Theology and Economics: Subsidiarity

(Sorry for the two week intermission on this topic. In case you forgot where we were, here is the index. I intend to devote most of my efforts (with some interruptions) to wrapping this series up fairly soon.)

I ended the last post by asking the following questions:

But where do the morals and values come from that are so critical to both government and economy doing the maximum good? Where is the human will shaped?

To answer this question effectively, we must introduce the idea of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity views society as a set of interwoven institutions. These institutions can be viewed as existing in a set of concentric circles. At the center is the most elemental of institutions, the family. At the outside of the concentric circles is the national government. (We could likely put international institutions as ring even beyond this.) Emanating outward from the family are a variety of intermediate institutions, with each succeeding ring being more distant in personal involvement and knowledge of individuals and families. Close in to the family might be congregations, schools, or voluntary associations. More removed might be local government and Universities. Still more removed might be corporations and state governments.

Subsidiarity holds that each institution, from family, to intermediate institutions, to the national government, has important roles to play. Still, each institution should only undertake initiatives beyond the capacity of private individuals and families or lower-order institutions in addressing their concerns. The concept is explicitly present in several institutions, not the least of which is the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Presbyterian Church USA has as part of its Constitution:

The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body. (Book of Order, G-9.0103)

One of the most influential articulations of subsidiarity came from Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. The Pope was wrestling with totalitarian impulses of laissez-faire capitalism and rising socialism. One led to the total domination of life by the economic institutions, and the other to the domination of life by the government. It was argued that the family, the individual, and their voluntary intermediate institutions have primacy. More macro institutions exist in support of them. Individuals and families do not exist at the pleasure of, or in service to, the state or the economy. Higher-level institutions are expected to maintain safe boundaries for lower-order institutions, and they are to interfere with more elemental institutions only when the lower-level institutions become broken, always with the objective of restoring them to health.

Implicit in the idea of subsidiarity is that the family, supported by its voluntary associations, is the primary place for moral instruction and shaping the individual’s will. Why? Because the family is the institution most intimately in relationship with the individual. It comprises the people who know a child the best and are most likely to have their best interests at heart. They are the ones who are most likely to be able to bend the child’s will toward virtuous behavior through loving relationships.

“But families are imperfect, and many are not healthy,” the critic complains. This is true. In some cases, intervention by higher-order institutions is necessary to safeguard individuals from unhealthy families. However, let us remember that with each succeeding ring, we move away from the individual and family in our circles of institutions, we move to institutions that will view the individual less and less intimately and be more prone to view individuals as abstract realities. These institutions often have interests contrary to any given individual’s best interest. Sin is every bit as much present in other institutions as it is in individuals and families. Yet, as the maxim says, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There is a profound tendency for institutions with power to try to extend that power into arenas that are not their responsibility. Witness the common thread from Stalin, to Hitler, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to any number of utopian government schemes that have as a common theme the elimination of family structures so that the state can have unfettered access to the formation of individuals.

Subsidiarity demands respect for boundaries for various institutions, but it also recognizes the human inclination to corruption. As Christians, we also recognize that the family is the only institution God established before the fall. The idea of exercising dominion over the earth would seem to anticipate the creation of human structures to achieve these ends, but these all emanate from the enviable institution of the family. The family is the default locus of moral instruction and internalization of virtue. When families generate people with internalized virtue, the virtue is amplified through the exceptional mechanisms of democracy and free markets. When families generate people without virtue, their values are amplified as well.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[Dana Ames]

Don't know if you have time, but I would really like to hear how you & Kester Brewin (author, "The Complex Christ") would interact.

www.thecomplexchrist.typepad.com/the_complex_ christ/

I think the discussion could be very fruitful.
I'll introduce you to Kester.

Dana

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks for bringing him to my attention, Dana. I drop by his site every now and then but I have been a bit distracted lately.

I see he is writing about Veblen and "conspicuous consumption": The act of buying things you don't need, with money you don't have, to impress people you don't like. *grin*

I'd love to chat with the good brother across the pond and I see you have posted a comment pointing him to me. Thanks.

I would be curious to know if there is anything specific that makes you connect what the two of us have been writing or is just our general obsession with things economic?

[Dana Ames]

Only you know for sure if it's an obsession!

I dunno- you guys seem to have ideas sparked by things economic, but you come at them in slightly different ways because of your different interests and Sitzen im Leben. I think you're both idealists :) and you both also connect economics with your views of the Kingdom of God. I think if you were to spend f2f time with one another you'd get along really well, in spite of your differences, and I think you'd stimulate a lot of good thinking in each another. Just my hunch.

Regards-
D.

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks Dana. That helps.

As to being an idealist, a good friend of mine and I were comparing meyers-briggs temperaments awhile back. Many fiction writers use the MB archetypes to frame their fictional characters. Some people have assessed historical and fictional characters MB archetypes. My friend is an ENFP and I am an INTJ. In the Star Trek world, he has the temperament of Captain Kirk and I have the temperament of Captain Picard. He is an inspiring charismatic character that gives energy everywhere he goes. He and his family moved into a distressed neighborhood three years ago to work with urban youth. I live not far from him in a less distressed urban neighborhood and share similar passions but my energy tends be on analysis and finding things that work. Then I try to connect these things with resources that help them do what they do better while educating others about what I see working.

My friend is an idealist and that is what I thought I was earlier in life. Actually, I am a hopeless rationalist or scientist. I love big ideas (like the idealist) but every idea has to be rigorously tested for veracity and for its ability to guide future decisions. This is where I usually get crossways with the idealists and why I think I often find myself at arms length in Emergent circles (which is crawling with idealists). I am unwilling to embrace their idealistic visions with reckless abandon.

I mentioned that I have the temperament of Captain Picard. Gandalf and C. S. Lewis are also INTJs but then again, so were Professor Moriarty (from Sherlock Holmes) and Hannibal Lector. *grin*

Don’t know why I felt compelled to tell you all this just now, but there it is.

BTW, any chance you are blogging Dana? You always raise such interesting issues.

[Dana Ames]

Well, I appreciate you opening your MB soul!

That just confirms why I think you & Kester could be great "thinking partners"; he sounds in some ways like your friend, and he is also quite willing and able to grapple with implications. He doesn't sound to me like the "charismatic leader" type, but he teaches at, and lives across the street from, an inner-city junior high public school in London. He's also one of the founders of the Vaux alt.worship group (now disbanded). I just appreciate both your points of view very much. Always on the lookout for what illuminates and fits into the Big Picture.

Thanks for the compliment. I feel insecure about raising issues on a blog of my own. I think I think better in response to what I hear sitting in other people's "living rooms". The only hesitation I have with joining in the conversation is if I find myself getting defensive- not productive for anyone. Still learning.

Dana

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks Dana and I fully understand. Not only do I have my own issues with not getting defenisive but I also find that this mode of communication can lead to all sort of misunderstandings. In person, I often use very subtle humor and double meanings. I found that much of this does not translate well into this format. People who know me pick up on what I am saying and others pick up something altogether different. I also know I am frequently inept at picking up on emotional clues people are sending me.

I am really enjoying blogging but you are right. It can be a challenge. Still, should ever decide to take the plunge, let us know.