This is the first of a two-part series on the critical role of neighbourhoods in providing families with a supportive environment and preparing individuals for the demands of citizenship. Today we consider the distinctive advantages of neighbourhoods as vehicles of socialisation and training camps in good citizenship, compared with national and international societies.1
Aristotle once remarked that human beings are “social animals.” This fundamental truth is the unavoidable starting-point for any realistic view of the human condition. We can neither survive nor thrive outside the context of a community. None of us, no matter how independent, free-spirited, or intelligent, has gotten to where he or she is purely “by their own bootstraps.” Each of us has gotten to where we are, at least to a large extent, because of the education, love, support, and knowledge we have received from our parents, siblings, friends, colleagues, or teachers.
The Future of Our Society Depends on the Quality of Our Communities
The future of our society depends on the quality of the communities each of us inhabits, and their capacity to confer a sense of meaning and purpose on our life, and provide us with a form of life infused with virtues such as prudence, justice, moderation, empathy, solidarity, and public service.
If we are deprived of this sort of context for personal growth, we may find ourselves at sea, alienated from our society and its public institutions, and uncertain how to contribute to the common good. If ethically mature communities become eroded or marginalised, society may become ethically vacuous, consumeristic, and even barbaric.
The typical modern expression of the erosion of community life is individualism, that is, a way of life centred overwhelmingly on the individual and his or her concerns, largely decontextualised from the values, demands and responsibilities of living in a specific, embodied community. In a highly individualistic society, individuals are less conscious of their ancestors and their place in history, and feel less integrated into a coherent and resilient community and value system.
The Rise of Individualism
A well-worn theme of modern moral philosophy and sociology is the progressive erosion of community structures, and the advance of a more individualistic way of life, that is, a way of life in which the individual tends to conceive himself or herself as forging their own independent, socially disembedded path through the world, rather than finding their life inscribed within a cohesive community with a shared set of rituals, values, and purposes.2
The weakening of social supports for family life as well as the progressive uncoupling of individual life projects from the guidance of community norms, customs and histories, threatens basic human goods, such as social reproduction, stable social mores and the integration of individuals into welcoming communities.
Below, I argue that neighbourhoods are uniquely well positioned to provide individuals with a grounded sense of community, identity and belonging, and to prepare them for the responsibilities of citizenship. If I am right, then we ought to do everything we reasonably can to rehabilitate small and medium scale neighbourhoods as embodied, territorial communities within which individuals and families can situate and orient their life projects and aspirations.
The Concept and Functions of a “Neighbourhood”
Let’s begin by defining what we mean by a neighbourhood and surveying some of its social functions. Later, we will consider its comparative advantages as a context for the development of vibrant and virtuous communities, when compared with other types of social unit.
The term “neighbourhood,” as its etymology suggests, refers to the geographic and social space that is populated by “neighbours,” or individuals in more or less close proximity to each other, (i) in geographic terms (living not too far from each other), (ii) in social and cultural terms (sharing a social space and having certain shared cultural landmarks, symbols and guiding norms) and (iii) in psychological-affective terms (having some sense of mutual affinity, acceptance or identification).
A functional neighbourhood is populated by a group of individuals and families who together constitute a sort of community (a dysfunctional neighbourhood may be torn apart by toxic strife and division, the negation of “community”). All functional neighbourhoods are communities, but not all communities are functional neighbourhoods.
Just as the family home can provide a physical and social context favourable to social reproduction and the nurturing of individuality, in a similar way, the neighbourhood can provide a physical and social context favourable to the introduction of children and teenagers, and indeed adults, to the challenges associated with living in multi-family communities, and to the dispositions and virtues required to adequately rise to such challenges.
Children’s development is profoundly influenced, for better or for worse, by their family relationships and their lived environment, and these in turn are conditioned in important ways by the broader societal and community context within which they are embedded. As Aristotle reminds us, human beings cannot adequately realize their full potential without participating in communities larger than the family: “But when several families are united and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village” (Politics, Book. 1).
Multi-family communities are necessary to
1 generate a viable material economy to support the material needs of families (division of labour),
2 enable the development of rounded personalities through interaction with a wide range of personality types and exposure to a wide range of role models, and
3 enable growth in knowledge and understanding of the world, through exposure to conversations, perspectives and experiences different from one’s own and those of one’s family.
The Limits of National and International Societies as Contexts for Vibrant Communities
A nationalist utopia (or perhaps, dystopia!) would conceive of a multi-family community as a national society with a shared ethos, language and culture; while a cosmopolitan utopia (or perhaps, dystopia!) would conceive of a multi-family society as an international society with a shared ethos and culture. But children, teenagers and adults cannot be successfully introduced into the life of society through very extended and impersonal collectives like nations and international societies. After all, human beings are embodied and spatial beings who situate their lives and their projects within concrete geographic and social spaces that can be seen, smelt and touched.
Consider, for example, the merits of cosmopolitanism as a potential source of identity and belonging. A generic, cosmopolitan society, with no specific geographic or cultural roots, cannot provide citizens with a realistic sense of place and purpose, because it does not readily kindle the imagination and passions, or produce locally accessible rituals and a shared way of life.
A national society is more culturally and historically articulate and concrete than an international society, so it may confer some sense of community through the rituals, language, and shared sense of purpose of a national people. However, because of its highly abstract and mediated character, i.e., its heavy dependence on symbolism and rituals abstracted from much of the lived experience of social life, it easily lends itself to ideological manipulation and to the subordination of individuals to political projects such as national patriotism that bear only a tangential relation to the well-being of local families and communities.
The most visible national institution, the national State, has attempted for centuries to provide individuals with social supports and a legal framework to guide their behaviour. But these attempts have met with limited success because the State is weighed down by its impersonal and bureaucratic structure, rendering it less successful at adapting itself to local circumstances and inspiring deep-rooted feelings of loyalty and belonging.
The Unique Advantages of Neighbourhoods as Contexts for Socialisation and Character Formation
While individuals may be inspired by national or international heroes and role models whom they see from afar, nonetheless they develop their character and personality on a day-to-day basis by “rubbing shoulders” with other flesh-and-blood human beings in specific architectural and geographic settings.
Human beings find meaning and purpose in communities which have some identifiable geographic and cultural roots, and whose members have “names and surnames” and are not just faceless individuals. The sort of social unit that can serve to introduce us to a coherent, functional and intelligible form of social life that transcends the limits of the family must be of a sufficiently small scale, with a sufficiently well-defined identity and sense of shared purpose, to make our interactions with it familiar and homely rather than distant and alienating.
In light of these considerations, the advantages of neighbourhoods become apparent. A neighbourhood is a community of sufficiently small scale that it is uniquely positioned to provide families and individuals with the sort of tangible community ties, norms and customs they need in order to break out of the anomie of social disembeddedness, isolation and individualism, and develop rituals and customs capable of transmitting coherent ideals of character and conduct to future generations.
Here are some of the special advantages of the neighbourhood as a vehicle of socialization and character formation:
1. Reiterated Interactions Enhance Social Capital and Trust
Many members of the neighbourhood frequent the same social venues, and in the case of a pedestrian neighbourhood in particular (a non-pedestrian design begins to introduce the impersonality of larger societies where interpersonal interaction with strangers is minimized), the likelihood and frequency of repeat interactions is sufficiently high that people have a strong incentive to demonstrate their trustworthiness or gain social esteem or credit with their neighbours. This can build social capital and reduce the likelihood of deception, fraud and betrayal of trust among neighbours.
2. Meaningful and Intense Interaction with Role Models Is Easier in Smaller Communities
People acquire social skills and virtues, especially at an early age, by being exposed to role models. Their first role models are their parents and older siblings. But the virtues and skills required to navigate a more complex society require a wider range of role models beyond the family.
A neighbourhood, if structured in ways that facilitate role-playing and apprenticeship in small social groups, can provide opportunities for intense interaction with a variety of different community role models. Close relations with such role models, particularly role models with an intimate understanding of the social conditions of individuals learning from them, are greatly facilitated by neighbourhoods because of their small scale and potential for social cohesiveness. These role models may be found in institutions such as schools, sports associations, farming and business cooperatives and artistic guilds.
3. Neighbourhoods Facilitate Emergence of a Civil Economy
The concept of “civil economy” originated in the Italian tradition of civic humanism embodied in small merchant towns, such as those in the north of Italy in the late Middle-Ages (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries). The fundamental idea is that economic interactions are viewed as fully human and fully moral interactions, which find their purpose not only in profit-making, but also in the promotion of the common good of the relevant community (Bruni and Zamagni 2007).
Neighbourhoods are well positioned to foster virtues of solidarity and social responsibility in business entrepreneurs and owners. They may provide a social infrastructure favourable to a civil economy that combines economic ambition with social solidarity and a principled commitment to common goods that is not exclusively a function of economic calculations.
That is because small and medium businesses rooted in a neighbourhood can have a more intimate relation with their staff and customers, and develop a sense of solidarity and emotional investment in the community within which they are rooted. Fundamentally, the community neighbourhood-based businesses serve is their community, fostering a greater sense of loyalty to its long-term flourishing.
4. Local Projects Are Less Vulnerable to Ideological Co-Option
Neighbourhood projects, because their consequences are uniquely tangible and observable, are not as easily co-opted as national and international projects may be, by abstract and de-humanizing ideologies. It is easy to imagine a national government inculcating an ideology such as radical anarchism or radical egalitarianism, with potentially destructive social and economic consequences, because decision-makers do not suffer the immediate consequences of their decisions in a tangible way. But neighbourhood projects play out in tangible ways on the ground, and their beneficial or harmful effects are much easier to observe than those of a national project. That is why local projects are more resistant to ideological co-option or distortion.
So far, we have considered the distinctive advantages of neighbourhoods as vehicles of socialisation and character formation, compared with national and international societies. In the second instalment of this two-part series, we will consider concrete steps that individuals and institutional actors can take to promote stronger and more vibrant neighbourhoods.
Thanks for reading!
If you would like to give an extra push to my work in defence of a free and open society, you might consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
A paid subscription unlocks all blog posts, including subscriber-only content.
Don’t forget, you can also find me on Youtube, Rumble, Telegram, and Spotify.
The ideas of this article are drawn from a chapter by David Thunder and Ana Cecilia Serrano Núñez forthcoming in a Routledge volume entitled Happiness and Domestic Life: The Influence of the Home on Subjective and Social Wellbeing.
See, for example, Beck, Ulrich & Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth, Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences (London: Sage, 2002). What Beck refers to as “individualisation” is essentially the uncoupling of individual lifeplans from stable and enduring communities, traditions and value systems. One of the classic treatments of the topic of individualism and the potential threat it poses to social capital and community life is Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, published in two volumes, in 1835 and 1840.