The final chapter of David Brooks' The Road to Character is a rich and complex summary and an discussion of why and how our culture changed.
He opens by contrasting Johnny Unitas with Joe Namath. Both grew up in the same area of western Pennyslvania and only a decade apart, but were fundamentally different people. Unitas said "I always figured being a little dull was part of being pro." Namath was anything but dull. Brooks explains that Unitas viewed football as a job that was not fundamentally different from a factory worker or plumber. Namath engaged in self-promotion.
Reading this section made me think of Tom Landry. I miss his style of coaching. Dressed in a suit like a professional, he was generally stoic in his response to the what was happening on the field. I don't really care for the way most coaches dress and behave these days.
So, when did this change occur? Brooks says that it wasn't the Baby Boomers and the upheavals of the late 1960's, like many people think. No, the change occurred in what Brokaw called the "Greatest Generation." In the post-war world they promoted a new culture of self-esteem and authenticity and abandoned the tradition of moral realism.
Brooks cites a number of examples, like Norman Vincent Peale's bestselling The Power of Positive Thinking. Interesting, I read back in November that Peale was Trump's favorite minister and even performed his first wedding.
He writes that this change was a response to its time and that there were good reasons and results for the change, but I want to write about those in the next post. But with the change "A moral vocabulary was lost and along with it a methodology for the formation of souls."
Key to the tradition of moral realism, according to Brooks, was a grasp of human limitations.
Some of these limitations are epistemological: reason is weak and the world is complex. We cannot really grasp the complexity of the world or the full truth about ourselves. Some of these limitations are moral: There are bugs in our souls that lead us toward selfishness and pride, that tempt us to put lower loves over higher loves. Some of the limitations are psychological: We are divided within ourselves, and many of the most urgent motions of our minds are unconscious and only dimly recognized by ourselves. Some of them are social: We are not self-completing creatures. To thrive we have to throw ourselves into a state of dependence--on others, on institutions, on the divine.
Brooks does not believe we need to abandon the new culture and return to the old one, but that we need to find greater balance between the two in order to respond to the moral needs of our time. But more on that in a future post, in which I'll also share some personal reflections.
The previous post in this series was about "sweet gestures of self-improvement," focusing on Montaigne.