| Back | We need non-state civilian societies |
|
The French Revolution, which began in the summer of 1789, famously proclaimed the new creed of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Inside this French model, the revolution insisted that the state has a monopoly on fraternity. What followed was a brutal campaign to suppress human associations that are not modeled directly on or emanating from the state. Decrees from the revolutionary government prohibited, under criminal law, the taking of solemn religious vows. Monasteries were shut down. Bishops and clergy were required to take an oath to the state, affirming that the status of clergy as mere civil servants. Even lay societies were forbidden as a threat to the all encompassing nature of the State. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man proclaimed in a definitive manner that “The principle of any Sovereignty lies primarily in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it.” Indeed, for the next two centuries, this kind of revolution always had as its target the rich multiplicity of human societies: from marriages to churches, from charitable associations to schools and clubs, and even to economic corporations, no facet of human community was considered out of bounds. Not even the potentates of ancient history ever tried so thoroughly to shut down and replace the major organs of human association. The French experiment in 1789 was repeated all over the world well into the twentieth century, and continues even today. Who could believe that human flourishing is achieved only by membership in one society? Who could believe that the myriad and overlapping organizations that comprise civil society were allowed to exist only as reflections of that state, with everything else being relegated to the private sphere? Old-fashioned liberals and conservatives agreed that state monism is a disaster, and therefore a need to emphasize intermediate societies between the individual and the state became of paramount importance. Liberals tended to emphasize the role of associations as a check on state power, and conservatives, for their part, often emphasized the sanctity of certain kinds of societies. Nevertheless, for both camps, it was a matter of common sense that the individual is brought into the world through more than one social relationship. There was a common sense understanding that most of our lives are played out by doing things together. To put it bluntly: social bonds perfect human persons. Social bonds are not just there for efficiency’s sake. They are there, primarily, for the sake of flourishing. Social bonds are not mere tools, but are relationships that require us to develop habits of friendship. It matters where and how the multitude of friendships in a society exist, so the state cannot have a monopoly on intermediate societies. Such societies that exist outside the state are sites of human flourishing and of human joy. Extracted from: churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/sites-of-human-joy-the-true-purpose-of-intermediate-societies/ |
| Contents |