It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Americans’ social lives are not at their best. Paradoxically, the increase of social media has actually harmed peoples’ relationships by fostering the loneliness epidemic and leading to the disintegration of in-person social ties. At the same time, civic engagement is at an all-time low, with increasing numbers of Americans rejecting party affiliation and even politics all together. If this trend continues, it does not bode well for society.
Nearly everyone realizes that politics has become the purview of a few distant power-holders in Washington, and that’s not a good thing. Nearly everyone realizes the problems that happen when the federal government gains too much power and encroaches on individuals’ lives. Nearly everyone realizes that it’s a problem for politics to be a spectator sport rather than something that everyday citizens can get involved with. Nearly everyone realizes the problems; the question is, what is the solution?
The Solidarist solution lies in two key ideas that strike a balance between the extreme answers usually given on the subject—and that have the potential to revitalize American politics from the ground up.
Idea #1: Communitarianism
Sociologists often divide societies into “individualistic” societies and “collectivist” societies. For instance, Western countries are often considered individualistic, with the rights and desires of the individual receiving the highest priority, while East Asian countries are usually deemed “collectivist,” meaning that they value the whole of society more than individual rights. Both of these ideas touch on a core truth, but at the expense of the other and to the detriment of society.
Individualism rightly recognizes the value of each and every human life, and the importance of treating each and every individual as fully human, with all the rights that entails. Ignoring this fundamental reality is the gateway to tyranny, and Americans have rightly emphasized the need to protect individual rights as a means of achieving justice.
However, collectivism also makes a critically important point—just because a society values individual rights doesn’t mean that it’s just. An individualistic society can easily disintegrate into a society of narcissists (or worse, anarchists) who don’t care about the common good. Many of the social ills America now faces are the result of excessive, unchecked individualism, which leads to the selfish ignoring of the common good.
But collectivism isn’t the answer to individualism’s problems. Simple rule by the majority or popular opinion is a short path to tyranny, and emphasizing “the good of society” easily devolves into authoritarianism unless the common good is pursued in a context that also values individuals. Collectivist nations rightly have a negative reputation for demeaning human life—the fact is, they often do. Generally speaking, collectivist governments pursue their own interests in the name of “the common good” at the expense of the individual citizens. But if “the common good” doesn’t result in benefits for the common citizen, it is doubtful if the common good is truly common at all.
The Solidarian ideal of communitarianism is an answer to the extremes of individualism and collectivism. Communitarianism is the idea that individuals flourish best in concrete, in-person communities, where they have a network of healthy relationships where everyone is able to support the flourishing of the other. Unlike individualism, communitarianism recognizes the importance of pursuing the common good, but unlike collectivism, communitarianism also places great emphasis on individual rights and prosperity. It thus steers clear of the pitfalls of both of the other options.
Communitarianism places the greatest emphasis on concrete communities, which naturally leads to a more localist emphasis in governance. Since humans can only really maintain a maximum of about 120 or so working relationships at one time, a communitarian society will naturally place more weight on local issues than national. This phenomenon in turn leads into the second idea, that of subsidiarity.
Idea #2: Subsidiarity
As with the debate between Left and Right in general, it seems like Americans tend to gravitate toward extremes with regards to views on government power. Often, people on the Left argue for a positive role of the federal government, trying to create ever more legislation to centralize political power on the highest levels. While Democrats are right in seeing the need for government to have a positive role, more often than not their policies result in petty micromanaging from afar and massive government overreach.
In reaction to the Democratic tendency, Republicans and Libertarians tend to see government power as inherently evil, a dark power that corrupts everything and must be opposed at all costs. While government abuse of power is a real problem, and the federal government has become vastly overweight and top-heavy in the past several decades, the problem of the Republican/Libertarian critique is that it offers no constructive role for the government. Many on the Right seem to think that government simply has no positive role to play in society. Yet if society is going to pursue the common good and avoid sheer anarchy and chaos, government needs to have a positive role.
The happy medium between hyper-centralization and anarchy is subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the notion that responsibilities in governance should default to the lowest possible level of government that can handle it. For example, local government should bear responsibility for local issues, state governments should only deal with issues pertaining to the entire state, and the federal government should only deal with issues concerning the nation as a whole. While there will naturally always be some disagreement on which issues should be dealt with at which levels, the principle of solidarity provides a reasonable framework within which politicians can reason about these issues.
***********************************
The dual principles of communitarianism and subsidiarity naturally draw government power and social engagement downwards, to the level of real people living in real communities, rather than pushing off large amounts of responsibility up to the higher levels, where big-name politicians fight each other as ordinary citizens sit back and watch like spectators at a game. As more and more people embrace the idea that local governments and communities should be the places where things really get done, American society will naturally be transformed into a more human environment where people know each other, treat each other with respect, and remain civically engaged.
What are some ways to encourage engagement in local communities? Let us know in the comments below!