A Critique of TFP

TFP: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property
(wiki)

There are TFP groups elsewhere (probably most of them in S. America, maybe some in Europe, but I would be surprised if that were the case, since Europe, particularly France, has plenty of integrists of its own), but their websites do not turn up on search engines. One can go instead to the American TFP links page for those websites.

website for Tradition in Action (which is not associated with TFP, but its founder, Atila Sinke Guimaraes was a member of TFP). The TIA response to this FAQ.

It's been a while since I've seen the group--the last time was when I was at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. 6 years ago. Their presence was rather prominent as they had a band (iirc) and their banners.

I must admit that I'm rather put off by their presumption that they embodied nobility (in a feudal or post-feudal way) or that it is their role to restore and preserve a class of nobility here in the United States. Sure, TFP does defend marriage and life, and advances its own particular view in the "culture wars," and there are TFP student groups that do pro-life work (or prayer witness), but the student groups nonetheless are organized under the auspices of TFP (if not under its direct leadership).

Someone once criticized TFP by pointing to the fact that it had not produced any vocations to the priesthood or religious life--alluding to their lack of emphasis on different vocations, and perhaps too narrow a focus? The conclusion was that TFP is not Christian enough? I wonder if this is a valid critique, though--how many vocations did Catholic Action and similar movements of the 20th century produce? If the group has certain goals, it should not be surprising if their literature and talks focus on those goals, rather on vocations to the priesthood or the religious life; after all, who knows what TFP families are encouraging at home. Besides, I know of one family associated with TFP whose son, last I heard, was discerning a vocation with the Institute of Christ the King. Now, perhaps they are an exception because they are traditionalists, but I suspect there are other traditionalists involved with TFP, and I don't think the group as a whole discourages its children from discerning a possible vocation to the priesthood. They just don't have a formal means of doing so, unlike certain other lay groups.

I will just focus instead on their ideals. In particular...

Preferential Option for the Nobility

The poor man, by his very wretchedness, can and should awaken his neighbor's sense of justice as well as his generosity. The nobleman, on the other hand, by virtue of his nobility, has reasons to avoid requesting aid. He even prefers to conceal his name and origins when he can no longer conceal his poverty. This is what the expressive language of old termed "nobility in embarrassed circumstances."

There seem to be affinities with what Aristotle writes about the great-souled [magnanimous] man in the Nicomachean Ethics ; those who have read A. MacIntyre's After Virtue should be familiar with his critique of Aristotle on this point.

TFP adduces support from allocutions of Pius XII--but the problem is that these texts are divorced from the context in which they are given (or it is probably more accurate to say that the texts themselves indicate the proper audience, and it isn't Americans). The allocutions were directed to the remnants of the traditional elites in Italy, and perhaps by extension in Europe.

Hence Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira claims:

Even in countries with no monarchical past, aristocracies were constituted by the natural course of events, in fact if not in law.⁷ In these countries, too, the wave of demagogic egalitarianism born of the 1789 Revolution and brought to its height by communism, created in certain environments an atmosphere of resentment and misunderstanding in relation to the traditional elites.

The allocutions of His Holiness Pope Pius XII thus have a universal scope.

But what have these traditional elites done to promote evangelization and social injustice, instead of commiting injustices? Need we point to failures by the elites of Latin America? The abolishing of titles of nobility to reflect the reality that they have no political significance seems reasonable. One can understand the Holy Father's support of the traditional elites as a part of his pastoral work and to encourage them to act as leaven in a way they are particularly suited to doing because of their means and connections, and not as a wholesale endorsement of an older social-political order.

One will not be able to find a statement of the group's aspirations to nobility on the website, but it is there. How do they describe themselves?

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) was born of a group of Catholic Americans concerned about the multiple crises shaking every aspect of American life. Founded in 1973, the American TFP was formed to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and property.

Central to the TFP mission is the idea that the various crises threatening American society and the Church cannot be seen as separate and disjointed. Rather they originate from a single cause.

The TFP handbook Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira masterfully traces the historical and philosophical roots of this single cause: a phenomenon called the Revolution.

The TFP was born from the idea of a Counter-Revolution, a movement that would embrace every field of action, especially in art, ideas and culture.

If part of the Revolution was the destruction of the old social order, it makes sense that part of the solution is to bring that social order back, or to re-create it. (Especially if one believes that the social order is either a natural result of Christian progress or development.)

Who are the true elites?
But is the existence of the noble class the natural result of the development of a Christian society? Or is it the cause of evil as the anarcho-primitivists claim? I don't think it can be disputed that social elites existed before the coming of Christ. Nor is it false to say that the conversion of Europe involved the conversion of the elites of the Germanic tribes and so on during the Middle Ages.

But isn't trying to restore the nobility outside of a natural or historical development a manifestation of hubris, if one includes oneself in that class?

Let us assume that most nations/societies begin as extended kinship groups, tribes, or clans (with new genes coming in through alliances and daughters being married off to members of other groups). Whence the transition to hereditary government, and it is necessary? It would seem that hereditary government is not a necessary feature of political development--even if it is the kings of Europe who impress us more than the city-states of Greece and and Italy (perhaps only because we, being in an Anglo culture, are more familiar with England and France than with the Mediterranean world--we pay lip service to our classical heritage in the modern American education system). A comparative study of the histories of various nations would shed more light on this point.

There have been disputes over whether title and true nobility necessarily go together; what is true nobility? The correct opinion is that true nobility is the possession and exercise of virtue. Nobility is virtue exercised in activities for the benefit of the family or of the community. Within the order of creation as a whole (including the supernatural ordination to God in Himself), then the elites are those who are in union with God and strive to do His will. Within the political order, the elites are those who exercise virtue for the sake of the common good. Of course, those whose function is to govern the community have a greater work than those who only participate in the care of the common good by being obeying law and so on. Nonetheless, all are called to holiness, and part of being holy is doing what one can for the good of the political community.

As we see in history, those who hold political power usually also are charged with serving as warriors and the defense of the common good from external enemies, and there is no distinction among the elites of these two functions or offices, as we do in more complex/differentiated societies. (One example is China, where there is a distinction between civil service and military service, with greater prestige attaching to the former. The civil servants and members of the literati class did see themselves as having the obligation to protect culture.) It doesn't matter if the warriors take the power from a weak ruling class, or if the rulers were always warriors--the result is the same, those who rule also have the duty to fight. Hence, one justification for the leisure of the elites is that they may be called do sacrifice themselves to protect the community.

The question is this: is wealth a necessary condition for the cultivation of virtue? And if it is, how much? An Aristotelian would not deny that the physical needs of one's self and one's familiy need to be met; otherwise in a struggle for bare existence the temptation to vicious acts would be too great. But how much wealth is needed to make leisure possible? The anarcho-primitivists answer, "Not so much." But is a differentiated (or stratified?) society necessarily evil? It is the case that the work of governing is higher and more noble than the other works that are ordered to the common good. Political subordination does not entail lack of respect, though with sin and a failure to observe the norms of justice it can easily degenerate to a relation of domination and subservience.

Whether we look at the elites during the early Church, or the Middle Ages (feudalism), we can see similar patterns of subordination (or subjugation), the same growth and development of domestic units and estates, all ultimately dependent upon agriculture (as the anarcho-primitivists point out correctly). Without differentiation, the construction of grand buildings is not possible. There must be builders, and builders cannot devote their time to the production of food, so there must be others to take up that burden of producing food. How did traditional elites acquire property and political power? Leisure requires free time, time not devoted to food production. This can be accomplished either through technology or a society whose members have different functions. What then, is our conception of the good life, and do we have a just rationale for all not having an equal share of leisure?

As for the propagating of culture--human culture and traditions are a means to an end--the training of others and fostering the good life. Yes, traditions that embody the true and the good should be preserved and past on. But one should not ignore folk culture while praising the achievement and refinement of elite culture. And families do have the responsibility to train their children. And culture needs to be lived in a real community, not in a movement separated from community or which sets itself apart from the community completely, and yet aspires to the leadership roles of that community. How seriously one should take a movement is how they answer the question, "Who is my neighbor?", both in word and in deed.

It will be difficult for Catholics in the United States to gain entry into the real elites of our society, just as it is impossible to be considered nobility by the worldly in the first place without great wealth, status, and an established line of descent. As for the aristocrats, I only need recall that Aristotle's aristocrats are those who possess virtue, in addition to having material goods, and so on. Virtue is something to which all Christians should aspire, and they can succeed, with God's grace. One does not need a movement in order to talk about or advocate virtue or to practice it. It would be better for Catholics to devote their time to becoming holy, learning more about their Faith, building up their local communities in charity, and to let God determine who shall be given wealth and social influence (and, most importantly, political office) for the sake of the common good.

Still, I should investigate the writings of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, whose writings inspired the creation of TFP--he himself founded the first TFP group, in Brazil; perhaps there is something there that would be useful. His Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites. Once I finish reading the book I will write something on it over at Diligite Iustitiam. Revolution and Counterrevolution (pdf).


Tenebrae chants sung by the American TFP choir. (Go to the link to download MP3s.)


Source

As for wearing distinct clothing or uniforms to recall a previous era, the TFP is not alone; others include the Knights of Columbus or certain chilvaric orders, like the Equestian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem... I would be embarrassed to call attention to myself like that, and if one were to justify it through role or function, I ask, what role or function is being fulfilled that is not proper to the Catholic layman? This seems like the Catholic version of historical re-creation, almost, though admittedly there is an element of prayer and spirituality that is beneficial and praiseworthy.

St. Louis de Montfort Academy

St. Louis de Montfort Academy is a TFP school. A day at the academy. It reminds me of Legionary schools and seminaries--I can't find a list of schools in the U.S. at either the LC or the RC websites. Some LC schools: Highlands, Pinecrest, Canyon Heights, Sacred Heart Apostolic School.

One could say that LC schools are just like parochial schools of old, but perhaps that might be part of the problem--with respect to curriculum and catechesis, that is. Now a parochial school might be better than a secular public school dedicated to liberalism and sex-education, but it is not clear to me that a parochial school would be completely free from the influences liberalism. As for strict discipline, sure, some might be necessary, along with the requiring of school uniforms, but I wonder if students should be put in school so early--especially boys. I'd rather see them at home learning skills necessary for the home, though acquiring literacy skills would be all right, and perhaps even another language, such as Latin. So excuse me if I see mass education at an early age as part of the problem, rather than a solution.

More thoughts on "secondary" education and the formation of young men some other time...

The Death of the Middle Class
What is the middle class, according to Aristotle? How does he define it in the Politics. Many who wish to argue that the United States is an example of a mixed regime claim Aristotle as support, but are they correct in doing so? I would argue no, because they look merely at bank statements to justify this claim, not at the actual economic freedom and property the members of the supposed "middle" class actually possess (which is close to nil, with respect to economic freedom). So do we really have a middle class in the United States? Or are they simply wage slaves who are just better off than those in the lowest tier?

The middle class is often associated with the bourgeosie. So what of the rise of the bourgeosie in the 19th century? What professions were they associated with? Finance, banking, trade, manufacturing? Those elements that contributed to and were strengthened by industrializing economies? I'm not sure if I should include lawyers, even though they played a big role in the revolutions of the 19th century.

As I was rereading At the End of the Age, I found this in the treatment of the bourgeoisie by Lukacs:

It should be sufficient to observe that by the end of the twentieth century the very term 'middle-class' had lost much (if not all) of its meaning because of its tremendous inflationary growth, perhaps especially in the United States but also in other nations where a governing upper class, whether in politics or in society, has practically ceased to exist. Like 'modern,' 'middle-class' is no longer a reasonably accurate category.

His note reads:

At the other end of the social scale, especially in the United States, the category of a 'working-class' as distinct from 'middle-class' has also largely ceased to exist. What has not ceased to exist is a proletariat of sorts--often a largely non-working one. (As Jesus said: 'The poor you will have always with you.') And we now have the New Poor. (14)

One could ask the question, who were the poor in Athens and the other Greek city-states, besides those who were slaves or working as servants for others? Those who had become landless or lost their property?

We can look at troublesome trends in today in America: outsourcing, the amoung of debt Americans are in, the decline in savings and the amoung of property they actually possess. Would it not be better to own land, along with the tools and means of production, than to be a wage slave? Compared to those living in other countries, the great majority of Americans are better off, but that does not mean that there is no exploitation going on here or abroad, or that the wealth of Americans is not somehow dependent upon exploitation. What are the ramifications of my buying the cheapest goods? This is definitely a question that deserves greater scrutiny, the source of our wealth, the ins-and-outs of our economic and financial systems.

If one is trapped within the system, does one do what can to meet one's obligations? Yes. And it might be the case that many are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives and are content to serve others for a wage. They should at least receive a decent wage to support themselves and their families. But that does not mean that those who are concerned with the common good should be oblivious to the fact that it is a bad system, that there are injustices present which are fostered by the system; nor should they be ignorant of how it might be ameliorated or lacking the will to carry out reform. That is what is required of a true statesment.
Wealth does not necessarily fall into the hands of the virtuous, and just because one is wealthy it does not mean that one is better than others in the ways that really matter.

Do No Harm
1. Do not do unjust acts towards others, and do not formally cooperate with those who are doing unjust acts.

2. Do not materially cooperate with those who are doing unjust acts.

Things are bad when most of the time, the best we can hope for is to observe the first perfectly.

(For #2 I mean mediate materal cooperation, not immediate material cooperation, which is forbidden along with formal cooperation. Principle of formal and material cooperation.)

Our responsibility with regards to evil is diminished if it is only material cooperation -- besides, most are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, and the role they play in corporate America. (Just as most are ignorant of the "inner workings" of the financial and banking system.) Those being exploited have even greater reason to seek some sort of spiritual solace while they do work. I believe that those who cry out injustice because they are exploited are heard by God. But what of those doing the exploiting, or are in some way involved in exploitation? I find it hard to believe that those who are involved in injustice can so easily find sanctification in their work. Would God let us remain in a job that has a negative impact on the lives of others, or contributes to injustice, with an easy conscience and the excuse that I need employment, and regardless of whether I have that job or not, someone will be doing the work since it is required by the system?

(I will be writing more on this in connection with Opus Dei, over at Diligite Iustitiam.)

Wendell Berry, In Distrust of Movements
(TFP is not the sort of movement Berry considers in his essay, but only if it were--at least then it would have a proper focus for its activities.)