Michael Sandel's Reith Lecture

One of Sandel's comments at the end of his 2nd 2009 Reith lecture struck me as an interesting answer to the third question in Brokeback Bits below.

He was advocating the growth of serious political dialogue, a new citizenship, n all that. One member of the audience asked about the role of the internet and new media in this process. His response was interesting because it showed that Sandel thinks, ultimately, that we can only stretch ourselves so far before we revert to localised communities:

His reply was that, yes, the internet would of course have a major role to play in the new citizenship that he favours. But the caveat was that no universal medium will ever be able to replace face-to-face discussion. Consequently, he joins those who foresee a rise in localised political dialogue in the future. A sort of bifurcation between the big issues, being dealt with on a universal stage on the one hand; and the politics of the local taking place through the geographically segmented fora of old.

So, in Sandel's view, when it comes to political community-building, we cannot stretch ourselves infinitely thin and give up our geographical localisation. We always need a local base. But, insofar as he is sincere about the role of universal media in the future that he sees, Sandel also believse that there is a place for the geographically-blind community too.

Is this subsidarity in 21st Century community building? If so, is it likely to work? Would the different communities address only their "appropriate" issues? Would a natural sorting take place?

Brokeback Bits

I saw brokeback for the first time tonight - how many years since release? Anyway, there's a fragmented story if ever there was one.

At the end of the film, it emerges that Jack Twist requested that his ashes are left on Brokeback Mountain - a place neither his wife nor parents know anything about, but which Jack himself considered to be the most important place of his life. Jack's situation contrasts with Ennis'. Whilst Jack is clearly never reconciled with his fragmentation (continually striving to overcome it, whether with Ennis or someone else), Ennis is reconciled to it (though not exactly happy with it).

Fact is, after so long trying, we've reached a point where people can hold their most treasured possessions in different places for an entire lifetime, never bringing them home for all to share because it's no longer clear who "all" is anyway.

For sure, that's a huge achievement compared to what was around before. But still, it takes some thinking about, even if you're born into it.

So, I'll start with some questions about how far us humans can stretch:

- Can you function as a social human without sharing your whole person with any one significant other?

- Are the bonds of love and loyalty possible if a person retains disparate parts of his or her core being?

- Can community exist in a truly overlapping and geography-neutral pattern?

These questions aren't meant to be , I should add, specifically about homosexual cowboys. Rather, just about the self-questioning liberalism that we're living in now. They sum up my confusions about the relations between people, groups of people, countries and groups of countries.

What do we do now we've done liberalism?