but an effort to provoke further deliberation and a highernconsensus. It trusted in the consent of the governed, that is,nin the people, to find the right answers, provided the actionnof a mere majority, which might be a temporary manifestationnof selfish combinations, could be suspendednlong enough to bring into play the higher consensus ofncommunities.nReflect upon the degree to which democracy dependsnupon the spirit of parliamentary institutions—the agreementnthat opponents are to be heard, to be dealt withncivilly, and not to be overridden ruthlessly; that all arenbound by decisions made after a proper hearing; and that allnare pledged to remain a community even in disagreement.nThis entire proceeding relates less to the theory of majoritynrule, head-counting, than it does to the moral heritage ofnfeudal chivalry—tolerance and respect for the opponent asnbound within a common system of honor. There is nothingnabout it that is modern, utilitarian, or eiiicient or compatiblenwith the “open society” theory. If the consensus is to benmaintained, there are things the mere numerical majoritynmust not do, even when it has the power. The majoritynmust look for an answer that is inclusive and morallynsatisfactory rather than expedient, the morally satisfactorynanswer being, in the long run, also the most practical ifngenuine consent of the goerned is to be maintained.nHere, then, is the lesson. The community must be thenmaster of the state rather than its raw material. This isnindeed a logical necessity in any iable theory of selfgovernment,nas well as a Constitutional and moral truth. Itnis also, I believe, an historical truth. Calhoun’s postulatenthat society precedes government is not, like the state ofnnature, merely a convenient theoretical starting point. Itnactually describes the. origins of American government andnprovides the element that distinguishes America from OldnWorld societies. In a speech of 1841, Calhoun referred to anhistorical contingency which “through the mysterious dispensationnof Providence” had had a decisive effect on “thenprosperity and greatness of our country.” This contingencynwas that British America was not settled by an armedngovernment, but “by hardy and enterprising emigrants,ninspired, in some instances, with a holy zeal to preserventheir religious faith in its purity; in others, by the love ofnadventure and gain; and in all, with a devotion to liberty. Itnis to settlements formed by individuals so influenced, andnthrown, from the beginning, on their own resources almostnexclusively, that we owe our enterprise, energy, love ofnliberty, and capacity for self-government.”nWhen Calhoun premised that society preceded government,nhe was merely recalling American experience. Hisnown family was part of a kith of Scotch-Irishmen who hadncome into the up-country of South Carolina before thenRevolution when it was empty of all but hostile Indians,ntied together not by the state but by blood, religion,nnecessity, and the desire to make a new life. They carriednsome cultural baggage, and there was a distant Crown thatnwas in theory sovereign. But the setders were in factnvirtually self-governing and self-reliant communities- inneconomic, political, ecclesiashcal, and military affairs.nThere was a real sense in which they participated in thencreation of their own governments and constitutions byncommunal acts of consent.n20/CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnnnThe county in which I now live was occupied at thenbeginning of the American Revolution by interconnectednfamilies of prosperous German farmers. They had beennsettled for half a century and had no particular quarrel withnthe King in Great Britain. When confronted with thenRevolution they did not appeal to the rights of indi’idualnman or to the “open society.” The heads of householdsngathered under the trees, talked for two davs, and decidednthat the interest of their community would best be served h’nallegiance to the American cause, which thev thereafternsupported loyally, often at the cost of property and life. Ifnthis seems an exaggerated or eccentric statement of historicalnprecedence of society over government in this continent,nreflect upon the self-governing congregations ofnPuritans who settled Massachusetts Bay, on the selfgoverningnwagon trains and mining camps of the West, andnon the later communities of immigrants of man’ sorts.nNowhere does the indi’idual constitute onh’ an abstractninteger in a numerical majority.nThere is a sense, of course, in which the subjugation ofnsociety to government, the reversal of the master-serantnrelationship between the community and the state apparatus,nwas an ineluctable product of “modernization.” Butnthere is also a sense in which it was a conscious decision,nand therefore reversible. For, at an identifiable point in ournhistory, we decided that the state ought to become master.nThis happened at the end of the 19th c’entur}’, when anProgressive elite declared that the conditions of modernitynrequired it to take a guardian role through the Federalngoernment and discard previous notions of what constitutednAmerican principles. I can illustrate this turning point byna typical assertion of that time that 1 happen to havenconeniently at hand. It is from the founding statement ofnthe American Economic Association in 1885: “We regardnthe state as an agency whose positive assistance is one of thenindispensable conditions of human progress.” That is, thencommunity is no longer able to govern itself, but must benguided by a class of experts wielding the power of the state.nBut the complexity of modern society did not necessarih’ncall for a shift to the state. It called for new instruments ofnconsensus formation. Empowering the state to solve all ournproblems does not make the state the instrument of thenpeople. It makes the state—and this was Calhoun’s pointnabout the “numerical majority”—the instrument of thenstrongest interests and reduces democracy to an endlessngame of pie-sharing and the citizen to an abstraction.nIf we are to be true to the American inheritance, societynmust precede government; the community must take precedenceno’er the state. This simple declaration, I realize, doesnnot grapple fully with the complexities of modern life, withnthe thrust of the predominant strain of the national character,nand with the burdens, including the international role,nthat history has piled upon us. However, I am talking aboutnphilosophical starting points, not final solutions.nIf it is indeed true that man is capable of self-government,nthen it is true that his mistakes are to some degreenreversible. Much could be accomplished toward the preservationnand reordering of self-government if we couldnreorder our thinking to give society precedence over governmentnand make our communities the master of the statenrather than its raw material. ccn