Being apolitical is very much akin to choosing not to decide. By choosing not to make a choice, you've made a choice. Being apolitical is a political stance. You live in a polity. This implicates you whether you want it to or not.
It seems that what a lot of self-claimed apolitical people value is non-confrontation, not arguing, disagreeing, etc. This is not the same as valuing peace. Peace is not mere passivity, avoidance of conflict, etc. I recently began reading Rowan Williams's latest book: The Way of St. Benedict. It is a collection of essays, talks, articles Willams has written on the Rule of Saint Benedict over some years. In chapter two, entitled "The Staying Power of Benedict," he makes this observation:
Peacefulness... does not... mean a bland denial or evasion of conflict. What it does mean is a resolution to address conflict without despair, in the confidence that not everything must be dictated by rivalry or violence. So the question is here how we inculcate a political culture of willingness to go on arguing civilly, staging and negotiating real difference without premature panic or resort to the familiar urge to cancel the other. Civil disagreement is part of the health of a working society, a natural next step when we have been talking about honesty in debate. And if we're afraid of, nervous about, honesty because we're afraid of some kind of exposure of weakness, we need to be reminded of the strength that comes from solidarity and mutual trust as opposed to constant struggle and isolation. Perhaps we can yet learn how to conduct arguments well, how to live as what I've sometimes called in the past an argumentative democracy- that is, not simply a formal democracy with voting and representative protocols, but one where civil society is articulate and brave enough to have arguments about fundamental issues in public without fear of the descending into recrimination, abuse, and ultimately violenceI realize these kinds of opinions come across as fairly idealistic. But shouldn't ideals guide our politics? Something of a corollary to this is Vàclav Havel's non-political politics.
Given the very high premium placed on individuality in the United States, it's easy to say and to see that we usually lack solidarity. When people look back longingly on the immediate aftermath of 9/11 what they long for is the solidarity that horrible event fostered. Should it really take a major catastrophe for us to realize solidarity to a meaningful degree? Simply stated, solidarity is unity or agreement of feeling or action, among individuals with a common interest. Our common interest should be the common good, what the preamble to the U.S. constitution calls "the general welfare." What is the common good except fostering those conditions that allow everyone to achieve her/his full potential?
We can't even seem to agree any more on the ends to be achieved. Take healthcare as an example. Is it not a desirable end to make quality, affordable healthcare, including preventative care, available to everyone? This is an end. How we might go about achieving that end (i.e., the means) is what should prompt a debate, provoke different proposals, and lead to compromises, thus realizing the desired end.
Lack of solidarity is a recipe for division. Divisions, when they become pronounced, can be politically manipulated. When this happens, violence often ensues. In addition to the pandemic, 2020 has been a violent year. Here's a question: Are armed militias operating in the open a sign of our nation's health?
As someone who prays the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary daily, I always feel that we need the intercession of our Blessed Mother. Especially in these times, I know we need her maternal care. And so, our traditio for this autumnal Friday is a virtual international choir beautifully chanting the Salve Regina:
No comments:
Post a Comment