States without Citizens

Some time ago (NR, October 12, 1973) this column considered the worldwide phenomenon of “rulers without power,” governments lacking that civic support which would enable them to tackle great tasks. Obviously there is an underlying cause for this which one might call “states without citizens.” If one asks what a citizen is, one is pushed further toward the concept of the common good: citizens are aware of, and concerned about, the common good. Evidence abounds that in modern society the idea of the common good has diminished nearly to the vanishing point. Yet, the common good used to be the criterion by which one could discern the line separating government from tyranny; it used to be the mark of distinction that a man of quality perceived the common good while the yokel could not.

Today one is tempted to say the very opposite. In Hortonville, Wis. (pop. 1,524) aroused farmers rallied in defense of what they felt to be the proper character of public education in their town, while in our cities men of quality seek a secluded private life as the chief benefit to be obtained in society. This attitude has not appeared all of a sudden; it has been long in preparation. Bentham defined the common good as the sum total of private goods and merely wanted to satisfy the greatest possible number of them. More recently the idea of pluralism has denied even the desirability of a common good and postulated instead a variety of diverse goods. Then there is the typically modern “autonomous man” who looks on himself as a complete world and rejects any limitations on his will and fancy that might attach to a common good. Finally, the sulking “alienated” man drops out of society and encloses himself in a private microworld from which, at times, he may sally forth on a microwar of terrorism. No common good for him, either.

GN

About the Author

Gerhart Niemeyer

Featured Tags

Some time ago (NR, October 12, 1973) this column considered the worldwide phenomenon of “rulers without power,” governments lacking that civic support which would enable them to tackle great tasks. Obviously there is an underlying cause for this which one might call “states without citizens.” If one asks what a citizen is, one is pushed further toward the concept of the common good: citizens are aware of, and concerned about, the common good. Evidence abounds that in modern society the idea of the common good has diminished nearly to the vanishing point. Yet, the common good used to be the criterion by which one could discern the line separating government from tyranny; it used to be the mark of distinction that a man of quality perceived the common good while the yokel could not.

Today one is tempted to say the very opposite. In Hortonville, Wis. (pop. 1,524) aroused farmers rallied in defense of what they felt to be the proper character of public education in their town, while in our cities men of quality seek a secluded private life as the chief benefit to be obtained in society. This attitude has not appeared all of a sudden; it has been long in preparation. Bentham defined the common good as the sum total of private goods and merely wanted to satisfy the greatest possible number of them. More recently the idea of pluralism has denied even the desirability of a common good and postulated instead a variety of diverse goods. Then there is the typically modern “autonomous man” who looks on himself as a complete world and rejects any limitations on his will and fancy that might attach to a common good. Finally, the sulking “alienated” man drops out of society and encloses himself in a private microworld from which, at times, he may sally forth on a microwar of terrorism. No common good for him, either.