Matthew Weatherford

Essay Competition

Totalitarianism, Tweets, and Turf:

Human Community in an age of Techno-globalism
I

The individual, having been stripped of communal institutions and following the
numerous mutable demands of an a-ethical code of behavior, subjugates himself to ironically
decreasing the liberalism of a state, because his offering to pluralistic society fades away into
oblivion of mass statism. Individuals need community and the institutions which foster them.
Not only has philosophical discourse and psychological observation led to this, but cultural,
political, and historical evidence. Without doubt, this evidence affirms Robert Nisbet’s premise
that the human person is naturally gregarious and upholds the idea that communal institutions are
irreducible units of society, entities of culture formation, and building blocks of civilization.
The argument of culture for community is the most simple of the three. Within modern
liberalism, the mere existence of communities and institutions which foster them proves at the
minimum that such communal institutions are desirable. Without doubt, to say all men are
gregarious by this observation alone would be an over-generalization. Certainly, men are
gregarious, and such men desire community. Similarities draw persons together. The
unnumbered similarities of different human persons allows for pluralistic society. The more local
the environment, the more efficient the relation is to the individual. The more centralized and
large the organization is, the less individualized it must also be. The same idea applies to
government. Communal institutions are individualized by nature, and hence are desired for the
community, local efficiency, and benefit.
Each person needs community; the human person is meant to have community. The
intrinsic rationale of the social structure, beginning with the natural desire for reproduction and
the protection of family, extends to religion, art, and entertainment. Family is commonly called
the atom of society, and rightly so, because as society is literally impossible without families, so
families procreate not only offspring, but the infrastructure of society itself. Local efficiency
refers to the power of a community to cater to the needs, wants, and amelioration of its members.
This aspect is often what entices its members to join and associate. The benefit can be of two
kinds: the first, for self benefit, and the second, for altruism. Self benefit may include pecuniary,
relationally, or esteem. Altruistic may include teaching, donations, or environmental. Community
has benefits that men desire.
A government that does not allow assembly, communal institutions, or free speech is by
definition, totalitarian. Governments on the other hand that respect the limitations of their power
and receive such power as given “by the people” are more pluralistic, and thus liberal.
According to Robert B. Talisse, “Many contemporary political philosophers have maintained that
moral pluralism--whether epistemic or metaphysical--frustrates the aspiration for a
comprehensive theory of liberalism,” (Talisse 130). Talisse may be right that pluralism does not
serve as a logical base of liberalism, but the argument cannot deny the holistic approach to
liberalism as a successful movement. Again, Talisse may deny that liberalism is logically still
unproven, but he will not go so far as to uphold totalitarianism as a viable substitute. Although
we assume that freedom is a positive and undeniable good, the observation alone that
communities exist within liberal countries is irrefutable.
Politics argues for the existence and fostering of communities. A representative
democracy or republic is only successful insofar as the actual will of the people is represented in
 2

the representatives. Although an individual is not heard for his single voice in a republic, his
voice in collaboration with others is an important impetus of politics. Not only are the political
parties important, but also the minorities, which represent for the government the needs, wants,
and hopes of the people in such organizations. For most of this essay, the importance of a
community is based upon the individual, but in this case, both the individual and the liberal state
benefit. The individual benefits from the fact that his voice is better represented, and the state
from the idea that the representatives adequately express the aspirations of the individuals of the
state.
Representatives are always imperfect representations of what they represent. A model
ship although accurate, cannot be perfectly accurate, or we would call it “the ship.” Likewise,
between the government and its people, a slight miscommunication will always occur. In liberal
states, miscommunication is easily corrected by the checks and balances of the system, but in
totalitarianism, communication is a problem. Media is restricted, and modern technology is seen
as dangerous to the regime. A similar argument that freedom of speech is better than a nosy
government has probably been anticipated. Tweets are necessary for liberalism, because human
persons need political and nonpolitical assembly.
Civil unrest obviously assumes an erroneous form of government or application of it.
Technology helps to glean the physically distant aspect of community, while keeping the three
positive aspects of cultural assembly mentioned above. (This idea anticipates the third part of
this essay, when we will review whether technology is necessary and desirable.) The emergence
of new organizations, from the Tea Party to the other local institutions, is a sign of the human
person’s innate desire for assembly.
History makes a strong argument for the importance of communal institutions.
Irrevocably, communal institutions have been historically causal. One example, is the existence
of unions. Historically, unions grew strong to protect against the unjust economic system and
harsh working environments. According to Carlton Hayes, “Dictatorship or despotism or tyranny,
call it as one may, is, then, a constant, or at least a recurrent, motif in the whole history of
Western civilization. It is as much a characteristic of bright as of dark ages. It is equally apparent
in formative Greek times, in fully developed Christian eras, in epochs of rationalism or reaction,”
(Hayes, 91). Just as tyranny and dictatorship is apparent in history, so is the continual and
effectual existence of communal institutions.
History, unlike the laboratory sciences or deductive philosophy, relies almost entirely on
the induction of cause and effect and holistic observation. History is known because it actually
happened, and to some degree or another we trust sources to relay the information that we
presume on their account actually happened. History is not as abstract as many other sciences; in
its high moments of discovery and passion together with the low moments of plague and
ignorance, it paints for us the human person’s deepest aspirations. From religion to private
education, the history of the world has depicted the need for personal initiative, community, and
freedom.
The test of time is the truest measure of a government’s basic values and
efficiency.Totalitarianism has never lasted as long as monarchy, republics, or empires. Of course,
dictators have lived, but rarely has their legacy of horrid despotism passed more than a couple
generations. Russia has had a painful relationship with socialism and communism, but none
would argue that their system is good or has helped them to attain better rights for their people.
Just as today is the sum of the past, so tomorrow will have a bit of today. If tomorrow brings no
community, local efficiency, or benefit, the likelihood that today will be used well is minimal.
 3

Totalitarianism is still a threat, and as long as the world endures, bad and evil men or corrupt
systems of government will deprive humanity of the basic needs of living.
Culture has shown us the intrinsic value of communication and free speech; politics has
demonstrated the value of technology for fostering communities nationally and world wide in
liberal governments. History has depicted the evident necessity that a government be liberal in
order for the human person to have community. Of course, we even questioned whether
community is desirable, and to this we gave a resounding yes. Community, however, is more
than desirable, we have to know if it is necessary.

II

Community is necessary for the mere reason that pluralistic moralism and philosophy
(especially of the political type) exists. If moralism and every other standard of living were the
same, government could provide for the evident needs and wants of its people. If this were true,
totalitarianism would be much more effective than it is in practice. Totalitarianism is built upon
the idea not of the equality of the human persons themselves, but rather, of the entire state itself.
Community is necessary, because it affords the individual with its specific and coherent system
of life with the needs and wants.
A government, even a liberal one, cannot endorse two opposite system of belief. If it
chooses one system, the other system necessarily suffers. If it chooses both, the government
cannot stand from the practicality of endorsing two systems that contradict each other. Thus, the
most just system (i.e. the system which delivers the greatest amount of efficiency without harm
to itself, while upholding the equality of the human person) is necessarily liberal. Therefore,
community is necessary for the human person, if we are to establish freedom as a necessary
good.
Not all community is necessarily good. In an era of social degradation, especially in the
family, certain communities are formed, such as gangs. This factoid proves that although not all
community is beneficial to social betterment, community is necessary for an individual.
Something that holds a human person in a relationship with another group of individuals is
attractive. Aristotle was triumphant in describing man as a “social animal.” Community is
necessary, and will be found, even if it means in the wrong places.
Some believe that technology is a modern threat to the traditional idea of community.
Technology, contrary to many opinions, has not diminished the human person’s necessity for
community, but rather, changed the means by which we communicate. Some may argue that
technology has lessened the need for physical community. Now, people can chat or use Facebook
to correspond. Ultimately, the exponential increase in the use of technology only affords the
argument that community is both desirable and necessary more credibility.
A recent revolution in Egypt has coined the term the “right to technology.” Internet and
the interconnectivity of its people helped to throw off the burden of tyranny. Economics also
bears heavily on the issue. Technology is enormously rewarding for not only the sake of
community, but also for the sake of the companies who sell the technology. Countries like Japan
and China saw this “gold mine” a long time ago, and they still profit from it. Global economics
helps to balance the economy world wide. Community and the need for it bolsters a certain
amount of economic redistribution, which is necessary for profit.
Even if we were to argue from a social point of view, freedom and community (because
they are desirable) necessarily becomes a good that ought to be respected. Of course, to say that
 4

because the people say freedom is necessary, the government ought to be free is putting the cart
before the horse. Rather, what I imply, is that social assumptions that are held internationally
must be a sign of a mature good that has found form in philosophical, social, historical,
anthropological ends. Community is not only of benefit to itself, but also to the government and
other countries.

III

My final consideration will be a straightforward comparison of liberalism and

totalitarianism, so that we can see the value of community in relation to tweets and turf.
Liberalism is pluralistic by definition. Totalitarianism is not. Liberalism believes that
communication, land, freedom, and personal convictions are self-evident rights. Totalitarianism
believes that such “rights” are artificial and unnatural substitute for the only necessary right of
government and the state. The autonomy of the individual is important in liberalism, while the
autonomy of the government supersedes that of the individual in totalitarianism. Equality is a
value in both systems; however, equality of liberalism is anthropological. Liberalism sees the
rights of man as evident and more stable than any government can ever hope to be. Totalitarian
equality views this ideal as something which is given to all men by the government.
Modern totalitarianism destroys naturally occurring advances in communication
technology. Perhaps, someone could argue that totalitarianism is no longer satisfied with
controlling just the turf; it wants the whole of the individual--his communal life begins and ends
only with the state. Totalitarianism wants turf and tweets. The world is becoming more
international. No longer are countries obsessed with the frenzy of nationalism, but
interdependence and global government threaten those who desire small, limited government.
The war of ideals between totalitarianism and liberalism still threatens to weave itself
into the framework of international politics. Yet we think ourselves free because we are more
universal. I do not intend to prophesy about the future; the present is my duty to critique.
Nisbet’s premise that the human person wants community holds true. The human person needs,
desires, and finds fulfillment in a good human community.

Bibliography:

1. Talisse, Robert B., “Can Value Pluralists be Comprehensive Liberals? Galston’s

Liberal Pluralism,” Contemporary Political Theory 2004.

2. Hayes, Carlton J. H., “The Novelty of Totalitarianism in the History of Western

Civilization,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 82, No. 1,

Symposium on the Totalitarian State (Feb. 23, 1940), pp. 91-102.