Civilizing the Barbarians

Roger Kimball writing in The New Criterion makes a connection between philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and Benedict XVI. He quotes from the end of MacIntyre's book After Virtue
. “the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another--doubtless very different--St. Benedict.

Barbarians, in this case, are persons who cannot conduct a rational discourse in ethics. Without ethical discourse, governing becomes simply an exercise in political power.

I became aware of this problem in 1989 while I was one of a few civilian students at the US Army War College. Ethical discourse formed a major part of the curriculum. After Vietnam the Army was very aware that the just war principles of just cause and competent authority were fundamental to avoiding another strategic failure.

If MacIntyre is correct, The Army has a problem: how to prepare for conflicts in a society that cannot reach consensus on ethical issues such as just cause. Go here here for a more complete. discussion. In short form, our political culture contains fault lines created by its inability to conduct rational political discourse.

Philosophers, sociologists and novelists have detected these fault lines.

Maclntyre has argued that our contemporary ethical debate is in hopeless disorder in his book, After Virtue, While participants in the political process debate which actions are just or reasonable, they fail to realize that they are using terms bereft of the traditions that impart meaning to the concepts. The political debate, therefore, cannot come to closure over the justice of a contemplated governmental act.

In a similar argument, sociologist Daniel Bell finds a breakdown in social authority of the nations political process. He describes our current process as interest group pluralism ('The Crisis of Authority," New Perspective Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3,1988). Political discourse is viewed as an ongoing debate between rights-oriented egalitarian liberals and rights-oriented libertarian conservatives. Each side views the government as responsible for supporting the rights of individuals. Neither side relates its concept of rights to a vision of community. Without such a vision of community, the debate can come to closure only when one interest group gains control.

The trend toward interest group pluralism is reinforced by a rise of individualism and a loss of commitment to common values. Sociologist Robert N. Bellah and colleagues report in Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life that many individuals experience difficulty in finding language to relate concepts of self-reliance to larger purposes of family or community. Their vocabulary fails them as they try to relate concepts of selfless service to the good of the community.

Sociologist Alan Wolfe provides an extensive analysis of the breakdown of the notion of civil society in his book Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation We all realize, he writes, that individuals achieve freedom and economic progress through a network of societal obligations and inter-dependencies. We disagree, however, not only on the moral rules for defining these obligations but even on where they can be found. Consequently, we depend either on the power of the government (typically a liberal position) or the power of the market (typically libertarian conservative) to enforce these obligations. Both positions are in some way unsatisfactory. The notion of civil society is too obscure and undefined to come to consensus.

Novelists have found their own expressions of these issues. In The Thanatos Syndrome novelist Walker Percy shows how the language of modem governmental social scientists allows them to rationalize secretly introducing a drug into the water supply of a Louisiana county. There use of language allows them to justify this as a means of reducing crime and anti-social behavior. Since this action seems entirely just to governmental decision makers, Mr. Percy suggests that our language is obscuring some basic concepts of justice.

Now go back to the quote from MacIntyre's’ book. The barbarians got their name not because they were brutal but because they were though to babble incoherently. When MacIntyre suggested that those in control of the government and media are barbarians a technical sense – they cannot agree on the meaning of ethical terms such as justice. Hence their speech is “barbaric.” MacIntyre looks for another Benedict to preserve civilization through another “dark age.”

St. Benedict devised a rule and founded an order in which Christians could retreat into enclaves (i.e. monasteries) and keep the flame of civilization and learning alive. He also stressed hospitality, not hostility to outside world. When I heard Cardinal Ratizinger’s homily on the Dictatorship of relativism and that he had chosen the name Benedict, I thought immediately of MacIntyre’s After Virtue. By taking the name Benedict, he is indicating a desire to preserve civilization.

Like many who can remember the decade after Vatican II, I regret some of the directions the church has taken. My experience is that the priests and Bishops are running away from involvement of the laity in anything except auxiliary roles. Ratzinger, it seemed from press reports, would see the church strictly in terms of an institution governed from above by authority. I would like to see Vatican officials and bishops take the laity as seriously as the Apostles did in Acts 6:5. Even worse, the church seemed to be an institution unwilling to deal with its own failings, particularly with respect to the pedophilia scandal. Fortunately, because of the determined actions of one laywomen, I see signs that that Cardinal Ratzinger intended to change this.

We have a Pope who intends to address the issue of pedophila so that the Church can be a repository of truth, reaching out to a society that desperately needs the truth. De Gratias

Comments

[Jay]

Very interesting and insightful analysis, particularly for Americans and Europeans. But I must admit I'm confused by the last two paragraphs; are you trying to suggest that the Church is the one who cannot conduct a rational discourse in ethics? The conclusion you reached isn't supported by the research and quotes above.

God bless,
Jay

[Herb Ely]

Jay,

Thank you for your comments. I don't have a clear answer as to how the church should respond to the "barbarian"culture in which we find ourselves. It is a problem of being in but not of the world. I think that the church - using the term in a broader sense - is doing an excellent job of maintaining ethical discourse. Tragically, the church - in the institutional sense - has persisted in ethical failures for a much longer time than would be allowed in civil society. These failures are compromising the church's message.

In the first part of this post, I set forth some reasons why I am hopeful about Benedict XVI and the fundamental contribution that he can make. This may be especially true of our own sosiciety beset, as it is, by http://www.herbely.com/2004/04/culture_wars_br.html>culture wars.

In the last two paragraphs, I touched on some of my frustrations at the hierarchies failure to practice ethics in its own ranks. My life experience with large institutions and education tell me that the church has much to learn from civil society. It seems to me that Bishops and pastors tend to resist offers of help and advice from educated laity. I understand why. Board meetings, even good ones, require exposure of performance and decisions to outside review.

Again, thanks for your comments. I am more progressive on some issues than most Catholic Carnival contributers. My thinking is, however, conflicted. Comments help me to clairify.

Blessings, Herb