from the series Peace House Community Journal…
By MARTI MALTBY
The Book of Genesis tells that in the beginning, God brought order out of chaos. We’ve been trying to do the same thing ever since, with varying degrees of success. For the most part, we seem to do okay, creating enough structure for society to function, but not enough to crush everyone. But even accomplishing “okay” is a struggle, and maintaining requires a constant balancing act.
We’ve seen what happens when things get too structured. Sometimes totalitarianism results, where thought, speech, and behavior are all curtailed in the name of some “greater value.” People, either as individuals or groups, are sacrificed for something intangible.
Even if it doesn’t get quite that bad, too many rules still cause problems. George Orwell, an ardent socialist, wrote a lot about the problems he saw in other socialists. Many of them, he believed, embraced socialism because it would make society more orderly, not because it was more just or freeing than other forms of government. According to Orwell, many socialists disliked messiness, and saw socialism as a means of keeping everything (and everyone) in place.
Of course, there are dangers in going too far the other way. A lack of order declines into anarchy, which leads to its own forms of victimization. The powerful and ruthless rise to the top by climbing over those with less power or more morals. Any number of countries can provide case studies in the breakdown of order. Even organizations like the United Nations operate according to the agendas of powerful countries at the expense of less powerful ones.
Now that I’ve annoyed the federalists, the socialists, the anarchists, and the globalists, what is left? While each philosophy pulls in a different direction, their offsetting influences help us maintain enough structure to function. Our society obviously falls short in many areas, but it would probably fall apart if not for competing interests keeping each other in check. We need each other, with all of our disagreements. Embracing one outlook means embracing that outlook’s blind spots, biases, and weaknesses. Such an approach may achieve order, but the costs would probably be higher than we should be willing to pay.
In theory, most people like the idea of being free of rules. They would choose to behave, but they would also get to choose how they behave. They want to be treated as adults who can make responsible choices for themselves and those around them. However, those same people would probably feel uncomfortable having the same conditions apply to everyone. Similarly, some folks like the idea of having the power to keep others in line, but they rebel when others tell them what to do.
I briefly managed a couple of apartment buildings that served formerly homeless adults. One woman was dissatisfied with the security in the building and demanded that we get rid of the no weapons policy. She was adamant that she should have a gun. When I asked if she trusted the other tenants to be responsible with the guns they would bring into the building, she gave a very emphatic “NO!” But in her mind, that was exactly why she should carry a gun.
The battle between order and chaos will continue, but so will the battles between different forms of order, and different levels of chaos. Let us hope we can maintain acceptable levels of both.
MARTI MALTBY is an avid cyclist, Director at Peace House Community, and an obnoxiously proud Canadian.
