[I present here a thoughtful essay by my long time friend and fellow liberal. It makes some thoughtful distinctions between the individual and the community based in part on what we both learned in Catholic schools in Iowa 1957-1965]
Greg Cusack March 27, 2021
Many years ago now, when mostly conservative religious voices began calling for the need for us to return to values, I actually resonated with that call, even though I recognized that the values they were calling for were primarily those that applied to personal behavior, sexuality issues specifically. If I recall correctly, this was during the 1970s when the US was reeling from the aftermath of the divisive Vietnam war and wrestling with many of the cultural issues raised during the 1960s.
I thought that their observation that the United States had become an overwhelmingly secular society that needed to rethink its direction was right on.
I promise that I am not going to be writing a moralistic lecture. Rather, I want to focus on what I believe has been lost in our conversations for some time – the revitalization of communitarian ethics. And, no, these are not the same thing as socialist rhetoric under a disguise!
Rather, a communitarian understanding stands in sharp contrast to an individualistic one, and it is this latter that pretty much represents our country’s mindset these days, as it has for some time.
Context
Communitarian thinking has always been something of an uphill fight in the United States, principally for two reasons: 1) we have been a largely Protestant nation from colonial days, and 2) our economic system is mostly lightly or unregulated capitalism.
Protestantism
For all of the positive consequences of the Reform movement of the 16th century – and there have been many, indeed! – the emphasis on the importance of attaining personal salvation, coupled with a me/thee relationship between each individual and God, have worked against communitarian perspectives. This has been particularly true of the more fundamental – and more recently, evangelical – branches of Protestantism.
Note: I write this as an observation and not as a criticism.
Unregulated Capitalism
Capitalism as an economic system has assumed something of a near sacred, hands-off-discussing subject matter in recent years. It is, from my perspective, America’s modern idol. Proponents of “free market” theory essentially argue that because the “market knows best” we are wise to ensure that government “keeps its hands free of attempts to regulate the market.”
I view this as nonsense. Economic systems are not divinely given; they exist subject to human laws and they are never“neutral.”
The Founders’ Perspective
The Founders of this nation knew this about capitalism, and placed (misplaced, from my perspective) their hopes on the ability of other forces – principally those derived from religious beliefs that emphasized the importance of the common goodover individual enrichment – to regulate capitalism through external restraints. This would be possible only if citizens placed appropriate priorities upon the proper education of their children regarding the vital importance of civic virtue, a perspective that kept in mind the larger needs of the whole community – local, state, and national – when weighing the aspirations and actions of individuals.
The Communitarian Perspective
What do I mean by a communitarian perspective? Simply, that when assessing how existing or proposed actions or systems we look at how they impact the larger community: those that help the community prosper, become healthier, with more people being able to experience life to the fullest are superior to those that do not or, worse, serve to degrade the life experience of many.
As a young city councilman, I remember my first confrontation with an ethic that had no place for communitarian perspectives. I was at a meeting in Davenport with a bunch of Realtors (my father was one for a good part of his adult life) and they were discussing the “highest and best use of land.”
- I found it fascinating how “undeveloped land” – that which lay idle or, most puzzlingly, was “just farmland” – had less value than “developed land,” meaning that which had been transformed for industrial or housing purposes. There was no discussion as to the impact of transforming specific pieces of land from agricultural usage to non-agricultural usage might have on: a) the food chain; b) the environment; c) local-sourced food as opposed to food that had to be shipped in.
- Another example that I encountered both as a city councilman and as a state legislator: When businesspeople talked about the cost of development they never factored in costs to the environment. For example, development “a” would require “x” amount of water. OK, the need for water was factored in but he consequences of the use of that water – what would its state be after being used: potable, polluted, contaminated, etc. – were not. Same for factories that spewed pollutants into the air through their emissions: the amount of energy they would need to operate was specified but the output of chemicals into the air we all breathed was not quantified or even seen as a concern.
Both instances represent non-communitarian ethical thinking. And so it is that while plant “x” or development “y” might have value for some, their overall impact on the many – i.e., the rest of us – was not considered at all.
In a nutshell, communitarian ethics represents taking a much larger perspective on all issues so that the good of the whole is always paramount. Thus, does taking this piece of farmland out of agricultural production benefit most of us or not? Might it, in fact, be harmful even to most of us?
Asking such questions, for free-market ideologues, is the equivalent of getting “guv-ment” overinvolved in what is “none of its business.” It amounts to – shudder – socialism.
I think this is just so much noise! I am not speaking about an ideology here but, rather, an ethical approach that always keeps everyone in mind, not just those with the most money or the loudest voice.
Applications of Communitarian Ethics
Let me offer just the briefest of examples of how communitarian ethics could alter some current hot-button issues.
Gun Control Issues
Ah, yes, one of the third rails of modern politics. Frankly, the whole “debate,” such as it is, has failed to bring the appropriate context to bear by which to assess what should be done.
And, as an integrated aside, let me just mention something about “everyone’s favorite rifle” in the US – the AR15. This is a “civilian” adaptation of a weapon designed for the military. What most citizens do not know is that its muzzle velocity is three times that of a hunting rifle.
When JFK was assassinated in 1963, his murderer used a hunting rifle and, as you know, his shot to JFK’s head blew off a good portion of the president’s forehead, taking much of his brain with it. By comparison, an AR15 would explode the entire head.
The AR15 is designed so that, shortly after the bullet leaves the barrel, it begins to tumble. Therefore, the relatively small, stream-lined bullet does not cleanly enter and push through a body but, rather, slams into it, the effect being that vicious shock waves pummel and smash nearby organs. This is one of the reasons why body counts are so much higher when such weapons are used. Being “slightly wounded” by an AR15 is still devastating.
So, on the matter of gun control and allowing civilians to purchase military style weapons such as the AR15: the NRA would like us to believe that this is about a constitutional right for all citizens, when the proper question should be: what are the consequences to the community of allowing some to obtain such weapons?
[BTW, I don’t buy the 2nd amendment argument, as it is a severe distortion from what that amendment says; it was clearly written so that citizens could band together as community militias to defend their communities, at a time when there were no organized police forces.]
If we were to take a larger communitarian view, then both the idea of prohibiting certain types of weapons from civilian ownership [if AR15s why not bazookas or flame throwers?] and of performing background checks with waiting periods seems to be a wise solution.
All by moving the perspective from individual rights to community needs.
Fair Wage Issues, including that of a Just Minimum Wage
As a youth back in the day when the Catholic Church believed in social justice and community, I was taught about the right of each person to earn a living wage. Such a wage would allow a single breadwinner to provide for his/her family without having to work two or more jobs (or without having both partners having to work one or two jobs). This was an elemental right!
So how is it that the United States of America has allowed so many “jobs” to exist that do not pay a living wage?
Think of the farmworkers, a majority of whom these days are immigrants or recent immigrants; think of fast-food workers, Uber drivers, and others forced to contract out their labor without assurance of adequate minimum wage, decent health and retirement benefits, etc.
Why do we allow this? For our convenience?
Think about this! Must wages for some remain sub-par so that some of us pay less for food or other items? Is this just? Aren’t we all riding upon the backs of the less fortunate by allowing this to continue?
Many argue that the firm or profession “can’t afford to pay any more because of competition.” Well, who sets the rules for competition?
Moreover, in the larger picture, even if “I” and other citizens end up having to pay more for fast-food or items of clothing because those enterprises start offering a living wage, since all of us will have living wages we will be able to afford them and know that we are contributing to a society in which all live in sufficiency, rather than in a country where some live in obscene surplus and millions of others strive to keep out of dire poverty.
A just minimum wage is one way of approaching this problem. However, in doing so, I think it advisable not to try to design a “one size fits all” package. We know that goods and services cost differently in various parts of the country. The issue, then, ought to be what is a living wage in community or region “x.” Even if that amount is less than community or region “y,” if it is a living wage in “x” that is sufficient. Let areas “y” having a living wage appropriate to their own conditions.
Conclusion
We desperately need to move from the selfish, individual-centered ethics that dominate our time to an older, more inclusive, and more just communitarian ethical system. We would all be vastly better for it!
Communitarian Ethics
Greg Cusack March 27, 2021
Many years ago now, when mostly conservative religious voices began calling for the need for us to return to values, I actually resonated with that call, even though I recognized that the values they were calling for were primarily those that applied to personal behavior, sexuality issues specifically. If I recall correctly, this was during the 1970s when the US was reeling from the aftermath of the divisive Vietnam war and wrestling with many of the cultural issues raised during the 1960s.
I thought that their observation that the United States had become an overwhelmingly secular society that needed to rethink its direction was right on.
I promise that I am not going to be writing a moralistic lecture. Rather, I want to focus on what I believe has been lost in our conversations for some time – the revitalization of communitarian ethics. And, no, these are not the same thing as socialist rhetoric under a disguise!
Rather, a communitarian understanding stands in sharp contrast to an individualistic one, and it is this latter that pretty much represents our country’s mindset these days, as it has for some time.
Context
Communitarian thinking has always been something of an uphill fight in the United States, principally for two reasons: 1) we have been a largely Protestant nation from colonial days, and 2) our economic system is mostly lightly or unregulated capitalism.
Protestantism
For all of the positive consequences of the Reform movement of the 16th century – and there have been many, indeed! – the emphasis on the importance of attaining personal salvation, coupled with a me/thee relationship between each individual and God, have worked against communitarian perspectives. This has been particularly true of the more fundamental – and more recently, evangelical – branches of Protestantism.
Note: I write this as an observation and not as a criticism.
Unregulated Capitalism
Capitalism as an economic system has assumed something of a near sacred, hands-off-discussing subject matter in recent years. It is, from my perspective, America’s modern idol. Proponents of “free market” theory essentially argue that because the “market knows best” we are wise to ensure that government “keeps its hands free of attempts to regulate the market.”
I view this as nonsense. Economic systems are not divinely given; they exist subject to human laws and they are never“neutral.”
The Founders’ Perspective
The Founders of this nation knew this about capitalism, and placed (misplaced, from my perspective) their hopes on the ability of other forces – principally those derived from religious beliefs that emphasized the importance of the common goodover individual enrichment – to regulate capitalism through external restraints. This would be possible only if citizens placed appropriate priorities upon the proper education of their children regarding the vital importance of civic virtue, a perspective that kept in mind the larger needs of the whole community – local, state, and national – when weighing the aspirations and actions of individuals.
The Communitarian Perspective
What do I mean by a communitarian perspective? Simply, that when assessing how existing or proposed actions or systems we look at how they impact the larger community: those that help the community prosper, become healthier, with more people being able to experience life to the fullest are superior to those that do not or, worse, serve to degrade the life experience of many.
As a young city councilman, I remember my first confrontation with an ethic that had no place for communitarian perspectives. I was at a meeting in Davenport with a bunch of Realtors (my father was one for a good part of his adult life) and they were discussing the “highest and best use of land.”
- I found it fascinating how “undeveloped land” – that which lay idle or, most puzzlingly, was “just farmland” – had less value than “developed land,” meaning that which had been transformed for industrial or housing purposes. There was no discussion as to the impact of transforming specific pieces of land from agricultural usage to non-agricultural usage might have on: a) the food chain; b) the environment; c) local-sourced food as opposed to food that had to be shipped in.
- Another example that I encountered both as a city councilman and as a state legislator: When businesspeople talked about the cost of development they never factored in costs to the environment. For example, development “a” would require “x” amount of water. OK, the need for water was factored in but he consequences of the use of that water – what would its state be after being used: potable, polluted, contaminated, etc. – were not. Same for factories that spewed pollutants into the air through their emissions: the amount of energy they would need to operate was specified but the output of chemicals into the air we all breathed was not quantified or even seen as a concern.
Both instances represent non-communitarian ethical thinking. And so it is that while plant “x” or development “y” might have value for some, their overall impact on the many – i.e., the rest of us – was not considered at all.
In a nutshell, communitarian ethics represents taking a much larger perspective on all issues so that the good of the whole is always paramount. Thus, does taking this piece of farmland out of agricultural production benefit most of us or not? Might it, in fact, be harmful even to most of us?
Asking such questions, for free-market ideologues, is the equivalent of getting “guv-ment” overinvolved in what is “none of its business.” It amounts to – shudder – socialism.
I think this is just so much noise! I am not speaking about an ideology here but, rather, an ethical approach that always keeps everyone in mind, not just those with the most money or the loudest voice.
Applications of Communitarian Ethics
Let me offer just the briefest of examples of how communitarian ethics could alter some current hot-button issues.
Gun Control Issues
Ah, yes, one of the third rails of modern politics. Frankly, the whole “debate,” such as it is, has failed to bring the appropriate context to bear by which to assess what should be done.
And, as an integrated aside, let me just mention something about “everyone’s favorite rifle” in the US – the AR15. This is a “civilian” adaptation of a weapon designed for the military. What most citizens do not know is that its muzzle velocity is three times that of a hunting rifle.
When JFK was assassinated in 1963, his murderer used a hunting rifle and, as you know, his shot to JFK’s head blew off a good portion of the president’s forehead, taking much of his brain with it. By comparison, an AR15 would explode the entire head.
The AR15 is designed so that, shortly after the bullet leaves the barrel, it begins to tumble. Therefore, the relatively small, stream-lined bullet does not cleanly enter and push through a body but, rather, slams into it, the effect being that vicious shock waves pummel and smash nearby organs. This is one of the reasons why body counts are so much higher when such weapons are used. Being “slightly wounded” by an AR15 is still devastating.
So, on the matter of gun control and allowing civilians to purchase military style weapons such as the AR15: the NRA would like us to believe that this is about a constitutional right for all citizens, when the proper question should be: what are the consequences to the community of allowing some to obtain such weapons?
[BTW, I don’t buy the 2nd amendment argument, as it is a severe distortion from what that amendment says; it was clearly written so that citizens could band together as community militias to defend their communities, at a time when there were no organized police forces.]
If we were to take a larger communitarian view, then both the idea of prohibiting certain types of weapons from civilian ownership [if AR15s why not bazookas or flame throwers?] and of performing background checks with waiting periods seems to be a wise solution.
All by moving the perspective from individual rights to community needs.
Fair Wage Issues, including that of a Just Minimum Wage
As a youth back in the day when the Catholic Church believed in social justice and community, I was taught about the right of each person to earn a living wage. Such a wage would allow a single breadwinner to provide for his/her family without having to work two or more jobs (or without having both partners having to work one or two jobs). This was an elemental right!
So how is it that the United States of America has allowed so many “jobs” to exist that do not pay a living wage?
Think of the farmworkers, a majority of whom these days are immigrants or recent immigrants; think of fast-food workers, Uber drivers, and others forced to contract out their labor without assurance of adequate minimum wage, decent health and retirement benefits, etc.
Why do we allow this? For our convenience?
Think about this! Must wages for some remain sub-par so that some of us pay less for food or other items? Is this just? Aren’t we all riding upon the backs of the less fortunate by allowing this to continue?
Many argue that the firm or profession “can’t afford to pay any more because of competition.” Well, who sets the rules for competition?
Moreover, in the larger picture, even if “I” and other citizens end up having to pay more for fast-food or items of clothing because those enterprises start offering a living wage, since all of us will have living wages we will be able to afford them and know that we are contributing to a society in which all live in sufficiency, rather than in a country where some live in obscene surplus and millions of others strive to keep out of dire poverty.
A just minimum wage is one way of approaching this problem. However, in doing so, I think it advisable not to try to design a “one size fits all” package. We know that goods and services cost differently in various parts of the country. The issue, then, ought to be what is a living wage in community or region “x.” Even if that amount is less than community or region “y,” if it is a living wage in “x” that is sufficient. Let areas “y” having a living wage appropriate to their own conditions.
Conclusion
We desperately need to move from the selfish, individual-centered ethics that dominate our time to an older, more inclusive, and more just communitarian ethical system. We would all be vastly better for it!