Subsidiarity, States, and Intermediate Groups: Maintaining Subsidiarity's Distinct Contribution to Moral Philosophy

Subsidiarity typically refers to the presumption that issues should be addressed at the most “local” level capable of addressing them. The nature of the presumption, how to specify the “local” and the entities with valid claims, and how to interpret “capability” remain contested. Yet these basic features figure in most accounts of subsidiarity.1 Subsidiarity so-understood is asked to play numerous roles in numerous contexts.2 Yet dominant historical and contemporary accounts thereof can be broadly distinguished along two types detailed below: those seeking to use subsidiarity as a guide to constitutional ordering within legal systems and those seeking to use it as a guide to the appropriate relationship between groups each claiming domains of authority. These purposes are distinct even where related. Whether uses of the term “subsidiarity” for each consistently refer to the same concept, let alone one historically continuous concept, is debatable. This article argues that subsidiarity is more likely to make a distinct contribution to moral ontology when addressing the relationship between groups claiming distinct domains of authority, particularly as between states and intermediate groups like churches and universities. Deflationary critiques suggest that subsidiarity cannot play its intended constitutional ordering roles. Continuing to use the term in constitutional debates threatens confusion, which is exacerbated where the same term is frequently and aptly used to refer to a distinct concept operating in another normative domain. The term should be reserved for that other domain. My argument proceeds as follows. First, I outline intended historical and contemporary uses of “subsidiarity.” Next, I detail why subsidiarity is unlikely to play a distinct role in constitutional ordering. Then, I explain how subsidiarity can play its intended role outside constitutional contexts. A conclusion outlines some implications of my findings. The mix of historical and conceptual/normative analyses throughout is non-standard in analytic political philosophy but appropriate here for at least three reasons. First, it places the piece in conversation and continuity with existing scholarship. Subsidiarity is a social, rather than natural, phenomenon. Most contemporary work thereon accordingly contains historical and normative components.3 Second, attending to historical and normative considerations better fulfills relevant conceptual desiderata. A theory of a political concept should, plausibly, identify its distinct contribution to moral ontology and licit and illicit uses of the term. It should also offer a means of evaluating whether the concept can play its intended normative role(s). Attending to the specific problems subsidiarity has been asked to play helps identify its possible normative roles and referents, thereby providing a target for analysis. A theory will be better, all else being equal, if the theory can explain why the same word has been used to address each problem below or if it permits subsidiarity to play its intended normative roles. It will be better still where it can do both.4 Finally, subsidiarity is especially well-suited to historically-informed analysis. Queloz (2023, 209, 211–214) suggests that genealogy is useful where and because it lets philosophers identify why a concept appeared necessary and thereby provides a means of analyzing whether and when it is serving its intended purpose(s). Knowing the historical need the concept was intended to fulfill raises questions concerning whether we still have the need, whether the concept is doing as well as it could in serving that need, and why the concept may have arisen with different needs (and underlying values).5 This provides a means of evaluating theories that is especially useful for concepts subject to deflationary critiques: Genealogy provides a test for determining whether such critiques succeed, calling on normative theorists to explain whether and when a concept fulfills its historical purposes and can still play its intended normative roles. As discussed below, subsidiarity appeared as a response to particular needs and is subject to several deflationary critiques, making it apt for genealogical examination. Yet genealogy's proponents (id.: 43) admit that it can be fruitfully paired with other forms of analysis, including conceptual analysis. The following is also proof-of-concept for it provides a in and thereby the of such for analyzing political concepts with This work whether and how the concept of subsidiarity can make a distinct contribution to moral ontology that use of the term “subsidiarity” in moral play a distinct moral subsidiarity should a role or in moral philosophy that other concept can for for constitutional ordering is to alone and subsidiarity to other it distinct A of subsidiarity should, the subsidiarity is asked to play in moral how it is to do that cannot intended roles to moral that on to as a theory of “subsidiarity.” will be better still if “subsidiarity” provides for relevant The Subsidiarity is a to providing to guide concerning the of in a The Subsidiarity is a the of authority, providing to that other groups should have in least a contemporary The constitutional is in contemporary legal It that subsidiarity is a guide to constitutional ordering within legal Subsidiarity could be a in a constitutional or for constitutional should be at the most “local” constitutional are like and The suggests that subsidiarity is a guide to the appropriate relationship between different of groups claiming domains of authority. and that cannot questions the of that subsidiarity was to play that role Subsidiarity is better as a for addressing states and like churches and that to or with and that or to the between these entities are within the of subsidiarity a means of where and when states should with other groups can This work and on work on the intermediate that subsidiarity can make a distinct moral contribution when it that role and normative to subsidiarity a The of subsidiarity helps identify the roles and subsidiarity may play and features that of subsidiarity This accordingly in conceptual to those and It thereby helps explain the of the and for theory of subsidiarity that I use to the of subsidiarity on of conceptual These work on the relationship between the and other like the work on the and other “local” as the to the of the of a of subsidiarity in and and the of subsidiarity in and constitutional These do a conceptual of may whether the to to the these for This is a work in the of seeking to how the concept It is a normative work that the historical genealogy of the concept to be in at least two the of for a theory of subsidiarity and roles subsidiarity could those whether or for the concept of subsidiarity that those are of the on in the of the concept permits one to identify the problems that subsidiarity was (and to and use of which apt theory of subsidiarity should Attending to in the conceptual of subsidiarity a on Subsidiarity to guide how to where different entities valid in the conceptual of subsidiarity in the of the more Subsidiarity in its the of the and to address and to address that where groups have and one most a a most that can other Most on issues concerning the of authority, whether between different of the and or on the appropriate of between and that subsidiarity different entities are A presumption that subsidiarity should legal for or consistently in the of the Whether legal presumption is a of the concept for which of subsidiarity is historically constitutional to subsidiarity have some historical can accordingly whether constitutional roles should be continuous with whether the constitutional concept the term “subsidiarity.” in the of the or to the of to address the and of entities for is relevant to the of subsidiarity of in that was a problem for and intermediate like is at least a of subsidiarity as was with the relationship between the like the and a of the in in on the role of in to subsidiarity one of most the discussed how different and to such and other better to do the relationship between and to is a of theories of suggests the of theory of the concept is to of the and of the between and the political may have been a of problem one that subsidiarity is intended to of in a of subsidiarity but the the underlying one discussed when of and to address the of and intermediate like universities. concept to and as the and and a to the of The problem of as to the of a subsidiarity on states and addressed the same problem in the of the of and of intermediate groups at a when the and of states and intermediate groups a authority. was a in a in a in a to the and a particular political on to do and states are useful for where and because each a of that is necessary to its those that domains a is if necessary to fulfill the needs of the groups in the as relevant of at a when these and other groups distinct to that the of different of in was the of particular groups making particular of and each the of and for and that these when to for all to and legal with the and the for each domains of authority. groups on the for but as on Subsidiarity at least to that a where other groups whether or a to to those domains of Subsidiarity a of for another domain. This was to distinct or The subsidiarity in of the and the of between groups to and each claiming distinct forms of authority. work on the of and other for that the the of the but that the same of the also the and of other intermediate like The states that within domains including the should be and to the the suggests the also a political seeking of the and to the The at to the basic in other in and political authority. This role to in are outside the of the of in which do within its the if and in as the of the cannot be the at level or at and but can of the or of the be better at This article is intended to between a and The and its states that a subsidiarity is in and should when the is to be is contested. The and states in of whether the is constitutional and on its normative and whether is to basic in it is to be a legal ordering for between of on like the that can as when to subsidiarity in Yet forms of subsidiarity also the of states for and the of entities as The is a on even the a constitutional such that subsidiarity is a constitutional for the states can on subsidiarity to between and The on subsidiarity as a constitutional concept is even more in some a subsidiarity subsidiarity has constitutional in It can be a for constitutional or means of constitutional or has been between of and between of subsidiarity at the are as a of has its in the and in the that and are at least intended to be continuity is that each to with concerning and intermediate groups and churches in the remain throughout in the of the concept of between and entities at least to a as these to to work on subsidiarity to Yet the also suggests the of subsidiarity to address a different problem than to a more legal role for The distinct problems that of subsidiarity to address explain between them. and in which on different different roles the concept is to and the discussed distinct with could and that have with the of a particular to the groups to which was that that on the existing to also with The intermediate to subsidiarity may still a will have on these to which I the intermediate groups that are to that to distinct of authority. political between states each in between to or entities with and legal in which intermediate groups play between the constitutional and intermediate to subsidiarity do that thereof be to each problem to between different of that groups are the of subsidiarity also of “subsidiarity” Subsidiarity be a or a for and on that throughout is the of a presumption of for like such that will in let alone constitutional for for of constitutional accounts will likely on normative a theory of subsidiarity can such a presumption and thereby useful on constitutional that likely in of the it that subsidiarity could play other distinct more of it can and should The historical problems subsidiarity was to are in contemporary of the concept and its intended in political problems is of more of subsidiarity on the of within the when it to the the on the the of the of the of subsidiarity as the of is also on subsidiarity on its relationship to constitutional ordering questions to that the and the concept its relationship to with contribution being one of the its Subsidiarity in in and constitutional on some to how it should or the of particular the concept whether and how it in or specific of subsidiarity in is suggests that the is a of subsidiarity the of normative on why subsidiarity in the of suggests that the of the and most basic of that all should be This is in contemporary political is alone in that it could like subsidiarity as a constitutional for at proponents are proponents of including that it could for subsidiarity in also to accounts specific constitutional as with some that can to the even suggest subsidiarity should or each particular legal of “subsidiarity” are to have The legal concept of subsidiarity can be relevant for distinct constitutional including for in debates when should be or to or with another and the of particular that to be within a Subsidiarity can be a in a or a that can guide constitutional or relevant on questions concerning which should be to which Subsidiarity like and like to be its It is also to guide on how to the of particular and to do when for could be as or subsidiarity could it a or a that let valid valid but on that This of subsidiarity is as a for questions and work suggests subsidiarity should identify which entities have to or identify the of even and for whether and how for “local” could to of than is in like the and that subsidiarity can even the of entities to the necessary for its suggest that it for groups that are like to to or groups those groups can fulfill each subsidiarity is as a of legal ordering with particular in A of including the and to the of intermediate groups and to authority. are to dominant legal and that the “subsidiarity” is a basic at with the historical use of the term. suggests that subsidiarity and groups with valid This that subsidiarity should constitutional role to be a to subsidiarity operating in of to identify or to suggests that the can where can have some and will have have been to in a with subsidiarity as a for on intermediate groups suggest that subsidiarity can identify can make attending to the of groups are to within a and have valid to subsidiarity as a constitutional for that accounts of the groups to the subsidiarity may could even with valid where a of to Whether can consistently a of let alone specify domains of in likely to is at at most three of of theorists subsidiarity as a for addressing and each raises analytic for a theory of the particular and but also for of of and and within a political and subsidiarity the normative of in suggests that theory should explain which groups can have authority, which and the normative I suggests the with a basic to a some for more These to questions of in a with a of and political questions how to between It is to with or problems a theorists address different problems and different the target and to how to constitutional A questions whether and when a should be to the of intermediate groups even on These to historical problems a of subsidiarity can it will likely historical uses and fulfill normative roles. This be for proponents of the problems remain is to whether can as we will whether can address the constitutional one The constitutional to subsidiarity several use of subsidiarity as ordering for the of argues that subsidiarity a which to a but rather a which to a in which is a as and how to whether and when a presumption groups is or are some on how to these subsidiarity cannot be Subsidiarity accordingly the of a constitutional with on how to It may still for other constitutional like or of it cannot be to on the relevant basic including may and how to The constitutional at has more than proponents Subsidiarity can when constitutional have been and accordingly cannot as a constitutional of within a of subsidiarity is to be and to a subject is to in the or most level that is appropriate to the of that the of each level of could and is at in of a particular and in are are in particular at particular of whether and when should authority. It at least it more to to in that make can be that a that should the of accordingly states that for of with This is that existing to This for subsidiarity as ordering for constitutional of whether the can where a is or can where is of make it more to do the of analyses subsidiarity Subsidiarity could still guide of or within a political intended role in contemporary constitutional several deflationary suggest of subsidiarity are also for that Subsidiarity cannot play its constitutional ordering role of its entities to it the it to the of of those normative or Attending to intended roles in constitutional the Subsidiarity in in constitutional a presumption that a particular subject or will at the most “local” level or the level to those a This presumption can be where of are necessary to address a can more address it and may why some do specify which “local” subsidiarity should of and explain which particular issues should The presumption is that will to of a like the particular it to of some the level is also to in and may even be as a of constitutional that is where more This some for in forms of could make it more likely that groups will aptly make in particular contexts. for most analyses make and of a constitutional for a more some that a are is Subsidiarity can still guide analysis. deflationary suggest that subsidiarity cannot consistently in in a that features of the concept constitutional Subsidiarity consistently to the level possible of addressing in and is to whether constitutional could consistently the of “local” The constitutional presumption in of is in the of political entities that to the constitutional to entities like the and for the and of explain As I have is to whether a presumption if it is consistently as subsidiarity in its presumption cannot explain why or with a to all subsidiarity is with it more even like presumption where the is offer to other considerations such a This a with existing theories to for constitutional the constitutional of subsidiarity cannot its presumption of “local” in the raises questions its normative distinct normative contribution is a constitutional presumption more in states questions the of such a presumption even where subsidiarity is to guide relevant one could still the concept providing other normative to the presumption and existing critiques make that more than questions remain as to whether subsidiarity is even when discussed in of and of are and is are the that these problems are may that existing constitutional uses of “subsidiarity.” that be and that are most the in and may suggests that of and of to the considerations that one to those one will that types of entities outside the including the and subsidiarity is better as a for and authority, rather than questions whether these groups are in that like a constitutional subsidiarity is to all to the most and and do to a presumption for the Whether or can a presumption or is such considerations can particular a presumption such Subsidiarity to its as to or to one can those subsidiarity to moral The need for the of constitutional presumption can be on other its distinct contribution to to subsidiarity could even relevant making the or a presumption that is more that cannot or subsidiarity distinct to moral analyses of and can relevant moral is at least a its Subsidiarity could still be a in constitutional It for guide the uses of existing including of constitutional in the of that Subsidiarity proponents like that it in constitutional more likely to the underlying that should guide and even it more likely that will be subsidiarity can play a role of moral considerations that should of to political suggests that can to on a of of relevant moral that to and work to that that be that subsidiarity offer a useful subsidiarity as if we deflationary accounts as in other concepts could still to a in which can in with subsidiarity may for another argues for the need to consistently the of in the of for that can existing and to as the of subsidiarity which will those intended of the on which should to of at least as as in subsidiarity as a useful means of that specific concepts have been used to calling for of such a concept when could use it to should in subsidiarity as of Subsidiarity may be most to Subsidiarity even for that should one of the suggests that a a of those can make to be several with subsidiarity as a for constitutional one is that to subsidiarity can as As the subsidiarity subsidiarity can be and It may even be necessary to it is to refer to subsidiarity in most work on the subsidiarity in some do when or the need for political in for may that subsidiarity is to it and could be used for of moral still use of constitutional of subsidiarity in to subsidiarity where other do relevant work of moral at This in of relevant be a It also the of on is the in a This is particularly where relationship to other concepts contested. subsidiarity may be a rather than and subsidiarity as a of on should to the in which the concepts could different and are also as a subsidiarity more and to a of are particularly where another of subsidiarity and uses the term “subsidiarity” in a distinct to address a distinct in the may the concept of subsidiarity on the constitutional to another provides for a more concept at the and use of the term making a distinct contribution to moral the other may be if to in constitutional two distinct are and one a is to use of the This more of the that make subsidiarity in constitutional like or to whether a of subsidiarity that accounts for its and uses can play its intended constitutional ordering This alone to use constitutional Yet use of different to address other problems a of subsidiarity can address that problem that provides to the term for work on the other This raises a is for subsidiarity to do if deflationary critiques and normative considerations Subsidiarity can still between different groups with valid but subsidiarity can and should be as when states should in the work of other groups with such concerning whether and when states should the of groups remain even as the has a basic of questions whether and how states can the or of or whether like legal should be or whether states can on These are issues in domains and in of The underlying problems on the of authority, the of intermediate and whether such have to domains of authority. can to these of Subsidiarity so-understood is more likely to these than constitutional and better historical uses of the term. This to subsidiarity has historical detailed It also has contemporary The basic is in the of intermediate groups for and of some of to that for have to where and because that is necessary to relevant in the is it should be of the to the and some other to those This provides a for addressing the of questions in the First, identify whether intermediate has a valid Second, if identify the of that whether the intermediate can fulfill the underlying is a presumption other groups should the to fulfill its if another is better to do such will have a will be need to to considerations to in these of can if considerations the other groups will the of why is where the can fulfill its This of to subsidiarity but with the constitutional also offer to it This work can be as a to subsidiarity historically are and normative to that the intermediate a for a of subsidiarity capable of making a distinct contribution to moral ontology one of the intended roles. This accounts for a of historical for contemporary It the concept to its subsidiarity to address a distinct contemporary Subsidiarity so-understood play normative roles. Most subsidiarity of that a on in a This was one of its historical roles. Subsidiarity can and should play that role the suggest of subsidiarity to authority, subsidiarity so-understood can be a on of where a has and thereon remain may that intermediate will the same problems used to the constitutional but intermediate to the most The such may do to intermediate the that subsidiarity can if one can identify and The intermediate provides on It still provides questions The alone for on which valid intermediate for subsidiarity could issues for the possible to a on of the of of groups are likely to moral whether be or a of the intermediate groups are like churches and have consistently is likely to be on most normative accounts of a to authority. can the normative helps identify and possible Subsidiarity a particular response to particular it is a intermediate groups for to of with which other groups should The of intermediate groups possible of can be used to specify and test for a most historical intermediate groups as valid is to whether it is as a of rather than another This is particularly where the domains in which groups may need some have some are the of and that claims, for and are to in each the distinct to to as on authority. of these and other as a for of whether and when the concept should in are domains in which states a of for This is the of that subsidiarity was to other do a subsidiarity for of these of is a means of its the may on are relevant and how we can whether groups fulfill for which it will be to but it is for The that some groups even have distinct domains of the will some as may that the groups will be Yet groups and in constitutional and in that make to historical of groups and work on whether and when these may be valid on whether and when to and normative for of groups as those that could have the relevant of like to may have valid This accounts for the of entities that to have valid on accounts some in thereon The of distinct domains of be for the of such domains for some as subsidiarity helps one how to address claims, subsidiarity can play a distinct role in moral on subsidiarity can even existing of the to most intermediate is consistently to authority. subsidiarity play a distinct role in moral findings. subsidiarity may a guide to rather than a normative This at make it to the constitutional Subsidiarity being a be where the likely to be in Subsidiarity be more those in particular of a for that some other entities as is a distinct contribution to moral The also to in a the constitutional to if domains of are of the for to the here a distinct with uses of the term “subsidiarity.” This is distinct how subsidiarity was to to with but to consistently or in the This of subsidiarity can be a more useful even if it as a may to subsidiarity as a in constitutional in the the problem in constitutional The problem in the was the of subsidiarity as a The problem was subsidiarity as a in a where was likely to to and the in a constitutional subsidiarity is as a for where is but be the intermediate for It places a on the to its and thereby some for other It those as that or even underlying the and apt for a rather than a is to be in one particular or be be and be in is to that the of will consistently states in that intended moral could still on intermediate to to “subsidiarity” for still or is likely of It is if a concept is a at least a distinct contribution on the on which of groups can make which of intermediate accounts should at least A that “subsidiarity” could and to make a distinct contribution to moral ontology is to the presumption at be to that it in all or those most should make A or can be particular in different