Patrick Deneen asks an important question, whether modern suburban life and the commerce that sustains it is subversive to the good life. In particular he asks whether it is reconcilable with Catholic thought. It's a long post, but read the whole thing. In short, Dr. Pat argues that suburban life undermines community, social cohesion, and perpetuates inequality. Here's a taste:
Suburbs not only segregate families from one another - and
increasingly, family members from one another - but segregate our
life-activities from one another. Zoning regulations forbid the
intermingling of commerce and "living," and hence few suburban settings
allow for the possibility of enacting commercial transactions in or
near the places where one lives. Compare the current suburban enclave -
where one must drive significant distances to purchase a distantly
produced gallon of milk or loaf of Wonder Bread (R)- to many older
American towns and cities (take, for example, the town where I live,
Alexandria, Virginia) or most European communities where families still
live above their shops and stores, where one's shopping can be done by
walking through one's town.
I commented at length on Dr. Pat's site, taking a comment by Joe Knippenberg as my starting point. Let me reproduce that comment here: Let me build on Joe K.'s comments. Living in an isolated small town
struggling to survive, and surrounded by even smaller towns fading from
existence, one sees that small town life can be idealized to the extent
it blurs reality. As Joe sugggests, at this point most small towns are
small because no one wants to live there. In my town there are plenty
of jobs, but not very many "white collar" jobs. So most kids, including
the college kids I teach, must look elsewhere for their career (or, if
you will, vocation). Indeed, in South Dakota , out migration of young
people is a major problem. In most small towns, unless you want to farm
or work as a clerk at the gas station, there are no jobs for you.
I
share Patrick's discomfort with modern life, with its consumerism,
frivolity, and isolating tendencies. But the alternative picture he
paints will certainly make us poorer than we otherwise would be, and
that's a problem. Does Patrick deny the efficiency created by the
modern economy, with its division of labor and economies of scale? This
has created massive amounts of wealth allowing Americans to live in
unbelievable comfort.
Now that comfort may also be hollowing
out our souls. It may produce countless gadgets with which to distract
ourselves (physician heal thyself!), a nihilistic popular culture that
thrives on vulgarity, and the reduction of all questions to ones of
either comfort or economic calculus. But, that same economy has
produced untold wealth that allows us to, say, treat childhood cancer
patients so they have a chance to live. Allows older people to get
artificial joints so they can lead lives free of constant pain. Creates
the MRI machines that allow us to do to see into the body in ways that
used to be done through invasive surgery. Allows the common man to
travel the world with relative ease to see things our grandparents only
dreamed of. These kinds of innovations do not come about in rustic,
self-sufficient, quaint neighborhoods and economies. This is why, for
example, in most of the world clean drinking water is still a dream.
It
may be that at the heart of the American (and perhaps the modern)
experiment lies a contradiction, indeed a tragedy. The desire for
Progress, indeed an almost religious faith in Progress, comes from a
very human desire to live a life of comfort, liberating one's self from
back breaking labor and conquering disease. That same faith in Progress
also neglects another part of the human soul that longs for community,
that seeks to know the infinite, that wants to pass on a certain way of
life to ones posterity in addition to passing on wealth and comfort.
This, I think, is at the heart of Tocqueville's discussion of religion
along side the "perfectibility of man." There is a war in the American
soul, and I think it is clear which side has won. I am with Dr. Pat in
lamenting that, but I think we should recognize the very reasonable
basis for the modern commercial life Dr. Pat deplores and the undoubted
good that it has produced.
Recent Comments