FROM THE ARCHIVES
[ home | archives | e-mail ]
Crunchy Copout
[Caleb Stegall 02/23 08:52 AM]Rod said: “I don't have any answers for resolving this tension, except to hope and pray that my sons want to live close to their mom and dad, and have the economic freedom to do so.” I want to lean on that sentiment a little and see if it isn’t something of a crunchy copout. We have all been paying lip service, of one kind or another, to the virtues of sacrifice, self-discipline, putting others before oneself, etc. However, I notice that there is the tendency, always, of always adding the caveats: “If I want to” and “If I have the economic freedom to do so.” This, frankly, is the language of choice; the language of liberalism. It reveals something important to note that even when self-described crunchy cons or their fellow travelers get together, they (we) cannot wholly avoid speaking in the language of liberalism. The effect of this is to undermine any gain in cultural or spiritual order that Rod’s prescriptions might otherwise offer. Because living the crunchy life is just one more option laid out on liberalism’s table of goodies. Do it if you want to. Do it if you can afford it. Crunchy conservatism is in danger of becoming just another political affectation of the rich. It could easily be sucked into the black hole of American public life that exists at the confluence of identity politics and niche marketing.
So if we want to talk about developing real virtue and a life nourished on more than bread alone, we need to stop and critically examine our own desire and the real meaning of economic necessity. I would suggest that moving far away from one’s kin is virtually never a true economic necessity and almost always rooted in selfish desire. Consider the purposes behind the Benedictine “vow of stability,” described this way: The vow of stability . . . becomes the guarantee of success and permanence. It is only another example of the family idea that pervaded the entire Rule, by means of which the members of the community are bound together by a family tie, and each takes upon himself the obligation of persevering in his monastery until death, unless sent elsewhere by his superiors. It secures to the community as a whole, and to every member of it individually, a share in all the fruits that may arise from the labours of each monk, and it gives to each of them that strength and vitality which necessarily result from being one of a united family, all bound in a similar way and all pursuing the same end. Thus, whatever the monk does, he does it not as an independent individual but as part of a larger organization, and the community itself thus becomes one united whole rather than a mere agglomeration of independent members. I am not suggesting that everyone must become Benedictine and swear to the Rule. But there is wisdom here for all. I wrote on these themes several years ago in an essay called “Practicing the Discipline of Place” which can be found online here by interested readers.
|
