The Active Society, Socioeconomics and Responsive and Responsible Communitarianism in the Thought of Amitai Etzioni

Miguel J. Llofriu’s Doctoral Thesis: The Active Society, Socioeconomics and Responsive and Responsible Communitarianism in the Thought of Amitai Etzioni

Miguel Llofriu’s doctoral thesis, presented in 2009 at the University of Valencia, considers the contributions of Amitai Etzioni to the fields of socioeconomics and communitarian thought. Llofriu begins his study by explaining that capitalism cannot be treated as a purely economic subject, ignoring the social elements that influence its practice. He sees the necessary development of a strong interdisciplinary approach to the study of capitalism (particularly in the framework of globalization) as having been stymied by an inability to problematize the question of social influences on economic activity. Thus, he believes “we must realize a new paradigm, a new base on which to construct a better world.” While Llofriu believes that many people understand the need for such a paradigm, they don’t know where to begin in constructing it, and so resign themselves to conformism. He sees Etzioni as one of the few thinkers who has challenged the status quo and tried to develop a new paradigm to understand.

Llofriu discusses Etzioni’s life and academic work (which he believes to be more intertwined than for most people due to his status as a public intellectual) according to three lines of exposition: first, by describing what Llofriu sees as the phases of Etzioni’s career and the goals he pursues within those phases; second, by describing criticisms that have arisen regarding some of the core concepts of Etzioni’s work; and third, by expanding on Etzioni’s work where criticisms correctly highlight deficiencies. He seeks to answer the following questions:

1. Investigate if a global exposition of Etzioni’s thought as organized into phases is possible.
2. Investigate if it’s possible to establish some lines of continuity in essential aspects of his thought.
3. Establish if Etzioni’s thought might have conceptual faults or deficiencies.
4. If such deficiencies can be shown to exist, expand on those ideas.
5. Analyze if Etzioni’s proposals are compatible or not with like-minded thinkers in the field of socioeconomics or communitarianism.
6. Come to a conclusion whether the conjunction of Etzioni’s thought with other contributions (if these in fact exist) might offer an alternative to the economic-social-political system currently in force.

Llofriu views Etzioni’s career and thought as being separated into two principal phases, with smaller and less complete phases belonging to each of those. The first phase he characterizes as preparatory for the second, with the goal established as desiring to change the world. This first phase is described as being of wide thematic interests and actions involving the study of organizations and the macroscopic study of society and social philosophy. He describes this phase as lasting until 1985 when the personal tragedy of the death of Etzioni’s wife and an appointment to a post at Harvard resulted in a shift in focus.

During the second stage, which he characterizes as extending (in its main part) from 1985 to 2004, he claims Etzioni was seeking to establish alternatives to the status quo, with these alternatives based on socioeconomics and responsive and responsible communitarianism. Llofriu’s focus here is on the common threads linking these two phases, not on the full body of work (such as those following 2004), with particular mind paid to the rise of communitarianism and socioeconomics in Etzioni’s thinking.

Following the description and linking of these phases, Llofriu moves towards a critical discussion of potential deficiencies in Etzioni’s explanation of key concepts. That is, he claims with Etzioni’s work “there are notions that are taken as given which form the backbone of some of the most important and most representative of [his] contributions.” Having explored these critiques, Llofriu then attempts to reform or strengthen those elements which may be lacking by drawing and elaborating on Etzioni’s suggestions.