The Follower Problem By David Brooks Summary

The Follower Problem: A Deep Dive into David Brooks's Critique of Modern Society

David Brooks's "The Follower Problem," a recurring theme throughout his writings and columns in The New York Times, isn't a singular essay but rather a critique of modern societal trends. It centers on the perceived decline of strong, virtuous, and engaged followership, arguing that a lack of robust followership undermines leadership and ultimately weakens democratic societies and institutions. This deep dive will explore the core arguments of Brooks's critique, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and implications for understanding our current social and political landscape.

The Core Argument: A Crisis of Followership

Brooks doesn't argue that leadership is the sole problem; rather, he highlights a significant deficiency in the quality of followership. He posits that modern society fosters a culture of passive consumption, where individuals prioritize personal comfort and instant gratification over active engagement in civic life and robust participation in institutions. This passivity, he claims, undermines the very foundation of effective leadership and societal progress.

The Erosion of Traditional Institutions

A key aspect of Brooks's analysis is the erosion of traditional mediating institutions – churches, unions, community groups, and political parties – that historically fostered a sense of shared identity, purpose, and social responsibility. These institutions, he argues, provided frameworks for cultivating both leadership and engaged followership. Their decline has left a void, contributing to a sense of atomization and disengagement.

The Rise of Individualism and Consumerism

Brooks connects the decline of institutional life to the rise of individualism and consumerism. The relentless pursuit of individual fulfillment, often manifested through material acquisition and online validation, overshadows a commitment to collective goals and social responsibility. This emphasis on personal gratification, he argues, fosters a form of passive followership, characterized by apathy, cynicism, and a reluctance to engage in constructive dialogue or collaborative action.

The "Bobos" and the Problem of Elite Disconnect

Brooks often points to the rise of the "Bobos" (bourgeois bohemians), a class he identifies as possessing a superficial commitment to social justice and progressive values, while simultaneously prioritizing their own comfort and convenience. He criticizes this group for a lack of genuine engagement with the challenges facing broader society, suggesting their detachment contributes to a lack of strong followership that could hold leaders accountable.

Types of Followers and Their Deficiencies

Brooks doesn't simply label all followers as deficient. He distinguishes between different types of followers, highlighting their respective strengths and weaknesses:

The Cynical Follower:

This type of follower is deeply distrustful of authority and institutions, often characterized by negativity and a lack of constructive engagement. They may engage in online outrage but rarely translate their anger into productive action. They are passive recipients of information, often swayed by misinformation and conspiracy theories.

The Self-Absorbed Follower:

This follower is primarily focused on their own needs and desires, prioritizing personal advancement over collective goals. They are less likely to engage in acts of service or sacrifice for the common good. Their focus is inwards, not outwards towards contributing to a larger society.

The Engaged Follower (The Ideal):

This is the type of follower Brooks champions. The engaged follower is informed, critical, and actively participates in civic life. They hold leaders accountable, engage in constructive dialogue, and contribute to the collective good. They are active participants in shaping society's direction. This is the type of followership desperately needed to strengthen democratic institutions.

The Implications of Weak Followership

Brooks argues that weak followership has profound implications for society:

Weakened Democratic Institutions:

Without engaged citizens who hold leaders accountable and participate actively in the political process, democratic institutions become vulnerable to manipulation and corruption. The lack of robust followership allows for the rise of demagogues and the erosion of democratic norms.

Increased Social Polarization:

The decline of shared institutions and the rise of tribalism contribute to increased social polarization. Without a common ground, individuals become entrenched in their own viewpoints, making constructive dialogue and compromise increasingly difficult.

The Decline of Public Service:

When followership is weak, the motivation to engage in public service diminishes. Individuals are less likely to seek leadership roles, contributing to a shortage of talented and dedicated individuals committed to the common good.

Rebuilding Strong Followership: Brooks's Proposed Solutions

While his critique is often pessimistic, Brooks also offers suggestions for rebuilding strong followership:

Strengthening mediating institutions:

Brooks advocates for a revitalization of community organizations, churches, and other institutions that foster social cohesion and civic engagement. These provide crucial spaces for developing shared values, building trust, and cultivating a sense of collective purpose.

Cultivating Virtues:

Brooks stresses the importance of fostering virtues such as empathy, humility, and a commitment to the common good. These virtues, he argues, are essential for building strong and engaged followership. This requires a shift away from prioritizing individual achievement above all else.

Promoting Civic Education:

Improving civic education is vital to cultivating informed and engaged citizens. This means teaching critical thinking, encouraging active participation in civic life, and promoting a deeper understanding of democratic principles and institutions.

Emphasizing Deliberation and Dialogue:

Brooks argues for a greater emphasis on deliberation and dialogue across differing viewpoints. This requires fostering an environment of mutual respect and a willingness to engage in constructive conversations, even with those who hold opposing views.

Re-emphasizing Shared Narratives:

Strong societies, Brooks argues, require shared narratives and a sense of common purpose. This isn’t about uniformity of thought, but a shared understanding of the country's history, values, and aspirations.

Criticisms of Brooks's Analysis

While Brooks's critique raises important questions, it's not without its limitations:

Elitism and Nostalgia:

Some critics argue that Brooks's analysis exhibits a degree of elitism and nostalgia for a past that was far from perfect. His focus on traditional institutions overlooks the historical exclusion and inequality inherent in many of those institutions. The call for shared narratives can inadvertently suppress dissenting voices and marginalized perspectives.

Oversimplification:

The complexities of modern society and the diverse motivations of individuals are arguably oversimplified in Brooks's framework. The concept of “engaged followership” can be difficult to define and measure, and attributing societal problems solely to weak followership overlooks other crucial factors.

Lack of Concrete Solutions:

While Brooks offers suggestions, some critics argue that his proposed solutions lack sufficient concrete detail and actionable steps. The challenges of rebuilding institutions and fostering civic engagement are substantial and require more than general pronouncements.

Conclusion: A Call for Engaged Citizenship

Despite its limitations, "The Follower Problem" remains a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about the challenges facing democratic societies. Brooks's central argument – that the quality of followership is crucial for the health of democratic institutions – resonates even if the specifics of his analysis are debated. His work serves as a call for a more engaged and responsible citizenry, urging individuals to move beyond passive consumption and actively participate in shaping the future of their communities and nations. The challenge remains in translating this call into concrete action and addressing the systemic issues that contribute to weak followership in the first place. Ultimately, the strength of any society hinges not just on strong leadership, but on equally strong and virtuous followership.