22 September 2018

Legislation as a Form of Pedagogy


Christians differ over the role of law in society. Many believe that Biblical law is to be enforced, others believe Natural Law is sufficient. These are of course somewhat nebulous terms and there are many factions and internal debates over just what these terms mean, to what extent they can be known and as to what degree of certainty is attainable. The latter issue touches on the role of philosophy and questions of epistemology, coherence and inference.


In Republican systems, the law is established by a constitution or some form of principled legal document which of course must rest upon agreed principles. Such documents must be formulated in the context of a consensus in which the drafters and framers, despite their many differences nevertheless have a common understanding of ideas, epistemology and ethics.
At that point the leaders whether executive, parliamentary, congressional or otherwise are representing the needs of their constituents and yet are (hypothetically) hindered and restrained by the dictates and principles of the authoritative standard. This of course is messy and a far cry from simple or straightforward. Their task is to legislate according to the needs and desires of society under the aegis of certain limiting principles.
And yet under this scenario, it is the laws themselves and the principles which undergird them which are paramount. Politicians appeal to needs and principles in order to make their case. Their personal lives, histories and even past conduct are secondary concerns at best. Individuals might appeal to their own experience, personal narratives and convictions and yet the focus is ultimately on the ideas and even ideals, not on the individuals holding office. They are there to actuate principles, execute and enforce laws. This is a hallmark of government within the Liberal tradition.
Additionally under this framework the law is viewed as a restraint. Liberty is paramount and thus the individual is free to pursue ideas within societal limits. If one's freedom causes another harm, then the state must intervene but the state's role is largely negative in that it does not seek to shape society but to act (in modern parlance) as a referee ensuring that no one individual, faction or party begins to tyrannise the others.
But there is another view of the law which is very common among advocates of Republic and yet it is in many ways an opposing view to the Liberal tradition. This view argues that law in addition to its negative purposes of restraint and its principled basis, also serves as a pedagogue, a schoolmaster or instructor in ideas, ethics and the ordering of society.
This position is in many ways a reactionary modification of Classical Liberalism. Avoiding the abuses and entanglements of monarchy, theocracy and certainly the radical mob-rule of pure democracy, this largely religious view casts republicanism within a moral and redemptive framework and attaches a narrative of progress in the form of social sanctification.
Usually motivated by and in some cases dominated by religious concerns, the state is viewed as a component of the Divine Kingdom and has a task to help in the shaping of a godly society.
Under this way of thinking, under this model of pedagogy, the leaders are not only representatives of a constituency and framers of legislation but they have a specific task to lead, guide and shepherd the society. They are not only there to represent but to school and instruct. The law is a protection from individuals and factions that would wax tyrannical but under this scenario the law is not merely a negative boundary but a tool to be employed to shape and hone society and to remove the rough edges which form as a result of inefficiency and disorder.
With this view of law, the leaders as shepherds become models of integrity, examples of character and purveyors of moral rectitude.
This view has many practical risks, one of which is that of the personality cult. The leader ends up becoming the focus of attention and affection. He becomes the standard and his party, political movement or even ideology become identified with him even as principles fade.
It can be very appealing as constituents will believe their leader(s) to represent not just the interests of the nation, but the good. It's a very useful thing in a time of crisis as the public is able to establish a deep sense of trust with the leader. One thinks of popular presidents during wartime. To the public they are the great leader fighting the evil and slaying the monsters.
It's easy to understand how this can develop and while it isn't an absolutely necessary consequence of pedagogical statecraft, all too often it is the case. The shift in the US Constitutional order which took place after the Civil War, established a pedagogical role for the state and while not immediate, the power of the state and certainly the prestige of the executive and the extent of its power would grow, reaching hitherto unforeseen heights in the 20th century.
Under the Old Testament this was less of a problem as the Judges and Kings were literally typological representations of the coming Messiah. Conceptually their ascendancy was proper and fitting, in keeping with the typology. But it was also restrained in that everyone knew that neither Samson, Samuel nor David were the Messiah.
But this is not the case for any nation today, despite what those of the Constantinian tradition continue to argue. No nation can claim the mantle of typological pedagogy. No nation is 'Christian' unless the term Christian is subject to a radical redefinition, the very thing, the very alternate gospel (and kingdom) Constantine set in motion.
What is fascinating to consider is that this pedagogical view and its consequences are actually quite Anti-Liberal in their orientation and in many ways a rejection of the views and vision of the founders of the American Republic. There are other nations that would also fall under this category. But despite the fact that the Founders would view such a potentially authoritarian anti-liberal turn as counter-revolutionary, many Christian Rightist view the pedagogical arrangement as essential and though they are in many ways refuting the Liberal heritage of 1776, they are undoubtedly motivated by deep patriotism and see no contradiction or conflict.*
This helps one to understand why for so many years they have championed ideas like the Unitary Executive and strong executive leadership even at the expense of basic constitutional rights and civil liberties. There was no need to fear because as long as the leaders were godly men of integrity, tyranny and abuse would remain distant fears.
But what's disturbing is that the pedagogical view continues along with all that it implies, the favouring of certain religious groups, hard-line positions regarding law enforcement, restrictions on personal liberty, the curtailing of free speech and expression and a specific moral even crusading mentality when it comes to foreign policy. All of these positions were deemed sound and concerns could be dismissed because the leaders knew their task and what was required of them. They had a specific agenda and narrative in mind as they sought to govern society.
And yet why would these same Evangelicals hold to such a view today? They have thrown in with Donald Trump and have effectively abandoned the notion that for pedagogy to take place there must be integrity and character. Clearly this is no longer a primary concern and yet they would hand the reins of a pedagogical state over to someone like Donald Trump?
This is highly disturbing and reveals just how dire the situation is in American Christianity.
What were foundational flaws to begin with have now devolved into a very dangerous and deeply hypocritical caricature. Power is the only thing that matters, the only ethic, the only good and all their previous concerns for principle, integrity and character have been abandoned for the petty, vindictive, obscene and lawless. If these traits bring victory then it is one they would seek, one they would possess.
--------
*This explains (in part) why the French view American democracy with contempt and continue to assert that they are the true heirs and purveyors of the Liberal tradition.
While French morals and modern secularism certainly play a part in the public's winking at the personal behaviour of politicians, there is another principle at work that many American commentators fail to understand. For the French, Mitterrand having a mistress had nothing to do with the principles of the law, of the republic and/or the democratic liberal tradition. If Mitterrand had engaged in corruption to hide his personal sins that would be something different. His personal life was his own. That, they would say is liberty, something American Pedagogical Liberalism wholly rejects.
For Americans, and especially for Evangelicals (embracing a pedagogical view), the whole situation was deplorable even unthinkable. Many like Albert Mohler have used the episode to bash Europe and attack its culture which they perceive as immoral and decadent. They are embittered by Europe's failure to fully submit to American supremacy and its superior moral frameworks.
The Europeans surely laugh in response, and rightly so.