In his piece on the “The Ideological Origins of the Rule of Law”, Hill makes the following essential points (Hat tip to Tyler Cowen over at the Marginal Revolution blog for pointing it out as an important paper):
- “…the Jewish and Christian concept of all human beings as God’s image bearers is an important contributor to the rule of law in Western civilization.
- the emergence of the rule of law….took centuries of articulation in different institutions and social settings.
- It only reached full fruition when it was joined with an understanding of appropriate political systems as expressed by political theorists such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Madison.”
We agree with Hill in his three-fold analysis on how the theoretical and practical evolution of the Rule of Law in the Western Civilisation, is a necessary part of answering the fundamental economic history question: Why was 1800 England the locus of man’s “Industrial Enlightenment”? (Mokyr, 2012).
Hill starts the paper with a statement with which we’re in total agreement:
“In this paper I argue that the primary factor in understanding the
development of the rule of law is a particular belief structure, a set of norms about
universal human dignity that is necessary for such a legal framework.”
And in the articulating the origins of this belief structure, he goes on to assert:
“Viewed in a broad historical and philosophical context the concept of
universal human dignity is unusual. Almost all societies…….operated under the assumption that people were fundamentally different in their moral standing. At the more practical level, almost every organized human group operated with exclusionary principles in terms of any form of rights, privileges, or access to power.”
It is Hill’s next categorical assertion that we seeks to dispute; and very strongly at that, since his mis-understanding has significant implications for the evolution of effective 21st century institutions. Here’s Hill’s sectarian error, in his own words in the beginning part of the section titled “The Metaphysical Grounding of Human Equality”:
“The major exception was ancient Israel. Joshua Berman, a noted Jewish
scholar, argues that metaphysical legitimation was an essential part of the ordering of every Near Eastern society. In Israel, however,
The hierarchical structure of ancient Near Eastern society was rejected on
theological grounds. The quality of the members of the Israelite polity stems from their collective covenantal relationship with God, in which each member is endowed with the status of subordinate king before the sovereign King of Kings. This is the metaphysical basis on which the notion of equality is founded (2008, 169).
Because of the equality inherent in the creation narrative, that all humans
were made in the image of God, universal human dignity had a strong metaphysical grounding. The Israel society was the first social order to recognize this basic human equality.”
What Hill fails to mention in that particular section is that Berman’s analysis is restricted only to the ancient Western and Near Eastern civilisations. More importantly, Hill fails to take into account that Berman is not exploring the concept of Equality in the Indic and Chinese civilisations at all; whether this concept exists in those millennia long entities, and if so when and how did they evolve and refine this central concept?
The concept of human equality is implicit in non-monotheistic existential traditions
In order to illustrate that the core concept of human dignity is more universal than its uniquely Judeo-Christian ancestry as alleged by Hill, let’s consider two of the planet’s prominent 21st century existential traditions – Buddhism and the syncretic tradition popularly known as Hinduism. They’re both non-monotheistic, are older than Christianity and Judaism respectively, and have a global footprint – with Buddhism having a significant and long historical presence throughout East Asia.
Buddism and Shoonyata/Emptiness
One of the central concepts in Madhyama Buddhism (one of the largest of the various schools that subscribe to Siddhartha Gautama as their Teacher) is that of Shoonyata – loosely translated as the ‘doctrine of Emptiness’. In this school it is believed that, the core teaching of the Buddha was that, the external Cosmos perceived through the senses as well as the inner Cosmos with an ephemeral “I” at its core are both fundamentally “Empty”. The Teaching is that: taking the external Cosmos and the experiencing I to be “Real” is the cause of all suffering and salvation is the experience of their “Emptiness”.
What is important for us – from the viewpoint of human equality – is that there is no discrimination in Buddhism along the usual human lines of age, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, national origin, parentage, etc. All are equal from the viewpoint of the Teaching. Just as 2+2=4 does not discriminate along the above categories; so too, do the Four Noble Truths not discriminate. An erudite king is as “empty” as a rural illiterate peasant girl; and both are equally qualified to seek Nirvana/salvation.
Vedanta and the Atman
What is known popularly as Hinduism is a vast cosmos in itself and includes a wide variety of philosophies, sects, traditions and lineages. However, there is widespread acceptance that the non-dual devotional school of Vedanta as articulated by Adi-Shankara, is one of the most prominent representatives of this existential world. And building on the
existential ‘emptiness’ that is at the heart of the Madhyama school, the Shankara school equally embraces the external emptiness of the Cosmos, while taking a distinctively different position on the internal emptiness. Non-dual Vedanta also believes that the everyday human ‘ego’ is existentially empty, but that this emptiness is best experienced by dissolving the everyday “I” in the Universal “I”. And Shankara the philosopher is most renowned for articulating that; since the very nature of the Universal I is Blissful Love, devotion is the best path for this ego-dissolving merger. And just as in Buddhism, there is equal human potential for experiencing this Bliss-Love; with no discrimination on any of the earthly human variables.
That there is no metaphysical basis for this discrimination is illustrated by the Purusha Suktha (perhaps the Vedic equivalent to the Lord’s Prayer from the Sermon on the Mount in Christianity) where the four fold profession based breakup of a society is not only recognised, but each of the four groups is identified as a part of the Divine (anthropomorphic) Body. What is important for us to observe here is that the Divine Body is described as Transcendental Bliss; with absolutely no suggestion that any part of this body is less blissful than the other.
The metaphysical non-discrimination is also revealed in a Shankara anecdote as well as in his writings. Once, when Shankara was on his tour and approaching Kashi (Varanasi today) a Candala – a ‘low-born’ individual – accosted him. Identifying with his body, Shankara made the mistake of social-distancing himself from this person; only to be surprised by having this Individual teach the World-Teacher a lesson, by observing that it’s only the body-centred individual who will discriminate and that there is no scope for it in the Blissful “I”. The proof that Shankara had fully internalised this lesson is revealed in the adulatory terms with which he describes the great devotee Kannappa – a ‘lowly forest-hunter’. More generally, Hindu devotional saints – in all the traditional philosophies and sects – come from a wide variety of castes; and are adored, irrespective of caste.
So the natural question arises as to the provenance of the caste-system in India and its discriminatory prevalence across the millennia and well into the 21st century. Our own belief is that the caste-system is an unfortunate hierarchical ossification of a traditional economic specialisation system. All societies can be analytically distinguished into workers, tradesmen, government officials and teachers and the priests – with sub-specialisations amongst these broad groups. Family based social clustering along profession based lines, as well as the inter-generational transmissions of the professions are also commonsensical for zero or low economic growth societies.
Unfortunately, human limitations and significant external pressures brought on by wandering conquerors, helped ossify this historically evolved delineation into a stratified hierarchy. Note that Hill uses similar explanations for the medieval stagnation of the Judea-Christian societies. The rent-seeking behaviour of the medieval Church has now been well-documented and the need for political theorists, with their modern ideas to enable the breakout from the ‘low-income, non-growth trap’ is by now understood as well. It is here – in the non-evolution of a relevant political framework – wherein we should be seeking to understand why didn’t China, East Asia or India give birth to the Industrial Enlightenment. Metaphysically; they were pre-qualified. And the challenges of evolving that framework should not be under-estimated. (The medieval Church was a dominant monopoly for more than 1100 years! 2000 years separates Pericles’ Athens and the resurgence of modern decentralised rule.)
Conclusion
Almost two-and-a-half centuries after Adam Smith, we’re still struggling with his seminal and foundational question on the wealth/poverty of nations. In the last few decades, we have clearly identified that Institutions are a fundamental part of the story/answer. In the last decade or so, we have started building on the role of culture and beliefs in the creation and sustenance of these institutions. We have also identified Religions as a fundamental driver of the beliefs that are needed for an advanced complex economy. And there is now acceptance that Human Equality is one of those central religious beliefs. However, the struggle with inequality continues to be an ongoing challenge: The 2020 BLM protests/riots worldwide against ‘systemic racism’ is but one more proof that even the Judea-Christian traditions have a long way to go on socially establishing Human Dignity.
It’s therefore extremely important – in the inevitably multi-faith 21st century – to not tie Human Equality exclusively to one metaphysical/belief system. Equality has never been an exclusive Truth!