The Church Against the State: On Subsidiarity and Solidarity

I discovered this book by Andrew Willard Jones through a review by Jon D. Schaff called “Why Can’t We Be Friends?” The principle of the book is a Christian critique of liberalism in the sense of the politics of individualism and freedom (more closely associated with libertarianism today, but a major force in Western politics since the early 19th century). The author promotes the concept of “subsidiarity” (which I take it is his word and not the reviewers, although I’m not sure) with the absolute freedom of liberalism. “Subsidiarity” means, in essence, a hierarchy, in which some people are placed over others, not because of their virtue but in order to promote some good — fathers over sons, masters over apprentices, etc. This is, he argues, not an opportunity for tyranny, but for an exercise of love and friendship on the part of those higher in the hierarchy. Liberalism, by contrast, pits everyone against each other — the “war of all against all” that Hobbes mentions — which dissolves social bonds and ultimately puts more power in the hands of the state, as the only institution capable of protecting us from each other.

I will not pretend to fully understand Jones’s argument from reading one review, but I will offer up my thoughts. First, what has this to do with the Peace of Westphalia, you ask? Apparently the author contrasts subsidiarity with the sovereignty of the Peace of Westphalia. My impression is that the author uses the term “sovereignty” but I’m not sure if he mentiones Westphalia. In any case, we have established that Westphalia is not related to sovereignty, so in that sense, this is a dead end. However, there has been a real shift away from the hierarchical, communal structures of the Middle Ages toward the modern liberal state, and this is a subject that interests me enormously, so it is worth reflecting on.

I feel like Jones is conflating politics with non-state organizations. It is true that some early liberal theorists had a very negative view of humanity in the absence of government, but that was not universally the case. Locke, certainly, posited that we came together as a society before we formed governments. It would take a very dim view of people to assume that we were all potentially at each other’s throats and were only held back by the threat of punishment, and it would also take a significant ignorance of actual human experience. We don’t need to be in a war of all against all to need a government; we only need for some people to be willing to attack and exploit others. In fact, those people would probably be opposed to a government that would limit their chances for plundering their neighbours. Government is more properly seen as the creation of the peaceful members of society for protection against the evil ones.

With that in mind, I think our deeply ingrained fears of people in power are well justified by experience. Not everyone in government has to be ready to exploit his power for government to be dangerous to the people it nominally protects. Restricting government power is a sensible response to overwhelming evidence that some people will abuse power and there can never be adequate checks on them from within government itself, on the principle of “quis custodet ipsos custodes” (who will watch the watchers).

That doesn’t mean that people can’t develope voluntary hierarchies on their own. Indeed, the two examples from the review (which I think are from the book) — father/son and master/apprentice — are both non-state relations. These need less protection precisely because the figure in power lacks the coercive power of the state. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a potential for abuse, which there certainly is, but, at least among adults, much of that potential can be protected by having an adequate sense of self-worth and a willingness to walk away. If the abuse isn’t stopped by that, then it has reached the level of criminal activity and the state would normally need to be brought in (or else more violent measures adopted by the person being abused).

These non-state organizations are not only welcome in a liberal state, but are essential protections against government encroachment. The state tends to want to dissolve all other sources of authority and cohesion outside of itself, and, to the extent that these exist, they exert a powerful counter to government attempts to seize more power.