I & We: The case for the Responsive Community

Individualism has become so pervasive in modern society that it now undercuts the legitimacy of any collectivity or social institution. An emerging position challenges this individualism as excessive, offering in its stead a synthesis that recognizes the moral standing of both individual and community. This synthesis, the I & We (or Responsive Community), traces its origins to two opposing historical positions. The Tory (or conservative) position views society as an organic whole, the sole source of authority, legitimacy, and value. Whigs (or liberals), in contrast, invest all value and legitimacy in the individual. The I & We view maintains that individual and society presuppose and necessitate one another, and that the tension between them is not only inevitable, but in part desirable; and, that attempts to redefine and alleviate the strain between individual and community provide the basis for social change. A renewed understanding of community's importance to the individual leads to a critique of psychological Whigism — overemphasis on the feelings and needs of the self — and also suggests a new approach to devising public policy.     

Communitarian Antidotes to Populism

Populism is rising in the United States, and this has ramifications for its democratic institutions. The rise is attributable in part to the alienation many Americans feel in their own country, which in turn stems from a combination of various sociological challenges. This article uses a liberal communitarian approach to examine these issues, and calls for the nurturing of communities as a way to reduce violence and xenophobia. It discusses cultural changes brought about by free trade, immigration, and the extension of individual rights and offers moderate policy solutions that encourage communities to flourish by facilitating cultural adjustments while also weighing the concerns of all members of society.     

The war on poverty: between economics and politics

A wealth of solutions to poverty have been proposed, with little understanding of the forces required to turn a sound idea into an implementable program. A system approach is suggested to overcome this deficiency. This implies analyzing the effects of antipoverty measures on other elements of a society and a polity and the feedback effects of changes in these other elements on the new programs which are being introduced. Such an approach is seen overcoming the limitations of fragmented views of the issue—such as the purely economic one—as well as the lack of systematic analysis of a progam's costs, benefits, sources of funds, and nonfinancial resources. Consequently, a challenge is also offered to those who formulate programs without taking into account dominant values (e.g., questions of consensus) and other political considerations (e.g., which groups would benefit or suffer from the program). This is seen as leading to undemocratic action or, most frequently, to inaction due to resistance. The article concludes with a brief review of the recent Nixon-Moynihan proposal in terms of the societal-system approach here advocated, and adds a cautionary note on the limits of planning.In revising this article, I benefited from comments by Daniel Bell, Carolyn O. Atkinson, and Sarajane Heidt.     

The global importance of ‘illiberal moderates’, an exchange: partners in peace to precede a concert of democracies

The following is an exchange concerning the concept of ‘illiberal moderates’ and its implications for a new global architecture as well as for a worldview that sees the evolution of a global core of shared values which favour domestic and international security, in sharp contrast to the ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis. The original statement was published in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs (Etzioni 2006). A more extensive treatment can be found in Part III of Security first: for a muscular, moral foreign policy (Etzioni 2007b), which examines texts of four religious and two secular belief systems as well as review of relevant public opinion polls and ‘traveller notes’. Here follows a brief summary of the main thesis, followed by comments from prominent scholars and Etzioni's response to these comments.     

Minorities and the National Ethos

This essay focuses on the question of how to curb the tension between the rights of members of minorities and the particularistic values of the national community. The essay first examines a radical multicultural treatment of this issue and shows it to be unattainable and inadvisable. The essay then proposes an alternative treatment, Diversity Within Unity, a societal design that combines the nurturing communities of minorities and of the majority and is more conducive to human flourishing. Diversity Within Unity assumes that all citizens will embrace a core of values while being welcomed to follow their own subcultures on other matters.