By Tom Kando
Today, you get a lecture on social structure.
Sometimes I worry that America could fall apart. Countries do fall apart. A society falls apart when private interests overtake the public good.
I went biking through the gorgeous California Gold Country this afternoon. Once again I rode by some enormous estates. 9000 square-ft mansions in the wilderness, perched on hilltops and overlooking 300-acre fenced-in properties, guarded by fierce dogs and no doubt plenty of guns.
If you have a few million dollars, you want to build yourself a fortress, a compound. Walls behind which to protect yourself and your family. The outside society is your enemy.
During their declining centuries, the Romans did the same thing. Those who could afford it built themselves lavish and well-protected latifundiae in the country side.
Later, social disintegration became total. Feudal Europe was a collection of private fiefdoms, and life was Hobbesian - short, nasty and brutish. Throughout history, in times of regression, societies disintegrate. There is a return to tribalism.
I remember an excellent study by Harvard political scientist Edward Banfield, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Banfield studied the impoverished Southern Italian town of Montegrano. He found that the dominant attitude of Montegranan families was one of distrust and envy of each other. Cooperation and mutual help were totally absent. Nepotism ruled. Every family was out for itself, and only for itself - a mafia mentality. Banfield called this “amoral familism” and he attributed much of Southern Italy’s backwardness to it.
Back when Banfield wrote his book, American sociology was in the forefront. American society was the envy of the world. It was appropriate for American social scientists to diagnose and to try to cure the ailments of other countries. We were the doctor; Italy and most other parts of the world were the patients.
I don’t want the US to become the patient. But what happens if the Tea Party and other conservative Republicans have their way, and they dismantle the welfare state, starve the government (Ronald Reagan’s words: “starve the beast”), eliminate the safety net, undermine public education, let the infrastructure rot? What happens if the common good takes a backseat to private profit? If local “autonomy” takes precedence over federal responsibility?
America has always been leery of central authority. Today, the centrifugal forces are once again on the march. “States Rights” and the 10th Amendment are very popular. At the wacky end of the spectrum, there are survivalists and secessionists.
Don’t misunderstand me: We have a long, long way before we become like Montegrano. But I do worry about the centrifugal forces unleashed by the virulent anti-government rhetoric of Tea-Partiers and other conservatives.
When I bring up analogies with Roman Latifundiae, feudalism, tribalism and amoral familism, I realize that, today, they can only be applied to America in science fiction novels such as Walter Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz.
Nevertheless, we should remind ourselves of society’s need to hang together, and of the benefits of a strongly united country where the public good trumps localism and particularism. Let’s be less Jeffersonian and more Hamiltonian. The federal government is your friend, not your enemy. leave comment here
4 comments:
Tom - Keep up the important work of this valuable blog.
On this piece; I think American unity and centralized federal government at not synonymous. National unity also can be provided by "right wing" or conservative ideals. The left and right imagine different institutions and "humane-nesses" as the "vitalizing" impulses for a healthy, integrated national identity.
Your grasp and concern for the breakdown you describe though is on the money.
The Tea Party's critique of excess government is not the problem so much as its strident and embattled mind and style.
Keep up the good work.
Frank K
Tom, When analyzing any social system--or any other system--whether it is the human body or a computer--one has to consider the relationship of the parts (feedback) and the limits beyond which a thing cannot function (boundary conditions). Systems break up when boundary conditions are crossed. For example, if you try to spend more money than you have, or if you fail to eat food, or if the air is polluted, or if too many people are unemployed. Feedback has to be tuned to lower unemployment, for example.
The Tea Party strikes me as a "common man" reaction to the system reaching some boundary conditions. Many people feel so oppressed by government burdens that they don't feel they can prop up the system anymore. They are reacting, but they don't have much constructive feedback. Attacking the Tea Party is like killing the messenger. They are not our enemy, nor are they our savior.
Without private enterprise you have no social enterprise.
thanks for your comments, Frank, Gordon and anonymous.
I am unable to reply substantively at this moment. I'll just say that our dialogue here, hopefully, is a microcosm of the toned-down and more civil political exchange advocated by everyone in the aftermath of the Tucson massacre.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!