Off the Mark

Written as part of final exam for Sociology 469.04 Seminar in Sociological Institutions - Modern Morality. Fall 2001 at Illinois State University.

Discuss moral minimalism as Baumgartner describes it as a kind of ordinary vice.

   For Todorov, the ordinary vices are fragmentation, depersonalization, and the enjoyment of power.  Social schizophrenia, or the division of life into impermeable compartments, is a defense mechanism, he claims, for anyone with any moral principles left to preserve.  Fragmentation itself is not evil, and in fact is a defense against it.  But, it also makes evil possible, thus being an ordinary vice.  Depersonalization can take many forms, but it involves treating others as a member of a category, or as abstractions.  Depersonalization, though, runs both ways.  It causes one to tend to see themself as an object also.  The enjoyment of power can also assume many forms.  Todorov is concerned with a particular type of instrumentalism and depersonalization.  This is where "I remain the end of my action while only the other becomes a means," a means to satisfy a particular individual, me. (Todorov, 179)

   Moral minimalism includes a variety of responses to interpersonal problems.  Its most striking features are "an aversion to confrontation and conflict and a preference for spare, even weak strategies of control." (Baumgartner, 10)  Both internal (family organization) and external (situation of families in a larger community) social forces create moral minimalism.  Some of these encourage moral calm directly.  Others discourage open confrontation.  "The internal factors especially foster avoidance, while the external ones undermine recourse to third parties and their substantive intervention." (Baumgartner, 55)

   Suburban families are characteristically weak, and thus have a relative absence of social control.  Within the home, members are dispersed.  There is temporal and spatial dispersion.  Family members come and go at all different times, and to and from lots of different locations, even within the home itself.  Joint ownership of possessions is minimized.  Everyone has his or her own telephone and television; there is not much need for interaction, much less conflict.  Families are weak in their long-time hold on members, also.  Families seem to consist of almost voluntary associations today.  Members are able to escape because they "are not bound to one another through time by material necessity." (Baumgartner, 62)

   This weakness of domestic life undermines forceful or direct responses to grievances, and prevents some from even arising.  This weakness also undermines internal authority.  If one can’t supervise another’s conduct, they are in a poor position to enforce their will.  Kids can just go off with their friends and do what they like.  Also, this weakness of control is evident in how little impact one has on the future of one’s family members.  Dependency on family for achieving the proper station in life is not relevant anymore.  This results in substantial independence, "rendering family members free to defy or ignore one another’s commands."

   Weak relations also exist outside of the family.  Extended families are scattered all over due to the techniques (easy no-fault divorce, job relocations) and technology that underpin our society.  People have become moral spectators and leave moral judgment to the state and its institutions.  People’s lives are fragmented in so many different directions that they relate to others only in narrow, specialized ways.  Professional realtor in the morning, soccer mom this afternoon, loving wife this evening, literary book club member Tuesday night, bowler Friday night…

   In what way can moral minimalism be considered an ordinary vice?
Todorov arrived at his ordinary virtues and vices "in a largely
intuitive fashion." (Todorov, 185)  It is not an exhaustive list, and
it does not preclude variations and combinations.  Moral minimalism can
easily be considered an ordinary vice. 

   Baumgartner does not specifically speak of Todorov’s three
ordinary virtues when outlining the theory of moral minimalism, but at
least two are highly present.  Fragmentation and depersonalization are
key components of moral minimalism.

"Middle-class people tend to be socially anchored only
loosely into their atomized and shifting networks of associates.  Their
high rate of mobility from place to place means that bonds between
persons are frequently ruptured and replaced with new and equally
temporary ones, so that relationships often have short pasts and
futures.  Even relatives (other than nuclear family members) are likely
to reside elsewhere, at a distance too far for easy contact except by
telephone.  Middle-class lives are also highly compartmentalized.
Relationships tend to be single-stranded, restricted to one dimension
of interaction, and partly as a result, middle-class social networks
are not interconnected and are not formed into dense webs of common
associates.  Ties are scattered through many regions and towns.  In
general, then, the world of middle-class suburbanites is one of "weak
ties," in which people have assorted contacts rather than intimate
relationships with many people." (Baumgartner, 91)

This sounds like a good description of fragmentation and depersonalization to me.

   The song entitled Subdivision, by Ani DiFranco, describes
beautifully this sentiment of moral minimalism and several other themes
from the course.  I include it here for your consideration.  Ani was
supposed to appear on the Tonight Show a month or so back and intended
to perform this song.  As soon as CBS saw the lyrics they told her no
way in hell was she playing this on TV and to choose another song.  She
immediately told them to take a flying leap and said no thanks to the
appearance.  There are still a few people who can take a stand in the
world today.  There are just far too few of them.

   Moral minimalism is an ordinary vice in the Todorovian sense.  It
arises from and is complicit in the amount of fragmentation and
depersonalization in people’s lives.  People change relationships so
frequently, and live their lives full of privacy, individuation,
material independence, and freedom from authority.  Competing interests
and acquaintances also pull them a thousand different directions.  All
of this makes avoiding moral situations possible and attractive.
Confrontation is seriously reduced under these circumstances.  This
form of suburban lifestyle shortens the length of time that people
retain grudges, deprives people of possible allies, and undermines
third party intervention.  This in turn leads to a considerable amount
of indifference to wrongdoing by others.  It also means that people
can’t be bothered to help those in need.  Thus, positive obligations to
assist others are also minimal. 

   Moral minimalism, and the fragmentation and depersonalization
that feed and are fed by it lead to moral indifference.  This, coupled
with the belief that moral responsibility reside with the state and
its’ institutions lead to the lack of moral judgment on the part of the
individual.  If one will or can not exercise moral judgment, they can
not act morally.  Thus, moral minimalism is an ordinary vice.

Sources:

The Moral Order of a Suburb / M. P. Baumgartner.  New York : Oxford University Press, 1991, c1988.

Facing the Extreme: Moral Life in the Concentration Camps / Todorov,
Tzvetan ; translated by Arthur Denner and Abigail Pollack. New York :
Holt, 1997, c1996.