Metaphysics in politics - the problem of the one and the many | Orthodox Conservatives
The human mind has a tendency of over-simplifying the world and the problems it encounters. This blame is perhaps owed in part to modern education, which has conditioned us to think in overly reductionist and mechanistic ways. When we see events unfolding, it has become second nature within us to conclude that a singular cause is most likely at work, sometimes for the sake of convenience, but increasingly proceeds out of a habit of intellectual laziness. The truth instead, is that things in life can be both simple and complex depending on the perspective from which they are viewed. To those who study philosophy, the problem of the 'one and the many' likely comes to mind, the age-old debate of reconciling the unities and multiplicities apparent in our universe.
In modern politics, these philosophical problems, having been overlooked and disregarded, have since swollen in priority and size. We are often mistaken to think that where there is multiplicity and difference, there must also be division. This faulty axiom becomes especially apparent in the dialectics of gender, class and race. Any differences in these areas have increasingly been categorised as ‘problematic’: somewhere, somehow, someone has tipped the equilibrium, and what was once a non-issue has now become unfair, and if there is one word that sums up what our society thinks of itself, it would be that it is fair. What underpins this cosmic significance afforded to fairness—which we are all supposed to be striving towards—is the egalitarian assumption that characterises all revolutionary thought. In this worldview, all hierarchy must be toppled and tipped on its head, all differences must be ironed out, all for the sake of fairness. If we trace the logic of postmodern thought, it becomes obvious how such conclusions are reached:
P1. The world is a system of differences, between groups, individuals and objects.
P2. Typically, where we see that things are different, they have some divisions between them.
∴ Different things in the world are divided.
Whilst this argument may appear perfectly reasonable, there is a logical error that lies between the first and second premise: the assumption that difference entails division. Taking this flawed axiom as a given, leftists have devised the project of establishing absolute equality or unity as a moral end. It is, however, easy to demonstrate how this assumption about reality is simply not the case. For example, we can physically distinguish a pregnant mother from the child growing in her womb; to then conclude that there is a division—an unequal, oppressive relationship in operation is to misunderstand the very nature of the relationship: which of course is borne out of love. If we move to a more topical example, this dialectic of division becomes a little clearer. For a while now, UK government findings indicating that the average woman is paid less than her male counterpart have led many to conclude that there is inequality among the sexes. In light of our previous example, we can see that this is merely a mistaken analysis owing to the limitations of the egalitarian perspective: men and women have different functions and traits and will logically lead different lives, with different occupations and salaries. These differences, which the egalitarian is so desperate to erase never once implied division or disorder, or even inequality.
The notion that there are qualitative differences between groups—whether they be ethnically or sexually or however so derived—is to the Church, a point of non-controversy: whilst there is neither ‘Jew nor Greek... male nor female’ in Christ, one does not cede his identity by entering the Church (Gal. 3:28). In this case it is in fact the Church herself who preserves the realities of categories such as ethnos and gender, against the modern conception of the ‘blank slate’ touted by neoliberalism, which relegates all inherent identities to restrictive social constructs that bind the autonomous individual.
The accusation of inequality in the gender debate presupposes a false ‘tabula rasa’ approach to anthropology, wherein men and women are thought to be entirely interchangeable, to be remoulded and repurposed at will. Not only does this reduce men and women to economic units, it also denies the familial nature of human life. It is in this admission that the neoliberal paradigm is unmasked as nothing more than a system which prides itself on denying reality, of course to the detriment of family life, which has continued to deteriorate into the modern day. Under the guise of such an innocent phrase as ‘liberalism’ has such a destructive ideology been meted out. Standing against this toxic conception of the human person, Christian anthropology instead teaches clear and real distinctions between men and women, their respective duties to family and to society (Eph 5:21-33).
For Christians, these inherent differences (or particulars) are no cause for division or tension, for all things are said participate in the process of reconstitution or reunification (ἀποκατάστασις) that is to be fully realised in the future life:
Even now in his providence, he [God] is bringing about the assimilation of particulars to universals until he might unite creatures’ own voluntary inclination to the more universal natural principle of rational being through the movement of these particular creatures toward well-being (τὸ εὖ εἶναι), and make them harmonious and self-moving in relation to one another and to the whole universe. In this way there shall be no intentional divergence between universals and particulars.
Here, St Maximus communicates the revealed answer to the one and the many problems. The truth is that there is ‘no intentional divergence between universals and particulars’, unity and multiplicity are therefore synthesised by God and in God. Just as He is composed of many unique persons, so is man composed of many unique groups, and whilst these groups all participate in one human nature so do the three divine Persons participate, according to the Christian trinity, in One divine nature.
The cosmic plan for man, his telos—is to be unified in the very human nature (In Maximus’ words ‘the universal natural principle of rational being’) that God assumed when he incarnated. This unifying principle in no way entails the collapse of human distinction; Christ Himself assumed a differentiated human nature as a Jew, demonstrated clearly when the magi ask “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” (Mt. 2:2).
Having addressed the harmonious reality of difference, it makes sense to lay out the Christian understanding of hierarchy. In Theology, hierarchy (ἱεραρχία, the sacred principle or origin) flows from the divine wellspring of God, Who created all things (Col. 1:16). Therefore, the egalitarian assault on hierarchy becomes immediately a direct challenge to God, the One who resides at the pinnacle of the order, who the fallen man finds himself in conflict with. It becomes clear then, that the revolutions of the modern age against hierarchy-in-itself are not merely anti-traditional, but more primarily anti-Christian: they seek to invert the entire cosmic order and realise divisions that do not exist, exacerbating them, as all shall belong to the Kingdom of God which itself is a perfect unity.
Conservative political philosophy finds its roots in the notion of Christian hierarchy, as the paternalistic state—the central motif of the ‘one nation’ conservatism echoed by modern thinkers such as Michael Oakeshott—is analogous to the Father’s hierarchical relationship with man, Who guides and corrects him when he is led astray. Mankind, made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), United in nature yet distinct in personhood provides an analogy to the interior relationship of God Himself: ‘The Father, the principle and cause of all things, the begetter of the Son and Emitter of the Holy Spirit’.
St John’s description of the monarchy enjoyed by the Father as the first among equals in no way confuses or relegates the divinity of the Son nor the Spirit, Who all share in the glory of the singular Divine essence. The relationship of the three persons in God, the multiplicity of persons and unity of essence (i.e. the one and the many) is the sacred proof that there is no tension between equality and hierarchy, neither in heaven nor on earth.
If we return our gaze to the modern political landscape with these concepts in mind, it becomes obvious that our society is lacking in a solid foundation. The Christian faith is not merely a preference or flavour that imbues a culture, it is a transformative doctrine by which one is realigned with the Truth Himself (Jn. 14:6). To reject this Truth is to then reject all truths, and it is therefore unsurprising that we find ourselves caught up in such illusory dialectics and false narratives, evident by the growing popularity of the absurdist movement in the modern university and the consequent denial of reality.
In this same vein, the establishment’s insistence on absolute equality is not mistaken because it may offend sensibilities, but because God by His very nature is hierarchical, and so all things that flow from Him (all existence) finds themselves somewhere in a cosmic order. So long as God is shunned and repelled from public life, the seeds of disorder will continue to bear fruit, the atmosphere will remain anxiously fragmented and tensions will only multiply. For a genuine conservatism to re-emerge in Britain, a concerted effort must now be made to reassert its doctrine of Christian hierarchy, (whilst demonstrating the absurd positions of its critics) if we are to reclaim any intellectual ground from the anti-traditional forces that are promoting disorder. The egalitarian assumption, which all too often descends into earthly revolutionary zeal cannot be afforded any moral validity; it’s only existence is in the minds of the misguided and mal-intentioned.
–
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.
