From the point of view of Buddhist economics, therefore, production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life, while dependence on imports from afar and the consequent need to produce for export to unknown and distant peoples is highly uneconomic and justifiable only in exceptional cases and on a small scale.
- E. F. Schumacher
If localism in peer-based communities is not to become a meaningless utopian scheme, certain concerns will need to be addressed. I’ve been thinking about the problem of diversity and localism – how to prevent localism from creating islands of sameness and homogeneity of beliefs and values within a larger pluralistic culture; or how to prevent localism from stifling differences and enforcing a bland conformism. I would appreciate readers’ thoughts on this issue. Here are some of my own.
How can we protect and permit pluralistic approaches to living our lives within local communities? Buddha was supposed to have once said – “Think of what you desire and realize that all living things want and need the same things; they just go about seeking them in different ways.” This perhaps provides a clue of seeking unity in the midst of diversity. If we posit that what we all share are the basic existential needs for respect and security. We just need to allow for some disagreement on the right and wrong way of satisfying these shared needs.
What guidelines might help us in achieving unity in diversity, so that each person in our local communities can satisfy these common needs in their own way? I was reading some essays by James Rachels (The Legacy of Socrates: Essays in Moral Philosophy. Columbia University Press, 2006.) and found a few possibilities in his essay on Socrates’ contribution to ethics in a democracy. This is my own reformulation of some suggestions found there into three possible guiding principles.
First, localism must realize that the community cannot favor the interests of some members over others, but that each member’s interests count equally. In council meetings, for instance, the diversity of perspectives must be represented even if only by proxy.
Second, local communities must recognize and respect individuality. The community must tolerant conduct that the majority might disapprove of as long as the conduct does not harm the interests of others.
Third, standards of community life must be flexible enough to accommodate the personal conscience of all members and not impose controversial dogmas, and be established upon reasonable and commonly accepted norms. For instance the “ten new commands” offered by Bernard Gert might be sufficient (See Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Bernard Gert. OUP, 2004.):
10 Rules of Universal or Common Morality
1. Do not kill.
2. Do not cause pain.
3. Do not disable.
4. Do not deprive of freedom.
5. Do not deprive of pleasure.
6. Do not deceive.
7. Keep your promises.
8. Do not cheat.
9. Obey the law.
10. Do your duty – as required by the responsibilities you freely take upon yourself.
This is only a first take at thinking of ways to protect diversity and foster pluralism with peer-based communities practicing localism. I’d appreciate other ideas and feedback.
