|
 |
 |
|
A Communitarian Letter #7
In this Letter:
Communitarian Calendar Nuclear contagion No broken windows in the UK? Forced diversity Growth in private community groups I Read Communitarians need not apply The hapless Democrats Dialogue: More about “My Christmas Wars” New book: The Active Society Revisited
Communitarian Calendar
"Community Briefing: The Future of the Patriot Act"
Date: Thursday, February 2, 2006 Time: 9:30 – 11:00 am Location: National Press Club 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor – Zenger Room Washington, DC 20045 Panelists: Hon. Rachel Brand - Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice Caroline Fredrickson - Director, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington Legislative Office Stewart A. Baker - Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Amitai Etzioni - Author, How Patriotic is the Patriot Act?
Diversity Within Unity Project Conference
Date: April 26, 2006 Location: Brussels, Belgium The Diversity Within Unity Project at George Washington University is organizing a conference on the rights and responsibilities of immigrants and their new homelands. We are happy to report that Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, British Minister of State for Immigration and Citizenship Tony McNulty, and British MP David Willetts will participate. Other public leaders are to be announced. Participation is by invitation only. Interested parties should be email kbell05@gwu.edu for more information. The approach that will be discussed at the meeting is called “Diversity Within Unity: Rights and responsibilities of immigrants and their new homeland.” Diversity Within Unity aims to change the contours of the debate by positing an alternative to strict assimilation and unbounded multiculturalism. The position, detailed in a platform available at http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/dwu_positionpaper.html, focuses on fostering both respect for the whole and respect for all. The purpose of the meeting in April will be to explore the merits and challenges of this approach and elaborate on its policy implications in Europe. To see a full list of endorsers or to offer an endorsement, please visit http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/dwu_endorse.html. SASE 2006: Constituting Globalization: Actors, Arenas and Outcomes Communitarian Workshop at SASE June 30, 9:00 AM– 12:00 PM. University of Trier, Germany
Additional details will soon be posted at our Conferences and Events webpage To submit papers, click here The Communitarian Network will conduct a workshop on communitarian economics on June 30, just before the SASE meetings start. For more information, please visit www.communitariannetwork.org.
Nuclear contagion Now that the Bush administration is supporting new nuclear initiatives in India and has declared it is not concerned about new ones in Brazil, it is little wonder that other nations are developing nuclear appetites. Ukraine just announced that it seeks to move in this direction. What we need is the opposite: a strong norm against more states developing nuclear fuels, whether or not we appreciate their current government. They can open nuclear plants but the fuel should be supplied by an international consortium which will also “collect” the spent fuel and any byproducts. For more discussion see our report “Pre-empting Nuclear Terrorism in A New Global Order.”
No broken windows in the UK?
Since coming to power in 1997, the Labour government has instituted a series of legal deterrents to anti-social behavior, making Britain’s punishment for such behavior some of the strongest in the Western world. Chief among these acts is the Anti-Social Behavior Order (ASBO). The act allows issuing warrants of sorts which can be issued to children as young as ten and bans the offender from entering certain areas (e.g. playgrounds) or saying certain words (e.g. hate speech). Sentences of up to five years in prison can be issued for violation of these prohibitions. New governmental powers announced on January 10th, 2006 include the ability to evict disorderly households from their homes. More recently, greater emphasis has been put on classes in civility and in parenting. So far, the British Crime Survey shows that public anxiety about disorderly youth has barely decreased over the past five years and actually increased last year. City officials attribute the public’s proclaimed dissatisfaction to the increase in quality of life expectations that naturally accompany any new governmental policy designed to enhance quality of life. One wonders if what seems to have worked in the United States, where enforcing laws against minor crimes such as peeing in public and playing loud boom boxes reactivated the community and its norms and is even said to have reduced serious crime, cannot be made to work in the UK. Source: “Soothing the savage beast.” The Economist. 14 Jan 2006, p. 57-8.
Forced diversity:
From A Communitarian Letter #6: I wonder about forced diversity
Communitarians, at least this one, do not need to hold that a society must be homogeneous, that all its members must have the same ethnic origin, one set of values, etc. Societies can be, indeed many are, communities of communities. As long as loyalty to the overarching community (often the nation) trumps the loyalty to member communities on several key issues, such diversity within unity provides a very valid societal model. For more discussion see, of this, see our Diversity Within Unity Platform. However, all rules have some exceptions. In recent years various international powers have been trying to force people of different ethnic backgrounds to live together as one nation—including people who would rather kill and be killed than live with people whom they detest. This is the case in Bosnia and Kosovo. Despite huge expenditures, international pressure and commitment of troops, the efforts to make these countries into a community of communities is a screaming failure. One cannot help but wonder if in these cases a negotiated ethnic divorce is not to be preferred? Moreover, one cannot help but wonder if perhaps three Iraqs would be better than one? Since that letter, the following essay appeared in The Washington Post: “Iraq’s Kurds, Shiites and Sunni Arabs do not share the common values and aspirations that are essential to building a unified state.” So says Peter W. Gailbraith, former ambassador to Croatia, in The Washington Post (“What Are We Holding Together?” p.A21 11/7/05). What good is a unified democracy if it leads to civil war and another dictatorship? These three groups want dramatically different styles of government and levels of involvement with America. Attempts to create an Iraqi national army have instead set up ethnic battalions that are loyal to their respective communities over Baghdad. The Iraqi constitution essentially allows for regional rule, except in a few matters of federal jurisdiction. If America (and the Sunni Arabs, who boycotted the constitutional assembly) can able to get past the idea of a unified Iraq, the elements are in place for ethnically distinct but predominately peaceful regional rule. Stephen St. Onge wrote: To me, this is like asking if, well, maybe we should keep natural gas from mixing with the air in house, because it might explode otherwise. OF COURSE people who hate each other and want to kill should be separated. The interesting question is why anyone ever had the utopian delusion that SOMEHOW, everyone can be made to agree. "Moreover, one cannot help but wonder if perhaps three Iraqs would be better than one?" There, it's impossible for me to say on the basis of present information. You may well be correct. Certainly, many African countries would have been better off split into pieces, as well as perhaps Lebanon. But 'maybe we should have done something differently' is not much help for the future. Do you propose to actively split countries? Do you have criteria to determine which countries we should preserve, which actively split, which take no position on. The fact of the matter is that we are members of the UN, NATO, and other international groups who are dedicated to preservation of existing international borders. Should we withdraw from them? And if new borders are to be drawn, who draws them? If you're serious about the prospect of breaking up existing countries, these are the kinds of questions that need to be asked.
Growth in private community groups Ronald H. Nelson recently wrote about a surge in private community association membership (18% of all Americans belong to a neighborhood association) (“Home Is Where The Rules Are” Washington Post 12/18/05, p.B02). Between 1980 and 2000, half of the new housing built in the U.S. was in association-run communities (the phenomenon is especially wide spread in the South and West). Though he cautions that these communities often tend towards homogenous neighborhoods and can restrict personal expression (no political signs on your front lawn!), they do give citizens greater power and creativity for internal governance in ways that a public government cannot provide. Some years back I got Daniel Bell to write a piece about these organizations for The Responsive Communitarian (Daniel A. Bell, “Residential Community Associations: Community or Disunity?” The Responsive Communitarian V.5 n.5 Fall 1995). These groups have their problems but are part of the communitarian fabric. As we are increasingly willing to give up certain freedoms in order to gain more control over our neighborhoods, these groups can provide services—shoveling snow, delivering meals to the homebound, cleaning garbage and graffiti—that local government may overlook or clog with red tape.
I Read
Well put!
“My hypothesis is that ‘religion and violence’ arguments serve a particular need for their consumers in the West. These arguments are a part of a broader Enlightenment narrative that invents a dichotomy between the religious and the secular and constructs the former as an irrational and dangerous impulse that must give way in public to rational, secular forms of power. The danger is that, in establishing an Other which is essentially irrational, fanatical, and violent, we legitimate coercive measures against that Other.” “In contemporary discourse, the Muslim world especially plays the role of religious Other. They have not learned to remove the dangerous influence of religion from political life. Their violence is therefore irrational and fanatical. Our violence, by contrast, is rational and peacemaking, and sometimes necessary to contain their violence.” Both quotes are from William T. Cavanaugh, “Sins of Omission: What ‘Religion and Violence’ Arguments Ignore,” The Hedgehog Review 6, no. 1 (2004): 35. NGOs to the rescue? Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy (Doubleday 2005) is a top-notch book by Moises Naim. The book is full of very strong information about the globalization of various kinds of crime, from the smuggling of nuclear arms to the smuggling of people. After presenting elaborate and compelling information to show that transnational crime has reached a whole new level, Naim makes several interesting suggestions about what must be done. In this vital task of combating global crime, he sees a major role for NGOs. He of course realizes that governments must also be involved, but NGOs can activate and focus them aside from what they can do themselves—if you and I participate. Even those who disagree will find the information invaluable and the arguments provocative in the best sense of the term. Good Muslims, in person For the book The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe (Oxford University Press 2005), Jytte Klausen interviewed about 300 Western European Muslims to study their integration within their non-Muslim community. Surprise—even though her sample included some clerics and religious activists, Klausen’s subjects were “overwhelmingly secular in outlook and supportive of core liberal values.” Though terrorist attacks in Europe have brought a sharp edge to tensions in interfaith communities, Klausen urges both sides to answer the day-to-day questions that they are reluctant to even ask: Why can German students wear headscarves, but not teachers? Should the Koran be translated into Swedish? And when will Muslim elites confront issues like gay rights and polygamy?
Communitarians need not apply
Communitarians often seek a common ground, a place where many people who are members of the immediate or larger communities can come together. Such common ground makes for less conflict and more energy spent on forming agreed-upon policies and investing in their implementation. Regrettably, even the most sophisticated and intellectual media (OK, I know an oxymoron when I read one), such as NPR and Jim Lehrer News Hour, have no place for common-ground people. On practically all issues they give voice to one from the left and one from the right, or a Democrat and a Republican, period. Many news stories do less. They provide the government position and then a voice from the critics as if there is no one who sees merit in both sides’ positions and tries to work out a middle ground. Communitarians may have one consolation. William Schneider, the savvy CNN analyst, pointed out that in each election the voters settle on one characteristic they look in their next president, for instance, integrity after Nixon. In 2008 Schneider predicts it will be—a “unifier.” Mirror, mirror on the wall: Who is the most communitarian of them all?
The hapless Democrats
The Democrats decided to go into the 2006 elections without forming a joint position on one of the two issues most on the minds of voters: the war in Iraq. What their position is on the other issue—the state of the economy—I am unable to discern. Democrats also blew their chance to lay out some kind of new vision during one of the few occasions they get a considerable amount of free national TV these days: during the confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. Furthermore, they let President Bush take the lead in railing against corporations for not fulfilling the commitments they made to their employees’ pension funds. The American Prospect, the richly-funded magazine that is supposed to come up with new liberal ideas, just did just that. In an article by Linda R. Hirshman entitled “Homeward BOUND” (December 2005) it argued that women who choose to stay at home are actually not making any kind of real, well-intentioned choice, but are rather blindly reacting to a male-controlled workplace and not standing up for themselves. This analysis is sure to win the Democrats huge following in the rust belt, the South and the Midwest
Still more responses to “My Christmas Wars”
UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Bellah writes:
Ruth Cernea writes: As a Jew raised in a totally Christian neighborhood, and often the only person not Christian in my elementary school classes, I feel I must comment on your article and the letters you have received in response. First, I agree that "Happy Holidays" is a silly euphemism. Of course, let's wish Christians a "Merry Christmas," and Jews a "Happy Hanukkah," and anyone else a happy whatever. Acknowledging another's holiday, by name, is not only basic courtesy but more fundamentally a recognition of who they are and their right to practice their religion openly and joyfully in the United States. And, whatever the pagan origin of any holiday, the important matter is the meaning it has today for the celebrants. In this vein, the pagan origins of the tree are irrelevant: today, it is a "Christmas" tree--for Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Moslems and Hindus alike. Calling it a holiday tree doesn't change the reality. That said, however, I must part company with you. The United States has been a haven for people of all backgrounds precisely because we have always respected the right of religion in the private sphere, not the public. Thus religious displays are appropriate, acceptable and enjoyable within private homes and religious institutions, and on their lawns. "Holiday tree" is the strategic name for those who want to place the Christmas tree on public grounds: it is such Christians, not Jews or Moslems, who use this term. Depriving the crèche of its religious symbolism to justify public placement undermines the very religious value it has for Christians. Nor do I see it my role to judge how Christians celebrate their holiday: as long as they are focused on good-will, and are not infringing on the rights of others, they are free to commercialize, or de-commercialize, it as they wish. America is founded on the belief of inclusion for everyone. I have found that only those who do not really expect to be "Americans"--who give stronger weight to the non-American part of their hyphenated identity--are cavalier about what it means for the line of separation of church and state to be blurred. No, a crèche does not belong in a public school: it exemplifies a purely religious belief; and no, "O Holy Night," "Silent Night," and other religious carols--and prayers-- do not belong in public schools, any more than "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and sections from the Gospels should be part of a school assembly, as they were in my youth. It is not the burden of minorities to prove "tolerance" by acquiescing to these practices, nor should those who oppose such practices be labeled as "trouble-makers" for asserting their basic rights as Americans. And what of the "secular" symbols, such as Santa Claus, "Jingle Bells," and the epitome of such symbols, the "National Christmas tree"? In a perfect world, there would be no “official” tree or an equal time Hanukkah lamp on the Mall, but this is not a perfect world. Those of us for whom the separation of church and state is an essential construct of American democracy, one that permits all communities to enjoy religious freedom and association, can compromise on these issues because they pale in comparison to the most substantive issues. Ultimately, I do not understand what you mean by "Let the Christians have a true Christmas." Christians are not dependant on you or me to have a true Christmas: that is in their hearts and homes and practices. Whether I call it a holiday tree or a pagan tree, whether it is in the department store, the school on the Mall, or none of these, the holiday is theirs--not mine--to embellish and enjoy. Whether I respect Jesus or not is not the issue: the issue is whether Christians respect Jesus and his teachings. And, finally, what sort of community board do you propose to rule on which religions constitute "splinter groups" for the purpose of having public displays, and what should be the guidelines for such determinations--number, sincerity, acceptability to the majority, etc.?
Sociology professor Claude Javeau of the Free University of Brussels writes: Surely you must be right about putting Christ back into Christmas. As a, as you put it, “secularist,” I do not really care. Must I be grateful to you for allowing to those of my kind what seems to me a condescending "even"? Business and Ethics Professor Juan David Enciso of Bogotá, Colombia writes: I also believe this is a great approach to dialogue and understanding among people from different cultures, religions, etc. Also, I think it proves that the most valuable communities are established among committed people to their own beliefs, rather than a group of skepticals pretending not to be disturbed (nothing personal...). I think it doesn't matter whether Mr. Etzioni accurately understands a Christian Bible or not; he's not obliged to, as long as he does not cause any mistake against Christianity. What is more important is the fact of studying other cultures and values and try to find common points, and, at the same time, better knowing your own doctrine and trying to be consistent with it. Frank Camm of The Rand Corporation writes: Thanks for your, as usual, thoughtful essay. Let me suggest a slight, but I think important, variation. Religious tolerance does not require a country, state, or town to yield its public spaces to individual religions. Each religion can celebrate its own holidays in its own way. Each can decide, for itself, which holidays are important enough to publicize with pageants, displays, whatever, conducted in its own space. Each can decide how public to make its celebrations. Tolerant countries, states, and towns can reserve their public spaces to celebrate the values that all their citizens share, like liberty and independence and religious tolerance. Put the 4th of July and Labor Day displays in a public park. Put the lighted crosses and crèches in the front yards of churches. And let the Satanists do whatever it is they do on their own private property. A celebration related to religion belongs on public property only if it upholds the values shared by the citizens of that country. Perhaps America needs a public holiday that celebrates religious tolerance without reference to any specific Christian, Jewish, or secular humanist holiday. Such a holiday might help remind us all that what we can *all* share today is a belief in tolerance, not a history somehow tangled up in so many people's minds today with the Ten Commandments. We as a nation cannot tolerate intolerance or exclusion. This idea seems to become more important with each passing day; maybe a public holiday could help us, as a nation of citizens with shared values, affirm it. So, does Christmas have some significance today outside of Christian religious practice and belief? Obviously yes, whether its roots lay in pagan festivals or not. It is a commercial bonanza. I am told it is a major holiday in Japan, despite the small numbers of Christians in Japan. It is an official public holiday in this country [America]. It can remain an official public holiday in this country only if we take the Christ out of Christmas. Christians can celebrate it in their own ways--and there are many ways, as the responses to your essay reveal. As you suggest, Christians and their friends can celebrate the Christian message wholeheartedly--again, without regard to where the Christmas festival might have come from in the depths of history. But when other Americans celebrate the day, it is not about Christ, even if Christ's social Gospel has a powerful resonance that can appeal to people well beyond the bounds of Christianity. As America becomes an increasingly diverse country, we must build on the mutual strength we find in preserving and protecting religious tolerance. We as a polity cannot do that and at the same time leave Christ in the official holiday we all call Christmas.
University of Michigan law professor Rick Lempert writes: Amitai Etzioni responds
Ruth Cernea’s good letter and Rick Lempert’s thoughtful essay are one of the reasons I continue to write these letters. I differ with Professor Lempert mainly on one point. He is quick to mock the “religion-of-the-month” idea, that rather than banning all religious expressions in the public square, or demanding all be displayed at the same time, these symbolic presentations will be available when the times call for them. The first option, the liberal favorite, empties the public square from religious expressions. It simply ignores the profound sense of many millions of Americans (I believe the overwhelming majority but this depends how the pollsters frame the question) that they belong there. Hence if liberals are going to pay mind to values of others, they should not offend them when no real profound principle is involved. Such displays may seem to offend the establishment clause, but if everybody keeps their shirts on, they are realize they are harmless—unless one attributes to them mystical powers which they do not have. On the other hand, displaying symbols of all major religions at the same time is a kind of mechanical equality that works for no one. Why not display them when appropriate, so we know that this week is Passover time and this week is Easter? And thus, learn a bit more about both?
Frank Camm from The Rand Corporation flatly states that all values we all share belong in the public square. But pluralism is one of these values. Why not give it a voice?
My Belgian colleague seems not to be fully aware of what is going on in the United States. Surely Christians do not need anyone’s permission to celebrate Christmas any way they want to, but on these shores they do need permission if they are to use the public square. I favor granting it to them and to all other major religions.
New Book: The Active Society Revisited From the publisher:
The Active Society, published in 1968, is the most ambitious book in Amitai Etzioni’s remarkable career. It is sociology in the grand tradition, with at least one foot outside its own time. In it, Etzioni confronts the great modern irony—that, in setting out to become masters of nature, humans become mastered by their own instruments—championing the sense of agency and aiming to demonstrate that humanity can direct its own creations, or at least that societies can aspire to a great measure of authentic self-government.
In this new collection of essays, Wilson Carey McWilliams has brought together scholars from a range of disciplines to analyze the significance and shortcomings of this groundbreaking work. They comment on the importance of Etzioni’s contributions, the magnitude of his achievement and the extent to which The Active Society speaks to contemporary social and political life. Contributors include Frank Adloff, Dennis Hale, Hans Joas, Edward W. Lehman, Mike Miller and Paul A. Sracic.
We welcome your thoughts and feedback to comnet@gwu.edu.
Sincerely, Amitai Etzioni
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COMMUNITARIAN NETWORK MAY PUBLISH ALL SUBMITTED COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK but if we edit it, we shall contact you first. To read over several decades of Communitarian thinking, please visit our NEW e-storage facility D-Space. |
|
The Communitarian Network |