On Localism

The following is an article that was published on the T&G website on my new blog, Locally Grown. I thought you Chestertonians might find it interesting.

Best,

AFZ


Did I mention that I’m an amateur philosopher? Well, I am. I won’t bore you with all of my philosophical meanderings, but I will make some case for the philosophical basis for localism. By 'localism' I mean an emphasis on your immediate community in terms of economics, recreation, and politics. Our culture has become more and more 'global', which is not per se a bad thing. Globalism has brought significant economic growth for large swaths of world population. But, I would argue, globalism has over-extended itself in many areas to the detriment of, again, large swaths of world population.

The guiding principle, for me, in discussions of 'globalism' vs. 'localism' is something called the Principle of Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity states that all institutions should function at the lowest hierarchical level at which they are effective. Stated simply, it says that “Small is Beautiful”. There are some things, like building jets, that can’t be done effectively at a local level. But there are other things, like making hamburgers, that can be done quite well at a local level. And not only can hamburgers be made locally, there will be more benefits to sourcing, producing, and buying your burgers locally.

There are many reasons for this, but here is a briefly stated list that outlines the benefits of buying your burgers (or art supplies, or tires, or real estate services) from a local, independent business:

1. Several studies have shown that when you buy from an independent, locally owned business, rather than a nationally owned businesses, significantly more of your money is used to make purchases from other local businesses, service providers, and farms - continuing to strengthen the economic base of the community.
2. Non-profit organizations receive an average 250% more support from smaller business owners than they do from large businesses.
3. Where we shop, where we eat, and have fun - all of it makes our community home. Our one-of-a-kind businesses are an integral part of the distinctive character of this place.
4. Locally owned businesses can make more local purchases requiring less transportation and generally set up shop in town or city centers as opposed to developing on the fringe. This generally means contributing less to sprawl, congestion, habitat loss and pollution.
5. Small local businesses are the nation's largest employer, and often provide employees with more opportunities for professional growth, personal development, and advancement.
6. Local businesses often hire people with a better understanding of the products they are selling and take more time to get to know customers.
7. Local businesses are owned by people who live in this community, are less likely to leave, and are more invested in the community’s future.
8. Local businesses in town centers require comparatively little infrastructure investment and make more efficient use of public services as compared to nationally owned stores entering the community.
9. A marketplace of tens of thousands of small businesses is the best way to ensure innovation and low prices over the long-term. A multitude of small businesses, each selecting products based not on a national sales plan but on their own interests and the needs of their local customers, guarantees a much broader range of product choices.
10. A growing body of economic research shows that in an increasingly homogenized world, entrepreneurs and skilled workers are more likely to invest and settle in communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character.

I'm not anti-growth, and as I said, I believe that some businesses best function at a large, international level. But I believe that we have been sold a bill of goods when we are told that it's all about the bottom line. Sure, McDonalds can get me a hamburger in two minutes for 99 cents. But, to paraphrase Hilaire Belloc, "Industrialism has ensured that all over the world men can enjoy exactly the same bad wine." McDonald's has ensured that we all have access to the same bad hamburgers, almost to exclusion.

It's hard to take a stand for localism without some bashing of globalism. But the point is not to bash, but to point out the benefits of local, independent businesses. Personally, I find the investments that I make with local businesses always pay off. Even though I can't buy a can opener anywhere but Wal Mart or Target, there are lots of opportunities to support local businesses. I think it's an investment you won't regret.

Faithful Presence

A fairly interesting discussion of the Christian impact on culture is to be found on Christianity Today's website here.

The article is an interview with James Davison Hunter, author of To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Mr. Hunter's primary hypothesis is that cultural impact is not merely a factor of the quantity of material that a group or school contributes to the public sphere, but also a factor of the vehicles by which it arrives there. An interesting contrast brought up in the discussion is the fact that Christian publishing generates revenues of $10 billion annualy but is not at all discussed in the New York Times Review of Books. It is an example of structures of cultural elites controlling access to the cultural discussion.

How is it that American public life is so profoundly secular when 85 percent of the population professes to be Christian? If a culture were simply the sum total of beliefs, values, and ideas that ordinary individuals hold, then the United States would be a far more religious society. Looking at our entertainment, politics, economics, media, and education, we are forced to conclude that the cultural influence of Christians is negligible. By contrast, Jews, who compose 3 percent of the population, exert significant cultural influence disproportionate to their numbers, notably in literature, art, science, medicine, and technology. Gays offer another example. Minorities would have no effect if culture were solely about ideas, but that's clearly not the case.

His prescription is something he calls "Faithful Presence", as well as a thoughtful dialogue with the centers of cultural influence. Both are, I think, Chestertonian in nature.

Faithful Presence, in essence, is an abandonment of Nietzschean principles of 'will to power' by allowing Christian influence to permeate society through, well, actual Christian charity. According to Mr. Hunter, looking to change the culture directly is an adoption of the principles of power that Christians are railing against in the first place.

This does not constitute an abandonment of dialogue, but rather an insertion of Christian ideas into the intellectual conversation in a way that is inherently Christian in execution. So not just the end of the intellectual discussion (or the discussion of law, morals, art, etc.) must be Christian, but the means by which that discussion is engaged. The whole process must be recognizable as Christian, throughout.

This is where Mr. Hunter's thinking is reflecting G.K. Chesterton the most. Chesterton was not only known as a Christian in thought, but he was also perceived to be a Christian in his style, manner, bearing, and in all his dealings. He was a joy to be around, even when he disagreed with you.

It reminds me of a maxim of St. Josemaria Escriva: "Be firm in doctorine, but pliant in manner." The combination of charity in thought and deed is thoroughly Chestertonian.

The stakes are high, in that it is our ability to be Christian in the public sphere that is at stake. But I believe that Mr. Hunter's thesis is a useful reflection that reminds us that Our Lord said that as Christians we would be known by our love for each other.