structureless masses. Vermassung, orrn”enmassment,” is another name for thernsame process. Families, churches, neighborhoods,rnlocal communities, and traditionalrnpatterns of work with all theirrnhuman particularities are underminedrnin an effort, not always intentional, tornproduce the faceless, abstract, “free individual.”rnThe cancer appears in many forms.rnWhile Roepke spends a great deal ofrneffort tracing the nuances of the disease,rnit will suffice here to name four shapes itrncan assume. First, Roepke argues thatrnexplosive population growth in the lastrncentury so overwhelmed traditional socialrnstructures that it was like anrnavalanche on fertile soil. It was an invasionrnof hordes which existing institutionsrncould not property assimilate and enculture.rnSecond, the “socially blind developmentrnof technology” destroyedrnhealthier patterns of life and work, replacingrnthem with those of the big cities,rnurban sprawls, and alienating and unsatisfyingrnoccupations. The intermediaterncushions of space and time, distancernand geographic barrier, are destro)’ed b’rnmodern technology in the name of convenience;rnthe moods of nature are exchangedrnfor those of the market and thernbig city; emotional stability is exchangedrnfor modern neurosis. Third, the growthrnof centralized government intrudes morernand more into private lives and lowerrnlevels of political and communal authority.rnAnd fourth, commercializationrnoften encourages an opportunism increasinglyrndevoid of conscience.rnThis diagnosis sheds light on thernneeded therapy. A humane economyrnprovides people with economic securityrnand stability through a limited self-sufficiency.rnCompetition and the market,rnthough part of the natural order of humanrncommunities, are not their only pillars:rn”[T]he economic order of a free societyrnpresupposes competition only inrnas far as that economy is a market economyrndependent on the division of labor.rnCompetition, therefore, is only one ofrnthe pillars on which such an order rests,rnwhile the other is self-sufficiency. Wernare, therefore, free to modify the competitiverncharacter of the economy in fullrnharmony with the principles of our economicrnorder, by enlarging the sphere ofrnmarketless self-sufficiency. . . . This is arnnew and important point illustrating therninestimable importance of sustenancernfaring and the ‘rurification’ of the industrialrnproletariat.”rnRoepke therefore argues for thernrestoration or expansion of a “peasantry”rnor “yeomanry” where a large number ofrnmen work the land. Others, such as inhabitantsrnof towns and cities, may stillrngrow some of their foodstuffs in gardenrnplots. In this way, a significant volume ofrneconomic goods is taken out of a marketrnthat is subject to the boom, bust, and fizzlernof the business cycle. And people’srnlives are improved emotionally by closerrncontact with nature; “A peasant who isrnunburdened by debt and has an adequaternholding is the freest and most independentrnman among us; neither foodrnproblems nor the threat of unemploymentrnneed worry him, and the subjectionrnto the moods of nature which hernexchanges for that of the market and thernbusiness cycle usually ennobles a man insteadrnof embittering him. His life, fromrnwhatever angle we view it, is the mostrnsatisfying, the richest and the most completernin terms of human needs.”rnThis vision is likely to surprise thosernwho are used to seeing Roepke quoted asrnthe staunch anticommunist, defender ofrnfree markets, critic of welfare programs,rnor technical economist discoursing onrninterest rates, investments, and foreignrntrade. It is a testament to the willfulrnblindness of some conservatives that thisrnview of Roepke is little known and seldomrnquoted. It is not the Roepke theyrnwish to promote. And yet this “peasantry”rnis at the very heart of Roepke’s visionrnof a humane economy. It is therncornerstone upon which rests the entirernstructure of the good society. Peasantryrnunderstood in the continental sense isrnthe essence of the Third Way, as Roepkernhimself said.rnBut peasantr’ is only a beginning. Beyondrnthis we need to restore and expandrnthe number of small and medium-sizedrnbusinesses. Small traders and small capitalistsrnhelp reestablish a humane economyrnbecause “they afford a form of lifernand work which permits a high degree ofrnself-determination, the enjoyment ofrnpurposeful work, the warmth of socialrncontact and a well-integrated familyrnlife.”rnCraftsmen and artisans need to becomernthe prime movers of production.rnBut they will need help through publicrnpolicy initiatives to combat their historicalrndisadvantages. Help will be necessaryrnto establish these more humanernindustries by directing technical innovationsrnthat serve their needs. Such developmentsrndepend on extratechnicalrnsocial aspects such as the specific problemsrnthat technical expertise is given tornsolve. These problems can just as well bernthose of traditional craftsmen and artisansrnas those of large corporations.rnIt will also be necessary to reestablishrnsmall communities where the local, thernpersonal, and the neighborly growrnorganically. Modern market ideologuesrnspeak much of the freedom and spontaneityrnof the market, but true libertyrnand spontaneity are local, personal, andrnsmall. They occur in communities withrncontinuity and tradition and not abstractrnand anonymous conglomerations ofrnconcrete, computers, strip malls, and ever-rnexpanding highways. One cannotrnhave affection, as Richard Weaver remindedrnus, for that which is alwaysrnchanging. These considerations leadrnRoepke to focus on the need for optimumrnsizes of cities and industries and onrneconomic life that is stable and secure.rnBut Roepke is not the pie-eyed romantic.rnHis reasonings are hardheaded, based onrnsolid economic analysis and real-worldrnexperiences. He refers to actual examplesrnof people li’ing the kind of life hernrecommends, the Switzerland of his dayrnserving as a good model.rnModern man’s insensitivity towardrncollectivist e’ils reflects the level of ourrnbarbarity. When we lost the instinctivernsense of what to honor and what to condemn,rnwe were well along the road torncollectivism—and mere freedom fromrnbig government will not restore goodrnhealth. Roepke understood that therndeep reforms needed were religious inrnnature and points to “the spiritual andrnmoral change indispensable to a lastingrnimprovement.” But he also knew thatrnthere is a mutual effect between the spiritualrnand the social, and therefore merelyrndealing with the one is not enough.rnIn the earl}- days of the post-WoddrnWar II conservative movement, the conceptrnof “fusionism” as advanced by FrankrnMeyer gained some adherents. It showsrnthe intellectual dilemma of the conservativernmovement when faced with twornapparenfly disparate schemes of politicalrneconoiw. The one emphasizes tradition,rnculture, the permanent things, andrnthe life of the spirit while the otherrnstresses free markets, trade, individuality,rnand material property. Fusionism was anrneffort to put the two together to form arnharmonious whole, not just as a frontrnagainst communism, but as a permanentrnand coherent way of thinking andrnliving. In Roepke’s vision we find suchrn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn