Localism And Cosmopolites
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Remarking on Jeremy Beer’s article on meritocracy, Patrick Deneen concludes with this grim, but correct, observation:
This, in a microcosm, is a central paradox of our political system: our cosmopolite meritocrats theoretically admire localism but abhore [sic] the idea of living within the confines that such life would entail; our Red-State locals tend to despise cosmopolites, but support (and vote for) an economic system that encourages borderlessness, placelessness, and a profoundly abstract economy that has the effect of eviscerating those very localities. This arrangement is one of the central features undermining the localist cause today, and it’s difficult to see how it will be reversed.
Could it be that this paradox is unavoidable? Is the paradox the product of human craving and the inevitable disappointment and dissatisfaction that follow from desire? If so, the answer could lie in the self-denial of humbling oneself exceedingly in imitation of the Lord’s kenosis, which would entail forsaking status and honor to take, as it were, the form of a slave. That probably sounds bizarre, but it points to what Caleb Stegall has been saying about the centrality of love in all of this and, I might add, the right ordering of loves, which would tell us not to seek greener pastures but rather cultivate the ground where we are. A culture in which kenosis, self-emptying, was the highest ideal rather than self-fulfillment would be one in which mobility and flight might be possible but would very rarely be considered desirable.
The paradox Prof. Deneen describes is the result of wanting to have things both ways, to enjoy only the benefits and experience no losses, but as the paradox makes clear neither the “locals” nor the “cosmopolites” can sustain the fiction that they can have it all. At some point, the local indulgence in the benefits of globalization destroys their local way of life and replaces it with the homogenized mass culture in which they have been increasingly participating for years and decades but which they somehow thought might be kept in check. At the same time, the cosmopolites sense the long-term unsustainability of their way of life, and so have become obsessed with biodiversity, ecological balance and conservation to address the material costs without significantly addressing the moral, cultural and human costs that are also imposed.
The cosmopolites, as Prof. Deneen calls them, see many of the advantages of localism but want none of the obligations. They are starved for what it provides, and so wish to escape the confines of their way of life, but they are unwilling to enter into the confines of the local, perhaps because they prefer status rather than happiness or perhaps because they have become so accustomed to the life of the displaced tourist that they cannot imagine being still for any prolonged period of time. The locavore and organic food habits that serve as proof that their way of life is in important ways unsatisfying are themselves a temporary remedy that serves to fill in the gaps and mask the costs of their way of life. The locals, meanwhile, want the products that the world of the cosmopolites can provide, and, as Jeremy argued, many of them want to enter into that world, never fully understanding that their homes will change dramatically and often for the worse as a result of their departure.
Cross-posted at Front Porch Republic
I think both the cosmopolitans and the “Red State” folks have something very specific in common here causing the paradox, which is the commitment to and support of the “American way of life.” The cosmopolitans believe that it should be possible and good for people, meaning themselves, to be able to pull up and move around chasing the rewards of meritocracy – good jobs, education, and high culture. The localist “Red Staters” may like their communities, but they also like the cheap gasoline, food, and everything that globalism entails.
As long as these things are viable options, I don’t really see the situation changing.
intersting thoughts, I’ve always been a little uneasy about the eat local movement that has cropped up over the last few years… That’s not to say I wouldn’t participate in a CSA (if there was a decent one in Houston) like I did as a Berkeley liberal, and I gotta say this current eat local fad was particularly unsettling when I visited SF and checked out a “slow food festival”.
I think part of my unease is that in Berkeley at least, localism is also used as an excuse to keep the housing density down — which (more than any other policy which they might enact as a token counterbalance) of course also helps keep all the poor folks far away.
Theres no paradox; the economic and cultural relationship between large urban areas and the rural countryside has existed in just about every civilization thats grown beyond subsistence farming. It is only paradoxical for the individuals that feel the desire to uphold one side or the other as the only authentic way to live for everyone. The fact that an individual enjoys living in a major urban area does not mean that he or she wants everyone to live there, or thinks that someone who doesn’t is an idiot. Or vice versa.
Recognizing the good things in both sides does not make one a tourist, though that term might be applicable to a very, very small group of jet-setters. The fact that someone can recognize the sources of happiness and joy for others does not mean they are living their life in some breathless anticipation.
I’m not sure I get the paradox. I suppose we’re talking about the Cosmos that move from a rural red state and by-passing the fact that many people will take pay cuts in order to live in one of the more popular cosmopolitan areas rather than move for a simple pay hike.
You seem to be implying that living in not-a-city is somehow more sustainable. I’m not sure that’s the case. As Rowan noted, that lifestyle is heavily dependent on cheap gas, sprawl, and transportation infrastructure. Likewise, even though you may live marginally closer to a farm, your food is probably still being trucked in from across the country (to say nothing of every other good you consume). Yes, in theory, w/ its proximity to farmland and lower population, a small town could be more sustainable, but in practice I don’t think it really happens that way.
To add to what Rowan wrote, I’d also point out that “Red State” values seem increasingly defined as “the opposite of whatever liberals think” which unfortunately means that liberal interest in sustainability is driving conservatives in the other direction.
Finally, I think your characterization of city-dwellers is far too cynical.
I should add that I realize you discussed localists indulging in globalism, but I think maybe you miss the fact that for most people and most communities, that ship has already sailed.
I guess I’m not quite done:
I’m not sure how true it is that we city folk admire a localism that we cannot achieve ourselves. I think, frankly, that’s one of the BS lines that you have to peddle to be taken seriously by the media and political establishment.
The assumption in this discussion thus far seems to have been that cities are constrained boxes full of interchangeable and constantly-shifting corporate parts lacking any definition of place or even time save for their branding, and that all who live there pine for the grounding of a small town. But if you look at a city like Portland or Seattle (the two I’m familiar with), you’ll see a mess of small neighborhoods with local businesses, a sense of community in each, and people who, for the most part, like living there. In a lot of those neighborhoods, you’ll find a stronger support for and presence of a local culture than you’d find in many small towns which are increasingly dominated by cheap sprawl housing and chain stores, or decimated by shifts in industry.
Now let’s square the circle and show that traveling for the purpose of receiving a PhD and/or working as such–which, I believe, allows us the insight of both Larison and Deneen–is nonetheless in conformity with localist norms and notions of the Good Life.
In a general sense I’d agree. I read this blog everyday, and I’m a cosmopolite, if I have to put myself in one of the two categories.
I like the idea of locavorism and its sustainability, and in theory and ONLY in theory I like ‘community.’
As a young man I wanted to be a free, self-defining individual and held tradition in contempt. But the irony is that as I age, my view of people continues to diminish. As such, I dislike community for a more cynical, sharper-edged cynicism. Either way, I dislike being chained to the preferences of my fellow man.
I am not particularly keen on being ‘unique,’ it’s just that I can’t stand the idiocies of the herd.
So I’m stuck, perhaps. I am not fully pleased with being so isolated, and definitely not happy contributing to an unsustainable lifestyle. But I will never be content with the tradeoffs of being in a community either.
I’d rather be aloof and free than submit to the community. It probably won’t surprise anyone to say that i’ve never found any given community I’ve been in to be worth it anyway. It’s just one of those ideas that sounds good, I think.
joypog, there is a wonderful CSA (google for healthyhabbits) that’s just started up in Houston out towards Katy, and there are a quite a few others in the region. There has definitely been some growth in the CSA offerings in Houston, which is noteworthy.
“I’d rather be aloof and free than submit to the community. It probably won’t surprise anyone to say that i’ve never found any given community I’ve been in to be worth it anyway. It’s just one of those ideas that sounds good, I think.”
Yes, aloof and free to write online posts on complicated hardware and software over an international communication network that spans oceans and space itself. Indeed, free to be a part of a world-wide economic system that furnishes your sustenance and your means of expression.
Mind you I write this not to be a smart ass (only a little) but that peoples attempts to strike a pose of of being “against tradition” and “community” is as absurd as many FPR members weird fascination with the symbolic trappings of old Levitt-town community. Everyone is a part of something, even the crazy nutbar survivalists who insist on being loners except when they trade pamphlets and conspiracy theories at gun shows. Everyone has a subculture they’re a part of in some way or another, and everyone is a social creature even when they insist they’re not (in fact there is a cottage industry of such people; look at all the rubes who read Fight Club).
Anyone who suggests otherwise is a bold face liar; as someone who works with the chronically mentally and developmentally disabled, I can show you what it does to people to be truly alone. Ask any of the poor bastards unfortunate enough to be locked in solitary confinement in any American prison. it is not pleasant, and if anyone was truely a “longer” they would be climbing up walls.
Just a note: everyone’s political opinions are informed by their religious and cultural background. But when you write:
“Is the paradox the product of human craving and the inevitable disappointment and dissatisfaction that follow from desire? If so, the answer could lie in the self-denial of humbling oneself exceedingly in imitation of the Lord’s kenosis, which would entail forsaking status and honor to take, as it were, the form of a slave. ”
…your move in the second sentence just seems to stop talking to anyone who’s not Christian. It has roughly the same effect on me as would a reference, in the context of a discussion of tax policy towards married couples, to “the hegemony of the capitalist-imperialist patriarchy”, or something. It implies the discussion is taking place on terms which have no relevance to me. There may be some parallel here to the conflict of localism and cosmopolitanism itself.
I think one point it highlights is that while there may be a possibility of a conscious localism, one can never go back to an unconscious localism — we can never return to the moment when people in Kansas City cared about Kansas City because they didn’t know anything about New York or LA. Similarly, the advent of a secular society means we can’t really go back to addressing the world in parochial language — I can’t justify my arguments here in the language of “Hash-m” or midrash, even were I familiar with that language, without knowing that I was consciously excluding much of the audience I need to be addressing if my arguments are to have any meaning in the modern polity.
“They are starved for what it provides, and so wish to escape the confines of their way of life, but they are unwilling to enter into the confines of the local, perhaps because they prefer status rather than happiness or perhaps because they have become so accustomed to the life of the displaced tourist that they cannot imagine being still for any prolonged period of time.”
This seems a bit uncharitable. Maybe someone who grows up in the Midwest, goes to a good school on the East Coast, and then pursues a medical career that requires several more moves is a status-seeking tourist, or maybe he or she is simply passionate about medicine. The same is true of people who have high-level academic interests, are brilliant engineers, are top-notch officers and NCOs in the military, etc. Yes, these people are all elites, but unless I’m missing part of the argument the people whose choices we’re critiquing are “the elite”–people who might need to make a move, or several moves, to max out their professional and intellectual potential.
There are very significant benefits, in terms of intellectual stimulation and professional fulfillment, to elites who participate in the modern American meritocracy. There are also very significant drawbacks. But using language that implies that we would all choose localism if only we weren’t status-hungry, or too warped by modern American life to know what we’re missing, doesn’t give the other side of the argument the respect it deserves.
What about Wendell Berry? He seems like a cosmopolite-type willing to share the burden of localism. As far as I can tell, the guy could’ve stayed at Yale or Columbia or wherever and became a tenured professor. Instead, he went back to rural Kentucky to farm with draft animals and not own a computer.
Sean S seems to think that pointing out the truism that everyone is part of a culture has some sort of bite to it. I don’t think so.
I wouldn’t deny my own participation, Venn-like, in any number of subgroups. He’s missing the point. The point is not that I am an island indifferent to the winds of change; I am not.
The point is that I can be categorized in a couple of different ways such as being white or middle class, but the ties I feel toward them are weak or tepid at best. Those categories are real but they are not robust, and say I could get unemployment or emergency medical care. Is that helpful? Sure. But there is no deeper sense of belonging. That’s welfare without community. I was trying to point out that this Golden Age of rural participation is a lot of hot air, I think, among a certain strand of conservatives.
My primary point was that I would still pick my freedoms over that sense of belonging to a group. Because the costs are too high for any supposed web of belonging, etc, for me. But there’s a big gap between belonging to any number of subgroups and then feeling that those cultural categories (white, poor, etc) are meaningful ones that determine my identity. They’re not.
I’m not John Galt working undercover on epic social tasks. I appreciate that there is whole out there that I didn’t create, namely roads, language, and schools. But if I could choose to dissent, on reproductive rights, on religious self-determination, on any number of issues of liberty, I would choose those freedoms over belonging, in a full sense, to a given group. I wouldn’t fit, I don’t fit, with the very categories you are likely imagining now.
My primary point was that beyond mere sociological inclusion in any number of subgroups (which you seem to think is a finisher-offer), some people don’t value community and belonging like you do, others would not choose it, seek it. The costs are too high, people are too ignorant, and I would rather cut them loose.
Interesting that you cite your experience with prisoners as your claim to a greater authenticity. Firstly, that’s good to hear. The field needs thoughtful and human CO’s, psych techs, social workers, etc.
But it may shock, shock! you to hear that I currently work full-time on a maximum security forensics ward – patients who are murderers, rapists, and arsonists who are mentally ill and mentally retarded, etc.
These unfortunate individuals are truly isolated because they are not only schizophrenic but also convicted of terrible crimes. So you don’t really get any trump card from that, sorry. I have worked in many, many clinical settings and have seen a whole bunch too.
[...] a good debate and discussion going on Dan Larison’s Eunomia about how our rootless culture and economic system prevents a [...]
“Could it be that this paradox is unavoidable? Is the paradox the product of human craving and the inevitable disappointment and dissatisfaction that follow from desire?”
From this first sentence, I thought you were going down a Buddhist road of criticism – namely, that the source of all suffering is craving, which is never satisfied, because all satisfactions are impermanent. What locality is permanent? Isn’t the search for “localism” just another way of searching for something permanent in an impermanent world?
Then you go down the Christian road, which brings even more troubles for the localist agenda. Didn’t Jesus leave his small-town life in Nazareth for a more promising life as a travelling preacher who ends up in Jerusalem, the big city?Jesus was a cosmopolite, even as a young child when he took off to argue with the big city scholars and priests. And wasn’t there some kind of scorn on Jesus’ part for his small-town peers, something about “no prophet is recognized in his home town”? This isn’t a very good endorsement of small-town, local values, is it?
What does localism have to do with Christianity? Well, precisely nothing, other than that plenty of small-town folks are Christians. But Christian teaching doesn’t favor small towns, or localism. It says we should not be attached to worldly things, including the places we grew up in.
It’s certainly true that we should not constantly seek greener pastures, but not everyone was cut out to be herd sheep in a pasture. People are what they are, and they need to find their proper place in the scheme of things. For some, it’s living in a small town, for others, a big city. Not everyone belongs to the place they were born. Not even Jesus belonged in Nazareth, and he got out of there when his calling came. Everyone has a calling, and where it leads is not for us to get moralistic about. The idea that there’s some perfect cookie-cutter life that all of us should strive towards is just nonsense. We need not worry about such idealisms, and focus instead on how we live, regardless of where that is.