Robert Nisbet
ISI Books, 2010 (originally published in 1953)
Reviewed by: Dr. Val W. Finnell
Why does it seem that all forms of community are in decline in America, whether church, social club, or fraternal organization? We lament that there are so many “unchurched” people. Yet, we are often at a loss to explain how we arrived at this point in history. What were/are the factors that have contributed to the decline of community? In 1953, Robert Nisbet (1913-1996), a professor at Columbia University examined this question in his book,
The Quest for Community; now back in print by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Nisbet’s analysis examines the problem of community decline from a sociological perspective, a view that brings fresh insight into the 21
st Century.
Nisbet defines the problem of community as the decline of the functional and psychological significance of small social groups and associations, namely the family, civic associations, and other organizations (such as the Church and guilds) that have had a mediatorial role in human social, economic, and political relationships. These social groups performed indispensible functions in the life of medieval society, functions that are only possible in an environment where centralized power was relatively weak.
Everything changes in the 16th Century, when we witness the rise of the autonomous individual who becomes more steadily detached from the historical institutions that gave meaning and social context to life. Nisbet sees the Protestant Reformation as a shaping influence that removed man from the social context of the hierarchical Church in turn for a more privatized and internalized religion. Only three elements of Christianity were left in Protestant theology: the lone individual, an omnipotent, distant God, and divine grace (p. 85). Also, the exchange of the visible for the invisible Church degraded the importance of ecclesiastical institutions.
In similar fashion, Nisbet sees the rise of laissez faire capitalism as another atomizing influence for mankind. Human beings now “existed for the work day, not as members of society, but as individual units of energy and production.” (p. 88)
Neither the religious or economic changes taking place in medieval Europe were enough to remove man from the socially normative institutions, however. Only the rise of the political State could achieve what economic and religious changes could not.
It is Nisbet’s central argument that the “single, most decisive influence upon Western social organization has been the rise of the centralized, territorial State.” (p. 91) The author traces the development of modern political thought through the theories of Bodin, Hobbes, and finally Rousseau. Paradoxically, the centralized, all-powerful State seeks to abolish all of the former allegiances in the name of freedom and liberation of the autonomous individual. It is the abolition of the vital influence of family, church, and social group that leads to the crisis of community. Faced with atomization and isolation from former community contexts, man seeks what is lost by searching for community through participation in the State itself. This creates a vicious circle that further increases the power of the State at the expense of the former, small social group (including the Church).
Here is what is key for Christians to understand: when there is a gap between the moral claims of a social group (like the Church) and its institutional importance in the social order, people seek social membership elsewhere. People join a social group “if and when its larger institutional or intellectual functions have relevance both to [their] own life organization and to what [they] can see of the group’s relation to the larger society.” (p. 54)
As an example, the growth in State welfare programs has reduced if not eliminated the Church’s role in providing economic assistance to the community. It is simply not seen as a viable option and this, in turn, reinforces man to seek “membership” and political involvement in the State.
Nisbet’s solution is to decentralize the government, thus creating an environment where man’s freedom can truly be realized in diverse communities. No nostalgic return to the past is suggested, but rather the creation of new social structures that address current problems and reintegrate man into meaningful, local community contexts.