Our church’s small “academic” discussion group convened last night to discuss a trio of short essays by Caleb Stegall (including this one from the New Pantagruel) focusing on the concepts of place and community as a response to unbridled liberalism (in the traditional, political sense of liberalism). Stegall’s general line of thought contends that modernism and liberalism have uprooted our connections to place and community — we are nothing more than individuals whose only connections are voluntary ones — we are bound to little more than our whims.

We shared several conclusions. First, we all agreed with Stegall’s assessment of the modern condition — that is, we as a culture are not well-grounded to either place or community. As he says:

It was easier for civil society to flourish when people were stuck?with a family, a job, a church, or a community. But in the modern world, people are rarely stuck anywhere, or with anyone. We moderns are mobile partly because it is easier and cheaper than ever to seek greener pastures in the next state or on the other side of the globe. But we are also mobile because civil society itself has taught us to be. One need look no farther than higher education, site of Anna Quindlen?s paean to radical individualism.

Several of the “real” academics noted that academia, by its very nature, tends to displace its members. Should you choose to attend graduate school, you will doubtlessly be uprooted to attend the school of your choice. Five to seven years later, you will be uprooted again during your job search. And with tenure and better offers, you are not guaranteed you won’t be uprooted again. Does this imply that pursuing academics is a distinctly liberal, modern pursuit? Perhaps. But should we reject it strictly for that reason?

There was also some trepidation expressed about Stegall’s distrust of individualism. While the idea of complete community is attractive, total integration into a community (meaning the complete loss of individuality) ignores the fact that we are, in fact, individuals. If the nuances of our personalities are not fostered, our spiritual life will suffer. At some point in such a community, we will realize that we don’t quite conform with the group, or vice-versa. It was also pointed that while conservative favorite son Wendell Berry favored the agrarian structure of community and family, his characters are also what we might call “rugged individualists.” Yet these individualists understand their larger participation in family and community, and understand their responsibility lies not strictly with themselves, but with that community.

Ultimately, Stegall is advocating “resisting the disorders of the age.” The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and we aren’t to put him back. We enjoy the fruits of the Enlightenment each day, and we can’t turn back the clock. We can, however, swim against the current a bit and find those lost connections to our family, community, and place.

Posted on 29 April 2005