This chapter will examine how one's understanding of the principles of individuality and community relate to some fundamental issues with regard to social unity. It will be divided into three distinct sections: the first will address issues of national unity, the second section will focus upon issues of international unity, while in the final section issues of family unity will be the point of concentration.

Three different perspectives on these issues will be examined. The first emphasizes the principle of individuality to the relative exclusion of the principle of community; it will be referred to here as the singularist perspective. This focuses on those aspects of identity which separate particular individuals from the community at large. An example of this orientation can be seen in the work of Thomas Hobbes who regards the state of nature as being equivalent to a state of war between all men. For Hobbes everyone has a right to whatever one can acquire by any means one chooses within the state of nature. In fact, one enters into a civil society only in order to better preserve one's own life and better pursue one's own comfort. Furthermore, one will put aside one's rights only provided others, likewise, put theirs aside.¹ This Hobbesian singularism sees all human beings as radically distinct and autonomous units, sharing no inherent relationship with any other person. By isolating individuals into discrete units singularism in general has a tendency to generate opposition not only between individuals, but even of individuals to society as a whole.

The second perspective will be referred to as collectivism. This view emphasizes the principle of community against that of individuality. It does so by ignoring those elements which distinguish being from each other, recognizing only those common elements shared by all. One finds this type of orientation in the work of Karl Marx for whom humanity can prosper only in a system where production forces are collectively owned and class distinctions are eliminated. Marx believes that individual ownership is destructive to social unity and inevitably will lead to oppression.

The final perspective is that of mutual integrationism. This perspective seeks to achieve a complementary fulfillment of the principles of individuality and community where each can obtain its full potential without incorporating its partner into itself. It does so not only by recognizing the value of unique individual beings, but also by appreciating the way in which that individual is inherently related to the greater community in which one lives. In so doing it acknowledges that the communities themselves are made up of individual beings, but is not synonymous with them. This lays the groundwork for establishing a mutually beneficial relationship between the individual and the community, rather than the Hobbesian or Marxist perspectives. The diagram outlines the issues examined in this chapter.

Singularism Mutual Collectivism

Integrationism

Emphasizes Integrates prin- Emphasizes

principle ciples of indi- principle of

of individ- viduality and community at

uality at community. the expense

the expense of the prin-

of the prin- ciple of

ciple of individual-

community. ity.

National Emphasizes Seeks to pre- Emphasizes

Unity distinctions serve distinc- uniformity

pp.261-285 between tions within an and seeks to

individuals. overarching eliminate

unity. distinctions.

Inter- Withdrawal Recognizes the Emphasizes

national from the value of dis- elements of which

Unity world. tinct individ- nations share,

pp.285-291 ual nations and but fails to

the importance recognize the

of the inherent unique nature of

relationships individual

all nations nations.

share.

Family Emphasizes Promotes indi- Emphasizes

Unity individual vidual autonomy family

pp.291-296 autonomy. within family structure.

structure.

SOCIAL UNITY IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT

In medieval society religious unity was intimately related to social unity due to the prominent role played by religion within society. Examples of this can be seen in the importance attached to such concepts as Christendom and in the social disorder which accompanied the Protestant Reformation not long after Cusa's death. Generally speaking, in modern society religion no longer plays the role it once did and is no longer as tightly linked to social unity. Many other social divisions, however, now emerge which are as destabilizing to the social order as were the religious divisions at the time of the expansion of Islam or of the Reformation. These social divisions are reflected in such dramatic instances as urban riots, civil wars or, on a smaller scale, the problems of family structure.

As stated, Cusa's ideas on religious unity reflect his ideas on social unity. He sought to achieve this unity by allowing individual religious groups as much freedom as possible and interfering with this freedom only when either public order or the integrity of the faith was jeopardized. Modern society has drawn upon religion as a keystone for maintaining social unity within rather than between groups. Hence, to work in the spirit of Cusa today one faces the serious challenge of identifying the over-arching unity which can bind together society.

One can argue that just as social circumstances have created this vacuum, they also have filled it. In short, religion, now divided, is no longer regarded as the universally inclusive identity; national political identity now plays a far stronger role. Whereas, for Cusa himself, unity was once provided by one's relationship to the Roman Catholic Church, today modern social unity often is based on membership within a pluralistic state regardless of any religious or ethnic considerations (as well as considerations of gender, age, et cetera).

For Cusa the distinctive element of human nature is its intellectual capacity. In De Docta Ignorantia, he writes that such things as stature and race are irrelevant to one's intellectual capacity.² In order to correctly interpret this claim one must bear in mind that intellectual capacity does not refer merely to deductive reasoning which is itself grounded on intuition and judgement and embraces a broad range of cognitive abilities. This is particularly the case for Cusa who constantly exhorts his readers to reach beyond the limits of discursive reasoning and relies so heavily upon metaphors and paradoxes to achieve this. It must be admitted that ultimately one's cognitive abilities are founded on an awareness of one's relationship to God and one's neighbors. This ultimately links one's intellectual outlook to one's cultural context. It should also be noted that this cultural context will to some extent be influenced by various physical characteristics. Thus, when Cusa separates intellectual capacity from such things as stature and race he, in fact, is asserting that intellectual capacities are not contingent upon such factors, though they may indeed play some role in determining the particular manner in which this capacity is expressed.

Thus, though religion may no longer serve as the ultimately unifying context, nonetheless, still it grounds and pervades all social unity. Just as one cannot treat the unity of the family by abstracting it from sexual differences, likewise if there are differences in religious perspectives in society one cannot promote social unity by simply abstracting from these differences. One must attempt to establish a positive interrelationship between these groups and to do so in distinctly religious terms. This is due both to the unique nature of religious commitment and to the natural operation of the human intellect.

The Existence of the Person in Society

It is perhaps best to begin an analysis of a Cusan notion of social unity by examining the nature of the individuals who will form this unity. For Cusa diversity among individuals is something quite natural. In De Docta Ignorantia, Cusa claims that, no two human beings can be identical in anything. Each possesses unique perceptions, imaginations, ideas, etc.. Thus, each will engage in unique activities. In fact, Cusa points out that even if one person consciously sets out to imitate another, he would never be able exactly to reproduce the model even on some particular point.³ Thus, Cusa preserves the fundamental uniqueness of each individual human being.

He states also that universals posses no actual existence apart from their existence in individual beings.⁴ This, however, does not result in Cusa adopting an atomistic view of society where each person becomes something of a world unto one's self. He believes that the entire universe exists in an harmonious manner and that each thing acts in a way which will allow it to realize its best possible existence. In performing this activity it influences other things and helps enable them to realize their potential. He claims that bright things do not illuminate so human beings can see, but do so because that is the nature of their being. God has ordained, however, that the order of the universe is such that as things act in accordance with their nature they will enhance the capacities of other beings to fulfill their respective natures. Thus, in order to realize their visual nature human beings take advantage of the light, which bright things give off to fulfill their illuminative nature. Cusa writes that, God "has so created all things that whilst each thing strives to conserve its own being as a gift of God, it does so in participation with other things;"⁵ Thus Cusa's philosophy sets up an harmonious unity of being where individual fulfillment can be achieved only through service to the whole of reality. No being can realize its identity apart from the whole of being and benefiting that whole becomes essential to individual identity.

Since human nature is both conscious and rational it can understand the interrelationship of being and respond to it in an appropriate (i.e. personal) manner. Thus, it seems for Cusa that all human beings are linked by a sense of cultural identity. He claims that God has arranged the universe in such a way that even though each will admire the culture of others he will be content also with his own and this produces unity and peace as far as is possible on earth.⁶ It is this human need for cultural identity which, in part, provides the basis for Cusa's claim in De Pace Fidei that no one wants a way of worship which is common to all,⁷ but yearns for something which is distinctively one's own.

Varghese Manimala in an article entitled, "Person, Community and Culture", asserts that the individual's destiny can be attained only in concert with others, but never in isolation.⁸ In short, the personal growth of the individual cannot be assured except within the community.⁹ It is in this sense that one can conclude that personal identity is not something the individual is born with, but is rather something which develops in people because of their membership in society. T. I. Oizerman gives an example of this when he points out that, though the capacity for human language may be inherent in the individual, a particular individual can acquire a language only through contact with other people.¹⁰ Thus, though human nature is inherent in all human beings its individual potential can be fulfilled only in society with others. Thus, one is justified in claiming that the person is to a significant extent relational.¹¹ Every person inevitably is influenced by their families, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, religious congregations, et cetera.

This relationality provides the foundation for the mutual concern which must animate any authentically human community. True personal fulfillment is never at the expense of the community which shapes one's identity, nor is true service to the community ever destructive to the person. When the primary relationship of every person is to the Absolute in the form of a personal and loving God who endows all reality with being, one must expand one's concern to embrace all of reality. Since every being is a contraction of the Absolute a unity of being is established which eliminates the distinction between personal fulfillment and the good of the community.

The Nature of Society

This insight into the nature of relationships plays an indispensable role in understanding the true nature of society. Martin Buber in Between Man and Man outlines the social drawbacks of singularism (which he refers to as individualism) and collectivism. He sees both perspectives as merely partial expressions of the integrity of human experience, which it therefore distorts.¹² Singularism isolates the person into a separate being which shares no inherent relationship with any other being. On the other hand, collectivism, though it successfully gathers people into a "whole", fails to form a true society in that it makes impossible the creation of individual relationships within the whole. For Buber, collectivism renders social life impossible for the person since it entombs the individuals who enter into social relationships in the whole so that they cannot establish any sort of independent being.¹³

The failures of the collectivist and singularist visions of society are solved by Buber through a relational society. Here the individual exists to the extent that he enters into living relationships with others. For Buber the preeminent reality of human existence can be neither the individual nor the collective. These two concepts when viewed in isolation are nothing more than mere abstractions. The individual can achieve authentic reality only through living relationships with others. Likewise, the community can achieve authentic reality only in so far as it is constructed of these living relationships.¹⁴

A Cusan Approach to the Person and the Community

It is the position of mutual integrationism, however, which authentically reflects the philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa with its emphasis upon the principles of individuality and community. The perspective of mutual integrationism is somewhat different than that expressed by Buber. As has been said, for Cusa, the primary relation which any being has, particularly the human being, is with the Absolute. It is this relationship which endows the individual person with his or her very being, and thereby allows one to enter into relationships with others. Thus, mutual integrationism asserts that the fact of existence is not dependent on one's relation to others, but rather on one's relation to the Absolute which endows every individual with its own being. Since these beings are each unique contractions of the Absolute, each being shares an inherent relationship with every other being in respect to their source and end. Thus, interaction with others becomes part of the very nature of individual being. This is particularly the case for rational beings whose interaction takes on a distinctively personal character and leads to an enhanced awareness of the Divine. Likewise, the community is not merely a collection of relationships, but is itself an organic unity expressive of its own truth. This expression occurs not only due to the various natures of the community's constituent members, but because the community is itself a contraction of the Absolute which also provides it with its end.

Because Cusa recognizes the importance of the role played by cultural identity in respect to one's own personal fulfillment one should clearly make no attempt to create a more homogeneous society by assimilating various distinct groups into the whole. As has been shown, Cusa does not believe that unity requires homogeneity. Since all questions of social harmony essentially come down to relating people who are different,¹⁵ this is a prime example of the significance of Cusa's ideas on diversity within the unity of contemporary society. G. McLean correctly points out that an exclusive connotation has all too often been applied to the term culture, thereby implying that cultural identity results in cultural alienation.¹⁶ Life in the modern world, however, makes it imperative that a less exclusive notion of culture take hold.¹⁷ In fact, cultural traditions can be seen as bridges rather than barriers. They connect individuals to their communities and when properly understood may also connect communities to each other. This is particularly the case when one views these cultures from a transcendent religious perspective, as did Cusa. From such a perspective all cultures recognize themselves as partial manifestations of the Absolute to which they are subordinate. In this fashion one establishes the possibility that other cultures will see themselves as partial, though distinctive, reflections of divine perfection and come to regard each other not as enemies, but as collaborators.¹⁸

Such a relationship between cultures encourages a climate conducive to cultural interchange and dynamic interaction. Since no culture regards itself as absolute and each culture sees the others as being engaged in a common enterprise, they can enter into dialogue with each other. This cultural interchange eliminates the risk of cultural stagnation and invigorates the participating cultures by engaging them in a process of continual revision and growth. It allows each culture to discover the new implications of its own tradition and to make modifications necessary in the face of contemporary challenges. Each culture can retain its historic identity and insights without running the risk of becoming a relic of the past, unable to speak to newly developing situations.

Through such cultural dialogue error may be eliminated and truth revealed. The goal here is not that one group achieve domination over the others, nor to establish some new group to serve in this dominant role. Its goal is for each culture to recognize its own finite nature and develop its own capacities and insights to whatever level their nature allows.¹⁹ These new possibilities are least likely to be brought out through interaction by those who share a similar cultural identity since the experiences, assumptions, stocks of ideas, et cetera are also fairly similar. Interaction with those of radically different cultural perspectives is likely to prove far more productive in generating new insights since one encounters new ideas, assumptions, et cetera. This can liberate the participants from their most basic prejudices, deceptions and other limitations. It can enable them to form new insights into their cultural identity and new more authentic ways to articulate this enhanced vision.²⁰

This sort of authentic cultural dialogue will require two elements. One is an appreciation of other cultures; the other is an appreciation of one's own. This will enable one to see that what originally had appeared to be a mere local custom when viewed from a singularist perspective can, in fact, perform a far more fundamental role when viewed from the perspective of mutual integration. Through interaction what previously had seemed exotic enriches the heretofore mundane and reveals it to be an expression of something essential to human life and human values, thereby forming a cultural bridge.²¹

From the perspective of mutual integrationism cultural change is not in its most authentic sense a matter of compromise, rather it is a completion or correction of some value which had not been properly expressed.²² Furthermore, mutual integrationism fosters a cultural dialogue imbued not with a crusader spirit seeking to defend some position and to defeat all differing views, but with the attitude of an explorer in search of new approaches. In this spirit integrationism seeks out views which challenge those with which it is familiar and in so doing opens the possibility of liberation from these limitations and biases. Thus, integrationism can provide a more profound understanding of one's own heritage and, therefore, discover for it new applications.

A Cusan Response to Discrimination. From a Cusan perspective we can see clearly the importance cultural identity possesses for the individual, and just as clearly the destructiveness of discriminatory policies which stigmatize certain groups. The consequences of such policies are felt not only by the individuals who suffer directly from them, but also by society as a whole which must pay the price of diminished resources available for cultural interaction. Most importantly, however, such discrimination is a wedge dividing the human community, eliminating the identity between personal fulfillment and service to the community, and undermining the mutual concern that must animate such a community. An interesting question, however, is what could be a Cusan approach to remedying the previous injustice of past discrimination.

The answer to this question, I believe, rests on the nature of what such remedies would entail. If they consisted of active attempts to recruit members of underrepresented groups into the various institutions and organizations which make up society, Cusa would in all likelihood respond quite favorably. There can be no denying the importance of cultural interaction for the creation of a healthy and dynamic community. It is, therefore, indispensable that the social structure attempt actively to realize this interaction as an everyday occurrence.

If these remedies, however, consisted of policies of forced integration (e.g. of ethnic neighborhoods, religious schools) then it could be argued that a Cusan perspective would tend toward a different judgement. For such policies could lead not to the dynamic interaction of various groups within the community, but to the homogenization of the community. Such policies could lead to the dispersal of smaller cultural groups within the community at large; over time the distinctive cultural identities which make cultural interaction productive would be lost. Once deprived of the particular community which shares one's vision and through which one could articulate one's distinctive cultural identity, the person would have a far more difficult time passing on that living tradition to the next generation. If the Italian neighborhoods, the historically black colleges, the Jewish charitable organizations, et cetera were to be assimilated, rather than truly integrated, into the broader community, in time their unique cultural identity would be lost and with it the indispensable contributions they could have made to the cultural dialogue. From a Cusan perspective this would be a major tragedy.

Another problem with forced integration is that because of its mandatory nature it is likely to suffuse all cultural interchange with a confrontational, rather than a dialectical spirit. This would prove more conducive to conflict than to dialogue, and so again fail to create the open and interactive community intended. The above would seem to suggest that a better option for society would be the vigilant enforcement of strong anti-discrimination laws which keep neighborhoods and institutions open for people of all cultural backgrounds and, yet, allow them to create enclaves where their own culture is predominately, though not exclusively, represented. So long as the ethnic neighborhood or historically black college is open to others of differing background it plays a positive role in the cultural dialogue necessary for a healthy society in the modern world.

From this perspective affirmative action policies based on preferential treatment of particular groups become problematic. Lisa H. Newton points out that, if special rights are granted to one group all other groups will demand that they receive similar considerations.²³ Under such circumstances, no stable unity would be possible since all groups constantly would be competing against one another to gain this or that benefit denied to others of a different background.

The Advantages of the Cusan Perspective. Another point worth noting is Cusa's considerable respect for human freedom as long as social order is maintained; this is quite consistent with modern sentiments. Though Cusa's own writings on this issue deal primarily with the freedom of religious minorities, rather than particular individuals, there is nothing in them to suggest that he would object to their being extended. In fact, one can feel quite confident in making this extension since, it is entirely consistent with Cusa's understanding of the principle of individuality which has been shown to be one of the cornerstones of his thought and in no way to impinge upon the principle of community.

One can see clearly that mutual integrationism, approaches the issue of social unity in a way which relies upon the realization of a complementarity between the principles of individuality and community which is the heart of Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy and serves as the foundation for a new social paradigm where service to others becomes the path to personal fulfillment. The principle of individuality allows for the uniqueness of the person, giving each one the freedom to realize their full potential in service to the greater community, upon which the fulfillment of every individual depends. Such mutual integrationism would promote the value inherent in an ethnically diverse society where one's cultural identity can serve as a rich pool of resources.

On the other hand, the principle of community allows for the integration of these individuals into a political order regardless of their ethnic make-up, cultural background, et cetera. All are treated equally and therefore have a shared and continuing concern to work together to maintain the order in which all can flourish. Thus the relationships which exist between members of the community are not merely based upon peaceful coexistence, but are animated by a spirit of mutual contribution where each member shares an inherent bond to, and concern for, every other member, and one cannot prosper in opposition to the others. In this manner diversity is retained and even celebrated, but no particular group receives any sort of special treatment which others do not. Diversity then becomes a source not of social divisiveness, but of strength and dynamism.

This is not the case with either the singularist or collectivist approaches. Because both of these perspectives are anchored in a relatively exclusive fashion to only one of these principles it quite naturally exaggerates the role this plays while neglecting other concerns. The end result as we have seen is the creation of a world-view which fails to properly account for either principle so that neither diversity nor dynamism can be fully developed. The exclusive concentration upon individuals leads to an emphasis on the distinctions which separate them along a variety of lines. Conversely, exclusive concentration upon the collective ignores all such distinctions and seeks to clump all individuals into a single homogenized mass.

Each of these approaches creates a radically different type of society. For example, a society's appreciation of ethnic diversity will almost certainly be determined by its vision of social unity. An exclusive emphasis upon the principle of individuality would tend to ignore ethnic diversity entirely and instead see social diversity as an individual matter. This inevitably results in a fragmented society where all individuals are concerned with protecting only their particular interests since there are no ontological bonds linking individuals. The exclusive focus on the principle of individuality leads to a vision which tends to see society as an atomistic entity. On the other hand, an exclusive focus on the principle of community fosters a perspective which sees society as a uniform and homogeneous whole. Therefore this later perspective has a tendency to encourage the suppression of all diversity within society and the incorporation of these distinctive elements into a single seamless whole. It encourages, or forces, an abandonment of individual identities in favor of this assimilation into the greater society.

These diverse social visions have direct consequences for many more specific issues which remain matters of considerable controversy. The contributions which Cusa's understanding of the interrelationship between unity and diversity can make should not be underestimated. Within Cusa's philosophy the importance of social unity is undeniable as is the role of cultural identity in maintaining this unity. With this in mind the deeply destructive nature of discrimination can be all the more readily exposed. For Cusa the disastrous consequences of discrimination are imposed not only on the person discriminated against, who is denied full participation in society and, because of this is restricted in the opportunity to develop one's potential, but also upon those not specifically discriminated against. By denying some people the ability to fulfill their potential the contribution they could have made to society is lost and no one can draw upon it. Thus, through discrimination every individual person in society suffers because the resources of society as a whole upon which each person is dependent for their own development have been impoverished. Furthermore, discrimination is also destructive to the community in that invariably it divides the community in an antagonistic fashion setting its members against one another. For Cusa, however, all of these problems flow from the fact that discrimination strikes at the very heart of society in its attempt to inhibit diversity and to separate personal fulfillment from the communal good. Cusa sees the proclamation of the Absolute as the ultimate end of society. Diversity of finite beings each working to promote the good of the other enhances the accuracy with which finite reality can proclaim infinite reality. Therefore discrimination is revealed to be a fundamentally self-destructive act for society.

Mutual integrationism will recognize the important role group identity plays in shaping one's personal identity. This perspective will therefore encourage people to draw upon those resources. It is important to remember that for Cusa each culture represents a partial articulation of an absolute truth which no single culture could ever express as well by itself. Therefore, preserving diversity is indispensable in that it gives us a clearer perception of this truth which is both the source and goal of all being. Furthermore, just as individual cultures are partial articulations of a greater truth, personal identity itself is a partial articulation of both a greater cultural truth and the absolute truth itself.

In fact, because Cusa so clearly recognizes the role cultural identity plays in personal development he is aware that only in a society where such identities are not in some way stigmatized will persons be able to make their full contribution to the enrichment of society. Indeed, personal achievement requires a concern for the welfare of these groups in recognition of the role they play in everyone's development, and a willingness to enrich these resources in order to foster the development of the whole.

In short, mutual concern is fostered in that, just as these groups contributed to the development of each person, all in turn should enrich the resources of such groups by making their own unique contributions. Cusa recognizes that a society which includes a variety of cultural identities does not jeopardize its existence, but enhances it. These various identities are productive in fostering the person upon whom the health of any society is founded. Therefore, such identities should not be stigmatized, but encouraged to reach the fulfillment of their potential. The greater diversity a society exhibits the closer it will be to proclaiming the Divine which, as has been said, is the purpose of its society's existence.

Cultural Interaction. Another controversial issue which is related to one's view of social unity is that of multi-culturalism. Singularism with an atomistic view of society will likely regard any kind of multi-culturalism with indifference. This perspective will be inclined to see cultures as being of minimal value in the achievements of the individual. Thus, any program of multi-culturalism will be considered essentially marginal. The collectivist's approach to multi-culturalism will tend to water down all distinctions between the various cultural perspectives and see each as merely different ways of articulating the same message. It will exaggerate whatever common elements it can identify and reduce all differences to the point of insignificance. In doing this it inevitably alters that culture to the point where it would alienate its own adherents. Thus, what is created is not so much the possibility of a multi-cultural dialogue where all can participate and gain a deeper understanding, but rather the creation of some sort of amorphous and artificial culture that speaks to no one.

The position of mutual integrationism promises to be the perspective truly conducive to establishing any sort of multi-cultural program. This is because it recognizes both the similarities and the differences of each individual culture and attempts to place both in their proper relation to each other, giving each their due. Thus, each culture retains its unique identity and is able to enter into a dialogue with other cultures in their own terms,rather than as some outsider's version of what they should be (as occurs above). Hence, all cultures are able to interact in a fashion which may challenge the fundamental presuppositions of the others; each thereby can shed light upon the other. Mutual integrationism, unlike singularism, does not regard cultures as being matters of individual perspective and therefore incapable of forging inherent bonds between individuals. It recognizes the cultural bonds which individuals share and the interaction that is made possible by these bonds not only within groups, but also between them. This is where the true value of multi-culturalism lies. In fact, devoid of this interaction multi-culturalism is reduced to a dilettantism which pays no regard to the underlying truths these cultures attempt to articulate.

Related to the issue of multi-culturalism are the controversies revolving around language. Singularism tends to encourage an essentially laissez-faire policy in respect to this issue. This perspective will be willing to let individuals fend for themselves in respect to learning a new language, seeing their efforts as purely personal decisions. This is entirely consistent with a view of society as an atomized aggregate whose members share no internal relationship. As has been shown, such a vision of society is based on the principle of individuality as inherently exclusive. Given this perspective, a libertarian position, letting individuals make their own decision without interference or support from anyone else, is quite natural. The collectivist perspective tends to foster a policy which establishes a single uniform language because of its emphasis on the principle of community. Since the collectivist perspective looks upon diversity as a source of dissension it will attempt to eliminate all diversity including linguistic diversity.

The policy of mutual integrationism, however, is far more complex. In accord with the principle of community, mutual integrationism recognizes that social interaction is considerably eased by a shared common language. Conversely, in accord with the principle of individuality mutual integrationism is inclined to recognize the value of the positive possibilities which linguistic diversity offers society, such as the ability to encounter cultures on their own terms, rather than through an interpreter which inevitably would distort that culture. Because of this it is conducive to structuring society in such a way that people are encouraged to learn a variety of languages.

Furthermore, where languages face extinction, this perspective will tend to generate attempts to establish methods by which they can be preserved. For example, language requirements in the field of education will be seen as not only relevant, but indispensable. In order to have a true understanding of one's own language one requires an understanding of its own roots and of other languages as well. It is important to remember also that languages are not perennial truths, but unique and evolving responses to various perceptions of reality. Thus, they are inherently dynamic and interaction between linguistic groups can serve only to enrich the resources upon which each can draw, making its response more comprehensive and deepening the understanding of its unique nature. This would be another opportunity for mutual integrationism to preserve both diversity and dynamism within society.

The perspective of Cusa suggests structuring society in a manner consistent with encouraging both diversity and dynamism. This will promote the idea that every group or individual retain, develop and celebrate its own distinctive identity. In such a society these groups are encouraged to interact with one another in a caring manner and in so doing influence each other increasing the cultural diversity of the whole, while deepening each culture's understanding of itself and those with which it interacts. Also, just as the various religions were themselves partial articulations of the absolute truth, the same may be said for society's various cultural groups. Through cultural interaction each participant gains an enhanced awareness of itself by knowing its similarities to, and differences from, the other participants. Thus, each group will be able to enrich its own heritage. The various groups will not view each other as competitors attempting to dominate one another, but as partners contributing to the enrichment of each other's lives. As in the case of persons, the individual fulfillment of the various cultures can be achieved only through benevolent interaction.

SOCIAL UNITY IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Cusa's insights into the nature of unity can also be applied productively to the international arena. Conflict between nations is a problem as old as it is common. It can take a variety of forms from contentious, but non-violent, trade disputes to brutally destructive military confrontations. As the world becomes more a global marketplace and the destructiveness of modern warfare, including nuclear warfare, continues to remain a possibility these confrontations will become all the more destabilizing. Cusa's philosophy holds out the possibility of building a true community of nations within which each nation can retain its unique identity and autonomy. This approach will lessen the likelihood of international conflict.

The purpose of this section is to examine the implications of singularism, collectivism and mutual integrationism with regard to international questions. It will show how these perspectives are shaped by their particular understanding of the relationship between the principle of individuality and that of community. It also will show that through a proper understanding of the principles of individuality and community one can gain new insight into the field of international relations which will help resolve some disputes regarding to the nature of these relationships. Conversely, it will show how a misunderstanding of the relationship between these two principles is likely to lead to some characteristically one sided and very often disastrous decisions in the international arena.

Possible Approaches to International Unity

The singularist perspective, as has been shown, relies upon the principle of individuality, while ignoring the principle of community. Because of this when it comes to international issues the singularist orientation quite naturally inclines one to withdraw from any situation in which one does not perceive oneself to be directly and immediately involved. Naturally, such an orientation is extremely restrictive, for the singularist perspective sees no fundamental link between oneself or one's nation and the larger whole, in this case, the global community. Hence, it renders one extremely reluctant to involve oneself in broader affairs for either good or ill.

The collectivist perspective is considerably different: its focus is upon the principle of community to the neglect of the principle of individuality. Therefore the collectivist orientation inclines one to adopt a policy which, though entirely willing to engage in the affairs of the world, fails properly to appreciate the distinct and unique nature of the individual nations with which one interacts. Since the collectivist perspective does not recognize the value of individual distinctiveness, it inclines one to a policy which does not take into account the individual nature of the problems and possible solutions which are unique and distinctive to these nations. Because collectivism inclines one to see one's own vision as the only viable one, there is a tendency to disregard those distinctive features from which a nation derives its own unique identity. Thus, one lessens the chance of dealing effectively with such problems.

A Cusan Approach to International Unity

The perspective of mutual integrationism views the relationship between nations in a manner entirely different from either that of collectivism or of singularism. Because mutual integrationism acknowledges both the principle of individuality and the principle of community in a manner which expresses their complementarity, the singularist and collectivist orientations are entirely unacceptable. In accord with the principle of individuality, the perspective of mutual integrationism recognizes the value of each nation's distinctiveness and seeks to capitalize on the positive possibilities that it presents.

On the other hand, in accord with the principle of community it recognizes also the importance of the inherent bond all nations share, regardless of how insignificant this relationship might appear superficially. Mutual integrationism clearly sees that what happens in any nation has an effect upon all nations. Obviously, no nation can be secure and prosper in an unstable climate; and any nation, regardless of how small or unimportant it may appear, influences the nature of this climate. Thus no nation can promote its own prosperity without promoting the prosperity of the entire international community.

Cusa's insight into the nature of unity moves beyond simple utilitarian considerations, and articulates why no individual nation can authentically realize its own potential without concern for the community of nations in which it lives. Just as religious congregations or ethnic groups could not come to truly appreciate their identities without interacting with those of differing perspectives, the same is true for nation states. Only through a shared and open dialogue with the global community can these nation states develop their true potential. From the perspective of mutual integrationism, authenticity depends upon interchange and interaction; therefore, no nation can afford to ignore invasions, civil wars, starvation and similar catastrophes in other nations. The same can be said for the quiet catastrophes of poverty, unavailability of education, et cetera. Such events in any nation will adversely effect the global climate, which naturally will have an adverse impact upon every other nation. Aside from these problems, however, each nation also will find diminished the resources upon which it must draw in international interchange. Thus, one can clearly see that because of the inherent and intimate link between the principle of individuality and the principle of community the relationship between the parts and the whole is not competitive, but complementary. Thus, one cannot benefit at the expense of the other.

In fact, to the extent that particular individuals do not engage in the communal dialogue the nature of being itself is compromised. This is because, for Cusa, as we have seen, being both emanates from, and returns to, the Absolute. Since it is the purpose of being to reflect the Absolute then each particular being must reflect the Absolute to the full extent possible for its limited nature. In this fashion being, when taken as a whole, can approximate the Divine in a way which is far more comprehensive than otherwise would have been possible. To the extent that beings fail to engage one another in a creative fashion, they inhibit the accuracy of that reflection which is the very purpose of their existence.

This is even more true on the social plane than it is on the physical, since the social plane is inhabited by rational and conscious individuals who have a far more enhanced creative capacity than merely physical entities. Furthermore, rational beings can approximate the Divine more accurately by consciously acting in order to enhance the being of the other, thereby, imitating the creative act of the Divine.

Once more this reveals the importance of the Cusan perspective for preserving both dynamism and diversity. This perspective recognizes and respects the unique individual nature of other nations and, yet, also understands that the fate of a single nation, no matter how small and insignificant it may appear, inevitably effects what happens to every other nation. Thus, for Cusa every nation's well-being is indispensable to the well-being of every other nation. None may be dismissed, since each represents the partial and unique articulation of that which the whole attempts to express. Because of this every nation is fundamentally effected by what happens in every other nation and so must remain engaged in the world. Thus, mutual intergationism recognizes the distinctiveness and independence of other nations, yet, also binds them together within a dynamic global community, in that each nation recognizes that the path to individual prosperity requires the promotion of international prosperity.

SOCIAL UNITY AND THE FAMILY

Just as Cusa's ideas on unity have proven to be insightful on the macro level of international relations it is equally promising on the micro level of family relationships. Modern society continues to be plagued by problems which reflect familial conflict, ranging from the prevalence of divorce to the destructiveness of family violence. Though it is difficult to precisely say to what extent these problems within the family may contribute to broader social problems (such as crime), evidence seems to indicate that the effect is considerable. This is hardly surprising since every person is socialized in his family environment and any hostility within this environment is likely to have a dramatic impact on personal development. Thus, if Cusa's philosophy can play a role in resolving conflict and facilitates the growth of family unity it presents society with the possibility of significantly improving its circumstances.

The purpose of this section is to show how one's understanding of social unity influences one's conception of the family. It will further examine how one's understanding of the nature of the family relates to some specific contemporary issues. Because the singularist, collectivist and mutual integrationist perspectives offer radically different views of the relationship between the principle of individuality and that of community, quite naturally they will have different conceptions of the nature of the family and of the individual's role therein. A proper understanding of this will therefore play a fundamental role in resolving a number of contemporary controversies and creating a sound environment for the development of capable individuals who promote the well-being of the social structures which nurtured them.

Possible Approaches to Family Harmony

In accordance with the principle of individuality the singularist perspective tends to view the family as an essentially arbitrary unit of atomic individuals. The idea of the family as a cohesive organic structure is rejected, which has a number of far-reaching implications. The singularist perspective inclines one to embrace such social policies as liberal divorce laws and the legal recognition of non-traditional family structures. Perhaps the singularist view of the family has had its most profound impact on the field of biomedical ethics, particularly with respect to such critical issues as euthanasia, surrogate motherhood and abortion. In all these instances the patient is regarded as an entirely independent and autonomous individual who may do as he or she sees fit. From the singularist perspective, a woman may bear a child and give it to another disregarding the fundamental relationship of the woman to the child, or of siblings, the woman's parents, et cetera. Likewise, in respect to abortion the singularist outlook gives the woman full and complete autonomy. Such things as spousal notification or, in the case of minors, parental notification are regarded as serious violations of personal autonomy. Attempts to recognize fundamental familial relationships are rejected as unreasonable infringements on individual liberty. The same may be said for euthanasia, where singularism urges that the individual be given absolute autonomy to determine when one's own life should end, without interference from anyone else.

The collectivist outlook following the principle of community inclines to the opposite approach. Since collectivism sees all value as being derived from the principle of community, and ignores the principle of individuality, its understanding of family relationships tend to focus much more on the corporate identity of the family. Because of this the collectivist outlook inclines one to see individuals as nothing more than members of the family with no unique value in, and of, themselves. An example of this collectivist notion of the family can be seen in some societies where the value of women is derived exclusively from their roles as wife and mother, while their value as individual persons is minimized. The collectivist outlook inclines toward support for social policies which emphasize family stability and coherence, but without regard to the good of the individual members of the family.

A Cusan Approach to Family Harmony

Inevitably any social policy which fails to recognize the indispensable and fundamental link between the families which foster the development of persons, and the persons of which these families consist, is no longer adequate. This is due both to the new sense of the person which has evolved in the modern era, and to the large number of centrifugal forces present in contemporary life. It is now quite clear that the good of the person is inextricably linked to the good of the family in which one exists. It is important to note here that when one refers to the good of the family or the individual person one is referring not merely to their physical well-being, but also to such things as appropriate socialization, psychological welfare, maturation, spiritual development, et cetera.

The recognition of this fact is at the center of a Cusan approach to unity. As has been shown this approach to social unity is one of mutual integrationism. Because this perspective seeks to integrate the principles of individuality and community it also seeks to integrate the needs of the family-unit with those of its individual constituent members. The perspective of mutual integration recognizes the value of fully developed persons for the family, as well as how indispensable strong families are for fostering such persons. Such an outlook suggests the need for stable family relationships, while recognizing that such stable relationships cannot be preserved by violating the interests of the individual person. This is why in De Pace Fidei, Cusa specifically mentions marriage (along with Holy Orders) as something on which the various groups within society will have to come to some agreement if social harmony is to be maintained. Cusa himself recommends that, in accord with the law of nature, marriage should be between one man and one woman.²⁴

In fact, mutual integration implies that only by stressing the value inherent in each and every human being will the family be able to achieve its full potential and fulfill its mission. Likewise, the successful development of the individual is equally dependent upon the family. In this fashion mutual integrationism avoids the excesses of both the singularist and collectivist perspectives and preserves both diversity and dynamism. It does this by acknowledging the unique value of every individual as well as the need of those individuals to form with those around them meaningful relationships based on mutual concern. In this manner they can develop their full potential due to the social nature of human existence. Furthermore, only by acknowledging this and acting upon it can society and the individual person achieve their mutual goal of proclaiming the Absolute to the maximum degree allowed by their finite natures. All of this is possible because Cusa articulates a vision of unity where individual fulfillment is achieved by advancing the good of others and no contradiction is created.

1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Michael Oakeshott, ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1946), p. 85.

2. Nicholas of Cusa, Of Learned Ignorance, Germain Heron, trans. (London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1954), p. 141.

3. Ibid., p. 69.

4. Ibid., p. 78.

5. Ibid., p. 113.

6. Ibid., p. 131.

7. Nicholas of Cusa, "De Pace Fidei" in Unity and Reform, John Patrick Dolan, ed. (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962), p. 197.

8. George F. McLean and John Kromkowski, eds., Relations Between Cultures (Washington, D.C.: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 1991), p. 45.

9. Ibid., p. 39.

10. Ibid., p. 128.

11. Ibid., p. 323.

12. Martin Buber, Between Man and Man (London: Kegan, Paul, 1947), p. 200.

13. Ibid., p. 201.

14. Ibid., p. 202.

15. Relations Between Cultures, p. 7.

16. Ibid., p. 24.

17. Ibid., p. 25.

18. Ibid., p. 30.

19. Ibid., p. 31.

20. Ibid., p. 32.

21. Ibid., p. 240.

22. Ibid., p. 326.

23. Thomas A. Mappes and Jane S. Zembaty, Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy (New York: Mc Graw Hill, Inc., 1972), p. 307.

24. De Pace Fidei, p. 235.