Abstract
An implicit but pervasive concern of classical sociological theory is the manner in which social changes wrought by modernity (growth of industrial capitalism, increasing division of labor, expanding ethic of rationality) have a disruptive and mostly negative impact on the construction of self and the realization of identity. Marx, for example, warned of a commodified and alienated self; Durkheim feared that the transformation of traditional bases of solidarity could lead to an anomic individualism; and Weber cautioned against the “specialist without spirit” trapped in an iron cage of bureaucracy.
Fast forward a century or so and we find similar themes at the center of theory and analyses of the most influential social scientists of our era. Arlie Hochschild, Robert Putnam, Anthony Giddens, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and Robert Bellah, among many others, share a generalized concern with how changing social structures alter self and identity projects. Indeed, one could argue that the most central theme of recent feminist scholarship, queer theory, and postmodern explorations, as well as more traditional schools emanating from symbolic interactionism and sociological social psychology, are either explicitly or implicitly attending to the ways in which capitalism, globalization, division of labor, rationalization, media, and social movements are shaping, reshaping, or failing to shape the actions, interactions, values, beliefs, health, character, and identity of persons in contemporary society.
Given the scope and depth of these varied investigations, it easy to imagine the challenge of writing a book that promises to “trace the changing relations of self and society from the earliest primitive societies to the contemporary twenty-first century United States” (p. xii). Such a project is not only ambitious but daunting. This is not to say that the challenge should be avoided or that mapping such a vast sociological territory is not possible. Nevertheless, it is surprising that Robert Hauhart’s The Lonely Quest: Constructing the Self in the Twenty-First Century United States attempts this immense endeavor in only 220 pages. Given the limited space, it should come as no surprise that significant contributions to this expansive academic history are either glossed over or are altogether missing. Still, despite many frustrating gaps, this book manages to make a useful contribution to an immense, wide-ranging, and disparate literature.
The first chapter initiates an anthropological and historical examination of self-construction based on very succinct summaries of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. Here, Hauhart concludes that these three theorists share a pessimistic view of an individual’s capacity to resist dominant social forces. Subsequent chapters are focused primarily on the social changes altering identity projects in the twenty-first century, and these analyses are framed by a commitment to classical theories of the social self (e.g., Cooley, Mead, Goffman). Indeed, advocacy for a sociological interpretation of the self is at the core of Hauhart’s thesis; and because dominant cultural and political narratives fail to appreciate our inherent sociality, the possibility of constructing a more liberated self remains difficult.
Other barriers to an authentic and coherent self include the failure of American institutions to generate trust. As a result, we are witnessing a crisis of confidence in education, family, religion, politics, the legal system, media, and the workplace, all of which have served in the past as traditional anchors for identity. In addition, Hauhart uses evidence of growing social isolation and the withdrawal from civic life to argue that the United States is now experiencing a “national malaise.” And because Americans lack the resources to “become the self they wish to become,” the contemporary self is experienced as disjointed and divided.
Hauhart is at his best when he employs an empirically driven critique of some of the more optimistic theories of the modern self. Here he successfully challenges abstract generalizations while arguing persuasively that class differences in the production of modern identities are being ignored, contending that most poor and working-class people have been cut loose from meaningful roles and relationships. We see this, for example, in his confrontation with those who claim that a new, more fluid, flexible, and adaptable self is emerging in the twenty-first century. Hauhart supports his skepticism with a review of several compelling ethnographic studies showing that “liberation” from traditional institutions is less about freedom and more about loneliness, desperation, and even suicide. His overarching position is that social forces have destroyed institutions and obliterated traditional cultural guideposts. As a consequence, persons have become unmoored, the episodic has replaced the permanent, and precarity has superseded stability in American society—revealing the same pessimism Hauhart attributes to the classical theoretical assessments of the twentieth century.
The review and integration of early and more recent scholarship on class inequalities and the changing American character is the obvious strength of The Lonely Quest. On the other hand, the book’s weakness is its failure to engage feminist, queer, and postmodern theorizing on matters relating to self and identity. One would also expect to see a more serious consideration of the role of modern social media. Given that recent communication technologies have transformed institutions and relationships in the twenty-first century, it is surprising that important scholarship on the role of the internet, smart devices, and social media is not taken up.
The Lonely Quest does not introduce new explanations, novel frameworks, or much in the way of original analysis. In this sense, Hauhart is not breaking new ground here. If the reader is looking for unique ideas, creative theoretical interpretations, or trenchant critiques of influential research, it will be a lonely quest indeed. But if one’s quest is to find a succinct and integrated summary of some key themes from a varied literature on the self-society relationship, then this is a very good source.