Abstract
One major theme in Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate is the “Principle of Gratuitousness.” The point of this essay is to begin a reflection on what it actually means and its possible relevance. By comparing the “Principle of Gratuitousness” and its normative assumptions about “the logic of gift” with anthropological studies focused on the same phenomenon, I hope to show, not only the relevance of the encyclical’s normative vision but also where and how it needs further clarification. The findings of empirical anthropology provide qualified support for the encyclical’s focus on generating and replenishing “social capital” in order to sustain both markets and politics in an effort to “civilize the economy.” In order to put the “Principle of Gratuitousness” into more effective practice, the encyclical highlights the creative role of “civil society” and calls for the creation social enterprises whose goals are broader and deeper than maximizing profits. Assessing the realism of Benedict’s proposal will require further research and reflection on innovative entrepreneurial ventures designed to address social problems on a commercial basis, for example, Muhammad Yunus’ concept of a “social business” and its development in a series of joint business ventures involving the Grameen Bank and related organizations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Caritas in veritate insightfully analyzes the “progressive erosion of social capital” that has occurred as a result of the global economic crisis. While there is no explicit reference to the social science literature that has developed this concept, the encyclical’s description of social capital, that is, “the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence,” is consistent with the literature, which is well reviewed in Paolo Vanin’s article on “Capitale sociale” (2009). It is clear from Benedict XVI’s use of the term that the destruction of social capital is a symptom of certain pathological tendencies operative in the processes of globalization, particularly the increasing trend toward “social inequality” and the “massive increase in relative poverty” that must be corrected if the economic crisis is to be overcome successfully. A similar perspective on the erosion of social capital is evident in “Globalization and economic development: impact of social capital and institution building” (Cheng and Mittelhammer 2008).
Latin: principium gratuitatis, Italian: principio di gratuità, German: Prinzip der Unentgeltlichkeit. As is often the case with such innovative proposals, the use of this term raises many questions. One such is the precise relationship between “the logic of gift” (cited in paragraphs 34 and 36) and “the principle of gratuitousness” (cited in the same paragraphs). The logic of gift, it seems, is meant to be descriptive and open to social scientific analysis, whereas the principle of gratuitousness is a normative interpretation of this logic intended to clarify a proper and fully developed understanding of it. The encyclical thus claims that, while the logic of gift remains open to a variety of interpretations, the full truth to be realized in it must ultimately include a recognition of the theological or spiritual principle operative in it.
The word, “gift,” appears 22 times in CV which is nearly half again as many as in any other encyclical in the tradition of CST. Previous uses of the term tended to be focus on strictly religious and theological issues, as in the phrase, “gifts of the Holy Spirit.” The only encyclical to use “gift” in terms that anticipate aspects of Benedict’s reflections on the “logic of gift” is John Paul II’s Centesimus annus (CA, 1991), which presents a theological perspective on alienation—in contrast to Marxism—in which the “gift of self” features prominently as an alternative (CA 41).
CV speaks of both “civil society” and a “civil economy.” While “civil society” is acknowledged in several passages “as the most natural setting for an economy of gratuitousness and fraternity,” (CV 38), the term “civil economy” occurs only once, and in conjunction with the “economy of communion” (CV 46) both of which are commended as examples of the “hybrid forms of commercial behavior” that Benedict hopes will emerge from the development of an “economy of gratuitousness.” “Economy of communion,” of course, is a direct reference to the Focolare movement founded after World War II by Chiara Lubich and her disciples who sought to create new forms of social enterprises expressive of their commitment to love and solidarity. (Cf. Argiolas 2009).
Prof. Stefano Zamagni (2010), was first to use this term to describe the specific contribution that Caritas in veritate makes to Catholic social teaching. Based on his intimate knowledge of the encyclical’s drafting process, he persuasively detailed Benedict’s “anthropological turn” in a presentation made to the conference on “Civilizing the Economy” sponsored and organized by the Faith and Work Initiative of Princeton University, April 8–9, 2010. An “anthropological turn” involves shifting the discussion from questions of social policy to a deeper consideration of the philosophical assumptions about human nature—for example, the validity of the model of “homo economicus” and conceptions of self-interest based upon it, including marginal utility theory—for explaining economic behavior. The principle of gratuitousness thus is not simply a moral exhortation but a reflection of an account of human nature that diverges significantly from what has been assumed by most economists about how and why people act the ways they do in the marketplace.
Benedict is not alone in seeking to break the conceptual tyranny of utilitarian thinking in economics, as in the works of Amartya Sen. My own attempt to assess the relevance of Sen’s work for CST is available in McCann (2005).
The term, “economic democracy,” is used twice in CV (38 and 66). In both instances Benedict seems to be advocating the development of producer and consumer cooperatives, private voluntary organizations whose efforts are consistent with his hope of civilizing the economy. Obviously, this is not what most readers will assume when they see the term, “economic democracy.”
These are the meanings of gratuitousness given in the 1913 Edition of Webster’s Dictionary, accessible online at http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/gratuitousness. In Italian, “gratuita” appears to have the same range of meanings, with an emphasis either on something “free” as in a “free clinic” (“clinica gratuita”), or something without justification. The use of “gratuita” as an abstract noun as in CV’s “principio di gratuità,” appears to be as innovative and challenging in Italian as it is in English.Cf. the Italian meanings available online at http://www.wordreference.com/iten/gratuita.
CST’s “principle of subsidiarity” is widely invoked but often misunderstood. It was first invoked in Pius XI’s Quadragesimo anno (QA, 1931) in order to define the moral conditions under which State intervention in the other primary and secondary institutions of society was both possible and necessary. At issue in 1931 was the Church’s struggle to preserve its own role in educating the youth of Italy. The State was not to usurp the functions of other institutions under the pretense of assisting them. Benedict’s thoughts on subsidiarity echo QA, while also grounding the principle in his anthropological assumptions about reciprocity: “Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state”. (CV 57) Lest libertarians and neoconservatives mistake the Pope’s meaning here, let me point out that he is not repudiating the State’s responsibility for public welfare as such, or endorsing their mistaken ideas about a minimalist or “watchman” state, but drawing a line against totalitarian forms of “Statism,” because of its fundamental error concerning human nature. Any assistance must seek to empower persons and groups so that they, too, can fully participate in the work of human development; it must not preempt or usurp their opportunities or capacities for reciprocity, regardless of how weak or corrupt these may have become under the corrosive pressures of modernity.
The importance of the underlying “anthropological vision” in CST, for Benedict, can hardly be underestimated. It involves an assertion of “the unconditional value of the human person and the meaning of his growth” (CV 18), an interpretation of the positive dynamics of “globalization” (CV 42), the continuing relevance of “duties” as well as “rights” in public morality (CV 43), the proper role of social communications media (CV 73), and the urgent relevance of bioethical issues ranging from abortion to euthanasia to the “social question” perennially addressed by CST. While all of these issues have been discussed at various points in the history of CST in various ways, Benedict’s “anthropological turn” relates them to one another in a normative vision of “integral human development” that is systematic, profound, and difficult to gerrymander.
Mauss is explicit in making a direct connection between religious ritual and economic exchange in his discussion of the phenomenon of “contract sacrifice”: “Contract sacrifice supposes institutions of the kind we have described and, conversely, contract sacrifice realizes them to the full, because those gods who give and return gifts are there to give a considerable thing in the place of a small one…It is perhaps not a result of pure chance that the two solemn formulas of the contract—in Latin, do ut des, in Sanskrit, dadami se, dehi me—also have been preserved in religious texts.” (1990[1925], p. 17) “Contract sacrifice” and its constitutive role in establishing exchange relationships finds an uncanny echo in what is conveyed by Benedict’s principle of gratuitousness.
The differences between the two perspectives could be reduced considerably were Benedict and his advisors to focus, as particularly the Reformed tradition of Protestant Christianity has, on the significance of covenantal institutions inspired by the Biblical narratives of history of Ancient Israel. G. Mendenhall’s pioneering study, “Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East” (1954), an interpretation of the rituals through which covenants were established, tracks very well with Mauss’ general analysis of the logic of gift exchange. Mendenhall’s work has the additional merit of providing a model for understanding the development of such a bond when the parties are so grossly unequal, as in the relationship of God and Israel, namely, the suzerainty treaties of the Ancient Near East. Insofar as religious institutions, like the Church, carry out crucially important functions within civil society, with a direct bearing on the formation and renewal of social capital, we thus have access to the rituals that provide the basis for the doctrines informing CST’s principle of gratuitousness. The theme of covenant, while common in contemporary Christian social ethics in the Reformed tradition, recently has been making an impact on CST, which is strikingly evident in the American Catholic bishops pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All: Catholic Social Teaching and the US Economy” (N.C.C.B. 1986). There are several essays exploring the meaning of covenant for business ethics in the anthology edited by Stackhouse et al. (1995). More detailed expositions which provide concrete recommendations for developing the covenantal model have been given by Herman (1998) and Nash (1990).
The Grameen Bank, though it returns dividends to its members—that is, to the poor who qualify for loans through its programs, which include various requirements for maintaining savings accounts—remains the model for Yunus’ understanding of social businesses. The Bank’s objective is clearly social, and the “hybrid” structure for distributing the surplus or “profits” generated by its business activities, clearly illustrate the concept of social business, as well as it potentially diverse applications in other settings.
One attempt to address the relationship between intrinsic and instrumental motivations in business is the essay by Brownsberger and McCann (1990, reprinted in 1995). MacIntyre’s skepticism about business ethics is addressed by interpreting Peter Drucker’s thinking on the purpose of a business.
References
Argiolas, G. (2009). Economia di communione. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.), Dizionario di economia civile (pp. 332–345). Rome: Citta Nuova Editrice.
Augustine of Hippo. (2008). The city of god (De Civitate Dei) (Penguin Classics, Kindle Edition, MobileReference).
Benedict XVI. (2005). God is love: Deus caritas est. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Available online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html. Accessed 11 March 2010.
Benedict XVI. (2009). Charity in truth: Caritas in veritate. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Available online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html. Accessed 11 March 2010.
Brownsberger, M. L., & McCann, D. (1990). Management as a social practice: Rethinking Business Ethics after MacIntyre. In D. M. Yeager (Ed.), The annual: Society of christian ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. [Reprinted in M. Stackhouse, D. McCann & S. Roels (Eds.). 1995, On moral business: classical and contemporary resources for ethics in economic life (pp. 508–513). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co].
Bruni, L. (2009). Gratuita. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.), Dizionario di economia civile (pp. 484–488). Rome: Citta Nuova Editrice.
Cheng, M. Y., & Mittelhammer, R. (2008). Globalization and economic development: Impact of social capital and institution building. In American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The/Nov, 2008. Available online at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_67/ai_n31203716/. Accessed 12 Sept 2011.
Donati, P. (2009). Dono. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.), Dizionario di economia civile (pp. 279–291). Rome: Citta Nuova Editrice.
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1996[1979]). The world of goods: Toward an Anthropology of consumption. New York: Routledge.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Prosperity and the social virtues. New York: The Free Press.
Herman, S. (1998). Durable goods: A covenantal ethic for managements and employees. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
John Paul II. (1991). 100th Anniversary of Rerum Novarum: Centesimus annus. London: Catholic Truth Society. Available online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html. Accessed 11 March 2010.
Mauss, M. (1990[1925]). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. New York: W. W. Norton.
McCann, D. (2005). Inequality in income and wealth: When does it become a moral issue, and why? In H. Alford, C. Clark, S. Cortright, & M. Naughton (Eds.), Rediscovering abundance: Interdisciplinary essays on wealth, income and their distribution in the catholic social tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Mendenhall, G. (1954). Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist, 17 (2–3). Available online at http://home.earthlink.net/~cadman777/Law_Cov_Mendenhall_TITLE.htm. Accessed 20 April 2010.
Nash, L. (1990). Good intentions aside: A manager’s guide to resolving ethical problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
N.C.C.B. (1986). Economic justice for all: Pastoral letter on catholic social teaching and the US economy. United States Catholic Conference, Washington, DC. Available online at http://usccb.org/sdwp/international/EconomicJusticeforAll.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2010.
Pius XI. (1931). Encyclical letter quadragessimo anno. Available at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html. Accessed 27 July 2011.
Ross, D. (2010). Game theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/. Accessed 7 July 2011.
Stackhouse, M., McCann, D., & Roels, S. (Eds.). (1995). On moral business: Classical and contemporary resources for ethics in economic life. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2007). Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles, Kindle Edition, Good News Publishers.
Vanin, P. (2009). Capitale sociale. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.), Dizionario di economia civile (pp. 146–151). Rome: Citta Nuova Editrice.
Yang, M. M.-H. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Yunus, M. (2007). Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle against world poverty. New York: Public Affairs Books.
Yunus, M. (2010). Building a social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves humanity’s most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs Books.
Zamagni, S. (2010). Caritas in Veritate: Observations’ presented at the conference Civilizing the Economy, Faith and Work Initiative of Princeton University.
Zarri, L. (2009). Dilemma di prigionero. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.), Dizionario di economia civile (pp. 271–278). Roma: Citta Nuova Editrice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCann, D. The Principle of Gratuitousness: Opportunities and Challenges for Business in «Caritas in Veritate». J Bus Ethics 100 (Suppl 1), 55–66 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1187-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1187-0