Gracefulness as a Social Ideal
Social change movements are animated by central ideals which reveal both what is opposed and what is being sought. There are times in history when the dominant concepts so adequately capture the moment, that their choice may seem no choice at all. In 1789, of the rallying cry, "liberty, equality, fraternity" the first two, liberty and equality are of this sort. Other concepts, such as fraternity, are of a different type. They reflect more than the passionate rejection of the outrageous faults in the social order; they reflect positive, but subtle ideals that remains to be achieved even when freedom and justice have been gained.
Today, in the United States, we are in search of insight-giving concepts and ideals, concepts of the fraternity-type, concepts that do more than reflect outrage, concepts that help us towards a deeper recognition of what our problem is, concepts which will guide us towards a more intelligent politics.
In my book, Graceful Simplicity: The Philosophy and Politics of the Alternative American Dream, I developed the concept of gracefulness, not as a fully comprehensive ideal, but as one that could contribute much to inform and enrich a progressive politics. In the book, I linked gracefulness to the longstanding American ideal of simple living, and seek to articulate a "politics of simplicity" which would help shift the quest for simplicity from an individualistic "how-to" orientation towards one of collective social action.
Gracefulness has four distinct, yet interconnected, meanings. The first of these is aesthetic, the gracefulness of that which is beautiful. In American life and politics, beauty is the most ignored of ideals. It plays no role in public policy or in standard economic thought. Yet the need to partake in that which is beautiful is fundamental to human existence. We find works of astonishing beauty in the abodes of ancient cave dwellers. We find no society too poor to value those who create beauty, and none too poor to perceive and express beauty. Indeed, one of the paradoxes of contemporary life is that one can find beauty more readily in the public spaces of impoverished Third World nations than in our own. For instance, compare a display of dried fruits and nuts in a Middle Eastern souk, to the produce section in our supermarkets. Or consider the complexity, inventiveness and expressiveness found in virtually any urban environment prior to the emergence of strip malls and chain stores.
While ignored in public discourse, the pursuit of beauty animates private life far more than is recognized. The life of the rich, (at least when money appears well spent) is sharply marked in these spheres. Those who are well-off find ways to escape to beautiful public spaces, be it Florence or The Hamptons, and they find ways to beautify the private spaces to which they daily retreat. Indeed, the well-off, have found the time and means to enroll and exercise, to cut and trim and dress -- all in pursuit of some vision of natural (or not so natural) beauty.
Unexplored are the links between beauty and the more familiar elements of social discourse. For instance, to what extent is the need for ever increasing private consumption driven by the absence of beautiful public spaces. If one lives in Paris, does one need a fenced yard or three thousand square feet of living area?
Consider that the single greatest shortage within mainstream economic life, is the shortage of jobs which engage our deepest and most meaningful potentials. How fortunate are those who make their living in a form of activity in which the "value added" for which they receive an income is aesthetic value, whether one is an artist, or fine cook, or architect, or craftsman. If we seek a society with an abundance of opportunities for meaningful work, then we must have a society in which the aesthetic dimension of ordinary life is perceived and esteemed. How do we create a culture in which there is increased economic demand for the beautiful, and as a result, increased demand for the ability to add beauty to the world?
A second dimension of gracefulness, closely related to the beauty of physical spaces and objects, is gracefulness in time. In the Torah, the first use of the term "holy" is applied to the seventh day of creation. Before there were the Ten Commandments, there was the commandment to abstain from work on that seventh day. Yet is there anything that has gone as fundamentally wrong with American economic life than how we use and experience time? For over a century, Americans understood the definition of economic progress to include both higher levels of income and increased leisure time. In the 1930's legislation to create a 30 hour work-week passed the Senate, but that was the high-water mark of an effort to create balanced lives. Without any real decision to do so, we abandoned the leisure expansion component of economic progress. It is not just overwork that we suffer from, but pressure and hassle. Today we are a frenetic society that is overstretched and overstressed. And in the process, we have cheated family and friends and children of a proper share of our time and thus, of ourselves. Similarly, we have less time for volunteering and less time for political activity. Our failure to achieve gracefulness in time raises the most fundamental questions: What is an economy for? How do we define progress? How have we gone so wrong, with all the expansion of productivity and incomes that has occurred over the last hundred years?
A third meaning of gracefulness is thankful appreciation for that which we have. It is most directly associated with saying grace at meals, and as such, might seem rather distinct from the aesthetic aspects already mentioned. Yet, to pause, to take stock, to give thanks, before rushing into consumption, can be transformative. It can slow us down, and more importantly, it can allow us to re-center our awareness of wherein true wealth resides. Thus gracefulness as thankful appreciation can serve as the underpinning of an awareness that the good life is not found in frenetic getting and spending, but in taking the time to appreciate much of what one already has or can develop: friends, good health, conversation, family, an artfully prepared meal.
The fourth dimension of gracefulness also has religious connotations -- graceful giving, the giving of oneself outside of covenant and contract. Here too this is not merely a matter of an inner orientation. Viewed in economic and social terms, we must ask whether we have organized our society so as to permit and foster giving that goes beyond what is contracted. In part this circles back to the issue raised earlier about the shortage of jobs that enable one to give of one's deepest potentials. We find this on the level of the individual when jobs titles, roles and definitions narrowly confine what is expected and what is permitted. In addition even our technologies can prevent one from giving of one’s fuller self within the production of both goods and services. And on the macro-level we have come to passively accept that economic and social activity should be undertaken through corporate structures that operationalize their bottom line in terms of profit, independent from a mission of service.
The disappearance of service ideals to which one is dedicated, exists in myriad forms. We have medical institutions that fail to deliver health, legal institutions that fail to deliver justice, schools that fail to educate, families which do not nourish. While each of these areas has unique problems, there is at work some common element, yet to be fully understood. Aristotle called attention to such problems over two thousand years ago. He saw the danger as one of civilization falling increasingly into commercial relations, in which the pursuit of money dominates the values naturally inherent in diverse human endeavors. Though Aristotle long ago noted the ills of commercialized civilization, one mark of the depth of our present problems is that we no longer perceive them. Graceful giving has become increasingly foreign to our experience.
Graceful living, especially in its aesthetic and time related dimensions, is typically associated with wealth, and there is no doubt that having considerably more money than others, can provide some answers for the advantaged individual. After all, one of the key advantages of having income that is high relative to that of others, is that one can purchase their services to take the harsh edge off of life. And it is no accident, that Aristotle, whose commitment to social justice was weak, found in such considerations a justification for slaves and servants. But within a politics committed to social justice, the question we face is one that Aristotle never considered: "How can we make the graceful life an option for all?"
Once posed, this question pulls us into the concrete reality of diverse economic circumstance. It leads towards consideration of issues of income distribution, educational opportunity, minimum wage levels, and the enormous inefficiency of the American approach to meeting core needs, whether for safe communities, sound education, functional transportation, economic security or medical care. A politics of simplicity, by offering an alternative economic paradigm, which allows us to rethink the relation between the economic realm and the good life, and which allows us to redefine economic progress, and re-conceptualize the place of labor and consumption within the good life, offers a holistic approach. Moreover, it focuses attention on what is wrong with our social existence, not just for those that are left out, but for those that, supposedly, are succeeding.
At this point, (2005) such a politics is not primarily about solutions to a discrete list of policy problems; it is about giving voice to alternative ideals, about understanding the political dimension of the dissatisfaction that millions feel in their personal lives. In building on the simple living tradition within the American experience, it is a politics that can ground itself within much that is best in our past, be it the Quakers, Thoreau or utopian communes. And in recognizing the diversity of ideals that have motivated those who have believed that the good life can be found largely outside the economic realm, whether in art and literature, religion, scientific endeavor, social service, political engagement, or with friends and family -- it remains a liberal politics, compatible with individual choice with a free society.