Labarge Prof. 4/25/08
States and Neighborhoods, Clubs, and Families Walzer draws analogies between neighborhoods, clubs and families with states. When posed with the question which analogy fits the best, Walzer analyzes each comparison and finds that a connection between neighborhoods and nations cannot work. While it is true that with neighborhoods people are generally free to enter and exit as they please he argues that an analogy between states and neighborhoods, meaning the country permits entry by aliens from anywhere, would destroy the concept of neighborhood. Neighborhoods can be open only if countries are at least somewhat closed. Only if the nation goes through a selection of possible members and guarantees loyalty and well being of the individuals it selects can local communities take shape as different associations. Walzer also claims that if states ever became large neighborhoods, it is likely that neighborhoods would become little states. Members of the neighborhood would unite to defend local politics and culture against strangers rather than politics of the whole country. For these reasons, Walzer rejects the analogy between states and neighborhoods and alternatively supports the one between states and clubs or families. States are like clubs in that membership is entirely up to the members themselves to decide. Admissions policies are a significant feature of communal life because they help with the cohesion and sense of a shared purpose among the members. Walzer says admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. He goes on to say that they suggest the deepest meaning self-determination and without them
there could be no "communities of character," or historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life. States resemble families in that they can help meet the needs of nonmembers. Although family interactions are usually with those in the family, they can occasionally provide for the of welfare strangers. In connection with this observation, states tend to provide refuge to people in need even when no bonds between that person and the state exist. I feel like Walzer gives the correct answer to this question. Although at its surface one might say that the idea of states being like neighborhoods is more appealing, it is far too idealistic. The sense of individual freedom to move about with out any kind of admission boundaries is enticing, but it leaves an opening for complete disorganization in our world. If people were allowed to freely move about from state to state seeking personal advancement, they would be constantly moving. Although some might argue that people naturally want to stay where they are, I believe that the idea of "the grass is greener on the other side" is more prevalent in human nature. People are always looking for that next big thing to further their career. It is for this reason that if states were like neighborhoods, people would be rapidly hopping from one place to another. With the constant moving of persons, it would be hard to establish a sense of community or reach an agreement on what laws should be made for the community. Also, little to no concern for the welfare of the state as a whole would exist since it would be so easy for one to move to another state if they felt the state was weakening. Because of this fact, all states would not be nearly as progressive or powerful as they could possibly be since no one is going to put the
time and effort to fixed a flawed nation if they can just pack up and move without a second's thought. Clubs and families on the other hand, establish a sense a pride and belonging. It makes sense for states to be more like a club because then the nation is receiving the best members it could possibly get. If there is an admissions policy that one has to go through, then only the people who really want to be a member of that state are going to participate in it and therefore, the most loyal members a state can get are being enlisted.