Heiho,
you may've seen already that communitarism is one of those buzzwords which may be of use to anyone to express anything. Indeed even the almighty wikipedia * will show you that the term goes at least back to 19th century, where some heavy religious influence was dominant to it. So no surprise in finding it at the homepage of some lunatics (not sure if crossroads.to is connected to crossroads movement / CoC, but it wouldn't be surprising either).
Still the linked subsite gives tons of information in different directions, which is at least more worth than the original homepage of the Communitarian Network, which is just a brief collection of vague ideas; and again, anyone can find himself comfortable with those due to their vagueness. It is noteable that wording is more eliticist, so folks with academical background may feel comfortable first. But when push comes to shove, the wording doesn't mean anything.
Like, you know, 'change' for <strike>ordinary</strike> <edit> common </edit> people.
* which I refuse to cite without the disclaimer that anything of social relevance will need a full analysis of the editing history and talk section before taking for granted just because of being written in wikipedia
That's my oldschool point of recherche. If I'm browsing through sources provided by crossroads.to I always remember the origin. Browsing through sources provided by wikipedia tends to neglect the editors of a given wikipedia article. Which doesn't matter if it's just some geek stuff like the color of a StarTrek staff member's shirt in a given scene, and mostly doesn't matter in science stuff (as long as Bible Belt buttheads and other religious hardcore fundamentalists stay out). It always matters in social/political/religious stuff.
Quote:Now that you mention it, I do recall my political philosophy prof, who did his thesis on Communitarianism, offering a somewhat offhand eye-rolling comment about some groups in the states that have taken the term in strange directions.
This must be them.
you may've seen already that communitarism is one of those buzzwords which may be of use to anyone to express anything. Indeed even the almighty wikipedia * will show you that the term goes at least back to 19th century, where some heavy religious influence was dominant to it. So no surprise in finding it at the homepage of some lunatics (not sure if crossroads.to is connected to crossroads movement / CoC, but it wouldn't be surprising either).
Still the linked subsite gives tons of information in different directions, which is at least more worth than the original homepage of the Communitarian Network, which is just a brief collection of vague ideas; and again, anyone can find himself comfortable with those due to their vagueness. It is noteable that wording is more eliticist, so folks with academical background may feel comfortable first. But when push comes to shove, the wording doesn't mean anything.
Like, you know, 'change' for <strike>ordinary</strike> <edit> common </edit> people.
* which I refuse to cite without the disclaimer that anything of social relevance will need a full analysis of the editing history and talk section before taking for granted just because of being written in wikipedia
That's my oldschool point of recherche. If I'm browsing through sources provided by crossroads.to I always remember the origin. Browsing through sources provided by wikipedia tends to neglect the editors of a given wikipedia article. Which doesn't matter if it's just some geek stuff like the color of a StarTrek staff member's shirt in a given scene, and mostly doesn't matter in science stuff (as long as Bible Belt buttheads and other religious hardcore fundamentalists stay out). It always matters in social/political/religious stuff.