Cross-posted from First Thoughts
My students and I have been discussing Aristotle’s political thought recently. Yesterday, our discussion centered around Aristotle’s insistence that the political association must be about more than the protection of rights (in essence a mutual defense alliance). Aristotle instead endorses civic friendship in which our lives are truly interwoven in pursuit of substantive justice.
As we talked, it occurred to me that President Obama ran as an Aristotelian in this sense. HE would be the one to lift us beyond our petty, individualistic concerns toward a higher vision of community justice. WE, upon joining him, would become the ones WE have been waiting for. Candidate Obama successfully pleaded his case for a left-of-center version of civic friendship. President Obama has had a tough go of implementing it as the consequences become manifest.
All the way around the table, the students were skeptical of the possibility that a government can move from our current pluralism to unity around some vision. Instead, they seemed to prefer the idea that government sets fair rules and conditions for people to pursue their individual ends. Because my students are mostly Christians, I moved the example away from President Obama to a Christian republic in which people aren’t forced to be Christians but where Christian moral norms hold sway. They didn’t have much hope or enthusiasm for that, either. Or, at least, they thought it was equally impossible in our current culture.
I wonder if there is a clue here indicating to us the limits of an instrumentality like the state and pointing toward the possibilities of the church.
September 28th, 2010 | 11:44 am | #1
It has, of course, been tried. Does the word “prohibition” have a meaning?
September 28th, 2010 | 12:54 pm | #2
So Chuck, your point is that the Prohibition Era was the United States most comprehensive attempt to run the Republic by “Christian moral norms?”
Really?
September 28th, 2010 | 2:22 pm | #3
That summary of Aristotle frames it well. I think it shows how dependent the issue is on what we make of the individual as a human being and his relation to the state.
One significant reason Aristotle insisted that the political association must be about more than the protection of rights is because he saw the end of human flourishing as possible only within the political community–”political” here means something closer to what some would say “cultural” or “the way people live together,” as opposed to “political” in the sense of statecraft, elections, laws or “cultural” in the sense of fine arts or classical music. It’s a broader sense, and in that sense, human beings can only flourish as political creatures, i. e. in community. People can’t flourish as mere individuals. It is impossible in Aristotle’s view.
So, Aristotle understood 1) that government necessarily some vision of human flourishing including an ethics and an implicit sacred order, and 2) his vision of human flourishing as communal in nature.
I think I see in the students’ response at least a hint of the belief that our “current pluralism” means we are not united by a political vision. I’d say they are mistaken, and that their hope expressed as “they seemed to prefer the idea that government sets fair rules and conditions for people to pursue their individual ends” is indicative of precisely what political vision does in fact unite them (and us).
It’s easier to see this if one understands that the line between politics and economics is perforated. If so, then the fact that, despite our superficial political differences on hot-button issues and even the “big” clashes here on Evangel, we share almost monolithically a particular form of economics should indicate we are much more unified than many pundits believe.
I’m very critical of the modern state and the scope of its “instrumentality,” but increasingly I am not sure whether its instrumentality can be transferred to the church in ways that fit well with the “state, civil society, family and individual” model of a polity without people repenting of a host of errors, most primarily that of refusing the political (in the widest, Aristotelian sense) lordship of Jesus.
September 28th, 2010 | 2:30 pm | #4
I wouldn’t want to transfer the state’s instrumentality to the church because I think the church is NOT instrumental. The question is whether the church is actually the better vehicle for seeking to fulfill visions of community.
September 28th, 2010 | 4:17 pm | #5
Hmm. I gathered that, but I seem to have misunderstood what you meant by “instrumentality.”
I thought by “instrumentality” you meant the “use” of the state to fulfill a vision of community, and that “church” was the parallel concept in the last clause. I guess by “instrumentality” you meant particular functions of the state?
September 28th, 2010 | 5:12 pm | #6
When I speak of the state’s instrumentality, I mean to say that it is useful, but not ultimate. Therefore, it may be the wrong kind of institution to unite us in a common vision.
September 29th, 2010 | 11:17 am | #7
Smart students.
But what did you see Obama’s “higher vision of community justice” that went beyond the “fair rules and conditions for people to pursue their individual ends”?
September 30th, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #8
Ah, I understand what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact