I.1 Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction

The word “subsidiarity” is showing up more and more frequently in these days. Why? Because it is an important idea. Subsidiarity has been a major component of a special branch of philosophy called Catholic Social Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for over a century – but for most of that time, it was thought to be merely an abstraction, or at best an ideal or example, which might be admired and even taught as a guiding principle, but was never really implemented. Or maybe thought not implementable at all.
Now that has changed. A large cable television company needed an efficient technique of delivering TV commercials in electronic form to a number of geographically distant sites. Machinery for transport and playback was designed and implemented, and the system per­formed its duties for more than five years, delivering over 500 commercials every week. It was precisely nothing less than subsidi­arity turned into software. When the contract expired, the system was abandoned though it had been successful in accomplishing its goals. Indeed, the results we observed strongly urged a deeper consideration of the abstract idea.
This book, then, will describe the idea of subsidiarity. After a short review of its history, I will present the cable TV spot transport problem, together with the solution we accomplished, thus providing a concrete analogy for discussion. Then I will consider some additional examples to extend, enrich, and apply the analogy, and add some concluding thoughts to complete this initial study.

What is Subsidiarity?
Subsidiarity is nothing more than common sense, as applied to the governance or control of an organization, or of collections (systems) of organizations. It is a simple idea, almost mathematical in tone, as it must be in order to have such vast application. Like other profound ideas, it can be expressed in a variety of forms, as it has been applied to the great variety of cases throughout histo­ry. The fundamental idea appeared at length in Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum. Forty years later, Pius XI reduced it to a succinct but negative form:

It is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies.
[QuadragesimoAnno 5]

In 1961, seventy years after Leo XIII, John XXIII called it the “principle of subsidiary function” which he simplified to “subsidiarity” in his 1963 Pacem in Terris. Perhaps the cleanest and most positive form is also one of the newest, formulated by John Paul II and appearing in 1991:

A community of a higher order ... should support a community of a lower order in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
[Centesimus Annus 48]

Subsidiarity is such an obvious idea that it is enshrined in witticisms such as “Keep it simple, stupid” and “Let’s not make a federal case out of this.” It is ancient: Moses used it, as we shall see when we explore its history. It is modern, being able to serve as the foundation of computer software for file transport by satellite, as I will demonstrate in detail.
Subsidiarity is also a paradox: it divides and also unites. Subsidiarity is setting forth one single task as a goal – as well as specifying separate func­tions or duties to be performed independently yet harmoniously, in order that the goal be achieved. When subsidiarity is in effect, it produces that mystical inversion where the last shall be first and the first are last [Lk 13:30].
It is not correct to say that subsidiarity is a way as if it were merely one among many possible approaches – it actually is the only way to do things – or at least the only way which really has any hope of being practical, efficient, and result-producing. Though subsidiarity is a general structure or strategy (it might be called a paradigm, or a “meta-rule”) – and not a detailed and comprehensive specification, any given system will be more (or less) successful at its purposes to the extent it is in harmony (or dissonance) with subsidiarity. And the larger and more complex a system is, the greater will be the need for subsidiarity – and the more dreadful will be the failures for neglecting it.
As the term is generally used in documents of the Popes and social philosophy, subsidiarity refers to strictly human organi­zations: families, businesses, trade unions, and the various forms of government from local to international – as well as all their varied interactions and contacts. Why is this? Because humans act according to will. And the human will is not ultimately subject to programming or control in the mechanical sense: it must be appealed to by truly powerful words like humility, duty and dedication, generosity, kindness and concern. Subsidiarity is a wide-scale implementation of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” [Lk 6:31]
For subsidiarity is about assistance, not about authority – subsidiarity illuminates the organization, to make that assistance effective in achieving its purposes. All organizations have some kind of internal structure, which produces order among the components of that organization according to some “layer” or “level” of characteristics of the components. Such organizations also have a fundamental goal or purpose towards which their operations are directed. Subsidiarity simply means that there is a right way of maintaining the relationship between the levels of the organization, in order to accomplish its purpose: specifically, a “higher” level is to support and assist the “lower” levels, but not to interfere with or (as Pius XI said) to arrogate to itself the work of those levels. Subsidiarity produces the “right order” within the organization which is the best way of accomplishing the purpose or design or goal of that organization. Surprisingly, this right order means that the lowest levels are those which most directly achieve the goals, relying on help provided by the higher levels. This order is the inverse of that usually perceived and expected by the modern world, but is both productive as well as just.
As you are about to see, the term “subsidiarity” can also be applied to non-human systems – if only by analogy. This may seem somewhat unusual, but it is nothing more than the device St. Paul used in explaining an even more mystical idea by analogy with the human body:

For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ. [1 Cor 12:12]

This is the beginning of his famous “Analogy of the Body” – indeed, the human body will also play an important role in our discussion.
This scientific, mathematical, and computational approach will help in under­standing the design of subsidiarity, and assist in characterizing its simplicity, its efficiency, and its practicality. All this, we hope, will result in the fuller application of subsidiarity to all human activities, with a concomitant improvement in the human condition.

All text and pictures copyright © 2008 by Dr. Thursday