|
September 14, 2006
Deep, dark, irrational communitarian confessions
Every once in a while, an event will remind me of the intractable differences between communitarians and individualists. The latest is the Montreal shooting, which (as I remarked earlier) has already triggered various communitarian outbursts of emotion. Almost despairingly, I agreed with a Canadian blogger who remarked, simply, that there is "no one to blame but the shooters." By asking "what makes that such a difficult concept?" I touched on the morass that so plagues me. I don't think there is any greater single driving force behind this blog than my inability to answer that question. It's not as if I don't understand the communitarian impulse. I grew up in an environment in which altruism was not only encouraged, but was almost beaten into me. Like many kids, I got the religious lectures, I heard that we were all like little sheep who needed herding by some Jesus or another, and (despite my poor appetite and small sickly status), I was made to clean my plate because there were starving peasants in Asia. I learned to stifle any hint of eyeball rolling, lest I literally be clobbered by communitarianism. I grew up feeling responsible for poverty around the world, and of course in Philadelphia. I was angry and wanted to do something about it, of course, and I gravitated towards Marxism, and support for the Black Panther Party. Life in Berkeley did not help. I continued to feel -- and be held -- responsible for countless vicious crimes against humanity, and but for the intervention of the AIDS virus I might yet harbor communitarian tendencies. But something happened, and I just burned out. Perhaps it was because there were so many people dying around me and I was running around being a nurse and an international smuggler of AIDS drugs, but there was just something about being told at the wrong time(and one time too many) that I had never suffered because I was a white man that pushed me too far. At some point in there I realized -- I mean really, internally realized -- that I was not responsible for the conduct of other people. Hell I wasn't even responsible for the presence of the AIDS virus in people! (An amazing thing, because people told me that I was, even though I was HIV negative, because of a remarkable communitarian concept often called a "climate.") You could say I was beaten down by thoughtless communitarians, I suppose. That not all communitarians are that way. True, they aren't. But I get a little tired of being told I am responsible for things I didn't do. I have a gun, therefore I killed the kids at Columbine, and now Montreal. I voted for Bush, therefore, my hands are bloody with innocent victims of torture. I blog, so I am responsible for comments made by other bloggers. Etc. My point is pointless though, because this will never be solved. While I don't think this is genetic, I do think that whether one thinks along communitarian or individual lines is formed in childhood. Some kids develop that way, and others don't. Some grow out of it, and others (like me) have sudden epiphanies of individualism. But the bottom line is, there are two very different, wholly incompatible ways of looking at the world. This is not as easy as a left versus right political split. While it has long seemed to me that the vast majority of communitarian thinkers are on the left, the fact is, there are many moderates who think this way, and a considerable number on the right -- especially, though not always, the socially conservative right. (I said "not always" because I maintain that it is possible to be a moral conservative and an individualist.) Wherever they are on the spectrum, there is just no way to reconcile the views of people who blame a shooter for his crimes with the views of people who blame other people, or other things. Communitarians will look at a shooter and see guns, clothing, haircuts, Columbine, Charlton Heston, and even Dick Clark as implicated. It comes naturally, and I think it starts with little things, early in life. Things like having to eat food because others are starving. Communitarianism is said to be based on the notion of the greater common good, and while there is such a thing (after all, that's why we have governments), it gets so carried away that debates can become exercises in mind-numbing sloganeering. From an earlier post, here are a few examples: The Local Living Economies Movement is about:Some people who read the above will roll their eyes like I do. Others will nod their heads in agreement. But having a rational discussion? Much as I try, sometimes it seems that dialogue between the rational (the logical) and the irrational (the illogical) is itself irrational -- especially here, when there is no agreement on what is rational or logical. So why write a blog post about this? Might I harbor an irrational belief that incompatible views can be reconciled? It might be a lingering hangover from years of communitarian thinking, but I still think that dialogue is a good idea. Let's take the idea of "living economies" as a starting point. The living economies movement is based upon the principle that the small proprietorship is a better business model than the large corporation. Fine. I can see their point, and I understand many of their arguments. It's a little like vegetarianism. If you think it's a good healthy thing, then by all means do it. You like socialism, by all means start a living cooperative, and live your dream. You don't like guns, don't buy one. The problem for me starts when the people who believe in these things want to reach out and stop me from eating meat, owning a gun, starting a corporation, etc. I am not trying to make them eat meat or own guns, and it strikes me as unfair that they would do to me what I wouldn't do to them. So, my argument always comes down to the right to be an individual capable of individal decisions -- which doesn't seem to count to those who don't believe in the individual, or individual rights. And so, dialogue over these things ultimately reaches a dead end called the power of the state. That doesn't mean dialogue is unimportant, though. History shows what can happen when these arguments get out of hand. posted by Eric on 09.14.06 at 10:50 AM
Comments
Hi, this post actually made me want to stop my usual silent lurking and throw in my two cents as I was wondering exactly the same thing before I read it. I am a 26 years old french canadian living in Quebec City, so you can guess the kind of comments I have heard from poeple around me since it happened. One of my friend's first reaction was to say that she hates guns, while my first was rather to hate the shooter. I am still trying to understand it, and I don't think I will ever be able to, but maybe explain part of it. Fred · September 14, 2006 12:42 PM Back when I was a small boy (around 1962) Mom would tell us to clean our plates, telling us that, "Children are starving in China." Until I asked, "Since they're starving, why don't we send the food to them?" After that she would just tell us to clean our plates. Alan Kellogg · September 14, 2006 07:07 PM Good question. Maybe I'm confused here, but maybe this communitarian thinking is an offshoot of Kantian ethics, the idea that you can't do something which causes an insignificant amount of harm because if everybody did it there would be a massive amount of harm. Like pissing on the corner. No big deal, really, unless everybody does it. If you reverse that, then you get the idea, what if everybody gave just 1% of their earnings to charity, imagine the good that would do! I think of this more as utopian thinking than communitarian thinking, though. And in the end utopian thinking always does more harm than good because human beings simply won't do what a utuopia requires. Some will, yeah, but that gives an unfair advantage to those who won't, which means more people won't. And it punishes the best of society and rewards the worst. So people who are just, who were trying to abide by this crazy social contract, cheat out of a sense of justice. So more people get worse. So you end up with a Mao or a Stalin trying to kill all the people who won't, out of a sense of justice, but you'd have to kill everybody for that to work. And so on. The whole thing is stupid. Harkonnendog · September 14, 2006 09:33 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The other side of ascribing a profound level of blame to acts that are essentially random is the often noxious notion that human happiness can somehow, if we are smart enough, be engineered into permanence. The idea can be an exciting infection among the young, and yet play into a festering mental sore if it remains untreated into middle age.
It is valuable to analyze events for deeper significance, but the undertow often calls for the result to come first: a reason to be given to even the inexplicable.