Tonight we'll be discussing Chapter 1 of Moral Man and Immoral Society by Rheinhold Niebuhr. If you'd like to catch up on FrankCornish's kick-off diary for this series and discussion of the Introduction, please follow the links.
Chapter One: Man and Society: The Art of Living Together
As I read it, Niebuhr's thesis is that while as individuals we may be capable of morality, as racial, economic, and national groups, coercion and power are required to attain self-interest at a macro level. Therefore our capacity for morality as a society is compromised.
All social co-operation on a larger scale than the most intimate social group requires a measure of coercion. While no state can maintain its unity purely by coercion neither can it preserve itself without coercion. (page 3)
I'd be interested in what people's opinions are about this thesis. It seems to make sense to me. All we need to do to verify it is to look at the need for all societies to have laws and rules of conduct that, ultimately, have to be enforced to have any meaning. Both the laws and the enforcement will inevitably involve coercion.
Since the subtitle of this book is "A Study in Ethics and Politics," I think its important to note that on page 4, Niebuhr gives us what is in essence, his definition of politics.
Politics will, to the end of history, be an area where conscience and power meet, where the ethical and coercive factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises.
At this point, Niebuhr goes on a short history lesson to demonstrate his point, beginning with this statement:
Our interest at the moment is to record that any kind of significant social power develops social inequality. (page 7-8)
This is where the reality of the need for coercion begins to erode our morality...because it ultimately leads to inequality and stands in the way of achieving peace and justice.
What I find most interesting and relevant to our times is captured in what he has to say about the development of democracy.
With the increased centralisation of economic power in the period of modern industrialism, this development merely means that society as such does not control economic power as much as social well-being requires; and that the economic, rather than the political and military power has become the significant coercive force of modern society <...> Political power has been made responsible, but economic power has become irresponsible in society. (pages 14-15)
On a personal note, I'd like to say that I was reading this portion of Niebuhr's analysis when a discussion of corporatism ensued here at Daily Kos. To refresh your memories, here are just two of the diaries I remember that were a part of that discussion.
The Anti-Corporatist Movement by BooMan23
Corporatism by Jeffrey Feldman
Perhaps others will draw different conclusions from what Niebuhr said, but I found his words to be terribly prescient for those discussions. And then, or course, there's the SCOTUS ruling today that overturns the ban on corporate political expenditures, which only serves to further meld the power of the corporation with political power.
But I don't think we can count on Niebuhr for any neat and tidy answers to our current situation. Here is how he ends the first chapter.
But meanwhile collective man, operating on the historic and mundane scene, must content himself with the more modest goal. His concern for some centuries to come is not the creation of an ideal society in which there will be uncoerced and perfect peace and justice, but a society in which there will be enough justice, and in which coercion will be sufficiently non-violent to prevent his common enterprise from issuing into complete disaster. (page 22)
Next week, dirkster42 will lead the discussion on Chapter Two titled "The Rational Resources of the Individual for Social Living."