Nexus State Theory

Multiple Interpretations of Civic Virtues


I have said that philosophy connects family values with civic virtues or global values, and my values are: relating, communication, fairness, and shared projects. I will note that all of these virtues can be of interest to both the left and the right. That’s partly by design: I want a theory that can appeal to everyone. At the same time, I personally see myself as being more on the left; so I want to suggest how these ideas could appeal to each side of the debate, highlighting the left value that I usually (though not always) prefer. I believe that left and right should aim to tolerate these differences rather than legislating a “correct” way to manage a family and to conceptualize civic virtues.

The terms under each heading are produced by ChatGPT, which I think is in touch with the zeitgeist enough to answer this question better than I can. The rest of the text is mine.

Relating

  1. Shared vulnerability vs shared normalcy. In a family that relates through shared vulnerability, we relate by sharing our emotions and challenges. If shared normalcy, we relate by doing things in a particular, standard way.
  2. Horizontal expansion vs. vertical continuity. Horizontal expansion means that we connect broadly, even to people outside the family. Vertical continuity means that we connect to the past and future, e.g. to our ancestors or family tree.
  3. Recognition vs. belonging. Recognition is psychological: do we try to understand one another? Belonging is cultural: do we feel at home at all times?

Communication

(Note: in this case, conservative communication norms are likely more similar to liberals’ norms within the family. Conservatives, like liberals, value inclusion of their own children. The transgressive communication norms are meant for critiquing liberals, not critiquing parents. There is, then, an insider / outsider boundary, with different rules for each.)

  1. Inclusion vs. transgression. In a family that values communication for inclusion, the emphasis is on including people outside the family into the family’s circle. With transgression, communication is used to question society’s rules and values.
  2. Deliberative openness vs. expressive latitude. If communication is valued for openness, transparency is important. If expressive latitude, then we value “freedom of speech” even if the speech is mocking or “punching down.”
  3. Power critique vs. culture critique. Power critique means that communication is used to question the power roles of, say, adults over children. Culture critique means that it is used to question the family’s aesthetic judgment.

Shared Projects

  1. Structural change vs. cultural renewal. If we value structural change then our shared projects involve relating to other family members in new ways. If cultural renewal, then they involve reviving or preserving our family’s cultural (aesthetic) traditions.
  2. Global-national problems vs. local-national ones. Our family can address global-national problems by volunteering or donating to groups trying to solve these broader issues; or it can contribute to local-national problems.
  3. Future possibility vs. past continuity. With future possibility we imagine a novel future for our family. With continuity we do what has always worked for our family.

Fairness

  1. Outcome vs. Process. Valuing outcome means that everyone in the family (or all children) should have the same outcome. Valuing process means that what’s important is that everyone follows the same rules.
  2. Structures vs, Individuals as the origin of unequal results. If we assume that family structures cause unequal results, then we adjust the family rules to promote equal results. If we assume that unequal results are due to individual differences, then we are more likely to allow results to be unequal.
  3. Marginalized Groups vs. Universal Neutrality. If we value marginalized groups then we watch out for situations in which one family member is being excluded for any reason. If we value universal neutrality, then we might be more likely to allow the family members to manage this problem on their own.