tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post114080873205157700..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: Still Chewing...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1141323431869771672006-03-02T12:17:00.000-06:002006-03-02T12:17:00.000-06:00One way of thinking about this distinction between...One way of thinking about this distinction between local communitarianism and national libertarianism can be found in the work of Michael Oakeshott. Oakeshott distinguishes between two types of human association. The first type, which he calls enterprise association, entails a community of choice and circumstance united by a common substantive goal, while the second type, which he calls civil association, involves a community of common beliefs, institutions, and practices united by common procedures. According to Oakeshott, it is only within a state conceived as a civil association that a great variety of smaller communities or enterprises can flourish. Conversely, the state understood as an enterprise association is a moral enormity precisely because, contrary to Mr. Locke, et al., it is compulsory and, as evidenced by the growth of centralized warfare/welfare state in the West, because it cannot coexist with other enterprise associations within its borders.<BR/><BR/>For example, the Soviets hated nothing more than the small, independent farming community because it could not be co-opted in the grand pursuit of the New Jerusalem. For example (two), Wendell Berry's (sometimes exaggerated) comparison of the totalitarian character of the American government's agricultural policy blames that policy, at least in part, on the contemporary conception of the American polity as some Baconian productivist enterprise.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Mr. Goldberg represents almost everything that is wrong in what passes as American conservatism today.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>Ken McIntyre <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2006/02/still-chewing.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="kbrmcintyre at yahoo dot com">kenneth mcintyre</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1141043295803323652006-02-27T06:28:00.000-06:002006-02-27T06:28:00.000-06:00"I find your appreciation for 'egalitarianism' int..."I find your appreciation for 'egalitarianism' interesting in that this 'ism' has its roots in the anti-traditionalist reaction that is the Enlightenment. Your identification of Prof. Taylor seems quite appropriate. Prof. Taylor, does as good a job as any, in attempting to reconcile opposites--tradition and egalitarianism--most cogently in his <I>Sources of the Self</I> . In the end, humbly: it seems somewhat contrived to me."<BR/><BR/>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (if that isn't already too liberal!) on this point, Michael. Obviously, mounting a defense of what Taylor is doing through <I>Sources</I> and in his other writings is a major project; for the moment, I'll just argue that I don't think there is reason to accept that the goods associeted with the liberal order, such as egalitarianism, are available solely through an anti-traditionalism. Secularism and liberalism paralleled each other, but do not completely define one another; plenty of early liberal thinkers, including Locke, assumed a background continuity of religious tradition which made their interpretation of nature feasible. (See Jeremy Waldron on this point.) Taylor is no great friend of Locke (and neither am I), but his point holds--the problem has not been, I think, modernity's destruction of community and tradition, but an interpretation of the self which it makes possible that masks community, makes it easy to dismiss it or forget about it. Taylo doesn't think the moral sources which make for strong evaluation can disappear, but we can just forget where they are.<BR/><BR/>"I also recognize the efforts of Dr. David Walsh--a professor of mine who sparked my interest in political theory not so many years ago--specially in his work <I>The Growth of the Liberal Soul</I>. He has also attempted to reconcile liberalism and tradition--in fact, positing that liberalism is a tradition. The latter I find convincing to a point."<BR/><BR/>Were you a Catholic University student? That's where I received my Ph.D. I wasn't as close to David as some other grad students, but I admire his work a great deal all the same. He sees "tradition" expressed within and through modernity as operating in a different ontological mode than I, I believe; while he was interested in Taylor, he was never as convinced of his importance as I am. David is perhaps more influenced by a perspective which places Catholicism deep in the heart of the modern liberal order: liberal rights follow from natural law and so forth. I may be doing his thought an injustice, but I think modern subjectivity suggests the necessity of seeing liberal goods as instantiated through a different process. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="ra-fox at wiu dot edu">Russell Arben Fox</A>Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1141042140690024052006-02-27T06:09:00.000-06:002006-02-27T06:09:00.000-06:00"One thing I would like to see addressed....is wha..."One thing I would like to see addressed....is what I see as an unacknowledged tension between a communitarian-living-close-to-the-land-and-kin kind of philosophy and the religous faith that many CCs seem to hold dear. After all, Christianity at any rate seems quite often to be disruptive of tight-knit families and communitites."<BR/><BR/>That's an interesting question, Lee; I haven't gotten a hold of a copy of the book either, so I don't know if Dreher addresses this theme. Clearly, there's a sense in which communitarians like myself can go too far, and elide over the deeply individualizing, liberating force of Christianity. For a true Christian, as much as Babylon can be seen as an enemy at the gates of the family or the community, it's not as though those things can't become fetishes also. The only theological response I can come up with right now might be a reminder that Christian communities always have to involve and/or arise from a kind of personal interiority, a realization of being together with others through a process that begins from within. That is, every community has to have a healthy respect for subjectivity. Which I suppose means that Christians, as individuals in the public world, ought to at least have a prudential appreciation for those political orders which do not ascribe <I>too</I>  much objective power to families or communities in the first place. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="ra-fox at wiu dot edu">Russell Arben Fox</A>Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1140817753225941682006-02-24T15:49:00.000-06:002006-02-24T15:49:00.000-06:00"In other words, I think we're in agreement that G..."<I>In other words, I think we're in agreement that Goldberg is completely missing the boat.</I> "<BR/><BR/>You are spot on…<BR/><BR/>I find your appreciation for "egalitarianism" interesting in that this "ism" has its roots in the anti-traditionalist reaction that is the Enlightenment. <BR/><BR/>Your identification of Prof. Taylor seems quite appropriate. Prof. Taylor, does as good a job as any, in attempting to reconcile opposites - tradition and egalitarianism -- most cogently in his <I>Sources of the Self</I>. In the end, humbly: it seems somewhat contrived to me. Synthesis is one thing, dementia is quite another. Liberalism has overtaken traditionalist forms because the former has a cunning, accommodation-ist nature – it’s polite just before it eats its prey. <BR/><BR/>I also recognize the efforts of Dr. David Walsh -- a professor of mine who sparked my interest in political theory not so many years ago -- specially in his work <I>The Growth of the Liberal Soul </I>. He has also attempted to reconcile liberalism and tradition - in fact, positing that liberalism is a tradition. The latter I find convincing to a point. Liberalism as a tradition seems to be equivalent to a white blood cell in a body politic – annihilating or marginalizing all traditional forms that take issue with the corrosive effects of egalitarianism. <BR/><BR/>After reading your very thoughtful post, I recalled Caleb’s following contribution to the CC booklog, which I find also spot on (and would appreciate your impression, if possible):<BR/><BR/>"<I>Possessed of abstract natural rights, the developing 18th Century liberalism (whether in its radical continental form or more restrained English/Lockean incarnation) located the individual and his unconstrained will as the fundamental and universal unit of political and cultural order. Social institutions, traditions, and cultural restraints become at best keepers of the necessary ground-rules for maximum attainment of the free exercise of natural rights, and at worst they become hurdles and obstacles to the individual’s will. Progressive emancipation is the order of the day… So when the putatively conservative David Walsh argues against abortion, for example, he does so on rights-based grounds: abortion weakens the sanctity of all individuals; the sanctity of the individual is the foundation of personal autonomy and freedom; therefore, abortion must be opposed to preserve personal autonomy and freedom.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Thank again, for your very thought provoking post and for letting me comment…<BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2006/02/still-chewing.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="mjckee at hotmail dot com">Michael J. Keegan </A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1140813168933244112006-02-24T14:32:00.000-06:002006-02-24T14:32:00.000-06:00One thing I would like to see addressed (and maybe...One thing I would like to see addressed (and maybe it is addressed in the Crunchy Con book) is what I see as an unacknowledged tension between a communitarian-living-close-to-the-land-and-kin kind of philosophy and the religous faith that many CCs seem to hold dear. After all, Christianity at any rate seems quite often to be <I>disruptive</I> of tight-knit families and communitites. Jesus didn't stay in Nazareth, Peter didn't stay at his nets, Paul was a "rootless cosmopolitan Jew" if anyone was, etc. I find this to be a tension in broader conservative/Republican rhetoric about "family/Christian values" - quite apart from the hypocrisy often involved - it tends to see religion as essentially a stabilizing force rather than a subversive one. But I don't think that's necessarily so. Community and family, even at their best (maybe especially?), have a way of becoming idols. <BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="www.verbumipsum.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="verbumipsum at hotmail dot com">Lee</A>Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047956333181611381noreply@blogger.com