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
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
