Posts
(or Externality vs. Internality)
Political theory #1: Matter vs. Spirit
Political theory #2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?
Political theory #3: Christian Politician's Dilemma
My thoughts are still very muddled, but I thought I'd anyways give it a go and try to communicate the first of the three theoretical problems in politics as I see them. I'm hoping that even a semi-successful formulation of the issue will help me proceed a few steps towards its solution.
The dilemma arises out of two truths that, taken separately, seem intuitively quite solid but that, taken together, seem contradictory. If it's a real contradiction one of the truths is a fallacy. If it's only an apparent contradiction - that is to say, a paradox - my anxiety is lessened but I'd still very much like to get to depths of it.
The first truth is this. A perfect society shall never come about by simply making some adjustments, rearranging society here and there, or fixing other external factors. The other side of this truth is that the problems of society can never be reduced to (explained by) simply societal maladjustments, disorganization, or some other superficial factors. The belief that they can is a key fallacy of all secular world-views, be they Marxist or western democratic utopias that stem from Enlightenment ideas.
T. S. Eliot expressed it this way: "Some dream of a such a perfect society, that it is no longer necessary for us to be good." Herein lies the wisdom that counterbalances secular thinking's folly. The problems of life are not ultimately technical, they are moral. They stem from the heart of man, the disorder from within, not the disorder from without. Christian tradition calls it the Original Sin. No matter how great the structure, no matter how educated, wealthy or cultured the society, everything comes tumbling down eventually. And the corrupt people make it to the top, or the top corrupts the people that make it there, whichever way it is.
The second truth is this. Taken the fact that the ultimate source of human misery, both on the individual and collective level, is a fundamental flaw in us, it is yet true that in some societies it is easier to be a "good person" than in others. Some have expressed it this way: a good society is a society in which the good man finds it easy to be good, and a bad society is a society in which the good man finds it difficult to be good.
Take, for instance, a country where a given vice is prohibited. I would suspect that in this country it is easier to avoid the vice and practice the virtue opposite to it. Or take a wealthy country - chances are that there is less social unrest or war in that country than in its poor neighboring country. Poverty is a cause of other social problems. Take away poverty and various blessings will follow. All this, however, seems to suggest that there is an element of truth in Marxist etc. ideas.
Now, at first the first truth - that perfecting society on the structural level won't erase wickedness from life - seems to present the legislator or politician (or any good willed person, for that matter) a problem. If it won't work, what's the point in trying to perfect society then? I have explained here why I think we ought to do our best to work for a better society and why a certain form of "perfect society" does, in fact, exist logically and potentially in practice too. But this is not the point I'm trying to make here.
The first truth - perfecting society won't erase wickedness - seems to be in contradiction with the second truth - perfecting society will lessen wickedness (make it easier to be good).
What's up with this? Is one mistaken? If not, can their interplay be explained more satisfactorily? What constitutes the apparent contradiction? Is there a level to this paradox that simply must be accepted by faith, or can we by making qualifications weaken the aura of mystery? What effect (if any) ought it have on the politician's thinking and acting?
I find this whole question very difficult. I'm not even sure that I nailed it. Hopefully I'll do a better job with the two other dilemmas to which I'll return later.
1 year ago
19 comments:
I see you point, but I find it difficult to say that it would be a contradiction.
"The first truth - perfecting society won't erase wickedness - seems to be in contradiction with the second truth - perfecting society will lessen wickedness (make it easier to be good)."
I can't see the contradiction in that. This sound a bit like the virtue problem you wrote about in another blog. Let me try a word play. What happens if we change the word "society" to "virtue"? I'd say it makes sense, yet there is no contradiction - which, I have to admit, I couldn't see in the first place, so I'm not sure if this helps at all.. Oh well, just my two cents.
I really appreciate your considerations Jussi, your two cents (which were more like 50 cents). One of my labels is "Questions" for a reason. I really need help in figuring out answers to the questions that bother me in life. Hopefully your comment will inspire others to chip in too.
I wrote:
"The first truth - perfecting society won't erase wickedness - seems to be in contradiction with the second truth - perfecting society will lessen wickedness (make it easier to be good)."
Now, even as I was writing this sentence I, for a second, saw that it was not contradictory at all. It says that (1) X can't ERASE wickedness but that (2) X can LESSEN wickedness. Your right, put this way it makes perfect sense.
So, I'm wondering why I thought - or think? - there's an element of paradox there then.
Substituting "virtue" for "society" didn't help: "The first truth - perfecting VIRTUE won't erase wickedness - seems to be in contradiction with the second truth - perfecting VIRTUE will lessen wickedness (make it easier to be good)."
I'll explain why. But before that let me say that in one sense the word "virtue" did help. "Society" and "virtue" are perfect words for the matter-spirit (exterior vs. interior) distinction at issue.
The reason I think using "virtue" instead of "society" in the sentence doesn't work, is that it would make the first half of the sentence ("perfecting VIRTUE won't erase wickedness") UNTRUE. Universal perfection of virtues would indeed erase human wickedness, I think. Whereas perfecting SOCIETY (on the technical level) really could not erase wickedness.
So I'm thinking that maybe I expressed the problem wrongly. Perhaps what I really found perplexing was, despite all its folly and its key stumbling block (that of the denial of human sin), the "element of truth in Marxism" (as I wrote in my post).
Theories that suggest that material are structural elements do, in fact, affect society for better or for worse have an element of truth in them. They err when they refuse to accept that this is enough, that no deeper - moral - conversion of heart is required. Or they err if they think that special material or structural changes in society will eventually secure conversion of heart. They may help, but they can't secure it.
So Marxism's fallacy isn't that it says structural changes can better the world, its fallacy is that this is enough. One could also argue - but I cannot here - that it was wrong in LOCATING the source of disorganization in societies in the competition between classes, in the suppression of the working class.
For, as history has proven in every single Communist regime, one the aristocracy and powers-that-be are overthrown and the proletariat has supposedly secured power, nothing changes, a new form of dictatorship arises and the repression continues. Orwell's "Animal Farm" is a gread depiction of how revolutions always tend to backfire like this (after the animals overthrew the humans the pigs simply assumed dictatorship).
Okay, I will stop now. I may be getting lost in the detail. Let me know if one of you thinks of anything.
Okei miehet, nyt en edes tieda uskallanko liittya seuraanne, mutta noyrasti sen teen ja suomenkielella…Nimittain en ole edes varma olenko samalla kartalla kanssanne, mutta rohkenen ilmaista itseani, koska tama kokemus oli kohdallani avartava..Mutta nyt kirjoitettuani tajuan, ettei mitaan uutta auringon alla ja etta taisitte sanoa jo kaiken oleellisen
“Theories that suggest that material are structural elements do, in fact, affect society for better or for worse have an element of truth in them. They err when they refuse to accept that this is enough, that no deeper - moral - conversion of heart is required. Or they err if they think that special material or structural changes in society will eventually secure conversion of heart.”
Eras perusteellinen, kokemustasolla oleva ahaa-elamys, tapahtui tyoskennellessani terveyskeskuksessa maahanmuuttajien kanssa. Hammastyksekseni tuo ryhma, joka oli kokenut suuremman taloudellisen harppauksen, mita voisin itse koskaan tulla kokemaan, olikin ryhma, joka oli taynna aggressiota, korruptiota ja tyytymattomyytta. Luonnollisesti voi spekuloida mika osuus tuohon tyytymattomyyteen oli kulttuurisella, uskonnollisella muutoksella, yksilon ja yhteison taustatekijoilla, sosiaalisen statuksen muutoksella jne. Variantteja loytynee runsaasti, mutta sanottaisiko nain, etta yksin taloudellisella muutoksella ja stabiloimalla yhteisoon rauha ei voida (rajoittuneella kokemuksellani) saavuttaa tilaa, jossa yksilo olisi saavuttanut sellaisen sisaisen tyydytyksen tilan, etta se olisi kykeneva kyseenalaistamaan vanhoja tai rigideja ajattelu- tai toimintamalleja, mitka lienevat yksilon muutoksen (ja siten yhteison) edellytyksena. Toisinsanoen jain pohtimaan, mika on tuon sisaisen tyytymattomyyden tyyssija. Olettaisin,etta yksin synti ja siten vastineena hyve (olenko nyt kartalla??) ei ratkaise asiaa, koska silloin liikkuisimme rajoittuneesti moraaliteologian alueella .
So Marxism's fallacy isn't that it says structural changes can better the world, its fallacy is that this is enough.
Olen samaa mielta
Jos ajatellaan Maslowin tarvehierarkiaa nain on , ja kun perustarpeet ovat tyydytetyt ,jaljelle jaavat hierarkiassa korkeammat tarpeet . Uskon, etta sinansa ihmisen motivaatio hyveiden toteuttamiseen perustuu niista saatuun hyotyyn. Luonnollisesti kamppailu on lievempaa, mita edullisemmat yhteiskunnalliset olot. Uskoisin, etta mikali yksilo nakee narsistisen hyodyn han pyrkii toteuttamaan naita, saamansa edun mukaisesti, ilman etta hanen sisainen struktuurinsa muuttuu. Sen sijaan mikali tuo exsistentiaalinen tyhjyys (huolimatta hyveiden toteutumisesta yksilon elamassa) on peristentti tila, en usko, etta
Universal perfection of virtues would indeed erase human wickedness, I think. Whereas perfecting SOCIETY (on the technical level) really could not erase wickedness.
Kumpikaan edellamaintuista tilanteista olisi totta, ellet sitten tarkoittanut hyveiden toteutumista siita lahtokohdasta, etta (nyt taytyy valissa hakea kuudes suklaapipari) tuo minan tyhjyys ja omnipotenttius kohdataan ja vaihdetaan Jumalasuhteeseen ja sitakautta saavutetaan strukturaalinen minan muutos ja motiivi?? Mutta juuri tata haitkin ilmeisesti sanoessasi
one sense the word "virtue" did help. "Society" and "virtue" are perfect words for the matter-spirit (exterior vs. interior) distinction at issue.
Ja kollegasi sanoessaan
(1) X can't ERASE wickedness but that (2) X can LESSEN wickedness.
yo... i don't know if you know about this site... http://www.opensourcetheology.net
some interesting discussions and the idea is that all of us 'theologians and philosophers' can write on it!
Really good question... and in reading the comments I think you did nail it... marxism has truth in it... but it does not go far enough. there is a new radical orthodoxy (Phillip blond and others) that are arguing that what is in fact missing in social-democratic societies and governments is faith... that our experiments with simply brining better wages, protection with unions, and education simply was not enough. (perhaps in Confucius' time education was enough). they are arguing, as I think you are trying to point out that moralism-virtue or let's call it faith (not a belief--so much as an active lifestyle) is needed to inform, encourage, inspire, and steer our social experiments. the danger is that faith is used as tool rather than as the basis or foundation of these experiments. somethings that is tacked on as a badge to an almost perfect agenda. i don't think that is the answer... it's another opiate if you will. i think in our critiques it's better to deconstruct our systems to show them wanting. wanting not just some element that is equal with other elements but a whole other foundation--beginning point.. not another postmodern idea or pseudo-modern system but returning to a pre-modern faith... faith where a man or an agenda is not the ruler but God. a God who creates, loves, dies, and ultimately sacrifices and serves the world. putting this as the overarching narrative--our foundation changes so much. am i making sense?
if not maybe i can start again and try and break down this last part in another way.
What strikes me over and over again is the lack of a general goal in postmodern politics (which godliness and moral values derived from faith were for premodern man). Secular society recognises no permanent truth and still the words progress, truth and goodness keep repeating in the rhetorics. Progress towards what? Surely not goodness nor truth because they are subjective for each individual.
My personal view on (postmodern) politics is a more pessimistic one; I think it has reduced to a power struggle over the social experiment laboratory. Power of few over many with no evident goal or motivation for action at sight.
The Abolition of Man by Lewis rings frightfully true. So does Huxleys Brave New World.
Upeaa Heidi, kiitos että liityit seuraamme. Mikäs sen antoisampaa kuin lukea ajatuksiasi, joiden viisauden kruunasi varmasti tuo kuudes pipari. ;-)
Sun maahanmuuttaja-esimerkki oli yhtä loistava kuin poliittisesti epäkorrektikin. Isäni myös kertoi Albanian-työkaudestaan, että kotinsa menettäneet ryhtyivät itsekkäästi kinaamaan YK:n avustuksesta ja halasivat monin kerroin hienompia olosuhteita (taloja, autoja jne.) kuin ennen sotaa.
Ymmärsinkö oikein kommenttisi punaisen langan eli sen, että HYVEETKÄÄN (ilman Jumala-ulottuvuutta ymmärrettynä) EIVÄT RIITÄ?
Parista kohdasta olisi kiinnostavaa kuulla lisää. Kirjoitit: "...mika on tuon sisaisen tyytymattomyyden tyyssija. Olettaisin,etta yksin synti ja siten vastineena hyve (olenko nyt kartalla??) ei ratkaise asiaa, koska silloin liikkuisimme rajoittuneesti moraaliteologian alueella."
Mitä tarkoitat tällä? Itse ymmärrän moraaliteologian aika laajassa mielessä, enkä siis ihan ymmärtänyt sen "rajoittuneisuutta". Kristityt ovat perinteisesti jäljittäneet ulkoisen sekaannuksen ihmisen sisäiseen sekaannukseen eli juuri tuohon synti/hyve-ulottuvuuteen. Haluaisitko viedä analyysin tätäkin syvemmälle?
Lisäksi kirjoitit: "Sen sijaan mikali tuo exsistentiaalinen tyhjyys (huolimatta hyveiden toteutumisesta yksilon elamassa) on peristentti tila, en usko, etta 'Universal perfection of virtues would indeed erase human wickedness, I think. Whereas perfecting SOCIETY (on the technical level) really could not erase wickedness.' Ja jatkoit: "Kumpikaan edellamaintuista tilanteista olisi totta, ellet sitten tarkoittanut hyveiden toteutumista siita lahtokohdasta, etta ... tuo minan tyhjyys ja omnipotenttius kohdataan ja vaihdetaan Jumalasuhteeseen ja sitakautta saavutetaan strukturaalinen minan muutos ja motiivi?"
Tarkoititko "kumpikin olisi totta" vai "kumpikaan ei olisi totta"? Oletan, että tarkoitit "ei". En tiedä, olisinko täysin samaa mieltä. Riippuu varmaan juuri mainitsemastasi hyveen tulkinnasta - oletetaanko siihen sisältyvän syvempi, eksistentiaalinen/uskonnollinen sydämen kääntymys vai ei. Siinäkin tapauksessa, että ei, väittäisin silti, että "human wickedness" voitaisiin poistaa, tai lähes kokonaan poistaa. Se sun mainitsemasi "eksistentiaalinen tyhjyys" ei kuitenkaan katoaisi (olisi "peristentti", kuten sanoit).
Näyttää siltä, että ollaan täysin samalla kartalla, mutta että emme ehkä ole vielä määritelleet sanoja (moraali, hyve, tyhjyys, wickedness, synti jne.) tarpeeksi tarkasti. Sun ajatukset on auttanut mua kohdentamaan omiani. Mulla on semmoinen kutina, että terminologia-selvityksen jälkeen kantavaksi kysymykseksi jää, "Does virtue suffice? If not, why not - and/but to what extent does it suffice?"
Jatketaan.
"The Sandovals": thanks for the link. I have heard of it but I haven't looked it up yet. Have you contributed to the site, or found anything intriguing?
Stephen, is Philip Blond the guy you spoke of earlier? I remember you sending me the name of a book - it concerned Christianity and Society/Politics - a while ago. I couldn't find the email anymore. It did sound interesting and I would like to order it if you still remember what it was.
You thoughts touched on what both Samuli and Heidi said. Heidi, too, preferred the use of "faith (not a belief--so much as an active lifestyle)" over "moralism-virtue". I think you're right one. It is, indeed, "needed to inform, encourage, inspire, and steer our social experiments."
You wrote: "the danger is that faith is used as tool rather than as the basis or foundation of these experiments. somethings that is tacked on as a badge to an almost perfect agenda. i don't think that is the answer... it's another opiate if you will."
Want to elaborate on this? What are the criteria to determine whether something is used as a tool or not?
Joseph Bernasol is going to begin his university studies in Political Theory soon, right? Perhaps he'd like to share his thoughts too.
All the comments so far have been very informative, and they touch on the second of the three dilemmas that bother me. I will try to write the second post as if we didn't have this discussion.
Samuli, are you the guy who randomly bumped into my father on the train some time ago? How's life in your new home - Hyvinkää, was it?
"The Abolition of Man" was ahead of its time, yes. Huxley's "Brave New World" I haven't read, but I keep bumping into it, everyone seems to refer to it. I should read it.
I think you're right about the power struggle. You and Stephen seemed to refer to the same problem - lack of ultimate criteria, or foundation, in society. We don't know where we're coming from or where we're going, hence we have no clue what ought to constitute the between.
Alasdair MacIntyre writes about this in "After Virtue". He claims the single most tragic thing western thought did was abandon a teleological view of man. Our anthropology is fundamentally flawed. Consequently all becomes simply "will", politics a struggle between wills. He is thankful, he writes, that in his book he doesn't need to answer the rejoinder question: Who's will is it, then? (I wrote a six-part synopsis on his book that can be found under the label "Philosophy", if you're interested.)
Jason,
Yes, I'm the train guy :) Life's good, staying home with our girl is a welcome break from the usual.
The teleological view is still present on our political vocabulary which is very confusing I think. It could be because politicians (as all postmodern men) are confused. The "Tao within" urges to strive towards goodness and virtues but the learned and accepted relativism and constructivism deny the existence of any such things.
MacIntyre is on my "to read" list, I'll start by reading your synopsis. Looking forward for your next posts on the subject as well, you write well!
My friend Oskari sent the following comments:
Q#1: Politics and law cannot make a perfect society, however that's
not because they are not directed to that goal (they are), but because they don't have enough control for that. That "lack of control" is not just a practical but a fundamental issue: perfection of man is virtue, and virtue cannot be "forced" from outside.
Note that St Thomas defines the tasks of law as (1) coordination and (2) education. I.e. education in virtue. St Thomas, following
Aristotle, said that law cannot prohibit all vice – not because the
goal of law would not be the eradication of vice (it is), but because it cannot, and in many circumstances it is more prudent to tolerate(i.e. suffer) some degree of immorality instead of risking a revolt or other problems if one tries to go too far with law.
We should discuss this more, I want to propose a theory...
Jason : The first truth - perfecting society won't erase wickedness - seems to be in contradiction with the second truth - perfecting society will lessen wickedness (make it easier to be good).
Well, I think there is no clarity in terminology. First, one must define the concepts of ‘perfection’ and ‘wickedness’. Then ask: what is a perfect society ?
For example : do we live in a perfect society ? Is the consumer society, we live in, perfect? Still, wickedness, i.e. the culture of death, flourishes amongst us. Decades ago, seemingly « perfect » Western societies had to invent a supernational dimmension in European politics to make another war immposible. Why ? Their « perfection » did not manage to prevent the World War II, and their « perfection » served the wickidness of the war.
So what constitutes ‘perfection’ and ‘wickedness’?
Mindaugas, many thanks for your comment!
Some clarifications to start with.
Firstly, as regards 'perfection', I did not use that word: I used 'perfecting' (simply 'making better', not 'making perfect').
Secondly, I am not trying to define a perfect society in this post. Although here http://21st-century-pilgrim.blogspot.com/2008/03/christianity-and-politics.html I have explained why I think a "perfect society", properly understood, is theoretically possible. The main point of this post was to express two (seemingly) contradictory truths (and maybe later work out a possible solution).
However, to answer your question concerning terminology, I would have to say that by 'wickedness' I mean all forms of vice (e.g. greed, pride etc.) and suffering (malnourishment, disease etc.). Very often the first produce the second, at least to a certain degree.
As for 'perfecting' (verb), I mean anything that the state can do to help combat 'wickedness' (in form of vice and suffering). In this sense 'perfecting' and 'wickedness' stand in mutual opposition.
I would not say that we live in a perfect society. Not at all. In fact the reason why politics interests me is that we do NOT live in a perfect society -- i.e. I believe society could be made better.
Now, as stated in this post, I acknowledge that (1) society cannot be fully perfected via social arrangements etc. but, ironically, (2) sometimes social arrangments etc. do, in fact, better society (i.e. make it easier for a good man to be good).
How does a politician, especially a Christian one, take this into consideration as he proceeds to reform society?
Again. Let us stick to your question.
Jason : The first truth - perfecting society won't erase wickedness - seems to be in contradiction with the second truth - perfecting society will lessen wickedness (make it easier to be good).
But that's the whole essence in this word 'perfecting'. You ask: how or in what sense a society should become better sa that it might combat evil?
The criterion of 'better', or 'perfecting' is crucial to my mind. 'Perfecting' implies a certain goal, thus, a perfect state. So what is the goal?
Mindaugas--
From the policy maker's point of view, a "perfect state" is:
-a state where the state has institutionally (legally, structurally, etc.) provided the best possible framework for the individual citizen to be good and prosper (avoid vice, pursue virtue, etc.).
And on the basis of this, "perfecting state" or "lessening wickedness" is:
-whatever is in the state's power, given the reality of original sin, to contribute to the realization of a "perfect state".
Can we work with these definitions?
As you can see, I use "whatever" and other vague terms. This is purposively. Because as for what CONCRETELY constitutes the means and the end, I have no idea.
The policy maker's ultimate goal - and the ultimate reason for posting this question - is, of course, to eventually work out the ins and outs of this concrete (practical) side too.
But s/he needs a map, a theoretical framework based on reality, to guide her/him through the maze of policy making.
Thanks for time thus far! I'm interested to see where you're going with this.
The issue is a right understanding of "perfect", "wicked". And then analysis of the society in these terms.
On the plane of politics, or common human,
"perfect" is what is told to be as such by a doer. Basically, "perfect" is rather his own treatment or evaluation of things.
On the plane of philosophy (Aristotelean), "perfect" means a society of individuals who, being moral and virtuous themselves, pursue the rational and common good of the society. The good itself is perfect, and not indivuduals who are, in principle, in constant change.
On the theological plane. There is no perfect society. Perfection of individual consists in sanctifying grace: namely, theological and infused natural virtues, gifts of the Spirit, participation in sacraments.
So, in order to analyse further, we have to choose a paradigm of "perfection" first.
Mindaugas wrote: "On the plane of politics or common human... On the plane of philosophy... On the theological plane... So, in order to analyse further, we have to choose a paradigm of 'perfection' first."
Mindaugas-- on the basis of your descriptions, I think we can immediately rule out the 1st, especially if it smacks relativistic.
I guess my mind is processing on the 2nd or 3rd levels, probably closer to the 2nd with a little 3rd thrown in.
In our treatment, I would rather like to call the 2nd level the "political level" insofar as politics can influence a society's determination, as a body of individuals, to pursue perfection in the philosophical sense.
Furthermore, the 3rd would step in if it is possible for social adjustements to either help or deter individuals from pursuing perfection in the theological sense.
OK. Let it be the second.
So what we need to do is to redefine exactly the 'perfection' in the philosophical sense we both understand.
I spoke in the Aristotelean sense.
But you need to do it yourself very exactly.
Then we come up again to your definitions.
Post a Comment