Introduction
The questions about community-making and its importance for a democratic society have been asked since the times of Classical Greece. When it comes to the United States, the significance of its residents’ voluntary engagement in social life was described by Alexis de Tocqueville as far back as the 1830s (Macgregor et al. 105). Unlike in Europe, in America, submission to the will of particular superiors was deemed a regulation of one’s independence. According to Macgregor et al., the solution was the formation of so-called voluntary associations – that is, groups of people who worked together to accomplish a particular goal (105). In Tocqueville’s view, the most important function of these associations was to help Americans overcome a trend of isolation that otherwise might have taken root in their individualistic culture (Macgregor et al. 106). Almost two centuries later, when life became predominantly urban, some argue that it has happened, and community life in America is on the decline. However, this is not the case – it is simply taking another form, adjusting to the living conditions of people in the modern world.
Main body
As earlier studies of hunting and gathering societies have shown, the relationships cultivated in villages were not the relationships between just acquaintances. People living in the same area knew more than enough about each other: even without being close friends, they were certainly more than strangers. Tocqueville deemed it a central element of 19th-century America’s exceptional social character (Macgregor et al. 107). It was once estimated that this kind of intimacy, formerly reserved only for members of one’s local neighborhood, would someday relate to a much broader range of connections. However, as much as people would want to support the same level of proximity to larger groups of people, townships do not provide opportunities for many more acquaintances (Macgregor et al. 115). One might note that the cities do, but the ways of urban life fostered the emergence of a new social construct, shrouded largely in one-dimensional contacts: the network.
Some people tend to argue that the grass used to be greener before the evolution of the network. In other words, they feel that, in the past, relationships were tighter, and that city contributed to people becoming more disconnected. However, Macgregor et al. note that one has to be careful about romanticizing village life (116). Townships were not only seedbeds for mutual understanding, but they were also cultivators of divisions and prejudice that have plagued American history. Networks, in turn, allow people to interact exclusively with those who share their feelings on any particular topic, even if it means communicating with drastically different individuals depending on the subject. It has enabled Americans to learn to be more tolerant without having to face the kind of conflicts that fueled discrimination in the past (Macgregor et al. 117). A person can truly be themselves, and they do not have to interact in a meaningful way with those who may disapprove of their choices. Community life in America is not declining; it is transforming in accordance with age, environment, and circumstances.
Conclusion
In conclusion, obsolete conversations about whether community life is falling into decay are bound to stop. It is not – instead, the transition from one social architecture to another is taking place. Many changes in the ways of American life have replaced traditional township connections with networks of barely connected ties. It happened organically, and, therefore, it is neither good nor bad. This new social construct has brought a number of new opportunities and challenges – and they will define American community life for years to come.
Work Cited
Macgregor, Lyn C., et al. Urban People and Places: The Sociology of Cities, Suburbs, and Towns. SAGE Publications, 2014.
Macgregor, Lyn C., et al. Urban People and Places: The Sociology of Cities, Suburbs, and Towns. SAGE Publications, 2014.