ONE FOR ALL, ALL FOR ONE *MARTIN W. BUSH* Co-Editor It is nothing if not tempting to agree with New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that the current rash of moral failures in political and religious public figures--revelations of hypocritical behavior, selfishness, and the like--are nothing but the same old thing tied coincidentally together. Believing these events to be but a blip on the national behavioral scope (and that only because they happened to be exposed at the same time) would be comforting. And, of course, it is dicey to risk a contrary judgment, because there are always those in the educational community and media willing to respond with derision to the suggestion that things have indeed changed morally. (Those who doubt should try teaching in a public high school for awhile and comparing it with their own high school experience.) The old adage about the inscription on the pyramid which notes that children were even then becoming disrespectful, selfish, and lazy, etc., is always ready to be thrown into the discussion. It is neither the children nor their behaviors which have changed, these doubters might argue, but only those who are trying to maintain power through the status quo. Well, one could sincerely wish it were so, but indications are otherwise. The coincidence is too strong, the violations too common, to maintain the facade of an objective and patronizing "boys will be boys" attitude. Deep down, thoughtful people know that when widespread scandal stretches from the boardrooms of our most respected corporations and investment firms to those of the largest religious organizations, and to the top levels of national government, not to mention the governments of large municipalities like Chicago and New York (which, admittedly, have had a penchant for that sort of thing all along), that, as Sherlock Holmes would have put it, "something is afoot." Have we merely been primed and sensitized to the moral issues, or is there an unusually "In and through community lies the salvation of the world. Nothing is more important. Yet it is virtually impossible to describe community meaningfully to someone who has never experienced it--and most of us have never had an experience of true community. Still, the attempt must be made. For the human race today stands at the brink of self-annihilation." All of us belong to communities, in the broad sense of the word, though often, perhaps, more by default than design. Actually, most of us probably belong to heterogenous aggregations--neighborhoods, political associations, and the like--which have more to do with geography or a narrow political interest than more broadly shared personal values. True "community" is a term which probably should be reserved for the church family where we attend, or the church-related college where we teach. It is there that we find those who care about us. There we find those who know a great deal about us--and still love us. Or do we? Robert Bellah and four associates recently published Habits of the Heart, an absorbing work which snatches representative and remarkably accurate snapshots of several unique American personalities. We all know these folks. They are us. And yet the authors find something compellingly disquieting about their stories. These people, though diverse in background, interest, and affluence, are products of a common philosophical strain which has caused community to become subservient to the the drive for individualism. And it is this powerful, transcending individualism which the authors believe ravages our ability to make commitments to one another. The line between public commitment--commitment to community, if you will--and privacy is, at best, a thin one. No thoughtful person can doubt any longer that an increasing commitment to public involvement leads inexorably to less privacy and fewer attachments which can be truly personal and private. The media feast surrounding the vice presidential candidacy of Geraldine Ferrarro, which savaged her family life and personal relations, and the more recent withdrawal of Mario Cuomo from consideration as a democratic nominee for president, not to mention the Gary Hart debacle, illustrate (with full acknowledgement that often where there is smoke there is fire) an interesting though chilling problem: the increasing reluctance of capable individuals to approach that line, the crossing of which seemingly grants to the public the "right to know" about the deepest of personal secrets. With full acknowledgement that the mass media thrives on, and has become extremely sophisticated and subtle in, providing vicarious thrills, it is ironic and perhaps telling that this generation which is least able or likely to create open, personal attachments and respond to civic responsibility , seems so tremendously anxious to invade and disturb the privacy of those who have attempted more fully to establish a balance between public service and private life. What can be done? From whom can a remedy be purchased? Those who are now or have been administrators at smaller collegiate institutions will agree that a good deal of administrative time in such places is spent in institutional navel gazing. The problems of the present seem to impinge upon all other considerations--too few students, too little money, too many headaches from constituents who do not understand the true mission of the college, and too many faculty and staff members who seem to share the same characteristic. It is also a truism that these faculty and staff members often feel the same way about administrators. Opportunities to contemplate the ideal and, even more, to plan for, implement, and see realized constructive programs which address student and faculty growth and health, not to mention programs which address needs in the local and world communities, are rare indeed. This condition, one suspects, is also not so rare at larger institutions. This forced shortsightedness can often cause disintegration of the unifying vision of the community. Subsequent fragmentation of the college community is a danger. Because of distrust, narrow and narrowing academic specializations, and even lack of time, little common ground exists within departments, much less across disciplines or the chasms which often separate faculty and staff. Individual successes and failures stand out in such an environment and the individual or small group struggle for "rights" or what is "due," becomes prevalent. Recognizing the tendency for faculty members and administrators even at church-related institutions to follow this path of least resistance toward a more militant individualism, and using the recent work by Robert Bellah and associates, Habits of the Heart, several faculty members at Westmont College agreed to consider the notion of "Individualism and American Life," as it pertained to Westmont College, to their disciplinary areas, and to them as individuals. The group of 14 were divided into three specific areas: 1) "Individualism in American Life" 2) "Individualism in the Liberal Arts" 3) "Christian Liberal Arts and the Transformation of Culture" In addition to Institute staff, Richard Madsen, co-author of Habits of the Heart, made a significant contribution through explanation and clarification of the research which went into the publication, as well as helping to direct discussion. Habits of the Heart, as the review by Steven D. Ealy observes (C&C, Sept. 16, 1985), argues that the major social and economic ills we face can be traced to a deep cultural flaw--what the authors term "radical individualism." Our inability to develop a politics of conscience which could alleviate the pain of the poor, our growing indifference to the unemployed, our quiet retreat on matters of racial and, increasingly, sexual discrimination--all, in the view of the authors, reveal that our "habits of the heart" (Tocqueville's term for cultural mores), no longer sustain a powerful impulse toward the values of an equitable community. At the core of our consciousness we do not even know how to speak about what it means to be creatures of a common culture, tradition, history. Accordingly, we do not have ways to understand the requirements of a viable politics of mutual concern.1 Short of a transformation of American culture, there is doubt that meaningful reforms in equity, social justice, and democratic participation can occur. Thus their appeal for "dialogue on this question, and second, their support for educational reforms that might slowly help knit together and renew a conception of community to `countervail' against the destructive tendencies of radical individualism."2 1Gar Alperovitz, "The Coming Break in Liberal Consciousness," Christianity and Crisis, March 3, 1986, p. 61. 2Ibid., p. 61.