For most of the past decade, a number of editorial writers, politicians, members of the clergy, and other pundits have described America as a nation in some sort of crisis. They point to a growing number of people who drop out of high school, who are living on probation, parole, or in prison, who are victims of domestic or criminal assault, who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, who are infected with sexually transmitted disease, who are having abortions, who are giving birth outside of marriage, who are getting divorced, or who are relying on Ritalin, Xanax or Prozac to make it through the day. They maintain these statistics are evidence something has gone terribly wrong with the American way of life.
As a practicing clinical psychologist, I work with people included in these numbers every day of the week. Monday I talk with a man on his way to prison for writing bad checks, a middle-aged mother struggling to quit drinking herself into a stupor every night, and a twenty-something single woman recently diagnosed with herpes. Tuesday I talk with a teenager dealing with an unintended pregnancy, a father court-ordered out of his house after assaulting his son, and a wife conflicted about whether to end her extramarital affair. On Wednesday I meet with an 11-year-old boy who doesn’t cooperate with his teachers, on Thursday with a woman who was devastated by the news that her husband has filed for divorce so he can marry his girlfriend, and, on Friday, with an adolescent who recently attempted suicide.
From this perspective, rather than being numbers, persons included in statistics are living, breathing, human beings. Each has a unique history and set of circumstances as well as very personal thoughts, emotions, ideals, regrets, hopes, and dreams. But despite their differences, all of these individuals have one thing in common—they are all, to some degree, unhappy, discontent, and dissatisfied with life.
Recognizing that all of these people are in some sense unhappy, it is possible to characterize the number of persons in all of the statistical groups referred to by the pundits as a global measure of unhappiness in the United States. Since the total number of people in each of these groups continues to rise, it is reasonable to infer that we are in the midst of an epidemic of unhappiness. Recognizing that this nation was designed to optimize the conditions for the personal pursuit of happiness, this epidemic of unhappiness can be referred to as the current crisis in the American way of life.
Attempts to Cope with the Crisis
One group of opinion leaders offers a simple explanation for, and solution to, this crisis. Presuming illiteracy, probation, incarceration, assault, addiction, sexually transmitted illness, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, and divorce are consequences of dysfunctional behavior, conservatives maintain that the rising number of people who find themselves with these conditions is the result of poor decision-making. They contend that people could avoid these outcomes by making better choices when managing their personal lives.
Conservatives remind us that the basic structure of the American way of life is a legal system based on a foundation of moral principles—ideas about right and wrong. They cite Founding Fathers, such as John Adams, who, in 1798, wrote, "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other." Or they refer to James Madison, who, in 1778, wrote, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Conservatives point to the fact that, beginning with Colonial America and up until roughly forty years ago, the people of this country generally assumed the moral principles the Founding Fathers inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition were a set of guidelines for making choices which would lead to real and lasting happiness in this world and the next. They note that since those advocating a separation of church and state began to succeed in removing all reference to religion from public schools there has been an increase in the number of people who are failing to finish high school, living on probation, parole, or in prison, victims of domestic or criminal assault, addicted to drugs or alcohol, infected with sexually transmitted diseases, having abortions, giving birth outside of marriage, getting divorced, and relying on antidepressants and other psychotropic medications. They argue that each of these undesirable conditions could be lessened if Americans, once again, began to act on the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ when making choices in daily life.
On the other side, liberals insist there are several problems with the conservative approach. First, the moral position of the Judeo-Christian tradition is far from clear. Although all believers root their morality in scripture, there are wide differences in how sacred texts are understood. While some Christians maintain using alcohol is a sin, others serve wine in church. Similar differences exist with respect to the Christian positions on gambling, divorce and homosexuality. Liberals point to the fact that people of faith can be found on both sides of abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide to demonstrate that religiously based moral reasoning is incapable of effectively dealing with the major moral controversies of our time.
Further, liberals maintain that religiously-based moral reasoning permitted many of the most outrageous injustices of the past. Thousands were slaughtered in the Crusades, tortured during the Inquisition, and died during centuries of European holy war. Many who settled the British colonies in North America were fleeing persecution at the hands of religious authorities intolerant of their beliefs. After the American Revolution, the Bible was used to justify the perpetuation of slavery and the subordination of women. Even today the Ku Klux Klan uses a Christian symbol to terrorize non-white Americans who are simply exercising basic rights.
Liberals also note that the American Revolution was as much a rebellion against religion as it was a military campaign. Instead of relying on the British notion that it was a citizen’s duty to God to obey a divinely enthroned king, the Founding Fathers based their declaration of independence on rational philosophy—the other source of moral authority which has shaped and influenced the course of Western civilization since its beginning in ancient Greece. They went on to establish a government explicitly based on philosophical rather than on religious ideals. Referring to the first amendment of the Constitution and the fact that America has become a nation of many faiths, liberals argue that it is now un-American to base public education or any type of public policy on a set of moral principles which belong to any particular religious tradition.
Beyond rejecting the conservative solution to the crisis, liberals offer a different analysis of the crisis itself. Although acknowledging that failure to finish high school, delinquency, crime, addiction, sexually transmitted disease, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, divorce, and emotional disorders involve some type of dysfunctional human behavior, they deny these conditions have anything to do with moral reasoning or ideas about right and wrong. Drawing on the theory of human nature generally accepted within contemporary social science, they contend that this behavior is determined by instinctive drives, patterns of prior conditioning, imbalances in brain chemistry, socioeconomic circumstances, or some other, as yet, unidentified factor which involves something other than choice. They believe further scientific research will inevitably discover the causes of this dysfunctional behavior and that the results of this research will eventually lead to a reduction in the number of persons who behave this way.
A Need for a New Approach
Rather than attempting to work together in an effort to find some common ground, today’s conservative and liberal leaders invest their energies in attempting to win hearts and minds to their respective points of view. Their strategies are to affect public policy through opinion polls and the election process. Unfortunately, as the leaders of these ideologies engage in cultural civil war, the epidemic of unhappiness continues and the current crisis in the American way of life endures.
One means of moving beyond this quagmire begins with the realization that crises are events which have a structure and dynamics of their own. Crises occur when people are confronted with undesirable conditions which are unintended and unanticipated. They result from pursuing courses of action based on assumptions which are in some way inaccurate, ineffective, or inappropriate with respect to achieving an intended outcome. Crises persist as long as those attempting to achieve the intended outcome continue doing what they do without realizing their assumptions are in some sense flawed.
Crises are resolved when three events occur. First, the assumptions of those who end up with the undesired outcome are clarified. Next, these assumptions are evaluated with respect to the degree that they are actually accurate, effective, and appropriate with respect to achieving the intended goal. Finally, the results of this evaluation are used to develop a new course of action aimed at achieving the intended outcome based on assumptions which are more accurate, effective, and appropriate for achieving the desired result.
This insight into the structure of a crisis suggests that a resolution to the current crisis in the American way of life could be obtained by identifying the assumptions within the conservative and liberal traditions, evaluating their accuracy, effectiveness, and appropriateness, and then developing a new approach to dealing with the epidemic of unhappiness based on what this evaluation has revealed.
Identifying Existing Assumptions
The conservative approach is rooted in three assumptions about human nature deeply rooted in Western civilization. These assumptions were contained in the writings of British Enlightenment philosophers—Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke—who provided a theory of human nature for those who led the American Revolution and went on to write the Constitution of the United States. Today’s conservatives often make reference to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers who made use of these philosophers’ ideas.
The first conservative assumption is known as a volitional theory of human nature. It asserts that human beings have the capacity to choose between alternative potential courses of action. It also includes the notion that, when confronted with a choice, people are naturally motivated to select the potential course of action they believe is most likely to make them happy in some way.
The second conservative assumption is a moral theory referred to as enlightened self-interest. This theory presumes that moral principles are a set of guidelines for making choices which are essential to obtaining an optimal quality of life. It also presumes that if individuals act on these principles when making choices in daily living they are doing what they can to maximize their potential to achieve happiness, emotional well-being, contentment, and satisfaction with life.
Finally, conservatives assume that moral principles are a matter of religion. This assumption is based on the belief that individual human beings are limited in their ability to distinguish between those courses of action which only apparently enhance a person’s quality of life and those which enrich it in actuality. Accordingly, conservatives maintain that an all-knowing God revealed this knowledge about how to become and remain happy to specific persons—Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles—and that the rest of humanity can find real and lasting happiness by utilizing this information when making choices in daily life.
The liberal approach to dealing with illiteracy, probation, incarceration, assault, addiction, sexually transmitted disease, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, divorce, and a variety of emotional disorders is based on a set of assumptions about human nature which began to influence the Western world as the philosophy of the Enlightenment was replaced by a new set of ideas about the nature of human existence. While Enlightenment thinking was rooted in faith in God, a vision of heaven, and a fear of hell, the notions about human nature utilized by liberals developed as an atheistic, scientific worldview emerged.
The first liberal assumption is referred to as determinism. This is the theory of human nature advanced by Sigmund Freud, William James, and John Watson, seminal thinkers who set the foundations for contemporary social science. Determinism consists of the belief that human behavior is caused by instinctive drives, patterns of prior conditioning, genetics, changes in brain chemistry, socioeconomic status or some other process which has nothing to do with choosing between alternative potential courses of action.
Second, liberals assume that moral principles are irrelevant to dealing with dysfunctional behavior. This assumption is based on the belief that rather than religion, the great minds of Western philosophy are the proper source of moral authority and the belief that the French philosopher Auguste Comte, is the great mind Americans should turn to as the appropriate authority on morality. His theory, altruism, maintains that what's right is that which enhances the welfare of other people, society, or humanity in general. Since altruism insists that moral activity consists of service to others, acting on principle is viewed by altruists as an obstacle to, or restriction on, the personal pursuit of happiness.
Third, liberals assume that religion is not a reliable source of knowledge about life or how to live. This assumption is rooted in their opinion that the quality of human life has improved in virtually every domain of human existence where scientific discoveries have replaced pre-scientific thought. Liberals maintain that it makes more sense to rely on science as a means of trying to figure out how to help people who engage in dysfunctional behavior than referring to religious texts which they view as outdated relics from a bygone era.
