Advertisement

Subsidiarity and Social Pluralism

  • Jonathan ChaplinEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 37)

Abstract

What has come to be called the ‘principle of subsidiarity’ is widely taken to be a general norm of decentralisation. The principle is thought to mean that authority should be allocated to the ‘lowest level possible’ in society; typically, from the state to some intermediate or ‘lesser’ community. This chapter argues that this is a significant misunderstanding of the principle, resulting from lack of attention to the social ontology underlying its original formulation in Catholic social thought. Such an ontology yields a strong account of social pluralism, namely an affirmation that there is a plurality of human communities necessary for human flourishing, each legitimately claiming a sphere of independent self-governance and properly resisting incorporation by or subordination to other communities, notably the state. Subsidiarity is not a principle of decentralisation, but rather, as Russell Hittinger has put it, a principle of ‘non-absorption’. The chapter opens with a brief overview of the emergence of ‘social pluralism’ in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe, of which Catholic social thought was one distinctive strand. The main body of the chapter expounds the meaning and implications of subsidiarity in the light of the larger social ontology it presupposes. The final section tests the contemporary political relevance of subsidiarity by asking how far it is exemplified in the recent ‘Big Society’ idea propounded by the British Conservative Party.

Keywords

Subsidiarity Pluralism State Decentralisation Catholic social thought Big Society 

References

  1. Aroney, Nicholas. 2011. European lessons for Australia’s federal balance. Federal Law Review 39(2): 213–234. Available at Social Science Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1912215 Google Scholar
  2. Calvez, H., and J. Perrin. 1961. The church and social justice. Chicago: Henry Regnery.Google Scholar
  3. Carney, Frederick. 1966. Associational thought in early Calvinism. In Voluntary associations, ed. D.B. Robertson, 39–53. Richmond: John Knox.Google Scholar
  4. Centre for Economic Policy Research. 1993. Making sense of subsidiarity: How much centralization for Europe? Monitoring European integration 4. London: CEPR.Google Scholar
  5. Chaplin, Jonathan. 1993. Subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty: Catholic and reformed conceptions of the role of the state. In Things old and new: Catholic social teaching revisited, ed. F.P. McHugh and S.M. Natale, 175–202. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  6. Chaplin, Jonathan. 2005. Toward a social pluralist theory of institutional rights. Ave Maria Law Review 3(1): 147–170.Google Scholar
  7. Chaplin, Jonathan. 2010. The concept of “civil society” and Christian social pluralism. In The Kuyper Center review, vol. 1: Politics, religion and sphere sovereignty, ed. Gordon Graham, 14–33. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  8. Chaplin, Jonathan. 2011a. Herman Dooyeweerd: Christian philosopher of state and civil society. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  9. Chaplin, Jonathan. 2011b. Why a “just society” must also be a “big society”. Cardus Policy in Public, June 8. http://www.cardus.ca/policy/article/2812/
  10. Dooyeweerd, Herman. 1979. Roots of Western culture. Toronto: Wedge.Google Scholar
  11. Fogarty, Michael. 1957. Christian democracy in Western Europe 1820–1953. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  12. Grasso, Kenneth L. 2008. The subsidiary state. In Christianity and civil society: Catholic and neo-Calvinist perspectives, ed. Jeanne Heffernan Schindler, 31–65. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
  13. Hittinger, Russell. 2003. Reasons for civil society. In The first grace: Rediscovering the natural law in a post-Christian world, ed. Russell Hittinger, 270–275. Wilmington: ISI Books.Google Scholar
  14. Hittinger, Russell. 2008. Social pluralism and subsidiarity in Catholic social doctrine. In Christianity and civil society: Catholic and neo-Calvinist perspectives, ed. Jeanne Heffernan Schindler, 11–30. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
  15. John XXIII. 1984. Mater et Magister (§65). In Proclaiming justice and peace: Documents from John XXIII to John Paul II, ed. Michael Walsh and Brian Davies, 1–44. London: CAFOD/Collins. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html
  16. Kuyper, Abraham. 1998. Sphere sovereignty. In Abraham Kuyper: A centennial reader, ed. James Bratt, 461–490. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  17. Leo XIII. 1954. On the rights and duties of capital and labor (Rerum novarum). In The church speaks to the modern world: The social teachings of Leo XIII, ed. Etienne Gilson, 200–244. Garden City: Image Books. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
  18. Leys, Ad. 1995. Ecclesiological impacts of the principle of subsidiarity. Kampen: Kok.Google Scholar
  19. Longley, Clifford. 2009. Government and the common good. In God and government, ed. Nick Spencer and Jonathan Chaplin, 159–179. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
  20. Loughlin, John, Peter Allott, and Richard Crellin. 2013. The UK government’s ‘big society’ programme and Catholic social teaching. Cambridge: Von Hügel Institute.Google Scholar
  21. Maritain, Jacques. 1951. Man and the state. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Maritain, Jacques. 1973. Integral humanism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  23. Messner, Johannes. 1949. Social ethics. St. Louis/London: B. Herder.Google Scholar
  24. O’Brien, Denis. 2007. Subsidiarity and solidarity. In Catholic social teaching and the market economy, ed. Philip Booth, 233. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  25. O’Donovan, Oliver. 2005. The ways of judgment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  26. Pakaluk, Michael. 2002. Natural law and civil society. In Alternative conceptions of civil society, ed. Simone Chambers and Will Kymlicka, 133. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pius XI. 1960. The social order (Quadragesimo Anno). London: Catholic Truth Society. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html
  28. Rommen, Heinrich. 1945. The state in Catholic thought. New York: Herder.Google Scholar
  29. Schindler, Jeanne Heffernan. 2008. Christianity and civil society: Catholic and neo-Calvinist perspectives. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
  30. Skillen, James W. (ed.). 1991. Abraham Kuyper: The problem of poverty. Grand Rapids/Washington, DC: Baker Book House/Center for Public Justice.Google Scholar
  31. van Kersbergen, Kees. 1995. Social capitalism: A study of Christian democracy and the welfare state. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Von-Nell Breuning, Oswald. 1981. 50 jaar “Quadragesimo Anno”. Christen Democratische Verkenningen 12: 599–606.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kirby Laing Institute for Christian EthicsTyndale HouseCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations