I am at work right now, so I can only respond to the abstract.
One significant task for a future psychology
of optimal functioning is to deemphasize
individual freedom and to determine which
cultural constraints are necessary for people
to live meaningful and satisfying lives.
The big leap here is the assumption that the allegedly necessary cultural constraints have to be determined from the outside. Liberal democracies, especially the USA, allow overlapping cultural groups to provide such
constraints along with the safety valve of exit -- e.g. the Amish can
have their culture, but individuals who are sick of it can still survive
as "mere" Americans.
Now it is true that nominally "liberal" regimes sometimes try to choke off these groups. E.g. it is very unlikely that a new group as outlandish as the Amish would be allowed to form. But if you don't like such burka-banning tendencies, please note that the problem is not too much freedom, but too much constraint.
I don't think you're thinking about this properly. There's no safety net for someone who wants to quit being amish. They are free to leave, but they do not have the capacity to fend for themselves outside of the cult.
I think the larger problem is that you don't have a definition of freedom. You throw the word around like it has formal implications, but I challenge you to present one example of "freedom" that does not end up being oppression to someone else.
I'm using resources to post here. My internet is coal powered. Is that not oppressive to everyone? It doesn't matter that the answers are trivial. The point is that everything is scarce. Freedom is a meaningless concept unless you codify it. Liberty and justice are fundamentally at odds with each other. That's why we form governments.
I'm not sure how you got from "Amish" to "burka-banning." The Amish do not actively work to add outsiders to their group, and hardly seem outlandish in their interactions with the larger society.
The Amish need various carve-outs from state and federal laws which partially exempt them from compulsory education and certain labour laws.
But I suppose in a sense, that doesn't make them outlandish. They got those exemptions partly because they were a well liked group that were around in the US long before those laws. So in that sense, they are actually more American than, say, the New Deal.
As for burqas, I don't see what they have to do with attracting converts, nor do I see what is wrong with recruitment. Nor can I think of any justification for a burqa ban that is remotely as strong the justification for the laws which the Amish are exempted from.
I’ve only read the abstract (will read the full paper when I get home) and I think the authors are on to something. Our society with its emphasis on cold, mathematical calculation and material gain as the only valid measure of success, which proponents erroneously term "objective", while shunning the emotional "subjective" needs of people and leaving very little room for error, is becoming increasingly dehumanized.
The humanities = waste of time, STEM + markets = useful and objective [sic] ideology is bleeding the life force out of society. But people are not cold, hyper-rational machines. The academic Wendy Brown defined this system (which she calls neoliberalism) as follows:
What distinguishes neoliberalism is not simply a commitment to capitalism or to markets, but an effort to transform all spheres of human life in ways that render them amendable to economic calculation.
I think she is spot on. I am looking forward to reading this paper which seems to complement Brown's point. Thanks for posting it!
Psychological critiques of modernity are in my opinion the strongest criticisms of modern life (relative to sociological/philosophical/religious objections) and have quite a history, starting with Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents". But one frustrating commonality among these analyses is the difficulty of turning any of the insights into practical policy proposals.
I like this quote:
>A better (empirically more accurate and psychologically healthier) model of self-determination is, I think, akin to our understanding of human linguistic abilities. The capacity to use language is perhaps the single most liberating characteristic of human beings. It frees people in significant ways from the temporal and material limitations that afflict other organisms. People can say anything about anything, at any time, or in any place--even things, times, and places that have never existed--and they can be understood. Therefore, language is probably as vivid an embodiment of human freedom and self-determination as anything. But what decades of re- search on language ability have made clear is that the thing that makes the liberating features of language possible is that language is heavily constrained by rules. The reason people can say anything and be understood is that they can't say everything. It is linguistic constraint, in the form of these rules, that makes linguistic freedom possible.
I had that exact reaction: that this paper was the earliest (that I've seen) formation of the FOMO concept. It's interesting to think back to 2000 and, as you note, consider how much additional choice we're bombarded with today. Certainly a prescient paper.
One significant task for a future psychology of optimal functioning is to deemphasize individual freedom and to determine which cultural constraints are necessary for people to live meaningful and satisfying lives.
The big leap here is the assumption that the allegedly necessary cultural constraints have to be determined from the outside. Liberal democracies, especially the USA, allow overlapping cultural groups to provide such constraints along with the safety valve of exit -- e.g. the Amish can have their culture, but individuals who are sick of it can still survive as "mere" Americans.
Now it is true that nominally "liberal" regimes sometimes try to choke off these groups. E.g. it is very unlikely that a new group as outlandish as the Amish would be allowed to form. But if you don't like such burka-banning tendencies, please note that the problem is not too much freedom, but too much constraint.