- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
No matter how a man alone ain’t got no bloody fucking chance.
— Ernest Hemingway, To Have And Have Not
On March 1, 2017, I did something dumb. Call it an error of judgment.
The winter had been hellacious: Unusually cold and one heavy snowstorm after another. We were measuring the stuff in feet, not inches. The weather warmed up and the snow started melting off in late February, and I was itching to get out to the woods to burn some powder. We have a nice big cinder pit about five miles from my house called Zimmerman Butte, where ODOT mines cinders to spread on icy roads. It makes for a fine, expansive, safe shooting range.
I sent Rullman an e‑mail: “I’m heading out to scout the ingress to Zimmerman.”
You see where this is going…
I got maybe 500 yards off the highway when I determined that the snow was still too deep to make it back in to Zimmerman, so I turned around. And got stuck. Not shovel-your-way-out stuck. The differential of the truck was high-centered on solid snow and the rear wheels were spinning. I wasn’t going to be able to dig out of this one, not for several sweaty, swearing hours at least.
So, I called Rullman and our friend Pete Rathbun and they dropped what they were doing, grabbed tow straps and headed out and pulled me out of the fix I’d got myself in.
If you’ve got a couple of “help-me-bury-the-body” buddies who’ll do that sort of thing for you, you are a lucky man. I do, and I am.
*
The principle of Rugged Individualism is one of the foundational myths of American culture. Supposedly, it was Rugged Individualism that pushed the frontier ever westward and made the continent safe for ruggedly individualistic entrepreneurs to build the most spectacular economy the world has ever seen.
It’s mostly bunk. And in recent years I’ve come to believe it is especially insidious and pernicious bunk.
To start with, it’s ahistorical. For example: Our image of the Mountain Men, shaped mostly by movies like Jeremiah Johnson and most recently The Revenant, is of a lone man contending with the forces of nature and savage men (Indian or white) in a struggle for survival.
The reality is that fur trappers in the early 19th Century, like their Longhunter antecedents in the 18th Century, operated in groups. Fur trapping brigades numbered in the dozens of men, and were run along military lines. Brigades included trappers, hunters, camp-keepers, horse wranglers, and cooks and bottle washers. Even the elite Mountain Men, the Free Trappers who were not employed by or contracted to a fur company, operated in sizeable parties of men, often with Indian wives and mixed-blood children in tow.
Trapping God’s Country. Art by David Wright. http://www.davidwrightart.com
The reason is simple and self-evident: There was just too much work for a lone man to do and still make trapping profitable. And trapping alone was exceedingly dangerous. A lone trapper was easy pickings for hostile Blackfeet, and a bad fall or a horse wreck alone in the wilderness could be a death sentence.
Far from being a lone High Plains Drifter, the typical frontiersman was part of an outfit — often comprised of kinfolk and neighbors. American frontiersman Frederick Russell Burnham was famous at the turn of the 20th Century for his scouting exploits in Rhodesia and South Africa. He scouted and prospected from Alaska to Arizona, from Matabeleland to Mexico. He narrowly escaped death in the the First Matabele War in Rhodesia in 1893, evading a Matabele ambush in the company of his best friend and relative-by-marriage Pete Ingram.
Although frontiersmen are often portrayed as loners, Burnham lived in the Daniel Boone manner, combining adventure with business in the company of relatives.*
Frederick Russell Burnham (second from right, kneeling) was a scout in Rhodesia in the 1890s. His cowboy pard Pete Ingram (standing) always had his six.
Burnham led an effort to colonize the Yaqui country of Northwest Mexico, and when that project failed under the duress of the Mexican Revolution, he and his brother-in-law bought land in the Three Rivers country of the Sierra Nevada in California and established a kind of clan homeland with about 30 relatives and family friends. He called them his tribe.
That kind of clannishness is far more common in frontier history than the mythic lone gunman or the man alone against the wilderness. Yet the frontier myth is the Myth of Rugged Individualism, not the Myth of the Clan. Lay that to the myth-makers of the ideology of liberalism, which exalts the autonomy of the individual in the free market. The writers of Westerns — novels and movies — were operating in that ideological space, and the lone Western hero, separate from and often in opposition to the broader society, quickly became a trope.
*
The social and cultural decay of the 21st century demands a critical look at the Myth of Rugged Individualism. The valorization of radical individualism gives us the Ayn Rand hero, much in vogue among the libertarian right; the egoist unmoored from any responsibility beyond his own self-actualization. It bequeaths to our progeny an atomized society that breeds pathological loneliness and disengagement from constitutive relationships.
The prices of liberal, globalist modernity include rootlessness, detachment, an emptiness and desperation for identity that is easily exploited by commercial interests, a lack of community, and a lack of intra-national loyalty that encourages financial greed and insulates elites from the social responsibilities of nobility and the social penalties for betraying their kin, neighbors and countrymen. As the modern, liberal State is easily influenced by large amounts of money, it also insulates the wealthiest individuals from taking physical responsibility for their crimes and betrayals. **
Perhaps a mythology that is truer to our frontier history might serve us better — a mythology that valorizes the Clan.
Mark S. Weiner, in an essay arguing for the liberal State’s preservation of individualism against the “Rule of the Clan” acknowledges that clannishness has much to offer:
This radically decentralized socio-legal organization offers many profound benefits. Most important, it fosters a powerful sense of group solidarity. It gives persons the dignity and unshakable identity that comes from clan membership, and it generates a powerful drive toward social justice—a political economy that prizes economic equality. This makes it attractive. Artists in modern liberal societies often romanticize the rule of the clan for this reason.
As an artist and a romantic, I’m probably guilty as charged.
’Tis true that artists often romanticize the Clan. That‘s been the case at least since Sir Walter Scott put pen to paper in the early 19th Century.
Certainly, clannishness or “tribalism” has a downside — especially for those who don’t connect well with the ethos of the clan.
In clan societies… each member seeks to ensure that every other member of his or her clan acts honorably, generating powerful pressure toward social conformity.***
And Weiner rightly notes that individualistic liberal societies are rich while clan-based societies are relatively poor. Yet, our vaunted individual autonomy and wealth is not making us happier — and we seem to long for a sense of connectedness that we have sacrificed on their altar.
I can tell you this: If I have to choose between romanticizing the clan or valorizing the egoist, I’ll take the clan every time.
*
I am blessed to live among many friends who are to me as close as kin. Each of us is very much an individual — some of us colorful ones at that. Nobody is repressed by pressure for social conformity. I would argue that we all help each other become more fully ourselves and that we are stronger for the bonds of kinship and creativity that we have created amongst ourselves. I certainly feel, as the Ian Tyson song goes, “I am a better man for just the knowing of you.”
We are not less self-reliant for our connections — we strive to be more capable, more resilient so that we can better be of service to each other. We push each other; we hold each other accountable — not in some stern manner of judgement, but through the positive and internalized pressure of wanting to live up to each others expectations, to be worthy of honor in each others’ eyes.
And when one of us gets an itchy trigger finger and goes off and gets the truck stuck, well… the clan comes through. And he never will hear the end of it.
*
* Bradford & Bradford, An American Family on the African Frontier.
**Jack Donovan, The Clan vs. Modern State-Dependent Individualism.
*** Weiner The Rule of the Clan
Saddle Tramp says
Good piece Jim.
I appreciate your well balanced perspective.
I probably align with you more than you might suspect. I am for lack of a better description a social hybrid. My upbringing forced me into an outsiders perspective. Growing up I was a corporate transient with many transfers to diverse cultures and climates. Always the new kid. Made friends easily but also had to fist fight my way into acceptance on many occasions. I always thought outside the group bringing my varied experiences into play. Always stood up for the underdog and the shunned. I had a built in empathy. I could hang with anybody though. I never thought I could hold up the world alone. I am a family man too. I am an outsider or Lone Wolf in my thinking and approach to things. My current occupation affords lots of alone time thinking but is not exclusively so. A High Plains Drifter in the somewhat spiritual sense yes. Not a hermit. Not a cave dweller and not antisocial. It takes all the horses to get the load there. A double braided rope is stronger than a single braided one of equal strength. Leverage has it’s place too. Just as well though a snapping twig can cause a stampede in a nervous herd. It took two to bring us into this world and we did not arrive alone. Pulling together in the right direction is the key, just like with a tow rope on a bridged up pickup truck. It’s that right balance of quality alone time and shared time and true friends at the ready that counts.
As always, a thoughtful response. The individual/community dynamic can be tricky. I guess my “sweet spot” is a community of individualists — and I’m not being a smart ass. Could there be anything stronger than an outfit of vigorous, thinking, acting individuals pulling in concert?
I guess my “sweet spot” is a community of individualists — and I’m not being a smart ass. Could there be anything stronger than an outfit of vigorous, thinking, acting individuals pulling in concert?
Most my life and views have fallen in a centrist and balanced attitude. I agree with you on this.
Trying to stay at the ‘community’ scope but the example of what the U.S. achieved for mobilization in WW II comes to mind. If only other national scale issues could bring about such focus rather than division.
Irony of the 21st century?
I’ve never felt more ‘clan’ than in online communities I’ve become a part of.
One good EMP and I’m out of the tribe! 😀
Jeff Shanks suggested this is why pop culture conventions have ballooned in recent years. Online clans desire to meet in ‘real space.’ For many attendees it is not about the guests stars or the merchandise, it’s about getting together in person. For me that’s true. (Oh, I won’t deny the siren call of the dealers’ room, though.)
Not all is lost, though. Some of the parlaying of online acquaintances to real life can provide real life clans. For instance, I attend the yearly Northeastern (Horror) Writers Conference++. It’s four days of feeling comfortable with like-minded people. It’s a highlight every year.
(++ = Referred to as Necon or Camp Necon — not to be confused with “NeoCon” anything 😉
Not much good if my truck gets stuck, though fortunately I’ve made local friends through the group, too.
So, the Sisters Frontier Partisans / Running Irons Great Pow Wow of 2020 will be …? 😉
Moving online tribes into real space is a challenge, but a necessary one. I think the con example is on point — there’s a real hunger for real-deal connection. But the effort HAS to be to create an outfit in a local enough area that you can support each other in a hands-on fashion. Like pulling yo out of a snow-bog…
A pow-wow is a real good idea and could be something serious, fun and seriously fun…
RLT says
“A pow-wow is a real good idea and could be something serious, fun and seriously fun…”
I’ll second that. And there’s no better place to have big fires like the Oregon high desert…
Saddle Tramp says
Not that I can think of Jim. That’s what made this country after all. I am as much a Ben Franklin American as I am a Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln American. That is just to cover the political front. You know how much I abhor lists. Smart ass? Hell no! A smart [approach] I say…
Reader says
Your snowbound story brought these great lyrics to mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=engFg_pcPGI
Yep.
Steven says
” If I have seen further it is by…” A wonderful piece, it resounds well and helped reignite a fire in my belly. ‑SF
Thanks amigo.
Traven Torsvan says
You forgot to mention that the rocky mountain fur trapper of of the early 19th century was essentially forced into to what was an early version of a company store through the Rendezvous system, they could only sell their wares and buy supplies at prices that would ensure they would never make a profit.
True.
I don’t know that I’d completely agree with that, but what I’d note is that the entire fur industry was a type of industry, therefore involving a certain uncomfortable irony to it. That is, living in the region where the earlier trappers trapped (which is what we’re really talking about in this context, as trapping continued to this day and I’m fine with that), I’ve always admired them as men in the wild, and I always will. But they were also the long arm of manufacturing enterprise, and it was a very long arm indeed.
Anyhow, much of the focus on trappers is on “free trappers”, but an awful lot of them were agents of established enterprises and I don’t know that this made a lot of difference in their actual operations. The Hudson’s Bay Company had penetrated deep into North America long before the Corps of Discovery.
Relating back to this thread in a way, which I’m still pondering, it’s worth additionally noting that even seemingly solitary men formed pretty strong familial ties. Quite a few trappers had native wives and the common tenancy to dismiss those marriages as one of convenience is, I strongly suspect, a post era of settlement dismissal of them for somewhat racist reasons. More than a few frontiersmen were pretty well incorporated into Indian families. George Bent comes to mind. Kit Carson likewise comes to mind, with his (second) wife being from a well established Hispanic family. The entire Metis people form what is essentially another example.
MANY of those marriages were very real. Joe Meek, too. There was some prejudice against the mountain men who settled in the Willamette Valley in Oregon because of their native wives.
Breaker Morant says
You need this drive on your truck. If the Germans had these on their tanks, the Russian winter would not have been an issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo31_3UzTTY
Breaker Morant says
I haven’t studied Ayn Rand a lot, but I think she gets a bad rap that she may not deserve. If you look at “Atlas Shrugged” the core group in the book could easily be described as a “Clan.”
You have the philosophy professor and his 3 prize students. The professor becomes a fry cook or some such as he bides his time until the inevitible collapse of the system and the students are all working together towards the same goal and they are:
1) The pirate
2) The profligate playboy
3) That “John Galt” guy.
There is no better word to describe this group than “Clan.”
Fair point re: “Atlas Shrugged.” I confess, my reading of Rand is confined to some of her essays; I find her fiction turgid and unreadable. I will defer to your take on Galt’s Gulch, etc. Her essays certainly valorize the egoist.
I had a friend who got very interested in Rand and he got rather miffed at me for asking him how he squared her atheism with his evangelical Christianity. That’s a phenomenon I see a lot and I just don’t get it. You can’t set her atheism aside and hand-wave it away. It’s integral to the philosophy. But I digress.
I’ll be frank that Ayn Rand leaves me completely cold.
I’ll also be frank that Ayn Rand is somebody I’ve also never read, making my dismissal of her completely unfair.
Nonetheless, and I guess revealing a sympathy with the argument set forth in the main essay to a greater extent than I suppose, I’ve always found the entire thesis of Atlas Shrugged” to be somehow insulting to human dignity, which of course is quite a broad statement for somebody who hasn’t read it.
On Rand, a lasting aspect of this is that I have read an excellent essay on Rand in one of the older versions of The New Republic. I was a long time subscriber to the magazine until the current variant of it. One of the really good features of the magazine is that its book reviews were so good that you could tell whether you’d like a book or not based on the review irrespective of whether the reviewer like it, and that article may have been a review. What I recall, anyhow, is that Rand’s life didn’t back up her Shrugged thesis very well. She’d received assistance from her elder Russian Jewish relatives early on. She also kept around younger male “friends” in sort of a creepy way.
Anyhow, what this sort of points out is that the Self Made Man, often isn’t. And the ones who seemingly are, often don’t match our mental image of them.
In a multitude of ways. And the whole scene around her was very cult-like, including denunciations and sexual politics.
deuce says
Steve Tompkins died 9 years ago today. Here’s a little quote from him on “Americanness” and “absolute, anarchist freedom”:
‘But at least we have “The Thunder-Rider,” evidence that at the end of his life, in a state of mind bleaker than that of John Garfield in his skyscraping office, Robert E. Howard came to much the same conclusion as Philip Deloria in his study Playing Indian: “In the end, Indian play was perhaps not so much about a desire to become Indian—or even to become American—as it was a longing for the utopian experience of being in between.… Americanness is perhaps not so much the product of a collision of European and Indian as it is a particular working out of a desire to preserve stability and truth while enjoying absolute, anarchic freedom.” If the inner-directed outlets available to John Garfield and James Allison in their quests for “absolute, anarchic freedom” are denied to us, there is some consolation in our abiding ability to draw upon classic American artists like Hawthorne, Melville, and Faulkner, Sam Peckinpah and Cormac McCarthy, and at his best, Robert E. Howard—none of them much good at choking down pablum and placebos, all of them subversive in ways that no Congressional committee could ever weed out.’
Thanks Deuce. Tompkins had such a vivid voice.
And bless ’em for that.
Lane Batot says
Again, so much I can ramble on about regarding this subject, I’m gonna have to split things up to keep from getting “Timed Out” again!.….One thing this conversation reminded me of is that great old World War 2 movie classic “No Man Is An Island”, about the actual real character George Tweed, and his escape and evasion for over 2 years of the Japanese occupation of the island of Guam, which he never could have managed without the help of the local islanders, at great risk to themselves. SURELY(don’t call me Shirley) you guys have seen that great movie? A Frontier Partisans classic if ever there was one! If not, you MUST find a way to view it! A great modern survival-against-all-odds tale!
Yes!
Lane Batot says
.….and more personally, I do not think the REALITY of both “rugged individualism”, and clannishness or social ties of any kind are mutually exclusive; just as I feel regarding both evolution and creation, for example. There most certainly ARE isolated individualists, and personages like Daniel Boone often WERE out ranging around on their own–often for long periods(although they may have been assisted by a faithful dog or two!). And such personages and their philosophies HAVE shaped our view of certain social ideals, no question. What is often forgotten, or never realized, is that such “rugged loners” are often not living such “rugged” lifestyles by choice, but because they are ostracized by the society they lived among, and were eventually driven to be peripheral to. I know this scenario very well, because it is how my own life has been dictated. I live rather isolated from modern society for various reasons, but one is simply that most other humans are just not interested in the things I am, or the lifestyle I lead, and I am unwilling to conform to theirs simply for human social company! I have always REVELED in ANYONE who had any similar interests to mine, but they have been far and few between in my life, and usually quickly separated by circumstance and distance, much to my sorrow. Yet in no way would I wish to compromise my lifestyle to accomodate those who are derisive and disparing(and ignorant, I might add) to mine.…to be continued.….
And yet you behave like an honored member of our clan. The giving of gifts is an ancient and honorable act and you do it when personal finances militate against it.
Lane Batot says
Well, that’s just it–I have bumped into folks on the internet via blogs such as this one that I have far more in common with than anyone within hailing distance! And have had a chance to vent, swap tales, and share more than I ever have before(regarding human conversations)–with people I’ve never actually met! As I’ve said before about this modern internet phenomenon–weird but wonderful! And it IS an honor (and wonderful inspiration)to be a member of the FP/RIR clan!
Lane Batot says
.….Having ACTUALLY BEEN a “loner” for most of my life, I have always found it highly amusing how the term “loner” has this certain–decidedly masculine–romantic appeal for many, and how so many guys I’ve encountered describe themselves as “loners”–even though they may be married with kids, hang out every spare moment they get with other people at bars, sporting events, church, shopping malls,–can’t even THINK of going to see a movie in a theatre by themselves! And nowadays, such people are attached as with an umbilical cord to cell phones, chatting away with others all their waking hours! And there is not necessarily anything wrong with this, in my view, they simply are NOT “loners” in any way, shape, or form! And funny how rarely women refer to themselves as “loners”. It tends to be a male ideal in this particular modern culture. A lot of people that know me, refer to me as a loner, and though the circumstances of my lifestyle have dictated that there aren’t many humans in my life, I have had a rich social life living with all manner of non-human animals–mostly large packs of canines. And in wrangling and caring for and living intimately with such a pack most of my life, I really haven’t felt very “alone”! But it is indeed a curious phenomenon in our modern culture–this romanticizing of the rugged individualist in fantasy, but the tendency to reject and ridicule actual loners when they are encountered.….
I was going to say previously that you are a critter of the pack.
That’s interesting, accurate and worthy of some ponderation…
Matthew says
Probably because being a loner he is not part of the tribe (whatever tribe that is.) However, we all like to think that we are completely self-reliant (even thought that’s not possible.)
Saddle Tramp says
Introspection and aloneness is not a circumscription, but rather a inner dialogue with many benefits. Contrarily, if you only believe your own untested (by others) views and practices you may well be leaving yourself short of a better life. No single way is the way of course. Just the same it is better to be happy alone rather then miserable together (humans that is) if you cannot share in the necessary choices for a thriving life. Lane, this is your case in point as I understand it.
If you harm none what is the harm? No defense required. If you feel no deficit or lack and are self aware as to what you like and require then there is no issue. I strive for a balance and that “sweet spot” as Jim puts it so well. The term loner conjures up a negative connotation as to a damaged isolate unable to adjust to society. It may well just be the opposite (philosophically anyway) and advisable in so many ways. As to Hemingway’s quote above, if it fits wear it. Far from the maddening crowd or happily immersed in the thick of it greatly depends on my current frame of mind at the time. I leave no options out. I like ‘em both myself in their best forms. Paris never left Hemingway as he carried it everywhere with him, but Idaho and Cuba and Key West also held strong. My kind of way.
No apologies…
Reader says
Well said
Lane Batot says
.…Saddle Tramp’s comment made me wish to delve into my personal perspectives on the “loner” and “rugged individualism” a bit more.…It IS INDEED good to learn of and experience other people’s perspectives, to balance out one’s own philosophies, but I think it is FOLLY to not think things through FOR ONE’S SELF, and follow one’s own path, even if one is made quite alone in the process. A BLATANT example of this is the STUPID(no other word for it!) blindness and sheep-like conformist attitude most people have indulged in regarding things like smoking(tobacco and other substances), alcohol, and other drug use. Almost everyone gets addicted and so many destroy their health and their lives with these substances because they are NOT thinking for themselves, but blindly just trying to “fit in” with the social group around them. I have always found this incredibly inane, even at a young age, and this conclusion, and refusal to imbibe in such, has ostracized me from my “peers” more than any other factor(although there certainly ARE other factors, as no doubt I am admittedly a rather odd bird!.…). Though it has isolated me socially, it is something I’ve never regretted for a millisecond. And find sadly hard to understand–how the MAJORITY of humans can continue to screw up their lives(and help support the greatest source of crime and evil in modern history), with GENERATIONS of blatant examples all around them to warn against the STUPIDITY and IMMORALITY of imbibing in these slow poisons(rather the same way Warfarin works on rats–not killing them too quickly, because rats, at least, have the intelligence to avoid such substances once they realize this), without the majority eventually learning to avoid such pitfalls–just goes to show how incredibly, sometimes destructively strong such social peer pressures can be. And alas, in this recent cultural phenomenon, of being continuously “connected” via cell phones and computers, to the point where many people cannot comfortably go a single day with their own thoughts, such blind, idiotic herd behavior is only likely to get WORSE. Would the kids of today have the same desire to march on Washington regarding harmful recreational drugs–even though those ARE ILLEGAL, and the illegality of them has not slowed their mostly criminal origins a fraction. Anyway, it IS good to get by yerself(preferably within the sensible atmosphere of Mother Nature) and think your own thoughts on a regular basis, and exercise that self-preservation part of yer brain that seems so atrophied in most overly urbanized, never alone humans these days.….