The Politics of Meaning

July-August 1996

By William A. Harper

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Several thousand people converged here over three days in mid-April for an ambitiously titled "Summit on Ethics and Meaning." It was, in fact, a gathering of the various tribes that make up the political, cultural, and religious Left in America. In the numerous workshops and plenary sessions, one rubbed shoulders routinely with aging Vietnam War protesters, advocates of gay/lesbian/bisexual rights, anti-nuclear activists and supporters of "diversity and inclusiveness." The one fact which seemed to unite everyone was the necessity to re-elect Bill Clinton.

The driving force behind the gathering was Michael Lerner, a psychoanalyst, rabbi, editor of Tikkun magazine, and indefatigable promoter of "the politics of meaning." According to Lerner, the Summit was the consequence of dissatisfaction with the "selfishness, cynicism, and materialism," and hence, meaninglessness, of American life. This is most obvious, he argued, in the realm of economics, more particularly in the universal application of market principles to American life. This has driven people to an "ethos of selfishness" where we treat each other as mere objects to be manipulated.

Lerner believes that most people actually want a society of caring. That is why they search desperately for respect for themselves and meaning for their lives in a variety of essentially false solutions: drugs, crime, and hatred of work are destructive examples. Conservative religion and its political counterpart, the Christian Coalition, are more constructive-though ultimately illusory—attempts.

What is to be done? The first priority for Lerner is to get the Left to repent of its arrogant refusal to see that people's lives have, been robbed of meaning and that their search for more satisfying ways of life, however misguided, is eminently justified. Talk radio, he stated in his keynote address, is correct in its diagnosis but wrong in its belief that right wing politics is the cure. After repentance, comes "the politics of meaning," a still coalescing mixture of hopes, fears, moral injunctions and calls for personal initiative.

If Lerner has his way, and his role in this nascent movement cannot be overstated, a new vision must be at the core of a new society and a new politics. "What is common to this new vision," he argued, "is that we are all created in the image of God." This insight is part of "the collective wisdom of the human race," though for Lerner it derives explicitly from his Jewish, Biblical tradition. With this central insight, we can begin as a society to relate to one another in ways that are more caring, gentle, loving, and responsible. Though he alluded to some legal steps in this direction, his emphasis was on the need for individuals to act in new, more responsible ways.

Its appeal to the biblical tradition notwithstanding, there is a profoundly deficient view of human nature at the heart of this enterprise. At times, it seems to emanate from a warmed over Marxist determinism which sees people as learning selfishness and other vices from a competitive capitalist system. At other points, it appears to be the product of Western liberalism—the problem is not the people; society is to blame for forcing them to act as they do. If there is an inherently dark aspect of human nature, Lerner does not seem to know about it, much less take it seriously.

Even more troublesome from a political point of view is Lerner's failure to provide a clear vision of how a structurally diverse society ought to be governed. His general moral and spiritual appeals fail to specify what the appropriate role of government ought to be in addressing the problems he highlights. For him, it seems enough that a growing number of people want a better society.

This is not to deny that there are some positive features to this movement. It helpfully demonstrates, for example, that some of the forces of modernity are beginning to question the prevailing emphasis on secularism, hedonism, materialism, and unbridled individualism. At least on paper, this is a point of contact between the politics of meaning and those Christians who hear God calling them to something different from the present American way of life. This movement also draws on some aspects of the Biblical tradition for inspiration, for example, in its respect for God's creation, its concern with the health of the family, and its recognition that our being created in the image of God entails serious ethical obligations for people in society.

It is also encouraging that Lerner does not regard politics as the magic solution to our problems. In fact, he claims that he is not interested in a new political vehicle and that he recognizes the need to change civil society, beginning with individuals and families. At the same time, he rejects attempts to simply dismantle government without organized, alternative ways to provide justice for the poor and powerless. This maybe good as far as it goes, but a politics-of-meaning movement that is not able to clarify the real meaning of politics looks like a highly questionable movement.

[Dr. Harper teaches Political Studies at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts.]