LOYALTY

What love does not bind,
is not properly bound.
And what loyalty does not protect
no oath will shield.

Ernst M. Arndt

Where there is honour
loyalty is always sacred.
Publilius Syrus

Loyalty and truth preserve the king,
and he upholds his throne by righteousness.
Proverbs 20:28

The loyalty of dogs
wouldn’t surprise us so much
if it were more common among humans.
Sigmund Graf

Loyalty is the invisible yet indestructible bond that exists among people of honour committed to truth.

In general, loyalty is thought of as fidelity that people of lower rank owe to their superiors. As a matter of fact, it can be that too, but never only that. Loyalty is not just a commitment of the ruled, but a duty on the part of the ruler as well. It compels the ruled to faithfully follow the leadership of the ruler, but exactly by the same token, it compels the ruler to share the fate of those he rules while being personally accountable for the decisions he makes and the directives he orders.

In this way, loyalty is another two-way road. It is true that the boss, the chief, the manager, the highest rank in charge, may – and has to – demand the loyalty of his subordinates, employees or collaborators. But it is not less true that he can –  and must – expect loyalty from them only if he is also loyal to those he leads and for whom he has assumed the responsibility of leading.

However, it remains true that loyalty is also the elder sister of fidelity. In broad terms, faithfulness is the constant habit of loyalty. We say someone is faithful when he is constantly loyal; when he has managed to make of loyalty a way of life. The difference lies in that loyalty is a disposition born out of a sense of honour, whereas faithfulness is a behaviour in accordance with such a disposition. In other words: loyalty is an ethical imperative; faithfulness is its associated moral value. A person of honour is loyal by principle, and faithful to his moral responsibilities by duty.

The other major difference is that, while loyalty is a bond and a commitment among people, faithfulness is a bond that can be established among people, but also amongst people and an idea, a religion, a moral code, a promise, as well as with institutions; for example: the Nation, the State, the community. That is the reason why those who live according to the precepts of a Church are called  “the faithful” of that Church. It is the same reason why someone who stands firm to his codes is called “faithful” to his beliefs.

Within the sphere of a family, faithfulness is about maintaining and standing by the promises given when the family was founded. Many people believe that this only means restricting sexuality to the two persons who have married.

Although there are very good arguments to uphold the thesis that monogamy based on sexual fidelity offers several practical advantages, as for a family, sexual exclusivity is not the main nor sole factor that holds together the human core formed by parents and children. However, in order to really understand this, the first thing that should be grasped is that “couple”, “marriage” and “family” are not interchangeable terms. These words do not mean the same thing. The concepts they represent are neither equal nor equivalent.

A couple is merely the union of two persons. Two human beings who decide to live together – or to share their life totally or partially, – and mate, constitute a couple. In this sense, human beings are not too different from many animals that also mate; some occasionally, some until their offspring reach a certain maturity, and some species are even known to form permanent monogamous couples. However, animal monogamy is not as strict as some people would romantically like to believe. Genetic studies have shown through DNA analysis that the offspring (up to about 30%) of reputedly monogamous animals come from a different father than the one raising them since birth. ([i])

It’s just that human marriage is much more than a couple. It is the union of two beings who have made mutual vows. Vows in which each should be able to trust the other. Given such vows, each partner has committed to the duty of a whole series of obligations that can vary from culture to culture, from one community to another, or from one congregation to another. These ethno-cultural differences may (or may not) include sexual exclusivity, but in any case vows go way beyond sex. It is a gross misinterpretation to believe that religions which admit polygamy – for instance, Islam – exempt from all responsibility the man who has more than one woman.

In marriage, spouses promise each other mutual help; mutual aid; mutual care. Besides love, of course, marriage as an institution is founded upon vows: vows of protection, understanding, tolerance, and good will. True infidelity in marriage rests in breaking any of these vows. It resides in letting the other down and essentially, that is the real act of disloyalty. Breaking a promise, failing to keep your word, that is what really constitutes what we normally call infidelity. And the more sacred the promise, the more grave the infidelity will be. And this is because the higher the level of trust a person has on a promise, due to the sacred character of the assumed wedding commitments, the more serious the infidelity will be.

Nonetheless and in spite of all its importance and sacramental nature, marriage is still not a family. A family is marriage and children. By which the first thing that happens is that duties and obligations increase and multiply. With children one assumes the duty to nourish, protect, educate, raise, guide and help them develop in harmony. And the list is light years away from being exhaustive. When a marriage becomes a family, it ceases to be a commitment among two to become a commitment among many.

To put it somehow: couples can go along with a room; spouses can put up with a house. Families need a home.

In the building and maintenance of that home, there is a load of commitments – explicit and implicit – the fulfilment of which is only possible among people who are essentially loyal, and who due to that loyalty, also know how to be faithful to those commitments.

Going to a different subject, with all that we have seen, it is not really hard to realize that loyalty is the most solid foundation of what we commonly call trust. Although there might be – and in fact there are – several other factors that generate trust, loyalty is probably the elemental layer upon which all others rest in some way or another.

And trust is a key element to every social organism, even beyond the existence or nonexistence of a coherent and exhaustive system of codes and written laws. Even Francis Fukuyama, one of the firmest supporters of the current socio-economic system, admits that: “Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of the community”.   [...] “Not just any set of instantiated norms constitutes social capital; they must lead to cooperation in groups and therefore are related to traditional virtues like honesty, the keeping of commitments, reliable performance of duties, reciprocity, and the like.” ([ii])

Current economic operators have realized and have had to end up admitting that, practically, written laws and signed contracts are not that reliable, especially in a world exposed to great changes and more or less severe crises. And that is because sharply delimited rulings have very severe restrictions. Casuistry is ultimately based on our experience of past events and in our ability to foresee future cases. And in the ability of anticipating the future we are not precisely good or effective, to say the least.

It is a proven fact that, sooner or later, reality always overcomes and shatters our most carefully calculated forecasts. Reality is always ahead of us. No matter how precise the small print at the bottom of the contract may be; in due time – sometimes surprisingly soon in our days – the events of the real world can very easily render it inapplicable. Among other things, that is why Plato used to say that the best republic is not the one that has many laws, but the one that works reasonably well with very few. Something has to be really wrong with people if every single expected behaviour has to be written, described and thoroughly regulated. In most cases, if you do not behave in a given way by your own initiative, then it is quite useless to write a law commanding you to do so.

It may be necessary to write that law down anyway.

But don’t make the mistake of expecting too much of it.

Then, paraphrasing E. M. Arndt, if something is not guaranteed by honour, truth and loyalty, then it will not be warranted by any law or contract either.

[ii] )- Francis Fukuyama, Social Capital and Civil Society, The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, October 1, 1999. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm on Jan, 01, 2010.