I am not a lawyer, but if I take at face value the description of a number of cases in Australia across recent times – particularly those involving allegations of sexual assault – I think there are patterns occurring. These patterns fit into what Philip Rieff described in the 1960s in his The Triumph of the Therapeutic – although his ‘description’ could be better thought of as a warning.
Rieff claimed that ‘therapeutic’ was the symbol for truth in our era, and that it was overtaking (and many would now say has overtaken) sacred safety barriers in the public square.
Whereas in previous eras, the ‘centre’ of culture meant having a common mind about how to do well in response to our ‘conceited selves’, the new centre in the therapeutic era is simply ‘the self’.
Rieff also masterfully explained that the impact on the arts and science of having the focus shift to the unmitigated self, was for these topics to become tools to ‘serve the contemporary aversion to culture’ – or, as he also described, they have become forces of anti-culture.
That Rieff believed this movement, in thought and practice, was a force to replace the religious impulse that had given us principles of charity and justice, was well reflected in this sentence: ‘This [the therapeutic] is the unreligion of the age, and its master is science.’
Traditional Western justice is based on a proper relationship between desiring the good while helping each other. That is, if we want to know how to act justly while being kind, we need to know what ‘good’ looks like. Of course, that requires a common mind that is committed to universal standards of life that are bigger than any individual or even a group of individuals.
As Tom Holland and Larry Siedentop describe it, this mix of justice and mercy is not intuitive in all societies, and the only places that are strongly free and safe in this endeavour have, historically, adopted ideas that are significantly from Judeo-Christian first order principles. These include agreeing to universal worth and respect for all people, regardless of roles, responsibilities, status, or genetic background. From that comes the principle that law is to be the same for all, regardless of anyone’s station in life. That means for serious offences, eyewitnesses must be able to give verifiable evidence (you can read about this in the Old Testament Torah books).
But, as Rieff anticipated, that is not our current primary commitment. Ours is a time where our self-focus means that we have shifted from accepting and controlling our baser desires to a moment where fulfilling all our urges defines freedom. This has flowed over into the justice system.
Complainants in Australia, apparently, can make an allegation public knowledge, without respecting the traditional principles of justice, and if he or she gains support from media personalities, they may end up casting a shadow over the legal principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
Why is such a sentimental process supported by so many (who often refer to this process as social justice)? It is because our personal emotive selves have become the prime means of defining right and wrong? As Rieff would say, the only important aspect of life that is ‘at stake’ in these conflicts is our personal wellbeing – or the aggrieved wellbeing of another. Wellbeing becomes the end, and not a by-product of ‘striving after some superior communal end’.
The same can be said of justice at the legislative level. I remember, decades ago, when abortion was in the process of being decriminalised. The argument was all about justice for the mother in terms of the unborn being a threat to her life, and we were given assurances that this principle would never change – ‘there is no thin edge of the wedge here’ was the response when I asked about the future. But in our therapeutic era, the focus is on the wellbeing of the mother only. Is the unborn an inconvenience to your wellbeing? Then abort. Is the baby the wrong kind of baby? Then abort. Try and find information about how many babies are being aborted for what reasons – and you are likely to get a response along the lines that ‘we don’t want to be insensitive to others’.
The same-sex marriage debate was the same. When we tried to have a sensible discussion about the nature of our humanity, our heritage, and the future of religious freedoms, we were told, ‘love is love’. It didn’t matter that we are redefining the structure of family and our social order, the argument was reduced to ‘be on the right side of history’ because how could we deny these people their wellbeing? Ah, therapeutic law-changing at its finest.
And now we have the Voice to Parliament. There is no attempt to outline the deeply philosophical assumptions on which such a case is being made. It is simply ‘disrespectful’ to consider voting ‘no’. You would ‘cause harm to the souls of others’ to say ‘no’. But who is entitled to be nominated? What limitations are there on the Voice harming the greater Australian good – morally, legally, economically – if this new part of Parliament wants to evaluate according to customary Aboriginal law rather than Judeo-Christian Westminster principles? Can we call for evidence of the kind necessary for a democratic and universally respectful society if this new group were to speak against a legislative development based on their traditional ways of defining and dispensing justice? Or would that be against their ‘wellbeing’?
The American lawyer Stephen D Smith suggests our legal systems, in this individualistic, emotivist, therapeutic era, only survive because they ‘smuggle’ enough of the Judeo-Christian tradition into their so-called Enlightenment thinking. I think Tom Holland would agree, but how much longer can Australia be free and safe if all we do is to ‘smuggle’ the values we want to hold onto, but reject the beliefs from where those values came? Perhaps we should ask Zoe Lee Buhler, who was arrested in her pj’s in front of her children for posting an idea about the pandemic response being over-reach; or Cardinal George Pell; or Archbishop Julien Porteous; or Andrew Thorburn; or … you get the picture.
And it seems to me that our new Prime Minister is a master of the therapeutic. He has worked to exude wellbeing in what he believes he has achieved. But he never answers hard questions when asked (or is that just my correspondence) – he give platitudes wrapped in smiles and restated lines of reassurance.
Does he seem likable? Without knowing him, I would guess ‘yes’. Is he trustworthy? From his actions, I would say he will be consistent – consistently therapeutically pleasing. But I do not trust a leader who will not reveal his deepest beliefs and who thus covers his or her ultimate goals. I know that despite touting his Catholic upbringing, he did not take his oath on the Bible. So, what is down their in your belief basement Mr Prime Minister – a big-government, socialist commitment, where through your smiles you tell us all what is best for us, and prove it by taking more and more control? We are wanting to know and waiting to see…
