I just started reading an interesting book by Edward Benfield.
The author tells about the commune of Montegrano in southern Italy. The extreme poverty and backwardness of this commune are explained by the inability of its inhabitants to join forces for the common good and for any purpose other than the short-term material interest of the nuclear family.
Banfield calls this phenomenon "immoral familiarity." He believes that he was shaped by three factors: high mortality, certain features of the land use system, and the lack of an extended family institution.
Some conclusions of the author:
In such a society, no one will act in the interests of a group or community if they do not see it as beneficial for themselves.
Public affairs are handled only by officials, because they are the only ones who receive money for it.
Control over government representatives has been weakened, since only other government representatives can control them.
It is difficult to create and maintain the activities of associations, since they imply unselfishness and immateriality of benefits.
The law is enforced only under threat of punishment.
No one believes people or organizations who explain their actions by caring about the common rather than their own good.
There are no leaders or followers in such a society.
Most of all, I was interested in an example where the author cited the fact that every resident of this commune voted solely because of what a particular party was ready to offer him: whether it would be a set of food or clothes, or some other gifts. If a resident did not receive gifts for voting from the Christian Democrats, then he was ready to vote for the Communists for his own benefit if they offered him some gifts.
The author tells about the commune of Montegrano in southern Italy. The extreme poverty and backwardness of this commune are explained by the inability of its inhabitants to join forces for the common good and for any purpose other than the short-term material interest of the nuclear family.
Banfield calls this phenomenon "immoral familiarity." He believes that he was shaped by three factors: high mortality, certain features of the land use system, and the lack of an extended family institution.
Some conclusions of the author:
In such a society, no one will act in the interests of a group or community if they do not see it as beneficial for themselves.
Public affairs are handled only by officials, because they are the only ones who receive money for it.
Control over government representatives has been weakened, since only other government representatives can control them.
It is difficult to create and maintain the activities of associations, since they imply unselfishness and immateriality of benefits.
The law is enforced only under threat of punishment.
No one believes people or organizations who explain their actions by caring about the common rather than their own good.
There are no leaders or followers in such a society.
Most of all, I was interested in an example where the author cited the fact that every resident of this commune voted solely because of what a particular party was ready to offer him: whether it would be a set of food or clothes, or some other gifts. If a resident did not receive gifts for voting from the Christian Democrats, then he was ready to vote for the Communists for his own benefit if they offered him some gifts.
