• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Communitarianism

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I am sorry, you're right, communitarianism is just liberalism by another name. Oh, wait, that's not right...

Now you are just being defensive. :violin:

Would you mind at least answering the questions?

And I extend the same questions to you Athenian.

Where does it suggest in this philosophy that people are forced to take on "a certain level" of social involvement? Did I miss it somewhere where it said that people aren't allowed to be exposed to alternative communities?

I'm hearing all these assumptions that I just can't seem to find supported by the philosophy you are arguing against. Perhaps I am just missing it. Would you mind pointing it out to me where it says this stuff?

Edit: *hears crickets chirping* Interesting.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Now you are just being defensive. :violin:

Would you mind at least answering the questions?

And I extend the same questions to you Athenian.

Where does it suggest in this philosophy that people are forced to take on "a certain level" of social involvement? Did I miss it somewhere where it said that people aren't allowed to be exposed to alternative communities?

I'm hearing all these assumptions that I just can't seem to find supported by the philosophy you are arguing against. Perhaps I am just missing it. Would you mind pointing it out to me where it says this stuff?

I actually don't know what it says, except what was quoted by Proteanmix. I just noticed it was similar to and could lead up to more extreme philosophies that do embrace the sort of thing I was arguing against. I assumed from what other people argued about it that my assumption was correct.

I'm not really sure what questions you're asking. Sorry I didn't catch that part, could you ask again, perhaps in a numbered list format so I know what they are?

EDIT: I think CaptainChick's quotes are definately part of what made me assume it encouraged that kind of mentality.

Please explain to us what you see in it that seems positive, and why it couldn't be used to promote the negatives that we see in it. I'd appreciate it greatly, even if I disagreed.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Where does it suggest in this philosophy that people are forced to take on "a certain level" of social involvement?
Uh, here... (again)

Communitarians also favor political legislation that can help to restructure education in such a way that peoples deepest needs in membership and participation in psychological communities are tapped at a young age

I'm hearing all these assumptions that I just can't seem to find supported by the philosophy you are arguing against. Would you mind pointing it out to me where it says this stuff?

Third times a charm I guess. ;)

Communitarians tend to favor policies designed to protect and promote ties to the family and family-like groups. This would include such measures as encouraging marriage and increasing the difficulty of legal marriage dissolution. .


[Communitarians also favor political legislation that can help to restructure education in such a way that peoples deepest needs in membership and participation in psychological communities are tapped at a young age.

Perhaps I am just missing it.
:yes:
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I actually don't know what it says, except what was quoted by Proteanmix. I just noticed it was similar to and could lead up to more extreme philosophies that do embrace the sort of thing I was arguing against. I assumed from what other people argued about it that my assumption was correct.

You mean nocturne's comment about it being a form of fascism?

As far as the questions, you answered most of them right there. You didn't read the philosophy so you just made value judgments and assumptions.

Please explain to us what you see in it that seems positive, and why it couldn't be used to promote the negatives that we see in it. I'd appreciate it greatly, even if I disagreed.

I've already mentioned why. I can't see why it would hurt to teach people to embrace and be involved in their community. If anything, that is what we really need to be doing now.

Uh, here... (again)

Um...CC...we already have secular education. :rolleyes: We already impose classical liberal values from a young age on children. Didn't you learn about liberty, freedom, opportunity, justice, etc. when you were in school? The only difference is that the communitarians also want to teach about the importance of family, community, cooperation, etc. If you don't want to teach those values then would it be okay if we could strip the classical liberal values that are currently taught in schools?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I've already mentioned why. I can't see why it would hurt to teach people to embrace and be involved in their community. If anything, that is what we really need to be doing now.

So, is including information about the value of community and cooperation in education, alongside values more like mine, the only thing that's being advocated here? If so, I guess it's okay. I just don't agree with the idea that people should be pressured to embrace and be a part of their community, and not be allowed to choose their level of participation, or ultimately whether they embrace that particular community at all. I'm always for showing people every possible perspective. I particularly like it when textbooks display one idea, define it, and then define the opposing idea right next to it, as if to show the spectrum that you need to be aware of in order to be informed and understand where you are relative to it.

The thing is, I had the impression that this philosophy wished to force people to participate in and embrace their communites fully, regardless of their will.

I want to ask... if you had perceived that in it, would you have disagreed with it as strongly as I did?

I can see the value in community and cooperation, but I don't think "family" is a good value.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
What makes the political project of communitarianism distinctive is that it involves the promotion all three forms of valued communal life

#1 Communities of place, or communities based on geographical location. This is perhaps the most common meaning associated with the word community. In this sense, community is linked to locality, in the physical, geographical sense of a community that is located somewhere

#2 Communities of memory, or groups of strangers who share a morally-significant history. This term — first employed by the co-authors of Habits of the Heart — refers to imagined communities that have a shared history going back several generations. Besides tying us to the past, such communities turn us towards the future — members strive to realize the ideals and aspirations embedded in past experiences of those communities, seeing their efforts as being, in part, contributions to a common good. They provide a source of meaning and hope in peoples lives. Typical examples include the nation and language-based ethnocultural groups.

#3 Psychological communities, or communities of face-to-face personal interaction governed by sentiments of trust, co-operation, and altruism. This refers to a group of persons who participate in common activity and experience a psychological sense of togetherness as shared ends are sought. The family is the prototypical example. Other examples include small-scale work or school settings founded on trust and social cooperation.


#1) Promoting "Community of Place", i.e. Promoting Patriotism, i.e., Assuming that one should take pride in where they happened to be circumstantially born, or raised. LOL!!!

#2) Promoting "Communities of memory, or groups of strangers who share a morally-significant history." i.e. Promoting such historically brilliant and moralistic cabals such as the KKK.

#3) Promoting "Psychological communities, or communities of face-to-face personal interaction governed by sentiments of trust, co-operation, and altruism", i.e. Promoting government involvement/interference in meddling with the most circumstantially-dependent, inherently subjective, and therefore necessarily individually-defined, "choice-based" of human communities. :rolli: The sheer thought of our government implementing political initiatives fostering Communities of Trust, Cooperation, and Altruism, makes me laugh. Not only is it an impossibility, it's just downright absurd.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I want to ask... if you had perceived that in it, would you have disagreed with it as strongly as I did?

As I said before, I find all political philosophies to be inherently coercive one way or another. The very concept of a political philosophy is to impose some values across all people. For example, capitalistic libertarians, who claim that every political philosophy but theirs is coercive, have two values, property and liberty (freedom of choice). However, not everyone agrees with the concept of property, and others think the idea of inheritance is socially unjust. Nonetheless many of the capitalistic libertarians have no problem imposing the idea of property on others. Of course that violates their other value of liberty (freedom of choice) but that is the way it is with every political philosophy. The values eventually conflict with each other.

So I don't see any real sense in agreeing or disagreeing with any particular philosophy because it fundamentally comes down to your own values, which generally are the ones you don't mind imposing on others. And of course, you will strongly reject any other set of values that you feel are being imposed on you.

I can see the value in community and cooperation, but I don't think "family" is a good value.

I can tell you why I value family. Family is usually the basis for an individual's physical, emotional, and mental support, and it functions interdependently. If you are sick or hurt, you have someone to take care of you. If you are sad, then you have someone there to comfort you. If you are confused, then you have someone there to answer your questions. It also serves the purpose of providing purpose to people. If people have a family, then they have something to work and live for. When healthy, it can socialize and impart values to the next generation. To me, family is very valuable.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
#1) Promoting "Community of Place", i.e. Promoting Patriotism, i.e., Assuming that one should take pride in where they happened to be circumstantially born, or raised. LOL!!!

#2) Promoting "Communities of memory, or groups of strangers who share a morally-significant history." i.e. Promoting such historically brilliant and moralistic cabals such as the KKK.

#3) Promoting "Psychological communities, or communities of face-to-face personal interaction governed by sentiments of trust, co-operation, and altruism", i.e. Promoting government involvement/interference in meddling with the most circumstantially-dependent, inherently subjective, and therefore individually-defined,
"choice-based" of human communities. :rolli:

Um...you are way reading into that and making some wild assumptions. :rofl1:

First off, community of place never said anything about "pride" or "patriotism". It's promoting the idea that people who live together in a similar area can work and cooperate together.

Communities of memory didn't mention a thing about "morals". It's promoting the traditions and history of a community. Didn't you have sports teams and mascots in your old school? That's an example. Or how about celebrating a certain festival or event?

Psychological community didn't mention a thing about "government involvement/interference". In fact, it said "face to face" and "small scale" in the description so you went really out there with that one. A soup drive could probably be considered a psychological community activity.

Seriously CC, you are just making yourself look incredibly silly by taking these things so far out of context. :rofl1:
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
I can tell you why I value family. Family is usually the basis for an individual's physical, emotional, and mental support, and it functions interdependently. If you are sick or hurt, you have someone to take care of you. If you are sad, then you have someone there to comfort you. If you are confused, then you have someone there to answer your questions. It also serves the purpose of providing purpose to people. If people have a family, then they have something to work and live for. When healthy, it can socialize and impart values to the next generation. To me, family is very valuable.
You have every right to value *your* family. But you have *no* right to assume that others should value *theirs*.

*Many* people come from incredibly messed up families. Parents can, and have often sadly imposed a "community of hell" upon their children.

Please, let the people value what's inherently valuable to them.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
You have every right to value *your* family. But you have *no* right to assume that others should value *theirs*.

*Many* people come from incredibly messed up families. Parents can, and have often sadly imposed a "community of hell" upon their children.

Please, let the people value what's inherently valuable to them.

Um...that is why I specifically said, "I can tell you why I value families...".

You haven't answered my question CC. Why are you so opposed to teaching the values of family, cooperation, altruism, etc. in schools but you aren't opposed to the teaching of liberty, freedom, opportunity, etc. Do you think the poor have as much liberty as the rich in this country? Why do you feel comfortable imposing one set of values, but not the other? :D
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Um...CC...we already have secular education.
Um...Kiddo...that we do. And for a particular reason, I believe. I think it has something to do with that separation of church and state, thingy-dingy.

The only difference is that the communitarians also want to teach about the importance of family, community, cooperation, etc.
Lol, "also want to teach", i.e. "implement the indoctrination of *their* subjectively derived/defined set of values, as prescriptive norms of behavior, belief and "truth" within the public school curriculum "

Hmm, I'm sensing some major religious connotations/motivations here..

And by golly, I think I may be right...

Healthy families and churches and neighborhood communities and like institutions are the key to shaping the conduct of children in such a way that they will become productive adults.

For this reason, communitarians generally support a creative division of labor, which permits the state to channel resources to community organizations, including faith-based organizations, for the provision of services within a community. Community-based organizations, including church organizations, have a comparative advantage in dealing "close-up" with community members.
Excerpt taken from Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies - Faith Based Social Services
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I understand. So if any philosophy takes up a humanitarian/community oriented outlook then it's automatically religious. Especially if it even suggests supporting faith based organizations. Whereas classical liberal values, which were derived from the idea of "creator endowed" natural rights, do not fall under that category. And the fact that libertarian values surmise freedom of religious expression in schools doesn't hurt either.

That is exactly why I think every political philosophy is coercive one way or another. The only difference is people are obviously not aware of how their values are being imposed on others, but they certainly don't want other's values to be imposed.

I'm finding politics to be more and more sickening everyday.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Wonderful thread. I consider myself a communitarian. There's also the related concept of Personalism, which I also adhere to.

Communitarianism is based upon the old Aristotle saying that man is a social animal. Whether we like it or not, we are forged by our relationship and interactions with other people. If it were not so, then society as we know it would not exist, much less even operate.

Comparing Communitarianism to Fascism is an asinine knee-jerk. It is true that the Fascists/Nazis borrowed certain terms and concept from Communitarianism, in actual fact they completely perverted them from their original contexts.

It should also be noted that many of the intellectual founders of Communitatrianism were very much opposed to the Fascist/Nazi regimes. This is especially true with Ferdinand Tönnies, whose study on the contrasts between "Community"(Gemeinschaft) and "Civil Society"(Gesellschaft) forged much of the foundation for this concept.

If we actually take Tönnies' argument as a basis for judging the Nazi/Fascist regimes; we can safely conclude that they were based upon a nationalistic-racialist form of Gesellschaft as opposed to Gemeinschaft; since the latter tends towards small-scale autonomous social entities, while the former tends towards large-scale mass-organized social entities.

Social cohesion in Gemeinschaft is based upon mores and customs; wheras in Gesellschaft it's based upon arbitrary legal means.

That's actually the irony I find of most peoples' critiques of Communitarism. They decry it for supposedly suppressing individual rights, when in fact it actually gurantees them(not to mention our concepts of individual rights were forged within Communitarian contexts to begin with. Outside of such contexts, individual rights have little if any meaning).

Otherwise with Gesellschaft you have a random assortment of people who come together now and then for self-serving purposes - and the only way one can make them get along is through legal means.

Alexis de Tocqueveille noted this back in the 1840s in Democracy in America, that the survival of freedom depends upon a strong sense of community. Otherwise, as community spirits declines, the more the government has to step in to replace its role. Social cohesion in such situations is dependent upon the use of common abstractions; wheras communitarianism depends upon concrete concepts. Communities are an important block on the rise of centralized governmental power, upon which individual rights depend for vital existence.

The French Anarchst Pierre-Joseph Proudhon put it wonderfully like this:
"Solicit men's view in the mass, and they will return stupid, fickle and violent answers; solicit their views as members of definite groups with real solidarity and a distinctive character, and their answers will be responsible and wise. Expose them to the political 'language' of mass democracy, which represents 'the people' as unitary and undivided and minorities as traitors, and they will give birth to tyranny; expose them to the political language of federalism, in which the people figures as a diversified aggregate of real associations, and they will resist tyranny to the end."​
Anyways....I'm getting slightly off topic here.

Another leading founder of modern Communitarianism, Martin Buber, also had many of his writings used by the Nazis to serve their ideological needs, despite the fact that Buber was Jewish.

I'll have to add more later.
 
Top