The Primacy of the Common Good: An Alternative to Liberalism
Criticism of liberalism abounds and some argue for a postliberal future. But with a few notable exceptions, few provide a systematic alternative. The alternative to liberalism is the common good.
In the last installment of Logos Letter, I considered the first principal of classical political thought: man is naturally a part of the greater political whole. I went on to explain that this is so because the human person only flourishes within the context of decent political community. In other words, the human person is naturally inclined to political community because this social form directly supports a certain kind of happiness, namely, active happiness. This position amounts to a version of what I call corporatism, which is the dialectical opposite of individualism.
For individualists, man is fundamentally a distinct unit, existing in itself and for itself; connection, association, and membership are mere additions to the more basic reality of the solitary individual. In this perspective, the individual is prioritized and politics is framed entirely in terms of individual rights. By contrast, corporatism recognizes the true reality of relationships and communities (as potential wholes).[1] Thomist-corporatism further recognizes that the human person finds his good and perfection, precisely within relationships and communities and related actions.
Think about the flourishing good life. We do not come into being in isolation. Rather from the beginning we are embedded in unchosen but real relations and communities. We are born into families and the quality of the family life goes a long way in early human development. Indeed, a great deal of human flourishing is directly dependent on healthy family life. Most men are also strongly linked to groups outside the family circle: neighborhood friends, voluntary associations, educational institutions, religious community, extended family, and so on. And at the active level, human flouring is in large part achieved by successfully engaging in these communal realities, and this is why humans are naturally inclined towards community. This truth is the central claim of corporatism: we do not flourish isolation but within various social bodies — the body politic most of all. For this reason, the individual (and the family) is compare to the political community as a dependent and imperfect part to a perfect whole. The primacy of the common good follows necessarily from the structural logic of political community.
The Primacy of the Common Good
The individual is naturally a part of the political community because he is dependent upon the political whole for his flourishing and development; he is incomplete for human flourishing (understood as active happiness), whereas the political community is complete for human flourishing — indeed the political community is distinguished and defined by its completeness for human development. For this reason, the human person is compared to the political community as an imperfect part to the perfect whole. And according to right reason, the imperfect should be subordinated to the perfect. It necessarily follows that the individual good of the part is subordinate to the common good of the whole community. To my mind, this argument is simply deductive. But even if this is so, it is important to avoid a common misunderstanding.
The common good is not an alien good to the human person; it is truly the good of the person; it is just no not his individual good. Understanding this point requires reflection on the distinction between an individual and common good.
The good is said in many ways. The good may be defined as useful, delightful, and honorable. Also the good may be divided as individual and common. The former is the good of one; it perfects one, and it is enjoyed by one. Examples of the individual good include health, life, wealth, and the like. By contrast, the common good is a good one in number, but shared and enjoyed by many. Or to put it another way, it is a good that perfects many rather than perfecting only one. Examples of the common good include an excellent symphony, the victory of an army, and even a great conversation. Indeed once we reflect on this division — the division of the good into individual and common — it becomes apparent that our lives are filled with a wide diversity of common goods.
The common good belongs to the many rather than to one, but it does not follow from this fact that it is no the good of the human person. The individual good of the human person is the good of only one man, but the common good is the good of the person that he shares with others. It is still his good, but it is not his exclusively — it is not his individual good. And it is a mere matter of indoctrination that we assume that any good of the person must belong to him exclusively. This assumption is radical individualism at its worst, for the opposite is the truth: the best goods of human life are common goods, that is, goods we share with others. With this point clarified, we are in a position to understand more fully the primacy of the common good in political life.
The Primacy of the Common Good, Again
In addition to the “part-whole” argument, another important arguments may be marshalled on behalf of the common good: an argument from the hierarchy of final causes.
The common good is a greater and higher good than the individual good. This is evident from the fact that the common good perfects the many whereas the individual good perfects only one. It follows necessarily that the common good is a greater good than the individual good, for it is more perfective than the latter. Furthermore, the greater good should be loved and preferred to the lesser good. Therefore, the common good is to be preferred and loved more than the individual good of the part.
State less formally, the argument from finality directs us to attend to the many blessings that flow from political community. Without the resources and legal framework of political community we would lack justice, the arts and science, peace and security, economic infrastructure, funding for advancements in modern medicine, electrification of the power grid and so much more. To be sure, the individual good is a real good, but in pales in comparison to the rich resources found in the political common good.
The Politics of the Common Good
In this essay, I have demonstrated that the individual good is subordinate to the common good of the whole. What does this mean in practice? I have not spelled out in any detail the specific content of the political common good (this will be considered in a future essay). Nevertheless, can offer a few initial answers.
At a very basic level, the primacy of the common good means that the purpose of political life is not exclusively defined in terms of individual interests. Contrary to liberalism, the state does not exist to defend individual rights. The primacy of the common good means that the individual good of the part is subordinate to the higher interests of the political community. This does not that the individual good is evil or that it should never be considered or pursued. Far from it. In many cases, the individual good of the part is a worthy and proper objective of the part. Nevertheless, the primacy of the common good means that this sort of pursuit will always be subject to the demands of a higher order of finality.
Stated more positively the primacy of the common good means that the highest purpose of politics is to secure a good that we achieve together — a good one in number that perfects the many. It turns out that the proper good of the political community is a group good. Why? Because human development and a certain kind of perfection can only be achieved by participation in political community. Now this explanation may mislead the reader; the unwary reader might conclude that, well, ultimately the purpose of politics is some kind of personal perfection, which is an individual good. However, this faulty line of reasoning rests on one of the foundational errors of liberalism. The assumption at work in this error is the belief that perfection (or happiness) is always an individual good. By contrast, the classical Thomist tradition insists that a certain form of perfection (active happiness) is proper to the political whole. To put it more simply, we only achieve active happiness together, as parts cooperating within the greater political whole.
A Final Comment
Some will find the primacy of the common good challenging or even threatening. From the perspective of the twentieth-century political history, I understand this concern. But political imagination must not always be held hostage to the errors of another age. And at the same time we must admit the real evils of global neo-liberalism: the attack on the natural family, widespread deviancy, abortion, the subversion of Western civilization, radical wealth inequality, alarming suicide rates, globalism, the decline of Christianity, oligarchy, Zionism, the influence of the military industrial complex, et cetera. Finally, we should remember from our own experience, that the very best things in life elevate us beyond our individuality and connect us deeply to those around us: our neighbors, lovers, spouses, friends, teammates, companions, and fellow-citizens. We are at our best, when we pivot from the narrow horizons of self-interest, and aspire to solidarity and community with others. This is the politics of the common good and our only hope for the future.
[1] To be sure, such entities are not natural substances; nevertheless some relationships and communities are real accidents (secondary realities).One mistake often made by the neophyte is to assume that the distinction between substance and accidents is a distinction between the real and pseudo-real. But this is not so. Indeed, many of the most important aspects of reality are metaphysically speaking accidents: friendship, virtue, marriage, habits of knowing, etc.
Great read. Read my Integralist Legionary Manifesto among my posts and see what you think.