The liberal-communitarian debate in contemporary political philosophy and its significance for international relations

Review of International Studies

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 233-251

  Morrice, David ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034400429     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210500002333     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead, 1992), p. 8. For further consideration of the links between political theory and international relations theory see E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations (London, 1975); Michael Donelan, 'The Political Theorists and International Theory', m M. Donelan (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978), pp. 75-91; Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1979); Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London, 1982); and Mervyn Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 1986).
2. Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead, 1992), p. 8. For further consideration of the links between political theory and international relations theory see E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations (London, 1975); Michael Donelan, 'The Political Theorists and International Theory', m M. Donelan (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978), pp. 75-91; Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1979); Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London, 1982); and Mervyn Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 1986).
3. Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead, 1992), p. 8. For further consideration of the links between political theory and international relations theory see E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations (London, 1975); Michael Donelan, 'The Political Theorists and International Theory', m M. Donelan (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978), pp. 75-91; Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1979); Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London, 1982); and Mervyn Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 1986).
4. Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead, 1992), p. 8. For further consideration of the links between political theory and international relations theory see E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations (London, 1975); Michael Donelan, 'The Political Theorists and International Theory', m M. Donelan (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978), pp. 75-91; Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1979); Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London, 1982); and Mervyn Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 1986).
5. Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead, 1992), p. 8. For further consideration of the links between political theory and international relations theory see E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations (London, 1975); Michael Donelan, 'The Political Theorists and International Theory', m M. Donelan (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978), pp. 75-91; Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1979); Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London, 1982); and Mervyn Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 1986).
6. Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead, 1992), p. 8. For further consideration of the links between political theory and international relations theory see E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations (London, 1975); Michael Donelan, 'The Political Theorists and International Theory', m M. Donelan (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978), pp. 75-91; Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1979); Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London, 1982); and Mervyn Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 1986).
7. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford, 1972).
8. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford, 1974); Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (London, 1977).
9. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford, 1974); Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (London, 1977).
10. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982); Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (Oxford, 1983); Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (London, 1981); Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society (Cambridge, 1979); Taylor, 'Atomism', in Philosophy and the Human Sciences, Philosophical Papers, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1985).
11. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982); Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (Oxford, 1983); Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (London, 1981); Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society (Cambridge, 1979); Taylor, 'Atomism', in Philosophy and the Human Sciences, Philosophical Papers, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1985).
12. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982); Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (Oxford, 1983); Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (London, 1981); Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society (Cambridge, 1979); Taylor, 'Atomism', in Philosophy and the Human Sciences, Philosophical Papers, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1985).
13. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982); Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (Oxford, 1983); Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (London, 1981); Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society (Cambridge, 1979); Taylor, 'Atomism', in Philosophy and the Human Sciences, Philosophical Papers, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1985).
14. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982); Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (Oxford, 1983); Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (London, 1981); Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society (Cambridge, 1979); Taylor, 'Atomism', in Philosophy and the Human Sciences, Philosophical Papers, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1985).
15. Contemporary communitarians recognise this point, of course. Michael Walzer acknowledges that the 'writings of the young Marx represent one of the early appearances of communitarian criticism', and argues that the communitarian critique of liberalism is like a fashion: 'transient but certain to return'. Walzer, 'The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism', Political Theory, 18 (1990), pp. 6-23, at p. 8 and p. 6.
16. See John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York, 1993). Amongst other things, Rawls now argues that his theory of justice is political and not metaphysical. That is, the theory of justice cannot depend on a comprehensive religious, philosophical or moral doctrine accepted by all citizens, but on an overlapping consensus of competing doctrines in the political domain of society. The theory of justice is applicable not universally but only in regimes with a certain sort of political culture, that is, constitutional democracies.
17. This point is well made by Simon Caney, 'Liberalism and Communitarianism: a Misconceived Debate', Political Studies, 40 (1992), pp. 273-89. However, see the rejoinder by Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift, 'Liberalisms and Communitarianisms: whose Misconception?', Political Studies, 41 (1993), pp. 650-56. Charles Taylor identifies 'a lot of cross-purposes, and just plain confusion' in the liberal-communitarian debate. Charles Taylor, 'Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate', in Nancy Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life (Cambridge, MA., 1989), p.159.
18. This point is well made by Simon Caney, 'Liberalism and Communitarianism: a Misconceived Debate', Political Studies, 40 (1992), pp. 273-89. However, see the rejoinder by Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift, 'Liberalisms and Communitarianisms: whose Misconception?', Political Studies, 41 (1993), pp. 650-56. Charles Taylor identifies 'a lot of cross-purposes, and just plain confusion' in the liberal-communitarian debate. Charles Taylor, 'Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate', in Nancy Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life (Cambridge, MA., 1989), p.159.
19. This point is well made by Simon Caney, 'Liberalism and Communitarianism: a Misconceived Debate', Political Studies, 40 (1992), pp. 273-89. However, see the rejoinder by Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift, 'Liberalisms and Communitarianisms: whose Misconception?', Political Studies, 41 (1993), pp. 650-56. Charles Taylor identifies 'a lot of cross-purposes, and just plain confusion' in the liberal-communitarian debate. Charles Taylor, 'Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate', in Nancy Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life (Cambridge, MA., 1989), p.159.
20. See Caney, 'Liberalism and Communitarianism', whose formulation I follow here; Daniel Bell, Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993), pp. 4-8; and Patrick Neal and David Paris, 'Liberalism and the Communitarian Critique: A Guide for the Perplexed', Canadian Journal of Political Science, XXIII (1990), pp. 418-19.
21. See Caney, 'Liberalism and Communitarianism', whose formulation I follow here; Daniel Bell, Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993), pp. 4-8; and Patrick Neal and David Paris, 'Liberalism and the Communitarian Critique: A Guide for the Perplexed', Canadian Journal of Political Science, XXIII (1990), pp. 418-19.
22. MacIntyre, After Virtue, pp. 204-5.
23. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 150.
24. Ibid., p. 179.
25. Taylor, 'Atomism', pp. 190-1.
26. Sean Sayers says: 'Whether the policies of the Thatcher and Reagan years brought any overall economic benefits is doubtful: that they have had high social costs is now quite evident. The unfettered pursuit of self-interest has weakened social bonds and led to social decay and disintegration on a scale which is causing alarm right across the political spectrum'. Sean Sayers, 'Commentary: The Value of Community', Radical Philosophy, 69 (1995), p. 2.
27. Taylor, 'Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate', p. 160.
28. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 183.
29. Walzer, Spheres of Justice, p. xiv.
30. Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth, Philosophical Papers, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 13 and 33.
31. Brown, International Relations Theory, pp. 27 and 12.
32. Ibid., p. 110. Onora O'Neill also notes the similarities between liberalism and cosmopolitanism and the opposition of both to communitarianism. Onora O'Neill, Transnational Justice', in David Held (ed.), Political Theory Today (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 279-82.
33. Ibid., p. 110. Onora O'Neill also notes the similarities between liberalism and cosmopolitanism and the opposition of both to communitarianism. Onora O'Neill, Transnational Justice', in David Held (ed.), Political Theory Today (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 279-82.
34. See Francisco de Vitoria, De Potestate Civili, in A. Pagden and J. Lawrence (eds.), Francisco de Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge, 1991); and Francisco Suarez, Tractatus de Legibus ac Deo Legislature, in J. B. Scott (ed.), Selections from Three Works (Oxford, 1944).
35. See Francisco de Vitoria, De Potestate Civili, in A. Pagden and J. Lawrence (eds.), Francisco de Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge, 1991); and Francisco Suarez, Tractatus de Legibus ac Deo Legislature, in J. B. Scott (ed.), Selections from Three Works (Oxford, 1944).
36. See Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations; Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations; and Onora O'Neill, Faces of Hunger (London, 1986), Constructions of Reason (Cambridge, 1989), and 'Transnational Justice'.
37. See Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations; Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations; and Onora O'Neill, Faces of Hunger (London, 1986), Constructions of Reason (Cambridge, 1989), and 'Transnational Justice'.
38. See Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations; Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations; and Onora O'Neill, Faces of Hunger (London, 1986), Constructions of Reason (Cambridge, 1989), and 'Transnational Justice'.
39. See Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations; Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations; and Onora O'Neill, Faces of Hunger (London, 1986), Constructions of Reason (Cambridge, 1989), and 'Transnational Justice'.
40. Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations; David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford, 1995); and Walzer, Spheres of Justice (especially ch. 2), and Just and Unjust Wars (Harmondsworth , 1980).
41. Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations; David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford, 1995); and Walzer, Spheres of Justice (especially ch. 2), and Just and Unjust Wars (Harmondsworth , 1980).
42. Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations; David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford, 1995); and Walzer, Spheres of Justice (especially ch. 2), and Just and Unjust Wars (Harmondsworth , 1980).
43. Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations; David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford, 1995); and Walzer, Spheres of Justice (especially ch. 2), and Just and Unjust Wars (Harmondsworth , 1980).
44. Important texts of modern realism include E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 2nd edn. (London, 1946); and Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 2nd edn. (New York, 1954). The classic texts of realism are usually said to include Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Q. Skinner (ed.) (Cambridge, 1988) ,
45. Important texts of modern realism include E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 2nd edn. (London, 1946); and Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 2nd edn. (New York, 1954). The classic texts of realism are usually said to include Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Q. Skinner (ed.) (Cambridge, 1988) ,
46. Important texts of modern realism include E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 2nd edn. (London, 1946); and Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 2nd edn. (New York, 1954). The classic texts of realism are usually said to include Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Q. Skinner (ed.) (Cambridge, 1988) ,
47. and Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, R. Tuck (ed.) (Cambridge, 1991).
48. N. J. Rengger, 'A City Which Sustains All Things? Communitarianism and International Society', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 (1992), pp. 362 and 353.
49. See Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (Oxford, 1925); and Samuel Pufendorf, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law (Cambridge, 1991).
50. See Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (Oxford, 1925); and Samuel Pufendorf, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law (Cambridge, 1991).
51. Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, ch. 2, in R. McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York, 1941), p. 1129.
52. Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, ch. 2, in R. McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York, 1941), p. 1129.
53. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart (eds.) (London, 1982), p. 12.
54. Ronald Beiner, What's Wrong With Liberalism? (Berkeley, CA, 1992), p. 7.
55. Anthony Black, 'Nation and Community in the International Order', Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), p. 88.
56. Caney, 'Liberalism and Communitarianism', p. 278.
57. Walzer, Spheres of Justice, p. 39.
58. David Miller, 'The Ethical Significance of Nationality', Ethics, 98 (1988), p. 647. John O'Neill challenges the commonly accepted association of communitarianism and nationalism. He argues: 'Ties to nation do not represent the continuation of ties to community in a society in which such ties are being otherwise undermined - they rather signify the absence of such ties. The nation is one of the main vehicles for the construction of the unencumbered self and the disappearance of ties of community'. John O'Neill, 'Should Communitarians be Nationalists?', Journal of Applied Philosophy, 11 (1994), p. 136.
59. David Miller, 'The Ethical Significance of Nationality', Ethics, 98 (1988), p. 647. John O'Neill challenges the commonly accepted association of communitarianism and nationalism. He argues: 'Ties to nation do not represent the continuation of ties to community in a society in which such ties are being otherwise undermined - they rather signify the absence of such ties. The nation is one of the main vehicles for the construction of the unencumbered self and the disappearance of ties of community'. John O'Neill, 'Should Communitarians be Nationalists?', Journal of Applied Philosophy, 11 (1994), p. 136.
60. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth, p. 29. Rorty does seek to offer some support for his privileging of liberalism. Although all human communities remain ethnocentric and limited by the bounds of their culture, it is the merit of 'the liberal culture of recent times' that it 'has found a strategy for avoiding the disadvantage of ethnocentrism'. It is in the nature of liberal culture 'to be open to encounters with other actual and possible culture'. The liberal culture makes 'openness central to its self-image' and 'prides itself on its suspicion of ethnocentrism' (p. 2). One problem with this argument is that the openness which is the supposed merit of the liberal culture is a value embedded in, and peculiar to, this culture.
61. O'Neill, 'Transnational Justice', p. 282.
62. Rawls, Political Liberalism, p. 146, note 13.
63. Ibid., p. 37.
64. Black, 'Nation and Community in the International Order', p. 8.
65. Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Oxford, 1985), pp. 217, 219-20. Walzer, in common with most relativists, seeks to deny his relativism. In a number of publications following Spheres of Justice, including Interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge, MA, 1987), The Company of Critics (London, 1989), and Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame, IN, 1994), Walzer has attempted to argue that social criticism is possible in the absence of universal, objective principles. Walzer's attempt is bound to fail because his communitarianism cannot allow any critic an objective position outside of any community, or sufficient critical distance from any community, from which to formulate any objective evaluation.
66. Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Oxford, 1985), pp. 217, 219-20. Walzer, in common with most relativists, seeks to deny his relativism. In a number of publications following Spheres of Justice, including Interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge, MA, 1987), The Company of Critics (London, 1989), and Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame, IN, 1994), Walzer has attempted to argue that social criticism is possible in the absence of universal, objective principles. Walzer's attempt is bound to fail because his communitarianism cannot allow any critic an objective position outside of any community, or sufficient critical distance from any community, from which to formulate any objective evaluation.
67. Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Oxford, 1985), pp. 217, 219-20. Walzer, in common with most relativists, seeks to deny his relativism. In a number of publications following Spheres of Justice, including Interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge, MA, 1987), The Company of Critics (London, 1989), and Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame, IN, 1994), Walzer has attempted to argue that social criticism is possible in the absence of universal, objective principles. Walzer's attempt is bound to fail because his communitarianism cannot allow any critic an objective position outside of any community, or sufficient critical distance from any community, from which to formulate any objective evaluation.
68. Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Oxford, 1985), pp. 217, 219-20. Walzer, in common with most relativists, seeks to deny his relativism. In a number of publications following Spheres of Justice, including Interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge, MA, 1987), The Company of Critics (London, 1989), and Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame, IN, 1994), Walzer has attempted to argue that social criticism is possible in the absence of universal, objective principles. Walzer's attempt is bound to fail because his communitarianism cannot allow any critic an objective position outside of any community, or sufficient critical distance from any community, from which to formulate any objective evaluation.
69. Walzer, Interpretation and Social Criticism, p. 64.
70. Amy Gutmann, 'Communitarian Critics of Liberalism', Philosophy And Public Affairs, 14 (1985), pp. 308-22.
71. Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, pp. 8 and 65.
72. Chris Brown, 'Not My Department? Normative Theory and International Relations', Paradigms, 2 (1987), pp. 107, 109 and 110. Another modern account of the morality of states position is set out in R. J. Vincent, Nonintervention and International Order (Princeton, 1974), ch. 9.
73. Chris Brown, 'Not My Department? Normative Theory and International Relations', Paradigms, 2 (1987), pp. 107, 109 and 110. Another modern account of the morality of states position is set out in R. J. Vincent, Nonintervention and International Order (Princeton, 1974), ch. 9.
74. Chris Brown assumes that the 'morality of states' is the normative aspect of the idea of 'international society': Brown, International Relations Theory, p. 123.
75. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, p. 66.
76. Ibid., p. 181. In his construction of a theory of international distributive justice, Beitz makes much use of the work of John Rawls. Given that Rawls has revised his original theory of justice in the light of communitarian criticism, it would be interesting to know how, if at all, Beitz might wish to revise his work. (This article was completed before the publication of the revised edition of Beitz's Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1999), which contains a new afterword.)
77. Ibid., p. 181. In his construction of a theory of international distributive justice, Beitz makes much use of the work of John Rawls. Given that Rawls has revised his original theory of justice in the light of communitarian criticism, it would be interesting to know how, if at all, Beitz might wish to revise his work. (This article was completed before the publication of the revised edition of Beitz's Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1999), which contains a new afterword.)
78. Ibid., p. 180.
79. Francisco de Vitoria, De Potestate Civili, question 3, article 4, in A. Pagden and J. Lawrence (eds.), Francisco de Vitoria: Political Writings , p. 40.
80. Francisco de Vitoria, De Indis, question 3, article 1, in A. Pagden and J. Lawrence (eds.), Francisco de Vitoria: Political Writings, p. 281.
81. Jacques Maritain, The Person and the Common Good, translated by John Fitzgerald (Notre Dame, IN, 1966), pp. 101, 50 and 51 (Maritain's emphasis). For a relevant discussion of Maritain see Michelle Watkins and Ralph McInerny, 'Jacques Maritain and the Rapprochment of Liberalism and Communitarianism', in K. Grasso, G. Bradley and R. Hunt (eds.), Catholicism, Liberalism and Communitarianism (Lanham, MD, 1995), pp. 151-72.
82. Jacques Maritain, The Person and the Common Good, translated by John Fitzgerald (Notre Dame, IN, 1966), pp. 101, 50 and 51 (Maritain's emphasis). For a relevant discussion of Maritain see Michelle Watkins and Ralph McInerny, 'Jacques Maritain and the Rapprochment of Liberalism and Communitarianism', in K. Grasso, G. Bradley and R. Hunt (eds.), Catholicism, Liberalism and Communitarianism (Lanham, MD, 1995), pp. 151-72.
83. Chris Brown, 'Cosmopolitan Confusions: A Reply to Hoffman', Paradigms, 2 (1988), p. 107.
84. Pope John XXIII, Encyclical Letter, Pacem in Terris (London, 1965), paras. 140 and 141. The 'principle of subsidiary function' is outlined by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno (London, 1960), in which he comments on the 1891 Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, and seeks to establish the correct role of government in social and economic affairs. Pius XI says: 'just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to a group what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so too it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, for a larger and higher association to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower societies'. He continues: 'Let those in power, therefore, be convinced that the more faithfully this principle of subsidiary function be followed, and a graded hierarchical order exist between various associations, the greater will be both social authority and social efficiency, and the happier and more prosperous the condition of the commonwealth' (paragraphs 79 and 80).
85. Maritain, The Person and the Common Good, p. 55.