Ingredients of Harmony and Coherence
What then are the ingredient of a sustainable community—what creates a culture of coherence? What would the secular and sacred visions look like and how do they help to create a culture in the community that invites all its members to the table? Even before examining Bellah’s response to these questions, I turn to Emile Durkheim (1933) who’s own analysis regarding social structures is aligned with the proposition regarding specialization and the harmony of interests offered by Anonymous. Durkheim suggested that specialization (or as he labeled it the “division of labor”) is to be found at all levels of society—beginning in the home and extending out to all aspects of society. For Durkheim, specialization came into existence as people began to cluster in communities. With greater density, there was a greater tendency for social conflict to emerge and specialization, according to Durkheim, helped to minimize this conflict. With the specialization, however, came the need for a balancing integration.
Durkheim proposed that in a premodern society there is a “mechanical solidarity” brought about by shared values and perspectives on the very confined world in which members of this society dwelled. This solidarity often was founded in an even deeper commitment to specific traditions that seems to be more sacred than secular. I am reminded of the emphasis on tradition to be found in the Jewish community portrayed in Bock and Harnick’s Fiddler on the Roof (based on stories written by Sholem Aleichem) With the emergence of modern societies, the integration had to be engaged through more formal, secular structures—as Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) were to propose many years later. As Anonymous noted, government was often required to provide the “protection” and integration, as were management structures in the large, emerging organizations (especially corporations).
What about families, as the smallest unit of society. Integration was to be found in the sacred covenant that exists among members of the family. One might, as Erich Fromm suggested, even consider the integration to be founded in “love” and devotion—the “inner voice” identified by Prague’s Professor Brichacek. I noted in my previous essay that Fromm (1941) proposes—as did Teilhard de Chardin (1955)—that the basis of freedom must be the sharing of responsibility and commitment. It is the expression of love, according to Fromm, that balances off the need for individual rights (as a vehicle for one to overcome one’s existential anxiety) with the societal need for collective responsibility. Does love or at least an often-sacred devotion to those with whom one is sharing a home provide the foundation for a more widely extended societal commitment to Anonymous’ harmony of interests? Does the harmony collapse when the familial devotion and societal commitment cease to be prevalent? I devote the remainder of this essay to reflection on and an attempt to answer these two critical questions.
I turn first to the insights offered by Bellah and his colleagues in seeking to answer these questions. They identify multiple dimensions of integration and coherence. At the most obvious level, coherence is embedded in the secular and sacred traditions of a community—as Tevye declares in Fiddler on the Roof. The community has a history that contains memories of collective action and recognition of shared contribution (as well as memories of separation and abuse). This history serves as a form of collective generativity (Bergquist and Quehl, 2019) with each member of the community learning about that which deserves the greatest among of care—and about which, as a result, the community focuses its caring actions (Erikson, 1963).
