Home | Join/Donate | Current Voices | Liturgical Calendar | What's New | Affirmation | James Hitchcock's Column | Church Documents | Search
Bureaucracy as a Force for Change
by James Hitchcock
April 29, 2002
Obviously democracy is the characteristic political system of the modern world, although other systems -- Communism, Fascism -- are equally modern yet inimical to democracy. But there are other ways in which modern life also goes against democracy, if democracy means that the citizens have the ultimate voice in the state.
A century ago the sociologist
Max Weber noticed the "bureaucratization" of modern
life. Bureaucracy is found on all levels, including the Church,
and it has to be, since modern organizations, from the national
state to the smallest business or civic groups, have tasks which
must be performed by competent people. Thus when we deal with
government, we usually deal with career civil servants rather
than with elected officials.
There is an image of bureaucracy as stodgy, rule-obsessed, resistant
to change. Everyone has tales of dealing with bureaucrats who
seemed utterly unsympathetic to real problems and kept explaining
why the rules would not allow a solution.
But there is another side to bureaucracy which makes it a powerful
force for change. That is inherent in the very idea of the bureaucrat
as someone with specialized knowledge, someone who thus understands
problems much better than either elected politicians or the citizens
at large. Such bureaucrats are implicitly anti-democratic. They
do not think ordinary people can be trusted to make the right
decisions, and the politicians have to pander to the people to
get elected.
Thus in all governments there is a corps of officials who remain
in power no matter what the outcome of the elections. They issue
countless regulations, guidelines, etc., most of which represent
not what the legislature intended but what the bureaucrats think
it should have intended.
There is a school of thought, dating to about Weber's time, which
argues openly that good government has to be by experts, something
sometimes called "social engineering". The assumption,
once again, is that most people are not enlightened enough to
support good policies, thus must put themselves into the hands
of those wiser than themselves.
One of the characteristics of bureaucratic thinking is its inevitable
conformity. While there may at first be disagreements among bureaucrats
about how to deal with poverty or family breakdown, sooner or
later a consensus emerges. That is because bureaucrats always
defer to those deemed to be experts and because bureaucrats are
conscious of belonging to a profession and do not want to be
out of step with that profession.
The bureaucratic mind tends not to be sympathetic to traditional
moral and religious beliefs, which are seen as further examples
of the people's lack of enlightenment. While the bureaucrat may
be personally religious, he does not see his faith as having
anything to do with his profession.
A prime example is sexual behavior. Bureaucrats in schools, or
with jurisdiction over government programs, seem mostly to think
that adolescent sex is inevitable, that moral beliefs merely
get in the way of a solution, that their task is to inhibit disease
and pregnancy. The bureaucratic outlook is one of "scientific"
pragmatism, and parents are a major problem if their ideas differ
from those of the bureaucrats. One of the running battles in
American politics is over such activities.
But the phenomenon is now international, as the Western world
moves toward ceding national sovereignties to international bodies
such as the United Nations. Those bodies are even more bureaucratized
than are national governments, even less answerable to the popular
will.
This has grave implications for people with traditional beliefs,
who will find it harder and harder to live those beliefs in a
world where everything "from on high" is hostile. Recently
a committee the European Parliament in effect condemned all forms
of traditional religion, and demanded the curtailment of the
freedom of groups which get in the way of "progress".
James Hitchcock
6l58 Kingsbury Ave.
St. Louis, Mo. 63ll2
E-Mail: Dr. James Hitchcock
**Women for Faith &
Family operates
solely on your generous donations! WFF is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Donations are tax deductible.
James Hitchcock, professor of history at St. Louis University,
writes and lectures on contemporary Church matters. His column
appears in the diocesan press. His two-volume book on religion
and the Supreme Court has just been published by Princeton
University Press. E-Mail: Dr.
James Hitchcock
Columns copyright © 1995 - 2007 by James Hitchcock. All rights reserved. May
not be reprinted without permission. (Permission is granted to
download articles for personal use only.)
Voices copyright © 1999-Present Women for Faith & Family. All rights reserved.
PERMISSION GUIDELINES
All material on this web site is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission from Women for Faith & Family,except as specified below.
Personal use
Permission is granted to download and/or print out articles for personal use only.
Quotations
Brief quotations (ca 500 words) may be made from the material on this site, in accordance with the “fair use” provisions of copyright law, without prior permission. For these quotations proper attribution must be made of author and WFF + URL (i.e., “Women for Faith & Family – www.wf-f.org.)
Attribution
Generally, all signed articles or graphics must also have the permission of the author. If a text does not have an author byline, Women for Faith & Family should be listed as the author. For example: Women for Faith & Family (St Louis: Women for Faith & Family, 2005 + URL)
Link to Women for Faith & Family web site.
Other web sites are welcome to establish links to www.wf-f.org or to individual pages within our site.
Back to top -- Home -- Back to James Hitchcock Column Index
Women for Faith & Family
PO Box 300411
St. Louis, MO 63130
314-863-8385 Phone -- 314-863-5858 Fax -- Email