By Robert DePaolo

Word imprecision has both guided and hindered human politics since the first alphabets and systematic laws were formulated in early Sumerian cultures (Francesconi 1999). In this opinion semantics is an underrated causal phenomenon in the development and evolution of governments and societies. Most often, philosophers attribute change, growth, regression and advancement to tangible interactive factors; such as the behavior of leaders, public sentiment, ideologies and economic trends. Those are extremely important factors in the historical process but perhaps just as important is the language through which those ideas and behavior patterns are imparted (Lieber 2009).

One of the most important semantic factors in defining and sustaining a society is that ideas must be stated precisely enough to acclimate a segment of the population that might, over time enact, support, champion or rebel against them – its youth. And, lest one recoil at the potential harm in trying to “indoctrinate” youth, the children in any given society will invariably absorb its mores and act in terms of their understanding of those mores. To paraphrase Jefferson, subsequent generations ultimately determine the fate of a nation.

Two of the more ubiquitous words in America’s lexicon lie in the words “American Dream,” which generally translates into an opportunity for individuation, personal achievement, home ownership and upward mobility. The phrase could be construed as being problematic because it implies that the dream is inexorably attainable, and that once that dream is attained the journey on the road to success is over – a rather depressing thought. Picayune critiques aside, the behavior and values of the successive generations will tend to develop along those lines. Over time the “dream” can become an expectation and when expectations are thwarted frustration sets in. To the young human mind the phrase…can have wealth and success will be reinterpreted to mean… should, or is entitled to have wealth and success. The result can often be antisocial behavior, cultural resentment and the formation of sub-cultural groups with their own mores, identities and behavior patterns that will often be at odds with society’s values.

In addition to The American Dream phrases such as have a right to, are entitled to and deserve have created higher expectations in the minds of many, and when those expectations are not met, led to social alienation. It presents practical as well as existential problems for society that could theoretically be modulated with more effective semantics.

The fact that the USA originated from an individualistic premise whereby terms such as the pursuit of happiness became entrenched in the minds of colonials and remain entrenched to this day, might be one reason why the crime rate in the USA is typically higher than in European societies (Friedman 1993) In the Old World monarchies and social status differentials have historically been more accepted, the expectations of each and every citizen not so uniformly high. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. America is and always has been a very optimistic society which tends to produce high achievers and risk takers. It also produces more anti-social types. If one were to “psychoanalyze” the American mindset it might be said that the conflict between one hand, achievement, individuation and progress-inducing competition and on the other frustration, aggression and social isolation represents a kind of American neurosis.

On the other hand a neurosis can be a heuristic state of mind. For example Freud viewed neurosis as being rooted in which conflict occasionally leads to breakdown but more often to creativity. In that sense America’s ongoing conflict between its need to achieve and its fear of sociopathy might be a two wheeled vehicle in which we are forced to travel through history.

In simpler terms, the real acid test of our nation’s historical legacy might lie in the net gain vs. let loss resulting from the productive and counterproductive behaviors emanating from its muscular ethic of individuation.

Thus far the American experiment seems to have succeeded. Whether that will continue might depend on the outcome of this delicate juggling act, and on the semantics used to resolve this inherent conflict.

America’s optimistic mindset contrasts not only with hierarchical cultures, but also with socialist societies, which are inherently pessimistic. The semantics of socialist nations are not only counterproductive but arguably counter-intuitive with respect to human nature. Man needs individuation. The importance of personal identity and self determination might have been conjured up by Jefferson and Madison but has been well supported by Freud, Jung, Adler and more modern social scientists such as Akerflof & Kranton (2000), Shayo (2009) and Turner, Oakes et al (1994). It is an inherent component of the human psyche. Therefore, while admirably altruistic, words like equality, common good and commonwealth to say nothing of to each according to his needs, from each according to his efforts, are not in themselves conducive to an effective, productive, growing society. Indeed if taken to an extreme such language can kill the most important prerequisite in the sustenance of any given society – human motivation.

On the other hand while capitalist, democratic-republican systems tend to work better all systems present problems. The trick is to find some middle ground – or Golden Mean – whereby individuation could co-exist with a more cooperative mindset.

Human beings have spent much of history trying to find something analogous to a Utopia. While most astute politicians abstain from using that word, the fact is the actions of leaders, the expression of wants and needs from the populace implies a desire to make things better. Taken to its logical endpoint human politics consists of an ongoing search for the ultimate state of resolution and efficiency, with the historical process resembling at times an Platonic quest for perfection.

As this writer has discussed before, the concept of Utopia is paradoxical, because for growth and progress to occur requires that humans be in a state of conflict. Only with that impetus can actions leading to progress be fomented. The fact that most of what we term happiness and progress emanates from the actions and inventions of conflicted minds. That means even if we reached a point where contentment permeated all of human society, we would end up forfeiting the conflict needed to precede and validate the resolution that leads to contentment. The result would be, ironically, a people who are discontent living a perfect society – fool’s gold.

Notwithstanding that rather discouraging proposition there are still some ways to tweak the semantics of political systems to make life better. One place to start might be with use of the word “freedom.”

At the risk of alienating every American who grew up cherishing the word “freedom” I would respectfully suggest that it actually has little meaning. Literally translated, it signifies a state (mental and/or political) with no censorship, no sense of regulation, either from outside sources or from within, and in essence no predictability with regard to behavior patterns. To say “I am free to do this or that” suggests no causal phenomena behind one’s actions; either from parentally taught values, religious mandates, laws, fears or anxieties.

More important, the word implies that society is not predominantly a group process but rather an individual one, that each of us is free from the restrictions of obligation, cooperation, tolerance etc. Perhaps even more important is that the word does to morality what socialism does to human motivation – dampens it to the point of regression. Children brought up to believe in the word freedom (particularly as per its figurative meaning) can harbor such individualistic fervor as to become self destructive. They can also create problems for society as a whole.

This is not to suggest we abandon the concept of freedom but rather than we consider replacing it, in our children’s textbooks and in the hearts and minds of all citizens, with the word “contractual”…as in America is not a free society. It is a contractual society, whereby one party can agree to work with another and whereby each is rewarded reciprocally for his efforts and product. It would in effect, countermand the socialist philosophy because it would be based on deeds rather than status. Thus it would be meritocratic rather than collective.

The notion has its roots in the Enlightenment and every major philosopher from Hobbes to Voltaire has either explicitly or implicitly stated that, given human nature, the best any democratic/republican society can do is develop a contractual arrangement between citizen and government. As with all communities in the course of history, the first requirement of social organization is an agreement between two or more people. Whether either or both will come to terms with that agreement is moot, but there can be no such thing as a lawful, organized social system without an a priori agreement between citizen and government, and also among citizens (the latter usually described as a duty of due care).

John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes sought to ameliorate the dominance of leaders over ordinary citizens via a contractual model – the contract a bit less agreeable in Hobbes’ case. The model and the reasoning behind the model were outlined as follows.

On other hand, as Madison, Voltaire and others opined, having a government run solely by the people could also lead to a formless, whimsical, ever-changing and potentially regressive state with perhaps even more internecine bickering than under a monarch. In fact, while many assume equate the Enlightenment philosophers espoused greater freedoms most were more concerned with proportion, i.e. the balancing act of power between citizen and government rather than with individual liberty per se.

In post Enlightenment times Noah Webster took up the cause by asking what exactly is meant by the phrase “the people? He questioned whether it was even possible to conceive of such a galvanized “groupology”, immune to the draw of special concerns, labels and parochialism, fully able to integrate the concerns of self, family and society into a benevolent world view.

Being reasonable and arguably libertarian thinkers like Jefferson, Rousseau, Voltaire and Madison (the last of whom dreaded the notion of a populist society influenced by “the rise of factions”) decided there was a Golden Mean of politics. It was the notion of the contract. By their reckoning, the rule of thumb would be…government does for people, and in return people do for government. Despite a current emphasis on the idea that politicians work for the people, the actual relationship conceived by the framers was one of reciprocity not dominance – by either side.

In their view the concept of freedom was somewhat marginal – despite its omnipresence in modern political discourse. Real freedom was defined as a process whereby one could “revert back to a state of nature.” This referred to a hypothetical situation in which the citizen decided he no longer wanted to participate in the contract, which implied he would no longer give anything to government (for example taxes, information, etc) and would also no longer accept anything from government. Obviously that comprised an awkward as well as unworkable scenario and could never ensue in a modern social context. Consequently, as an unwitting homage to the Greek notion of the state as a nonmalleable aspect of the human condition, Enlightenment and colonial thinkers were saying that government is and always will be an unavoidable necessity that can only be regulated and “moralized” by an

apportioning process.

Another example of awkward and abstract language is found in the phrase separation of church and state. Even if the framers really meant “functional separation” whereby religious figures were prohibited from making, influencing and implementing policy – as opposed to displaying symbolic, iconic images or espousing non-compelling practices, there is still a problem with the wording. That is because there has never really been any separation of the two.

One can interpret the Old Testament in many ways by referencing various epochs, hymns and parables. All convey some moral principle. Yet in looking at the actions of God as depicted in the Old and New Testaments (particularly Exodus 20:2) there seems to be one overriding principle that comprises what might be construed as an essential morality. Interestingly, it is the same one espoused by many Enlightenment philosophers: the idea of a contract between authority figures and the people.

A glance at God’s actions rather than Biblical semantics might lead to the conclusion that Yahweh did not see Himself as just the God of the Hebrews. Rather He presented as the God of mankind, who chose to favor one tribal conglomerate in a time of need - as He ostensibly would other peoples treated unjustly. His actions suggest he believed that status and ethnicity were not the point. Justice, and behavioral reflections of that, which He defined in the aggregate as allegiance to His word, were the point. Thus He developed a covenant (not a paternal, unilateral relationship) with the Hebrews and the terms were clear… Obey my laws and you will prosper, disobey and you will be punished.

In some ways that has bearing on modern views regarding the relationship between a god and his people. It raises the possibility that, whether from God, the human mind or some universal Kantian premise, when it comes to social organization a contract represents the closest thing to a Platonic state of perfection.

While a very old idea, this could offer significant perks in the modern world. For one thing it is a flexible and adaptable notion. A person of faith could accept it based on a belief that if God truly exists and created us in his image, he, and his contract-based morality could be presumed imbedded within the hearts and minds of his creations. In other words we can and should think like him. Meanwhile an agnostic might look to empiricism, logic and history to formulate a view of morality – which would lead him to the same contractual mindset. Most importantly, the idea of contractual reciprocity could have great impact on both morality and cultural development.

Teaching this singular but widely applicable idea to children would conceivably unify and crystallize a belief system and prompt concomitant behaviors regarding faith, government, personal lives, productivity and acceptance of life’s vicissitudes. Achievement and psychological resolution. Equanimity and faith rolled into one by simply re-accessing the words filtering down through the ranks; from the Gods to the first lawmakers, to the Enlightenment philosophers, to the Constitutional framers.

This would come at a cost, because it would mean replacing the word free with the word contractual. The culture would evolve in a reciprocal rather than individualistic direction. Individuality would come to be viewed as an effect rather than a cause.

Yet the lessons wouldn’t be difficult to teach because they would be grounded in faith, history, politics and reality. An instructor would simply have to explain what life is, rather than what we say it is. For example the songwriter writes and sings his ballad. The publishing company produces and distributes it to actualize on the songwriter’s “individual achievement.” The student agrees to work hard in school - and in return the teacher rewards him with good grades for his “individual achievement.” Even the bachelor who feels a marriage contract would impinge on his freedom must engage in subtle (at times not so subtle) agreements with the opposite sex to meet his needs. So the commitment-averse bachelor and the woman of his desire strike a bargain…treat me well and I’ll treat you well and perhaps a satisfying interaction will come out of it.

In fact all behaviors entail some sort of contract. It is a kind of categorical imperative that satisfies the criteria of faith, politics, philosophy and even evolutionary psychology – the latter of which emphasizes the adaptive value of cooperative behavior. Thus when the semantics are stripped away it seems perhaps we have been living in a reciprocal rather than free society all along.

It is interesting to imagine what would happen if a pan-moral code based on the “seculo-religious commandment” of contractual reciprocity became a moral staple in American society.

One could speculate that under optimal conditions children would grow up with a stronger work ethic. They’d learn that individual achievement is important but that can only be attained through some sort of agreement with one or more other people. Would the comfortable coupling of individuality and cooperation lead to lower crime rates, fewer divorces, less frustration and aggression in our culture? Would citizens and politicians communicate on equal footing given the reciprocal nature of their relationship and would truthfulness be more common than deception in that regard?

Unless the semantic landscape of the USA were to change it is impossible to tell. Yet the notion of a contract-based morality might well be superior to both hyper-individualized and socialist cultures in that it might not only allow for a muscular, creative society but also be fairer, more moral, foster greater cooperation and preclude social isolation. All of which could lead to greater productivity.

Another potentially positive outcome of this doctrinal emphasis would be conversion of the dependent classes. Growing up in a culture espousing that getting requires giving would stimulate activity and preclude the passivity that has in times past been viewed as both maladaptive and dishonorable. It is an old lesson but one that might yet yield untold dividends.

REFERENCES

Akerlof, G. H, Kranton, RE (2000) Economics and Indentity. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3) 715-733

Federalist Paper No. 10 James Madison/’s Concept of Federalist Paper. In Lycos Newsweek 2010

Francesconi, D. (1999) William Roberston on Historical Causation and Unintended Consequences. Cromohs, 4 (1-8)

Friedman, L.M. (2003) Crime and Punishment in American History: The Price of Freedom in the History of American Criminal Justice. Basic Books.

Gilreath, J. (Ed) (1993) Jefferson and the Education of Citizens; New Volume Essays by Historians. American Library of Congress

Jefferson, T. Letters to John Adams in. Social and Political Philosophy. Garden City. NY 1963

Kant, I. The Idea of History from A Cosmopolitan Point of View. In. Patrick Gardner (Ed) Theories of History,. New York. The Free Press 1967

Liebert, B. Semantics and the American Lifestyle. The Humanist Blog. March 15, 2009

Locke, J. The Second Treatise on Civil Government. In. Somerville, J &Santoni, R. (Ed) Social and Political Philosophy. New York, NY Anchor Books 1963.

Old Testament Reference. In Exodus 20:2. God issues two initial statements to Moses which appear to be contractual in nature.

Shayo, M. (2009) A Model of Social Identity With an Application to Political Economy, Nation, Class and Redistribution. American Political Science Review. 103, 147-174

Turner, JC, Oakes, PJ, Haslam, SA & McGarty, CA. (1994) Self and Collective; Cognition and Social Context, in C Sedikides & MB Brewer (Eds). Individual self, Relational self and Collective self: Partners, Opponents or Strangers. Pp 171- 198. Phliadelphia, Psychology Press

Voltaire and Rousseau; Thinking About the American Revolution. In Prof. Boerner’s Exploration; Thoughts and Essays. July 25, 2009