|
|
Zygmunt Bauman Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World (2001) Polity Cambridge
159 pages ISBN 0-7456-2635-1 £11.99
There may be a problem when an author chooses to write lots of books very quickly. In this case, the author seems
to have lost track of the assumptions upon which his own work of the past few years is based. Baumans work on a postmodern
ethics was built upon the very communitarian discourse that he attempts to distance himself from in this book.
In this
book Bauman builds upon his critique of Communitarianism in Postmodernity and its Discontents (1997) and Work, Consumerism
and the New Poor (1998).
Communitarianism is a modernist approach claims Bauman, which demands:
.. the power of
enforcement. The power to make sure that people would act in a certain way rather than in other ways, to taper the range of
their options, to manipulate the probabilities; to make them do what they otherwise would probably not do, (if they would,
why all this fuss), to make them less than they would otherwise be. (Bauman 1997 p191)
Bauman has now supplemented
this view by arguing that community has no foundation other than shared agreement. The warm circle of community that we find
in communitarian discourse is built upon two collapsed together and confused (Bauman 2001 p72) notions of community. First,
that people are individuals who should resolve their own problems and secondly that community should be built upon fraternal
sharing, community has then an ethical foundation.
The community of communitarian discourse cannot survive self-conscious
critique, contemplation or scrutiny. When subjected to such evaluation we see community for what it is numb or dead (Bauman
2001 p11)
Sociologically, Blair, Clinton and others, have attempted bring together freedom and security by rebuilding
the idea of the community within a postmodern world. In the postmodern condition, cultures appear to be fragmented, In addition,
this fragmented culture allows individuals to select their own identities. However, the Blair Government did not want to
allow people to chose an identity that did not include work. Bauman makes reference to Gordon Browns suggestion that the
unemployed should be provided with mobile phones so that they could be kept in touch with the job market. Communitarianism
sacrifices freedom for greater security.
Drawing upon the work of Levinas, Bauman (1998) argued that we should change
our perception of the poor. The aim of Emmanuel Levinass philosophy, that Bauman fully endorsed, was to go beyond the ethically
neutral tradition of ontology. In Totality and Infinity (1961), Levinas first outlined his conception of intersubjectiviy
that he further elaborated in Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence (1974) these works are built upon a coming together of
modern philosophy and Jewish thought. Drawing upon the Jewish concept of mitzvah (command) and the Torahs concern with the
welfare of the "widow, the orphan, the stranger." The central theme of his philosophy is an understanding of intersubjectivity,
which should be at the centre of our lives. Understanding the other, understanding their suffering and powerlessness even
when the other is a stranger is central to his conception of intersubjectivity. We have a responsibility for the other, and
a duty to respect the difference of the other. In contrast to what Levinas terms the "philosophy of subjectivity"
the strong emphasis on self - which underpins most modern philosophy. In contrast to Descartes, cogito ergo sum (I think,
therefore I am). Levinas offers the Hebrew phrase Hineni (Here I am). Our relationship with the other may not be one of equality,
but it should be one in which their suffering is something we should attend to, what Levinas terms the ethical relation. This
responsibility for the other is what underpins the pursuit of justice.
Bauman accepts all of this and in a nutshell
his argument is that we as individuals should be both with the Other and for the Other. It is the poor whom are cast as the
Other in communitarianism discourse. The difference between being - with and being - for the Other is about the level of
commitment that we have for the Other, about having an emotional engagement with the Other. This involves regarding the Other
not as a type or a category but as a unique person. This involves:
§ Rejecting indifference towards the poor
§
rejecting stereotyped certainty towards the poor, the view that they always behave that.
§ viewing the poor in a manner
that is free from sentiment.
The moral stance means to assume some responsibility for the poor. In addition, to
act on the assumption that the well being of poor people is a precious thing calling for our effort to both preserve and enhance
their well being.
Bauman (1998) argued that we should see the work ethic for what it is, as something that generates
a moral economy filled with concentrated and unchallenged discrimination. In its place we should have an ethics of workmanship
which recognises the value of unpaid work, which currently is classed as non-work. In addition, we should consider decoupling
income entitlement from income-earning capacity.. (Bauman 1998 p97). This is an interesting choice of words, but it cannot
hide the stale, old message of lets bring back the warm circle of community. What Bauman is saying is the same as Marx in
the last century From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Not only has socialism been rejected
fully and comprehensively by almost everybody (including Bauman in a range of publications), but also this highlights a flaw
in both Baumans analysis and socialism. When we take responsibility for the Other, we run the risk of imposing our will on
the other and this can lead to cruelty. Bauman fails to take into account the ability of people to take responsibility for
their own lives and their own actions and at the same time undermines the assumptions his own work since Postmodern Ethics
(1993).
Shaun Best
The Nottingham Trent University
|
|
|
