I very much agree with the non-partisan approach. I do worry that our institutions and movement groups are too explicitly coding with a "left"/Democratic agenda, especially around identity politics narratives and positions. It will make it even harder to build broad-based solidarity if they continue down this path.
I mostly share your critique of the "inward" turn to worship at the empty shrine of the self, which makes an ironic purported antidote to loneliness (with the caveat that there is nonetheless a place for a healthy degree of introspection and self-knowledge). But I see another irony in juxtaposing that with a self-declared embrace of left-libertarianism and flight from institutions as such - and particularly from the Church, which is not MERELY an institution but, more importantly, a Body, a community (in both a local and a universal sense) of disciples-in-training. I may be idealizing here, but maybe that's the point. (Also, so did Dorothy, and much to her credit.) We all need each other and are "members one of another" as St. Paul put it; each member needs the Body.
As for the characterization of Strong Towns as right-libertarian, my first thought (admittedly as somewhat more of a casual follower) was that that's absurd on its face: they're not libertarian, they're communitarian. My second thought was that the only way I can think of that one might reach that conclusion is if one has not learned to think outside the individualism/statism dichotomy and thus assumes that anything critical of the latter must belong to the former (or vice-versa). Communitarianism is the antidote to both.
Well, Elias, if you've moved from theocratic socialism to left-libertarianism, I suppose that's a relative improvement, but you can do better.
Julia! Always happy to hear from you and to have your thoughts.
You seem to be reading a good deal into my comments--such as assuming because I've more or less left the institution, I no longer consider myself part of the Body. Oh contraire, as my Texas relatives might say.
As for left-libertarianism, labels are slippery but it seems pretty clear that Dorothy's public acknowledgement of her anarchism (as she so described herself publicly on several occasions) has a great deal to do with that affiliation. She and Peter swore by Kropotkin, Berdyaev, Schumacher...all of them part of a tradition which is also known as left libertarianism. For a scholarly take on Dorothy's anarchism, here's an excellent historical essay: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I03MwaZ3putqzPf_sG-hcWJxBPo9XzOt/edit.
So I'm with Dorothy!
Finally, as far as Strong Towns goes, the organization is indeed mostly focused on building up communities, broadly speaking. That does not in itself make it communitarian--it could attempt this using Reaganomics, after all. And Chuck Marohn has referred to himself several times as a libertarian of a conservative stripe.
If you read Allison's appreciative but carefully critical article closely (or watch her recent comments in this webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ40ugh5_Z4&t=6s), you'll see that she's correct about ST's efforts to depoliticize money (who imagines that's even possible?), to revise some urban history, and to take subsidiarity (larger-scale projects where necessary for the common good) out of planning.
Tug-of-war over Dorothy aside, I maintain that libertarianism of any ideological flavor is too individualistic and isolating to be conducive to a healthy society (or community).
Ecclesiologically, the question remains whether it's possible to be a part of the Body essentially by oneself. Is that not a contradiction?
My article about strong towns from last week https://neighborhoodeconomics.org/meet-strong-towns-important-new-partners-in-our-work/
Great to see! I think NebrEcon will be a great influence on ST!
I very much agree with the non-partisan approach. I do worry that our institutions and movement groups are too explicitly coding with a "left"/Democratic agenda, especially around identity politics narratives and positions. It will make it even harder to build broad-based solidarity if they continue down this path.
I mostly share your critique of the "inward" turn to worship at the empty shrine of the self, which makes an ironic purported antidote to loneliness (with the caveat that there is nonetheless a place for a healthy degree of introspection and self-knowledge). But I see another irony in juxtaposing that with a self-declared embrace of left-libertarianism and flight from institutions as such - and particularly from the Church, which is not MERELY an institution but, more importantly, a Body, a community (in both a local and a universal sense) of disciples-in-training. I may be idealizing here, but maybe that's the point. (Also, so did Dorothy, and much to her credit.) We all need each other and are "members one of another" as St. Paul put it; each member needs the Body.
As for the characterization of Strong Towns as right-libertarian, my first thought (admittedly as somewhat more of a casual follower) was that that's absurd on its face: they're not libertarian, they're communitarian. My second thought was that the only way I can think of that one might reach that conclusion is if one has not learned to think outside the individualism/statism dichotomy and thus assumes that anything critical of the latter must belong to the former (or vice-versa). Communitarianism is the antidote to both.
Well, Elias, if you've moved from theocratic socialism to left-libertarianism, I suppose that's a relative improvement, but you can do better.
Julia! Always happy to hear from you and to have your thoughts.
You seem to be reading a good deal into my comments--such as assuming because I've more or less left the institution, I no longer consider myself part of the Body. Oh contraire, as my Texas relatives might say.
As for left-libertarianism, labels are slippery but it seems pretty clear that Dorothy's public acknowledgement of her anarchism (as she so described herself publicly on several occasions) has a great deal to do with that affiliation. She and Peter swore by Kropotkin, Berdyaev, Schumacher...all of them part of a tradition which is also known as left libertarianism. For a scholarly take on Dorothy's anarchism, here's an excellent historical essay: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I03MwaZ3putqzPf_sG-hcWJxBPo9XzOt/edit.
So I'm with Dorothy!
Finally, as far as Strong Towns goes, the organization is indeed mostly focused on building up communities, broadly speaking. That does not in itself make it communitarian--it could attempt this using Reaganomics, after all. And Chuck Marohn has referred to himself several times as a libertarian of a conservative stripe.
If you read Allison's appreciative but carefully critical article closely (or watch her recent comments in this webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ40ugh5_Z4&t=6s), you'll see that she's correct about ST's efforts to depoliticize money (who imagines that's even possible?), to revise some urban history, and to take subsidiarity (larger-scale projects where necessary for the common good) out of planning.
Meilleurs voeux!
Tug-of-war over Dorothy aside, I maintain that libertarianism of any ideological flavor is too individualistic and isolating to be conducive to a healthy society (or community).
Ecclesiologically, the question remains whether it's possible to be a part of the Body essentially by oneself. Is that not a contradiction?