Sobrino: Placing the poor at the center of society
With respect to society, the democratic tradition with all its values is theoretically oriented to a universal horizon. Its values of liberty, equality, and fraternity are realized on this planet only rarely, poorly, and hypocritically; in any case they are not mainly about the poor, although civil rights have generally spread beyond the bourgeois world as if a reservoir had overflowed. The citizen is at the center of democratic values. In practice and in historical reality, especially in the current process of globalization, democracy as it is historicized today in impoverishing the middle classes and drowning the poor, excluding them, depriving them of reality.
In discourse about democracy, the rule of law, and the future of the economy–however true or false it may be–the poor may be mentioned, but they are never seen as central to society’s aspirations, let alone as an inspiration to the society. And the discourse never attempts to integrate civic democracy with “partiality to the poor.” Instead of language that favors the poor it uses the language of the common good, thus diluting the reality of the poor. Western democracies have reduced some of the manifestations of poverty, but they have never made the poor central in theory or in practice. I believe this is why they have been unable to eradicate such evils as isolationist individualism, the trivialization of existence, the fragmentation of the human family. When the poor are not at the center, the neither is compassion. And without compassion, humanness also disappears.
Jon Sobrino, Where Is God?: Earthquake, Terrorism, Barbarity, and Hope, trans. Margaret Wilde (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books), 2004.
Very true. I think Michael J mentioned to me once that Pope Benedict XVI had similar thoughts about democracy on one of his books… I think it was Turning Point for Europe, but I may be mistaken.
Michael,
I find it interesting that he contrasts the common good with the preferential option for the poor (or at least opposes them in terms of our terms of political discourse). Hasn’t much of Catholic Social Thought been about combining the two ideas – making clear to us that the common good is only served through serving those who are weakest? It seems like treating the poor in opposition to the common good introduces a rupture with traditional Catholic political thinking where it isn’t necessary.
“Instead of language that favors the poor it uses the language of the common good, thus diluting the reality of the poor.”
Using the language of the common good would still be an improvement. Right now self-interest rules.
Outside of idealistic Catholic circles, I hardly ever see talk of the “common good.” Policies are always talked of in terms of who would benefit. “Working families.” “Small businesses.” “Immigrants.” Even policies that only benefit the powerful get dressed up as appeals to the middling classes.
Since poor people vote less and make fewer campaign contributions, they’re left out of the interest group circle. I worry the author just wants to make the poor another self-interest group, only the most respected one. That is not a recipe for a well-ordered society, since the self-interest of the poor is not always conducive to the common good. As I see it, the preferential option for the poor is an admonition to guard against the exclusion of them and their concerns from deliberations about the common good.
Hi Zak,
Hasn’t much of Catholic Social Thought been about combining the two ideas – making clear to us that the common good is only served through serving those who are weakest? It seems like treating the poor in opposition to the common good introduces a rupture with traditional Catholic political thinking where it isn’t necessary.
Yes I think you’re right that CST is trying to attend to both of those ideas. I don’t think Sobrino is necessarily against the idea of the common good; quite the contrary. I do think that he reminding us that the term “common good” can cloud over the reality of the poor, or more seriously, can use that term AGAINST the poor! So rather than introducing a rupture, I think Sobrino is reminding us to look at the reality behind nice CST terms like “common good.”
Good points, Michael. “Common good” can be easily twisted into a utilitarian ethic whereby one determines that if the majority of a population generally has a decent quality of life, then the minority that suffers is a necessary consequence that cannot be fixed. That sort of thinking ignores the minority and exalts the state of life of the majority.
Good post.
Right. When I first read the post I understood that Sobrino was talking about the “common good” as the “good for the majority,” which is not in itself a true “common good” as understood in CST.
Thanks Michael. That’s a good point. I was surprised when I read what Sobrino said, because I, like Kevin Jones, thought that discussion of the common good would be much better than the interest-based political discourse we have today. But as you and Policratius note, without firmly rooting common good in an understanding of human dignity and the preferential option for the poor, it can easily be turned into a utiliarian rhetoric of the “greatest good for the greatest number.”
Yes, from the perspective of Sobrino (and most liberationists for that matter), the poor do not represent an interest group. The poor’s interests are our interests.