Hello Geoffrey,
How can I get a hold of your dissertation? Can you email me a copy to
my private address?
dlwild at access.net.ec
On Friday, June 25, 2004, at 02:12 PM, Geoffrey Frasz wrote:
> For those interested in the communiy discussion and have access to
> InterLibrary Loan and are a glutton for punishment, you may want to
> check out my1995 dissertation from the University of Georgia on this
> subject. What follows is the abstracct.
> geoffrey frasz
>
>
> GEOFFREY BRYCE FRASZ
>
> The Problem of Community (Abstract)
>
> (Under the direction of FREDERICK FERRÉ)
>
> This work examines the concept of community. It develops the
> "philosophical problem" of community, showing how this problem is
> reflected in the field of environmental ethics. It develops the
> concepts of the human community, the biotic community, and the "mixed"
> community that involves the interaction between the human and the
> biotic communities. The first chapter discusses the general
> philosophic problem of community: how to balance the needs, rights,
> and interests of the community as a whole with the needs, rights, and
> interests of the individuals who make up that community. The problem
> is then refined to: how to develop a mixed community that allows for
> human flourishing, as well as a diverse nonhuman biotic component. It
> then examines two initial obstacles to any discussion of community and
> places the problem of community into the context of a problem in the
> field of environmental ethics: the holism/pluralism debate. The next
> chapter systematically explores the concept of the human community by
> examining several attempts to define a human community, as well as the
> two major attempts to describe the nature of a human community. In the
> third chapter, by arguing that the concept of community needs to be
> expanded from the merely human perspective, the biotic community is
> examined. A historical account of the change in focus in ecology from
> populations to ecosystems is presented, ending with a presentation of
> a new version of a biotic community based on insights from the
> emerging science of complexity.
>
> The second part critiques the positions Aristotle and Whitehead on
> community, and the metaphysical concepts of humans and nature that
> underlie each one. Chapter four argues that Aristotle's concept of
> friendship can be extended through Whitehead to include nonhuman
> entities. Chapter five shows how Whitehead's metaphysics can serve as
> a foundation for a postmodern concept of community that contributes to
> the resolution of the problem of community. The work ends with a
> presentation of general features of a constructive postmodern version
> of community, and shows how Frederick Ferré's "personalistic
> organicism" provides a solution to the community problem in
> environmental ethics.
>
>
>
> INDEX WORDS: Community, Individualism, Ecology, Biotic Community,
> Aristotle, Whitehead, Friendship, Postmodern, Organicism, Personalism,
> Environmental Ethics, Holism, Pluralism.
>
>
> Leonardo Wild wrote:
>
> From: Leonardo Wild <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:46:26 AM America/Guayaquil
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: COMMUNITY, what is it?
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> Now, finally, an analysis of community and what it implies:
>
> "COMMUNITY is the creation of an organism —be it through
> circumstantial, traditional or intentional circumstances— that allows
> individuals to satisfy needs through the establishment of social
> structures and social agreements (implicit or explicit) for the
> continuity of their common contents, purposes and goals."
>
> In other words, community has three sides to it:
>
> 1) Individuals and their need for autonomy,
> 2) Social structures that imply a social dependancy on these
> structures,
> 3) The common need of both the structures and the individuals for
> continuity (social structures without individuals cannot continue
> existing, and individuals without social structures cannot continue
> existing either).
>
> Said differently:
> Common Contents, Purposes and Goals unite individuals as well as
> Social Structures.
> The desire (and need) of continuity makes individuals come together
> and form a "community."
>
> 1) Circumstantial Communities:
> All communities occur due to some circumstance. So all communities are
> circumstantial. However, some communities (like neighborhood
> communities -of as low as three people-, circles of friendship,
> work-space communities) are more circumstantial and shorter lasting,
> as well as almost completely dependent on the circumstances of
> geographical closeness to remain active. The bonds that unite
> individuals in Circumstantial Communities are rarely very strong and
> the contents, purposes and goals are momentary and subject to
> contextual needs.
>
> 2) Traditional Communities:
> Tradition can create stronger bonds that go beyond the mere
> circumstance. Such communities, like Native Indian communities, are
> very cohesive and changes to the social structures usually mean the
> disruption of the community. Individuals living within these
> communities are bound to the social structure and social agreements
> they were born into (they don't have much choice but to respect the
> tradition). These social agreements (mostly implicit) give little
> chance for the individual to find an autonomy, especially culturally
> speaking. The uniformity of the individual's cultural make-up can at
> times even be seen outwardly in a common style of dress, hair-do,
> jewelry, types of music, types of food, and so forth.
>
> 3) Intentional Communities:
> Intentional communities occur when individuals decide, explicitly, to
> create a social structure to which those who want to participate in
> must adhere to. Usually, what unites individuals are common contents,
> purposes and goals that were mostly explicitly stated. The reason for
> creating intentional communities vary, but always at the core of it is
> a common need that must be met, even if just the need to share common
> ideals or common interests. Thus, discussion groups like internet
> forums are "intentional communities" where the "bond" is created by
> the common need to discuss a given topic or range of topics. Off-topic
> discussions, in some are considered non-welcome and someone can even
> be banned from the "group" if the behavior goes against the
> agreed-upon subject matter. Similarly, intentional geographic
> communities (bound by territory) are formed around certain needs and
> only if those needs are met can the community continue existing.
> Eco-villages are a form of intentional community where the common
> contents, purposes and goals turn around the need to live a "more
> ecological life."
>
> Let's take a look now at the various aspects of individual autonomy
> and needs, social dependancies that derive in social structures, and
> the common goal of continuity.
>
> First of all, we have the three sides of that make 1) Continuity
> possible:
> 1.1) Content
> 1.2) Purpose
> 1.3) Goal
>
> This is a long subject matter, so for the time being I will leave
> these three without further definition, hoping that they are more or
> less self-explanatory. If anyone wishes for me to expand on this, I
> can surely do so. For now, let's go on to the other two aspects of
> what makes a community be what it is: 2) Individual needs and 3)
> Social Structures, which I believe are perhaps of more interest to
> this group.
>
> 2) Individual Needs:
> 2.1) Material needs:
> Individual needs exist automatically the moment a person exists. If
> some needs aren't met, the outcome is death. Mostly these needs are of
> material nature, such as food, shelter, clothing, etc., the degree by
> which a given thing is needed for survival depending on the local
> context. So, an individual living in the Amazon jungle will not need
> as much to survive as the individual living in Siberia, at least not
> in terms of clothing and shelter. Food and water are also of
> "existential value" (that is, without it an individual cannot subsist)
> but the degree of difficulty will depend on locality and local
> circumstances. Material need can also be the need for a partner in
> order to preserve the continuity of the genetic pool of humanity. A
> single individual will not be able to fulfill this material need of
> continuity of the human species. But this is usually coupled with
> emotional needs as well.
>
> 2.2) Emotional needs:
> All individuals have emotional needs. The younger the individual (a
> baby) will not survive without an emotional contact with another
> individual. Thus, at this age, emotional needs are of "existential
> value." The older one becomes, the less emotional needs become a
> matter of pure survival (of the individual). The emotional need
> becomes of "subjective value", totally dependent on a given
> individual's make up. Some may not survive without an emotional
> attachment, others will but might feel rather unhappy, others might
> not have such a great need in this regard and can even go on living as
> Robinson Crusoes. However, from a position of biological health, human
> beings are of social nature and this implies the need to satisfy
> emotional needs, from the pure affectional to the biological, which is
> the need to preserve the continuity of the human species. Thus,
> another aspect that drives human beings to create social structures is
> the inherent make-up of homo sapiens being a "social entity" and
> emotions are but one more aspect.
>
> 2.3) "Intellectual" needs:
> Every human being has an intellect which derives in "interests" on
> whatever subject. Intellectual needs also imply the need to learn how
> to survive. If certain tricks are not learned, survival might not just
> become hard but impossible. Thus, intellectual needs are closely
> related to learning. Some learning implies the acquisition of
> knowledge that allows an individual to survive, while other learning
> implies the acquisition of knowledge and understanding in order to
> evolve and grow "intellectually." For some, finding "what's one's own
> talent" is tantamount to finding "happiness," and emotion that is
> closely linked to well-being and health. Passing on the "tricks of the
> trade" of survival and growth is an inherent part of survival of the
> species. Knowledge and maybe even understanding, hopefully wisdom,
> allows individuals to continue existing and help those around them and
> those that will follow in time to continue existing. Thus, without
> this aspect of individual needs, the individual and the human
> community will have a hard time ensuring continuation.
>
> All these needs (material, emotional and intellectual) are in fact
> part of a whole. Individuals cannot exist without the material realm,
> and they will certainly not be healthy without the emotional and
> intellectual realm. "Fullness of being" an individual will depend on
> the existence of all three sides having the needs of each side met or,
> in the long run, there is no continuity possible, at least not for a
> life-time and certainly not for the species.
>
> Therefore, human beings have created, implicitly and/or explicitly,
> "Social Structures" and Social Agreements that enable the individual
> to satisfy the individual's needs.
>
> 3) Social Structures:
> Except on very special and rare occasions, individuals are dependent
> on Social Structures for survival and growth and, in the end, for
> their continuation as individuals and as a species.
>
> There are three basic types of social structures:
> 3.1) Social Structures of Continuity,
> 3.2) Social Structures of Change,
> 3.3) Social Structures of Cohesion.
>
> 3.1) Social Structures of Continuity:
> Are those that allow for the "continuity of the content, purposes and
> goals" of a group (community) of individuals. Without social
> structures of continuity, the continuation of what keeps individuals
> together ceases to exist. There are three types of Social Structures
> of Continuity:
>
> 3.1.1) Social Structure of Continuity–Religion:
> "Religion is the creation of a structure based on a system of beliefs
> and/or convictions that interpret reality." The actions of a community
> will depend on what they believe or are convinced of as being
> "reality." Any system of beliefs or convictions that claims to explain
> a given reality (be it physical, metaphysical or spiritual) is,
> ultimately, a religion. The content, purpose and goal of a religion
> will define what kind of a religion it's supposed to be in theory
> (physical materialistic goals, metaphysical goals, spiritual goals),
> for in practice it will depend on how it interacts will all the other
> Social Structures.
>
> 3.1.2) Social Structure of Continuity–Politics:
> "Politics is the creation of a system of guidelines for the behavior
> of organisms within a structure."
> These guidelines are necessary for the continuation of the agreements
> to which the organisms must adhere to in order to maintain a social
> structure. If each organism (be it an individual, a family, a
> community, a company, a nation, etc,) does not follow the guidelines
> of agreed-upon behavior, the social fabric collapses. (The problem is
> that many of the "agreements" by which we live today are by "coercion"
> and based power structures that we cannot control or find hard to
> change.)
>
> 3.1.3) Social Structure of Continuity–Economy:
> "Economy is the creation of a structure that allows organisms —be
> these individuals, families, communities, companies, geo-political
> entities— to acquire for their survival and evolution what they
> themselves cannot produce." In other words, without a structure where
> each organism can fulfill its needs, there is no continuity possible.
>
> The upshot is that all three structures of social continuity are in
> fact intimately linked, for the actions that will be considered "good"
> of "bad" will depend on the view of reality (religion), which will
> define what guidelines of behavior exist or are implemented
> (politics), which will also have an influence on how organisms are
> organized to fulfill their needs, and how they will acquire what they
> themselves cannot produce (economy).
>
> 3.2) Social Structures of Change:
> The second type of social structure (of change) is made up of three
> elements, but as we will quickly see, in today's society there is no
> real representation of either of the three or, if they exist, they are
> subservient and dependent on a final decision "from above" from any of
> the other structures of Continuity and Cohesion. Structures of change
> cannot be based on a vertical hierarchy (order), for that would defy
> their purpose. Also, structures of change should not be of horizontal
> hierarchy (chaos) because that would lead to anarchism. In fact, any
> attempt to create a cohesive structure of questioning or challenging
> the beliefs of any of the other structures has been met with
> resistance and systematic disruption. In the past, some kings,
> understanding the importance of challenge of the status quo or the
> habitual beliefs, hired buffoons. Humor is a door into creativity and
> a lubricant for the discarding of our preconceptions. Social
> structures of change should be chaordic in nature, based on a
> "functional hierarchy" like the organs in a body, where each does its
> job but is not subservient to either too much order or too much chaos.
>
> I have named these three structures in the following way:
>
> 3.2) Social Structures of Change:
> 3.2.1) Questioning and/or Challenging:
> 3.2.2) Discarding
> 3.2.3) Creation and development
>
> Since change is continually necessary for the continuity of any social
> structure or organism, the way "change" occurs in today's world has
> taken on a violent form, or follows disrespectful paths. Thus,
> challenging a structure of power (Bush vs. Saddam Hussein, Communism
> vs. Capitalism, son vs. father, employees vs. employers), is usually
> carried out in a semi-socialized way, if not in a barbaric way.
> Discarding is taken over by destruction, and "creation and
> development" is a return to the old ways and contents, purposes and
> goals, with a new name or outward facelift. This can be a whole topic
> of study in itself, though not to be continued right here and now.
>
> The third type of Social Structures, those of Cohesion has the
> following qualities:
>
> Cohesion unlike continuity, has a different quality. Cohesion means
> how things can be kept together so they don't fall apart. Continuity
> has the function to make what exists, continue. Cohesion means to find
> ways of putting together something that doesn't quite exist or that is
> still in the stage of growth. Without a structure that enables healthy
> change, cohesion and continuity are subject to social inbreeding with
> similar results as with biological inbreeding. Cohesion and Continuity
> go hand in hand, but should be challenged by Change. But so as not to
> elaborate too much on this point:
>
> 3.3) Social Structures of Cohesion:
> 3.3.1) Social Structure of Cohesion—Health:
> "Health is the chaordic co-existence of autopoietic (self-made,
> self-regulating) organisms in balance with themselves and their
> environment." In other words, Health is a social structure that deals
> with the aspects of how organisms can co-exist in balance with
> themselves and their environment. How do we know how that happens?
> It's through Education:
>
> 3.3.2) Social Structure of Cohesion—Education:
> "Education is the acquisition and understanding of knowledge and
> experiences on the part of organisms, and the transmittance of these
> from individuals to individuals and from generation to generation." In
> other words, it is through a social structure of education that we can
> understand what is healthy and how continuation is possible.
> Education, in this sense, isn't only formal, but also informal: the
> way in which individuals find out things that will serve them,
> hopefully, to survive and evolve and to avoid the pitfalls committed
> by others. Education is about information and experience. Anytime when
> information can be taken in and where experiences can be acquired
> education is happening. What is the media doing? What are the goals of
> the "information age" machine? What experiences are we exposed to? All
> this is education. The present structure, however, isn't really taking
> in to consideration what is healthy, but what is economically "sound"
> according to a given type of economic structure: market economy. With
> the rules of the game being defined by money and where money flows to.
> thus we have come full circle and we can, once again, ask what our
> third type of economic structure of continuity/cohesion is doing.
>
> .3.1) Social Structure of Cohesion—Economy:
> "Economy is the creation of a structure that allows organisms —be
> these individuals, families, communities, companies, geo-political
> entities— to acquire for their survival and evolution what they
> themselves cannot produce." In other words, without a structure where
> each organism can fulfill its needs, there is no continuity possible.
> Which, in our present-day scenario, seems to be case: continuation
> impossible due to an unhealthy growth pattern of a system based on
> exponential and unlimited growth subservient to a limited system (the
> biosphere).
>
> To close off, each community must take into consideration the above
> mentioned structures as a whole or else there is something missing
> that will not allow the community to either find a) cohesion, b) a way
> to continue existing and c) enough capacity to change so as to
> continue.
>
> In other words, if a community takes into consideration only the
> economic aspects and forgets what is healthy and how to educate, then
> little continuity is possible, much less a cohesion that will enable
> its individual members to really fulfill their needs. If a community
> takes into consideration aspects of health (say, an ecovillage)
> forgetting to take into consideration the economic aspect, little
> cohesion and few chances of continuity exist. If a community decides
> to use a system of beliefs that takes away the autonomy of its
> individuals, little chances it has for a healthy cohesion and
> continuation. If a community decides to present guidelines of behavior
> that doesn't take into consideration the foundations of how life is
> structures (chaordically, autopoietically), little chance exists of
> cohesion and continuity.
>
> In short, the c in cc representing community needs a closer look at
> and a bit more consideration. Or else, cohesion and continuity of the
> Structure of Change we are proposing, which tries to challenge and
> discard and create new options for the healthy survival of individuals
> and social organisms, will have little chance of making a difference
> that is cohesive and able to continue.
>
> Unless everything else has collapsed and there is nothing left but
> return to double coincidence and feudal or chaotic social structures.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Leonardo Wil
> d
>
>
> --
>
>
> Blockhead Signature
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> "The vanity of teaching often tempteth a man to forget he is a
> blockhead."
>
> -George Saville, first Marquess of Halifax (1633 - 1695)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
> Geoffrey Frasz, Ph.D,
>
> Philosophical and Regional Studies Department, C-269 G
>
> Community College of Southern Nevada
>
> 6375 W. Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
>
> phone (702) 651-5663 FAX (702) 651-5738
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ccsn.nevada.edu/prs/gfrasz//index.html
>
|
