Self-Renunciation vs. Self-Love Theme Analysis

In The Road to Character, David Brooks challenges modern culture’s approach to character. Early in the book, he describes listening to a radio program that aired a few days after the Allied victory in World War II. Struck by the host’s humility in the face of victory, Brooks couldn’t help comparing the program’s tone to the excessive self-praise in modern culture. To explain this contrast, Brooks suggests that there are two competing moral cultures within American culture: the first, older culture was one of moral realists who believed in self-renunciation and the flawed nature of human beings. The second was a culture of moral romanticists who, after the Great Depression and World War II, were so eager for happiness that they began to view humans as inherently good and worthy of self-love. Though Brooks admits that the latter view was beneficial for some social justice movements, he cautions against the excesses of moral romanticism: when taken too far, it turns into a meritocracy in which people focus only on external success and overlook the need for community. On the other hand, though moral realism had drawbacks, it encouraged people to battle their weaknesses and put community before personal desire. Through his concept of contrasting moral cultures, Brooks argues that a culture of self-renunciation is ultimately more beneficial to the self than a culture of self-love.

The culture of moral realism, or self-renunciation, is based on the idea that human nature is inherently untrustworthy. Moral realists held that human beings were likely to do bad things if they did not confront and restrain themselves. They believed that “character is built in the struggle against [one’s] own weaknesses,” suggesting that they were constantly aware of their own flaws. Moreover, moral realists did not believe they could complete themselves. Knowing that “no person can achieve self-mastery on his or her own,” the moral realists sought the support of friends, family, tradition, or God in their endeavor to build character. This shows that they believed in the incompleteness of human nature, but believed they could become complete through dedication to things outside themselves. In general, the moral realists were defined by humility. Since they believed in their own flaws, they resisted self-praise, pride, and extroversion. Therefore, moral realism involved a low opinion of human nature and was characterized by self-renunciation.

In contrast to moral realism, the culture of moral romanticism emerged out of society’s need to feel positive about the self. While the culture of moral realism held that human nature was a combination of both good and bad impulses, with a constant need to restrain the bad, the culture of moral romanticism held that human nature was inherently good. This led to maxims like “trust yourself,” “believe in yourself,” and “follow your dreams.” Moreover, moral romanticism reversed moral realism’s belief that the self was untrustworthy. Instead, moral romanticism held that the external world was untrustworthy, while the inner self was inherently trustworthy. This empowered the individual to create their own worldview and to try to thrive without support from others. Lastly, moral romanticism released people from moral obligations. Since it instructed people to believe in their feelings instead of relying on external structures to guide their feelings, individuals came to use their feelings as moral guides. According to Brooks, this allowed people to justify all their actions and caused people to spend little time on moral improvement.

Despite moral romanticism’s seeming positivity, Brooks argues that it actually leads people into habits that are damaging to the self. First of all, moral romanticism causes people to focus entirely on external success as opposed to inner character. Since it is founded on the belief that each person has natural talents, people came to view “the self as a resource to be cultivated,” and not as an inner life to be developed. Furthermore, because moral romanticism holds that a person’s desires are “oracles of what is right and true,” each person became their own guide. Therefore, individuals overcame the need for others to help them get on the right moral path (or so they believed). In this way, moral romanticism leads to isolation and lack of community. Lastly, Brooks argues that moral romanticism makes people morally inarticulate. Because everyone believes that their feelings guide them to what is right, everyone focuses on what they want to do, rather than what they should do—placing internal desires above objective morality. Ultimately, then, people find themselves unable to even conceive of moral standards outside themselves. Therefore, moral romanticism turns society into a meritocracy—a state in which people disregard questions of morality altogether. This leads people to view themselves and others simply as products of their external achievements. This is damaging because it neglects the internal, moral side of human nature, leaving people partially satisfied, at best.

Through contrasting moral realism and moral romanticism, Brooks identifies what, in his view, is truly beneficial for the self. On the surface, a culture of love seems better for the self than a culture of self-renunciation, but Brooks argues that this is actually not the case. Throughout The Road to Character, he develops the argument that what challenges, limits, and restrains the self paradoxically ends up developing the self’s worth. In contrast, the habits of self-expression and of validating one’s feelings only undermine self-development and, in the process, destroy the bonds that hold together a community. Only through moral realism’s understanding that people are imperfect and in need of outside help does a person open themselves to the possibility of becoming great.