FOLLOW US
T. Walsh: Social Epidemics: Policy and Practices of Effective Responses
Written by Dr. Thomas G. Walsh, President, Universal Peace Federation
Friday, November 22, 2013
Address to a conference on "Social Epidemics: Policy and Practice of Effective Responses
St. Petersburg, Russia - November 21-22, 2013
The idea of civil society has classical roots, dating back to Aristotle and the rise of the concept of a res publica, a public thing. It took on its modern understanding with Hegel, whose Philosophy of Right speaks about civil society as a realm that stands in between the family and the state, associated with the rise of capitalism. Marx drew on Hegel’s understanding of civil society. Alexis de Toqueville in his commentaries of the American and French Revolutions attributed the relative success of the American Revolution to its robust civil society institutions, including churches.
De Tocqueville said,
Americans of all ages, all conditions and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive….Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, un the United States you will be sure to find an association.
Continuing he states, “Among the laws that rule human societies there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all others. If men are to remain civilized or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ration in which the equality of conditions is increased.”[1]
Hegel linked civil society to sittlichkeit or the ethical life, and distinguished this sphere from the realm of the “right” associated with negative liberty and the realm of morality, a kind of atomistic view of ethics a la Kant.
Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist, published an article in 1995 called “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” and later the book-length version, in 2000, titled Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, arguing that there was a breakdown of the tradition of voluntary associations, civic associations, etc., including bowling leagues. The concept of “social capital” suggests the assets that come with human capacities, strengths, traits, etc., contribute to a nation's capacity to develop a vital and dynamic democracy within a system of the rule of law.
For some the concept of civil society is a neo-liberal or neo-conservative concept that has a built-in anti-state bias. However, it is possible to view this concept without seeing it in a politicized way. For example, some view civil society as an infrastructural or consequent factor in social affairs, unrelated to “root causes” such as poverty, or class, or race, etc.
However, theoreticians on both the left and the right have affirmed the importance of civil society. Non-governmental organizations, for example, represent what we might call both left-wing and right-wing positions and causes.
Francis Fukuyama describes social capital as the “sine qua non of stable liberal democracy.” Fukuyama defines social capital “an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals.”[2] Others link social capital to social networks, civic engagement, and bonded relationships characterized by trust and manifested in some institutional setting, clubs, NGOs, associations, leagues, parties, etc.
One way to state the thesis of social capital theory is that “relationships matter.”
Civil society is often described as a kind of “third sector” that distinguished from the realm of the state or government and the realm of the market or the private economic center. Jurgen Habermas, whose work has been focused on the concept of a “public sphere,” distinguished between the “system” characterized by bureaucratic rationality and the “lifeworld,” where discourse of communicative practices were unfettered by instruments of money and power.
Our focus for this conference is destructive social epidemics, including but not limited to substance abuse, the rise of extremist groups, suicide, violence, etc. My thesis is that a society with strong civic institutions, stands in a better position to both prevent and resolve social epidemics.
Mediating institutions
In 1977 Peter Berger and Richard John Neuhaus published a small volume entitled To Empower the People: From State to Civil Society. At a time in America when there were significant economic problems, rising crime rates, and what President Jimmy Carter called a national “malaise,” this volume struck a chord among many, and especially those who had grown skeptical of state-centered solutions to social problems. They called for more focused attention on the medium-sized social institutions, particularly, family, neighborhood, voluntary associations, and churches or religious affiliations. These institutions are often taken for granted, but serve what Roman Catholic social thought would call essential subsidiary functions. As Wilfred MacClay has stated,
the health of democratic institutions depends as much on the free and vibrant public presence of the biblical religions, and their values-forming influence, as it does on the constraints placed on that religion’s ability to exercise direct political power. The naked public square, a public life in which religious expression has been completely proscribed, traduced the cause of energetic pluralism.[3]
The “coming apart argument”
Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart, argues that the white population in the USA between 1960 and 2010 experienced a dramatic decline in marriage, down 36%, and an increase in out-of-wedlock births; dropping out of the work force grew. Simultaneously crime increased proportionately. Along with these developments, religiosity also declined and secularization rose. Murray points out,
Whatever your personal religious views, you need to realize that about half of American philanthropy, volunteering and associational memberships is directly church-related, and that religious American also account for much more nonreligious social capital than their secular neighbors.[4]
The white elite have increasingly segregated themselves in what Murray calls “super zips” [zip or postal codes], an upper-class culture that may have little if any regular contact with the “lower classes.” Murray states,
Changes in social policy in the 1960’s made it economically more feasible to have a child without having a husband if you’re a woman or to get along without a job if you were a man; save to commit crimes without suffering consequences; and easier to let the government deal with problems in your that you and your neighbors formerly had to take care of.[5]
Jean Bethke Elshtain speaks of the loss of our “social ecology” attributing this to the deterioration of mediating institutions. “Children” she argues, “bear the brunt of these negative trends.” Such as growing distrust, individualism and privatization. She says,
Where neighborhoods are intact, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, teenage childbearing, and truancy among the young diminish. But because neighborhoods are less and less likely to be intact, all forms of socially and self-destructive behavior among the young are on the rise. [6]
Social capital
The concept of social capital is relevant to our consideration of destructive social epidemics, as scholars such as Robert D. Putnam, Francis Fukuyama, and Pierre Bourdieu[7] have indicated, arguing that social relationships and networks may be significant assets in establishing social stability and relative prosperity. As M.K. Smith has put it, “There is now a range of evidence that communities with a good ‘stock’ of ‘social capital’ are more likely to benefit from lower crime figures, better health, high educational achievement, and better economic growth.” [8]
According to the World Bank, “Social Capital refers to the institutions, relationship, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions….Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society---it is the glue that holds them together.”
While there may be many positive outcomes associated with a rise of social capital in a particular social context, there are also potential problems, as pointed out by Bourdieu. Social networks that include and bring people together may also lead to forms of exclusion, or “in group” and “out-group” tendencies. This is the problem of tribalism. While solidarity is established for some, those who are either not welcomed or who simply do not fit may become alienated. For example, the so-called “digital divide” suggests there is a vast difference, even an inequality between those who are “wired” and those who are not. Fukuyama speaks about the “radius of trust” that may be small and narrow, or large and broad.[9] He says, “Virtually all forms of traditional culture-social groups like tribes, clans, village associations, religious sects, etc., are based on shared norms and use these norms to achieve cooperative ends.”[10] Thus, there are certain disadvantages to in-group solidarity with a small radius of trust.
However, the radius can be extended. International trade and commerce is a good example. While rule of law and contracts are essential for trade and commerce, there are a wide range of informal aspects to cooperation and productivity. Social capital makes such cooperation possible. In other words, social capital helps make commerce and economic transactions work well, perhaps suggesting something of the “invisible hand” or the “moral sentiments” that Adam Smith believed to be the infrastructure of a growing economy.
Social capital also applies to the political sphere, and is believed to be an essential ingredient in a successful democratic system. Many have suggested that a thriving civil society is an essential prerequisite for democracy. Quoting Fukuyama,
In the absence of civil society, the state often needs to step in to organize individuals who are incapable of organizing themselves. The result of excessive individualism is therefore not freedom, but rather the tyranny of what Tocqueville saw as a large and benevolent state that hovered over society and, like a father, saw to all of its needs. Low levels of social capital lead to a number of political dysfuntions…”[11]
Fukuyama offers the following suggestions of ways to increase social capital:[12]
1. States cannot easily create social capital, for social capital is largely a byproduct of religion, tradition, shared historical experience.
2. Education is the primary area where government can help create and nourish social capital, for example, through moral education, civic education, etc.
3. States can help by protecting property rights and public safety, essentially a safe and secure environment
4. States should not overstep their legitimate and necessary realm of authority, and should respect the subsidiary authority and value of civil society and the private sector
5. States should respect the value of religion as an essential source of social capital.
6. Globalization can be a source of growing social capital, through the spread of ideas, innovative, cultural values, etc.
Traditionally, we know that factors of ethnicity, race, class, gender, etc., create not only opportunities for belongingness, trust and solidarity but also opportunities for racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, classism, etc. Some argue that economic inequality is the decisive factor in creating a decline of social capital and trust for the poor.
With that caveat, nevertheless, we can also understand the value of communities and relationships which can be characterized by reciprocity, trust, mutual respect for laws and traditions and values, involvement, interconnectedness, empathy and pride about one’s identity and place in the world. One can easily see that when these factors decline, trouble will easily follow.
Some worry that the digital revolution is having some damaging impact on youth, who spend large quantities of time in a digital world. On the one hand, young people are engaged with social networks, texting, tweeting, gaming, facebooking, etc. On the other hand, much of the time spent digitally is in private isolation.
Sobornost
Within Russian intellectual history there is the well-developed concept of sobornost that has been a significant ideal in the thought of writers such as Dostoyevsky and Tolstoi, and philosophers such as Vladimir Solovyov and Nikolay Lossky, and theologians such as Sergei Bulgakov or Nikolai Berdayev. The idea of sobornost is associated with 19th century slavophilia, calling for a move away from modern Western ideas toward a retrieval of Slavic and Russian ideas. Pro-Westernism was referred to as zapadnichestvo.[13]
Sobornost derives from sobor, meaning an assembly or coming together, and may also suggest ecumenical solidarity. Within the concept of sobornost is both an explicit and implicit criticism of the individualistic and overly rationalistic tendencies of modern, mainstream Western philosophy, especially such systems as logical positivism.
Sobornost is a concept that underscores an organic unity of people based on shared values, values that represent a common ground that gives rise to solidarity and unity. Moreover, the ideal of sobornost is also linked to a spiritual vision that is close to the Russian Orthodox tradition.
I believe this is a very important fact, for it suggests that the spiritual impulse of human beings is as deeply grounded in human nature, human psychology, human experience and the human heart, as are our impulses toward love, beauty and truth. There is a need to address the spiritual aspect of the human being that over millennia has resisted and defied efforts to eradicate or subordinate the religious impulse. Its power is ultimately irrepressible.
While the idea of sobornost, like all communitarian ideals -- Eastern, Western, Slavic or American -- may lead to extremes of in-group/out-group thinking, its insights should not be dismissed casually.[14] Moreover, its intuition that aspects of modernity that arose largely in Europe or “the West” were not a panacea for social problems or social epidemics should be taken seriously. At the same time, the shift to pochvennichestvo suggests the need to be cautious about the weaknesses if not dangers in calls for in-group solidarity centered on blood or soil.
It is important to consider the spiritual and religious factors when we try to understand, prevent or mitigate destructive social epidemics. In a Russian context, it seems quite essential to consider the ways in which the Russian Orthodox Church plays a role in this process and how it might play an even more important role. This same applies to other religious communities within Russia.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian thinker, novelist and philosophy of enormous talent and insight and who wrote volumes and volumes during his lifetime, once said that the most succinct way in which he could sum up the problems that had befallen modern Russia, and modernity in general, was to say, “man has forgotten God.”
At this point, and on the foundation of what has been stated above, I will offer a brief summary of some of the “mediating institutions” that generate social capital and perhaps the sobornost that is necessary if we are to more effectively understand, prevent and mitigate destructive social epidemics. Moreover, I believe that faith-based organizations are a necessary and integral part of any holistic approach to social epidemics.
NGOs: The civil society revolution
Beginning in the last century and continuing in this century there has been an explosion of non-governmental organizations, NGOs, sometimes called “civil society” institutions. The term NGO emerged at the time of the founding of the United Nations, as a way to differentiate “governmental organizations” from “non-governmental organizations” or NGOs. According to Tageldin Hamad, Secretary General of WANGO (the World Association of NGOs),
The umbrella term “NGOs” refers to a broad, kaleidoscopic grouping of nonprofit organizations that espouse a variety of agendas, causes, and ideologies, and differ in size, resources, and organizations level. NGOs are involved in humanitarian relief, advocacy, educational and monitoring programs, conflict prevention, high-level mediation, and innumerable other tasks. They may be small, one-person operations or large international organizations, such as Amnesty International, which has more than 1 million members, subscribers, and donors in more than 140 countries, with an international secretariat staffed by more than 450 members and volunteers. Collectively, these not-for-profit entities are garnering increased attention as a powerful “third sector,” forging an effective middle ground between the state and the corporate world.[15]
We can think of NGOs as non-state actors, and increasingly their voices are being heard and affirmed in many instances. In some respects, NGOs represent more the voice of “we the peoples” than governments. And, unlike governments, NGOs are easily transnational and unconstrained by the diplomatic traditions and political compromises that limit governments.
But NGOs are not without their critics. Indeed, many NGOs are highly politicized, and behind apparently humanitarian concerns there may be special interests or even corrupt or criminal intentions. Indeed NGOs are also not accountable to an electorate in the way that governments are. Moreover, they have often been granted sympathies of which they are not all deserving; for, alongside the many truly humanitarian, authentic NGOs are many unscrupulous and ill-intentioned NGOs.
All things considered, however, NGOs seem to be well suited for generating social capital for many millions of people around the world, fostering solidarity, trust, a sense of belonging, shared values and the kind of engagement with others that offsets many alienating aspects of post-modern society.
Moreover, efforts to prevent or address destructive social epidemics can be enhanced through NGOs. In turn, there has emerged a term to describe individuals who have made dramatic impact on society through their NGO efforts. They are called “social entrepreneurs.” David Bornstein says,
social entrepreneurs are uniquely suited to make headway on problems that have resisted consideration money and intelligence. Where governments and traditional organizations look at problems from the outside, social entrepreneurs come to understand them intimately from within.… Because they do not have armies or police forces behind them, they work to elicit change rather than impose it, so they build human capacity rather than encouraging dependency. In developing countries where they have engaged at top levels with governments, the results have been impressive.[16]
Family: The primary mediating institution
The traditional family is another underutilized resource for the development of social capital. Some have coined the term “family capital,” arguing that we need to appreciate they ways in which the family is an asset. It is almost axiomatic and a truism to say that where marriages and families are happy, healthy and harmonious, there is increased potential for stability and prosperity in society.
We know that children, and that includes each one of us, are shaped in profound and irreversible ways by our family experiences, both genetically and socially. For example, just consider religion, and the 5 billion believers in our world, and the ways in which family has set the course for our religious and spiritual journeys in life.
As with the institutions that foster social capital, the family cuts both ways. It can be a great enhancer, and it can be also the greatest destroyer or damager of human hearts and minds. Families can transmit both the highest ideals to the next generation, or the most tribalistic and regressive ideals. Both can be done by parents or relatives with equal pride and conviction, though with very divergent results.
The Doha Institute for Family Studies and Development published a volume entitled, The Family and the MDGs: Using Family Capital to Achieve the 8 Millennium Development Goals.[17] This volume includes articles that cover each of the 8 Millennium Development Goals, showing how the family serves as an instrument that has great potential to help in the achievement of the MDGs. The MDGs, outlined by the UN in 2000, are:
1. Overcoming poverty and hunger
2. Universal primary education
3. Gender equality
4. Child mortality
5. Maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases
7. Environmental sustainability
8. Global partnerships
In the introduction to the volume, Richard Wilkins says,
Social science data demonstrates two nearly incontestable conclusions: 1. Stable families, founded upon marriage, provide significant benefits for men, women and children, while 2. The breakdown of stable marital structures imposes substantial costs upon individuals and society at large. The family, in short, plays a profoundly important social role. Absent healthy family life, individual and social development suffers.[18]
In similar way, the family can and should be a strong bulwark against the advance of destructive social epidemics.
Faith-based organizations
Virtually all religions advocate acts of care and service to others, especially those in need. Also, it is important to be reminded that the vast majority of the world’s population is affiliated with one of the world’s religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism or indigenous religions. These religious affiliations, for many, are of immense importance in terms of setting the moral and cultural tone for their lives.
Increasingly, political scientists and experts in international relations are recognizing the geopolitical importance of religion. There has been a resurgence of religion in the post-Cold War era, evidenced, for example, in the way in which the former Yugoslavia deconstructed along religious and ethnic lines, as well as in many tens of conflict situations around the world, from Israel and Palestine, to the Philippines, to Sri Lanka, to Kashmir, to Myanmar, etc. Religion is a factor in global affairs.
Likewise, religion is a factor in nations, societies and communities and families around the world. Just consider that there are more than 50 nations that are members of the Organizations of Islamic Cooperation, the IOC.
Religion impacts a wide range of issues related to marriage, sexuality, violence, war, conflict, crime, economics, justice, care for the needy, etc. Religions form one of the primary agents of humanitarian relief. Hospitals, charities, soup kitchens and emergency relief agencies are often linked to religious organizations. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and people of all religions have theological reasons for serving others, and in general religious people are much more generous than secular people. Organizations such as World Vision, Caritas and the Salvation Army, just to mention a few that are linked to Christianity, are well known.
Religions, more than governments and NGOs, provide a framework of meaning and value for believers, overcoming the sense of alienation for many.
[1] Quoted from blog of Connor Boyack, President, Libertas Institute.
[2] Francis Fukuyama, “Social Capital and Civil Society,” IMF, 1999. P. 1.
[3] Wilfred M. McClay, “Mediating Institutions” in First Things, April 2009.
[4] Charles Murray, Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2012.
[6] Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Democracy at Century’s End,” National Humanities Center, 1996.
[7] Pierre Bourdieu, “Forms of Capital,” in J.C. Richards, Ed., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York, Greenwood Press.
[8] M.K. Smith, “Social Capital”, the encyclopedia of informal education, [http://infed.org/mobi/soc ial-capital/. Retrieved 11/8/13].
[9] Francis Fukuyama, Social Capital and Civil Society, Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, 10/1/99
[10] Ibid. p. 3.
[11] Ibid. p.5.
[12] Ibid. p. 11-12.
[13] The idea of sobornost suggests similarities with Western communitarianism, calling for a move away from radical individualism, on the one hand, and statism on the other hand. I believe there are consistencies with Western theories that emphasize the need for community, social capital and mediating institutions. Sobornost no doubt has led to unintended consequences and has a political history that is complex and controversial perhaps, and yet it represents a force, a spiritual force that I believe is both unavoidable and inescapable in human history, due to the nature of human beings.
[14] The idea of “American exceptionalism” was recently discussed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a New York Times editorial on the topic of the crisis in Syria. President Putin rightly calls Americans to be cautious about an imbalanced regard for national identity. Of course this criticism is relevant to all nation states and its peoples.
[15] Tageldin Hamad and Frederick Swarts, Culture of Responsibility and the Role of NGOs, Paragon House, 2003. p. xi.
[16] David Bornstein, Ed., How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas, Oxford, 2007. p. xii.
[17] Susan Roylance, Ed., The Family and the MDGs, Doha Institute for Family Studies and Development, Doha, 2012.
[18] Ibid. p. iii.