One thing I feel is missing from this analysis is that each of us is not tied to place nearly as strongly as a citizen in a new England town would be. In the latter case the personal well being of each citizen was intimately tied to the success of the town. In other words the towns' economy was much more self contained than nearly any mo…
One thing I feel is missing from this analysis is that each of us is not tied to place nearly as strongly as a citizen in a new England town would be. In the latter case the personal well being of each citizen was intimately tied to the success of the town. In other words the towns' economy was much more self contained than nearly any modern municipality is. Today, most individual success is tied to multiple communities at multiple scales: e.g. most companies serve non local markets, and job skills are highly transferrable across regions. This means the incentive to participate at a local level is dramatically lower than in a historical new England town.
Andrew, you raise a great point. If I’m onto something about the need for direct involvement in government (and of course I’m not the only one), I would take your point and suggest as a next step (or as a simultaneous step) involving pre-existing associations in government that are not place based. We might look to the English Pluralist model, which would have associations (trade associations, recreational clubs, places of worship, whatever) work at the level of Jefferson’s village-states on public business. To me, something like their model would be an improvement to what I’m suggesting here. And we'd need to update the idea only by one century instead of two!
No! Where have I been? The great summary you sent me really is an update to the English Pluralists from the early twentieth century. The update makes up for their lack of concern for technology and other areas where their theory might be applied outside of Parliament and the then-existing forms of associations. Thank you for this overview. It's really helpful.
English Pluralists whom I've read include John Neville Figgis, G.D.H. Cole, and H. J. Laski. John Milibank, I think, would be sympathetic to English Pluralism (maybe he's written about it; I don't know) based on his essay in favor of what he calls complex, Gothic spaces. English Pluralism arises out of medieval structures of complex, overlapping associations that avoid the monism your article cites. I think that much of your article would find its analogue in medieval and modern political history, including the move toward absolute monarchy at the outset of modernity.
In arguing for intermediate associations, conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet finds the same link between totalism and atomism that your article emphasizes. Closer to the left, Rebecca Solnit seems to argue for the same intermediate institutions.
Anyway, very exciting. Thank you for helping me get up to date. I don't know if the pluralists you cite would claim the English Pluralists among their inspirations (they're not named in the extensive footnote listing past influences), but it's wonderful to know that so many of their arguments are being advanced again along an even broader spectrum of applications than in the past.
One thing I feel is missing from this analysis is that each of us is not tied to place nearly as strongly as a citizen in a new England town would be. In the latter case the personal well being of each citizen was intimately tied to the success of the town. In other words the towns' economy was much more self contained than nearly any modern municipality is. Today, most individual success is tied to multiple communities at multiple scales: e.g. most companies serve non local markets, and job skills are highly transferrable across regions. This means the incentive to participate at a local level is dramatically lower than in a historical new England town.
Andrew, you raise a great point. If I’m onto something about the need for direct involvement in government (and of course I’m not the only one), I would take your point and suggest as a next step (or as a simultaneous step) involving pre-existing associations in government that are not place based. We might look to the English Pluralist model, which would have associations (trade associations, recreational clubs, places of worship, whatever) work at the level of Jefferson’s village-states on public business. To me, something like their model would be an improvement to what I’m suggesting here. And we'd need to update the idea only by one century instead of two!
I'm totally on the same page as you here. Are you aware of the pluralism movement?
https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/why-i-am-a-pluralist/
No! Where have I been? The great summary you sent me really is an update to the English Pluralists from the early twentieth century. The update makes up for their lack of concern for technology and other areas where their theory might be applied outside of Parliament and the then-existing forms of associations. Thank you for this overview. It's really helpful.
English Pluralists whom I've read include John Neville Figgis, G.D.H. Cole, and H. J. Laski. John Milibank, I think, would be sympathetic to English Pluralism (maybe he's written about it; I don't know) based on his essay in favor of what he calls complex, Gothic spaces. English Pluralism arises out of medieval structures of complex, overlapping associations that avoid the monism your article cites. I think that much of your article would find its analogue in medieval and modern political history, including the move toward absolute monarchy at the outset of modernity.
In arguing for intermediate associations, conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet finds the same link between totalism and atomism that your article emphasizes. Closer to the left, Rebecca Solnit seems to argue for the same intermediate institutions.
Anyway, very exciting. Thank you for helping me get up to date. I don't know if the pluralists you cite would claim the English Pluralists among their inspirations (they're not named in the extensive footnote listing past influences), but it's wonderful to know that so many of their arguments are being advanced again along an even broader spectrum of applications than in the past.