The Risks of Abandoning Communal Ties for Individualism
Pre-Deneen Reflections
When I think about liberal democracy, I’m reminded of a scene from Almost Famous, a movie I loved as a teenager. Set in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the character Anita Miller decides to break free from her repressive “house of lies” and her overly strict mother in pursuit of a more liberated life. As she leaves, Anita boldly declares, “I’m a ‘Yes’ person, and you’re trying to raise us in a ‘No’ environment.”[1]
Though not a perfect metaphor for liberal democracy, this moment captures a key idea: the freedom to dissent and challenge the status quo. In a liberal democracy, citizens have the power to shape their own lives, grounded in their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In liberal democracies, democratic movements often emerge as a response to perceived deficiencies in government responsiveness and accountability. These movements seek to ensure that those in power serve the needs and will of the people. Governments are expected to respect citizens’ freedoms of speech, assembly, and expression, and movements that call for change are usually not shut down or punished, as long as they remain within legal boundaries.
These principles of liberal democracy were deeply ingrained in my thinking, particularly during high school and early years of college. I attended both public and private Christian institutions, where I received a liberal education and was shaped by Christian values—especially the imperative to love God and love others. I came to understand that no system is perfect, as we live in a broken world marked by insatiable desires, greed, and violence. Yet, despite its imperfections, a liberal democracy offers freedoms and privileges not shared by many across the globe. I believe these freedoms should be used to advocate for and protect the marginalized and voiceless—a conviction I still hold today.
While I deeply value individual freedom and the ability to shape our lives, I also seek to glorify God in my choices and actions, ensuring that my freedom honors His laws and respects others and His creation. As a Christian raised in a liberal democracy, I find it empowering and challenging to navigate my yeses and noes with the evolving definitions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—and how these ideals should be understood and lived out today.
Post-Deneen Reflections
While reading Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed, I found myself challenged by his critique of liberalism’s reconceived definition of liberty and the dangers of a borderless pursuit of self-interest—what Deneen describes in an interview with R.R. Reno as an “abyss of choice.”[2] Deneen contrasts this modern notion of liberty with the ancient understanding, writing, “The Greeks especially regarded self-government as a continuity from the individual to the polity, with the realization of either only possible if the virtues of temperance, wisdom, moderation, and justice were to be mutually sustained and fostered.”[3]
I began my pre-Deneen reflections with the story of a movie character seeking to escape her mother’s restrictive home—a scene I see as a metaphor for liberal democracy. Like the character, citizens of a democratic system enjoy the privilege of stepping away from or challenging ideals they perceive as unjust, reflecting the high value placed on personal liberty and autonomy. However, Deneen critiques this radical independence and autonomy, instead advocating for “community as the appropriate setting for flourishing human life.”[4] He writes that community “lives and acts by the common virtues of trust, goodwill, forbearance, self-restraint, compassion, and forgiveness.”[5]
Central to Deneen’s argument is the emphasis on learned virtue and proper self-governance for the common good. He explains that the ancient conception of liberty includes an element of self-restraint: “the learned capacity of human beings to conquer the slavish pursuit of base and hedonistic desires.”[6] In this view, true liberty demands individual discipline and a deep commitment to community.
In contrast, Deneen warns that liberalism undermines these communal bonds and relationships. He writes, “Not only are all political and economic relationships seen as fungible and subject to constant redefinition, so are all relationships—to place, to neighborhood, to nation, to family, and religion. Liberalism encourages loose connections.”[7] This erosion of local and relational ties, Deneen argues, leads to the rise of “disembedded” or disassociated individuals—those who “derive their basic identity from the state.”[8] He cautions that such individuals, “seeking to fill the void left by the weakening of more local memberships and associations, [are] susceptible to a fanatical willingness to identify completely with a distant and abstract state.”[9] This condition, he warns, creates the conditions for totalitarianism to emerge.
Deneen’s writing has affirmed the importance of community and belonging. Similarly, author and physician Gabor Maté highlights in The Myth of Normalcy: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture the need to look beyond self-interest, stating, “Our concept of well-being must move from the individual to the global in every sense of that word.”[10] He further explains, “Ancient cultures have long understood that we exist in relationship to all, are affected by all, and affect all.”[11] Deneen, too, cautions that the condition of complete freedom leaves individuals racked with anxiety; the only relief from this is the Leviathan[12]. He writes, “the vehicles of our liberation have become iron cages of our captivity.”[13] Both Deneen and Maté voice deep concerns over the weakening of community ties, warning that this erosion robs people of the emotional security that comes from meaningful connections. Maté asserts that such relationships are “a condition for maturation,”[14] essential for individual and collective growth.
In conclusion, Deneen’s critique of individualism in liberal democracy challenged my long-held belief in the importance of personal autonomy and the freedom to break away from restrictions. Over the past year, however, I’ve come to recognize the vital role community plays in human flourishing. Given more time, I would explore further the parallels between Deneen and Maté, both of whom offer powerful insights into society’s health and well-being.
[1] Movieclips, “Almost Famous – ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ Scene (1/10),” YouTube video, 1:52, published March 2, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5-Ga83bZv8.
[2] Patrick Deneen and R. R. Reno, After Liberalism: A Conversation with Patrick Deneen and R. R. Reno, YouTube video, 1:19:48, posted by Institute of Advanced Studies, January 10, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5-Ga83bZv8.
[3] Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (Politics and Culture; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 22, Kindle Edition.
[4] Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 22, Kindle Edition.
[5] Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 78-79, Kindle Edition.
[6] Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 37, Kindle Edition.
[7] Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 34, Kindle Edition.
[8] Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 59, Kindle Edition.
[9] Ibid, 59.
[10] Gabor Maté, The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture (New York: Penguin Publishing Group, 2021), 3, Kindle Edition.
[11] Maté, The Myth of Normal, 52, Kindle Edition.
[12] In Leviathan, Hobbes argues that in the absence of a powerful government, humans would exist in a chaotic “state of nature,” where life would be violent, insecure, and “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To escape this chaos, individuals enter into a “social contract,” agreeing to give up certain freedoms in exchange for the protection of their lives and property by a sovereign authority.
[13] Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 6-7, Kindle Edition.
[14] Maté, The Myth of Normal, 182, Kindle Edition.
About the Author
Elysse Burns
16 responses to “The Risks of Abandoning Communal Ties for Individualism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Elysse. What would be a good movie or movie scene that would articulate your view of a healthy community now?
Hi Ryan, You ask a difficult question! There are so many good movies that display community. One newer movie I can think of is a film called “A Good Person.” I give this film as an example because it shows what happens when you lose your community and have to find a new one. Brief summary: there was a season when the main character, Allison, was alone and suffering from an addiction to opioids after a tragic car accident. Anyways, she finds a new community of people in an A.A. program that holds her accountable and becomes a force of strength and accountability in her life. And most importantly, they are friends.
Perhaps that was more of a summary than you wanted. However, I think it was a good example of the frailty of humans and the need for supportive people around us.
Hi Elysse, You post brought me to reflect on your current situation. You are not living in a liberal democracy right now. However, you do have a community within your host country. How has their support made it possible for you to flourish?
Hi Diane, Different people in my community speak into my life differently, and I find all of these voices necessary for flourishing. I am sure you can guess, but Kari has the most impactful voice in my life here. She encourages me to stay on track, step out of my comfort zone, and calls me out when I am self-protective and unpleasant. I also have other expatriate friends who are fun to hang out with. There is no pressure. I also enjoy my relationships with locals. They give me insight into the culture and help me navigate a country that can still perplex me even after almost 4 years. Individuals in the States also pray for me and keep in touch. All of these relationships have been greatly needed for me to flourish here. I suppose that I have a global community!
Hi Elysee,
Thank you for sharing your background with us.
What questions would you explore if you were invited for a roundtable discussion with Deneen?
Hi Shela, Thanks for the question. Deneen emphasizes the importance of community and committed relationships. I would like to know what these relationships look like for him and ask for his recommendations and first steps for building a healthy community. Essentially, I would like to brainstorm with him.
Elysse, You have lived in both individual and communal societies. Do you have any ideas for cultivating a culture that balances individualism and community?
Hi Kari, This is a good question. Something I admire, but am also perplexed by in our host culture is the requirement to take care of family. For example, if you have money, you must give it to your family. I think there is a certain unhealthiness to this, but I like the idea of being open-handed and generous with people. So, I suppose for the balance of individualism and community, I want to ensure I am healthy (emotionally, spiritually, financially) so I can give generously to those around me. There needs to be more “working out” on this, but these are my initial thoughts.
Hey Shela! What was the most significant part of personal autonomy that you found the most challenging?
Hi Daren, I think the most challenging thing about personal autonomy is not having a “safety net” of people who care for our well-being. For example, friends, biological and church family, or colleagues. When I moved overseas, I stepped away from that. Though theoretically, I still had this “safety net” in the States, the responsibility that fell on me as a single foreigner in a new country felt daunting. The proximity of community makes a difference.
Thanks for this analysis Elysse. How do you find the differences between the US and Mauritania with regard to community, which seems to be a core idea in Deneen’s work?
Hi Debbie, Thank you for your question. In Mauritania, family is everything, and there is a lot of pressure to represent your family and tribe well. For example, something simple, single women are not allowed to stay at a friend’s house overnight because this will make them look like “bad” women. This one has always perplexed me because, in the U.S., this is just seen as innocent fun. Something I appreciate in Mauritania is the responsibility to care for the family. If you have money, it has to go to family members in need. I can see how this can be unhealthful, but I believe this culture has shown me the value of care and respect for family. I love my family, but my care for them manifests much differently than it does here. In Mauritania, there is no personal space. You are always with family, and the door is always open to neighbors. Some keep a water jug outside their doors for those who are thirsty or wealthier people, allow those in need to take water from their houses. It really is such a different culture here! It has opened my mind to think of intentional ways to be thoughtful to those in need.
Hi Elysse,
Thanks for your post! Can you say more about the vital role community plays in human flourishing?
Hi Christy, I think “community for flourishing” can look different for people in various seasons of life. I think specifically of my situation last spring when there was a break-in at our house. Kari and I responded differently and needed different voices speaking into our lives. However, the community around us helped us heal after a traumatic event. The most critical thing is that we weren’t doing it alone. This is the most significant benefit of an authentic community, which fosters healing and flourishing. We have people walking this journey with us, and depending on the season, sometimes we are the ones to speak into others’ lives, and there are seasons when others speak into our lives.
Hi, Elysse, I like your discussion on the importance of community and culture in relationship to the freedom of individuals to carry themselves in view of liberalism.
How important is community to liberalism?
Hi Noel, Thank you for your question. I believe Deneen would argue liberalism desires to shed itself of commitment to community. Thus, leaving the individual to look for security in the State. So, although, the term community might not be important concerning liberalism, I believe the personal needs that are fulfilled in community are still desired. People are lonely and looking for support, love, and identity. They are going to find it somewhere and Deneen says they will look for the State to provide this support, stability and identity.