Are distinct societal spheres a threat to human freedom? The fruitfulness of the principle of sphere sovereignty

Abstract

? Waardering van die rol van die individu in die menslike same lewing is tradisioneel met twee ekstreme stellingnames gekon fronteer. Hierdie posisies word reeds in die Griekse Filosofie gevind. ? Vroeg 5deeeuse denker, Callicles, het waardering vir individue, maar bewonder uiteindelik die tiran wat (kollektief) die swakkeres aan sy mag onderwerp. Hoewel die sofis, Protagoras, oortuig was dat die mens sy eie maatstaf is, het hy nog steeds die staat gesien as ? gegewe wat geen aard-eiegrense vir sy mag erken nie. Die lewensomvattende opvoedingsideaal (paideia) van die Griekse kultuur het in die polis gekulmineer en daarmee die basis voorberei vir die latere sienings van Augustinus en Thomas Aquinas. Beide hierdie middeleeuse denkers kon hulself nie bevry van die totalitêre implikasies van die Griekse idee van die polis nie. Thomas Aquinas het bloot the kerk booor die staat geplaas, terwyl die kerk nie ? bloot veranderlike en gebrekkige geluk soos voort gebring deur die staat nastreef nie, want dit moet (bo-natuurlike) geluksaligheid aan die mens besorg. Marsilius van Padua het verdere uitwerking aan ? siening van die samelewing in terme van individue gegee, vooruitgrypend na die opvattinge van Rousseau. ? Radikale alternatief tot beide atomistiese (individualistiese) and holistiese (universalistiese) sienings is deur Althusius daargestel. Hy was die eerste denker wat ? goeie begrip gehad het van hoe om die geheel-dele relasie toe te pas deur erkenning te verleen aan die eie-geaarde wette (legespropriae) van elke sosiale sfeer. Daarmee het hy vooruit gegryp op die beginsel van soewereiniteit-in-eie-kring. Aandag word ook gegee aan die opvattinge van Friedrich Julius Stahl wat ? oorgangsposisie tussen die Aristotelies-Thomistiese tradisie en die reformatories-wysgerige benadering beklee. Volgens Kuyper is die frase soewereiniteit-in-eiekring deur Van Prinsterer ingevoer, hoewel Veenhof later verklaar het dat hy hierdie uitdrukking nie letterlik by Van Prinsterer aangetref het nie. Ten spyte daarvan dat Kuyper duidelik verstaan het wat die implikasies van “naas-mekaar-verhoudinge” vir soewereiniteit-in-eiekring is, het die organies-teleologiese benadering van Aristoteles steeds in sy denke voortgeleef. Via Thomas Aquinas en die Romantiek is hierdie erfenis gemanifesteer in sy siening van die staat as ? sedelike organisme. Dit was Dooyeweerd wat die beginsel van soewereiniteit-in-eie-kring in ? kosmos-omvattende sin vrugbaar gemaak het vir die verstaan van die aard van die kosmiese tyd, van die modale aspekte en van die verskillende tipes entiteite wat in die skepping aangetref word. Geen enkele kring-soewereine samelewingsentiteit mag tot ? blote (onder-)deel van ? omvattende geheel gesubordineer word nie. Die onderskeie sfere van die menslike samelewing maak juis binne almal menslike vryheid moontlik en kan gevolglik nie gesien word as ? bedreiging vir menslike vryheid nie. Nogtans moet besef word dat hierdie vryheid, wat in verbands-, gemeenskaps- en maatskapsver houdinge tot uitdrukking kom, steeds of norm-gehoorsaam, of antinormatief gerig kan wees.

An appreciation of the role of the individual within human society traditionally faced two extreme positions which are already found in ancient Greek philosophy. An early 5th century thinker,  Callicles, acknowledged being individual but ultimately admires the tyrant who (collectively) subjects the weak to its power. Although the sophist, Protagoras, claimed that the individual is its own measure, he still contemplated a state which does not acknowledge any materialboundaries for its power. The life-encompassing educa tional ideal (paideia) of Greek culture, culminating in the polis (the city-state), laid the foundation for the views of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Both these medieval thinkers did not escape the totalitarian implications of the Greek idea of the polis. Thomas Aquinas merely superimposed the church on the state, which is supposed to transcend the transient and incomplete happiness promised by the state, while directed at carrying a person to eternal bliss. Marsilius of Padua articulated a view of society as being constituted by individuals, anticipating the later conceptions of Rous seau. A radical alternative to both atomistic (individualistic) and holistic (universalistic) views is developed by Johannes Althusius. He was the first thinker who understood the whole-parts relation properly by acknowledging the proper laws (legespropriae) of each social entity and in doing so anticipated the principle of sphere sovereignty. Attention is given to the conceptions of Friedrich Julius Stahl, which are intermediate between the Aristotelian-Thomistic position and the reformational tradition. According to Kuyper the phrase sphere sovereignty was introduced by Van Prinsterer, but Veenhof declared that he could not find the place where he used this phrase. In spite of instances where Kuyper clearly understood the “next-to-each-other” implications of sphere sovereignty, he still entertained Aristotle’s emphasis on an organic (teleological) development within society which was continued in the thought of Thomas Aquinas and Romanticism. This particularly manifested itself in Kuyper’s view of the state as an ethical organism. It was Dooyeweerd who explored the meaning of the principle of sphere sovereignty in its full cosmic scope, relevant for an understanding of cosmic time, of the modal aspects of reality and for the different kinds of entities found within creation. No single sphere-sovereign societal entity should be reduced to a mere part of an encompassing whole, to be subordinate to such a whole. The distinct spheres of societal entities are channels for human freedom within all of them and could therefore not be seen as a threat to this freedom. However, freedom, expressing itself within collective, communal or coordinational relationships, may proceed either in a norm-conformative way or in an antinormative way.