New Page 1

Friday, January 16, 2004
The major contributing factor to the demise of communities is change brought about over time. If a society that has been prosperous for an extended period of time begins to deteriorate, obviously something changed to interrupt the perpetual success of that community. No matter what instances occur to affect the community’s downfall, a change must have occurred to prevent the functionality throughout the group. In A Journal of the Plague Year, Daniel Defoe shows how the prosperous English Empire nearly dissolved in the face of the great Plague of 1664. London’s model is similarly acted out in multiple societies across the globe. The Plague introduces a change that intimately affects the lives of the citizens. Using established methods and theories, people try to understand and diagnose this newly introduced problem. Because their procedures are effective only in a problem-free community, existing models are not the solution, and the community must adapt, or fall.
Many things must take place on a daily basis to ensure the successful co-existence of a community. When this flow is changed for the worse, governments can be disbanded, commerce can cease, and the survival guaranteed by interaction can easily be destroyed. In London, the late seventeenth century brought a Plague that caused the disruption of all activity in the city. The government was required to move, and lost many of its key employees due to the disease. “The Court removed early, and went to Oxford… Great Numbers of Persons followed the Court, by Necessity of their Employments, and other Dependencies: and as others retir’d, really frighted with the Distemper” (17-18). The same ailment against the court also impaired the success of local trade. The lack of human interaction and preoccupation with the Plague ruined the business for many Englishmen during this time. “There was hardly a horse to be bought or hired in the whole city” (11). “I was farther confirm’d by the Woman being taken ill with whom I had intended to entrust me Affairs” (15). If a variable is presented that upsets the course of a people, their community cannot continue to function as it did previously.
The downfall of a community comes from their inability to create an offense worthy of the problem. Using old remedies for a new disease serves nothing but to frustrate the patient. New problems and new variables call for new solutions. Without these, communal extinction is inevitable. The citizens of London had thought themselves experienced, having faced and survived the Plague in previous years. However none of their remedies were sufficient to overpower the initial onslaught of the Plague. “This shutting up of Houses was a method first taken in the Plague which happened in 1603” (37). The theorized quarantine caused the infection of watchmen and doctors alike and spread the sickness throughout the city. Left to themselves, many people ran to Conjurers and Witches, and all sorts of Deceivers” (30), whose elixirs and remedies were no match for the destructive power of the Plague.
In an intricate civilization, any foreign element can endanger the stability of the community. A change can affect any part of the society, disrupting its continued success. Without innovation in problem solving, society cannot combat a dilemma, nor continue in functionality. If the community does not change as rapidly as the environment around it, the citizens cannot survive as a unified group.

2) How does Defoe represent a community falling apart? What are the most important techniques he uses to convey the disintegration of public/community bonds?

The living populations have an interesting view of death. Humans cope with this thing that they no nothing about save that it exists and everyone is subject to it. Their means of understanding and attempting an explanation to the unknown are fascinating sources of literature and art throughout the world. Daniel Defoe is no exception as he uses the literary tools in A Journal of the Plague Year to portray the savage experience of the great plague and its effects throughout London. In particular, strong allusions to deity demonstrate a need to hope for something greater than this life. A symbolically dark tour of the city gives remarkably descriptive account of the devastation within this crumbling city. And the cynical approach with which Defoe defines the general behavior of the people explains why the society falls apart as they turn to ‘less sophisticated’ assistance through witches and remedies to solve an affliction much more serious than that. The language chosen by author Daniel Defoe shows through allusion, personification, and satire the ways in which the community falls apart
Deity and death seem to always be close knit. One of these subjects seems to be as enigmatic and unexplainable as the other. The oddity in this is that they are often used to explain and define each other. Defoe has a dual sided method to tie death to religion. He shows us this through his main character, as well as through that character’s viewpoint of how 17th Century London citizens apply religious values to the crisis of the plague. This protagonist has a passive affiliation, stating “I would trust God with my Safety and Health” (11). He has no inclination to actively pursue the Lord’s assistance, but believes his actions justify Supreme intervention on his behalf. The Old English practice to capitalize all nouns plays a trick on the modern audience as current rubrics capitalize only proper nouns or those related with a religious being. This gives A Journal a decidedly religious air throughout the plot. With this in the readers mind, Defoe’s character proceeds to show how London views religious icons, and to what extent they are utilized. “I think the People, from what Principle I cannot imagine, were more addicted to Prophsies, and Astrological Conjuration, Dreams, and old Wives Tales, than ever they were before or since,” (22). He even goes as far as criticizing the actions of the clergy as over zealous messengers of the Lord. “Some were so Enthusiastically bold, as to run about the Streets, with their Oral Predictions, pretending they were sent to preach to the City” (22). Just as communities clasp onto religion to give meaning to their societies, they also cling to the supernatural as those communities disintegrate.
Color and feeling are wonderful gages of the public state of mind, and Defoe takes advantage of these as he unravels the history of the plague and its effects on the city. A majority of these descriptions deal with the architecture and buildings of England at this time. The claustrophobia that envelopes the confines of this city and the inability to escape interaction and infection are depicted as a result of close quarters, inadequate living conditions and overpopulation. The city had indeed seen the largest population growth in history to that point, and was feeling the effects. “Numbers of People, which the Wars being over, the Armies disbanded, and the Royal Family and Monarchy being restor’d, had flock’d to London” (19). The merchant’s travels through the city on business or other errands allude to the congested transit in the crowded metropolis. “In this narrow Passage stands a Man looking thro’ between the Palisadoe’s into the burying place; and as many people as the Narrowness of the Passage would admit to stop” (24). Coupled to this, the spread of infection as well as the impedance thereof is linked to the closeness of houses and families throughout the city. “The Justices had begun to shut up Houses, and it was with good success, for where the plague broke out, upon strict guarding, the Plague ceased in those Streets” (37). Defoe’s description of the city is critical to the plot, as it is to an adequate representation of the collapse of the community under the plague.
Similar to the influence of religion on the people, Defoe confirms the collapse of the society by reason of the citizens and their actions. As a result of their unfamiliarity with the plague, its causes, or solutions, the many echelons of people find diverse ways of ensuring survival within their sphere of existence. It is this plethora of mannerisms that our hero finds nigh unto comical, and speaks of as an observer would of watching a play. “The gaming Tables, publick dancing Rooms, and Music Houses multiply'd, and begun to debauch the Manners of the People” (29). While these activities certainly take peoples’ minds off the death around them, they are by no means solutions to the plague or the falling of the communal structure. “It was impossible to make any impression upon the middling People; their Fears were so predominant over all their Passions; and they threw away their Money in a most distracted Manner upon those Whymsies. Their Question generally was Oh Sir! For the Lord’s sake, what will become of me?” (28). As his exasperated depiction of the peoples’ reactions unfolds, the crumbling of the civilized way of life is apparent, and the reasons are clear.
Daniel Defoe uses several literary tools in representing the fall of a community. Religion, a strong base for the construction of a society, is often lost, and restructured in the chaos of a culture-destroying crisis. Defoe’s religious allusion through both his main and supporting characters proves this to be influential in the direction taken by the populous. The illustration of place is also essential to his depiction of London. It shows the layout of the city, how it affected the people, and how it influenced the fall of the community. While religion and location are universal variables, the third point, which is that of the diverse actions among the people, is destructive because of its disparity. Because the citizens act differently, they are torn apart as a unified body. Everyone fends for themselves, and the city turns from a force towards the common good to a free-for-all survival of the fittest. When people stop thinking about the communal benefits of society, that community can no longer subsist as it did.

3) After reading Sontag’s article, what are the major metaphors Defoe uses in his fiction? How do these metaphors reflect his understanding of the plague? Would Defoe agree with Sontag?

Tuesday, January 27, 2004
The stylistic prowess used by Defoe in Journal of the Plague Year is key to his appropriate depiction of the crisis felt by the English people. Many of the symbols and metaphors he uses become an image in the audience’s mind of the tragedy H.F. feels as his city falls to pieces. Comparing the city to parts of the body, and speaking of their decay beautifully seams together these two subjects. Defoe’s allusion to the war-like nature of the Plague with its destructive course through London proves the overshadowing effect of the epidemic. These metaphors and the truths they represent are irreplaceable in the explanation of how and why this community fell apart.

The bodily decay and failure due to the Plague is analogous to the decay of England’s structured society. London, or any other city, is not a singular object, but rather a sum of its many intricate parts. Exactly like the human body, when all these parts work in harmony, the body or community is stable and successful. To refer to the ‘face of London,’ or the roads that run like arteries through the city, Defoe personifies the city’s suffering as a man would his own. When the Plague swept across London, it left an empty shell of a city, without the capability to sustain itself or maintain a beneficiary existence. A title like ‘The Living Ghost’ is a very precise description of what the plague did not only to the people, but to the city itself. A living, growing entity, the city was so stifled by the effect the Plague had on its members (the people) that it destroyed the life London had built up. The effort to bring back the Monarchy, return the troops to their homes after the war, regrow, and even expand the city from what it had previously been; all these were fruitless in the wake of the destroying Plague.

As it had been only a few years after the end of the Wars, perhaps Defoe’s use of military emblems to describe the Plague is substantial in communicating to his audience. The rest of England knows exactly of what he speaks in terms of the Walking Destroyer, and history has often spoken of war and disease in the same context. A student pointed out well that invading armies often brought new diseases along with their infiltrating parties. Disease has been a force to topple armies throughout history. So as it was mentioned in class, it is just easy to associate disease with warfare. They both serve the same purpose.

Metaphors are a great tool for descriptive and comparative writing. The metaphors used by Daniel Defoe pinpoint images in the imagination of any audience of exactly how it was to live through the Plague. The similarities to war and destruction compare perfectly to the effect of the disease, its power and apparent invincibility. Analogies to the weaknesses of the human body and its dependence on individual parts describe the instability of the British community. These both illustrate the attack on, and defeat of the community of Defoe’s novel.

4) How does the description of the communities by Levi or Spiegelman differ from Defoe (or are they similar to Defoe, in what ways)?

Both Daniel Defoe and Primo Levi have an interesting approach to representing their respective communities. In generalities, it is simple to define their origins and parameters: Defoe discusses the Plague as it swept through a large portion of London, if not England in its entirety. Levi similarly makes clear the disparity of social class between Jews and Fascists, a separation some wish would not exist. However this inherent segregation is farther from the point of either author as they delve into subjects of deeper meaning and more general application.
In Survival in Auschwitz, as well as in A Journal of the Plague Year, we are introduced to an overwhelming truth about communities. As society offers less and less to its beneficiaries, the human trait of survival becomes more prominent, and the good of the one begins to outweigh the good of the many. Levi is quick to state “that man is bound to pursue his own ends by all possible means” (Levi, 13). It is interesting to remember this as one studies the actions of a group. While a collective may be engaged in the same actions, their motives could very well be completely different one from the next.

A few had given themselves up spontaneously, reduced to desperation by a vagabond life, or because they lacked the means to survive, or to avoid separation from a captured relation, or even—absurdly—‘to be in conformity with the law.’ (Levi 14)

An intricate balance can be seen in any community between what a member gives, and what that same member receives through his interaction with the group. If his contribution does not pertain to an equal level of benefit, then the science of natural selection will separate the man from the mass, neither serving a purpose for the other. It could be said that the Officers of the Third Reich and their Jewish prisoners were forced into a certain kind of joint community. It is true that they formed and intermingled group, however there was nothing to be gained by the enslaved and massacred race, and they did not make up a cooperative society.
Defoe is wonderfully vague throughout his work, and it is just as much a literary license as it is a means by which he portrays the chaos and confusion which ran rampant throughout London. His very detached view is contrasted by Levi’s first hand account of his experiences during the holocaust. The former is a treatise into the reaction of the various social classes of Britain as they faced a plague to their health and community. The latter differs in its personal and detailed account of the atrocities inflicted as one military power attempts to define its superiority through the exclusion of what they deem to be an inferior race.
While Levi and Defoe utilize different approaches toward their illustrations of civilization, there is an innate similarity within the purpose of the two works. Levi makes clear “the need to tell our story to the ‘rest,’ to make the ’rest’ participate in it” (Levi 9). Defoe also addresses this need, as he feels the future population could benefit from the experiences of a wise old man. Both authors explain and support their investment in future generations of society, leaving a little of themselves to be carried on through their memories. This is their contribution to a community that is perhaps fallen, but not annihilated.

5) What are the ethical responsibilities of bearing witness to catastrophic events, either a “natural” such as an epidemic or genocide? Can you ethically create art centered on the Holocaust? Or about AIDS? Can you turn tragedy into art? What difference does art make? Does it make horror ‘beautiful’ or does it have another role to play?

Sunday, February 08, 2004
Speaking in terms of community, there is always an underlying responsibility to witnessing a catastrophe. Both ethical and moral, one’s contribution to the society must be in keeping with the goal of that particular group. Further discussion on this topic requires the reiteration of the purpose of a community and its members. All communities have a goal or a common purpose to which its members are actively striving to attain. The achievement of this objective is dependant on the contribution of the citizens. Likewise, the peoples’ donations are conditional on the benefit they receive from the community and its actions. When the group as a whole faces a community-effecting disaster, those witnesses are more often than not required to contribute more than they had previously, just to reestablish the working order of the society. If not, they alienate themselves from the group, either witnesses or victims. To witness a catastrophe, one either steps up to a higher level of responsibility, or resigns as a member of the group.

A natural disaster or catastrophe essentially changes the group objective of any society. The individuals have come together for a certain purpose, be that what it may. The calamity then overrules that objective and the group must then ban together for survival, before it can return to normal procedure. Innumerous volunteer efforts and donations are the fruit of a concerned public who has witnessed a tragedy among them, and desires to help for the good of the whole. It is obvious that everyone has their own place in society, and that these have passed on to do and give more then they are probably receiving from their involvement in the community. The balance between give and take changes drastically, but that doesn’t matter given the circumstances. No one is asking for special treatment for anything that has been within their control. Rather this act of nature has randomly selected victims and rescuers, and each plays their role in this new community. This is new in the essence of its existence. The same people make up its members, but each has a new role towards a new purpose. Everyone adapts to meet the needs of the many, which are more important than the needs of any one.

This seemingly fluid transition is rejected by some however. Not everyone becomes a hero. Not everyone steps to new challenges in the name of progress. Many adopt the sense of every man of himself. This being the case, one is alienated from a community defining experience. Depending on the size of community and the intensity of the disaster, they may or may not re-enter society once this calamity has passed. Even so, the trial faced by a majority is not shared by the one, and catastrophe has become a means of exclusion between the volunteers and victims, and the independent. It is critical that the society regain its standing in order to provide benefit to its members. If one or two people do not contribute to the community getting back on its feet, what reason do they have to deserve the newly instituted objectives of that community? The ensuing disparity drives home even more the imperative assistance in time of need.

There truly is a responsibility to those who witness catastrophes. Whether those responsibilities and their consequences are realized or not, they are existent none the less. Any citizen, who participates in overcoming the effects of calamity, can expect a reward in continued participation with all facets of the community. Those who fend for themselves may be able to remain among the rest. They do not however, retain the same rights and privileges, documented and unspoken of membership in the community.

6) Generate a preliminary bibliography. Find four sources that add to your understanding of your issue. For each source describe why this is an important resource about the issue you are interested in.

Conceptual Problem Revised:
I am researching into the history of the War of Canudos because this is an epic example of governmental oppression seen similarly throughout the world which can destroy communities both small and large.

Background:
The War of Canudos occurred in the late 19th Century as a kind of religious cleansing in Northeastern Brazil. When the Monarchy of this nation was replaced after the Proclamation of Republic in 1889, Many imperialist land owners were deprived of their possessions, and revolted against the new order. Antonio Conselheiro, a self-proclaimed prophet, untied more than 35,000 citizens in what is now the state of Pernambuco to create a self-contained community with Millennialism as its dogma. As their ideas spread and their numbers grew, the fledgling Brazilian government began to see a threat to their continuance, and after repeated attempts, wiped out the colony of Canudos in one final massacre. The fall of this community is extremely controversial due to the questions that arise as to who was right? Were the citizens of Canudos even dangerous? Or did they just oppose the views of the current government? Did the fall of this community benefit the greater nation? And is the sacrifice of one community for another an ethical success? These are the questions to be discussed in my final paper.

Personal Attachment:
I had the privilege to live in both Bahia and Pernambuco, Brazil for 2 years and learned how this rebellion is a huge part of their national history. It serves as a remembrance for civil and human rights movements much like the story of Rodney King does in the United States today. I saw this as a perfect example of the fall of community, and decided to further research the topic.

Bibliography

1) Levine, Robert M. Vale of Tears: Revisiting the Canudos Massacre in Northeastern Brazil, 1893-1897. Berkley: University of California Press, c1992.

A description of the War of Canudos through the standpoint of a native citizen and member of Antonio Conselheiro’s Millennialist movement. This is one of the few publications not portraying this people as rebels, and provides a balance to the often one-sided commentary on this subject.

2) Villela Jr., Marcos Evangelista da Costa. Canudos: Memorias de um Combatente. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ, 1997.

An account of the War as experienced by a Brazilian Brigadier. This story opposes almost directly the views of Levine’s work, giving a view of the political and militant standpoint towards the group.

3) Dobroruka, Vincente. Antonio Conselheiro, o Beato Endiabrado de Canudos. Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Diadorim, 1997.

A rough biography of the life and times of Antonio Conselheiro gives insight as to how he became the way he was, and why he led the people to such extremes, even extermination.

4) Cunha, Euclides da. Rebellion in the Backlands. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1944.

This is a translation of Euclides da Cunha’s Os Sertoes, published in Rio de Janeiro in 1963. As a war correspondent, Cunha describes the happenings throughout the war and the subsequent massacre of Canudos.

7) Two page issue paper: Discuss the major questions/concerns about your topic. This is basically an elaborated conceptual problem. I should understand your position on this issue from these two pages.

ISSUE PAPER

It is extremely difficult to maintain the balance of give versus take that is required to sustain a community. The very reason for the existence of society is to group those of similar needs and goals. To attain this goal with an increased ease and sufficiency, each member gives of what he has, and receives of what he has not. When one gives more than he receives, or takes more than he is entitled to, the societal balance begins to decay. During the War of Canudos, the balance of governmental power and individual rights was so greatly skewed that the extinction of a community resulted.

The fledgling government had indeed overstepped its bounds in the procurement of land under the Proclamation of Republic. However it could be said that the reaction and retaliation of Antonio Conselheiro and his encampment were as far out of line.

There is a certain inference to be made of ‘natural selection’ when speaking of the interaction of two communities. Whether either was right or wrong, it is obvious that the most forceful won out. However there are enough instances in history of the underdog turning into the conqueror that one cannot say with absolute certainty who is to win.

An interesting thought is to imagine if the citizens of Canudos had not been opposed, what would become of them? If the ideas of Antonio Conselheiro had spread throughout the land, they may have become powerful enough to change or overthrow that part of the government that they found unacceptable. Their voice may have been that of the majority, but who is to oppose the national army?

Having just gained independence from monarchy, the entire country was full of national pride and had no reason to desire the defeat of the military that had won their freedom. Many of the comments leading to the 2nd 3rd and 4th armed expeditions to Canudos were those of citizens and politicians alike crying for revenge. Anyone that would do this atrocity to the nations defense force is not working towards the betterment of society.

The fault of the government is in the fact that they resulted to force against their own citizens. To do that would in any other country drive fear into the rest of the population. Creating civil unrest and spreading the thought that if they can destroy one community, why not anyone else’s? What gives the national government the right to decide what views are correct and which should be squashed? The War of Canudos had to have happened at that time when the government was at its weakest to have happened at all.

It’s an essential paradox of happenings. If the government had not been is such a confusion at the time, this kind of civil war could not have occurred. The citizens would not allow the use of force against legal citizens. The political bodies which are prone to represent all sides of any argument would not stand for such a violent solution. Society would not and should not cave in on itself in such a way. Conversely, had the government treated the citizens of the interior territories as respectfully as in the past, Antonio Conselheiro and his followers would not be in a position countering that of the government. Their lands would not have been possessed for government sponsored projects, and their survival would not have been jeopardized to a point requiring union and retribution against their ‘governing body.’

Oddly enough, this was not a revolt against the political forces only. It extended as the dogma of Antonio Conselheiro deviated from that of Catholicism. The animosity must have come from Conselheiro’s professed catholic faith, and the difference from those to his sermons and actions. Rites were performed more rigidly than any other community, and in a way, the community was defined by its divergence from the surrounding societies.

What’s interesting is the fact that the Brazilian population grew to oppose the settlers of Canudos based on their government (a very new republic, not even a year old), and their religion (a very old Catholicism) that has remained the religion of a majority of the citizens for literally centuries. These were both of such importance to the country that many would rather die than to hear others oppose these institutions.

The same however could be said of those following this presumed lunatic Antonio Conselheiro. Politically, they were fighting for a cause even older than the republic. If anyone had a passion for historic consistency it was them. The government was taking up lands that had been family inheritance and livelihood in order to expand as a national unification. Religiously, their views were nothing new, but rather a different opinion on ancient belief. Conselheiro spoke of the Second Coming, and the End of the World, as if they were drawing nigh. This is obvious doctrine in most religions, but few believed then that it would come as soon as Conselheiro professed.

On both sides can be seen an issue of selfishness instead of selflessness. The federal officials would not invest the time and energy to peaceably solve the contention in Canudos. The Canudenses were so determined to be different that they found any and all issues to blame on the government and alienate themselves from it.

It is really this comparison of selfish versus selfless that defines any community. A benefit cannot be expected without a contribution, or vice versa. Great lengths are taken even today to uphold this type of balance in an organized manner. While innumerous kinds of communities and organizations exist throughout the world, they all hold this in truth.

To take a single standpoint as to who was right is very difficult given the controversy that has surrounded the facts. However, it is arguable that both the Brazilian government and the community of Canudos committed grave errors in the endeavor to uphold the community. They may have had a different community in mind as their priority. Conselheiro’s followers felt that individual belief is too important to succeed to national policy or state religion. The federal powers felt that the union of the new Republic depended on unanimous support of the new order, and that it must not be endangered by any means. This literal conflict of interest led directly to the demise of the community of Canudos, and a similar conflict of interest can be attributed to the fall of every past community.

This issue paper is a little unorganized, but it deals with many of the points i wish to address in my paper. As I think about structure, I would like to discuss the benefits and contributions to society made by both the national and local "communitites" [selflessness] as well as those things in which they lacked a societal mindset [selfishness]. Then as a sub-organization, I felt the need to divide national issues from religous ones in each section, as they both attributed to the fall of Canudos.

8) What is the most important thing you can do to reconstruct a community? What readings have most influenced your thinking about community this quarter?

Monday, March 08, 2004

In speaking of communities and what holds them together, I am always brought back a central theme of reciprocity or lack thereof in the sustenance of society. Countries and other united forces have found a way to acquire all the benefits of societal interaction at the least monetary or emotional expense. In fact this value is the most attacked concept by those who find no benefit from community. It is this balance of what we receives versus what we contribute that must be upheld in order for the community to survive. This may be a more abstract definition of the topic than to say ‘stop hunger,’ or ‘dissolve racial animosity,’ but to elaborate on this balance I’ve spoken of is to pinpoint the root of problems throughout a community, that all have this at their core.
What we can do, or what I can do to reconstruct or sustain a community is in the embodiment of this social reciprocity. I have to play my part as a member of society, as a citizen, in order to feel justified as a participant. No one is capable of single handedly salvaging a community. Each and every contributor has a part, and remuneration for that contribution. Yes, there are leaders, and public figures that have the image of doing more. And there must always be leaders to control the masses. Balance must have order, and the people must have that order defined so that they can find their place within it. However just as everyone else, reciprocity has a compensation for these leaders as well, and their social capital increases with their effort just as everyone else’s.
The fact I wish to remember is that my contribution, or anyone’s for that matter, must of necessity be sincere. If I give more than I receive or receive more than I give, whether or not it is perceived by the rest of the community, it will throw off the balance of the community. I cannot allow anyone to walk all over me, nor can I allow them to do the same. It becomes an inner struggle not between me a neighbor, but between me and the community itself. One of us is not being fulfilled, and the other has ceased to serve a purpose. Only so long will I remain part of an organization serves me no good. Only so long can that community support me without my service before they must begin denying other peoples’ benefits to support those I have not paid for. If someone gets something or nothing, someone else, somewhere, has gotten nothing for something.
But this balance, more than anything, is a matter of common sense. And only one thing can destroy the balance: greed, or selfishness. Logically, when a community ceases to fulfill my needs, I have the right to move on and find a place better suited for me. If not the community will do me no good, I will no longer be of a disposition to lend my services towards their behalf, and they would be completely understanding to let me go. To stay, I have to complete part of a complex equation. This summation of parts, like any chemistry experiment, must be balanced to produce the desired effect. This holds true for societies across the globe. Not just political or geographical, but for social, economic institutions, families, and all other forms of community. The balance of reciprocity must be maintained. I must possess, understand, and perform my portion of that balance to sustain my community.