Soren Kirkegaard wrote, "If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye, which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible." American society has disintegrated to the point at which we are overcome by our desires to self-gratify and to acquire and possess limitless material goods. We seem to have lost our moral compass and, with it, our sense of direction. Attachments to traditional forms such as family, community, and faith are faltering. How may we, as a collective of passionate individualists, remedy the damage we have inflicted upon our social structure?

Perhaps the answer may be discovered in Kierkegaardís voice. If we relinquish our tendencies to obsess over the acquisition of capital and to demand the ability to dominate over all others, while preserving our image of the possible and desirable, we may find ourselves truly fulfilled. If our energies are focused upon clarifying our common aims, then perhaps democracy will prevail. Our goals are currently ambiguous in nature. What do Americans envision for the future of our nation? A society with common goals is strong, and infinitely capable of functioning for the benefit of all its citizens. This necessity of mutual understanding and vision is promoted in two critical commentaries on the American character: Democracy on Trial by Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Habits of the Heart, by Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton.

In her critical analysis of the American social system, Elshtain identifies several facets of American society which she believes are leading to our demise. She is particularly critical of the individualism that possesses the souls of so many Americans. It seems that we are driven to action by our personal wills and desires alone, and not out of a sense of obligation to our fellow humans. These traits have enhanced the material wealth of our country, but we continue to be morally, spiritually, and emotionally deprived. I will examine some of Elshtainís arguments, and affirm or disprove them, based upon my knowledge and understanding of our culture and government.

Habits of the Heart, a sociological analysis of American individualism and commitment, addresses the nature of the conflict Americans face between our fiercely independent tendencies and our need to associate with one another through communities and committed relationships. This detailed study of American character poses the question: Have we lost the moral language that will provide order to our lives and justifications for our actions? I will analyze and critique the major themes raised by Bellah et. al..

A pervasive and virulent distrust of the government exists in America at present. This anger toward our major institutions of governance is manifested in the attacks upon the welfare system and the complaints about the size and inefficiency of the bureaucracy. Furthermore, a common constituentís claim is that the benefits of the system are not visible. Tax revenues do not seem to be delegated to programs that the citizens determine to be a priority. For example, ask a typical American if he/she would rather see their tax dollars spent on nuclear arms or computers in the classrooms. The government has lost the faith of many of its citizens because it is continually failing to meet our expectations. We as a society have developed a refined sense of cynicism towards our politicians and political system.

The government is too vast a machine for us to comprehend. It seems a massive power that is out of our control, and such an incomprehensible entity is repeatedly held accountable for the problems facing our society. Due to the nature of our government, it places us as abstract figures in a vast structure, pieces of a mechanism, rather than as people in a place. As Elshtain observes, the power and influence of community is rapidly declining. In the face of such a deficit in community values, government has been forced to address issues that are not designed for government intervention. Issues, such as abortion and teenage sexual activity are intended for analysis utilizing individual concrete moral obligations. These principles may be derived from a strong religious background, family connection, or a nurturing community. In the absence of standards for conduct, the masses look to the ubiquitous governmental structure for guidance and direction. Our politicians have been forced to approach cultural issues that the government is not equipped to handle.

Alexis de Toqueville, in his analysis of American society, predicted that if Americans continued to relinquish their individual judgments to the government, then a despotism of a far more severe nature than dictatorship or monarchy will develop. He wrote:

Many are apt to blame "big government" as the source of such restrictions on individual choice, but we cannot hold government fully accountable and responsible for the remedy of this issue. We may seek to decentralize political and economic authority, but may only do so to a practical extent. I offer that only the effective assertion of citizen power will ward off the development of an omnipotent government.

Another of Elshtainís critiques is also related to the political arena. A radical notion of autonomy has begun to dominate American politics. Politicized ontology is increasingly prevalent. The individual relates his/herself to a race, gender, or sexual orientation in order to create an identity. Society is becoming fragmented in the sense that we are unable to identify ourselves as one collective unit. Due to this social fragmentation and factionalization, the "politics of displacement" are determining the issues to be debated. Private identity is beginning to take precedence over public ends and purposes. Individuals have been led to practice a form of "identity absolutism." One feels an obligation to identify oneself as a lesbian, black, or a feminist, and then view every issue through the eyes of one's identity, and not through the eyes of an American citizen.

Elshtain offers the example of homosexuals incorporating their private preferences into the public arena of politics. Must the government intrude into private identity because homosexuals desire public validation? I believe that all citizens, regardless of various differentiating factors, do have the right to protection from discrimination and the right to have the opportunity to express concerns and support policies. Yet no one has the civil right to full public sanction of his/her activities or values. If we are to maintain any sense of civility, such a code of conduct demands that we privatize certain aspects of ourselves. Treating intimate behavior as a public issue has weakened our civility. The distinction between public and private life is being eroded.

I believe that this occurrence is due partially to the American definition of a "right." By definition, a right is an immunity from a government that could perhaps be overly restrictive. However, in current rhetoric, individuals assume that rights are possessions, not entitlements. The discussion of rights now incorporates less the vision of an ideal society, but rather the inclusion of identity-based privileges as rights. One does have the right to be protected from unwarranted discrimination, but one does not have the right to demand that the public approve of his/her behavior or values.

Differences in values and lifestyles are leading to a system of politics in which special-interest groups are more valued than shared national goals. This assertion does not demand that we all form similar ideas or lose our individual characteristics, but I am under the assumption that if we as Americans worked towards desired ends with our nation in mind, rather than merely self or identity interests, then perhaps we may avert the collapse of our beloved system of government.

Yet another of Elshtainís arguments is centered around her observations on the decline of community in America. Churches, schools, unions, and other such local organizations offer a "social ecology" in which a citizen may develop. In recent years, in the face of divorce, child abuse, poverty, and other social ills, the government has been forced to take on roles that, ideally, the family should play. It has had to provide a structure for development, despite being ill-equipped to do so. In American society, the individual must chose his/her own path in life. Although this opportunity is energizing, it is also disintegrative. The American middle-class is particularly possessed by the acquisition of wealth, and aspirations of upward social mobility. Elshtain asserts that this obsession has forced children to break ties with community, family, and church as they search for opportunity.

This theme of "leaving home" was addressed in depth in the text of Habits of the Heart . Bellah et. a.l. note, "In a culture that emphasizes the autonomy and self-reliance of the individual, the primary problems of childhood are what some psychoanalysts call separation and individuation - indeed, childhood is chiefly preparation for the all-important event of leaving home" (Bellah et. al., 56-7). Yet an opposite stance is taken by the authors in reaction to the independence of our children. They believe that the virtue of self reliance, the belief that we must free ourselves from our families of origin to pursue wealth, is a core element of our culture, and a tie that binds us together.

Both assertions contain some portion of the truth. I believe that the separation of families has led, to some indeterminable extent, to the relinquishing of traditional community ties. Yet, children will remain bonded to their parents deep into their adult lives, so the encouragement by parents for their children to leave home to pursue success is a unifying agent in American society. Perhaps when children leave in the pursuit of higher education , they are forced to sever the ties of childhood, but in the process, they are developing affiliations with new communities. In this respect, I believe Elshtain is too eager to criticize what I consider to be a part of the process of maturation.

Elshtainís claim that a two-parent household is the best protection against violence and child abuse is also questionable. It is naive to assert that the mere existence of both a biological mother and father in a living environment will automatically guarantee that a child will not suffer from abuse or violence. In todayís complex web of social interaction, it is inappropriate to demand a return to the nuclear family. We must be willing to accept a vast array of family structures, and encourage the development of all children into productive and responsible American citizens. Children may be taught the value of community, faith, and citizenship in any type of situation. This "parental deficit" to which Elshtain refers cannot be the sole factor in the occurrence of domestic violence.

Furthermore, Elshtain is extremely skeptical of the value of multiculturalism. She writes, "Teaching exotic, mythical, and "foreign" pasts does not prepare one for a culture that is both "in common" and forever changing" (Elshtain 80). It seems that Elshtain is avoiding the fact that Americaís educational instruction in the past had intentionally omitted the accomplishments of women and minorities in history textbooks. It has only been in recent years, beginning after the civil rights movement, that there has been a demand for the inclusion of a more diverse group of historical figures and events. I see absolutely no fault in this practice. After years of being ignored, the accomplishments of women, blacks, and others are now being rightfully recognized. Yet, this push for multiculturalism should not include a automatic rejection of the white male.

History should be based on an openness to diverse voices, for the knowledge of other cultures creates a more tolerant and educated population, and assists in destroying blind prejudice and ignorance. However, we should teach our children in a manner that is based in a respect for content of character and quality of deeds, rather than ethnic or gender orientation. Diversity should be created under the assumption that life is a community of different types of individuals, but that we are all united.

In addressing the issues raised in Habits of the Heart, I will focus on the aspects which appear to be the most central in the understanding of American character. I will discuss the preponderance of individualized values systems, our need to identify with community, and the status of American citizenship and politics.

Bellah et. al. note that that Americans often justify their morals and values on the basis of their own idiosyncratic preferences. Selves are defined by individual predilections. If each self constitutes its own moral universe, there exists no method by which to reconcile conflicting claims about what is good in itself. The authors write, "All we can do is refer to the chains of consequences and ask if our actions prove useful or consistent in light of our own value-systems. All we can appeal to in relationships with others is their self-interest, likewise enlightened, or their intuitive sympathies" (Bellah et. all 76).

There is an absence of fixed moral ends. Therefore, the self and its feelings become our only moral guide. Oneís values become mutable, changing from one social situation and relationship to the next. Because our souls lack such absolute moral obligations, we have the ability to alter our behaviors to become adaptive. Instead of acting out of goodness, we are obsessed with self-gratification. Bellah et. al. note, "Separated from family, religion, and calling as sources of authority, duty, and moral example, the self first seeks to work out its own form of action by autonomously pursuing happiness and satisfying its wants" (Bellah et. all 79).

Americans hold a notion of the completely unencumbered self. This assumption promotes the idea that life occurs without reference to any social or historical context, but is rather a series of events that involve isolated individuals. Americans are false in assuming that they are self-made. There is a observed tendency to forget that which we owe our parent and ancestors.

We cannot know ourselves fully without the recognition of some practical ritual or moral structure which provided external meaning to our lives. The "therapeutic outlook," which the authors identify as the prevailing form of mindset in contemporary American culture, is hostile toward such external authorities, fearing imposition of standards upon our lives. However, if there are no religious commitments or communal ties to provide justification and/or structure to our lives, then American community will continue to be focused on the gratification of the self.

According to Habits of the Heart, the therapeutic conception of community is destroying American civility. The therapeutic doctrine holds that social life is an arrangement created for the fulfillment of the needs of individuals. Individuals gather together to meet their needs and validate themselves, rather than to work toward shared ends. I believe that in order to be a complete self, an individual requires a connectedness to others in work, love, and community.

How can we maintain relationships with no mutual commitment or devotion to principle? Morality itself is not responsible for authoritarian trends, as therapeutics believe. Bellah et. al. write:

The American models for individualism have also led to our separation for social interaction. The "cowboy" and "detective" archetypes that Bellah et. al. identify are paradigms for American behavior. These men are completely autonomous, standing outside the boundaries of culture. In order to serve society, they stand alone, independent of the wishes and judgments of others. The authors write, "The fantasy of a lonely, but morally impeccable hero corresponds to the doubts about the integrity of the self in the context of modern bureaucratic organization" (Bellah et. al., 149).

I believe that to truly be an individual, one must not merely relate to oneís own desires and values, but seek identification with community and tradition as well. We are social creatures by birth, and require direct interaction with a community in order to be fulfilled. The pursuit of purely private fulfillment has left us empty. Our pursuit of material possessions has provided us only a deep sense of lacking. Evincing an individualism that is linked to active identification with communities and traditions creates strength. Private life and public life are not mutually exclusive. These elements combine to create a whole being.

Community involvement requires a sense of responsibility to care for others. Providing assistance to fellow citizens is an expression of a concern for humanity itself. Individualism, in this sense, is completed by affiliation with community. Rather than isolation to create a sense of identity, we should embrace involvement with others.

Becoming involved in volunteer associations is one of the suggestions that Bellah et. al. offer. This involvement should generate a sense of responsibility for the public good. The rewards of giving go far beyond the creation of a "good feeling." It is an experience that relates oneself to the society of which we are all a part. Bellah et. al. note, "Generosity of spirit is thus the ability to acknowledge an interconnectedness - oneís debts to society - that binds one to others whether one wants to accept it or not. It is also the ability to engage in the caring that nurtures that interconnectedness" (Bellah et. al., 194).

The American desire for the "small town" atmosphere is rooted in the desire for connection to the community. Yet, as American society has grown increasingly complex, the associational life of the modern metropolis no longer provides the sense of social responsibility and practice of commitment.

Bellah et. al. note, "The metropolitan world is one in which the demand of work, family, and community are sharply separated, and often contradictory, a world of diverse, often hostile groups, interdependent in ways too complex for any individuals to comprehend" (Bellah et. al., 177). Americans separate the worlds of work, family and community, when in fact, these worlds must be combined. We are hiding in such "lifestyle enclaves," isolationist existences which limit our ability to relate ourselves to a broader community. The virtue of community interaction lies in its ability to provide meaning to the frustrating mechanisms of politics and combat the "inevitable loneliness of the separate self" (Bellah et. al., 190).

The American definition of success is also related to our fierce individuality. Our conception of success is rooted in the outcome of free competition among individuals in the capitalist marketplace. Americans seem quick to claim that we have each succeeded through our own exertions alone. We must temper our quest for self-gratification with our obligation to community. Bellah et. al. note, "The self-interest demanded by the individualistic pursuit of success needs to be balanced by voluntary concern for others" (Bellah et. al., 199).

Another aspect of American culture that merits critique is the pluralism of our political system. Competition thrives between groups of varied power and influence. Citizenship is complicated in such a discordant realm where community consensus seems impossible. Politics has become a system of "adversarial struggles, alliance building, and interest bargaining" (Bellah et. al., 201).

Yet, Bellah and his colleagues maintain a positive outlook for the future of American politics, while Elshtain remains cynical. Even though we have these conflicting interests, Americans have discovered enough shares interests across the discontinuities of race, religion, gender, and class to "order and regulate the affairs of a giant industrial society" (Bellah et. al., 201). Such are the politics of a nation. But the focus on divergence continues to undermine our ability to relate to the large institutional and organizational structures that characterize American society.

Alexis de Toqueville wrote, "One of the distinguishing characteristics of a democratic period is the taste that all men have for easy success and present enjoyment" (de Toqueville 17). Our passion for wealth consumes us. Democracy encourages in us an excessive taste for physical gratification. He further asserted, "The effort to satisfy even the least wants of the body and to provided the little conveniences of life is uppermost in every mind" (de Toqueville 128). I fear that if we continue to allow the profit factor to dominate our businesses, rather than the desire to create a quality product which will benefit our society, then a time may arrive when we will lose self-restraint, and forsake concern for the welfare of the community altogether. I do not know quite how to remedy our obsession for the almighty dollar, but I believe that the solution begins with the revitalization of community.

Yet our capitalist economy is also a major strength of American society. In the United Sates, we are eager to undertake large projects without difficulty. The majority of our population seems to be engaged in productive industry. From the poorest elements to the most opulent, Americans are determined to progress. We are continually inventing new products to better out lifestyles and society, and I believe our dedication to education, efficiency, and productivity is to be admired.

Another of our strengths is our respect for manís independence. No other country is rooted in such a tradition of free expression. Americans are privileged to enjoy the freedoms of worship and speech. Even though these freedoms can be problematic, we should still cherish them. Democracy and freedom are complex and unpredictable. Citizenship requires effort, but I am still optimistic that Americans are willing to exert the effort necessary to maintain our form of government.

I agree with Elshtain and Bellah et. al. in their assertion that our political and social systems is far too concerned with individual desires. Instead of identifying ourselves as black, homosexual, or female, we should focus on the fact that we are all pieces of the same puzzle. The environment is an issue which involves us all. If we destroy our earth in the pursuit of wealth, none of these concerns will be issues anymore, because humans will cease to exist. If we can embrace the repair of the damage we have done to our planet as a central goal of our society, we may be able to save democracy after all. We need to set economic interests aside for a time, and concentrate our efforts on the most important issue of all - the saving of Earth.

After an extensive analysis of American society, government, and behavior, the question remains: Is America possible? I believe that we are currently in a state of recovery. The issue of the environment is becoming steadily more important in politics, my generation is concerned about the future of our society; we are far more actively involved in our communities and churches than the generation before us (Generation X). Being a citizen is a process of interaction, a shared concern for an issue must be developed. I believe that this interaction is already being redefined in the local levels of society - races are banding together to secure safe streets for their children.

Elshtain is far too pessimistic, it seems that she doubts the inherent good will of mankind. I believe that as long as man remains hopeful, and continues to propose visions to cure the ills that plague our democracy, as long as he aspires to save himself from his lack of morality, there is hope for democracy. Men and women must bond together to express collective hopes and possibilities.

Elshtain notes, "The task of the democratic political imagination is possible if civility is not utterly destroyed, if room remains for the playful experimentation from deep seriousness of purpose free from totalistic intrusion and ideological control. For even when equality and justice seem far-off ideals, freedom preserves the human discourse to work toward the realization of both" (Elshtain, 138).

Bellah and his colleagues noted that "human life is lived in the balance between faith and doubt" (Bellah et. al., 296). If Americans can discover the harmonious balance between individuality and community involvement, perhaps we will create the ideal society that we so desire. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Indeed, American society will only be enhanced if we are able to forsake our nostalgia for the past and our worries about potential disaster, and concentrate on the true goodness that exists inherently within us all.