In a time of economic confusion, subcommunities were quick to lay the blame on each other and relationships grew sour, "not only between blacks and whites, but also between blacks and Hispanics and among various segments of the community and Asian-Americans." (119). By using this concrete argument, Etzioni makes us realize the magnitude of the problem and encourages us to act. Also, by speaking of the recession, Etzioni indirectly hints of the "me-ism" (123) that permeates our existing community. Under our market structure of capitalism, competition between each other continues to be the backbone. Although the health of our economy thrives on this competition, Etzioni cautions subcommunities to not allow competition strain our interpersonal relationship with each other. Instead, subcommunities must work towards "we-ness" (119) and, by doing this, we are able to seek a compromise between the social and economic conditions. Antagonistic competition will regress to a friendly rivalry. Most importantly, however, "enhancing we-ness will require greater commitment and effort from both the government and the people." (119).
Also, Etzioni establishes his credibility by reinforcing his theory with opinions of renown sociology experts such as Herbert Gans, a Columbia sociologist, and Jim Sleeper. Gans agrees with Etzioni's theory that subcommunities are able very capable of co-existing with each other (120). Gans personally witnessed communities of "various ethnic groups, transients, and bohemians [living] together side by side without much difficulty (120)." By offering Gans" insights, Etzioni is able to provide an optimistic outlook for the future. Already aware of the friction that exists between the subcommunities, Etzioni erases our fear of never finding the solution for a "communitarian nexus" by transforming idealism into reality. We now know that subcommunities can very possibly co-exist with each other because Gans have witnessed it.