DATE DOWNLOADED: Mon Feb 20 17:43:42 2023

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:

Bluebook 21st ed.

Liliane Voye, Subsidiary from a Sociologist's Point of View, 48 Jurist 292 (1988).

ALWD 7th ed.

Liliane Voye, Subsidiary from a Sociologist's Point of View, 48 Jurist 292 (1988).

APA 7th ed.

Voye, L. (1988). Subsidiary from Sociologist's Point of View. Jurist, 48(1), 292-297.

Chicago 17th ed.

Liliane Voye, "Subsidiary from a Sociologist's Point of View," Jurist 48, no. 1
(1988): 292-297

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Liliane Voye, "Subsidiary from a Sociologist's Point of View" (1988) 48:1 Jurist 292.

AGLC 4th ed.

Liliane Voye, 'Subsidiary from a Sociologist's Point of View' (1988) 48 Jurist 292.

MLA 8th ed.

Voye, Liliane. "Subsidiary from a Sociologist's Point of View." Jurist, vol. 48, no.
1, 1988, p. 292-297. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Liliane Voye, 'Subsidiary from a Sociologist's Point of View' (1988) 48 Jurist 292

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
THE JURIST 48 (1988) 292-297

SUBSIDIARITY FROM A
SOCIOLOGIST'S POINT OF VIEW

LILIANE VOYI
Universit Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

To the extent that I largely share his analyses, with the exception
perhaps of his uneasiness with regard to the usefulness of sociology, I
must content myself with returning to certain points which Professor
Kaufmann raised in order to attempt to develop them a bit more, and
to draw out some reflections and questions which I think could be
useful for our purposes.
1. Modern Society
As Professor Kaufmann says, in contrast to traditional societies
where functions overlapped one another, modern society is a complex
of specialized functions, more or less autonomous from one another,
more or less poorly (or well) coordinated among themselves, and not
organized into an hierarchical ordering. This complex system has large-
ly prevailed up until now, but recently it has been partially called into
question because of the perverse effects which it produces-for exam-
ple, bureaucracy, a growing anonymity, and even the inadequacies and
failures of social security. Thus there has been rediscovered, in Kauf-
mann's words, "the qualities of small communities, the merits of ele-
mentary solidarity," and of systems of mutual aid drawing on these
primary solidarities. This first point suggests several comments.
a. Certainly, specialized functions which are characteristic of mod-
ern society are not radically hierarchical. This does not stop some of
them from being considered more important than others, more decisive
for social functioning. This is particularly true for the economy. As to
the religious function, it seems to be in some way marginalized and
essentially set back into the domain of private life.' Religion has no

I Jean Remy, Liliane Voy6, and Emile Servais, Produireou reproduire:Sociologie

de la vie quotidienne (Brussels: Vie ouvri6re, 1978), pp. 181-206.
 SUBSIDIARITY FROM A SOCIOLOGIST'S POINT OF VIEW

longer either the role of synthesis or that of major and final reference
point which it once had in traditional society.
The result is that it is no longer necessarily the religious leaders who
have the initiative in raising implicit or explicit questions which can be
addressed to leaders of the economy. Certainly without excluding this
right and possibility of initiative, it can be observed that often the
definition of problems and the delimitation of their field of relevance
and application arise from factors external to the religious field. Thus
the territorial level of ecclesial agencies can seem to be in some sense
fixed, or at least set, from the outside. Belgium offers an enlightening
example in this regard. While the national territory remains officially
covered by one episcopal conference, the linguistic question which di-
vides the country has led effectively to two "sub-conferences," joined
together by the cardinal. Some Christian groups which are strongly
engaged in this polemic are in fact calling now for these two confer-
ences to be made official.
b. As Professor Kaufmann notes, the hierarchical functioning of the
Church is located in a territorial reference, which is more or less based
upon political bodies. For episcopal conferences this is played out at
the level of neighboring spaces within the interior of the same national
state. However, without excluding this spacial dimension and its socio-
culture significance, it is important to observe several things.
First, depending on what nation is considered, episcopal conferences
can join together greatly different numbers of bishops. Simply from a
technical perspective of group dynamics, there is a question about the
functioning of a conference which includes several tens of bishops!
Moreover, modern complex society functions at diverse spatial lev-
els, among which the nation state is not necessarily the most pertinent
reference point. Some authors even consider it to be increasingly less
relevant.2 On one hand the economy, and especially employment and
markets, is takes little account of national frontiers. On the other hand,
we are witnessing a growth of other spatial references, especially "re-
gions" which are intermediary levels between the national and local, at
the same time as political ties are being forged among states (partic-
ularly in Europe). Moreover, some questions arise independently of
any geographic proximity or national belonging. Thus large cities share

2 Alain Touraine, Le retour de I'acteur: Fasai de Sociologie (Paris: Fayard, 1984).

 THE JURIST

a certain number of problems which are foreign to their immediate

environment. The same goes, for example, for areas in deep economic
repression, tourist areas, or even regions experiencing important
immigration.
Third, the daily living of people is increasingly based on a level which
goes beyond the local community (parish) and even that of the province
(diocese). The mobility of various types of people is a fact, both for
professional life and for extra-professional life, so that their point of
reference or sense of belonging is no longer generally related to a lim-
ited territory, identified once and for all for every activity. Modern
people often live in an open territory, even if it is important to nuance
this observation by taking account notably of different social milieux
and the various questions they raise.
Finally, it is certainly true to say that the problems raised by the
complex organizational functioning of modem society has led recently
to a rediscovery of the qualities of small communities and the merits of
elementary solidarity. Yet a comment must be made in this regard. In
traditional society these communities and solidarities were ascriptive
(given from the start) and territorially closed; they defined global and
definitive allegiances. On the contrary, the communities and solidarities
which are being rediscovered today are elective, open, and can be re-
pudiated. Thus in a general manner, and without losing sight of the
importance of social differences, it can be said today that the individual
chooses what to belong to, is free to dissolve them, to change and to
multiply them, without being held by a quasi-permanent specific space
for this.
The various aspects which I have just briefly sketched seem to ques-
tion the functioning of the Church on several points.
1) How does the Church intend to answer the various questions,
latent or explicit, which are posed to it, and which escape or modify the
territorial limits defined by its structures?
2) How does the Church situate itself in regard to the diversity of
spatial levels experienced in modem society, levels among which the
national state is losing its meaning and credibility, and by the present
political evolution and the current functioning of the economy?
3) How does the Church react to a situation where people are mobile,
where their life develops in open spaces, and where they claim to
choose where they belong, whether in a territorial, social or cultur-
al sense?
 SUBSIDIARITY FROM A SOCIOLOGIST'S POINT OF VIEW

4) How, finally, does it reply to a situation where it is likely more

often the problems to be addressed which produce unity than the iden-
tity of belonging to a specific territory?

2. OrganizationalFunctioning
Another major point of Professor Kaufmann's presentation bears on
the tendency to develop centralizing forces, and the growth in effective
possibilities for control which developments in communications and
information media assure them. This observation, which I share totally,
leads me to raise an important aspect of the functioning of organiza-
tions. Most often, in fact, organizations function simultaneously
through two systems: the formal system of structural mechanisms, and
the informal system of networks.3
Structures have strictly defined limits and are considered as stable
over time. The actors involved in them tend to limit themselves to one
role or to several very specific roles. Their coordination is carried out
in an hierarchical manner in the name of specialized rules. Networks,
on the other hand, have fluid limits. They fluctuate in response to
problems which come up and permit a supple relationship with other
organizations. The actors who are involved here can play out multiple
and flexible roles, and can be involved in different fields, give up some
roles, and adopt new ones. Structures can be represented under the
form of organizational charts while networks are presented under the
form of social diagrams.
4
While both of these are useful to the life of an organization, it
should be noted that if structures assure continuity and secure what is
predefined, delimited, and reproducible, they carry a triple risk. Gen-
erally, they lead to the development of bureaucracy, which at a given
moment risks turning into self-maintenance. They favor the exercise of
control by means of maintaining fixed and limited roles, conceived in
advance to assure the visibility of their functioning (see the Panopticon
of Bentham, in contrast to the labyrinth). 6 Linked together through

3 Vincent Lemieux, Rhseaux et appareils: Logique des syst~mes et langage des gra-
phes (Qu6bec and Pads: Ed. scientifiques et m6dicales, 1982).
4 Lucien Sfez, Critique de ia dhcision (Paris: Presses de la Fondation
nationale des
sciences politiques, 1981).
5 Michel Crozier, La socihti bloque (Pads: Seuil, 1969).
6 See Jeremy Bentham, "Panopticon; or, the Inspection-House," and "Panopticon
versus New South Wales," in The Works of Jeremy Bentham (New York: Russell and
Russell, 1962), 4: 37-248.
 THE JURIST

precise roles, organized to meet predefined problems, structures risk

limiting the capacity for innovation and for taking into account or even
anticipating transformations in their context.
It seems, then, that the legitimate concern to insert certain instances
in a formal hierarchical structure and to legislate on this matter must
at all times watch out that it not become inescapably closed in struc-
tures and laws. This concern must be accompanied by a preoccupation
to make room for informal functioning, freer initiative and creativity,
and thus sometimes be more open to encountering the movement of
life. A good organization is, in fact, an organization which besides
formal roles knows how to make room for informal ones and to thus
let itself be stimulated by life.
How can the Church respond to this double need, the only guarantee
for effective efforts at evangelization and renewal of credibility among
today's people?
3. Accountability
I would like to raise a final point briefly. To the degree that, as
Professor Kaufmann says, Vatican II defined the Church as the people
of God and the hierarchical order as an element which serves this,
would it not be fitting to ask how to assure this people a possibility of
reciprocal action and evaluation of this "service," especially in the con-
text of episcopal conferences? Just as there is a preoccupation with the
relationship between episcopal conferences and the Holy See, and be-
tween episcopal conferences and the diocesan bishop, should not the
question also be raised about existing relationships, or those which are
desirable, between these various agencies and the people of God?
Is "communication" only a one-way process, coming down from the
top? Or do the people of God have a "legitimate" word to say, which
is listened to as such? If it is this latter, who serve as spokespersons for
the people of God? Are they representative of everything that is lived
and sought within that people? The designation of a spokesperson is
crucial. On one hand, the majority often looks toward the least com-
mon denominator and generally is not a good indicator of new emerg-
ing directions. On the other hand, it could be that active Christians,
who are a minority, are not representative of the diversified world7
where those who call themselves Christians live, far from the sacra-

7 Mancur Olson, Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of
Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).
 SUBSIDIARITY FROM A SOCIOLOGIST'S POINT OF VIEW 297

ments and farther still from dogma, but laying claim to rituals and an
identity.' How this question is answered is important, for it may reveal
how the Church is defined: a confessing Church, or a Church of the
masses.

8 K. Dobbelaere, Chr~tienth socio-culturelle et religion civile: essai d'htude com-

parative, translated from Tijdschrift voor Sociologie 7 (1986). See Liliane Voy6, "Du
monopole religieux A la connivence culturelle en Belgique. Un catholicisme hors les
murs," L'annie Sociologique 8 (1988) 135-167.