If you drive through the area of New Jersey where I live, one of the sites you may see with some frequency is the Gadsen Flag. It’s a yellow flag with a coiled timber rattlesnake on it, and the words “Don’t Tread on Me” underneath.
The flag has its origins in the American Revolution, where it was used by the Continental Army. The timber rattlesnake became a symbol of America as distinct from Great Britain; it is native to North America. Benjamin Franklin made frequent reference to it in his drawings and writings. It is meant to represent a spirit of rebellion and independence, and its symbolic implications are obvious: don’t tread on a rattler, as its bite is deadly. Don’t interfere with the American colonies, or you will regret it.
Perhaps it is no surprise that this is a symbol that has been co-opted by libertarians and right-wing nationalists. The narrative there is that the “good” American is one who is independent, rebellious, and doesn’t let no stinking government order them around. Little or no government is good government, never mind the paradoxes of being uber-nationalist and rejecting the government.
This modern idea of “independence” has been conflated with economic ideals, namely capitalistic ones. Capitalism is a system in which you can be “self-made”; you can be enterprising, start your own business, and make your own money your way. During the 19th century a narrative arose that equated hard work with success. This is partly what Max Weber calls “the Protestant Work Ethic” (those who work hard are rewarded by God), and partly the “rags to riches” narrative perpetuated in popular culture at the time. In particular, I think of the dime novels of Horatio Alger, in which the protagonist was always a penniless boy who comes to America and works hard, eventually becoming wealthy through his efforts. This narrative had far reaching effects; many immigrants who came to the U.S. during the immigration boom of the late 1800s believed that they would come to America and find the streets paved with gold. They sincerely believed a better life awaited, and their problems would be solved.
Like the rest of this fairy-tale narrative, it has no basis in fact. Immigrants often had terrible lives when they came here, riddled by poverty and disease, and caught up in working menial jobs that only allowed them to survive. It wasn’t until the Great Depression, when social programs like the Public Works Project, Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety nets came into existence that we started to see something like a middle class. During the 1950s, the wealthy were taxed at 91 percent. The rise of labor unions allowed for humane working conditions, which did not exist in many places prior to labor regulations. So, what we see is economic stability and the actual chance of having an “American dream” of doing it yourself—but you don’t really do it by yourself. What now tends to be deemed “socialism” has to enter the system to create some balance.
This did not sit well with the wealthy and privileged, who have managed to erode this system since the 1980s, and to create a situation in which the highest earners pay no taxes, and the tax burden falls increasingly to a middle class that becomes poorer all the time. In fact, what we see now is an attempt to bring us back to the pre-Depression days—no regulations, few taxes, and no labor unions. What I find amazing is how many people who suffer under tax burdens think this is a good idea.
Why would they think this? At least one answer is this embracing of “rugged individualism”; being an American means you can do it yourself, pull yourself up by your bootstraps—to “man up” as they say, and not without significance. In broad archetypal categories, individualism is a very masculine trait; focusing on the community at large, the “collective”, is the domain of the Feminine. And, as I frequently have noted, the “Feminine” doesn’t necessarily mean men vs. women; one of the chief proponents of this way of thinking was Ayn Rand, and her philosophy of “Objectivism”. She was a big believer in rational self-interest, and did not see any reason to be altruistic toward others. Given her background, I often wonder if her radical capitalistic stance came from a decidedly negative experience living in communism in what was then the fairly new Soviet Union. Regardless, her way of thinking has definitely inspired many conservative lawmakers.
So, back to our Gadsen Flag. When I see this flag, or just someone apparently in love with the American flag in its various forms, I can’t help but think of this particular narrative of individualism, whether that is the intention of those putting up the flag or not. In my book, “Death and the Maiden”, I suggest that fear of death is one of the primary drivers of society, and not just physical death. The person who worries about their own needs and doesn’t want to hear about others is the person who is afraid of this change (i.e. death)—they don’t want to expand beyond their little bubble, and think or learn about anyone else. Robert Anton Wilson once said that there were two types of people: those who embrace new information and those who fear it. This is the latter category.
Fear is related to trust issues as well. Frequently we don’t trust institutions, and with good reason. Some institutions—including government ones—are very corrupt. This is another example of the problem of individualism; when you have people in government who aren’t interested in helping you, and are only interested in their own power or gain, then the system breaks down. This is a hard thing to fix, as we are dealing with the machinations of human psychology on an individual and collective level. It requires some creativity to get a system that works in spite of this. Our current government setup SHOULD do this—it’s called “checks and balances”— but there have been deliberate attempts to break that down.
This is a real-world example of the need to balance Masculine and Feminine in the culture. There are positive aspects of both individualism and capitalism, but when it completely goes off the rails into a system of “every man for himself”, you not only have economic failure, but you have a society that becomes more rigid, and very far away from the American ideal of “the land of opportunity”. Capitalism can work, if it’s in balance with some level of democratic socialism. The idea that you can “do it all alone” is bogus; you don’t build your own infrastructure. When a crisis comes, the greatness of humanity is demonstrated in how we come together to help each other—including those who are strangers. But it shouldn’t take a catastrophe for us to recognize the humanity of each other—all of us, not just those who are in our racial, sexual, or economic group—and to have some basic human decency. One of the paradoxes of liberty is that some restriction is required for true freedom; in some cases, this may mean giving something up for the good of the larger community. We want our needs respected, and so does everyone else.
I’m going to end with a story from the Zohar. A rabbi is taken to Hell by an angel, where he sees a banquet of people with golden spoons chained to their wrists. There is much beautiful food, but they cannot get the spoons to their mouths to eat it, so they are starving. He is then taken to Heaven, where he sees the exact same scene—except everyone is fed, because they use the spoons to feed each other. More can be accomplished together than alone.