Sphere sovereignty, solidarity and subsidiarity

Abstract

Die fokus op die beginsels van soewereiniteit-in-eie-kring en subsidiariteit het binne die konteks van besinning oor die menslike samelewing en die plek van die enkeling daarin na vore getree. Die denkpatrone wat die erfenis van die Weste gedomineer het, kan onderskei word in twee teëgestelde sienings: individualisme versus universalisme, soms ook bekend as die opposisie van atomisme and holisme. Nadat aandag geskenk is aan die aard van solidariteit word aangetoon dat die tradisionele Rooms-Katolieke weergawe vasgehou het aan ’n universalistiese perspektief. Daarteenoor was die Calvinistiese regsgeleerde, Johannes Althusius, die eerste denker wat ’n alternatiewe siening ontwikkel het wat uiteindelik as soewereiniteit-in-eie-kring aangedui is. Die beginsel van subsidiariteit hanteer daarenteen die gedagte van die relatiewe outonomie van die verskillende “ondergeskikte dele” van die samelewing, opgevat as dele van die omvattende aard van die staat (waar laasgenoemde nog opgeneem word in die kerk as hoëre bo-natuurlike genade-instituut). Dooyeweerd het as sistematiese kritikus die problematiese toepassing van die geheel-dele relasie in die tradisionele Rooms-Katolieke sienings van die menslike samelewing bevraagteken. ’n Meer genuanseerde verstaan van die aard van die individualisme en die universalisme is ontwikkel, terwyl aangetoon is dat die verwagting om die probleem wat in atomistiese en holistiese opvattinge opgesluit is op te los, in die uitbreiding van die beginsel van soewereiniteit-in-eie-kring tot die dimensie van modale aspekte gegee is. Die stryd om ’n grondnoemer vir die kosmiese verskeidenheid te vind speel tewens binne hierdie domein van teoretisering af. Teoretiese ismes word gewoonlik binne hierdie konteks geformuleer. Sodra die sin van diskreetheid en kontinuïteit (wat die geheel-dele relasie bevat) – ook as analogieë binne die sosiale aspek – verstaan is, is ’n meer genuanseerde karakterisering van individualisme en universalisme moontlik. Dit word ondersteun deur ’n sistematiese klassifikasie van die wyses van menslike sosiale interaksie. Aandag is ook aan die onderskeiding tussen tipiese en a-tipiese samelewingsverantwoordelikhede gegee, sowel as aan die probleem van solidariteit tussen mense en meer resente ontwikkelings in die rigting van die belangrikheid van menseregte.

Reflecting on the nature of human society and the individual’s place in it resulted into focusing on the principles of sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity. The dominating patterns of thinking in the legacy of the West are individualism versus universalism, sometimes also known as the opposition between atomism and holism. After reflecting on some elements of solidarity it is shown that the  traditional Roman Catholic account of society adhered to a universalistic perspective. It was the Calvinistic legal scholar, Johannes Althusius who first articulated an alternative understanding designated as sphere sovereignty. The principle of subsidiarity operates with the idea of the relative autonomy of the various “subordinate parts” of society, understood as parts of the encompassing nature of the state (while the latter is still superseded by the church as supra-natural institute of grace). Dooyeweerd criticised the problematic employment of the whole-parts relation in traditional Roman Catholic views of human society. A more nuanced understanding of the nature of individualism and universalism is developed. It is argued that the only hope to transcend the problems entailed in atomistic and holistic views is to expand the scope of application of the principle of sphere sovereignty also to the dimension of modal aspects. After all, the struggle for obtaining a basic denominator for the cosmic diversity is played out within this domain of theorizing. Theoretical ismic orientations are articulated within this context. Once the proper meaning of discreteness and continuity (entailing the whole-parts relation) is understood,their analogical appearance within the social aspect enables a more nuanced characterization of the extremes of individualism and universalism, supported by a systematic classification of ways of human societal interaction. Attention is also paid to the distinction between typical and a-typical societal responsibilities as well as the problem of solidarity and more recent developments towards a recognition of the importance of human rights.