The Broken Covenant

American Civil Religion in Time of Trial

Robert Neelly Bellah (b1927)

Crossroad (Seabury), 1975, 172pp

Preface

1: America's Myth of Origin (1)

In this fascinating book, sociologist Bellah notes what he views as the three primary separate philosophical traditions which came to together at the founding of the American republic; the Biblical tradition (especially Calvinism, via the "Puritan covenant pattern," represented above all by New England), the Roman classical tradition (via the "Montesquieuan republican pattern," represented above all by Virginia) and the relatively newer trend of rationalist, utilitarian philosophy. Bellah cites Hobbes as the truly innovative figure for this latter tradition, "although it was the more modest and conciliatory thought of Hobbes's follower and critic, John Locke, that had most influence in America" (p. 25).

Bellah makes the interesting observation that, leading up to the American Revolution, the first two of these traditions, although starting from different points, arrived at identical conclusions about the necessity for virtuous citizens willing to sacrifice for the good of the community. Bellah says:

"In Montesquieu's analysis, a republic will stand only so long as its citizens love it. If it needs external coercion its principle is lost. And Montesquieu, echoing many a hero of the early Roman republic, tells us that only frugality and the absence of luxury can keep the public interest in the minds of the citizens and make possible that renunciation of self which is so difficult but without which no republic can long survive. The agrarian ideal of Jefferson and others in the early republic - the ideal of a nation of frugal independent husbandmen ready to serve at their community's call - owes much to this notion of republican virtue. Although from a different starting point, the evangelical version of the Protestant Ethic led to an identical conclusion" (p. 24).

Bellah sees the Biblical tradition as having had the stronger influence, owing to the fact that knowledge and appreciation of the Roman tradition of liberty was mostly confined to elites educated in Latin, unlike the Biblical tradition, which enjoyed widespread exposure and appeal during the founding generation and thereafter. He notes, however, that promoters of both traditions "were certain that if we should decline in piety and public virtue we would meet the inexorable fate of the nations, which are as but dust in the hands of God" (p. 25).

Bellah sees the mythical meaning of America according to the Biblical tradition as a (potential) "paradise." The Hobbesian view, on the other hand, saw America as a mythic "wilderness" (in the most negative sense of that word). (p. 8) The mythic republican view would be one of "virtuous society."

Bellah has some interesting comments on several of the major philosophers of liberty. On Hobbes, Bellah says (utilizing Augustine's concepts of caritas and cupiditas to represent the divine order of the "City of God" and the natural human order, respectively):

"What distinguishes Hobbes from the [Roman] classical and Christian traditions and their modern continuers is the absence of any notion of God or the Good and a corresponding radical theoretical individualism. For Hobbes, the marginal case of the war of all against all is not escaped through any semblance or trace of divine justice but through a social compact made by individuals to maximize their self-interest. In order to evade the natural state of anxiety, fear and suffering, men appoint a monarch over themselves to whom they cede their natural liberty in return for peace and security. But for Hobbes, and here Locke is his true disciple, social concord is still based not on divine justice, not even on a shadow of caritas, but on self-interest, on cupiditas alone. The idea that society could be based on a mere coagulation of individual interests, that the pursuit of private vice could result in public virtue, was a radically new idea in the 17th and 18th centuries and one that did not sit well with other still powerful traditions" (p. 26).

On John Locke (1632-1704), Bellah says that, unlike Hobbes, Locke viewed the "state of nature" as a good thing, "a state of Peace, Goodwill, Mutual Assistance, and Preservation." It is one marked by "men living together according to reason, without a common superior on Earth, with authority to judge between them." According to Bellah, Locke tended to identify the America of his day with this benign state of nature (p. 6).

Charles De Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755), the french historian and political writer, stressed the importance of the separation of powers in government, thereby effectively limiting various wielders of power through a system of checks and balances. Bellah, associating Montesquieu with the classical Roman ideal of republicanism, calls him:

"The great forerunner of modern sociology and one of the political thinkers most influential on late 18th century America. According to Montesquieu, in his tripartate scheme of despotism, monarchy, and republic, each type of society has its own principle of social life which provides the spring of action for its members. For despotism, that principle is fear. For monarchy, it is honor: the spirit of emulation, what today we might call status seeking. For a republic, and especially for its democratic rather than aristocratic form, the principle of social life is virtue" (p. 23).

Bellah finds American society increasingly "a cruel and bitter one, very far, in fact, from its own highest aspirations" (p. viii). The basic problem, for Bellah, is the brutal struggle to climb the ladder of "success" in pursuit of the "American Dream."

Although this book is chock full of fascinating insights and observations, unfortunately it also arrives at exactly the wrong diagnosis and suggested cure for America's woes. Bellah, like most left-leaning communitarians, finds the main problem with America to be too much individualism. The solution is for the "community" to enforce more "sharing" of what to Bellah are the ill-gotten rewards of our version of capitalism. These have gone inordinately to white males, who must therefore bear the brunt of the sacrifices to even things out.

The fact that this process of "community" enforcement will involve at least as much injustice and brutality as he alleges has been caused by our "system" either escapes his notice or doesn't concern him. He is a classic leftist in the sense of favoring massive government (i.e. "community") intervention into society to set things "right." His justification of these "corrective" actions is the failure of America's founding vision of equality, it having been hijacked along the way by selfish, evil, individualist capitalists (thus the title). The book may as well have been named "The Breached Social Contract," after Rousseau's idea that more successful individuals in society owe something to less successful ones, a part of his general conception of freedom as the individual's subjection to the general or group will. Rather than appeal to Rousseau's clearly unChristian collectivist ideas, he attempts to wrap them in the Christian cloak of "covenant" in order to sell them to religious Americans. The idea that the biblical concept of covenant implies any form of collectivism is deeply flawed and represents a grave misunderstanding of scripture.

2: America as a Chosen People (36)

3: Salvation and Success in America (61)

4: Nativism and Cultural Pluralism in America (87)

5: The American Taboo on Socialism (112)

6: The Birth of New American Myths (139)

Mostly written by 1 May 2000; changed to html 9 Feb 2007 (cvr scanned)

Other books by Robert Bellah:
- The Broken Covenant, 1975 (own)
- Habits of the Heart, 1985 (w/others, own)
- Religion in Human Evolution, 2011 (Mustang, see rvw in br-bh)