COWBOYS OF COMMUNITY *THOMAS E. SCHMIDT* Assistant Professor of Religious Studies Westmont College Liberal arts proponents need to explore methods of achieving and explaining community in order to facilitate the marriage of intellect and virtue. There is a problem, to be sure. But I am not quite convinced by the authors of Habits of the Heart that individualism in America is unique or recent in its severity. This caution affects my assessment of the relation of individualism to the liberal arts and must be addressed as a preface to my more specific observations. There is a methodological inconsistency forced upon sociologists by the relative youth of the discipline. That is the requirement that contemporary data compiled by exhaustive research and lengthy interviews must be compared to data derived from quotations of essayists and poets long dead. The danger of selectivity for the sake of the model may be realized in this book. Taking as an example the resignation to subjectivity in the religious sphere as a contributor to modern individualism (46), one might respond that social changes have merely provided a convenient rhetoric for the individual to justify a choice as old as mankind. One has only to read the laments of Moses or Paul over the fragmentation of their ancient faith communities to appreciate the prevalence of "every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes"--even where biblical tradition and social identity are exceptionally strong. My suspicion that the increase in individualism is in some measure rhetorical is coupled with a concern that the suggested solutions of the authors are expressed in sentimental, almost nostalgic language. Apart from a few specific suggestions in the closing chapter, the goal appears to be "a common future" (252), "public virtue" (271), and above all, "the common good" (271, 285). Thus, despite the insightful analysis of our current selfish modes of living, the reader is offered little more than slogans to describe the past and the future. There are possibilities for the liberal arts to offer the necessary specificity for our understanding of the past and the future and to provide a visible response to destructive individuation. These possibilities center on the opportunities for corporate and individual modeling of virtue. John Winthrop's description of Christian community might serve as a description of the ideal life of collaborative liberal arts scholarship: "We must delight in each other, make others conditions our own, rejoyce together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our community as members of the same body" (28). The movement of this description from hopeless ideal to reality in a college setting will require specific commitments. Among these will be limitation in size, sacrifice of some professional prestige on the part of the faculty, significant participation in the academic enterprise on the part of staff, significant access to power on the part of faculty, rule by consensus, social, academic, and pedagogical collaboration, and cross-disciplinary team teaching. It may be helpful to take the last example in this series a step further. The atomization of the arts under the influence of science is not remedied by team-teaching that merely offers plural perspectives on one problem. Such an approach models the opposite of integration. Instead, scholars in the liberal arts need to explore, publicly, the meeting points or disciplines, to develop and employ commonality rather than to define and justify exclusivity. Thus, for example, the literary critic will work with the theologian to discover the dynamic between style and historical context in order to ascertain the transferability of, say, the biblical principle of non-retaliation. In their efforts to build and to exemplify a world view, proponents of the liberal arts offer most of the specific recommendations of the concluding chapter of Habits of the Heart (288-89). Extrinsic rewards and punishments are reduced to allow intrinsic satisfaction in the vocations, satisfaction is found in work well done as measured by the approbation of students and peers, and the corporation affirms a balance between private and public interest. There are dangers, however. The safety of academia might bring about the accusation that a college is another "lifestyle enclave" (69), where those who appreciate the liberal arts merely gather together to train others in order to have someone to talk to. It can become, like the church, "a haven in a heartless world" (224). But that is not necessarily destructive. As long as the struggle against destructive individualism is not widespread, the mutual reinforcement provided by an enclave is the only possibility for nurture. Indeed, it would be rather odd to argue that individualism must be opposed by courageous individuals, the "cowboys of community." It is only by striving in concert and by calling attention to this concert as a legitimate model that proponents of the liberal arts will be able to avoid this criticism. Another danger requiring confrontation by proponents of the liberal arts is that their encouragement in some ways increases destructive individualism. The materialistic media tells the individual that there are things that "you can't leave home without." Colleges tell the individual that a perspective on the liberal arts is something that "you can't have without leaving home." Transience, a major contributing factor to individualism in an upwardly mobile subculture, is required by colleges in order to acquire a body of students, and faculty members are examples par excellence of this expression of self-reliance. From the students' perspective, they must seem perfectly transient. Like Shane, they wander onto the ranch (campus) from parts unknown and exciting (distant homes and grad schools) to make life better for the decent folks in the community (classroom), then they trot off into the sunset (offices or homes). Perhaps direct address of this danger in the classroom and commitment to one academic community can remedy the situation in part by the suggestion that transience ought to be a painful means to an end, not a lifestyle. A fourth danger inherent in the liberal arts themselves is that they invite an appreciation of complexity that discourages virtue. The authors quote Tocqueville: "I have seen the freest and best educated men in circumstances the happiest to be found in the world; yet it seemed to me that a cloud habitually hung on their brow, and they seemed serious and almost sad even in their pleasures" (117). We need seriously to ask whether we may be fostering either a cynical retreat from complexity or a perpetual hunger caused by the inability of some to ingest what we make seem so tasty. There is a tendency toward intellectual and moral "Sheilaism" at the point where a student meets the challenge of a multi-disciplinary and multi-faceted approach to what was once a seemingly simple issue. The premature reaction of many is to conclude that everything is up for grabs and to go the way of destructive self-gratification. The challenge for educators is to recognize and exploit the moment--presumably a different moment for each individual--when intellect confronts virtue. Of course the confrontation of complexity does not always bring about the demise of virtue. At times the intellect is sacrificed, and this is another danger that must be addressed by educators. The liberal arts most often produce what the authors describe as the "civic-minded professional" and the "professional activist" (187-92). The increased sensitivity engendered by the liberal arts to the needs of the disadvantaged is the probable cause. But both of these options appear intellectually inadequate: the former because virtue is tacked onto career without a unifying world-view; the latter because virtue is limited to immediate needs and short-sighted solutions. To be sure, good deeds are done. But when the intellect is not thoroughly involved, when complexity is not appreciated, when sympathy and understanding of a broad perspective is not developed, individualism and the attendant frustration are inevitable. The challenge here is an even greater one to proponents of the liberal arts: we must hold ourselves accountable not only for the integration of our discipline into a coherent world view but also for the integration of our entire lives--and our life as a group--into that world view. None of these remarks identify a particular world view, and without naming one I fall prey to the same vagueness of vision that I mentioned above as a criticism of the authors of Habits of the Heart. Without that unifying vision, proponents of the liberal arts will deserve the oxymoronic label "cowboys of community." So I will take the liberty to play prophet for a moment and suggest that the three most viable alternatives (in order of likely success) are Western Marxism, Orthodox Roman Catholicism, and Evangelical Christianity. These, in my opinion, combine the essential features of comprehensiveness, tradition, and community identity. The first and second may ultimately synthesize in Europe or South America. A synthesis of the first and third is, I think, worthy of more discussion than has heretofore taken place. What better arena than in an American Christian, liberal arts college?