From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Thu May 8 10:55:56 1995 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 16:08:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez Subject: Communitarianism Discussion on PSN This is an edited version of the PSN discussion on Communitarianism (May 9-July 31, 1995) which elicited Professor Etzioni's letter to Footnotes. For the sake of coherence and substance, I deleted some messages but was careful to leave all references to possible actions to be taken at the meetings. Readers interested in this specific point can find those three or four messages early on. Below is a listing of the included messages. The entire 5500 line or 255kb file can be obtained by sending listserv@csf.colorado.edu the one line request get psn psn_on_communitarianism If others would like to have the entire set of 103 messages that have some reference to "communitarianism" and develop an alternative set of 'edited' messages, they can be obtained in the PSN archives with gopher csf.colorado.edu or http://csf.colorado.edu/psn Martha Gimenez PSN Founding Editor Department of Sociology University of Colorado, Boulder 1 May 9 Miriam D. Rosentha (70) Politics of Annual ASA Meeting 2 May 10 Carl H.A. Dassbach (69) Re: Politics of Annual ASA Meeting 3 May 10 Andy (39) Communitarianism defined? was Re: Po 4 May 10 Morton G. Wenger, (24) Communitarianism 5 May 10 Michael A. Schoenf (44) Re: Communitarianism defined? was Re 6 May 11 Jacky Morris (126) Re: Communitarianism + Intro to list 7 May 11 Ric Brown (73) Re: Communitarianism 8 May 11 D.L.MAY (42) Communitarianism, love, gender, post 9 May 11 lugo0001@gold.tc.u (26) Re: Communitarianism 10 May 11 SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calu (42) Communitarianism without Egalitarian 11 May 12 SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calu (70) marxism/communitarianism 12 May 12 CWINKLER@OREGON.UO (103) Re: Communitarianism 13 May 12 Carl H.A. Dassbach (53) Communitarianism 14 May 12 Talmadge Wright (30) Communitarianism 15 May 12 ba05105@bingsuns.c (44) Re: Communitarianism, love, gender, 16 May 12 Ric Brown (99) Re: Communitarianism 17 May 12 Steve Rosenthal (63) Discussion on ASA Meeting 18 May 13 FASENFEST.DAVID (102) community, agency and pomo 19 May 13 Michael I. Lichter (73) Re: ASA 20 May 13 SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calu (46) fascism/decadence/POMOGRAPHY/communi 21 May 13 lugo0001@gold.tc.u (45) RE: Communitarianism/Individual Righ 22 May 15 Mary Ann Lamanna (13) article on communitarianism 23 May 23 HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET. (24) ASA/Protest 24 May 23 Carl H.A. Dassbach (32) Re: ASA/Protest 25 May 26 Perry L. Seymour (27) 26 May 27 lugo0001@gold.tc.u (96) Re: Nation Article (globalism/locali 27 May 27 Richard Spear (50) Re: Nation Article (globalism/locali 28 Jun 16 Steve Rosenthal (33) Activities at ASA-SSSP meetings 29 Jun 27 Amitai Etzioni (55) 30 Jun 27 W Goldstein (37) Re: your mail 31 Jun 27 Andy (34) Re: your mail 32 Jun 28 FASENFEST.DAVID (49) Fascism 33 Jun 28 R0553@VMCMS.CSUOHI (30) communitarianism 34 Jun 28 Thomas D. [Tom] Ha (41) Communitarians etc 35 Jun 28 Steve Rosenthal (72) Etzioni's smear of "self-styled Prog 36 Jun 28 Vance Geiger (63) Re: your mail 37 Jun 28 Alan Spector (59) 38 Jun 28 HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET. (24) Communitarianism 39 Jun 28 Doug Henwood (25) Re: Etzioni redux 40 Jun 28 Morton G. Wenger, (63) Anti-epistle epistle 41 Jun 29 T R. Young (80) Friendly fascism and Communitarians 42 Jun 29 wgoldste@hp800.las (41) Etzioni's Footnotes remarks 43 Jun 29 Richard E. Ratclif (59) Re: Anti-epistle epistle 44 Jun 29 Andy (44) Re: Anti-epistle epistle 45 Jun 29 Jim Julian (72) About Fascism... 46 Jun 30 Ric Brown (955) The Communitarian Platform and FAQ 47 Jul 1 Morton G. Wenger, (79) Dueling epistles 48 Jul 1 wgoldste@hp800.las (43) Community of Communities? 49 Jul 1 HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET. (58) Communitarianism 50 Jul 1 Lisa J Alcock (52) questions about communitarianism :/ 51 Jul 1 Tristan Riley (48) Re: Communitarian Manifesto 52 Jul 1 Alan Spector (60) Re: Communitarianism::--No Justice/N 53 Jul 2 T R. Young (42) Disrupting PSN: Epistemological Brea 54 Jul 2 Morton G. Wenger, (87) Last take on communitarianism/fascis 55 Jul 3 Morton G. Wenger, (78) Communitarianism and fascism (contin 56 Jul 3 T R. Young (76) Talking 'Bout Change 57 Jul 3 Richard Spear (32) Re: Talking 'Bout Change 58 Jul 3 JMSTARR@aol.com (55) Communitarianism 59 Jul 3 Thomas D. [Tom] Ha (49) gemeinschaft in gesellschaft... 60 Jul 3 D.L.MAY (104) Communitarianism 61 Jul 3 Steve Rosenthal (41) Communitarianism 62 Jul 3 Morton G. Wenger, (187) Communitarianism (Finale for me for 63 Jul 3 Alan Spector (37) Communitarians and Freedom 64 Jul 4 Michael A. Schoenf (40) Re: Communitarians and Freedom 65 Jul 4 mcastro@umiami.ir. (23) Communitarianism 66 Jul 6 HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET. (34) Communitarianism 67 Jul 13 BRBGC@CUNYVM.CUNY. (48) 68 Jul 16 Steve Rosenthal (75) ANTI-RACIST CONFERENCE AT HOWARD U. 69 Jul 21 Ric Brown (276) ***REVISED*** Response to Etzioni's 70 Jul 26 Sam Walker (25) etzioni 71 Jul 31 HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET. (37) Communitarianism and ASA 72 Jul 31 Andy (81) Re: Communitarianism and ASA From MDR@borg.evms.edu Tue May 9 19:34:00 MDT 1995 Date: Tue, 09 May 1995 21:23:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Miriam D. Rosenthal" Subject: Politics of Annual ASA Meeting To: ABSLST-L@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU, PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Organization: Eastern Virginia Medical School PSN and ABS friends, I have been looking over the "call for papers" of this year's ASA meeting, and I would like to make a few obsrvations and try to start some discussion about what progresssive, anti-racist sociologists might try to accomplish at the meeting. First, ASA president Amitai Etzioni is the main promotor of "communitarianism," which is reflected in the theme of the 1995 Meeting. Presented as a balanced reconciliation of conservatism and liberalism, "communitarianism" asks, "How to ensure a balance between individual rights and social responsibilities?" (p.2, Call for papers). What do PSN'ers aand ABS'ers think about "communitarianism?" What is the nature of communitarian ideology? Can you recommend any good critiques of it? Second, the fourteen thematic sessions (p.4) are particularly notable for their avoidance of social class. Our "community" has genders, families, children, immigrants, workplaces, morality, schools, generations, government, values, ethnic groups, networks, a global context, an economy, but apparently no classes, class exploitation, or class struggle. Does this reveal anything about communitarianism and the ideological nature of the construct "community?" Third, there will be three special sessions featuring international speakers discussing "democratic transformation in three areas of the world: South Africa, Latin America, and "Post-Communist Societies" (p.5). Implicit in these sessions is the idea that democratic transformations have been taking place in these areas: Zedillo, Aristide, Mandela, and Yeltsin are "democratic" leaders. Dismantling socialism and creating "free market, structurally adjusted" societies which produce incredible extremes of wealth and poverty are apparently equated with "democratic transformation." Finally, we have four plenary sessions, including Etzioni's address "The Attack on Community," a session on "The Future of Inter-Racial and Inter-Ethnic Relations in the U.S.," "Prevention of HIV and Hatred," and, for the opening plenary, Sat., Aug. 19, BILL CLINTON has been invited! While Clinton makes deals with the Republicans to "end welfare as we know it," reviews affirmative action to determine which programs to eliminate, visits Russia while Yeltsin massacres Chechens, pushes for more police and more prisons, calls for new "anti-terrorist" legislation to expand the government's spying capabilities, and generally tries to show that he can attack the worrking class as sharply as Gingrich et al can, the ASA invites him to be our keynote speaker! What are your thoughts about being so "honored?" We know that Amitai Etzioni and a number of other "distinguished" leaders of our profession have had some access to and advice for the White House since Clinton's election. What is the ideological basis of the alliance between certain ASA leaders and this Democratic administration? There is an important legacy of critical oppossition to the state of unholy matrimony between ASA leaders and the U.S. Government. >From the Lynds' and Mills', to Martin Nicolaus' 1968 speech on behalf of the radical caucus condemning those sociologists who go around "with their palms up and their eyes down," to Al Lee's "Sociology for Whom?" progressive and anti-racist sociologists have not simply tolerated or ignored the growing symptoms of fascism in our own profession. I hope many of you will offer your thoughts on these issues and offer suggestions about what we should do. Should there be a demonstration to greet Clinton? Should we produce some leaflets and/or pamphlets to distribute at the meeting? Steve Rosenthal From dassbach@mtu.edu Wed May 10 13:52:13 MDT 1995 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 15:53:55 -0400 To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU From: dassbach@mtu.edu (Carl H.A. Dassbach) Subject: Re: Politics of Annual ASA Meeting While I concur with many of Steve Rosenthal's observations about the politics of the ASA annual meetings, I am probably less amazed about these developments than he is. In point of fact, American sociologists (except for a "fringe" which has fluctuated in size) have always been a pretty conservative bunch. Remember sociology's origins in the US - the "social problems" of immigrants and the poor - of deficient and defective individuals and improper socialization, remember C. Wright Mills critique of the social pathologists. Hence, I don't find it surprising that what are (sadly) the true colors of mainstream sociology in the US shows in the annual meetings. Sure, mainstream American sociology briefly flirted with some critical ideas but it was precisely that - a flirtation, nothing serious. For awhile it was "hip" ("in", "cool") to be critical (or make claims to being critical) and so the bulk of sociologists (good , conservative, "organizational men" that they are) became `critical.' (Clearly, one of the clearest and strongest indicators of the persistent conservatism of the ASA is the organization's refusal to elect Immanuel Wallerstein as president. He warrants the presidency as much as any of the previous presidents and, in some specific cases, I might say more than some of the previous presidents). I too would like to know what PSNers think about communitarianism" - I know very little about it - Is it an attempt to recreate Gemeinschaft (as the peasant village). I also wonder if C. Wright Mill's observation that Social Pathology reflects the morals of the "traditional community" and represents "an expression of the fears of rural American to the changes associated, with urbanization and social differentiation.' is not appropriate for communitarianism. Steve Rosenthal points out there is no considerations of class at the upcoming ASA meetings. I would point out that this is consistent with American sociology (except for the "fringe') which has always chosen to ignore "objective" class and, at best, be concerned with subjective elements of stratification as captured in the infamous measure of SES. Things don't look mush better with the issue of democratic transformations - the majority of the mainstream continues to labor under the delusion that capitalism equals democracy and by creating capitalism everything will be wonderful. I also agree with Steve's observations about plenaries and Clinton. Where I disagree with Steve is on the question of (to borrow someone else's phrase) "what is to be done'. Rather then pamphlets and demonstrations outside, I think that we should engage and encourage active disruption of all sessions, plenaries, etc, that are "bullshit." To do so however requires solidarity - one person or three can't effectively disrupt a session or plenary with guffaws but 30 or 40 can. It also requires that the senior members (faculty, whatever) support juniors- because without such support they only thing that will occur will be the creation of a few (briefly remembered) martyrs. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: DASSBACH@MTU.EDU Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931 USA From soc40001@frank.mtsu.edu Wed May 10 14:53:32 MDT 1995 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 15:55:06 -0500 (CDT) From: Andy To: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" Subject: Communitarianism defined? was Re: Politics of Annual ASA Meeting On Wed, 10 May 1995, Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote: > I too would like to know what PSNers think about communitarianism" - I know > very little about it - Is it an attempt to recreate Gemeinschaft (as the > peasant village). I also wonder if C. Wright Mill's observation that > Social Pathology reflects the morals of the "traditional community" and > represents "an expression of the fears of rural American to the changes > associated, with urbanization and social differentiation.' is not > appropriate for communitarianism. I do not profess to know communitarianism inside and out. However, I do believe they call for a moratorium on civil rights, no rights without responsibilities, and a balance between individual liberty and group security. Rather noncontroversial premises (except the first), except that they support things like randomized searches of personal property (on the basis that this is non-discriminatory--of course, this is completely contrary to the Bill of Rights), making it more difficult to obtain a divorce, mandatory national service, etc.. It walks the fine line between something like common sense and majoritarianism or utilitarianism (although Etzioni can give you a good argument as to why it is neither of the latter two). In the end, it is a ideological attempt to map the model of community back upon late-capitalist society, a socioeconomic (dis)order entirely contrary to the tenets of community. Clinton and (especially) Gore identify themselves as communitarians. In fact, the President's overall set of political principles (if we can say he has any at this point) crudely combines the tenets of communitarianism with Michael Lerner's notions of a "politics of meaning." Dangerous stuff in the paradigm of a corporatist world-system. Andy Austin From MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Wed May 10 19:29:34 MDT 1995 Date: Wed, 10 May 95 21:33:34 EDT From: "Morton G. Wenger, Dept. of Sociology" Subject: Communitarianism To: University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USA PHONE: (502) 852-6836 FAX: (502) 852-0099 Communitarianism = search for a palatable mass ideology of American fascism acceptable to the squeamish petit bourgeois. What is the mystery??? BTW- if you've never read the essays on Lipset, Etzioni, & crew in Larry and Janice Reynolds old "Sociology of Sociology," now might be the time to do so. The one on the "Sunshine Boys: Toward a Sociology of Happiness" is priceless and telling to this day. My suspicion is that this is a new cite for most psn'rs, which if true, is but one more piece of evidence of the lack of cumulation in the left academy, which is one reason why we have to keep going through all these things once, twice, thrice... INTERNET: MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU From maschoen@students.wisc.edu Wed May 10 20:24:59 MDT 1995 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 21:26:24 -0500 To: soc40001@frank.mtsu.edu, From: maschoen@students.wisc.edu (Michael A. Schoenfield) Subject: Re: Communitarianism defined? was Re: Politics of Annual ASA Meeting At 02:58 PM 5/10/95 -0600, Andy wrote: >On Wed, 10 May 1995, Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote: > >> I too would like to know what PSNers think about communitarianism" - I know >> very little about it - Is it an attempt to recreate Gemeinschaft (as the >> peasant village). I also wonder if C. Wright Mill's observation that >> Social Pathology reflects the morals of the "traditional community" and >> represents "an expression of the fears of rural American to the changes >> associated, with urbanization and social differentiation.' is not >> appropriate for communitarianism. ====================================================== I just finished an advanced course on American political philosophy and communitarism is the republican (not party) versus the pluralistic or traditional liberal democratic theory. An excellent overview of the subject was written by Booth Fowler, THE DANCE WITH COMMUNITY. Other more well known books on the subject are HABITS OF THE HEART and THE GOOD SOCIETY by Robert Bellah, et. al. There has been a great deal written about communitarism, but I've found that in terms of liberal to conservative, adherents cover the whole range of political ideology. The adherents seem to believe that society has gone downhill and we need to develop communities in order to address a whole range opf problems (strong on participatory democracy). >From you comments, I don't recognize these as widely held communitarian beliefs. (I am personally closer to pluralist or pragmatic liberalism than communitarism). Mike S. ======================================================= Michael A. Schoenfield maschoen@students.wisc.edu Michael A. Schoenfield & Associates (608) 238-6121 Voice University of Wisconsin - Madison 2637 Mason St. Madison, WI 53705-3709 From SOJRM@psy1.ssn.flinders.edu.au Thu May 11 00:38:31 MDT 1995 From: "Jacky Morris" Organization: Flinders University of S.Aust. To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 16:08:51 GMT-0930 Subject: Re: Communitarianism + Intro to list Greetings. I have been 'listening in' on this list for a few months now. For a few days I have been considering unsubscribing - in large part, because I find that the discussion, while interesting, to be 'missing' many of the areas which I find to be of critical importance. Instead, I find myself introducing myself to the group. (The world is an unpredictable place). This is largely because the discussion about 'communitarianism' got me thinking about my reasons for feeling disenchanted with this discussion group. I am writing JUST IN CASE these are of interest to anyone. (The anonymity of this medium allows my to take this chance.) Amongst other labels which I might attach to myself ( in order to locate myself intellectually or communicate in shorthand some of my views) is that of 'communitarian'. [Others would be 'socialist', 'feminist' and 'post-modernist'......and I pause to wonder how many strange and uncomfortable boxes I am being put into 'out there' in the psn.] The 'communitarian' part refers in part (as Mike suggested) to a strong discomfort with liberal individualism - a powerful ideological force in the modern world (and PARTICULARLY in the North American world (...is there another one...?), which (amongst other things): - individualizes social problems (which no self-respecting sociologist or Lefty could do) - encourages us to see ourselves as independent of our social relations. The latter, is where I see ( that which is often described as) 'communitarianism' as frequently departing from (that which is often described as) 'socialism' - in terms of recognising the importance of relationships (here and now) which need to be fostered for human well-being and growth. I call myself a 'communitarian' because: - I see lasting (positive) social change as coming about primarily through the development of bonds of trust and care rather than from antagonism or violence (tho' I don't assume that the latter is NEVER necessary); - I see social isolation as one of the major problems faced by many people in Western societies (I'm SURROUNDED by lonely people); - I see the development of subjectivity/interests/capacity to care for others as being intricately related to our social (community) contexts - and that a strong and caring/socially responsible sense of self is encouraged by the experience of strong and caring relationships; - I have come to the conclusion that political change is not only connected to the WILL for change, but that such change is less ambiguously positive when this will is motivated by care for others (rather than simply anger, frustration etc.); - I believe that our selves and the meaning in our lives is intricately related to a stock of knowledge or cultural capital which needs to be built up, mended, altered and protected; - I prefer Marx's early work to his later stuff; - I love this quote from Gramsci: "How many times have I wondered if it is really possible to forge links with a mass of people when one has never had strong feelings for anyone, not even one's partents; if it is possible to love a collectivity when one has not been deeply loved oneself, by individual human creatures. Hasn't this had some effect on my life as a militant, has it not tended to make me sterile and reduce my quality as a revolutionary by making everything a matter of intellect, of mere magical calculation?"; - these issues link clearly with feminist, socialist and post-modernist (post-positivist) issues which I believe important, and values and ideals which I hold. I would link 'communitarian' ideas with M.Sandel, C.Taylor, J.B.Elstain, A.MacIntyre, E.Fox-Genovese, etc. (Parts of each of which I agree and disagree.) I agree with Mike that they range across the political spectrum (however that might be defined). Infact, I am toying with the idea that, at least in Australia, this may perhaps form the locus of newly developing political alliances - with a 'new' conservative movement (of 'old' socialists, greenies, those interested in family and community relations) v. business/economic rationalism. Perhaps I am not communicating well - perhaps I am not being clear. I have found the psn a bit 'dry'. The topics discussed generally seem to be important ones. What is racism?...What is happening to the left? Oklahoma and U.S. class structure and politics. What IS the left? (...a particular favorite of mine).. Where are the debates about the implications of post-modern theories, of feminist theories etc. Where is the discussion that links these issues with: anomie; personal relations;masculinity/femininity; love; morality etc. etc. Do we leave these areas to 'the right'? I am aware that I am communicating across a cultural gap which is also influences the ways that I listen and speak. North American political and ideological configurations and alliances (where a liberal-conservative axis predominates) are very different to those here in Australia (where a liberal-socialist axis predominates...so that liberal individualism is associated with economic rationalism and the right). Enuf ravings and enuf avoidance of a huge pile of marking!! Jacky Morris Flinders University South Australia From BRBGC%CUNYVM.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU Thu May 11 07:22:06 MDT 1995 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 08:53:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Ric Brown Subject: Re: Communitarianism To: Progressive Sociologists Network Greetings, I am glad to see that we are beginning to take notice of communitarianism. I have been conducting a critical examination of communitarianism for the past two years, although this, of course does not make me an "expert." Carl Dassbach is absolutely correct in connecting commmunitarianism to mainstream sociology. Theoretically, Etzioni's writing on the subject owe an obvious debt to Parson's idea of the "societal Community' , normative action, and general evolutionism (of course, the specter of Hegel's tripartite family-civil society-state construct is lurking here as well ). In terms of practical politics, communitarianism represents an important intervention by mainstream sociology into public policy (a realm it has lost to political science ans also to the "professionalized" non-academics in government (e.g., the rise of the M.P.A. degree). Etzioni's brand of communitarianism (which is onlyy one of many) is indeed influential in the Clinton Administration. William Galston is along with Etzioni and Mary Ann Glendon, the author of the Communitarian Manifesto. He is presently the deputy head of domestic policy at the White House. Other endorsors of the Communitarian Manifesto include Cisneros (Sec. of HUD) and Alice Revlin. The Manifesto can be found at the end of Etzioni's *The Spirit of Community*. It should also be noted that Tony Blair, who has recently overseen the Labor Partys historic abandonment of socialism, is an acknowledged follower of Etzioni's communitarianism. Etzioni's Spirit of Community is the best introduction to the popular brand of communitarianism. other works include MacIntyre's *After Virtue* Bellah et. al. *Habits of the Heart* *Walzer's Sphere's of justice* and Benhabib's Situating the Self*. Much of communitarianism is founded upon the critique of liberal individualismm that dominated law reviews during the 1980's. Selznick, a sociologist, is important in this literature as well. Communitarianism raises serious theoretical problems for the Left. Community i s more than a buzz-word, and the communitarians realize this and are putting that knowledge into practice. Moreover, they are putting their knowledge of sociology and social movements into practice. Andy Autin's comments just arrived an I am in general agreement with him. (I see no reason to debate specific points at this time :-) ) And he is right about this being "dangerous stuff" I do not want to make this post excessively long, but in terms of "what is to be Done", Dassbch is right again. But we can not do this without becoming familar with the logic of communitarianism and its appeal to being "neither left nor right". These are not dopes, and some are actually sincere. Their critique of individualism starts from the same point as Marx's (though they diverge after that) and their call for the recreation of a "lost community" is seductive for many progressives. On a personal note, I will be giving a critique of communitarianism at the ASA. I'll try to cause as much "disruption" as I can. ;-) Ric Brown Cultural Studies Dept. of Sociology CUNY-Graduate Center brbgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu From may@soc.umass.edu Thu May 11 15:59:29 MDT 1995 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 18:01:05 -0400 From: "D.L.MAY" Subject: Communitarianism, love, gender, postmodernism, sexuality To: psn@csf.colorado.edu In response to Jacky's posting, I just want to let her know that there are PSN subscribers who share her perspective - and I am one of them. As a graduate student, my primary focus is on social construction of sexualities, in the contexts of race, class, and gender, of course! I also find PSN dry at times, but there are always at least a few gems every week that keep me satisfied. I have wondered if there are other newsgroups (I'm new at this - are we a "newsgroup" or a "bulletin board" or what?) that focus more directly on the intersections of race, class, and gender, without privileging any of the three axes. If anyone knows of one, I would like to supplement PSN with that group. What I value most about PSN is the intellectual sophistication of its contributors coupled with their political commitments and perspectives. I don't (and probably won't) post often because I am learning more about Marxism and socialism from reading the posts. If issues of gender or sexuality were discussed, I would probably post often because I feel I can contribute something in those areas. Sexuality might seem like a trivial area to progressive sociologists, but I am con- vinced that it is a critical area for understanding and transforming our cultural values and practices. Incidentally, I am a former welfare mother and have a background in community organizing that goes back to the sixties. My personal struggles with poverty, sexism, heterosexism and white feminism have everything to do with my work and my desire to teach. It is sometimes difficult for me to locate myself in Marxist debates, but I know that, like Jacky, I like the earlier Marx best. I didn't intend to go on so long!!!! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Deborah L. May @@@ @@@ Department of Sociology @@@ If I can't dance, I don't want @@@ University of Massachusetts @@@ to be part of your revolution. @@@ Amherst, MA 01003 @@@ - Emma Goldman @@@ @@@ @@@ may@soc.umass.edu (413) 545-1560 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Thu May 11 22:07:49 MDT 1995 From: lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 23:09:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu For those of you who are interested, there is a communitarianism listserv out there. It is located at communitarians@civic.net. I have been following communitarianism for about five months now since receiving a posting about it. I still have no clue what it is about. Sometimes it sounds like right wing family values nonsense, sometimes like a left version of the limbaugh show, sometimes like an intellectual forum for progressives who like to base their ideas about how society should be structured upon normative criteria. But what it reminds me of more than anything else is the essence of a norman rockwell painting. I think if you have seen a norman rockwell painting, you have seen the essence of communitarianism. chris lugo From SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calumet.purdue.edu Thu May 11 22:29:39 MDT 1995 From: SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calumet.purdue.edu Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 23:31:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: Communitarianism without Egalitarianism = To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Communitarianism without Egalitarianism = Fascism. It might start out as the HAPPY FACE type (view the graphic sideways) :) with President Gerald Ford "Whip Inflation Now" buttons. But if the class struggle rages (and yes, at the risk of sounding mechanical, what the hell else are the employed and unemployed members of the working class supposed to do when their families' futures are at stake...) as the class struggle rages, THEN, those who won't act "CIVIL" which is to say, those who won't politely starve--will be considered "OUTSIDE the community", saboteurs, who can be labelled not simply as inadequate or disruptive, but actually "NOT IN THE COMMUNITY" in a way that might label them and set them (us) up for especially severe treatment. What about Egalitarianism without Community/social respect, etc.? It wouldn't stay Egalitarian very long. In fact, it would never even really achieve Egalitarianism, which is much more than "equal wages". There are a number of seemingly contradictory trends, rivulets, brooks, creeks, streams, tributaries that can converge into fascism. Communitarianism is one of them. The only reason why it might not catch on is because in the anti-intellectual climate of the U.S., too many people might think that it is somehow related to "Communism"....but it is Pat Robertson for Yuppies---a secular version of religious fundamentalism to fill that void for the middle income people who feel the alienation and emptyness of decaying capitalism. Alan Spector From SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calumet.purdue.edu Fri May 12 09:32:02 MDT 1995 From: SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calumet.purdue.edu Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 10:34:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: marxism/communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu One reason why Marxists still cling to the concept of class as an "objective" phenomenon (albeit a shifting, changing, interconnected with the subjective phenomenon) is because of its explanatory power and ability to cut through to the core of social processes. To say that fascism and Marxism are both based on a common view "extreme community" is an error. It is an error based on taking philosophers and social theorists at their word rather than their practice. Fascism tossed out notions of community, but it was not community---it was not inclusive-- it was based on splitting up the working class and other oppressed segments, it was based on EXTREME SEGMENTATION of society with a phony, cosmetic veneer of "community" to try to bind some oppressed people to their oppressors even as they try to win those oppressed people to ATTACKING other oppressed people. "Community" in the abstract is fine. So is "freedom". But the real issue is : "What is going on in society?" As long as there is class oppression, there cannot be true community, except within the ranks of the oppressed. The powerful will never have "community" with the oppressed; that would mean giving up their right to exploit. The oppressed cannot have "community" with the oppressor; the oppressor will not let them have true "community", AND, insofar as the oppressed try to attain community with the oppressor, they will be hurting themselves and other oppressed people by creating illusions or even actively joining in on the attack against the "deviants" who won't quietly starve. Finally, (as a side point), the oppressors can't really have "community" among themselves. They try. They pay philosophers and social theorists like Kissinger, Etzioni, and others to stand back from the system and evaluate the overall direction of the system and make recommendations, lbut but fundamentally, the capitalists cannot achieve "community" even with each other because capitalism is fundamentally "zero-sum" and is based on intense, cutthroat competition. Some people think that the emphasis on economic class and economic exploitation is somehow "anti-humanistic" or that it strips people of their dignity and makes them (us) out to be economic creatures that live in a world where art, poetry, music, and sensitive human relations are all dismissed by the MIGHTY FORCE of ECONOMICS. That's not the point. We can and should struggle to build relationships based on egalitarianism/non-exploitation, even here and now in the sewer of decaying capitalism. But how can we hope to see a world based on community when capitalism sucks the life out of tens of millions of people each year. The children condemned to slavery from the age of six; the millions who are "owned" by whoever supplies them with heroin or cocaine; the hundreds of thousands killed in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Central Asia....I could go on and on and on about this....miners with lungs coated with black dust, crying as they hold their grandson, knowing that they might live to see the grandson reach another birthday. We cannot put the struggle against other forms of oppression "on hold" while the economic struggle is waged, of course. But any attempt to create liberation/community that does not have the struggle for economic egalitarianism at its core is either doomed to fail, or worse, will provide a cover for the continuing oppression of billions. We are not talking here about the simple struggle for higher wages, put forward in a narrow way. The class struggle is much broader than that. But it is a struggle. True community can only exist if it is based on honest, thorough struggle. Otherwise it is a sham, or a cover for fascism. Alan Spector From CWINKLER@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Fri May 12 10:28:46 MDT 1995 From: CWINKLER@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 09:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Communitarianism Sender: CWINKLER@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU On Fri, 12 May 1995, Michael A. Schoenfield wrote: > ... However, as I discuss > issues and enter debates in social situations; I find myself using alot of > communitarian arguments (concensus, mutually caring neighbors and community, > the social good) especially when critquing classic democratic (Lockean) > liberalism. > > Just some (relatively confused) thoughts on the subject. ... I have some of my own confused thoughts, based on limited study. I'd appreciate feedback/correction. Some randommusings: Communitarianism and mediation seem to be highly related. Mediation would appear to be integral to communitarian practice. But mediation is frequently criticized for its inability to deal with power imbalances other than on a wishful level. That is, no systematic approach. I heard a very insightful paper presentation a few years back that used discourse analysis to analyze some mediation sessions. One interesting finding was that once the issue was defined, usually by the more powerful party, it was difficult for a contesting perspective to get a hearing. I am also reminded of a lesson a marxist VVAW member taught us at a community meeting that intended to create an ongoing political organization after the war ended, way back in The Old Days. The major movers for the organization wanted "consensus" decision making, and the vet wanted to show how pure consensus can destroy an organization, stigmatize, and create scapegoats. By the end of the day, we had spent 8 hours trying to get him to agree to consensus decision making, but he wouldn't budge. Because one needs consensus to achieve pure consensus decisionmaking, he effectively blocked it. The organization fell apart, people derided and ridiculed him, and blamed him for the disintegration of the organization. And he had been very well-liked before that meeting. It was an effective lesson--once we recognized what had happened. Of course, now there is "modified consensus" but a lot of the same characteristics ensue. Disagreement can be seen as anti-social. Just judging from my own town, where the dominant "left politics" appears to be based on what I call anarcho-communitarianism, the local adherents have no class consciousness at all. In opposition to what they claim, they are VERY individualistic, but the individualism takes the form of isolated groups, in which there may be a communal relationship. It seems to be a relatively effective survival technique, but its revolutionary potential is quite limited. I see some of the same tendencies in some feminist legal scholarship, where community is created by the valuing of care bonds, e.g. the Mother/Child bond. It is ironic that the very means that would be used to create "community" could well isolate and privatize. Abby Peterson wrote a lovely article a few years back that critiqued this approach, "The Revolutionary Potential of the 'Private': A Critique of the Family as a Revolutionary Force Position" Acta Sociologica 1985 28(4):337-348. One of the dangers she cites is the creation of individual family-based strategies for survival, as opposed to collective resistance and political struggle. There is a tendency to blame the word "individual" for the problems of liberal capitalism. But liberal capitalism has never really valued the individual--all individuals. Only the archetypal propertied white male, and then defined as served by a wife. Children are property and women are his laborers (unless women act as the archetypal male, and even then ...). Liberal capitalism has no way to deal with women and children as individuals because of the necessity of privatizing the time and money costs of reproduction. This is similarly true for the working class, and above all, marginalized groups. It feels to me like a further mystification of power. When we eliminate the individual, and celebrate the bond, who defines that bond? Are there any visible actors left at all? How can one really create collectivity, solidarity, without individual actors consciously choosing to do so? I don't think one must sacrifice the individual in order to create an ethic of care. Why is it that this movement rejects the word solidarity? What does "community" have that solidarity lacks? Celia Winkler From dassbach@mtu.edu Fri May 12 10:42:25 MDT 1995 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 12:44:03 -0400 To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU From: dassbach@mtu.edu (Carl H.A. Dassbach) Subject: Communitarianism >From what I have discovered in postings and other readings, communitarianism seems to be, as someone put it, a mixture of left and right. I can endorse the idea of creating communities - groups of individuals concerned with their collective well being and trying to purse a distinctive (perhaps, rational or moral) life style - after all, isn't that what we tried to do with the in the communes of the late 60s and 70s. On the other hand, I find it troubling (to say the least) if these communities are to be constituted on the basis of "externally given" values, morals and mores, i.e., those derived from "divine inspiration" of one type or another and which are thus seen as being superior. More importantly, I agree that this is a dangerous foundation- a foundation for fascism. At the everyday level, fascism operates on (and relies on) appeals to principles such as the people, the land, the blood - in a word, the community. In other words, ultimately irrational principles which are accepted or rejected but can not be disputed. This is not my vision of a better society which I believe should be founded on rational principles, i.e., discursively redeemable validity claims ala Habermas. Its been a long time since I read (or thought about) Habermas but taking a look at LEGITIMATION CRISIS, I found the following passage: "The appropriate model is... the COMMUNICATION COMMUNITY of those affected, who as participants in a practical discourse test the validity claims of norms and, to the extent that they accept them with reason, arrive at the conviction that in the given circumstances the proposed norms are "right". The validity claims of norms is grounded not in the irrational volitional acts of the contracting parties but in the rationally motivated recognition of norms, which may be questioned at any time.... The normative-validity claim is itself cognitive in the sense of the supposition (however conterfactual) that it could be discursively redeemed - that is, grounded in the consensus of the participants through argumentation." p.105. If this is what communitarianism means, then I would have to support it. If it means, on the other hand, the external imposition of a so-called higher, correct but ultimately irrational, i.e., not grounded in the consensus of the participants through argumentation, I would have to reject and attack it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: DASSBACH@MTU.EDU Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931 USA From twright@orion.it.luc.edu Fri May 12 11:29:07 MDT 1995 From: twright@orion.it.luc.edu (Talmadge Wright) Subject: Communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 12:30:48 -0600 (CDT) Guess I will jump in at this point. Carl's quote from the early Habermas was well spoken, and I agree with the critiques of this "movement." Whether we like it or not Communitarianism is here to stay - it is now being embraced by sectors of the elite ruling class and therefore will become put as an alternative to the extreme Right, whether we like it or not. I would suggest that we start a movement towards CRITICAL COMMUNITARIANISM, which has at its core an integrated analysis of race, class, and gender within systems of social inequality. That is, the attempt to resolve the "individual versus social responsibility" debate must occur with a critical context which recognizes the ways in which power operates to sustain and reproduce inequality and therefore domination. Sort of Marxism without Marx, yes? -- ********************************************************************** Talmadge Wright (312)508-3451 * Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology FAX:(312)508-3646 * Loyola University Chicago twright@orion.it.luc.edu * 6525 N. Sheridan Rd. * Chicago, Illinois 60626 * ********************************************************************** From ba05105@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Fri May 12 12:07:36 MDT 1995 From: ba05105@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Subject: Re: Communitarianism, love, gender, postmodernism, sexualitym To: may@soc.umass.edu Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 14:04:03 -0400 (EDT) A few more thoughts about this mighty communitarianism debate. For those whose look more to historians than sociologists or polical scientists, the focus on community has its contemporary source, above all, in the work of E.P. Thompson. Although Thompson was never quite able to admit the full implications of his work (certainly forgivable, given his achievement), a generation or two of social historians have demonstrated that, judging by what can be found in the archives, solidarity and consciousness of class has played a relatively insignificant role in the history of struggle during the eras of free trade and free enterprise capitalism. Such historians include Michelle Perrot, Sean Wilentz, Patrick Joyce, and Ranajit Guha. The importance of clas in the twentieth century is more an optical illusion created by the hegemony of sociologists (whether of the Weberian or Marxist ilk) and the distaste of modern states for any phenomenon not easily classified and contained by neat categories and statistics (what Benjamin Arditi calls the social, as opposed to society). Communities need not conform to some preset definition or set of normative values. They may or may not be informed by divine forces, despite the relentess advice of sociologists, psychologists, etc. to understand these as mere illusions (One wonders at this point, whether the materialist illusion will survive to inform human action, and if so for how long and where). I suspect, however, that the moment when a state or capitalized agency claims to be coterminus with some community (The American community, The MTV viewing audience, a 'soviet state'), is the moment of the communities negation as a repository of humane values. As several posts have noted, the absence of discussion of 'other' issues on the PSN (sexuality, masculinity/feminity,etc (And I would add, spirituality))is striking (which direction are we progressing in?). These are not somehow separate from 'economic' questions--in fact, it may be that economics is merely a subset of these questions. At least it looks that way, sometimes... Steven Sherman Binghamton University From BRBGC%CUNYVM.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU Fri May 12 13:58:52 MDT 1995 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 15:58:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Ric Brown Subject: Re: Communitarianism To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK First, Let's hear a bit from Etzioni: "While the concept of community may harbor the threat of coercion, it is not the coercion of the state, but the moral compulsion of a salem-like community...." (_A Responsive Society_ 1991:148-149) "I use as my baseline the 50's. It was a rather established society, with a clear set of values--- but it was discriminatory against women, it was racist, and a bit authoritarian--- and we challenged that society and from my viewpoint for good reason. And that is not the problem. The problem is as we brought down the established society of the 50's, we did not replace these with any new consensus. So we have, in effect, a measure of moral anarchy......... People ask me if I am talking to the ghettoes, and I -- I'm speaking , first of all, to the middle class" (interview on McNeil-Lerher NewsHour, 7 Sept. 1993) Now for my cent..... The community ("moral," or "responsive" or "active") of the communitarians of Etzioni's brand, exists not only in terms of who is included ---which Etzioni relates to the requirements of "functional self-sufficiency" (_The Active Society_ 1972:115)--- but also in terms of exclusions. For the Communitarians, the degree to which a subject belongs to a community is determined in the last instance by the degree to which she conforms to its whims and participates in the fulfillment of the community's "functional self- sufficiency". As she can not exist, as a citizen, outside of the community, she must either conform or cease to exists as a citizen. An understanding of the "mores, norms, and standards" of the community is not sufficient for inclusion. One must be recognized by the community as a citizen. Without citizenship, one loses both the rights and obligations of citizenship in the "moral community" (and therefore the community's recognition of her as part of its moral order). This morality, a production of humans in society, is alienated from them and comes to rest in "the community," appearing first as its utopian vision (the "50's" and the suburban landscape), and then as the disciplinary coding and practices that are either repressed, or which restrict the possibility of emancipation as humans to the confines (enclosure?) of the "Responsive Community." Of course, those excluded from the Eden of bourgeois community may also form communities (e.g., Gays ). However, this formation only intensifies the potential threat that these smaller communities pose to the "Responsive Community". The continued tolerance of these"non-traditional" communities is contingent, like a subject's citizenship, upon subordination to the larger "Responsive Community." The communitarian frame of community is predicated on the fortification of the boundaries of bourgeois social relations and the disciplining of its members by a "Salem-like" authority. It also depends upon the exclusion and punishment of all others. But most importantly, in the communitarian framing of community, there is no vision of emancipation. In Marx's critique, obligation centers on the debt owed to the struggle for human emancipation, not upon the further extension of obligation as an end in itself. It is Foucault that reminds us that Marx's great insight was that humanity produces *Humanity*, not by returning to an a priori community, but by struggling to overcome the present relations, by creating social relations that have not yet existed but wherein Humans will truly exist for the first time in human history. Marx, whose grasp of history was more extensive than any communitarian, notes that under capital, money is the community, and that the community was the "Stramm [clan]... the communality [gemeinschftlichkeit] of blood, language, customs" (Grundrisse 1993 [1857]:472). The communitarian community is not, however, the same as those of more primordial eras, but is contemporary with capital reproduction. It is not, therefore, a holdover or survival, but rather an expression of contemporary conflicts. Capital has dissolved these bonds as it has all other external barriers. This is the communitarians keenest insight and which allows us to observe through their ideological construction of community the anxiety surrounding the incessant pressures of the revolutionizing of the forces of production on the middle classes. Alan Spector's (among others) insight that this is fascism is essentially correct. Certainly it takes us down that road and it is bewildering to see how many "progressives" or those "on-the-left" are willing to hop right on board. Marxism without Marx? What is the point? Better that we have marxism without "progressives." In Solidarity, Ric Brown Cultural Studies Dept. of Sociology CUNY-Graduate Center brbgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu From MDR@borg.evms.edu Fri May 12 14:13:10 MDT 1995 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 16:00:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Rosenthal Subject: Discussion on ASA Meeting To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Organization: Eastern Virginia Medical School I am glad that my recent posting about the ASA Meeting has generated a fair amount of debate about communitarianism about whether to demonstrate against Clinton, and about the nature of the present ASA leadership. That is what I wanted to accomplish. I want to comment on several of the responses. I hope the discussion will continue. The greatest amount of discussion focused on communitarianism (c-ism). I particularly want to thank Ric Brown for providing references on c-ism, its influence in the Clinton White House, and for his sharp and accurate critique. Etzioni also offered his c-ist views in a book review he wrote for Contemporary Sociology, July, 1994, pp. 493-495. A detailed description of Etzioni and his career was published in the Oct., 1994 FOOTNOTES. We also got some memorable one-liners: C-ism is "Pat Robertson for Yuppies--a secular version of religious fundamentalism." C-ism is "the essence of a norman rockwell painting." And, Mort wrote, in his usual sharp, no-nonsense style, "search for a palatable mass ideology of American fascism acceptable to the squeamish petit bourgeois." Mort also asked, "What is the mystery?" The nature of c-ism is not self-evident. There are hundreds of people on PSN, ranging from "old Marxists" from the 1960's (like myself) to newcomers who are working out their ideological perspectives. It is important for us to be able to communicate effectively with each other. Observers have noticed that debates on the Internet are often dominated by white males. I was glad that several women joined the discussion on communitarianism. I think Alan Spector was right to emphasize class and class struggle in our critique of c-ism. To extend his point a bit further, there cannot and there should not be a community between exploiters and exploited, between violent racists and anti-racists, between violent sexists and anti-sexists. Etzioni seeks to rescue sociology from its status as a political "outcast" by marrying sociology's traditional bourgeois liberalism to the ideology of the contemporary right. In this respect, he is doing in sociology what Clinton and the "new Democrats" are doing in the larger society. Consequently, to those who feel that a demonstration against Clinton would "play into the hands of the right," I would say that Clinton is more dangerous among sociologists, because, unlike the Republicans whose nature we understand pretty well, Clinton has some credibility and is more capable of fooling us. I am glad that several people urged that we have a literature table, distribute leaflets, and protest against Clinton. Finally, I would like for PSN'ers to coment on other aspects of the ASA program that I mentioned in my earlier posting, for example, special sessions on "democratic transformations" in Latin America, South Africa, and "post-communist" societies. I have written to request table space from the ASA and have been told verbally that I will be able to get it. Thanks for the responses. I look forward to further discussion and debate. Steve Rosenthal, Hampton University, Virginia. From SO4A024@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de Sat May 13 06:40:03 MDT 1995 From: "FASENFEST.DAVID" Organization: Univ. Hamburg, Dep. of Social Sc. To: PSN@csf.colorado.edu Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 14:41:22 GMT+1 Subject: community, agency and pomo Taking a stab at this discussion of communitarianism, I would like to pose some premises linking the threads: First, while there are clearly Fascist tendencies, there is a difference between this and fascism in general. The former has become linked with a particular form of state oppression coming out of Germany, the latter is a political philosophy emerging in opposition to the enlightment and the growing sentitment of the rights of individuals. So the communitarianism discussed, as I see it, has more to do with setting the kinds of moral codes from above more consistent with German Fascism then with a general discussion of the importance and primacy of the state (with all its racialist, bio- centered, blood and nation, responsibility over right of citizen rhetoric) which underscores fascism in general. There is not (yet?) the kind of nation-centered/state-centered rhetoric so central to a real fascist movement. But it is worth concerning ourselves with the logical question of how the state might be enlisted to serve such a role of the emergent community (unlike Durkheim's morally centered state which would mediate the ill effects of capitalism, this state would impose particular values reflecting the victors over the victims of capitalism). Second, the appeal for many is the search for agency within the many forms of Marxism which tend toward overly deterministic analyses (and I think at the heart of what many people imply when they 'prefer' the young Marx to the older Marx--though I would argue they are talking about the way each is interpreted by subsequent writers). Communitarianism offers the hope that we are forming an intellectual ideal in which human agency features more prominantly. But unlike some who see aversion to 'extreme ideologies like fascism and marxism' as the source of the appeal, we must keep in mind that marxism is a means by which we interpret and understand the capitalist society whle fascism is a point on the spectrum of capitalist possibilities, as is communitarianism. I think the best measure of the effectiveness of marxism as a mode of analysis is the number of times it is declared dead or useless! Third, the increasing interest in post-modernism stems, as well, from a search for different locus of power and social change. And its early proponents were correct in shifting the debate from purely base- superstructure elements. In this case, however, the search often leads to extreme decentering to the point that there is no 'true' perspective, and as someone once wrote, post-modernism threatens to take away from victims the only thing left to them--their story. The oppressed and oppressors each get an equally valid reading of events. With no center of reality, no particular interpretation has more merit than another and what seems at first to be agency becomes a farce (in my view at least). Leotard's recent book takes to task the apoliticization of post-modern discourse and is well worth reading by all who (I think necessarily) embark down that road. It is these different currents which allow communitarianism to mean both positive (as I see progressive) tendencies and the clearly negative (proto-fascist) tendencies. We must use greater care in the way we use the concepts since they come laden with many meanings. For example, I see very little said about race in all this (other than we should all live together in harmony--which we can if we all had the same moral values of family, home and hearth!), or even gender, since communitarianism is in many ways teological--it speaks to an end point, and how the present falls short relative to that end point, with little real discussion about how we get to that end point (and which external imposition of values becomes so important to this rhetoric). The ideals are laudable, the rhetoric scary...as I see it. Changing course: Now for some current insanity from the home of resurgent fascism (and now I mean Europe in general!): A German couple, along with their cat and dog, were found shot to death in their car in Brittany yesterday. It seems they left a large box of computer files and records with a local radio station with instructions that the UN Human Rights Commission would be looking for these. The UN personnel in Geneva state that these people were active anti-Nazi investigators and deplores the racist murder, the Germans say they were tax evaders hiding out in France and know nothing about anti-Nazi activities, and the French are looking into how two people can kill their pets and shoot themselves in the head with shotguns and still call it suicide (I kid you not!)...the main glitch is that the two very cleverly disposed of the weapons after killing each other! And what about the records...seized by the French police and not turned over the the UN as requested because it may be nothing more than a prank. Trying to keep sane... Dr. David Fasenfest Dr. Heidi Gottfried TELNET: so4a024@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de FAX: (49) (40) 4123-4506 From lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu Sat May 13 06:47:50 MDT 1995 Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 05:50:22 -0800 From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael I. Lichter) Subject: Re: ASA At 11:07 AM 5/12/95, Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote: >Disruption may also be a losing strategy but compared to the others it has, >I think, some real advantages. It makes a point that is public and that can >be heard and seen by all. Pamphlets and tables can be ignored - everyone >not only notices disruption, they can't ignore the point being made. A >healthy group razz or guffaw to some statement signals to others that people >are listening and they believe the statement to be absurd. Protests at the >door of sessions, blocking the entrance or entirely filling the session with >an unfavorable audience has an impact. Leafletting is public and it also has the advantage of being articulate. In any case, we're talking tactics without having first discussed strategy. And if we were discussing strategy, we'd still be in the wrong place because we haven't talked about goals. What should a better ASA look like and do? Not to mention that we have no analysis of the current situation within ASA other than that the conference program is bad and the presidents are bad. I mean, like, how did we get a bad conference and bad presidents, and what would make a difference? Like, do 85% of sociologists think that ASA is totally cool? And, finally, how much of a difference does it make whether ASA changes? I'm not convinced that it matters for anything I care about. >We must strike back, at some level, at the reactionary conservatism that is >overwhelming us at all levels. What I find especially troubling is not the >conservatism of the senior/older members of the ASA but the conservatism of >the junior/younger members of the ASA and, for that matter, my department. >These people are the main supporter of conservatism. today. You've said this before, and I still think it's ridiculous. In my experience, most sociologists are to the Left of Clinton, and a negligible proportion would consider themselves Republicans. Compare to economists, for instance, who are an extremely conservative group as a whole. Sociologists may not measure up on your yardstick, but relative to American politics in general, they look pretty good. (This does not, however, contradict Lauren's comments, for instance.) Etzioni's questionable philosophy is not just an attempt to secularize the views of the religious right, but to give liberals a language to use in speaking back to the right about family and community. (And I do mean "liberals" here, not Leftists -- supporting capitalism and eschewing class analysis are hallmarks of liberals just as much as they are of conservatives.) Etzioni is trying to do the same thing for community that W.J. Wilson (another past president) tried to do for race. Their projects are *not* conservative, at least not relative to the American scene. This is not to say that I support either, which I do not. Look, you can call everybody to the right of Ron Dellums a conservative (that is, use social democrats as the dividing line), but you've compressed 95% of American politics into one category. How useful is that? Regarding the link of communitarianism and fascism, I think you might as well throw in every other -ism. As long as you pick the right dimension you can squash any two of them together and call them the same thing. My contribution to the war of the isms is reductionism. By the way, community excludes by definition; that's not an invention of Communitarianism. Sigh. Bedtime. Michael -- Michael Lichter UCLA Department of Sociology From SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calumet.purdue.edu Sat May 13 16:02:16 1995 From: SPECTOAJ@vaxb.calumet.purdue.edu Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 09:46:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: fascism/decadence/POMOGRAPHY/communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu We can take the spoken words of an ideologist from one school and find some aspects of other ideologies. In one sense, everything is connected to everything. BUT, the links may be much stronger between certain clusters of processes and phenomena. Certainly we don't want to just throw hostile labels at things we disagree with. But the issue of communitarianism is NOT just an issue of what the communitarians say -- I suspect that some of them say some "liberal" things. The issue is what does communitariansim represent as a sociological trend. Part of that question has to deal with: "Why is it growing at this time?" That is why many of us associate it with conservatism -- it, like its opposite twin, the Friar of Fragmentation--Postmodernism-- are growing in the context of, and as a result of, the decay of the the system, including the tendency of capitalism to spend more and more of its focus on consumption and bizarre gambling financial deals to keep profits up, rather than on production of goods and services that people need. The resulting deprivation, as well as unemployment, subemployment, etc. combine with a culture of cynicism and even despair, and nurture those two trends which appear to be opposite but feed each other---"Desperately Seeking Community (without creating the BASIS for that community) in the form of fundamentalist religion, cults, and secular versions like Communitarianism"-- ----or its twin "Embrace the Lonliness, drown in the "moment". And of course many people oscillate back and forth between the two opposites because they won't/can't confront the material issues of material well-being as necessary for a society to achieve, so they grasp, to embrace an artificial community or to live for the moment. Sometimes I'll have a student who will ask: "Don't you think the world is dying?" The world isn't dying. Capitalism is dying. But since capitalism is the only world that many people can conceive of, it appears that the whole world is dying. Alan Spector (who realizes that the process of capitalism's dying is a longer, slower, more painful process, with more zigs and zags than maybe we thought when we were younger) From lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Sat May 13 19:12:52 1995 From: lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 20:14:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: Communitarianism/Individual Rights To: PSN@csf.colorado.edu How is it that the communitarian movement concludes individual rights have gone too far? If you ever read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you will see that almost every one of those rights has not yet been fulfilled on a global scale. It seems to me, if anything, that individual rights have not gone far enough. Last week on NPR I heard Etzioni along with a professor from Berkeley whose name escapes me now. Etzioni said something to the effect that we all agree we need less government now. How can this, in any way, advance the cause of individual rights? Government is a messy business, but it is the only institution which can possibly take on the incredibly difficult task of insuring some basic form of equality among all of its citizens. Otherwise, who is going to do it? Etzioni's responsive communities? The notion of caring/normative values is an important factor to consider, but let's not mess it up with the task government. Government is a large, awkward, bulky institution. It doesn't "feel." Government doesn't "care." This is the task of individuals in interpersonal interactions. The function of government is to legislate and ensure the basic rights as provided for in any particular democratic insitituions constitution. This process could go much further towards ensuring personal freedoms and individual rights if there were processes which were not interfering with the process, such as large corporations, wealthy individuals and persons with special access to the process of democracy. It could also function better from the bottom up if individuals had more freedom, freedom from work, freedom from the consumer process, freedom of interaction with other citizens etc. What is needed is more rights, more individual freedoms. If this process is allowed to happen for the majority of citizens in any particular democracy, I think there will be a natural improvement in the nature of the democracy, the functioning of the democracy and perhaps ultimately, in the nature of the community in which people will exist. But the only way I think this will happen is through more government intervention, more taxation and fundamentally it will only happen through more awareness of their condition of oppression on the part of the working class and more action to demand rights and freedoms. Chris Lugo From mlamanna@cwis.unomaha.edu Mon May 15 09:07:22 1995 Subject: article on communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 10:09:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Mary Ann Lamanna An excellent analytical and critical article on communitarianism is: Samuel Walker, "The Communitarian Cop-out." NATIONAL CIVIC REVIEW (summer 1993): 246-254. From HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Tue May 23 03:52:22 1995 From: HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 05:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ASA/Protest To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: West Virginia Network Scott Kerlin makes an important point from his experience with the AFT. Protest at the ASA should be specific so that all attending can get a clear idea of what the objection is all about and so that response/dialog is possible. Perhaps the Communitarian proposal to curtail further development of civil rights would be a point to make or an objection to Etzioni's support (reported, as I hear it) for the Persian Gulf War. Bob Hall, West Virginia State College From dassbach@mtu.edu Tue May 23 07:08:25 1995 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:10:28 -0400 To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU From: dassbach@mtu.edu (Carl H.A. Dassbach) Subject: Re: ASA/Protest Bob Hall wrote: >Protest at the ASA should be specific so that all attending can >get a clear idea of what the objection is all about and so that >response/dialog is possible. > >Perhaps the Communitarian proposal to curtail further development >of civil rights would be a point to make or an objection to >Etzioni's support (reported, as I hear it) for the Persian Gulf >War. Agreed, protest should be focused and specific. As of now, I don't have a program but once we get programs perhaps we should open a dialogue about which issues, panels, etc we should target and possible tactics. If people believe that PSN is an inappropraiet forum for such a discussion, I think that I could set up another list for that purpose. Carl Dassbach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: DASSBACH@MTU.EDU Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931 USA From PLSEYM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Fri May 26 07:55:06 1995 Date: Fri, 26 May 95 09:47:13 EDT From: "Perry L. Seymour" To: psn@csf.Colorado.EDU In the June 5, 1995 issue of the Nation there is an excellent article by Kirkpatrick Sale called "Setting Limits On Technology". The author ties the Luddite "rebellion" in with today's technological revolution and comes up with some revealing conclusions and suggestions. One of those suggestion, however, confuses me a bit. The quote--"Globalism, and its economic military expression, is the guiding strategy of that civilization, to which must be opposed the strategy of localism, based upon the empowerment of the coherent bioregion and the small community." This article was an intelligent, seemingly progressive, critical analysis of the "second Industrial revolution". However, as progressive sociologists, can we ascribe to the opposition of globalism and the promotion of localism? This is exactly the point where I am confused. This net covered communitarianism recently. Yet the plusses of some sort of community can be rationally argued for. However, we must also combat exploitation wherever it appears on the globe. Or is the guiding principle that we must oppose unbridled economic expansion? If that is what is meant by opposition to "globalism" then where is the line drawn? A grad student looking for some answers--Perry. From lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Sat May 27 10:36:29 1995 From: lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 11:38:25 -0500 (CDT) Sender: lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Subject: Re: Nation Article (globalism/localism/communitarianism) One interesting thing chaos theory teaches us is that reiteration is a fundamental part of all systems, and reiteration appears to be a phenomenon which is not quantity specific. My point - this so called trend towards "globalism" is nothing new. Humans have been wandering all over the earth for the last 50,000 years, probably earlier than that even, and they have found ways to communicate and interact with each other all the way along. The term reiteration qualifies here under the interaction between individuals of different perspectives, which happens under globalism. In some instances it happens between individuals, such as in an airport, on a college campus, on the streets of a major city, in some sort of religious context . . .media as a cultural representative though is that it acts as a superconnector, embracing all of these other forms of cultural and squeezing them into its own box, in a sense dominating these other forms of culture, in exchange for rapid and universal transmission. I think clearly what is going to happen is that very specific things are going to push societies more and more towards globalism, while others will keep them firmly rooted in localism. THe most significant global factors are of course the environment and capital markets. Of course, these are the two things which capitalists and individuals can agree is most important and universal. Under the heading of capital markets economists might include agriculture, science and technology, industry, service and all 640 occupational titles listed under OSHA. Under environment, individuals might include global warming, which I would argue to be the most significant issue we must deal with globally, overpopulation, chemical pollution, urbanization, deforestation, ozone depletion, perhaps even use of nuclear weapons. Clearly these are issues which can only be dealt with globally and internationally. What we must do for this is create institutions which are hyper-wired, that is, which are capable of superceding their previous ceilings of nationalism, for an even higher calling towards globalism, after all the same air passes over all nations. I think the United Nations is the best insititution we have right now to meet these goals and I think the united nations in the future is going to need to take a more decisive affair in managing global politics, specifically interfering with the "sovereign" rights of nations, and creating a really three tiered system - states (such as in the US), nations, and then the international union. I think this is the best move for the international society to take, a binding resolution creating an international government with more power than the united nations currently has and more responsibility. The movement towards localism is also no "trend" - it is nothin new and it is nothin we should be trying to use to counterbalance a move towards greater and greater internationalism on an industrial and cultural level. Localism to me is a recognition of some fundamental aspests of human behavior, such as orientation in place and the limiting aspects of human motion. Humans, when stripped of their machines, are very slow, and this is pretty much how human beings evolved over thousands of years, at a certain much slower pace. Perhaps this in part led to th notion of territories, sacred hunting grounds, herding grounds, and the early roots of notions of communities. BUT TO MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT FOR LOCALISM, TO ARGUE SPECIFICALLY THAT THE NOTION OF MORALITY IS CONNECTED TO THE NOTION OF COMMUNITIES, IS SILLY AND SHORT SIGHTED NOTION IN MY OPINION. WHEN I HEAR HARVARD PROFESSOR SPEAKING FROM A COMMUNITARIAN VIEWPOINT, URGING US ALL TO JOIN BOWLING LEAGUES AND GO TO CHURCH MORE OFTEN, AND RECREATE THESE INFORMAL ALLIANCES WHICH ARE REALLY THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY AND FUNDAMENTALL THE BASIS OF OUR SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY I JUST WANT TO CRINGE AND GO HIDE IN A CAVE SOMEWHERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PROFESSOR SAYS THAT IT IS THESE INFORMAL ALLIANCES, ESPECIALLY ONES SUCH AS CHURCH, WHICH ACTUALLY HELP TO CREATE WEALTH. THIS IS CLEARLY AN OLD BOYS NETWORK ARGUMENT TO ME AND WHAT THE PROFESSOR AND MANY COMMUNITARIANS DONT ADDRESS MUCH BUT SHOULD IS THE NOTION OF COMMUNITIES OF EXCLUSION. So the notions of localism, globalism, and communitarianism are all very old notions, in fact they are all very green because they are all being recycled, but some new issues are coming up. Clearly the pace of technology and its overall affect on human ecosystems is quite significant, and I think at root the issues of localism, globalism and communitarianism are all to some degree responses, with a tremendous amount of thought and consideration I'm sure, to the issues of technology and its affect on human and global ecosytems. I might add as a conclusion here, that being a self-described socialist I am all for globalism. The notion of abolishion of private property, of working class solidarity, of control of goods and services, control of means of production, these are all notions whcih can only be meaningful if they exist on an international perspective because that is the same perspective under which capitalism has been operating since its inception. Chris Lugo Minneapolis From rspear@primenet.com Sat May 27 19:19:41 1995 To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu From: rspear@primenet.com (Richard Spear) Subject: Re: Nation Article (globalism/localism/communitarianism) Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 18:20:04 PST In article lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu writes: >Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 11:38:25 -0500 (CDT) >Reply-To: lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu >From: lugo0001@gold.tc.umn.edu >To: PSN-CAFE >Subject: Re: Nation Article (globalism/localism/communitarianism) [lots deleted] >So the notions of localism, globalism, and communitarianism are all very >old notions, in fact they are all very green because they are all being >recycled, but some new issues are coming up. Clearly the pace of >technology and its overall affect on human ecosystems is quite >significant, and I think at root the issues of localism, globalism and >communitarianism are all to some degree responses, with a tremendous >amount of thought and consideration I'm sure, to the issues of technology >and its affect on human and global ecosytems. >I might add as a conclusion here, that being a self-described socialist I >am all for globalism. The notion of abolishion of private property, of >working class solidarity, of control of goods and services, control of >means of production, these are all notions whcih can only be meaningful >if they exist on an international perspective because that is the same >perspective under which capitalism has been operating since its inception. >Chris Lugo >Minneapolis The globalism being discussed today is the globalism of capitalism. There is a crisis of capitalism that requires expanding markets and that is what we are suffering through. Let's not confuse ideology and the material universe and lets not forget who will benefit from this globalisation. It is not the worker of any single country ... competitive forces will continue to drive real wages down. It takes an honest-to-god hardcore determinist to think that socialism lies on the horizon. There's always the real possibility of collapse and the failure of civilization, rather than a socialist revolution. The only realistic course remains struggle and education. Regards, Richard rspear@primenet.com From MDR@borg.evms.edu Fri Jun 16 15:30:48 1995 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 17:10:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Rosenthal Subject: Activities at ASA-SSSP meetings To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Organization: Eastern Virginia Medical School As the PSN'er who originally raised the suggestion of protesting the Etzioni-Clinton celebration of communitarianism at the ASA meetings, I disagree with the idea of going off to dinner the evening that Etzioni delivers his "presidential address." Martha's idea of a PSN dinner is a good one. I've enjoyed meeting or renewing contact with many PSN'ers at recent regional meetings and look forward to seeing a lot of you at the ASA-SSSP. But I think the dinner should be scheduled at a time when little else is going on. If we are going to combat the ideological influence of communitarianism and various other neo-liberal and neo-fascist doctrines being promoted in sociology and in the academic world in general, we cannot do it very well by leaving the field wide open to the promotors of these doctrines. I apologize that I have been away from PSN for the past couple weeks. I was busy with preparations for my daughter's wedding last weekend, which was a joyous and uplifting celebration. I want to resume planning for activitities at the meetings. Even though Clinton is apparently not coming--according to the ASA preliminary program--there is still much work to be done. I will put forward some suggestions about agitation, leafletting, educational efforts in a couple days, after I have some thoughts better organized. Steve Rosenthal From comnet@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu Tue Jun 27 15:25:39 1995 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 17:28:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Amitai Etzioni To: psn@csf.colorado.edu The following letter will appear in the forthcoming FOOTNOTES, the ASA newsletter: Dear Colleague: My mailbox overflowed this week with memos outlining the plans of a small number of our colleagues, self-styled "progressive sociologists," who are seriously considering blocking entries to the '95 annual meeting, disrupting presentations, and taking other steps to make their anger known. The sources of their displeasure -- President Clinton, and the presentations of communitarians, notably my own. Perhaps I should have learned by now, but I am still a bit taken aback by the news. I was not aware of posing such a great danger to the Republic that I deserve to be singled out for protest. One would think that in a world of militias, skinheads, and Pat Robertsons -- not to mention the heartaches of Bosnia, Chechnia, and other war-torn lands -- a sociologist who believes that we have responsibilities to go along with our rights wouldn't get top billing at the picket line. I presumably do not need to repeat in this learned forum the age-old argument that if the freedom of speech for those of us who have ideas some oppose is denied, that of others will soon follow. Nor do I need to point out that when freedom of speech is threatened, progressive speech is usually the first to go. Rather, let me merely express the hope that enough of my colleagues will join the annual meeting, particularly the relevant sessions, that our presence and our moral voice will outweigh any attempts at disruption or suppression. To be fair, I should note the sociological question raised by one of the "progressives": Does tarring Clinton and the communitarians as fascists not serve the right wing? If the majority of Americans who see themselves as centrists -- in effect communitarians -- are all lumped together with fascists, might it not indeed legitimize the right wing by making it look like much of mainstream America? I am keen to hear what the "progressives" have to say on this point, and on any others that they wish to address, and I am happy to invite their views fully during the only plenary session that is not already committed, the business session. But if I might, let me also observe that as a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, I have some firsthand knowledge of fascism and am saddened to hear anyone recklessly accused of it. Neither President Clinton nor any communitarians I know have anything in common with that evil force. And let me assure my colleagues that as long as I have anything to do with it no group, whatever banner it chooses to fly, will get away with silencing anybody. That is not what this association is about, and it is not what this country is about. Amitai Etzioni From wgoldste@hp800.lasalle.edu Tue Jun 27 16:11:42 1995 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 18:15:02 -0400 (EDT) From: W Goldstein To: Amitai Etzioni Subject: Re: your mail Dear PSNers and Professor Etzioni, I closely read the discussion on possible actions at the ASA conference. Disruption was just one of the possible actions discussed. Nothing concrete was decided (one of the downfalls of this particular form of communication). Nevertheless, there seemed to be a certain dissatisfaction with the ideas of "communitarianism" and direction the ASA was being taken in. Perhaps this should be discussed at the conference. As for the distinctions between "progressive" and "communitarian", I find this a rather peculiar distinction. Are they mutually exclusive? Despite all my misgivings about Bill Clinton, a few of his policies might even be labelled "progressive" (gay rights, national health care). The problem is that his administration has been able to achieve very little because he is constantly acquiescing to the right wing of the Republican Party. Perhaps this is the major downfall of "centrism." Sincerely, Warren Goldstein Ph.D. Candidate New School for Social Research P.S. As for the term "fascist", as you may know, it is used way too loosely. This listserve is a rather "anarchic" forum and the ideas of one particular subscriber in no way reflect those of the entire list. From soc40001@frank.mtsu.edu Tue Jun 27 19:40:19 1995 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 20:43:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Andy To: Amitai Etzioni Subject: Re: your mail On Tue, 27 Jun 1995, Amitai Etzioni wrote: > To be fair, I should note the sociological question raised by one > of the "progressives": Does tarring Clinton and the communitarians as > fascists not serve the right wing? If the majority of Americans who see > themselves as centrists -- in effect communitarians -- are all lumped > together with fascists, might it not indeed legitimize the right wing by > making it look like much of mainstream America? I would like to respond to this question. It seems to me that locating communitarianism in its proper ideological orientation would produce the exact opposite of what is suggested here by professor Etzioni. Unless I have misunderstood his point, I assert that if Americans recognize that Clinton and the communitarians are moving the country further towards the right, then this should expose the ultra-conservatives as the neo-fascists that they are. Wouldn't it be an (ideo)logical impossibility that in exposing a movement as right wing one would somehow make those who are to the right of that movement appear centrist? After all, the tactic up until now by the far right has been to paint liberalism as far left (absurd, I know, but effective), thus dragging the center (and evidently Bill Clinton) to the right. Andy Austin From SO4A024@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de Wed Jun 28 05:17:56 1995 From: "FASENFEST.DAVID" Organization: Univ. Hamburg, Dep. of Social Sc. To: Amitai Etzioni , psn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 13:18:36 GMT+1 Subject: Fascism A small comment to Etzioni regarding emotional appeals rather than dealing with the issues: First, while he was escaping fascism in general, it was the particular form of fascism in the face of Nazism which he fled. As a child of a survivor I am no less saddened by the rise of fascism both in the US and Europe, even if it is not the particular fascism experienced in Germany the middle of this century. But we cannot use the status of victim to remove the responsibility to be critical. Second, it is precisely that strands of communitarianism provide massive openings to fascism regardless of the progressive elements of it as well that generates some concern. National socialists played on progressive worker concerns to mask itself in the earlier period, and the US intellectual and political spectrum is now so skewed as to place Clinton, a right to work governor, on the center and a little to the left! We must be careful to identify tendencies regardless of the intent of those presenting the tendencies...and in spite of their personal histories which should put them at the forefront and not rearguard of any vigilence about general fascist tendencies. This is not about freedom of speech (and I might add the progressive speech is already effectively surpressed so we have little to really worry about on this score and therefor should not succumb to false logic or scare claims!), but about politics and the use of professional organizations as platforms when positions have not been fully and openly discussed within the organization. Respectfully, Dr. David Fasenfest Dr. Heidi Gottfried TELNET: so4a024@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de FAX: (49) (40) 4123-4506 From R0553@VMCMS.CSUOHIO.EDU Wed Jun 28 08:10:58 1995 From: R0553@VMCMS.CSUOHIO.EDU Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 10:06:23 EST To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: communitarianism Hi: I think David Fasenfest raises the crucial question regarding the role of communitarianism in ASA. Whether or not it is fascism (I don't think it is), it is a political position. To the extent that ASA approaches endorsement of this political position, by allowing its plenaries to be used as platforms for promoting its ideas, it also moves away from its self-appointed role as a learned society (with a tax exemption based on its non-political character, one might add). Of course, some will argue that the Marxist section presents a similar threat to ASA's non-political role; but, the Marxist section is not identified with a single, organized movement, whereas, it could easily be argued, communitarianism is. In a way, I'm a bit surprised that Council, which is usually very cautious about any kind of political advocacy in asa has not been disturbed by the communitarian thrust of this year's program. Maybe they figure all those guys and gals at the IRS are communitarians too, so they don't have to worry. Cheers. Peter Meiksins Cleveland State University From THALL@DEPAUW.EDU Wed Jun 28 08:30:17 1995 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 09:32:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: Communitarians etc To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Well Gang, Reading Etzioni's letter, followed by Peter M comment, suggests to me that something more insidious MAY be going on here. AE's tone is so "calm" that it makes "progressives" look like nut cases (I think the intended effect). As to Peter's comment, I'd like to take it further. Isn't the implicit, or maybe explicit, claim of communitarians is that they are not political, but speaking as scientists about society? That what they are discussing is, in fact, natural, normal, etc and not political? >From years of study of Native American - Euro relations, most Indians I know head for cover when they hear social scientists talk about prescriptions for society--and from their history that is a reasonable response: witness allotment, assimilation, termination, boarding schools etc... It seems to me that the communitarians are pulling the same game, but this time for the entire society. So maybe we should take them seriously enough to rebut their arguments. Probably everyone on psn[-cafe] could write a paper on how the loss of "community" is fundamentally a consequence of free market capitalism. But none of us are-- except here to each other. Maybe should be busy showing how and why communitarianism is based on bad[=wrong] sociology. Face it, we blew it, we should have organized some panels critiquing communitarianism and flogged them to the press. We're now marginalized as "nut cases." 'nuff of my random musing tom hall From MDR@borg.evms.edu Wed Jun 28 13:54:53 1995 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 15:57:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Rosenthal Subject: Etzioni's smear of "self-styled Progressives" To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Organization: Eastern Virginia Medical School Dear PSN'ers, On June 27 ASA president Amitai Etzioni shared with PSN the contents of a letter he has written for the forthcoming Footnotes, commenting on recent discussion of communitarianism and the ASA annual meeting on PSN. As an initiator of this discussion ("Politics of Annual ASA Meeting," May 9 posting), I found Etzioni's response quite revealing. As usual, Mort Wenger raised a very pertinent question: "Have I missed something?" Mort observed that Etzioni's comments massively misrepresented the actual discussion that took place on PSN. Etzioni raises the spectre of "self styled progressive sociologists" who are seriously considering "blocking entries" to and "disrupting presentations" at the annual meeting. Casting himself and all communitarians as "centrists" in between fascists of the right and progressive enemies of "free speech," Etzioni condescendingly reminds us that "we have responsibilities to go along with our rights." Etzioni has evidently given us a foretaste of his presidential address, whose title places communitarianism in between the religious fundamentalism of the right and the "rigid orthodoxy" of the left. Etzioni has thusly confirmed the main points that were made by PSN'ers in their analyses of communitarianism. CommunItarianism caricatures and attacks the ideas of the left, while embracing and legitimizing the ideology of the right. Etzioni castigates us for criticizing him "in a world of militias, skinheads, and Pat Robertsons." When "centrist" members of Congress provide platforms for militia members in the guise of "hearings;" when "centrist" politicians and the media recruit and incite skinheads with a steady diet of racist lies about "reverse discrimination," the "underclass," welfare, illegal immigration, and the like; and when the ADL holds closed door meetings with Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition to discuss how to encourage more Jews to vote Republican (see article in the Nation); then the implicit alliance between "centrists" and fascists is becoming more and more real. It is not just a rhetorical figment of the leftist imagination. As Etzioni's friend Bill Clinton adopts and promotes more and more of the agenda of the extreme right, Etzioni will no doubt intensify his attack on "rigid orthodox" leftists who reject this abject surrender to reaction. Tom Hall self-critically says that "we blew it, we should have organized some panels critiquing comunitarianism." Perhaps we could have gotten some panels on the program, but let's not overlook the fact that Etzioni has stacked most of the plenaries and special sessions with communitarian dialogues between "centrists" and the right. He now magnanimously invites us to the Business Meeting to air our views. Let's not forget that Etzioni commands the resources of the ASA and the even greater advantages of his ties with the Clinton Administration. Footnotes refused to print the last letter I wrote them, a letter signed by 130 ASA members supporting Alfred McClung Lee in his criticisms of James Coleman's support of the violently racist anti-busing movement. We'll see if they will print any PSN'ers replies to Etzioni's distortions. We should utilize every opportunity at the ASA meetings to sharpen our critique of communitarianism and other ideologies that facilitate the move toward fascism. The future of the working class is being "blocked" and "disrupted" in draconian ways by public policy. We should try to win as many sociologists as we can to repudiating apologists for these attacks. Steve Rosenthal From geiger@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu Wed Jun 28 14:02:13 1995 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 16:05:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Vance Geiger To: Amitai Etzioni Subject: Re: your mail Regarding two recent posts on communitarianism and fascism: From: Amitai Etzioni But if I might, let me also observe that as a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, I have some firsthand knowledge of fascism and am saddened to hear anyone recklessly accused of it. Neither President Clinton nor any communitarians I know have anything in common with that evil force. And let me assure my colleagues that as long as I have anything to do with it no group, whatever banner it chooses to fly, will get away with silencing anybody. That is not what this association is about, and it is not what this country is about. Amitai Etzioni From: "FASENFEST.DAVID" A small comment to Etzioni regarding emotional appeals rather than dealing with the issues: First, while he was escaping fascism in general, it was the particular form of fascism in the face of Nazism which he fled. As a child of a survivor I am no less saddened by the rise of fascism both in the US and Europe, even if it is not the particular fascism experienced in Germany the middle of this century. But we cannot use the status of victim to remove the responsibility to be critical. Reply: As a lurking anthropologist, I would like to make a prediction and ask someone to let me know if it comes to pass. I predict that any public discussion of whether communitarianism is fascist at the ASA devolves into competing narratives between individuals who can claim some experience of fascism. In essence, that only those who can claim knowledge derived from direct experience of the "frontier," in this case fascism, will be granted standing in that their arguments will be taken seriously and elicit responses. Another prediction: that whatever the source of Etzioni's crammed mailbox (snail mail? e mail? does he attend to e mail?) he will not respond to the arguments made on this list regarding communitarianism as a result of the fact that in this forum all voices have equal standing and the individual status as affirmed in public displays (one person at the podium and a bunch in the audience) are denied. vance geiger geiger@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu  From HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Wed Jun 28 14:28:24 1995 From: HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 16:29:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: West Virginia Network Communitarianism is a lot of things, but I don't believe it is a partisan political movement any more than Marxism. It is certainly associated with a number of politicians, but it began as an ethical theory and has become, I think, a social theory as well. The question should perhaps be whether the ASA should highlight any one theory at its meeting. As I understand communitarian social theory, it COULD be open to a critical perspective, but perhaps we should discuss specific elements of the theory or positions the movement has taken. Bob Hall, West Virginia State College From spector@calumet.purdue.edu Wed Jun 28 14:23:03 1995 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 15:19:01 -0600 (CST) From: "Alan Spector" Sender: spector@calumet.purdue.edu To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Having re-read Etzioni's nervous attack on unknown "progressive sociologists", which he will have reprinted in Footnotes, I would like to encourage those who oppose racism, fascism, and imperialism to press onward against his right wing ideology. He has gone to great lengths to especially emphasize his devotion to President Clinton, even while he says that he is opposed to those who would silence anybody. There are many issues surrounding Clinton, from his support of the assault against immigrants to his support of dictators around the world. Let's just look at one situation relevant to Etzioni's support for Clinton. I assume he is aware that the Clinton-supported sanctions against Iraq have killed thousands of children from lack of food and medicine. Of course Saddam is a criminal, but the capitalist way of dealing with situations like this is to engage in wholesale slaughter, from Nazi Germany to Vietnam to Iraq. Those thousands of children will never have the right to address an ASA convention. Nor vote. Nor publish their findings. Nor make any kind of speech. But Clinton is considered "an okay guy", while those who oppose him are considered opponents of freedom. The appropriateness of the proposal to attack both communitarianism and Clinton is verified by Etzioni's attack. And in that attack, Etzioni has further exposed his position to criticism by so openly tying himself to Clinton. Now is not the time to cringe in fear that some of the mainstream sociologists might disagree with criticizing Etzioni. Now is the time to press forward and make the political attack all the sharper. A number of years ago I had a debate with another professor about U.S. military policy and the role of the university. When it was over, one of my friend commented to me. He said: "Nice try, Alan, but by my estimate, about 40% of the crowd was with you and about 60% sided with the other professor. Looks like we lost." So I asked him what he thought the opinions were before the debate. "Well," he said, "almost everyone in the audience came to support the other professor." (He was a rather popular professor.) So, I don't know. Would you call that a defeat? The main question is not whether you win over the majority, but rather whether you are stronger afterwards than you were when you started. Let's not be afraid that the majority of ASA members might oppose a sharp political attack against Etzioni or Clinton. If you worry about losing, you already lost. Alan Spector From dhenwood@panix.com Wed Jun 28 15:05:10 1995 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 17:08:02 -0500 To: PSN-CAFE From: dhenwood@panix.com (Doug Henwood) Subject: Re: Etzioni redux Would someone describe this nefarious plot, this conspiracy so immense, that Dr Communitarian was moaning about? Doug -- Doug Henwood [dhenwood@panix.com] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax From MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Wed Jun 28 21:03:57 1995 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 23:09:15 EDT From: "Morton G. Wenger, Dept. of Sociology" Subject: Anti-epistle epistle To: University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USA PHONE: (502) 852-6836 FAX: (502) 852-0099 I come not to epithetize Etzioni's missive (yet), but to deconstruct it. I only hope that it can be done in one posting. I admit that I feel like Proust should have felt before he took that first bite of *madeleine*. Knee-jerk empiricist that I am, I went back to the PSN archives and followed the whole stream of discussion of communitarianism, Etzioni, and the ASA. It started on May 9 and extended to about May 15, when it drizzled out, as such e-storms tend to do. There were about fifty to seventy-five posts, of varying themes, length, and perspective. In retrospect, most seem fairly interesting and thougtful, but I digress. One, the first, raised the question of whne or two; favoring blocking the doors to "bullshit"- one; against any form of protest-around five. The scores of other messages were discussing the nature of communitarianism as a theoretical development/political ideology. About one in four or five of these was PRO-communitarian. All were interesting and illuminating, and probably stung the heck out of an academic gerontocrat possibly unaccustomed to but clearly uncomfortable with serious intellectual challenge to dearly-held shibboleths. For those unfamiliar with the actual events, Etzioni's McCarthy-like smear of "psn," which is no more nor less than its subscibers, was engendered by this. Those who wish to verify the verisimilitude of the above may check the psn archives for May, which are freely available at csf.colorado.edu. Having looked for the disruptive "Reds under the psn bed," and having found nothing but cobwebs, let me now ask the following: What is the real cause of the unseemly tantrum by the new president of the ASA? Why does it come now? How does it fractally recapitulate the actual nature of Etzionist communitarianism? Why is it prudent, scientific, and non-"id eological" to typify said school as fascist?I will answer these questions tomo rrow, but before concluding this post, I have one more thing to say. Etzioni takes great exception in his letter to the labelling of communitarianism as fascist. Although some others on psn agreed, I was the theoretical deviant who labelled communitarianism as something along the lines of "a form of fascist ideology for the squeamish petit bourgeois." This was pooh-poohed and scorned in Etzioni's letter as ridiculous and hyperbolic. Let me cut to the chase on this: I affirm the above as a scientifically defensible metatheoretical stance and assertion, and hereby invite Professor Etzioni to debate/dispute/discuss this with me in *any* academic forum at any mutually convenient time, under the supervision of a mutually acceptable and neutral moderator. I would note that the various regional associations are still forming their 1996 programs, but if this is not soon enough for Professor Etzioni, I am open to other alternatives. I would even be willing to entertain time taken from the slot of the ASA business meetings, if this is what his comment at the end of his letter seems to suggest. Of course, if he refuses to respond, we can analyze *this* at a later date. More deconstruction to come... ,cc cmsnames (comlist) INTERNET: MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU From 34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU Thu Jun 29 08:43:00 1995 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 10:05:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Subject: Friendly fascism and Communitarians To: ALL RECIPIENTS OF PSN Organization: Central Michigan University [Please ignore the adventitious insertions; Kermit did that, not I.] Etizoni's query to those of us who plan to disrupt things for Clinton and the Communitarians i one ruiring serious response. I would like to make two brief points to that end: 1. Too often those of us on the Left forget the sociology which lurks behind social problems and focus on particular persons. And much too often, we focus upon small differences between progressive movements and disregard the larger, more troublesome differences in social life which call forth emancipatory action. And far too often, we see absolutely nothing of value in the ideas and activities of the far right..were we tostep back a bit, we could appreciate that we have far more in common withthose on the far Right then, perhaps, we care to admit...the differences are signficant but then so are the commonalities. To thispoint, I would suggest that wefocus upon social relationships instead of pparticular persons and try to bridge rather than cast out. 2. There is a real problem withthe modern state embodied b both liberals on the Right, Left and Center...the idea that the state can know all, watch all, control all andismiss othe centers of o moral action is, rightly, a cause for concern of those in the Christian Coalition and the Communitarians...indeed, of theoretical anarchists everywhere Some of you might know that, for the past five years, I have been working on nonlinear social dynamics and the meaning of this new body of science for both theory and policy. In brief, efforts to control become ever mre difficult as social processes become more complex. Neither linear research designs nor linear, rational policies make sense given complexity in social relations. The effort by the state to control; to institute linear connections between socialvariables [taxes, rwelfare and such simply expand the problems. There are points at which intervention works but it must be a gentle well timed intervention...those on the Right are corctin condemning massive intervention by the state in a variety of social problems. That a good many capitalist support such anti-state intervention only obscures the issue...intervention in the private sector by the state is warranted but not on the scale nor in the manner nowpraticed by our well mening and good hearted colleages in Congress. Communitarism, as I understand it, is a much better tactic to use to empower people than are massive welfare prorams...and poorfare programs. I accept the crque hat big government is necessary to control big big business...all the more so as the economy is globalized. Even so, Massive intervention won't work...both James Yorke and A. Hubler have done the basic researthe tactics with which to control complex nonlinear dynamics...no one yehas figured out how to do that with social dynamics...we are just in the late adolescence of the knowledge process and have a lot of research and a lot of experimentation to do before we can come up with state policy which answers both the real problems of oppression, liberty, economy of scale and, in the doing, building a praxis society. Etizoni and his colleagues are valuable to that process...so is more of the critique from the Right than perhaps we might like to honor. Have patience, learn a lot, think a lot and get tough when really serious actions by the Right aroing real harm to peple. hen I will be beside you. T.R. Young T.R.YOUNG@CMICH.EDU From wgoldste@hp800.lasalle.edu Thu Jun 29 09:08:58 1995 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:12:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "" To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Etzioni's Footnotes remarks Dear PSN'ers, I think that Etzioni's remarks in Footnotes may have unexpected consequences for him for two reasons: First, it will reveal his own ideological position. I do not think that the majority of ASA members (or the majority of Americans) identify themselves as "communitarian." I do not think they even know what it is. His attack upon "progressives" and his allignment with "the center" is likely to alienate many members of the ASA. I don't think that the majority of the membership supports the death penalty, building more prisons and cutting welfare. I think many members of the ASA (I admit including myself) voted for Clinton (and will most likely vote for him again) not because they like him, but because they can't stand the Republicans. When (and if) the membership realizes that the theme of the conference is being used to promote his "communitarian" ideology (and perhaps his books), they may have a bad reaction. Secondly, his remarks in Footnotes will draw attention to this listserve. What is this subversive speech being discussed over these fiber-optic cables? If nothing else, many members may subscribe out of curiosity. So let him go ahead and publish those remarks. I think it will only embarass him. Naturally it would be nice if someone from the PSN could put together a response in Footnotes- that is if he would allow equal time for the opposition. Isn't that what "free speech" is all about? Sincerely, Warren Goldstein Ph.D. Candidate Department of Sociology New School for Social Research From reratcli@mailbox.syr.edu Thu Jun 29 11:51:54 1995 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:54:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard E. Ratcliff" To: "Morton G. Wenger, Dept. of Sociology" Subject: Re: Anti-epistle epistle In regard to the discussion of Etzioni's letter, I do not recall much other than some mild cautions voiced against the calls for some sort of picketing or other protest at the ASA meeting. Given the fervour of the calls to "radical' action and the fact that the discussion just ended, I am not surprised that Etzioni and others, seeing some of the posts, were left with the impression that folks associated with PSN were planing some "mass action" disruption. I will leave it to others to guess at whether PSN will be helped, or just embarrassed, by the forthcoming Footnotes letter. At the time of the posts, I was tempted to voice my own skepticism but, alas, i got distracted. Reading the discussion then (and I hear some renewing their calls to action now), I wondered why but academic radicals could plan to go to Washington, D.C. (is not that where Newt and friends hold court?) and then devote their political energies to inside-the-hotel demonstratioons against other academics? (note: the "why" at the start of this sentence should be "who" damn telnet!) I was not much impressed by the arguments that Etzioni merited disruption either because of his championing of communitarianism (how "dangerous can a muddled idea be?) or because of this alleged endorsement of the Gulf War (the faint of heart must stand in awe of the moral certainty of those who can, because it was fought for the "wronge" reasons, condemn others who supported a war against a genocidal tyrant). I also questioned someone's odd plan to pour through the ASA program to find sessions demed offensive or dangerous enough to merit disruption (aside from my or reluctance to try to deny the freedom of others to voice ideas, I think of ASA meetings as sites where it is nearly impossible to find interesting ideas, let along ones that are actually "dangerous"). And now again I see allegations of fascism being thrown about. The glib tendency to find fascism in ideas with which one disagrees might tell us less about the ideas criticized than about the perils of truncated styles of analysis. I totter between sadness and giggles when I encounter those who are so quick to use up the ultimate nastyisms of our vocabulary on a concept such as "communitarianism." What then do we call real embodiments of fascism when they do appear? Have we lost all sense of proportion? Or are we just truly afraid of ideas that other would like to discuss? I recall a comment by Todd Gitlin that went something like: "In the 1980s the right devoted itself to seizing and consolidating its hold on political power; during the same decade the left devoted itself to gaining control of university departments of English." At times such as this, I fear that such a priority of political goals is still afoot. From soc40001@frank.mtsu.edu Thu Jun 29 18:26:24 1995 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 19:29:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Andy To: "Richard E. Ratcliff" Subject: Re: Anti-epistle epistle On Thu, 29 Jun 1995, Richard E. Ratcliff wrote: > And now again I see allegations of fascism being thrown about. The > glib tendency to find fascism in ideas with which one disagrees might > tell us less about the ideas criticized than about the perils of > truncated styles of analysis. I totter between sadness and giggles when > I encounter those who are so quick to use up the ultimate nastyisms of > our vocabulary on a concept such as "communitarianism." What then do > we call real embodiments of fascism when they do appear? Have we lost > all sense of proportion? Or are we just truly afraid of ideas that other > would like to discuss? I defend those who have used the word "fascist" to describe the rightwing in America (indeed, I recall having used the term "neo-fascist" and "fascist" a time or two in the past). It is high time we started using the correct terminology. The rightwing has gone to great lengths to equate fascism with socialism, thereby inoculating themselves against the label being applied to them when next they turn reactionary during the inevitable capitalist crisis. I believe that the essential components of fascism-- corporatism, nationalism, racism, political opportunism, patriotism, xenophobia--are clearly evident in the ideology of the New Right. They are, in fact, the foundation of their ideology. We need to properly identify that ideology for what it is: fascism. I waited with bated breath, and applauded when I finally heard the term "fascists" used by a social democrat on the U.S. House floor to describe the mean-spirited policies of the rightwing. I turned to my partner and proclaimed, "Finally! Finally! Somebody stood up and used the proper term!" In a nauseating world of bi-partisanship and Orwellian double-speak, it was incredibly refreshing. Applying the term "fascism" is not ad hominem. It is a term that describes a particularly ideology. Use it. Because if it walks like a fascist...if it talks like a fascist...pretty soon it will be goose-stepping (sorry, I couldn't help myself). Andy From julian@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU Thu Jun 29 19:38:05 1995 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 20:44:46 EST From: Jim Julian To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: About Fascism... The collective understanding of fascism in the United States of America is extremely poor. Personally, I prefer to rely on a fairly simple base definition for fascism which I am currently trying to incorporate into a general synthesis of Marx and Mead. At any rate ;), the basic definition looks like this: 1. a tight state-based regulation of economic and political life, like all variants of capitalism, and 2. ownership of the means of production is private, but 3. the business organizational complex is, at the levels of ownership and management, well-integrated with the state's organizational complex so that 4. both the state and business complexes are dynamically coordinated by the ruling, owning class with only fictional opposition, 5. a high culture exists for the ruling / owning class, 6. a transient and flexible mass, hegemonic culture exists for everyone else, 7. in both mass and high culture, the value of human life is calculated in as a market-based resource at the disposal of the ruling / owning class, and 8. (redundantly) technological development serves the political and economic interests of the ruling / owning class. This definition is strongly influenced by Frankfurt critical theory and C. Wright Mills. Specific aspects of classical German fascism can, and should, be seen as a specific historical and cultural instance of fascism. It *did* differ slightly from state to state in the late 30s and 40s. (Damn, but that starts to sound Weberian!) Anyway, and the point to this (aside from sharing one definition of fascism), is that I *do not* use the word "fascist" for the rhetorical fun of it. I use the word in the manner just described. I may have even used it in a qualified way in regards to communitarianism. And I'll stand by usage until corrected on the following points: a. Does communitarianism strengthen or weaken the ties between the owning-class and the state in the regulation of the economy? b. Does communitarianism produce something other than a new variant on the mass cultural content required to provide workers and citizens who are valuable to the owning-class? I suspect that communitarianism is little more than an Orwellian dopleganger for community empowerment. Where are the communitarian calls for the exercise of eminent domain on slum-housing and the transfer of slum-housing to limited-equity, resident-only, cooperative housing associations? Did I miss that call? Etc., meaning more could be said but my time is gone for now. Jim Julian From BRBGC%CUNYVM.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU Fri Jun 30 13:48:32 1995 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:41:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Ric Brown Subject: The Communitarian Platform and FAQ To: PSN-CAFE Greetings, Due to an unfortunate bout of the flu, I am only now reading the responses to Dr. Etzioni's rather self-serving and alarmist note. As a service to all interested parties, I am forwarding a copy of the Communitarian Platform and FAQ downloaded from the communitarian network's discussion list : Communitarian@civic.org I am unaware of any organized attempt to disrupt the conference. per= haps Dr. Etzioni would share with us the sources of his information. I am highly critical of Communitarianism, but I am delivering my critique = in a session at the conference. Is this disruption? Or is the disrupti= on that the organizers fear the result of sociologists calling them on t= heir highly suspect use of sociological knowledge? In Solidarity, Ric Brown Dept. of Sociology CUNY-Graduate Center brbgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu brbgc@cunyvm.bitnet =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 886 Mail 0400 CP; ) id =46rom: Ric Brown Subject: To: brbgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:20:02 -0400 (EDT) The Responsive Communitarian Platform: Rights and Responsibilities For a listing of endorsers, please see the end of the platform. For more information, contact: The Communitarian Network 714-F Gelman Library The George Washington University Washington, DC 20052 Telephone (202) 994-7907 or 994-7997 Fax (202) 994-1639 comnet@civic.net The Responsive Communitarian Platform: Rights and Responsibilities PREAMBLE American men, women, and children are members of many communities--families; neighborhoods; innumerable social, religious, ethnic, work place, and professional associations; and the body politic itself. Neither human existence nor individual liberty can be sustained for long outside the interdependent and overlapping communities to which all of us belong. Nor can any community long survive unless its members dedicate some of their attention, energy, and resources to shared projects. The exclusive pursuit of private interest erodes the network of social environments on which we all depend, and is destructive to our shared experiment in democratic self-government. For these reasons, we hold that the rights of individuals cannot long be preserved without a communitarian perspective. A communitarian perspective recognizes both individual human dignity and the social dimension of human existence. A communitarian perspective recognizes that the preservation of individual liberty depends on the active maintenance of the institutions of civil society where citizens learn respect for others as well as self-respect; where we acquire a lively sense of our personal and civic responsibilities, along with an appreciation of our own rights and the rights of others; where we develop the skills of self-government as well as the habit of governi= ng ourselves, and learn to serve others--not just self. A communitarian perspective recognizes that communities and polities, too, have obligations--including the duty to be responsive to their members and to foster participation and deliberation in social and political life. A communitarian perspective does not dictate particular policies; rather it mandates attention to what is often ignored in contemporary policy debates: the social side of human nature; the responsibilities that must be borne by citizens, individually and collectively, in a regime of rights; the fragile ecology of families and their supporting communities; the ripple effects and long-term consequences of present decisions. The political views of the signers of this statement differ widely. We are united, however, in our conviction that a communitarian perspective must be brought to bear on the great moral, legal and social issues of our time. Moral Voices America's diverse communities of memory and mutual aid are rich resources of moral voices--voices that ought to be heeded in a society that increasingly threatens to become normless, self-centered, and driven by greed, special interests, and an unabashed quest for power. Moral voices achieve their effect mainly through education and persuasion, rather than through coercion. Originating in communities, and sometimes embodied in law, they exhort, admonish, and appeal to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. They speak to our capacity for reasoned judgment and virtuous action. It is precisely because this important moral realm, which is neither one of random individual choice nor of government control, has been much neglected that we see an urgent need for a communitarian social movement to accord these voices their essential place. Within History The basic communitarian quest for balances between individuals and groups, rights and responsibilities, and among the institutions of state, market, and civil society is a constant, ongoi= ng enterprise. Because this quest takes place within history and within varying social contexts, however, the evaluation of what is a proper moral stance will vary according to circumstances of time and place. If we were in China today, we would argue vigorousl= y for more individual rights; in contemporary America, we emphasize individual and social responsibilities. Not Majoritarian But Strongly Democratic Communitarians are not majoritarians. The success of the democratic experiment in ordered liberty (rather than unlimited license) depends, not on fiat or force, but on building shared values, habits and practices that assure respect for one another's rights and regular fulfillment of personal, civic, and collective responsibilities. Successful policies are accepted because they are recognized to be legitimate, rather than imposed. We say to those who would impose civic or moral virtues by suppressing dissent (in the name of religion, patriotism, or any other cause), or censoring books, that their cure is ineffective, harmful, and morally untenable. At the same time divergent moral positions need not lead to cacophony. Out of genuine dialogue clear voices can arise, and shared aspirations can be identified and advanced. Communitarians favor strong democracy. That is, we seek to make government more representative, more participatory, and more responsive to all members of the community. We seek to find ways to accord citizens more information, and more say, more often. We seek to curb the role of private money, special interests, and corruption in government. Similarly, we ask how "private governments," whether corporations, labor unions, or voluntary associations, can become more responsive to their members and to the needs of the community. Communitarians do not exalt the group as such, nor do they hold that any set of group values is ipso facto good merely because such values originate in a community. Indeed, some communiti= es (say, neo-Nazis) may foster reprehensible values. Moreover, communities that glorify their own members by vilifying those who do not belong are at best imperfect. Communitarians recognize--indeed, insist--that communal values must be judged by external and overriding criteria, based on shared human experience. A responsive community is one whose moral standards reflect the basic human needs of all its members. To the extent that these needs compete with one another, the community's standards refle= ct the relative priority accorded by members to some needs over others. Although individuals differ in their needs, human nature is not totally malleable. Although individuals are deeply influenced by their communities, they have a capacity for independent judgment. The persistence of humane and democratic culture, as well as individual dissent, in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union demonstrate the limits of social indoctrination. For a community to be truly responsive--not only to an elite group, a minority or even the majority, but to all its members and all their basic human needs--it will have to develop moral values which meet the following criteria: they must be nondiscriminatory and applied equally to all members; they must be generalizable, justified interms that are accessible and understandable: e.g., instead of claims based upon individual or group desires, citizens would draw on a common definition of justice; and, they must incorporate the full range of legitimate needs and values rather than focusing on any one category, be it individualism, autonomy, interpersonal caring, or social justice. RESTORING THE MORAL VOICE History has taught that it is a grave mistake to look to a charismatic leader to define and provide a moral voice for the polity. Nor can political institutions effectively embody moral voices unless they are sustained and criticized by an active citizenry concerned about the moral direction of the community. To rebuild America's moral foundations, to bring our regard for individuals and their rights into a better relationship with our sense of personal and collective responsibility, we must therefore begin with the institutions of civil society. Start With the Family The best place to start is where each new generation acquires its moral anchoring: at home, in the family. We must insist= once again that bringing children into the world entails a moral responsibility to provide, not only material necessities, but also moral education and character formation. Moral education is not a task that can be delegated to baby sitters, or even professional child-care centers. It requires close bonding of the kind that typically is formed only with parents, if it is formed at all. Fathers and mothers, consumed by "making it" and consumerism, or preoccupied with personal advancement, who come home = too late and too tired to attend to the needs of their children, cannot discharge their most elementary duty to their children and their fellow citizens. It follows, that work places should provide maximum flexible opportunities to parents to preserve an important part of their time and energy, of their life, to attend to their educational-moral duties, for the sake of the next generation, its civic and moral character, and its capacity to contribute economically and socially to the commonweal. Experiments such as those with unpaid and paid parental leave, flextime, shared jobs, opportunities to work at home, and for parents to participate as volunteers and managers in child-care centers, should be extended and encouraged. Above all, what we need is a change in orientation by both parents and work places. Child-raising is important, valuable work, work that must be honored rather than denigrated by both parent= s and the community. Families headed by single parents experience particular difficulties. Some single parents struggle bravely and succeed in attending to the moral education of their children; while some married couples shamefully neglect their moral duties toward their offspring. However, the weight of the historical, sociological= , and psychological evidence suggests that on average two-parent families are better able to discharge their child-raising duties if only because there are more hands--and voices--available for the task. Indeed, couples often do better when they are further backed up by a wider circle of relatives. The issue has been wrongly framed when one asks what portion of parental duties grandparents or other helpers can assume. Their assistance is needed in addition to, not as a substitute for, parental care. Child-raising is by nature labor-intensive. There are no labor-savin= g technologies, and shortcuts in this area produce woefully deficient human beings, to their detriment and ours. It follows that widespread divorce, when there are children involved, especially when they are in their formative years, is indicative of a serious social problem. Though divorces are necessary in some situations, many are avoidable and are not in the interest of the children, the community, and probably not of most adults either. Divorce laws should be modified, not to prevent divorce, but to signal society's concern. Above all, we should cancel the message that divorce puts an end to responsibilities among members of a child-raising family. And the best way to cancel that message is to reform the economic aspects of divorce laws so that the enormous financial burden of marriage dissolution no longer falls primarily on minor children and those parents who are their principal caretakers. Just as we recognized in the 1960s that it was unjust to apply to consumers laws that were fashioned for the dealings of merchants with one another, we must now acknowledge that it is a mistake to handle divorces involving couples with young children with a set of rules that was tailored mainly to the needs and desires of warring husbands and wives alone. The principle of "children first" should be made fundamental to property settlements and support awards= .. Schools--The Second Line of Defense Unfortunately, millions of American families have weakened to the point where their capacity to provide moral education is gravely impaired. And the fact is that communities have only a limited say over what families do. At best, it will take years before a change in the moral climate restores parenting to its proper status and function for many Americans. Thus, by default, schools now play a major role, for better or worse, in character formation and moral education. Personal and communal responsibility come together here, for education requires the commitment of all citizens, not merely those who have children in school. We strongly urge that all educational institutions, from kindergartens to universities, recognize and take seriously the grave responsibility to provide moral education. Suggestions that schools participate actively in moral education are often opposed. The specter of religious indoctrination is quickly evoked,= and the question is posed: "Whose morals are you going to teach?" Our response is straightforward: we ought to teach those values Americans share, for example, that the dignity of all persons ought to be respected, that tolerance is a virtue and discrimination abhorrent, that peaceful resolution of conflicts is superior to violence, that generally truth-telling is morally superior to lying, that democratic government is morally superior to totalitarianism and authoritarianism, that one ought to give a day's work for a day's pay, that saving for one's own and one's country's future is better than squandering one's income and relying on others to attend to one's future needs. The fear that our children will be "brainwashed" by a few educators is farfetched. On the contrary, to silence the schools in moral matters simply means that the youngsters are left exposed to all other voices and values but those of their educators. For, one way or another, moral education does take place in schools. The only question is whether schools and teachers will passively stand by, or take an active and responsible role. Let us note that moral education takes place least in classroom lectures (although these have a place) and is only in a limited measure a matter of developing moral reasoning. To a much greater extent, moral education is fostered through personal example and above all through fostering the proper institutional culture -- from corridors and cafeteria to the parking lot and sports. In effect, the whole school should be considered as a set of experiences generating situations in which young people either learn the values of civility, sharing, and responsibility to the common good or of cheating, cut-throat competition, and total self-absorption. Education must be reorganized to achieve a better integration between work and schooling. Educators need to search for= ways to connect schooling with activities that make sense to young people; and the many businesses who employ high school students part-= time ought to recognize that they are educators too. These early work experiences will either reinforce responsible habits and attitudes, or will serve as lessons in poor civics and deficient work ethics. WITHIN COMMUNITIES A Matter of Orientation The ancient Greeks understood this well: A person who is completely private is lost to civic life. The exclusive pursuit of one's self-interest is not even a good prescription for conduct in the marketplace; for no social, political, economic, or moral order can survive that way. Some measure of caring, sharing, and being our brother's and sister's keeper, is essential if we are not all to fall back on an ever more expansive government, ureaucratized welfare agencies, and swollen regulations, police, courts, and jails. Generally, no social task should be assigned to an institution that is larger than necessary to do the job. What can be= done by families, should not be assigned to an intermediate group--school etc. What can be done at the local level should not be passed on to the state or federal level, and so on. There are, of course, plenty of urgent tasks--environmental ones--that do require national and even international action. But to remove tasks to higher levels than is necessary weakens the constituent communities. This principle holds for duties of attending to the sick, troubled, delinquent, homeless and new immigrants; and for public safety, public health and protection of the environment--from a neighborhood crime-watch to CPR to sorting the garbage. The government should step in only to the extent that other social subsystems fail, rather than seek to replace them. At the same time vulnerable communities should be able to draw on the more endowed communities when they are truly unable to deal, on their own, with social duties thrust upon them. Many social goals, moreover, require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned. Last, but not least, we should not hesitate to speak up and express our moral concerns to others when it comes to issues we care about deeply and share with one another. It might be debatable whether or not we should encourage our neighbors to keep their lawns green (which may well be environmentally unsound), but there should be little doubt that we should expect one another to attend to our children, and vulnerable community members. Those who neglect these duties, should be explicitly considered poor members of the community. National and local service, as well as volunteer work, is desirable to build and express a civil commitment. Such activities, bringing together people from different backgrounds and enabling and encouraging them to work together, build community and foster mutual respect and tolerance. Americans should foster a spirit of reconciliation. When conflicts do arise, we should seek the least destructive means of resolving them. Adversarial litigation is often not the optimal way; mediation and arbitration are often superior. We should favor settlements that are fair and conciliatory even if we have to absorb some losses. Going for the last ounce of flesh is incompatible with community spirit. (It is said that marriage works better when each side is willing to give 75% and expect 25%, rather than each give 50% and expect 50%. The same holds for other close relations.) We should treat one another with respect and recognize our basic equality, not just before the law, but also as moral agents. Duties to the Polity Being informed about public affairs is a prerequisite for keeping the polity from being controlled by demagogues, for taking action when needed in one's own interests and that of others, = for achieving justice and the shared future. Voting is one tool for keeping the polity reflective of its constituent communities. Those who feel that none of the candidates reflect their views ought to seek out other like-minded citizens and seek to field their own candidate rather tha= n retreat from the polity. Still, some persons may discharge their community responsibilities by being involved in non-political activit= ies, say, in volunteer work. Just as the polity is but one facet of interdependent social life, so voting and political activity are not the only ways to be responsible members of society. A good citizen is involved in a community or communities, but not necessarily active in the polity. Paying one's taxes, encouraging others to pay their fair share, and serving on juries are fully obligatory. One of the most telling ills of our time is the expectation of many Americans that they are entitled to ever more public services without paying fo= r them (as reflected in public opinion polls that show demands to slash government and taxes but also to expand practically every conceivable government function). We all take for granted the right to be tried before a jury of our peers, but, all too often we are unwilling to serve on juries ourselves. Cleaning Up the Polity We need to revitalize public life so that the two-thirds of our citizens who now say they feel alienated or that the polity is not theirs, will again be engaged in it. Campaign contributions to members of Congress and state legislatures, speaking fees, and bribes have become so pervasive that in many areas of public policy and on numerous occasions the public interest is ignored as legislators pay off their debts to special interests. Detailed rationalizations have been spun to justify the system. It is said that giving money to politicians is a form of democratic participation. In fact, the rich can "participate" in this way so much more effectively than the poor, that the democratic principle of one-person one-vote is severely compromised. It is said that money buys only access to the politician's ear; but even if money does not buy commitment, access should not be allotted according to the depth of one's pockets= .. It is said that every group has its pool of money and hence as they all grease Congress, all Americans are served. But those who cannot grease at all or not as well, lose out and so do long-run public goals that are not underwritten by any particular interest groups. To establish conditions under which elected officials will be able to respond to the public interest, to the genuine needs of all citizens, and to their own consciences requires that the role of private money in public life be reduced as much as possible. All candidates should receive some public support, as presidential candidates already do, as well as some access to radio and TV. To achieve this major renewal and revitalization of public life, to reinstitute the prerequisites for attending to the public interest, requires a major social movement, akin to the progressive movement of the beginning of the century. For even good = causes can become special interests if they are not part of such a movement, keeping their strategies and aims in constant dialogue with larger aims and multiple ends. Citizens who care about the integrity= of the polity either on the local, state, or national level, should band with their fellows to form a neo-progressive communitarian movement. They should persevere until elected officials are beholden--not to special interests--but only to the voters and to their own consciences. Freedom of Speech The First Amendment is as dear to communitarians as it is to libertarians and many other Americans. Suggestions that it should be curbed to bar verbal expressions of racism, sexism, and oth= er slurs seem to us to endanger the essence of the First Amendment, which is most needed when what some people say is disconcerting to some others. However, one should not ignore the victims of such abuse. Whenever individuals or members of a group are harassed, many non-legal measures are appropriate to express disapproval of hateful expressions and to promote tolerance among the members of the polity. For example, a college campus faced with a rash of incidents indicating bigotry, may conduct a teach-in on intergroup understanding. This, and much more, can be done without compromising the First Amendment. Rights vs. Rightness The language of rights is morally incomplete. To say that "I have a right to do X" is not to conclude that "X is the right thing for me to do." One may, for example, have a First Amendment right to address others in a morally inappropriate manner. Say one tells a Jew that "Hitler should have finished you all" or a black, "nigger go back to Africa," or worse. Rights give reasons to others not to coercively interfere with the speaker in the performance of protected acts; however, they do not in themselves give me a sufficient reason to perform these acts. There is a gap between rights and rightness that cannot be closed without a richer moral vocabulary -- one that invokes principles of decency, du= ty, responsibility, and the common good, among others. Social Justice At the heart of the communitarian understanding of social justice is the idea of reciprocity: each member of the community owes something to all the rest, and the community owes something to each of its members. Justice requires responsible individuals in a responsive community. Members of the community have a responsibility, to the greatest extent possible, to provide for themselves and their families: honorable work contributes to the commonwealth and to the community's ability to fulfill its essential tasks. Beyond self-support, individuals have a responsibility for the material and moral well-being of others. This does not mean heroic self- sacrifice; it means the constant self-awareness that no one of us is an island unaffected by the fate of others. For its part, the community is responsible for protecting each of us against catastrophe, natural or man-made; for ensuring the basic needs of all who genuinely cannot provide for themselves; for appropriately recognizing the distinctive contributions of individuals to the community; and for safeguarding a zone within which individuals may define their own lives through free exchange and choice. Communitarian social justice is alive both to the equal moral dignity of all individuals and to the ways in which they differentiate themselves from one another through their personal decisions. Public Safety and Public Health The American moral and legal tradition has always acknowledged the need to balance individual rights with the need to p= rotect the safety and health of the public. The Fourth Amendment, for example, guards against unreasonable searches but allows for reasonable ones. Thus, although people with AIDS must be vigilantly protected =66rom invasions of their privacy and from job and housing discrimination, the community must be allowed to take effective measures to curb the spread of the disease. Although drug dealers' civil rights must be observed, the community must be provide= d with constitutional tools that will prevent dealers from dominating streets, parks, indeed, whole neighborhoods. Although high school students must be protected against wanton expulsion, places of learning must be able to maintain the social-moral climate that education requires. We differ with the ACLU and other radical libertarians who oppose sobriety checkpoints, screening gates at airports, drug and alcohol testing for people who directly affect public safety (pilots, train engineers, etc.). Given the minimal intrusion involved (an average sobriety checkpoint lasts ninety seconds), the importance of the interests at stake (we have lost more lives, many due to drunken drivers, on the road each year than in the war in Vietnam), and the fact that such measures in the past have not led us down a slippery slope, these and similar reasonable measures should receive full public support. There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies. The National Rifle Association suggestion that criminals not guns kill people, ignores the fact that thousands are killed each year, many of them children, from accidental discharge of guns, and that people--whether criminal, insane, or temporarily carried away by impulse--kill and are much more likely to do so when armed then when disarmed. The Second Amendment, behind which NRA hides, is subject to a variety of interpretations, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, for over a hundred years, that it does not prevent laws that bar guns. We join with those who read the Second Amendment the way it was written, as a communitarian clause, calling for community militias, not individual gun slingers. When it comes to public health, people who carry sexually transmitted diseases, especially when the illness is nearly always fatal, such as AIDS, should be expected to disclose their illn= ess to previous sexual contacts or help health authorities to inform them, to warn all prospective sexual contacts, and inform all health care personnel with whom they come in contact. It is their contribution to help stem the epidemic. At the same time, the carriers' rights against wanton violation of privacy, discrimination in housing, employment and insurance should be scrupulously protected. The Human Community Our communitarianism is not particularism. We believe that the responsive community is the best form of human organization yet devised for respecting human dignity and safeguarding human decency, and the way of life most open to needed self-revision through shared deliberation. We believe that the human species as a whole would be well-served by the movement, as circumstances permit, of all polities toward strongly democratic communities. We are acutely aware of the ways in which this movement will be (and ought to be) affected by important material, cultural, and political differences among nations and peoples. And we know that enduring responsive communities cannot be created through fiat o= r coercion, but only through genuine public conviction. We are heartened by the widespread invocation of democratic principles by the nations and peoples now emerging from generations of repression; we see the institutionalization of these principles as the best possible bulwark against the excesses of ethni= c and national particularism that could well produce new forms of repression. Although it may seem utopian, we believe that in the multiplication of strongly democratic communities around the world lies our best hope for the emergence of a global community that can deal concertedly with matters of general concern to our species as a whole: with war and strife, with violations of basic rights, with environmental degradation, and with the extreme material deprivation that stunts the bodies, minds, and spirits of children. Our communitarian concern may begin with ourselves and our families, but it rises inexorably to the long-imagined community of humankind. IN CONCLUSION A Question of Responsibility Although some of the responsibilities identified in this manifesto are expressed in legal terms, and the law does play a significant role not only in regulating society, but also in indicating which values it holds dear, our first and foremost purpose is to affirm the moral commitments of parents, young persons, neighbors, and citizens, to affirm the importance of the communities within which such commitments take shape and are transmitted from one generation to the next. This is not primarily a legal matter. On the contrary, when a community reaches = the point at which these responsibilities are largely enforced by the powers of the state, it is in deep moral crisis. If communities are to function well, most members most of the time must discharge their responsibilities because they are committed to do so, not because they fear lawsuits, penalties, or jails. Nevertheless, the state and its agencies must take care not to harm the structures of civil society on which we all depend. Social environments, like natural environments, cannot be taken for granted. It has been argued by libertarians that responsibilities are a personal matter, that individuals are to judge which responsibilities they accept as theirs. As we see it, responsibilities are anchored in community. Reflecting the diverse moral voices of their citizens, responsive communities define what is expected of people; they educate their members to accept thes= e values; and they praise them when they do and frown upon them when they do not. Although the ultimate foundation of morality may b= e commitments of individual conscience, it is communities that help introduce and sustain these commitments. Hence the urgent need for communities to articulate the responsibilities they expect their members to discharge, especially in times, such as our own, in which the understanding of these responsibilities has weakened and their reach has grown unclear. Further Work This is only a beginning. This platform is but a point in dialogue, part of an ongoing process of deliberation. It should not be viewed as a series of final conclusions but ideas for additional discussion. We do not claim to have the answers to all that troubles America these days. However, we are heartened by the groundswell of support that our initial efforts have brought to the communitarian perspective. If more and more Americans come forward and join together to form active communities that seek to reinvigorate the moral and social order, we will be able to deal better with many of our communities' problems while reducing our reliance on governmental regulation, controls, and force. We will have a greater opportunity to work out shared public policy base= d on broad consensus and shared moral and legal traditions. And we will have many more ways to make our society a place in which individual rights are vigilantly maintained, while the seedbeds of civic virtue are patiently nurtured. Endorsements Signatures signify that we are of one mind on the broad thrust of this platform and the necessity of this intervention into the current dialogue, without necessarily agreeing to every single, specific statement. Enola Aird (Activist mother, Connecticut) Rodolfo Alvarez (University of California, Los Angeles) John B. Anderson (Presidential Candidate, 1980) Benjamin R. Barber (Rutgers University; signing with exception to moral education section) Robert N. Bellah (University of California, Berkeley) Warren Bennis (University of Southern California) Janice M. Beyer (University of Texas, Austin; signing with exception to the family section) David Blankenhorn (President, Institute for American Values) John E. Brandl (University of Minnesota; former Minnesota State Senator, Representative) Joan Bronk (Former President, National Council of Jewish Women) Christine K. Cassel (The University of Chicago) James Childress (University of Virginia) Bryce J. Christensen (President, The Family in America, The Rockford Institute) Henry Cisneros (Former Mayor, San Antonio, Texas) John C. Coffee (Columbia University Law School) David Cohen (Co-Director, Advocacy Institute) Anthony E. Cook (Georgetown University Law School) Harvey Cox (Harvard Divinity School; signing with exception to cleaning up the polity section) Thomas E. Cronin (Colorado College) Dennis DeLeon (Commissioner and Chairman, New York City Commission on Human Rights) Thomas Donaldson (Georgetown University) Joseph Duffey (President, The American University) Thomas W. Dunfee (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania) Stuart E. Eizenstat (Attorney, Washington, D.C.) Lloyd Elliott (President Emeritus, George Washington University) Jean Bethke Elshtain (Vanderbilt University) Amitai Etzioni (The George Washington University) Chester E. Finn, Jr. (Vanderbilt University) James Fishkin (University of Texas, Austin) Carol Tucker Foreman (Partner, Foreman & Heidepriem) Betty Friedan (New York City) Francis Fukuyama (The Rand Corporation) William A. Galston (University of Maryland) John W. Gardner (Stanford University) Neil Gilbert (University of California, Berkeley) J. Richard Gilliland (President, Metropolitan Community College, Omaha, Nebraska) Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard Law School) T. George Harris (New York, NY) David K. Hart (Brigham Young University) F. Barton Harvey III (The Enterprise Foundation) Jeffrey R. Henig (George Washington University) Albert O. Hirschman (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton) James Hunter (University of Virginia) Nicholas deB. Katzenbach (Attorney, Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, and former Attorney General of the United States) Daniel Kemmis (Mayor, Missoula, Montana; signing with exception to second amendment section) Lawrence J. Korb (The Brookings Institution) Joyce A. Ladner (Vice President for Academic Affairs, Howard University) Hillel Levine (Boston University) George C. Lodge (Harvard Business School) Malcolm Lovell, Jr. (President, National Planning Association) Duncan MacRae, Jr. (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) Frank Mankiewicz (Vice Chairman, Hill and Knowlton) Gary Marx (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Thomas McCollough (Duke University) Sanford N. McDonnell (Chairman Emeritus, McDonnell Douglas) John L. McKnight (Northwestern University) Catherine Milton (Executive Director, The Commission on National and Community Service) Newton N. Minow (Former F.C.C. Chairman; Attorney, Chicago, Illinois) Charles Moskos (Northwestern University) Ilene H. Nagel (U.S. Sentencing Commission and Indiana University) Richard John Neuhaus (President, Religion and Public Life Institute) William C. Norris (Chairman, William C. Norris Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota) John Parr (President, National Civic League) Orlando Patterson (Harvard University) Michael Pertschuk (Co-Director, Advocacy Institute) Sylvia L. Peters (Founding Partner, The Edison Project) Chase N. Peterson (President-Emeritus, University of Utah) Grethe B. Peterson (University of Utah) Terry Pinkard (Georgetown University) David Popenoe (Rutgers University) Alejandro Portes (Johns Hopkins University) Lonnie C. Rich (City Council Member, Alexandria, Virginia) Elliot L. Richardson (Partner, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy and former Attorney General of the United States) David Riesman (Harvard University; signing with exception to cleaning up the polity section) Alice S. Rossi (Former President, American Sociological Association; Amherst, Massachusetts) William D. Ruckelshaus (Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Browning-Ferris Industries; Houston, Texas) George Rupp (President, Rice University) David Rusk (Former Mayor, Albuquerque, New Mexico) Isabel Sawhill (Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute) Kurt L. Schmoke (Mayor of Baltimore) Claudine Schneider (Chair of the Board, Renew America) Richard F. Schubert (President & CEO, Points of Light Foundation) William F. Schulz (President, Unitarian Universalist Association) Philip Selznick (University of California, Berkeley) Albert Shanker (President, American Federation of Teachers) Fred Siegel (Cooper Union) Gillian Martin Sorensen (President, National Conference of Christians and Jews, Inc.) Thomas Spragens, Jr. (Duke University) Margaret O'Brien Steinfels (Editor, Commonweal) Adlai E. Stevenson (Chicago, Illinois) Peter L. Strauss (Columbia University) William Sullivan (LaSalle University) Robert Theobald (New Orleans, Louisiana) Lester C. Thurow (Dean, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Daniel Thursz (President, The National Council on the Aging) Kenneth Tollett (Howard University) Barbara Dafoe Whitehead (Amherst, Massachusetts) Dennis H. Wrong (New York University) Daniel Yankelovich (President, Public Agenda Foundation) American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities. The affiliations and titles of those who have endorsed the platform are listed as they were at the time the platform was endorse= d. Organizations are listed for identification only. =FD brb3 PANIX 6/30/95 =FERic Brown brbgc@cunyvm.cuny.e 6/30/95 No subject From MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Fri Jun 30 22:59:41 1995 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 95 01:05:21 EDT From: "Morton G. Wenger, Dept. of Sociology" Subject: Dueling epistles To: University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USA PHONE: (502) 852-6836 FAX: (502) 852-0099 I will be as parsimonious with my prose as is possible for me, which is usually not very: The distinctive characteristic of Etzioni's letter, taken as a whole, is its rhetorical structure. It deploys classical propaganda techniques such as threat inflation, stigmatization, melodramatization, and so on. It has a political form, and thus must be presumed to have a political end. It attempts to mobilize an unaware mass to support a political goal, and uses the trappings of power to present itself as "disinterested" and outside of politics. Without addressing itself to the substance of the utterances it finds uncongenial, it uses glittering generalities like "a flood" of messages to marginalize its opponent as a "threat" to freedom of speech. In reality, that which it fears is not "disruption," its own chimerical creation, but discourse about the appropriateness of the take-over of an academic organization by the proponents of a specific social policy, and also shies fro m reasoned, balanced evaluation of its undergirding Radical Centrist theory. Its fear of discourse with its opponents is based on its vulnerability to its own contradictions, primarily the conflict between emancipatory declarations and an accomodation with the repressive apparatus of the capitalist-state-in-crisis. This accomodation is strikingly recapitulative: it exists both at the level of theory (see earlier posts by others on psn on communitarian theory) insofar as it countenances draconian measures to deal with the expanding surplus population and class of permanent (until death) paupers, while being echoed at the level of micro-practice by means of the invitation to Clinton-as-centrist-icon to receive the blessing/applause of "social science." It is unnecessary to discuss Etzioni's personal motives or aspirations to perceive this political reality. Most interesting to me as a matter of substance is the scalded-cat reaction to the issue of the relationship of communitarian ideology to fascism. Several recent posts on psn which have found the idea of a relationship between the two compelling have been quite interesting. One or two other posts echoed Etzioni's smug and haughty dismissal of such an idea, the more notable of these being penned/keyboarded by a psn subscriber whose last appearance on this list was, to the best of my recollection, to bemoan the e-shunning of another member who was steadfast in defence of the scientific value of *The Bell Curve*. In these recent posts, the theme of the alleged "trivialization" of the term "fascism" was prominent, as it was in Etzioni's letter, and they also echoed Etzioni in describing the elision of communitarian theory with fascist politics as in some way risible. I will return to this central issue in a subsequent post, but for deconstructive purposes, it should be noted now that this scoffing is nothing more than a rhetorical device common to debased political campaigning and cheap manuals on how to win arguments, "...even when you're wrong!!!" It is not an acceptable form of discourse for the president of a scientific association communicating with its membership. Compounding this situation is the deployment of a rhetorical device that I have always regarded as sleazy and the last refuge of a collapsing argument: the attempt to privilege an utterance by claiming the status of a victim with special insight into victimization. (I find it revolting on the "Left," such as it is, as well ason the "Right.") It is particularly offensive to me in this situation because it involves the appropriation of the suffering of many who would understand "communitarianism" in much the same way as I do. Thus, these victims are revictimized in a cruel and baroque way. I include in this number the *partisan* Esther Mofshowitz, my aunt, who was shot in the back while escapig torture by the SS, as well as her mother, Leah Mofshowitz, my mother's mother and my grandmother, who was immolated in an *Aktion* by SS *Einsatzgruppen* during the Third Massacre of the Jews of Slonim, Poland/USSR/Belorus in July of 1942. May they rest in a peace undisturbed by the manipulation of their memory to smooth the way for the advent of a fascist period in the United States, which will undoubtedly entail its own lengthy list of horrors. I will return to the very important socio-theoretical issues involved in a correct understanding of fascism in a post tomorrow, an understanding which does not appear to be present in either the Etzioni letter or the Ratcliff post to psn. INTERNET: MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU From HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Sat Jul 1 09:15:17 1995 From: HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Date: Sat, 01 Jul 1995 11:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: West Virginia Network Thanks to Ric for sending the Communitarian Platform. The charges of "facism" and Etzioni's over-reaction tend to waste time. We should rather address and evaluate communitarian theory. Apart from the political commentary that is involved (the stuff of newspaper editorials and Etzioni's THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY) there is some serious social theory and research here (Etzioni's 1988 book on economic theory, Selznick's recent book, and the two books by the Bellah group) AND some serious philosophical ethics (MacIntyre, Taylor, Walzer, Habermas). As a general perspective, Communitarianism is a reaction to both social liberal and conservative (libertarian) perspectives. It holds that BOTH are Gesellschaft perspectives on society and that we need more of a Gemeinschaft solidarity. Etzioni's critique of neo-classical economics for excluding the moral dimension is a move in the right direction -- how far, or how adequate is a matter of opinion; but it is a critique of capitalism on something of a foundational level. The point I would make from a more progressive perspective about the move toward a Gemeinschaft solidarity is that it is foolish to think that communal solidarity can be obtained without far more economic justice (less disparity of resources) than we now have. Efforts to create community on the basis of a status quo "moderate" balance of economic and political power will certainly fail - and may be counter-productive as most of Clinton's compromizes are by solidifying resistance to more radical change. When Etzioni calls for people taking greater "responsibility" for public life, we need to make him realize that this MUST mean providing better education, housing, gainful employment, health care, etc. to those who are not now empowered to gain these for themselves. In short, I think we should be challenging Etzioni to produce what is really necessary to evolve the "community" he wants -- and let him know (with the economic and social justice that is the essence of the progressive perspective) just what this will take. (I do have the chance to speck briefly at one of the ASA thematic sessions on communitarianism and would be grateful for comments that would fit into a progressive critique.) Bob Hall, West Virginia State College HALL@WVNWVSC.WVNET.EDU From lja@csd.uwm.edu Sat Jul 1 11:27:15 1995 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 12:30:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Lisa J Alcock To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Subject: questions about communitarianism :/ i must admit that i have been somewhat lax in reading/keeping up with the current debate on communitarianism and the responses from etzioni's epistle. but, i have had time to read the posts while i sit here this morning drinking coffee out of my mug that says "peon" on it. i have read the "manifesto" from the communitarians and i have these questions/thoughts: 1. how can communitarianism co-exist with capitalism? it seems to me that communitarianism ignores the ramifications of inequality in social institutions produced by a capitalist economy. it also ignores the theoretical foundations of capitalism (private property/ownership, profit, growth, individualism, utilitarianism, and rationalism) which affect other institutions and ultimately individuals. economics *is* relevant to the discussion of social transformation, yet the subject is not addressed in the communitarianism "manifesto". nowhere did i see mention of economic justice. from what i have read, communitarianism is only interested in changes within individual thoughts and actions(towards the community) not real *structural* changes. 2. another thought that came to mind when i was reading the "manifesto" was the section regarding 'the family'...it's underlying premise and intention seems to imply that women should stay out of the workforce (one paycheck families, the male as the "breadwinner") and stay at home to raise the children, giving them "moral anchoring". (i believe someone else on this group already mentioned this particular criticism). in order for many families to survive, many parents *have* to work overtime in order to get the paycheck to sustain the family's needs. communitarians also seem to criticize parents who leave their children with babysitters and at childcare centers. nowhere is there any mention of the support of childcare centers at the workplace so parents who work can be closer to their children. in regards to etzioni's tirade against us "progressives".... correct me if i am wrong, but i do believe in the preamble of the communitarian "manifesto" it states: "we say to those who would impose civic or moral virtues by suppressing DISSENT [my emphasis]....or censoring books, that their cure is ineffective, harmful and morally intolerable". Hmmmm...is etzioni actually practing what he preaches??? his threatening letter is based on misinformation about discussions on this listserv. i think he owes us an apology. how nice it must be to be in a powerful, influential position such as his to influence the opinions of other sociologists about us "progressives". let's see how many letters of opposition to his points are printed in the next issue of _footnotes__. lisa alcock From triley@weber.ucsd.edu Sat Jul 1 14:34:47 1995 From: Tristan Riley Subject: Re: Communitarian Manifesto To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Sat, 1 Jul 95 13:37:50 PDT Ric Brown writes: >I am unaware of any organized attempt to disrupt the conference. per= >haps >Dr. Etzioni would share with us the sources of his information. I am >highly critical of Communitarianism, but I am delivering my critique = >in >a session at the conference. Is this disruption? Or is the disrupti= >on >that the organizers fear the result of sociologists calling them on t= >heir >highly suspect use of sociological knowledge? > I thank Ric Brown for forwarding the communitarian manifesto, as it were, to this group. I will be curious to hear how those who have been shopping about the equation "communitarianism=fascism" will manage to read nascent Nazism in this document. But, having been here long enough to get a sense of how committed some here are to just such ideological purity, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is possible. I am also curious to hear Mr. Brown say more about communitarians' "highly suspect use of sociological knowledge"--perhaps he can point out the relevant sections in the manifesto which are so "suspect" and indicate why he thinks this so? Thanks ever so much, Tristan ******************************************************************** The most amusing feature of this history, the ironic thing about the end, is that communism should have collapsed exactly as Marx had foreseen for capitalism, with the same suddenness, and, ultimately, with such ease that it did not even strike the imagination. The fact that he got the victor wrong in no way detracts from the exactness of Marx's analysis; it merely adds the objective irony which was lacking. Fate took care of that. It is as though some evil genie had substituted the one for the other--communism for capitalism--at the last moment. Jean Baudrillard ******************************************************************** From spector@calumet.purdue.edu Sat Jul 1 15:38:46 1995 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 16:42:00 -0600 (CST) From: "Alan Spector" Sender: spector@calumet.purdue.edu To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Communitarianism::--No Justice/No Peace-- There is a terrific bumper sticker that says: No Justice/No Peace. There have recently been a number of posts by people who don't understand why so many Leftists are hostile to the idea of communitarianism. I think that some of those posters may not have read the PSN correspondence on communitarianism that has taken place over the past several months. There have been a number of excellent, subtle, and insightful critiques, and the so-called "ad hominem" arguments have generally been in the context of substantive critiques. To sum up one of the essential points: Of course Leftists/progressives/Marxists, etc. cherish the idea of community. And of course, we don't have sympathy for those who express themselves through extreme selfishness, whether that person is a corporate executive or a street criminal. True community is what we see as the ultimate outcome of all the struggles that oppressed people engage in. But, without ECONOMIC JUSTICE--which in my opinion is EGALITARIANISM (some might call it "communism" in the classical sense), there can be no community. To call for "community" when 40 million people die each year just from hunger and related diseases is to call for the oppressed to die quietly, in solidarity with their killers. And to emphatically try to create a phony type of "unity"/ "community" while maintaining the oppressive class structure is to lay the basis for ATTACKING those who struggle for the working class and other oppressed people and trying to ISOLATE them by branding them as "deviants" who just want to mess up the so-called "community". This is PRECISELY the strategy used by the Nazis, and by religious fascists today, for example, to try to win "peace-loving" people to support the corporate power structure. In the case of communitarianism, it seems to be geared towards "educated Liberals" who might seek the same "peace" but are not interested in the overty regressive aspects of religious fascism. That is what I meant when I called it "fundamentalist religion for Yuppies." The extreme hostility that many of us have towards communitarianism stems from precisely the fact that it can appeal to those well meaning people who seek peace without understanding that there can be no peace until there is "justice" and "equality" for the working class. And we strongly object when fighters for the oppressed get blamed for the societal breakdown that stems, in fact, from the crisis of corporate capitalism. Alan Spector From 34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU Sun Jul 2 05:24:20 1995 Date: Sun, 02 Jul 1995 07:07:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Subject: Disrupting PSN: Epistemological Breaks and Bounces To: ALL RECIPIENTS OF PSN Organization: Central Michigan University Ric Brown has provided PSN with a kind service when he transmitted the RCP: Responsive Communitarian Platform. It is the platform and the papers at the ASA upon which we might better focus our vast talent and great genius rather than upon the person of Dr. Etzioni and/or the current incarnation of the ASA...as a grad student, I chortled with delight when the then Secretary of HEW got a pie in the face as the Secretary of Death, Propaganda and Wealthy fare. Let's take a look at the Platform; critique those parts which seem hostile to the human/socialist/feminist project and give some substance to this discussion on PSN which, for the most part in my opinion, been flat, stale and profitless. I would invite Ric to share with us the major points of his critique of Communitarianism scheduled for the 1995 Meetings in D.C.; 'twould be most helpful to those of us who have read the RCP and find it harmless enough; hopeful enough; helpful enough to nod here and there as we read through it. I have a good deal of respect for several of the co-signees of RCP; if any of you are in email reach of Janice Beyer, I'd like to hear her objections to the Family Section; I'd like to hear Harvey Cox' critique of the 'Cleaning up the Polity' section but most of all I'd like to hear Ric Brown's critique of Communitarianism as an an alternative to the present amalgram of corporate liberalism, fundamentalist religiousity, privatized fascism and all 'round indifference to the common good. T.R. Young T.R.YOUNG@CMICH.EDU From wgoldste@hp800.lasalle.edu Sat Jul 1 08:16:15 1995 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 10:19:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "" To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Community of Communities? Dear PSNers, To get a better grasp on Amitai Etzioni's latest views on "communitarianism," I started reading a collections of essays he edited called "New Communitarian Thinking: Persons, Virtues, Institutions, and Communities" (University of Virginia Press, 1995). In the essay he wrote entitled "Old Chestnuts and New Spurs", Etzioni argues against an emphasis on individual rights and favors those of the community. He attacks organizations like the ACLU (p. 21-22) and calls progressives "politically correct" (p. 32). Sound familiar? His is a critique of liberalism from the right. My impression is that Etzioni laments the loss of community in modern society. His theory is a reaction to an age of hyper-accelerated individualism and selfishness. Has he driven on the highway recently? He has a "romantic" longing for a return to "Gemeinschaft." He places the rights of the collective (community) over and above those of the individual. Here is where the accusations of "fascistic" tendencies could come into play. However, do not think it is meant this way (at least I hope not). The irony of this is that Etzioni's decision to make these theme of the conference focus "communitarianism" is not very "communitarian." What he has done is placed his own individual interests and ideology over the collective (the membership of the ASA). His letter to this listserve and his attacks upon the left and right are divisive; they do not help bring people together. In this respect his "communitarianism" is anti-communitarian. Rather than making the ASA a "community of communities", he is only acting to divide it. Sincerely, Warren Goldstein Ph.D. Candidate Department of Sociology New School for Social Research From MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Sun Jul 2 14:30:57 1995 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 95 16:36:39 EDT From: "Morton G. Wenger, Dept. of Sociology" Subject: Last take on communitarianism/fascism (I hope!) To: University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USA PHONE: (502) 852-6836 FAX: (502) 852-0099 This is the promised last part of my response to the Etzioni letter and the issues it raised. First, Spector's posts on this issue have saved me some space, and you some time: I find myself in total agreement with them. Now... On May 10, in a post to psn regarding Steve Rosenthal's wise attempt at raising the issue of the politics of the ASA meetings, I wrote the following: "Commun itarianism = search for a palatable mass ideology of American fascism acceptable to the squeamishpetit bourgeois. What is the mystery???" I response to my ow n question, albeit an oblique one, I referenced Larry and Janice Reynold's old collection *Sociology of Sociology*, with particular attention toarticle on th e "Sunshine Boys," which category included A. Etzioni. This collection was an early and important continuation of the attack on the hegemony of structural functionalism, which assault had perhaps most powerfully and initially been mounted by C.W. Mills. My "mystery" throwaway was an expression of my frustration at the Dracula-like capacity of reactionary ideas to rise from their (apparent) graves, as was also the case recently with racist eugenics in the case of *The Bell Curve." I should have omitted this cute bit of shorthand, and done then what I am doing now, which is to elaborate on my initial statement. That statement was a corollary to or deduction (in my mind) from the following syllogistic process. I am not the first to have thought many of these things, nor the first to have engaged in debate over them. In the interest of brevity, however, I am not going to reference all or any other thinkers who have discussed this issue- I just want to get to the point,not write an e-paper. 1) "Fascism" represents a recurrent historical period in the history of capitalism. It is a logical, but not inevitable outcome of several historical processe s attendant to the development of the modern system of international capitalism. 2) Fascism is an outcome of capitalism in crisis. "Crisis" can be construed to have several historical origins, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO aborted transitions from pre-capitalist to capitalist social formations, as in Latin America; devolution or stagnation of developing capitalist social formations, such as Argentina or Pilsudski's Poland, and contemporary Russia; imperial disaster or reverses, as in Russia in the early 1900s, Italy, Germany, Austria/Hungary after WW I, and perhaps Japan in the 1920s. In part, the US in the post-Vietnam period would also fit this well. Finally, fascistogenic capitalist crisis should be seen as arising from the terminal stagnation of mature capitalist societies, as in Western Europe and the contemporary US today. 3) Fascism frequently follows long or intense periodsof class struggle engend eredby crisis,including the declining rate of profit, dramatically increasing pauperization and immiseration, and the decadence/collapse of the social institutions of civil society, accompanied by the deligitimization of the pre-existing State. 4) Fascism is NOT the inevitable end-point of capitalism: it is one of several possible outcomes of the "naturally" contradictory character of capitalist society (or maybe even class society???), which include revolutionary, progressive change, and the disorganized barbarism of intractablecrisis, which is perhaps most relevant to the US today. In fact, both socialism/communism and fascism are the "organized" political responses to the possibility of the "common ruin of all classes" implied by the intractability of capitalist contradiction. (Perhaps we should see soc/com as the transcendant reorganization of capitalist barbarism, with fascism simply seen as the political organization of that barbarism? ) Of course, the consequences of *neither* fascism *nor* socialism/communism manifest themselves as a "Dark Age" rife with "local" fascism, entailing a mass die-off of humans, a loss of the accumulated culture/capital of the past, and the degradation of everyday existence to its lowest character. Such a possibility is currently in process in the modern world, is sometimes described as a historical period called "post-modernity" in its contemporary form, and is the social substance which elicits the massive move to the Right in today's capitalism, AS WELL AS COMMUNITARIAN IDEOLOGIES.5) Fascism usually follows on the heels of failed or stymied revolutions by the producing classes. It is a counterrevolution initiat ed by, but not solely of, the dominant class of the ancien regime. MORE SHORTLY. SAVE COMMENTS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS ARGUMENT...PLEASE INTERNET: MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU From MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Sun Jul 2 22:10:12 1995 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 95 00:15:55 EDT From: "Morton G. Wenger, Dept. of Sociology" Subject: Communitarianism and fascism (continued) To: University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USA PHONE: (502) 852-6836 FAX: (502) 852-0099 Continuing... 6) Because fascism is a response and a sequel to stymied revolution (or successful counterrevolution), as a historical period its early stages are marked by an intensified insecurity within the hegemonic class, despair and lassitude among the producing classes, and a generalized reintensification of legitimation crisis. (I am treating the US after 1973, and especially after the 1979 Iranian incident, as just such a situation). Wages may also fall further, social disorganization progress at an accele rated pace, and the state become increasingly reflective of the new balance of class power.N.B. THIS IS NOT YET THE PERIOD OF THE ESTABLISHED FASCIST STATE, BUT ONLY ITS EMERGENCE. The characteristic ultra-repressive apparatuses of the mature fascist period have not yet emerged, but struggle has ensued to bring it into being. Indeed, much of the plausibility of theargument mounted by Etzi oni, Ratcliff, and a couple of others regarding the inapplicability of the concept of fascism to the contemporary US results from the sometimes witting, sometimes unwitting reification of "fascism" wherein it is portrayed as isomorphic with its completed form, rather than being understood as an historical *process. * Thus, those who struggled against Hitlerism in 1923 might have been derided *in 1923* as straining at gnats. This would be even more true of those who sensed the drift of Mussolinist rhetoric before 1920, as Sorel clearly did *not*. Based on the above, the Weimar period could be called- albeit in retrospect- "proto-fascist." That is, many of the politicallines , alliances, and ideologies which would *lead to* fascism were already in process. It is imperative to note that, unaware of the future history of fascism, many of those who subjectively opposed fascism could later be seen to have paved its way, even regardless of an explicitly anti-fascist rhetoric. This was fairly obvious both in the case of the Christian centrist parties and, it has always been painful to recognize, the KPD (German Communist Party). Their failing was not one of sentiment or intellect, but one of analysis. I believe this to be a telling point contra Etzioni's scoffing, and that of others who echoed it. It is in this sense that it is important to examine communitarianism in historical context and as a political, not a scientific phenomenon. Unlike the thinkers of the time (save- possibly- Reich), who would have required clairvoyant ability to understand what was to come and why, contemporary theorists now know, or should know, the lineaments of the fascist beast, and we are thereby mndated to treat the issue more seriously than do Etzioni and the others. 7) Each class or class fragment of capitalism-in-crisis experiences that crisis in diverse ways, which means t hatideological conflict over the establishment of fascism shows a distinctive class character. However, because of the commonality of social existence, all classes experience it in *some* way, and all classes experience some aspects of crisis in the *same* way. More importantly, in the ideological struggle to establish fascism, some classes need only be demobilized, while other classes or class fragments require active mobilization.All classes are singed, to a de gree depending in part on their class privilege, by the collapse of interpersonal life, hedonism, random and casual violence, failure in the mechanisms of social reproduction, anomia and the rest. All analysts view these developments with alarm. However, all analyses do not have the same theoretical value, *nor do they have the same political consequences in the struggle against the emergence of fascism, which this author firmly believes is well underway, not just in Washington or the camps of the Michigan Militia, but in every institutional interstice of contemporary society. As was suggested above, given the compellingly bleak character of material conditions, the emergence or rejection of a full-blown Fascist era or, alternatively and/or ultimately, the slippery slide into the abyss of a New Dark Age, is largely going to be determined by ideological struggle in a context where the political balance in general is highly reflective of the recent electoral outcome in the US off-year elections. PLEASE EXCUSE THE DELAY IN FINISHING THIS POST- EYE PROBLEMS LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME I CAN TYPE IN ONE STRETCH. I PROMISE THE NEXT PIECE WILL BE THE LAST (REALLY). INTERNET: MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU From 34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU Mon Jul 3 07:05:35 1995 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 1995 08:35:55 -0400 (EDT) From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Subject: Talking 'Bout Change To: ALL RECIPIENTS OF PSN Organization: Central Michigan University I'm happy to see the direction we now take to discuss communitarianism. There seem to be three substantive problems with C-ism as I read these critiques: 1. C-ism does not focus on class, race, gender and other forms of elitism/inequality. This is indeed the case; there is little or no recourse to the standard conceptual language most of us use in talking about change and the direction we believe change should take. At the same time, there are implicit rejections of class inequality, racism, and religio-ethnic claims of preference. 2. C-ism tries to institute Gemeinschaft in a Gesellschaft context. That's a very good point...how to accomodate cultural variety and at the same time offer an umbrella of social justice/community for very different socio-cultural complexes. One would have to argue for some profound structural changes in a great many funda- mentalist groups: Amish, Hutterites, Islam. Yet these are societies with few social problems of the magnitude we now see...Hutterites, Amish and Islam, as exemplars, would not want to emulate us while most of us would not want to emulate them. Have to think about that...okay. 3. An apparent perference for existing gender relations: at least two people have read the RCP as if it called for women to stay home to parent; for men to be good bread-winners. I don't read it that way...seems to vague to me. I would endorse the assumption that kids need good parenting...lots of models in history; lots more to come in future which do not necessarily tie a parent to kinder, kirk, und kitchen. We'll have to push C-ism on that. 4. ON TALKING NICE. Seems to me the greatest fault of we see is that the language of RCP is left-liberal...too vague to pin point the very real structural problems...hence too reductionist for effective social policy. Yet if you want to reach millions in the public domain, you have to use a language form to which they will listen. Richard Quinney, in his wisdom, often uses concepts and constructions from religion to make a point with those who cannot hear him when he uses more structural concepts...as indeed he has in his crim books. 5. THE CLASS ENEMY. Whatever one thinks of Etzioni and the RCP, we should keep in mind that he/it is not the class enemy; those who argue for policy which exacerbates class inequality are the class enemy; those who argue for white supremacy are the class enemy; those who use their religion to justify the murder of others are the class enemy; those who want to rip out the programs of social justice that support the underclass in the richest country in all of history are the class enemy; those who would despoil the good earth and all its creatures to their narrow self interest are class enemy. Etzioni and the co-signees are not the class enemy. Let us critique them in a supportive, constructive, dialectic rather than a demonizing, demeaning or distancing manner. They are our natural partners in the long, difficult and uncertain future we try to bring this troubled society of ours into the 21st century. T.R. Young T.R.YOUNG@CMICH.EDU From rspear@PrimeNet.Com Mon Jul 3 08:25:51 1995 From: "Richard Spear" To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 07:28:48 -0800 Subject: Re: Talking 'Bout Change I've taken a look at the Communitarian Manifesto and I'm more amused than concerned by its message. This stuff is a long way from fascism - it contains a bunch of platitudes that have no underpinning at all .... the worst kind of idealism floating about without a theoretical base. There's no enemy, for one thing. The vapid message could hardly be denied or rejected by almost anyone - to steal a line from Young " ... talking nice ..." is about all the Communitarians seem to be doing. Their message is little different from any "progressive" Christian church, without Christ, of course. This stuff is right wing only in the sense that it is easily appropriated as there's no material explanation for the perceived problems addressed by the Manifesto. To say that it is nascent fascism is to cry "Wolf" long before the beast is at the door - and we all know where that could lead when the wolf really appears. Communitarianism's "manifesto" has succinctly framed the social problems that concern many people living in capitalist countries ... we should address the issues raised with clear Marxist analysis. Regards, Richard rspear@primenet.com From JMSTARR@aol.com Mon Jul 3 09:46:38 1995 From: JMSTARR@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 11:49:44 -0400 To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Communitarianism Dear colleagues, I really paid little attention to the debate over comm. until Etzioni's letter and subsequent furor.I resented Etzioni's letter for misapprehending the peculiar nature of bulletin board discussion, breaching its etiquette and, perhaps, attempting to intimidate discussion by publicizing to thousands of colleagues the false charge that there might be a potential criminal conspiracy being hatched among aging academic keyboardists. Since then, however, I have been reading it all. I appreciate Ric Brown actually providing text to analyze and agree with comments that Etzioni and comm. are not the enemy and that the whole affair is an interesting case for pm analysis. In fact, accusations of fascisim and attempts to take over the ASA seem as alarmist as Etzioni's response. I don't see how one can attempt to read such statements, especially given the choice of format--"a platform"--without considering intentions and intended audience(s) which, clearly, are to promote broad public discussion to crystallize consensus around principles many of us and, unfortunately, too few in positions of power respect. Does he address all of our concerns in the language we would prefer? Obviously not. However, contrary to some complaints that he has no appreciation for economic justice, I see numerous such references, especially regarding the corruption of democratic politics by big money. Platforms such as these are intended to start public discussion, a discussion about values which I think is desperately needed.. In fact, I think Etzioni missed an opportunity to join the debate and, certainly, could have been the one to provide the text with which many of us trying to follow the debate were unfamiliar. My last humble thought is that this man was elected President of the association fo this year. By tradition, it is his right to create some sessions which highlight his work and vision. I have looked over the whole program and find only a couple of plenaries that grandstand communitarianism and I am sure there will be as much dissent as applause. The rest of the program looks pretty much as it always has. Next year, there will another president and another message. The revolution will not start at the ASA meeting. Personally, with so many more interesting alternative associations, I have ceased to care that much about the ASA. There was a time when I did---Sociology Liberation Movement (for those old enough to remember), Al Lee's candidacy, etc. And I certainly remember conversations with Al about the ASA aristocracy. If we thoght about it I am sure we could imagine some structural reforms and expanded services that would make ASA into an asssociation we would have more respect for--and, perhaps, those changes would merit all this time and energy, maybe even a protest. Etzioni's privileges as president for this year, however, do not warrant such attention. In fact, I am surprised he wasn't flattered by accomplishing his purpose of promoting such active debate. It would have been--would be--far worse to be ignored, don't you think? JERRY STARR From THALL@DEPAUW.EDU Mon Jul 3 10:20:04 1995 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 1995 11:22:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: gemeinschaft in gesellschaft... To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Thanks to TR [Young] for putting much of the debate in such a orderly, succinct summary. I want to pick up with his 2nd point, trying to have gemeinschaft in gesellschaft. 1. Given our modern captialist world-system gemeinschaft on a global scale does not seem possible, or if it is, it is one for the rich on the backs over everyone else. A straightforward point. 2. In this context those communities (Huterite, Amish, etc) who maintain gemeinschaft/community do so precisely because the have the opportunity, i would say luxury, of expelling noncomformists to the outside gesellschaftig/commity-less world. Whether the expulsion is direct and coerced, or indirect and by voluntary migration [or most typically somewhere in between], the "community" can easily stay "pure." 3. To not recognize this explicitly is to grossly misunderstand the modern world. For a sociologist not to address this is a strong indication of lack of competence in sociological analysis. 4. So where does that leave us with Etzioni the C'ers? They are stupid (not likely) or are intenionally ducking a difficult issue. This where many of us (me included) are tempted to read into their thinking an inherent tendency toward fascism. The account by Reynolds [in sociology of sociology, mentioned in earlier posts] on "the sunshine boys" tends to reinforce this. 5. TR has convinced me that is we waste our time & energy trashing the C'ers for being, tending toward fascism, and rather we should grab some of their positivie points, and embed them in a left critique. 6. I still find it ironic (and if the issue were not serious, very funny) that the communitarians seek to save modern (ie capitalist) culture by reinventing 'community' and failing to recognize that it is precisely the workings of capitalism that make such community possible [obviosly, I hope, my concept of 'community' is one NOT based on exploitation of divided classes. tom hall From may@soc.umass.edu Mon Jul 3 11:25:48 1995 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 1995 13:28:50 -0400 From: "D.L.MAY" Subject: Communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu I have been overwhelmed and overcommitted over the last few months, so the first chance I've had to read some PSN mail and learn something about Communitarianism was this afternoon. When I first scanned through the Communitarian "manifesto" I was mostly amused at the tone - it reads like something a group of college sophomores concocted very late into the night. Then my attention was riveted by the segment concerning "families." Reading this section in PSN seemed incongruous, to say the least. How did the family agenda of Conservatives and Republicans and the New Religious Right find a path to PSN? Then I read the list of endorsors and became alarmed because some highly respected and prominent sociologists of gender and family appear on that list. Apparently this document was being taken seriously! I reread the section on the family to make sure I hadn't misunderstood or overreacted, and sure enough, it's an overt pitch for the virtues of the patriarchal family and an attack on feminism and the transformation of the "traditional" families. This section is rhetoric designed to evoke nostalgic yearning for the good old days when everyone assumed their proper gender roles in the family. There are so many problems with this "vision" of the family that I wouldn't take time to address them if I didn't see this as a potentially dangerous political tool. I don 't think it can be ignored if it is getting the kind of sponsorship it claims to have in the list of endorsements. First, single parent (read "mother") families are at a real disadvantage in raising children not because Dad is absent, but because Dad's wages/ salary are absent, a product of gender discrimination in the workplace rather than proof that a woman's place is baking cookies for the kiddies. Rather than making divorce laws more restrictive so that women have an even harder time escaping patriarchal family arrangements which insist on the presence of pt XX the patriarch and the establishment of paternity, why don't so-called "communitarians" advocate communal responsibility for the welfare of children? Do the children "belong" to an individual man and woman or to the community? Is it a communal responsibility to provide every child in society with adequate health care, food, shelter, clothing, and education, or must children be dependent upon the family patriarch? If he's upper class, the kids have it made. If he's poor, the children suffer. Second, single parent families suffer because the mother is required to fill two full-time roles: income earner and "housewife/mother." A truly communitarian society that valued the family and the work of childraising would provide single mothers with a handsome income for their domestic labor and nurturing activities, releasing them from the demands of wage labor or "workfare" at less than minimum wage. If the underlying message of communitarians is that mothers belong at home raising kids, the least they could do is offer some social rewards for that work, instead of turning back the ideological family clock to the fifties when (white, middle-class) women were financially dependent on their husbands. Which brings me to my third objection. As a lesbian coparent of three children, one of whom is soon making me a lesbian grandmother, I find the unquestioned assumption that fathers are both necessary and desirable members of a "real" family ofe XX offensive as well as amusing. I have thought long and hard about what, if any, contribution a father can make to a family that a mother simply can't, and I have reached the conclusion that fathers can bring in more money than mothers because male work is more highly rewarded in the labor market, and that fathers may be necessary to the reproduction of gender roles in the next generation. But the higher salary comes from gender-based discrimination, not the possession of male genitalia. And I don't support the reproduction of gender roles, since as a feminist I am working toward their elimination. I envision a utopian society based on "communitarian" values that insure s the welfare of all children without regard to paternity, that offers both men and women the opportunity to nurture their children and build emotionally and physically healthy children by subsidizing domestic labor. Today we have a punitive welfare system which provides families headed by mothers with have of what they need to physically survive while we call them lazy breeders and demean the work they do in the home as mothers. ("Have" above should have read "half.") We don't as a society respect the work of mothers or the "second shift" we demand of them. I don't see any respect for mothers in the Communitarian agenda, only a renewed respect for fathers and paternal authority. I don't see how mothers or children will benefit from this, and it frightens me that so many respectable intellectuals can endorse such a platform. Sorry, I don't think elevating male status in the family and enhancing the "stability" of family life by denying easy access to divorce benefits anyone except the men whose dominance is reinforced by such "family" policies. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Deborah L. May @@@ @@@ Department of Sociology @@@ If I can't dance, I don't want @@@ University of Massachusetts @@@ to be part of your revolution. @@@ Amherst, MA 01003 @@@ - Emma Goldman @@@ @@@ @@@ may@soc.umass.edu (413) 545-1560 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From MDR@borg.evms.edu Mon Jul 3 14:49:48 1995 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 1995 16:53:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Rosenthal Subject: Communitarianism To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU, ABSLST-L@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU Organization: Eastern Virginia Medical School A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITIQUE OF COMMUNITARIANISM This contribution to the on-going critique of communitarianism by PSN'ers draws upon Amitai Etzioni's 1993 book The Spirit of Community and emphasizes the following four interrelated points: I. Communitarianism champions more effective subordination of the working class to the capitalist class. II. Communitarianism is extremely racist and ethnocentric. III. Communitarianism, notwithstanding disclaimers, is extremely sexist. IV. Communitarianism significantly contributes to the growth of fascism in the United States. I. Communitarianism advocates more effective subordination of the working class to the capitalist class and "explains" to capitalists how ttion among the working class in the face of ever increasing capitalist attacks on wages, working conditions, and the remnants of the welfare state. 5. The tone of the communitarian message is reminiscent of the last chapter of Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve. In the last chapter HM invoke a nostalgic fuzzy image of a eugenically cleansed society in which all know their place and contribute to the social order. This is their alternative to the "virulently racist custodial state" that will have to be imposed upon us if dysgenic trends continue. The common message is: Do it our way or they will do it their way! Steve Rosenthal, Dept. of Sociology, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668. (Office: 804-727-5878; Home: 804-440- 7801). From MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Mon Jul 3 14:53:18 1995 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 95 16:59:00 EDT From: "Morton G. Wenger, Dept. of Sociology" Subject: Communitarianism (Finale for me for now) To: University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USA PHONE: (502) 852-6836 FAX: (502) 852-0099 Concluding... I find it thrillingly fascinating that some of the very responses to the debate over communitarianism continue to validate, rather than refute, the critique I have been suggesting. I acknowledge that some of the posts that I will allude to crossed with mine in the mail, so if that makes any difference, I'm sure it will be pointed out. Porpora, for example, rhetorically hyperbolizes to the effect that an ideological analysis of communitarianism such as that being presented herewould make of Michael Harrington "a Nazi." Even though no one has said this, Doug, and even though you might be right or wrong as to the relationship between Harrington and communitarianism, youmight also be correct in your charge in a literal way you did not imagine. That is, if one were to look back over the history of the 60s and 70s, the anti-Sovietism and electoral slavishness to the Democratic Party exhibited by various "democratic" socialists, including Harrington and his earlier and later admirers, may have played a significant role in the abortion of revolutionarydevelopments in American society. (Of course, this may not be the case, either, but that is one of my overall and earlier points: these are scientific questions, and not to be dismissed by hyperbole and scoffing.)Another post sees c ommunitarianism as empty and vapid in its specific content, a sentiment I would not disagree with. (Oh, BTW: Porpora's post also seems to suggest that only people who haven't read communitarianism would analyze it in conjunction with the concept of "fascism" which, as was noted above, is equated with "Nazism"-presented-as-a-seamless-icon of evil. This primitive and useless conceptualization needs to be discarded. In any case, it is interesting to me to compare this haughty assertion of selective enlightenment to the (rather meager) defenses of *The Bell Curve*, in which one corrspondent repeatedly suggested that those who chose to analyze the work in ideological terms could not possibly have read it. Is their a pattern here?) Most significantly, Ratcliff admits that there may be some relationship between fascism and communitarianism, but that it is spurious and superficial, with the two only connected through their single connections to "corporatism." This is a serious argument, and allows me to pick up the thread where I left off. The general characteristic of the legitimating ideologies of fascist states, both once they have been established and as they are in formation, with the latter being the more relevant here. For present purposes, I define corporatism as an ideology which grows out of protracted and unresolved class conflict, which has as its political end the defusing of high levels of class conflict and the restoration of a status quo ante of high levels of class accomodation. It accomplishes this, when it does, by several devices. For one, it strives to eliminatethe deployment of conceptualizations of class and attendant class consciousness. (Please note the shrieking of Dole and other proto-fascists regarding "class warfare." See also Clarence Paige's recent column on the subject for how a non-Marxist can have greater clarity on these issues than some of those who are subjectively Marxist.) For another, it seeks to replace objective and empirical categories of class with over-arching and fictive concepts of- as in the case of everyone's favorite bete noire, Nazi Germany- "blood, race, and/or nation." Am I really being rhetorically imprudent to extend such a list to include "community?" Finally, it seeks to replace concepts of material interest and structural contradiction with evaluations of moral soundness. Civil society and the State become arenas for the conflict of a presumedly universal"Good" versus a presum ably universal "Evil." Good is then localized in the "majority," and "Evil" associated with a (or several) stigmatized "Others." The list of such "blamed victims" is well-known among the masses in the US today, as they were (with varying emphases) in Germany and Poland in the 30s, Italy in the 20s, etc.: Jews, Freemasons, homosexuals, uppity women, people of color, immigrants, (irresponsible, rhetorically florid, "dangerous") political Leftists, and a variety of other "Others." The main point is that corporatist ideologies shift popular understandings away from the systemic origins of social problems and their differential advantages/disadvantages to different classes, and create a fiction of common interest where none, or only the most baroque, social commonality exists. I have to say this, even if the chips fall where they hurt old friends: how can someone who calls him/herself a Marxist, who presumably accepts as a scientific truth the intractability of capitalist contradiction, possibly affiliate with any platform, program, or theory which countenances, for even a moment, the war on the immiserated paupers called "welfare reform?" TRhe same goes for deviance models of crime, and the belief that changes in values can shore up the collapsing apparatuses of social reproduction in hyper-mature capitalism. To me, the claim of a common interest in such societies is akin to that of a plane hijacker whose bomb explodes inadvertently and who, on the way down, says "Folks, we're all in this together," As I noted in a previous post, all classes face common ruin (thanks, Karl and Fred) unless revolutionary change takes place; however, this does not mean that all classes share a common future. Returning at the end to another aspect of the theme of uniqueclass interests t hat was raised earlier: My initial declaration spoke of a "fascist ideology palatable to the squeamish petit bourgeois."(Post in conceptual shorthand in haste, repent at leisure, I guess.) A. Spector saved me some time in this regard by mentioning in an earlier post a quote from an interview with Etzioni where he said that "the target" of C-isn was "the middle class." (Gee, Doug, I guess some people who don't like C-ism can even quote from TV/radio interviews with its high priest! Reality is so inconvenient, sometimes, n'est-ce pas?) I was merely taking Etzioni at his word, which happened to be known to me. The significance of this observation, though, is not so obvious as its source. The diversity of class experience, as I noted before, makes different ideological utterances differentially effective across classes. The uneducated and/or intentionally or compuksively ignorant have been mobilized by the so-called "religious Right," which has as much to do with Christianity from my perspective, as does Aryanism with Eurasian anthropology. "New Age" irrationalism has taken it s ideological toll as well. Bell Curvist eugenics has emboldened the hegemonic class with renewed "moral" justification for the continuation of their brutal dominion. Who, then, is the target of communitarianism? Etzioni has already told us in general, but as we "class analysts" know, classes also have class "fractions," some more strategically located for purposes of *Kulturkampf* than others. Thus the "special treatment" by Dole and Quayle for Jew-town "Hollywood," and thus I will argue in absolute, final conclusion, for the timid class warriors and fellow travellers of the ASA. One of the rhetorical themes which appears in Etzioni's initial letter, and reappears several times in the communications of those "soft" on communitarianism, is the idea not only of trivialization of the concept of "fascism," but also an implication of political cowardice on the part of tose willing to engage C-ism in direct struggle. Etzioni rhetorically inquires as to why, with militias, skinheads, etc., abroad in the land, progressives would trifle with communitarians in luxury hotels. Undoubtedly, this brought much snarfling approbation from the C-ist claque, or theme wouldn't have appeared so many times in the e-messages of his champions. However, there is a dangerous deception here, even beyond that of ignoring the plain old textual fact that much of what little discussion of protest at the ASA meetings acyually took place on PSN was premised on the possibility of President Clinton as keynote speaker. Indulging in my own rhetorical fluorish, I am sure that the esteemed student of power who penned the letter which started all this must see how President Clinton, even in his diminished, politically gelded state, is at least as politically significant as a local gang of skinheads. Also disposable in deconstructing Etzioni's and other's utterances regarding the pettiness and pusillanimity of C-ism's foes in the ASA is the implication that they do not fight his list of "true" fascists elsewhere. This is unsubstantiated nonsense, like much of the letter: I am sure that if skinheads or Klan were to show up at the ASA meetings, the same people who were in the forefront of the attack on the C-ist takeover of the ASA meetings would be in the forefront of direct action to eject them therefrom. Would Etzioni, or would he become more protective of *their* First Amendment rights than he seems to be in the case of his "progressive" colleagues? Be this all as it may, the key point is that sociologists are important. By my estimate, those attending the ASA meetings meet several hundred thousand students in extended ideological/theoretical encounters for extended discourse on the nature of the social world and the political implications thereof. The total membership of the ASA probably encounters more than a million students a year in this way, and this does not include the ideological/theoretical discourse conducted via "expert" paths in the mass media and courts. To argue that such a strategic class fraction of the petit bourgeoisie constitutes an audience unworthy of political struggle would be astonishing if it were an assertion in one of Etzioni's theoretical works, or that of his C-ism's defenders. Yet, as is obvious from his actions, he himself does not regard the ASA as organization unworthy of *his* attentions. The conclusion to be drawn from this is the same as my initial ones: his letter is not organizational or academicin content, but in i ts own Radical Centrist way is shrilly partisan. The impact of C-ism is not so much to mobilize, as it is to demobilize the currently apolitical mass of intellectuals yet further, and to assure that their residual horror at orphanages, chain-gabgs, mass (but dispersed) executions, tightened controls on education, and not least, their own loss of work-place autonomy and economic well-being, does not rekindle or kindle in any significant number of them the willingness to take the slightest risk in opposing the oncoming fascist juggernaut. C-ism is not "nazism;" it is not self-consciously "fascist" as it exists in the minds of any of its adherents that I know personally. Like some of the *subjective* anti-fascists of the 1920s and 1930s who survived the horrors of established European fascism, they will later repent their folly, but to no avail. As regards who meeds more opposition, the Klan or C-ism, I would argue they both deserve attention. It should be recalled that Hitler came to power not by *putsch*, but by legitimate, electoral plurality, and with the active support or PASSIVE ACQUIESCENCE of much uf the German intelligensia, most of whom found him personally loathsome and intellectually absurd. However, they had become convinced that Germany was threatened from within by "deviant" enemies, that values had erodes, that the schools and families were collapsing, that authority was impotent, and many of the other tenets of C-ism and Clintonian "New Democratism." They regarded analyses of class and class conflict as the simplistic ravings of irresponsible radicals. Many of them would have undoubtedly fought to the last had they seen what was to come as a result of their flirtation with corporatist illusion. However, they may be excused their gross and disastrous error, at least in part, because they could not see the future. Can we, who refuse to understand the past, expect the same absolution? I blush at the amount of people's time that I have presumed to intrude on. Thanks for the indulgence. INTERNET: MGWENG01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU From spector@calumet.purdue.edu Mon Jul 3 15:52:49 1995 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 16:33:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Alan Spector" Sender: spector@calumet.purdue.edu To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Communitarians and Freedom The liberal critique of the communitarian movement is inadequate. The problem is NOT that they merely LEAVE OUT a class analysis of oppression. The problem is that the communitarian movement will ally itself with those who want to CRUSH the DEVIANTS who oppose oppression. Not every single person who "likes" communitarianism will do this, of course, but the essence of the movement goes beyond obscuring the causes of oppression. By obscuring the causes of oppression and DEMANDING UNITY, it helps open the door--RATHER WIDELY AT THAT--for those who would isolate the "outsiders". Is it an accident that so many of the leaders include those who have apologized for imperialism? Alan Spector P.S.-- A useful, short-cut barometer, (not necessarily always accurate) to determine how deep someone's concern for "social justice and unity" goes, is to examine his/her positions on imperialism and internationalism. Many, many liberals, (and some socialists as well), talk a good game in vague terms, but manage to defend the imperialist order as they conceive of a "utopia" that emphasizes how "nice" it could be in the U.S. (and the West in general), while enthusiastically, (or quietly), lending their support to the international imperialist order. From maschoen@students.wisc.edu Tue Jul 4 09:41:20 1995 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 10:44:23 -0500 To: spector@calumet.purdue.edu, PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK From: maschoen@students.wisc.edu (Michael A. Schoenfield) Subject: Re: Communitarians and Freedom At 04:33 PM 7/3/95, Alan Spector wrote: > > The liberal critique of the communitarian movement is inadequate. The >problem is NOT that they merely LEAVE OUT a class analysis of oppression. >The problem is that the communitarian movement will ally itself with those >who want to CRUSH the DEVIANTS who oppose oppression. ===================================================== Alan, This is my critique to communitarianism. The communitarian movement is to define community and for every defined community there has to be, by definition, those left out. I am not accusing communitarians of being sexist, racist, or having any identified biases; rather I am afraid of the social movement of those inside the community vs. those outside the community. I find Iris Youngs critique and arguments, as she feels that the urban design including all differences in a setting to be a realistic alternative. What I also find interesting is the amount of similarities between communitarianism and operational Marxism. Which might make for an interesting thread. Mike S. ======================================================= Michael A. Schoenfield maschoen@students.wisc.edu Michael A. Schoenfield & Associates (608) 238-6121 Voice University of Wisconsin - Madison 2637 Mason St. Madison, WI 53705-3709 From mcastro@umiami.ir.miami.edu Tue Jul 4 14:50:52 1995 Date: Tue, 04 Jul 1995 16:53:56 -0400 (EDT) From: mcastro@umiami.ir.miami.edu Subject: Communitarianism To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu A point of information: What are the implications of communitarianism for the current debate regarding immigration? How are the boundaries of community defined by Etzioni and other communitarian theorists? How do they relate "community" to transnational realities, including transnational communities? I will be grateful for any information or insights. Max J. Castro North-South Center University of Miami From HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Thu Jul 6 04:51:59 1995 From: HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 06:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Communitarianism To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: West Virginia Network If Communitarianism is understood as an outcome consensus on social values, it is bound to be middle ground and inevitably middle class. The guiding image of this perspective then becomes the recovery of past Gemeinschaft values -- which eventually become exclusive. But if Communitarianism is understood not as outcome but as process, creating a new form of civil society that will be based upon diversity (ethnicity, gender and class) through dialogue, then it can possibly be open to a progressive perspective.. The progressive would insist that the "Process of Community" cannot develop unless sectors of society now marginalized (minorities generally) are empowered to engage in the process. This will not happen, of course, without a considerable redistribution of resources and power. So if the Communitarians really want community, they will have to undersrtand it not as a middle class outcome, but as a process, the precondition of which is political and economic justice. (I see the Communitarian Movement's commitment to political campaign finance reform as an important step TOWARD V From BRBGC%CUNYVM.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU Thu Jul 13 15:13:19 1995 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 15:07:50 -0600 (MDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by VAXF.COLORADO.EDU From: BRBGC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Apparently-To: ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Greetings, Today, President Etzioni's letter in Footnotes arrived. Celia Winkler and I have prepared the attached response. We welcome any and all who would like to co-sign this letter. Of course, we do not believe that our letter represents the views of every PSN subscriber. We simply ask that all those who share our views join us. If you would like to endorse this response, please send a brief note (including name and affliation, if appropriate) to either Ric Brown at brbgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu or Celia Winkler at cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu. As we feexpressed. This is indeed a generous offer. However, as the discussion on PSN shows, the communitarianism issue goes far beyond that which can be covered at the business session. In the interests of scholarly discussion, it might be more valuable if he and all other interested parties) wo uld simply subscribe to PSN and engage all of us by addressing the various points already made there. To subscribe, he need only send the command S**SCRIBE PSN to listserv@csf.colorado.edu. We look forward to an actual debate of the issues, rather than Mccarthy-like epistles citing unnamed sources and spectral threats. In Solidarity, B. Ricardo Brown Doctoral Student Department of Sociology City University of New York Graduate Center Celia Winkler Graduate Teaching Fellow Department of Sociology University of Oregon From MDR@borg.evms.edu Sun Jul 16 16:53:52 1995 Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 18:55:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Rosenthal Subject: ANTI-RACIST CONFERENCE AT HOWARD U. To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU, ABSLST-L@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU Organization: Eastern Virginia Medical School To: PSN and ABS From: Steve Rosenthal The Howard University Faculty Senate and the Howard University Student Association have put out a call for a conference on RACE AND INEQUITY: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, CUTBACKS IN SOCIAL PROGRAMS, AND RACISM IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY, to be held at Howard University in Washington, D.C., this Fall on October 6 and 7. They are inviting organizations and associations to co-sponsor, build, and participate in this conference. I am send the text of the "conference call" as a separate e-mail message. Building a multi-racial anti-racist movement is vitally needed on our campuses and in our communities. It is the only viable alternative to the Etzioni-Clinton communitarian strategy of seeking "common ground" with those who are destroying affirmative action, eliminating social programs, and promoting academic racism. Those of you who have read the new issue of Footnotes have had the opportunity to read or reread Etzioni's letter caricaturing the recent PSN discussion of communitarianism. You have probably also seen the front-page photo of Etzioni, Clinton, and the American flag, taken at the "White House Conference on Character Building," which was organized by The Communitarian Network. If this was not sufficient testimony to the patriotic loyalty of the ASA leadership to the present administration, you could turn to p. 4, where "official observer" Phyllis Moen's reported on the White House Conference on Aging. Rather than presenting an analysis of current policies and problems related to aging, Moen instead gushed about being part of a "sentimental audience, cheering when the Air Force Color Guard brought in the flag and singing the national anthem," and boasted that "we reaffirmed our commitment and dedication to our nation and its values." Some ASA leaders are thus wholeheartedly devoting themselves to supporting and legitimizing the ideological themes that are being used by political and business leaders to justify cutbacks in social programs, attacks on affirmative action, and the spread of racist-biological determinist dogmas. Their patriotic invocations of community, character, citizenship, family values; their affirmation of support for government while insisting that it cannot and should not do anything for the poor and the working class demonstrate that Communitarians are working hard to deliver us into the arms of the extreme right. At the meetings in D.C. next month, I ask you to join in urging the SSSP, the ABS, the ASA Marxist and Racial and Ethnic Minorities sections, and others to co-sponsor and endorse the Howard Conference and urge their members to attend. We can thus not only offer a needed critique of and opposition to communitarianism. We can also work to rebuild an anti-racist, pro-working class alternative. I have secured "half" of a "literature table" at the ASA and invite you to help me staff it to distribute information about the Howard University conference. You are welcome to distribute other anti-racist and progressive literature as well, within the limitations of a relatively small space that we must all share. If you are willing to help out with this educational work, please let me know. Steve Rosenthal, Dept. of Sociology, Hampton Univ., Hampton, VA 23668 E-mail address: MDR@BORG.EVMS.EDU. Home telephone: 804-440-7801. From BRBGC%CUNYVM.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU Fri Jul 21 13:23:13 1995 by VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (PMDF V5.0-3 #8140) 21 Jul 1995 13:17:51 -0600 (MDT) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with RFC822 id 1568; Fri, Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:25:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Ric Brown Subject: ***REVISED*** Response to Etzioni's Letter To: psn-cafe ======================================================================== 266 ****************** REVISED TEXT ***************** In response to the comments of many subscribers ( and to the publication in Footnotes of an edited version of Etzioni's letter), we have *revised* our response. We sincerely ask that all those who wish to add their support do so as quickly as possible. We have attached the names of those who have signed on thus far. We welcome any and all who would like to co-sign this letter. Of course, we do not believe that our letter represents the views of every PSN subscriber. We simply ask that all those who share our views join us. If you would like to endorse this response, please send a brief note (including name and affliation, if appropriate) to either Ric Brown at brbgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu or Celia Winkler at cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu. As we feel that time is of the essence, please send word of your support ASAP. We would like to send the letter within the next few days. In Solidarity, Ric Brown Celia Winkler ======================================================= To the Editors of Footnotes, the American Sociological Association, the Sociological "Community," and All Interested Parties. President Etzioni's letter to Footnotes may well be remembered as an important moment in the institutional history of American sociology. It should be noted that it is an edited version of a longer email posting that he delivered to the Progressive Sociologist Network (PSN) on June 27, 1995. The text of the PSN letter can be obtained via the internet by gophering to csf.colorado.edu/discussions/progressive sociologists/psn-cafe archives. Those without internet access may contact any of the undersigned for copies. President Etzioni believes that there is a nefarious plot afoot against him and the 1995 ASA meeting. Justifiably upset by the specter of "disruptions" by progressive and radical sociologists, Etzioni issued his letter in order to reveal this plot to his colleagues. At its best moment, his letter seeks to open a discussion of the merits of his communitarian social theories. At its worst, President Etzioni's letter is a political broadside that casts a cloud over all the subscribers of the Progressive Sociologist Network and, indeed, all who voice disagreement with his communitarian agenda. As such, his letter necessitates a formal response from the unnamed targets. As subscribers to PSN, and therefore by our association, some of its targets, the authors and the signatories offer this note as a response. The Progressive Sociologists Network (PSN) is an open internet discussion group, a "virtual cafe" in the words of the founders of the list. It is a means for the exchange of ideas and information. At this time, the list distributes postings to over 300 subscribers. The discussions between our members cover every imaginable sociological issue, which is in keeping with the mission of an internet discussion list and with the variety of political/theoretical positions represented by its participants. No one supports every position expressed, but everyone is free to express their views on any discussion "thread." Since May of this year, the members of PSN have engaged in a number of discussions regarding both communitarianism and the politics of the ASA meeting. This discussion has been typically wide ranging and fruitful for the members of PSN. During these discussions, a small number of posts (approximately 5 out of a total of approximately 125 related to communitarianism and the ASA) advocated some sort of "disruption" of the annual meeting. (It is interesting to note that this is about the same number as those advocating the holding of an alternative meeting/dinner during Etzioni's Presidential Address.) The overwhelming majority of posts considered, sometimes approvingly, the sociological importance of communitarianism. Of the posts that expressed disagreement with the theme of the meeting or communitarianism, the vast majority did not mention "disrupting" the meeting. In fact, many actually dismissed the idea of "disruption" as ill conceived or unnecessary. Many of the postings were unapologetically critical of communitarianism, but we must note that Etzioni's letter does not address any of the issues raised by these critical remarks. In fact, it is unclear as to whether he has read the discussion in its entirety or has ever subscribed to the list. We can not recreate the extensive discussion here. Any interested parties with internet access may obtain the complete discussion from the list archive by gophering to csf.colorado.edu/discussions/progressive sociologists/psn-cafe archives. As PSN is an open discussion list, we have nothing to hide. The discussions speak for themselves. However, a number of points raised by President Etzioni's letter must be addressed now. First, we must question President Etzioni's use of the term "progressives" in a derogatory sense. Many of the members of PSN do consider themselves Progressives, others are indeed, horror of horrors, Marxists. We discuss the meaning of these terms amongst ourselves, but do not deny the sincerity and scholarly dedication of any of our members. Those who refer to themselves as progressives do so because it describes their political position as well as their sense of responsibility to human society. President Etzioni's pejorative use of the term is not in keeping with his position as President of the ASA, or with his expressed communitarian beliefs in openness and discussion. Second, President Etzioni modestly asserts in the PSN version that he is merely a sociologist who "believes we have responsibilities to go along with our rights...."Almost no one on PSN would argue that they do not have social responsibilities. However, President Etzioni is being uncharacteristically modest here, as he has often bragged in the press of the Communitarian Network's influence in the Clinton administration. Those PSN'ers who have voiced concerns regarding Etzioni and his communitarianism did so because it is their responsibility to challenge views that they find dangerous or just plain silly, even when those views are held by the President of the ASA and the President of the United States. This is, after all, the ultimate responsibility of anyone seeking to live in a free society. For this reason, President Etzioni's call for his colleagues to raise their "moral voice" in outrage over a phantom plot belittles the fact that those criticizing him and communitarianism in general also speak with a "moral voice." President Etzioni has spoken of the need for "salem-like communities (Spirit of Community 1993:148)," and we assume that this is representative of the morality he wants to voice. We, his critical colleagues, speak with a moral voice honed from years of study and struggle for human emancipation from those miserable little "communities" that Ralph Waldo Emerson called the "jail-yard of individual relations." Third, President Etzioni refers to "the majority of Americans who see themselves as centrists -- in effect communitarians...." We will leave it to the reader the evaluate the merits of this statement. Fourth, President Etzioni's experience of Nazism stands, as does the experience of millions of others, as a testament to courage and spirit of humans to struggle against tyranny. There are even a few PSN'ers who themselves, or their families, experienced the same horrors. Yes, communitarianism was compared to fascism in a number of posts and a lively and informed debate ensued over the appropriateness of this characterization, as well as the sociological definition of fascism. As we are sure that President Etzioni is familiar with the sociological literature on fascism and right-wing ideological practices, we can only be saddened that he has chosen to attack us in this manner and tar us all with the implication that we are insensitive or worse. Finally, President Etzioni has invited his critics to send a representitive to the business session so that our views can be fully expressed. This is indeed a generous offer, but in the original PSN letter, it was an invitation extended to the entire list, and not limited to a single representative. However, as the discussion on PSN shows, the communitarianism issue goes far beyond that which can be covered at the business session. In the interests of scholarly discussion, it might be more valuable if he and all other interested parties would simply subscribe to PSN and engage all of us by addressing the various points already made there. To subscribe, he need only send the command SUBSCRIBE PSN to listserv@csf.colorado.edu. We look forward to an actual debate of the issues. In Solidarity, B. Ricardo Brown * Doctoral Student Department of Sociology City University of New York Graduate Center (brbgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu) Celia Winkler * Graduate Teaching Fellow Department of Sociology University of Oregon (cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu) (Signatories in alphabetical order) Lisa Alcock MA Student Department of Sociology University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (lja@csd.uwm.edu) Amy Ansell Associate Professor of Sociology Bard College (ansell@bard.edu) James Bearden Associate Professor Department of Sociology SUNY- Geneseo (bearden@uno.cc.geneseo.edu) William K. Carroll Professor of Sociology University of Victoria, British Columbia (carroll@uvvm.uvic.ca) Nancy K. Cauthen Doctoral Candidate Department of Sociology New York University (cauthenn@acfcluster.nyu.edu) Carl H.A. Dassbach Department of Social Sciences Michigan Technological University (dassbach@mtu.edu) Joe Feagin Department of Sociology University of Florida (feagin@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu) Warren Goldstein Ph. D. Candidate Department of Sociolgy New School for Social Research (wgoldste@hp800.lasalle.edu) Keith Kilty College of Social Work Ohio State University (kkilty@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) Allan Liska Department of Sociology University of Maryland (hstaub@bss1.umd.edu) Tom Meisenhelder Department of Sociology California State University, San Francisco (tsmeisen@wiley.csusb.edu) Markus Mueller Austrian Student Unions Department of Sociology University of Graz, Austria (mueller@gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at) David Purcell Graduate Student Department of Sociology University of Cincinnati purcelld@ucbeh.san.uc.edu Blaine Stevenson Department of Sociology Central Michigan University (3rt2bdy@cmuvm.cmich.edu) Morton G. Wenger Department of Sociology University of Louisville (mgweng01@ulkyum.louisville.edu) Talmadge Wright Department of Sociolgy and Anthropology Loyola University, Chicago (twright@orion.it.luc.edu) *Authors Institutional affliations are given for purposes of identification only. From semlen@cwis.unomaha.edu Wed Jul 26 07:30:06 1995 Subject: etzioni To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 08:12:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Sam Walker Status: RO To the PSN and anyone else who's interested: My own contribution to the debate over Communitarianism is "The Communitarian Cop-Out," National Civic Review (Summer 1993) 246-254. It is written from an ACLU perspective. I think the title tell you what it says about Etzioni and his group. I would be happy to fax copies to anyone who asks. Enjoy the ASA meeting. -Sam Walker From HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Mon Jul 31 07:52:10 1995 From: HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU by WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU (PMDF V5.0-4 #8782) id <01HTIKH225OG96VR33@WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU> for psn@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 09:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 09:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Communitarianism and ASA To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: West Virginia Network Status: RO Having just read Sam Walker's "The Communitarian Cop-out" (which is very good - he offered a copy on this list) I am wondering if it might not be a good idea to pass out reprints of it at the ASA meeting as a comment on Etzioni's perspective. Sam addresses the question of rights and Etzioni's call for a moritorium on new rights. This is perhaps more of a "liberal" critique than a progressive one, but Sam does point out that rights assertions have been a primary vehicle in this century for gaining greater economic justice. I am inclined to think now that the central progressive criticism of communitarianism (following Alan Spector's comments a while ago) is that the communitarians do not take the economic disparity seriously. They presume that community is possible without a prior equalization of economic empowerment. As Alan said, you can't expect the oppressed to join the oppressors; I'd say economic justice is a PRE-condition of community, not a product of it. Well it might be nice to have Sam's piece distributed as a brief rebuttal; there might be other short statements on economic, race or gender barriers to community Bob Hall, West Virginia State College From soc40001@frank.mtsu.edu Mon Jul 31 11:06:19 1995 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 12:10:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Andy To: HALL@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Communitarianism and ASA Status: RO In Joseph A. Scimecca's *Society & Freedom: An Introduction to Humanist Sociology* 2 ed. (1995), he writes that "humans are free to create their social world and that whatever impinges upon that freedom is ultimately negative and destructive." This is the humanist conception of free will, and is, interestingly enough, in line with the rhetoric of the right concerning "liberty." Scimecca goes on to write that "to be free is to be able to choose among alternatives. The word *freedom* will be used to mean the *maximization of alternatives*." This particular definition of "freedom" (the one that I hold) has important implications in the current debate concerning communitarianism. Here is my observation (in the form of a question): If freedom is to be able to choose among alternatives, with the goal of a free society being the maximization of alternatives, then if one individual--Donald Trump-- has a greater range of alternatives than another--Sara the mother of two children, abandoned by her husband, working 60 hours a week in a factory, barely getting by--then isn't the former more free than the latter? And if this is the case, doesn't it follow that freedom can only exist in a state of equality? To phrase this a little differently: doesn't inequality, by definition, means that one person has a greater range of alternatives to choose from, therefore (by definition) is more free? I recognize the self-evident nature of this argument. Indeed, it is, at least among some circles, a familiar line of moral reasoning. However, it is not one I hear in the national debate. It is clearly the point at which communitarianism falls down (losing the goal of greater freedom) and where the right is shown to be hypocritical (never believing in, but only in rhetoric advancing, the humanist conception of freedom). The way I see it, there are two conceptions of "freedom": 1) freedom TO exploit, oppress, etc. (also know as the "freedom from constraint to exploit" in the negative conception of human rights, i.e. right libertarianism); and 2) the freedom FROM exploitation, oppression, want and need. Only one--the latter--is compatible with the humanist definition of freedom. Only one can be (in so much as we have a nature, and if the sheer volume of human history can be said to count for anything) compatible with human nature. The battle against the oppressive and exploitative structures of capitalism should waged on several fields, but I think one of the most important battles is the battle to destroy this wretched "capitalism = freedom" metaphor. Under a humanist conception of freedom--humanism the intellectual paradigm out of which both communism and capitalism became possibilities--capitalism is incompatible with the basic values of the Western gestalt (at least those symbols we hold rhetorically). The imposition of a system so contrary to our basic nature, the result of uprooting the individual--not to free him from oppression, but to place him in a position to oppress--from the social, is the great tragedy of our day. And any effort to impose community upon an order which is socially dead is inherently authoritarian. The bonds of community have to rebuilt; but, as so many on you have argued, this can only occur with economic freedom and social justice... anything short of these (preconditions to an authentic community) rob of us of what freedom we still possess. Virtually every social problem we have today has its roots in capitalism... this is the story that has to be told. In solidarity, ____________________________________________________________________________ Andy Austin, soc40001@frank.mtsu.edu * "The last time people in this Sociology/Anthropology Dept. Box 10 * society cared about my rights Middle Tennessee State University * was when I was a fetus." Murfreesboro Tennessee 37132 * - Sara Cytron ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas..." - Marx & Engels, The German Ideology "You got to take the power back!" - Rage Against the Machine