What do you think?
Rate this book
The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order & Freedom
"The Quest for Community" stands among the most important social critiques ever written. The first book by the man the New York Times calls "one of our most original social thinkers", Robert Nisbet's study explores how individualism and statism have flourished while the primary sources of human community - the family, neighborhoods, the church, and voluntary organizations - have grown weaker. First published in 1953, this timeless work is a seminal contribution to the understanding of the spiritual and intellectual crisis of Western Society.With a new introduction by William A. Schambra that places the book in a contemporary perspective, "Quest for Community" deserves to be reread in the light of events that have confirmed its provocative thesis.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1953
97 people are currently reading
2350 people want to read
About the author
Robert A. Nisbet
54 books80 followersAmerican sociologist, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Vice-Chancellor at the University of California, Riverside and as the Albert Schweitzer Professor at Columbia University.
After serving in the US Army during World War II, when he was stationed on Saipan in the Pacific theatre, Nisbet founded the Department of Sociology at Berkeley, and was briefly Chairman. Nisbet left an embroiled Berkeley in 1953 to become a dean at the University of California, Riverside, and later a Vice-Chancellor. Nisbet remained in the University of California system until 1972, when he left for the University of Arizona at Tucson. Soon thereafter, he was appointed to the prestigious Albert Schweitzer Chair at Columbia.
On retiring from Columbia in 1978, Nisbet continued his scholarly work for eight years at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. In 1988, President Reagan asked him to deliver the Jefferson Lecture in Humanities, sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Nisbet's first important work, The Quest for Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969) contended that modern social science's individualism denied an important human drive toward community as it left people without the aid of their fellows in combating the centralizing power of the national state.
Nisbet is seen as follower of Emile Durkheim in the understanding of modern sociocultural systems and their drift. Often identified with the political right, Nisbet began his career as a political liberal but later confessed a conversion to a kind of philosophical Conservatism
After serving in the US Army during World War II, when he was stationed on Saipan in the Pacific theatre, Nisbet founded the Department of Sociology at Berkeley, and was briefly Chairman. Nisbet left an embroiled Berkeley in 1953 to become a dean at the University of California, Riverside, and later a Vice-Chancellor. Nisbet remained in the University of California system until 1972, when he left for the University of Arizona at Tucson. Soon thereafter, he was appointed to the prestigious Albert Schweitzer Chair at Columbia.
On retiring from Columbia in 1978, Nisbet continued his scholarly work for eight years at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. In 1988, President Reagan asked him to deliver the Jefferson Lecture in Humanities, sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Nisbet's first important work, The Quest for Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969) contended that modern social science's individualism denied an important human drive toward community as it left people without the aid of their fellows in combating the centralizing power of the national state.
Nisbet is seen as follower of Emile Durkheim in the understanding of modern sociocultural systems and their drift. Often identified with the political right, Nisbet began his career as a political liberal but later confessed a conversion to a kind of philosophical Conservatism
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
June 21, 2017
Written in 1952, The Quest for Community is amongst the great pillars of conservative thought along with works such as The Conservative Mind and Democracy In American. To try to give any sort of critical synopsis of Nisbet's magnum opus is overwhelming. The historical nature of the narrative takes the reader on a journey inside the minds of some of the most renown thinkers in modern Western thought. Of all the writings in cultural criticism I've laid eyes upon, this will rank amongst the most elite, lucid, and insightful.
It is the work of the reader to decide if 65 years after its first publishing, The Quest for Community still rings true. Obviously Nisbet couldn't predict things like Big Data or the Internet, but I find that his overarching thesis has equal pertinence today as it did then.
It is the work of the reader to decide if 65 years after its first publishing, The Quest for Community still rings true. Obviously Nisbet couldn't predict things like Big Data or the Internet, but I find that his overarching thesis has equal pertinence today as it did then.
January 13, 2019
The Enlightenment project's success in releasing the individual from traditional ties of class, religion, and kinship has made him free; but this freedom is accompanied by a sense of disenchantment and alienation. “The quest for community will not be denied, for it springs from some of the powerful needs of human nature – needs for a clear sense of cultural purpose, membership, status, and continuity.”
Human flourishing requires more than material well-being, on the one hand, or atomized freedom on the other. Nisbet makes a persuasive case for the human need for association and social cohesion. Very thought-provoking work of sociology coming from a more conservative angle.
Human flourishing requires more than material well-being, on the one hand, or atomized freedom on the other. Nisbet makes a persuasive case for the human need for association and social cohesion. Very thought-provoking work of sociology coming from a more conservative angle.
April 15, 2009
The paperback I read was called Community and Power, but this was the only one I was able to add and was, I suppose, the original title. The thesis of this book was that leviathan-like governments, starting with the French Revolution, attempted to replace community with the comforts of an intrusive state, creating some kind of unmoored individual who could easily be controlled. Clearly, Nisbet wants us to reclaim community. In a way, he's seen as conservative, but at what point does this become revolutionary in a world where conservatism is remaining on the nipple of the state.
Reminds me of Ferdinand Mount's The Subversive Family. I'm sure he'd read this.
Reminds me of Ferdinand Mount's The Subversive Family. I'm sure he'd read this.
October 3, 2018
An insightful book on the topic of freedom, community, and government. His point is basically that intermediate institutions between the individual and the state, such as family, church, guild, and other associations, are necessary for freedom. The pursuit of individual freedom from society leads to totalitarian government. It is a rich idea which he develops in detail in the book and which should be given consideration by all those who seek freedom in the modern age. I only gave it four stars because it is a bit tedious to read at points as the author argues his point from various angles.
“No theory of freedom in our age will be either effective or relevant that does not recognize the present centrality of the quest for community” (p. 226).
“No theory of freedom in our age will be either effective or relevant that does not recognize the present centrality of the quest for community” (p. 226).
December 30, 2022
Nisbet's classic was first published in 1953, but remains highly relevant 65 years later. He examines the nature of community, its history in the west vis-a-vis individualism, and traces its prospects for the future.
Though some parts are slow, this book is necessary. In the tradition of de Tocqueville, Nisbet--unlike most contemporaries--is willing to examine both the virtues and the limitations of democracy. The sections outlining the democratic natures of Communist and Nazi totalitarianism are indispensable.
Highly recommended.
Though some parts are slow, this book is necessary. In the tradition of de Tocqueville, Nisbet--unlike most contemporaries--is willing to examine both the virtues and the limitations of democracy. The sections outlining the democratic natures of Communist and Nazi totalitarianism are indispensable.
Highly recommended.
November 16, 2020
Excellent book on the crucial importance of intermediary associations and a powerful critique of the movements that have undermined them.
June 30, 2022
An excellent read. I only read the book, excluding the critical essays that are after the book itself. Traversing between theory and history, Nisbet has shown his readers the symptom and solution of modern society. He starts with a very broad generalization of the literature and philosophy dominant in each age (not ancient). Then he locates the problem of modern day psychological problems and political crisis experienced by people as the loss/absence of intermediary associations whether it be religious, political, or family etc. The intermediaries still exist formally but functionally they have lost their appeals. Think about the movie theaters that have become fancies of the few moviegoers, the psychiatry and pills that have become the go-to places for teenagers/adults whenever they experience an existential crisis (here is a ny joke: in every afternoon of Brooklyn, everyone has an existential crisis), or the bureaucracies that make people lose interest in life. Of course, there are many, if not too many examples of modern day crises. Nisbet then shows how the State, not the country, as a political being that has gradually taken away the functions belonged to these intermediaries (which for him could be churches, guilds, families in mediaeval time or trade unions, mutual aid, all kinds of small societies in the modern age). He is perceptive in discerning the patterns in which this process of centralization developed throughout the ages through political theorists such as Bodin, Rousseau, etc. He also identified acutely many problems of the modern political discourse: lack of vocabulary (the concept we use, people, state, etc. are from the 17th to 19th centuries), misinterpretation of democracy as a total, political state instead of one among many, the diversification of power. Of course, I cannot summarize 600 pages (just realized it's far fewer in regular book size) of wise words, but if you read it yourself, I can guarantee that you won't be disappointed.
It is then interesting to look at contemporary debates between the left and the right, or more broadly between rival countries who claim each other to be ideologically wrong. Personally, after reading some of the left or left leaning theorists, I am surprised to find so many similarities in thinking about the modern society. His thinking of sovereignty and the necessity for us to examine how society functions instead of how it is exactly what Agamben and other thinkers of sovereignty are trying to say (for example the theory and practice sovereignty has reached its final stage, there is no point for nostalgia of the past). His understanding of the functions of intermediaries as essential to defending the true democracy just scream Foucauldian to me. His understanding of social reality instead of just idealisms resemble the Marxist thinkers (and he does quote Schumpeter, Marx, Proudhon, and Lenin). But more importantly than anything, he believes in the active transformation of society through diversification of power, which is inspiring, esp judging from the all-pervading nihilist attitudes shown in all sphere of society, from academia, government, to ordinary people. After all, the society is not over when Louis XV said après moi, le déluge, but over when everyone says so.
P.S. I won't have time to keep reading big books like this for the rest of summer and potentially fall quarter as I have to study for the agonizing LSAT. So I am glad that I can finish with such a beautifully written book. But let's hope everything turns out well and I shall resume reading. >_<
It is then interesting to look at contemporary debates between the left and the right, or more broadly between rival countries who claim each other to be ideologically wrong. Personally, after reading some of the left or left leaning theorists, I am surprised to find so many similarities in thinking about the modern society. His thinking of sovereignty and the necessity for us to examine how society functions instead of how it is exactly what Agamben and other thinkers of sovereignty are trying to say (for example the theory and practice sovereignty has reached its final stage, there is no point for nostalgia of the past). His understanding of the functions of intermediaries as essential to defending the true democracy just scream Foucauldian to me. His understanding of social reality instead of just idealisms resemble the Marxist thinkers (and he does quote Schumpeter, Marx, Proudhon, and Lenin). But more importantly than anything, he believes in the active transformation of society through diversification of power, which is inspiring, esp judging from the all-pervading nihilist attitudes shown in all sphere of society, from academia, government, to ordinary people. After all, the society is not over when Louis XV said après moi, le déluge, but over when everyone says so.
P.S. I won't have time to keep reading big books like this for the rest of summer and potentially fall quarter as I have to study for the agonizing LSAT. So I am glad that I can finish with such a beautifully written book. But let's hope everything turns out well and I shall resume reading. >_<
September 24, 2022
"The quest for community" de Robert Nisbet é um clássico conservador norte-americano de 1953. De acordo com Ted Macasllister, esse clássico integra o "pentateuco do conservadorismo" ao lado de "As ideias têm consequências" de Weaver; "Direito natural e história" de Leo Strauss; "A nova ciência da política" de Voegelin; e "A mentalidade conservadora" de Kirk.
Nisbet defende uma tese muito interessante: o crescimento e centralização do Estado moderno erodiram a vida comunitária. Devido ao individualismo, os indivíduos deixaram de ter vida comunitária e se tornaram solitários. Na busca por comunidade, buscaram o Estado que se tornou maior e mais interventor. A perda da ligação com comunidades foi acompanhada pela expansão do Estado. Preencheu-se o vazio da identidade, da autoridade e dos propósitos comuns com mais Estado.
O enredo da história de Nisbet é: devido ao individualismo liberal, comunidades erodiram e indivíduos autônomos se tornaram solitários e vazios de propósitos comuns. O indivíduo perdeu o lugar de pertencimento, deixando de ter a capacidade de criar relações morais substantivas.
Para Nisbet, a Reforma Protestante e as transformações liberais permitiram o declínio da vida comunitária. O Estado passou a absorver funções e autoridades que eram da sociedade civil. Após Bodin, Hobbes e Rousseau, o Estado se tornou uma comunidade política todo integradora. E, no momento extremo, esse estado de coisas levou ao totalitarismo porque os indivíduos em busca de sentido comum se tornaram parte de uma massa que foi brutalmente integrada por Estados totalitários.
O resultado do individualismo foi a oposição de valores e a perda do horizonte comunitário. A democracia se tornou frágil, enquanto o Estado se tornou forte porque a sociedade civil deixou de ter um papel importante na integração dos indivíduos.
A proposta de Nisbet é um novo "laissez faire" centrado na autonomia das comunidades da sociedade civil. Isto é, um redesenho social em que as comunidades sejam libertadas do excessivo peso do Estado para que possam desenvolver suas potencialidades. Sem uma reestruturação do Estado que abra espaço para uma sociedade civil mais forte e livre, dificilmente comunidades terão espaço para desenvolver suas potencialidades. Uma tese impressionante e válida até os dias de hoje em que os Estados pressionam comunidades e a sociedade civil.
Uma crítica: a sugestão de Nisbet de que os reformadores deram primazia aos indivíduos em detrimento da comunidade eclesiástica não procede porque eles buscaram biblicamente uma harmonia entre os dois.
Nisbet defende uma tese muito interessante: o crescimento e centralização do Estado moderno erodiram a vida comunitária. Devido ao individualismo, os indivíduos deixaram de ter vida comunitária e se tornaram solitários. Na busca por comunidade, buscaram o Estado que se tornou maior e mais interventor. A perda da ligação com comunidades foi acompanhada pela expansão do Estado. Preencheu-se o vazio da identidade, da autoridade e dos propósitos comuns com mais Estado.
O enredo da história de Nisbet é: devido ao individualismo liberal, comunidades erodiram e indivíduos autônomos se tornaram solitários e vazios de propósitos comuns. O indivíduo perdeu o lugar de pertencimento, deixando de ter a capacidade de criar relações morais substantivas.
Para Nisbet, a Reforma Protestante e as transformações liberais permitiram o declínio da vida comunitária. O Estado passou a absorver funções e autoridades que eram da sociedade civil. Após Bodin, Hobbes e Rousseau, o Estado se tornou uma comunidade política todo integradora. E, no momento extremo, esse estado de coisas levou ao totalitarismo porque os indivíduos em busca de sentido comum se tornaram parte de uma massa que foi brutalmente integrada por Estados totalitários.
O resultado do individualismo foi a oposição de valores e a perda do horizonte comunitário. A democracia se tornou frágil, enquanto o Estado se tornou forte porque a sociedade civil deixou de ter um papel importante na integração dos indivíduos.
A proposta de Nisbet é um novo "laissez faire" centrado na autonomia das comunidades da sociedade civil. Isto é, um redesenho social em que as comunidades sejam libertadas do excessivo peso do Estado para que possam desenvolver suas potencialidades. Sem uma reestruturação do Estado que abra espaço para uma sociedade civil mais forte e livre, dificilmente comunidades terão espaço para desenvolver suas potencialidades. Uma tese impressionante e válida até os dias de hoje em que os Estados pressionam comunidades e a sociedade civil.
Uma crítica: a sugestão de Nisbet de que os reformadores deram primazia aos indivíduos em detrimento da comunidade eclesiástica não procede porque eles buscaram biblicamente uma harmonia entre os dois.
Read
April 14, 2023I have very little patience for books like this one, but at different points I did find valuable observations. This is a book Tom Woods recommends, and I kind of wonder how young he was when he read this. Before reading this, be aware that it assumes the goodness of classical liberalism among other things, and takes a very high level approach concerning itself with the thinkers and belief systems of political philosophy. Not a whole lot of mechanism, and comes across as too airy to me.
May 13, 2025
very important, read before/instead of Bowling Alone
July 29, 2020
Robert Nisbet
ISI Books, 2010 (originally published in 1953)
Reviewed by: Dr. Val W. Finnell
Originally published in Forward in Christ Vol 3. No. 5
Why does it seem that all forms of community are in decline in America, whether church, social club, or fraternal organization? We lament that there are so many “unchurched” people. Yet, we are often at a loss to explain how we arrived at this point in history. What were/are the factors that have contributed to the decline of community? In 1953, Robert Nisbet (1913-1996), a professor at Columbia University examined this question in his book, The Quest for Community; now back in print by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Nisbet’s analysis examines the problem of community decline from a sociological perspective, a view that brings fresh insight into the 21st Century.
Nisbet defines the problem of community as the decline of the functional and psychological significance of small social groups and associations, namely the family, civic associations, and other organizations (such as the Church and guilds) that have had a mediatorial role in human social, economic, and political relationships. These social groups performed indispensible functions in the life of medieval society, functions that are only possible in an environment where centralized power was relatively weak.
Everything changes in the 16th Century, when we witness the rise of the autonomous individual who becomes more steadily detached from the historical institutions that gave meaning and social context to life. Nisbet sees the Protestant Reformation as a shaping influence that removed man from the social context of the hierarchical Church in turn for a more privatized and internalized religion. Only three elements of Christianity were left in Protestant theology: the lone individual, an omnipotent, distant God, and divine grace (p. 85). Also, the exchange of the visible for the invisible Church degraded the importance of ecclesiastical institutions.
In similar fashion, Nisbet sees the rise of laissez faire capitalism as another atomizing influence for mankind. Human beings now “existed for the work day, not as members of society, but as individual units of energy and production.” (p. 88)
Neither the religious or economic changes taking place in medieval Europe were enough to remove man from the socially normative institutions, however. Only the rise of the political State could achieve what economic and religious changes could not.
It is Nisbet’s central argument that the “single, most decisive influence upon Western social organization has been the rise of the centralized, territorial State.” (p. 91) The author traces the development of modern political thought through the theories of Bodin, Hobbes, and finally Rousseau. Paradoxically, the centralized, all-powerful State seeks to abolish all of the former allegiances in the name of freedom and liberation of the autonomous individual. It is the abolition of the vital influence of family, church, and social group that leads to the crisis of community. Faced with atomization and isolation from former community contexts, man seeks what is lost by searching for community through participation in the State itself. This creates a vicious circle that further increases the power of the State at the expense of the former, small social group (including the Church).
Here is what is key for Christians to understand: when there is a gap between the moral claims of a social group (like the Church) and its institutional importance in the social order, people seek social membership elsewhere. People join a social group “if and when its larger institutional or intellectual functions have relevance both to [their] own life organization and to what [they] can see of the group’s relation to the larger society.” (p. 54)
As an example, the growth in State welfare programs has reduced if not eliminated the Church’s role in providing economic assistance to the community. It is simply not seen as a viable option and this, in turn, reinforces man to seek “membership” and political involvement in the State.
Nisbet’s solution is to decentralize the government, thus creating an environment where man’s freedom can truly be realized in diverse communities. No nostalgic return to the past is suggested, but rather the creation of new social structures that address current problems and reintegrate man into meaningful, local community contexts.
ISI Books, 2010 (originally published in 1953)
Reviewed by: Dr. Val W. Finnell
Originally published in Forward in Christ Vol 3. No. 5
Why does it seem that all forms of community are in decline in America, whether church, social club, or fraternal organization? We lament that there are so many “unchurched” people. Yet, we are often at a loss to explain how we arrived at this point in history. What were/are the factors that have contributed to the decline of community? In 1953, Robert Nisbet (1913-1996), a professor at Columbia University examined this question in his book, The Quest for Community; now back in print by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Nisbet’s analysis examines the problem of community decline from a sociological perspective, a view that brings fresh insight into the 21st Century.
Nisbet defines the problem of community as the decline of the functional and psychological significance of small social groups and associations, namely the family, civic associations, and other organizations (such as the Church and guilds) that have had a mediatorial role in human social, economic, and political relationships. These social groups performed indispensible functions in the life of medieval society, functions that are only possible in an environment where centralized power was relatively weak.
Everything changes in the 16th Century, when we witness the rise of the autonomous individual who becomes more steadily detached from the historical institutions that gave meaning and social context to life. Nisbet sees the Protestant Reformation as a shaping influence that removed man from the social context of the hierarchical Church in turn for a more privatized and internalized religion. Only three elements of Christianity were left in Protestant theology: the lone individual, an omnipotent, distant God, and divine grace (p. 85). Also, the exchange of the visible for the invisible Church degraded the importance of ecclesiastical institutions.
In similar fashion, Nisbet sees the rise of laissez faire capitalism as another atomizing influence for mankind. Human beings now “existed for the work day, not as members of society, but as individual units of energy and production.” (p. 88)
Neither the religious or economic changes taking place in medieval Europe were enough to remove man from the socially normative institutions, however. Only the rise of the political State could achieve what economic and religious changes could not.
It is Nisbet’s central argument that the “single, most decisive influence upon Western social organization has been the rise of the centralized, territorial State.” (p. 91) The author traces the development of modern political thought through the theories of Bodin, Hobbes, and finally Rousseau. Paradoxically, the centralized, all-powerful State seeks to abolish all of the former allegiances in the name of freedom and liberation of the autonomous individual. It is the abolition of the vital influence of family, church, and social group that leads to the crisis of community. Faced with atomization and isolation from former community contexts, man seeks what is lost by searching for community through participation in the State itself. This creates a vicious circle that further increases the power of the State at the expense of the former, small social group (including the Church).
Here is what is key for Christians to understand: when there is a gap between the moral claims of a social group (like the Church) and its institutional importance in the social order, people seek social membership elsewhere. People join a social group “if and when its larger institutional or intellectual functions have relevance both to [their] own life organization and to what [they] can see of the group’s relation to the larger society.” (p. 54)
As an example, the growth in State welfare programs has reduced if not eliminated the Church’s role in providing economic assistance to the community. It is simply not seen as a viable option and this, in turn, reinforces man to seek “membership” and political involvement in the State.
Nisbet’s solution is to decentralize the government, thus creating an environment where man’s freedom can truly be realized in diverse communities. No nostalgic return to the past is suggested, but rather the creation of new social structures that address current problems and reintegrate man into meaningful, local community contexts.
June 16, 2023
“The Quest for Community" by Robert Nisbet offers a compelling sociological exploration of the decline of community and the consequences of individualism in modern society. Nisbet, a renowned sociologist, delves into the historical and cultural forces that have eroded traditional communal bonds and emphasizes the vital role that communities play in fostering social cohesion and individual well-being. In this academic review, we critically assess the key arguments, strengths, limitations, and scholarly significance of Nisbet's work, considering its historical context and its contributions to sociological thought.
"The Quest for Community" presents a thought-provoking analysis of the breakdown of community and its ramifications in contemporary society. Nisbet highlights the detrimental effects of excessive individualism and the erosion of communal bonds, arguing that this has led to a sense of alienation and social fragmentation. He draws from historical examples, sociological theories, and anthropological insights to support his argument and offers a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted nature of community.
One of the strengths of Nisbet's work lies in his ability to synthesize a wide range of interdisciplinary perspectives and theories. He incorporates insights from sociology, political science, psychology, and history, weaving them together to present a comprehensive understanding of the importance of community in human social life. Through his analysis, Nisbet provides a compelling case for the restoration and revitalization of community as a means to address the discontents of modern society.
Moreover, Nisbet's exploration of the complex relationship between individualism and community contributes to the scholarly significance of his work. He challenges prevailing notions that prioritize individual autonomy and examines the social, cultural, and psychological dimensions of human existence that necessitate communal bonds. His analysis prompts readers to critically reflect on the consequences of hyper-individualism and the potential for community to fulfill essential human needs for belonging, solidarity, and meaning.
However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of Nisbet's work. Some critics argue that his idealization of community overlooks potential drawbacks, such as conformity, exclusion, and the potential for oppressive group dynamics. Additionally, the book's focus on Western societies may limit its applicability to non-Western contexts, where communal dynamics may differ significantly.
"The Quest for Community" by Robert Nisbet offers a compelling sociological examination of the decline of community and its impact on modern society. Through interdisciplinary insights and a comprehensive analysis, Nisbet emphasizes the importance of communal bonds in fostering social cohesion and individual well-being. While recognizing its strengths, this academic review acknowledges the potential limitations of Nisbet's idealization of community and its Western-centric perspective.
"The Quest for Community" by Robert Nisbet stands as a significant contribution to the field of sociology, shedding light on the social and psychological consequences of the decline of community in modern society. Nisbet's interdisciplinary approach and critical exploration of individualism and community provide valuable insights for scholars and readers interested in understanding the complexities of social cohesion and the challenges posed by hyper-individualism. Engaging with Nisbet's work fosters critical reflection on the significance of community in fostering human well-being and prompts further scholarly inquiry into the restoration and revitalization of communal bonds in contemporary societies.
GPT
"The Quest for Community" presents a thought-provoking analysis of the breakdown of community and its ramifications in contemporary society. Nisbet highlights the detrimental effects of excessive individualism and the erosion of communal bonds, arguing that this has led to a sense of alienation and social fragmentation. He draws from historical examples, sociological theories, and anthropological insights to support his argument and offers a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted nature of community.
One of the strengths of Nisbet's work lies in his ability to synthesize a wide range of interdisciplinary perspectives and theories. He incorporates insights from sociology, political science, psychology, and history, weaving them together to present a comprehensive understanding of the importance of community in human social life. Through his analysis, Nisbet provides a compelling case for the restoration and revitalization of community as a means to address the discontents of modern society.
Moreover, Nisbet's exploration of the complex relationship between individualism and community contributes to the scholarly significance of his work. He challenges prevailing notions that prioritize individual autonomy and examines the social, cultural, and psychological dimensions of human existence that necessitate communal bonds. His analysis prompts readers to critically reflect on the consequences of hyper-individualism and the potential for community to fulfill essential human needs for belonging, solidarity, and meaning.
However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of Nisbet's work. Some critics argue that his idealization of community overlooks potential drawbacks, such as conformity, exclusion, and the potential for oppressive group dynamics. Additionally, the book's focus on Western societies may limit its applicability to non-Western contexts, where communal dynamics may differ significantly.
"The Quest for Community" by Robert Nisbet offers a compelling sociological examination of the decline of community and its impact on modern society. Through interdisciplinary insights and a comprehensive analysis, Nisbet emphasizes the importance of communal bonds in fostering social cohesion and individual well-being. While recognizing its strengths, this academic review acknowledges the potential limitations of Nisbet's idealization of community and its Western-centric perspective.
"The Quest for Community" by Robert Nisbet stands as a significant contribution to the field of sociology, shedding light on the social and psychological consequences of the decline of community in modern society. Nisbet's interdisciplinary approach and critical exploration of individualism and community provide valuable insights for scholars and readers interested in understanding the complexities of social cohesion and the challenges posed by hyper-individualism. Engaging with Nisbet's work fosters critical reflection on the significance of community in fostering human well-being and prompts further scholarly inquiry into the restoration and revitalization of communal bonds in contemporary societies.
GPT
September 18, 2020
I was drawn to this book because some conservative writers whom I admire had mentioned it as being formative in helping shape their value system. Conservatives, I stress, NOT the radical right inciters of anger and rage that fill our airwaves and political discourse these days.
Mr. Nesbit’s first edition of this book was in the ancient days of 1953, back when I was but 10 years old. Admission: I did not read it then.
Nonetheless, it is fascinating that so much of what one finds in the pages of this book is remarkably contemporary, even prophetic.
Personally, I am a “leftie,” but of the old-fashioned liberal progressive type. I had the privilege of serving in the Iowa House of Representatives in days of yore (1973-1981) and back then we had the peculiar idea that it was the obligation of all of us, whether Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, to work for the good of all people in the state of Iowa. To do that, we had to work together, listen to each other, trust each other, and compromise with each other. All this probably sounds quaint these days, but the result was we accomplished a lot! In fact, one of the best things about most of the years of my service (it was starting to break down into the kind of partisanship all too evident today by 1980) is that most of the major legislation we passed was with bi-partisan support and, not so incidentally, by overcoming bi-partisan opponents.
In 1953, Mr. Nesbit believed that the primary threat to many old-fashioned American virtues — such as family, community, vibrant public places and public spaces, voluntary associations, membership in faith communities, etc. — was likely to come from the national State. Like many of all political persuasions in 1953, he was only too aware of the monstrous overbearing national states that were responsible for World War II: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and imperial Japan. While all of those had been defeated in that war, the Soviet Union — another truly “evil empire” — had emerged as the dominant power in Eurasia. Nesbit was concerned that such might be a permanent wave of the future, and one which would inevitably alter the shape and course of the American government, too.
Now, while the far Right thunders that this is, in fact, what has happened, I think they are all wet. What has happened is that an initially unplanned, but quickly embraced, alliance between the richest Americans, big business, and an emerging ideologically-based Right has served to undermine the democratic functioning of our government, both at the national and in several states, too. That is the first development Nesbit didn’t anticipate — nor perhaps could have foreseen.
The second development is the way that Americans have been isolating themselves for decades now from those who are not “like them.” This is true even geographically, within cities, yes, but also within the several states. No “government” did this, but we did it to ourselves. Furthermore, despite what the Right claims about efforts to “suppress Christianity,” what has happened over the past several decades is that millions of Americans have drifted out of faith communities, for a wide range of reasons. I concur with primarily sound-thinking conservative writers that this has had dire implications for our country.
When Alex de Tocqueville wrote his remarkably incisive books about the America he toured in 1831, one of the comments that remains with me as most prescient was his observation that if religions found themselves taking sides on political matters, or associating with political parties, they would find themselves losing the once preeminent respect they enjoyed in America and, more critically, lose their heretofore important role of establishing ethical guidelines by which politicians and citizens had to comport themselves. This, indeed, is what has come to pass as various religions traditions over the past 50 years have increasingly become involved in politics via the route of single-issue, hot-button social and sexual issues.
Nesbit, in one of his many sagacious observations, wrote: “Equally important to a democratic theory founded [on the principle that the State is only one of the associations of man’s existence] is the whole plurality of other associations in society. The intermediary associations and the spontaneous social groups which compose society, rather than atomized political particles, become the prime units of theoretical and practical consideration. The major objective of political democracy becomes that of making harmonious and effective the varied group allegiances which exist in society, not sterilizing them in the interest of a monistic political community.”
But this is what WE have done! All this nonsense about “red” vs. “blue” states,” allegations of “false news” by those who constantly lie and misinterpret, and our retreat into unthinking little tribes who shout and support our good “leader” not matter what nonsense that leader spouts or does.
Nesbit again: “...we do not often remind ourselves that the most powerful resources of democracy lie in the cultural allegiances of citizens, and that these allegiances are nourished psychologically in the small, internal areas of family, local community, and association.
“These are the areas that contain the images of the larger society, the areas within which human beings are able to define, and render meaningful, democratic values. When the small areas of association become sterile psychologically, as the result of loss of institutional significance, we find ourselves resorting to ever-increasing dosages of indoctrination from above, an indoctrination that often becomes totalitarian in significance. We find ourselves with a society that suffers increasingly from...apoplexy at the center and anemia at the extremities.”
There is much in this book to ponder, and there is very much we need to do as fellow citizens to right the sinking ship of the Republic. I fear that time is much shorter than most believe, for the poison of there being only SOME citizens who are truly American and who deserve to belong or stay here is a cancerous growth destroying our country.
Will we wake up in time?
Sixty years ago, Nesbit wasn’t very optimistic. No longer 10 years old, nor am I.
Mr. Nesbit’s first edition of this book was in the ancient days of 1953, back when I was but 10 years old. Admission: I did not read it then.
Nonetheless, it is fascinating that so much of what one finds in the pages of this book is remarkably contemporary, even prophetic.
Personally, I am a “leftie,” but of the old-fashioned liberal progressive type. I had the privilege of serving in the Iowa House of Representatives in days of yore (1973-1981) and back then we had the peculiar idea that it was the obligation of all of us, whether Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, to work for the good of all people in the state of Iowa. To do that, we had to work together, listen to each other, trust each other, and compromise with each other. All this probably sounds quaint these days, but the result was we accomplished a lot! In fact, one of the best things about most of the years of my service (it was starting to break down into the kind of partisanship all too evident today by 1980) is that most of the major legislation we passed was with bi-partisan support and, not so incidentally, by overcoming bi-partisan opponents.
In 1953, Mr. Nesbit believed that the primary threat to many old-fashioned American virtues — such as family, community, vibrant public places and public spaces, voluntary associations, membership in faith communities, etc. — was likely to come from the national State. Like many of all political persuasions in 1953, he was only too aware of the monstrous overbearing national states that were responsible for World War II: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and imperial Japan. While all of those had been defeated in that war, the Soviet Union — another truly “evil empire” — had emerged as the dominant power in Eurasia. Nesbit was concerned that such might be a permanent wave of the future, and one which would inevitably alter the shape and course of the American government, too.
Now, while the far Right thunders that this is, in fact, what has happened, I think they are all wet. What has happened is that an initially unplanned, but quickly embraced, alliance between the richest Americans, big business, and an emerging ideologically-based Right has served to undermine the democratic functioning of our government, both at the national and in several states, too. That is the first development Nesbit didn’t anticipate — nor perhaps could have foreseen.
The second development is the way that Americans have been isolating themselves for decades now from those who are not “like them.” This is true even geographically, within cities, yes, but also within the several states. No “government” did this, but we did it to ourselves. Furthermore, despite what the Right claims about efforts to “suppress Christianity,” what has happened over the past several decades is that millions of Americans have drifted out of faith communities, for a wide range of reasons. I concur with primarily sound-thinking conservative writers that this has had dire implications for our country.
When Alex de Tocqueville wrote his remarkably incisive books about the America he toured in 1831, one of the comments that remains with me as most prescient was his observation that if religions found themselves taking sides on political matters, or associating with political parties, they would find themselves losing the once preeminent respect they enjoyed in America and, more critically, lose their heretofore important role of establishing ethical guidelines by which politicians and citizens had to comport themselves. This, indeed, is what has come to pass as various religions traditions over the past 50 years have increasingly become involved in politics via the route of single-issue, hot-button social and sexual issues.
Nesbit, in one of his many sagacious observations, wrote: “Equally important to a democratic theory founded [on the principle that the State is only one of the associations of man’s existence] is the whole plurality of other associations in society. The intermediary associations and the spontaneous social groups which compose society, rather than atomized political particles, become the prime units of theoretical and practical consideration. The major objective of political democracy becomes that of making harmonious and effective the varied group allegiances which exist in society, not sterilizing them in the interest of a monistic political community.”
But this is what WE have done! All this nonsense about “red” vs. “blue” states,” allegations of “false news” by those who constantly lie and misinterpret, and our retreat into unthinking little tribes who shout and support our good “leader” not matter what nonsense that leader spouts or does.
Nesbit again: “...we do not often remind ourselves that the most powerful resources of democracy lie in the cultural allegiances of citizens, and that these allegiances are nourished psychologically in the small, internal areas of family, local community, and association.
“These are the areas that contain the images of the larger society, the areas within which human beings are able to define, and render meaningful, democratic values. When the small areas of association become sterile psychologically, as the result of loss of institutional significance, we find ourselves resorting to ever-increasing dosages of indoctrination from above, an indoctrination that often becomes totalitarian in significance. We find ourselves with a society that suffers increasingly from...apoplexy at the center and anemia at the extremities.”
There is much in this book to ponder, and there is very much we need to do as fellow citizens to right the sinking ship of the Republic. I fear that time is much shorter than most believe, for the poison of there being only SOME citizens who are truly American and who deserve to belong or stay here is a cancerous growth destroying our country.
Will we wake up in time?
Sixty years ago, Nesbit wasn’t very optimistic. No longer 10 years old, nor am I.
November 29, 2025
One of the greatest works of social theory I have ever read. Nisbet's fundamental focus is the concept of community and how individuals are always embedded in communities around them. Nisbet states his aim quite clearly on 41:
"It is the argument of this book that the ominous preoccupation with community revealed by modern thought and mass behavior is a manifestation of certain profound dislocations in the primary associative areas in society, dislocations that have been created to a great extent by the structure of the Western political state”.
I read the above quote to say that the loss of community is not an insight that is unique to Nisbet. Indeed, many people have recognized the extent to which there has been a decline in community. What Nisbet is saying, is that community has declined in tact with the expansion of the Western, centralized, impersonal state. And what permeates the book is that this temporal decline is not reserved to the totalitarian states of Nazi-Germany and Fascist Italy, but this decline is something which is broadly seen in the West.
The work is conservative in the sense that it is preoccupied with concrete *change*, and scrutinizes whether that change is beneficial for us. Furthermore, it is conservative in the sense that the fundamental unit of analysis is not the *individual*, as the case is for liberalism, but rather *community*. Community is, however, an expansive term in the book. Essentially, it is any type of non-state community (I will return to thinking of the state as community). But it is not conservative in the sense of decrying impossibilities of liberalism or declaring its failure (as a more contemporary work by Patrick Deenen does), or by subscribing to a set of anti-state or pro-religious values. Instead, it recognizes some fundamental difficulties of liberalism, and its failure to fully appreciate human motivation.
Chapter 5, “The State as Permanent Revolution”, is a fundamental piece to read for political scientists. Nisbet’s insight is that the modern state is many time stronger than pre-modern “absolutist” states. Yes, kings were unconstrained in these states, but in effect, these kings could do very little to compell their subjects to act for them. War was limited to be the plight of the elites. Nisbet writes
“We refer often to the 'absolute' State of early centuries in Western European history, but, in truth, the early State was too fragile and functionally insignificant a tie among individuals (…)The king may have ruled at times with a degree of irresponsibility that few modern governmental officials can enjoy, but it is doubtful whether, in terms of effective powers and services, any king of even the seventeenth-century absolute monarchies' wielded the kind of authority that now inheres in the office of many a high-ranking official in the democracies. There were then too many social barriers between the claimed power of the monarch and the effective execution of this power over individuals. The very prestige and functional importance of church, family, gild, and local community as allegiances limited the absoluteness of the State's power.” ([Nisbet, 1990, p. 104]
Further: “In the medieval world there was relatively little concern with positive, discrete rights of individuals, largely because of the diffuseness of political power and the reality of innumerable group authorities.” ([Nisbet, 1990, p. 107]
So in a sense: The introduction of a strong state which constantly threatens the authority of the individual and community leads to the demand for protection, which then creates the individual. However, as the individual and the state play this game of mutual reinforcement, the power and authority of non-state community gradually erodes.
Another powerful term from Nisbet is the conception of a “Political Community”. Drawing on Rousseau and a discussion of the General Will, Nisbet notes the development of the political community. Defining it: “What is political community? It is an idea system, and, I believe, the most potent of all idea systems in the complex nineteenth century.” (p. 143). The political community is the force which conceptualizes and solves problems through the power of the state, ever-expanding and ever-stronger, as it attains full autonomy over the individual. Considering democracy, Nisbet writes “Individual versus State is as false an anti-thesis today as it ever was. The State grows on what it gives to the individual as it does on what it takes from competing social relationships--family, labor union, profession, local community, and church.” (237). The point for Nisbet is that there is no state-individual trade-off; these reinforce each other. The big trade-off is with respect to community.
Finally, a quote which highlights that Nisbet is an intellectual conservative, but not a stringent political conservative: “ Because of our single-minded concentration upon the individual as the sole unit of society and upon the State as the sole source of legitimate power, we have tended to overlook the fact that freedom thrives in cultural diversity, in local and regional differentiation, in associative pluralism, and above all, in the *diversification of power*” (p 244). I think this is the great normative takeaway of Nisbet, that sources of authority should not unilaterally belong to the state, but should be consciously diversified and promoted. It also highlights the way by which that as the state assumes greater responsibility for solving social problems, it crowds out the meaning and authority of community.
I am uncertain of what the prescriptive implications for our times are with this work, but perhaps a reflection on tariffs is interesting. We have areas of decline in the US, where the political community has directed its attention to international competition as the source of this decline, rather than emphasizing local solutions to deal with the nature of society. However, I am uncertain what individual liberties I am willing to sacrifice in order to ensure the life of community. Perhaps I am more supportive of religious freedoms after reading this book, and sceptical of regimes such as the french laicité as a pathway to the good life, and that policy-regimes such as the french are fundamentally flawed.
Strongly recommended!
"It is the argument of this book that the ominous preoccupation with community revealed by modern thought and mass behavior is a manifestation of certain profound dislocations in the primary associative areas in society, dislocations that have been created to a great extent by the structure of the Western political state”.
I read the above quote to say that the loss of community is not an insight that is unique to Nisbet. Indeed, many people have recognized the extent to which there has been a decline in community. What Nisbet is saying, is that community has declined in tact with the expansion of the Western, centralized, impersonal state. And what permeates the book is that this temporal decline is not reserved to the totalitarian states of Nazi-Germany and Fascist Italy, but this decline is something which is broadly seen in the West.
The work is conservative in the sense that it is preoccupied with concrete *change*, and scrutinizes whether that change is beneficial for us. Furthermore, it is conservative in the sense that the fundamental unit of analysis is not the *individual*, as the case is for liberalism, but rather *community*. Community is, however, an expansive term in the book. Essentially, it is any type of non-state community (I will return to thinking of the state as community). But it is not conservative in the sense of decrying impossibilities of liberalism or declaring its failure (as a more contemporary work by Patrick Deenen does), or by subscribing to a set of anti-state or pro-religious values. Instead, it recognizes some fundamental difficulties of liberalism, and its failure to fully appreciate human motivation.
Chapter 5, “The State as Permanent Revolution”, is a fundamental piece to read for political scientists. Nisbet’s insight is that the modern state is many time stronger than pre-modern “absolutist” states. Yes, kings were unconstrained in these states, but in effect, these kings could do very little to compell their subjects to act for them. War was limited to be the plight of the elites. Nisbet writes
“We refer often to the 'absolute' State of early centuries in Western European history, but, in truth, the early State was too fragile and functionally insignificant a tie among individuals (…)The king may have ruled at times with a degree of irresponsibility that few modern governmental officials can enjoy, but it is doubtful whether, in terms of effective powers and services, any king of even the seventeenth-century absolute monarchies' wielded the kind of authority that now inheres in the office of many a high-ranking official in the democracies. There were then too many social barriers between the claimed power of the monarch and the effective execution of this power over individuals. The very prestige and functional importance of church, family, gild, and local community as allegiances limited the absoluteness of the State's power.” ([Nisbet, 1990, p. 104]
Further: “In the medieval world there was relatively little concern with positive, discrete rights of individuals, largely because of the diffuseness of political power and the reality of innumerable group authorities.” ([Nisbet, 1990, p. 107]
So in a sense: The introduction of a strong state which constantly threatens the authority of the individual and community leads to the demand for protection, which then creates the individual. However, as the individual and the state play this game of mutual reinforcement, the power and authority of non-state community gradually erodes.
Another powerful term from Nisbet is the conception of a “Political Community”. Drawing on Rousseau and a discussion of the General Will, Nisbet notes the development of the political community. Defining it: “What is political community? It is an idea system, and, I believe, the most potent of all idea systems in the complex nineteenth century.” (p. 143). The political community is the force which conceptualizes and solves problems through the power of the state, ever-expanding and ever-stronger, as it attains full autonomy over the individual. Considering democracy, Nisbet writes “Individual versus State is as false an anti-thesis today as it ever was. The State grows on what it gives to the individual as it does on what it takes from competing social relationships--family, labor union, profession, local community, and church.” (237). The point for Nisbet is that there is no state-individual trade-off; these reinforce each other. The big trade-off is with respect to community.
Finally, a quote which highlights that Nisbet is an intellectual conservative, but not a stringent political conservative: “ Because of our single-minded concentration upon the individual as the sole unit of society and upon the State as the sole source of legitimate power, we have tended to overlook the fact that freedom thrives in cultural diversity, in local and regional differentiation, in associative pluralism, and above all, in the *diversification of power*” (p 244). I think this is the great normative takeaway of Nisbet, that sources of authority should not unilaterally belong to the state, but should be consciously diversified and promoted. It also highlights the way by which that as the state assumes greater responsibility for solving social problems, it crowds out the meaning and authority of community.
I am uncertain of what the prescriptive implications for our times are with this work, but perhaps a reflection on tariffs is interesting. We have areas of decline in the US, where the political community has directed its attention to international competition as the source of this decline, rather than emphasizing local solutions to deal with the nature of society. However, I am uncertain what individual liberties I am willing to sacrifice in order to ensure the life of community. Perhaps I am more supportive of religious freedoms after reading this book, and sceptical of regimes such as the french laicité as a pathway to the good life, and that policy-regimes such as the french are fundamentally flawed.
Strongly recommended!
March 25, 2011
A worthwhile read. While Nisbet's analysis can and should be challenged at points, his major point that individualism and Statism walk merrily together is needed.
June 10, 2021
Over the last few years, I've read many works mentioning "The Quest for Community" so I bit the bullet, ordered a copy, and dove into it during my brief summer break and as work began. Robert Nisbet's masterpiece did not disappoint. He proposes that the expansion of the state's role and concordant undermining of organic community constitute one of the most pressing modern problems. Nisbet describes how hyper-individualism co-exists alongside expanding state bureaucracies. Freedom (from community) and statism can co-exist, a conclusion that might strike some as implausible. But Nisbet provides a convincing explanation. Philosophers and politicians alike embraced an individualism shorn from the bases of its existence, pushing to dismantle 'old-fashioned' obligations, local ties, etc. Once that was done, people would look for community in the total state. As mediating institutions declined in importance, the state escaped its primary restraints. On one hand, people might be 'free' from the ties that bound them before. On the other, you now have an atomized populace and a stronger central state.
This process can even fuel a descent into totalitarianism; Nisbet smartly describes how communists and fascists seek to 'massify' people first by destroying communal institutions and then propose their ideologically-driven state as the solution afterward. Community is an engine of democracy. It provides a sense of personal meaning and helps people learn to be part of society. Where pluralism exists regarding these institutions, they can best serve their function. While Nisbet is a little light on solutions, he broadly proposes decentralism. Interestingly, he also recognizes that scaling back the state is a nearly impossible task. I guess the question is how we can address major needs without excessively imposing from above. That question continues to haunt us...
The book has aged remarkably well for something written in the early 1950s. We often think about the 1950s as a time of strong social capital, but here Nisbet was bemoaning trends that have gotten far worse. Admittedly, today it seems like the state (while larger than historically) isn't the force upending organic community and atomizing individuals while increasing the scope of its own power. Many critics today contend that large corporations are more at fault. Nisbet acknowledges the bigness of many institutions, although his central focus is on the state. Capitalism's individualizing tendencies get some attention, but not quite enough for me. Unthinking devotion to 'free markets' might do more damage today than the state. In addition, he doesn't address technology (Ellul's theory of technique is interesting to ponder in light of this book) very much at all. Maybe that's my 21st-century brain considering our algorithmic overlords though--1950s technology wasn't made to keep you scrolling.
You notice how influential Nisbet is when reading localist post-liberal authors like Patrick Deneen and Phillip Blond. This isn't his idea alone (de Tocqueville, who gets many citations here, was onto it), but Nisbet updates the theory for our era. It was these post-liberals' work that led me to this book, and it explains so much about the current moment. "The Quest for Community" had me filling pages with underlines and margin notes. Even where I disagree, it proved thought-provoking. Those of us who lean left should especially consider his ideas about the state.
This process can even fuel a descent into totalitarianism; Nisbet smartly describes how communists and fascists seek to 'massify' people first by destroying communal institutions and then propose their ideologically-driven state as the solution afterward. Community is an engine of democracy. It provides a sense of personal meaning and helps people learn to be part of society. Where pluralism exists regarding these institutions, they can best serve their function. While Nisbet is a little light on solutions, he broadly proposes decentralism. Interestingly, he also recognizes that scaling back the state is a nearly impossible task. I guess the question is how we can address major needs without excessively imposing from above. That question continues to haunt us...
The book has aged remarkably well for something written in the early 1950s. We often think about the 1950s as a time of strong social capital, but here Nisbet was bemoaning trends that have gotten far worse. Admittedly, today it seems like the state (while larger than historically) isn't the force upending organic community and atomizing individuals while increasing the scope of its own power. Many critics today contend that large corporations are more at fault. Nisbet acknowledges the bigness of many institutions, although his central focus is on the state. Capitalism's individualizing tendencies get some attention, but not quite enough for me. Unthinking devotion to 'free markets' might do more damage today than the state. In addition, he doesn't address technology (Ellul's theory of technique is interesting to ponder in light of this book) very much at all. Maybe that's my 21st-century brain considering our algorithmic overlords though--1950s technology wasn't made to keep you scrolling.
You notice how influential Nisbet is when reading localist post-liberal authors like Patrick Deneen and Phillip Blond. This isn't his idea alone (de Tocqueville, who gets many citations here, was onto it), but Nisbet updates the theory for our era. It was these post-liberals' work that led me to this book, and it explains so much about the current moment. "The Quest for Community" had me filling pages with underlines and margin notes. Even where I disagree, it proved thought-provoking. Those of us who lean left should especially consider his ideas about the state.
December 18, 2023
Humans are social animals. That is not new information. Even the ancients knew that it is not good for man to be alone.
Studying ancient and classical history shows many examples of where banishment from society was the worst possible punishment.
That is because humans are made to live in a community.
Virtual communities cannot replace real, face-to-face communities.
Virtual communities cannot provide meaning and fellowship in the same way. Virtual communities also, most certainly, cannot serve as intermediate structures between the individual and an all-powerful government.
A virtual community is no substitute for the real thing.
In his 1953 book, “The Quest for Community,” Robert Nisbet argued that radical individualism caused communities to break down. This desire for individual autonomy has weakened families, churches, clubs, groups, and associations.
People have flocked to virtual, online communities as face-to-face communities have declined. Many see these as "communities for a new generation."
In a face-to-face community, I come as I am.
In virtual communities, I come as the image I want to project. That is not a community.
Instead, we end up with narcissistic groups of false selves.
In this social media world, we may have more “friends” than we could have in the face-to-face community. But, the quality of those friendships is so poor that sociologists have coined the phrase “migratory friendships.”
Migratory friendships describe digital friends who have lots of information about each other but do not know each other.
Maybe you have seen this play out in person. Migratory friends text for long periods of time but when they get together in person they run out of things to talk about or do in about ten minutes and spend the rest of the evening or dinner texting, other people!
Our American founders created a country that respected individual rights and liberties, but always in the context of the people. People united in communities and associations, which secured individual rights from an otherwise all-powerful government.
As a result, you had a balance.
When he visited America, Tocqueville praised the civic virtue of Americans that resulted in building hospitals, schools, churches, etc. He marveled at our ability to work together because we knew each other and talked over difficult choices in favor of the community (not self).
However, in recent times, "individual autonomy” has exceeded the idea of community in America. Not surprisingly, as radical individualism has grown, government power has grown.
This individualism, coupled with online living, causes us to think we have 3,000 friends (followers) or some other large number while having face-to-face relationships with very few people.
This is a column for another time, but science has repeatedly proven that we only sustain 150 meaningful relationships. You can look up the Dunbar Number yourself and read about it.
But until you do, just know that we need a new generation of community leaders and networks to connect with other humans, especially for rural communities. And best of all, those connections and networks can begin right in your neighborhood!
Studying ancient and classical history shows many examples of where banishment from society was the worst possible punishment.
That is because humans are made to live in a community.
Virtual communities cannot replace real, face-to-face communities.
Virtual communities cannot provide meaning and fellowship in the same way. Virtual communities also, most certainly, cannot serve as intermediate structures between the individual and an all-powerful government.
A virtual community is no substitute for the real thing.
In his 1953 book, “The Quest for Community,” Robert Nisbet argued that radical individualism caused communities to break down. This desire for individual autonomy has weakened families, churches, clubs, groups, and associations.
People have flocked to virtual, online communities as face-to-face communities have declined. Many see these as "communities for a new generation."
In a face-to-face community, I come as I am.
In virtual communities, I come as the image I want to project. That is not a community.
Instead, we end up with narcissistic groups of false selves.
In this social media world, we may have more “friends” than we could have in the face-to-face community. But, the quality of those friendships is so poor that sociologists have coined the phrase “migratory friendships.”
Migratory friendships describe digital friends who have lots of information about each other but do not know each other.
Maybe you have seen this play out in person. Migratory friends text for long periods of time but when they get together in person they run out of things to talk about or do in about ten minutes and spend the rest of the evening or dinner texting, other people!
Our American founders created a country that respected individual rights and liberties, but always in the context of the people. People united in communities and associations, which secured individual rights from an otherwise all-powerful government.
As a result, you had a balance.
When he visited America, Tocqueville praised the civic virtue of Americans that resulted in building hospitals, schools, churches, etc. He marveled at our ability to work together because we knew each other and talked over difficult choices in favor of the community (not self).
However, in recent times, "individual autonomy” has exceeded the idea of community in America. Not surprisingly, as radical individualism has grown, government power has grown.
This individualism, coupled with online living, causes us to think we have 3,000 friends (followers) or some other large number while having face-to-face relationships with very few people.
This is a column for another time, but science has repeatedly proven that we only sustain 150 meaningful relationships. You can look up the Dunbar Number yourself and read about it.
But until you do, just know that we need a new generation of community leaders and networks to connect with other humans, especially for rural communities. And best of all, those connections and networks can begin right in your neighborhood!
April 24, 2024
fascinating! i don't know quite what's going on. i'm trying to put Mr. Nisbet in a box and he WON'T STAY THERE. he's making a Burkean argument that rights don't come from individuals but from families and other traditional groups. but he's also making a Tocquevellian argument that liberal orders will descend into mass society without mediating illiberal institutions. and THEN, somewhere in between the two of these points, in the middle of the book, he morphs into a quasi-libertarian to argue that the expansion and centralization of the "state," in a hobbesian manner, produced in reaction the emphasis of individual. he argues it is this opposition of "individual against the state" with a steadily increasing state, which has given rise to the woes of our modern world (mostly totalitarianism, in his day).
the opening chapters give a bit of a flavor for what he envisions these groups or other, non-state and non-individual, sources of moral authority to be. i can't really tell if he's actually a believer since most of his comments about religion are more sociological. which is a fine if understood as such. he made a really interesting argument that the Reformation set the stage for the expansion of the state by trying to remove social influence of the church and create direct relations to the people, the functions of these relations which were at a later point usurped by the state. his chapter about the family was also of note. a family (etc) cannot serve as a moral authority in an individual's life if it doesn't fulfill an actual function. this is key. you can't be a member of a thing just for the sake of "belonging," and when the government actually controls everything and associations have no real power, they are indeed compelled to be empty and function-less.
this middle part was really interesting. he argues that the rise of the military state and adoption of Roman laws led to power in the state usurping traditional authority of smaller clans, families, etc. he then traces the intellectual history of expanding the sovereignty of this state from Hobbes to Rousseau (he leaves out Locke because he's focusing on the state and not what the rights of individuals may be). says Rousseau conceived the most expansive state by the notion of the "general will," to which must be subjugated all other sources of authority such as family and church.
the closing chapters were a bit rushed, not bad stuff but neither as new to me nor as carefully argued. he resists the "philosophy of individualism," mass democracy, and market dogmatism, and in the very last paragraph closes with a call for a "new laissez faire" without any indication what that might mean?!?!?! i think the end needed like four more chapters.
the opening chapters give a bit of a flavor for what he envisions these groups or other, non-state and non-individual, sources of moral authority to be. i can't really tell if he's actually a believer since most of his comments about religion are more sociological. which is a fine if understood as such. he made a really interesting argument that the Reformation set the stage for the expansion of the state by trying to remove social influence of the church and create direct relations to the people, the functions of these relations which were at a later point usurped by the state. his chapter about the family was also of note. a family (etc) cannot serve as a moral authority in an individual's life if it doesn't fulfill an actual function. this is key. you can't be a member of a thing just for the sake of "belonging," and when the government actually controls everything and associations have no real power, they are indeed compelled to be empty and function-less.
this middle part was really interesting. he argues that the rise of the military state and adoption of Roman laws led to power in the state usurping traditional authority of smaller clans, families, etc. he then traces the intellectual history of expanding the sovereignty of this state from Hobbes to Rousseau (he leaves out Locke because he's focusing on the state and not what the rights of individuals may be). says Rousseau conceived the most expansive state by the notion of the "general will," to which must be subjugated all other sources of authority such as family and church.
the closing chapters were a bit rushed, not bad stuff but neither as new to me nor as carefully argued. he resists the "philosophy of individualism," mass democracy, and market dogmatism, and in the very last paragraph closes with a call for a "new laissez faire" without any indication what that might mean?!?!?! i think the end needed like four more chapters.
September 3, 2025
Robert Nisbet’s “The Quest for Community” was first published in 1953. The world that Nisbet diagnosed had recently endured the Great Depression, the ascent of virulent totalitarian regimes and World War II- a world imbued with ideas that echoed centralism and extreme nationalism.
Nearly seventy-five years on, Nisbet's analysis still stands up. Corporatism, technology, mass transportation, and what Nisbet did not foresee- the advent of social media-have further contributed to a dehumanized world.
Nisbet argued that the development of the post-Westphalian state sowed the seeds that commenced the destruction of true community. Like Jefferson, Nisbet notes, any government capable of yielding enough power to endow its citizens with the benefits they desire can also employ that power to deprive them of their liberties.
Nisbet’s analysis of dehumanization leads directly to the alienation that afflicts modern societies. To Nisbet, alienation is a corrosive force that causes apathy and anomie. Traditional institutions have surrendered; subsidiarity has collapsed, and the individual feels unmoored.
“Quest” is, in a sense, a diagnostic manual. Whether democracy can endure when its denizens lack a democratic ethos is questionable. At one time, most Americans shared a consensus on fundamentals- a shared vision first articulated by the Founders. Today such a vision seems almost quaint.
Nearly seventy-five years on, Nisbet's analysis still stands up. Corporatism, technology, mass transportation, and what Nisbet did not foresee- the advent of social media-have further contributed to a dehumanized world.
Nisbet argued that the development of the post-Westphalian state sowed the seeds that commenced the destruction of true community. Like Jefferson, Nisbet notes, any government capable of yielding enough power to endow its citizens with the benefits they desire can also employ that power to deprive them of their liberties.
Nisbet’s analysis of dehumanization leads directly to the alienation that afflicts modern societies. To Nisbet, alienation is a corrosive force that causes apathy and anomie. Traditional institutions have surrendered; subsidiarity has collapsed, and the individual feels unmoored.
“Quest” is, in a sense, a diagnostic manual. Whether democracy can endure when its denizens lack a democratic ethos is questionable. At one time, most Americans shared a consensus on fundamentals- a shared vision first articulated by the Founders. Today such a vision seems almost quaint.
January 4, 2026
Overall: 4.5/5. The latter half of the book, from the chapter of “Total Community” onward presents the most gripping part of Nisbet’s argument. An argument that follows:
The Individual has never been the antithesis of the State. In reality, it is the atomized individual—stripped of association, human interdependence and shared history—that has made the individual the foundational unit for the increasingly centralized and domineering State.
This soft tyranny of unitary democracy, Nisbet argues, functions only when individuals lose the distinctions and social relations that make them truly prosperous—including their religious traditions, local particularities, and familial ties. In the end, the individual, removed of intermediary structures (e.g., neighborhood associations, sites of worship, mutual aid, unions, etc), effectively becomes the amorphous collective known simply as “The People.”
Thus, abstract allegiances such as nationalism and ideology enter to provide meaning where real purpose once stood. Rugged individualism, Nisbet concludes, is not the contradiction of a leveling collectivism, but rather the exact means in which it comes to fruition.
The Individual has never been the antithesis of the State. In reality, it is the atomized individual—stripped of association, human interdependence and shared history—that has made the individual the foundational unit for the increasingly centralized and domineering State.
This soft tyranny of unitary democracy, Nisbet argues, functions only when individuals lose the distinctions and social relations that make them truly prosperous—including their religious traditions, local particularities, and familial ties. In the end, the individual, removed of intermediary structures (e.g., neighborhood associations, sites of worship, mutual aid, unions, etc), effectively becomes the amorphous collective known simply as “The People.”
Thus, abstract allegiances such as nationalism and ideology enter to provide meaning where real purpose once stood. Rugged individualism, Nisbet concludes, is not the contradiction of a leveling collectivism, but rather the exact means in which it comes to fruition.
May 7, 2024
I loved The Quest for Community, and I think it includes the best parts of The Present Age (Nisbet) and Why Liberalism Failed (Deneen)
Here are my brief thoughts:
1) I enjoyed his incorporation of the French Revolution, liberalism, and Rousseau. It added more context to his discussion on the totalitarian state, expanding bureaucracy, and the rise of loose individuals.
2) I always appreciate Nisbet's references to Tocqueville because they help address America's love for equality within an atomized society.
3) I loved this quote:
"It is merely to insist on the fundamental fact that the perspectives and incentives of the free creative mind arise out of communities of purpose. The artist may alter these, reshape them, give them an intensity and design that no one else has ever given them or ever will give them, but he is not thereby removed from the sources of inspiration." (pg. 210)
Here are my brief thoughts:
1) I enjoyed his incorporation of the French Revolution, liberalism, and Rousseau. It added more context to his discussion on the totalitarian state, expanding bureaucracy, and the rise of loose individuals.
2) I always appreciate Nisbet's references to Tocqueville because they help address America's love for equality within an atomized society.
3) I loved this quote:
"It is merely to insist on the fundamental fact that the perspectives and incentives of the free creative mind arise out of communities of purpose. The artist may alter these, reshape them, give them an intensity and design that no one else has ever given them or ever will give them, but he is not thereby removed from the sources of inspiration." (pg. 210)
April 17, 2025
Incredible book for its time. It was written in the 1950s, before the advent of the internet and the broader institutional and cultural decay of the last 70 years. The book highlights the importance of intermediaries between the citizen and the government. This reminded me of Taleb’s concept of scaling in politics. The other profound point (IMO) was the notion that the atomistic anthropology Nisbet blames for this decay was itself a byproduct of European culture and collective institutions. Essentially, you can’t take thinkers, even individualists, out of the social context they grew up in.
August 30, 2022
One of the best books on political science, Robert Nisbet explains the relationship between the deterioration of spontaneous, historical and traditional social ties with the rise of the giant, interventionist, homogenizing and totalitarian State. It contains very precise analyses of the French Revolution, Jacobinism, Marx, Hobbes, Rousseau,...
December 6, 2023
This book is the strongest challenge to progressivism that I have read so far. It gives a completely different perspective on human history than the one we're typically taught. I'll be thinking about it for a while!
(also I'm kind of bummed that communitarians like Nisbet don't really seem to exist anymore, it seems like a very compelling philosophy esp compared to its conservative descendants)
(also I'm kind of bummed that communitarians like Nisbet don't really seem to exist anymore, it seems like a very compelling philosophy esp compared to its conservative descendants)
November 5, 2020
I like the theory and agree with the thesis of the author. However, the book is very theoretical, focussing a lot on philosophical background and less on the real world examples or figures. This doesn't affect the argument, but it does affect the readability.
June 30, 2021
Nisbet's seminal work is insightful and relevant, but I struggled to maintain interest and was more often than not eager to put it down. I would've preferred a slimmed down version that captured the author's rich analysis without all of the additional copy.
December 2, 2023
DNF. This book is very heavy. The reading level is very difficult. I generally read on my time off from work and this was too difficult for that time.
I agree with his assessment that the breakdown of individualism will be the downfall of society.
I agree with his assessment that the breakdown of individualism will be the downfall of society.
November 6, 2025
Excellent review of an extremely necessary topic. Nisbet correctly identifies the centralization of power as one of the main drivers of the dissolution of communities. His sources are great, his analysis is sharp. Great read.
July 7, 2019
Outstanding
March 13, 2024
Tocqueville for the 20th century--prophetic, discerning, practical. Nisbet gives a great account of the human need for trustworthy institutions and the drive toward meaningful community where we can find membership, recognition, and responsibility. Aristotle says, "Man is a political animal", and Nisbet explains how the forces of modern America (50s) are destroying the supports of our political/social nature. If only he were alive today to see what our "educational" institutions, government, social media, and COVID lockdowns have done to any sense of meaningful community. We can learn a lot from Nisbet about how to build trustworthy, healthy, meaningful community and how to help individuals of all ages live flourishing, integrated lives. Tocqueville talked about the dual rise of radical individualism and the soft despotism of the state. If this is not what we are seeing today, I don't know what is. Maybe today's "soft despotism" is just less soft and more globalist than Tocqueville predicted in the 1830s. Nisbet gives us a strong analysis of this problem and compelling steps to begin building a path forward based on psychology, human nature, liberty, justice, and subsidiarity.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews