Contestation between conservative and liberal conceptions of civil society—and the way we might come to a healthy compromise.
Last week’s theme for “Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditations” (I’m a huge fan in spite of Franciscan Fr. Richard’s distinctly progressive inclinations) was “Welcoming the Stranger.” Thursday’s post was contributed by theologian Karen González, a Guatemalan immigrant, frequent contributor to Sojourner magazine, and author of Beyond Welcome: Centering Immigrants in Our Christian Response to Immigration.
González tells the story of a visit by someone whom she names as Mrs. Fisher to the immigration clinic at which González works. Mrs. Fisher is accompanied by a friend who needs help bringing her mother to the U.S. González is not happy to see Mrs. Fisher, who had been to the clinic with her housekeeper on an earlier occasion and made clear that “she did not approve of the work [González’s] organization does to advocate for immigration policy reform. ‘Why do you all have to be so political?,’” Mrs. Fisher asked.
González writes that Mrs. Fisher “was an enigma to me—she expressed clear xenophobic tendencies, a fear of the ‘other,” the foreigner, often based in ethnocentrism.” And yet after her housekeeper had delayed renewing her work permit for fear of missing work, Mrs. Fisher paid her full wages the day of the visit, drove her to the immigration clinic, “parked downtown in an expensive garage, and waited with her through the consultation.”
“For someone who was so rabidly against welcoming immigration policies,” Mrs. Fisher “had given of her time, money, and other resources to assist two different people who needed immigration legal support,” González notes. “I know people who verbally support refugees and other immigrants who had not done half as much to assist a single immigrant person!”
Nonetheless, González isn’t entirely happy with Mrs. Fisher. While Mrs. Fisher was doing God’s will in welcoming particularimmigrants, it was impossible for González to tell if she believed “God’s words about welcoming and doing justice for the immigrant” generally. But since practice shapes belief as often as belief shapes practice, González hopes Mrs. Fisher’s experience with the clinic’s work might lead her to “proclaim hospitality in addition to practicing hospitality.”
Together
This anecdote illustrates, for me, the precise point of contestation between conservative and liberal conceptions of civil society—and the way we might come to a healthy compromise. González seems to exhibit a worldview typical of activist American nonprofit leaders today: serving the immediate needs of a marginalized community, yet always with an eye on the far horizon of social justice, where needs no longer have to be addressed piecemeal, because they’re addressed systemically. To such leaders, the accusation of being “too political” is simply an expression of xenophobia, fear of the other, and ethnocentrism.
To her credit, however, González is willing to put aside ideological considerations in order to help Mrs. Fisher secure the appropriate immediate help for her housekeeper and friend. It would have been easy to discount Mrs. Fisher’s concern for the latter by insisting that it was merely a self-interested favor for someone whose labor she needs around the house. But González accepts, indeed celebrates, her deed as an all-too-rare concrete act of compassion.
To Mrs. Fisher’s credit, she was willing to overcome her manifest objections to González’s politics to secure help with the immigration concerns of two friends. Whatever her ideological inclinations, Mrs. Fisher clearly recognized that González was best able to help her solve problems facing people dear to her.
The lesson here is that when even staunch ideological foes come together to solve immediate, concrete, limited problems, civic cooperation may be possible. Neither party will walk away from the transaction entirely satisfied. Clearly, González would like to replace what she regards as Mrs. Fisher’s bigotry with enlightened racial awarenes. But equally clearly, Mrs. Fisher would appreciate it if González could focus on practical matters and tone down the wild-eyed radicalism. Yet neither of them permits these preferences to obstruct their mutual endeavors.
At their best, nonprofits can help citizens bracket their manifest political differences to accomplish significant civic tasks. This longstanding Tocquevillian view once formed the basis for a multi-ideological appreciation for civil society. But today, all conservatives can see is the radicalism of the nonprofit sector, while all progressive nonprofit leaders can see is the racism and narrow-mindedness of the sector’s conservative critics. González’s ability to work with Mrs. Fisher, and vice versa, points to a path out of this deadlock.
