Doctrines of Freedom
What is the extent of freedom? Does freedom have limits? Should some freedom be relinquished for the good of all? These questions, implied by Rebecca Solnit in "The Ideology of Isolation," call out right-wing conservatives whom she proposes to hold extreme doctrines of freedom and personal responsibility. This ideology, which she names the "Great Disconnect," creates conflict. The radical nature of these beliefs set men against women, social justice against personal gain, dependency against personal responsibility, and unrestrained free-market practices against environmental protection. She then explains why it is necessary to limit freedom for the benefit of all. Her essay is a broad and scathing call against the extreme doctrines of freedom held by right-wing conservatives. Solnit contends the right-wing tenets of individual liberty and individual responsibility, along with an unwillingness to seek after the common good, will bring humanity to destruction; yet, her denigrating language offends those who might be persuaded by her cry for solidarity.
The doctrine of individual freedom and personal responsibility is a male-centric belief system that denies societal connections and women as people. This doctrine declares guns necessary (for protection against "bad guys") and employs free-market strategies that ignore the environmental impact of their greed-centered businesses. The demand for personal responsibility leaves out those seen from the perspective of the right as "parasites and looters" (Rand qtd. by Solnit). Also, this doctrine of individual responsibility leaves out anyone "dependent upon the government, [those] who believe they are victims, that the government has a responsibility to take care of them, [and that they] are entitled to health care, food, and housing" (Romney qtd. by Solnit). The beliefs of the right-wing are summarized by this statement, "to hell with others and their problems" (Solnit). According to Solnit, the right-wing does not concern themselves with the needs of the poor, illegal immigrants, domestic violence victims, suicide victims, or any "pesky facts" that stand against their interests. The icon which Solnit believes exemplifies these doctrines best is the American Cowboy.
As the ultimate "self-reliant archetype," Solnit portrays the doctrines of right-wing freedom in the Cowboy. He relies on himself alone and scorns the social world in general. All those who embrace his ideal see themselves separated from the world by their ability and desire to take individual responsibility. The Cowboy divides himself from the world and "seals borders" (Solnit). Businessmen, such as Romney and Trump, Solnit states, act like "lone cowboys on the prairie of the free-market." However, according to Solnit, they do not recognize that wealth gives them the luxury of freedom. It is this luxury that allows them to believe they can create their reality and then produce and consume according to their preferences; truth then becomes just another product of the free market (Solnit).
Solnit's tone for those unwilling to seek after the common good is bold yet denigrating. The first indication of her disdain is using the label "right-wing" instead of conservative (Solnit). The label right-wing brings up images of radical Nazi fascist leaders. Solnit's other words to describe conservatives are loopy, homophobic, xenophobic, radically revisionists, inconsistent, and regulatory. Their values are equally abhorrent to the writer. Right-wing conservatives value deeds over words; they hate dependency, taxes, and gun control. Her abhorrence for their policies lies in the following: their ultimate freedom denies society's responsibility for all — people and the physical world. Their values ignore the feminine values of communication and openness. They reject scientific truth about our mutual needs. They refuse to acknowledge that freedom does not allow people to ignore the poor, disenfranchised, uneducated, or less able and cast them aside as undeserving. Her arguments against this movement will convince a well-educated liberal audience who understand the policies of these "new conservatives" (Solnit). Nevertheless, Solnit cannot turn her back on society's conservatives.
Since Solnit believes there is a need for connection, reasonable and inclusive dialogue must begin. A body is composed of individual parts — eyes, liver, kidneys, brain — but they only function when connected to a whole body. When one cell, one organ, one system fails to perform their tasks, to take (as it were) individual and personal responsibility, they are in rebellion against the whole. No one is an island to themselves. No one is wholly independent. We breathe the same air, are connected in our birth, buried by one another, share in goods and services, and food contributed by other people. We need one another to survive. "Ecological thinking articulates our interdependence and interconnectedness of all things" (Solnit). Living in symbiosis means we are in a "mutually beneficial relationship between…two different biological organisms" (Merriam-Webster). Solnit's message is essential because the ideology of isolation affects every aspect of humanity and the biosphere. Individual freedom and personal responsibility must be handled with moderation and modified by understanding the need for connection to avoid nihilistic chaos. However, because of its broad condemnation, Solnit's argument will only alienate those she believes need to change. More inclusive and less offensive language might provoke many to thoughtful change. A willingness to acknowledge the beliefs of others will help to avoid what Solnit fears. Emphasizing Solnit's own words, "we are all in this together, for better or worse."
Works Cited
"symbiosis." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. Accessed 15 February 2020.
