I don't know if I'm to make this a regular thing, but there is another thought posted at Wordsmith.org to which I thought I might attempt a sensible contribution. Today there is a thought from Roger Ebert, who, though presumably valiant in intention, draws an at least inaccurate moral equivalence between a justification for capital punishment and acceptance of the Holocaust. I think he goes a step too far. I explain why below.
Re: A Thought for Today, 6/18/19 (Wordsmith.org)
"The ability of so many people to live comfortably with the idea of capital punishment is perhaps a clue to how so many Europeans were able to live with the idea of the Holocaust: Once you accept the notion that the state has the right to kill someone and the right to define what is a capital crime, aren't you halfway there?" -Roger Ebert, film-critic (18 Jun 1942-2013)
Regardless of the degree to which "so many Europeans" were or were not okay with the Holocaust (a debatable point), an absolutely critical distinction to be drawn between capital punishment (as a matter of law and principle) and the state-sanctioned, systematic extermination of the Jewish people (as a total act of genocide) is that in the former case there is the understanding of a crime committed by an individual (presuming of course actual guilt), the retribution for which is execution. In the case of the Holocaust, the "crime" so regarded was an "infection" of the gene pool and body politic by those of Hebrew extraction and Judaic faith. Humanity at large has rightly come to see the Holocaust for the inhuman and insane horror that it was. A crime against humanity, and of the highest and sickest order, to be sure; but it was an organized genocide born in hate and fear and advanced by a propagandistically conditioned and socially anchored ethos (not simply by the authoritarian order of a thoroughly depraved man, i.e. Hitler).
Capital punishment, whatever one's position on this very complex moral issue, would not in any responsible evaluation be so analogously (and causally) linked to the genocide of the Holocaust. To justify capital punishment, whether as a general principle or restricted to a specific case, is by no means to breach the slippery slope toward Auschwitz and Dachau. "Halfway there," the film critic says. I think we are rather in a different moral universe--at least a different country of concern. (This itself being an unsettling analogy or awkward link in the larger semantic chain.)
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Monday, June 17, 2019
Human Cultural Diversity and the Vision of the "World Community"
Re: A Thought for Today, 6/17/19 (wordsmith.org):
The ultimate sense of security will be when we come to recognize that we are all part of one human race. Our primary allegiance is to the human race and not to one particular color or border. I think the sooner we renounce the sanctity of these many identities and try to identify ourselves with the human race the sooner we will get a better world and a safer world. -Mohamed ElBaradei, diplomat, Nobel laureate (b. 17 Jun 1942)
A noble thought. The thing is, humans are cultural beings. Tribal identity is woven into the core of the DNA. Tribal bonds as such are not destructive nor should they be entirely discouraged in the name of some transnational, supra-human identity. The notion that, deep down, "we are all one" may sound nice and foster warm and fuzzy feelings, but in point of fact we are not all one: there is much diversity in terms of culture and language and worldview, and despite many of the popular ideas about human origins, the fact is that there is much diversity at the genetic level as well.
"Ethnic diversity" is not an empty phrase, and "culture" is infinitely more than a convenient social construct. Any real and meaningful effort to promote a unifying vision around which to structure human action will need to take much more seriously into account the anthropological questions, which have everything to do with cultural identity, language, tradition, and worldview. It will do no humanist vision any favors to advocate that "we renounce the sanctity of these many identities." These many identities have been forged and fostered over thousands if not millions of years. All people who identify with a certain cultural or tribal identity are not simply prepared to "renounce" that identity in favor of some abstract affiliation that we call "the human race." What, really, is all that to be taken to mean, anyway? I am not so sure that many who advocate this have any clear or definite idea in mind. It is all well to seek to find commonalities and points of connection, and I am all for cross-cultural human cooperation in the interest of productive and peaceful outcomes. I am less than confident that such purposes can be realized by minimizing cultural differences or renouncing identities that have been in gestation since humans first learned to come together in the first place (which, again, had everything to do with cultural bonds, language, religion, and all the rest of it).
What's the solution, then? I think the start of a solution is to understand the problem of human conflict as a fundamentally anthropological problem, at the core of which remains the matter of culture. Margaret Mead has addressed this matter to some productive purpose throughout her writings and in clear, digestible summary in her essay on 'World Culture' (1947). [The essay is included in Anthropology: A Human Science. Selected Papers 1939-1960, pp. 134-45.] Mead in her summary observes the following:
"In summary it may be said that world community seems more likely to be attained by working toward certain over-all abstract and inclusive values, within which the different people of the world, who now see one another as separate, competitive, or unrelated, will be able to feel themselves a part, the cultures of each regularly related to the whole to which all give allegiance in different ways congruent with their own cultural values. Thus we would be working toward the type of multi-dimensional world culture, within which there would be interdependence of diverse values rather than a world in which any one interest or function so dominated the others that single value scales, competition, and destruction were the concomitants." (Mead 1964: 144.)
Key to Mead's analysis here is the notion of a "multi-dimensional world culture," that is, one in which the diversity and plurality of cultures is preserved though participatorily structured toward a common culture and a common goal. Such a common culture we can call "the human race," or something more semantically refined, but the common goal has got to be something higher and more inspiring than the zero-sum game of material acquisition and the maximization of all possible sources of wealth. Yes, economic vitality is and always has been crucial to survival. It is also the case that sustainability and ecological integrity are vital, for the survival of all life on any planet. The humans on planet Earth, by any reasonably honest assessment, face many points of needed improvements in all these areas of interest. An ecological ethic will of necessity guide future human actions and all cultural configurations. Failing this, all notions of "humanity" will be rendered null and void and tragically absurd.
Humans need now more than ever new visions for their humanity and place on the planet, not vague notions about how they are all "connected" or "related." What kinds of models can inspire the forces of action and the change of vision that will be needed? The kinds of models that place "culture" in the foreground, not those that try to minimize its importance or relegate its value to the dustbin of history. Culture has always united human action (for better or worse). At this most critical evolutionary juncture, culture and culture reenvisioned alone will prove the species' salvation. Or its doom.
Part of the reason for recognizing the importance of cultural diversity (rather than renouncing all traditional tribal allegiances and identities) is that there is much that many cultures, and many all but unknown, or little known, can potentially contribute toward the fostering of the environmental ethic and the expansion of vision that alone will ensure our survival as a species and connect us all to a higher and more inclusive picture of humanity. Without their critical cultural knowledge, to say nothing of their natural ability to make others reflect relatively on the merits of their own, we are left with singleminded conceptions for the structuring of human interests and for moving the species forward (and not always in the most profitable, or sanest, of directions). This 'totalizing' impulse, to consume and subsume, has resulted in no shortage of human conflict and suffering. One is right to be wary of all calls, however grand, for a 'unification' of all cultures and ways of living. Few proposals have promised so much good yet yielded so much destruction to cultures in the name of "a common humanity."
It is a very good and even necessary thing that other cultures exist, that other thought patterns and concepts of living obtain, and remain. And every one of them has much indeed to teach and learn from one another about the ways to live and think and see, to express and experience their humanity. To get us all to "a better world and a safer world," we might start by learning a bit more about that larger world, the world that exists quite independently from our own limited view of it.
The ultimate sense of security will be when we come to recognize that we are all part of one human race. Our primary allegiance is to the human race and not to one particular color or border. I think the sooner we renounce the sanctity of these many identities and try to identify ourselves with the human race the sooner we will get a better world and a safer world. -Mohamed ElBaradei, diplomat, Nobel laureate (b. 17 Jun 1942)
A noble thought. The thing is, humans are cultural beings. Tribal identity is woven into the core of the DNA. Tribal bonds as such are not destructive nor should they be entirely discouraged in the name of some transnational, supra-human identity. The notion that, deep down, "we are all one" may sound nice and foster warm and fuzzy feelings, but in point of fact we are not all one: there is much diversity in terms of culture and language and worldview, and despite many of the popular ideas about human origins, the fact is that there is much diversity at the genetic level as well.
"Ethnic diversity" is not an empty phrase, and "culture" is infinitely more than a convenient social construct. Any real and meaningful effort to promote a unifying vision around which to structure human action will need to take much more seriously into account the anthropological questions, which have everything to do with cultural identity, language, tradition, and worldview. It will do no humanist vision any favors to advocate that "we renounce the sanctity of these many identities." These many identities have been forged and fostered over thousands if not millions of years. All people who identify with a certain cultural or tribal identity are not simply prepared to "renounce" that identity in favor of some abstract affiliation that we call "the human race." What, really, is all that to be taken to mean, anyway? I am not so sure that many who advocate this have any clear or definite idea in mind. It is all well to seek to find commonalities and points of connection, and I am all for cross-cultural human cooperation in the interest of productive and peaceful outcomes. I am less than confident that such purposes can be realized by minimizing cultural differences or renouncing identities that have been in gestation since humans first learned to come together in the first place (which, again, had everything to do with cultural bonds, language, religion, and all the rest of it).
What's the solution, then? I think the start of a solution is to understand the problem of human conflict as a fundamentally anthropological problem, at the core of which remains the matter of culture. Margaret Mead has addressed this matter to some productive purpose throughout her writings and in clear, digestible summary in her essay on 'World Culture' (1947). [The essay is included in Anthropology: A Human Science. Selected Papers 1939-1960, pp. 134-45.] Mead in her summary observes the following:
"In summary it may be said that world community seems more likely to be attained by working toward certain over-all abstract and inclusive values, within which the different people of the world, who now see one another as separate, competitive, or unrelated, will be able to feel themselves a part, the cultures of each regularly related to the whole to which all give allegiance in different ways congruent with their own cultural values. Thus we would be working toward the type of multi-dimensional world culture, within which there would be interdependence of diverse values rather than a world in which any one interest or function so dominated the others that single value scales, competition, and destruction were the concomitants." (Mead 1964: 144.)
Key to Mead's analysis here is the notion of a "multi-dimensional world culture," that is, one in which the diversity and plurality of cultures is preserved though participatorily structured toward a common culture and a common goal. Such a common culture we can call "the human race," or something more semantically refined, but the common goal has got to be something higher and more inspiring than the zero-sum game of material acquisition and the maximization of all possible sources of wealth. Yes, economic vitality is and always has been crucial to survival. It is also the case that sustainability and ecological integrity are vital, for the survival of all life on any planet. The humans on planet Earth, by any reasonably honest assessment, face many points of needed improvements in all these areas of interest. An ecological ethic will of necessity guide future human actions and all cultural configurations. Failing this, all notions of "humanity" will be rendered null and void and tragically absurd.
Humans need now more than ever new visions for their humanity and place on the planet, not vague notions about how they are all "connected" or "related." What kinds of models can inspire the forces of action and the change of vision that will be needed? The kinds of models that place "culture" in the foreground, not those that try to minimize its importance or relegate its value to the dustbin of history. Culture has always united human action (for better or worse). At this most critical evolutionary juncture, culture and culture reenvisioned alone will prove the species' salvation. Or its doom.
Part of the reason for recognizing the importance of cultural diversity (rather than renouncing all traditional tribal allegiances and identities) is that there is much that many cultures, and many all but unknown, or little known, can potentially contribute toward the fostering of the environmental ethic and the expansion of vision that alone will ensure our survival as a species and connect us all to a higher and more inclusive picture of humanity. Without their critical cultural knowledge, to say nothing of their natural ability to make others reflect relatively on the merits of their own, we are left with singleminded conceptions for the structuring of human interests and for moving the species forward (and not always in the most profitable, or sanest, of directions). This 'totalizing' impulse, to consume and subsume, has resulted in no shortage of human conflict and suffering. One is right to be wary of all calls, however grand, for a 'unification' of all cultures and ways of living. Few proposals have promised so much good yet yielded so much destruction to cultures in the name of "a common humanity."
It is a very good and even necessary thing that other cultures exist, that other thought patterns and concepts of living obtain, and remain. And every one of them has much indeed to teach and learn from one another about the ways to live and think and see, to express and experience their humanity. To get us all to "a better world and a safer world," we might start by learning a bit more about that larger world, the world that exists quite independently from our own limited view of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)