8/13/2019 Gottsegen The Spirituality of Politics

1/4

The Spirituality of Politics

By Michael Gottsegen

We live in an era of compartmentalization. Lifes many spheres are separated from one

another home from !or"# economics from politics# pu$lic from private. %t is not only thatthese spheres are separated# $ut that they are also understood to $e operating according to

different rules && according to rules that are uni'ue to each sphere and !ithout application

to any other. Gro!ing up is a$out learning the rules of each sphere and a$out learning notto ma"e the mista"e of applying rules that $elong to one sphere to another.

The separation of life into different spheres is itself not ne!. Since anti'uity# !e have

carved life up into different sectors. What is ne! to modernity# ho!ever# is the notionthat each sphere is largely autonomous# and that there are no master rules that apply

across the $oard. %n an earlier era# such an assertion !ould have $een $lasphemous. The

categories of good and evil# of vice and virtue# !ere regarded as coe(tensive !ith the

!hole of life.

%n the Middle )ges# the *atholic church too" the vie! that every sector of life fell !ithinits or$it of concern. This same e(pansive definition of the e(tent of religions proper

reach is found in the Talmud. The ra$$is legislative competence encompasses not only

the synagogue and the social relations of the household# $ut e(tends to the mar"etplace#the +udges cham$ers and the Privy *ouncil. To argue that religion had no $usiness

spea"ing to such issues !ould have seemed ridiculous. ,oes Gods concern !ith the

goodness of human action "no! any $orders or limitations- f course not/ 0or then

should the moral authority of the church or synagogue. The furor that greeted thepu$lication of Machiavellis Prince in 1213 4 !hich asserted that political life should $e

governed $y its o!n autonomous nature and not $y *hristian morality && gives clearevidence of +ust ho! entrenched these assumptions !ere at the time.

What Machiavelli did for the autonomy of politics# )dam Smith 4 and capitalism more

generally && did for the autonomy of the mar"et. Where once the church had regulatedcommodity prices# !or"ing conditions and the mar"et itself in order to more closely

approach the *hristian vision of the good society# $y the mid&15th century the church had

largely given up the field $efore free mar"et ideology.

Modernity# then# not only $rought into $eing the autonomy of lifes various orders.

)dditionally# $y so doing# it shran" the sacred canopy that religion had once cast over the

!hole of life. 0o longer aspiring to shape the social order as a !hole in the image of the*ity of God# religion more and more came to $e identified !ith the hearth and the home#

and !ith the sphere of family life. There alone !ould old&fashioned virtue have its place.

%t is generally understood that !hen the 6e!s gained entry to society in the 15th century#they !ere re'uired to give up their pu$lic religion and to create instead a religion that

centered around the home and hearth# and spo"e no more to the concerns of the pu$lic

s'uare and the mar"etplace. )nd !hile this is true# it is important to understand that this

8/13/2019 Gottsegen The Spirituality of Politics

2/4

shrin"ing of the religious domain !as imposed upon *hristianity as !ell in its passage to

modernity.

)s Stephen *arter points out in his most recent $oo"# Gods 0ame in 7ain# !hile

modernity has sought to circumscri$e the religious domain# the religions have not $een

content to accept their reduced position. 0or have the religions $een !illing to accept!ithout 'uestion the notion that the economy and the polity fall outside the domain of its

proper concern. Time and again# in fact# the religions have $ro"en free from their narro!

confines to launch holy crusades on $ehalf of economic and political +ustice. %n effect#they !ere calling into 'uestion the autonomy of these spheres and insisting that the forms

of in+ustice $eing perpetrated !ithin them !ere issues of the greatest moral and religious

importance. The )$olitionist Movement# for e(ample# !as a religious movement that

unfolded in the political domain and challenged the economic definition of $lac" menand !omen as property. The Suffrage Movement !as also largely religious in its

inspiration# as !ere the movements for Prohi$ition and *ivil 8ights. %n each case# the

autonomy of the political and economic realms !as called into 'uestion $y a religious

movement that insisted on the rightful supremacy of the ethical dimension.

,uring the period of high modernity# these passing moments of religious engagement inthe !orld $eyond religions 9proper: domain of home and hearth have $een important

not only in themselves $ut for their conse'uences upon the 'uality of our pu$lic life.

They are also important for calling into 'uestion the very compartmentalization ofdomains 4 and of the norms appropriate to them && that is synonymous !ith modernity.

%n many !ays# this compartmentalization has $een a $oon to our collective life. The

mar"et# unshac"led $y e(ternal restraints of religion and ethics# has $ecome apo!erhouse creating economic a$undance and material !ell&$eing. )t the same time# our

unsanctified polity and secular society have $een spared the no(ious effects of religious

intolerance and have en+oyed the $enefits that flo! from the personal freedoms ofthought# association and e(pression that many religions have typically $een un!illing to

allo!.

%n recent decades# ho!ever# the do!nside of compartmentalization has $ecome more

manifest. Both religion and political life have $een vitiated# in large part# as a

conse'uence of the division of la$or that reigns $et!een them. 8eligion# restricted to the

private domain# lac"s scope and $ecomes narcissistic and self&a$sor$ed. Political life# leftto its o!n autonomous logic of po!er and dominated $y special interests# ceases to enlist

the democratic energies that the system re'uires if the common good is to prevail in the

long run.

)t the same time# the dynamism of the mar"et increasingly undercuts the autonomy of

state and religion# and calls into 'uestion !hether they are masters of their o!n domainsanymore. Machiavelli# even as he argued for the autonomy of politics# !orried that the

purity of political life might $e corrupted $y concentrations of private economic po!er

that used politics to pursue their o!n particular good rather than the common !eal. The

gro!ing influence of economic special interests in political life illustrates +ust ho! !ell

8/13/2019 Gottsegen The Spirituality of Politics

3/4

placed this an(iety happens to $e. %s it any surprise that the pu$lic turns a!ay in disgust

from a political process that loo"s more and more li"e a spoils system# and in !hich the

pu$lic good is almost entirely forgotten-

When religion !as first e(pelled from the pu$lic s'uare# many $elieved that religion

!ould $e strengthened in the process and# in effect# purified of the 9contamination:$rought on $y its 9unholy: involvement in the mundane $usiness of political life. What

fe! foresa! at the time !as that once religion !as consigned to the private sphere# it

!ould cease to perform the important social function of conveying to all individuals asense of their place in the social and cosmic !hole. Those !ho did foresee that religion

!ould no longer perform this function $elieved that participation in political life !ould

perform it instead.

Today# ho!ever# neither religion nor politics performs this function. 8eligion has $ecome

increasingly sectarian and the churches have $ecome increasingly self&a$sor$ed. While

the intimate face&to&face community of the congregation remains important for

individuals as a site for fello!&feeling and solidarity# religious communities areincreasingly li"ely to dra! the circle of their neigh$orly concern rather narro!ly#

encompassing only the immediate fello!ship group !hile e(cluding the !ider civiccommunity. Were another social institution performing this function of conveying a vivid

conception of the social !hole to every mem$er of the community and of imparting to

the citizen an activist commitment to community service# then the fact that religion is notdoing this !ould $e of far less significance. But !hen neither the political process nor

religious institutions can impart this sense# the community is at ris"# for surely this

communitarian spirit !ill not come from a mar"etplace that imparts an ethos that is

essentially antithetical to it. ;This point should not $e understood as a criticism ofcapitalism or its ethos< rather# its purpose is to indicate its inherent limitations and the

deleterious conse'uences that !ill follo! !here there is no countervailing social ethos or

institutions.=

We are living on the cusp of a ne! era. Multinational corporations and glo$al financial

flo!s have transformed not only the mar"etplace# $ut the political sphere as !ell. %n highmodernity# the state !as the dominant actor nationally and internationally# and politics

en+oyed an unrivaled primacy for $oth good and ill. %n the era of G)TT and of the WT#

ho!ever# the state has $een eclipsed !hile glo$al capitalism and finance set the agenda#

su$ordinating political life to mar"et forces and mar"et discipline.

The mar"et is a harsh tas"master# $ut it need not call the tune forevermore. >o!ever# the

'uestion that forces itself upon us is from !hat 'uarter might redemption spring- ?rom!hat 'uarter might a social force arise po!erful enough to counter the coercive logic of

economic necessity- The political sphere has no resources of its o!n that it can muster on

$ehalf of the common good. Politics has $ecome a transparent medium reflecting theparallelogram of forces ;mostly economic= that are arrayed in society as a !hole. May$e#

once upon a time# political life !as capa$le of engendering civic virtue and zeal for the

common !eal out of its o!n interstices. But if this !as ever true# it is true no more. *ivic

virtue must arise from else!here. Might it come from the religious sphere-

8/13/2019 Gottsegen The Spirituality of Politics

4/4

What !e do "no! is that at their $est the churches# synagogues and mos'ues nurture the

fello!&feeling# the solicitude for the other and the $asic solidarity that are the elementary$uilding $loc"s upon !hich a more encompassing civic community and $ody politic can

$e constructed. What !e do not "no! is !hether these nuclei of community# !hich are at

once attracted and repelled $y politics and $y one another# have the capacity and the !illto do for )merica today !hat they have done for )merica at critical moments in the past

&& to go $eyond the limits of their particularity to frame# and to act on $ehalf of# a !ider

conception of the civic community and of the common good. *an the religious sectorgenerate such energies and commitment today- nly time# and our $est efforts# !ill tell.