September 15, 2026
This is a mild follow-up to why socialize in which I attempt to prescribe a particular way of being. To accept that socialization is good, one must select a particular framework which supports this opinion. In this, Whitman’s outlook toward others, portrayed especially in Mannahatta, is one such model.
Aside from a desire to socialize, a second form of failure is to characterize those like themselves as particularly virtuous (intelligent, gifted, etc.) versus a broader society. In my circles, I’ve seen this mode of thinking appear through the characterization of others as “NPCs”, “p-zombies”, etc. This is a mistake. The same is true for claiming that universal experiences apply only to your group (i.e., understanding).
In reality, everyone likely has a rich internal world. There exists some contingent of readers who will ask for proof, the initial stage of their soul sickness. It is unlikely that one alone is endowed with such a blessing. This is not to say that the range of internal human experience is altogether similar; even across time a singular mind’s perception of the world may change! But to claim that some are inherently less worthy of moral dignity fails an ethical test. While there is nothing wrong with a preference for certain traits, an entire exclusion of a category of others does a disservice to both oneself and the other by rejecting the possibility of hidden camaraderie and universal dignity. As well, by drawing a line around universal experiences for one’s in-group, they devalue those in the out-group. Any superiority-based outlook is distasteful.
On a positive view, Whitman sees throngs of people rushing into the street, welcoming them with open arms as he attempts to recognize their virtue. In Crossing Brooklyn Ferry he does the same, attempting to live in the world as if he were each passerby. This is an act of love. If we are to admit the felt experience of each among us into our own minds, we may afford each other our deserved respect. It is not that one must necessarily be a pacifist; differences exist such that there are those whom we should judge. Though, this pool of people is small.
Furthermore, Whitman reaches across time to connect over a shared humanity. We ought to assume those in different times had and will have similar experiences. This is my personal justification for acting in service of the future from a non-utilitarian lens. Suffering may always exist, and minimization of it into the future is another act of devotion.
Our obligation entails an openness for others; otherwise, we end up denigrating the other, thereby reducing both our and their dignity. When we hide ourselves within our groups defined by difference, we fail at a more transcendent love of the world. We are more alike than we are different.