Cathy's Comments Overshadow Chic-Fil-A's Progressive Fundamentals

This past weekend was a firestorm in the culture wars. On Thursday, thousands of conservatives and free speech advocates lined up at Chic-Fil-A locations across the country to show their support for the words of President Dan Cathy in opposition to gay marriage. Friday, homosexual couples across America staged a kiss-in protest in opposition to Cathy's remarks. The statement on a small, Christian radio station by Cathy has blown up into a multiple-week saga that has put fast food at the center of one of the most divisive debates in America today.

In response to this debate, I have two comments to offer.

First, I have heard from many the lamentation that food has to be politicized. From most, I hear the simple statement "I want to be able to eat a chicken sandwich without having to worry about the political statement it makes."

While there is something to be said about our lunchtimes being a time for rest, a time for us to put aside worry of judgment and good decision-making for a treat and a break in the middle of a stressful day, eating is not that simple. Philosophers have been writing about this for a good forty years now, but it is also a fact that is becoming more prevalent in mainstream America as well. With every dollar you spend, you contribute to allowing the world to be a certain way. 

Anyone who has done the smallest amount of research (say, trying to go to a location on Sunday) about Chic-Fil-A would know that the company is one that is based on Christian values. Now there is no evidence to lead us to suggest that the company discriminates in employment, service, or otherwise towards homosexuals, but to be surprised when one learns that the President does not favor marriage equality is a strange mistake. The current outcry against and for Chic-Fil-A is not really because of a change in the company, but rather a hype that has exposed something that was already there. The question is whether people will be willing to consume consciously when the choice doesn't involve a trendy cause like Chic-Fil-A is now.

Second, and more disappointing, is how the Chic-Fil-A controversy has overshadowed an important and underappreciated fact: Chic-Fil-A is a model for fast food in America.

What other company provides benefits for its employees (including one day of the week off for the entire company), top-notch customer service built on compassion and empathy, and a product that beats out all of its fast-food competitors? While Cathy is bravely standing by a position he believes in, he is painting Chic-Fil-A as a heartless, backwards company when really it has one of the most progressive organizational cultures of any company in the country.

In a way, Chic-Fil-A is a victim of its own success. The company is built off a Christian message of compassion and community. It could never have built the incredible organizational culture it has without this underlying philosophy. When talking about human rights, Charles Taylor argues that it is not terribly important why different countries believe in human rights as long as they come to the same conclusion. One may not want to adopt the pretenses of Christianity but may still praise Chic-Fil-A for eschewing the profit motive for something greater: treating its employees and customers with dignity and providing them a superior product and dining experience.

But from this philosophy, Cathy has also felt that he had to come forth against marriage equality. And thus Chic-Fil-A, a progressive company in the most literal sense of the word, has become tainted as the lunchtime snack of the reactionary right.

Why I Don't Use the Word "Communitarianism"

In yesterday's Washington Post, sociologist and journalist E.J. Dionne published an incisive op-ed concerning the modern GOP's decision to turn away from the traditional conservative value of community. In the op-ed, Dionne talks about the tension between American commitment to individualism and the commitment to community life by saying that "we are communitarian individualists or individualistic communitarians, but we have rarely been comfortable with being all one or all the other."

While thinkers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and Michael Walzer are often lumped into the category of "communitarian," Dionne's use of the word is an illustration of the reason that these philosophers routinely reject the label. "Communitarianism" is often described as a foil to liberalism. These thinkers are described as critics of liberalism at its foundation, offering a new way of thinking that is fundamentally opposed to the liberal thesis. The basis of this supposed critique is that liberalism considers the individual as primary and that communitarianism concerns the primacy of community.

A look at these thinkers, however, shows that this view is an oversimplification of their true positions. MacIntyre, in his 1999 book Dependent Rational Animals, places special importance on the individual's ability to exercise "independent practical reason." Taylor, in The Ethics of Authenticity, iterates the importance of authentic individuality for flourishing. Even Walzer in Spheres of Justice lays out a system of justice that is focused on goods accrued to individuals.

The takeaway from this is that the thinkers and the philosophical tradition that is often labeled "communitarian" is not the antithesis to individualism that Dionne describes, but is rather a position that supports Dionne's thesis. MacIntyre, Sandel, Taylor, and Walzer are not critics of liberalism at its most fundamental level, but are rather offering critiques within liberalism.

Thus, the use of the phrase "communitarian" does little more than to reinforce misconceptions and cause confusion. It would be nice if there were some catch-all phrase to describe the philosophy of this critique, but at this point there is not, so the best we can do is shy away from a label that does nothing but obfuscate the positive contributions of the cause.