6 years ago: Pennhurst & subsidiarity

July 30, 2007, on this blog: Pennhurst & subsidiarity

We are poorly served by the widespread belief that our society involves two, and only two, kinds of political actors: individuals and the state. Subsidiarity, by contrast, recognizes the existence of a host of other actors and agents: families, neighborhoods, civic groups, schools, universities, businesses, churches, religious congregations, nonprofits, etc. Refusing to acknowledge the existence of such actors means refusing to acknowledge the relationships and responsibilities that individuals and the state have to them, which leads in turn to a distorted, Hobbesian, understanding of both individuals and the state. Individuals become viewed as detached, solipsistic atoms engaged in a war of all against all. The state becomes viewed as a monolithic, gargantuan Leviathan — a threat to, rather than the created servant of, the individuals. They are viewed as binary opposites, a view that allows in turn only the binary possibilities of socialism/totalitarianism or anarcho-libertarian/social Darwinism.

(It’s worth noting that the American Constitution rejects this binary view with its distorted understanding both of individuals and of the state, and it does so in its first three words.)

This binary outlook cannot accommodate the mentally disabled. They are, like all children, dependent, and thus incapable of surviving in a Hobbesian jungle. They are dependent, first and foremost, on their families. Acknowledging the reality of such dependence, and of the reality of the existence and obligations of families, shatters the illusions of the binary outlook and forces us to consider the wide world that exists beyond its artificial walls.

""What message did we really send?""Don't worry Vlad. I had to do this to look ..."

Sunday favorites
"Add cat hair on the carpet, and another cat, and you have my living room."

Sunday favorites
"Nobody was on the receiving end of it."What message did we really send?" That Trump ..."

Sunday favorites
"The soldiers at those bases are the people who fire missiles at their fellow citizens. ..."

Sunday favorites

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Marshall

    “We, the People”??? To the contrary, the phrase doesn’t acknowledge anything but “people” … individuals … and their collective “We”. Local community is about “us” and “other”, about explicit inclusion and differentiation. About boundaries and circumstance, not universals.

    Truly the destruction of local community is a major problem, the power dynamics between a Person confronting the State are so unequal. Not ALL community: corporate communities, reified as “persons” are the constituents of the World-State (hence the need for companies like McDonalds to “stay competitive”, rather than “fill a human need”).

    Whyever single out “mentally disabled”? Anatomically Modern Humans have never been able to function or even survive as isolated individuals. The assumption that some of us hip urban modern secularists can live for themselves empowers the deliberate destruction of local community that is required for the mass homogenization that “industrial” society requires to function.