... On both sides of the Atlantic, in this sanitized Schumacher tradition, there are light-touch references to 'the commons' invoking Karl Polanyi. But these are stripped of any real sociological understanding of the primary mechanism of modernization as centering on disembedding (Polanyi, 1944(Polanyi, , 1957a(Polanyi, , 1968(Polanyi, , 1971, disenchantment (Weber, 1978) social and spatial mobility (Bauman, 2000), the emergence of what Elias called the 'society of individuals' (Elias, 2010) or the consequences of this transformation in terms of chronic ontological insecurity (Giddens, 1991), narcissism (Lasch, 1979), the erosion of communitarian solidarity (Lasch, 1986;Taylor, 1992), the destruction of moral consensus (MacIntyre, 2007(MacIntyre, , 2016, the emergence of an increasingly unstable modern self (Rieff, 1973;Trueman, 2020), the destruction of insulating, protective and (critically)shared hero/ immortality projects' (Becker, 2014) or finally (and perhaps most comprehensively) the catastrophic severing of the social order from any sacred order (Rieff, 2006). Instead, and in common with nearly all ostensibly radical economic-ecological critiques (most recently with Extinction Rebellion and 'degrowth'), the neo-Schumacherians retain without comment or reflection the assumption that the postmodern, post-growth society will retain all the modern achievements in relation to liberal individual rights whilst resurrecting the perennial possibilities of anthropologically unspecified 'community' (e.g. ...