Conversation to Conference…
Conversation between Jay Knight, Vern Visick and Don Browning leading up to the January conference
Jay….Almost all the time we hear of a “sustainable economy” or “sustainable agriculture” we are talking about a new basis for our economy. But no one ever talks about a sustainable social structure. I don’t hear anyone commenting and thinking about the unsustainability of a society based upon autonomous individualism and personal choice. Personal choice as a “constitutional right”, no less. Do you know of anyone writing about sustainability in this way? How can you have anything like a “sustainable” economy when your moral social structure is degraded and fragmented? Is this not what Torah speaks of in Deut. 30:19?
———————
Vern: Over the long run, I donʼt believe that we can have a sustainable society without a sustainable family life (and interpersonal relationships generally, i.e., friendship relationships).
The negative side of this situation is the drivenness that comes out of disrupted family and primary social relationships, which when healthy introduce an element of mutuality and mutual care into relationships that is important in bringing forth the kind of person who rightly evaluates things at other levels, and is able to make good choices.
The kind of freedom you speak of in your note is what might be called “negative freedom,” freedom from, rather than “positive freedom,” or “freedom for the good.” In my opinion, only when one uses one’s freedom in the first sense to choose rightly for freedom in the second sense, do you have the basis for sustainable family, interpersonal and social relations.
The whole classical tradition reasons in this manner (both the Platonic and Aristotelian streams of it). In each of these systems, it is not the (simple) freedom to choose that one is after, but the freedom to choose rightly (all things considered, and in the light of the most profound wisdom of the race). You can read about the necessary quality of relationships about which we’re speaking in Erik Erikson’s series of books, beginning with Childhood and Society. The notion of positive freedom is also important in Niebuhr’s and Tillich’s systems, and in most of the classical theologians in church history (Hooker being one in the Anglican tradition, Aquinas in the Roman Catholic tradition).
However, there are two practical problems with the notion of positive freedom Iʼve outlined above.
One is, we may not fully understand or know the good which we ought to be reaching for (this is the reason why basic theological, psychological, and political studies, which seem abstract and useless to many people, are actually one of the most practical things a person can study, because they help us in scoping out the basic dynamics of the situation in which we wish to act). Further, there is always the complication of the historical situation, which may change one or another particular about our grasp of the concrete good toward which we need to act.
The other practical problem about what Iʼve outlined above is that we may indeed know the good, but find ourselves underpowered or distracted in relation to moving toward it (as the Apostle Paul says, there is another law in our members…)
These two problems are the reason why health in family relations, and in interpersonal and social relations generally, is a matter that requires not only serious, disciplined study, but also action that is informed by the nurturing, teaching and discipline of the church.
Without the quality of life described above, we may indeed move toward a sustainable society, but it probably will require a lot of coercion (as you see it outlined in Robert Heilbroner’s The Human Prospect). Or, nature itself, rebelling against the way in which we relate to it, will force the issue, and then we’ll HAVE to do what we ought to do to survive, not out of free choice, but out of necessity (like the person who has to have a heart attack to change his diet, rather than freely choosing beforehand to eat in such a way as to not set himself up for a heart attack).
Good questions, Jay, questions that the environmental movement would do well to dwell upon more than it does.
—————-
Jay: I think we should begin to work on a conference about moral sustainability. What do you think?
—————–
Vern: Maybe so, Jay. Could you backtrack a bit and describe to me what you were thinking, and why, just before you wrote your last questions to me? I have an impression about what you probably were thinking, but I’d rather hear it in your own words….
This will help us pinpoint some of the topics relevant for a possible conference.
——————-
Jay: …(for) quite some time…I have been thinking about a “good society” from the combination of a biblical and cultural anthropological point of view. Torah, defined as The Way, instead of The Law, forms a complete way to live, morally, religiously, spiritually, and economically. The ancient Hebrews were given a holistic way of life. To choose life, choose the righteous “social structure”, if you will. Choose the Way of Freedom, not the freedom to chase after our desires. Choose as Boaz and Ruth did. You can see how germane your own comments were about this subject. The Sabbath laws are quite to the point. They are theological, economic and social. In fact, one can see how such categories are products of our age, not theirs.
I began to contrast the ancient Hebrew “cultural way” with our own. Divorce, drugs, sexual outrageousness, and “blended” families is my Boomer way of life. I also noted that with the individualism I spoke of defined as a social value, or even as a virtue, we are in no position today to Choose Life, so that our children will live. That is to say, of course, so that our society will have a future.
In practice, this means that most people today have very little balance. Family dinners are less and less frequent. Everyone is literally running around all the time. Life becomes one giant errand.
(I just purchased a book called Home Alone America, by Mary Eberstadt, on this subject. Do you read her work in First Things ?)
And, you know, its can be worse–Mom’s new boyfriend, Dad’s new boyfriend. There is not stability in the family, and therefore, the society. No stability—no sustainability. I have no recourse but to use all the quick choices I can avail myself of to keep the home operating. I am a house Dad, a business owner, and foundation president, a cook, cleaner, etc. I shoot out to TJ’s, or the pizza place. I run out of this and that. How are we in the US to create a bioregional, “organic” community with such a lack of structure in our personal lives. The consumerist society esp. in the area of food is a function of our broken, unstructured families and society, I hypothesize.
In blended families, I have come to see we are still single parents 3/4 of the time. Also, the authority structure is almost non- existent with children looking at different homes with different stepparents, and parents who are simply unable to keep in proper communication despite their good intentions.
Hence, with no social structure built upon a solid moral ground, we can never create an economy that is built to function through the generations, expressed by the maintenance of soil fertility, and quality products built to last and built for most citizens, not simply the wealthy.
Finally, I should mention that it is not only the Hebrews who understood this, nor were they the only culture to understand and have gratitude for the structure of relationships gifted to them by God (God the Father, Holy Spirit, Great Spirit at the top and also, throughout their world). I can point out the structure of the Objibwe home….
I remember…trying to explain how we lived with our children and stepchildren to the Buddhist family in Sri Lanka. There sat the bricklayer and his family with confused looks on their faces as we described our “blended” family. I was so embarrassed and, yes, ashamed, but in our post-60s world, was I not always trying to do the best thing, trying to find love, happiness and, yuk, fulfillment?
The choices presented to us today are false, and the freedoms we have are false. As the man in the mitre told us some years ago, the West is choosing the culture of death. ———
Vern: Very helpful, Jay.
Let me list a few questions that occurred to me as I read your last note. Some, or all of them, might provide us with a structure for a conference.
Is the Boomer Way of Life Sustainable? Can it be wished for everyone, and can it be kept up indefinitely, or does it contain within itself (if not corrected) the seeds of its own destruction? In particular, when it comes to the “family crucible” (title of a book by a Madison author about fifteen years ago), does the Boomer Way of Life rise to the occasion in terms of helping us deal with the most basic family dynamics? If there are destructive forces involved, how do they unfold, and what can be done about them at the individual, family, social and church levels?
What do we need to know about the needs of children, for example, to help guide us in our critical thinking at this point? What do we need to know about the sources of marital stability in the contemporary setting that would help us begin to suggest a strategy to correct the Boomer Way of Life?
How does the Boomer Way of Life compare to the ancient Jewish Way, the contemporary Roman Catholic Way, and perhaps other versions of a (possibly) sustainable way of life? If the ethics we’re talking about involves a “restraint on desire” for the sake of a greater good, what is the nature of the good we’re after, and how do we get from here to there? Concretely, how is the restraint on desire to work out in practice?
More specifically, how might we evaluate the Boomer Way of Life sociologically, at the level of our common life (excluding politics and economics, for the moment)? For example, as far as the family is concerned, is small town America, these days, any healthier than suburban or urban America? What would a society organized in a sustainable way look like, and how would it compare to our society (which, arguably, is in danger of being absorbed by the market)?
How about the Boomer Way of Life economically? How is it an example of Schumpeter’s observation that capitalism tends to undercut the very virtues needed for its success? What kind of family and social structure is adequate enough, and strong enough, to stand up against the pressures and resulting anxieties of the market?
How about the Boomer Way of Life politically? What is the relationship of the Boomer Way of Life to traditional American values like individuality and autonomy? If these are values, what are other values which might “balance” them and ensure that the individuality and autonomy don’t become destructive? Is there a “way” in politics that is better than the way on which we’ve been set? Are we talking about “communitarianism” here, or something which includes and transcends this reform movement in American political life?
Does any other society around the world do a better job of balancing out these various matters than we do, and if so , how do they do it? In the US, what has happened to the political support for the family (remember, FDR’s “family wage” policy, among other family-relevant policies from the New Deal)? How might a better family policy be revived under contemporary conditions?
In your words, what would it mean to choose the “Way of Freedom” over the “Way of Desire?” What light from the past would help us judge this question? Can one simply import an ancient “Way,” or are there special difficulties in doing so, and if so, what are they? Do we have any current examples of people and groups doing just this kind of updating, and how is it going with their efforts? Is the Roman Catholic “consistent ethic of life” what we’re talking about when we speak of the “Way of Freedom,” or are we shooting for something that might include, but transcend, the Roman Catholic ethic?
Is it possible to keep some of the more positive values of the Boomer Way of Life and combine them with other (presumably healthier) Ways? If so, do we have any practical examples to look at, and can we tap into the wisdom of those who have been trying to do just this bit of integration?
When considering the virtue of ancient Ways, what does Jesus have to add to the discussion (remember, he is reported to have said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life…”) Does Jesus’ way presuppose, but add to, other ancient ways? How does this business of affirming but supplementing work out in practice, especially in our contemporary setting?
Yes, I know of Mary Eberstadt. Around 2001-2002 she wrote some of the best pieces on the sexual exploitation of young males by Roman Catholic priests. More recently, she has written such pieces as “Why Ritalin Rules?”, “Is Food the New Sex?”, and “Why I Turned Right.” Her article on food, by the way, discusses the kind of women who go to Whole Foods and are extremely particular about what they put into their bodies, but think nothing of having sex on the first date…I know several West Siders who are like this. Mary is a Roman Catholic, by the way….
—————————–
Vern Visick here, to Don (Browning).
Hello! This is my question to you, Don:
Does the notion of an “ecology” of family ethics make sense to you? How about the idea of a “sustainable” family ethic? In general, or in particular, in relation to the life style of contemporary young urban professionals? Has anyone written anything that you’re aware of in the area of family ethics using these terms, and if so, could you provide me with a few references?
The reason I ask is that a friend of mine, prominent in environmental ethics and politics, got to thinking recently about the way (in the environmentally oriented Madison community) that we speak of “sustainable” agriculture or economics, but never of sustainable family or social relations, and he wondered whether we could have the former, over the long run, without the latter.
Below is a written interchange (lightly edited) we had over this question. His comments are in italics, and mine in plain script. Any comments by you would be most welcome!
I hope the summer is treating you well…. Vern
—————————
Don Browning to Vern:
Vernon,
Yes, the ecology of families does make sense to me and it is a light motif through my writings. It needs to be developed. At one time I thought about writing a book that bridges the space between ecology and ethics from a theological point of view, but I have been derailed because of several other projects, especially a big book on law I am writing with John Witte, a legal scholar. In that book, we are reconstructing natural law and that has plenty of implications for ecology although we will not be developing that as we should, or could.
In glancing over the index of From Culture Wars to Common Ground (1997, 2000), there are over 20 references to some aspect of the ecology of families discussion. That does not include the many references to “evolutionary ecology,” of which there are several in that book.
The word “ecology” does not show up in the index of Marriage and Modernization (2003), but any time I am discussing the evolutionary psychological substrata of families, I am talking ecology. But, as I indicated above, it can and should be developed much more.
I too have noticed that liberals – and I count myself as one – can talk affirmatively about an ecology of nature but think this has nothing to do with human families, which they believe are largely a matter of social construction.
I do not know of others working directly on the bridge between ecology and family, although the evolutionary psychologists implicitly are talking about this. See my discussions of this material in the books above and in Equality and the Family (2007).
If you find something on this, let me know. Always good to hear from you.
Warm regards, Don
New College Madison 
Leave a comment