THE COMMUNAL PLANE

The last posting reviewed the very real concern a constitution has to address: the shortcomings of human nature. Yet much of this blog has been dedicated to promoting political and governing ideas and ideals that are based on the human potential for living in communal arrangements. What's it going to be? Are we doomed to being on constant guard against the devious aims of others or are we living among a sea of caring and collaborative partners in our efforts to further the welfare of this republic? This duality or, better stated, nuanced reality reminds me of childhood warnings and encouragements: generally, the outside world was presented to me as a place one should care for and one that was populated with good people worthy of my concern. Yet warnings were repeatedly issued: don't get into a stranger's car; don't go with a stranger who asks you to follow; don't take candy from a stranger. I never thought of questioning this inconsistency. I somehow understood that both messages were prudent. We are just living in that kind of world – get used to it.

How does this complication affect our constitutional thinking? How does federalism accommodate these opposing strains of human concern? Here's my take. I see our constitutional compact as a two-planed agreement. The two planes set the basic rules for several relational types: the relation between entities (persons and groups), the relation between an entity and the government, and the relation between our government and the governments of other nations. Transcending all of these relations is the aim of establishing binding partnerships. So one way to conceptualize all of this is to analogize it as efforts to establish and maintain partnerships between one entity and another. Sometimes, in terms of our relations with other citizens, we know them, but mostly we don't. So the best way to think of it is to ask what we need to do in order to formulate a partnership with someone we don't know and ask how to lighten up our protective provisions for those we do know and trust. If that is the case, what does the agreement need to include in order that a person might be able to sleep at night? One needs to first plan for the worst and then hope for the best. One needs to establish a fail safe foundation against the potential dangers others can pose and then allow for relations that can be close and rewarding.

My last posting addressed what it means to plan for the worst – how, for example, our founding fathers constructed the elements of our constitution with the strategic decision to pit interests against interests, power against power, and vice against vice. You are invited to read that posting. In this posting, I want to address the higher plane; that is, I want to describe how a federalist agreement promotes the communal bonds that reflect healthy partnerships.

While our constitution is quite clear in how it guards against the darker side of human nature, its approach in striving for the communal is primarily contained within its assumptions – most prominently, its belief that if people are allowed to be free, they will seek to attain the goals of the constitution. What goals?

[To] establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity …¹

The compact that follows these initial words of our constitution – the provisions for the structural elements of our government and the powers granted it – were devised and implemented in the belief that such a resulting government can accomplish these goals. I believe that when one thinks of the implications of such an act of faith, one comes up with several relational principles. In terms of how entities relate with each other, these principles include what follows in this posting.

Beyond the concerns for human greed and antagonistic acts, the relation between the entities also has communal links tying them together. The links can include the elements of the agreement, emotional ties, shared resources, shared interests, and mutual respect. When a collective, be it a nation, a business association, or a marriage, is working, its entities – citizens, business partners, spouses – might become blasé over what is being taken for granted or to what participants feel they are entitled. The more prudent among us understand that none of these blessings are guaranteed and all need attention. All or any of these links would make the entities closer and more committed to accomplishing the purposes of the agreement, and participants are smart to be cognizant of them and how they function. Again, this relation has to do with what Philip Selznick calls reciprocal advantage.² This principle is based on the understanding that a communal sense between the members of an arrangement increases the chances of success; it is sensitive to the whimsical nature of fortune and fate, and it avoids the disruption that a lack of dignity and integrity can cause any collective effort.

Let's get a bit more specific. We need to respect those people with which we are partnered or federated. That means we need to strive for intellectual communal commitment and, if possible, strive for the emotional attachments that strengthen the bonds between the partners. Intellectually, one needs to know and understand basic social principles that point to enlightened dispositions toward our fellow citizens. Emotionally, the challenge is a bit more demanding. It is difficult to force ourselves to feel a certain way. We have to be committed with our heads and, hopefully, with our hearts. I dare say that the emotion has to be directed to at least the association as a whole – a heartfelt loyalty – and if we can direct such feelings toward our fellow citizens, so much the better.

This is not so straightforward. Emotional ties need to be of a certain type. We need to care for what the fates of others are, but we need to place such ties within the higher goals and aims of the agreement. Not only does this place a responsibility on the entity, but also on the association or union. For example, can there be the case that our ties to our nation might come in conflict with our ties to our family? A constitution needs to be sensitive to such potential conflicts and should be so constructed that such eventualities are avoided at almost all costs. Where the line lies between such loyalties depends on the situation in question and I don't pretend to know where that line is. But what I do know is that one needs to be careful when one enters compacts and when one offers one's commitments – be cognizant and forthright over what one is willing to sacrifice.

Citizenship is a special case. We don't choose where we are born. But a nation built on federalist principles should make the point as to what its demands are and be very clear as to the following admonition: to physically stay in a federated nation implies one agrees with those principles not because of an accident of birth, not because one's family hails from that land, but because the citizen makes a conscious choice – a buy-in to respect the union, to respect the institutions of the people who inhabit the union, and to respect its other citizens.

Summarily, respect is necessary on two levels: toward fellow entities and for the governmental framework. Let me continue this posting with some words about respecting other entities – I will address respecting the governmental framework in a future posting. There is progression involved when one considers respecting fellow entities. At the easiest level, one needs to respect others' idiosyncrasies. We are not only all different, but unique in the compilation of our individual characteristics – there is only one of each of us. The level of difference between us can be relatively small or large, but it is always significant. Accommodating these differences depends on how extensively we are called upon to interact within a given association. Citizenship under federal governance, if its formulating compact is designed prudently enough, will not be unreasonably demanding. Obligations and duties will not excessively interfere with a citizen pursuing legitimate private ambitions. Of course, the severity of those obligations and duties varies in accordance with the level of peace and stability a nation is enjoying as opposed to the level of crisis under which it is being challenged.

At all times, the obligations and duties that are before a federated people need to be respected and this includes how we treat, care for, and promote the interests of others. And this leads us to a more demanding level; that is, the level at which we respect diverse interests. We need to understand that in meaningful ways, the interests of our fellow citizens will be diverse and different from our own. While we need not support all interests, we do need to respect those interests and even be willing to defend the ability of those citizens to pursue them. And, of course, at an even more demanding level, federated citizens need to respect even those interests that are in opposition to their own. We are justified in promoting our own interests at the expense of those that oppose ours, but we need, one, to do that under the prevailing legitimate rules of the game, two, do it in peace – only government has the legitimate option of force – and, three, do it in such a way that when the determination of the competition occurs, the parties can walk away with a handshake and in good cheer.

At minimum, then, respect is characterized by civility. Civility is not just a nicety; it is an element of a healthy federated union. We do well to be concerned when the levels of civility are judged to be too low. We should understand that human ambitions and conflicts place perhaps unconquerable obstacles to maintaining ideal levels of civility, but we need to work at it. We surely can promote it in our schools, our churches, in our business interactions, and in our families. Etiquette has a role here. Even when our heart isn't in it, we can act like a nice guy or gal. Beyond that, we need to respect our fellow citizens in such a way that our sense of partnership is strengthened and not diminished.

1Preamble of the United States Constitution.

2Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.