COMMENT ON FINE, ESPELAND, AND ROJIEK’S “YOUNG CITIZENS: THE POSITION OF CHILDREN IN COMMUNITARIAN THEORY”

Abstract

Fine, Espeland and Rojiek’s (2001) basic assumptions are all solid. Communitarian thinking has been gaining ground since 1990 both within academia and the society at large. Communitarian thinking has centered on the role of values and institutions in building and sustaining societies that are not merely civil, but also good. And the authors correctly summarized my main theoretical book on communitarian thinking, The New Golden Rule, as showing that a good society is based on a carefully crafted balance between autonomy and moral order. They overstated a bit the neglect of children in communitarian writing. Others and myself have been deeply involved in the debate as to what kind of family is needed for children to grow up properly, the role of character education in school (vs. the teaching of academics), and the responsibilities the community has for its children – as a common good. We also studied the effects of violent and vile material in the media and on the Web and what might be done about it, which requires a rather different approach than when one deals with adults. Nevertheless, the major criticism stands. Communitarians have not developed a clear and encompassing theory on how children differ from adults with regard to the core issue at hand – how they gradually gain autonomy and the implications of such development for the moral order. Here is an attempt to begin the development of such an approach, quite close to the valuable suggestions included in Fine, Espeland and Rojiek chapter.

Citation

Etzioni, A. (2003), "COMMENT ON FINE, ESPELAND, AND ROJIEK’S “YOUNG CITIZENS: THE POSITION OF CHILDREN IN COMMUNITARIAN THEORY”", Sociological Studies of Children and Youth (Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, Vol. 9), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1537-4661(03)09002-0