Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder …. or Not?

In response to last nights essay, which was intended to be satirical,  the following question arose to my remark:

The only serious question [raised in the prior post] is whether mingling of groups is desired or not.

Commenter Mr Boonton asked:

… what do you think about mingling of groups? I think they are on a whole to be encouraged with single-group states being the solution of last resort.

This is a serious question, which begs answer. The conventional wisdom in Jouvenel’s Babylon [Babylon: the multi-cultural/multi-ethnic mix of modern society] that by mixing with “other” we learn tolerance and to appreciate those around us. However there are a few points to consider, and to do so, I’ll resort to the dread bullet list (and more below the fold):

• Some time ago somebody on the Volokh Conspiracy pointed to some recent studies that showed that familiarity with other ethnicities were found to foster distrust more than the opposite.
• In situations were ethnic/cross-cultural violence is common or endemic it may be that separation is helpful. An ethnic minority may be have more rights in a situation where it has local majority and can exercise local (or true) sovereignty. Examples of this might be India/Pakistan and the Muslim/Hindu arguments as well as the Semitic/European relationships over the centuries or the ethnic struggles in the former Yugoslavian Balkan area. Separation can lead to a easing of hostility.
• On the other side of the coin, the tourist industry which is not exactly a small concern and world travel depends on our willingness, curiosity, and desire to meet and press the flesh with the “other.”
• Pedagically speaking being in close contact with those of other cultural or ethnic backgrounds is useful. It teaches us about other ways of looking at the world and deepens our understanding of ourselves at the same time. However at the same time, one might observe the number of determined autodidacts and those who attempt to live self-examined lives are a distinct minority. It might be concluded therefore those who relish and embrace such experience are likely either about the same number or possibly the same subset.

So, having made a few observations … what is one to do? How to order society and policy in the light of these notions. Liberal society (in the broader sense not the partisan label) and our Constitution is ordered in part to walk a tightrope protecting the rights of the minority against the majority while allowing freedom for all where possible. However, in situations where separation is achieved, that is in a uni-ethnic society freedom is maximized because the mores and laws of the society are aligned (in principle) uniformly along the axis of how the people wish their society ordered. That is in a culture where everyone values perfectly manicured lawns, the regulations requiring a perfectly manicured lawn is not a restriction at all, for everyone naturally exercises the horticultural discipline required for that is what they want to do.

In the past, I’ve argued on many occasions on behalf what David Hackett Fisher identifies as the “freedom-way” of New England society (of the 18th and 19th century)termed “Publick Freedom”, that is the freedom of a local government to order it’s society as wished. The primary reason I argue for it is somewhat off topic, it is that as power concentrates at the federal level, the personal instinct for democracy and participation atrophies. As this progresses there is less and less instinct to resist tyranny … and democracy fails. Today this freedom for a locality to order itself, to set mores, customs and even who may be admitted into their number is one which conventional wisdom and current society rejects. However, there are a number of reasons why this is, I believe, misguided.

The argument against allowing such liberty is a strong one. There is a fear of using separation and the right to order one’s local society as a means of oppression of a minority, which is supported by history. There have been a lot of systematic changes since much of those direct oppressions were common. The Internet, automobile, and the information age in general make it far harder to conceal abuses of the small scale/stage from deploying into the larger theater. The dissident son of growing up in a closed repressive locale can easily escape today into the wide world. We are in fact, a nation comprised basically entirely of immigrants and moving about as custom has not died down in any real measure. In proposing that mores, customs and those vexing issues of our time (that is all the hot button topics debated) all be settled in the small, by local government, village and precincts one of the primary roles of the county, state and higher governments is to be watchdogs to provide that there is harmony between smaller units and to prevent egregious clear rights abuses. It is not necessarily a rights abuse to insist that you manicure your lawn to the highest standards if you dwell in the land of manicured lawns and can move to the village of unkempt-lawns-R-us just over the river.

Getting back to the question at hand, separation is useful when violence is common, on that there is, I think, little disagreement. The real question is whether or not to encourage intermingling of sub-cultures or not. I would suggest the notion that mixing with the “Other” is seen as a moral good or evil on a continuum across the sub-cultures that exist out there. Those that welcome mixing with others, in a world in which one could order one’s local society could mix and those which value that less (or in fact see it as a harm) could as well attempt (within reason) to isolate themselves. I personally value such mingling (contrary to slanderous remarks made by long time blog neighbor Mr Schraub), but as well, I am aware that feeling is not universal.

Filed under: Government • Mark O. • Politics

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!