One of the first references I found to the Parallel Polis came from the left — from author and “psycho-social therapist” Indra Adnan. In her 2021 book, The Politics of Waking Up, she cites the work of Havel and Benda as a model for what she calls “soft power.”
She acknowledges the failure of party politics and established institutions to address the existential crises we face today and proposes cultivating our collective wisdom and imagination to “nurture and develop a new socio-economic-political system that makes the old one obsolete.”
Although she acknowledges the Parallel Polis’s use of “broad moral arguments about dignity and freedom,” she doesn’t mention the underlying foundation of Catholic Personalism. Reading her account, it would be easy to imagine Parallel Polis as a purely social, economic, and political movement and its “broad moral arguments” as merely tactical.
Now imagine for a moment an account of Sarvodaya that fails to acknowledge the movement’s spiritual change strategy, which is based on Buddhist Virtues, or one that suggests that Gandhi’s work was purely secular!
In the largely progressive mainstream milieu of social change, Christian or religious influence remains invisible, unacknowledged, and unwanted.
Meanwhile, on the right, there has been a similar awakening regarding the futility of “politics as usual” and the need to “stop funding think tanks” and begin working with real people in real communities.
Conservative commentator N.S. Lyons acknowledges the Parallel Polis as “an ultimately successful strategy of resistance to Communism developed by Czech dissidents in the Cold War to counteract atomization, isolation, and degradation.
He seems to describe our contemporary Culture of Separation, doesn’t he?
Lyons opposes top-down governmental “social engineering” and a dysfunctional, oppressive bureaucracy, and lauds the Parallel Polis approach for cultivating personal responsibility, self-discipline, spiritual commitment, and civic obligation.
And … he seems to be fully cognizant of something I’ve referred to several times in this book – those people already meeting community needs. He acknowledges the unsung leaders of existing communities, such as those in impoverished neighborhoods who work out of storefront churches, possessing “moral, not credentialed authority.”
Understandably, someone who advocates “less government, more personal responsibility” would seize on this approach to supporting local agency.
And yet – interestingly – Lyons likewise fails to highlight the religious foundation of the Parallel Polis!
Someone who DOES emphasize the religious is Rod Dreher, author of The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, who offers his plan for a Christian Parallel Polis as a means for “cultural and spiritual survival in a secularizing world.” Like Benda, he suggests withdrawing from institutions undermining Christian values and building a countercultural community that affirms the Christian faith and way of life.
Just as the Czech Parallel Polis provided both a refuge and a way forward, Dreher sees an entire Christian communal way of life – including churches, community centers, and Christian-owned businesses – as a counter-cultural island inside a materialist, secularist empire.
Here's the problem.
We have three movements and three communities, each calling for a parallel polis for their agenda, but NOT for the community at large.
Once again, the Culture of Separation permeates even the most well-meaning attempts at creating a new culture of connection!
Each of these three potential applications of the Parallel Polis above (progressive, conservative, and Christian) seems to be captured by a political or religious belief that confines them to what I have called separate networked silos and will not bring about the Culture of Connection we all seek in our heart of hearts. Each seems to be a reaction against some aspect of the Culture of Separation – yet fails to recognize that separation itself is the fundamental problem.
For Indra Adnan, the existential threat is the “climate emergency.” And yet – because that term has been “politically captured” by the progressive side -- that phrase alone will exclude 50% of the potential community. On the other hand, a phrase like “preserve, restore, and regenerate a healthy environment” would get almost universal buy-in.
For the right, the existential threat is a worldwide, unelected global elite that seeks to impose their secular culture and materialist values onto all of us, essentially de-platforming not just God but human sovereignty and self-rule |
No comments:
Post a Comment