Solidarity, Subsidiarity and Common Good: Fundamental Principles for Community and Social Cohesion

Copyright © 2011 by Edmund Aku, PhD.

ISBN:          Softcover                                 978-1-4653-7580-3

                   Ebook                                      978-1-4653-0532-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

1. Theology.   2. Religion.   3. Catholic Social Teaching.   

4. Social Ethics.    5. Political Philosophy.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[email protected]

97833

Contents

Preface

Introduction  Principles Of Social Cohesion

Chapter One  1.0. An Ethic Of Solidarity

Chapter Two  2.0. Subsidiarity: The Second Of A Kinship Of Three Principles

Chapter Three  3.0. Common Good And Subsidiarity Principles: A Case Of Collaborative Partnership

Conclusion  4.0. It Is All About The Person: Natural Law To Personalism

Preface

This book is a sequel of our first book titled Re-Defining Community published ten years ago by Peter Lang. A good part of this current book is devoted to defining and elaboration on the key concepts, solidarity, subsidiarity and the common good principles. These concepts are essential to the sense of community. The point is that any community is complex and diverse. The only way to ensure harmony in such a setting is to operate in solidarity, a term which entails mutual support and collaboration. The only way this is possible is by respecting everyone involved in the life of the community, and that people are sincere about their strengths and weaknesses. Wherefore they are in turn acknowledged in these respects. They are given support where they need it. They offer support where they are capable of doing so. At this point we are already discussing the second principle. To respect people’s strength means empowering them in their areas of competencies and not being imposing because one occupies a higher level of power in a manner that bespeaks subsidiarity.

This is true for individuals as for the socio-political strata. The purpose of this all is to attain the common good for the community and the members thereof. We work collaboratively, lending a helping hand for the upkeep of the weaker ones in the community because like the chain breaks at the point where the link is weakest, so does the community. A community that does not join hands to strengthen the weaker members is bound to break. So for the common good of all and the community as a body, all must be willing to chip in their best and feel welcomed to do so, allowed to be masters where they have earned mastery and deserve to manifest that in the interest of the community and of all. In other words these three concepts are intrinsic to each other.

Our plan ultimately is to end the series with a third book that explores these concepts and the understanding of community espoused in the first book and how they could be practically applied. We intend to discuss them in the context of a typical diverse community that is battling with power distribution among the members and its sub-communities.

Finally, I would like to thank among others Jennifer Collins-Schmidt, PhD, a bio-ethicist, musician and educator who devoted precious time in editing and proofreading the manuscript for this book. She was God sent. She appeared just when I needed the help that she was able and ready to provide despite her several other commitments then. No words can exhaust my thanks and indebtedness to her in this regard. Another person who deserves a place here is Sister Caridad Tatayon of the Daughters of Charity. She is an embodiment of what this book is all about. She has dedicated her life to serving people intending to bring the best in them. She not only saw and affirmed the immense potentials in me but empowered me and gave me the opportunity I needed to shine and excel where I could. Several other people have also been motivational and influential in my personal and professional life, but there are other better suited places for such acknowledgements where they have not already occurred.

Introduction

PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL COHESION

This work argues that together the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity and common good assure harmony in the global community, or any community for that matter. (We shall come to the definitions of these concepts later). There is a very intimate relationship between community and solidarity. The link between the two is indeed very intrinsic that any divorce is unthinkable.[1] This does not mean that both terms are identical or interchangeable. There are two paths to solidarity for any community. One pertains to the members of the community or in-group, the other is in relation to outsiders or the out-group. By its very nature a community is a very diverse and complex entity. There are various levels of interaction, and a stratified platform of importance and participation in the benefits and burdens of any given community. This makes the principles of subsidiarity and the common good indispensable in discussing harmony in any community. How do we guarantee fair involvement to every party so that the weak are not unjustifiably bracketed away from genuine participation? How do we ensure a fair distribution of the rare resources, so that the best possible interest of all (not just of the majority) is covered? These are issues addressed by these principles, so that taking them into account enables a fair and harmonious environment for all stakeholders.

We shall therefore be seeing how the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity and common good interact to foster social cohesion. The principles of subsidiarity and solidarity are also complementary. The former dwells on the distribution of competencies and requires that they be allotted as close to the base as possible. The principle further allows us to know the conditions and circumstances under which the intervention of a higher level of government or authority in the affairs of a lower level of power is permissible. The common good principle binds solidarity and subsidiarity as far as it serves as both the underlying motivation and destination point of both. Hence the solidarity, subsidiarity and common good principles are studied here as kin-concepts, given the inner cohesion and interrelatedness among them.

Chapter One

1.0. AN ETHIC OF SOLIDARITY

Let us return to the two lines of association between community and solidarity. From the perspective of the out-group (the group that is not like ours), it is clear that differences do not always imply incompatibility. Even when we are different from others, we may still find genuine reasons or grounds for solidarity. This could be reflected in the form of empathy or collaboration in addressing issues of mutual importance to both or any of the parties. Global aids to the tsunami victims could be explained as motivated by our sense of belonging to one global community, where danger to any part is perceived as possible danger to any other or the whole. Any nation could imagine itself in a similar situation. Solidarity expressed in this manner is empathetic. Before the end of the cold war era, Russia and the U. S. collaborated, signing treaties that would limit strategic arms proliferation. Indeed very recently both countries signed a pact on reducing their nuclear arsenals. The opposite, a wanton proliferation of arms, could place not only the direct enemy, but also the entire world in danger, including both parties. Collaboration, by dint of this, reflects solidarity that is empathetic.

We are not denying that people could be motivated simply by the desire to be good and altruistic. As a matter of fact altruism would qualify as empathetic solidarity in the sense that we are using the concept here. Very often the motivation for altruism is that we cannot bear staying indifferent to the plight of the other. We cannot bear seeing ourselves in the undesirable condition the other is in. Because we wouldn’t desire it for ourselves, we do not believe others deserve to suffer that either. Common in all cases of empathetic solidarity is the voluntariness of the help or support that is given.

This is different from solidarity of the in-group, where the members just belong together. Solidarity here is almost automatic. It is like the closeness between family members (unlike those of friends). We describe solidarity here as sympathetic (akin to the sympathetic nervous system). Empathetic solidarity is solidarity rooted in some form of inferred commonality or shared fate or interest. Sympathetic solidarity is solidarity derived from some inherent or obvious commonality. Both concepts are not mutually exclusive. Let us take for instance the current financial crisis in Greece. Germany and other countries of the European Union had to jump in to raise billions of Euros to rescue Greece. This is empathetic. However, the sole motive is not to save Greece from the crisis, but as the German Counselor, Angela Merkel, put it to ensure the security of the Euro. This side of the help is sympathetic. The rescue is not only directed to Greece’s interest but to that of the entire Euro zone.

Our claim of an implicit link between solidarity and community is confirmed in Vaclav Havel’s view that solidarity is one of what constitutes a genuine starting point of meaningful human community.[2] As a matter of fact, no community is imaginable without solidarity of some sort among the members. People who identify themselves as a community always have things or commitments they share as such. These could be natural or conventional, e.g., kinship, land, or a school library. It is quite intriguing that the rationale for solidarity in any community lies not only in its sense of oneness as a group, but also in the fact of the diversities within the group. Hence oneness and diversity are implied in both community and solidarity. The members of a community can thus be said to be equal, and complementary to each other in solidarity. The sharing or exchange of commitments and care creates solidarity, be that voluntary or mandatory.[3] The affinity between these two concepts implies that an ethics of community anticipates one of solidarity.

It would be appropriate to point out here that the closeness of these terms does not mean that they are always interchangeable. Whereas community always presupposes some degree of solidarity, it is not always that solidarity entails community. Two persons may strengthen each other morally through a gesture of solidarity. They are not by this event a community. Empathy can cause solidarity to be expressed outside of one’s particular community. So solidarity does not only exist among members of the same group or community.

In this chapter we hope to see how solidarity can serve as a community sustaining principle. Attempt would be made to distinguish the term, solidarity in a bi-paneled pattern and define it in relation to the distinctions of both. Finally, we shall elaborate on the two other principles that guide and moderate instances of solidarity, namely, the principles of subsidiarity and the common good. In the context of this discussion we shall see to what extent and in what circumstances solidarity is a matter of justice or charity.

1.1.0. Definitions and Shades of Solidarity

There are different types of community just as there are different forms of solidarity. Both entail some type of union of parts or elements. In treating forms of community, Durkheim speaks of the mechanical and the organic solidarity.[4] Solidarity, like Community, includes more than just the individual, and entails going beyond the self to reach out to the other. Individuals go outside the self to constitute a group or community in solidarity. Similarly, groups are in solidarity when they break out from their respective cocoons to relate and identify with each other. This is the direction visualized in the stress on unity or union in most definitions of solidarity. Union is oneness underpinned by diversity. How does it sound to say, I am in union or unity with myself, except by that I mean reconciling different moments, attitudes or sentiments in my life and personality? The same applies to a group, except it is referring to agreement in opinions, sentiments or actions among the constituent members.

Webster’s New Dictionary and Thesaurus (1990) defines solidarity as, firm union in sentiment and action. This definition reflects an etymological fidelity, to the Latin solidus, meaning, a solid, or something or a state of being tightly packed, unbroken, or having no interstices.[5] This description bespeaks the sort of oneness or identity that typifies the solidarity that defies any form of discrimination among the members. In a square the angles are equal, so too are the sides or surfaces. This is clearer in the social and human context. The adjective solidary does this eloquently. It is rendered by Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (1972) as, "Jointly