Globalisation: 1931 and 2020

 From Quadragesimo Anno (1931):

105. In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.
106. This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will.
107. This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark, as it were, of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom of struggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets only the strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience.

My italics added.  There is an interesting point raised here, given that the discussion of Quadragesimo Anno, and the earlier Rerum Novarum, focusses so much on the principle of ownership and the relationship between capital and ownership and between labour and ownership. Is there an ethical objection to be raised to this divorce of capital from ownership of an enterprise? Is not this the true sense of the term usury - a use of capital to gain profit without any ownership or labour that is ordered towards the creation of wealth?

From Fratelli Tutti (2020):

12. “Opening up to the world” is an expression that has been co-opted by the economic and financial sector and is now used exclusively of openness to foreign interests or to the freedom of economic powers to invest without obstacles or complications in all countries. Local conflicts and disregard for the common good are exploited by the global economy in order to impose a single cultural model. This culture unifies the world, but divides persons and nations, for “as society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbours, but does not make us brothers”. We are more alone than ever in an increasingly massified world that promotes individual interests and weakens the communitarian dimension of life. Indeed, there are markets where individuals become mere consumers or bystanders. As a rule, the advance of this kind of globalism strengthens the identity of the more powerful, who can protect themselves, but it tends to diminish the identity of the weaker and poorer regions, making them more vulnerable and dependent. In this way, political life becomes increasingly fragile in the face of transnational economic powers that operate with the principle of “divide and conquer”. 

Japan

I haven't posted about the recent earthquake and tidal wave that hit Japan because I couldn't really think of anything appropriate that I could say about it. It was almost too overwhelming for comment from the opposite side of the world.

The way in which the Japanese people have responded, particularly in the areas directly devastated by the tidal wave, does, I think, set an amazing example to the whole world. They have just got on with things as best they can, responding to four different tragedies (earthquake, tsunami, nuclear disaster and the consequent economic problem,) any one of which would have been a big enough challenge on its own. This report on the BBC news website gives some idea of the response of the people, as do the "In pictures" linked at the bottom of the report.

Japan has never lost its sense of community and in dark times it is shining through.


This nation's great disaster has brought out the best in its people.

My own reflection has been that the Japanese have set the world a wonderful example of what should be intended by the term "social cohesion". It means the ordinary, every day care that we should have for our neighbour. My additional thought has been that this example of social cohesion is not something for which provision could have been made by legislation. It has occurred in circumstances that have been beyond any concept of legal jurisdiction, though the preparation for earthquakes that is part of Japenese life has clearly played its part. This example of social cohesion has occurred at the level of a personal turning from self towards neighbour.

"Physically ill": a Prime Minister on votes for prisoners

Imprisonment, after due legal process, as a sanction for those who break the law is acceptable as a practice in this country, and in any other country. Human rights principles, as expressed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, in the European Convention on Human Rights and, indeed, in Catholic social teaching, put the emphasis on the existence of due process and rule of law to make this a right thing to do. The question of imprisonment, purely in itself, is not unethical.

Imprisonment involves the deprivation of a person's liberty; it involves a restriction of a person's "stake", of their participation in society, in most cases for a period of time before that restriction is then removed. My own view happens to be that imprisonment should have this effect of restricting, rather than removing completely, a person's participation in society. In practice, this implies that programmes of education, rehabilitation or personal development should be available during a prison sentence. Family and societal support should also be available. All of this being subject to a test of reasonableness and appropriateness to the prisoner's particular situation. One could argue that it is part of the agenda for social cohesion.

So the idea that prisoners should be able to vote, due to be debated in Parliament today, does not seem to me to be unreasonable.

My problem is with David Cameron's reported remark, being repeated on the radio today, that he feels "physcially ill" at the thought of giving convicted prisoners the right to vote. If he had made this remark about any other group in society, there would have been uproar. Why is there not uproar because it was made about prisoners?

Founders Day/World Thinking Day

This is another delayed post - though less to do with my slow working brain and more to do with my waiting to see if its subject matter would appear elsewhere on the web. One report of the event is here, but I haven't been able to find any media reporting.

The Scout and Girl Guide movements celebrate Founders Day and World Thinking Day on 22nd February each year, that date being, I understand, the birthday of Robert Baden-Powell the founder of the scout and guide movements. Each year the day is marked by a service at Westminster Abbey, where there is a memorial to Lord and Lady Baden-Powell. This year, the service took place on Saturday 28th February.

One of my nephews was escorting the Scout banner during the service, and I had the opportunity to accompany another nephew in the congregation. I did not really know much about the Guide and Scout movements, apart from contact with the groups in my own parish in organising events like Evening Prayer for Christ the King, and Stations of the Cross. This year, it being the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Girl Guides, it was the Guides who had the lead in the service (three years ago, a similar lead was taken by the Scouts for their centenary). They showcased the history and the work of the movement.

And I have to say that I was most impressed by what I learnt about the movements during the service.  In an  ordinary and practical way the Guides and Scouts address issues that others would turn into slogans and political programmes. I will quote the promises of the two movements, which were renewed at one point during the service, and then offer some observations.

The Scout Promise is:


On My Honour, I promise that I will do my best
To do my duty to God and to the Queen,
To help other people
And to keep the Scout Law

The Scout Law is:


A Scout is to be trusted.
A Scout is loyal.
A Scout is friendly and considerate.
A Scout belongs to the worldwide family of Scouts.
A Scout has courage in all difficulties.
A Scout makes good use of time and is careful of possessions and property.
A Scout has self-respect and respect for others.

The Guide Promise


I promise that I will do my best
To love my God
To serve my Queen and my country
To help other people
and To keep the Guide Law

The Guide Law

A Guide is honest, reliable and can be trusted.
A Guide is helpful and uses her time and abilities wisely.
A Guide faces challenge and learns from her experiences.
A Guide is a good friend and a sister to all Guides.
A Guide is polite and considerate.
A Guide respects all living things and takes care of the world around her.

At the start of the service, three flags were processed to the altar - the Guide flag, the Scout flag and the Union flag; and both promises include a promise of service to the Queen (this aspect of the promise is, I presume, suitably adapted in other countries). Remembering that the Guide and Scout movements are both international movements, and that both draw members from across the breadth of society, I felt that the way this aspect of their promises was represented in the service, and is represented in the life of the movements, expressed exactly the right approach to having a sense of loyalty to one's nation. I was prompted to reflect on how I viewed the monarchy; one should perhaps see it as a symbol of the country that stands distinct from any particular political allegiance, and our present Queen, Elizabeth II, has lived the vocation represented by that symbol in a very faithful way.
 
Another aspect of the service that struck me was its approach to religion in the life of the Guides and Scouts, something represented in the promises by the references to duty towards and love of God. This reference to God in the promises can be adapted so that those who are not Christians can address it appropriately in accordance with their religion. I can't find it on their websites at the moment, but I understand that they work on the basis that their members will live fully the life of their own religious communities and that participation in religious events as Guides or Scouts is voluntary. The two movements did, however, seem to be perfectly comfortable celebrating their Founders Day/Thinking Day service in a Christian Abbey and making use of Christian prayers. I am sure that many readers of this blog will be familiar with Guide and Scout groups that are affiliated to Catholic parishes or to other Christian churches (my own nephews are members of a Scout group run by a nearby Methodist church). Again, without making a big fuss about it, the two movements seem to have captured exactly the right approach to the place of religion in the life of society and to the contribution that religion makes to the good of society as a whole.
 
A third aspect that struck me was the sense of friendship, a sense that was more than just being friends with people you know. I gained a real sense during the service - and it is reflected in the promises - that every Guide or Scout tries to be a friend to every other Guide or Scout, and perhaps especially those in other countries who they couldn't possibly know in an individual way.
 
The fourth aspect to strike me really grows out from the previous three. It is the sense of service to others and of responsibility in one's own life. Guides and Scouts put into practice in an ordinary way what others would make a fuss about under the headings of "citizenship" or "social cohesion". I have to say, as a personal point of view, and one that is not based on my own living of Guide and Scout ideals, that this sense of service to others appears to me to gain its depth and authenticity from being grounded in the first three points mentioned above: an appropriate sense of one's country, a correct approach to religion in the life of society and the sense of comradeship.
 
The founding inspiration of the Guide and Scout movements has something in common, I think, with that of the Focolare. The idea of camps familiar in the two movements is rather like the idea of a Mariapolis, particularly as it was experienced in the early days of the Focolare. The dialogue across four generations of a Guiding family that was part of the service at Westminster Abbey reflected the sort of testimonies that would be typical of a Focolare event. The idea of doing a small thing in your own life or for your neighbour, as your contribution to changing the world, would again be familiar to young people in Focolare. At one point during the service, there was also a reference to living in the present moment, between the past and the future - again, a thought that would be familiar to the Focolare. The place of religion in a spirituality that promotes a universal friendship is also something that would be familiar to the Focolare.

Update on report on faith schools

I posted my two penny worth in response to the recently published Runnymede Trust report on faith schools here.

The Catholic Association for Racial Justice (CARJ) have released this statement, posted at the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales. These are the concluding sentences of their statement - emphasis added by me:

CARJ and the Runnymede Trust have worked side by side in the struggle for racial justice over many years. We have drawn on the work of Runnymede and occasionally involved them in our work. In many ways, we share a similar analysis of British society and a similar vision for the future. We have many values and aspirations in common. It is from this position of genuine solidarity, and with some hesitation, that we express our deep disappointment in Runnymede’s analysis of faith schools.

Ironically, this report is guilty of exactly what it criticises in faith schools – a failure to develop an empathetic understanding that is able to reach across traditions and beliefs.

Runnymede Trust on faith schools

On Friday (slow news day, so you can perhaps understand why the report was released for coverage on that day), the UK news media covered a report on faith schools by the Runnymede Trust. This trust has for a number of years researched and reported on issues relating to equalities. I have a report from a good few years ago on Islamophobia.

The BBC website coverage of their report can be found here. The Times report is here, headlined "Faith schools must give up religion as a basis for selecting pupils, says report".

My own trade union is of course very exercised on this, so there has been a comment on the e-mail network among branch secretaries and executive. My contribution is below:

Dear Colleagues

What I found interesting in the Times report (and I have perceived it in other media coverage of faith schools in recent months) was the way in which it included an unstated assumption - that schools with a religious designation are OK so long as they are not allowed to be religious. It seems a bit discriminatory to me ...

The assessment of schools solely on the basis of their contribution to a particular assumption about what makes for good sociology is flawed for any type of school - any school is about other things as well, and focussing on research that does not take account of that will anyway produce only a partial picture.

I was suitably amused by the DCSF spokesman quoted on the BBC news website: "The bottom line is that faith schools are successful, thriving, popular and here to stay".

Yawn .... another attack on religious schools

Over the weekend, an alliance calling itself Accord offered familiar criticisms of state funded religious schools here in the UK.

The coverage of this in the Times described it as a "powerful alliance", opposing the legislative arrangements that allow schools with a religious designation to include faith affiliation in criteria for pupil admission and for some staff appointments. Accord recognise that some elements of this legislation come in to force today, and, at the beginning of a new academic year, more pupils than ever are attending schools with a religious designation. This appears to me more an admission of the powerless nature of the alliance ....

Religious supporters of Accord do not represent the main religious denominations - indeed, a robust response to the launch of Accord has been published by the providers of religious schools. From a look a the list of seven founding organisations of Accord the predominance of secularising organistions is quite apparent, including my own trade union, whose leadership appears to be now thoroughly secularist in its outlook. No agendas there then ...

Press Release issued on behalf of Faith Schools’ Providers Group: ‘Faith Schools in the System’

A coalition of religious figures representing over 6,000 Church of England, Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu state-funded schools have today issued the following statement in response to criticism of faith schools from a group called ‘Accord’, as a greater number of families than ever choose to send their children to faith schools in the maintained sector this September.

Faith communities entirely refute the allegation that faith schools are discriminatory, or that they represent a divisive force within British society.

We stand as representatives of schools who work tirelessly to not only provide high quality education in some of the most challenging contexts in the country, but to nurture religious values of respect and care for others in young people. This latest attack, based on unspecified 'research', does a disservice to the huge value that faith schools add to our state education sector and the extent of appreciation that parents and students have for these schools.

European Human Rights legislation guarantees the rights of parents to schooling compatible with their religious and philosophical beliefs. We believe that parents and students should have the right to choose the type of environment in which they will flourish academically, socially and spiritually.

It is interesting to reflect on the relationship between a state funded school and the state. If state funding is seen as being at the service of the common good, a state funded school should not, simply by virtue of its state funding, be seen as an organisation of the state. Instead, it remains an organisation of civil society, and should have an autonomy from the state that is still respected. This allows for a diversity of school types, which meet the needs of different communities in society, with equality of funding for all these different types of school. The state might well set certain expectations of schools in the country - but these expectations should be limited to protecting the common good for all in society.

This is not exactly the situation we have in the UK. The introduction of the National Curriculum was probably a cultural step towards state control of schooling. True, the governing bodies of schools, particularly in Voluntary Aided of Foundation schools, are strictly speaking responsible for the curriculum of their schools. But, in many cases, the ethos is one of obedience to government guidance, a culture of acceptance of a kind of government control. And the secularist attack on schools with a religious designation does have a hidden assumption about how the relationship of schools to the state and to society is understood. Generally, this attack assumes that schools, by virtue of state funding, become organisations of the state. Perhaps a more careful analysis of this relationship is needed as part of the response to secularist attacks.

Religious-secularist dialogue: the Cardinal's lectures continued

Mulier Fortis and Fr Tim have posts on the second of the Cardinal's Lectures, given by Mark Thompson, a Catholic, who is director general of the BBC. Their posts suggest that the Catholic blogosphere continues to be less than fully impressed (now, isn't that a wonderful circumlocution!) by a lecture series whose title wishes to address issues of the relationship between religion and secular society. A transcript/text of the lecture can be found here, at the website of the Westminster Archdiocese. The comments within the "debate" at that site reflect some of the concerns expressed in Mulier Fortis and Fr Tim's posts.

With hindsight about the first lecture, and perhaps some crystal ball gazing looking forward to future lectures in the series, a question has occurred to me. Which is the most important question facing religions and society in general in Britain - the question of inter-religious dialogue or the question of dialogue between religions and secularist society (expressed most significantly in its political manifestations of party politics and legislation)? Tony Blair's lecture seemed to see the first of these as most important and as being the area in which his foundation intends to work. I want to suggest in this post that it is in fact the second of these dialogues that is more important, and looking at the titles of future lectures in the series, there is the potential that it may be addressed. However, I must admit that I feel it is more likely that these lectures will in fact cover more the territory of the first question.

In the context of ecumenical dialogue, I have observed (here)that I feel that the core reality of this dialogue lies less in explicitly "ecumenical" events and more in the way that Christian churches live out an ecumencial identity as part of their "ordinary life". I cited the Focolare movement (with its "spirituality of unity" lived out in "four dialogues") and the Bridgettine sisters (with a monastic charism of hospitality and prayer for unity among Christians) as examples of how the Catholic Church does this. In this context, the willingness of the Church of England to ordain women, accept homosexual clergy, etc has a profound and adverse ecumenical meaning, despite the willingness of the Church of England to engage in ecumencial activity. Of far greater ecumencial significance, I would suggest, is the stand being taken by some African bishops of the Anglican communion.

Now, let me try to apply the same sort of idea to dialogue between religions and secularist society. How can the Catholic Church, and other religions, live in some way a dialogue with secularist society? I would suggest two areas. One is a willingess to engage with human reason. This means that religious believers need to engage with academic studies across the piece - physical sciences, philosophy, and the human sciences, and to be willing to approach their study in these areas as specialists in those areas using the methodologies appropriate to those areas. The second area is a specification of the first. It is a willingness to engage with the study of the physical sciences in the light of religious belief, a dialogue between religion and science.

And, from the other side, how can secularist society live a dialogue with religion? I would suggest the same two areas. One of the key components in current secularist activity might be called the "LGBT concept", which presents gender/sexual identity as being a product of social construct and therefore open to any adjustment to suit human wishes. This is, in my view, a profoundly irrational concept. It denies that the sexual differentiation of the human body has any real meaning, and, indeed turns away from the move away from asexual towards sexual reproduction that can be seen in the move from the lower living forms to the higher. So, secularist society needs to re-engage with reason in the proper sense of that word. Secondly, secularist society needs to engage in the dialogue between science and religion. Some of the recent posts and comments on this blog show a movement of hostility towards religion among scientists. This needs to be replaced by dialogue between scientists and religions.

This dialogue between religion and secularist society seems to me to be just as, if not more more, critical for developing social cohesion than dialogue between religions (though in saying that I do not wish to say that inter-religious dialogue has no part to play, more that it needs to be paralleled by religious-secularist dialogue). Politics appears to be a bit like the Church of England at the moment - promoting an agenda of "social cohesion" whilst at the same time promoting other agendas that militate against dialogue between secularist society and religion. This they do through their hostility towards religiously inspired institutions such as schools and the LGBT agenda.

Miscellaneous thoughts on social cohesion

The April 2008 issue of New City carries a report from Kenya. This report gives an idea of how Catholic bishops and other religious leaders responded to the recent violence in their country. Seeing only the news reports outside the country, it was very easy for us to miss the way in which these tragic events represented a challenge to the ordinary people of Kenya.

"Belonging to a certain ethnic group is an inherent part of individual and cultural identity and, in itself, is not wrong. But on more than one occasion, historic and political events have warped feelings of belonging, creating myths and generating fear and mistrust between ethnic groups. These days Kenya has been posing a true challenge to its citizens... As the bishops of Kenya stated in their letter signed on 2 January: 'We have lived together for all these years as brothers and sisters. There is therefore no reason for us to raise our hand against our neighbour because he or she belongs to a different ethnic group or political affiliation. We appeal specifically to the political leaders ... to reach out to one another through dialogue in order to seek a solution to the present situation.'... In addition to the Catholic bishops, leaders of different Christian denominations and other religions have called all peoples to peace, organising moments of prayer throughout the country and encouraging solidarity above-all with those who suffer."

The report goes on to describe national prayers for peace being broadcast on radio and television, and Sunday Masses attended by far larger congregations than normal. It ends with a short account of a young father who, having discovered a group in his own neighbourhood who were planning to burn down a house in revenge, intervened with those involved and succeeded in preventing this atrocity.

What the report highlighted for me was the fact that, within a a situation of conflict based on national political events and a situation that was often reported in the media in these terms alone, there remained a moral challenge for individuals in their own neighbourhoods. Certainly, the national situation fuelled events at the neighbourhood level and so it was quite necessary to appeal for reconciliation at the national level, but at the same time responses were needed - and achieved - by people acting in their own neighbourhoods to resist violence. Sadly, in many neighbourhoods, it was the violence that held sway; but, as the New City report concludes, the positive episodes help us to believe that a better future can be achieved.

Since the events in Kenya, Tibet has seen violent protests against its Chinese rulers. An aspect of the protests in Tibet that I found most disturbing was the way in which some members of the ethnically Tibetan population appear to have targeted the local Chinese population, people who must in a real sense be their ordinary, every day neighbours. The news coverage that I saw suggested that, not only were Chinese businesses attacked, but invidual Chinese people were themselves subjected to brutality. In this context, I did not feel that an unqualified support for the Tibetan demonstrators was an appropriate response of Western governments. Again, there is an interplay between the national/international political situation and the local, neighbourhood one - but the same challenge to "love your neighbour" must surely still apply.

This may seem a long way from life in the UK, but it is perhaps not as far distant as might appear. Showing care for the neighbour who is different than yourself can take very simple forms, which nevertheless help to build trust. One of my ways of trying to do this is to give way to drivers of different ethnicity than myself on the roads (not trivial, when traffic queues up quite a long way on my road during rush hours!). I am sure there are other simple ways of trying to do this, too.