‘Values of the New Right’

On Jan. 25, I picked up a copy of The Times and, turning to Page 3,, found a headline across the top of the page that read: “Study Assails Values of the New Right as ‘Cancerous.’ ” I was curious to discover more about this study and so began to read the article. I was then shocked to discover that it described a book, “Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life,” just published by the University of California Press, of which I, together with four colleagues, am the author. Since our book is not intended to be an attack on the New Right (I don’t believe the term even occurs in the book) or anyone else, I was dismayed to see our work presented in so hostile and confrontational a way.

Our book does report research on individualism in American life and attempts to show that a radical individualism, untempered by a sense of moral obligation or collective loyalty, may indeed turn “cancerous,” undermining public and private commitments and even the conditions that would support a moderate individualism itself. But we did not find that radical individualism correlates closely with any political position. It is as common on the left as on the right; it has liberal as well as libertarian forms.

Similarly, there are attempts to temper radical individualism at both ends of the political spectrum, attempts we try to evaluate in the book. In short, our book is critical of certain widespread ideas in America and of their social and personal consequences. It is not an attack on any group of people. We have tried to follow Lincoln in carrying out our project, “with malice toward none; with charity for all.”

ROBERT N. BELLAH

Professor of Sociology

University of California

Berkeley

I read the article with interest since the study’s principal author presented his paper at a conference I organized. Unfortunately, the reader of this story might gain the impression that the conference, which celebrated the 150th anniversary of the publication of Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic, “Democracy in America,” was intended to be a forum for the pillorying of particular ideologies. This is hardly the purpose of the sponsor, the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, which examines questions concerning the theory and practice of free government. (Incidentally, the conference lasted four, not three days as you reported.)

KEN MASUGI

Claremont

Masugi is director of the Bicentennial of the Constitution Project at the Claremont Institute.