A Dooyeweerdian Strategic Analysis of Defence

I think some of the issues are better approached from a different direction. I will do so in three parts: Dooyeweerdian aspects, the ethical aspect in particular, and world views.

(This has become lengthy; I suggest you save this email and read a couple of times.)

Aspects as Law-Promise from God

• To Dooyeweerd, the aspects are part of God's Law for the cosmos, a Law that is not so much authoritarian Demand or Command ("Do this or else; I am authority over you"), so much as gracious Promise ("If your do this, then that will tend to occur in response; I promise it; I am Jahweh"). And Promises of many kinds, each aspect giving a distinct kind.

• Incidentally, this is very different from the "Do this or else; Punishment awaits those who disobey", which is the assumption about Law in both the mediaeval Roman Catholic view, as well as the traditional liberal individualistic Humanist view. Based on Aristotle's notion of God-as-authority.

• Each aspect provides a different type Promise-Law. And our functioning in each aspect is in fact constituted of a response to the Promise-Laws of that aspect.

• This means that all creation has responsibility before God under the Law-Promise regimes they can be subject to. Humans, to the entire range, up to Pistic. This is the key notion. In all that we do, we have responsibility before God.

• Note: this is both individual and collective responsibility. From sensitive to lingual aspect, the social is not involved. But from social aspect onwards, full functioning in these aspects is social in nature, and whatever we do in these aspects usually affects others and even the whole of society. (This might be worth bearing in mind in anything to do with government, which is qualified by the juridical post-social aspect.)

• So, in Defence, what should govern and guide us and stimulate us as we make decisions (as mentioned above) is: are we functioning well in all the aspects? The 'shalom principle' is that if we function well in every aspect things will go well, but if we go against the Laws of any aspect then things will not go so well. Whatever we do has repercussions.

• Note: It is not sufficient to say "Well, we are working well in X aspect". As James pointed out "If we break one law we break the whole law".

• The later aspects are the most important, but also the least obvious, and also the slowest in their repercussions. The typical timescale of repercussions lengthens as we go along the aspectual scale: pico-seconds in the physical, milliseconds in the sensitive, seconds in the analytic, ten seconds in the lingual, minutes or hours in the social, up to a decade in ethical and century in the pistic.

• (Note: The aspectual laws pertain, and repercussions of aspects apply whether a person is a believer or non-believer.)

The Ethical Aspect in Particular

• In the ethical aspect of self-giving, of agape, of self-sacrifice, the Law-Promise is: if you self-give rather than self-protect or self-seek, then things will (tend to) go well for you and for all around you. You yourself might be sacrificed, as Jesus was, but the blessing will be to others and to society as a whole. Think about when a person does not hit back, but blesses, as Jesus recommended (commanded).

• Example: I have just heard about the Grameen Bank, that lends to those poor without collateral, to beggars, etc. - and 99% of their loans make a profit. Being generous, self-giving, self-risking, rather than self-protecting, or self-maximizing, works in God's world.

• But it's risky. One good repercussion is that, being risky, it motivates us to look outside, to God, for our ultimate protection and vindication. That is, the pistic aspect of trust and faith.

• Let us consider whether this particular aspect, long ignored in the arena of public policy and planning, has anything to say about a broad, general approach to Defence? I'm not referring to a pacifist approach (though I do not rule that out), but something more subtle. Also, this thought must be kept alongside other aspects such as juridical aspect of justice. Treat this as a 'worked example' of how we might apply thinking about an aspect; then critique it, and also extend it to other aspects. But, let us thing for now just of this one long-ignored aspect, so as to 'think outside the box' ...

• First, let us set down some of the norms of the ethical aspect of self-giving.
  • Its positive norms include: denial of self-interest, giving or doing good to others in preference to self, allowing the other to take advantage of self without becoming angry, lending without expecting any return, and the like. Taking meaningful risks, which leads me to greater trust in God (anticipation of pistic aspect). Giving in to the other, unconditionally. Saying "Sorry; I was wrong" and genuinely repenting. Forgiving. Refer to many words of Jesus.

  • Going against the norms includes: being selfish, being self-centred, putting self first, keeping rather than giving to others, taking advantage of others, taking advantage for self of any situation (even where others do not get hurt), being competitive, maximizing some property of self rather than being content with less than maximum (what H Simon called 'satisficing'), and the like. Much self-protection also goes against this norm (though there is a valid form of self-protection in the biotic aspect). Saying "I am right". Refusing to give in, but 'meeting someone half way'. Refusing to forgive, except 'on condition'. Revenge. Vindictiveness. Putting others down.

  One word captures this: attitude.

• Now let us consider the repercussions in this aspect. When we go with the norms things get better, when we go against the norms things go wrong.
  • The above norms work. Take a family argument. When one says "Sorry, I was wrong" the other also tends to give way too. Also works in national life; see example of South Africa below.
  • Since this is a social aspect its good (or bad) repercussions impinge not primarily or firstly on self but on others and on society, and as part of that they return to self (remember Jesus' words like "Give liberally, and blessing will return to you in huge measure, pressed down and running over").
  • Since this is a longer term aspect, do not expect the benefit to self to come tomorrow, but maybe in a year or ten years time. Think in term of long term investment. For example, it sets up a decent society for our children to feel safe in.
  (Paradox: But if we do good in order to get eventual blessing for self, then it is no longer genuinely functioning with the norm of self-giving. So the blessing might not arrive! It must be motivated purely by a desire to bless others and to follow this part of the Law of God.)

• (Problem: In a democracy, surely "I've been elected to maximize benefits to those I represent"? Fair question, that deserves more of an answer than I can give here. One 'political' answer might be: "Self-giving actually works and comes back as benefit, especially to our children." A truer answer might be: "I've been elected to act as you would or should, which includes self-giving on your behalf.")

• Now let us apply to public policy.
  • Think about South Africa. After apartheid one would have expected blood bath. But De Klerk publicly said Sorry and Mandela publicly Forgave. Result: the new nation was given a decent foundation (though what is built on it thereafter is to be seen). God's Way Works.
  • The traditional view, in defence, economics, science, or anything else, is to maximize some parameter that indicates benefit to self. Doing this goes against the norm of the ethical aspect and hence (if God is true and self-giving is indeed part of his plan for the cosmos) it becomes counterproductive after a time.
  • In defence, a particular temptation is to maximize self-protection, where self is the nation and/or all the people therein. But that is counterproductive.
  • Example: USA seeks to defend itself against further terrorist attacks rather than taking it as a sign from God that they should repent (see discussion), so it attacks Iraq (not necessarily in itself a bad thing, but done with the wrong attitude) and as a consequence stirs up Islamic terrorism, speeds up recruits for Islamic terrorists, lets Al Qaeda enter Iraq, has to spend $500Bn a year (I heard yesterday) on more security in USA, and so on. Counterproductive.

• We could treat other aspects in a similar vein. The economic aspect would be worth it since capitalism assumes it to be centred on finance, production, consumption whereas Dooyeweerd maintains that these are mere servant-parts of the real economics, which is primarily to do with frugality, skilled management of scarce resources. Under a Dooyeweerdian economics, profits and league tables and competition would not be primary driving forces as they are today.

• (There is the problem of rationalising things, especially if we are in government, to get our pet ideas and proposals accepted. In the world view of today, almost the sole basis is benefit-to-self (national self).)

• This brings me to the next major issue: world view.

World View and Religious Standpoint

• In addition to considering the norms of aspects, Dooyeweerd would also urge us to consider our religious standpoint and the taken-for-granted assumptions we make and the presuppositions that our theoretical thought is based upon. First to reveal them, then to question them, then to evaluate them, then to repent of the wrong ones and adopt better ones.

• Dooyeweerd spoke of at least three levels of religious stance:
  • Religious standpoint: Immanence standpoint of Western thought presupposes that there is something in created reality that is self-dependent. One consequence: we presuppose that we need not take God into our thinking, our theories, etc. Dooyeweerd showed that over 2,500 years this standpoint has underpinned Western thought, including that of the mediaeval Roman Catholic church which presupposed that things of God could be separated from things of the cosmos (nature-grace, below). He also demonstrated that it always leads to problems. He argued for a standpoint that presupposes a Divine Creator as a philosophical not a theological issue. i.e. it's not a dogma that demands belief but a presupposition we make in theoretical thought, and shapes our thought (for example, it allows us to consider diversity and coherence together).

  • Ground motives: the 'spiritual driving force' that directs society's thinking and living over 1000 year periods and that comes from the religious standpoint - form-matter (Greek), creation-fall-redemption (Hebrew), nature-grace (mediaeval), nature-freedom (modern, humanist). Three are dualistic, and result in half of reality being downgraded.

  • Aspectual world views, where we elevate, or even absolutize, an aspect. Most 'isms' are of this kind. e.g. materialism, rationalism. Also economism: the economic aspect is not only misunderstood (see above) but made the only important aspect of national life, against which other aspects of society are seen as "unfortunate, necessary evils".

• Apply to Defence. We will look at each briefly, to give an example of the kind of reasoning that might proceed.

• Religious standpoint. The Immanence standpoint is NOT overcome by having padres and religious services in the armed forces. Rather, the non-religious side of Defence should be thought out on the presupposition that there is a Creator who is of a certain character - love, giving Law-Promise in diversity and coherence. This presupposition allows us, for example, to trust God rather than having to do all ourselves, and having to 'cover all eventualities' - though not in any lazy way. It also means that God, being transcendent, is never 'on our side'.

• Ground motive. Modernity's one is nature-freedom, divorcing fact from value, control from freedom, etc. so we cannot fully benefit from the diversity in creation. Dooyeweerd espoused creation-fall-redemption. Similar reasoning to above, but more detailed, and there is more about the dynamics of fall and redemption. Especially fall: While there is some truth in the right-wing-'Christian' belief that "As long as humanity is fallen, we will need Defence", most of the thrust of such a statement is a deceit and misleading. Here is how I would apply these threee:
  • Creation. Implies diversity of aspects. This, for example, might be why God commanded Israel not to cut down fruit trees during a siege.

  • Fall. The thing about fall is not "They are fallen" but "I am fallen". This suggests that Defence should be thought out on the basis that those in its armed forces and Defence Ministries are fallen. Implies humility (links with ethical aspect).

  • Redemption. While Fall theme is to do with 'problem', Redemption theme is concerned with 'solution'. Solution is not face-saving compromise (as was attempted in Middle East and Northern Ireland, and failed) but is found in the ethical aspect of agape love and self giving, above. Redemption in life is through self-sacrifice of those prepared to do so. Think of Francis of Assissi risking his life by walking into the Saracen camp.

• Aspectual world view. Absolutization or unwarranted elevation of an aspect is wrong and counterproductive. This is a temptation in any State apparatus that is divided into Ministries or Departments each with a special remit, and where each is expected to 'fight their corner'. Always, every aspect should be considered even if a Department has special responsibility in certain ones.

• It can be useful to identify the central or qualifying aspect of a Department's main responsibility. What is aspect that qualifies Defence? Not lingual, not social, not economic, not aesthetic, nor juridical. I believe it might be the ethical one, because its central thrust is self-protection.
  • Problem: I said above that self-protection is against the norm of the ethical aspect. Maybe I was right, and the implication is that, in fact, Defence is not ultimately legitimate. Maybe I was wrong, and the above must be rethought. Maybe it is qualified by a different aspect. Needs thinking about. Maybe in this case it is not very useful to seek to identify qualifying aspect.

  • One (possible) solution: Let us assume that Defence is indeed legitimate but qualified by self-giving. Then, according to the ethical aspect, the most effective way of self-protection is via its apparent opposite, self-giving. (This is the paradoxical nature of the ethical aspect.) Therefore, the way to keep the nation safest is not to build up armaments to match those of neighbours, but to engage in a continuous policy of generosity towards others in all areas of national life, e.g. of taking criticism from other nations and if necessary repenting of harm done to others, e.g. of treating both poor and well-resources in the nation aright and giving education, means (as a bonus) that they will be more ready to serve in defence of the nation when called upon and more easily trained to do so effectively. e.g. giving aid with no strings attached, which enhances respect in the world, which might be taken into account by potential aggressors. (These are repercussions we can expect; but do not self-give primarily in hope of getting them; see above.)

  • The tired reaction to that is, "But others will take advantage of us, and we'll be easy picking for those who want to invade; look at Kuwait." Yes, that has legitimacy, but
    • the way of self-giving is not identical with being a doormat; it requires much more sophisticated thinking, especially in relation to other aspects
    • think longterm, over decades rather than years (e.g. it is not Kuwait that is in trouble now, but its agressor)
    • there is no guarantee that in every case it will work, but the odds in its favour are huge (your Department could carry out a survey over long-term of fortunes of nations who have adopted self-giving versus self-protection-maximization measures)
    • we can trust God to act when necessary.
    Also, its opposite does not work. For example the vindictiveness of the French in 1918 led to the rise of Hitler in Germany.

• (Note: Many Christians use Paul's statement about "He who bears the sword" to justify Defence and armies. In my view, that is false. Paul was talking more about keeping of justice for the general good - juridically qualified. Not about warring nations.)

• It can be even more useful to identify aspects that tend to be elevated or absolutized in the Department. In Defence, I can think of several:
  • Formative aspect especially as in technical achievement. Technology of defence.
  • Formative aspect especially as in technique: the soldiers etc. learn techniques or rules of operation and follow them when action. No questioning allowed.
  • Social aspect especially in terms of deference. The line of command; deferring to superiors without question.
  • Pistic aspect, in which those in the armed forces (in the U.K at least) see themselves in a certain way that breeds both arrogance and a despising of 'civvies', which results in non-integration in society.

  But that probably betrays my naïve view of Defence. Therefore, try to think for yourself what the elevated aspects might be.

Conclusion

• Aspects. Consider every aspect carefully, be aware of them throughout. They all have repercussions, the more important ones being longterm and social. Therefore whatever we do should be seen as an investment in future 'shalom'.

• The ethical aspect of self-giving - oft-overlooked in policy decisions and planning, and yet of huge importance in the long-term good of society. Maybe the qualifying aspect of Defence. In any case, it is worth considering the role of self-giving (continuous and longterm in all areas of national life) as an integral part of Defence policy. Implies that Defence is not just armaments or armies, but is this wider (almost 'preventative') activity.

• Religious assumptions of three kinds need to be examined and questioned and brought to bear. The most practical is to examine elevated aspects and the assumptions they cause us to make and take for granted. But all can help.

This page is part of a collection that discusses application of Herman Dooyeweerd's ideas, within The Dooyeweerd Pages, which explain, explore and discuss Dooyeweerd's interesting philosophy. Email questions or comments would be welcome.

Written on the Amiga and Protext.

Compiled by (c) 2004 Andrew Basden. You may use this material subject to conditions.

Created: 14 August 2004 Last updated: 7 September 2013 rid unet, new .nav, .end.