West’s worldview prioritizes liberty, the freedom of choice, and see it as the source of authority. For West, authority is only legitimate if selected. But Liberty and Authority are not at odds. Properly understood, they both equally contribute to human flourishing. They are only at odds if one is privileged over the other. This is a reductionism and it does not match reality as we experience it. Slavery is still slavery even if it is chosen. Alcoholics choose to drink. Suicide does not legitimate death. In the same way an individual’s choice for himself or herself can work against his or her flourishing, the voice of people can be, and has been, destructive. I agree with West that imperialism is to be condemned. Imperialism is an expansion of power into an area where one has no authority. But we much recognize that even Democracy can become imperialistic. This anti-authoritarian impulse can carry any creed, even democracy, across geo-political space as well as across sectors within a society, for example the family, school or church.[1] Political scientist David Koyzis, in his book, Political Visions and Illusions, warns of the totalitarianism that occurs when political structures are uncritically applied to other areas of life. He writes:
…democracy, far from being a panacea for such ills as the abuse of power, authoritarianism and corruption, becomes itself an oppressive intrusion of an undifferentiated social mass into communities normatively established on a variety of alternative principles. In this respect, democracy attempts to subject the whole of life to its chosen divinity, which is sufficient to place it into [a] larger category of ideology. (143)
The source of imperialism is not authoritarianism, rather the failure to recognize and respect boundaries of authority. It stems from an anti-authoritarianism against the diversity of authority found in reality. Ultimately, West fails to explain why authority and liberty are incompatible. And the biblical text fails to support this view. Indeed, the scriptures affirm that the role of Prophet and King coexisted in a single person, the second king of Israel, David. In the end, West’s falls victim to the same criticism he advances of Rorty, being dogmatic in an ideology which wrongly locates the source of legitimacy. In addition, West’s selective usage of biblical literature makes him guilty of the same charge he lays against Constantine, the use of Christianity to advance the agenda of his own worldview.
———-
[1] Historian Nathan Hatch, in his book The Democratization of American Christianity, traces the growth of the democratic ideology in the Protestant church in America.
——–
Hatch, Nathan O. The Democratization of American Christianity. Yale University Press. New Haven, Ct. 1989.
Koyzis, David T. Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, IL. 2003.
Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and Social Hope. Penguin Books, London, England. 1999.
Idolizing Democracy
Citizenship Education
The philosopher Richard Rorty believes “the word ‘Postmodernism’ has been rendered virtually meaningless by being used to mean some many different things.” (262) But at a minimum, he understands it to signify “a perceived loss of unity.” Rorty’s use of the world “perception” is important. It signifies the existence of a worldview, one which is entertaining the idea of universal chaos. Rorty attributes this “loss of unity” as the to-be-expected growing pains of a truly pluralistic society, one which is coming to terms with the radical implications of Darwinism. For Pragmatists like Rorty, humanity is struggling with abandoning its ancient ideas of spirituality. Rorty would have us believe humanity is maturing but finding it difficult to put away our childish things. Rorty’s hope is that we will grow increasing comfortable with the realization that there is no source of norms other than matter and it is humanity’s role to give it voice. But what is important to recognize is that reality hasn’t suddenly begun to behave differently. In short, reality still operates the same way as it always has, since the beginning of history and before. What has changed is our understanding of a particular worldview. Richard Rorty would have us believe we are a mature species to give up a meta-narrative for reality, a unifying story. As I said earlier, while I do not think humans can live without a worldview, I do think we are capable of not recognizing the worldview we embrace. Rorty’s own writings contain an overarching theme of human progression and emancipation. It is a faith in human-directed transformative power. History is the story of humanity affecting positive change for its own good, breaking down the barriers that would hold us back. It is anti-authoritarian, and embraces self-reliance. We can have hope because we have within us the power to overcome and we will overcome. A failure to embrace this story, and return to “convictions [that are] archaic and ingenerate,” threaten human happiness. (Rorty, 276) Cornell West, a student of Richard Rorty, echoes this story. However, West rejects Rorty’s version as being too secular. He writes, “[Rorty's] secular policing of public life is too rigid and his secular faith is too pure. Ought we not be concerned with the forms dogmatism and authoritarianism in secular garb that trump dialogue and foreclose debate?”(161) West is acknowledging that Rorty’s position cuts the spiritual aspect out of our humanity. According to West, this elimination it to our detriment. Indeed, all the authors read in class embrace spirituality, acknowledging it contributes to a better understanding of humanity. But what is spirituality? How do the authors understand it?
In Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism West celebrates the black liberation theological tradition of America. West condemns Constantinian Christianity, in which persons with power exploit the the spiritual messages of the church for their own political ends, and contrasts it with Prophetic Christianity, a message of equal justice for all. West writes, Prophetic Christianity speaks out against “the sole reliance on the force of power. … Escalating authoritarianism is a species of injustice that tightens the rope around one’s own neck.” (18) The use of coercion creates slaves and, according to West, we ultimately risk enslaving ourselves. Justice is a positive transforming force, a power that liberates. For West, Prophetic Christianity is perhaps the most eloquent messages of liberation.
But from whom do we seek liberation? Who threatens to enslave us? The answer appears to be anyone other than myself. West celebrates the message of the Transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson, who “[highlighted] the need for democratic individuals to be nonconformist, courageous, and true to themselves.” (69) For West, positive transformational power is first and foremost individualistic. Individuals must give it voice. West writes, “[Emerson] believed that within the limited framework of freedom in our lives, individuals can and must create their own democratic individuality.”(69) What is “democratic individuality”? It means that each individual should have the capacity to make a choice, and that the choice is valid for that individual. What makes the choice valid is that it was chosen by the individual for the individual. In other words, individuals legitimate their own decisions. There is no legitimation, no source of authority over an individual, outside of the individual. This position grants the individual a unique kind of sovereignty. It enables me to say that justice for me is different that justice for another. Collective activity is only valid if the individuals involved are willful and comprehensive participants. Democracy is celebrated as comprehensive participation. Therefore, social standards, such as a shared understanding of justice, are only legitimate if they are arrived at by individuals in a fully democratic process.
Interestingly, West declares, “Democracy is not my faith. And American democracy is not my idol. … To be a Christian-a follower of Jesus Christ-is to love wisdom, love justice, and love freedom.”(171-172) And yet I cannot help notice that West’s conceptualization of individual sovereignty colors his Christianity. West uses scripture selectively. He appears to not give equal credence to the biblical principals of respect for proper authority, of submission. Jesus himself charged his disciples and others to submit to government officials when then executed their authority rightly, for example, the authority over taxation and legal tender (Matthew 22). That authority was not democratically derived. Biblically, injustice is always viewed in light of God’s ultimate authority over his creation, including humanity. God’s authority is manifested in diverse ways. His authority is delegated across creation; it is not concentrated in any one area of reality. Yet there is strong coherence in the diversity of creation. In other words, all creation flourishes upon proper understanding of and respect for delegated authority. There is shalom when relationships are rightly understood. Kings and Princes are only guilty of injustice when they fail in their delegated authority. That failure may be overstepping, but it can also be one of neglect. Injustice, overstepping and/or neglect, is not limited to the state. It can manifest itself in the state any social entity, in the family, in businesses and even church. This was the charge against the Catholic church during the Protestant Reformation. The church was unjust by overstepping its delegated authority. Individuals can be guilty of injustice. A central message of the scriptures is that each every individual has injustice in his or her heart. We overstep our opinion of ourself, and we neglect to give God his due. We are in need of liberation, liberation from ourself. We do have a great liberator, but it is not us, it is God. The individual is not sovereign. Rather God is sovereign. In his sovereignty, God has distributed limited authority in all aspects of his creation. This is a more accurate understanding of the witness of the prophets. Not that authority is bad. But the failure to abide by standards God has sovereignly established is bad.
Political rulers are charged to use their power to pursue justice within their defined scope of authority. The scope of the authority of the state is historically and culturally bound. Societies are dynamic, and change naturally occurs. Circumstances like technological advances and populations shifts, even war, change a society. These changes produce new legitimate questions concerning the scope of the authority of the state and its political leadership. Properly understood, democracy is a structure used to justly confirm answers provided to questions of scope, thus holding political authority in check. This confirmation is distributed throughout the members of the body politic. The greater the distribution, theoretically, the greater the confirmation and also check and balance. This is deemed necessary and appropriate because political power is very dangerous. It possess an authority over physical life and property. But again, we must make a careful distinction. The purpose of democratic structure is not to legitimate the power and authority of the state. To say that the democratic act legitimates the authority of the state is to raise the specter of the tyranny of the majority. Just because a majority group says something is legitimate does not make it so. History is full of examples of majority groups abusing the rights of minority groups. We need to recognize that democracy can become a vehicle for injustice when its relationship to authority is not properly understood. Properly understood, it can promote justice by confirming the scope of authority and being a check on the abuse of power.