Fraternity as a principle of social order

Fratelli tutti, on fraternity and social friendship, is an authentic inspiration. The aim that Pope Francis’ third encyclical pursues is twofold. On one hand, to awaken in everyone, believers and non-believers, the passion for the common good, urging everyone to draw direct consequences. On the other hand, to clarify concepts that are too superficially taken as synonyms or almost. The resulting confusion of thought does not help the dialogue or the prospect of the necessary lines of action. 

Fraternity does not have the same meaning as brotherhood and even less as solidarity. While brotherhood is an immanent concept that speaks of the belonging of people to the same species or a given community of destiny, fraternity is a transcendent concept that lays its foundation in the recognition of the common fatherhood of God. Brotherhood unites friends, but it separates them from non-friends; it makes members (a member is “the one who is associated for certain interests” n. 102) and therefore is closed for those who are united towards other interests. Fraternity, on the other hand, comes from above, is universal and creates brothers, not members, and therefore tends to erase the natural and historical boundaries that separate. 

Equally different is fraternity from solidarity. It is the great merit of Christian culture that it has been able to decline, in both institutional and economic terms, the principle of fraternity, making it a milestone of the social order. Solidarity is the principle of social organization that allows unequal people to become equals; fraternity is the principle that allows already equals to be diverse (not different).

Fraternity allows people who are equal in their dignity and fundamental rights to express their life plan or their scope, that is, their singularity, in a different way. This coexistence of equality and singularity is what characterizes the principle of fraternity in a unique way. The 1800s and especially the 1900s, were characterized by great battles, both cultural and political, and in the name of solidarity several good things happened; think of the history of the trade union movement and the struggle for the conquest of civil rights. But the good society in which we live cannot be satisfied with the horizon of solidarity, because while fraternal society is also a society rich in solidarity, vice-versa is not true. The present war in Ukraine, and in other parts of the world continue to be a clear example. 

What makes the difference? Gratuity. Where it is lacking, there can be no fraternity. Gratuitousness is not an ethical virtue, as is justice. It concerns the supra-ethical dimension of human action; its logic is that of superabundance. Fraternity goes beyond justice. In a perfectly just society - provided this is achievable - there would be no room for hope. What could its citizens ever hope for the future? Not so in a society where the principle of fraternity had managed to take root, precisely because hope is nourished by superabundance.

A question which arises is: why did Pope Francis choose the parable of the good Samaritan as the foundation of his approach to fraternity? The question makes sense because the Gospel says nothing (nor does it imply) about the relationship of reciprocity which, as we know, is necessary to preserve the bond of fraternity over time. Relationships between brothers are of reciprocity, not of exchange and much less of command. Reciprocity is giving without losing. There is no reciprocity between the Samaritan and the victim lying on the ground. The parable, therefore, is more an icon of solidarity or brotherhood than of fraternity in the proper sense. In fact, with this choice, Pope Francis wanted us to fully understand the difference between proximity and closeness. The Levite and the priest certainly shared something with the victim (all three were Jews), but they were not truly close to the victim. Proximity is enough for brotherhood; fraternity implies closeness, which is deeper.

Where does the above emphasis lead us in practical terms? 

Firstly, it is necessary, to realize the serious damage that the cultural matrix of liberal individualism is producing. The philosophical position of individualism emphasises that it is the individual who attributes value to things and even to interpersonal relationships and that it is always the individual alone who decides what is good and what is bad; what is lawful and unlawful. 

The radicalization of individualism in anti-social terms has led to the conclusion that every individual has the “right” to grow as far as his power allows him. Freedom as a release from bonds is the dominant idea in our societies today. Since they would limit freedom, bonds are what must be dissolved. We are mistakenly equating the concept of bond, with the conditions of freedom. 

A second powerful invitation that comes to us from Pope Francis is that of hastening the transition from the traditional (and now obsolete) model of responsibility to a richer model, equal to the challenges underway. In fact, the traditional interpretation of responsibility identifies it with being accountable for what a subject, produces. For some time now, however, a sense of responsibility has begun to take shape that places it beyond the principle of free will and the sole sphere of subjectivity. The statement by M.L. King: “you may not be responsible for the situation you are in, but you will become responsible if you do nothing to change it” is the perfect summary of it all. We are responsible not only and not so much for what we do, but rather for what we fail to do when we can actually do something. Neglecting to do something can be more serious than a mistaken action.

A third practical implication developed in Fratelli Tutti is that it is necessary to think seriously about a credible model of global governance. What is the challenge here? That of reconciling internal governance rules of individual countries, each with its specific history, its social norms of behaviour, its cultural matrix, with the uniformity of the rules that inevitably characterise global governance. Constraints external to the country, when it has to shape its domestic policies, always involve a cost in terms of democratic legitimacy - a cost which, as is happening nowadays, ends up reinforcing irrational pressures towards populism. A noteworthy novelty of this encyclical, which has not gone unnoticed and which will continue to be discussed for a long time, is Chapter 5 significantly entitled “A better kind of politics”. There are two wrong ways - Pope Francis tells us - to face the challenges of this moment. On the one hand, that of those who succumb to the temptation to remain above reality with utopia; on the other, that of those who place themselves below reality with dystopia, with submission. 

Welcoming the gaze of fraternity today means this: not considering ourselves either as the mere result of processes that fall outside our control or as a self-sufficient reality without the need for relationships with others. If we want the social order that we call capitalism (the way of living in the western world) to be able to fully respect the right of each individual to decide for himself on how to value his life and, at the same time, be able to show equal consideration for the destiny of each person, there is no other way than the instruments of politics, but a better kind of politics! The first step is to launch a credible project of transformation of the existing social order. It is easy to say that those who do not abide by the law must be deported, but by doing this we are escaping the real problem, the principles on which social order can be established. 

A famous passage by William Blake, poet and artist, helps us to grasp the “power” of the principle of fraternity: “I sought my soul, But my soul I could not see. I sought my God, But my God eluded me. I sought my brother, And I found all three.” Indeed, it is in gratuitousness, the practice of giving freely and without asking for anything in return, that the person encounters himself, the other and God. We live in a desert era of thought, which struggles to conceive the complexity of the human condition. It is a crumbled thought that struggles to see the relationships between the many dimensions of our crisis. Fraternity and social friendship, in the way of a social vaccine, show us the open approach out of the gloomy existing situation. 

Fr Joseph Hili is a Maltese priest and is a post-graduate student at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Milan and at the Facoltà Teologica dell’Italia Settentrionale of Milan. He is also part of ARC-Centre for the Anthropology of Religion and Cultural Change, one of the research centres of the Department of Sociology in the Università Cattolica, directed by Prof. Mauro Magatti. His interests are focused on the relationship between social ethics & moral theology. At the moment he exercises his pastoral work as part of the pastoral  community of St. Paul VI in San Giuliano Milanese.