The year was 1993. Just as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had fallen apart, and post-Soviet Russia had discarded her official adherence to Communism, The United States of America was about to embrace the ideas of a remarkable German-born Israeli-American sociologist, organized under the peculiar, similarly-sounding name “Communitarianism.”
What is the meaning of this suspiciously suggestive term “Communitarianism”? According to my intrepid old Webster’s Dictionary, “Communitarian is one who believes in, or is a member of, a communistic community.” Evidently, Communitarianism is an “-ism” having something to do with those “who believe in or are members of a communistic community”? Which, as I am finding out from more recent sources than my Webster’s, is not exactly the same thing, but not too far a cry either from what constitutes its modern-day attractiveness. In fact, both “old communitarianism” and” new communitarianism” are always about “community,” differing only in their prescribed dosage of the “communist” mother tincture.
Modern Communitarianism, particularly in the United States of America, is a response to the observed fact of a precipitous corruption of the foundations of American society, a fast-growing alienation of individuals from cohesive social groups, and a deepening degradation of the latter. Thus, the communitarian movement is presumably just an attempt to restore a sense of collective identity to American society, allegedly, without any effort on the part of the communitarians to set up communism in this country. Communitarianism, they say, “emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and argues that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities.”
What is the meaning of this suspiciously suggestive term “Communitarianism”? According to my intrepid old Webster’s Dictionary, “Communitarian is one who believes in, or is a member of, a communistic community.” Evidently, Communitarianism is an “-ism” having something to do with those “who believe in or are members of a communistic community”? Which, as I am finding out from more recent sources than my Webster’s, is not exactly the same thing, but not too far a cry either from what constitutes its modern-day attractiveness. In fact, both “old communitarianism” and” new communitarianism” are always about “community,” differing only in their prescribed dosage of the “communist” mother tincture.
Modern Communitarianism, particularly in the United States of America, is a response to the observed fact of a precipitous corruption of the foundations of American society, a fast-growing alienation of individuals from cohesive social groups, and a deepening degradation of the latter. Thus, the communitarian movement is presumably just an attempt to restore a sense of collective identity to American society, allegedly, without any effort on the part of the communitarians to set up communism in this country. Communitarianism, they say, “emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and argues that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities.”
The Communitarian Network in America was created in 1993 by Amitai Etzioni [born Werner Falk; in my understanding, the assumed name Etzioni means “I am from Zion”], that German-born Israeli-American sociologist mentioned in the opening of this entry. The professed communitarian agenda seeks to bolster social capital and the institutions of civil society. “Many social goals require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by support strategies, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and also for public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational, and social services are concerned.”
Judging by the sound of its name, “Communitarianism” would not be something that any aspiring American politician may openly want to support, although some of them, including President Clinton, have expressed their approval of Etzioni’s ideas, and President George W. Bush’s mostly declarative talk about the need for a public-private partnership in community programs, etc., under the umbrella of “compassionate conservatism,” sounds pretty much like an echo of Etzioni’s communitarianism, without having to say the bad word. Ironically, while these ideas seem likable enough for the politicians to raise them demagogically, the practice of them does not appear to be getting off the ground anywhere, and any time soon. There has to be a difference between capitalism and communitarianism, after all!In my understanding, movements, such as Communitarianism, are a reflection of the failure of capitalism in America to solve the greatest social problem of alienation within the American society, threatening to tear it apart, and making the presumably preposterous predictions of an eventual disintegration and breakup of the United States into a number of smaller countries independent of each other, somewhat less preposterous and less surreal than what appears as the natural first reaction for someone, like myself, educated in the glorious history of this nation and accustomed to admire her from afar, until coming face to face with her present-day reality, which is becoming more and more incongruent with her much admirable past.
No comments:
Post a Comment