Fourth International Symposium on Catholic. Social Thought and Management Education. Puebla, Mexico, July 11-14, 2000

Transcription

1 Fourth International Symposium on Catholic Social Thought and Management Education Puebla, Mexico, July 11-14, 2000 FROM POST-CONCILIAR TO POST-INDUSTRIAL EGALITARIANISM Albino Barrera, O.P. Providence College Abstract An egalitarianism based on need is integral to the Catholics social thought. This is rooted in the heritage of Yahweh s Covenant in the Old Testament where the Chosen People of God were elected to be a nation different from all the other nations in the way they cared for each other and in the way their religious consciousness shaped everything they did as a community and as individuals. Post-conciliar egalitarianism was monistic in viewing all societal ills solely through the prism of relative inequalities. A more complex approach to egalitarianism is needed if Catholic social thought is to address the social questions that will emerge in the knowledge economy of the new century. FROM POST-CONCILIAR TO POST-INDUSTRIAL EGALITARIANISM Albino Barrera, O.P. Providence College Introduction As described by Christiansen (1984), post-conciliar egalitarianism can be characterized as monistic in the sense that inequality is the fault line from which all other societal ills flow. Thus, social thought in the period immediately after Vatican II relied on relative equality as the key and the sole principle with which to address social questions. This stands in sharp contrast to the employment of a multiplicity of social principles in the social teachings of the preceding papal encyclicals. This paper calls for moving beyond post-conciliar s monistic egalitarianism to one which is more complex, indeed pluralistic, in its choice of the equalizandum. In what follows, I note that there is an egalitarianism based on need that is integral to the Catholic social tradition (section I). Secondly, I present a case for why the changed economic terrain requires a rethinking of Catholic social teachings on relative equality in the knowledge economy and how to go about it. (sections II & III). I. Egalitarianism in the new dispensation

2 Scarcity is an unavoidable phenomenon in human experience, and with it comes the need to allocate limited resources to their competing uses. Much debate revolves around the criteria to be used in such an allocation: need, demand and supply, actual contribution, talent and potential contribution (Rescher 1966). To this one might a restitutive function to allocation as in affirmative action that corrects for past injustices or imbalances. These standards are not mutually exclusive, and they may in fact be combined with each other. However, even as we blend them, we still need to rank them in a hierarchy of importance in order to deal with cases of competing claims. There is still need to know which criterion trumps all others in the event of conflicts. Common to these criteria and the varied schools of political economy is an egalitarianism that undergirds their decision rule. Somewhere beneath these different rules of allocation is an equalizandum that which is to be equalized. For example, implicit in the use of demand and supply is the equality accorded to the weight of everybody s purchasing power. The market does not discriminate to whom it sells or from whom it buys on the basis of social standing. A dollar from a poor person is as good as anybody else s in the claims that it can make on the economy and in the calculation of the gross domestic product (GDP). The allocative criterion of need is founded on the equality in the enjoyment by all of a human dignity that requires the satisfaction of a defined minimum basket of goods and services essential to physical survival. Closely related to this are A. K. Sen s (1984) and Gewirth s (1985) criteria of allocation of resources that allow for the development of one s functionings and capabilities. These are rooted in the understanding of an equality that people ought to have the opportunity to develop fully and to flourish in their personal endowments. Then, there is the allocation according to merit or contribution which is rooted in the equality of just desserts. Alternatively, there is also allocation according to potential contribution or talent or promise rooted in an equality of opportunity to be everything that one can be. While Catholic social thought accommodates these varied criteria, it accords the primacy of place to allocation according to need. This is founded on the theological understanding that created goods are given as a gift by God to all humans for their sustenance. To critically assess the shape that the egalitarianism of the Catholic social tradition must take in the post-industrial economy, one must first understand its fundamental prophetic nature both in its roots and in its animating spirit. Luke s (4: 16-21) description of the inaugural preaching of Jesus serves as a good starting point. He came to Nazareth... he unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written: "The spirit of the Lord is upon me; therefore he has anointed me. He has sent me to bring glad tidings to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives, Recovery of sight to the blind and release to prisoners,

3 To announce a year of favor from the Lord." Rolling up the scroll he gave it back to the assistant and sat down.... Then he began by saying to them, "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing." Christ s use of the passage from Isaiah as a prologue to his ministry takes on even greater significance when we view the "year of favor of the Lord" within the context of the Jubilee year. (Brown, et. al. 1990, 690) The Covenant provides an ideal starting point for understanding egalitarianism in the Catholic social tradition. The nation Israel was going to be a nation different from all the other nations for its economy of equality, its politics of justice and service, and its religion of God s radical freedom and fidelity (Birch 1991, chapter 5). The Chosen People were to build a nation where no one will go in want and where people look out for each other s needs. The Old Testament is also a history of human struggle and failure. Solomon replaced the social blueprint provided by the Covenant with a royal model based on the Syro-Hittite schema (Birch 1991, chapter 6). The economy of equality gave way to an economy of privilege, the politics of service and justice to a politics of power, and the religion of God s radical freedom and fidelity to a religion of God s domestication. All these ended in a kingdom divided and in the ultimate fall of Jerusalem and of exile to Babylon. Restored by Yahweh in Cyrus s edict of restoration, the remnants of the nation sought to build anew in the Promised Land and embarked on a process of retrieving back the Covenant Model that had been lost. The Jubilee Law reflected this renewed understanding of who they were as a nation and what God expected of them. This radical economic reform included slave release, debt release and a return of land to their original owners (Leviticus 25). In terms of social ethics, some practical and theological implications can be drawn from the Jubilee Law. The radical economic reform at the heart of the Law prevented excessive wealth disparities and ensured that in returning land to their original owners, people had access to the critical resources necessary for a livelihood. Theologically, the Jubilee Law conveyed a strong message: that stewardship rather than proprietorship is the proper personal attitude toward how we treat personal possessions. Moreover, the Jubilee Law is also a message of hope in that regardless of how hard people may fall on hard times, there will always be a period of restoration. Besides the Jubilee Law, an egalitarianism based on need is reflected in many other sections of Sacred Scriptures. Note, for example, the mandate from Genesis given to Adam and Eve on caring for the gifts of creation, the gleaning laws (Dt 24: 19-22), the legislation on interest-free loans that included restrictions on the kinds of pledges that may be taken (Ex 22:24-25; Dt 23:20; 24:6, 10-13; Lv 25:35-38), and the communal sharing of property in the Acts of the Apostles.

4 Scholars have found no evidence to establish that the Jubilee Law was in fact practiced. This is understandable considering all the practical and moral hazard problems that surround the implementation of the Jubilee Law. The difficulties involved in practicing the Jubilee Law only serves to highlight further the significance of Christ s use of the passages in Isaiah in His inaugural preaching that Christ has come to achieve that which is difficult, indeed that which is seemingly impossible to attain in the human community. As the new Chosen People of God called to build the Kingdom of God, Christians have the same mandate to embrace the Covenant model of human community based on the tripod of the economy of equality, the politics of justice and service, and the religion of radical freedom and fidelity. We see this evidenced in Luke s Gospel, in the table fellowship of Christ and in the universal call to holiness. Thus, it is a call to caring for each other, of building a community where no one will be in want and where abundance is shared. We see this in the early life of the Church. To be prophetic, however, is to be able to read the signs of the times and to respond appropriately. II. Egalitarianism in the modern papal social tradition A. Pre-Vatican II approaches to egalitarianism Egalitarianism in the modern Catholic social tradition peaked during the post-conciliar period. As described by Christiansen (1984), inequality was the social question of the period. Thus, we observe a turn toward a stricter egalitarianism both in terms of the language and the content of the social documents of this period (especially Octogesima Adveniens and Justice in the World). Moreover, since inequality was perceived to be the "fault line" in the social realm, the principle of relative equality was not merely one of many social principles brought to bear in analyzing the social ills of the period, it became the foundational principle upon which common action was based. Moreover, there is a heavier reliance on government in redressing inequalities. This singular focus on equality is in sharp contrast to the strategies followed by the earlier papal documents in this modern tradition. Severe inequality was not a peculiarly post-conciliar phenomenon. For example, even as labor-management friction was the proximate social problem in Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII also had to grapple with the evident disparity not only in the wealth holdings but also in the bargaining power between workers and capitalists. What was remarkable in Leo XIII s approach was that he did not chose the easy path by simply appealing to government itself to remedy these imbalances through fiat. Instead, he relied on workers to do what they were capable of doing for themselves, and to accomplish such within the framework of the market. In the first place, Leo XIII saw the need for workers to band together and work for their common interests and needs. Even more significant, however, is how Leo XIII s position on private property ownership said much about his approach to egalitarianism. Leo XIII criticized the socialist prescription of the abolition of private property ownership, especially of the means of production. He described it as an absurd egalitarianism that brings everybody down to the same level of inequality. One of the arguments presented by Leo XIII in defense of private property ownership is that it is the workers themselves who will be hurt by such an abolition because property ownership is merely one of many

5 other ways of holding on to the savings from their earnings and more importantly, property ownership provides them with the possibilities of upward mobility, that is, of improving their standing in society. In both his championing workers rights to form unions and his staunch defense of property rights, Leo XIII s approach to egalitarianism was distinctive in not relying on government to effect change. Workers were expected to improve their lot through the workings of the market (subsequent acquisition of private property), modified by extra-market mechanisms (unions). This modified market-based approach to egalitarianism is even more pronounced in Quadragesimo Anno. Recall that the key social question addressed by Pius XI is the worsening relative inequality within society both in terms of wealth outcomes and economic and political power. This, of course, must be viewed in the context of the history of the period where the Great Depression seemed to affirm the claims of Marx on the eventual demise of capitalism as an unworkable and unsustainable social order. Despite the wide relative inequalities he had to address, even more so than in 1891, Pius XI believed that government ought not to be the main player in leveling the playing field (as in anti-trust legislation or other redistributive policies). Pius XI s solution to the problem was the vocational groupings, that is, the formation of industry-level associations of labor and management who would then bargain with each other on all the key issues affecting the industry. At the heart of this is the principle of subsidiarity which Pius XI succinctly articulated: [J]ust as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so, too, it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies.... The state should leave to these smaller groups the settlement of business of minor importance. It will thus carry out with greater freedom, power and success the tasks belonging to it, because it alone can effectively accomplish these, directing, watching, stimulating and restraining, as circumstances suggest or necessity demands (Quadragesimo Anno #79-80). It is only when parties are unable to do what they ought to be doing for themselves that government intervenes as a last resort. Problems of relative inequality were also acknowledged in Mater et Magistra, particularly in the disparity in the treatment between the urban and rural sectors. Note, however, that John XXIII sought to address these inequalities by calling for reforms in industrialization policies that had the unfortunate effect of retarding agriculture. Even as John XXIII acknowledged that there was need for a greater role for government in the wake of the process "socialization," his approach to egalitarianism was nevertheless still different from that of the post-conciliar period in that John XXIII employed a wide spectrum of principles in addressing the social questions of his day. Relative inequality was not perceived to be the fault line along which all other social ills proceeded; rather, it was only one of many other social questions that needed to be analyzed with a multiplicity of principles.

6 B. Reading the signs of the times The precise shape that egalitarianism takes in the Catholic social tradition is heavily (though not exclusively) shaped by time and culture. Theological reflection and the employment of the best that the human sciences have to offer are integral to Catholic social thought and action. Thus, Octogesima Adveniens #4 observed: In the face of such widely varying situations it is difficult for us to utter a unified message and to put forward a solution which has universal validity. Such is not our ambition, nor is it our mission. It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country, to shed on it the light of the Gospel s unalterable words and to draw principles of reflection, norms of judgment and directives for action from the social teaching of the Church. Key to "reading the signs of the times" is the agility to employ and dovetail the foundational principles of the tradition to the changing needs and social questions peculiar to each place and time. Thus, we see an accommodation of the modern economy s switch from the distributive to the allocative dimension of price. As the feudal economy gave way to an industrial order, we see a corresponding transformation of scholastic social teachings in the modern papal social tradition: from an antipathy to guilds to the modern defense of unions; from the language of obligations to a language of rights; from an structure of organic hierarchy to a manifold upward and lateral mobility (Barrera 1997 a& b, 1999 a & b). The tradition does respond to the changing signs of the times. There is need to rethink and recast egalitarianism in the modern social tradition given the emergence of the information economy. These economic changes should highlight the central features of the post-conciliar approach to egalitarianism that ought be changed, to wit, its heavy reliance on government and its view of relative inequality as the fault line. There is need to retrieve the earlier pre-conciliar approaches of relying on manifold principles to problem solving and of relying on private initiative. This process of rethinking our posture on equality has already started in the aftermath of the demise of the more egalitarian but heavily centralized political economy of the former Soviet bloc. In reflecting on the events of the time on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, John Paul II acknowledged in Centesimus Annus the inevitable central role of private initiative and the shift in the source of wealth production from natural resources to human capital. III. A constructive proposal for a post-industrial egalitarianism How then do we respond to the changed terrain? Walzer (1983) combined both pluralism and egalitarianism through his exposition on the need to preserve the multiplicity of spheres in social life. Moreover, these spheres are supposed to be governed by laws

7 specific to their sphere, including the rules pertaining to allocation or distribution. Thus, he defined a class of goods dominant goods that shape or determine the allocative rules of spheres outside their own. Economic wealth is a prime example of such where purchasing power (as the allocative mechanism) goes beyond the economic realm and shapes access to political office, educational quality and attainment, justice in the criminal court system and health care. Thus, there are blocked exchanges that limit the undue influence that economic wealth (as a dominant good) can have in social life. Walzer s complex egalitarianism across spheres has much to offer to a rethinking or updating of the tradition on egalitarianism. Catholic social thought must increasingly move toward a complex egalitarianism not merely across spheres (a la Walzer), but also across time and context if it is to meet adequately the rapidly changing requirements of the post-industrial age. It can no longer afford the monistic feature of post-conciliar egalitarianism where the entire social strategy itself was viewed solely from the lenses of the principle of relative equality. I propose that Catholic social thought s egalitarianism in the knowledge economy can fruitfully employ two building blocks that are already well established and well tested within the modern tradition: the superfluous income criterion and the set of human rights in Pacem in Terris. Regardless of whatever shifts may occur in the economic terrain, need is the primary and the ultimate basis for allocation in the Catholic social tradition. This is founded on the universal access principle which notes that the primary finality of created goods is the service of all regardless of how titles of ownership are assigned (Rerum Novarum #14, 35 & 36; Gaudium et Spes #69a). The Old Testament economy of equality, one of the tripods in the Covenant model of the nation Israel, finds expression in the modern papal tradition in the superfluous income criterion where that part of one s earnings that is not needed to sustain one s social standing in the community is considered superfluous and ought to be used for the welfare of others. This understanding evolved further when John XXIII redefined superfluity on the basis not of one s social standing but of the relative unmet needs of one s neighbor (Gaudium et Spes #69a, footnote #10). There are many problems that surround the implementation of the superfluous income criterion, the most important of which is the need to have a more refined definition and measure of need. Much has been written on this (Danner, 1994, O Boyle 1994, Samuels 1994), and I will limit myself to a brief sketch of an approach that I discuss elsewhere (Barrera 1997b). The functionality of goods in consumption can be divided according to a three-fold distinction of needs that can be listed in the following order of descending importance: 1. constitutive use: needs that are essential for physical survival and basic health 2. regulative use: dominant goods (Walzer 1983) that shape one s access to the other goods of life 3. life-enhancing use: consumption that provides for a better enjoyment of existence and relationships

8 The standards of equity are strictest and the tolerance for inequalities narrowest for the goods that have a constitutive function to them (such as food, clothing, shelter) since they involve questions of life and death. The next stringent set of standards would be those that allocate regulative or dominant goods (such as education) because of their influence on subsequent life prospects and opportunities for advancement. The greatest leeway for inequality is reserved for the distribution of goods that merely add to the enjoyment of life. There are at least two advantages to having such a more refined definition and hierarchy of needs. First of all, we should be discriminating in the standards of equity we apply depending on the state of the economy of the subject community. One would expect the tolerance for inequality to be less in a subsistence economy where the community barely produces a surplus and is continually only a bad harvest away from famine, as in the case of most pre-modern economies. In such cases, there is reason to apply strict standards of equity that would ensure that the meager resources available are spread throughout the community as to ensure the basic needs satisfaction of everyone. In contrast, an economy of abundance (where survival and basic health are not at risk as in most modern economies), one can afford to have a less stringent threshold for tolerable inequality and make more room for the freedom of individual initiative. The second advantage to having a more refined definition and hierarchy of needs is that egalitarianism in Catholic social thought need not be monistic in having only a single set of standards that is then uncritically applied equally to all regions and social questions. Different criteria for what constitutes legitimate inequality can thus be employed across nations where economies of subsistence and abundance co-exist. For example, one would expect different rules of equity in subsistence economies such as Ethiopia and Somalia compared to the thriving OECD economies. Even with such a finer distinction of needs, there is yet the problem of classifying the goods according to whether they are constitutive, dominant or merely life enhancing in use or consumption. The basket of goods that would fall under each category is time and culturally-conditioned. Not only is there need to come up with a set of criteria in assigning goods to these various categories, but there is also need to justify the selection of these standards. I propose that both of these concerns can be largely addressed with the use of the Yale Task Force on Population Ethics s (1974, 102) classification of John XXIII s listing of human rights. This diagrammatic presentation of rights, reprinted in Hollenbach (1979, 98), provides not merely the different spheres of human life, but it also distinguishes between three levels of rights: personal, social and instrumental. Social and instrumental rights serve personal rights the more important category of rights. I propose that goods that are critical for the satisfaction of personal rights ought to be classified as constitutive in use and, therefore, subject to stricter standards of equity. Basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter that are critical for survival and basic health ought to be subject to the most stringent standards of justice. Goods that are essential for the satisfaction of social and instrumental rights ought to be classified as regulative or dominant goods and therefore subject to rules of equity that are less severe

9 than constitutive goods but more stringent than goods that merely add to the enjoyment of life. Summary and Conclusion There is a rich legacy of teachings on egalitarianism in Catholic social thought. Since it is a living tradition, it carefully reads the "signs of the times" in discerning the social questions peculiar to a particular time or place. The emergence of a more complicated knowledge economy requires a recasting of the strict, monistic post-conciliar egalitarianism to one that addresses social questions along a broad front. The superfluous income criterion and John XXIII s schema of human rights both provide ready conceptual tools for a more complex egalitarianism. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrera, Albino. 1997a. "Exchange Value Determination: Scholastic Just Price, Economic Theory and Modern Catholic Social Thought," History of Political Economy 29:1, Barrera, Albino. 1997b. "Degrees of Unmet Need in the Superfluous Income Criterion," Review of Social Economy 55:4, Barrera, Albino. 1999a. "From Obligations to Rights: Economic Progress and the Language of Ethical Discourse," Downside Review 117:406, Barrera, Albino. 1999b. "The Evolution of Social Ethics: Using Economic History to Understand Economic Ethics," Journal of Religious Ethics 27:2, Birch, Bruce Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life. Lousiville, KY: Westminster. Brown, Raymond, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. NJ: Prentice Hall. Christiansen, Drew "On Relative Equality: Catholic Egalitarianism after Vatican II," Theological Studies. 45: Danner, P. L. (1994) "The Person and the Social Economy: Needs, Values, and Principles," in J. B. Davis & E. J. O'Boyle (eds.) The Social Economics of Human Material Need, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press:22-46.

10 Gewirth, A. (1985) "Economic Justice: Concepts and Criteria," in K. Kipnis & D. Meyers (eds.) Economic Justice: Private Rights and Public Responsibilities, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanhead:7-32. Hollenbach, David Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights Tradition. New York: Paulist. John XXIII Mater et Magistra. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul. John XXIII Pacem in Terris. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul. John Paul II Centesimus Annus. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul. Leo XIII Rerum Novarum. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul. O'Boyle, E. J. (1994) "Human Physical Need: A Concept That is Both Absolute and Relative," in J. B. Davis & E. J. O'Boyle (eds.) The Social Economics of Human Material Need, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press: Paul VI Octogesima Adveniens. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul. Pius XI Quadragesimo Anno. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul. Rescher, N Distributive Justice: A Constructive Critique of the Utilitarian Theory of Distribution, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill. Samuels, W.J. (1994) "Need as a Mode of Discourse," in J. B. Davis & E. J. O'Boyle (eds.) The Social Economics of Human Material Need, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press:1-21. Sen, A.K. (1984) "Rights and Capabilities," in Resources, Values and Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Synod of Bishops Justice in the World. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul. Walzer, Michael Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books. Yale Task Force on Population Ethics "Moral Claims, Human Rights and Population Polices," Theological Studies 35.