Globalization with a Human Face: Catholic Social Teaching and Globalization

Theological Studies 69 (2008)

GLOBALIZATION WITH A HUMAN FACE: CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING AND GLOBALIZATION

KENNETH R. HIMES, O.F.M.

Globalization raises an array of moral issues. The legacy of Catholic social teaching offers "ethical coordinates" that may prove useful in guiding globalization in a manner that advances the human good. At the same time the new social context being shaped by globalization demands that the tradition of Catholic social teaching undergo development in order to adequately address the changing global reality. The article highlights both some of the resources within Catholic social teaching and some of the challenges presented to the tradition when assessing globalization.

DURING A 2001 SPEECH to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, John Paul II stated, "Globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It

will be what people make of it."1 That statement suggests three initial points of importance for discussing globalization and Catholic social teaching (CST). First, globalization is not a fully formed and developed reality; it is in the process of coming to be. Second, globalization is not predetermined by impersonal forces that are beyond human influence; it is a reality that will be shaped by human choice and action. Finally, globalization, precisely as a set of processes that are humanly guided, is subject to ethical assessment, and such evaluation does not presume globalization is inherently right or wrong. In the first part of this article, I comment further on these three initial claims about globalization. I then take up the topic of what CST has to offer regarding an assessment of globalization, and conclude with a discussion of how CST must develop in order to respond effectively to questions and challenges presented by globalization.

KENNETH R. HIMES, O.F.M., received his Ph.D. in religion and public policy at Duke University. Now at Boston College, he teaches courses in fundamental moral theology, the ethics of war and peace, and the history of Catholic social teaching; he also serves as chairperson of the theology department. Most recently he has published "Consumerism and Christian Ethics," Theological Studies 68 (2007). He is working on a volume tentatively titled Christianity and the Public Order for Orbis Books.

1 John Paul II, "Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences" (April 27,2001) no. 2. All official papal and church documents are cited from the Vatican Web site.

269

270 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON GLOBALIZATION

At the end of a recent book on CST and globalization, one of the coeditors observed that there was a consensus among the contributing authors that no fully satisfactory definition of globalization was available.2

Despite uncertainty about how to define globalization, there is abundant empirical evidence that it is happening. Trade, travel, and currency exchanges among nations all dramatically increased during the decades of the 1980s and 1990s. In the past 20 years we have seen a tremendous expansion in the number of globally active nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). We have also witnessed a dramatic rise in the number of students studying abroad, as well as in international conferences, congresses, and research teams.3 There are other obvious examples of global linkages like the Internet and influence on climate change in the contemporary world.

One reason the definition of globalization is contested is that there are globalizations, not just a singular globalization. Daniel Groody points out that globalization means different things to political scientists, economists, sociologists, and anthropologists;4 one might also add social activists, consumers, diplomats, and artists to that list without exhausting it. A common distinction is made between two globalizations, from above and below. The former includes the activities of large institutional actors in politics and business (governments, banks, corporations), while the former refers to other actors, groups or individuals, who are engaged in forging a globalized civil society (e.g., artists, hobbyists, interest groups, and social activists).

Globalization can be thought of as a braid with distinct yet intertwined strands. Politics, economics, communications, religion, education, environment, culture, technology—all are strands forming the braid. The feature that unites the multiple elements into the reality we call globalization is the experience of increasing interconnectedness on a planet where distance is shrinking and time is accelerating, compared to the experience of life just a few decades ago.5 Yet each strand has its own distinctive look and rep-

2 William Ryan, "Personal Comments, Reflections, and Hopes," in Globalization and Catholic Social Thought: Present Crisis, Future Hope, ed. John A. Coleman and William F. Ryan (Toronto: Novalis, 2005) 249-65, at 249.

3 John A. Coleman, S.J. "Making the Connections: Globalization and Catholic Social Thought," in Globalization and Catholic Social Thought 9-27, esp. 14 for examples like those noted above.

4 Daniel G. Groody, Globalization, Spirituality, and Justice: Navigating the Path to Peace (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2007) 13.

5 In accord with many others, Enrico Chiavacci views the ease, quickness, and extent of communication and travel as hallmarks of the phenomenon of globalization. See "Globalization and Justice: New Horizons for Moral Theology," in Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church, ed. James F. Keenan (New York: Continuum, 2007) 239-44, at 239.

CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING AND GLOBALIZATION 271

resents a particular form of globalization. The variety within globalization can be overlooked due to the tendency to focus on one strand, the economic.

Running throughout the commentaries on globalization is the implication that it is inevitable, impervious to human resistance, and beyond moral agency. According to African moral theologian John Mary Waliggo, the "first and most hideous injustice of globalization" is that the people in the developing world are "told over and over again that they have no choice but to accept it" or face even further marginalization.6

In one sense, there is an inevitability about globalization; processes that will shrink the world and heighten interdependence describe our future accurately. But the precise form the various globalizations will take, their aims and consequences, and the methods by which they will be enacted are not predetermined. As David Hollenbach has written, "secession" from a globalized world is "not a live option," but the choices before us are "what kinds of global interdependence are worthy of commitment" and how should we relate our personal, national, and regional ties to those that are global.7 In sum, globalization's evolution will be a matter of value preferences by persons exercising moral agency. Portraying globalization as anything else shields us from our accountability for the future direction of the world we are shaping.

Groody, echoing the view of John Paul II, sees globalization as an ambivalent reality, both ethically and theologically. On the one hand, it "has created possibilities for local, regional, and global integration"; on the other hand, "it has also left waves of disintegration in its wake."8 Theologically, "globalization offers a new hope for human solidarity and inter-connectedness, which coexist against the reemergence of age-old human constants like greed, selfishness, and sinfulness."9

Agnes Brazal, writing from the Philippines, maintains that with "the fall of most communist-ruled states, the phenomenon of economic globalization today takes the form of global capitalism."10 This very well may account for why theologians from developing countries often have such a dim view of globalization. Without question there have been benefits, but the emphasis is on how globalization increases inequality, both economically

6 John Mary Waliggo, "A Call for Prophetic Action," in Ethics in the World Church 253-61, at 254.

7 David Hollenbach, The Common Good and Christian Ethics (New York: Cambridge University, 2002) 219.

8 Groody, Globalization, Spirituality, and Justice 12. 9 Ibid. 21. 10 Agnes Brazal, "Globalization and Catholic Theological Ethics," in Ethics in

the World Church 74-81, at 74.


and politically. For example, Waliggo maintains, "although globalization has both positive and negative aspects, the negative greatly outweigh the positives." This judgment is due, in part, to his conviction that the current phase of globalization "can be understood only in the historical perspective of earlier globalization movements of slave trade, colonialism, neocolonialism, and the competition" between the two superpowers of the late 20th century.11

In accord with Brazal's claim that economic globalization is actually the propagation of neoliberal capitalism, Indian theologian Clement Campos observes, "theological ethicists by and large have taken an extremely critical stand against globalization. They have based their position on a critique of capitalism and the market economy, which is in reality a new form of economic imperialism, together with the principles that are part of the social teaching of the church."12

While there will be different judgments about a reality as multifaceted as globalization, it is possible to see an emerging consensus that the tradition of CST provides normative elements useful for shaping an ethical response to globalization. To use Groody's terminology, CST offers "ethical coordinates" that will "help steer the ship of globalization" in the proper direction.13 The interest of moral theologians to provide evaluative criteria for globalization reflects the conviction that the process is not a mysterious force beyond human influence; rather, globalization is subject to ethical assessment. Both in the ends sought and the methods employed, globalization cannot be treated as immune from moral guidance and evaluation.

WHAT CST CAN PROVIDE TO AN ASSESSMENT OF GLOBALIZATION

David Hollenbach has noted an irony of globalization. Proponents of liberalism advocate a process that forges and expands "networks of human interaction." These supporters of globalization seek to comprehend the "new interdependence" they help to create by employing a philosophy that emphasizes independence and autonomy. The contemporary resurgence of economic liberalism "systematically avoids attending to the impact of human interconnections on the quality of life by focusing on the freedom and choices of individuals one at a time."14 Hollenbach argues that a needed

11 Waliggo, "Prophetic Action" 253. 12 Clement Campos, "Doing Christian Ethics in India's World of Cultural Com

plexity and Social Inequality," in Ethics in the World Church 82-90, at 83. Ryan ("Personal Comments" 249) agrees that for many people globalization has come to be equated with economic globalization and that the particular form it is taking resembles 19th-century liberalism's approach to markets.

13 Groody, Globalization, Spirituality, and Justice 118. 14 Hollenbach, Common Good 42.


corrective is the restoration of a communitarian perspective, one that puts "the connections among people back at the center of social and moral inquiry."15 Globalization is creating new forms of interaction and interdependence, and this ought to prod us to examine the nature and quality of human relationships as well as the kinds of communities that actually foster human well-being. Consequently, we need a creative retrieval of the ideas of common goods (and "common bads") "in a normative framework adequate to guide response to new forms of global connection."16

When John XXIII introduced the idea of a universal or global common good, he was translating the traditional language of the common good from its local and national contexts to a new setting. He did not work through a fully adequate analysis of the global common good, but his insight prodded social theorists to consider those shared goods and bads that must be addressed at a transnational level if they are to be attained or remedied. His language allowed a glimpse into the mode of thinking that was needed as interdependence became a buzzword in the latter half of the 20th century. An examination of environmental ills, public health threats, refugees, and other challenges that transgress state borders was not possible without placing a nation's interest into the wider context of a global common good. Indeed, seeking a national interest independently, rather than multilater-ally, only led to the worsening of problems. The social vision that informed Pacem in terris remains a necessary corrective to the temptations of neo-liberalism that linger in many present assessments of our global life.

Hollenbach does not presume the classical texts about the common good found in CST are simply sufficient for a richer and more complex philosophical and theological anthropology than the autonomous individual offered up by neoliberalism. Yet the tradition does reflect the communitarian vision that is necessary for judgments about the strengths and liabilities of globalization. As human beings find themselves living in ever more complex networks of interconnection, they discover that a schema of values that "gives primacy of place to non-interference and non-judgmentalism lacks the criteria needed to address these connections in a critical manner." Needed instead is a values framework that "can assess the relative merits of different modes of living together."17

Of course, CST is not the sole resource for developing an alternative to liberal individualism. John Coleman reminds us that, in developing a more adequate values framework for addressing globalization, CST will not lack for conversation partners. He mentions several public intellectuals who are sympathetic to the overall project of situating individuals within a social

15 Ibid. 44. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 56, emphasis original.


vision that takes more seriously the communal character of human life than contemporary liberalism.18 Various labels may be proposed for such a project—communitarian liberalism, cosmopolitan communitarianism, soli-daristic communitarianism—but whatever the label, the aim is to recover a perspective on the human person that views relationality as a vital component for authentic personhood. Such a viewpoint will necessarily be attentive to the prospect of a common good or set of shared goods.

Integral Humanism

An axiom of CST is that an incorrect view of the human person will inevitably lead to an inadequate theory of political economy. John Paul II wrote in Centesimus annus that the foundation of CST is a theological anthropology that views the human person in relation to the mystery of God as well as to the person's rightful place in the order of creation.19

Attainment of a proper understanding of the human person is essential if we are to develop political, economic, and cultural institutions that will promote the authentic development of humankind.

It was Paul VI in Populorum progressio who gave special prominence to the risk of human development's being skewed by economic reductionism. "Development cannot be limited to mere economic growth. In order to be authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is, it has to promote the good of every person and of the whole person."20 Written at a time when development theory was still greatly influenced by Walter Rostow's theory of stages of growth, Paul adopted the broader humanistic approach of Louis-Joseph Lebret, Barbara Ward, and others who avoided the identification of development with growth in productivity or export sales. Scholars like Lebret factored concerns for distributive justice and meeting basic needs into their theories. They also used literacy rates and other empirical indicators of broad-based advancement within a society to escape a trickle down approach that might leave the grassroots struggling for survival while elites improved their lot.21

18 John Coleman, "Retrieving or Re-inventing Social Catholicism: A Transatlantic Response," in Catholic Social Thought: Twilight or Renaissance?, ed. John S. Boswell, Francis P. McHugh, and Johan Verstraeten, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 157 (Leuven: Leuven University, 2000) 265-92, at 281 n. 33. Among those scholars cited by Coleman are Philip Selznick, William Galston, and Amitai Etzioni.

19 John Paul II, Centesimus annus (1991) nos. 53-55. 20 Paul VI, Populorum progressio (1967) no. 14. 21 For more on the background influences that shaped the encyclical, see Alan

Figueroa Deck, "Commentary on Populorum Progressio," in Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries and Interpretations, ed., Kenneth R. Himes et al. (Washington: Georgetown University, 2005) 292-314, esp. 293-99.


As Sri Lankan moral theologian Vimal Tirimanna summarizes the matter: the old question was "how much is a nation producing?" whereas the correct question is "how are its people faring?"22 The point, as Tirimanna makes clear, is not that economic growth is unimportant, or that economic well-being is not a concern for development; rather, economic development is not the whole story and must be integrated into a wider setting of development that enhances the ability of people to flourish on multiple levels. Paul VI described characteristics of a multifaceted approach to authentic development based on a complete and integral humanism: satisfaction of material needs, reformed social structures that eliminate oppression, opportunities for learning and appreciating a culture, cooperating for the common good, and working for peace, acknowledgement of moral values and their transcendent source, the gift of faith, and the deepening of unity in love.23

Evident throughout CST is a strong commitment that any "ethical coordinates" proposed for assessing globalization be based on the foundation that human persons are the primary moral reality. The principle of human dignity is the touchstone for CST. Persons have dignity and must be respected. It is not identity as a citizen or producer that establishes a person's dignity; it is the conviction that humans are made in the image and likeness of their divine Creator. It is the theology of the creation narrative of Genesis that provides the foundation for CST's commitment to the dignity of each person.

There is an ethical egalitarianism present in CST, for each person has an equal claim to moral respect. That claim is generative of other ethical coordinates, as will be suggested below. CST begins, however, with a claim about the nature of the person: human beings are creatures of God-given dignity, and each person has equal standing to claim that he or she be respected. In the face of an economic globalization that can reduce individuals to their value in the free market, a political globalization that can marginalize persons from effective access to power, and a cultural globalization that can ride roughshod over the communal patterns by which people make meaning and give expression to their values and beliefs, it is crucial that CST continue to espouse an integral humanism. Insisting that the moral measure of globalization is the authentic development of each person is a major ethical coordinate that CST can help to establish.

22 Vimal Tirimanna, "Globalization Needs to Count Human Persons," in Ethics in the World Church 245-52, at 247.

23 See Paul VI, Populorum progressio no. 21.


Solidarity

The second fundamental claim that CST makes about the nature of the human person is that we are social. Community is not an option for those inclined to it; it is an expression of the basic unity of humankind. There is the creation narrative of Genesis with its lesson that humans were made for each other. There are theological doctrines like the Trinity that suggest communion is at the heart of the divine mystery. And there are ethical claims about the unity of the human family under the loving gaze of the one God who is creator of all. These beliefs have shaped CST to such an extent that a consistent theme is this: "human dignity can be realized and protected only in community."24 Building bonds between individuals and groups helps to foster conditions within which human beings can flourish, precisely because we are social beings.

One aspect of community is the natural inclination for a group to define itself by its distinctiveness from those not in the group. This inclination gives rise to the temptation to see the outsider not only as different but as inferior to insiders. The evils of racism, sexism, nationalism, religious discrimination, xenophobia, and the other patterns of marginalization in human history testify to the dark side of communal experience. Globalization can create new ties of interdependence and reinforce older ties. The danger is that the empirical reality of interdependence will not be accompanied by the moral reality of solidarity. The other with whom one is brought into contact will be treated as less than equal.

John Paul IPs encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis provides the most commonly cited reflection on solidarity in CST.25 There the pope discusses interdependence as "a system determining relationships in the contemporary world" and solidarity as the "correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a 'virtue.'"26 He goes on to state that solidarity "helps us to see the 'other'—whether a person, people, or nation—not just as some kind of instrument... but as our 'neighbor,' a 'helper' (Gen. 2:18-20), to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God."27

The 2000 World Day of Peace Message further reflected on solidarity and globalization: "We cannot of course foresee the future. But we can set

24 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All (Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1985) no. 14, http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ international/EconomicJusticeforAll.pdf (accessed January 2, 2008).

25 For extended treatment of the encyclical and the theme of solidarity, see Charles Curran, Kenneth Himes, and Thomas Shannon, "Commentary on Sollicitudo rei socialis," in Modern Catholic Social Teaching 415-35, esp. 426-30.

26 John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis no. 38, emphasis original. 27 Ibid. no. 39, emphasis original.

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/


forth one certain principle: there will be peace only to the extent that humanity as a whole rediscovers its fundamental calling to be one family" a unity that precedes and overrides any distinction between people. The pope continued: "Recognition of this fundamental principle can give the world as it is today—marked by the process of globalization—a soul, a meaning and a direction. Globalization, for all its risks, also offers exceptional and promising opportunities, precisely with a view to enabling humanity to become a single family, built on the values of justice, equity and solidarity."28

The pope's emphasis on solidarity as crucial to establishing proper forms of interdependence is echoed by several prominent advocates of CST. Enrico Chiavacci calls for use of the "new technological possibilities" to "make the world a spatium verae fraternitatis (a space of true solidarity)."29

And Tirimanna asserts that the lesson of solidarity in CST is that "each of us is responsible for the other in this one human family." In our globalized world this solidarity translates into "partnerships for the benefit of one another," especially partnerships between rich and poor nations.30 Finally, Hollenbach reminds us that, since the present relationships forged by globalization reflect inequality and marginalization, we need to establish normative standards of solidarity to which we can hold the future processes of interaction that constitute globalization.31

Solidarity ensures that the emerging global order is one that will truly serve the well-being of all people and not simply a segment of the world's population at the expense of the rest of humankind. It is an important element of the ethical framework that CST will employ when assessing globalization.

Justice

CST not only asserts the necessity of a spirit of solidarity to transform interdependence into a humanly beneficial community, but the tradition also addresses what kind of community makes the good life possible. The basic principle is that a truly human community establishes justice for its members. In the case of a global community, this means justice is secured for all people and local communities within the global family.

Many commentators have observed that modern CST came into existence in response to the abuses of liberalism during the early stage of industrial capitalism in the 19th century. Today, several adherents of CST

28 John Paul II, "Peace on Earth to Those Whom God Loves," World Day of Peace Message (January 1, 2000) no. 5.

29 Chiavacci, "Globalization and Justice" 241. 30 Tirimanna, "Globalization Needs to Count Human Persons" 250. 31 Hollenbach, Common Good 220.


see the early stage of globalization being characterized, in large part, by a neoliberalism that excuses inequality as an unfortunate byproduct of the freedom that must be maintained in order to reap the benefits of globalization.32 So free trade, free contract, and free movement of capital are all defended as essential to the experience of economic globalization.

In response commentators argue that CST, while acknowledging the new global context, must not forget the key values and principles that constitute its legacy. When Leo XIII encountered the argument of liberal economics that free contracts were intrinsic to free markets, he asserted that there is "a dictate of nature more imperious and ancient than any bargain" between persons; it is a demand of natural justice that wages be set at a level "to support a frugal and well-behaved wage earner."33 This claim that justice trumps freedom in economics was a decisive break with free market ideology at the time and, for all of CST's support for property rights, distanced CST from liberal free market orthodoxy. Justice is crucial to CST as an ethical coordinate.

As is widely acknowledged, CST's understanding of justice has evolved in a substantive manner by its adoption of the language of human rights. While John XXIII's encyclical Pacem in terris34 is rightly viewed as the earliest extensive treatment of human rights in CST, his approach has been ratified again and again in statements of hierarchs, scholars, and activists. The human rights theory of CST embraces both those rights commonly called civil and political as well as those labeled socioeconomic.35 These rights are understood as deeply rooted within the teaching of CST about human dignity. In keeping with both the social and sacred dimensions of the person, human rights in the tradition are also correlated with a strong sense of duties and responsibilities to the community and common good.

Promotion of a set of basic human rights that ought to be universally established and recognized is a further elaboration of the idea of justice that CST provides for assessing globalization. Gene Ahner, in his argument for business ethics in a globalized setting, takes up the question of cultural relativities when making ethical judgments. While making room for pluralism in ethical options, he maintains that there is a set of basic rights that reflect transcultural values, that businesses must respect these rights, oth-

32 Besides the essays of Brazal and Ryan noted above, see also James E. Hug, S.J., "Economic Justice and Globalization," in Globalization and Catholic Social Thought 55-71.

33 Leo XIII, Rerum novarum (1891) no. 45. 34 John XXIII, Pacem in terris (1963) esp. nos. 8-36. 35 David Hollenbach, Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic

Human Rights Tradition (New York: Paulist, 1979) remains among the finest and most detailed explanations for the evolution of official church teaching in this area.


erwise they are "not being culturally sensitive" but "acting immorally."36

Hollenbach argues that a globalized world should neither deny people the experience of local communities that claim their loyalty, nor allow such loyalties to conflict with the fundamental human rights of people abused by local cultural norms. He proposes a "rooted cosmopolitanism" that mediates between the pure cosmopolitanism of one global community and the sheer cultural relativism of those who would absolutize a particular community's prerogatives. Basic human rights serve as a norm for particular groups even as we recognize the persistence of local loyalties amidst the reality of globalization.37

The theory of justice in recent CST has also been greatly enriched by the increased prominence given to the theme of participation. Paul VI, in Octogésima adveniens, identified participation, along with equality, as "fundamental aspirations" that are "two forms of human dignity and freedom."38 For Paul, the drive to participation reflects a rise in information and education among people. It also testifies to a basic drive within human beings as they seek greater development, the legitimate wish to share responsibility for decisions that shape their individual and collective futures.

In CST, participation applies in many realms, but the theme has a distinct contribution for political globalization since present global institutions suffer from a "democratic deficit."39 The expression points to the fact that, in the processes of global decision-making, there are two major fault lines. The first is that, in many of the forums, conferences, and summit meetings where rules and procedures of globalization are discussed, the grassroots perspective does not get an adequate hearing. Decisions about trade, foreign debt, and capital investment are made with little or no input from the majority of people affected. Hollenbach observes that, while these intergovernmental organizations "are formally accountable to the states that are their members, they represent only certain constituencies within those states, frequently conduct their business in closed sessions, and operate as distant bureaucracies."40

Regarding the second fault line, there is not just a divide between elites and the grassroots, but even entire states often lack true participation. "Votes in these international agencies are often distributed in proportion

36 Gene Ahner, Business Ethics: Making a Life, Not Just a Living (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2007) 192.

37 Hollenbach, Common Good 220-21. 38 Paul VI, Octogésima adveniens (1981) no. 22. 39 Joseph S. Nye Jr.,"Globalization's Democratic Deficit: How to Make Interna

tional Institutions More Accountable," Foreign Affairs 80.4 (2001) 2-6. 40 Hollenbach, Common Good 224.


to the wealth or budgetary contributions of the member states and sometimes non-members are not officially represented at all."41 In sum, the "democratic deficit" of globalization is that large numbers of the world's peoples are without effective means to participate in a meaningful way in decisions that will directly bear on their well-being. This is a serious injustice to persons whose dignity entails exercising their creative moral agency.

Many other aspects of CST can illuminate discernment concerning globalization. The option for the poor, treated below, is an obvious element of the tradition that will enrich CST's ethical assessment of the globalization process. One can readily call to mind other useful insights of the tradition when evaluating globalization. The above is not presented as an exhaustive treatment of the riches of tradition but merely as a suggestive approach to consider the ongoing relevance of CST to the new situation in which we find ourselves.

GLOBALIZATION AND THE CHALLENGE TO CST

Scholars disagree about the "newness" of globalization. Economic historians, in particular, may see globalization as the continuation of a long-running trend to expand trade, open new markets, hasten the delivery of goods, and promote freedom of investment capital. Certainly, it is true that interdependence is not novel; people have been interconnected across borders and boundaries, political or geographic, for centuries.

As noted earlier, however, the current form of globalization is about the transformation of time and space in our lives.42 Distant events affect us more directly. A world of instant electronic communication, which includes even the poorest nations, now influences local cultures and everyday patterns of life. Additionally, the sovereignty of the nation-state is no longer an all or nothing proposition, as we see the authority and power of the state relativized by the global context in which the state is embedded.

These developments lead to a crisis of identity. We have seen this before, of course; for example, the collapse of the Roman Empire, the rise of Christendom, and the later emergence of nationalism all affected the way Europeans understood themselves. So transformations of how people think of themselves are not unique to globalization. At present, Nicholas Boyle warns that personal identity is becoming increasingly defined by the economic roles of consumer and producer as other sources of identity

41 Ibid. 224. 42 See Anthony Giddens, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy

(Maiden, Mass.: Polity, 1998).


weaken and fade.43 Agreeing with Boyle, Ahner worries that a "one-dimensional economic unity" will eventually become our "global unity." The danger is that, when politics, ethnicity, religion, and other formative factors no longer provide a deeper and more complex identity than consumer-producer, human values will be at risk.44

Globalization, therefore, sets a new challenge before CST. It is one that entails helping people forge a richer and more humane identity than what globalized economic culture can offer. As part of its agenda CST must defend the importance of local cultures, even as it advocates moral norms and values that transcend any one culture.

Once CST presumed European culture as the setting for its teaching; in more recent decades, however, the tradition has acknowledged that cultural pluralism must be addressed if a claim to universality is to be convincing. In the future, CST must counteract a false cultural universalism accompanying economic globalization. CST, therefore, must shift its focus: whereas in the past CST had been primarily directed to issues of economics and secondarily of politics, the new context of globalization will force the tradition to attend more to issues of culture and identity.45

The concern for a rich cultural identity stands behind the words of Paul VI in Populorum progressio where he wrote about the risk to cultures of poorer nations seeking economic development:

Every country, rich or poor, has a cultural tradition handed down from past generations. This tradition includes institutions required by life in the world, and higher manifestations—artistic, intellectual and religious—of the life of the spirit. When the latter embody truly human values, it would be a great mistake to sacrifice them for the sake of the former [economic goods]. Any group of people who would consent to let this happen, would be giving up the better portion of their heritage; in order to live, they would be giving up their reason for living.46

John Paul II expressed a similar fear that the processes of globalization might lead to a "misconstrued homogenization" among cultures whereby the values of poor nations are lost under the dominance of richer nations.47

It is important, therefore, as Chiavacci asserts, that justice in CST be not simply economic; it must also include "respect for different cultures."48

43 Nicholas Boyle, Who Are We Now? Christian Humanism and the Global Market from Hegel to Heaney (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1998).

44 Ahner, Business Ethics 188. 45 One interesting effort that describes the challenge of evangelizing culture and

offers a strategy for doing so is Richard Cote, Revisioning Mission: The Catholic Church and Culture in Postmodern America (New York: Paulist, 1996).

46 Paul VI, Populorum progressio no. 40. 47 John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (1999) no. 55. 48 Chiavacci, "Globalization and Justice" 242.


And, Waliggo advises, "pluralism and not monolithic culture" should be the aim of a proper globalization.49

Groody maintains that the option for the poor, a central theme of CST, "includes a commitment not only to people but also to cultures whose very existence is endangered by the process of globalization."50 This is a helpful interpretation of the option for the poor, one that makes the theme particularly apt as another ethical coordinate for directing globalization. It is not only the material well-being of the poor that must be safeguarded and enhanced by the processes of globalization. More attention needs to be given to Groody's extension of the option for the poor to the realm of human culture. His approach increases the salience of the option for the poor in an age of globalization.

Common Good

At the vital center of CST is the theme of the common good. Given the tradition's communitarian bent, this is to be expected. Yet globalization challenges CST to reconsider this foundational theme, sharpening longstanding questions about the meaning of the common good, who defines it, and who is assigned responsibility for promoting and protecting it.51

A constant for CST is that the state is the institution assigned a responsibility for the common good. John XXIII declared, "attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities."52

Therefore, when he discussed the existence of a global common good, he saw a gap in world order. There was no institution responsible for the global common good that could be held to the same level of accountability that the state is for the domestic common good: "Today the universal common good presents us with problems which are world-wide in their dimensions; problems, therefore, which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization and means co-extensive with these problems, and with a world-wide sphere of activity. Consequently the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such general form of public authority."53

The difficulties inherent in establishing such a global public authority are evident, and the pope himself warned of the problems that could be created

49 Waliggo, "Prophetic Action" 259. 50 Groody, Globalization, Spirituality, and Justice 110. 51 This way of formulating the agenda is not identical with, but is very close to,

Cahill's understanding of the challenge that globalization presents to CST. I rely on a number of her insights in this subsection. See Lisa Sowie Cahill, "Globalization and the Common Good," in Globalization and Catholic Social Thought 42-54.

52 John XXIII, Pacem in terris no. 54. 53 Ibid. no. 137.


by a shortsighted approach to global authority.54 It is obvious that today we do not have any global authority. It is also clear that nation-states, even when engaged in broad cooperative efforts, cannot constitute such an authority. There is simply too vast an array of actors at work in the various strands of globalization.

CST needs to develop the architectural framework within which forms of global authority may be imagined. In this quest CST will not be alone. The political theorist Richard Falk has written about a "Grotian moment," in which the political, legal, and diplomatic status quo is being transformed.55

Grotius provided a new language of international law to address the post-Westphalian international order; needed in this age of globalization is the creation of institutions and practices for managing a different emerging world order. A challenge for CST is whether it can contribute to the formation of such a new order so that the global common good can be promoted.

Traditionally, the idea of the common good was associated with a view assuming a hierarchical and static social order composed of a central authority that delegated to subordinate authorities limited authority in discrete areas. The image of society was generally seen as unified and rather homogeneous, with each member contributing to the common good in accord with the rights and duties a person held by reason of a station in life.

Each of those traditional elements is now fraying at the edges, if not already unraveled: egalitarian and participatory aspirations have advanced; central authority has been relativized; societies have become dynamic with social and geographic mobility; and individuals have adopted life plans reflective of pluralistic worldviews and value systems. Transposed into this new social key, is the concept of the common good still useful? Lisa Sowie Cahill offers support for the idea, but only if it is reconceived within the new setting of globalization.

Stripped of outmoded assumptions about the social order, the main claim regarding the common good is that certain goods are basic to human well-being and necessary for persons to endure with dignity intact. As Cahill puts it, "basic human goods are required by human nature and known by human reason; they also define justice as social relations in which material and social goods are distributed fairly, conflicts resolved, and violations compensated."56

54 Ibid. nos. 138-45. In these paragraphs John address a range of difficulties that must be considered in advocacy of a global political authority, including his view of the role of the United Nations.

55 Richard Falk, Law in an Emerging Global Village (Ardsley, N.Y.: Transnational, 1999).

56 Cahill, "Globalization and the Common Good" 47.


Precisely, because of the pluralism that globalization has revealed to us, as well as the false universalisms that history has shown, the assertion of a universal common good or set of goods will meet with resistance. Thus, the project of naming a common good must not follow a method more suitable to a bygone model of social order. "Clearly, any approach to defining the content of the common good that will be persuasive and useful today must be inductive and dialogical."57 Proponents of CST must have the confidence that a searching and open conversation on what goods will serve individuals and their communities can eventuate in an evolving consensus on basic goods to be secured and recognized evils to be prevented or resisted. Pursuing such a model of inquiry will allow CST to be enriched by the insights of scholars who do not share the broader theological framework of the tradition but who are committed to developing a humane world order that promotes an authentic development of persons.

Authority and Governance

The challenge noted above leads to another area where CST must engage in revision in order to comprehend how globalization is to be regulated and directed. In his 2003 World Day of Peace Message, John Paul II had his own "Grotian moment" when he wrote the following:

Is this not the time for all to work together for a new constitutional organization of the human family, truly capable of ensuring peace and harmony between peoples, as well as their integral development? But let there be no misunderstanding. This does not mean writing the constitution of a global super-State. Rather, it means continuing and deepening processes already in place to meet the almost universal demand for participatory ways of exercising political authority, even international political authority, and for transparency and accountability at every level of public life.58

John Paul returned to the theme in another speech later that year. Having listed several negative aspects of the present state of globalization, he proposed this solution:

There can be little doubt of the need for guidelines that will place globalization firmly at the service of authentic human development—the development of every person and of the whole person—in full respect of the rights and dignity of all. It becomes clear, therefore, that globalization in itself is not the problem. Rather, difficulties arise from the lack of effective mechanisms for giving it proper direction. Globalization needs to be inserted into the larger context of a political and economic programme that seeks the authentic progress of all.59

57 Ibid. 48. 58 John Paul II, "Pacem in terris: a Permanent Commitment," World Day of

Peace Message (January 1, 2003) no. 6. 59 John Paul II, "Address to the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences" (May 2,

2003).


The pope continued by reminding his audience of his World Day of Peace message, suggesting that the time was ripe for a new international order.

The papal call for a new approach to global governance has been repeated by others. Ahner argues, "the determining forces of our lives are truly global but the institutions of support that protect and nurture human values are still local." It is necessary to create and develop "mediating institutions and associations that can support this new global reality."60

Coleman notes that "change in our social and economic realities has outpaced change in the political institutions and processes that once firmly embedded them."61 And James Hug maintains that "global governance institutions are essential at this stage of human development precisely to protect the common good where sovereign nations no longer can."62

It is important to remember that all these calls for new forms of governance and political authority are not, for CST, equivalent to support for one world government. Quite the contrary, CST emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity. Cahill highlights several examples of new methods of regulation and agency that reflect "globalization from below."63 She then notes that, while subsidiarity is needed, a renewed approach to that principle is also needed, so that it does not simply refer to vertical levels of authority interacting with each other, but horizontal interactions with an array of organizations, institutions, and community groups, as well as governmental regimes.64 The emphasis on participation in CST, discussed earlier, underscores the importance of subsidiarity, yet it pushes that principle in a new direction.

Championing new forms of governance is important, but globalization's "democratic deficit" must be countered by ensuring that existing institutions are reformed and new ones designed with participation, transparency, and accountability in mind.65 Tirimanna writes that organizations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "need to go through a radical change that would ensure the equal participation of both the rich and poor nations."66 And, while acknowledging a role for global institutions, Hug insists that what is needed is global governance of a certain kind, one that provides the poor with access to power and voice in the regulation of globalization.67

Coleman rightly emphasizes that CST needs to think in new ways about

Ahner, Business Ethics 189. Coleman, "Making the Connections" 14. Hug, "Economic Justice and Globalization" 65. Cahill, "Globalization and the Common Good" 49-50. Ibid. 50. 65 Hollenbach, Common Good 225. Tirimanna, "Globalization Needs to Count Human Persons" 249-50. Hug, "Economic Justice and Globalization" 64-66.


governance, not government, as it confronts globalization. He states that the tradition has thought a good deal about states and, to a lesser extent, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. But CST has paid almost no attention to "new and flexible, if still somewhat amorphous, governing units that are called regimes and global policy networks."68

Regimes are bodies possessing "sufficient functional powers, delegated to them by states through multilateral agreements, for limited purposes to regulate, coordinate, or implement global rules."69 For example, air safety is regulated by the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal, and international food safety laws are overseen by the Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome. Regimes come in a variety of formats: some purely private, some a mix of private and public, and some public but overseen by a standing IGO.70

Global policy networks are an admixture of NGOs, IGOs, and multinational corporations. According to Coleman these networks help "close the participatory gap in global governance." Their main purpose is to "place new issues on the global agenda and raise issues that have been neglected or treaties that are not being implemented."71 In effect, they enable people to engage in public discourse.

Coleman demonstrates that CST must expand its field of analysis when dealing with subsidiarity, participation, and governance. Globalization is fostering a range of organizational approaches that extend beyond the traditional categories of states and IGOs. While the latter forms are not irrelevant to global governance, neither do they exhaust the options. CST should reflect on norms for such new organizational frameworks and develop evaluative criteria for regimes and networks.

Among the candidates for such criteria one might consider the following lessons drawn from the history of CST and its support for subsidiary agencies in civil society. Does the proposed structure give indications of viability? Does the organization have the capacity to achieve or contribute to the proposed task? Does the proposed group embody the spirit of "rooted cosmopolitanism" described by Hollenbach? That is, does it promise the communal attachments that nurture the individual while also engaging the person with values and ideals diverse and broad enough to avoid narrow, exclusivist passions? These concerns, when added to the previously men-

68 John Coleman, "Global Governance, the State, and Multinational Corporations," in Globalization and Catholic Social Thought 239-48, at 239.

Ibid. 242. 70 Ibid. Ibid. 243.


tioned participatory access, transparency, and accountability, provide an initial formulation for thinking about what needs to be done to overcome the "democractic deficit" of globalization.

The idea of a world government is not attractive to most people and is not mandated by CST's belief in a global common good. Yet globalization will require some institutional infrastructure for governance and regulation. As Hollenbach rightly states, the important question is "how to make the international organizations and regimes of cooperation supportive of the well-being of the people within the cooperating states and of people of the world more generally."72 Questions such as who rules, in whose name, by what means, and for what goals are vital for the future of governance. It is clear that there are multiple stakeholders in globalization's governance, and each should be able to find some means of having input.73 This will require openness to new institutions and procedures. CST will provide a genuine service if it can contribute to the formulation of an ethical framework that assesses the legitimacy and usefulness of new models for governance such as regimes and networks, alongside more traditional actors.

Formulation and Communication of CST

A theme running through the literature on CST and globalization is that, although the basic principles and values of the tradition remain valuable, the wisdom inherent within CST cannot be communicated or implemented as in the past. Ryan maintains that "CST in the future should be the result of a visible, open, sustained process of dialogue with the whole church, wherein the lengthy process of arriving at a statement on a particular issue would be seen as more important than the final statement itself."74 In this he echoes the views of commentators who saw the public education and discourse occasioned by the pastoral letters of the American bishops on peace and economic justice in the 1980s as examples of process counting at least as much as final results.

As is commonly known, Paul VI espoused an approach to CST that lost favor during the pontificate of John Paul II. In a widely quoted statement from Octogésima adveniens, Paul noted the diversity of his intended audience and the pluralism of social settings for his teaching and concluded:

In the face of such widely varying situations it is difficult for us to utter a unified message and to put forward a solution which has universal validity. Such is not our ambition, nor is it our mission. It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country, to shed on it the light

72 Hollenbach, Common Good 234. 73 Coleman, "Global Governance" 240. 74 Ryan, "Personal Comments" 256.


of the Gospel's unalterable words and for action from the social teaching of the Church.75

Despite the unquestionable impact of John Paul IPs papacy on CST, it does seem as if Paul VI's approach holds greater promise for how CST should respond to globalization.

Hollenbach has written of the "globalization of the task of ethical inquiry," by which he means that judgments about policy have become so complex that they must be made on the basis of global information.76

However, there have been disappointing developments in this regard concerning CST. When Paul VI established the Pontifical Commission Justitia et Pax, that body in turn spawned the birth of many justice and peace commissions at the level of episcopal conferences and dioceses. In effect, the pope's action created a new network for communication between the Vatican and local churches. Whereas in the past the major channel of information between Rome and other churches was at the level of nuncios, ambassadors, and influential hierarchs, the new networks gave voice to pastoral agents working directly with the poor. There was a second source of information flowing into the Vatican besides the more official communications received by the Secretariat of State.

For whatever reasons, the influence of the more grassroots voices diminished during the pontificate of John Paul II. This is particularly troubling since the perspective of the grassroots is one of the crucial inputs that CST might offer in debates about globalization. One of the great evils globalization can exacerbate is marginalization. Placing individuals or entire societies and cultures off to the side is an inherent risk for those globalization schemes that emphasize market efficiency, productivity, profit, and power. The weak and poor are then viewed as debits and obstacles rather than as persons. It is a serious mistake for CST to privilege the voice and experience of its hierarchy over that of those believers living and ministering at the lower strata of societies. It is also an error to keep the focus of CST on papal statements rather than on the writing emanating from local and regional churches.

Brazal has proposed that basic ecclesial communities are important because they provide democratic forums where the common good can be debated and the voices of the marginalized included in the discernment process.77 Her proposal brings to the fore a fundamental challenge for CST, that it be an articulation of the entire faith community's assessment of globalization and not simply the viewpoint of a small sliver of the church's membership.

75 Paul VI, Octogésima adveniens no. 4. 76 Hollenbach, Common Good 216. 77 Brazal, "Globalization and Catholic Theological Ethics" 77.


If CST is truly to be an influence in shaping globalization, it is insufficient to focus only on the faithful. Hollenbach has called for an "intellectual solidarity," by which he means "the common pursuit of a shared vision of the good life." It is intellectual because it demands rigorous reflection on the meaning of the good life to be shared by people of various backgrounds and traditions. It is an act of solidarity "because it can only occur in an active dialogue of mutual listening and speaking across the boundaries of religion and culture."78 This aspect of CST has been overlooked but cannot remain so if the tradition is effectively to respond to globalization.

Intellectual solidarity is not simply a matter of listening respectfully to others. Rather, as Hollenbach suggests, it is a necessary step on the way to achieving a true social solidarity. On the one hand, no group should im-perialistically impose its vision of the good on others. On the other hand, we cannot be indifferent to others, leaving them unengaged in the work of forging global unity.79 So interaction must occur, but the remaining question is the form it takes. Peaceful or violent? Respectful or colonialist? An authentic dialogue that allows people to reach across boundaries and forge common understandings is an act of intellectual solidarity. This can, in turn, eventuate in action that permits diverse peoples to contribute to and benefit from interdependence. That is social solidarity. CST in the future ought to be seen as an act of intellectual solidarity by its rigorous engagement in interreligious conversation on globalization.80

CONCLUSION

Moral reflection by Catholics on social conditions did not begin in 1891 with Rerum novarum. The occasion of that text has provided a useful but overemphasized date for discussing CST. The truth is that ethical debate and judgment about social realities long precedes the era of modern CST. In the long history of CST we can find helpful "ethical coordinates" for a normative assessment of globalization.

Globalization may not be an entirely novel phenomenon, but the forms it takes today do present new challenges. If CST is to have an impact on globalization it cannot do so merely by repeating past insights. Further development of the tradition is necessary in order to guide globalization along a path that assures that the "joys and hopes" of the people of our age will be realized while their "griefs and anxieties" are properly addressed.81

78 Hollenbach, Common Good 137. 79 Ibid. 239. 80 For a thoughtful proposal, see Catherine Cornille, The Im-Possibility of Inter

religious Dialogue (New York: Herder & Herder, 2008). 81 Vatican II, Gaudium et spes no. 1.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Documents

Globalization with a Human Face: Catholic Social Teaching and Globalization