The word ‘fraternity’ acquired a particular meaning at the time of the French Revolution when the motto Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) was coined. It eventually became the motto of France, apart from organisations. It is interesting to note that, whereas the concepts of liberty and equality were based on rights, the concept of fraternity was based on obligations, even though its connotations have changed.
It is the obligation that we all have towards each other to live in harmony and the obligation we all have towards the community in which we live. The best synonym I have found for fraternity is brotherhood and the principle of fraternity is similar but not to identical to the principle of solidarity.
Pope Benedict has made an important distinction between the two principles as illustrated by Italian economist Stefano Zamagni. Zamagni describes the difference in this way: “Solidarity is the principle of social organisation that enables unequals to become equals; fraternity is the principle that allows equals to be diverse.”
It may be easy to understand the concept of fraternity in relation to relations among nations, as it should eventually lead to peace. It is also easy to apply the concept of fraternity to issues such as the immigration issue, especially in relation to our obligation to treat immigrants with the dignity we expect for ourselves.
However, we may find it difficult to place fraternity within an economic context. This happens for a number of reasons. Students of economics are taught that a person’s primary motive is to maximise one’s personal satisfaction from the consumption of goods and services and that a firm’s primary motive is to maximise profits.
This thinking places all the emphasis on the individual and not on the community. Moreover, in our daily transactions as economic agents, we are used to the exchange of goods and services for a sum of money which is deemed to be fair between the parties involved. This is what creates market equilibrium between supply and demand. So both sides are guided by self-interest, again emphasising the individual.
The meaning of life is not to be sought in possessing material objects but in what we are and what we do
Another point to consider is that we tend to expect the State to use its own structures to promote solidarity in an economy. And it does this through the taxes it collects and the provision of merit goods such as health and education. It also uses social welfare initiatives to help those most vulnerable in society. In other words, it “enables unequals to become equals”, very often by ensuring that everyone has access to the same opportunities.
Fraternity requires us to do something different and it has to do with our way of life and the way each and every one of us operates in an economic context. Maximising consumer satisfaction (in economic jargon we call it ‘utility’) built on insatiable greed (‘shop until you drop’) needs to be replaced by satisfaction based on giving and sharing. The meaning of life is not to be sought in possessing material objects but in what we are and what we do.
As such, egoism is to be replaced by altruism. Whereas in the normal course of events, economic relations between persons is governed by self-interest, fraternity implies that an individual seeks the good of the other person.
This is the key message that Pope Francis gave in his two main addresses over this Christmas, where he contrasted the idea of devouring and hoarding with that of sharing and giving. He also said that our differences are not threats but assets, and as such we should treat each other as equal not only in word but also in deed.
One may easily dismiss this line of thinking as economic nonsense. After all, this is not what we have been accustomed to think in the last centuries. On the other hand, classical economic thinking has created severe income inequalities not just among countries but also within individual economies among its citizens.
This is not to mention aspects such as the threat posed by climate change, the environmental damage caused by economic greed and the social upheaval caused by the movement of millions of people, which we call migration.
I strongly believe that an economic approach based on the concept of fraternity is an innovative approach as much as the concept of the social market economy was in its own time. The social market economy has served us very well, even though it had been harshly criticised by those who believed in an unregulated market economy.
An economy based on fraternity should not be an economy based on the model of a centrally-controlled economy. Private entrepreneurship can never be replaced by State entrepreneurship. On the other hand, entrepreneurship should not be governed by greed. This is why we need to rediscover fraternity.
A happy New Year to all.