The Quest for Community: Conclusion
It's been a slow process of learning and sharing Robert Nisbet's classic work: "The Quest for Community."   It has been much harder of a task than I would have thought going in, but it's been worth it. I hope you have enjoyed it, and have heard good feedback from several readers who care about the future of community in the USA.  

Community health is one of the most important and under-discussed aspects of health in the US.  That's why I have taken on the project of summarizing and commenting one of the best books on community ever written.  
​
You can scroll through my blog for the other chapters to catch up, as I'm going chapter by chapter.  If you like what I'm doing here on the blog, pass it along or invite me to speak.  I do conferences and seminars on a variety of health topics - fitness, nutrition, and wellness.  

​Read on and enjoy.  At the end of this series I'm going to put together a downloadable summary of the book.

-----


Recently there has been a lot of discussion in the news about a 3.5 Trillion dollar spending bill.  
Some are for it, others are against it.  I’d like to look at it objectively as it pertains to our discussion on community.  Let’s look at it as yet another example of government replacing community on a massive scale.  
 
For example, looking back on it, I’m proud to say that my Mom and Dad could have raised my two brothers and I without any government assistance.  Even more, I’d say that they had the knowledge, community, family, and morals to survive alone, even without banking, money, and cash.  They could have lived off the land, quite easily.  My Dad knew how to do it all – build, hunt, fish, repair and maintain a home, fix appliances, cars, and use other tools and fix them.  You name it and he could do it.  My Mom could teach, read, play the piano, farm, can and store food, clean with natural products, take care of children with home remedies, use well water and so on.  Both were the first in their families to go to college and came from stable but working class backgrounds.  They were and are Thomas Jefferson’s ideal Americans, completely self-sufficient.  We knew every single family on the street I grew up on. 
 
Community no longer exists in any meaningful way like that.  Most everyone now relies on the government.  Most people can’t pay their bills.  They can’t cook anything, fix anything, play anything, can’t entertain themselves without digital entertainment, and most people don’t have a community neighborhood or nearby family to rely on.  So I’m not bashing the 3.5 trillion dollar spending bill, at least not here.  What I’m saying is that based on the trajectories laid out in Nisbet’s work, it is extremely predictable:

1. The government grows in size and marginalizes community, family, and association.
2. Because the community can no longer function in a meaningful way, government must step in as a replacement.
3. Repeat steps 1 & 2.

 
This is the key point of Nisbet’s book.  My main critique is also my main compliment as the book’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.  Nisbet repeated time and time again the key idea of the book, so much so that it got tedious to re-read it over and over again. But on the same hand, it could not be emphasized enough:
 
As the state (government) grows in power, community suffers and people become isolated, and since community association is the only bulwark against state power, state power continues to grow towards totalitarianism with the growing absence of community.  
 
Speaking of totalitarian tendencies of growing governments, I even read recently that the FBI is investigating parents who come to school board meetings and complain.  This objectively speaking, is entirely predictable too.  As Nisbet predicted, the government, the state as he calls it, is not able to tolerate competitors or opposition like parents who show up at school board meetings.  I would expect this dialectic to continue until there is a massive type of organized resistance.  
 
Two Possible Future Worlds
 
In the conclusion, Nisbet proffers this dichotomy, this choice.
 
We must make the choice, while we still can, as to what type of world we want to live in.
 
There are Two Worlds to which we can belong in life, and only a tiny threshold is left between the complete shift towards centralization, the first, the absolute centralization of everything, a nihilistic obliteration of all personality and healthy individualism:

1. The Absolute Political Community – Centralized Mono-Identity and Power
   • All symbols, allegiance, sense of purpose, and responsibility have become indistinguishable from the operation of centralized political power, bureaucratic rigidity, human will anesthetized into moral passivity, monolithic systems, traditional labels and language becomes archaic (duty, honor, fidelity), despotism resting on mass acquiescence, absorptive,  arts of propaganda employed on behalf of central regime, abstraction (human “rights”, “War on terror”, “war against the virus”, etc.)

*Represented in literature by Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor
 

1. Cultural Membership – Freedom from Monopoly of Power
   • The historic world of cultural membership, of loyalty to family, church, occupation, profession, local community, local interests, and pluralism of functions and loyalties, spontaneity, diversity, decentralized organizations.

 
Robert Nisbet’s 4 Principles of Pluralism
 
According to Nisbet, there are 4 Principles of Pluralism that can build a healthy future.  This is the way The Quest for Community can be applied to your situation and mine.  
 
1)Functional Autonomy- Groups of free association should be able to operate independently and privately, outside of control or management of the state. 
2)Decentralization- Groups should be constituted on a local level, using the principle of subsidiarity.
3)Hierarchy- Though decentralized, groups should have a clear structure of authority.
4)Tradition- Groups should have an historical connection or historical meaning and a community over time, a vertical community of generations.  
 
 
I will allow Robert Nisbet to have the last word.  We all owe him a debt of gratitude.  He’s written the book that all who care about the future of humanity should read.  
 
There is a fork on the road, one leads to oppression, the other to human flourishing, it’s up to us to decide which one to take:
 
What are the terms by which free and unfree societies in the contemporary world may be distinguished? Merely to ask the question is to reveal the poverty of present political vocabulary in this respect. We are still operating with words and phrases drawn from a day when the lexicon of freedom bore meaningful relation to the rise of the people in politics and to the emancipation of individuals from inherited social structures. In plain fact we have no set of evocative terms at the present time that correspond to our realities in the same way the words “people,” “individual.” and “change” corresponded to the realities and aspirations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 
 
There is the kind of State that seeks always to extend its administrative powers and functions into all realms of society, always seeking a higher degree of centralization in the conduct of its operations, always tending toward a wider measure of politicization of social, economic, and cultural life. It does not do this in the name of power but of freedom—freedom from want, insecurity, and minority tyranny. It parades the symbols of progress, people, justice, welfare, and devotion to the common man. It strives unceasingly to make its ends and purposes acceptable—through radio, newspaper, and document—to even the lowliest of citizens. It builds up a sense of the absolute identity of State and society—nothing outside the State, everything in the State. 
 
Increasingly, in this type of State, the basic needs for education, recreation, welfare, economic production, distribution, and consumption, health, spiritual and physical, and all other services of society are made aspects of the administrative structure of political government. This process of transfer comes to be accepted by almost everyone—by businessmen in search of guaranteed production and profit, by educators in need of funds, by labor in the interests of guaranteed jobs and living wages, and by liberal reformers in the interests of housing programs or other projects. Autonomous areas of economy, education, and other spheres of culture shrink constantly. Invasions of minority rights are defended, as are invasions of social authority and responsibility, and limitations upon right of association in the name of the people, of social justice, of preparedness for war against poverty, ignorance, disease, and external national enemies. Such a State may well call itself democratic and humanitarian. All contemporary totalitarian States so refer to themselves. 
 
Such a State may found itself upon the highest principle of virtue, even as did the Republic of Plato. There can be such a thing as democratic totalitarianism even as there can be, as we have learned in disillusion, socialist totalitarianism. The design of totalitarianism, as Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor has taught us, can be infinitely varied and in human hands can proceed from the formal veneration of God as easily as from the hatred of God. The impersonal despotism of virtue, as someone has said, is not the less despotic because it is virtuous. 
 
But there is also the kind of State that seeks, without sacrificing its legitimate sovereignty grounded in the will of the people, to maintain a pluralism of functions and loyalties in the lives of its people. It is a State that knows that the political absorption of the institutional functions of an association, be it family, local community, or trade union, must soon be followed by the loss or weakening of psychological devotions to that association. It is a State that seeks to diversify and decentralize its own administrative operations and to relate these as closely as possible to the forms of spontaneous association which are the outgrowth of human needs and desires and which have relevance to the economic, educational, and religious ends of a culture. It seeks cultural diversity, not uniformity. It does not make a fetish of either social order or personal adjustment, but it recognizes that the claims of freedom and cultural autonomy will never have recognition until the great majority of individuals in society have a sense of cultural membership in the significant and meaningful relationships of kinship, religion, occupation, profession, and locality. It will not spurn the demands of human security but it will seek means by which such demands can be met through spontaneous association and creation rather than through bureaucratic rigidities of formal law and administration. 
 
Either type of State may be labeled democratic and humanitarian. But the difference between the two types is infinitely greater than the differences between capitalism and socialism, or between monarchy and republic. The first type of State is inherently monolithic and absorptive and, however broad its base in the electorate and however nobly inspired its rulers, must always border upon despotism. 
 
The second type of State is inherently pluralist and, whatever the intentions of its formal political rulers, its power will be limited by associations whose plurality of claims upon their members is the measure of their members’ freedom from any monopoly of power in society.
 
Nisbet, Robert. The Quest for Community . Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ORD). Kindle Edition.
 
 -------

I enjoy writing and helping people, and write on all sorts of health, wellness, nutrition, and fitness topics.   

Remember...there's never been a better day than TODAY to make it happen!
 
Read Next: Therapy or Religion?
 
Want to sign up for email newsletter? Sign up on my home page:
www.scottgodwin.net
 
If you like the blog, please share it with friends or on social media.

 

The last few years I've been reading and studying the subject of Rhetoric, for the public speaking that I do, but mainly just because it's a fascinating subject that I've never dived that deep into. I became interested in it after I read "Ideas Have Consequences" by Richard Weaver, a book that truly changed my life (highly recommended) for the better. I was listening to some people debate "science" today when it occurred to me that neither knew what science was much less how to verbalize the definition rhetorically. They literally did not understand the words coming out of their own mouths.

And because many people, especially during the Wuhan Flu, pull out "science" as an "ultimate" term, I was also reminded of a passage from Richard Weaver's book "The Ethics of Rhetoric" (Copyright 1953) which I had bookmarked. It's a little long but it illustrates the sophistry or manipulative nature involved in unethical (not ethical) rhetoric. It's amazing that he wrote this in 1953. The title of the Chapter is:

"Ultimate Terms in Modern Rhetoric."

I've also included a link to purchase the book or sign up for my blog if you're interested.  If you do buy the book, read it slowly and pay attention to the chapter on the Lincoln vs. Douglas debates, for good reason this is a famous chapter on Rhetoric.  

--“Ultimate” Terms in Contemporary Rhetoric--

"Another word of great rhetorical force which owes its origin to the same historical transformation is “fact.” Today’s speaker says “It is a fact” with all the gravity and air of finality with which his less secular-minded ancestor would have said “It is the truth.”{176} “These are facts”; “Facts tend to show”; and “He knows the facts” will be recognized as common locutions drawing upon the rhetorical resource of this word. The word “fact” went into the ascendent when our system of verification changed during the Renaissance. Prior to that time, the type of conclusion that men felt obligated to accept came either through divine revelation, or through dialectic, which obeys logical law. But these were displaced by the system of verification through correspondence with physical reality. Since then things have been true only when measurably true, or when susceptible to some kind of quantification. Quite simply, “fact” came to be the touchstone after the truth of speculative inquiry had been replaced by the truth of empirical investigation.

Today when the average citizen says “It is a fact” or says that he “knows the facts in the case,” he means that he has the kind of knowledge to which all other knowledges must defer. Possibly it should be pointed out that his “facts” are frequently not facts at all in the etymological sense; often they will be deductions several steps removed from simply factual data. Yet the “facts” of his case carry with them this aura of scientific irrefragability, and he will likely regard any questioning of them as sophistry. In his vocabulary a fact is a fact, and all evidence so denominated has the prestige of science.

These last remarks will remind us at once of the strongly rhetorical character of the word “science” itself. If there is good reason for placing “progress” rather than “science” at the top of our series, it is only that the former has more scope, “science” being the methodological tool of “progress.” It seems clear, moreover, that “science” owes its present status to an hypostatization. The hypostatized term is one which treats as a substance or a concrete reality that which has only conceptual existence; and every reader will be able to supply numberless illustrations of how “science” is used without any specific referent. Any utterance beginning “Science says” provides one: “Science says there is no difference in brain capacity between the races”; “Science now knows the cause of encephalitis”; “Science says that smoking does not harm the throat.” Science is not, as here it would seem to be, a single concrete entity speaking with one authoritative voice. Behind these large abstractions (and this is not an argument against abstractions as such) there are many scientists holding many different theories and employing many different methods of investigation. The whole force of the word nevertheless depends upon a bland assumption that all scientists meet periodically in synod and there decide and publish what science believes. Yet anyone with the slightest scientific training knows that this is very far from a possibility. Let us consider therefore the changed quality of the utterance when it is amended to read “A majority of scientists say”; or “Many scientists believe”; or “Some scientific experiments have indicated.” The change will not do. There has to be a creature called “science”; and its creation has as a matter of practice been easy, because modern man has been conditioned to believe that the powers and processes which have transformed his material world represent a very sure form of knowledge, and that there must be a way of identifying that knowledge. Obviously the rhetorical aggrandizement of “science” here parallels that of “fact,” the one representing generally and the other specifically the whole subject matter of trustworthy perception.

Furthermore, the term “science” like “progress” seems to satisfy a primal need. Man feels lost without a touchstone of knowledge just as he feels lost without the direction-finder provided by progress. It is curious to note that actually the word is only another name for knowledge (L. scientia), so that if we should go by strict etymology, we should insist that the expression “science knows” (i.e., “knowledge knows”) is pure tautology. But our rhetoric seems to get around this by implying that science is the knowledge. Other knowledges may contain elements of quackery, and may reflect the selfish aims of the knower; but “science,” once we have given the word its incorporation, is the undiluted essence of knowledge. The word as it comes to us then is a little pathetic in its appeal, inasmuch as it reflects the deeply human feeling that somewhere somehow there must be people who know things “as they are.” Once God or his ministry was the depository of such knowledge, but now, with the general decay of religious faith, it is the scientists who must speak ex cathedra, whether they wish to or not."
Weaver, Richard M.. The Ethics of Rhetoric (pp. 214-217). Muriwai Books. Kindle Edition.
https://www.amazon.com/Ethics.../dp/1626541108/ref=sr_1_2...
https://www.scottgodwin.net

 It's been a slow process of learning and sharing Robert Nisbet's classic work: "The Quest for Community."   It has been much harder of a task than I would have thought going in, but it's been worth it. I hope you have enjoyed it, and have heard good feedback from several readers who care about the future of community in the USA.  

Community health is one of the most important and under-discussed aspects of health in the US.  That's why I have taken on the project of summarizing and commenting one of the best books on community ever written.  
​
You can scroll through my blog for the other chapters to catch up, as I'm going chapter by chapter.  If you like what I'm doing here on the blog, pass it along or invite me to speak.  I do conferences and seminars on a variety of health topics - fitness, nutrition, and wellness.  

​Read on and enjoy.  At the end of this series I'm going to put together a downloadable summary of the book.

*UPDATE 
On a related note, I wanted to share an article about ideology that I thought you'd enjoy.  The anti-communitarians seem to be opposed to debate, consumed by hatred, and even unwilling to debate, all characteristics of ideologues.  This article describes in detail how Ideology works, and why it is so dangerous.  In this regard, the anti-communitarian impulses we see at work are a type of ideology, dealing in abstractions, and absolutes.  

"Ideologists Amok" by David Guaspari

From the article:

"The essence of ideology is to offer a particular kind of revelation—that all evils are caused by an oppressive system, a structure of domination, and that the business of life is liberation from it."
------

Now on to Chapter 11.....
 
Chapter 11 The Contexts of Democracy
 
In Chapter 11, Nisbet lays out a working definition of a democracy, and agrees with Abraham Lincoln that it is best defined as “government of, by and for the people.”   Where there is a dilemma is not in reference to democracy itself defined, what it is and what it means, but in rather the conflict or confusion comes in precisely defining “the people.”  

1) On the one hand, the “people” are the purely atomistic political aggregate of individuals, outside of any associations other than the State.  
 
2) On the other hand:
 
“Alternatively, we may regard the people as indistinguishable from a culture, its members as inseparable from the families, unions, churches, professions, and traditions that actually compose a culture.” – Robert Nisbet
 
It’s easy to see why America has been so volatile and fractured in recent decades.  We are much more strongly in the number #1 camp than in the #2, obsessed with Washington, New York, or Hollywood.  Our democracy and our “people” are a people more atomized, less associated, and more isolated than ever, despite the ubiquity of technology, and rely more and more on the singular relationship with the State and its propaganda arms (Washington, NYC, Hollywood) to be able to function.  
 
The Goal of Democracy
 
According to Nisbet, the goal of democracy is clear:
 
“The major objective of political democracy becomes that of making harmonious and effective the varied group allegiances which exist in society, not sterilizing them in the interest of a monistic political community.”
 
Nisbet, Robert. The Quest for Community . Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ORD). Kindle Edition.
 
I was taking an online course on Classical Philosophy last year (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) and one of the key points that stuck out came from Plato’s teaching.  According to Plato, there were 3 good, and 3 bad forms of government:
 
- Good Forms of Govt.- Polity (People with common culture rule in their own interest), Aristocracy (Virtuous elites rule in the community’s favor for the common good), Monarchy (A King or Queen rule virtuously on behalf of the people and the common good)
 
- Bad Forms of Govt.- Democracy (Mob rule), Oligarchy (Elites rule in their own self-interest), and Autocracy (Single ruler rules in his own favor).
 
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine we live somewhere in between a democracy and an oligarchy.  We don’t have a polity because we are too big as a country and can’t agree on much of anything, so every few years we have mob-like election fiascos.  Now we even have riots over who gets to be a judge, because we are not a polity- we don’t even agree on basic anthropology.  
 
The very tiny few and the powerful- the oligarchy, control the media, the institutions, censorship, even what will be thought and said in the majority of cases, who will be nominated, who will win, who will “succeed” and they make most of the decisions in our society about how things are done from top to bottom, and crucially this is usually done in their own favor, not for the common good.  It’s not black and white, and I know there are honorable people out there trying to do good, but we “the people” live somewhere between a democracy and an oligarchy.  It’s amazing the system functions as well as it does considering the state of affairs, but my sense is that we’re coasting on social capital that’s rapidly diminishing. 
 
One major proof of this in on the issue of border security and community.  Most Americans want to have some security in regards to borders and in particular citizenship, but the people who run the society want to open the borders because a) this deracinates and weakens the population b) creates a larger and cheaper labor pool c) decreases the likelihood of the formation of political solidarity to oppose the oligarchy.  Border weakening strengthens the power of oligarchy, reduces the idea of citizenship, fractures the possibility of a common good, reduces accountability for the oligarchy, and there are powerful people on both supposed left and right “sides” who agree on this, even though the “people” disagree and think there should be some type of border security and patriotic citizenship.  

A representative democracy is an impossibility without borders and meaningful citizenship, and citizenship consists of both rights AND duties.  
 
It’s impossible to have community without some conception of who is in, and who is out.  A global world with no borders, is by definition, a world without community.  Even on a local level, there needs to be some commonality, belonging, and cohesion.  Personally I’m not a fan of walls and fences with barbed wire, but on the same hand, there’s no way I can have “community” with the entire world, much less 370 million Americans.  
 
According to Nisbet, historically the emphasis shifted:

• From localism to nationalism (and now globalism)
• From pluralism to monism
• From decentralization to centralization

 
This process created “Mass Society” which is characterized by:

• Social Atomization
• Political Centralization

 
One thing about this book that I keep saying to myself time and time again, and I keep writing is that I can’t believe Nisbet wrote it in the 1950s.  This paragraph alone is astonishing in its prophecy:
 
The principal problems of liberal democracy today arise from what Philip Selznick has so aptly called the “institutional vulnerability” of our society.1 This is a vulnerability reflected in the diminished moral appeal of those primary centers of cultural allegiance within which the larger ends of liberal society take on binding meaning. It is reflected in the relative ease with which totalitarian strategies penetrate the normal cultural enclosures of institutional life. “The decay of parliaments,” G. D. H. Cole has written, “has accompanied the democratization of electorates not because democracy is wrong, but because we have allowed the growth of huge political organizations to be accompanied by the atrophy of smaller ones, on which alone they can be securely built.”2 
 
While we seek constantly to make democracy more secure in the world by diplomatic agreements and national security legislation, we do not often remind ourselves that the most powerful resources of democracy lie in the cultural allegiances of citizens, and that these allegiances are nourished psychologically in the smaller, internal areas of family, local community, and association. These are the areas that contain the images of the larger society, the areas within which human beings are able to define, and render meaningful, democratic values. When the small areas of association become sterile psychologically, as the result of loss of institutional significance, we find ourselves resorting to ever-increasing dosages of indoctrination from above, an indoctrination that often becomes totalitarian in significance.
 
Nisbet, Robert. The Quest for Community . Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ORD). Kindle Edition.
 
Two things stand out there:

1. The Institutional vulnerability of our society.
2. Ever-increasing dosages of indoctrination from above.

 
You don’t have to think long without remembering institutions which are not defunct but which used to thrive. Here’s a fun but telling example.  America was a bastion of civic involvement up until recent times, and this included the Elk’s Lodge.  I recently went to a related (Non-Elks) meeting at an Elks Lodge and it was like a trip back in time, old photos all over the walls, with men dressed in suits who were former presidents.  There was a time when this kind of thing was a big deal in America.  Not anymore, they’re still around but are a shell of their former selves.  
 
As far as propaganda, open any mainstream magazine or watch any mainstream show, they’re all the same. The same pseudo-morality, the same buzzwords, the same sacred quasi-religious causes, even the commercials are the same.  The most recent Superbowl was more interesting for the discussion afterwards about all the propaganda than it was for the snooze of a game.  
 
A False Dichotomy
 
Nisbet writes that it’s a false dichotomy to think that the individual being antithetical to the State is the primary conflict.  In reality, it’s an individual’s status, his personhood, his belonging and associations, versus the state, because this is how “persons” are in reality whether they know it or admit it or not.  So as the “Person” loses associations, he oses the contexts of individuality, he becomes closer and closer aligned with the State.   
 
This is because as the State gives it also takes.  
 
On the State taking as it gives:
 
The collective political power of the people has increased enormously during the past century. So have available means of political participation by the common man: the referendum, the direct primary, the recall, the continuous abolition of restrictions on voting, and other even more direct means of participation. Yet, along with these increases in popular democracy, it must be observed that there has been a general leveling of local, regional, and associative differences, a nationalization of culture and taste, a collectivization of mind, and a continuous increase in the real powers of government over management, labor, education, religion, and social welfare. Democracy, far from heightening human autonomy and cultural freedom, seems rather to have aided in the process of mechanization that has weakened them. It must be repeated again, however, that this is not the inevitable consequence of the democratic ideal of power vested residually in the people. It is the consequence of the systems of public administration which we have grafted onto the democratic ideal.
 
Nisbet, Robert. The Quest for Community . Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ORD). Kindle Edition.
 
Nisbet attributes a lot of the growth of the state directly to the growth of the military industrial complex.  No one can deny how scary the power of the military has become in regards to surveillance, technology, and the power of modern weapons. As military might has grown, the power of the State has grown synergistically, and the power of the traditional associations have concurrently weakened.  As someone who is a strong supporter of the military and the military traditions in the US, I found this part to be disturbing but painfully accurate.  The military does seem to be one major area by which the State pushes its revolutionary arms into society.  
 
A great historical example is the military of Russia. Once associated with the King or Czar and his nobles and the feudal system, after the revolution it quicky became an arm of the modern totalitarian state, with torture, surveillance, propaganda, and power. In a time of war, democratic associations and localism suffer while the military and the State grow stronger at the same time.  If you pay attention to modern propaganda, there is always a “fight” for which we need to sign up- new rights, new crusades, new “progress”, new potential catastrophes around every corner. Modern propaganda is always couched in war-like terms, even if its not on a literal battlefield.  
 
Some have seen the move towards democracy as a good thing, as a result of the natural human urge towards unity, like that of the related fields of philosophy or religion where there has been a similar unifying impulse.  Others see the historical move towards democracy as a historical necessity, which is a big difference from the natural urge for unity.  Those who believe democracy is a historical necessity tend to be fixated on their own ideals of progress, and see history as one linear arc towards heaven on earth. 
 
The greatest intellectual and moral offense the modern intellectual can be found guilty of is that of seeming to think or act outside what is commonly held to be the linear progress of civilization. It is not the deviation from opinions of others that is censured. Nor is it deviation from established morality, religious or secular. Among modern intellectuals the cardinal sin is that of failing to remain on the locomotive of history, to use Lenin's expressive phrase. This is the most damnable of all offenses in the modern rational mentality. Ordinary heresies, defections, and moral obliquities may be excused, but not the offense of being willfully outside the presumed course of historical realization. In practical terms, we are dealing with a habit of mind that seizes selectively upon certain aspects of the present age, e. g. political omnicompetence and administrative centralization, and invests these not
 
Nisbet, Robert. The Quest for Community . Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ORD). Kindle Edition.
 
Nisbet keeps driving home the point that even though modern ways in politics and culture bring desirable things to our lives, the only guarantee of keeping these hard-won developments, which could be summed up as the prevention of tyranny in its various forms, is the plurality of small associations to which we all belong or used to belong.  Two excellent quotes from this chapter stick out:
 
“The only safeguard against power is rival power.” – Montesquieu
 
“Liberty depends upon the division of power.” – Lord Acton  
 
Freedom in the Context of Democracy
 
I found the writings on freedom and propaganda by Nisbet in this chapter to be some of the most inspiring in the entire work.  Nisbet gives us a positive conception of freedom, characterized by dedication, reverence, and with ends in mind.  He writes that freedom is not release, but rather dedication to one’s highest held values and beliefs, which are formed in associations. In this definition, freedom is something you work towards achieving, with an end in mind.  
 
“The weakening of these groups reflects not only growing spiritual isolation but increasing State power. To feel alone—does this not breed a desire for association in Leviathan? The individual who has been by one force or another wrenched from social belonging is thrown back upon himself; he becomes the willing prey of those who would manipulate him as the atom citizen in the political and economic realms.”
 
“The desire for freedom arises only out of men's reverence for exterior and competing values. Genuine freedom is not based upon the negative psychology of release. Its roots are in positive acts of dedication to ends and values. Freedom presupposes the autonomous existence of values that men wish to be free to follow and live up to. Such values are social in the precise sense that they arise out of, and are nurtured by, the voluntary associations which men form.”
 
There’s no wonder so many people are hooked on unhealthy things, unsatisfying addictions, and whipped into a frenzy by political and commercial propaganda.  It’s hitting us 24/7 in a myriad of ways.  Unrooted, unmoored, and unassociated, the isolated individual would need to make a heroic effort not to succumb to the pressures of modern society in one form or another, and so cling to various consumer opiates, or propagandized causes.  The average person can’t resist this.  Modern democracy has potential upsides, but it also paves the way for atomized and subhuman existence, by the way it contributes to the centralization of society into one mass of undifferentiated and isolated “people” left to their instincts and urges.  
 
A New Laissez Fare
 
Nisbet calls for a new “Laissez Fare”, not necessarily for economics, but for associational life whereby the smaller groups to which people belong will thrive, and in turn then strengthen the liberal democratic way of life.  This should encourage us all to join up, to associate, to be local people, and to resist the urge towards monoculture, towards monothinking, towards unrestrained globalism.
 
The liberal values of autonomy and freedom of personal choice are indispensable to a genuinely free society, but we shall achieve and maintain these only by vesting them in the conditions in which liberal democracy will thrive—diversity of culture, plurality of association, and division of authority.
 
Nisbet, Robert. The Quest for Community . Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ORD). Kindle Edition.

-----

I enjoy writing and helping people, and write on all sorts of health, wellness, nutrition, and fitness topics.   

Remember...there's never been a better day than TODAY to make it happen!
 
Read Next: Walking is Meditation
 
Want to sign up for email newsletter? Sign up on my home page:
www.scottgodwin.net
 
If you like the blog, please share it with friends or on social media.

Over the past weekend, Metro Atlanta saw a crime spree unlike any I can remember.  There were hostages, drive by shootings, stabbings of pregnant women, gang violence at shopping malls, and perhaps worst of all a man shot in the middle of the morning while out jogging, among many others.

Someone I personally know was one of the near victims of the drive-by shooting, a family man and a great person.  This stuff will hit home to every one of us if we don't right the sinking ship and fast. 

Crime has always been a problem, since the 1960s, but in recent decades it had been somewhat been under control in certain parts of town.  Now the violence, dysfunction, and most importantly, nihilism, seems to be spreading everywhere. 

Occasionally, I turn on the news to see what kind of "narrative" I'm going to get, and to their credit they do report the headlines, usually, and especially if they can somehow weave in a narrative of race, sex, or victimhood into the headline.

But what stands out when you engage with media in the USA is how utterly out of touch they are with the real situation on the ground, and this applies to "liberal" and "conservative" media both.  There's a lot of yelling and finger pointing, but hardly any truth-telling about what has happened in the USA over my lifetime, and the preceding decade of the 1960s.  I always had the feeling my whole life something wasn't quite right, but I was too naive and too part of the system to realize I was participating as a "willing victim" in a complete societal collapse centered around family life.

And all of this comes back to raising children, because that's how children become healthy functioning adults- through stable families.  

Go back to something I blogged about a few weeks ago, the new book about Boomers.  I'm not picking on them, but that one stat keeps sticking out.  From my blog:

A staggering statistic: The percentage of children living with both biological parents by the time the mother is 40, among working-class families was 95% in 1960, now it's 30%

To follow up with that I wanted to share an article I found that lays out in specific details why things have happened the way they have .  I'm trying not to be explicitly political about this, because this is more about telling the truth than politics. 

​You need to register on Chronicles to read the article, but it goes back all the way through the history of divorce law changes to detail exactly what has happened to spur the collapse we're undergoing. 

THE SEXUAL LEFT, THE WELFARE STATE, AND THE DIVORCE REVOLUTION: HOW AMERICA WENT COMMUNIST by Stephen Baskerville 

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/the-sexual-left--the-welfare-state--and-the-divorce-revolution_1/