When I first read the title of the article on gated communities by Professor Edward Blakely (Washington Post April 8th, 2012), I thought “Yes, why not gated communities?”. Then I quickly realized my mistake. Yes, Epicurus would like us to live a quiet, stress-free life with a real or imaginary garden, entertaining friends with sparkling conversation, and staying clear politics. But he would think the idea of a typical American gated community very divisive.
Gated communities are a menace. They have been shown not to protect the inhabitants from crime and they are no more “communities” than any other group of houses in the suburbs (the survey shows that house owners don’t know their neighbours any better than in ordinary communities and they often feel cut off). They breed resentment among poorer people, and a sense of detachment from the rest of the town or city. Because they don’t use the public resources to maintain roads, parks and other amenities, the residents often argue that they are being double-taxed. Why should they pay for municipal police and other services in addition to their own little pocket of land? It’s a bit like the childless couple who complain about paying taxes for schools and education because they get no direct benefit from them (!!). Gated communities reduce civic engagement and erode social stability and any sense of equality in a democracy. As the professor concludes, ” If we aren’t hanging out together where we live, we can easily fall apart.” “Falling apart” is the subject of many conversations of late.
Isnt Epicurus’ garden a sort of gated community? Rabble rousers, gluttons, hedonists, sex addicts, drunkards, spendthrifts, religious and political fundamentalists, unreasonable fellows, (toffs), and indolents, together with conservatives and anti-science protagonists would be barred, would they not?
Yes, it is an Epicurean problem – how to stay calm and quiet in a self-selected group without the very human fault of beginning to think you are superior to everyone else, a clan apart, resenting “them” and “their” stupidity, taxation, and “their” intrusions of all kinds.
I would dearly like to exclude rabble rousers, gluttons, hedonists, sex addicts, drunkards, spendthrifts, religious and political fundamentalists, unreasonable fellows, (toffs), and indolents, together with conservatives and anti-science protagonists, but I don’t know how many acceptable people there would be left to associate with!
So, yes, there is a problem that requires introspection and self knowledge and open-mindedness. Does anyone know anyone else (apart from you, of course!) capable of introspection, self-knowledge and open-mindedness? If so, get her to join this discussion!
Here I am! I am happy to note you used the feminine gender when describing a person capable of introspection , self knowledge and open mindedness.
To comment seriously about gated communities, I would concur with the professor’s conclusion that unless we ” hang out together where we live, we will fall apart” because people can so easily feel excluded and lonely and this leads to resentment alienation and possible social unrest. There are many examples of this in the UK specially among the black and Asian communities . But this could be a circular problem. More alienation means more social unrest which leads to fear and so you have the gated communities which are then devisive.
So how can we remedy this?
The wisest of philosophers and prophets have all stressed the importance of ‘loving our neighbour’ – even if they are one of the long list of renegades that Jane dean mentions.
My argument was that if moderation is so important for the stress free garden of Epicurus, then ‘immoderates’ of all persuasions would disturb the zeigeist and ruin the equilibrium of his Shangrila. Thats the trouble with being liberal, inclusive and moderate all at the same time!
Jane dean said,
April 10, 2012 at 4:39 am
My argument was that if moderation is so important for the stress free garden of Epicurus, then ‘immoderates’ of all persuasions would disturb the zeigeist and ruin the equilibrium of his Shangrila. Thats the trouble with being liberal, inclusive and moderate all at the same time!
Yes, that’s true. You have to avoid the obsessed and the destructive nutters and the people who always want to score points rather than have civilized conversations. There has to be a mechanism for excluding these people when they sneak in. Which is a problem. Who decides, and how is it done? I would like to do it by saying, “sorry, but we are trying to be courteous, curious and empathetic and you seem to want to disrupt everything. Maybe you would be happier elsewhere”. Would I, would you have the courage? For one thing it would be stressful, and one would try to avoid it.
Is this an argument for saying that everything naturally descends to the lowest common denominator, the world of the destructive bully? Destructive bullies certainly seem to thrive.
Is there such a thing as a “community” in which people don’t know each other? If you live surrounded by people whom you don’t know, you’re not in a community; it’s an aggregate of strangers. The “gates” are Potemkin.