New Thought: Selfish or Socialist?
By Mitch Horowitz
I’ve recently written on this page about the radical New Thought tradition of social rebels such as black-nationalist Marcus Garvey, feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and author and socialist activist Wallace D. Wattles.
But Harvey Bishop’s recent interview with Rev. Chris Terry helped me realize that I’ve been emphasizing only the half the story. Yes, New Thought has radical roots, which fit my personal ideals as a New Thought writer and seeker.
But Harvey quoted a reader who rightly – and bluntly – articulated something that might appear diametrically opposed to the “social justice” model. This New Thought seeker wrote: “If I show up at a [New Thought church] I am there for one reason and one reason only — the advancement of my personal awareness. If some minister lectures me about some politically correct utopian fantasy (you call it a world that works) I am gone.”
I want that guy at my party, too. The objectivist/ libertarian point of view is as legitimately grounded in the New Thought tradition as social radicalism.
I liked the directness of that commentator’s tone. Let’s face it: we can get very squishy when talking about social justice. Especially when some of the loudest proponents of social justice in our communities can’t be trusted to water a house plant.
I believe in a New Thought that “fights the power,” a la Marcus Garvey. But I also believe in a New Thought that makes room for the “get stuff” crowd. There is nothing wrong with “getting stuff.” Now, I often tell people that I’ve been in this business a long time – and I have never once personally witnessed someone trying to “manifest” a Mercedes Benz. (That example seems to exist chiefly in the minds of people who criticize The Secret.)
What I do see are lots of people dealing with addictions, marital problems, paying the rent — things that are as real as it gets. But if I did encounter someone trying to produce a Mercedes — who am I to “school” him? Maybe he should school me. That individual may have grown up in a world filled with dreariness, and may have a valid need for a quality means of transportation — for him or her, that car (which, by the way, is a thing of beauty) may represent a host of good.
In my in recent book One Simple Idea: How Positive Thinking Reshaped Modern Life, I wrote critically of Napoleon Hill. I saw the Think and Grow Rich author as someone who moved the dial away from social justice in the American metaphysical tradition. But I was wrong. (And I will comment on that in the book’s 2016 paperback edition.) It’s not that my criticism of Hill was off-target; the writer said and did things to which I object. But Hill’s greatness as a metaphysician was to frame a truly workable program of honorable, golden-rule based, individual success. He owed no one an apology.
Seen in a certain light, the mystical teacher Neville Goddard – the New Thought figure whom I most admire – was a kind of spiritualized objectivist. Or perhaps I could say that Ayn Rand, the founder of philosophical objectivism, was a secularized Neville. Neville and Rand each believed, with uncompromising conviction, that the individual creates his own objective reality and circumstances. Rand saw this as a matter of personal will; Neville saw it as a matter of imagination. But both held, more or less, the same principle.
Is there a dichotomy between Neville’s radical individualism and the communal vision of Science of Getting Rich author Wallace D. Wattles, who saw New Thought as possessing an intrinsic ethic of societal betterment? Not for me. I’m skeptical toward language such as inner/outer, essence/ego, spiritual/material, which buzzes around many of our alternative spiritual communities. Not only do opposites attract, but paradoxes complete. It is in the nature of life.
And aren’t those of us involved with New Thought striving to see life as “one thing”? That “one thing” can expand in infinite dimensions — but does my fellow seeker have to choose between a nice car and “awareness”? Do I have to choose between Marcus Garvey and Ayn Rand? Both were bold and beautiful and right in many ways.
Politically, my heart is with Canadian health care. But I stand with Chris: I refuse an either/or scenario, or a lame compromise. Good cannot be boxed in. Paradox is healthy. Reality has “many mansions.” As my friend Erik Davis says: “Keep it open.”
A PEN Award-winning historian, Mitch Horowitz is the author of Occult America and One Simple Idea: How Positive Thinking Reshaped Modern Life. He is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and is currently reading (and quite enjoying) Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
I agree up to a point that New Thought can encompass a wide range of worldviews. When you overlay a cultural evolutionary lens and look at multiple intelligences, the field narrows a bit. Rand, for example can be described as a “fierce individualist,” but when you read her in depth, there is no spiritual center there – no compassion, no sense of the common good (except through a fantasy that if everyone followed “objectivism” everyone will be well-off). At the higher or deeper ranges of spiritual awareness, worldviews based on fear fall away.
And each will use New Thought principles where he or she is on the spiral. The desire to contribute to the common good shows up at traditionalist-Blue as charity, at modernist-Orange as a chance to increase popularity or business (think photogenic giant checks), and at postmodernist-Green as a more empathetic way to respond from a sense of oneness. Each will see Principle as a means to the end that they value; and be critical of how the values at other levels of existence are expressed. As we evolve toward greater complexity, compassion tends to arise over time as our emotional and spiritual intelligence grow.
So New Thought can be a big tent, especially at the entry points, but things tend to evolve toward a deeper spiritual resonance with self and the world over time for those who really do spiritual practice seriously.
Excellent point, Jim. The two most thoughtful (and personally successful) objectivist thinkers I know have made the same observation: that Rand’s absolute rejection of altruism or spiritual considerations is a margin beyond which they cannot go. I agree.
I LOVE it when New Thought ministers advocate for social justice from the pulpit. That is the kind of church I want to attend. I understand that some other people might not like it and I appreciate that. I don’t think New Thought needs to be defined politically. It can accommodate people with different political sentiments. However, it seems unrealistic to me to expect people to censor their passion for social justice so as to not offend people. I would feel that I was not being true to myself if I did so. I know many people at my church would agree. I imagine that the person mentioned in this article would not like my church one bit and I respect that. There are New Thought churches without strong social justice agendas, and I would probably prefer not to attend them because I would greatly miss that element. We can respect each other, and choose the churches that we want to attend based on the social culture we prefer.
That makes sense. One could attend an evangelical prosperity church — or focus on the teachings of Edwene Gaines, for example — and not focus on that aspect.
I don’t think it belongs in the pulpit.
While not the focus of your piece, I would say you hit the nail on the head with your “one thing” comment. I see the same problem in many New Thought views that I see in Rand’s – “absolutism”. The Universe is a wonderfully complex place – yet, in spiritual matters, the rule for multiple millennia has been to “dumb it down” to one simple rule.
But, I heartily applaud the idea of exploring these questions. How can one grow if one is constantly running from every uncomfortable issue?
Thank you Sandy! Someone once told me that the mark of spiritual progress (if there is such a thing!) is one’s ability to contend with paradox. I think that’s right on.
New Thought is a very simple philosophy without much “theology” or dogma. Our principle is utterly monistic and at least quasi-pantheistic: There is one thing in the Universe, and it’s God. It shows up in myriad and unique ways. And we all use this One to direct and guide our lives, so as to prosper in every way.
This is also the foundation stone of a spiritual mind treatment.
That one principle is the foundation on which all of New Thought philosophy rests. We’re not absolutist, but we teach that fundamental principle in many different ways, and it underlies all the diverse expressions of our movement.
The Rand as New Thoughter idea makes sense as far as the basic notion that “it is all and only up to me and how I approach life.” Where the Objectivist view goes off in a different direction from mainstream New Thought (OK, that’s an oxymoron but stay with me here) is it is rooted in different core belief.
The Randians that I have met seem to approach life from the perspective that, “I’m a genius who is surrounded by idiots who are just in my way in this tough, ruthless world.” This is why Rand’s work is often popular with bright but nerdy types in high school, who feel cut off from their peers. Rand says to them, “You have the potential for greatness, so forget what everyone else thinks and do what you have to do — and don’t waste time feeling sorry for others. They’re morons and they deserve what horrible fate they will surely get.” It is fundamentally rooted in a curious mix of fear of others and adoration of the self. In the Randian looney-verse, we are distinct asteroids floating separately in the dark, cold, unforgiving void of space, with no gravity to pull us together — moving forward solely through the propulsion we generate from our own force of indomitable will
Conversely, while the NT approach centres on the self. It doesn’t really start or end there. Like Rand, there is the whole emphasis on our ability to shape our states and our responses to our experiences but it reaches more broadly. It says that not only do I have access to powers that I can tap to build a better life by gaining a better hold on my thoughts — but so does everyone else too, even if they do not realize it just yet. With that, the NT universe is one with a happy positive force that is there to move us all forward — some of us just faster and more at ease than others.
Chris, Would you say that’s more of a cultural difference? The Randians I’ve met — with a few notable exceptions — are, well, kinda mean. But I don’t view that as intrinsic to the philosophy. I appreciate Rand reaching out to the nerd (who will save us) and saying, “You’re exceptional — don’t allow the herd to draw you down.” I think there’s beauty in that. The corruption, it seems to me, is a matter of human nature: We take that view and instead of extending the same possibility to our neighbor, we use it in hostile terms. I’ve observed the same thing with many Marxists, who display a narrow suspicion toward anyone who thinks differently, especially when the differences are slight! -m
“kinda mean”? In the words of Sarah Palin, “You betcha.” The ones I’ve met have been not just “kinda mean”, they’re the whole mean deal.
I’m not sure if it is intrinsic to the philosophy or not because those Randian doorstops fall deep into the category of Famous Books I’ll Never Read and Won’t Even Try To Fake, so I can’t actually say one way or the other. I do agree there is an ever-flowing stream of human nature that loves an “us vs. them” scenario. Certainly, you couldn’t write the history of the hard left in North America without the endless battles over matters of doctrinal purity and tangible irrelevance.
For me the battles over Rand are obscuring some of the larger points Mitch is making in this piece. Rand is a mixed bag without a doubt and there is Rand and the ways in which is she is used (and demonized) for various purposes today which is true for almost any lionized thinker.
But remove Rand from this article and there are major points being made about the room in New Thought for people to pursue different goals based on their needs. I think Rev. Terry would say that there is already room for our social justice mistrusting friend quoted above. As she said no one is requiring any one at a New Thought church to do anything for social justice. As Diane noted in her blog this week there are opportunities to get involved, not a demand to be involved. My concern is that while Rev. Terry, Mitch, and Diane have the heart and Spirit to open a big tent, I’m not sure the guy quoted above is ready to reciprocate. We messaged on Facebook over several days and he made it clear to me that any change in direction in a Religious Science church towards social justice by any means other than an individual’s personal growth would prompt him to take his toys and go home. I also have to say I love Mitch’s line about leftists that can’t be trusted to water a house plant! I know Mitch, Chris and Diane can be trusted with my plant. I’m not sure about the guy quoted here.
Funny, I’ve never met a mean Randist, and I have met my share of them.
I love Jim Lockhard’s response. It goes to the center. The Truth that Holmes talks about is love. And there are no boundaries. Ayn Rand is all about boundaries, and for her, the ultimate truth is self-interest, selfishly understood.
Here’s the latest: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/libertarian_superstar_ayn_rand_defended_genocide_of_savage_native_americans/?source=newsletter
Yes..And. I think people think of social activism as marches and ministers going on about how fair/unfair things are or supporting particular political parties. I think it is compassion (which is completely missing in Rand), an understanding of privilege and a willingness to support people in growing out of their current circumstances if they desire to do so.
We teach a way of life that is about fullness of expression and purpose. People who give out of the fullness of their lives and not out of a sense of guilt or an idea of sacrifice are also social activists. You know…teach a person to fish.
I serve a very politically diverse CSL community in a fairly conservative town. We “adopt” families for Christmas. And, we do so with the idea/prayer that someone who receives these gifts has the opportunity to look at them and begin to think that they want to be on the other side-giving-rather than receiving and maybe it opens a door to the possibility of a different life than the one they are currently experiencing. If people cannot see a different life or way than they cannot move towards it.
I hope living prosperous, joyous lives sets a tone of “yes we all can”, rather than “look at what I can do”. Because then we all move forward.
and..I would love a Mercedes:).
Peace
To follow on Harv’s and Barbara’s good points we actually deal with some of these issues in a community my family belongs to in New York called The Workmen’s Circle, which is a educational and activist group committed to social justice and secular Jewish culture. (It is actually a century-old mutual aid society that grew from the experience of Yiddish-speaking, secular, and socialist Jewish immigrants.) Sometimes we struggle to decide how radical we are; how much or how little Yiddish education the kids should have; and Israel? Don’t even bring it up. But my approach is to try and stretch our parameters as broadly as possible. If we don’t allow creative teachers to “do their own thing” we will lose them. There are issues where we have differences: but our values are rarely, if ever, divergent, and different expressions of radicalism, social justice — or the emphasis placed on Yiddish education — can be bridged so long as we don’t promulgate a party line. Hence, I would say to our friend above: if a New Thought community feeds your self-insight and aims, just ignore the other stuff. Check your phone when the minister goes a social justice jag (we ALL check our phones at some point). Be indifferent. But stick around. Because the day will come when that community could deliver something of great value to you.
First of all, the title implies that only socialists care, a political contention.
Yes, I do believe that there is an intersection of Randist philosophy with New Thought.
I would venture to guess that I have read as much or more Rand than just about anyone on this list, and I have always found her to be one of the most spiritual atheists I have ever read. Her insistence that we elevate and glorify who we are is very close to New Thought — although she would reject out of hand all that “muzzle mysticism” — one of Rand’s blind spots and one of her weaknesses.
But I dare any New Thoughter to read Rand — especially her philosophy books such as For the New Intellectual, The Virtue of Selfishness (which she defines as “rational self-interest”), The Romantic Manifesto, and others, as well as John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged, and tell me that a lot of what she has to say doesn’t resonate with our worldview.
I freely admit to being quite influenced by Rand, and I find that within a strong New Thought framework of empowered individuals creating the lives we want to live. That theme runs through my spiritual life, my political life, my economic views, and just about everything else.
“The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.” — Ayn Rand
“Every man builds his world in his own image. He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice.” — Ayn Rand
“The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.” — Ayn Rand
“To achieve, you need thought. You have to know what you are doing and that’s real power.” — Ayn Rand
“Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think.” — Ayn Rand
“A desire presupposes the possibility of action to achieve it; action presupposes a goal which is worth achieving.” — Ayn Rand
“Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver.” — Ayn Rand
Another libertarian who fits in very well with New Thought is the late Leonard Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York (where I went to high school.) I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Dr. Read a few times. Brilliant man, very spiritual, and a fierce fighter for the cause of liberty.
I would urge any New Thoughter to read Dr. Read’s essay, “I, Pencil”. It’s available here:
http://fee.org/resources/i-pencil-audio-pdf-and-html/
Two pages of quotes from his book “Meditations on Freedom” were reprinted in the July 1975 issue of Science of Mind Magazine, which is sitting on my desk as I write this.
Some highlights:
“A basic premise – one’s fundamental point of reference – is essential to right thinking and consistency. Expanding consciousness seems to be man’s earthly purpose: hatching, emergence, development, evolution. Accept ideas which harmonize with and reject those which thwart this fundamental purpose.”
“One’s world enlarges precisely as one’s consciousness and awe replace know-it-allness.”
“As light prevails over darkness, so does ignorance give way to enlightenment. Forget the ignorance of other and attend, instead, to one’s own lights. There is nothing to be gained by beating down a misguided soul.”
“Fret not over what is beyond one’s power to correct. Worry diminishes the individual and his creativity.”
“I am the only person among all who live that I have been commissioned to reform and improve, and that is the biggest project on Earth.”
“Freedom and self-responsibility are interchangeable terms. Self-responsibility is impossible unless one is free and one cannot be free if not self-responsible.”
“The latest idea that comes to a person is the most important to him at the time – or else he would be thinking of nothing or of something else! Actually, each good idea is a facet of truth and is an integral part of the whole. Thus, as with spokes in a wheel, the dependency is as much on one as on any of the others. We grasp only one truth at a time and at that moment the single truth is indeed the most important.”
“Share rather than monopolize good ideas. Giving is the precedent to receiving. The more one shares, the more one receives, whether intuitively or from others. This is the nature of intellectual and spiritual energy.” (I’m not sure Ernest could have said it better.)
“Man is at once an individualistic and social being, and finding out how better to harmonize with others ranks with improving one’s own mind and peace of soul. Self-interest, when rightly assessed, demands attention to our relationships with others. There may be no better way to assure human progress than to gain an ever-improving interpretation of self-interest.” (This sound similar to the “rational self-interest” that Rand talks about and to Adam Smiths’ principle of the invisible hand.)
“Creative action is always spiritual. It originates in the spirit of inquiry, invention, discovery, intuition, insight, think-of-that’s. This is why it is so important that our creative action be not restrained, inhibited, penalized.”