By Caitlin Lansing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I see the “pursuit of happiness” no clearer than in a visit to Chipotle. I’m no historian of restaurants, but I have a gut feeling that in 1993, when the restaurant was founded, the ability to customize your meal in real time, as you ordered it, was probably novel. In 2016, having so many options is commonplace, even expected. For forty years prior to a 2014 slogan change, Burger King advertised by telling its customers to “Have It Your Way,” only changing its tagline to “Be Your Way.” Panera Bread recently adopted electronic menus where you can customize each food and beverage option. Now, there are dozens of Chipotle spin-offs, including for different cuisines. Lest you all think that the only thing I do is eat fast food, I’ll provide other examples of how individual customization saturates our culture: Build-A-Bear. Customized suggestions on Netflix and Hulu. How many times a month I change my Facebook profile picture and cover photo. What filter I put over that #sunset or #selfie. Americans live in a society that says, “I can structure my world to fit my needs. I can structure my world so that I am never uncomfortable. I can structure my world to attain constant personal satisfaction.”
Do you think this is what the Founding Fathers meant when they said all men have an “unalienable Right” to “the pursuit of Happiness”? Or have we stretched their intention to fit a culture where we have the resources to individualize our entire lives? It helps to look at the context surrounding the “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. That “right” is couched within an understanding of common good. To examine this point, we’re going to have to suspend the reality that the Founding Fathers ignored huge chunks of the colonial population to proclaim the rights of the “governed,” and look at the specific ways in which they advocate the pursuit of communal good as an ideal. The writers of the Declaration of Independence begin the document by acknowledging the colonists’ common humanity through the assumed existence of a God who created universal moral law. Their argument is based on universal acknowledgement of a “station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” and that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This deity’s sovereignty and ability to endow humans with dignity creates a community in which all humans must exist, and a moral code to which they must submit. Moving away from the ethereal and zooming in on the writers’ specific situation, a smaller communal identity is established through the colonies. In the Declaration’s final paragraph, the writers refer to the “good People of these colonies” and the “United Colonies.” The language of the document is peppered with “our” and “we,” fortifying a unified front and argument with which the King and Parliament must contend. Third, the writers of the Declaration argue that effective government is a unifying force bonding a community. A good government should be structured such that it “shall seem most likely to effect [the People’s] safety and happiness” and “provide new Guards for their future security.” The mere existence of a governing body implies a single community that submits to a single set of laws and provisions. To complement the promotion of communal harmony, the Declaration’s list of grievances against King George III denounces abusing the pursuit of individual satisfaction. Eighteen of the twenty-seven grievances begin with “he,” implying that the “injuries and usurpations” resulted from one man’s choices at the expense of the good of community. Most exemplary are “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good,” and “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” King George’s rule is labeled “absolute Despotism,” an obvious cry against the idea of an individual wielding power against a community. According to the Declaration, the King exploited the pursuit of happiness by totally disregarding the good of others. The colonists’ experience of pursuing individual happiness within a community seeking unification can help us evaluate how that concept has evolved to our times. It’s clear that Americans have retained that “inalienable right” as a dearly held value, but what should we make of the fact that our culture allows us to constantly pursue personal satisfaction? Are there dangers of us microcosmically emulating King George, seeking our own happiness and morals at the expense of others? If we believe the Declaration’s writers, wasn’t he just trying to “have it his way,” or pick and choose which laws he wanted to obey? I am certainly not saying options at Chipotle or within Instagram filters are bad or despotic, but it is valuable for us to reflect on how the culture of options seeps into their daily lives. How do we reconcile pursuing what we want while considering our classmates’ wants, or roommates’ needs, or submitting to our parents’ rules? How should I think about the manipulation of photos to create a world that I only wish were there? I guess I’ll have a lot to think about while picking what I want to order for dinner. Caitlin is a graduate of Appomattox Regional Governor's School (Class of 2010) and Princeton University (Class of 2014). She currently works for the University of Oxford North American Office. Fun fact: She grew up in Southampton, Virginia, home of Nat Turner's famed revolt.
2 Comments
Patty
6/25/2016 06:43:20 am
Caitlin! Love seeing you do some close reading here -- YAY! And yes, lots to think about, and maybe even more now after this post-Brexit vote. I always sense a (false) nostalgia re. "bringing back America" and quoting the Founding Fathers to support notions of our country that I think never quite existed -- there is precious little talk of the "common good" right now. It seems to be me, me, me. How do we balance individual vs. group rights? (gun laws?). Thanks for giving us lots to consider.
Reply
Mr. Gibson
6/26/2016 10:37:56 am
I wonder how much of that lack of thinking about the common good has to do with technology. On one hand we are connected to each other like never before, this website is not possible without it and yet technology also allows us to stay in further isolation and not worry as much about the "common good".
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorFollow me @MrG_Unit Archives
August 2016
Categories
All
|