.png)
By Sean Southard, Class of 2015
 |
| Sean Southard |
A discussion of community in the 21st century revealed diverse opinions regarding the subject. This past weekend, I engaged in that discussion at a conference co-sponsored by two McConnell Center partners, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and Liberty Fund. To prepare
for the conference, participants read writings of notable social critics such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Robert Putnam. Out of the readings required for this conference, I was unfamiliar with Ferdinand Tönnies’ “Community and Civil Society.” Tönnies, a German and early social scientist in the late 19th century, described two different forms of relationships in “Community and Civil Society,” and rather than arguing for one overt the other, Tönnies drew distinctions between the two forms of communities that bear the title of his work. Although Tönnies wrote about community, Gemeinschaft, and civil society, Gesellschaft, this blog post will focus on Gemeinschaft, with another post to come later with a discussion of Gesellschaft.
Tönnies used the German word gemeinschaft to describe relationships rooted in a
“complete unity of human wills,” and he argued that this type of relationship exists within the
relationships between mother and child, husband and wife, and siblings. Additionally, Tönnies
said that the role of the father in a family demonstrates the concept of the authority. This
authority in a gemeinschaf community is “not to be used for the advantage of the authorityholder,
but to complete his part . . . by seeing to his offspring’s training and education.”
The kin-based relationships foster a mutual sense of right and duty according to Tönnies.
He said in these organic relationships, “the stronger party feels an instinctive, spontaneous
tenderness towards the weak.” This concept of a stronger party caring for a weaker one may
seem controversial in the modern world, but readers should remember the context in which
Tönnies wrote “Community and Civil Society.” In the 1890s, traditional kin-based roles were
not seen as controversial or oppressive, but rather the cultural norm.
Tönnies also delivered a list of criterion to demonstrate when gemeinschaft is present,
writing that such a community can be present in blood, place, and spirit. By blood, Tönnies
meant the kin-based relationships mentioned already. These family relationships develop into
place-based relationships and those local groups work together for the good of the community,
driven by a mutual spirit. Friendship is another form of gemeinschaft and Tönnies stated that
friendships create, “a kind of invisible location, a mystical city and meeting place which comes
alive through the medium of artistic sympathy or creative purpose.” Friendship is the only
relationship to depart from the kin-based relationship in Tönnies’ theory of gemeinschaft.
In conclusion, I found it deeply interesting how Tönnies raised relationships from the
family and locale to the level of a theoretical concept. Moreover, it is fascinating to examine
Gemeinschaft a century after Tönnies developed his theory. I wish to express my deepest
gratitude to both the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and Liberty Fund for sponsoring the
“Liberty and Community” program in Baltimore. Additionally, I extend my gratitude to the
McConnell Center for putting me in touch with ISI and LF. Every time I attend a conference or
colloquium like this one, I am invigorated in my pursuit of a liberal arts education and exposed
to new thoughts and thinkers. With that feeling comes another: there is still plenty left to read.
Sean Southard is a junior McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville. He is studying Political Science and History.