Of Communitarians and Christians

Patrick Deneen at Georgetown University has a piece arguing that George Bailey (of It's a Wonderful Life fame) is not so heroic after all; that he is actually the destroyer of Bedford Falls. Here's a revealing highlight:

"Attempting to comprehend what has happened, and refusing to believe Clarence’s explanations, George attempts to retrace his steps. He recalls that this awful transformation first occurred when he was at Martini’s bar, and decides to seek out Martini at home. Martini, in the first reality, is one of the beneficiaries of George’s assistance when he is able to purchase a home in Bailey Park; however, in the alternate reality without George, of course the subdivision is never built. Still refusing to believe what has transpired, George makes his way through the forest where Bailey Park would have been, but instead ends in front of the town’s old cemetery outside town. Facing the old gravestones, Clarence asks, “Are you sure Martini’s house is here?” George is dumbfounded: “Yes, it should be.” George confirms a horrific suspicion: Bailey Park has been built atop the old cemetery. Not only does George raze the trees, but he commits an act of unspeakable sacrilege. He obliterates a sacred symbol of Bedford Fall’s connection with the past, the grave markers of the town’s ancestors. George Bailey’s vision of a modern America eliminates his links with his forebears, covers up the evidence of death, supplies people instead with private retreats of secluded isolation, and all at the expense of an intimate community, in life and in death."

You can find the rest on Front Porch Republic if you like. My response to this was "Let the dead bury the dead". Do you agree? Sub-question: Is Prof. Deneen's communitarian-ism reconcilable with Christianity, which is a fundamentally cosmopolitan religion?

On Giving: No, Not a Review of Bill Clinton's New Book

Nicholas Kristof writes that studies indicate that people of a more conservative disposition tend to give more to charity than those who live in Blue States. But Kristof qualifies this by writing that gays are one of the most charitable demographics in society (though he does point out that this might be because they are less likely to have children and therefore have more to give.) What I want to focus on is the implications of the bracketed information.

Charity is generally defined--in this day and age--as noble spending or, otherwise, spending which contributes to the common good, rather than merely sating the hedonism of one consuming individual. Generally, I accept this definition, but I think that society applies it too liberally in some areas and not liberally enough in others.

For instance, as Kristof indicates in his article, many in the moneyed class will contribute to a symphony or maybe a museum. But is this form of giving charity? Is it actually performed to serve society--composed of people--or is it meant to sustain culture--composed of artifacts? Is it the love of human dignity which puts the signature on the check, or is it the love of th dignity of the humanities which does so?

On the other hand, parents spend interminable amounts of money upon their children in areas of education, food, shelter, etc. Even so, this is generally not regarded as charity. I will grant that if charity is defined in the traditional sense as caritas or inspecific love, this is contrary to the very idea of family which is always specific. But still, by the modern definition of charity--i.e. noble spending--this form of spending is clearly more noble than is an investment in the city orchestra.

The New Adultescents: An Exercise in Definition

Adultescent, n.

A twenty-something who . . .

Which is the best definition?

1. Does not live with his parents but still refers to their house as "home"

2. Is not and has not been married

3. Does not work at a long-term job

4. Likes "The Simpsons," "Family Guy," and "World of Warcraft"

5. Is the offspring of yuppies

6. Knows the relative trade-offs between an X-box and Playstation

7. Was either a business or creative-writing major in college

8. Likes the same Things That White People Like

9. Takes his/her boyfriend/girlfriend to an album release party for the first date

10. Favors the bong and pipe over the cigar or cigarette.

Brideshead Won't Need Any Visiting, I Suppose

Interesting to me, though it bears very little weight to any reader I am sure: I have found out today that I am not related to any famous English aristocrats as was once believed. Disproved by DNA tests, apparently. Still related to Southern aristocracy, but, then again, the Southern branch of the family disowned the Western branch long ago.

Feeling Like Woody Harrelson on SNL

I always hated computers and cars; apropos, I was never particularly good with either of them. It is interesting, though, that working in a computer store has begun to make me realize that technology is actually pretty cool. I feel kind of like Woody Harrelson in that Sprockets episode of Saturday Night Live which came out in the wake of the Berlin Wall collapsing. In that classic comedy skit Woody Harrelson plays a devoutly East German socialist philosopher who is finally being interviewed by his progressive western worshippers; much to these people's surprise (and chagrin) their hero has come to reject communism and embrace capitalism. What changed his mind? One round on the gameboy.

Progressive Intolerance

I heard an interesting story recently. Studies suggest that progressives are 17% more likely than conservatives to say that they not only hate the views of people on the other side of the political spectrum, but that they hate the people themselves. This does not necessarily mean that conservatives are more moral than progressives (they aren't), but it doesn't speak well of the progressive value of "diversity" if those who propagate it are unwilling to tolerate people who hold views different from their own.

Three Generations That Didn't Shake the World

A few days ago, an odd sociological phenomenon which makes very little sense occurred to me. Namely, that the Baby Boomers were the first generation to beget (meaning have) children who filled two other generations. The spawn of the Boomers are represented by both Generation X (people born between '65 and 79) and Generation Y (people born between '80 and '95). This might mean the people are living longer and, therefore, extending the time period over which they choose to have children. But the solution that I find by far more likely is that the country, as a whole, is becoming wealthier; this was what allowed for Generation Y. Generation X were the children that were begat (not a real word, I know, but it should be) during the summer of love and Woodstock concert. They were born because their hippie parents couldn't afford birth-control pills or condoms. Generation Y, on the other hand, was born because their Yuppie parents (Boomers whose parents were Republicans) were able to afford not to wear condoms or take birth control; they could pay for a nanny, boarding school tuition and college fees. What is consistent about all three of these American generations is that none of them is particularly impressive, nor are there many in any of these generations who accomplished anything. The Boomers are perhaps the people who were radical until they needed to get a job, the Generation X's are the cynics who are entrepreneurial, and the YGens are still yet to have any notable members. But at least we're not of the MFA guild.

Material Objects and What They Mean

Somewhat strangely, I am writing my 26th post on the 25th day of the month. This is to say that I am writing on Christmas. I hate working on Christmas, but I want to have at least one post every day. So here are a few notes on the Christmas season:

Recently (meaning within the past fifty years) Dr. Seuss, Pope Benedict and a new documentary called "What Would Jesus Buy?" have protested the materialization of Christmas. I understand where they are coming from. Nothing is more important about Christmas than remembering the birth of Christ--that's what Christmas is for, actually--and something about some rich man somewhere getting some friends some presents which are all the same just seems wrong. But I think that the critics of Christmas--as is--should devote more attention to distinguishing between material goods and materialism.

Yes, materialism is a problem. I don't think that we ought to love inanimate objects in the way that we love people; you can quote me on that. And while I think that receiving is a charitable action in the same way, though perhaps to a lesser degree, that giving is, I do not think that it should be the only part of the Christmas experience that we value. (Oddly enough, it is the people who do not go to shopping malls to enjoy only receiving.) But giving is an act of charity, and, while we ought to give spiritual gifts as well as material, material gifts are also things to be valued. They are, in a sense, an expression of affection, much in the same way that money is an expression of labor. For this reason, while some people may moralize about materialism, I am not discouraged. Of course, it may be true that people buy to distract them from the true meaning of the holidays, but the fact that they are buying for others, rather than themselves, is a marked improvement from what is experienced far too often. And for this reason, I think people crowding into shopping malls during this time of year, on communal rather than cultural grounds, is something to advocate, not to condemn.