Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation

1. Modernity's Paradox: Freedom Without Moral Guidance

The paradox of modernity is that the more people depend on one another owing to an ever-widening circle of obligations, the fewer are the agreed-upon guidelines for organizing moral rules that can account for those obligations.

Unclear moral codes. Modern capitalist economies and liberal democracies have granted citizens unprecedented freedom from scarcity and political oppression. However, this liberation has created an ambivalent condition where people feel a sense of something missing: a clear understanding of the moral codes by which they ought to live. Traditional sources of moral authority—religion, philosophy, literature, and even modern politics—no longer provide satisfactory guidelines for navigating complex social interactions.

Expanding obligations. As societies become more complex, the scope of moral obligations expands dramatically. Modern individuals now have obligations to:

• Perfect strangers in urban environments and bureaucracies.
• The "generalized other," including future generations affected by present decisions (e.g., nuclear war, ecological destruction).
  This widening circle of interdependence contrasts sharply with traditional societies where moral rules were tightly inscribed and limited to known groups (blood, geography, ethnicity).

Thinning specificity. While the scope of moral obligations grows, their specificity diminishes. Modern liberal democrats face unprecedented moral dilemmas without firm agreement on what their moral rules are, or even where to find them. This uncertainty, coupled with increased interdependence, leads to a situation where people need each other more but trust each other less, struggling to balance individual freedom with the extensive dependence that makes freedom possible.

2. Market Imperialism Erodes Civil Society's Intimate Bonds

To eliminate this ability to compartmentalize is not to increase our freedom but to subject us to obedience to rules over which we have little control.

Self-interest universalized. Early political economists like Adam Smith understood that markets operated within a broader moral framework provided by civil society, where self-interest was confined to economic exchange. However, contemporary "Chicago school" economists advocate extending rational self-interest to all social relations, viewing morality as a byproduct of individual action. This "market imperialism" rejects the idea of compartmentalization, where different spheres of life (e.g., family, community) operate under distinct moral rules.

Erosion of intimate ties. In the United States, this market logic has increasingly penetrated civil society, transforming intimate relationships:

• Families: Women's increased labor force participation, no-fault divorce, and changing grandparent-grandchild relations prioritize individual self-interest and "intimacy at a distance" over traditional binding ties.
• Communities: Land becomes a commodity, leading to rising housing prices, increased debt, and a decline in local solidarity. "Boomtowns" and "busttowns" exemplify increased suspicion and alienation.
• Education: Schools become "shopping malls" where students are consumers and moral standards are diluted, reflecting a shift from civic values to market choices.

Loss of social fabric. When all behavior is viewed as self-interested, all relationships become instrumental, destroying the non-instrumental ties of trust and solidarity that make freedom possible. This approach, by denying the social in favor of the natural, undermines the very moral potential that early capitalism relied upon. The market, in this view, becomes a "prison" that coerces individuals into a narrow, self-interested mode of existence, rather than fostering genuine freedom.

3. The Welfare State's Moral Dilemma: Public Care, Private Cost

The irony of this development may be that as intimate ties weaken, so will distant ones, thus undermining the very moral strengths the welfare state has shown.

State as moral agent. In contrast to market-driven societies, many modern liberal democracies, particularly the Scandinavian welfare states, rely on government to organize moral obligations. The state acts as an authoritative instrument, providing direction and steering to account for collective needs, often with a strong commitment to solidarity and universal access to benefits. This approach aims to ensure that the living conditions of strangers are everyone's business, a significant achievement in modern society.

Public family emerges. While initially focused on transfer payments, the "new" welfare state increasingly builds institutions and provides services once handled by families and communities. In Scandinavia:

• Child allowances decrease, while public day care and foster care expand dramatically.
• Women's work shifts from the private family to the public sector (e.g., social workers, nurses, day-care staff).
  This creates a "public family" that strengthens economic support and gender equality but potentially weakens the family's role as a source of moral rules and intimate care.

Weakening social fabric. Despite the welfare state's successes, its extensive intervention raises concerns about weakening civil society. Indicators include:

• Increased suicide rates (Denmark, Norway) and alcohol consumption.
• A sharp rise in petty crime like breaking and entering.
• Growing tax avoidance and "black work," suggesting a utilitarian calculation of costs and benefits rather than a sense of obligation.
  This suggests that while social contacts may increase, the depth of moral obligation and caring within intimate networks may decline, leading to a "segregation of generations" and a "cynicism toward social obligation."

4. Civil Society: The Missing Moral Compass for Interdependence

Sociology, in short, has its own turf in the intellectual division of labor called the social sciences.

A third way. Neither the market nor the state fully resolves modernity's moral dilemmas. Excessive reliance on either can strengthen present generations at the expense of future ones, weaken altruism, and thin out cultural ties. A "third way" is needed, rooted in a sociological approach to moral obligation that emphasizes civil society—the realm of families, communities, friendship networks, and voluntary organizations.

Beyond political economy. While political economy dominates discussions of modernity, it often overlooks the crucial role of social and cultural ties in making markets and states function effectively. Trust, altruism, and empathy are vital for societal success, even in "tough-minded" institutions. Sociology's historical concern with these elements offers a unique perspective, reminding liberal democrats of the fragility of society and their personal stake in its moral order.

Sociology's self-inflicted wounds. Historically, sociology has struggled to define its moral stance, often falling into two traps:

• Rejecting modernity: Romanticizing a lost, idyllic community (e.g., Tönnies), which sacrifices individual freedom and progress.
• Uncritically embracing modernity: Sublimating its unique insights into economic (e.g., Blau's exchange theory) or political (e.g., Janowitz's social control) models, thereby losing its distinct voice.
  This internal ambivalence has prevented sociology from fully developing as an adequate moral science, leaving a vacuum where guidance on complex moral issues is most needed.

5. Sociology's Unique Role: Ambivalence and Empathy

Sociology should be the guilty conscience of economics and politics, the one approach to moral regulation whose main message is that being modern imposes obligations on us as social beings, even as the other moral codes that contribute to our modernity tell us otherwise.

Embracing ambivalence. Sociology's distinctive contribution to moral discourse lies in its "sociological ambivalence"—a critical acceptance of modernity, markets, and states, while simultaneously highlighting their limitations and underlying assumptions. This approach avoids both nostalgic rejection of modernity and uncritical assimilation into other social sciences. It recognizes that civil society is vulnerable but also capable of being actively protected and strengthened.

A unique temperament. Unlike the "spunky, irreverent" tone of Chicago school economics or the "tragic, puritanical" vision of state-centric political science, sociology's temperament should be marked by:

• Respect for ambiguity and paradox.
• Concern with feelings and emotions over instincts and preferences.
• An expressive, literary, and cultural style.
  This allows sociology to explore the "liminal" spaces of society, focusing on outcasts and the boundaries of moral acceptance, thereby enriching our understanding of moral evolution.

Beyond fixed rules. Sociology's political stance should be neither purely radical nor purely conservative, but a dialogue between those who distrust the market and those who distrust the state. Its methodology should blend empirical data with history, narrative, and interpretive skills, prioritizing close observation of real-life experiences. By giving voice to ordinary people struggling with moral dilemmas, sociology can remind us that being modern entails social obligations that transcend purely economic or political calculations.

6. Morality is Socially Constructed, Not Just Followed

Morality is more contextual than either culturally deterministic or individualistic theories want to allow.

Rule-makers, not just followers. A sociological approach to moral obligation views individuals not as passive rule-followers, but as active rule-makers who create their moral rules through social interactions. This contrasts with market theories that assume rules are beyond human intervention (instinctive) and state theories that see rules as externally imposed duties. The social construction of morality recognizes that people are capable of monitoring their own self-monitoring, constantly negotiating their individual needs with collective understandings.

Contextual and dynamic. Moral rules are not fixed commands but emerge from the "cultivation of meaning" within specific situations. This process is:

• Pluralistic: Individuals respond to varying circumstances, not just one overriding motivation.
• Dialectical: Society oscillates between established structures and spontaneous "communitas" (Turner), allowing for adaptation and growth.
• Episodic: Moral reflection often occurs during "formal episodes" or life crises (e.g., marriage, death, political upheaval), which highlight the "generic social bond."

Learning over choosing. Unlike economic models that assume stable preferences and focus on "choosing" among fixed options, the social construction of morality emphasizes "moral learning." This involves:

• Changing preferences: Individuals develop "preferences about preferences" through interaction, expanding their capacity for knowledge.
• Moral growth: Confronting different points of view and reflecting on past actions allows individuals to mature as moral agents.
  This process is crucial for addressing the "principle of increasing free-rider opportunity," where the temptation for moral shortcuts is high, and collective well-being depends on individual moral development.

7. Navigating New Moral Frontiers Requires Active Engagement

Morality, in that sense, is "in the making"—part of a process by which people try to make sense out of the dilemmas, experiences, conversations, and stories in which they participate.

Breakdown of consensus. The post-WWII Keynesian welfare state fostered a period where moral issues were largely sidelined, with economic growth and government surpluses seemingly resolving social conflicts. However, the breakdown of this consensus has brought new moral issues—like ecological consciousness, feminism, abortion, and AIDS—to the forefront, demanding active moral engagement from liberal democrats.

Abortion as a case study. Debates over abortion highlight the inadequacy of purely principled approaches (fetus as person vs. woman's right). Instead, women often make decisions through:

• Extensive dialogue: Discussing with partners, family, and clinic workers.
• Moral account-giving: Constructing moral rules through lived experiences and interactions.
  This demonstrates that morality is a socially constructed process, where civil society acts as a "moral laboratory" for resolving dilemmas that abstract principles cannot.

AIDS and moral dilemmas. The AIDS epidemic further illustrates the limitations of market and state approaches:

• Market (Denmark): Emphasizing individual choice and confidentiality, initially failed to take collective responsibility, risking disaster.
• State (Sweden): Employing coercive measures like mandatory reporting and confinement, risked driving behavior underground and disrespecting individual autonomy.
  Neither approach adequately fosters the moral growth needed to balance individual freedom with collective responsibility. New moral issues, often involving clashes between competing goods, require individuals to mature and develop as agents, rather than relying on external rules.

8. The "Gift of Society" Demands Reciprocal Obligation

The message that sociology offers modern liberal democrats is neither complacent nor apocalyptic. It is commonsensical: here is society; you have given it to yourself as a gift; if you do not take care of it, you should not be surprised when you can no longer find it.

Protecting the intimate sphere. To navigate modernity's paradox, individuals must recognize society as a "gift" they give themselves, requiring active preservation of civil society. This involves consciously shaping three types of rules:

• Entrance rules: Defining who belongs to a group (e.g., nation-state, community, family) with criteria strict enough to foster commitment but flexible enough to avoid parochialism.
• Waiting rules: Establishing fair criteria for distributing scarce goods (e.g., healthcare, day care) that rely on social trust and a willingness to defer, rather than just market power or state bureaucracy.
• Exit rules: Governing obligations when leaving a group (e.g., corporations leaving communities, individuals leaving welfare states) to prevent the erosion of commitment and ensure reciprocity.

Beyond Hobbesian instincts. The temptation to rely solely on market or state rules stems from a distrust of human nature, assuming individuals are inherently selfish. However, society itself, with its "invisible links of trust and reliance," is what saves us from a state of nature. When we take society for granted, we risk losing this gift, forcing a reliance on external coercion (state) or pure self-interest (market), which ultimately undermines both freedom and order.

Cultivating social ecology. Society is a distinct ecology, different from nature. Applying laissez-faire principles to society, as market theories often do, prevents social growth and leads to its crumbling. The gift of society grants us freedom not because our preferences are constant, but because they can change through interaction. It empowers us to create our nature, to accept necessary regulation while challenging it to account for real people in real situations. This reciprocal recognition of interdependence is the essence of a moral sociology, urging continuous effort to sustain the social bonds that make modern life possible.