Chapter 2 - Ideas Have Consequences

I do have comments about the introduction and chapter 1 that can be found in the comments on Simply Convivial.  This is part of the continuing book discussion - one of the primary reasons I am blogging again.

This chapter questions much of what we believe about democracy.  It advocates hierarchy, order, aristocracy and merit.  It invites distinction and difference and argues against everyone being equal.  This chapter gives substance to some fleeting thoughts I have had.

Here are some of his arguments.

"Such equalitarianism is harmful because it always presents itself as a redress of injustice, whereas the truth is the very opposite."  It does seem that making everyone "equal" would be the way to reduce injustice, but as he points out later, "if it promises equality of condition, it promises injustice because one law for the ox and the lion is tyranny."  Trying to make everyone the same fails to bring about the desired results because we simply aren't all the same.  Parenting even just two children makes this abundantly clear.  He sees the rise in a call for equality as unfortunate as it replaces a sense of fraternity because "the ancient feeling of brotherhood carries obligations of which equality knows nothing."  It creates a "network of sentiment, not rights."  It is not something you can legislate - it is something that must be in the fabric of community and draws you into relationship.  Ultimately he feels that fraternity is outward focused while equality constantly makes you wonder about your own status and rights.  I think history (his book was written in the late 1940's) has shown this to be true.  Talking about rights does not elevate the conversation.

He also speaks of the middle class and its fondness for "complacency and security".  Later he suggests that education was, at one time, seen as a way to perfect yourself spiritually and prepare yourself for immortality.  In a democracy, he argues that education is essential to help "bring men to see the hierarchy of values".  However, it seems that we are no longer even trying to teach the values to sustain our own order.  In fact, we have devolved into an educational system that focuses on being successful in this world and aims for the individual to "acquire enough wealth to live a bourgeouise" lifestyle.  "The formula of popular education has failed democracy, because democracy has rebelled at the thought of sacrifice, the sacrifice of time and material goods without which there is no training in intellectual discipline."  Some might balk at this because they feel like they are sacrificing to send their children to good schools and their children seem to be up to their ears in homework - but are we aiming at the right definition of education?  Are we equipping our kids in light of the eternal - or even just values that help them live in community?  I think he would argue that if our aim is equality than we will never be successful in this endeavor.   As we continue through the book I think he will further refine what we should be aiming at in our educational system.