Most of ya'll knows a series of essays on Islam is comin' to these pages any day now.Meanwhile, Aunty wonders iffin' we might revisit our ideas on The Social Contract.
Whas' that? Ya know....stuff we learnt in school about how we give over some rights for the sake of the big picture of gettin' along in a society. The political science term is "social contract".
It jes' means that I ain't akshully free to do ANYthing I want, cause I *freely* gave over some of my personal preferences to ya'll--that is to my fellow citizens--so that we can form an orderly society. I gave up my ideas on how fast I can drive my buggy in order to cooperate with whas' best for the most. Some of ya'll gave up playing music at mach 5 at 4 am , for the sake of the good of the whole. We calls it the "consent of the governed." We freely live by self control because we believe we profit MORE from living in harmony and order.
Now they's only two thangs that can keep a society glued together: fear or freedom.
Whar' tyrants rule, it is reprisals, gulags and beheading that maintain the order, wif' the aid a lots of goons to spy and bully even assassinate. In this model of social order, fear keeps folks in line. The reason that the tyrant has to rule wif' an iron fist in this manner is that the citizens under his rule would *not*t choose to behave/ live as he demands them to, so the tyrant enforces his personal law with force & fear. Tyrants do not trust the freedom of the people.
Whar' people share a common idea of whas' good for the society, they choose to live by that idea and no major force is necessary. The choice that holds this free society together can be administered by a constitutional monarch or a president in conjunction with parliament (or congress). But the significant feature is that the citizens *voluntarily* conduct their lives in an orderly fashion according to the concept of order that they have chosen. In this model all citizens in good standing are free to participate, regardless of differences. Whar' I choose to be ruled by a set of laws that more or less reflect my understanding of what's good, then ya doan need to beat me into keepin' the law.
Of course thar's exceptions, (slip-ups happen) but we doan need to mention them as it drags us off topic. The major indicator of the global preference for societies ordered on free cooperation is the direction of immigration. The mass numbers of immigration is out of tyranny and into freedom.
Membership in any given society is by largely by kinship, language group, race, territory or religion.
"The West" is an idea (since non geographically West nations have become "western" such as Japan) . That idea is that people with differing views on the significance of religion or kinship or race can form a high functioning society together.
Why?The underlying glue for the West is the idea that a multifaceted peoples can be self-ruled by a political process in which they participate. The people freely bind themselves to that process and live accordingly.
All the rest of the people of the earth is ruled by raw power.
The underlying genius of The West is that religion and state are separate spheres, though each is a support for the other. In religion, we freely submit ourselves to the teachings we find persuasive. Thus to our religion (if any) we are subjects (we submit voluntarily to precepts) , but in the sphere of the state we are citizens, not subjects.
Why are we
citizens in this sphere? Because the participatory political process is dynamic--it changes according to the needs and developments of the citizens. Where the citizens are dissatisfied, they have the duty and the privilege to change the rules to which they have given their consent.By contrast, religious belief addresses the "permanent things" and is thus static. Those who agree with what any given religion teaches, subject themselves to that view of the "permanent things."
This separation of religion from the governing task of the state provides an elastic "space" whar' folks work and live in harmony and social order. The In the Social contract, freedom and obedience are the same--we freely agreed to obey the precepts we've chosen. Western legal tradition is sustained by this social contact. (Rousseau, Kant). States founded on Social Contract endure because they must respect the rights of the citizens who can deny consent to be governed by its laws. Hence "WE the people..." Minus that "WE" a state would have to dissolve or resort to force (tyranny).
The legitimacy of the law, then is based on the consent of the people to process of enacting that law. Even whar' I disagree wif' certain laws, the process permits me to work to change the law.
This dynamic process makes possible a nation whar' folks from many different languages, cultures and faiths can still cooperate freely to achieve the secure, harmonious society necessary for the "pursuit of happiness." A people freely pursuing their idea of happiness is productive, innovative and typically have healthy economies.
This is what The West has that inspires others to seek citizenship in "western" nations. This model of a free society is a threat to tyrants (religious or political) everywhar'. Some threaten to overthrow " The West" precisely because it offers people another view of how man can live.It is also why the case is made that the Western model of social organization is the better model. While post-modern theories insist that no society or culture is better than any other model, that premise is purely abstract.
In actual practice, the Western model works best, is the most productive
(far outproduces slave labor), insure the greatest freedom and is the least insecure. This doan mean non-western folks gotta act like the west--again, Japan makes a good example, along wif' South Korea, of Eastern folks who have adopted the Social Contract of Western legal tradition as a political model of organization, but who kept their own cultures.
One of the unstated attitudes in any discussion of Islamic nations vs. Western Civilization is that too many folks fear to admit that the West is better--functions better, is worth defending, worth preserving. Some folks hate the Islamic confrontation because it forces them to reevaluate the entire post-modern premise that all cultures are equal. Some cultures are clearly superior, and that truth is uncomfortable for some.
