“And from it would flow a number of positive consequences. For one thing, the split between private and pub work and family, that has grown for over a century, might begin to be mended. If the ethos of work were less brutally competitive and more ecologically harmonious, it would be more consonant with the ethos of private life and, particularly, of family life. A less frantic concern fix advancement and a reduction of working hours for both men and women would make it easier for women to be full participants in the workplace without abandoning family life. By the same token, men would be freed to take an equal role at home and in child care. In this way what seemed at first to be a change only in the nature of work would tum out to have major consequences for family life as well.”
The continuing exposition of civic virtual by Bellah (Bellah, et. al., 1985, p. 289) brings us directly back to the fundamental notions of harmony and coherence:
“Another consequence of the change in the meaning of work from private aggrandizement to public contribution would be to weaken the motive to keep the complexity of our society invisible. It would become part of the ethos of work to be aware of our intricate connectedness and interdependence. There would be no fear of social catastrophe or hope of inordinate reward motivating us to exaggerate our own independence. And with such a change, we might begin to be better able to understand why, though we are all, as human beings, morally deserving of equal respect, some of us begin with familial or cultural advantages or disadvantages that others do not have. Or perhaps, since we would not conceive of life so much in terms of a race in which all the prizes go to the swiftest, we might begin to make moral sense of the fact that there are real cultural differences among us, that we do not all want the same thing, and that it is not a moral defect to find other things in life of interest besides consuming ambition. In short, a restored social ecology might allow us to mitigate the harm that has been done to disadvantaged groups without blaming the victims or trying to turn them into carbon copies of middle-class high achievers.”
It seems that the inculcation of civic virtues in youth who live above the socio-economic line may be necessary. However, this exclusive ownership of the compass by those who are wealthy is insufficient if a secular vision of coherence is to be viable. Harmony and coherence ultimately require that all members of the community are invited to the table. A social ecology of inclusion (and privilege) must be established. This requires additional ingredients. A coherent community with harmony of interests needs rocks, pebbles and sand. . . .
Community Capital
What is needed to move beyond civic virtue in building a secular vision of a harmonious and coherent communities that is viable? To answer this question, we turn to insights offered Ron Kitchens and his associates (Kitchens, Gross and Smith, 2008) in their exploration of “community capital.” This capital comes from multiple sources—rocks, pebbles and sand. Community capital comes in part from institutions in a community that support broad based community participation and economic security for all members of the community. These institutions are often the source of employment for its citizen. In a coherent community, the leaders of these organizations treat their employees in a thoughtful manner that yields a sense of purpose, participation, and commitment—and creates the harmony of interests that Anonymous described almost two centuries ago. As Bea Boccalandro (2021) has recently noted, “to have work feel good, we need it to do good.” Employees are invited to the table. Community capital exists at this first level through the sense (as Estes has suggested) that investments are being made by many stakeholders. This being the case, then rewards for this investment should accrue to all these stakeholders.
