habits of the Heart." I don't think it is ever very convincing in telling us how to turn the ship of state back in the "right direction." Or even if it truly IS in the wrong direction. But, as I said earlier, there is so much information and so many interesting ideas included, it is a good read. And, maybe, it becomes the basis for individuals to begin to make decisions within their own lives as to where they fit in their "commitments in American life" and the world. End of Book Review by George Fulmore. | ||
A Wise and Profound Reflection on American Culture This is a brilliant, deeply thoughtful, open-hearted book, one of the ten or twelve most important studies we have so far of the culture of the United States. Those who take the time and make the effort to read it carefully will learn a lot not only about American history and society, but also about their own private thoughts and fantasies and the background assumptions of their everyday lives. The dismal state of American education is the main thing you can learn about in most of these reviews. This book has limitations. The most obvious: it's about white/Anglo middleclass Americans. But the only sensible response to the book is still gratitude. If you haven't read it, read it. | ||
Read along with Stout's response to the book I think Steve Seim's review is excellent. The book is a famous statement of an editorial point of view, namely the communitarian claim that individualism has led to the incoherence of Americans' religious and moral claims. But like so many books, the authors dissemble to pretend they're scientifically reporting objective news rather than a kind of editorial. In this sense, the book is not substantially different from the kind of pseudo-science we've come to expect from sociologists, who, after conducting some interviews and handing out some loaded surveys, tell us "what's really going on" with the "modern American woman" or "Generation X" or, in this case, the "modern [misguided] liberal American." I, for one, view such work as social criticism vital to our society, and it makes thoughtful reading, but it is not scientific, and I wish we could get beyond this need to justify such claims with "scientific" surveys. Considering this book represents more a kind of punditry than research, despite its claims, please consider reading the most famous response to the book, the chapters from Jeffrey Stout's "Ethics After Babel" devoted to the book. Stout, in one instance, close-reads one of the interviews, in which a guy is asked what's important to him, and whenever he talks about "being good" and "being honest," the interviewers grill him "but why? but why?" until after many replies relating to maturing and learning from his experience, he finally says something like "it benefits me to live a life of honesty" so the authors end the interview and conclude he's a rabid individualist whose only basis for his ethics is egocentric utilitarianism. They did not, for example, explore whether he has a rather rich concept of personal honor, or even a sense of Stoic maturity, either of which seems a more accurate way of describing his answers up to the point they choose to end on. Either alternative reflects a vocabulary of long standing moral traditions, which would contradict the authors' claims - ala Alisdair MacIntyre-- that modern liberal Americans have no such vocabulary. In fact, I find it rather hilarious that they use this subject as the quintessential amoral individualist, since communitarian founding father Aristotle says repeatedly throughout the Ethics that living a life of virtue must benefit the individual, for to say the opposite would be akin to saying that giving a plant sunshine doesn't benefit the plant. Of course this connection of virtue and human benefit is problematized in other ethical systems, but, still, it's funny to me that Arisotle could be characterized as lacking a moral framework because he connects living virtuously with personal benefit. In any case, reading both this book and Stout, you're in a good position to come to your own conclusions. | ||