Saturday, June 04, 2011

Balancing Three Interests: Re-Working America

Grim raises an interesting issue, but I think he should define "society" as 'culturally-founded intermediary which establishes and enforces behavioral norms on its members.'

...By the same token, there are three other groups that need a system of checks and balances: the state, society, and individuals. We have balanced much too far toward the state, and to some degree too far toward individuals, while society culture has lost almost all of its power.

What's this "society" (or "culture") thing, and why is it important?

All individuals die. It is a matter of complete indifference to the state as to whether it dies or lives. Societies are what live across time, and link lives together. It is only in society culture(s) that we find life expressing itself as an evolutionary control on behavior and standards.

(I selectively replaced his term to demonstrate the definition's utility--and clumsiness.)

The discussion is a result of the combox entries found here.

"Culture" is derived from the word "cult," and cultures are shaped by the cult which birthed them. So we are talking --more or less-- about "societies" which are formed by religious principles. You can't have "society" without "culture."

Grim's right, of course. The State has attempted to re-form itself, consciously ignoring 'religion' or its child, 'culture,' and the progeny of that culture, 'society.'

That will not end well

We remind you of the term "subsidiarity", the application of which principle is NOT limited to governments (i.e., Fed/State/Muni) but also, properly, includes parishes/congregations and certain clubs (e.g., Kiwanis, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.) when it is appropriate to engage their assistance.

And while we're at it, we'll remind you that Benedict XVI (and John Paul II) have both spoken out forcefully about the necessity for 'intermediary' organizations between State and man. Good to see Grim echoes 'em.

No comments: