Political Personalism, a Brief Introduction. Part 1: The Problem with Current Political Ideas

by David Jewson

I wrote this little essay, here divided into three parts, at the beginning of 2018 for some friends of mine who are very interested in politics and making the world a better place, just after reading Jonas Mortensen's book, The Common Good, which made a great impression on me and which I can highly recommend.

At the beginning of the 21^st century many people feel that the old political ideas of the left and right no longer seem to connect with what they really want or need. Political Personalism is a new approach that relies neither on the left or the right but is for everyone. Despite being ‘new’, it has roots that go back thousands of years in many different cultures, and, in that sense, it is a philosophy for the whole world.

There are clear problems with current political ideas. A very simplified summary would be this: Western libertarian ideas focus on the rights and freedom of the individual, as espoused by John Stuart Mill. These would be the ideas of ‘the Right’. Business functions well on these ideas of freedom along with the idea of the profit motive and the growth of the economy, so-called ‘Capitalism’. Many have adopted those same ideas in their own lives, with a major purpose of life becoming to amass money and possessions.

This approach has, however, deep problems. First, we are not individuals on our own, we are somebody’s child, or parent, or spouse, or friend and, in a sense, they are part of us. So, when we act we would not usually act for solely ourselves, we take into account those to whom we are deeply connected and often act for our group. Curiously we want the freedom to do as we please, but then tend to impose restrictions on our own freedom so that the group to which we are connected does not suffer, but rather flourishes. Political ideas underling the importance of the freedom of the individual often seem to ignore the mass of relationships that a person has and the obligations of that person to the group, and the obligations of the group to that person. Secondly, money and possessions do not seem to give the happiness that the business model suggests that they should. People are interested in the things that money can bring, particularly if they are needed to live a life without suffering, so, food, fresh water, a roof over their heads, good health care and good education, but, beyond that, they are mostly more interested in relationships, having friends, finding a partner, having children and so on. A philosophy that forgets the importance of relationships to human beings could divert people to lonely and unhappy lives, however wealthy they are. The profit motive of Capitalism can also have the effect of making working lives increasingly miserable for everyone, as efficiency is improved and more and more is expected of workers in less and less time and for less money.  The gravestone of the Capitalist might read: ‘She had a miserable life, worked her fingers to the bone and her mind to a stressed and anxiety filled mess, but at least she had loads of ‘stuff’. ‘

In contrast to Western libertarianism, there are ideas about the importance of the family, the group and society, which, for example, are prominent in African tribal culture and have been the bedrock of Chinese society dating back thousands of years to the time of Confucius and before. Indeed, in Chinese, words relating to the individual on their own often have a derogatory connotation; the Chinese language is built around the idea of community, so much so that the UN ‘Declaration of Human Rights’, when translated into Chinese, actually has a different meaning to the same declaration, say in English, emphasising the community more than the individual. Similar ideas developed in Western philosophy, particularly with the works of Karl Marx and the subsequent evolvement of Socialism and Communism: the ideas of the left. These ideas emphasize the importance of the group.

But there are also deep problems with the ideas of Socialism. Socialism emphasises the importance of the obligations of the individual to the group. Indeed, often the needs of the individual can be sacrificed for the needs of the group. Unlike Chinese culture, socialism seems to have little to say about the relationships within a group, or their importance. Also, ideas such as ‘equality’ are important in socialism, such that under some socialist systems, people even have had to wear the same clothes. But, beyond having the basic needs to live a healthy life, people actually do not want to be the same as others; they are interested more in their relationships and find happiness in their friendships and hobbies, which often involve other people. Many are not in the least bit interested in having more money and more possessions, indeed would see it as giving them more work and responsibilities; if you own a palace then you have to look after it! People are very interested in fairness, but that is different from equality.

Any philosophy where an individual suffers for the sake of the community is painful, both for the individuals who suffer, and for those who think that they may be next on the list. This is what seems to happen at the moment in countries such as China. China is also interesting because it has, for some time, been embracing the ideas of Capitalism, with Chinese people seeing such ideas as attractively modern. However, there are people who feel that Chinese Capitalism is a monster that has torn apart a traditional way of life by disrupting families and the connections between them, as wage earners leave their families to go to the cities, and where the happiness of relationships is being replaced by the lack of happiness provided by money and possessions.

In summary, the libertarian ideas of the right provide some of what people really want by emphasising the importance of the freedom of the individual, but miss out on the relationships and community that really make people happy, while the socialist ideas of the left see the importance of the community, but miss out on the importance of the individual and the importance of the relationships in that community. Both right and left, when in power, tend to seek purely economic solutions to problems. So, the right might reduce taxes, giving individuals more freedom to spend their money as they wish, while the left might improve the community by spending money on public services. But these purely economic solutions have nothing to say about improving relationships within a society and are unlikely to lead to radically happier and interconnected people within that society. Indeed, the very idea of ‘left’ and ‘right’ can divide and dislocate society.