To the Editor:
In his provocative Jan. 3 column, “We’re Living Through the Great Detachment,” David Brooks suggests that if young people would just be more religious and conservative, go to church or temple, fall in love and have babies, they would be happier, as if such things were rational choices, akin to deciding what college to attend or what career to pursue.
“Autonomy,” according to Mr. Brooks, is in opposition to “love.” But you don’t have to be a Marxist to see that economic conditions may have more to do with people’s reluctance to marry and start families than individual ambition. If you are unsure of how you will afford the cost of living, you are unlikely to take on the financial responsibility of parenthood.
Also unmentioned is the social fragmentation caused by our use of mobile devices and digital media, which are the cultural waters in which recent generations are swimming, and in some cases drowning.
The idea that people can, through acts of reason and will, overcome such cultural and economic realities to live more fulfilling lives assumes a degree of autonomy that is often not achievable.
Mr. Brooks’s personal anecdote about his first love implies that his feeling for his girlfriend was a conscious decision and not a biological urge. Such desires cannot be socially engineered. We are all creatures of our appetites, our milieu and our times.
Stephen Kessler Santa Cruz, Calif. The writer is a columnist for The Santa Cruz Sentinel.
To the Editor:
David Brooks writes that conservatives believe in “social obligations” while progressives tend to favor “more social autonomy to live whatever lifestyle you choose,” as if the latter leads to less social connection.
Advocating more emphasis on interpersonal commitment may be a sound universal goal, but I must take issue with the assumption that progressive values lead to more isolation.
Certainly, financial disparities and a reliance on technological communication play growing roles. And I disagree that women’s choices to have fewer children indicate a lack of social interest rather than concerns about the state of the world and a lack of community support for child rearing.
Progressive ideals and autonomy of choice can encourage connections and encompass a wide variety of interpersonal relationships while embracing personal choice. Widen the social safety net, and it will support connection and positive change.
For today’s example, look to the hope and social network embodied by New York’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
Page Burkholder Tucson, Ariz.
To the Editor:
I came across David Brooks’s column at a vulnerable moment, enjoying coffee by a fire very early on an extremely cold morning in northern New Hampshire. Having recently decided to retire and now contemplating my last semester of teaching high school physics, I was struck by Mr. Brooks’s characteristically eloquent insight.
My wife, in her relatively recent retirement, has thrown herself into the role of advocacy for children in troubled families. We have a shared project of training two spirited but extremely personable Belgian shepherds. I have happily imagined pursuing outdoor sports, playing music, reading philosophy and theoretical physics, and completing landscaping projects, as well as reconnecting with friends and family.
But choice is terrifying. How will I construct my loving constraints? Thank you for thoughtfully framing the problem.
Thomas Viles Lancaster, N.H.
To the Editor:
What David Brooks overlooks in his paean to attachment is the important difference between love and need. It is not attachment per se but the quality of attachment that is critical.
One who forms attachment out of undue need, to “complete” himself or herself, before one has acquired the personal strength to stand alone, often develops an unhealthy attachment. One who becomes attached to “get something” for oneself is less able to see the beloved apart from his or her own needs, and thus, less able to truly love the other person.
A certain detachment is a precursor to healthy attachment. This is consistent with spiritual traditions that counsel that a detachment from creaturely needs brings one closer to God’s love and, by logical extension, the capacity to love others unconditionally.
As the medieval Christian mystic Meister Eckhart wrote: “God’s natural place is unity and purity, and that comes from detachment. Therefore God is bound to give himself to a detached heart.”
Roliff Purrington Houston
To the Editor:
David Brooks traces our shift to individualism back to the 1950s. I trace it to 1979, the year I fell in love with my wife. You see, that’s also the year the Sony Walkman was introduced. No longer did we bond with others listening to vinyl records on a turntable. Everyone was encouraged to tune out the rest of the world with personal headphones.
When we were walking, running or just sitting in a public space, the message the headphones conveyed was “I am happy in my isolation.” And cellphones are just a manifestation of the Walkman on steroids. Not content with passive consumption of entertainment, these devices require 100 percent of our attention.
Meaningful interaction with people, especially the opposite sex, requires effort. Turning on our personal electronics is mindless.
Take out the earbuds, and give the phone a rest. There are more satisfying relationships to be had.
Eric Greene Annapolis, Md.
To the Editor:
Unlike David Brooks, I find it refreshingly hopeful that people are breaking free from conventional expectations that force a one-size-fits-all view on its meaning.
Maybe those who choose to live together, reject religious doctrine and question their own government have evolved beyond the status quo. And frankly, no one can truly gauge another’s love of anything. Love is not something to display to others; it is a personal emotion that shouldn’t require any particular presentation.
Marisela Padilla Downey, Calif.
To the Editor:
I admire David Brooks’s writing tremendously, even though we are not always politically aligned. That said, what this column failed to acknowledge is the imbalance in most heterosexual marriages in caring for children.
Why would a hard-working, college-educated woman want to settle for a life where she continues to work and contribute financially to the family while still doing most of the work in the home?
Until men start really changing with respect to family responsibilities (first and foremost, taking a real paternity leave) and accepting that work-life balance is not just for women, the number of people who marry and our country’s birthrate are going to continue to decline.
Deborah Meyers New York
The post In Search of Love and Meaning in a Changing World appeared first on New York Times.
