Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Andy Crouch on "The Common Good"

Everyone uses the phrase, but Christian cultural critic Andy Crouch thinks that it remains useful.  In this thoughtful piece, he traces the use of the phrase "common good" back to  Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum and draws upon Christian Smith and Gabe Lyons for his argument on how it should employed by Christians.  Here is a taste:

The common good can help us avoid two modern temptations—one on the left and one on the right. "Leftists tend to be concerned about 'humanity' as a collective," Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith told me via e-mail. "If some heads have to roll to improve humanity's lot, so be it. A commitment to the common good opposes that entirely. Each and every person has dignity—the good society is one which allows the thriving of all persons, especially the weak and vulnerable."

And yet, Smith pointed out, "the common good" challenges the libertarian stream of conservatism as well: "Individualists only want to see each individual live as they please, as long as they don't obstruct the ability of other individuals to do the same. They don't think anything is 'common,' except whatever minimal infrastructures are needed to create equal opportunity."

Focusing on the common good has another positive effect, Smith noted: It can both draw Christians into engagement with the wider society and prevent that engagement from becoming "all about politics." Essential to the common good, all the way back through Aquinas to Aristotle, has been the insight that the best forms of human flourishing happen in collectives that are smaller than, and whose origins are earlier than, the nation-state. Family above all, but also congregations, guilds, and clubs—these "private associations," with all their particular loyalties, paradoxically turn out to be essential to public flourishing. If we commit ourselves to the common good, we must become more public in our thinking and choices, and at the same time not too public. The common good is sustained most deeply where people know each other's names and faces—especially when it comes to the care of the vulnerable, who need more than policies to flourish.

Alan Jacobs is not so sure.

1 comment:

Joshua Wooden said...

If we define common good as Smith does, then in what way is it meaningful for a nation-state?

Should this definition determine the boundaries of government, be it federal, state, or local?

It seems to negate the libertarian ethos while underscoring its legitimacy in determining what government is actually for, if that makes any sense.