BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE: THE

FAMILY AS AN ONTOLOGICAL REALITY

H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr.*
Abstract: The Enlightenment ideology that lies at the foundations of the
ideology supporting the contemporary state focuses on the individual and
affirms the state as the protector of individual rights, while the family is
regarded only as a creation of individuals recognized by the state. This
presentation explores the philosophical and theological grounds for recognizing
the family as an independent social reality with a moral integrity of its own,
which cannot be reduced to the interests of either the individual or the state.
Key!r"s: the traditional Christian family, visions of the Family, state, the
contemporary secular culture.
#$ T%e Fa&'(y ') t%e R*')s !+ C%r'ste)"!&: A) I)tr!"*ct'!)
The family is a puzzle, the focus of controversy
1
. s an
1
! "rofessor, #ice $niversity %&epartment of philosophy', (uston, $)* +aylor
College of ,edicine, Texas, $).
-ot only .rthodox Christians, as well as other traditional Christians, and
.rthodox /ews find themselves opposed to the 0estern post1Enlightenment
deconstruction of the traditional family %although the understanding of what
counts as a traditional family diverges', grosso modo, but so, too, do others
such as traditional Confucians. )ee 2iaoyang Chen and #uiping Fan, The
family and harmonious medical decision making: Cherishing an appropriate
Confucian moral balance, in 3/ournal of ,edicine and "hilosophy4 56.6
7forward cited8 /,"h9 %.ctober :;1;'8 6<516=>* #uiping Fan, Confucian
familism and its bioethical implications, in )hui Chuen ?ee %ed.', 3The Family,
,edical &ecision1,a@ing, and +iotechnology4, )pringer, &ordrecht, :;;<, p.
161:>* En1Chang ?i and Chun1Feng 0en, Should the Confucian family-
Church-State Relationship: from Constantine the Great to post-Maastricht Europe
intermediate social structure between the individual and the state, it
both challenges and supports the state so that the character of
families cannot be a matter of indifference to politicians who,
depending on their ideology, either support or see@ to undermine
particular understandings of the family
:
. The family is a lightning rod
for disagreements about moral and societal norms, about the
character of morality, about the freedom of individuals to create and
structure human associations, and about the extent to which the
determination model be rejected ! case study, in 3/,"h4 56.6 %.ctober
:;1;'8 6=<16AA* and ,ingxu 0ang, "ing1Cheung ?o, and #uiping Fan,
Medical decision making and the family: !n e"amination of contro#ersies, in
3/,"h4 56.6 %.ctober :;1;'8 BA51BA=. This exists in concert with mounting
evidence concerning costs associated with the liberal family, in that children
raised with authoritative, even authoritarian parenting styles are more
successful and have less problems with criminality and the use of illicit drugs
%+rian "artridge, !dolescent psychological de#elopment$ parenting styles$ and
pediatric decision making, in 3/,"h4 56.6 %.ctober :;1;'8 61=16:6'. maCor
focus of contemporary disputes regarding the family is connected to arguments
against the Convention on the #ights of the Child and its attempt to set aside
the authority structures of the traditional family %.ffice of the $nited -ations
(igh Commissioner for (uman #ights, Con#ention on the Rights of the Child,
1A=A, http://www2.ohchr.org/ englishDlawDcrc.htm 7ccessed pril 6,
:;119'. ,uch of this controversy has focused on disputes in bioethics %,ar@ /.
Cherry, %arental authority and pediatric bioethical decision making, in 3/,"h
56.64 %.ctober :;1;'8 66516<:* (. T. Engelhardt, /r., &eyond the best interests
of children: 'our #ie(s of the family and of foundational disagreements
regarding pediatric decision making, in 3/,"h4 56.6 %.ctober :;1;'8 BAA161<*
)tephen Eric@son, The (rong of rights: The moral authority of the family, in
3/,"h4 56.6 %.ctober :;1;'8 >;;1>1>* na Eltis, To(ard a coherent account of
pediatric decision making, in 3/,"h4 56.6 %.ctober :;1;'8 6:>166:'.
:
The state, while announcing a commitment to supporting the family, has often
been the source of severe unanticipated adverse conseFuences that have
undermined the integrity of the family. .ne might consider as an example how
the merican welfare system has undermined the blac@ family. )ee G. )ue
/ewell, Sur#i#al of the !frican !merican 'amily$ "raeger, )anta +arbara, C,
:;;5* G. )ue /ewell, )se of social (elfare programs and the disintegration of
the black nuclear family, in 30estern /ournal of +lac@ )tudies =.B4 %1A=B'8
1A:11A=* &aniel T. ?ichter, &. ,c?aughlin, F. ?eClere, H. Gephart, and &.
:
1:
th
Enternational )imposium of )cience, Theology and rts
character of reality is socio1historically constructed
5
. These general
areas of disagreements are reflected in disputes about what values
and right1ma@ing conditions should give the family its structure,
about which persons are ideally or necessarily constitutive of the
family, as well as about the ontological reality of the family. The
family is in particular controversial because of recent attempts to
recognize at law homosexual 3marriages4 and homosexual civil
unions, as well as because of the de facto marginalization of the
traditional family as more children are born outside of marriage and
fewer children live with both of their biological parents
B
.
?andry, Race and the retreat from marriage: ! shortage of marriageable men,
in 3merican )ociological #eview4 6< %1AA:'8 <=11<AA.
5
.n the one hand, there has been a tendency to ma@e it easier for married
couples to divorce. s the data show, the impact of divorce on the children
involved is considerable. )ee ?arry ?. +umpass and /ames . )weet,
Cohabitation$ marriage and union stability: preliminary findings from *S'+,,
3Center for &emography and Ecology4, $niversity of 0isconsin1,adison,
1AA6* "aul #. mato and lan +ooth, ! Generation at Risk, (arvard
$niversity "ress, Cambridge, ,, 1AA<* and -icholas (. 0olfinger, &eyond
the intergenerational transmission of di#orce, in 3/ournal of Family4 Essues
:1.= %:;;;'8 1;>111;=>. .n the other hand, it has become socially easier, in
particular more societally accepted, to live together and reproduce without
benefit of clergy. The result has been a substantive change in public sexual
mores. )ee ilsa +urns and Cath )cott, Mother-+eaded 'amilies and -hy
They +a#e .ncreased, ?awrence Erlbaum "ublishers, (illsdale, -/, 1AAB*
bbie G. Frost and +ilge "a@iz, The effects of marital disruption on
adolescents: Time as a dynamic, in 3merican /ournal of .rthopsychiatry4 >;
%1AA;'8 6BB1666* ,aggie Hallagher, The !bolition of Marriage: +o( (e
/estroy 0asting 0o#e, #egnery "ublishing, 0ashington, &C, 1AA>* &avid +.
?arson, /ames ". )awyers, and )usan ). ?arson, The Costly Conse1uences of
/i#orce, -ational Enstitute for (ealthcare #esearch, #oc@ville, ,&, 1AA6* "aul
. -a@onezny, #obert &. )chull, and /oseph ?ee #odgers, The effect of no-
fault di#orce la( on the di#orce rate across the 23 states and its relation to
income$ education and religiosity4, in 3/ournal of ,arriage and the Family4 6<
%1AA6'8 B<<1B==* and ?inda /. 0aite et al4, The Ties That &ind: %erspecti#es on
Marriage and Cohabitation$ ldine Transaction, "iscataway, -/, :;;;.
B
En 1A=;, the percentage of children born outside marriage was 1I in /apan,
BI in Etaly, 1:I in Hermany, BI in the -etherlands, 1=I in the $nited )tates,
5
Church-State Relationship: from Constantine the Great to post-Maastricht Europe
n adeFuate account of the family reFuires ta@ing a position
about what is at sta@e in these disputes. Towards this end, this essay
locates the family within the geography of contemporary cultural
conflicts between %1' traditional Christianity, a term in this essay
used in a fashion materially eFuivalent to .rthodox Christianity, and
%:' the contemporary dominant secular 0estern culture, which E
characterize as a culture framed around an atheist methodological
postulate
6
.
This paper explores the collision of these perspectives with a
focus on the family, so as better to appreciate what is involved in
protecting the traditional Christian family in a post1Christian, post1
traditional culture.
,$ I)c!&-at'b(e V'es !+ Rea('ty a)" M!ra('ty. I)c!&-at'b(e
V's'!)s !+ t%e Fa&'(y
The family in the contemporary post1Christian culture of
0estern Europe and the mericas brings with it controversies
concerning %1' the normativity of heterosexuality, %:' the proper
relation of husbands and wives, %5' the compatibility of the family
with robust egalitarian goals, and more crucially %B' the ontological
status of the family. These disputes bear on how to define the public
forum, the public space, and all public institutions, because societies
in the mericas and in Europe are divided in their understandings of
and 1:I in the $nited Gingdom. +y :;;<, the percentage of children born
outside marriage had risen to :I in /apan, :1I in Etaly, 5;I in Hermany, B;I
in the -etherlands, B;I in the $nited )tates, and BBI in the $ G.
http8DDwww.usatoday.comDnewsDhealthD:;;A1;61151unmarriedbirthsJ-.htmK
%accessed pril 6, :;11'. En the $) in :;;<, the percentage of children born to
blac@s outside marriage was <:I, to hispanics 61I, to whites %non1hispanic'
:=I, and to asians 1<I. )ee -ational Center for (ealth )tatistics,
http8DDwww.cdc.govDnchsDdataD nvsrDnvsr6<Dnvsr6<J1:.pdf, p. > %accessed pril
<, :;11'.
6
)ocieties andDor cultures framed in terms of an atheist methodological
postulate, such that law, public policy, and public discourse are articulated as if
Hod did not exist, have become prominent in the 0est in the :;th century.
B
1:
th
Enternational )imposium of )cience, Theology and rts
morality, the human condition, and the character of reality
>
. This is
the case because all 0estern societies are under secular pressure
from the now1dominant post1Christian, post1traditional, secular
culture to remove the vestiges of Christendom and establish secular
social1democratic polities compassing societies shaped in the image
and li@eness of the moral and political commitments to liberty and
eFuality that arose out of the 0estern Enlightenment and the French
#evolution, as well as from the conseFuences of the cultural death of
metaphysics and of Hod that followed
<
. This watershed division
separates those understandings that are traditionally Christian from
those of the emerging laicist, post1traditional, and post1metaphysical
culture and its paradigmatic image of the proper character of polities
and their societies. &isagreements regarding the family are an
epiphany of this division. En the post1Christian, post1Enlightenment
societies of the 0est, the family is among the most divisive of human
associations, because how one understands the family determines the
side on which one places oneself in the battles of the culture wars.
gain, these controversies concern which moral norms,
understandings of the human condition, and account of the character
of reality should shape such institutions as the family. 7L9
En the fallen world after Eden, being a male or a female in a
rightly1ordered fashion is an accomplishment, often a precarious
accomplishment, as is sustaining appropriate heterosexual
relationships and monogamous marriages. bsent an appropriate
theological understanding, and given the engagement of an atheistic
methodological postulate, the diversity of socio1biological forms
becomes a consideration in arguments against the call by .rthodox
Christianity to men and women to form appropriate and stable family
units. En contrast, in light of the theological insights of the .rthodox
>
/ames &avison (unter, Culture -ars, +asic +oo@s, -ew Mor@, 1AA:.
<
(. T. Engelhardt, /r., 5ant$ +egel$ and +abermas: Reflections on 6Glauben
und -issen6, in 3The #eview of ,etaphysics4 >5.B %:;1;'8 =<11A;5*
Engelhardt, Moral obligation after the death of God: Critical reflections on
concerns from .mmanuel 5ant$ G4-4'4 +egel$ and Eli7abeth !nscombe, in
3)ocial "hilosophy and "olicy4 :<.: %:;1;'8 51<15B;.
6
Church-State Relationship: from Constantine the Great to post-Maastricht Europe
Church, this struggle confirms the conseFuences of the Fall and the
need for ascetic struggle and repentance. The traditional Christian
theological appreciation of the family also identifies the normative
perspective from which one should understand what it is to be a male
and a female, what constitutes an appropriate family unit, and what
count as deficient cases of a family unit.
=
The reference point of the
.rthodox Christian theological understanding is in part the unmarred
realization of what it is to be a man and a woman bound in a
heterosexual relationship as this was established in Eden and in part
what Hod has blessed after the Fall. Hiven the failure of many to
recognize the theological facts of the matter, the family is an
occasion for incompatible understandings of the human situation.
The paradigmatic understanding of the family is that of the
union of dam and Eve as husband and wife, as father and mother. Et
is Hod 0ho declares that Nit is not good for the man to be alone4
%Hen :81=', and for this reason Hod made Na helper suitable for him4
%Hen :81='. This role of the woman as his wife, as the mother of his
children and as his helpmate in the struggle to salvation, is affirmed
not only in Henesis but by Christ (imself, 0ho underscores a
gender1essentialism when (e Fuotes Henesis, Nt the beginning the
Creator Omade them male and femaleON %,att 1A8B'. )t. "aul
explicates the now Fuite politically incorrect doctrine that Nthe head
of the woman is man4 %E Cor 1185'. NFor dam was formed first, then
Eve4 %E Tim :815'. )t. "aul notes that this order existed even before
the Fall, in that man Nis the image and the glory of Hod* but the
woman is the glory of man, for man did not come from woman, but
woman from man. -either was man created for the sa@e of woman,
but woman for the sa@e of man4 %E Cor 118=1A'. This traditional
Christian account of the ontological relation of man and woman and
the order of authority within the family is radically at odds with the
moral and political commitments that emerged in the shadow of the
=
widow raising her children is an example of a deficient case of a family 1
the husband and father is absent through no fault of the family. unmarried
woman raising children without benefit of marriage constitutes an even more
deficient example of a family.
>
1:
th
Enternational )imposium of )cience, Theology and rts
Enlightenment and under the force of the culture that was shaped by
the French #evolution with its cardinal moral affirmation of human
eFuality, individual autonomy, and the cardinal value of individual
liberty, thereby accenting individuals as the ultimate sources of moral
and political authority. s a conseFuence, the secular cultural
perspective regards the Christian account as improperly heterosexist,
patriarchal, adversely gender1essentialist, and inegalitarian. 7L9
The second account can be characterized as the liberal
understanding, in being committed to a particular socio1democratic
affirmation of liberty and eFuality born of the Enlightenment and the
French #evolution. Et reFuires those establishing a family to create
their family framewor@ in a fashion that does not undercut a
particular construal of liberty and eFuality born of the Enlightenment
and the French #evolution.
The third approach is that of traditional Christianity, which
directs men and women in a bro@en, indeed fallen world toward
salvation. Et recognizes both the socio1biological and the theological
facts of the matters. Et appreciates that we find ourselves outside of
Eden. Et also recognizes that elements of this less1than1ideal state of
affairs have in fact received HodOs blessing. .ne might consider, for
example, that .rthodox Christianity recognizes that the
commandments given to -oah allowed him and his sons to cease
being vegetarians %Hen A8=11;'. -ow, after Eden and after -oah and
before the #estoration, the eating of meat, the drin@ing of wine, and
sexuality within marriage are affirmed, as is noted in Canon 61 of the
=6 Canons of the (oly and #enowned postles. This account, while
locating the socio1biological character of the human condition in the
bro@en character of the fallen world, recognizes that within that
fallenness persons are called to form families and orient their
families to Hod and (is promises of redemption and restoration.
/$ W%y t%e Tra"'t'!)a( C%r'st'a) a)" C!)te&-!rary
Sec*(ar V's'!)s !+ t%e Fa&'(y are s! at O""s
The post1traditional, post1Christian, secular moral and
<
Church-State Relationship: from Constantine the Great to post-Maastricht Europe
ontological view that has become dominant in 0estern Europe and
the mericas through the influence of the Enlightenment and the
French #evolution is not Cust set over against the traditional Christian
account of the family because of a disparity of moral norms, but
more fundamentally because the two positions are separated due to
their radically different foundations8 one is anchored in the will of
Hod, while the other is after Hod and post1metaphysical. The
traditional Christian understanding of the family is that the family is
grounded in the will of Hod. The secular moral vision frames the
family totally within the horizon of the finite and the immanent. The
point is that the latterOs account of the family is not simply post1
traditional, but even more crucially it is post1metaphysical. Hiven the
severance of the dominant secular account from any perspective
grounded in Hod or in being, this contemporary, dominant, secular,
moral account is post1patriarchal, post1heterosexist, and post1
traditional, %1' because it does not accept claims regarding the
metaphysical rootedness of traditional accounts, %:' because it does
not accept any normative canons apart from the framewor@ of the
socio1historically conditioned, and %5' because of the framing
centrality of its commitments to individually grounded accounts of
liberty and eFuality
A
.
A
fter Hod, and after metaphysics, the liberal commitment to freedom and
eFuality simply hangs in the air within the domain of the finite and the
immanent, a point clearly recognized by #ichard #orty %1A511:;;<'. .n the
one hand, as #orty asserts, following his restatement of H.0.F. (egel %1<<;1
1=51' and ,ichael .a@eshott %1A;111AA;', 3-e can keep the notion of
6morality6 just insofar as (e can cease to think of morality as the #oice of the
di#ine part of oursel#es4444 %#ichard #orty, Contingency$ .rony$ and Solidarity,
Cambridge $niversity "ress, Cambridge, 1A=A, p. 6A'. .n the other hand, #orty
recognizes that 3.ur insistence on contingency, and our conseFuent opposition
to ideas li@e PessenceQ, PnatureQ and PfoundationQ, ma@es it impossible for us to
retain the notion that some actions and attitudes are naturally PinhumanQ.4 For
this insistence implies that what counts as being a decent human being is
relative to historical circumstance, a matter of transient consensus about what
attitudes are normal and what practices are Cust or unCust %#orty, op4 cit4, p.
1=A'.
=
1:
th
Enternational )imposium of )cience, Theology and rts
The family within the liberal account of the family, which
account is meant to deconstruct the traditional Christian vision of the
family, is constituted out of the will of whatever men and women
wish to Coin together in mutual emotional and financial support,
sexual activity, and the raising of children, as long as they enter into
agreement according to liberal norms for authentic autonomy and
affirmation of eFuality. (aving no anchor in being, much less an
anchor in Hod, this emerging liberal secular account of the family
derives its structure and moral standing from the will of individuals
who, after the death of Hod in the dominant culture, appear to be the
only individuals in authority. En this context, the family becomes the
creation of those persons who, affirming liberty and eFuality, decide
to Coin together as mutual helpmates, sexual partners, and of the
parents of children.
The conseFuences of this deflation are wide1ranging for how
the traditional Christian family will be regarded within the secular
cultures now beginning dominant in 0estern Europe and the $nited
)tates.
1. The assertion of the normativity of traditional Christian
families becomes an affront to secular morality. Et is regarded
by secular fundamentalist states as the intrusion of a private
morality into the secularized public space
1;
.
:. The assertion of the normativity of traditional Christian
families becomes as well a form of hate speech, in that it by
implication Cudges non1traditional families as morally
deficient. The assertion of the normativity of the traditional
family is thus regarded as intolerant in not recognizing that,
after the deflation of traditional morality, the assertion of the
1;
The term secular fundamentalist state is used to identify polities that in a
totalizing fashion establish a laicist ideology analogously to the ways in which
religious fundamentalist states establish a religion %(. T. Engelhardt, /r.,
%olitical authority in the face of moral pluralism: 'urther reflections on the
non-fundamentalist state, in 3-otizie di "oliteia4 :>.A< %:;1;'8 A11AA*
Engelhardt, Religion$ bioethics$ and the secular state: &eyond religious and
secular fundamentalism, in 3-otizie di "oliteia4 :>.A< %:;1;'8 6A1<A'.
A
Church-State Relationship: from Constantine the Great to post-Maastricht Europe
canons of traditional Christian morality by implication
regards other choices as immoral.
5. The persistent affirmation of the traditional Christian
family is regarded as an affront against right1ordered
understandings of liberty because the liberal account of
individual choice is constrained by a positive view of free
choice that is in fundamental tension with the patriarchal,
heterosexist, monogamous account of the family, which
traditional Christianity affirms.
gain, it is important to note that this cultural collision is
foundational, in that the traditional Christian account of the family is
anchored in being, or more precisely, in that personal +eing who is
beyond being, namely, Hod. The normative view of the traditional
Christian family is incompatible with those of the dominant liberal
secular ideology. 7L9
0$ T%e C!)+('cts W'(( )!t Abate
En the absence of Hod, and cut loose from a perspective
grounded in being that is independent of social relations, such that
the appropriate character of the family is regarded as grounded in the
will of individual humans and the phenomenal reality shaped by the
socio1historical force of the choices of individuals, persons are left
with confronting each other as the sole sources of secular morality
and authority. Each affirms the freedom and eFuality of the other, and
endows the other with a dignity derived from the authority conveying
autonomy of individuals that establishes the legitimacy of social
relations into which consenting persons enter, including the social
relations gathered under the rubric Nfamily4. En contrast, traditional
Christians will recognize that they are embedded in the family as an
ontological structure created and anointed by Hod, which is
encountered as a given structured by norms and relationships
independent of human agreement and which is as a conseFuence
beyond alteration by the will of man, so that the structure of the
family is in this sense non1negotiable. The conflict is foundational.
1;
1:
th
Enternational )imposium of )cience, Theology and rts
post1Christian, post1modern, post1traditional, post1
metaphysical understanding of the family is at the core of the now1
dominant secular moral ideology of the European $nion and of the
mericas. Et see@s to set aside the traditional Christian view of the
family out of an immanentized secular commitment to mutual
toleration, the mutual recognition of human dignity, the realization of
social Custice, and the recognition of human rights to autonomy 1 all
radically set within the rise of the finite and the immanent. Et see@s to
deprivilege the previous centrality of the traditional Christian vision
of the family, which is now construed by the secular culture as
involving the illegitimate intrusion of a private morality into the
secular public space, the illicit assertion of the normativity of private
life1style choices, and the illiberal affirmation of a patriarchal,
heterosexist vision of family structures. En response to the remnants
of traditional Christianity, the secular culture calls traditional
Christians to realize an aggioramento with the new day mar@ed by
the dawn of a secular vision that omits the recognition not only of
Christ, but of Hod. This shift in ontological focus is embraced as a
matter of toleration and the pursuit of peace. Et is connected with the
immanent secular aspiration to achieve peace, by eschewing
reference to any concerns beyond those immanent desires and
concerns that can without difficulty be placed within the horizon of
the finite. )uch eschewal of the transcendent, along with its
affirmation of the fully animal dimension of man, would herald, to
echo Francis Fu@uyama, the end of history and the end of perpetual
peace.
11
The Christian commitment to a patriarchal, heterosexist, and
gender1essential vision of the family challenges the hope of cultural
11
Francis Fu@uyama was crucially influenced through llan +loom %1A5;1
1AA:' by lexandre GoCRveOs %1A;:11A>=' view that he developed after trips to
merica in the 1AB;s and 1A6;s, namely, that immersion in a consumer society
supported by a welfare safety net would allow man@ind to step bac@ from
ideological struggles. %lexandre GoCRve, .ntroduction to the Reading of +egel,
ed. llan +loom, trans. /ames (. -ichols, /r., +asic +oo@s, -ew Mor@, 1A>A, p.
1>1'. s Fu@uyama puts it, 3The end...4 %Francis Fu@uyama, The End of
+istory and the 0ast Man, Free "ress, -ew Mor@, 1AA:, p. 511'.
11
Church-State Relationship: from Constantine the Great to post-Maastricht Europe
peace and supports the persistence of the culture wars
1:
.
References:
A se vedea documentul (see the doc.) NORME
TEHNOREDACTARE ISSTA 2!"###
ENGELHARDT JR., H. TRISTRAM: "h& "rofessor, &epartment of "hilosophy, #ice
$niversity, (uston, $)* +aylor College of ,edicine, Texas, $). I&-!rta)t
!r12(ast !r18 The foundations of Christian &ioethics, )wets S Teitlinger "ublishers,
?isse, :;;;. C!)tact8 htengelhUrice.edu
$ent%u salva%ea documentulu&' u%mat& (as&&) *s&e% + salva%e ca
+ salva%e cu t&(ul + sa,lon -o%d ./02"
Save the document &n th&s -a1) *le + save as + save as t1(e +
2o%d ./02" Tem(late
1:
Christ warns those who would wrongly thin@ that the presence of traditional
Christianity would before the final #estoration wipe out conflicts and bring
peace8 3&o not suppose that E have come to bring peace to the earth. E did not
come to bring peace, but a sword.4 %,att 1;85B'
1: