Integralism

In relation to politics and political theory, these notions are used in broad and narrower senses. The broad sense refers to any view which argues that ideals, principles and values regarded as important for the conduct of life should not be marginalized or omitted when considering the justification (and criticism) of political structures and policies. This is relevant to two strands in political theory: political realism and liberalism. According to the realist, morality has no, or only a very limited, role in politics. This may be held in two versions. First, that it has no role in the sphere of international relations, even if it does have a place in domestic politics. An example of this would be the view that while a government may have moral responsibilities to its own citizens it has no responsibilities to any other peoples, so should not be constrained by other-affecting ethical considerations in the conduct of international activity. Second, is that the view that it has no place in politics of any kind and its only locus is in personal relations. This is a version of the view advanced by Machiavelli in The Prince (1532). The relevance of ‘integralism’ / ‘integrism’ in relation to liberalism is illustrated by the debate surrounding John Rawls’s theory of Political Liberalism (1993) and its associated view of public reason. According to Rawls, the justification of liberal institutions and policies should respect ethical and ideological differences by not invoking comprehensive accounts of the human good or right conduct. In order to observe neutrality between these they should not be allowed a place in public reasoning about public matters. Critics of political realism and of neutralist liberalism argue that both invoke an unwarranted and harmful distinction within the sphere of action between the moral and the political. Far from being irrelevant to the issue of how it is right to act, moral considerations (including ones derived from religious views) are central. What is needed, therefore, is an integration of these fundamental sources values with narrower principles of political reasoning. In the narrower sense ‘integralism’ refers to a view in political theology which holds that wherever the numbers of believers in a society is sufficiently great, political institutions and policies should be determined, where relevant, by teachings of that faith. One example would be in Israel where some Jews argue that the state should be secular and politics governed without references to Jewish teaching while others argue that politics should be integrated with the principles of Torah (Mosaic Law) and related traditions. More extensively, however, ‘integralism’ is associated with a view held by some Roman Catholic political theorists. The source of this lies in reactions to events in 18th century France. From the late-middle ages through to the French Revolution (1789) the country was governed by a quasi-feudal system later referred to as the Ancien Régime. Within this the Church had great power. It was the largest single landowner, and Bishops and priests had influence nationally, regionally and locally. After the revolution Church property was nationalised and sold, clerical privileges were abolished and clergy were made employees of, and subject to, the state. Restrictions were later eased but the role of the Church remained marginal. Views among Catholic thinkers in France and Belgium were divided but in the 1830s a group emerged associated with the journal L’Ami de L’Ordre (Friends of Order) who advocated a relationship of separation of Church and State, recognising the relative autonomy and right of each to operate without significant interference from the other, and advocating freedom of conscience and practice for citizens. The main advocates of what would come to be termed ‘Catholic Liberalism’ were two priests Lacordaire and Lammenais, and an aristocrat Count Montalembert. Reactions were mixed but those who looked back to the Ancien Régime and saw the Revolution as a repudiation of God argued that this ‘separation and liberty’ conceded social order to the godless. In response to the growing division, Pope Pius IX published an encyclical Quanta Cura 1864 ‘Condemning Current Errors’ including the idea that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone, and that freedom of thought and practice were absolute rights. That in turn produced a reaction from Catholic Liberals and further Papal encyclicals and Church declarations specifically Leo XIII’s Immoratale Dei 1885 ‘On the Christian Constitution of States’, and Dignitatis Humanae 1965 ‘Decalaration on Religious Freedom’. To some extent the debate continues, with a renewed interest in the idea that where the Christian or specifically Catholic population is sufficient in number, the state should integrate religious morality into politics. Against this, religious Liberals follow the course set by the L’Ami de L’Ordre manifesto, later adopted by Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae, arguing for separation and freedom of conscience. At times this has become polemical with accusations of ‘apostasy’ and ‘theocracy’ being exchanged. It also bears on disputes about the conduct of Catholic legislators in relation to issues such as abortion where Church teaching conflicts with prevailing secular views. Given the decline of religious and practice in formerly Christian societies it might seem that religious integralist issue is moot, but with the growth and spread of Islam a new version of the old issue may be developing.