 | F on That’s it, we’re d… |
 | Miriam on Linguistic Points |
 | A on Communicating with the Poor |
| A on Deneen on small business |
 | D on Self Evident? |
Just met someone who came into the store who is starting a new CSA in Moscow! It’s June-October, and limited to 15 spots. It’s under the auspices of Backyard Harvest, so your CSA subscription will also provide one for a local underprivileged family. Gyah, I’m so excited! Let me know if you want more details, or want to split a spot.
Chris and I were talking about localism, and some of the opposition we’ve encountered locally to some new avenues of inquiry (a lil’ agrarianism, a dash o’ distributism, a big chunk of ‘true religion’, higher liturgy, etc. – trust me, they’re all related).
Anywho, he was talking to someone else who’s coming from a different direction (probably not a Co-op shopper, for instance) and the charge was raised that localism is marked by ungratefulness. “We hate corporations, banks are robbing us, WinCo is evil”
Chris made the argument that he’s doing all this precisely in order to be grateful, to know how the food gets from the ground to his mouth. We must always be doing this out of gratefulness and love, emphasizing the positive side of the case. Having a negative case makes it reactionary, a passing fad, and makes it easy to swing all the way to the other side. “We want to explore the benefits of this thing right here, we think it might be good, and growing our own food is healthy and good for our souls and we can maybe share it if we get good at it,” as Chris put it.
All good points, but I think the original objection radically misses the point. I think I might even own that objection. Every new movement is based on discontent, and populated my malcontents. We started our own Classical Christian schools because we were dissatisfied by the available options. All the standard cautions against being reactionary apply, but this community shouldn’t have any problems with movements.
It reminded me of a post by Dr. Leithart on malcontents and church plants.
In the end, this is tempest in a teakettle… we’re pursuing this stuff out of gratitude and divine discontent at the same time, and we’re attempting to be productive in all. I’m not an ivory tower kinda guy, so I test every new idea by attempting to do it and see if it works.
No offense intended to anyone, but I’m very grateful for WinCo, but there’s something off about it at the same time. I’m grateful for capitalism, but usury is evil. “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” y’know?
For any who are interested, Peter Hitchens’ recent article about the US election (reported from and written in Moscow, ID) is available here. A fun and fair read.
This is a continuation of Chris’ earlier Monk Discussion. Just a few scattered thoughts, since I haven’t had time to process a lot of this.
We need to consider the ‘Moscow Project’ in more detail. We all know Pastor Jim Wilson and the strategic / feasible story. But what were the overall goals of the second generation in Moscow?
There’s something very appealing about the new agrarianism (the books of Wendell Berry, specifically), but I think we all feel called to the cities. But in the country, you start your own small culture as the head of your family. In the city, many other forces come to bear. In the country, you’re closer to one another, and more interdependent. In the city you are spread apart, potentially anonymous and self-reliant.
Christians largely abandoned the cities for the suburbs, so it’s an uphill battle. What makes successful urban churches, like Seattle’s Mars Hill and New York’s Redeemer Pres., work? Closer to home, how is Christ Church Spokane doing?
Christ Church here in Moscow has recently grown such that there are now two services, and the elders are trying to divide the church into Parishes. Is it working? What makes a parish system succeed or fail?
Also, where do we all see ourselves?
For all the reasons outlined in my comment on Chris’s earlier post, I’ll probably be on the sidelines with the project Storm (“‘n stress”) is outlining. But in an effort to cut to the nub of my disagreement with some of the underlying philosophy of what you gents are talking about, let me ask this question: what’s the fundamental difference between “urban” and “suburban”?
Case in point: in the 18th century, the London neighborhood of Bloomsbury was little more than a pastoral new village — a suburb. Brand-new houses were being built on well-planned streets with planned green space, etc. It was a place to escape the hurly-burly of the inner city without moving to Shropshire. Today, of course, Bloomsbury continues to be its own jurisdiction, but it’s as “inner city” as Threadneedle Street (home to the Bank of England, in the City of London).
Take an even more extreme example, that of my adopted city of Washington. After World War Two, a lot of folks moved out into the ‘burbs, like Alexandria and Prince George’s County (MD). They got away from the dirt, crime, and high prices of downtown DC to enjoy the “American dream” a little more. A mere generation or so later, Alexandria is almost as expensive as Georgetown and Prince George’s County is a ghetto of crime and corruption.
These examples help illustrate my point, which is that in my opinion new urbanism is built on an arbitrary distinction and relies on a lot of socialist ideology.
Just my two cents.
Also, not to go over my ration of space on a blog that’s not mine, but I have to disagree with one of Mr Storm’s assertions: “Christians largely abandoned the cities for the suburbs.” Here in downtown DC (where I work, and sometimes that means it seems like I live here too) there are at least seven churches within an easy walk that seem to be thriving:
Foundry United Methodist
St. Peter’s Episcopalian
Grace Reformed (now a Church of Christ)
a Presbyterian church, the name of which escapes me
a Baptist church, the name of which escapes me
National City Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
St. Matthew’s Cathedral (Catholic)
And I’m talking about only a small area. Maybe some of these churches are struggling, but my impression is that most if not all are doing quite well. St Matt’s, in particular, seems abuzz with activity. The 5 pm Mass on Sunday evenings, for Pete’s sake, is always packed with people–trendy young things, people who seem like recent immigrants to this great land of ours, middle-aged blue collar types, little old ladies, a retired ambassador who teaches at my school, and sometimes even oddballs like me.
So don’t count out the possibility that one of my suggestions may be right: we don’t need to take back the city; it was never conquered in the first place.
Charles,
I will not rebut you in detail, except to point out that every example you have used as a foil against New Urbanism is in fact the point of New Urbanism.
Put shortly and bluntly, it’s not new at all. New Urbanism is shooting for San Fransisco or the cities of the East. Places built on a human scale, walkable, mixed in use and economic distribution.
The Urban / Suburban distinction itself is not as important as the lifestyle distinction. You are in a place with a history, a culture, and some sort of local identity. DC has a thing, something it does, something it is known for. There are civic monuments, churches with history, neighborhoods with a distinct and nearly palpable character. The scene you speak of, outside of the church, is not possible in suburbs. Similar houses within tracts lead to economic segregation; people must drive wherever they are going, and their destinations are often economically driven as well.
You did not grow up in the West, but it is not like that here. We have built suburbs in all but a few places. We are forced to drive in cars, we are forced to store them in parking lots and shop at strip malls. The solitude of the automobile and the loneliness of the commute have led many – Austin and Davey and I are among them – to question the wisdom of living out of our cars instead of in a community.
I will of course grant that not all suburbs are bad, because they aren’t. And I will even more hastily grant that cities are full of crime and other unpleasant things.
The point is that nobody sits back and says “Phoenix… ah, that’s a town.” But how many times have you heard that about Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, MSP, Chicago, Austin, LA, San Fransisco, New York, Alexandria, Boston, Philadelphia, and the other great American cities? London, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris, Versailles, Prague, Berlin, and all the rest?
All were built with humans in mind. The west was paved with cars as the greatest civic patron. That needs to be reversed.
This all, of course, is moot, because the thing that A, D, and I care about most right now is determining, if we want to do something ministry-related with our lives (and some of us do), where that ministry might be. We may disagree over whether cities need be taken back or whether they were first taken; the question at issue here is whether or not people in Cities need Christ, and whether or not we may want to go do our Kingdom-building in such a place.
Thanks for the input, by the way.
Chris, last paragraph: Obviously, no problem here. Go with God.
Earlier, though, you said, “The scene you speak of, outside of the church, is not possible in suburbs. Similar houses within tracts lead to economic segregation; people must drive wherever they are going, and their destinations are often economically driven as well.”
Well, sure it’s possible in the suburbs, given a little time. Look at Bloomsbury or Alexandria. It might take a while, but there’s every reason to think that in the natural order of things the raw concrete of the parking lots and “lifestyle center” malls you hate will mellow with time.
Basically put, I think you need to read more James Lileks.
Here, James gets choked up about the closing of his Target:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/07/0107/010807.html
And even more to the point, Old Man Lileks discusses New Urbanism:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/07/0307/030507.html
@Charles:
Alexandria and Bloomsbury are not suburbs in the strict sense that I am discussing them. They prove my point, really: we want great places like these, but modern zoning laws and the automobile-centric scale of current building practices make it all but impossible.
Allow me to be lazy and quote from Wikipedia re:Alexandria, VA. This is not a hotly debated topic, so I assume most facts I’m putting here are close to accurate:
Cultural Identity:
“Like the rest of Northern Virginia, as well as central Maryland, modern Alexandria has been shaped by its proximity to the nation’s capital. It is largely populated by professionals working in the federal civil service, the U.S. military, or for one of the many private companies which contract to provide services to the federal government.”
“The historic center of Alexandria is known as Old Town. With its concentration of high-end boutiques, fine restaurants, antique shops and theaters, it is a major draw for tourists and those seeking nightlife.”
(Phoenix, from Wikipedia: “Phoenix and the surrounding area is home to a broad range of cultural activities including the performing arts, museums, and events.” Oooh. Stimulating.)
Human Scale: “The addressing system in Alexandria is not uniform and reflects the consolidation of several originally separate communities into a single city.” See also the “neighborhoods” section. Alexandria proper is about 15 square miles, with 5 distinct neighorhoods, making each amenable to the human scale (3 miles in diameter maximum).
Housing density, another factor, is 4,233.2 units per square mile, compared to Phoenix’s 1,044 per square mile. Housing unit density is one of the greatest indicators of the degree of “sprawl” in any urban environment.
Alexandria was founded in 1749, which likely (due to zoning and civic use customs at the time) qualifies it as the type of city that New Urbanism tries to recreate. We’re battling Phoenix and the dilapidated urban cores of the West, not the cities you speak of.
Fine, re-creation of the 18th century is dandy and all. But what if Phoenix works better for Phoenixians, or whatever they’re called?
There are many reasons why I am a fan of monks right now.
1. They can really tear through sewer rats and get great intelligence bonuses when they level up, while still having the discipline and strength to handle weapons not normally available to spellcaster classes:
2. They are pretty much the reason why Anglo Saxon and Protestant are found together in Western History textbooks these days.
3. I hear Linnaeus always smelled like lilac.
This is a thread that will hopefully be the springboard for a larger discussion I started last night with Davey and Austin (separately). In a nutshell, we’re pretty rad, and I think we could actually pull off a combined effort to plant another (but more different and thus sweeter) “Moscow Project” within our lifetimes. The idea is embryonic, but I’ve always figured I’ll end up going somewhere with a bunch of like-minded guys someday with the purpose of putting my NSA Diploma to some actual use.
The monk thing is apt because they traveled in groups, which was helpful, and they can enchant double-edged blades that will totally frag the undead, which is not only helpful but totally awesome.
Two starters:
1. The idea of one body, many parts. We have the beginnings of something can can make a dent, so long as we recognize and pursue individual strengths which, when developed, can contribute to the whole in a way that would surpass a collection of generalists. Example: Jones does the philosophy, Leithart the theology and lit, Schuler the music, and Wilson the popularism. Can we do something similar? Is it wise to consider our strengths and develop them now with a goal like this in mind?
2. Strategic and Feasible. Moscow used to be possible when Seattle wasn’t. Now Christians have begun to overrun the cities, and I think we can too, especially given our tastes and skills. Would people be willing to consider overrunning a city, having Austin set up a publishing wing, and cranking out books during breaks at the soup kitchens?
Discuss.
I’m really not at all sure what C. is talking about, but since that’s never held me back before, here goes.
1. What exactly is new about this? Frankly, this sounds common as dirt. Hal is the barber, while Jerry does the blacksmithing. Anything less seems nonsensical. Then again, I’m probably missing something important.
2. What’s strategic about Moscow? Moscow, Russia? Sure. Moscow, Idaho? You’ve got some serious persuading to do, old buddy. Then again, this question leads squarely into some issues you and I will probably never agree on, especially new urbanism and a lot of the concepts allied thereunto.
Besides, I’m just the optimistic sort of fellow to say that watching a Christian “overrun” anything here in these United States is like conquering your backyard. It’s silly not because it’s a minor feat; it’s silly because it was always yours to begin with.
“Rad”? You already killed the idea. With that one word.
A brief history of Chris and the word “rad”:
1. After seeing Mandi B. quote Flight of the Conchords on her Xanga, I describe her in the comments using the word “rad.”
2. Appreciating my use of the word “rad,” Mandi concedes that I would probably be a pretty awesome friend.
3. Friendship ensues.
4. Mandi’s neighbor comes to Moscow, and, being Mandi’s friend, I take special interest in this neighbor and her transition into Moscow life.
5. My special interest is overrun by cooties. After some effort, the awfully pretty neighbor became my girlfriend.
The use of “rad” has worked out pretty well for me so far. The only thing that “rad” has killed is my unhygienic bachelorhood.
+1 Charisma
Flight of the Conchords? Don’t you mean flight of the Concordes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwdwdb25AJw
C Van S, and
D 4:43 pm on April 9, 2009 Permalink
Nice post, Austin. I think the charge of ingratitude/cynicism is about the reverse of any impulse I have toward localism. Seems to me that localism is precisely an attitude of being grateful for what we’re given, even if we don’t like it. Check out this brilliant piece over at FPR about loving the unlovable town of South Bend, Indiana (this one struck home for me, of course).
I don’t see a problem in talking about what localism is “against,” since any thesis has a necessary antithesis. However, the charge that localism is ungrateful is really not an argument against supporting local businesses, but an argument against being an ass about it. To which I can only say Amen, and then let’s talk about substance.
Sometimes, though, I wonder if the skepticism about local ag, small businesses, and homegrown miscellany isn’t really an unspoken conservative desire to keep as much distance as possible from hipster liberals. But I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of supporting local economies. If localism becomes hip, I could care less. I’m not looking for manufactured localism; that’s obviously an oxymoron. Of course, that’s what plagues some of the leftist versions of localism, imho. When you go down that road you get Whole Foods, Birkenstocks, dreadlocks, and monotonous social uniformity (the counterpart to Wal-mart, pick-up trucks, and the mullet).
True localism is going to be messy, because every region has it’s ugly spots. Regionalism in Louisiana is going to have both Cajun cooking and a dose of latent racism. Regionalism in Chicago is going to have deep-dish, amazing sports bars and corrupt city aldermen.
But as a business owner, I’d rather have to deal with Richard Daley’s Machine than Sam Walton’s rapacious heirs. Localism would rather deal with a bad neighbor than a bad corporation. Localism stands against the kind of greed that believes that bigger is always better, that ideology trumps region, and that Smoky Mountain Pizza is a better neighbor than Lefty’s Burgers.
If what we call “localism” is some unified ideology, like some other artificial social system (e.g. suburbianism or capitalism), count me out. We don’t need another movement. What we need is a better idea of how to be good neighbors. And I cannot believe that suburbianism or Wal-mart make better neighbors. They may or may not increase my quality of life, but they don’t help me live in community.
C 5:26 pm on April 9, 2009 Permalink
I really must add that nobody, including us Distributists, should actually hate WinCo. They have generous employee profit sharing and pay some really killer benefits. It’s a sterling example of how a company should be run.
While WinCo does sell a lot of super-cheap, denutrified corporate foodstuffs, you’ll note that most of their prices are better even on high-end name-brand products. There are many reasons for this, but a primary one is their employee-owner structure is not given to bloat or excessive profits – but rather fair profits – and this structure actually leads to all sorts of efficiencies. When there isn’t a 400:1 wage ratio between CEOs and entry-level workers, you can afford to pay the :1 crowd generously and still charge a lot less.
I’m with Davey, and in my conversation this morning with Austin, this same argument against “ungratefulness” came up almost immediately. When you know your food – you’ve cared for and fed that cow, you’ve tilled the soil around those vegetables and prayed for the rain that helped them grow – you can’t help but be more thankful for it. And when you share that bounty with your neighbor, good and earthy bounty that is manifest by dirt under your fingernails, you begin to understand what things like labor and charity and community really mean.
We’re vigorously pursuing a world in which we know intimately, and are thus so thankful for, what God has given to us. We want red meat, crisp veggies, and tanned leathery necks. We want rain to be mana. We want, absurdly, for manure to once again mean resurrection.
David 9:11 pm on April 9, 2009 Permalink
I think it’s also helpful to note that the poor often buy the cheapest stuff available even if it is “de-nutrified”. So while we can be all for organic, natural whatever for good reason, it’s also good to recognize that cheap sustenance is still sustenance and is the only option for a lot of people. If we come to the conclusion that it is better to give folks the natural organic whatever, then we should hopefully be moved to be more than generous with the good that we have been given.