In a comment on my recent health care post, Larry asks:But what is "society"? In America today, that means tax money. And that's not just politics; it's our culture.Now, I would say that "society" is a somewhat fluid category. I guess I would define society as the subject of solidarity and subsidiarity together.
I trust I make myself obscure.
Really, this discussion brings us back to the whole "common good" question. (Sorry, Amy. But at least I won't quote G.K. Chesterton this time.) It brings us back to the common good because
Solidarity is the recognition that each of us shares much in common with others. It's perhaps something like empathy, but in philosophical terms rather than psychological. (Yes, Larry, I know about the Personalist use of empathy... but bear with me a bit.) So the subject of solidarity is everyone with whom I share something in common. At its broadest, this includes the entire human race: we all share human nature in common. But it can be applied more narrowly as well: I have a particular solidarity with other Catholics, or with other Seattleites, for example, that I don't share with Buddhists or Utahns. I have a very particular solidarity with members of my family, because we share so very much in common.
Subsidiarity is the recognition that each and every individual, and group to whom that individual belongs, has something valuable to contribute to the community. So, the subject of subsidiarity is everyone who makes a contribution to a given community -- that is to say, everyone who is in solidarity with a given community. Again, this can be taken more or less broadly, but the implication is that communities based on a broader solidarity provide broad and foundational support to communities based on a more focused solidarity. Issues that affect the entire nation must be dealt with on a national level, while issues that affect the neighborhood must be dealt with on a neighborhood level.
So, any individual person is a member of multiple communities, multiple societies, ranging from one's nuclear family to the entire human race, with various forms of local, economic, recreational, and political ties in between. And each society has a certain responsibility for its members, based on the kind of solidarity they share.
Now, I'm talking in pretty abstract terms. But I do think it's important to recognize that the "Government" itself has various levels and forms, and these do not entirely encompass the organization of all "society".
In other words, yes Larry, society involves all of culture; no Larry, society does not just mean tax money. But, yes Larry, we Americans tend to think that social responsibilities are carried out through government agencies, so tax money is the first place we think to look. But this need not be the only way to work. After all, various entities of the Church provided medical services for anyone, regardless of creed or ability to pay, for generations -- because they recognized their solidarity with all humanity and took responsibility in whatever concrete way they were able.
Now the Catholic hospitals and clinics are dying, for reasons too complex for a Rodent of Very Little Brain like myself to understand. I don't think that attempting to re-create that network of hospitals is likely to succeed. But I do think that, even if a public health care option is passed through Congress, we need to take direct responsibility for the health of those in our community.
Some of us will take more direct and hands-on responsibility than others, since we all have different gifts and callings; but we all must take responsibility for our own.
Easy to say; hard to do. Let us pray for one another.
Posts
1 comboxers:
I hope we can find a way to do this, but it's a huge uphill battle. Before Social Security, a majority of Americans helped out their elderly parents with money or housing. Now the large majority lets the government do it.
Money makes things really easy. When a homeless person asks me for change, there are many things I can do, and none of them seem truly satisfactory. Writing a check to an organization that helps the homeless is much neater and easier, and it's probably more effective. The only downside is that it takes me out of the human equation.
If I could give health care to people who need it, just by paying a bit more taxes, that would be a positive thing. Unfortunately, the Republicans and (more recently) the Democrats have absolutely condemned the idea of raising taxes, at least on those making less than $250,000/year. Which means that they refuse to tax the vast majority of the American people.
I think that's a bad choice fiscally (most Americans don't make $250K, but on the other hand most Americans work for people who do -- in other words, those "rich" are the ones who create all the jobs). But even worse, it's a bad choice socially -- because if health care comes from tax hikes, and tax hikes are given only to the RICH, then the solution to a social problem (lack of health care) involves no one but the RICH. Very bad for social unity.
Post a Comment