Community
We are a community. And before I get into that, let me say that I
find words often fascinating. To me they are like language funnels,
taking multiple meanings and time periods of totally different definitions,
and narrowing them down to our present day words. And community is one
such word. If we used that word, in whatever language suited the locale
and age we were in throughout history, it would be understood in vastly
different ways. In ancient Athens it would have one color, in 17th century
Zulu another set of meanings, in an Hasidic village another understanding
that may differ in great detail with the other two.
Yet we are here at the end of the funnel, so to speak, so we can use
a more recent idea of what community is and what it is about. And it
is an important word. It sums up in many ways what we are and are within.
We are both a political community, a social community and perhaps even
a biological community. It is, as I understand it, a word often dealt
with under the heading of government, yet in a real sense it predates
government. One can easily think about a Stone Age community, long before
any form of government we would understand was in existence. Community
at its base level simply means a group of people living nearby and with
common needs or goals. Today, perhaps because of humanitys control
of time-distance relationships and interconnected political and financial
systems, it can even be applied to the World as a whole.
Some have said that we presently deal with community more by ignoring
it than by giving it homage. We gripe when we have to pay taxes for
communal projects, attempt to block accepted but personally abhorred
community laws or goals, and rush not to vote in ratios that are a true
danger to a system based in part on the ballot. Those same critics would
say that we seem to wish to use community only when we agree with it
and can use its products, otherwise we demean it or actively fight it.
If that is true, if we have given up common goals and societal commonality,
then we may be headed the way of the Dodo. As 9/11 reminded us, there
are many forces out there which can do us ill, both actively, like terrorists,
or passively, like the vast cycles found in Nature, cycles like weather,
massive volcanism and disease pandemics.
Perhaps we have simply been dozing. America, after all, is a blest nation.
It is like a long warm summer afternoon of history. An afternoon complete
with almost 150 years without invasive war being fought on the homeland.
An afternoon with ever ascending wealth and knowledge and health. One
in which we can choose almost any type of diversion, go almost anywhere
and access almost anything we desire. True, we may not all have equal
access, yet except for the poorest of us, we command leverage and power
that would be the envy of any ancient king or emperor. And like such
a privileged afternoon snoozer, we swat at whatever disturbs our relaxation.
We are perhaps a new type of man, Homo consumerabilis, a consumer of
cornucopia. Never in history have so few had so much and been entrained
by every means to want more. It seems we climb everywhere, a situation
in opposition to the idea of the snoozer, yet not really. We have been
formed to climb up social ladders, the ladders of goods, and the ladders
of accomplishments. No wonder we wish to take it easy after such struggles.
Community, and all that goes with it, is not as defined as the consumer
impulse, it requires study, discernment and, worst of all, action. And
after all that climbing we may not have the energy.
Perhaps we better find it. We may be in danger of losing our community.
Our community of American values, American creativity and American vision.
Is it not possible that in rejecting, or at least devaluing, community,
we are throwing out the baby in the bath water? After all, in many long
established community traditions, we have agreed to travel separate
paths, to seek goals in divergent ways, even to agree to disagree. We
do not find it strange that some choose to run to a destination while
others ride. We have paths for both. Many try to find future security
in personal planning and financial goals, others in everything from
cloistered living to dependence on programs and dependence on personal
strength and longevity. We have markets, monasteries and physical maintenance
programs for these decisions. And of course we have enormous differences
of opinion, some have half empty glasses, some have half full ones.
We historically accepted that and community often has rules for each
or may have conflicting structures that apply only to those who choose
one way over the other.
In history, as far as I can discern, this has always been the case.
Even in ancient societies, built upon state religions and brutal tests
of community, there was recognition of difference. Pater familias was,
to modern sentiment, a heinous yet accepted tradition that the head
of the family exercised right of life and death over each family member.
Yet little onus was attached to those who decided not to actively practice
the right. And in the early life of our own Judeo-Christian heritage,
the ancient - - and pagan - - societies often allowed the existence
of Christians and Jews within the general community. True there were
laws regulating and restricting them, yet they could live within those
communities, work, play and plan within the structures there. It is
as though there was understanding that diversity was part and parcel
of life.
America, in part, was based on such diversity. In fact in our birth
pains, we had one of the most glaring and egregious examples of diversity.
One which grated directly on the beliefs of just about every precept
we held dear - - Slavery and its attendant problem of enfranchisement.
I wonder sometimes how we so marvelously sustained and threaded through
the moral waters of this problem. True, Civil War was one result of
the contradiction and a partial solution. Racism was another unintended
result. Yet other unintended results were voting for women, lowering
of general voting age and social programs to help make a stagnant portion
of the population better able to take part in American community. And,
yes, we must remember and bless the multitudes of persons who died within
that system. Sacrifices, unwilling sacrifices, to the long path of working
through the ideals America was born with. We were not the first modern
society to abolish slavery, yet with an entire regional economy partly
based upon it, the final resolution that we came to says much for our
determination and principals.
If in our birthing, we sustained such contradiction, is it not possible
that we can more civilly than we have, sustain our present disagreements?
We should perhaps rethink the present habits of diatribe, vituperation
and calumny that seem to be so easily practiced today. Treason, lies
and disloyalty have become common parlance in our public speech. Accusation
and counteraccusation fill even our legislatures. Civil speech and civil
action, in the meaning of civility, seem to be fading from our dialogue.
My Mom used to say you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar,
and even if we consider our opponents (not enemies) as flies, still
we have less chance to get them close to our honey if we
substitute vinegar for it. Division and divisiveness seem to be growing.
We seem a split nation, yet seldom think upon the base we stand on which
allows even this perversity.
In France there was a revolt of the peasants, long before the Revolution,
which ended with the nobles agreeing to meet with the leader of the
revolt. Under flag of truce the gentleman went forth to parley and was
immediately killed. In its simplest form this seems a disagreement,
but it really was not. The nobles and peasants could not disagree, at
least according to the nobles, since they, the peasants, had no base
or ground to stand upon. They were in the wrong - - period. That is
not what is happening in America today, though it might eventually come
to that. Today we are in deep disagreement. We differ in certain values,
views and visions. Not core values, it seems, but secondary and tertiary
values. Not in the purpose of our views but the ways we wish to get
there. Not in our vision for America but in our framework for the vision.
If I were to ask just about any American if they would wish an America
at peace with the World, engaging in international exchange of goods,
ideas and ideals, ready to help and be helped in bringing about greater
morality, justice, wealth, health and freedom for every person upon
this small planet, I believe they would agree. In fact I believe that
almost any person in the world would agree with that vision for their
own culture. And if we agree upon those statements, then it seems to
me that the rest is just a discussion of means and ways. It is not an
argument but a matter of disagreement, the difference being one of opposite
views versus one of different ways to solve a series of problems. Unlike
those poor French peasants, we start on common ground. It is perhaps
better we make that ground a foundation to build on rather than a cemetery
to do battle on.
Some would suggest we start small to diffuse this situation. Perhaps
cooperating upon common projects, ones we can all agree upon. This would
allow us to know that the other is not monster but companion. That they
are not necessarily ideological but instead blest with a slightly different
view and set of talents. If a problem does not fall before charity or
compassion, perhaps, arm in arm with those virtues, it will fall before
financial incentive and invention. If an intractable situation does
not respond to rezoning or markets, perhaps, in tandem with those, it
will succumb to mediation and demonstration. My Dad told me, to paraphrase,
that it was a poor carpenter who chose not to use all his tools. We
Americans have an immense amount of tools, not to mention talents and
systems. Is it reasonable to reject some because they are Left or Right?
Religious or Secular? Scientific or Holistic? If a man or woman is starving
or thirsty, does it matter the hand which administers to them? Or better
yet the multiple hands which minister to them. I would think all sides
would be rushing to the aid of the least of these rather
than fighting over how and whether to feed the hungry and slake the
thirsty. Perhaps there is wisdom in setting up small projects manned
by supposedly diametrically opposed persons who agree to work together
to alleviate some situation both see as a problem.
Ah but the problem of time and resource and coordination. Might we have
to restructure our lives a bit, maybe a lot? Would we have to give up
leisure or new markets or goods to work at such a thing? The simple
answer is yes. And I think about our forebears. They were living in
a new country, distant from their homelands, strenuously engaged in
forging a new society. Suddenly, a few rebellious elements decided to
go to war against the great sovereign power which held warrant to these
colonies. And even as reason and common good convinced many that the
future lay with rebellion, there were those same problems, time, resources
and coordination. In the midst of a far simpler and harder life than
we, our ancestors found the solutions that allowed them to forge a new
nation.
Can we do less?
|