Cogitare

In his attempt to create a model of society based on authenticity, one of the main factors that, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor has to consider is how to devise a system that can produce an effective community while taking care of the wants and needs of people as individuals.

Several attempts have been made throughout history to solve the old problem Taylor is trying to solve. As a result, many social orders have been devised and taken to practice: some with an emphasis on the individual, some on the community. The examples are innumerable, but one could mention the systems derived from Rousseau’s social contract or Marx’s study of the relations of productions as representative of both opposites.

However, the issue in the context of our modern, western societies goes beyond the theoretical considerations of whether socialism would be preferable to libertarianism. The problem of how to see and value adequately the importance of the individual inside of a community affects today the way we do politics, the way we do business and even the way we live our personal lives.

A loss of perspective, both at the social and personal levels, is to be identified as one of the causes of the difficulties in seeing the repercussion of individual actions at greater scale. In the same way stepping on an ant does not kill the whole colony and taking a skin cell out of my body does not kill me, it could be said that particular individuals are dispensable to society. Less trust in democracy and more suspicion in the government are some possible effects of this position.

On the other hand, one could say that individual wit and personal effort are what in fact drive society and foster progress, in a manner analogous to that made by the breakthroughs of the genius. As it can be easily noticed, this kind of view can generate a tendency to reduce the interventions of the state to a minimum and eliminate potentially beneficial social policies.

Is there then a point of equilibrium between personal freedom and social benefit? I am of the opinion that this is not a question of midpoints, such as, for Taylor, one should not try to find a compromise between being in favor or against modernity. Using the term in Rorty’s sense, I would rather call for a redefinition of the problem. That is, we should not state the problem as a confrontation between “I” and “Us” anymore. To achieve this, one could consider Taylor’s own concept of an ethics based on authenticity or Rorty’s idea of solidarity as valid approaches.

Nevertheless, I would be of the opinion that, instead of basing our interactions with other human beings, as Rorty suggests, on the fact that they are somehow related to me (which could be interpreted as just saying that I should not hurt people because they “belong” to me in certain way), realizing that the person on the receiving end of my actions could perfectly be me is a stronger and more honest attitude.