On Unity

I was recently in a Sunday school class where the lesson was on unity. The teacher made some references to scriptures that spoke of being one and of how important unity was to the church and to the family. Along with these references someone made a comment about how it was important to be unified as a nation. Although not much notice was taken of this comment in class, and it seemed that everyone agreed that it was a sensible idea, I thought it a very peculiar concept and it started me thinking about what it means to be unified. What characteristics does a unified group display, be it a couple, a family, a congregation, or even a nation, and why is it important for these groups to be unified?

Unity is defined as a condition of harmony or a state of oneness. Unity can be expressed in many ways. It can be displayed both through action and inaction. It can be expressed with words as well as deeds. In using the word unified to describe human relationships we inevitably come up against some complications. All humans are different from one another in their tastes, preferences, opinions and belief systems, and while it is possible for people of like dispositions to locate each other and then to form relationships, it is still highly unlikely that they will be exact in every way and agree with each other in every situation. So how is it that a couple or a family can be said to be unified?

Here we must make the distinction between unity as a temporary state that applies to one decision or one specific set of problems and the state of unity that can be used to describe a relationship in general. A family can be unified on the matter of what church to attend or where to go on vacation while still sharply disagreeing on other matters. This is largely a coincidental event. Each member just happens to think the same way, whether originally or through some sort of persuasion by other members. They are then said to be unified pertaining to that specific matter only, while in general they may in fact be quite quarrelsome and disagreeable. The other state of unity is more complicated, for how is it that a group whose members often disagree can be said to be unified?

The answer to this question lies in the systems and processes the group has established as to how they will solve disputes. If every member of the group agrees that disputes and disagreements should be settled a certain way, and then once that process is finished, if they all abide by the decision, they can be said to be unified. This is the second state of unity which is a more permanent and lasting state, and which covers all aspects of the relationship.

In a family it may be that the father takes on the role of ultimate decision maker. This was often the traditional form of family organization. If there was a dispute among family members, the father would have the final say as to what should be done and the other members would then abide by it. If this were the case, and if the family respected this arrangement and stuck to it, they could be described as a unified family. If however this final decision was not respected by the family as a whole and if there was resentment and continued dispute, there would be no unity.

This is simply one example of how disputes may be resolved within a family and it is by no means the only way. There are an infinite number of ways a certain group could conceive of to resolve their disputes and thus remain unified, and often these are informal arrangements that may evolve out of tradition or common practice. Some members of the group may not even realize they exist, but the point is that they work.

For instance, a husband and wife may disagree over something and perhaps the husband has decided that in general, it is best to just agree with his wife so that they can remain a unified couple. This constitutes an informal process by which disputes are resolved and the wife may not even be aware that it takes place. These roles could easily be reversed. Also, it is possible that both husband and wife have this same outlook and that therefore they will both be open to discussion and compromise. Through this informal process they are able to solve virtually any dispute while still remaining unified.

The important thing to remember is that each member of the group must agree to and abide by these processes if unity is to prevail, and the dissent of even one member can undermine this unity completely. Thus the larger a group gets the harder it becomes to maintain any sense of unity whatsoever.

With this definition we can see how it is that groups of people who differ greatly from each other can interact and form relationships and still maintain the concept of unity. Families that are unified, though they may disagree on many things, will stick together and will be able to make collective decisions that they all can respect and abide by. Members of a club, or organization can accomplish their overall goals and do so in a harmonious manner, despite disagreements among individual members, because each member agrees to respect the agreed upon decision making process. Congregations can meet together often and uplift each other spiritually. They can care for and look out for one another and can learn and grow spiritually together even though individuals will inevitably disagree with one another.

This overarching type of unity is essential in human relationships. In families it helps build an atmosphere of stability, love and trust that serves to bind the members together. The family unit can thus be a great source of strength, support, and protection for each of its members. In larger organizations this unity is a product of order which is often the outcome of formal procedures and processes. In a corporation for example, shareholders can vote on what the company should do, who it should hire and fire, etc. Even in a public company where many shareholders do not have voting rights, they can vote by buying or selling shares, and if enough people agree and do likewise, the share price may rise or fall. In this way they can affect the decisions of those who actually do vote. The important thing to remember about all the above mentioned groups is that participation in them is voluntary and one may withdraw from them if one wishes.

Without unity, wherever individuals interacted there would be quarrel and discord. Productivity would come to a halt as it would be impossible to reconcile the innumerable differences in opinion and taste of each individual. Human relationships would hold little satisfaction and would mainly be of short duration. Exceptions to this condition of disharmony would be mere coincidence, and could not be expected to persist for any length of time.

Note that the central requirement for unity is consent. If members do not consent to some form of dispute resolution, there can either be no decisions made and hence no progress in the relationship, or force must be used to cause the dissenters to submit. Neither of these two cases constitute a state of harmony or unity. It may be argued that it is not unity per se, but law that produces order and that allows humans to interact productively within a society. An important distinction must be made here between law and unity.

The unity described above applies only to situations where consent is present and participation is voluntary. Law however is backed by threat of force and violence. When force is applied we leave the realm of voluntary interaction, and therefore unity cannot be present. A slave and his master cannot constitute a unified group. If that were so, there would be no slavery, only voluntary servitude. It is force that defines this relationship, and unity has no place in it. The majority of human interaction and the disputes that result, are resolved without resort to force (law.) Unity is thus of paramount importance within society, and the force and violence of law are a last resort, necessary only when voluntary processes break down.

Now let’s apply this concept of unity to the comment brought up in class about the importance of being unified as a nation. This may at first seem like a sensible statement and it probably strikes a patriotic cord with many people. It is however utterly nonsensical, and if we apply the previously arrived at definition we can see that it is downright impossible.

The main reason unity cannot possibly be applied to a nation as a whole is a lack of consent. The state, while often thought of as a geographical area or as all the people living within that area, can be more accurately thought of as the government of any given territory. This can be best summed up in the words of the French king Louis when he said, “I am the state.” The state is thus some person or group of people separate from the general population that uses force to produce order and to cause the masses to submit to its dictates. This is no different in a democracy, except for the fact that the ruling group is usually larger and its members change more frequently.

No matter what reasons are given to justify it, regardless of how it is dressed up or whether it masquerades as the will of God, The Mandate of Heaven, patriotism, or social justice, government is still nothing more than force and violence. The power of government does not arise out of just consent of the governed as the founding fathers envisioned or out of some ancient contract men made with each other as Rousseau claims. The power your government has over you is simply a matter of your being born in a certain place at a certain time. It has nothing at all to do with consent. The fact that some or even a majority of the people who live in a jurisdiction may consent to some extent to their particular form of government is mere coincidence. It does not change the fact that citizenship is a matter of circumstance, not consent.

In any given nation, there are millions of people who undoubtedly disagree on what things should be done or on how decisions should be made. In a group that large, especially one consisting of people who were arbitrarily thrown in together by circumstance, consent and therefore real unity are an impossible dream. Instead consent must be manufactured by force, and the resulting “unity’ is merely synthetic.

In voluntary relationships such as clubs, churches or even families, members are free to leave and seek other arrangements if they don’t consent to how decisions are made within the group. You can always join another church or stop going altogether. You can make new friends, join a different club or team, and you can even choose to find a new family or to simply go without one altogether. However, when it comes to the state there is a dearth of alternatives. Virtually every square inch of land on this planet is claimed by some government or another, and although it is sometimes possible for a person who dislikes his nation of birth to flee to another land, such an opportunity is beyond the reach of most people. Even if they do accomplish this feat they have merely left one coercive institution for another which they hope is better. The coercive nature of government does not change with location.

But not only is real unity not possible within the context of the nation-state, it is also undesirable. What would be the point of an entire nation being unified? Each region of the country and each group of people will have its own needs and desires and these will at times be in conflict with those of other areas and groups. These conflicts and disagreements will exist from the grassroots, local level all the way up through the national government itself and these groups are so large as to make it impossible for all members to agree on how things should be decided. The way these problems are solved by government is through threat of force, whereby the ruling class, along with those groups that it panders to, subdue all dissenters and enforce their will on the remainder of the population.

Indeed in the context of the nation-state, only a phony, makeshift unity is possible. Since it is beyond the scope of voluntary action and requires force, it cannot even be called unity. Conformity or consolidation would be more accurate terms. This type of unity does not require consent of the entire population, or even of a majority. It can be constructed by a combination of force, threats, propaganda, handouts and payoffs. Sometimes mere force can be used to frighten and intimidate the population into passive acceptance of their rulers’ wishes, but more often a combination of these methods is required. Usually this conformity will entail a combination of voluntary agreement, ignorant or passive acceptance and vocal or physical protest and rebellion. As long as a majority falls under the first two categories, the population is unified enough to get into significant mischief.

This type of unity makes the masses very agreeable to the plans, policies and schemes of their leaders. Under these circumstances, the more “united” a people become the easier they are to dupe and control. Rather than a free-thinking, self-determining people, they are transformed into a lemming-like herd, willing to follow their leaders off the nearest cliff, willing to believe that up is down, that backward is forward, and that they’re entitled to a free lunch. This is the type of unity necessary to mobilize and militarize a population, in order to transform them from an industrious, peace-loving people, into a warmongering horde.

It is this type of unity that has been largely responsible for the growth and increasing power of the state over the past century as opposed to the freedom of the individual. This is the type of “unity” that brought us two World Wars, the draft, graduated income taxes, world communism, and the increasingly insolvent Ponzi schemes of the ubiquitous welfare state. Some extreme examples of nations that displayed this type of unity include Nazi Germany, Napoleon’s France, Mao’s China, and Stalin’s Russia.

The reality is that as a nation, there is nothing wrong with a lack of unity. In fact this is a healthy thing. The only thing an entire nation should be unified about is their inherent right to disagree with each other. The realm of voluntary action, private cooperation, and informal dispute resolution is the only place real unity can be achieved. The words of Jesus spoken long ago have profound significance today: “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away; Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.” This counsel is aimed at helping individuals interact peaceably without resort to force or violence. Force and violence, though they have some usefulness in maintaining order, are not the foundation of society nor are they compatible with Christian principles. If we are going to be unified as a nation, it should be in seeking to protect our precious liberty and the realm of voluntary cooperation in which it functions from the encroachment of the state.