Putting subsidiarity into action

[StudentMI]

I’ve been reading lately on the inherently anti-statist leanings of Catholicism and I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts about how we can put subsidiarity into action.

This author I’ve been reading a lot of, Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn, goes into depth on how traditionally Catholic societies displayed marked liberal tendencies. This can immediately raise some eyebrows since liberalism, in the classical sense, was seemingly condemned. But as I’ve read more on the matter, it seems like what was being condemned was not classical liberalism as we know it today but rather the Manchester school of liberalism which would be most similar to modern day libertarianism. Indeed if I remember right in Rerum Novarum the Manchester school is even mentioned by name.

So society run entirely by the market with a night watchman state is out. But Catholic social teaching has also repeatedly condemned socialism of the totalitarian variety, not to mention it has upheld the right to private property and promoting subsidiarity.

Unfortunately I don’t see a ton of promotion of subsidiarity in everyday life either by lay Catholics or the hierarchy. It seems more and more like the trend is toward more state involvement, more state direction, more state regulation. On a recent thread someone was quick to call what amounted to localism ‘autarky’ and say we are well past the point where that was practical.

However, I don’t think that’s the case. Whether it’s modern authors like Gar Alperovitz, Kirkpatrick Sale and Bill Kauffman, or older and still relevant authors like Peter Maurin, Peter Kropotkin and E. F. Schumacher, there is a strong case to be made for more local control, more local, human scale economies. Fields, Factories and Workshops is perhaps more relevant and feasible than in 1899!

But reading can only accomplish so much. So as I asked at the beginning, how do we put this into action?

 

[adamhovey1988]

You seem to have a better grasp of it than I do. Let me ask you this: How would YOU put it into action?

 

[StudentMI]

Thanks for the compliment.

I have no idea, though. Short of awaiting the collapse of centralized states, I have no idea how to put it into action besides sharing the concept with others.

 

[Vico]

I’ve been reading lately on the inherently anti-statist leanings of Catholicism and I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts about how we can put subsidiarity into action.
…
But reading can only accomplish so much. So as I asked at the beginning, how do we put this into action?

I read Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Tolstoy. They did not favor the authoritarianism of the Orthodox Church and czar. Although Kropotkin favored cooperation rather than competition, all those ideals were stomped by the Bolsheviks.

So the Church does represent order, and it has been perceived as authoritarian, especially when allied with the state. But, when the state opposes the moral choice of the faithful, it becomes oppressive, therefore such authoritarian government may easily be rejected by Catholics, favoring subsidiarity.

I think many Catholics vote against abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and capital punishment.

 

[StudentMI]

I think many Catholics vote against abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and capital punishment.

Yes that’s true. But is it enough?

Tocqueville remarked how Americans had this attitude of forming organizations to take care of societal issues. Nowadays the attitude is to just let the state take care of it. St John Paul II criticized the welfare state for bureaucratizing such functions which could be better taken care of at the more local level. Indeed we’re almost instructed by bishops to vote to let the state take more control, centralize more and more functions.

We’re such a long way from Peter Maurin’s program, to use one example.

 

[StudentMI]

Perhaps the solution lies in setting limits to the state. Barriers beyond which it cannot go.

 

[graciew]

Or strengthening what is at hand in the local sphere. What surrounds us is not an abstract, it depends on us, we are that community. To begin with

 

[MPat]

But reading can only accomplish so much. So as I asked at the beginning, how do we put this into action?

Well, you have to know what you want to achieve and to have enough power to achieve it.

Those questions are not independent. It is not very useful to have a plan for restructuring, let’s say, European Union, if there is little you can actually do. But, perhaps, there is an organisation in which you have more influence, and you might wish to work there.

Since you say “But reading can only accomplish so much.”, perhaps it is possible to assume that finding out what can be changed is the easy part.

So, look for organisations (formal or informal) or their units where you have such influence. If you need ideas for that, see, let’s say, “Power in and around Organizations” by Henry Mintzberg (Book | Power In and Around Organizations | ID: 7s75dh682 | eScholarship@McGill).

And let’s not forget that there is another kind of power that he did not discuss: you can pray for Social Doctrine of the Church to be implemented.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have no idea, though. Short of awaiting the collapse of centralized states, I have no idea how to put it into action besides sharing the concept with others.

I think this represents a distorted view of what Subsidiarity is. Starting with the Catechism, we have:
CCC 1879-1883:

The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.

A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is established as an “heir” and receives certain “talents” that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop. He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good.

Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but “the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions.”

Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged “on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs.” This " socialization " also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity , according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

Continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Continuing:

From this we see that society and obedience to central authority overall is a good thing. But subsidiarity places limits on the more centralized society. It does not condemn it outright, but places certain limits on it. So it is not necessary to see the collapse of centralized states in order to realize subsidiary. What it takes is the detailed consideration of every issue in the light of whether that issue is inherently best handled by a more local authority - the most local authority being the family.

So to put subsidiarity in action, we should identify an issue that is best handled by a local authority but is currently being handled by a higher authority and lobby to return that issue to the lower authority. But that’s the rub. People do not agree on what is the best level at which every issue should be handled. For example: education. It is mostly a local issue. And in fact that is how it is generally handled - by local school boards. But occasionally there are aspects of education that are mandated by a higher authority, such as the federal government. Such was the case in 1957 when the federal government mandated that Little Rock Central High School accept nine black students, against the wishes of the local Arkansas authorities. The locals were arguing essentially for subsidiarity so that they would have total local control of the education for their children. The problem, of course, is that the local authorities in power did not fairly represent all the people. And so most people today agree that this was not a good case for subsidiarity.

 

[StudentMI]

I think this is a classic example of misunderstanding subsidiarity which does allow for higher societies to intervene. Thus the Little Rock example is a poor example against local control via the means of subsidiarity.

I stand by my comments regarding centralized states, since, as history shows, as (especially democratic nation states) gain more power they tend to absorb those powers permanently via what Robert Higgs calls the ratchet effect elucidated in his classic work Crisis and Leviathan. Robert Nisbet in his work The Quest for Community discusses the effect of the modern state upon intermediate bodies of society, concluding there is a tendency for such states to absorb the power of such bodies to the detriment of local power. Indeed, this seems inescapable in modern democratic states, as Robert Michels’ iron law of oligarchy states that any large democratic body will eventually lead to control by a select few.

Such were my reasons for stating what I did about the collapse of centralized states. Centralized authority is to some extent inevitable within a given territory, but the power of local groups can offset such absorption into the state.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

Sounds like American Conservatism to me.

A big government to protect the nation and rights, and federalism and “lower authority” to take care of everything else. Classic Liberalism started the massive state movement, and now the leftist movement is expounding on it.

For example: Big City New York politicians shouldn’t be dictating policy and expectations for Wyoming Farmers. Leftists desire a central, static gov’t to dictate to the masses, Conservatives prefer a dynamic, flexible populace to largely, and more efficiently/morally, govern themselves.

 

[StudentMI]

I wouldn’t say classical liberalism started the massive state thing, just that it was naive about the effects of its own logic.

 

[Theo520]

I have no idea, though. Short of awaiting the collapse of centralized states, I have no idea how to put it into action besides sharing the concept with others.

I’m enamored with the concept of Subsidiarity, but have not read books on it.

You can have state sponsored welfare if you combine it with job creation. MAGA to me is trying to implement principles of subsidiarity

• Balanced Trade increases living wage jobs
• Reduced illegal immigration increases opportunity for those most in need (unskilled). Trump has Mexico actively reducing the flow from Central America, making them a better neighbor that we in turn can better support.
• Even expecting NATO allies to step up and contribute their agreed share is a form of subsidiarity.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

I think many Catholics vote against abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and capital punishment.

Yes that’s true. But is it enough?

…

For some. Each person may have differing capabilities, charisms, and responsibilities.

 

[StudentMI]

I am currently reading Human Scale Revisited by the great decentralist Kirkpatrick Sale, and found this passage interesting.

A committee meeting has - or rather should have - a certain optimum size. We all know what it is like to be in interminable meetings, and it generally happens that the greater the number of participants, the more talking, the longer the meeting - and usually the less decided. There are several effects of size here, but the basic one is that the number of signals between participants increases exponentially once you get past a certain very small number. For example:
Primus is seated at the committee-room table, next to Secundus. He has only one other person with whom to relate, one other source of signals, words, expressions, gestures, body language, all that goes into the communication by which to arrive at intelligent decisions, and the same is true for Secundus. When they are joined by Tertius, there are suddenly nine possible ways of sending and receiving signals - from Primus to Secundus or Tertius (2), from Secundus to Primus or Tertius (4), from Tertius to Primus or Secundus (6), and from each one of them to any other pair (9). When when Quadrius joins them, the elemental signals are multiplied again, this time to twenty-eight, since each participant then had three other individuals, three possible pairs, and one trip to relate to (7 x 4 = 28). This exponential process continues with each additional person… and by the time ten people are sitting around the table, not an unusual number for a committee meeting, there are a total of 5,110 ways for all the participants to relate to each other.

This got me thinking about size and localism, thus about subsidiarity.

Look, we know local communities are able to take care of themselves. Tocqueville showed this in Democracy in America. And it struck me as absurd that a society of a higher order should intervene to control a society of a lower order, say with ten members and 5110 ways of signalling to each other, to the detriment of local authority with the knowledge and experience with local conditions (Hayek’s knowledge problem coming in). Such intervention gives rise to enormous bureaucracies with even more ways of signalling to each other but this time lacking in local knowledge, local experience, local investiture, and local personalism.

Pope Francis has warned many times about the dictatorship of the market. But I must vociferously disagree with him about the present dangers to society. The biggest threat at this moment is the state. The intervention of the state in every transaction, every relation, every decision. The state is cloaked now in the only saving grace of society, the only way to ensure social security and well being.

Read David Beito. Read Proudhon. Read Kropotkin. Ordinary people are more than able to look out for themselves. But the state keeps absorbing decision making, and it never gives it up. Subsidiarity is a dream as long as the state remains in absolute power.