Values and Reality in the Social Contract
As uncertaintv comnounded hv confusion continues to erode faith and confidence in our government and institutions, it might he well to examine certain fundamental values and realities in the social contract. All of us recognize that our national life is shaned in nart hy what might bk termed purposeful institutions,such asthe market, the law, the family, the school, the church and organized philanthropy, and in part by fortuitous circumstances that defy planning and design, and often frustrate intent. Aside from the nerturhations caused hv unforseeahle events. the "normal" functioning of society leads to deep divisions and conflicts of interest in matters related to wealth. ownership, income, race and sex. Therefore, the society must develop iust mechanisms to establish criteria for and to resolve conflicts in the allocation of gains and losses in life and living. In doing this, expression and precise definition are given to the values shared by the great majority of the population. This in turn gives the societv its character and purpose. our values, identified early in our history snd reaffirmed hy succeeding ~enerationsare reflected in the law. These me: deference to&dividual life; concern with a social structure favorable to achieving the common good; prizing of the active will in shaping social experience; and confidence in material benefit nq a hwis for exemplary achievement. ISee: H u m , W., "Consensus and Confl~ctin Twentieth Centurv I'uhlir Policy," Daedalus, Fall, 1976, p. 89.1 The ohlieation to foster the creative potential and dienitv " of individual life is embraced by every iespected institution of the American society and is shared by virtually all citizens. From the heginning suffrage was extended, free of property qualifications. Also, freedom of contract and fee-simple ownership of land were guaranteed. (Fee-simple ownership gives the owner the broadest range of discretion compatible with social policy in use or transfe; of the land.) ~chooiswere created in large measure to equip the individual to manage affairs as a participant in the market or in politics. The Constitution was amended-and ultimately enforced--extending full citizenship, first to women and then to blacks and other minorities. Laws were passed to protect the individual from organized public and private power. These include safeguards and protection of individual rights in areas such as being acrused of rrime, assuring privacy against official and private intrusion, organizing trade unions, engaging in collective hargaining, guaranteeing the quality of consumer produrts and minimizing threak to health and safety. Identifying and cultivating the common eood are larrelv functionsbf Lstitutions othe; than the law. However, society has used the law, with vawinr. emphasis over time. to offer . support and pnltertion for k institutions and to define limits within wh~ch~nstitutinnsand individuals may exercise their power. In an analogous manner, society has continued to accept the market as a major institution of social control, hut subject to legally elaborated definitions of what is socially acceptable in market dealing. Increasing population, a rising standard of living and greater claims on available resources have led to an increasingly organized and interdependent economv. From this has emerzd meater sensitivitv to human " and natural resources, and increasing dependence upon the institution of education as a means of develonine . " a citizenrv competent to deal with the complexities of the time and as a wellspring from which new and useful knowledge is ohtained.
.
~~~
~
-
Great value glways has been placed on t h t active will directed at shaping experience. 'l'his is justified on the ha-is that it awakens new conrerns for social well-heing, that it provides opportunities fur individual creativitv and the cmtential for a self-renewing economy. In its early years the ~ m e r i c a nsociety demonstrated its commitment to this concept by awarding parcels of public land for family farms, by suhsidizing the railroads and supporting private will in the market. The results were generally good hut we have learned that not all change is for the better. The result is increasingly more stringent legal regulation to qualify the freedom granted the active will in areas where the health, safety or welfare of the society itself mav he impaired. he idea of materiai benefit as a basis for exemplary achievement is as ancient as it is well-founded. In essence, the society holds that people are more likely to pursue justice and equality if they are not driven by hunger or cold. From this came the notion that the citizen who owns something and who has resources to command willact resnonsihlv. Thus it is not surprising that as the society gained in wealth its citizens sought more and more of this wealth for themselves. with those prospering least well in the market drmanding that the government assure them a f a ~share. r As a result, the law is involved more in the economy than in any other aspect of social action. In recognizing that the forces that have made our society rich and fulfilling for many have created conditions of scarcity for some, we have become increasinelv conscious of unsolved problems of privilege, particularly th"& related to wealth, race and sex. The distribution of wealth and income is the most widely felt source of conflict. Twice during this century, during the 1930s and during the 1960s, Congress has demonstrated that legal mechanisms have the potential to redistribute wealth. Redistribution was accomplished through government work programs, social security and unemployment insurance, housing and food stamp provision for medical care. - programs, and aid to education. Considerably more difficult to resolve are conflicts arising when inequalities of wealth and income are combined with racial or sex differences. Perhaps the key question at present is how best to pursue the moral imnerative of eoualitv amone sexes and races without sacrificing the liberty needed by the societv to sustain its streneth and vitalitv. Of maior concern is the&nmitment assumed by the society to establish, contrary to all past experience, an environment in which eoualitv of opportunity and of treatment leads to equality in o;tcomk for all. Although this commitment was made to correct some grievous wrongs in the soriety and in response to penistent questirm ahout the moral and w l i t i d leeitimacv of the social contract, its strict implement&on can create mire problems than it solves. The character of the society is the expression of its values through continuing patterns of hehavior. The values expressed with great& feeling in the American soriety are those in which thr creative will of the individual serves the cummon good with benefit ~ a l l . T h e a t r e n ~ h o f s ~ i e t i l l c h r u a c t e r t h u s pndured is critically dependent upon the maintenance of conditions for develuping individuals of ~ ~ n u s uand a l diverse talenrsand motivation. Alterations in put~licpolicy that prize the grantinr of benefits above the exercise of initiative and creativity n i t only diminish the quality of the society, they WTL also corrupt its character and will. ~
~~~
. .
Volume 54, Number 1, January 1977 /
1
