It's probably better to think of this in terms of the unity of theory and
practice creating a community, rather than that the practice and _not_
theory ( religious or atheist)make a community or create a community.
The Europeans in the west part of Canada who "practiced" together did so on
the basis of some shared values, i.e. theory. So, there would have been no
community creating practice without some common or shared theory in the
first place. The church communties' originating practices were based in
shared ideas of some type. The thing gets to be like the chicken and the
egg, so it is best not to try to give priority or special place to either
practice or theory.
There's no such thing as any people anywhere just suddenly engaging in some
practice without any theory in their heads. Their theory may be modified by
their practice, and so in this sense their practice creates theory, but
their practice may confirm their previously held theory, i.e. not change it.
The other idea is that theory is a guide to practice, not a dogmatic
playbook , like lines in a theatrical play or in a dogmatic ritual. The
theory must be open to modification based on practice.
Theory also provides the goals and aims of practice. Aimless activity is not
practice.
My only concern about "frontier" communities' solidarity is that their
originating practice and struggle was aimed at goals which were highly
antagonistic to the indigenous peoples of the "frontier". The Christian
theory and practice had a racist concept of Indians, etc. Can a community
based on such theory and practice really be the basis for progressive
politics today ?
Charles
* From: paul phillips
I think I see what Carrol is getting at. It was not the church that created
the community, but the shared values and collective action in organizing the
church etc. that created the community. This, however, points to one of the
difficulties in modern urban society. There are few such collective
institutions that create community.
This is not entirely true, of course. We just retired to a small town
in British Columbia where we very rapidly made friends and enjoyed a
community by joining a couple of choirs. Music and the arts also have the
ability to create shared values -- i.e. a community.
Paul P
Carrol Cox wrote:
paul phillips wrote:
I think I disagree quite profoundly with Carrol on this.
The centre of most communities in the 'frontier' west of Canada was the
local church and school.
The center is not the community. What _formed_ the community was the
shared action of forming the physical community on the 'frontier.' The
historical accident of the Roman Empire was responsible for the "center" to
be a xtian church rather than some other such institution. Your post
complements rather than contradicts mine.
Carrol
