Robert Nisbet & The Quest for Community
Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 31, 2012
I finished reading Robert Nisbet’s classic book, The Quest for Community. I believe one of the most tragic facts of the twentieth century is the systematic destruction of community. Community is essential for the well-being of a civilization, for without community, people become less than human. Communities, however, are only free if people can voluntarily choose to participate. Statist communities lack this vital freedom of choice. The Life Business helps improve people both personally and professionally within leadership communities. A person will grow much faster if he has a community in which to apply his leadership lessons. Here is a summary of Nisbet’s writings from the Stanford Review by Ben Guthrie. Sincerely, Orrin Woodward
Nisbet, a communitarian who opposes statism, does not laud individualism either. For those unfamiliar with the intellectual roots of conservatism, this position may seem curious for a conservative to hold. But a communitarian ethos permeates conservatism. Nisbet views atomistic individualism as a negative force in society because “Individualism has resulted in masses of normless, unattached, insecure individuals who lose even the capacity for independent, creative living” (12). People are social creatures and depend upon communities and social structures for moral certitude. For Nisbet, the two prerequisites for community are function and authority. He defines community as the “product of people working together on problems, of autonomous and collective fulfillment of internal objectives, and of the experience of living under codes of authority which have been set in large degree by the persons involved”.
Nisbet’s analysis proceeds as a descriptive assessment of the loss of community in the modern world and the lack of emergence of suitable intermediate associations to intercede between the individual and the state. It is not that traditional forms of community, based on kinship, faith, or locality have ceased to exist, but rather they have lost functional significance. Nisbet writes, “Family, local community, church, and the whole network of informal interpersonal relationships have ceased to play a determining role in our institutional systems of mutual aid, welfare, education, recreation, and economic production and distribution” (48). In lacking functional significance, communities lose the ability to provide psychological sustenance of “allegiance, belief, and incentive” to individuals. . .
Nisbet effectively shows that liberal individualism and authoritarian statism are not incompatible doctrines, but can in fact combine to form a lethal combination of totalitarianism. The safeguard against totalitarianism is a rich cultural fabric of intermediate associations – family, profession, local community, church, university, trade union, cooperative, and mutual aid association. Interestingly, Nisbet does not extensively discuss the internal content of the intermediate associations. He appears to be somewhat indifferent on the types of institutions which should prevail, so long as some functionally significant institutions prevail. Even for an important institution like the family, Nisbet appears laissez-faire in his suggestion that there “is no single type of family, any more than there is a single type of religion, that is essential to personal security and collective prosperity” (62). The lessons about the importance of community do not purely defend against creeping totalitarianism; the lessons extend to the more positive promotion of freedom.
Nisbet continues in the third part of his analysis on community and the problem of freedom, “Genuine freedom is not based upon the negative psychology of release. Its roots are in positive acts of dedication to ends and values” (238). Nisbet believes in the necessity of voluntary intermediate organizations both for the protection of individuals and for human flourishing. Since community is characterized by authority and function, it might seem paradoxical to suggest that individuals are freer when they have joined an organization to which they have submitted to an authority. But authority is a necessary component of a functional community, which is necessary for the psychological well being of individuals. The key for Nisbet is that the authority is not absolute. Freedom “lies in the interstices of authority” (239). An individual must always have recourse to leave an organization and join a different one.
Nisbet concludes his analysis with a call for a “new philosophy of laissez faire,” one in which “the basic unit will be the social group” rather than the individual (247). The values which Nisbet extols are freedom of choice, cultural diversity, pluralism, and division of authority. Robert Nisbet fits well in the traditionalist branch of conservatism, but in some ways Nisbet’s views are not incompatible with the libertarian strain of conservatism. He clearly argues that a viable free market must be embedded in social institutions, as he writes, “Capitalism is either a system of social and moral allegiances, resting securely in institutions and voluntary associations, or it is a sand heap of disconnected particles of humanity” (215). But the emphasis on voluntary associations recognizes the primacy of liberty and individual choice, given that individuals are members of strong communities.
10 Responses to “Robert Nisbet & The Quest for Community”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Steven Fenstemaker said
a little difficult to understand, I would definitely recommend keeping a dictionary by with this blog.
Orrin Woodward said
Steven, I will post more on community and the importance of social power versus state power in the coming weeks. Nisbet was an important thinker in this movement. thanks, Orrin
Steven Fenstemaker said
Much Appreciative Orrin, thank you.
Haha first time I read this was on my break at work, it had me kinda confused the rest of the day. Then I went home, with my dictionary app in hand while I was reading it, it then made much more sense. It added an entire new perspective to what we actually do. It also gives all of us faithfull readers some information on how to grow our businesses faster to revive a culture of communities in the united states. I’m convinced that this information can/will give it’s readers a much higher R.O.I. than any; investment, trust fund, Ponzi scheme that has ever been or ever will be. This information is near priceless!
Steven – I tell you what __, this whole LIFE business isn’t for everyone, but could I recommend something that’s free and could produce better results in your life?
Customer – And what is that?
Steven – Go to orrinwoodwardblog.com and subscribe to his blog, some great information and short reads. You should definitely check it out if your interested in helping fix the problems this country has!
I remember, ATTEMPTING to read John Keynes book on economics while doing a report on unemployment in the U.S. in college. After needing to lookup more than 20 words in the first page and researching multiple other references I didn’t understand. Unfortunately, I gave up. lol =P
Wasn’t that hard of a read at all, just takes some patience.
Wildtarg said
To your reply to Orrin: Steve, much worthwhile reading is like that. I had that experience reading Plato’s ‘Republic’. I’m glad I stuck it out though. That book has been foundationally influential in my intellectual and spiritual life.
Cheers.
nathanfoxblog said
Awesome post Orrin, you always amaze me how you constantly stay a student of leadership and bring us information like this.
Lisa Volkmann said
Very interesting and gives good insite to the values of a community of people who are reaching for strong improvements in live – both personally and as a community. I agree a harder read – a dictionary is a must.
Rick Meyer said
When was this book written?
Orrin Woodward said
In the 1950’s. It was ahead of its time when it was written, but Nisbet has been proven prophetic by how much has come to pass from his book. thanks, Orrin
Kevin Hamm said
Orrin,
Very intriguing. I quickly saw how closely the Team culture is to what Nisbet was alluding to. In the one sense, we submit ourselves to the “authority” of the system, but we do so completely voluntarily. We maintain a portion of individualism, in that, we each bring our own gifts and abilities to the community, while at the same time leveraging the power of interdependence. As an S type business owner, I find one of my greatest obstacles is my tendency to try to perform as an individual. Somehow, everything seems to work smoother in a community when the leaders learn to maximize their performance through interdependence. It is counter intuitive to the performer, but a necessary lesson. Now, to apply it. Thank you for all you do.
Kevin Hamm
Wildtarg said
Thanks for reposting the summary here, Orrin. I can understand why you would not openly recommend the book, but I’ve put it on my list. Here’s a few thoughts I got from the summary:
Nisbet seems to line up with Covey in his assertion that individualism or ‘independence’ is only a bridge or a transition state to ‘interdependence.’ A lot of the influence I had growing up emphasized independence and rugged individualism as an ideal of America and free living, but I have come to realize that the Beatles’ refrain of “I am a rock, I am an island” is erroneous and misleading.
I read H.G. Wells’ classic ‘The Invisible Man’ not too many years ago, and my interpretation of it (this is a lot like arguing over what Shakepspeare meant by writing Hamlet) is that it is an artistic portrayal of what happens to the individual when he becomes isolated from society and the limitations and accountability afforded by it. This is validated by modern studies and shows up in earlier works, like Nietsche’s writings on the ‘Superman’ and Plato’s argument of Gyge’s Ring in the Republic. The model of the ‘independent’ dominating and preying upon the ‘dependent’ is prevalent throughout history and recurrent in literature, and I think that the idea of individualism merging with statism is a parallel to it. I could summarize by saying that individualism leads to insanity.
On the reverse side of the coin, while I assent to Nisbet’s analysis, I think his treatment is misinformed and his conclusion is consequently misled. I agree that “Genuine freedom is not based upon the negative psychology of release. Its roots are in positive acts of dedication to ends and values” (238). So does Covey. So do you and Chris Brady, and many other student-leaders. But values must be real, not simply invented or made up. If there is no common reality or ‘true truth’, there can be no meaning. If there is no meaning, there is no communication. No communication means no connection, and no connection means no community. I believe that the only alternative to raw, unconditioned power and competition is Shaeffer’s statement of meaning: “Real people, living in a real world, that God made.”
Psychology and sociology have turned up irrefutable evidence that the classic social unit, the ‘nuclear family’, is the building block of civilization. I think of it in the same way that the atomic model is the building block of all stable matter. There is no order, no structure, to the superhot plasma found in stars. Indeed, just as particles naturally organize into atoms, so people have innate needs and drives to find meaning, security, and opportunity for growth in family relationships. Accepting and understanding this conclusion is, in my view, the only sound starting premise for anyone who seeks to heal and rebuild society in the post-modern world. And I’m all for that.
Keep going, we’re with you…