Tocqueville, Meritocracy & the American Dream

‭The "American Dream." This vague term instantly conjures up hopes of unlimited opportunity. So long as you work hard enough and are smart enough (which you are, of course), you will find success. Moreover, it is these hard-working, gifted individuals who form America's elite. In other words, meritocracy should make everyone happy, both individually and as a member of society.

‎Or, so the legend goes. One of the dangers of trying to put meritocracy into practice, however, is the tremendous mental strain it places on individuals who, after working hard to distinguish themselves from others, still fail. For their entire lives, they have told themselves that they are the only obstacle to their success, so in the end all they can do is blame themselves. This leads to frustration and even intense self-loathing. This is the dark side of the American dream.

‎Here is how Alexis de Tocqueville put it, in Democracy in America (Vol. II, Part II, Ch. XIII, "Why the Americans are often so restless in the midst of their prosperity"):

‎“‏When all prerogatives of birth and fortune are abolished,‭ ‬when all professions are open to all and a man’s own energies may bring him to the top of any of them,‭ ‬an ambitious man may think it easy to launch on a great career and feel that he is called to no common destiny.‭ ‬But that is a delusion which experience quickly corrects.‭ ‬The same equality which allows each man to entertain vast hopes makes each man by himself weak.‭ ‬His power is limited on every side,‭ ‬though his longings may wander where they will‭…

“This constant strife between the desires inspired by equality and the means it supplies to satisfy them harasses and wearies the mind‎…

“That is the reason for the strange melancholy often haunting inhabitants of democracies in the midst of abundance,‎ ‏and of that disgust with life sometimes gripping them in calm and easy circumstances‭…

“In France we are worried about the increasing rate of suicides‎; ‏in America suicide is rare,‭ ‬but I am told that madness is commoner than anywhere else.‭”

On Gobbledygook

I recently stumbled upon this passage in Edward Fischer's The Chancy War. If you have ever had to read a military document, you know he tells the truth. Sadly, I think his conclusions are probably true of most bureaucratic writing, and probably far too much of academia as well.

In the Infantry School at Fort Benning, I had spent a year writing Army field manuals.... During basic training at Camp Croft, South Carolina, and while studying in the Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, I had groped through enough field manuals to know how riddled they were with gobbledygook. If everyone was to understand the material in those manuals, so that we might hurry up and win the war, it seemed sensible that the prose be clear and concise.

My first manual came bouncing back from the review board in Washington. Nothing was omitted, the board said, and there were no errors in fact; it just didn't sound like a field manual. The colonel who headed the writing project lacked interest in simplicity and clarity; all he wanted was the approval of the Pentagon. He said just that as he tossed the manuscript to me and stomped into his office, where the grapes of wrath were stored.

The only way I could write military prose was to burlesque it. So I made some rules for myself:

• Never write a simple sentence if you can stretch and torture it into a compound-complex sentence.
• Never use a one-syllable word if you can entice a five-syllable word into doing the same job.
• Never use the active voice, if you can back the idea around into a passive construction.
• Always substitute utilization for use, subsequent for after, and initial for first.
• Use frequently the words supersede, implement, and impracticable.
• Ignore the advice Horace gave: "More ought to be scratched out than left." Instead, keep adding to what is there; federal prose is not written, it accumulates.

So put the idea into a simple declarative sentence and spend the morning building it. Enlarge each word, nail on more phrases, synonyms, and redundancies; twist the sentence structure until scarcely a tag-end of the meaning sticks out.

As a final test, read aloud what has been translated from English to gobbledygook. If it sounds like an excited turkey going, "Gobbledy, gobbledy, gobbledy," the translation has been successful. (Perhaps Congressman Maury Maverick had the sound of an excited gobbler in mind when he coined the word gobbledygook to label government jargon.)

The rules that I complied worked well. My manuscript was long and wordy and as dull as a butter knife. Reading it was like slogging through a swamp under full field pack.

But the Pentagon liked it! The book was printed in five languages. I often wonder how that gobbledygook sounded in Chinese.

Life: Imagine the Potential - Take Two

The good folks at CatholicVote.org have produced another great video: clear, to the point and aesthetically pleasing:

The Modern Icon

Last week I shared a rather whimsical (if ultimately serious) painting by James C. Christensen. But this week I would like to consider some of his artwork of a different style.

Among the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox, icons have long been a major part of devotional life. In the West, there is not such a fully formed concept of icons, artistically or theologically, but there are certainly parallels.

To what extent do icons have a place in modern devotion? And what should they look like? Some would suggest that there is no need to update icons at all; the ancient form and content of this religious art should remain the same as it always has. Others have experimented with a mixture of the old and new, with regards to both style and subject. Still others would claim that icons have no place in the modern world.

But Christensen's artwork poses a clear challenge to this third position. Though neither Catholic nor Orthodox, Christensen has incorporated elements of traditional devotional artwork into some of his own works. 'Saint with White Sleeves' (left) is done in the style of an obscure Flemish painter known as The Master of the Enoch Altarpiece. Though she does not represent any particular saint, Christensen has clearly concluded that earlier styles speak to the modern age. I thought her clothing particularly interesting, being of an amorphous style that could belong to any time from the 16th century to the American frontier or the present day.

'Cecelia' (right) is named after the artist's granddaughter, and not necessarily after the patron saint of music. Indeed, theological rectitude would require that a saint not be depicted with the wings of an angel. Nevertheless, the religious influence is clear, drawing on the sort of Neo-Byzantine style popular a century ago, and seen, for example, in the National Shrine and St. Matthew's Cathedral. (I am no art historian, but it seems Christensen is drawing on the same kind of medieval interests that drove the Pre-Raphaelistes and elements of the Arts & Craft Movement in this era. But I digress.) As has been asked of these earlier revivalists, has Christensen simply appropriated religious images for secular art? Or is he trying to make a comment about the function of artwork generally, or about the nature of the spiritual life? Put another way: what is the connection between form and matter? Does use of religious styles necessarily imply religious content and commentary? Can you innovate upon a religious style without raising theological questions?

'Faith, Hope and Charity' (below) returns to more of an Americana style, but retains clear religious elements: halos, wings, and the names of the three figures in Greek.


I would suggest that Christensen's work points to the ongoing resonance of religious themes and styles, in the midst of an often secular age; man's heart longs for the God Who created him and calls to him each day.

For those intrigued by The Master of the Enoch Altarpiece mentioned above, I thought you might find this video of Christensen interesting. I just love this kind of background information!

The Truth Will Set You Free

Truth is a strange thing. In spite of using the word all the time, it is easy to forget just what it is, or that it exists at all. Too often, when we talk about truth we mean something provisional or superficial, something that is not really capable of inconveniencing us, and something that is easily observed.

But while reading an unfinished homily by Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP, I was reminded just how transcendent and profound the truth really is. I was also reminded how much I miss hearing Fr. Philip's preaching. So turn off your music, put away the distractions and click on the link above.

But Does Anyone Notice?

I recently came upon this work by James C. Christensen, titled "Michael the Archangel Battles the Dragon While Almost Nobody Pays Any Attention." The title speaks for itself.

According to an unsourced passage in his Wikipedia biography, "Christensen lives in a house he designed filled with secret passages and sculptures inspired by his paintings." To which I say, "Awesome!"

California Missions: Centers of Community

Admittedly, I've been remiss in my lack of posts. Juggling a job and further graduate studies has been a bit strenous. However, I would like to share with you another extracurricular pursuit. I recently have become very interested in the idea of traveling writing, but with a particular twist.

Instead of writing: (a) travel logs with lots of exciting pictures and tips or (b) a Catholic reflection on how to express piety at a particular site, I've decided to try a different version of Catholic travel writing. I think it is very important for everyone not simply to focus on Catholicism in their travels, but also to see the world in the eyes of a Catholic. We live in a world that has been profoundly affected by Faith and I hope to reflect that in my writing.

If you are interested, please read my first published travel article (also in print) Centers of Community, an article about the integral role of missions in California society.