Here are three complementary articles on the decline of middle America, the idea of the local (and its discontents), and some speculation on the future of the wide, anonymous country between the two coasts. There are plenty of observations to agree with, plenty to quibble with, and as this is a blog, I choose to quibble with Daniel Larison, who says with admirable concision:
The cosmopolites, as Prof. Deneen calls them, see many of the advantages of localism but want none of the obligations. They are starved for what it provides, and so wish to escape the confines of their way of life, but they are unwilling to enter into the confines of the local, perhaps because they prefer status rather than happiness or perhaps because they have become so accustomed to the life of the displaced tourist that they cannot imagine being still for any prolonged period of time. The locavore and organic food habits that serve as proof that their way of life is in important ways unsatisfying are themselves a temporary remedy that serves to fill in the gaps and mask the costs of their way of life. The locals, meanwhile, want the products that the world of the cosmopolites can provide, and, as Jeremy argued, many of them want to enter into that world, never fully understanding that their homes will change dramatically and often for the worse as a result of their departure.While partly true, this is poorly observed, a high-altitude view that fails to see the fine gradations of terrain available to the man on the ground. Some of the so-called cosmopolites seek "the advantages of localism but . . . none of the obligations." I suspect that in addition to trendy, green-washed celebrities, the person that Deenan and Larrison have in mind here is the proverbial affluent liberal, who buys local produce, but mostly at Whole Foods, who has a Prius, but also a BMW X5, who buys low-energy bulbs, but uses them to light a 3,000 sq. ft. house, who likes the neighborhood but also takes two far-flung vacations a year. We have a fair number of this sort on Pittsburgh's East End, but surely they're yet more common in the Boston or D.C. metropoles.
Frankly, though, in my experience and observation, the majority of support for local agriculture or urban reclamation originates not in the lawyerly upper echelons of social liberalism but among younger, educated-but-middle-income singles and families resettling in cities like my own Pittsburgh. These may not be people willing to return to the small towns of Indiana, where there remains such a dearth of opportunity that returning would promise only inescapable poverty, but they are migrating to infill the previously declining neighborhoods of some of America's rust belt. Hell, I even saw some promising signs in Buffalo on a recent trip. I'm not a sentimentalist about this, and don't think that post-hipster art farters are going to save the mid-sized American city, but I do think that intellectual commitments to localism as well as the purer economic drivers such as the search for low-cost housing will continue to support this trend for the foreseeable future.
Larison quotes Deenan:
This, in a microcosm, is a central paradox of our political system: our cosmopolite meritocrats theoretically admire localism but abhore [sic] the idea of living within the confines that such life would entail; our Red-State locals tend to despise cosmopolites, but support (and vote for) an economic system that encourages borderlessness, placelessness, and a profoundly abstract economy that has the effect of eviscerating those very localities. This arrangement is one of the central features undermining the localist cause today, and it’s difficult to see how it will be reversed.I don't think it's so difficult to see how it will be reversed. This arrangement is also wholly temporary. WalMart is a behemoth, yes, but a vulnerable one. Its network of far-flung production and distribution is not sustainable. The model of producing cheaply in Asia and shipping cheaply to the US and Europe cannot continue indefinitely. The cost of labor in Asia is rising, and although the cost of petroleum is still far down from its previous highs, anyone with half a semester of statistics can plot the trend lines and see that the cost of ships, planes, trains, and automobiles will increase.
Meanwhile, although Glen Reynolds and the transhumanist mafia may not get their borg bodies just yet, it is true that the future of manufacturing, whether clothing or electronics or tools to till the soil, is specialized, local, made-to-specification. The economic infeasibility of far-flung mass production and the ongoing advances in production and materials science are going to have repurcussions for the way we live, and it seems to me that there may yet be a medium to be reached in our self-sustaining little enclaves, a three-dimensional printer in every pot, a modest nuclear deterrent in every grain silo.
13 comments:
Larison is usually spot on but I agree this is off the mark. No, I don't think that joining a CSA and a carshare, riding a bicycle and renting an apartment smaller than I might justify, etc. add up to a return to the soil, but enough people doing such things does change the character of a city over time, and it's good for the people doing them. Of course I'm not in favor of greenwashing fraud, but I think he's too easily dismissing an entire microclass that's actually doing something to build useful infrastructure and institutions.
I prefer to think of them as effluent liberals.
"they are unwilling to enter into the confines of the local, perhaps because they prefer status rather than happiness ..."
Wait a minute wait a minute -- you mean high status isn't happiness?
Not to worry, though, you have squabbles over pecking order in even the smallest communities.
effluent liberals. LOL!
nothing is sustainable. I myself am growing big bags of stfu in my concrete backyard.
there's always partial extinction to fall back on.
Commenting on hairbrained screeds on these here topics should be infra dig for you man. Srsly, as they say on that site about animals being cute.
Hear hear, Montag. I'm always pleased to see someone representing the Chicxulub contingent.
Fuck, those three complimentary articles make me annoyed.
"The locavore and organic food habits that serve as proof that their way of life is in important ways unsatisfying are themselves a temporary remedy that serves to fill in the gaps and mask the costs of their way of life"
Er... not that he's wrong, but if we want to talk about masking the true costs of Americans' way of life, can we talk gas and agricultural subsidies propping up unsustainable rural existence?
Of course, I'm with the commenters who note that nothing is sustainable. The nostalgia in these three articles for some imagined mid-20th century "culture" passed on within a local community is pretty suspect factually, and the ideas put forth to encourage acceptance of "the idiocy of rural life" (as Marx put it) -- such as tax on immigrants (I don't know how else to interpret Deneen's proposal) -- are repulsive.
I admit that Deneen's critique of meritocracy appeals to me emotionally, but at root it's a critique of the foundations of American society. There was no prelapsarian cultural paradise in this country at least -- "traditional communities" in the USA meant slave plantations and intruders on Mexican and Indian land. Resigning yourself to a life of slavery or sharecropping hardly seems like an appealing alternative to capitalist rootlessness.
nobody is ever going to be happy.
Beer (in the first article linked) does not mention The Rise of the Meritocracy, written in 1958 by British Labour politician Michael Young, in which the very word "meritocracy" was coined
His comment that "others with more leftish sympathies support severely curtailing liberties through a large centralized bureaucratic apparatus that attempts to mitigate somewhat the inevitable inequalities produced by meritocratic freedom" suggests that he does not see that most of what he describes as being the result of meritocracy is actually the result of the historical development of capitalism
(Meaning that meritocracy was not some bad choice that people back then made, which should and could be undone now if people just wanted to - meritocracy is a necessary feature of advanced capitalism)
Didn't Woody Allen say something about capitalism being meritocratic when it's done right?
"nobody is ever going to be happy."
I take comfort in this.
Post a Comment