In order for human existence to
have any sense of character or intrinsic worth, each person; each of
us must have a certain degree of autonomy. We need to be able to
make decisions about the challenges and opportunities that present
themselves. We have to have a degree of liberty. Those who have
given this quality of life serious thought have juxtaposed it against
such concerns as civil stability and social responsibilities. There
are those who argue that because of this promotion of self worth,
liberty should be maximized – that all of us should have the
highest degree of liberty possible. Others are not so sure. While
liberty, for the above reason, is very important and necessary for a
person's integrity, it cannot be a substitute or excuse for not
exhibiting civic virtue.
Our Constitution has
something to say about this whole concern. I think it is helpful to
review this constitutional aspect from time to time. As one of its
aims, the Constitution demands that we are to “promote the
general welfare.” On their face, these few words communicate the
idea that we, as a society, should establish an economic system that
at minimum provides in real terms sufficient material means so that
all can lead reasonable lives by the standards prevalent at a given
time. The political scientist, Donald S. Lutz, through text
analysis, has equated the term, “general welfare,” in the
Constitution with what we today call the common good.1
That is, this aim, specified in our founding document, challenges us
to put those policies in place that provide the most good for the
most numbers. I would equate this advocacy to that standard provided
by utilitarians, but I do not believe the founding fathers believed
in a goodness which is self-defined by individual preferences.
Instead, I see the document setting up a balance among certain
conditions reflecting the good. The meaning of goodness can be
derived from what else the Constitution promotes: security,
equality, liberty, religious freedom, freedoms of expression and
association, stability, property rights, community, justice, and the
like. We see these values expressed either directly in the
Constitution or implicitly by the structure of government the
document sets up. Furthermore, more specific values or conditions of
goodness can be deduced from the more general values the Constitution
contains. For example, stability and tranquility are furthered by a
healthy population and by a reasonable distribution of wealth and
income. But “common good” can be diminished if the people or the
government seeks one aspect of the good at the unreasonable expense
of other aspects. How we arrive at the balances among the demands,
as long as the demands reflect constitutional values, is what one can
consider a healthy political discourse. It becomes unhealthy when we
seek to deny that certain values, such as a healthy distribution of
income, are not part of the conversation or certain values are
radicalized; that is, sought after at the expense of all other
constitutional values.
If we take this balancing act to
heart, we can see that individual autonomy (liberty) is not
antagonistic to civic virtue. Richard Dagger2
gives us a more in-depth analysis of the relationship between
autonomy and civic virtue. At a more obvious level, there is the
concern over corruption. Surely, our self autonomy can be seriously
compromised by a system where there is widespread corruption. Even
the rich and privileged can be victimized by a system in which there
is little trust. We, as a nation, have toyed with high degrees of
licentious attitudes and behavior. Our crime rates reflect this.
“The best hope lies in 'the education of desire' or, more
optimistically, in an appeal to 'the compulsion of duty'.”3
To some degree, we need to equate liberty with the more Puritanical
sense that liberty means we are free to do what we should do, not
necessarily what we want to do at all times. Under this
conceptualization, we can easily visualize a role for civics
education – one rooted in a moral base.
Another obvious connection between
autonomy and civic virtue is the autonomy derived from an autonomous
nation. Again, a country that is free in terms of both the freedoms
it protects for its people and in terms of independence from outside
forces, can maintain that freedom only through a populous that is
willing and competent enough to protect that independence. Such a
task can be accomplished only through a collective commitment not
only for a sovereign state, but also for the idea and ideal of
freedom itself. Again, civics education has a role: to promote
patriotic feelings. This gets tricky. This role is not for
promoting blind patriotism or nationalism – “my country, right or
wrong, my country” – but a healthy disposition to favor the
values we associate with democratic living, including a certain level
of skepticism of public policy and public figures.
The final connection Dagger makes
between autonomy and civic virtue reflects upon perhaps a false
assumption we might hold about the human desire for freedom. We very
readily believe that human nature strives for autonomy. To a degree
this is true, but freedom contains its own challenges which can
become burdensome to meet. Years ago, the social-psychologist, Erich
Fromm, wrote about this sense of disconnection which accompanies
“freedom from” institutional relationships – family, religion,
work – and can lead one to be disposed toward associating with
authoritarian ideas or an authoritarian leader.4
The reality is that in order to maintain a true allegiance to
freedom, we must find our own individual ways to be free – to
spontaneously integrate ourselves in order to act creatively within
the roles we set out for ourselves. Both Fromm and Dagger emphasize
that this development at the individual level demands the appropriate
social connections.
The person who is completely
dependent on others cannot be independent [as in lacking “freedom
from”], yet even the independent person remains dependent on others
in various ways. We are interdependent, in other words, and a
proper understanding of autonomy and civic virtue leads us to
recognize and appreciate this basic fact of life.5
Which various ways? By countless
ways, but to name a few: providing the rule of law, providing the
common defense, providing protection from diseases and disasters,
providing education, and providing a general cultural promotion of
individual rights. All this is done through communal institutions
which are manned by willing and civic- minded citizens.
1Lutz,
D. S. (1992). A preface to American political theory.
Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
2Daggar,
R. (1997). Civic virtue: Rights, citizenship, and republican
liberalism. New York, NY:
Oxford.
3Ibid.,
p.16.
4Fromm,
E. (1941). Escape from freedom.
New York, NY: Rinehart, Holt, and Winston.
5Op
cit., Dagger, pp. 17-18.
No comments:
Post a Comment