AT THE height of expressive individualism’s influence in the 1970s-80s, freedom seemed to be the magic bullet for one to have a good and fulfilling life. However, societies were unable to anticipate the implications that excessive individualism and the unceasing freedom of choice may entail. Statements such as “all lives matter,” “climate change is a hoax,” and “masks: my body, my choice” further exhibit the perils of extreme liberty.
Investigating the nature of social responsibility is not without difficulties as one has to consider its broad conceptualization, the limits it poses in its conventional legalistic understanding, and the extent to which individuals should be accountable for its proper rendering. Nevertheless, we may be able to begin understanding social responsibility as the ability of individuals to promise or bind themselves to an aspiration for a particular future, and to be held accountable for their actions.
Ultimately, our actions have a direct implication to the natural and sensible world despite the actions of some—such as executives of multinational corporations—containing more weight than others.
Nature of social responsibility
As such, social responsibility is a “promise of co-responsibility among all” wherein individuals and societies, relative to their capabilities, contribute to the mitigation and prevention of the social and environmental impacts. These influences are often borne out of human actions, which are achieved through a particular framework striving for a just and sustainable society.
The problem, then, is whether the mentioned “promise of co-responsibility among all” is a matter of desirable nature. Norris Clarke asserts that goodness is associated with the act of valuing, which results in the manifestation of a “desirable, admirable, and loveable” characteristic for fulfillment purposes. This could refer to one’s means in achieving a valuable end, or general matters perceived as good in themselves.
Therefore, one’s participation in “the promise of co-responsibility among all” is considered good as the act contributes to the betterment of the existence and welfare of the community through the mitigation of human-caused problems. Moreover, the metaphysical understanding of humans as being, in part of its nature to self-actualize, has an innate inclination to love and celebrate the beauty and goodness of its fellow beings along with its Source of existence, creativity, and love: God.
Apoliticism as an antithesis to social responsibility
Proponents of apoliticism regularly employ the reasoning of “not everything is political” to justify their neutral and often privileged stance on social issues. However, being apolitical is a political act brought about by the virtues of a fundamental human right—the freedom of expression, which is a legacy of the millennia-old understandings of human nature vis-a-vis dignity (e.g., the Greeks’ individuals as rational beings, the Romans’ humans as Imago Dei, the French Revolution’s liberté, égalité, fraternité as a realization of the human capacity to empathize with others).
Colin Hay further adds to the discussion by stating that the field of politics may be perceived as matters not only concerning the affairs of the state and the science and art of the government, but also those specific matters concerning the affairs of the personal (e.g., sexuality, poverty, the environment) and extra-governmental dimensions (e.g., economy, society, culture). The shift in the nature of politics is because “the political” is a concept that is ever-changing since the processes and practices of politics have become more complex and pluralized.
There is no such thing as being apolitical because the social and personal is, in fact, a political matter; thus, everything that we do and choose not to do is, to a certain degree, political. The act of being apolitical also connotes an unavoidable absence of empathy for the existence and well-being of another. This may be further understood as social sin, wherein there is an expansion of its conventional understanding. “Sin” is often not in what we have done and what we attempted to avoid, but rather it is found in where we are delusional with our own characteristics that we failed to bother to love others.
Furthermore, apoliticism also holds ground with the metaphysical understanding of evilness. Rather than being harmful and unpleasant, evilness is the absence of a due good—the void between what is present and what ought to be present.
Insights from the Social Contract Theories
One of the several pain points of societies and governments in the contemporary world is the balancing act of ensuring individual freedom while emphasizing the common good. With the ascendancy of individual liberty and accessible social media in society, there also has been an influx of objectionable content in the community that exploits innocent or misinformed individuals (e.g., fake news).
Considering their respective legal and organizational frameworks, the respective governments and relevant companies have proven to be relatively ineffective in addressing such content. Nevertheless, the Social Contract Theory provides several insights in dealing with the freedom of choice in physical and digital communities.
The Social Contract Theory is a classic understanding of the origins and legitimacy of the state vis-a-vis individual liberty; however, the said theory may be better understood through the propositions of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Locke proposed a social contract dictating a society that uses the government for social purposes and restricts the state of any rights against the people as humans who recognize the substantive right to life, liberty, and property.
On the other hand, Rousseau favored a government that serves the people relative to the general will—the common uniting interest established through public discourse and agreements. He believed that individuals have sovereign rights that should be heard and prioritized by the government while the state is capable of being oppressive. He further adds that individuals, in the creation of the state, relinquish certain liberties (e.g., the freedom to kill and trespass in the state of nature) in order to achieve the idea of an “egalitarian community” such as, a promise of co-responsibility among all.
It can then be said that there is no such thing as absolute freedom as liberty may be subject to certain restrictions such as the respect for the rights and freedoms of others, and the protection of national security, public health, and/or morals.
Social responsibility as a natural tendency
In response to the complication of politics, Foucault wrote that the modern man is no longer a “living animal” with the additional capacity for political existence, but rather an “animal” whose life as a living being is at stake in its politics. The role, then, of social responsibility in an age of freedom is to counterbalance the excesses of not only individual liberty but also of state authority. Moreover, there is goodness in the promotion of social responsibility as a means for a higher good; while apoliticism, in itself, is sin and evil for its privation of the individual’s natural inclination to love others. Our individual freedom must be grounded on the common good of society.
With this, there is a need to embrace social responsibility as a natural tendency as it is the manifestation of our innate ability to love and empathize with one another. It also brings about a desirable future for all beings, including animals, the environment, and society.
The question now becomes: In addition to expressing one’s sentiments on social issues and being cognizant of the limits to one’s civil and political rights, what are the other social responsibilities one has, or rather we have and must undertake in the pursuit of a just and sustainable society?
Davijay Leighton Engay is an AB-MA Political Science, major in Global Politics junior at Ateneo de Manila University. He would also like to thank R. Gorospe and Loveless Souls for their invaluable comments on this piece.
