Hobart Paper
Liberty and Change An inquiry into the dynamic evolution of the West
©R.McGarvey, 1992
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this Hobart Paper is to present a liberal theory of change; to chart the interrelated development of capitalism and democracy as part of a larger dynamic process inherent in Western society. A full appreciation of the dynamic process of change will assist policy makers, both East and West, in facilitating the reconstruction of the old communist states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The West needs to avoid the mistake of believing that the mere introduction of democratic and capitalist structures is sufficient for orderly development. Western European trading practices and industrial structure need to be changed if we are to avoid Eastern Europe suffering the fate of the Weimar Republic.
Author’s Preface
Crisis has always been a stimulus to inquiry. Whenever issues have become great enough, or whenever powerful forces have overwhelmed comfortable conventional assumptions, society has consistently re-discovered its appetite for knowledge. In the Classical world this was particularly evident. The vast body of philosophical genius produced during the Classical period of Greece was generated against a background of deep and prolonged crisis. The lengthy Peloponnesian War was followed by periods of internal violence and despotism. Subsequently, with the arrival of Alexander, war, defeat and conquest spelt an end to the entire political world of "City States". This deep-seated crisis, so fatal to classical liberty, was the period of history within which the great classical philosophers appeared; their number include, amongst others, the acknowledged giants of Western philosophy, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Such periods of crisis and inquiry are not confined to the ancient world, an equivalent period emerged for the English speaking world in the period of the English Civil Wars. In the 17c, the breakdown of historic patterns of order and authority brought England into vicious cycles of anarchy and dictatorship. However, out of this violence came an incredible volume of original political and philosophical thought; Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, James Harrington, John Milton, and many others contributed. In this period of transformation there was a compelling need to understand, anew, the sources of political legitimacy; to reinvestigate the nature of authority and power. The break up of the old medieval order raised the spirit of inquiry, and in that robust age it was taken up with great relish.
The world today, in the late stages of the 20c, may on the face of it seem rather pale in comparison to these earlier, heroic periods. For those of us in the West, there is little in the way of personal discomfort or dislocation. There are no foreign armies marching through our streets, no crumbling political structures, no immediate threat to our established way of life or standard of living. However, by any measure, this is a period of unprecedented change; which is to say, crisis.
Change is occurring across the entire breadth of human understanding, on a scale and at a speed which is historically unprecedented. The signs of change are everywhere. Most obviously there is the massive system change which is occurring in world politics and in the structure of global economics. Closer to home for most of us perhaps is the decline in the authority and importance of long standing institutions, such as the church and the traditional nuclear family.
What is causing things to change? Most obviously, of course there are groups dedicated to change, the Woman's liberation movement, and the movement for racial equality etc. As well there has been the vast commercial revolution being driven by technological changes in data processing, communications and transportation. But beyond these obvious groups there is little understanding of the deep social forces which are driving change.
Changing is stressful because it undermines familiar and long standing human institutions. Human society needs order in the first instance, it is the foundation upon which all subsequent personal freedom rest. However, society must also address the concept of legitimacy, in order to maintain social legitimacy, society and it's insitutional structures must be, and be seen, to be 'just'. And this means changing with the times. In the past 50 years many of the central institutions of western life have fractured or completely vanished. Consider the fate of the traditional extended family and the great paternalistic corporation, at the turn of the 20c they were the bedrock of Western economy and society at large, today they have largely vanished. Institutional scale does not protect; change as swept away, in an instant, that most towering political institution of the 20c, the Soviet Empire. Even seemingly secure modern nations like Canada and Britain are under threat of disintegration.
What is becoming plain to everyone is that old ways of thinking are no longer sufficient to meet the challenges of the future. What is required today is a new intellectual frame of reference, a new point of departure, some means of dealing with change in a way which is compatible with societies historical patterns and political sensibilities. The great challenge of our time is to understand the forces which lay behind and direct the course of change. Unlocking these secrets allows mankind to place these massive system changes into some historical context. This book is an attempt to contribute to greater understanding by presenting a liberal theory on the nature of change. Its purpose is to illuminate the major forces which are impacting upon western society, and to demonstrate the progressive continuity of change in the western context. A pleasing consequence, which emerges from a greater appreciation of change, is a more thorough understanding of and distinction between two much abused pillars of human progress; liberty and freedom.
The progress of history has erratically and discontinuously conveyed Western Civilization on its monumental and historical journey from feudal despotism to its ultimate (as as yet attainted) final destination, the condition of liberty. The journey has not been easy, nor has it been without its fair share of violence and pain. While change has unleashed great forces and been unpredictable in its immediate consequences, it does follow predictable patterns when viewed from a large enough perspective.
It is for this, and many other reasons that the history and dynamics of change have been approached from a "Birds eye" perspective. It is a deliberate choice of the author to get as high above the detail as possible in order to see the larger patterns of action. This is necessarily "Grand Theory", and as such is attempting to provide a conceptual framework which will answer whole classes of questions which could not otherwise be addressed. There has, necessarily, been considerable simplification in areas of great complexity. I believe that analysis has been taken far enough, it is now a detriment to truth. If we are to make sense of change we must investigate the 'whole'. Synthesis is necessary to understand the forces impacting on society. Linkages are drawn between the historical divisions of knowledge, such as philosophy, economics, sociological history, international relations and the natural sciences. As a consequence this point of view is at odds with the prevailing trends in modern thought and is critical of its general approach. As a result the methodology and conclusions will be criticized on many fronts. The only answer to these inevitable criticisms is that theory must be judged on merit; does it provide a means to greater understanding, is it a useful frame of reference to deal with problems as they present themselves.
The distinguished German military thinker and philosopher Carl Von Clausewitz, in his seminal work "On War" went to great lengths to point out, that "theory should be study, not doctrine". He insisted that theory should not become some sort of "manual for action". In order to deal with the complexity of the war, Clausewitz developed a conceptual framework which depended upon analyzing real wars against a theoretical ideal, something he called "absolute war". Unfortunately for him history took a violent turn and very few of his subsequent readership digested this critical aspect as thoroughly as they might have. As a consequence, in the Anglo-Saxon world, he has been, quite wrongly, pillared, as "that Prussian apostle of Total War".
Knowledge is vital to society, and inquiry the only known means, short of Divine Revelation, for it to be acquired. It is hoped that the theory presented in this book will be considered as study, as a part of the whole and judged on its own merits.
THE ADVANTAGES A GEOLOGIST BRINGS TO THE STUDY OF POLITIC
Geology is one of those subjects which has failed to fit neatly into the modern way of doing things. Geology has consistently defied, repeated attempts, at making it quantifiable, and therefore legitimate in the modern scientific world. It has stubbornly refused to become a pure science. Geology has only recently (cynically, some would say) shifted from its historical territory in the faculty of Arts into the Science faculty in most Universities. Part of the reason for this is the subject itself, which is vast. Geology encompasses the whole of the physical earth, past and present; it involves all of the forces and circumstances which have produced the solid crustal substance of the earth, and the life forms which have inhabited Her. As a consequence of its unique and boundless nature, and unlike its more numerate partner Geophysics, or its historical nemesis Engineering, Geology remains the domain of the generalist, the holist, the "big thinker". Its inexactness has kept it in the humanist realm where inspiration and intuition can play a major role. The geological mind rises easily over the masses of detail in search of the larger patterns. And while geologists don't exactly use divining rods there is more than a little instinct involved in good geology.
As a consequence in Academia and industry alike, geologists are considered slightly eccentric. In a world that is seeking greater and greater orders of numeric precision and wishes to conserve precious resources geologists can be extremely frustrating:
Oil Company Executive: "If we drill an oil well here, will we hit oil"!
Geologist: "Well (long pause) there is a pretty good chance; we'll probably hit good reservoir, we have good source rocks, and a great lookin trap, but (another long pause), of course, it may have all been faulted away 200 million years ago".
What is a scientific vice, however, can be a humanistic virtue. The geologist brings some very useful tools to the study of politics and economics which are a direct consequence of the geological "frame of reference". In particular there are three areas in which a geological background is useful in the study of Man. In the first place there is the geological scale of history, which is measured in millions, indeed billions of years. Without question it inspires, indeed demands, large scale thinking and a search for patterns in history. Secondly, there is the significance of bonding in the character of matter. This has been useful in establishing an analogy for the forces linking humans together, and for describing the vehicle within which human power is transmitted. Thirdly there is global scale, and the frame of reference which tectonics induces in the geological mind. This, perhaps more than any other factor, was vital in the study of humanity, providing the key to unlock a solid prison within which globalism and the need for universality had entrapped political and economic thought.
THE RESISTANCE TO GRAND THEORY
THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWLEDGE
In the modern world we revere the specialist. The study of Man and his environment is carried on in dozens of separate areas of specialization. Each particular specialization is concerned with a discrete part of the whole. The division of knowledge in such a fashion has the effect of isolating and insulating specific areas of study. These divisions have generally evolved over a considerable period of time. Economics, which was once political-economy, has narrowed its focus considerably with the passage of time, until today the study of economics centres upon Econometrics. Modern economics increasing deals simply with quantifiable elements, having abandoned its humanistic links with philosophy, history and politics. Unfortunately this is the norm, all forms of knowledge are becoming more specialized, more narrowly focused on particular, as opposed to general, aspects of the human condition. To support this artificial division a professional ethic has developed in the centres of knowledge which protects the system. Chinese walls of the intellect have been erected which specify that an area of professional specialization is essentially a form of private property; The passage is clearly marked, there are to be no trespassers.
In modern universities political scientists don't often interface with, and presumably have little relevance to, most economists. As far as the humanities are concerned, the natural sciences might well be on another planet. International relations scholar's don't regard even conventional political science as relevant to their domain. Sadly, Sociologists can not even agree amongst themselves as to what their field of study should be. Language in this age has ceased to be a universal means of communication, it has evolved into systems of private jargon, which further adds to the intellectual protectionism and isolationism. These pockets of very high speciality are all burrowing away at the great body of unknown in almost complete seclusion. Great bodies of expertise have, and are continuing, to be built in each area of specialization, but like spokes of a giant wheel they are all moving outward, increasing their distance from, and relevance to, one another, and more importantly, to their real constituency in the greater human society.
There is a desperate need today to reinvestigate the whole, to take a broad multidimensional approach to the study of man in groups. However in order to accomplish this, with conviction, we need draw on the many and variable sources of knowledge. We need inevitably to make the leaps into areas where great speciality exists, to build linkages between the fields of study and to view the whole complex nature of Man. The resistance to this broad approach is great: its neither possible nor desirable, the professional ethic would suggest. Aspiring to that sort of broad ranging knowledge is fantasy; its something that more properly belongs in the Renaissance.
GRAND THEORIZING IS INAPPROPRIATE
Despite a compelling need to understand the "Big Picture", there are many other inhibitions to such endeavour. One, which is particularly prevalent amongst historians, is a profound distaste for "Grand theory" because it is simply inappropriate. There is no point in producing "Grand theory" because that's not what happens. To many an Historian, history is simply made by "Great Men"; there are no patterns to history, it certainly doesn't have deep roots in popular culture. History is made by heroic individuals like Napoleon, or Constantine. The society at large is essentially an indifferent mass, manipulated by these powerful personalities.
Certainly most history texts are written with this narrow perspective. There is an obsessive concentration on the personalities who were important, and who had an enduring influence. And while there is no doubt that they were powerful, there is little investigation into the sources of their power, little insight into the social factors which contributed to their success. It is difficult to explain, for instance, the capacity of certain individuals to rally armies to glory, or to inspire people to man the barricades. Historians would say, it's all in the unique character of Great Men, but clearly this is open to question. In France for instance the relative strengths of the undoubted "Great Men" of louis XIV and Napoleon presents the historian with a difficulty. There was no greater Frenchman than Louis XIV (the Sun King), indeed he was much larger a feature in French society than Napoleon was in his day; he was, however, much less successful in rallying his nation in war than Napoleon proved to be. Louis was certainly not a failure in war, however with roughly the same scale of society and with largely similar forces aligned against them, Napoleon's Armies were a colossus, victorious on a scale which Louis could never have imagined. The roots of the difference lay in the social energy unleashed by the French Revolution, and the dramatic effect of "national spirit" on the French populace, factors which radically transformed French arms. Yes, Great Men make a difference, but their power is not personal, it is system power, and we need to appreciate the nature of this power more completely.
GRAND THEORY IS DANGEROUS
"Grand Theory" is likewise discouraged today because it attempts to simplify the greatly complex, and in doing so can, (in the minds of many, will) be misused. Marx, Darwin, Mackinder etc. are all guilty of unleashing hideous forces upon the world due to their own, or (certainly in the case of Darwin) others mistaken simplifications. Therefore Grand theorizing should be avoided altogether. This fear is allied with another modern fear; that of conceiving of modern society as anything like a collective whole. Modern Western societies have become polyglots with large, and diverse populations. They have racial, ethnic and religious differences, their citizens travel freely, and in many instances their loyalty to the society in question is less important to them than to their own, often transnational, associations. Therefore, to think of societies today, in the older fashion, as an organic entity, is not only inappropriate, but potentially dangerous, as 20c history has demonstrated only too convincingly. Therefore, and justifiably, taboo's exist around Grand theory and other concepts which relate to the existence of a "Common will".
In Anglo-Saxon democracies politicians speak of the "will of the people" but few seem to conceive of this will as anything more than the choice of the electorate expressed through the ballot box. There is a great reluctance to admit the existence of "Common Will" because of the excesses and violence which has been perpetrated in it's name in the Twentieth Century. The rise of fascism and Nazism in the first half of the 20th century has made democratic societies wary of individuals or parties who claim the existence of a "common will". There is deep suspicion of the "Will to power" particularly as it exists in Germanic philosophic thought. This fear is best illustrated in Bertrand Russell's description of Nietzsche's love of power and heroism (in a nutshell) using a quotation from Shakespeare:
I will do such things - What they are yet I know not - But they shall be the terror of the earth.
Nevertheless despite the taboo's there is a clear need to understand the manner in which a society is energised and motivated to certain predictable patterns of action. Placing fences around difficult subjects does not make the process of understanding easier, in fact the opposite can equally be true. We face the prospect that without knowledge of how the forces of change impact upon the 'collective whole' we may be driven by change into extremist solutions which could otherwise have been avoided. Without guide lines to explain the nature of Man we may drive blindly into the past mistaking it for a progressive future, as per the Soviet Union this century. Knowledge of change and how it effects the 'whole' is vital to human advancement, the fear of its misuse is real and a constant reminder of the need to be vigilant and thorough. It is not a rational argument for inhibiting thought.
Likewise we must all realize that there are internally generated harmonizing forces which are acting on individuals and groups, which have a source in the collective consciousness of society. While it is true that we are more mobile today, and that we do live in multi-ethnic societies, the reality in many advanced societies is that in many instances these differences diminish with time and the generations. There is great power in day to day living. There are, for instance, enormous implications in the very existence of private property and a civil society. In submitting to the authority of civil law and representative government, we unconsciously assist in producing an ethical consistency, over time. These and many other deep harmonizing forces are manifest in the every day, mundane, order of living. It is this which conditions the enduring sensibilities of a political culture. Where as there is no doubt that ethical standards do change in response to changing circumstances, it is equally true that there are deep and historical consistencies in every society, a continuity with the past which can not be over looked.
CHALLENGES THE MYTH OF INDIVIDUALIST SOCIETY
Another area of resistance to a study of the collective Man is that it challenges a central myth in Western society today; that society only exists to serve the interests of the individual; that liberty is measured, solely, in terms of individual freedom. This is a vitally important and deeply misunderstood subject. The freedom of the individual has been achieved only after centuries of painstaking effort, and, of course, the enormous sacrifice of previous generations. There is no doubting that, imperfect as it may seem so some, even our limited success represents the very highest achievement of Man. After all that sacrifice, it must not simply become a licence for self indulgence. The liberty of Man, and the very concept of individual freedom itself is a consequence of Man's ability to associate, and cooperate in groups. Freedom, per se, is only one side of the coin of liberty, the flip side of the coin is responsibility; responsibility to the whole of society. Understanding the dynamics of liberty is vital to preserving the great balance in modern society. The greatest challenge presented to Mankind, now or at any other time in history, is to maximise both the highest possible orders of individual freedom, and provide the stable orderly societies which enhance the dignity of Man. In the West the concept of individual freedom has emerged as an essential element of liberty, and this only after great and heroic struggle. However this freedom is not licence, liberty does not absolve citizens of their concern and responsibility to the whole of society. It is perhaps ironic, that in order to preserve the liberty of the "Individual" we all need to act, as individuals, more collectively.
MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF MORAL RELATIVISM
Without greater understanding of the nature of human association and change there is no way addressing the crisis presented to society by the rise of relativism. In the 20c, the notion of 'absolutes' has been dismissed with great force. The pillars of certainty were shaken first and most convincingly in the scientific world. Early in the 20c, Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' was presented and its effects were immediate and revolutionary. It undermined the long held universalism which provided the rock solid foundation of Newtonian physics. Modern science has had to adjust to the fact that although the, so called, "laws" of Newtonian physics, have local applicability, they do not represent anything like the universal truth imagined previously. This development, although momentarily staggering for the confidence of science, did not however have an immediate impact upon the moral authority of Western society as such. Unfortunately for the West, such a challenge was soon to emerge.
The 20c brought in its wake enormous forces which have either eroded, or destroyed outright, many of the long standing sensibilities and moral principles of Western civilization. The Great War with its appalling violence and slaughter staggered the West and seriously undermined the pervasive sense of Western superiority. In the decades to follow, the few moral certainties which remained were simply overwhelmed by the violence and inhumanity which accompanied the rise of fascism and communism. These twin pillars of moral absolutism and intolerance were ultimately to prove devastating, even to the liberal West. Today, to hold any degree of moral certainty is to be guilty by association. The excesses of Nazism and Communism were the product of very narrow moral certainties, rigidly and inhumanely applied; the modern ethic holds all moral certainty to be guilty of the same class of offence. The consequences are grave, for without agreed moral principles, with out ethical standards, there is no solid ground upon which to anchor society, nothing to prevent a slide into complete moral relativism.
Establishing Moral 'Objectivity' in a Subjective World.
The experience of the 20c has demonstrated convincingly the fallacy of absolute or universal truths, whether moral or scientific. The humanities today must adjust to this new reality. However, while accepting the implications of relativism, it is vital to determine the sources of ethics and the limitations which apply to moral arguments. In order to establish these relationships we need to understand more clearly the nature of human association. It is the very dynamics of association which facilitate a philosophical unity between individuals to form a society or nation. Human association is created by a harmonization of individuals, in effect creating a collective or common will. In doing so it establishes a moral 'centre of gravity'. So while it is true to say that all moral arguments are subjective, it is equally true that the collective creates a human space where moral arguments have a relative and qualified truth. Therefore in the same sense that Newtonian physics is still useful and applicable in a particular 'space-time', so it is with moral principles. The collective creates a human 'moral-space' within which moral arguments have a 'relative objectivity'.
Moral arguments are applicable but with qualifications. They are accountable to the collective itself, from which they originate, and to the greater philosophical/political world within which the collective, itself, originated. There is a further order of limitations placed upon moral arguments in Western life and culture due to the ongoing process of change. If they are to remain legitimate moral principles must have the flexibility to reform progressively with society.
CONCLUSION
There is a compelling need for synthesis, to integrate the many spokes of the wheel of human knowledge, and rediscover the unity of Man. Our present political and economic landscape is changing rapidly, answers are being demanded immediately. The division of knowledge into more specific and discrete areas of specialization has been taken to its limit; it is now a detriment to truth and understanding. Today the universities, our precious seats of knowledge and learning stand naked, indeed defenceless against the ultimate consequences of relativism; the pernicious rise of neo-fascism in the form of political correctness and radical environmentalism. If we are to appreciate the forces of change and channel them in productive and progressive ways we must know more about society as a whole, and the changing role of the individual within it. The dynamic in society has major institutional consequences; for the institutions in our society whether they are of the family, or the corporation or the highest institutions of government, all are dependent upon the will of people to support them; to give them legitimacy. This legitimacy is vital, however, it is constantly being reordered and institutions much change to meet these changing demands.
Liberty is a quality of the group, the historical significance of modern society is its ability to extend or expand the condition of liberty from the few in society, to a much greater proportion of the group than had previously been considered possible. This has meant that the citizen today must carry the burdens of society which were once the prerogative of Kings, to share its responsibilities, powers and freedoms to a greater and greater degree. This increases the role of the individual in determining the character of the society within which he or she lives and consequently diminishes the role and importance of institutions which have carried this burden and power in previous generations
The theory of change is the consequence of a geological mind upon the mysteries of political science. It begins from a unique frame of reference and analyses the various elements of Man and society with a longer term, 'birds eye' perspective. which helps illuminate the larger patterns and trends. Liberty has evolved out of a quite unique set of philosophical forces which we must recognize. Change has been a constant in Western life, however, it has not always been positive or progressive. If we are to manage change and prevent these powerful historical forces from undermining our civilization it is necessary to understand the strengths and weaknesses of this dynamic political world more completely.
Chapter 2
II. BACKGROUND:
A. COLLAPSE OF COMMUNISM: is presenting challenges for Europe, which are in danger of not being met due to the inadequate understanding of the dynamic nature of capitalism. Now that history has totally discredited communism, Margaret Thatchers dictum TINA - There is No Alternative -, has focused attention on the nature of capitalism. However, even in the West, capitalism is greatly underestimated and misunderstood. It has yet to be fully recognized that capitalism is not simply a relatively more efficient system for supplying material benefits, but is part of a larger dynamic process, which is inexorably expanding the role of the individual, allowing the individual to assume greater and greater levels of responsibility for all aspects of his/her being, in cooperation with others.
B: LIBERAL THEORY OF CHANGE: Despite the many accomplishments of the classical liberals they never presented a fully developed theory which accounted for the process of change. Early Liberal thinkers such as Locke, Smith, Ricardo and Mill et al. gave the world one of its most treasured and enduring legacies, by defining the importance of the individual, and the nature of a society in the condition of liberty. They defined the ideal relationship between sovereign citizens and their government in regard to their political and economic activities. In doing so, they laid the conceptual foundation for our present political democracy and capitalist system. However, they failed to produce a dynamic model explaining the means by which societies advance. The very concept of change was left a prisoner of Marxist theory, a theory fatally flawed by its narrow, obsessive concentration on the material nature of Man. There is, today, a compelling need to rehabilitate the concept of a deep dialectic within society, and so to align the forces of history behind the development of liberal capitalism.
C: THE ETHICAL FOUNDATION : The ethical foundation of capitalism lies in the active assumption of responsibility by citizens. The experience of the Weimar Republic dramatically demonstrated that the simple imitation of the institutions of advanced societies does not guarantee a stable, functioning capitalist democracy. The institutions of democracy and liberal capitalism do not in themselves constitute democracy. The roots of political and economic freedom reside in the evolving consciousness of man; contrary to Marxist misconception capitalism should be seen as part of a larger process which is emancipating the human spirit
Chapter 3 - Human Associations: a Natural Order
The study of man and his collective self is a complex and broad ranging inquiry, however at the beginning we must address a central issue. Why is it that individuals come to form their principle social organizations? This is a question which Man has been central to political thought for some time. In the 17c Thomas Hobbes stated his deeply pessimistic view clearly; human society is artificial and unnatural, Man is naturally anti-social. In Hobbes, Man's motivation in association is both rational and negative; humans are driven to compromise their natural freedom and enter into the 'collective' in order to ensure survival in an otherwise unceasingly violent world. There is truth in the Hobbesian position, in that all societies are held together to some extent by fear of one sort of another, and of course, as the Lebanon and Yugoslavia attest, when an established social order breaks down anarchy and violence often result. However, despite the fact that what Hobbes tells us is true, it is clearly not the whole truth. Man is a social animal, human organization is both a natural process and potentially a very positive one. Although Man's primary motivation in association may well lay in the natural instinct for survival, as Hobbes suggested, and despite the fact that Man is clearly capable of violence and a decent into anarchy, this represents one particular reality, it does not represent the total potentiality of Man. Man's larger purpose in association is positive, driven by the desire for self-realization. It is only through association that an individual is capable of realizing his or her greater potential.
The theoretical problem has always been this: if we place even some validity in the Hobbesian position, and its very difficult to completely disprove his basic contention, how then do we explain the development of modern liberal societies which don't resemble anything like the Hobbesian reality. To explain this apparent contradiction, it is important to appreciate that Man is capable of quite remarkable variation in the orders of cooperation attainable within the collective. It is only the lowest order of cooperation, characterized by fear, and distrust with concentrated power, which is Hobbesian. Man is capable of forming society with higher orders of cooperation, with a greater sharing in the exercise of sovereignty.
Liberty is a quality of the group and even Hobbesian societies will exhibit a liberty of sorts, however, it is only the liberty of kings. It is through building higher orders of cooperation that man advances the condition of liberty in society, through devolving power, spreading the 'exercise of sovereignty' outward from the singular to few to the many. The degree of liberty within a human society will vary enormously, but will depend upon the capacity of its citizens, acting collectively, to share the burdens and responsibilities of the group; to share in the inherent duties of the exercise of sovereignty.
So, although it is plain that the pessimistic Hobbes is not entirely wrong in his estimation of Man, his conception is far from the whole truth. Hobbes was at least incomplete on the central point, self interest and personal autonomy are not necessarily sacrificed in association, in fact it is only through association that they can be fully realized. We must explore the nature of human association to see the seeds of this growth process.
The THERMODYNAMICS of Human Association
Human's associate into groups, large and small, in a natural process which is driven by the human desire to seek a form of human energy conservation. The conservation of human energy is accomplished primarily through cooperation, the capacity of individuals to cooperate together to effect common ends. This then allows the establishment of a division of labour with its complimentary specialization of function etc. In this search for greater human efficiency, with its conservation of energy, Man is in many fundamental ways, behaving according to a logic well understood in relation to physical matter. The formation of complex organic and inorganic substances in nature involves the linking together of basic elements, usually ions or atoms, into bonding networks which produce energy efficient complex compounds such as minerals, organic solids etc. The physical rationale for this process lies in the energy efficiency and electrostatic stability of the final complex compound, the 'whole'. It is this basic energy or thermodynamic relationship which provides the physical forces which favour the formation of complex orders of physical matter and maintain their stability. The human association, or collective, like any complex substance in nature exists because it satisfies certain basic principles of what we might call 'human thermodynamics'.
Human's in association achieve greater efficiency through the group's capacity to provide the means by which the individuals, through collective action, can satisfy a broader range of human needs and desires than the same individuals could separately. The larger the group, the greater potential for a broad division of labour, the greater the potential for the individual to realize specialization in an area of specific interest or skill. This process increases the efficiency of the individual and of the group, thus unleashing great energy which is the consequence of human association. The dilemma for Man, of course, is the distribution of this great system energy. The challenge for modern Man is to achieve the benefits of large scale human organization, with its division of labour, specialization of function etc. and yet to prevent the inherent tendency of human societies to concentrated this system energy in its conventional forms of wealth and power. Today, social legitimacy demands that society form the broadly based and highly complex divisions of labour, with all the efficiency and potential for self-realization that this implies, while at the same time society must maintain as broad a distribution in the excess energy of human association as possible. This would seem, on the face of it to be both a rational and sensible end for humans in association to seek and achieve; however, as sensible and as it seems to reason, does not auger well with the facts of history. The balancing of these two nobel objectives simultaneously would in fact appear to be the most frustrated and elusive goal for Mankind. In fact very few if any have achieved anything even remotely close to the ideal. The reasons for this difficulty lie in the unique character of human organization which we must now investigate.
THE NATURE OF WILL
How is it that individuals combine themselves together to form the 'association'? What is the process by which human association comes about. In order to understand the process by which human associate and to appreciate the deep level at which human bonding engages we need to understand the nature of 'Will'. In an individual, Will is generally understood to be the facility of conscious or deliberate choice of action. Will is related to action, and involves a conscious aspect. The innate energy of the individual is directed to produce certain deliberate ends. For this to be affected in humans there must be three separate aspects of Will, which combine to produce this 'conscious or deliberate action'. In the first place there must be a 'self', that quality of human existence or 'being'. This 'being' will have a vital life force, his or her raw energy, which is the root source of action. Secondly, in order that human energy or the vitality of the individual be directed consciously, there must be a means of orientating that raw energy, a framework within which action is given purpose. Thirdly there is the product, the directed energy or human vitality which is the realization of Will, the conscious or deliberate action of an individual.
Individual Will is rooted in 'self' and is a manifest through an individual's vitality or energy. The focus or direction of action, which provides the critical quality of purpose in life, is a complex matter due to the fact that individuals live in groups. Therefore individual actions are effectively a product of both the individual and society. That is Will is a product of a complex interplay of forces including both internal realizations or impulses and external social/legal constraints. However, in the first instance we are concerned with the internal factors, those which relate to the individual himself. Man is 'future orientated', that is Man directs or rationalizes this actions, for better or worse, according to perceptions of how the consequences of this action will affect his future. The purposes, or the intensions which are brought to action are either formulated consciously and deliberately, possibly in relation to deeply held religious beliefs, or more commonly sub-consciously, perhaps in regard to certain unperceived but internalized impulses or principles. It is from this deep internalized source that a possible 'future' is established in the individual. It is in relation to this perception of the future that goals in an individual are defined. Therefore the essence of 'Will' involves these various aspects; the self, as the original source of human vitality or energy, a philosophical core providing the vital purpose to human actions and finally the third aspect, the realization of Will, the capacity in an individual for conscious, or deliberate action.
The COMMON WILL and the Energy of Association
How is it that individual Will is combined to form the collective or 'Common Will'. Clearly the 'Common Will' must, somehow be a combination of individual Wills, harmonizing and in effect combining their human capacity for purposeful, future orientated action. The concept of Common Will has deep and forbidding connotations in the modern world. In order to understand the strengths and weaknesses more fully, it is perhaps easier to imagine human association, the creation of a Common will, in terms of energy. Will is a form of human energy in motion, and as such can be described in more conventional energy terms. Science has proven that although energy takes many different forms, they all, in transmission, exhibit some important qualities of wave behaviour. Transmitting human energy through space-time is essentially what 'Will' is; purposeful human action is a form of directed energy, progressing like all other energy forms through space and time. This transmission of energy, the realization of human Will, gives the, future orientated, human behaviour a wave like quality. Now the behaviour of waves is well understood in science, all waves have physical characteristics such as amplitude, frequency, period, and wavelength, which define the wave structure and form. Importantly for our analogy waves interact in various ways with each other; one particular attribute of wave behaviour is that of reinforcement, in which individual wave forms combine into larger patterns of energy.
The Human association or 'Common Will' is formed through a process of human energy, or wave reinforcement. That is, human energy, in its wave-like form, behaves in a similar way to the light and sound waves which constitute the electromagnetic spectrum. The 'Common Will' of human association is the product of the re-enforcement of individual human Will or energies into a larger collective pattern of energy. The combination and reinforcement of individual human futures provides the alignment of Will, the harmonization of actions necessary to formulate this Common Will. Once formulated this Common Will exhibit a complex interrelationship between itself and the individual wills which make it up. The sins against humanity which have been committed in the name of the Common will have contributed to the present lack of understanding, which has led to the belief that the existence of 'Common Will' must necessarily lead to a diminishment of individual autonomy within the collective. Quite the contrary, the Common Will is simply the product of humans in association, that is the alignment of human futures, and individual energies to common advantage. The character of that collective will vary greatly, it will be determined within the philosophical core produced as a consequence of the act of human association.
The Common Will is a complex multidimensional construct which owes its complexity to the complexity of the individual Will. Like the individual Will the 'Common Will' is made up of three linked but separate aspects:
1. One is the 'collective being' itself, the association of individuals with their raw 'Energy of Association'.
2. The second part of the Common Will are those internal elements which provide direction or purpose to collective action. Like the individual, the Common 'Will', will have this philosophical centre or core providing the central organizing principles for the group, providing the quality of direction which harmonizes the goals and aspirations of individuals within a particular framework. This is the root source of the 'social vision'.
3. The third aspect is the product, the realization of the Common Will, the capacity in the collective for conscious or deliberate action.
The complex variation which exists in societies lies in the variations which exist within the collective, in the Common Will. The central division of powers and resources of the group are determined and legitimized within the philosophical core. The central organizing principles, those principles which control the degree of individual autonomy for instance are established with this vital core. The individual Will, which is necessary to support and re-enforce the collective is certainly influenced and may in certain circumstances be determined by the Common Will. Therefore we have essentially an interactive system. The collective, which is essentially a product of individuals Will, exerts a reverse force which mobilises individuals to certain patterns of action. Within this process individual actions harmonize, to one degree of another, so as to allow their Will, or energy in transmission to align, uniting and reinforcing into a larger whole.
The reason that the human association is so powerful and the system so 'holistic' is that humans have one advantage over other conventional energy forms. Humans, by virtue of their ability to reason and cooperate have the capacity of what might be called super-reinforcement. That is human energy has the capacity, when more or less in phase; that is when in society there is a commonly agreed course of action, of increasing the efficiency of reinforcement to many times greater than the simple arithmetic sum. This is the source of the great power of modern societies, however, it must be remembered that these same qualities allow reinforcement to be partial, or indeed opposing. Wave cancelation is possible and in the complex societies in which we live today this phenomenon is common place. Nevertheless, it is this human capacity for super-reinforcement which creates the enormous system energy within human societies.
Giving life to the ARTIFICIAL MAN
The process of creating larger energy efficient human associations is a natural process. The human collective links individuals into complex human bonding networks, which reinforce the many individuals' Will, creating a greater Common Will and thereby establish a group consciousness. It is in the process of reinforcement that the deep spiritual core of individuals is combined, creating a 'whole'. The deep centre, the philosophical core of the collective man, is the source of intimate and powerful linkages between individuals in an identification group or nation, it is this which makes the human collective so intimate and the bonds between humans so strong. This 'whole' or Common Will resolves a 'future', or vision of the future, which will provide a collective purpose to the actions of individuals. The 'whole' effectively becomes a very complex multi-dimensional human construct. In order to organize a society, to achieve its survival and advancement, power structures are established across a broad range of human activities, economic, political, religious/spiritual and social. This 'Common Will', this human association creates, in the words of Thomas Hobbes, the Artificial Man.
For by art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE, in Latin CIVITAS, which is but an artificial man; though of greater stature and strength than the natural,for whose protection and defence it was intended
This artificial man, behaves in many respects as if it had a life of its own. The association takes on human qualities because it is constructed from, is a composite of, many individuals' Will (energy and purpose). The character of those power structures, the degree of concentration of power is regulated, indeed determined by the central collective core of philosophical principle. The philosophical core provides the central organizing principles which link the structures of power, the institutional structures in society, to the collective body itself. The legitimacy of any structure of power is established within the central philosophical core.
The 'artificial man' of human society will have many qualities which we recognise as 'human like', however, unlike a living organism, this artificial man has no capacity for self mobility - it does not have an existence separate from the individuals through which it is constructed. This is perhaps 'the' most important, and misunderstood question in human relations. The confusion on this subject begins initially in the fact that the collective is holistic, that is the whole or collective is greater than the sum of the parts or individuals. Holism in human associations seems to suggest, or at least gives the impression that it is the collective which gives life and purpose to individuals, that individual Will is solely a product of the Common Will.
A popular analogy used by many modern marxists to describe the relationship between the individual and the collective, is the human body itself. Most often the analogy draws upon the relationship between a part of the human body and the body itself as a system. For instance, it is suggested that the human eye is only relevant when considered as a functioning part of the organic whole. The part, that is the eye, has value only through its function in terms of sight, which is of relevance only to the whole, or the body. Therefore it is only at the system level that function has purpose. When the analogy is carried to human society it leads naturally to the belief that individuals only have relevance as functioning parts of the whole. Therefore the source lies at system level, in society as a whole. It is a natural and logical step from there to the belief that it is to the collective that we must attribute all power and responsibility. Such a 'systems approach' to political and social thinking led to many false assumptions in the 20c, not the least of which was the enormous debasement of the individual in communism and fascism, and in the West, a less damaging, but nonetheless important consideration: a widespread erosion of the fundamental building block of civil society, individual responsibility.
The human association, unlike a living organism, has no capacity for self mobility; the mobility, health and vigour of the 'whole' depends upon the active participation of the individuals who are part of it. No matter what the degree of hierarchy in the system, or the degree of concentration of power, there must be a consensus in the collective of some sort to align the individual Will in support of the 'artificial man' or he will falter and die. The individual Will is 'a priori', and although the individual Will is shaped by the Common Will, the existence of the Common Will is a derivative of, and dependent upon, the active reinforcement of the individual. Where the society does not express the Will of the individuals which make it up, and where the individuals withdraw or diminish participation in the association, it is the collective which dies. The individuals still have value and purpose which very often is realized, either in emigration or in extreme circumstances in the creation of a new association.
Hierarchy in human societies It is the need to mobilize the 'artificial man' that gives rise to a theoretical separation between the society at large and that part of the group who are actively involved in providing this vital mobility. This separation provides the legitimacy in society for hierarchical orders, for concentrations of power and authority. Now in Western society today we are wedded to the elimination of hierarchy, without exception the function of social and political activity throughout the West is to increase the degree of 'equality' in society. Institutional inequality or hierarchy in society is an evil to be rallied against. Westerners today, generally, find it difficult to accept that a hierarchical order in human society is anything other than a violent oppression, imposed upon a freedom loving people, through some sort of coercion. In consequence there is a violent reaction against societies where such hierarchy exists, particularly if that hierarchy is founded upon racial grounds, such as South Africa.
In the West we are equally opposed to hierarchy based upon old notions of feudal privilege such as exists in some of the Latin American societies. However, there is more tolerance when hierarchy is based in ancient religions. Although a deep and penetrating hierarchy exists in Hindu India, because it is founded in ancient religious principle, we accept it almost without question. However, whatever the case, where relatively extreme hierarchy exists there is almost universally agreement that the societies in question are out of step with the modern world.
However, this Western aversion to hierarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact, the notion of political and social equality only really became broadly accepted in the West within the 20c. With the ascendance of these modern concepts there has been a reaction, not only against the more obvious examples of Hierarchy which exist in other societies, but, equally, against our own, less than idealistic,(by modern standards) past. Hence the modern preoccupation with reinterpreting, or actually re-inventing Western history. What this illustrates is the very natural human desire to resolve the past, to make it compatible with present ideals and standards of behaviour; to the Western idealist anything it seems is preferable to admitting that hierarchy ever existed with broad social legitimacy in our past. The evidence of history is clear, the overwhelming majority of all human societies, past or present, have been organized in orderly and legitimate hierarchies with power and authority concentrated in elites of one sort or another. The difficult problem for the idealistic Westerner today lies in the fact that despite the overwhelming desire for equality, and its unquestioned virtues, both for the individual and the society as a whole, there is not now nor has there ever been a society has been able to eliminate inequality and its subsequent hierarchy entirely.
However, even if we accept hierarchy as in someway natural in human societies, it is equally clear that as Man advances to higher orders of cooperation the degree of hierarchy naturally and spontaneously decreases; while the total energy of society increases enormously. However before a society can advance along this path it must first survive. The virtues of hierarchy for a society lay in its capacity to establish and maintain the social order necessary to ensure that survival. Human societies, from the moment they can guarantee their survival, look for more than the provision of order. Social stability in normal situations then becomes a matter of balancing the demands of order and legitimacy. The extent to which hierarchy in a society will be legitimate depends upon complex philosophical and/or deep seated religious principles held by the group. To maintain social legitimacy today in modern societies means establishing successively lower orders of hierarchy in society.
Hierarchy, Will and the levels of HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.
The degree of hierarchy in a society has important implications for the realization of individual human will which impacts directly upon the levels of human consciousness. Social hierarchy can be measured in degree's, varying from the extreme hierarchy of a humiliating despotism, to the relatively insignificant hierarchy which is typical of modern democracies. The consequences of extreme hierarchy are to diminish the extent to which individual actions are the realization of a freely determined Will. We know from our discussion of Will that it can be understood to be human energy in transmission, and that it is a product of both internal and external influences. A free Will should consequence human actions and motivations which are dominated by their own internal impulses and self determined goals. Where the conscious and deliberate actions of the individual are a reflection of his internal consciousness. However in societies the individual Will must accommodate others in order to achieve the benefits of association. Therefore even in the minimal hierarchy of modern democracy an individuals Will is never completely free, of course, in a democracy the will is relatively free, in that in the vast majority of human societies it is very often almost completely pre-determined. The freer the Will the greater the empowerment of individual actions. As the Will becomes freer actions become meaningful, self determined and empowered.
How does hierarchy and its effects upon Will impact on the group and most importantly upon the levels of human consciousness? Now, "consciousness" is a controversial subject, today most often understood in its mystical sense. When we think of consciousness, what immediately comes to mind are Zen Buddhists and others who seek expansion of 'consciousness' or to obtain a unity with the infinite God. While not underestimating the importance of the spiritual, it is important to appreciate that 'consciousness' in the worldly sense embodies many more of the most practical and down-to-earth human qualities. Qualities which are vital, not only for the individual but for the individual within the group. Consciousness, in the worldly sense, relates in a very practical way to the here and now, it implies a degree of worldly awareness and the very human ability to analyze and anticipate. Furthermore it involves more than simply perceiving in the passive sense, it is made up of two parts; perception and action. Therefore consciousness becomes an act of commission. It is a measure of will, not simply a matter of existence. Consciousness has degrees which depend upon the individual's capacity to be aware of his environment and to analyze the circumstances which he finds himself in; there is then an element of judgement and the capacity to act positively. Consciousness is an quality of the will and is therefore related to human energy. The freeing of the Will releases energy and raises the capacity of individuals to command their actions to higher purpose.
In order to appreciate the effects of hierarchy upon consciousness it is necessary to address the concept of 'interests', as the vitally important indicator of the levels of human consciousness. Consciousness relates directly to Will through interests. Growing consciousness means growing capacity to establish both personal and collective 'interest positions' with confidence and maturity. With growing consciousness, comes growing confidence in the individual position relative to the group. This aspect of confidence is a vital element in determining the manner and force by which individual interests are projected to others in the group. Where there are high levels of consciousness it is likely that individuals will know and express their own interests, relative to the group, with confidence and authority. Conversely, where there are low levels of consciousness, there is a tendency to concede interest determinations to others, to be passive rather than active, to suffer fate rather than to act positively with reason.
Natural hierarchy will exist in society where there are groups within the society which have low levels of consciousness and where there is a general consensus that the Will of the few should determine the Will of the many. For instance in the family there is a natural hierarchy between parents and very young children. In the parental situation it is clear that children are born, very lively perhaps, but with low consciousness. They do not have the ability to perceive their environment and act positively, far from it. Their interests are assumed by parents for their own protection. This is natural and just. As their levels of consciousness grow they, naturally, become more aware, more capable and more active in their own defence. This is the fundamental growth of consciousness which underpins the shift from child to adulthood. By the time a child reaches the age of young adult, he or she will (rightly or wrongly in the parents opinion) be determining, (more or less), their own interests and controlling their own lives. The hierarchy which was occasioned by their birth, has diminished with their subsequent growth in consciousness and capacity to determine their own interest.
The situation with unnatural hierarchy, or coercion is similar in some respects, quite different in others. Where force is used to impose an unnatural hierarchy, to bias the determination of interests and concentrate power where it would not otherwise, it can have the most devastating impact upon the orders of consciousness of citizens. The destruction of self esteem and confidence through terror and intimidation will cause diminishment and ultimately withdrawal of Will. This is clearly the case in the former communist Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Coercion and terror was characteristic of these societies, the use of torture and murder was common. The Gulag archipelago was notorious, of course, however the general level of consciousness was simply suffocated under a pervasive blanket of dogma which inhibited all individuality, as a consequence the Party determined all interests, the Will of the Party determined the Will of the people and ruled with an absolute power.
However, even in the Soviet Union the evolution and growth in human consciousness is pervasive. The Soviet State educated its population, its ideology perpetuated a myth of liberation which its political structure was at the same time denying. The consequence was predictable; where a growing consciousness is denied, it withdraws. The reason medieval feudalism lasted so long and enjoyed such enormous legitimacy was in the deepest philosophical core feudal life did not bias the earthly man, Communism did and this was the source of its demise. Its system of internal terror were defeated by the sullen withdrawal of Will, due to the lack of opportunity for growth in consciousness, individual interests and empowerment.
HIERARCHY, AUTONOMY AND SYSTEM ENERGY
The issue of hierarchy is an important one, particularly as it controls the ultimate source of "energy" in human societies. We have seen that the total energy in society (corporation/family) is a product of the super reinforcement of individuals energies in the process of association. We need to realize that with the growth in consciousness there is growth in individual and collective human energy, based upon an expansion of what we might call the greater realization of human potential. Whether it is expressed in terms of scientific or commercial innovation which increases economic dynamism and growth, or in more general terms through greater social awareness and political participation, growth in consciousness is growth in a vital human commodity; energy. This human energy, in association enhances the collective will, and increases the vitality of society.
Understanding the nature of hierarchy and its consequences for human consciousness are vital to appreciating the expansion of human energy which has been occasioned by the historical process of change. The "Rise of the West" has been founded upon an expansion of system energy, innovation, and general activity occasioned in Western civilization by the gradual diminishment of medieval hierarchy. The steady rise of individual consciousness and the assumption of personal responsibility and power in the majority has occasioned, in its wake, the explosion of innovation and activity which has had scientific, technological, economic and political consequences.
Chapter 4: SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty is 'the' most vital quality of the collective Man, unfortunately, it is also the concept in our modern world which is most ambiguous and misunderstood. This ambiguity exists despite the fact that the questions raised in sovereignty have been central to political thought throughout history. This crucial subject has been examined extensively, by Plato and Aristotle, the Roman Emperor Augustus, Cicero, churchmen of all kinds, particularly Pope Gregory VII and the Papists, absolute monarchs such as James I, and a host of others including Bodin, Althusius and Grotius, Hegel, Hobbes, John Locke, and J.J. Rousseau to name only a few. All have sought to understand the true source and nature of sovereign power in order to define the extent and limitations of that power, and in so doing to establish ground rules for the ideal scale and internal organization of society. Sovereignty, however, is complex; the difficulties in comprehending this subject arise initially from the fact that although sovereignty emerges, in the first instance, as an indigenous quality 'of' the group, it is also formulated in relation to other groups. Ultimately the constitution of sovereignty is the product of a complex interplay of forces, some of which are generated internally, from within the group and others which are clearly external to the identity group or 'nation'.
The subject of sovereignty is critically important; for in the life of a people, or nation, nothing is more important or more crucial to its fate then the prudent 'exercise' of its sovereignty. However for many today there is great bewilderment as to just what the 'exercise' of sovereignty actually involves, and more importantly, there is great confusion as to where this sovereignty 'resides'. Most modern definitions today limit the concept of sovereignty to being 'supreme and unrestricted power'. However this definition is not entirely satisfactory, for in the real world sovereignty clearly exists despite the fact that it is very seldom supreme and almost never unrestricted. As to where sovereignty 'resides' we need look no further than our own situation to see the complexity. In Britain we have a form of constitutional government, in which sovereignty, in theory, resides with the 'Crown in Parliament'. However, Britain is a democracy, and is today deeply committed to the notion of 'popular sovereignty', which implies that sovereign authority 'essentially' resides with the people. If so, where does sovereignty 'reside'? For these and many other reasons the whole concept of sovereignty remains something of an enigma. For although it involves the obvious and practical qualities of humans in groups such as power and authority, territorial integrity etc., it also embodies many emotional and irrational qualities of Man as well.
On the face of it sovereignty appears to be very simple and pragmatic, involving the desire of 'a people' to control their own destiny within a given territory. However, the mystery begins to reveal itself in what historically has been the central question: what is the primary source of sovereignty? Is sovereignty a product of Man or is it bestowed upon Man by an all powerful God? At various times in history and many different societies, including all the European societies in the past, sovereignty has been considered a product of Divine sources; as indeed it is, at least theoretically, in Japan today. In some other societies, or indeed these same societies at different times in history, sovereignty is seen quite differently, as a quality of the 'nation' originating from within Mankind itself.
While it may be true that in the modern world we can say that sovereignty is a quality associated with particular human groups or 'nations' of people occupying a given territory, what accounts for the variation in the scale of these identification groups or 'nations'. Sovereign groups vary greatly, from tiny populations occupying very local principalities, to larger identify groups occupying Kingdoms great and small, to huge and varied populations occupying vast nation states, which in some instances are continental in scale. Furthermore, why is it that in some cases these 'identity groups' have expanded in scale over the centuries; effectively uniting once disparate nations into larger more complex identity groups.
Another aspect of sovereignty's mystery is revealed in its capacity to exhibit vast internal variation. Human societies have organized the functions of executing and administering sovereignty in substantially different ways. In some societies the exercise of sovereignty is rigidly concentrated, with power residing almost absolutely in Monarchy or dictators etc., while in other societies these same functions have been more widely dispersed in democracies, aristocracies, or oligarchies, ancient and modern.
Sovereignty, however, is not simply a quality of a particular identification group or 'nation', it can have imperial qualities; one group or 'nation' can assume dominion over distant and quite separate peoples. The Empire of Ancient Rome, and its successor the Holy Roman Empire, were followed historically by the British, French and Soviet Empires, they are all examples of a particular group exercising sovereignty over many other distant and quite different lands and peoples. The Classical concept that sovereignty has a legitimacy rooted in the collective has become popular again only recently, beginning in Europe in the 16c.
In the modern world, the entire structure of the present global system of international relations Centres on a principle concept, that of 'state' sovereignty. State sovereignty is today considered an essential quality of nationhood. For many political leaders in new independent states the very legitimacy of domestic power depends upon on a recognition of their 'sovereignty' by other states in "the international system of states". But it must be remembered that this particular situation is unique; the modern international system gives great prominence to the 'internal' legitimacy of sovereignty, this is what distinguishes the modern international system; it depends for its stability upon various norms which have evolved with Western civilization which favour the 'nation state' as the principle unit, and the capacity of the dominate Western powers to enforce those norms globally.
This vital concept of sovereignty, which is the key to so many national and international problems, has in many ways become a modern day 'Maginot line' of the intellect. Our understandings of sovereignty today are in many ways contradictory, and old fashioned; tragically these very concepts stand as the first and only line of defence against the rigours of change. All of the major domestic and international issues today, whether its the question of Scottish devolution, constitutional reform or indeed European union, demand a command of this essential concept. To comprehend these major political forces, to understand the complex nature of change we need to unravel the mystery surrounding sovereignty. Sovereignty is the key to understanding the process of change and the course of history; for in its essential character are the intellectual tools necessary to appreciate more clearly the nature of human progress and complex inter-relationship between liberty and freedom.
The Nature of Sovereignty
The compelling desire for both individual and collective self-realization creates a derivative function in sovereignty. The existence of 'sovereignty' is, in the first instance, a consequence of the realization of Common will. The complexity of sovereignty, in turn, is a reflection of the complexity of Will. Like Will, sovereignty has several distinct but related aspects. The first aspect of sovereignty, the essential source of sovereign power is the 'collective being' itself, the harmonizing of individual Wills with its raw 'energy of association'. However, unlike the individual, where there is a unity between the 'essential being' and means of realizing Will, in the human collective there is a 'critical separation' between the collective being, or sovereign body itself, and the functional hub which actually provides for the realization of the Common Will.
The 'Artificial Man' created through human association needs to be actively and consciously preserved, to have its interests advanced on a continuous basis; a process which involves mobilizing the powers and resources of the group to particular ends. It is in consequence of this 'critical separation' that human association establishes additional or "system" responsibilities. These system responsibilities must be met, in some fashion, by the individuals who constitute the group or nation. The energy and resources of the group, its properties and ambitions will have to be mobilized, or directed toward the attainment of its basic goals, including, foremost, its survival, through the preservation of its internal peace, and external security. The 'Exercise of Sovereignty' pertains to this conscious mobilization of the group.
The exercise of sovereignty involves the mobilization of the collective being with its energy of association, to ends which are a function of its goals and ambitions. The 'Sovereign Body' itself and the 'Exercise of Sovereignty' are linked, but separate aspects of sovereignty, which are rooted within the Common Will. The linkages between these two principle aspects of sovereignty, the crucible within which goals of society are determined, and the legitimacy of power is established, lies within the central collective philosophical core. The exercise of sovereignty, involves mobilizing the resources of the collective to determined ends. The particular ends to which the individual and collective actions will be directed are determined in the philosophical core and manifest in a social vision or 'collective future'.
The essence of sovereignty is, in this respect, absolute, for it embodies the whole. The very nature of sovereignty therefore implies a consideration of and for the whole of society. The exercise of sovereignty accordingly implies purposeful action directed toward the health, vitality and security of the body politic. The power and privileges accorded by the group to those who exercise this essential duty of sovereignty are great, they reflect the importance which the group places in its survival and advancement. Sovereignty is simply the natural consequence in humanity of the survival instinct and the unrelenting human desire for greater self-realization, operating at the system level.
Sovereignty is, however, more than simply the sum of its internally derived components, by virtue of the 'territorial necessity' sovereignty demands a command over arable lands and resources, therefore state sovereignty is given external elements which greatly increase its already complex nature, and give the exercise of sovereignty much wider 'external' implications. These are often huge, and compelling forces and while not underestimating their importance to the issue of sovereignty, it is important at this stage to recognize that sovereignty itself, is in the first instance, a product of human association; its exercise is necessary to mobilize the collective; to give life to the artificial man.
Exercising Sovereignty: A TRINITY.
The 'exercise' of sovereignty is an active, conscious quality of action, relating to the 'whole'; to society. The exercise of sovereignty involves three interdependent attributes; power, responsibility and privilege. Most obviously, the exercise of sovereignty involves power, for French philosopher and political theorist Jean Bodin this power is
"supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by law"1.
However sovereign power is not unrestrained. Sovereign power is a function of association, of the group. Therefore, however absolute sovereignty may be its essence, it is limited in its employment in that it must serve a greater purpose. For Thomas Hobbes, the exercise of sovereignty involved marshalling
"the strength and means of them all, as he (the sovereign) shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence'.2
So even for an advocate of absolute monarchy such as Hobbes there was a recognition of 'duty' which modified sovereign power. Originating from the group, the exercise of sovereign power must be directed toward ensuring the survival of the association and the preservation of its internal order and legitimacy. Inherent in this, is the fundamental interdependency between responsibility and the exercise of sovereign power. In other words, for sovereign power to be exercised with legitimacy, there must be a degree of responsibility assumed, to the whole, proportionate to that power.
The privileges of the exercise of sovereignty are born in the assumption of power and responsibility. What Hobbes called the 'rights of the sovereign', are essentially the freedom of patterning or orientating the Common Will in accordance with personal Will. The individuals in the collective seek the means of securing their survival and advancement, those who exercise sovereignty for the group provide this vital life giving opportunity. The privileges, which are an interdependent quality of the exercise of sovereignty are manifest in the freedom to employ the resources of the group, both human and material. They embody the qualities of what we commonly refer to in modern democracies as our rights and freedoms. These rights and freedoms are simply the degree's of freedom which are defined by the group for those who carry its burdens in the exercise of sovereignty
Collectively, this trinity of power, responsibility and privilege which embodies the exercise of sovereignty is what we now-a-day's call liberty. A society will create a 'liberty' of sorts when and if, it can establish and sustain its sovereignty. Having established a sovereignty, 'liberty' will reside with those who mobilize the collective and sustain it. This will be true whether they who exercise sovereignty are many or few. Throughout most of history liberty, in this sense has been reserved for the few, whether Kings or Dictators, it is only more rarely it has become something generalized throughout society, as in democracies.
In Western civilization, in the not to distant past, the majority were passive, the exercise of sovereignty was reserved for the few, it effectively resided in the Monarch, or a combination of monarchical, aristocratic and/or commercial/industrial interests. In the present day the exercise of sovereignty now resides with the majority, it is the majority who are now expected to participate actively in the exercise of sovereignty. The vehicle through which a society activates this exercise of sovereignty is through its ultimate control or ownership of property. Property, as such, emerges, that is it obtain its value, through the act of association. The various forms of property, whether they be tangible and relatively easy to define such as land, labour, capital, etc. or other more difficult to define forms of property such as intellectual property, are all a function of association and the capacity in man for joint action and human specialization. All these many and varied properties are realized through the act of association. The relationship between the exercise of sovereignty and property ownership is intimate, and complex; it is an area which we must examine more closely.
Sovereignty, Property and Ownership
In the same sense that sovereignty is a derivative of the Common Will, so the very existence of property is a derivative of, and dependent upon, the existence of sovereignty. Furthermore just as the nature of the Common Will influences and determines the complexity of sovereignty, so is it that the nature of ownership is intimately related to, and a function of, the exercise of sovereignty.
Human reinforcement, the harmonizing of human energy in the Common Will establishes a derivative function in sovereignty, it is in consequence of sovereignty that 'security' or value can be attached to various forms of property. This is the foundation upon which the Common will is brought to realization. Clearly at this point we must bring to bear sovereignty's external elements, they come to have great significance. Sovereignty is relative, to create a 'value' or a property in anything whether in land or labour etc. it is necessary for the collective to command, or possess these resources with some sense of security. Therefore the product of a functioning sovereignty is the obtainment of a balance between the desire for collective self-realization and various countervailing external forces. Within this balance sovereignty establishes a security, and therefore becomes the link between Man and his environment.
The exercise of sovereignty presupposes the control over resources, which are both a product of the very act of association and the only means by which to ensure the advancement and survival of the collective. Personal ownership involves the employment of resources or properties, whether tangible such as land or intangible as in copyright, on behalf of oneself or in relation to ones self. Therefore individual ownership involves commanding resources personally, which are intrinsically 'of' the group. Ownership in this sense is never absolute, but is always qualified through its relationship to the exercise of sovereignty. The exercise of sovereignty involves a trinity of power, responsibility and privilege, this 'trinity' applies equally to ownership. The power of personal ownership is manifest in the right to own, possess and dispose of properties in a way compatible with personal interests. The responsibilities which are an intimate and interdependent quality of the exercise of sovereignty, imply that this interest position be compatible with the greater interests of the group. The privileges of ownership are those of sovereignty, freedom of action, the right to realize an expression of self interest. These privileges include, amongst other things, participation in determining the nature and extent of this vital institution of ownership throughout society
The personal ownership of properties, which are generated through the collective and its sovereignty, carry power, privileges and duties. Throughout history, the vast majority of human societies have concentrated very tightly the exercise of sovereignty, either in Monarchs, dictatorships or aristocracies etc. This concentration in the exercise of sovereignty manifests itself in a concentration in ownership, in the command over properties and resources. The absolutist king in the early modern period commanded the exercise of sovereignty largely in His or Her person and did so virtually absolutely, naturally vast ownership concentrated in the Royal Person. Although others may actually have been in possession of various properties at any one time, they exercised these properties primarily in the Kings interests, their own interests were not ignored but were clearly secondary. In advanced societies, where there is the ethical foundation for a broad sharing of the exercise of sovereignty, there will exist that unique situation of broadly based individual property ownership. That is the personal employment of properties, which are essentially 'of' the group, to ends which are a direct reflection of the interests of owner. In all cases the system will tend to the steady state, whereby the distribution in ownership in a society reflects the distribution in the exercise of sovereignty.
In the static case it is possible to observe a simple relationship between the exercise of sovereignty and the distribution of property ownership. The situation gets very much more complicated in the dynamic condition. In this case property ownership and the exercise of sovereign power are in dynamic interaction. Liberty has advanced in Western society through expanding the estate of ownership, it is this which lays the ethical foundation for progressive change. In other words it is through broadening the estate of ownership in all the many and varied social properties that the ethical foundation for political, social and economic advance is made. This relationship, between ownership and ethics is well argued in Hayek; he suggests that the values of capitalism emerge from, indeed are a product of, the community of interests which spontaneously emerge in a society from the mutual but individual ownership of real property.
This has clear implication for economics, however the Hayekian argument can be seen to operate on a much wider basis, with more intangible forms of property. For example, the foundation of a 'civil society' is constructed upon the generalized but individual 'ownership' of the most intangible form of property; individual conscience. Now today, in the West, there is a generalized ownership this first property of Man. In the past this was not so, opinions and beliefs were considered a property of the group, not of the individual, and until very recently conformity was rigidly enforced. Over time the historical process of change has devolved the control over individual conscience, in other words the ownership of this property to determine opinions and beliefs, has passed from institutions, like the church and the institutions of the state in advanced societies, to the individual. This has created a broadly based individual ownership in conscience.
The ethical networking which supports civil society emerges as a consequence of this process. The system operates as follows: where there is an individual 'ownership' of conscience, that is where our personal opinions and beliefs are a reflection of our own consciousness, there is established a 'value' in that ownership; where this ownership is mutual there is a spontaneous value-networking between individuals generating a broadly based 'system value', which expresses this mutual interest. This generalised condition creates the human moral substructure which supports the freedom of conscience. The degree to which we have this freedom of opinion and belief today is a function of the devolution which has occurred in the exercise of that vital aspect of sovereignty.
This first freedom is founded upon ownership, in this case that of self, which is related back to the collective through the restraint and care necessary to meet the necessity of mutuality. That is our 'freedom of conscience' carries the obligation to respect others, although this, in theory, limits our absolute degrees of freedom of action, it is necessary to preserve the social value which defines our own freedom. Ownership, even of an intangible property like 'individual conscience' is a quality of sovereignty. It relates to the whole. In this fashion, a respect for the personal and individual, manifests itself in a generalized social condition which enhances the dignity of man; thereby advancing the condition of liberty.
Sovereignty and divisibility.
For most 16c political theorists such as Hobbes and Bodin the continuous vulnerability of the collective demanded that, despite the fact that the collective itself is clearly a product of the 'many', the exercise of sovereignty should necessarily be indivisible. In the Hobbesian scheme Mankind was incapable of sharing the burdens of sovereignty. It was not possible for humanity to divide the power of the sovereign and still maintain the indivisibility of its essential duty. For John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and many other liberal thinkers and politicians the possibilities in Man allowed for just such a division. Liberal philosophy is founded upon the belief that there resides in Man, the capacity for a sharing in the exercise of sovereignty. In other words liberal society, through expanding the estate of ownership in society alters its ethical foundation. This coupled with the naturally expansive growth in numbers of forms of property institutes a redistribution in the exercise of sovereignty. This spreads the mantle of liberty, that is it redistributes the power, responsibility and privileges of sovereignty, including its rights and freedoms, upon those who bear its burdens. Historically as the consciousness of man has risen, as the capacity to participate and assume responsibility has grown the net of liberty has widened, the institutionalized rights and freedoms has expanded. In the West this process has instituted an historical transformation of vast populations from subject to citizen.
Where does sovereignty 'reside'
The 'exercise' of sovereignty is a separate aspect of the Common Will, born in the need for a separate intelligence or consciousness to activate the collective, and give it mobility. It is this 'critical separation' which creates the initial division in the nature of sovereignty. The whole, the sovereign body itself, is only very occasionally identical with the group in society which exercise sovereignty. Sovereignty 'resides' in those who participate in the exercise of sovereignty, and is manifest through the powers, responsibilities and privileges of ownership. This will be true whether the exercise of sovereignty is concentrated in a singular individual or in a larger group which may, as in modern democracies, approach the 'whole' itself. In other words in any society, sovereignty effectively 'resides' in those who exercise ultimate control over various resources of the group generated through association. It is true whether this ownership involves simply the ultimate control over the intangible first property of Man, ownership of individual conscience, or whether it involves more tangible forms such as real property etc.
There is a critical distinction between the sovereign body itself and the group who exercise sovereignty, which is much greater than the institutional separation between parliaments and people in a democracy. The sovereign body itself is passive, only rousing itself or exhibiting its primal sovereignty in times of great distress. On the other hand the individual or the group which exercise sovereignty are, by contrast, quite active. The distinction becomes more clear if we view it in terms of interests. The group who exercise sovereignty will play an dynamic part in the political process; that is it will have its interests directly incorporated within that 'calculus of forces' which determine the 'national interest'. The interests of those who are passive, whose participation involves simply being a part of the sovereignty body are considered only in a secondarily or derivative fashion. These interests are interpreted through the interests of the group which exercise sovereignty. The substance of sovereignty then resides in the group whose interests are primary, whose interests are actively and immediately involved in determining the 'national interest'.
Throughout the long a varied history of Man the vast majority of societies have concentrated the exercise of sovereignty in a near singularity, whether in absolute monarchies, or dictatorship etc. In these cases, there is the widest possible separation between the passivity of the sovereign body and the active exercise of sovereignty. The 'people' although they are a fundamental part of the Common will, are passive; that is their interests if they are considered at all, are interpreted through the direct and immediate interests of the group or elite which is entrusted with the exercise of sovereignty.
In modern capitalist democracies the substance of sovereignty, the proportion involved in the exercise of sovereignty, is dispersed from the singular outward to a vast majority of the body politic. The sovereign body and the group which are entrusted with the exercise of sovereignty are in these rare cases very nearly one and the same. It is possible in these cases today, at least in theory, to suggest that the 'national interest' reflects or is a composite of the interests of the majority. While individually the whole body of citizens may not actually be participating in the legislative process, in drafting the laws, or in the execution of government, the interests of the majority are primary and are the determining interests of the nation. The 'many' are active in modern democracies, not perhaps in the direct and immediate sense but in the sense that it is the 'Individual within the Collective who is sovereign'.
The INSTITUTIONAL SOVEREIGNTY of GOVERNMENT
It is only in the case of the purist dictatorship, or ironically, in its polar opposite the absolute idealized democracy that we have no need for a further 'institutional' division in the exercise of sovereignty. Where the exercise of sovereignty is concentrated in a perfect singularity, where it is essentially one person, whether tyrant, dictator or the most idealized absolutist monarch, who is entrusted with the exercise of sovereignty, then there is no separation between the interests which determine the 'national interests' and the machinery necessary to put this Will into effect. In such cases - the word of the King is Law. The only other case where there is no separation between the exercise of sovereignty and the machinery of government is a small scale and completely idealized 'Greek style' democracy. In this idealized case each inhabitant is (or was to be) a fully empowered and participating citizen, government is simply a matter of gathering of the whole city or society in one place. In both of these idealized and extreme cases there is no theoretical need for an institution such as parliament to perform the legislative/ executive role; a separate institution of government is unnecessary.
In every other case their will be. Parliaments and Congresses, etc. exist to exercise sovereignty. However the sovereignty which these institutions are empowered to exercise actually 'resides' elsewhere. While it is quite true to say that in Britain, the sovereign power rests with Parliament, what is equally true that this power is procured through delegation. In the UK today each constituency elects a Member of Parliament. MP's are elected with the explicit understanding that they will represent their constituency's best interests in the legislative body. The UK Parliament exercises sovereignty for the whole nation, however it does so, (and has always done so) through the interests and political sensibilities of that portion of society who are entrusted with the substance of sovereignty.
When Monarchical power was at its peak in Britain, the parliament of the day made laws and acted largely through deference to the Monarchical interest. Although parliament was the sovereign body, the substance of sovereignty actually 'resided' elsewhere, essentially in the Crown. The Monarch played by far the largest role in determining the 'national interest', while the public at large was largely passive. Parliament through out the period of monarchical power reflected this political reality. Later, in the 18 & 19c, this exclusive and limited exercise of sovereignty changed with the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie, the commercial and industrial middle classes. In generating new properties in commerce and industry the middle classes changed the balance of power in British life, and slowly through their property ownership they became the dominate force in the nation. The exercise of sovereignty passed from the limited Monarchical and aristocratic interests outwards to this much larger portion of the nation. With the substance of sovereignty shifting, coming to reside more wholly in the middle classes Parliamentary structure soon reformed to accommodate this new reality. From Peel onwards, after the 1832 Reform Acts, there began the transfer of effective power from the Lords to the Commons. Today we have a the widest enfranchisement and distribution in ownership of the body politic in history, therefore the British Parliament has a duty to represent 'directly' the interests of the whole nation. Conversely the whole nation has a responsibility to participate actively, to make their interest known in the political process.
In Britain there has only very seldom been a situation where the exercise of sovereignty has approached the singularity, in consequence there has always been a clear need for a distinction between the group in whom the exercise of sovereign 'resides', and those who are actually involved in the legislative and executive process. The substance of sovereignty, the group who are entrusted with the exercise of sovereignty in a modern advanced society do not actually personally participate in the legislative process, nor do they actually and immediately appoint judges or magistrates etc. They do not personally rally together and declare war, but the substance of sovereignty still lies with them. Their activity in this relationship is one of having their interests as the essential interests, their sensibilities are the national sensibilities, their priorities become the national priorities. Their representatives, the Members of Parliament, will be exercising sovereignty, but the interests they represent will always be in relation to the interests of those who hold the substance of sovereignty.
This further institutional division of sovereignty, which we find in modern complex democracies, further complicates an already perplexing assemblage of subtle distinctions surrounding this important subject. It would not be important to draw these distinctions if they were not so critical. Participation in the exercise of sovereignty is what distinguishes a citizen from a subject. To expand the condition of liberty in a society depends upon expanding the substance of sovereignty; incorporating greater and greater numbers of people into the net of citizenship. This expansion in the number assuming the burdens, powers and privileges of sovereignty is what supports liberal, capitalist society. The scale and extent to which the advanced democracies of the West have advanced civil society is unprecedented in history. It is supported from below, through the active participation of citizens, largely in the mundane day to day activities of life. The lessons to be drawn from this are important, liberal institutions, in themselves, do not constitute a democracy; similarly it is not constitutions which guarantee our liberty. There are examples, without number, of lofty ideals, and institutions with sitting members, who are simply prisoners of totalitarianism, where the liberty which is championed is reserved for the few. Liberty is related to the exercise of sovereignty, it demands active participation, it requires the conscious efforts and participation of citizens. The distinctions between the form and the substance of sovereignty, between the collective and individual Will provide the uniqueness of sovereignty. It is necessary that we command these subtle distinction in order to appreciate the nature of change and more clearly illuminate the road of human progress.
The process of change has over many centuries redistributed the exercise of sovereignty in many Western societies. The source of change is deeply seated in the philosophical core. Change at this level has effected a re-distribution in ownership of various tangible and intangible properties; this has had a wholesale effect on the proportion of the whole who actively participate in the exercise of sovereignty. To understand the process of change we need both to understand the nature of sovereignty and the deep and historical reordering which has occurred in the philosophical core of the various societies in Western Civilization. The source of change is driven, not in a continuous and even process but by a powerful dialectical engine, which encompasses a battle ground of continuously opposing forces which, as often not, results in periods of retrenchment and retreat as in progress and advance. It is this philosophical dialectic which we must now turn our attention to.
Chapter 5: THE RISE OF THE WEST
The movement of Western political culture from embattled feudal despotism, with its low system energy3, to the remarkably vital circumstances of today is a transformation unparalleled in history. Western civilization has occasioned this massive increase in its system energy through a broad liberation in the human condition. The slow and torturous accent of Western society began shortly after the first millennium, after it had reached its nadir in the Dark Ages. This early medieval period of Western history was characterized by the ascendancy of medieval Christianity, and the consolidation of feudalism. The consequences for the vast majority was a general diminishment in the levels of individual empowerment and participation in society. Economic activity and cultural vitality declined with the ancient notions of classical liberty. There followed the obvious consequences in power. It was during this period of Western decline that a rising Islam captured much of the Byzantine East, the whole of Northern Africa, and eventually made serious inroads into Southern Europe itself.
Throughout the intervening centuries, the West has been slowly transforming its character, progressively altering its internal political, economic, social and religious organization. Massive changes have occurred in the general movement away from the restriction and particularism of medieval life, dominated by feudalism with its rigid social divisions, to more open and impartial institutions and structures. These changes, which have raised the condition of Western Man4, have unleashed vast quantities of human potential, stimulating innovation and creativity and consequently greatly expanding the total energy in Western societies. Change has been accommodated through an uneven, and at times painstaking, process of building ever higher orders of cooperation, on a rising tide of human consciousness5, capability and participation.
The natural expansion in ownership and the increasing role and penetration of market forces have unleashed great quantities of commercial innovation and enterprise; this underlies the massive increases in the total wealth, and cultural vigour of Western civilization. Enormous forces have been generated as a product of this process, they express themselves today in the form of Western political and military power, economic dynamism, and what can be described as cultural vitality. The consequences have been dramatic, the West has radically transformed its relative positioning in the World.
What accounts for this astonishing transformation? What is the mechanism for this massive process of change? Although this enormous system change has completely altered the institutional framework of society, changing the structure of political organization, the economy (including the mode of production) and radically altering the social order, these changes are consequential; change itself is driven from a deeper human source. The source of the change lies within the philosophical centre of Western society.
THE ENGINE OF CHANGE: The Dialectic.
It is a natural consequence of human association that in each nation or identification 'group' there comes into existence a Common Will. This Common Will furnishes the central organizing principles for the group6. These principles play a pivotal role in establishing and maintaining the legitimacy of all subsequent power relationships in society. In addition both the collective and individual self are future orientated; that is there is a need to rationalize action around a possible or potential 'future'. It is in the philosophical core that a 'social vision' or the rudiments of a collective future are given birth to. The social vision is the 'idealization' of society, which depicts the ultimate destination toward which society will apply its energies and define its political and social progress. The sense of social justice is a related phenomenon, it is motivated by the social vision but must be altogether more pragmatic, relating the present to the past, and to a hypothetical future defined by the social vision. The philosophical principles of the group play a pivotal role in establishing the ethical infrastructure of society, from which the authority and deference to law is established. It is from this ethical base that the legitimacy of all power relationships in society are established and maintained.
The uniqueness of Western societies, (indeed all societies within the larger Pan-European World7), lies in their dynamism. The source of change lies in a central dialectic. This is not a dialectic centred upon the 'mode of production' as Marx suggested, but a deep 'philosophical' dialectic. The philosophical core of the nations and peoples of this political world are subject to the influence of TWO opposing bodies of philosophical principle, which are in constant, often violent, interaction. While the presence of countervailing forces is not, in itself unique, what is unique about the Western dialectic is its instability. The deep core of Western society, unlike certain other civilizations, is unable to resolve itself, for any length of time, into a stable and lasting philosophical unity. The result is a continual reorientation of the philosophical principles of the group, which manifest itself in change, in a constant social dynamism.
The philosophical elements which are most important in defining the character of a society and of driving change are epistemic, that is they relate to knowledge8. Knowledge is fundamental to humanity, all societies must establish a means of dealing with the fact that human existence involves participation in a universe with forces which are vastly greater and more profound than man. The human mind is capable of understanding many of the elements and forces, however in order for man to explain the totality of forces which impact upon human existence requires systems which can accommodate these greater powers and forces. This is commonly understood to be the domain of religions. However organized all societies must establish a system to incorporate this greater knowledge, the manner in which they do so has enormous power implications. The most important philosophical element which a society establishes is the 'source' of knowledge, for it is this which determines how knowledge is subsequently defined and what limits (if any) are placed upon it. The two competing philosophical cores within the Western dialectic are characterized by their opposing conceptions of knowledge. These essential concepts are related to political organization and power through the linkage between knowledge and virtue9. How knowledge is conceived has important implications for determining who in society has 'access' to knowledge, to this greater understanding. This will in turn determine the nature of virtue and importantly establish which groups in society which are capable of embodying virtue. The relationship between virtue and power is negative; societies exclude from power those groups or classes of individuals who are deemed incapable of accessing knowledge, or embodying virtue directly.
The dominant philosophical core in Western life is rooted in platonic 'otherworldliness'. This philosophical domain places the source of knowledge and truth outside of man and human experience. It restricts access to knowledge and therefore concentrates virtue in the 'few'. This provides the legitimacy for very concentrated, hierarchical orders of power and ownership in society. The competing core is its polar opposite. Within this 'worldly' core the source of knowledge or Truth is seen to lie within Man. This body of philosophical principle establishes a fundamentally different relationship between Man and Virtue. Where this modern core dominates the dialectic it tends to move society forward, that is toward its particularly 'democratic' vision. In the modern world we have become increasing influenced by this philosophical core, its ascendency has provided the legitimacy for the dispersal of power and ownership in Western society.
THE 'OTHERWORLDLY' CORE
This historically dominant philosophical core of Western life is rooted in 'Otherworldliness' and is characterized by very restrictive, or what might be called 'Platonic' concepts of Knowledge and Virtue. Plato, the great classical philosopher, was perhaps the most distinguished and certainly the most articulate of the many who have subscribed to this 'otherworldly' school of thought. Plato’s philosophy rested firmly upon an 'extra-worldly' source for all Truth. It was this basic understanding which provided the foundation for his most important philosophical construct; The Theory of Forms. For Plato there must, by necessity, be a great distinction between the imperfect, sensate world in which humans exist in the day to day, and the perfect world beyond. The 'Platonic duality' consists of each imperfect earthly reality having a 'perfect' Form or existence in another world. An example which Plato often used was the common bed. Plato pointed out that every bed in our practical earthly experience is less than perfect in some respect or another. However, for Plato there was a 'perfect' bed which exists in another plane; and from which all earthly beds must be measured (and found wanting). The 'otherworldly' basis of Plato's philosophy in general, and the Theory of Forms in particular, have important implications for the character of social morality and justice, in that they presuppose the existence of absolutes, of objective and universal truths.
Plato's concepts of knowledge hold (by modern standards) many unsavoury social consequences. Knowledge in this platonic 'otherworldly' philosophical domain lies beyond the grasp of mortal men, residing as they do in the imperfect sensate world. All real knowledge and truth lay beyond, in the more perfect and enduring plane, external to Man. For Plato, normal humans have only imperfect 'opinion', it is only the 'few' who were capable of acquiring true Knowledge. In Plato's mind the 'few' would be a philosophic elite, who dedicated their lives to the search for truth and were rewarded with special insight. Knowledge for Plato was doubly exclusive; as difficult as knowledge is to acquire directly it is also, ironically, unteachable. According to Plato, wise men did not have knowledge per se, what they acquired was 'right opinion'. 'Otherworldliness' establishes knowledge as an absolute and places it beyond human experience. By virtue of this exclusive and restrictive nature, Knowledge in the platonic domain becomes dogmatic and unchallengeable. There is no latitude in such circumstances for questioning or impartial and rational proof.
In defining the source of knowledge outside of Man and experience 'otherworldliness' restricts the capacity for virtue. The ordinary individual, lacking access to the 'source' is, by definition, incapable of acquiring knowledge or obtaining any kind of earthly virtue directly. The diminishment of the earthly Man reduces the importance and purpose of 'life on earth' as an end in itself. Earthly life in such a philosophical domain can only have real meaning as a staging ground, as a period of preparation in respect to the more real and eternal 'otherworld'. This has enormous impact upon the levels of earthly human consciousness, and the degree of individual participation in society.
The practical consequences for a society adopting an 'Otherworldly' philosophical orientation are a natural and legitimate concentration of power and ownership. Society excludes from social responsibility those whom it feels are incapable of virtue. Therefore the dominant core, by restricting access to knowledge and focus virtue, provides the legitimacy for concentrating social power. Where the dialectic is dominated by 'otherworldliness' this concentration will be legitimate; based upon the broad and general acceptance within the group of the inadequacy of the individual. In its purist condition there is, for the 'many', little or no personal involvement in the larger questions of life or real participation in group decision making.
Contrary to Plato the 'few' have not historically been a benevolent philosophic class, but have more commonly been a warrior, priestly, or political class. In consequence vulnerability is pervasive of this philosophical milieu, it is predicated on the massive concentration of virtue and power in society. The individual, denied ownership of even the most basic forms of property, particularly the vital property of individual conscience, is diminished greatly as an autonomous human being. In such a condition the individual will be relatively powerless in the group; subject to the arbitrary use of force in his physical life, while suffering a compelling vulnerability to religious and political coercion. The decline in system energy is rooted in the diminishment of the individual, in the suppression of the individual will. Societies energy is a product of the reinforcement of individuals' will, the dominant core places strict limits on the realization of earthly human consciousness and therefore diminishes society as a result.
Western Christendom in the Dark Ages was characterized by this Platonic otherworldly philosophical focus, which gave its character an absolute and dogmatic quality. Virtue concentrated in the Priesthood and the wide acceptance of Original Sin and Predestination demonstrated the imperfection of earthly existence and the relative powerlessness of the common man. In medieval life virtue lay in Heaven, life, as such, became a 'veil of tears' whose greater purpose lay in preparation for Last Judgement and the perfection of Eternity. The concentration of virtue was reflected in a broad concentration in power and ownership. Feudalism concentrated ownership and power in the Church and the nobility.
This philosophical domain dominated the Church and consequently Western society for many centuries, however upon reaching a zenith in the centuries immediately following the first millennium, there has, from that point onward, been a slow, but very steady erosion of the Platonic, 'Otherworldly' core. Today this core, although no longer as dominant, still has a living embodiment in the deep centre of Western life. The continuous erosion of its position has reduced it's potent force however it's tendencies are ever present.
THE WORLDLY PHILOSOPHICAL CORE
The opposing body of philosophical principle is best described as the 'worldly' or modern core. This body of philosophical matter stands in polar opposition to the Platonic, 'Otherworldly' core. Here the philosophical focus of the group is squarely centred in 'this world'. That is the actions of individuals, and the society at large, are orientated toward optimizing 'life on earth' as opposed to optimizing an eternal destiny in the Hereafter. Within this philosophical domain the nature of Knowledge and Virtue are conceived quite differently, they both become more accessible, earthly and empirical. Knowledge and Virtue become, in other words, more Aristotelian10.
Aristotle's philosophy rested upon vastly different foundations to that of his master, Plato. Aristotle, reflecting the more commonly held views of the classical Athenian, was altogether more pragmatic, in a real sense 'more down to earth'. Although Aristotle shared some of the same metaphysical conceptions as Plato, in certain important areas he varied greatly. His outright rejection of the Theory of Forms had important implications for the sources of knowledge in the Aristotelian philosophical order. For Aristotle the source of Knowledge lay in the 'essence' of matter. Aristotle sought truth in nature, he is, as such, the generally acknowledged 'father of modern science'. Empirical knowledge seeks its legitimacy within Man, verification or truth is established through the senses. Where knowledge is defined in this fashion it empowers and legitimizes human experience. The acceptance of experience as Truth reflects an appreciation by the group that Knowledge has a quality 'of' man on earth. Reason, which likewise implies judgement and particularly the qualities of deduction is dependent upon an inner human source of truth.
Science, and to some degree the whole question of rationality11, are the natural consequence of this human or 'earthly' source of knowledge. The application of reason in an empirical context, where 'experience' is given the authority of truth, means that knowledge becomes accountable to Man. Science, founded in proof and reproducibility, becomes a legitimate vehicle in which knowledge as experience can be accumulated and passed between individuals and down the generations. Technology is a product of this philosophical domain in that it is in large part dependent upon the accumulation of scientific knowledge. The consequences of reason and empiricism are to demystify knowledge. Science and reason, rooted in empiricism and proof, break the dogmatic certainty which pervades Knowledge in the platonic 'otherworldly' philosophical domain. In this philosophical domain humanity becomes a legitimate source of Knowledge, a factor which establishes a fundamentally different relationship between Man and virtue.
In the 'worldly' domain the source of knowledge is seen to lie 'within'. It implies that Man, no matter how ordinary or lowly his social standing, has access to the sources of Truth and is therefore capable of embodying virtue. This establishes a greater value to Man and earthly life. In Aristotle we see the logical expression of this philosophical orientation. Virtue, for Aristotle, is embodied in action. It is simply the exercise of "goodness of character" defined in relation to the "golden mean". For Aristotle, knowledge and virtue were not exclusive; some aspects of virtue are formed from habit while others particularly "wisdom" are acquired by teaching, which requires a certain foresight and intelligence. Virtue, being earthly, demands a concentration on life, and places real importance in the process of living. This philosophical domain establishes greater value to an individual, by suggesting a greater purpose to living than simply being a temporary period of preparation for Judgement and the Hereafter. Life 'on earth' becomes purposeful in itself as the principle means of expressing virtue. In such a philosophical domain there exists the possibility of "the many" acquiring and embodying virtue.
The implications of a 'worldly' philosophical perspective are profound, and carry enormous power consequences for society. Knowledge in this philosophical domain is not as restrictive nor as absolute as it is within the otherworldly Platonic domain. It is not the 'few' who have sole access to knowledge, indeed earthly virtue implies clearly that knowledge is (potentially) accessible by all, there is no legitimate means of excluding any from the possibility of virtue. When this situation exists, or is seen to exist, the monopolies of power which characterize the dominant core can not as readily be established and maintained, with legitimacy, over long periods of time.
In the modern world all our political idealizations or 'progressive' social visions, whether of Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, or indeed Marx, have been speculations on the nature of society organized under the dominating influence of this philosophical core. This philosophical milieu legitimizes power structures which are a polar opposite to those of the dominant 'otherworldly' core. In 'earthly virtue' there is the clear implication that access to knowledge resides potentially within each individual, thereby implying that each individual is in some part Divine. Where as 'otherworldliness' concentrated Virtue and the exercise of sovereignty, in a condition of 'earthly virtue' both are more broadly distributed, in the ideal situation, in the full realization of 'earthly virtue', power, responsibility and privilege are shared equally by all. It is at the end of this philosophical process, in the full achievement of 'earthly Virtue', that we have the highest states of earthly human consciousness and awareness, it is in the achievement of this rarefied condition that the potential exists to achieve the highest state of liberty.
This philosophical domain conditions the belief that the essential nature of Man is above or "separate" from the animal kingdom by virtue of this human personal divinity and is manifest in the ability to reason. The separation of man and nature in this instance gives rise to the possibility in Man of living by unique laws, separate and above the 'Iron' laws of Nature. Man is capable (not assured) of living by the rational laws of 'human' nature, which allow the construction of higher orders of cooperation, which can vastly multiply individual self interest through the efficiencies of the group. Herein lies the origins of Liberalism, Protestantism, populism and ironically Socialism. It champions the elimination of hierarchy in human relations to be justified on the basis of their ultimate equality in their common divinity.
THE ONGOING DIALECTIC
It is the unending struggle for predominance between the two central cores of philosophical principle which has given the continual dynamism to Western life. This unique evolving dialectic has meant that the central elements of the philosophical core, far from providing stability and long term social order, have been the source of a continuous dynamic of change. Although the modernist, 'Worldly' core is ascendant, Platonic concepts still inform positions and philosophical principles; and, of course, they still have a living presence in political and economic thought. There are massive forces at work, including those within the old guard toryism, socialism, and various radical elements of the environmentalist movement, to name a few, which seek to legitimize a more centralized concentration of power and responsibility in society. These 'centripetal forces' are rooted in a Platonic philosophical bias. The forces which seek a legitimate spreading of power and authority, in the progressive tradition are less evangelical, due in part, of course, to the ever attendant need for proof and consensus. These 'centrifugal forces' are rooted in more progressive or 'Worldly' philosophical influences.
Although it can be said that over the long term this dynamic process has clearly been responsible for much of what is positive and progressive, this philosophical dynamic has unleashed great forces which have on many occasions left a trail of violence and inhumanity in their wake. Fascism, communism are obvious examples however closer to home the irrationality of McCarthyism, and the pernicious influence of Political Correctness12 are born of this dialectical maelstrom. Despite these and many other local and violent turns to history the consequences of the general philosophical reorientation which has occurred in Western society over the past 8 or 9 centuries has been been largely positive. The dialect has resolved progressively, slowly altering the fundamental power relationships in society, redefining the relationship between the individual and the institutions of power. This historical realignment, although very uneven, has over many centuries elevated the relative importance of the individual in society.
Although Western society is composed of many different societies, or nations which are characterized by this aggressive philosophical relationship, clearly, the pace of change varies between them greatly. The circumstances, nation to nation, people to people varies considerably with geography and history13. However, what unifies these nations and peoples into a civilization, is the fact that they are all subject to the same internal historical forces; that is they are all attempting to move, albeit with differing degrees of certainty and pace, from a condition of feudal despotism to the same ultimate human destination; the condition of liberty.
There have been many false dawns in the progress of history. Many have simply felt that breaking the institutional structures of the ancient regime would be sufficient to create the condition of liberty, achieving instantly the full realization of earthly Virtue. Liberty, however, is a product of consciousness and participation: these are considerable human qualities which take time to evolve. Radical change, which implies quantum leaps in individual responsibility, often fail as a consequence. The key to understanding history lies in a fuller appreciation of this philosophical dialectic and its intimate relationship with the ethical networking in society.
THE CHANGING SOCIAL VISION
One tangible, if derivative effect of this central dialectical struggle, has been to alter the 'social vision'. When the philosophical focus is re-orientated, the social vision must then incorporate new and different 'futures'. The rise of the rationalism, humanism and empiricism, in Western society over the centuries represent the reorientation of the philosophical focus in a more 'Worldly' direction.
If we wish to examine the changes which have occurred over the centuries in the philosophical focus of Western society we need to examine the evolving social vision and the changing perceptions of the future. The collective future has changed and continues to change, the consequences of this are enormous. However, within this changing 'social vision' we will find clues which will help illuminate the changes which are occurring at the deepest levels. However, the social vision itself in quite obscure, it is not readily communicated in print; the expectations being the odd constitutional document which is essentially an historical 'snapshot' of a societies vision of the 'future' and its particular sense of the 'just'. For the most part we are left at some distance, examining a derivative body of opinion, the works of ancient political thinkers and philosophers. This, however imperfect, allows a glimpse, a second hand or derivative perspective on the society at large, which in some cases remains the only source of information on the secret principles which governed the hearts and minds of men in the past.
ST. AUGUSTINE
It is often said that St. Augustine Platonized Christianity and with it the whole of what was then the European world. Of course, many authors have pointed out that while this is generally true, Augustine certainly rejected much of the detail of Plato in order to conform to Genesis. However, the essentials of Plato were incorporated into Medieval Christianity in two important conceptual understandings: the Augustine concepts of Knowledge and the duality between Man and God, Heaven and Earth
AUGUSTINE'S DUALITY
In Augustines "The City of God" we have the fullest expression of the duality between the everlasting otherworldly perfection of Heaven and the transitory imperfect earth. At the time of the fall of Rome to the Goths, there was great resentment in some quarters which suggested that Christianity was at fault for the fall of this great Civilization. Augustine wrote "The City of God" to answer these questions. St. Augustine, assures us that the ruin of Rome and the demise of Imperial glory was not a crisis for any who knew the Truth. The sack of Rome by the Goths was only an earthly matter, transitory and unimportant. It was not an Eternal Truth, in the way Christian virtue was. God had not punished the Goths because, to God, earthly matters were not important; If every sin was punished on earth there would be no need for Last Judgement. Nothing of value was lost with Rome, because virtue only lay in Heavenly, Godly Truth. Life on Earth was merely a testing ground. If life could be realized in accordance with the Christian virtue, then the virtuous would join the "elect" in heaven; while the rest, no doubt including the Goths, would burn in eternal hell fire. It was to the "The City of God" that we must direct our attention and purpose in life rather than to Rome, the City of earthly power.
AUGUSTINE CONCEPTS OF KNOWLEDGE
Augustines "The City of God" is, furthermore, a receipt for the purest Platonic conceptions of knowledge and virtue. He agrees with Plato on the distinction between knowledge and opinion. According to Augustine, Knowledge of God, which is the only true Knowledge is only obtainable through Christ, ie the Church. He acknowledges that there is such a thing as rational knowledge, however it is only partial and imperfect. Only the "elect" have true knowledge the rest have imperfect opinion. The "elect", in Augustine, were the Priesthood with the Pope at the citadel, the voice of God on Earth.
Knowledge, in the Augustine context had become Divine; it was centralized, fixed and doctrinal. In Classical times, Plato and Aristotle could debate the issue of universals; could agree, perhaps, to disagree. By the Middle Ages this was no longer possible; reason had all but disappeared from the consciousness of Medieval Man. Knowledge had become unchallengeable doctrine; to embody Christian virtue was to admit the sinfulness of Man and follow the dictates of the Church, your reward would come in Heaven, in the 'otherworld'.
THE DARK AGES
Gradually this rigid Augustine perspective became generally accepted in the Christian world. A world first united by Rome, having fallen into violence and anarchy accepted the otherworldly perspective only too easily. It provided a heaven of sorts from the disintegration which was going on around them. For many hundreds of years the power of the Church grew and the authority of the Popes in Rome ever increased. The Priests of the Church became almost a separate caste in European life, exercising great power. What lay ahead for the Christian West was the increasing concentration of the exercise of sovereignty in the church at the expense of civil society and the individual. In time the authority of the Church was to superseded all other forms, with the possible exception of some of the most powerful of the Lay Kings.
The Dark Ages of the medieval period, were dominated by this Platonic, Augustine version of Christianity. Politically, for the majority, the loss of citizenship in the "City of Man", was soon replaced with feudal servitude, reducing the former "Citizens of the Roman Empire" to the condition of serfdom; a system which promised the true citizenship only in that higher plane, "The city of God". This highly concentrated, hierarchical structure of power existed, to some degree or another throughout the whole of the Medieval Age.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
The first cracks in this rigid system began to appear in the 12c. Scholasticism emerged at this time as a force from within the Medieval Church, marking the return to Western society of some part of rational thought. They were small steps, carefully taken with meticulous regard to the doctrinal power of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest of the Scholastic scholars was unwittingly, to institute reforms which were to lay the ground work for the return of science, stir the earthly consciousness of Man and awaken market forces from their deep slumber. These changes were to revitalize Western Civilization in the centuries to come. He accomplished this through the re-introduction of Aristotle into the body of Christian orthodoxy and "knowledge". With this act he hoped to convert the great philosophers teaching to orthodox Christianity, and in one respect he can be said to have succeeded. The writings of Aristotle were interpreted by Aquinas to prove the Medieval Christian doctrine.
The vital issue was, of course, the Aristotlean reliance on empirical method, and it's implications for the nature and sources of Knowledge; not necessarily the detail of his teaching. In elevating Aristotle into the body of Christian doctrine Aquinas did a great, albeit unconscious, service to liberty. It was over the course of many centuries, to undermine the Medieval Church's vast centralized authority, unleashing progressive forces back into European Society. After Aquinas, the source of Knowledge changed from being entirely a matter of Revelation to encompass some part, at least, of empiricism. This was the vitally important, and progressive change which St. Thomas instituted, the ultimate consequences of which, neither he nor the Church fully appreciated.
THE STATE OF NATURE DEBATE
The history of the last 8c of Western society has been characterized by a measured and persistent ascendancy of 'Worldly' philosophical influences. Beginning slowly they began their erosion of the very platonic 'otherworldlyness' of medieval Christendom. As the process evolved the nature of Western living changed slowly, but dramatically. The rise of science, capitalism, and democracy are all positive consequences of this radical philosophical re-orientation.
From the Renaissance onward philosophers in Western Civilization were concerned with resolving a critical dilemma imposed upon them by the working of this central dialectic. From this point onward there would be a critical divergence between the 'social vision' with its utopian conception of a 'democratic' future with the economic and political reality which was almost universally despotic. Amongst most philosophers and political thinkers of the day, there was a growing acceptance of the implications of this fundamental shift, from heavenly to more earthly sources of Knowledge, from restrictive to more universal Virtue. Unravelling the political and economic implications of these deep changes, however, caused considerable distress. The question which dominated political discourse of the day was: How is it possible to reconcile the reality of very hierarchical societies, with their low orders of individual involvement in governance, with the philosophical implications of earthly virtue. The social vision had changed however what could not be accounted for was the great inertia of the system. The "State of Nature" debate, which was prominent in political and philosophical discourse in the 17 to 19 centuries, was an attempt to reconcile the implications of this contradiction, to find a means of reconciling the utopian social vision with the all to pragmatic reality.
Great efforts were exhausted in attempting to bridge theory and practice, with little success. The inability to resolve this dilemma has contributed to the fracturing of the coherent social vision which had been so solid in the period of Medieval Christianity. The philosophy of several different thinkers, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and J.J. Rousseau reflects the three quite different attempts to deal with this inconsistency.
HOBBES AND THE REACTIONARY TRADITION
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) lived his life in the shadow of the first great European revolution, the English Civil War. His Leviathan was an attempt to resolve this critical contradiction with a bias toward preserving order. Hobbes deliberately attempted to gain a rational, earthly, legitimacy for absolute Monarchy. Hobbes was clever enough to see the implications of 'earthly virtue', they implied a 'state of nature' which was altogether more democratic than the orderly Monarchial society which he felt was essential to preserve order. For Hobbes the only solution to this problem lay in defining the 'state of nature' so violent and disturbing that rational Man would willing concede his perilous liberty in nature, for the security of the despotic Leviathan. The "state of nature" in Hobbes is a condition of war, a war of all against all, within which life is nasty, brutish and short. In Hobbes, our central philosophical dilemma is resolved through denying the unique, human, elements in Man. In Hobbes, Man in nature is incapable of rational cooperation, Man is reduced to his animalistic self, and like the animals, condemned to suffer the "iron laws" of nature. Society, although necessarily despotic, is the only means of providing order and protecting vulnerable Man from nature.
ROUSSEAU AND THE ROMANTICS
In Jean Jacque Rousseau (1712 - 1778) we have a more thoroughly radical intellect grappling with the horns of this central philosophical dilemma. The massive philosophical changes which were occurring demanded answers, however, in Rousseau the fundamental priorities are quite different from Hobbes. The realities of hierarchy and despotism weighted heavily on Rousseau and it led him in the opposite direction. Far from wishing to preserve order, in Rousseau we have a compromise which is perhaps even more dangerous to the course of human progress: "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains"
Earthly virtue did not lead to the emancipation of the whole of Mankind, on the contrary, it proved only the "Nobility of the Savage". In Rousseau the "state of nature" was all perfection. In idealizing the state of nature Rousseau implies another a more sinister 'truth'; society is evil, indeed it is the destroyer of liberty. Rousseau initiated the Romantic movement, his philosophy and political theory attempt to resolve the critical dilemma, but the result was anti-culture and violence. He provided the philosophical legitimacy for revolution and by implication the tyranny of the "Vanguard".
LOCKE AND THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS
For John Locke (1632 - 1704) the state of nature was not, as in Hobbes, a state of war, nor as it would become for Rousseau, an idealized state of nobility. It was simply the state of Man, freed from Medieval restraint, under which the condition of liberty could emerge if Man lived by his reason. Unlike Rousseau and the Romantics who believe that the condition of liberty is the natural condition of man, in the absence of restraint, Locke believed that Liberty required a deliberate structure; including a constitutional division of powers. In Locke the 'state of nature' was a product of rational choice, uniquely human qualities. The sharing of power, private property ownership, and the supremacy of civil law, were all necessary to affect this condition of liberty.
DIVERGING 'FUTURES
The varying 'social visions' which have emerged since the Reformation are all born from an inherent contradiction between the speed at which the idealization of society or the social vision changed and dogged inertia which inhibited evolution in the political and economic reality. This circumstance has contributed greatly to the fracturing of the coherence and philosophical unity which had been so solid in the period of Medieval Christianity. From the 17c onward 'futures' in the Western context were resolved into three different frames of reference. In Europe there was the development of Romanticism, particularly in Germany, which gave inspiration to Hegel, Nietzsche, and Marx. Violence was given noble purpose, the use of power to revolutionize society was a considered a virtue. The contrary development in Europe was after Hobbes. Reactionary elements emerged in the centres of power which feared any change. Change would lead to anarchy, order demanded the preservation of unified centralized authority. There was little room in this political maelstrom for reasoned, evolutionary change and as a consequence Continental change has until very recently been violent in the extreme.
In the Anglo-Saxon world the situation was quite different. In England there was no popular swing to Romanticism, until perhaps the 20c. For centuries previous there was essentially a battle between Tories who followed Hobbes and the Wig/liberal idealists who followed Locke, and Montesque et al. The history of Parliament and the desire to avoid further civil war meant that enough flexibility was built into the British Parliamentary system to insure that a balance was maintained between order and legitimacy, allowing slow, pragmatic change to occur. The United States of America, on the other hand, initially resolved the dialectic in two separate ways. The North, accepted the full implications of 'earthly virtue', and lacking a historic aristocratic culture did not suffer any critical dilemma. The South on the other hand, had extreme hierarchy, a consequence of slavery, which placed severe 'racial' limitations upon the realization of 'earthly virtue'; this divergence led the United States to civil war and a bloody philosophical unity. From that point until very recently, the US has held a central philosophical focus which is a clear and unified 'Lockean vision' founded in Constitutional law.
The dialectic is altering values, raising levels of 'earthly' consciousness and individual expectations. Philosophical re-orientation has created a growing desire for greater individual autonomy, which challenges existing institutional structures at the source. The development of feminism, and the Black Power movement are simply two modern manifestations of a longer term historical process of change. These forces are manifest in many different commonplace actions in Western life, which have profound consequences for the legitimacy of hierarchy in society; it is this which is driving the pace of change.
Chapter 6: THE PROCESS OF CHANGE
The dialectic has continuously reordered the philosophical orientation of the 'group', imbuing Western civilization with an indigenous or internally generated dynamism. The continuous reordering of the deep philosophical core has impacted directly upon perceptions of the 'just'. Therefore, over the centuries, the qualities of justice has, with many other essential qualities of this political world, been continuously and progressively transforming. Philosophical reorientation alters our positions on the sources and nature of Knowledge. These changing concepts of knowledge impact directly upon how we conceive of Virtue, in the context of the last 9 centuries of Western history the effects of change have been to broaden the focus of Virtue in society. Western society over this period has been characterized by a generalized increase in the proportions in society 'who were deemed to be capable' of embodying virtue; as the consciousness of Man has risen, in other words as Man's capacity to assume responsibility and to actively participate has materialized, society has spread the mantle of liberty outward from the very few, to the minority to the majority. That is it has increased the numbers participating in the exercise of sovereignty. Therefore the estate of ownership has expanded, the numbers and forms of property increased and society has become the recipient of vastly greater social energy; a product of the unleashing of the will.
Medieval life was dominated by very restricted, Platonic concepts of knowledge. Virtue concentrated in the priesthood. It was once 'just' and legitimate for the Church to be the embodiment of Virtue, which legitimized its dominion over the whole of medieval society. Later in Western history this sense of the 'just' changed, Virtue became something more broadly held, becoming a product of internal forces or in effect 'national'. By the 16c society was assigning Virtue, now a product of the nation, was still very concentrated in the high office of absolute monarchy. Today the character of justice has changed further; of our modern sense of the 'just' is dominated by concepts of equality. The focus of Virtue is very much greater than it ever has been. This rare condition distinguishes modern concepts of justice from those held in the past. Today, although concentrations of power and authority do exist, they are less likely to enjoy broad legitimacy.
The evolving character of justice and social morality have provided the legitimacy for societies in Western civilization to reform. The mechanism through which reform takes place through participation in the 'exercise' of sovereignty. The 'exercise' of sovereignty, obviously in this case is used in its broadest sense, it involves a much greater concept than participation in choosing a government or influencing policy. The 'exercise' of sovereignty, as we have discuss it involves ownership of resources and properties, created through the human association, in the conscious reinforcement of society. Ownership of these properties provides the means by which the individuals in a society insure the mobility, health and vigour of the 'artificial man'.
The Powers, duties and privileges embodied in the 'Exercise' of Sovereignty
It is the natural inner logic of the human collective that produces the initial desire for a sovereignty, it is essentially the capacity for realization of collective Will. However, once established, what does sovereignty involve? In other words, how comprehensive is sovereign power? The subject has been well studied; indeed there have been many and varied efforts over the centuries to define the nature of these powers, to provide a sort of absolute truth. However, all these attempts have all been plagued by an inherent difficulty. That of attempting to describe a unremitting dynamic as if it were static and permanent. All previous attempts at describing the 'just' distribution of power in society whether of Plato in 'The Republic', or Machiavelli in 'The Discources', etc. whether in ancient or modern times have been frustrated by the passage of time, in fact they have all suffered from the same critical impediment. Western societies, dominated by this central dialectic, have been constantly altering the philosophical orientation of the group, altering the 'just' distribution of power; clearly attributing definite powers to a 'sovereign', or any other group or institution in society, must, over time, run head long into the certainty of change with its reordering of the 'just' distribution of power in society.
However, in order to more fully appreciate the nature of liberty, and citizenship, we must in, the first instance, analyze group power in its most unified and unconditional sense. The powers, and privileges which are dispersed with sovereignty are considerable, they are modified by the need for mutuality and the inherent duty implied through the linkages which exist between the 'exercise' of sovereignty and its source in the Common Will. However, these are nonetheless, fulsome powers and grave responsibilities. To understand them we need a complete description of sovereign power. So it is back to Hobbes and his mythical Leviathan, for it is here in his "Rights and Freedoms of the Sovereign" that we have one of the most comprehensive descriptions of the 'whole' or totality of sovereign power, duty and privilege.
The Hobbesian concepts of the Sovereign's Power
Thomas Hobbes in The Leviathan defined in great detail the powers which he felt embodied the entirety of sovereignty; he did so by describing the Sovereign's many rights and freedoms. Hobbes was, of course, describing something greater than simply rights and freedoms, he fully understood the trinity which embodies the whole of 'the exercise of sovereignty'. The Leviathan included not only the explicit and detailed rights and freedoms of the sovereign, but the implicit powers and responsibilities which hoped would rest in an unadulterated fashion with an absolute monarch. Fortunately Hobbes was very thorough, and in his comprehensive analysis he - more than anyone in the centuries since - ably described, in the most fulsome manner possible, the multifarious and penetrating nature of sovereign power. For Hobbes the 'exercise of sovereignty' embodied 'the whole' of power.
The Sovereign's RELIGIOUS power
For Hobbes the exercise of sovereignty included that aspect of social power which was most at issue in his own time, the power which had for many centuries been ascribed to the priesthood and the Popes in Rome. This was the power to interpret the Scriptures, of essentially determining the system of beliefs and religious practices for the whole of society. In Hobbes the 'sovereign' had the absolute right to be the judge of OPINIONS and DOCTRINES: "For the actions of men proceed from their opinions; and in the well-governing of opinions, consisteth the well-governing of men's actions, in order to their peace and concord. "
The Sovereign's POLITICAL power
The rights of the sovereign also included absolute power in the political arena. This included the right of choosing all MINISTERS, COUNSELLORS, MAGISTRATES, and offices in war and peace. Equally the power of the sovereign include broad judicial and legislative power. The 'sovereign' ideally had the right to establish the RULES of PROPERTY: These rules are the Civil Law:" The whole power of prescribing the rules whereby every man may know, what goods he may enjoy, and what actions he may do without being molested by his fellow subjects.”
The sovereign has the right of JUDICATURE; That is of HEARING and DECIDING all controversies which may arise concerning law, either civil or natural or concerning fact. Sovereign power included the sole authority and responsibility of MAKING WAR and PEACE with other nations and commonwealths: "that is to say of judging when it is for the public good, and how great forces are to be assembled, armed, and paid for that end; and to levy money upon the subjects, to defray the expenses thereof.
The Sovereign's ECONOMIC power
Economic power ultimately centred in the sovereign. In this area alone Hobbes realized some degree of limitation on the power of the sovereign, he was acutely aware that trade required ownership, and that this sense of ownership was well established as in the commercial classes and, naturally in the aristocracy. His solution was to assign the Sovereign 'ultimate' ownership through the following rights: The right of rewarding with RICHES, the rights to COIN MONEY, the rights to DISPOSE of the estate and persons of infant heirs. Ultimate ownership was however the sovereigns, with private ownership compromised in the Hobbesian system through the sovereign's absolute right of PRE-EMPTION in MARKETS.
The Sovereign's SOCIAL power
That a society should be hierarchical was axiomatic to Hobbes. The power to control that hierarchy lay in the sovereigns right to confer HONOURS and TITLES: "It is necessary that there by laws of honour, and a public rate of the worth of such men as have deserved, or are able to deserve well of the commonwealth."
In Hobbes all the lines of power focused to a singularity, in Hobbes the best administration was absolute Monarchy. Political power, economic power, religious power and social power were all a part of this holistic composite, concentrated in the High office. It was of course an idealized model, in reality Sovereigns of the age, particularly in England, were never able to exercise sovereignty in as fulsome a way as outlined in Hobbes. However, as a definition which embodies the conceptual whole, Hobbes is very close to the truth. The citizen in a democracy today is indebted to Hobbes for his or her own relative empowerment. The exercise of sovereignty whether it is concentrated in the singularity or dispersed to include the broadest spectrum of society will, in theory, involve participation in the 'whole' vast constellation of power in its broadest extent.
Centuries later, when Adam Smith penned The Wealth of Nations the world had changed a great deal, and at first glance Smith seems to be suggesting something entirely at odds to Hobbes. By the late 18c it was possible for Smith to ascribe to the 'Sovereign' only three duties: " which are necessary for him (the sovereign) to attend to, for supporting a system of NATURAL LIBERTY". There is no mention in Smith of the absolute power which Hobbes had assigned to the sovereign in religious matters, the powers over opinions and beliefs. The whole greater purpose of Smith's work was to disperse the powers of the sovereign, particularly in economic matters. In Smith there is no mention of pre-emption in markets or the absolute right of rewarding with riches. Private ownership is firmly established, there is no back door for the sovereign to preempt ownership, even in the case of grave crisis such as war, ownership should not re-concentrate back in the sovereign as this would reduce efficiency; the greatest nations would be the one with the most fully developed system of natural liberty, this was the single source of national strength and Wealth.
In 'The Wealth of Nations' the emphasis is quite different from Hobbes. Smith describes the exercise of sovereignty in terms of DUTIES, which is another perspective on the trinity of power, responsibility and privilege which embodies the exercise of sovereignty However in Smith, with one exception, the Sovereign's duties all belong to that class of power which can be described as 'political'. The first of these political duties is that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies. The second DUTY of the sovereign is that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it. The third and LAST DUTY alone encompasses the arena of economic life, it is the duty of maintaining the infrastructure:
"the third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense of any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain."
Smith does not suggest that the powers, responsibility and privileges of the sovereign which Hobbes defined are no longer of important to a society, on the contrary; Smith simply believes that a society enjoys greater liberty and would generate greater wealth and power if these duties are removed from the sovereign and dispersed, or placed in the hands of the citizen. This is important, for the powers and duties which Hobbes concentrated in the hands of the sovereign have not vanished in Smith, they have simply been relocated, the exercise of sovereignty in Smith has been dispersed from the singular to the many, essentially from the Monarch to the citizen. For Smith the common good is then maintained through impartial self-regulating forces. Essentially Smith believed that this could be accomplished through a spontaneous process where by in free and open competition, self-interest is commuted to collective interest via the magic of the market place and the hidden hand.
The powers and associated duties embodied within the exercise of sovereignty are great and all embarrassing. It was the prospect of this great power of the majority in a democracy which J.S.Mill foretold of and greatly feared in his famous essay "On Liberty". In its purist idealized conception the 'exercise' of sovereignty is absolute: it embodies jurisdiction over conscience, over the human capacity for opinions and doctrines. That is it involves ownership over properties of man which centre in the mind and spirit; it embodies jurisdiction in the political arena, authority over the legislative, the judicial, the appointment of magistrates, ministers and administrators etc. This involves ownership of vital social property, political enfranchisement; it involves jurisdiction over the material qualities of the collective man, ie economic matters; this involves authority over the distribution of resources, the division of labour etc. The 'economic' aspects of sovereignty involve ownership of material, that is exchangeable properties such as labour, capital, land etc. The exercise of sovereignty, whether it's concentrated in the singularity, or more widely dispersed, embodies all the powers which Hobbes would have ideally reserved for his 'absolute Sovereign'.
liberty is a quality of the group and centres upon participation in the 'exercise of sovereignty'. In the idealized Hobbesian Levanthan the exercise of sovereignty is concentrated in the absolute Sovereign - there is a liberty even in this case, it however, the liberty of Kings. It is in the higher orders of cooperation that the exercise of sovereignty is shared, that the value harmonization is such that is becomes possible to disperse the vast powers of the sovereign whilst maintaining its essential duty. In these situations liberty will become more generalized. Where this is so the it is important to recognize the essential and conscious moderations which moderate the exercise of sovereignty. The exercise of sovereignty is moderated through its essential duty, a duty implied through its source within the collective itself. Equally important, particularly in the modern world, to recognize the limitations imposed upon the exercise of sovereignty by the very fact of international society, by the existence of forces external to the group. However by far the most important limiting factor in a capitalist democracy is the need for 'mutuality'. Those who participate in the exercise of sovereignty are entitled to reciprocal privileges, this is the source of generalized rights and freedoms. As the power of the individual is enhanced, as the individual assumes greater and greater orders of responsibility and power, the rights and freedoms of sovereignty accrue to the individual. It is this 'mutuality', now-a-days often institutionalized in constitutions which provides the irreducible autonomy necessary to protect the minorities and the individual against this fulsome power of the majority in a democracy.
Change in the structure of RELIGIOUS POWER
This history of religious change has had enormous impact upon the organization of Western civilization. The dialectic operates through altering the legitimacy of institutional power, in the first instance it impacts upon the structure of Religious power. The Reformation was a water shed in the history of the West, it devolved the institutional power of the Roman Church, broke its monopoly on the interpretation of Scripture and subsequently changed the whole nature of Western living.
The extent to which religious change was directly responsible for other social and economic changes has been debated at great length. Max Weber in his "The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism" attempted such a link between the rise of capitalism with the development of Protestantism. It would have been a simple matter for anyone in the 19c to observe the relationship between capitalism, that is private ownership of capital and labour, and Protestantism. The most highly economies were in the Protestant societies, particularly those of Britain, northern Germany and the United States. To explain this phenomenon, and to counter the arguments being put forward by Karl Marx, Max Weber looked for a direct link between the Protestant religion and the 'spirit' of capitalism. For Weber the essential quality which distinguished capitalism was a spiritual one, which he was certain was rooted in the particular doctrines and practices of Calvinism and other protestant sects. For Weber "Man (Protestant Man) is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose in life." This new Protestant Man is conditioned by a greater sense of personal autonomy, which is why he will pursue acquisition beyond the point of subsistence and accumulate excess ie. capital. The implication is that the Roman Church supported a social morality that reinforced a low earthly regard for Man, this low expectations is founded in a lack of interest in the place of Man in 'this world'. Weber's ultimate purpose was to link the rise of capitalism with a liberation of the spirit occasioned by the breaking of the spiritual monopoly by the Roman Church.
However the process had begun long before the Reformation, The rise of Commercial capitalism had been occurring slowly but surely for several centuries previous. The development of Western cities (which were basically market places) was well underway by the time of the Reformation, as was free labour, at least in some parts of medieval Christendom. Both of these were evidence that capitalism had begun its accent long before the actual formation of Protestantism in the Reformation. the Reformation fractured the institutional structure of medieval Christendom; the legitimacy for this change had been progressively building for centuries. The development of Protestantism and capitalism are both consequences of the operation of the dialectic. Protestantism is linked to the development of capitalism but not directly, they are both separate but linked institutional consequences of philosophical reorientation operating through their respective vectors of power. Capitalism and market forces advance with a widening estate of ownership in exchangeable properties. What is widely owned then can of course be widely traded, therefore with the re-emergence of private ownership in the West during the later medieval period market cities began to become more important. Protestantism, however, is the first link in the process of devolving ownership of an intangible form of property, that of individual conscience.
Spiritual matters are both a individual concern and a concern for the group. The spiritual hegemony of the Roman Church rested with its medieval monopoly on the interpretation of Scripture. This gave the Church great powers of ownership over the beliefs and opinions of Western Man. However every ownership involves a trinity of power, responsibility and privilege which links individual to the whole of society. The ownership of conscience, or belief and opinions, brings with it a social responsibility. The Church legitimized its spiritual power through its guardianship of the welfare of the 'whole'; it fuelled its obligation through its wholehearted exercise of Spiritual sovereignty.
The Nature of Spiritual Sovereignty
Man has always wondered at the the vast complexity of the universe and in the process been intimidated by the forces which are so much greater than himself. There are clearly orders of complexity in Man world which in his rational understanding finds Man finds difficult to explain. What for instance explains the very fact of life itself, what, if anything, controls or explains the vast forces of nature. In all this vast complexity, What exactly is Mans place in the cosmos? Through history Man, in his attempt to understand and intrepreting the forces of the universe, has traditionally assigned religions to manage these areas of unknown. Man through his empirical experience becomes master over various levels of forces and life forms on earth these areas are governed by reason, however in an attempt to understand the forces beyond experience, Man has assigned faith, thereby by removing these areas of unknown from the need for rational understanding.
It is in the collective, in the formation of a Common Will, that the spiritual dimension of the individual becomes a group concern. It is at this stage that the collective demonstrates in capacity to give a relative objectivity to subjective truth. Our knowledge about the infinite and Man role in the cosmo's is undoubtedly subjective, which the many and multifarious religions of the world attest. In the formation of a Common Will the process of objectification occurs; the religious beliefs of a society are given a localized truth, are given a semblance of objectivity. There is a need to maintain the harmonization of individual wills in support of the 'artificial man' which requires the common understanding. Religion then become a vital aspect in the maintenance of the group unity. The mysterious working of spiritual forces need to be understood or commonly interpreted by society. Providing this harmonization becomes a vital aspect of the overall 'exercise' of sovereignty for the group. This then becomes a vital source of social power and responsibility; indeed religious power often is the most conspicuous form of social control in a society. The ability to interpret the unknown, and to be the recipient of societies "faith" gives to the religiously sovereign enormous power, privilege and responsibility over the lives of others.
The vital concepts like the "nature" of Man's relationship to God, Hell and Heaven and their relationship to the development of moral standards, were important concepts in converting this "faith" into social power. The Church controlled the gateway between Man and God, it was through the Church that Man could know God. Heaven and Hell were means by which reward and punishment could empower the religiously sovereign and increase their absolute power.
In order to understand the changing distribution of religious sovereignty in European society we must examine who or what institutions have the authority to "interpret the Scriptures". In Christian tradition the Bible is the major source of religious knowledge, the interpreters of that knowledge have varied over time and this is the key to understanding the progression from the extreme hierarchy of the medieval church to our present religious freedom.
DISPERSING RELIGIOUS SOVEREIGNTY:
STAGE 1: UNIVERSAL MEDIEVAL ROMAN CHURCH: We begin with the total concentration of religious sovereignty in the Pope at the top of a very hierarchical and universalistic Catholic church. The interpretation of religious phenomenon, or more specifically the Christian Scriptures was the preserve of the Pope, and his Bishops in Rome. On their command Kings could be excommunicated and be socially outcast. The concentration of authority was held in a small class of priests at the pinnacle of an enormous hierarchy of religious power. This was universal in that it included all the areas of Europe except that which was under its sister organization the Orthodox Church which was equally hierarchical and universalistic in its own sphere of influence.
STAGE 2: NATIONAL OR STATE RELIGIONS: With the demise of the Universal Church there emerged in Europe the National Church. Religious sovereignty was dispersed down from its pinnacles at Rome to the level of the head of the National Church, who in most cases was the King. It was in this office that devine power rests: the responsibility to interpret the unknown in a way that was understandable and which would encourage the "faith" of the people. This power was still considerably concentrated, but was devolved from the very restricted priestly class in Rome. There were now legitimate means by which differing interpretations of the scriptures could be made; this produced many battles for religious autonomy as the competing power sources were claiming each others souls as their own preserve.
STAGE 3: PrOLIFERATION OF AUTONOMOUS CHURCHES: We have had since then the fracturing of monopoly of the national churches resulting in the emergence of many different and autonomous religious bodies. In some states the number of church’s and religious sects advanced enormously, with it the power to interpret the scriptures became more and more diffuse. The number of bodies that were able to make legitimate interpretations were now very great, diluting religious power as a legitimate form of social control. The institutions of the many different church’s themselves were now the owners of religious sovereignty, it was they that were the recipient of peoples "faith" and were empowered to hold religious authority. however due to the fracturing of the monopoly of religious sovereignty it became less of a force in European life.
STAGE 4: PERSONAL RELIGIONS - We have today the further dispersion of religious sovereignty, the processes carried a stage further from the multiplicity of churches to the individual. People today can and in some cases will take full responsibility for interpreting the unknown forces which we have described as the sources of religious power. The nature of life and afterlife, the concepts of whether Hell or Heaven exists and the relevance of morality, in other words how and in what form man interfaces with the greater forces of the universe and beyond and what basic moral laws of behaviour govern man in his day to day actions. All this is now considered by some a personal responsibility and they as a result mix and match various religious and spiritual understandings into their own personalized religion. They no longer seek religious authority from the institutions of the church, this has led to a diffusion of religious or institutional sovereignty and power, paralleled by the increasing empowered individual in our society. This is a recent phenomenon which is hugely misunderstood; It is seen by some as the end of religion which it is not. However it may be the end of the institutions of the Church and organized religion in the long term.
The rise of CAPITALISM and the history of change in the structure of ECONOMIC POWER
THE NATURE OF ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY:
This is one of the most misunderstood areas in thought today. What is capitalism? Is it a progressive benevolent force or is it an oppressive antiquated one. Our theory sees capitalism not as a fixed entity the way Marx visualized it, but as a process which, driven by market forces has increased the economic sovereignty of greater and greater numbers of citizens in our society over the course of our entire Pan-European history. Economic sovereignty is again responsibility, privilege and power associated with the control of economic property; capital, labour, intellectual property, etc.
The establishment of the economic "Common Good" is a sovereign responsibility it includes the mobilization of economic resources to the maximum utility of society at large. The privileges are the ownership of capital, which means the accumulation, and manipulation of capital toward the goals defined by the economically sovereign. Labour is a form of capital, as is intellectual property; all are resources which the economically sovereign may employ.
The subtle relationship between the responsibilities and privileges of economic sovereignty are resolved into public order through the mechanism of commanding market forces; Where the number of economically sovereign is low there is less competitive market force required; as the number of economically sovereign grows the role of market forces needs to increase proportionately. It is this open competitive market system that constitutes the "hidden hand" described by Smith. It maximises interests and allows for the admittance of newly emergent economically sovereign classes into the system as transformation proceeds, increasing the total wealth in the system over time.
We begin our examination of the evolution of economic sovereignty at the end of the medieval period or about 1500 AD; before this the role of market forces was contained within a very "other worldly" Christian order effectively restricting it at all levels.
STAGE 1: THE MERCANTILIST PERIOD of Sovereign Kings was a period where the national economic sovereignty was the sole responsibility of the King. Emerging out of the restrictive feudal period Mercantilism with its all powerful kings was a means of increasing the size of the market place from the feudal manor to the national scale. All capital and economic property and decision making was centralized in the hands of the sovereign King. He established the division of labour to suit his own understanding of the "Common Good" and National interest. At this stage the emerging market forces were gaining ground but it was more an increase in the size of the market than an increase in the role of market forces which was occuring. As a consequence market forces were restricted in many ways. The monopoly of economic sovereignty discouraged competition and biased the economy in a fundamental way to enhanse the interests of the sovereign.
STAGE 2: BOURGEOISE CAPITALISM. In this case economic sovereignty has passed from the singular king to a larger class of society. This passage of sovereignty meant that the duties and privileges of sovereignty, the right to own and administer capital, to define economic priorities and the freedom to mobilize these toward their own definition of interest were now the be realized in a broad class of society rather than in a singular sovereign king. Market forces increased their scope in society as greater numbers of citizens owned and mobilized capital, the competition in the system increased in consequence of this transformation. The numbers of interests increased many fold as the system changed allowing a broader definition of the "common good" which shifted power in fundamental ways from the King to the Bourgeoisie. At this point the bulk of the proletariat in Europe was not in a position of owning economic sovereignty. Their positions of subservience was changing and to a degree the freedom of their own labour was a first stage in that process, however for a period it was legitimately held that working class interests be interpreted through the interests of the owners of sovereign economic power, the Bourgeois.
STAGE 3: POPULAR CAPITALISM or consumer capitalism is a continuation of this process of spreading economic sovereignty. The incorporation of the Masses into full economic sovereignty spread the decision making and responsibility in terms of economic "Common Good" and national economic interest to the broadest range of people ever recorded in history. The erratic role of market forces has paralleled the development of this historical phenomenon. Firstly in the early 20c, society passed political sovereignty to the working classes through the universal male suffrage. Society was quite unprepared for the fact of negative political space which existed in the working classes in Europe which conditioned their low level of social consciousness this manifest itself in an inability to assume sovereign responsibility for the complex decision making; the system spun out of control. This resulted in a decline the role of market forces and the re-concentration of economic sovereignty, in the welfare state. In the post war the rise of consciousness of the people, as a consequence of greater exposure, better education, increased access to television etc. led to the rising expectations and political consciousness which paved the way for the general desire for greater economic privilege, power and ultimately responsibility, this has led to their orderly rise to economic sovereignty, thereby increasing the role of market forces and competition in the system.
The consequences of this development has led to the massive increase in the total wealth in the system creating the general prosperity which we enjoy today. This present situation is not complete as yet, it is not yet the "Centrifugal" ideal however the progression is clear. Broader spectrum of people now own their own capital and invest it in their own definition of self interest. labour is owned freely and responsibility for the division of labour is likewise more widely defined. With this sovereignty has come the need to increase the competition and openness of the economy to accommodate the increasing number of players in the economy. This has not always been appreciated by governments today, thereby creating conflict in many advanced states and bedevilling European Unity as a consequence.
At each stage of the transformation of economic sovereignty, capital ownership, has devolved into more and more diffuse concentrations. The definition of Capitalism as we describe it is variable one. The important thing is not the fact that capital is in private ownership but the distribution of the sovereignty which defines the duty and power of that ownership. This has at every stage increased the filter of economic interests through which the "common good" has been interpreted. Market forces and the increasing competition and openness of the economy play vital roles in increasing the distribution of wealth as the consciousness of citizens increases in the transformation process. Soviet communism resembled not so much a post capitalist world as a return to Sovereign king with centralized economic sovereignty. Bourgeois Capitalism which Marx imagined as a fixed system, one which would not evolve to include the proletariat, was in fact part of a long standing evolving system; merely a stage in the progression from feudal economy toward popular or consumer capitalism. The spread of this sovereignty diffuses the decision making and vastly increases the economic responsibility, privilege and power of the participants. It is a part of a greater Transformation process which is devolving sovereignty in all its dimensions in a similar manner through out the Pan-European world.
The rise of DEMOCRACY and the history of change in the structure of POLITICAL POWER.
In order to understand the changing distribution of political sovereignty we need to examine the nature of this phenomenon in more detail. A Sovereign king in the medieval age had political power over a given population existing in a given territorial boundary. But what did this power entail. Political sovereignty means having the power to effect political ends through the mobilization of group resources. There is the duty and indeed the responsibility of establishing the best interests of the whole polity; by this we mean establishing the "Common Good". The power to effect these ends is a product of the group consensus however formed, and in whatever degree of concentration of power. There must be a legitimacy of some sort for the sovereign to exercise their political power. This will be determined by the relationship between the structure of power in the political system (superstructure) and the degree of hierarchy in the Principle Bonding Structure (base). This is true whether the consensus is established and maintained by a Hobbesian condition of fear or in a more idealised Lockean fashion of voluntary union.
The interests of the sovereign(s) will be the filter through which the group interest is calculated, this will in every case bias the definition of the common good no matter how benevolent the intentions of the sovereign(s). Whether it be a single Sovereign King or a group such as the Bourgeoisie, political responsibility enables those who are defining the common good to do so by filtering their interpretations of the group interest through their own self interest.
DISPERSING POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY:
The history of European society over the last seven hundred years has been characterized by centrifugal forces, slowly redistributing political sovereignty in society outward from concentrated centres toward the political periphery; thereby increasing over time the percentage of interests which collectively are responsible for defining the common interest. When we speak of political progress or democratic processes we are referring to the spreading sovereign responsibilities, powers and privileges to greater and greater percentages of the total population in a given society The historical record shows this change well:
STAGE 1 : THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD in this period political sovereignty was concentrated to the highest degree. The Popes and the priestly class centred in Rome presided over the whole of the Holy Roman Empire; virtually the entirety of the European world. The interests of the Bishops and Pope were the filter through which the greater interests of the European world were determined. Although in reality political power was shared between the priestly class and certain very prominent lay kings, their prominence was in large part established on grounds defined by the Church and in devotion to its larger goals.
STAGE 2: THE AGE OF SOVEREIGN KINGS - With the demise of the Universal Church and the monopoly of power of the priestly class there emerged in Europe the age of the Sovereign kings. These Kings enjoyed the fruits of the initial stage of the transformation process. Political sovereignty was devolved outward from Rome to the level of Sovereign King, who presiding over Kingdoms of varying scale enjoyed absolute political authority. They were sovereign; meaning that they exercised the responsibilities, privileges and power to define the "Common Good" and to mobilize resources within their societies.
STAGE 3: BOURGEOISE PERIOD - A stunning transformation took place with the rise of the Bourgeoisie in the 18c and 19c. The dispersion of political sovereignty spread the decisive mantle of power from the Kings and aristocratic classes outward to that class of citizens "The Bourgeoisie", created by commercial capitalism. Bourgeois democracy, institutionally legitimized the interests, privileges and power of this class through the Parliaments which operated with limited enfranchisement. This new order of power was legitimized by the broad transformation which had occurred in the Principle Bonding Structures; in modern societies of the day, notably England in the 19c there had been a significant shift in the degree of hierarchy in the bonding structure. The legitimacy was founded in the rising political consciousness of the Bourgeoisie which had seen a massive increase in the spread of responsibility, privilege and power to this group.
This great increase in the distribution of political sovereignty vastly increased the percentage of self interests through which the common interests would be determined. This led directly the creation and empowerment of democratic elected parliaments in the advanced states of Europe. In England Parliamentary Democracy with its various parties represented the interplay of interests which were now to be shared between the old aristocratic interests and the Bourgeoisie. Sovereign power, responsibility and privilege were more widely held; but not yet were the interests of the lowest orders of society directly included in the calculus of power.
STAGE 4. POPULAR DEMOCRACY - The late 19c and 20c's have seen the Transformation Process move toward completion. The dispersion of political sovereignty, its responsibilities, power and privileges to the outer reaches of the society. The rise of political consciousness in the masses of the population led to the further extension of the democratic franchise. Popular democracy advanced the working classes and slowly widened the core of sovereign power. Popular democracy in the most advanced states emerged in the wake of bourgeois democracy. The incorporation of the masses with the political franchise is the beginning of what may be the final stage of Pan-European political transformation.
The legitimacy of this process, which is in various stages of order in the Pan-European world is a product of increasing degrees of sovereign responsibility being assumed by groups in society which have historically not exercised such power. As the process goes on the newly conscious citizen demands that in more and more direct ways his interests are included in the calculus of power; not interpreted through the interests of elites or parties but in a direct and measurably way. This is a reflection of continuing transformation in the Principle Bonding Structures, which are seeing a continual reduction in the degree of hierarchy in the system. It is now, in theory at least, a requirement of citizenship in modern democracies that they in defining of the common interests, thereby massively increasing the filter through which the public interest in defined.
The enfranchisement of working class males, and women were part of a process which has been at work in European society for a long time. The changes have all seen the "quantum" of sovereignty spread over greater and greater numbers of citizens. The transfer of political sovereignty to the masses requires the assumption of social responsibility and the active political participation of all. This defines a modern democracy, Rights and Freedoms for citizens are a consequence of the process, and they are not a definition of democracy.
Chapter 7: THE ADVANCE OF LIBERTY
Human association allows the creation of a 'liberty', the extent of that liberty will vary in direct proportion to the groups capacity to disperse the exercise of sovereignty, its power and responsibility, through the vehicle of individual ownership. Dispersing the exercise of sovereignty however, can be a risky business for a nation. If both order and legitimacy are be maintained, society must advance systematically and naturally to higher orders of cooperation which advance the collective in tandem with growing individual autonomy. The condition of liberty only advances on the back of an evolving ethical foundation. Core values, those values which are transmittable into 'system' values are in great measure a product of the ownership of various forms of property. The mutuality of individual ownership of the many and varied tangible and intangible properties created through a the collective provides the ethical networking which provides the foundation for advance.
The lowest orders of cooperation are Hobbesian, they serve only on the primary social goal, that of survival. The Hobbesian association is founded in fear, and is characterized by concentrated power and authority, which manifests itself in a centralization of all ownership. This tendency to concentration in a crisis may reflect the real vulnerability of the state and as such during the period of crisis may be quite legitimate, however if such a condition exists in the absence of an external threat then it reflects the fact that there is not the degree of trust available, not the ethical networking necessary to share the burdens and powers of the group more widely.
Higher orders of cooperation serve the primary goal of survival plus many other secondary social goals and human needs through a deliberate sharing of the burdens responsibility. As societies establish ever higher orders of cooperation they increase system efficiency through progressively freeing their latent human potential. The capacity of a society to share its vital social power involves two aspects: a mutual trust between citizens built upon common values, and secondly the capacity to act. Both of these factors require, or depend upon individual ownership. In the first place you can not share what you do not own, this is of vital importance, individual ownership is 'a priori' to cooperation and social advance. Equally the commonality of values emerges from the mutual ownership of various forms of Property. With ownership of property comes personal values, ethical networking involves the establishment of 'system' values which reflect this collective individual ownership. In time this ethical change bring a re-ordering to the structures of power.
Greater orders of consciousness and individual autonomy are happening, they are emerging in all Western societies as a consequence of deep seated philosophical re-orientation. If they are not accompanied by a spreading of the estate of ownership then it is entirely possible that this greater freedom will lead to value divergence, anarchy and system breakdown. In order to be progressive, increasing orders of individual freedom must be coupled with institutional restructuring to allow the individual interests to be focused in higher cooperation. This, although it mitigates the absolute freedom of the individual, greatly increases the self interest of the individual, through the greater efficiencies and specialization of the group. Liberty is a product of the group, and although individual freedom advances hand in hanbd with increasing liberty, freedom and liberty are not necessarily synonymous. In fact, where the vital commonality of values breaks down, the desire for greater autonomy and freedom can be destructive to liberty.
Higher the orders of cooperation bring greater dependency between individuals and therefore greater internal vulnerability as time goes on. This provides the impetus, as history progresses, of establishing the solid core value systems which support these higher orders. Fortunately the system adjusts spontaneously where the estate of ownership, broadly defined, expands and re-distributes with the rise in expectations of the population. The core values which emerge from individual ownership provide the ethical foundation necessary to support higher orders of cooperation.
The first property of man is that of individual conscience, and it is with general ownership of this principle property that social advance is predicated. Where there is respect for the individual, where an individual has autonomy, that individual can be said to have 'ownership' of self. An individual who values his own autonomy of expression and conscience will value-network with others who have an equal stake in this ownership. This is the source of the ethical networks which spontaneous emerge in a society with when it advances to this stage of primary ownership. This early stage in ethical development provides the foundation of civil society and is the base upon which the advancing processes of capitalism and democracy are constructed. It is this first ownership which free's the mind and underpins the generalized notion of 'freedom of conscience'. In order for a society to advance further, through successively higher orders of cooperation, there must be a wholesale and continual broadening of the estate of ownership within the group. The higher orders of cooperation in Man provide for greater material abundance through bringing greater efficiency to the economy. However, this process is not simply a material phenomenon, but allows in Man the creation of a vast array of human institutions to meet a broad range of human needs and desires.
System energy and efficiency have historically increased as society has advanced. Growth occurs naturally with increasing innovation and creativity and greater specialization of function. The rise of Man essential involves the freeing of human consciousness. This process allows the unlocking of latent human potential. When mutual trust grows with the expanding ethical foundation, it allows the sharing which makes possible a compounding division of labor, with its specialization of function and role.
Societies historically have formed in a Hobbesian basis. Military force has been the commonly used throughout history to impose a structure upon a people, essentially creating a 'nation' by force. However the natural processes inherent in Western civilization, once the necessary human sub-structure is in place, lead naturally to broadening of the estate of ownership, a widening of the ethical foundation, and expansion in participation and system efficiency.
THE NATURE OF CHANGE
Human associations allow collective and individual interests to be realized at various levels of autonomy, which vary in direct proportion to the groups capacity to disperse power and responsibility through the vehicle of individual ownership. Dispersing power and responsibility however, can be a risky business for a nation. If both order and social legitimacy are be maintained then society must move naturally to higher orders of cooperation which advance the collective-interest in tandem with growing individual autonomy. It is the ethical foundation of a society that supports the system at its various states. As liberty advances it will depend upon an evolving ethical and moral foundation. Core values, those which are transmittable into 'system' values, creating the ethical networks are in great measure a product of the ownership of various forms of property. The mutuality of individual ownership provides the networking which converts individual values into social values.
The lowest orders of cooperation are Hobbesian, they serve only on the primary social goal, that of survival. The Hobbesian association is founded in fear, and is characterized by concentrated power and authority, which manifests itself in a centralization of all ownership. This tendency to concentration in a crisis may reflect the real vulnerability of the state and as such during the period of crisis may be quite legitimate, however if such a condition exists in the absence of an external threat then it reflects the fact that there is not the degree of trust available, not the ethical networking necessary to share the burdens and powers of the group more widely.
Higher orders of cooperation serve the primary goal of survival plus many other secondary social goals and human needs through a deliberate sharing of the burdens responsibility. As societies establish ever higher orders of cooperation they increase system efficiency through progressively freeing their latent human potential. The capacity of a society to share its vital social power involves two aspects: a mutual trust between citizens built upon common values, and secondly the capacity to act. Both of these factors require, or depend upon individual ownership. In the first place you can not share what you do not own, this is of vital importance, individual ownership is 'a priori' to cooperation and social advance. Equally the commonality of values emerges from the mutual ownership of various forms of Property. With ownership of property comes personal values, ethical networking involves the establishment of 'system' values which reflect this collective individual ownership. In time this ethical change bring a re-ordering to the structures of power.
Greater orders of consciousness and individual autonomy are happening, they are emerging in all Western societies as a consequence of deep seated philosophical re-orientation. If they are not accompanied by a spreading of the estate of ownership then it is entirely possible that this greater freedom will lead to value divergence, anarchy and system breakdown. In order to be progressive, increasing orders of individual freedom must be coupled with institutional restructuring to allow the individual interests to be focused in higher cooperation. This, although it mitigates the absolute freedom of the individual, greatly increases the self interest of the individual, through the greater efficiencies and specialization of the group. Liberty is a product of the group, and although individual freedom advances hand in hand with increasing liberty, freedom and liberty are not necessarily synonymous. In fact, where the vital commonality of values breaks down, the desire for greater autonomy and freedom can be destructive to liberty.
Higher the orders of cooperation bring greater dependency between individuals and therefore greater internal vulnerability as time goes on. This provides the impetus, as history progresses, of establishing the solid core value systems which support these higher orders. Fortunately the system adjusts spontaneously where the estate of ownership, broadly defined, expands and re-distributes with the rise in expectations of the population. The core values which emerge from individual ownership provide the ethical foundation necessary to support higher orders of cooperation.
The first property of man is that of individual conscience, and it is with general ownership of this principle property that social advance is predicated. Where there is respect for the individual, where an individual has autonomy, that individual can be said to have 'ownership' of self. An individual who values his own autonomy of expression and conscience will value-network with others who have an equal stake in this ownership. This is the source of the ethical networks which spontaneous emerge in a society with when it advances to this stage of primary ownership. This early stage in ethical development provides the foundation of civil society and is the base upon which the advancing processes of capitalism and democracy are constructed. It is this first ownership which free's the mind and underpins the generalized notion of 'freedom of conscience'. In order for a society to advance further, through successively higher orders of cooperation, there must be a wholesale and continual broadening of the estate of ownership within the group. The higher orders of cooperation in Man provide for greater material abundance through bringing greater efficiency to the economy. However, this process is not simply a material phenomenon, but allows in Man the creation of a vast array of human institutions to meet a broad range of human needs and desires.
System energy and efficiency have historically increased as society has advanced. Growth occurs naturally with increasing innovation and creativity and greater specialization of function. The rise of Man essential involves the freeing of human consciousness. This process allows the unlocking of latent human potential. When mutual trust grows with the expanding ethical foundation, it allows the sharing which makes possible a compounding division of labor, with its specialization of function and role.
Societies historically have formed in a Hobbesian basis. Military force has been the commonly used throughout history to impose a structure upon a people, essentially creating a 'nation' by force. However the natural processes inherent in Western civilization, once the necessary human sub-structure is in place, lead naturally to broadening of the estate of ownership, a widening of the ethical foundation, and expansion in participation and system efficiency.
Chapter 8 - PHASE CHANGES IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION: The institutional changes which have occurred in the West due to the devolution in the exercise of sovereignty over the centuries.
Throughout history Western Civilization has exhibited periods of major restructuring. That is, Western society has experienced thorough reorganizations which have fundamentally altered the fabric of its macro-political organization. Political change, in this sense, has been analogous to the sorts of transformations which occur regularly in nature when physical matter is placed under the stress of constant change. A useful analogy is that of ice and water; under a constant regime of change, (ie constant heating) ice demonstrates a spontaneous change of phase to its liquid form water, in response to a continuous application of heat. In this respect it behaves not unlike political change. Water in turn when heated constantly will transform from its liquid phase to its gaseous phase as steam in another quite distinct and spontaneous manner in response to a constant heating. These natural materials are constantly absorbing heat, the molecules are constantly gaining energy and moving more freely relative to one and other, the system of ice/water/steam itself only changes phase twice, at very predictable points. The transformation of Western civilization is analogous in many respects: although it has been subject to a continuous philosophical re-orientation, which has increased the degree's of freedom of individuals over the centuries the West has likewise experienced several sudden and dramatic changes in its macro-political organization. This macro-level change is in consequence to an internal restructuring which has broadened participation in the exercise of sovereignty within ever expanding 'nations' or principle identification groups.
MEDIEVAL CHRISTENDOM
Medieval Christendom reached a unequivocal culmination with the ascendency of Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216). His Most Holy revealed something of its essential character, when at his Consecration, reading from Scripture, he exalted in Papal authority: "See, I have this day set thee down over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant."14
Here we have the ultimate, if idealized, medieval notions concerning the exercise of sovereignty; it presents the perfect unity of Christian Virtue and power. God having chosen the Church to be His voice on earth, imbued it (according to Innocent III) with the most absolute and penetrating secular power. Under this view the vast body of Western Christendom was united in a universal empire, centred in the Church of Rome.
The philosophical support structure, which legitimized medieval society, was characterized by a clear domination, within the dialectic, of the 'otherworldly' philosophical core. In consequence of this dominance Medieval Christianity was founded upon a broad consensus; one which legitimized a concentrated virtue and rigidly defined Knowledge as Revelation. This concentration of virtue provided the legitimacy for the elevated authority of the priesthood in the spiritual domain and the nobility in the secular domain. It was in the denial of any access to earthly virtue that the masses of people in Europe at that time suffered their greatest loss, the consequences were grave, a diminishment of earthly consciousness, participation and empowerment. This was not however, oppression, it was perfectly legitimate; rooted deeply in the philosophical principles of the age. The spreading and consolidation of feudalism was a practical consequence of this deep philosophical condition. The very rigid social structure with its clear division of society into two widely separated classes was universally recognized and accepted without question.
The most obvious economic consequence of medieval life was the concentration in ownership of all forms of property in the feudal nobility and the Church. The role of market forces naturally diminished is such circumstances, almost to the point of extinction. Trade was discouraged and in many ways unlawful. Canon law restricted what little market forces there were through the Law of Just Price and the Condemnation of Usury. Medieval life, in this as in many other matters reflected the understand of St. Augustine; He believed that trade turned men from the search for God.
The vast scale of this Christian Empire masked a quite different political and economic reality. The scale of the essential identification unit, the political and economic habitat was, in fact, very small; medieval life centred around and through the feudatory, it represented, for the vast majority, their whole world, its community represented the collective whole. The contradiction could not have been more acute, medieval life with its vast concentration in the exercise of sovereignty, with its powerful Popes and Emperors exercising dominion over the whole of Christendom, produced as a consequence, very low orders of earthly consciousness and participation for the vast majority. The result, very localized collectives centred upon the feudal manor, all with little or no real participation in the exercise of sovereignty.
THE EARLY MODERN STATE
The most sudden and shocking reorganization in Western civilization took place at the time of the Protestant Reformation; it shook medieval Christendom to the core. In Spain beginning with Ferdinand and Isabella, in France following the Ordinances of 1439 and in England beginning with the Tudors and subsequently with the Stuarts, sovereignty, although still thoroughly Divine in its origins, became very much a quality of the nation.
The exercise of sovereignty had been dispersed from the highest centres of Christendom, the Popes and the Holy Roman Emperors, and was consolidating in the hands of national monarchs. The sovereign King or Queen, however, would attempt to be no less absolute in his or her authority than the Popes had attempted to be. They fully expected (somewhat over optimistically as it turned out) absolute power and control over their subjects in mind, body and spirit. According to James I: "Kings are breathing images of God upon the earth, The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon the earth: for Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called Gods15.
The legitimacy for this massive political revolution lay in the workings of the philosophical dialectic. Western European civilization had evolved to a philosophical contradiction, the result of an erosion of the pure elements of its 'otherworldly' philosophical domain. The public at large demonstrated this in their approval of two apparently opposing forces, early Protestantism and Science. This philosophical contradiction spelt an end to the unity of the Christian world. The early Protestant faiths were in themselves quite contradictory, on the one hand they attempted to be even more vehemently Augustinian in their Christianity than the Church in Rome, while at the same time their new doctrine opened the door to nationalism and a direct individual relationship with God. Luther had to impose rigid discipline in order to stop the rise of individual spiritualism, which was the natural consequence of his individual link with God; his ability to do so was supported by the highly concentrated sense of Virtue which existed at the time. The 16c conceptions of Virtue were less restrictive than medieval, but they had not resolved sufficiently to permit the full implications of 'earthly virtue'.
At the same the European society was advancing the new form of Knowledge as science. Copernicus had recently completed his treatise on the solar system, Kepler was at work on his laws of planetary motion, soon to come were Galileo, Newton etc. The rise of reason had begun in earnest. Although science bloomed in the 16c and 17c the legitimacy for these major advances had been in place since the 12c.
The erosion of the pure 'otherworldliness' had economic consequences. Trade and commerce began their rise in the late medieval period. The re-establishment of the social institutions of exchange became necessary as the estate of ownership expanded with the burgeoning trade. With the consolidation of the political changes of the Reformation, mercantilism emerged as the economic philosophy of the day. It represented a harmony of interests between the political ambitions of the absolutist kings and the newly emerging interests of trade which were evolving with commercial capitalism. Mercantilism was progressive in the sense that it empowered the national authority of absolute Kings, giving them the authority to breakdown the localism and particularism of the old feudal economy. Market forces re-emerged with commercial capitalism, their natural expansive nature favoured the development of a larger national market place. The harmony of interest between Kings and commercial capital was temporary, however its effects were necessary to consolidate the power of the Kings against the older feudal nobility.
The national Kings were able to effect their political and economic revolution upon feudal institutions because of the stirring consciousness of the masses. There was a growth in the scale of 'the group' which reflected this rise in consciousness and produced this fulsome identification with the nation. The absolute Kings used their power to make rapid changes and used great violence to do so, however the legitimacy for such action lay in the new philosophical order which emerged with the demise of medieval Christendom. The philosophical dialectic had resolved somewhat, it was still very 'otherworldly' in fact the source of sovereignty was still largely considered Divine, essentially a benefaction from God. The philosophical core had moved and although the exercise of sovereignty was still very highly concentrated the earthly consciousness of Man had been stirred, ownership had dispersed slightly, market forces re-emerged to some degree and Western society was well into its historical journey, on the slippery slope of change.
THE 'BOURGEOIS' NATIONAL STATE
In fact the absolute authority of Kings began to unravel almost immediately. In this, post Enlightenment, modern world there was a general recognition that ultimately sovereignty emerges from the people. Furthermore the Kings of this period needed trade and so unlike the economic arrangements of the feudal period the absolutist kings unleashed the forces of Commercial capitalism to enrich the state and to consolidate their hold over particularism and localism of the feudal Barons. This passed many important aspects of the exercise of sovereignty into the hands of commercial traders and the early industrialists. By the late 18c first in England and France this had led to major changes in the structure of sovereignty which had an expansive effect on the scale of the identification unit. The French revolution and the era of Reform in Britain heralded the dawn of the 'Bourgeois nation'. The exercise of sovereignty passed from the absolutist Kings and the aristocracy to the commercial and industrial classes. When they consolidated their position in the institutions of power the workings of the dialectic had made major advances. The 19c saw the identification unit expand in consequence of these great forces, finally producing the national but restrictive 'bourgeois state'.
The exercise of sovereignty in THE 'MODERN' NATION-STATE
By the 20c the distribution in the exercise of sovereignty had changed even further; the state has altered in consequence, in fundamental ways. The vast majority of all political leaders today seek their legitimacy and sovereign power from 'the people', which in some cases means 'the masses'. However it has not lead, as some imagined it might, to a generalized and wide spread participation in the exercise of sovereignty. It must be remembered that in their day, both Lenin16 and Hitler17 claimed to champion the common man, 'the people'. However, in consequence of these massive changes in the internal character of sovereignty the 'nation state' is in its final stages, the logic and historical forces which coalesced to create the state in the first place have been in operation through its evolution. The state, at least in the most advanced Western societies, has devolved the exercise of sovereignty outward to an extent unimagined even a few decades ago. The stage is set for supranational organization, continuing a centuries long process.
Chapter 9: CITIZENSHIP IN A DYNAMIC SYSTEM
A. The increasing demands of Citizenship in a dynamic system
B. Responsibility, Privilege and power, and the rise of human consciousness occasioned by the process of change.
C. The relationship between citizens and institutions
D. The citizens loyalty is not to institutions of the state but to the highest ethical orders of Western Civilization
1 Sabine and Thorson, A History of political theory, 4th edition. p 343. In Bodin the existence of Law depended upon the pre-existence of a society. The Sovereign being the personification of the group itself was the source of law. The Sovereign was in Bodin, however, subject to the law of God and nature which are higher laws.
2 Stephen M Cahn, Classics of Western Philosophy, Thomas Hobbes, "The Leviathan" first published 1651. Although Hobbes favoured Monarchy and very concentrated sovereignty he did recognized that if the source of sovereignty lay in rational choice then it must be constrained by duty and greater purpose.
3 'system energy' is a term used to describe the total vitality of a society, a combination of economic wealth, military efficiency and power, cultural product - in the form of literary or artistic works etc. This is a general term to describe the social consequences of individual activity.
4 Man in this case is used in its universal generic sense. Although male and female are clearly genetically inseparable it is necessary today to draw attention to the fact that unwarranted and popular connotation attending to the term 'Man' as demonstrating a bias to the male is both inaccurate and misleading.
5 Consciousness is used in the 'Worldly' sense. It implies a degree of worldly awareness and the uniquely human capacity to analyze and anticipate. In involves much more than simply perceiving in the passive sense: consciousness is made up of two parts: perception and action. Rising consciousness implies greater foresight, judgement and the capacity to act positively.
6 It is through the collective that subjective elements of human existence are given a localized 'objectivity'. These are not absolute truths, they only exist in respect to the collective. The collective creates a space of 'relative' objectivity within which humans agree to create their own objective localized truths in such matters as social justice, law, morality, etc.
7 The Pan-European World must be defined on a philosophical rather than a geographical basis. The basic criteria is that the society in question be subject to these dialectical philosophical forces which are driving social and political change. This 'Political world' includes Continental Europe east and west, and the various New World societies: the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and vast parts of Central, South America, S.Africa, Israel etc.
8 Knowledge is used in its broadest philosophic sense. It applies to all that 'Is'. Knowledge which is accruable to Man may be empirical knowledge, which can be perceived or acquired through or of the senses, or it can be knowledge which can be only be described as metaphysical or religious knowledge, which is obtained from sources other than the senses i.e. revelation, intuition etc.
9 Virtue defines moral excellence or righteousness. While it is true that virtue, like knowledge, is a relative and subjective phenomena, it is given its objective sense in the group, virtue therefore becomes locally definable through the collective.
10 Here we refer to the historical Aristotle as opposed to the teaching of Aristotle which became incorporated within medieval Christianity. The classical man was an empiricist and therefore not absolute in his judgments. His concepts of what should be, were a product of what was observable in Classical Greek life. The medieval Aristotle was Canonized and as such his teaching became unchallengeable dogma. In a sense this was the Platonizing of Aristotle.
11 Rationality has aspects which betray its rebirth, as a concept, with the rigidity of medieval christianity. Although rationality is founded upon the Truth of experience and deduction for many centuries it could not admit to a priori knowledge being a quality 'of' the individual. The Church had such a monopoly on revelation, which was the foundation of its secular power that early empiricists had to deny the very existence of revelation.
12 Political Correctness is a example of what can happen to legitimate impulses to greater liberty, in this case amongst feminists and black activists, where an understanding of the nature of liberty and the forces of change inherent in Western society are not fully appreciated. Without a concept of change there is no capacity to put these matters in perspective, absolutist positions result which are, in the end, injurious to all. Liberty only advances through forming 'higher orders' of cooperation which imply a greater sharing of power, responsibility and privilege. The desire for greater female or black autonomy within the group is historically inevitable, it will however be accompanied by proportionately greater responsibility - responsibility for the 'whole' of society .
13 A most vital consideration is the vulnerability of the state. The process of change is inhibited by fear. Nations which have a geographical isolation, like Britain and Switzerland, have historically enjoyed a measure of confidence in their survival which allows the natural processes of change to proceed evenly. The fear of invasion and destruction has inhibited progress in many vulnerable continental states.
14 B. Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, pp 434. According to Russel there was a certain amount of wishful thinking in Innocent III's position. This was an extreme position, even by medieval standards. In reality, throughout the whole of the medieval period there existed an inexact or co-sovereignty, which although hotly disputed, divided sovereignty as a matter of practical convenience. Although the Church maintained ultimate authority, (in theory at least) powers were separated between Church and Kings.
15 Sabine & Thorson, _A History of Politial Theory, 4th addition. The quotes are from 'The Political Works of James I', introduction by C.H. MeIlwain. 1918. It seems that, for an absolute Monarch, James I was a particularly well versed in the theoretical aspects of sovereignty.
16 Lenin, in theory, followed Marx in the belief that the Party was the instrument of the people. The Vanguard of the revolution required a concentration of sovereignty only in order to dismantle the old state. However, with the construction of communist order, it was imagined the state would disappear. In practice both Lenin and Stalin, had different ideas
17 In Nazi doctrine the Chancellor was the personification of the popular will. This was a Nietzscheist obsession with the power of great men, as the embodiment of the collective will. It led naturally to the re-concentration of sovereignty in that country with appalling consequences for Germany and the rest of the world.