Lessons From an Ice Storm
About Philia > Reclaiming Citizenship > Lessons From an Ice Storm

by Jacques Dufresne, editor of l'Encyclopédie de l'Agora sur Internet

Everyone who remembers the ice storm of 1998 also remembers the extraordinary solidarity shown by Quebeckers as they coped with the crisis. Who among us, observing the neighbourliness that flourished during that time, did not longingly imagine a Quebec where such goodwill would be a permanent feature of the social landscape?

Naturally, this phenomenon was of great interest to sociologists. Indeed, one of these, Jacques T. Godbout, saw in the events surrounding the ice storm the perfect illustration of his theory of the gift and the role it plays in modern society.

We take it for granted nowadays that the market and the State divide up nearly all the social space such that whatever power is lost by the state must be recovered by the market and vice-versa. But, Godbout asks, what was the state doing during the ice storm? It was following events more as actor than spectator. Yet did the market take its place? On the contrary: the market as market was forced to yield to the logic of the gift and disappear, as it were. The law of the market would have entailed that since the demand for certain products had gone up - generators, for example - it would have been normal, and in fact, healthy, for their price to rise accordingly. But in the eyes of the Quebec citizenry, it would have been immoral for them to profit from such a situation - and it was this point of view that ultimately prevailed.

Between the state and the market (or beyond them, if you will) a distinct sphere exists, even outside periods of crisis, which is characterized by the gift and by generosity. Like a number of sociologists who have studied this phenomenon, we have chosen to call this sphere Philia - a word that adds to the idea of the gift the Aristotelian notion of friendship between citizens. While philia is generally translated simply as friendship. Aristotle understood it in one sense as civic friendship: a feeling of attachment, different from the friendship that exists between two individuals, that bonds together members of a community. It is this sense of the word that the Philia steering committee had in mind when they chose it as the name for their project. "Whatever the English equivalent might be, philia is that reserve of human warmth, affect, enthusiasm and generosity that goes well beyond the cold impartiality of strict justice or equity." [1]

But if we observe our society using the three spheres of State, market and philia as a framework, we see that the very existence of philia, the sphere of the gift, is denied in the public discourse, particularly that of economists. "In every era and every society there is a different hierarchy," notes Jacques Godbout. "Everyone knows that the state's moment of glory has passed, and that the market principle has now achieved such great status that it pervades every sphere, making any unpaid activity appear somewhat abnormal." [2]

Thus, between the State as defended by social democrats and the market as defended by neo-liberals, no third way worthy of the name appears to be emerging. Indeed, we don't even have a word for it. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the space of philia, and indeed an ever larger part of our social and public space, is being invaded on one side by the market's fixation on numbers and profit, and on the other, by the State's fixation on justice and its concomitant proliferation of regulations, charters and collective agreements. In combination with other factors like the expansion of technological systems, this dual emphasis on profit and justice creates a spurious progress that can continue only at the expense of the three forms of natural capital we have: the integrity of the person, of communities, and of the physical environment.

To achieve the kind of growth that would benefit both the human and natural worlds, we will have to reverse the current tendency: instead of allowing philia to be treated as something expendable, open to invasion by the market on one side and the State on the other, we must treat philia as the most important of the three spheres, one that can serve as a model for the other two.

Choosing philia

Choosing philia means committing oneself to doing what is needed to ensure that people with disabilities and their families get the support they need.

Choosing philia means according priority to people's developmental needs over the justice and efficiency claims of the State and the market. This is not to say we must resign ourselves to live without these values - that would be suicidal. Rather, it means we believe in a higher order of justice and efficiency - the kind that occurs on its own, without extra effort on our part, when conditions of creativity and responsibility prevail.

Choosing philia means encouraging governments and businesses to place a greater emphasis on trust.

Choosing philia means committing oneself to tempering the righteousness of bureaucratic decision-making with the humanity of friendly decision-making.

Choosing philia means preferring natural networks to professionalized care services, but without having to give up the latter and the supports they provide.

Choosing philia means encouraging people to make time in their lives for dialogue and reflection, and encouraging governments to devote public time to the same.

Choosing philia means inviting foundations and charitable organizations to play a bigger role in the community without becoming replicas of either government or business.

Choosing philia means being careful not to let the social life of the community fall victim to the rule of law - for example, ensuring that fear of lawsuits does not prevent people from acting hospitably.

So here we have the outline of a new path, one which I would call the "first" rather than the "third" way, since it takes us back to Aristotle, for whom humans were social animals, and well beyond Hobbes, for whom man was "a wolf to man." Indeed, it is Hobbes who brought us to where we are today, with his notion of the all-pervasive State and the ferocious market.

[1] Jean-Jacques Chevalier, Histoire de la pensée politique, Book 1, Payout, Paris, 1979

[2] Jacques Godbout, Le don, la dette et l'amitié, Boréal, Montréal. 1998

Have Your Say