Skip to main content
Log in

What Must We Mean By “Community”? A Processive Account

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The term “community” in ethics and bioethics traditionally has been used to designate either a specific kind of moral relationship available to rational agents or, in contrast, the context in which any sense of rational agency can even be understood. I argue that bioethics is better served when both “selves” and “community” are expressed through a more processive language that highlights the functional character of such concepts. In particular, I see the turn to “processive” community in bioethics as a turn towards method, contextualization, and narrative. In clinical practice, such a processive account demands that bioethics concentrate on methods of developing healthy dialogue and deeper understanding from within the problematic situation rather than trying to “fix” problems using ethical tools developed from outside the present situation. “Community,” I argue, is in and of the interactive processes of inquiry itself. Such inquiry, such “communitying,” requires that we engage individual patients in context; it demands more than simply gaining their permission or mere consent; it demands developing a supportive environment for participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • J Andre (2002) Bioethics As Practice. The University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Buchanan (1995) “Community Communitarianism” E. Craig (Eds) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Routledge London

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Caplan (1997) ArticleTitle“Communitarian Bioethics: Reasons for Pessimism” Responsive Community 7 93–95

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Dewey (1985) “How We Think” J. Boydston (Eds) In The Middle Works, 1899–1924, Vol. 6. Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale 177–356

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Dewey (1985) Democracy and Education J. Boydston (Eds) The Middle Works, 1899–1924, Vol. 9 Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Dewey (1988) Democracy and Education J. Boydston (Eds) The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 12 Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale

    Google Scholar 

  • E.J Emanuel (1992) The Ends of Human Life: Medical Ethics in a Liberal Polity. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • H.T Engelhardt SuffixJr. (1996) The Foundations of Bioethics EditionNumber2 Oxford University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • D.M Hester (2001) Community As Healing: Pragmatist Ethics in Medical Encounters. Rowman & Littlefield Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • D.M. Hester (2002) ArticleTitleNarrative as bioethics: The “fact” of social selves and the function of consensus. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 11 17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • J.K.A Kegley (1997) Genuine Individuals and Genuine Communities. Vanderbilt University Press Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  • M.G. Kuczewski (1997) “Bioethics’ Consensus on Method: Who Could ask for Anything More?” H.L. Nelson (Eds) Stories and Their Limits Routledge London 134–149

    Google Scholar 

  • E.H Loewy (1997) Moral Stranger, Moral Acquaintances, and Moral Friends. SUNY Press Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • A MacIntyre (1984) After Virtue EditionNumber2 University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • G.H Mead (1934) Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • J.D Moreno (1996) Deciding Together: Bioethics and Moral Consensus. Oxford University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Nicholas (1999) “Strategies for Effective Transformation” A. Donchin L.M. Purdy (Eds) Embodying Bioethics: Recent Feminist Advances Rowman & Littlefield Lanham, MD 239–252

    Google Scholar 

  • C.S. Peirce (1932) “Some Consequences of Four Capacities” C. Hartshorne P. Weiss (Eds) The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 2 Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Sherwin (1992) “Feminist and Medical Ethics: Two Different Approaches to Contextual Ethics” H.B. Holmes L. M. Purdy (Eds) Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics Indiana University Press Bloomington, IN 17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Strong (1997) ArticleTitle“Is There No Common Morality?” Medical Humanities Review 11 39–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevin Wm Wildes (2000) Moral Acquaintances. University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, IN

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Micah Hester.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hester, D.M. What Must We Mean By “Community”? A Processive Account. Theor Med Bioeth 25, 423–437 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-004-4011-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-004-4011-3

Keywords

Navigation