The Monochrome Society (review)

Communitarianism emerged over a decade ago as both a social philosophy and a social movement, with a platform, an organization, a journal, a Web site, and an indefatigable theorist and promoter. The theorist/promoter is sociologist and past American Sociological Association president Amitai Etzioni, who tirelessly carries the "communitarian message . . . to all who will listen." He has published a steady stream of articles, op-ed pieces, and books on communitarianism, including the manifesto of the movement, The Spirit of Community. In his many writings, as well as television and talk-radio appearances, Etzioni has sought to give definition to communitarianism and position it as a third way, as a viable alternative to both liberalism (of at least the individualist variety) and social conservatism, with practical political implications for building and sustaining a "good society."

In The Monochrome Society, a collection of thirteen previously published essays, Etzioni draws out implications of communitarian thought for a number of practical problems and philosophical issues. He does not devote much space to explaining communitarianism, but his central propositions are clear enough. Americans, despite our other differences, share a deep commitment to a set of "core" values or virtues (e.g., self-government, tolerance, importance of work) and so, in this sense, we are monochrome — all one color. However, as a society we have neglected these virtues and allowed self-indulgence and a sense of entitlement to get out of hand. There is an urgent need to reinvigorate our shared normative commitments, and proceduralism, value-neutrality, and reliance on state coercion will not do. Rather, this effort must focus on families and civic-minded communities because they and not the state should be the primary "moral voice" and transmitters of moral values, and because they can sustain virtuous behavior through informal processes allowing for less dependence on the law and the courts.

From these propositions, hedged in by various qualifiers — a good society cultivates only a "limited set" of core virtues, individual autonomy is always respected, and so on — Etzioni frames arguments on an assortment of issues. He contends that under certain circumstances, shaming might be preferable to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, that extending First Amendment rights to children is a bad idea because parents have a right and a duty to shape the educational environment of their children, and that all "stakeholders" in a corporation, including the employees and the local community, should be given a role in its governance. Expanding and modifying Emile Durkheim's theory of rituals, he explores holidays and rituals as seedbeds of virtue and sources of social integration. He assesses the relative strength of on-line communities for meeting basic human needs and considers the virtues of "voluntary simplicity" for freeing people from consumerism and developing a richer, more psychologically satisfying inner life. He surveys and applauds the rediscovery and developing effort to integrate social norms into the study of law and economics. Lastly, Etzioni highlights distinctive features of the communitarian approach vis-à-vis social conservatism, cultural relativism, identity politics, and the "civil society thesis." (Those who have read New Golden Rule will already be familiar with much of the terrain mapped by these distinctions.)

Each of the essays collected here is thoughtful and well written, even if at times not entirely satisfying. Etzioni, for instance, notes criticisms and counter-arguments to his positions but often stops short of really engaging them, content to make a brief response and then move on. More important than the merits of the particular essays, though, is the larger question of what they add up to. Etzioni rhetorically locates communitarianism between liberalism and social conservatism, but a fair-minded reader of The Monochrome Society might be forgiven for suspecting that it is simply an idiosyncratic blend of the two. Etzioni argues that communitarians have a more limited moral agenda than social conservatives and he at least implies that they countenance less government intervention than liberals. Besides splitting the difference, what is the position...