Horizon on BBC2 a few weeks ago, dealt with a good topic, in an uncharacteristically bad fashion. All in all Horizon seems to have been 'blanded down' in its latest series, and while an enjoyable watch, the new light hearted presentation style was matched by unserious substance.
Danny Wallace, an amusing enough presenter, had replaced for this episode at least, the sombre narrative voice over of previous series. Fittingly, the whole program seemed to be more a presentation of emotive persuasion, than of serious argument, though to be fair, it wasn't actually claiming it's points to be proofs as such.
The basic theme of the program was that we share so many things with chimps, even whopping 99.4% of our DNA, that we should really consider them (and other apes), 'people' too.
At first glance, there did seem to be a decent case to make. No one could honestly see the antics and awareness of the various non-human primates shown, and not consider them to be somehow closer to us than 'mere' animals. The feats of cooperation, intelligence, and even something akin to language, have to be acknowledged for what they are - remarkable feats of intelligent and sentient beings. The argument being made, was that if they are so 'people-like' then why don't we face the facts and treat and label them as such.
This sounds reasonable enough, but on closer analysis I think is getting the problem completely backwards. To see this, we need to think about why we could ever want to relabel chimps as "people". It couldn't be simpy clarifying a category, since "people" as currently used, basically interchangeably with the term 'human', does undoubtedly identify a class of creatures different from chimps and other primates.
The only reason, and what I assume can only be the underlying motive behind Danny Wallace's campaign, is not that they should be considered the same as us, but that they should be treated in a similar fashion. The justification for treating people as people, seems to be based on what were considered to be exclusivly human characteristics, self-awareness, intelligence, and the capacity to suffer. The logic then would seem to be, if we discover these characteristics in other beings, then they would deserve similar treatment.
The problem seems to be, that as long as they are considered just animals, then they are treated in a way that does not befit their intelligence and awareness.
However, this I think highlight exactly where Wallace has gone wrong. The issue to me really is, if the term "animal" means a being which can be made to suffering etc, then chimps highlight something wrong with our term "animal", not our term "people". Rather than resolving our moral tangles by promoting chimps out of one category and into another, we should revise our common understanding of 'animals' , and if necessary dispel any illogical connotations.
The problem is where else would the line be drawn, and what would be the consequences. What has to be admitted, as a basic and possibly brute fact, is that as a human society, we need to accord special rights to members of that society. No matter how many picture cards a chimp can learn, or how well it recognizes itself in a mirror, it or any other animal can never be a proper member of that society. The point to realise is that the rights are not ultimately based on the characteristics of humans, but on the very fact of being members of the same club - humans. According these rights has evolved to be common practice for in my view one reason - they are 'useful'. Now whether they fit in to natural moral dispositions or whatever, having a common way of viewing each other, actually works. We know things about people based on them being called people, and this helps society to function. Most importantly, since we conside ourselves as ends in our own right, and not just means for someone else's purposes, viewing others also as 'ends' - i.e. as 'people', develops a society which is good and enjoyable for us. This is why the rights are granted based on membership of the human club alone - because it is about how we view and treat others like us, and not based on characteristics as such - which think has retrospectively become the justification
This is why we gives these rights to humans that probably have less claim on characteristic grounds than some apes - small babies, senile old people, and the mentally ill and deranged. We treat them as people even though they might be in fact considerably different to us and what we consider 'essential' to our being people - but we have to do so since they are members
of our society, and to do otherwise would cause it to break down. And of course there would be the impossible problem anyway of where to draw the line.
So we have good reasons to consider each other people - reasons that don't immediately imply we should extend the term to chimps or any other intelligent animal. This is why i think the concept of "people" must remain as it is - we are people, by definition chimps are not.
However, to me we do have a problem with "animal". Not its definition, but its connotations. Throughout history, when first of all times were considerably worse for most of mankind, and second of all when scientific knowledge was more limited, it was understandable how 'animals' would be considered completely inferior, and really only "means" for our ends.
Now however that we are both in a position to know that these beings can in fact suffer, and furthermore have options available to us to avoid or reduce causing such suffering, then I think the time is right to develop our concept of animal - not to make them people, but to view and treat them in a more respectful fashion than before.
And there is a very good reason to do so. What I truly believe is that acts of brutality, brutalize the doer. The more we allow or perpetrate brutal acts, the harsher we become,as individuals and as a society, and in the long run this is to all our detriment. If we know begin to see animals as capable of suffering, and spot sentience in their eyes, then if we continue to treat them cruelly, then I think it will have an unfortunate effect on us, and in the long run make us crueller to each other. If someone can beat a chimp, and justify it to him/herself since 'its just a chimp' - the viciousness and hate in the action is (albeit mcuh reduced) similar as if he/she were to beat a child or another person. The action is similar, but the person might be comforted by the excuse. But that viciousness I think hardens the heart, and makes for a tougher world for all of us.
And for chimps - any special treatment? Of course the fact remains that a chimp does have different characteristics, and special abilities, that differentiate it from a cow or a chicken. And these special abilities means they can suffer in special ways, ways in which a cow or chicken cannot. Thus while all animals will probably suffer pain on being beaten, a chimp with its awareness and intelligence might suffer in ways we might recognize more - being confined in a boring and restrictive environment, deprived of social contact. A cow probably does not care if it has a small piece of land to chew its cud on, an intelligent and social chimp might be driven into something similar to insanity by such conditions. And to impose them, would be to make
it suffer. Most importantly, to allow ourselves to inflict such suffering, makes us harsher and less responsive to such concerns when they manifest themselves in other people, especially those of which we are already disposed to have a lower opinion of.
Chimps are not people, they are animals. The point is they show us that we have good reason not to treat animals, like animals.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
6 May 'Moussaoui's trial : Fight a death wish with a life sentance..."
(originally posted 6 May. Reposted here)
Three cheers for the jury in the Moussaoui trial - for one of the more dignified responses to the 911 atrocity.
Here was perhaps the one culprit they actually had in their hands, involved in a terrible crime and part of an even more terrible movement - and yet they managed not to follow their own government in bringing things down to his level.
That the death penalty is considered for any crime I have to admit I consider quite primitive, but in the case of a suicide attacker, it makes no rational as well as no moral sense.
Normally, one of three justifications are given for the death penalty, and in this case especially, none of the three hold water.
Firstly, there is the notion of deterrance - that the ultimate punishment will dissuade all but the most incorrigible villains. However whether something is a punishment or not depends on your world view. For a normal individual to be put to death is perhaps the worst that can happen - but for a suicide attacker? One who not only wanted to die in his attack, but actively looks forward to a paradise that he thinks awaits him if he is killed in his 'war'? Is the message supposed to be 'don't try and kill yourself attacking us, because if you're caught, you'll be killed'?! Not the strongest of deterrants!
The second common justification is that is 'just' punishment. In other words, regardless of whether it deters, the punishment must match the crime, and therefore murder should be met with death. This might perhaps be seen as providing a 'balance' which can underpin a justice system. Sentances in this view are not only designed to stop future crimes, but really to punish those that are committed. The question one has to ask here is 'qui bono'? What is gained from the death penalty? If the criminal is already removed from society then the menace has been dealt with, and while the costs of a imprisonment are high, the costs of the countless appeal procedures are also not insignificant - and are we to base justice on cost anyway?
It has to be admitted that this counter argument would undermine any notion of punishment that was over and above prevention. If someone promised or could physically not do a crime again, then aside from pure 'punishment' there would be no reason to do anything to them. So punishment of some form, for pure punishment's sake, is needed.
But the death penalty cannot be viewed this way. The notion that the punishment should match the deed fits well into the notions necessary for justice, but in the case of the death penalty, the punishement resembles the deed. It would be to kill because they violated an ideology, which is exactly the viewpoint that Moussaoui would use to justify his attempted murder - America violates his ideology.
If the punishment resembles the crime, then we are back to an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and not only as Ghandi said, might the whole world go blind, but more importantly, it leads to a world of eye gougers and tooth pullers - which is worse, since makes us not only the victims, but the perpetrators of crimes.
An eye for an eye though is perhaps the most honest justfication of the death penalty. Pure, naked, revenge. Desire for revenge often seems a normal response, and as such might be considered 'therapeutic' in some way, and hence justifiable since it might yield some benefit for the society - and help it recover from it's wound. But even on a personal level, while often what we want, revenge is rarely what we need. And on a state level, it most definately isn't so. So while revenge might be the most honest pillar of support for the death penalty, and the one quietly supporting the other justifications, few people would openly admit it, and that alone shows there is something tacitly acknowledged to be wrong about it.
So, in my view in all cases, but especially in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, there is no point, no advantage, and no right in putting him to death, and if we want to deal with such people, we have to look for other punishments.
Unfortunately of course there is often not much to be done with his ilk. Deterrants don't work, no satisfaction comes from punishment, and little is to be gained whatever we do.
But life imprisonment is perhaps the least worst of all options. As a deterrant, it shows that a failed suicide attacker will be left to rot in a cell, and rather than going out with a glorious bang, will die 'with a whimper'. As a punishment, it is in the eyes of those who would do such things definately a terrible one - since it denies them what they most crave. And as a practicality, who knows? Maybe after many years contemplating his and this life, such a person might eventually, with admittedly small possibility, regret what they've done, and see the world otherwise. And as an example and a tool in the war against those who still have such perverted views, this would definately be an asset. So since he wanted death, and sought to end his and other's lives, give him in response, life, without parole.
For 'life, without parole' captures perhaps what such fanatics are most missing, and what any member of modern society has to accept. This life which we're blessed or shackled with depending on your viewpoint, whatever else it is, is a reality, and the only sure way of dealing with it is based on that reality. A suicidal fanatic might be trying to break out of this life, but they only do so because they conceive of another one that they can escape to. Whether suicidal or not, agressive or not, the problem with religious fanaticism is it seeks to portray this life as an inferior and insignificant phase in the midst of a more important and eternal one. And having made this initial leap, they are nothing but logical in wanting to bend the ways of this life, to the (supposed) ways of the other one.
But whether we like it or not, or think it's everything or not, we all have this life sentance, and whether materialist or religious, as long as not extremist, one has to agree that we should do justice to it. That means living it for what it is, and not trying to destroy it in the name of what might come after.
So, by sentancing Moussaoui to life imprisonment, by forcing him to live out both his sentances in entirety, we are truly defending our way of life, against those that wish to destroy it.
Three cheers for the jury in the Moussaoui trial - for one of the more dignified responses to the 911 atrocity.
Here was perhaps the one culprit they actually had in their hands, involved in a terrible crime and part of an even more terrible movement - and yet they managed not to follow their own government in bringing things down to his level.
That the death penalty is considered for any crime I have to admit I consider quite primitive, but in the case of a suicide attacker, it makes no rational as well as no moral sense.
Normally, one of three justifications are given for the death penalty, and in this case especially, none of the three hold water.
Firstly, there is the notion of deterrance - that the ultimate punishment will dissuade all but the most incorrigible villains. However whether something is a punishment or not depends on your world view. For a normal individual to be put to death is perhaps the worst that can happen - but for a suicide attacker? One who not only wanted to die in his attack, but actively looks forward to a paradise that he thinks awaits him if he is killed in his 'war'? Is the message supposed to be 'don't try and kill yourself attacking us, because if you're caught, you'll be killed'?! Not the strongest of deterrants!
The second common justification is that is 'just' punishment. In other words, regardless of whether it deters, the punishment must match the crime, and therefore murder should be met with death. This might perhaps be seen as providing a 'balance' which can underpin a justice system. Sentances in this view are not only designed to stop future crimes, but really to punish those that are committed. The question one has to ask here is 'qui bono'? What is gained from the death penalty? If the criminal is already removed from society then the menace has been dealt with, and while the costs of a imprisonment are high, the costs of the countless appeal procedures are also not insignificant - and are we to base justice on cost anyway?
It has to be admitted that this counter argument would undermine any notion of punishment that was over and above prevention. If someone promised or could physically not do a crime again, then aside from pure 'punishment' there would be no reason to do anything to them. So punishment of some form, for pure punishment's sake, is needed.
But the death penalty cannot be viewed this way. The notion that the punishment should match the deed fits well into the notions necessary for justice, but in the case of the death penalty, the punishement resembles the deed. It would be to kill because they violated an ideology, which is exactly the viewpoint that Moussaoui would use to justify his attempted murder - America violates his ideology.
If the punishment resembles the crime, then we are back to an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and not only as Ghandi said, might the whole world go blind, but more importantly, it leads to a world of eye gougers and tooth pullers - which is worse, since makes us not only the victims, but the perpetrators of crimes.
An eye for an eye though is perhaps the most honest justfication of the death penalty. Pure, naked, revenge. Desire for revenge often seems a normal response, and as such might be considered 'therapeutic' in some way, and hence justifiable since it might yield some benefit for the society - and help it recover from it's wound. But even on a personal level, while often what we want, revenge is rarely what we need. And on a state level, it most definately isn't so. So while revenge might be the most honest pillar of support for the death penalty, and the one quietly supporting the other justifications, few people would openly admit it, and that alone shows there is something tacitly acknowledged to be wrong about it.
So, in my view in all cases, but especially in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, there is no point, no advantage, and no right in putting him to death, and if we want to deal with such people, we have to look for other punishments.
Unfortunately of course there is often not much to be done with his ilk. Deterrants don't work, no satisfaction comes from punishment, and little is to be gained whatever we do.
But life imprisonment is perhaps the least worst of all options. As a deterrant, it shows that a failed suicide attacker will be left to rot in a cell, and rather than going out with a glorious bang, will die 'with a whimper'. As a punishment, it is in the eyes of those who would do such things definately a terrible one - since it denies them what they most crave. And as a practicality, who knows? Maybe after many years contemplating his and this life, such a person might eventually, with admittedly small possibility, regret what they've done, and see the world otherwise. And as an example and a tool in the war against those who still have such perverted views, this would definately be an asset. So since he wanted death, and sought to end his and other's lives, give him in response, life, without parole.
For 'life, without parole' captures perhaps what such fanatics are most missing, and what any member of modern society has to accept. This life which we're blessed or shackled with depending on your viewpoint, whatever else it is, is a reality, and the only sure way of dealing with it is based on that reality. A suicidal fanatic might be trying to break out of this life, but they only do so because they conceive of another one that they can escape to. Whether suicidal or not, agressive or not, the problem with religious fanaticism is it seeks to portray this life as an inferior and insignificant phase in the midst of a more important and eternal one. And having made this initial leap, they are nothing but logical in wanting to bend the ways of this life, to the (supposed) ways of the other one.
But whether we like it or not, or think it's everything or not, we all have this life sentance, and whether materialist or religious, as long as not extremist, one has to agree that we should do justice to it. That means living it for what it is, and not trying to destroy it in the name of what might come after.
So, by sentancing Moussaoui to life imprisonment, by forcing him to live out both his sentances in entirety, we are truly defending our way of life, against those that wish to destroy it.
16 March 'Munich - important issues, but much missing...'
(originally posted 16 March. Reposted here)
I just saw Munich recently, and was disappointed so little was made of what was a tragic yet fascinating event. The murder of the Israeli hostages, and the subsequent hunt and killing of those deemed responsible, showed the depths reached by both sides in this unending conflict. On the one hand there was a radical palestinian faction kidnapping and killing innocent atheletes, on the other was a democratic country deciding to act outside of both it's own and international law, not just for pre-emption, but also for revenge.
One film is of course too short to handle all aspects of any story properly, but even still Spielberg concentrated largely on the actions of one side - Israel. The palestinian side was portrayed mainly from the news bulletin perspective, and apart from a brief speech given by a PLO activist, no insight was given into how they had reached this bloody stage. This is not to dimish the actions of Black September, but just to point out that apart from the basic newsreel facts of what happened, the film gave no insight into why they did what they did.
Which, given the time limitations, is fair enough. Indeed, while it is of course important to understand the actions of reactionary forces which are often alien to us, it is perhaps sometimes more important to examine the action of the governments and societies which they are reacting to/against - since these are our governments, and so their actions are in a small part ours too.
I am not an Israeli, and of course only a handful of Israelis are ultimately involved in choosing such actions as targeted assination, but Isreal as a democratic, modern country, is a member of a club of which we are all members (if we live in non-authoritarian regimes) or at least aspire to be (if we don't), and how one member acts has significance for the club as a whole.
So examining just the Israeli side of things is a worthy exercise, since it tells us about how 'our' kind of countries might act, if the same thing happened to them. This I think explains why sometimes there seems to be a contradiction between how upset some people get about Israeli actions, when those actions while brutal, often pale beside the deeds of some other countries and groups. The reason I think is this sense that it as a country is 'one of us'. NOT in a 'western', Judeo-Chrisitan sense, but as a democratic and modern country. And as 'one of us' we have perhaps stronger feelings on how 'we' should (or would) behave then when confronting appalling acts by groups less easy to identify with. While not perfect, this slightly imbalanced view is actually quite a good way of looking at things - since it focuses on the problems of 'our' systems - and does not just blame everything on incomprehendable 'other' systems. And it will hopefully stop us from destorying our system in the name of preserving it. It is not just 'evil-doers' that cause problems in the world...
So it is fair enough that the film dealt primarily with the Israeli response, doing so by personifying the hunt in the figure of Avner, the leader of one of the assination teams. He was portrayed as having a young family he wanted to protect, being concerned about innocent civilians, and haunted by the thoughts of the atheletes' final moments, all of which can be used as a metaphor for how a leader might feel about a country in times of crisis. However what is of relevence in the Munich incident is not the actions of one man, or even of a radical group, but the conscious adoption of a contorversial (and illegal) policy by a modern country. And when examing a policy it is not enough to simply look at its background and execution as one might do when trying to understand or judge a man's actions. Instead, with a policy, what is of more importance is not where it comes from, but where it leads to, and this was not properly covered by the film. What is so confusing about this is there was one very clear tragic consequence of Operation Bayonet, the killing of an innocent waiter by another Israeli team, which was blaringly conspicious by its absence. Whatever about the justification - punishment, revenge or pre-emption - in extra-judicially killing the members of Black September, there is no doubt possible that the killing of an innocent waiter who had nothing to do with it is also a tragic and critically important element to the whole Munich story. Even if we grant a death penalty is needed, and even if the guilt of those involved can be decided without using the normal legal processes, then there is still the looming question of whether it is better that one innocent man dies than 10 guilty men live. To me the fact that the film ignored this issue makes it fundamentally flawed. What is most concerning about this is the fact that most people will only know the Munich incident through the film - and at a time when shoot-to-kill and pre-emptive policies are current issues - this is downright irresponsible.
I just saw Munich recently, and was disappointed so little was made of what was a tragic yet fascinating event. The murder of the Israeli hostages, and the subsequent hunt and killing of those deemed responsible, showed the depths reached by both sides in this unending conflict. On the one hand there was a radical palestinian faction kidnapping and killing innocent atheletes, on the other was a democratic country deciding to act outside of both it's own and international law, not just for pre-emption, but also for revenge.
One film is of course too short to handle all aspects of any story properly, but even still Spielberg concentrated largely on the actions of one side - Israel. The palestinian side was portrayed mainly from the news bulletin perspective, and apart from a brief speech given by a PLO activist, no insight was given into how they had reached this bloody stage. This is not to dimish the actions of Black September, but just to point out that apart from the basic newsreel facts of what happened, the film gave no insight into why they did what they did.
Which, given the time limitations, is fair enough. Indeed, while it is of course important to understand the actions of reactionary forces which are often alien to us, it is perhaps sometimes more important to examine the action of the governments and societies which they are reacting to/against - since these are our governments, and so their actions are in a small part ours too.
I am not an Israeli, and of course only a handful of Israelis are ultimately involved in choosing such actions as targeted assination, but Isreal as a democratic, modern country, is a member of a club of which we are all members (if we live in non-authoritarian regimes) or at least aspire to be (if we don't), and how one member acts has significance for the club as a whole.
So examining just the Israeli side of things is a worthy exercise, since it tells us about how 'our' kind of countries might act, if the same thing happened to them. This I think explains why sometimes there seems to be a contradiction between how upset some people get about Israeli actions, when those actions while brutal, often pale beside the deeds of some other countries and groups. The reason I think is this sense that it as a country is 'one of us'. NOT in a 'western', Judeo-Chrisitan sense, but as a democratic and modern country. And as 'one of us' we have perhaps stronger feelings on how 'we' should (or would) behave then when confronting appalling acts by groups less easy to identify with. While not perfect, this slightly imbalanced view is actually quite a good way of looking at things - since it focuses on the problems of 'our' systems - and does not just blame everything on incomprehendable 'other' systems. And it will hopefully stop us from destorying our system in the name of preserving it. It is not just 'evil-doers' that cause problems in the world...
So it is fair enough that the film dealt primarily with the Israeli response, doing so by personifying the hunt in the figure of Avner, the leader of one of the assination teams. He was portrayed as having a young family he wanted to protect, being concerned about innocent civilians, and haunted by the thoughts of the atheletes' final moments, all of which can be used as a metaphor for how a leader might feel about a country in times of crisis. However what is of relevence in the Munich incident is not the actions of one man, or even of a radical group, but the conscious adoption of a contorversial (and illegal) policy by a modern country. And when examing a policy it is not enough to simply look at its background and execution as one might do when trying to understand or judge a man's actions. Instead, with a policy, what is of more importance is not where it comes from, but where it leads to, and this was not properly covered by the film. What is so confusing about this is there was one very clear tragic consequence of Operation Bayonet, the killing of an innocent waiter by another Israeli team, which was blaringly conspicious by its absence. Whatever about the justification - punishment, revenge or pre-emption - in extra-judicially killing the members of Black September, there is no doubt possible that the killing of an innocent waiter who had nothing to do with it is also a tragic and critically important element to the whole Munich story. Even if we grant a death penalty is needed, and even if the guilt of those involved can be decided without using the normal legal processes, then there is still the looming question of whether it is better that one innocent man dies than 10 guilty men live. To me the fact that the film ignored this issue makes it fundamentally flawed. What is most concerning about this is the fact that most people will only know the Munich incident through the film - and at a time when shoot-to-kill and pre-emptive policies are current issues - this is downright irresponsible.
12 March 'cultures don't clash, fundamentalists do...'
(originally posted 12 March. reposted here)
Going back to the 'cartoon controversy' - there was an interesting article on it by Karren Armstrong in the Guardian on saturday
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1728649,00.html
She made the very good point that what was involved was not just one set of sacred values, but two. Of course there was the sacredness which Muslims attribute to the prophet, but on the supposed 'other' side there was also the sacred value of free speech, which being considered by some people in some societies to be unassailable or inviolable, is in practice just as 'sacred' as any religious concept.
"The sacred symbolises that which is inviolable, nonnegotiable, and so central to our identity that, when it is injured in any way, it seems to vitiate the deepest self."
The notion that these issues were 'central to our identity' explains how passions were raised, and then easily inflamed. People on both sides seemed to feel there was a need to 'defend' their values, indicating an underlying assumption that these values were under attack, and implying they are somehow in opposition to those held by the others. This idea of an 'attack' on core values, things which define a society and its people, is what is being ascribed to in the oft repeated catchphrase of a 'clash' of civilizations or cultures.
Of course, what has to be admitted from the start, is a true clash of cultures is indeed possible. If two cultures have differing opinions not merely on how people should behave, but on how they should be made behave, then there is indeed going to be a conflict as soon as these cultures interact, and one with little hope of reconciliation. What is important and necessary however is the element of coercion, the idea that the values are not something to be aspired to but also imposed on others, and hence makes it logically impossible that the two different value systems can co-exist. People can't be forced to do two different things.
But what must also be realised is for there to be society at all some values must be imposed on its members. As I mentioned before, true freedom is freedom only to do the things that matter, not a licence to do anything. In western society no one doubts that people should be forced to obey certain laws, and prevented from and punished for breaking them. The value of an individual's freedom of action does not extend to the freedom to steal and kill others. This imposition of values is not merely a relativist preference, but a prequisite for there to be this society at all, and something to be defended without compromise, if it is indeed under attack.
But is it? Are there immovable tenets of Western society in conflict with another, different, 'Islamic' society? First of all it is not clear what this supposed supra-entity of Islamic society is supposed to be exactly, nor for that matter, the Western one. Both 'societies' encompass a multitude of different races, religions and political systems - and in many areas overlap. And the fact that they overlap shows that they cannot be so incompatible.
The conflict, if any, comes not from a clash of radically different cultures, but radical elements within those cultures. It is fundamentalism in cultures, not their founding values, that is the main cause of conflict, and a source of concern for all those involved.
For me 'fundamentalist' implies not merely taking a set of values extremely seriously, but imposing those values on others. There is a switch in emphasis from the personal to the communal. Values are no longer sacred rules which grant the individual merit if he/she obeys them, but rather which grant merit if the individual contributes to them being obeyed. Fundamentalists are extroverted in that they get involved in the affairs of others. Of course, to some extent we are all fundamentalists to the extent that we would help or at least support the upholding of the law even if we ourselves were not affected by the particular crime. But the pragmatic reason for this is that as part of a society which does better if criminality is kept down, we are all affected by any crime. If the criminal gets away with something this time, then it might encourage others to act similarly, and next time we might be the victim. So there are valid practical reasons for sometimes imposing our values on others, even if it doesn't directly concern us. But the element of 'fundamentalism' I'm trying to get at is when this imposition has no practical value, and is done for idealogical reasons.
It would seem religious values are the most susceptible to this. Perhaps because in a way punishing or preventing immoral acts is seen as doing a service in the name of the religion, and hence providing kudos in the eyes of the deity (which has to be a good thing in such matters). But to me this is the ultimate in arrogance. Any notion of a deity implies something at least more powerful than oneself, and if one has to act on its behalf, then it suggests the deity needs the help of the individual, something which is not only arrogant, but ultimately illogical. If a God needs me to act on His behalf, then He is not much of a God. In addition it causes problems for the whole notion of moral guilt. If a person is to be judged by his actions, then how can he be judged if his actions are forced by others? In the example of the cartoons of the prophet - does the prophet need to be protected from people drawing his caricature? Those who follow him may not want to offend him - but surely it only makes logical sense to be sure that they don't, or condone those who do. To imply a deity needs to be protected from offence is in my view more a slur on the deity than the offence itself.
But I think the people protesting against the cartoons were not driven by mere demands that their values not be broken. Aside from an inflaming radical element I think that the majority around the world were demanding rather that their values be respected, which is something else. Given the tensions in the world I think a large part of the anger was (I hope) due mainly to a perceived attack on what they hold dear, not anger that others don't act the same way, and hence not a sign of ideological imperialism.
Of course secularists can impose their values ideologically as well, meaning doing so when there is no practical reason or tangible benefit. It may be an imposition of values to force all women to wear a headscarf, but in my view it is also an imposition to forbid them to do so if they wish. In my opinion, the laws banning religious symbolism in France do not serve a clear purpose, except to target religion per se, and this is an ideological manoeuvere, not a practical one. An article of clothing is only banned if it is a a religious symbol - but unless they can be shown to have a clear negative impact on society (as for example a swastika might be, given its connotations) there is no reason to ban them as such, even in limited areas such as public buildings. In this case I think it is even counterproductive, since symbols are only significant to society at large if they are made so. Turbans and headscarves, skull caps and crucifixes only have significance to those who don't wear them if they are hyped to believe them as meaningful symbols, symbols that say something to them. Otherwise how could they matter? Banning them, drawing attention to them, ironically draws attention to them and makes them bones of contention. On an aside, from a technical point of view it could be argued that since symbols are only symbols to those who believe in them, then judging someone else's symbols is impossible. To you it might be a crucifix, if I am not a Christian it's just a piece of wood. And if it is to me a piece of wood - how can I justify banning it?
So in all areas, we can have fundamentalism, and in all areas I think it is dangerous. It is dangerous because it replaces how society needs people to behave with notions of how they should behave which are divorced from practical concerns. And if they are not defensible on practical grounds, then they are not defensible at all.
Without this fundementalist attitude, quite different views on how people should live can be accomodated under an umbrella society of how they at the very least must live. This is what happens anyway in all societies, most of all in modern democratic ones, where differing opinions are tolerated as long as they don't interrupt the functioning of that society.
The onus of toleration is perhaps more on the majority,since they are the ones with the power to do most damage, but a minority has also to be careful never to define themselves in opposition to others, as is a often a natural reaction of solidarity when times get hard.
This is not to blame any minority for being different, and imply they must 'integrate', but rather to say that that difference must be compatible with the society formed by everyone together. Compatible in the sense of not preventing its functioning, and radical extremists aside, that so far seems to be the case. Sadly even perceived difference, and perceived self-isolation can quickly lead to escalating tensions. Europe stands with the worst of them in terms of how it has often tolerated minorities, and as the perhaps very worst in what it eventually led to. The West has taught the world some terrible lessons, but that means we have also had the best opportunity to learn from them.
Going back to the 'cartoon controversy' - there was an interesting article on it by Karren Armstrong in the Guardian on saturday
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1728649,00.html
She made the very good point that what was involved was not just one set of sacred values, but two. Of course there was the sacredness which Muslims attribute to the prophet, but on the supposed 'other' side there was also the sacred value of free speech, which being considered by some people in some societies to be unassailable or inviolable, is in practice just as 'sacred' as any religious concept.
"The sacred symbolises that which is inviolable, nonnegotiable, and so central to our identity that, when it is injured in any way, it seems to vitiate the deepest self."
The notion that these issues were 'central to our identity' explains how passions were raised, and then easily inflamed. People on both sides seemed to feel there was a need to 'defend' their values, indicating an underlying assumption that these values were under attack, and implying they are somehow in opposition to those held by the others. This idea of an 'attack' on core values, things which define a society and its people, is what is being ascribed to in the oft repeated catchphrase of a 'clash' of civilizations or cultures.
Of course, what has to be admitted from the start, is a true clash of cultures is indeed possible. If two cultures have differing opinions not merely on how people should behave, but on how they should be made behave, then there is indeed going to be a conflict as soon as these cultures interact, and one with little hope of reconciliation. What is important and necessary however is the element of coercion, the idea that the values are not something to be aspired to but also imposed on others, and hence makes it logically impossible that the two different value systems can co-exist. People can't be forced to do two different things.
But what must also be realised is for there to be society at all some values must be imposed on its members. As I mentioned before, true freedom is freedom only to do the things that matter, not a licence to do anything. In western society no one doubts that people should be forced to obey certain laws, and prevented from and punished for breaking them. The value of an individual's freedom of action does not extend to the freedom to steal and kill others. This imposition of values is not merely a relativist preference, but a prequisite for there to be this society at all, and something to be defended without compromise, if it is indeed under attack.
But is it? Are there immovable tenets of Western society in conflict with another, different, 'Islamic' society? First of all it is not clear what this supposed supra-entity of Islamic society is supposed to be exactly, nor for that matter, the Western one. Both 'societies' encompass a multitude of different races, religions and political systems - and in many areas overlap. And the fact that they overlap shows that they cannot be so incompatible.
The conflict, if any, comes not from a clash of radically different cultures, but radical elements within those cultures. It is fundamentalism in cultures, not their founding values, that is the main cause of conflict, and a source of concern for all those involved.
For me 'fundamentalist' implies not merely taking a set of values extremely seriously, but imposing those values on others. There is a switch in emphasis from the personal to the communal. Values are no longer sacred rules which grant the individual merit if he/she obeys them, but rather which grant merit if the individual contributes to them being obeyed. Fundamentalists are extroverted in that they get involved in the affairs of others. Of course, to some extent we are all fundamentalists to the extent that we would help or at least support the upholding of the law even if we ourselves were not affected by the particular crime. But the pragmatic reason for this is that as part of a society which does better if criminality is kept down, we are all affected by any crime. If the criminal gets away with something this time, then it might encourage others to act similarly, and next time we might be the victim. So there are valid practical reasons for sometimes imposing our values on others, even if it doesn't directly concern us. But the element of 'fundamentalism' I'm trying to get at is when this imposition has no practical value, and is done for idealogical reasons.
It would seem religious values are the most susceptible to this. Perhaps because in a way punishing or preventing immoral acts is seen as doing a service in the name of the religion, and hence providing kudos in the eyes of the deity (which has to be a good thing in such matters). But to me this is the ultimate in arrogance. Any notion of a deity implies something at least more powerful than oneself, and if one has to act on its behalf, then it suggests the deity needs the help of the individual, something which is not only arrogant, but ultimately illogical. If a God needs me to act on His behalf, then He is not much of a God. In addition it causes problems for the whole notion of moral guilt. If a person is to be judged by his actions, then how can he be judged if his actions are forced by others? In the example of the cartoons of the prophet - does the prophet need to be protected from people drawing his caricature? Those who follow him may not want to offend him - but surely it only makes logical sense to be sure that they don't, or condone those who do. To imply a deity needs to be protected from offence is in my view more a slur on the deity than the offence itself.
But I think the people protesting against the cartoons were not driven by mere demands that their values not be broken. Aside from an inflaming radical element I think that the majority around the world were demanding rather that their values be respected, which is something else. Given the tensions in the world I think a large part of the anger was (I hope) due mainly to a perceived attack on what they hold dear, not anger that others don't act the same way, and hence not a sign of ideological imperialism.
Of course secularists can impose their values ideologically as well, meaning doing so when there is no practical reason or tangible benefit. It may be an imposition of values to force all women to wear a headscarf, but in my view it is also an imposition to forbid them to do so if they wish. In my opinion, the laws banning religious symbolism in France do not serve a clear purpose, except to target religion per se, and this is an ideological manoeuvere, not a practical one. An article of clothing is only banned if it is a a religious symbol - but unless they can be shown to have a clear negative impact on society (as for example a swastika might be, given its connotations) there is no reason to ban them as such, even in limited areas such as public buildings. In this case I think it is even counterproductive, since symbols are only significant to society at large if they are made so. Turbans and headscarves, skull caps and crucifixes only have significance to those who don't wear them if they are hyped to believe them as meaningful symbols, symbols that say something to them. Otherwise how could they matter? Banning them, drawing attention to them, ironically draws attention to them and makes them bones of contention. On an aside, from a technical point of view it could be argued that since symbols are only symbols to those who believe in them, then judging someone else's symbols is impossible. To you it might be a crucifix, if I am not a Christian it's just a piece of wood. And if it is to me a piece of wood - how can I justify banning it?
So in all areas, we can have fundamentalism, and in all areas I think it is dangerous. It is dangerous because it replaces how society needs people to behave with notions of how they should behave which are divorced from practical concerns. And if they are not defensible on practical grounds, then they are not defensible at all.
Without this fundementalist attitude, quite different views on how people should live can be accomodated under an umbrella society of how they at the very least must live. This is what happens anyway in all societies, most of all in modern democratic ones, where differing opinions are tolerated as long as they don't interrupt the functioning of that society.
The onus of toleration is perhaps more on the majority,since they are the ones with the power to do most damage, but a minority has also to be careful never to define themselves in opposition to others, as is a often a natural reaction of solidarity when times get hard.
This is not to blame any minority for being different, and imply they must 'integrate', but rather to say that that difference must be compatible with the society formed by everyone together. Compatible in the sense of not preventing its functioning, and radical extremists aside, that so far seems to be the case. Sadly even perceived difference, and perceived self-isolation can quickly lead to escalating tensions. Europe stands with the worst of them in terms of how it has often tolerated minorities, and as the perhaps very worst in what it eventually led to. The West has taught the world some terrible lessons, but that means we have also had the best opportunity to learn from them.
5 March 'naturally good? not necessarily'
(originally posted 5 March, reposted here)
Although it was broadcast a few weeks ago, finally got around to watching the last episode of BBC2's "Alternative Medicine - the evidence", on herbalism.
(http://www.open2.net/alternativemedicine/programme3.html)
For me the debate about herbalism is more than just a simple question of whether certain herbs have medicinal effect or not, but also says something about how science fits in to our modern society, in people's perceptions, and in practice.
While people are right to be always a bit sceptical about all claims, scientific or otherwise, I find it worrying that in the area of health people are often so ready to think that something which is not manufactured is therefore more 'natural' and thus always better.
Being honest, I find 'natural' an oft abused and even incoherent concept. Not everything on this planet has always existed, or at least in it's current shape and form, so what is 'natural' will always have an element of parochial prejudice about it - what is natural for us might have been modern for previous ages, and so on. Natural in the sense of 'naturally occuring' is perhaps what is generally meant, but this hides an important shift in emphasis from what something is, to where it comes from. Any chemical, especially a medicine, must be judged by what it is, and more specifically how it behaves, rather than by where it comes from. Just because something is produced in a lab does not make it bad, in fact it is more often than not a purified and carefully controlled version of something first seen in nature. Nor is something good simply because it is 'found' in nature - as the many naturally occuring poisons and toxins show. The poppy gives us morphine, but can also be heroine. 'Natural' can be beneficial and dangerous at the same time.
That doesn't mean I always think artificial is best. For example in the realm of nutrition, I am often of the opinion that supplements etc. cannot compare with eating the plants that contain the substances being copied. But this is not because the substances are somehow more 'natural' in the plants, the substance is the same whether created in a lab or a lettuce, but I am not convinced that all the necessary substances are being supplemented, or that their combinational effect is the same as in the plant.
With nutrition, there are very good reasons why the thing itself can be relied upon - because our bodies have adapted to use the plant, and therefore the two are perfectly matched. Of course it is in theory possible to make supplements that provide everything without the hassle of eating a lettuce, but given the likelihood that something is being lost, it's easier to just have a salad.
Similarly it is possible that a supplement might be actually better than what is found in the plant - and some how 'hyper-stimulate' some beneficial function, but the odds are against it. Our gut has been doing trials with the lettuce for millenia, longer than any lab has been going.
However there is an important reason why this argument does not apply to medicine. The fact that for most of our history we had to survive on unprocessed plants necessarily shows we are adapted to live off these plants. If we weren't, we wouldn't be here. The same reasoning cannot be applied to the use of plants in medicine, since there is not the evolutionary dependence involved. Non-instinctive usage of herbs must rely on the existence of culture, and even language, which does not leave enough evolutionary time available. Given in addition the isolation of original cultures, even from a cultural evolutionary perspective this is unfeasible. While it might be possible that the usage of plant X consistently in a group might favour a gene pool which had positive reactions to plant X, the time and isolation of groups in earlier history would make it highly unlikely that the same gene pressure would exist in humanity at large. An example of how different groups handle natural substances differently is lactose intolerance - which while widespread throughout humanity is more predominant in certain ethnic groups, groups which in there history did not perhaps rely on dairy products as much as for example Europeans. Even with foodstuffs, while there are plenty of very beneficial plants out there, it is science and research more than human tradition which tells us nowadays which of them are most beneficial. For a long time red meat was traditionally seen as a healthier, supperior food, but this was largely due to its relative expense, and the assumption that the more something cost the better it was. There is more to our co-evolution with our food than human tradition can tell us alone.
And of course it it can be said that the very point of medicines is to counteract what might be viewed as 'natural' events - sickness and ultimately death are the most natural things describable - all part of the cycle of life. But in medicine mankind is trying to 'improve' on nature i.e. change the course of nature to something it thinks is 'better' - namely longer and healthier life. When people talk about preferring a 'natural' birth, they should realise that 'naturally' 75% of children wouldn't reach adulthood. What is very very natural in this case could hardly be considered 'good' by anyone. The evolutionary cycle only helps us long enough to reproduce. For things after or outside of this, we must often turn to our own devices.
There are 2 types of medicine, that which works, and that which doesn't
This is of course not to deny that some herbs work, perhaps in some cases better than currently available modern medicines. But the point which worries me is that people often forget they are not better because they are herbs, but they are better if they can be shown to work, and without side effects. And if a herb is studied and understood to the point which this happens, then it can (and should) be artificially reproduced, its dosages controlled, and it become a cure. Until that happens it is NOT a cure, but a 'guess' at one....perhaps an informed guess, based on tradition, but a guess nonetheless. For me medicines mean substances which have been scientifically shown to be real cures, if not perfect or absolute ones.
The basic point is that for something to be a true medicine, something which we should use on ourselves to improve our health, it has to be known (i.e. shown) to have a positive effect. And 'tradition' while a good indicator of starting points for research, is on it's own not a reliable enough source of knowledge, especially since if something is strong enough to have an effect, it is strong enough to have a bad effect (and if it is not strong enough to have an effect, there is no point in taking it).
And of course what is a 'good' effect is something that must be objectively decided, and the only way to do this is by trials which study the changes, both regarding the ailment to be cured, and any possible side effects. Of course this applies to modern drugs as well, which is why there are such trials. But in the case of modern drugs there is much more regulation, not least because the companies behind them can be sued. Perhaps it is the lack of legal responsibility ('Nature' can't be sued) that leads to the lack of such rigourous regulation in the herbal area....though there are no health-related reasons why there should not be. Anything is dangerous if not studied, regardless where it comes from.
Some work, so why so many neglected?
The most interesting thing that arose for me out of the programme, was not the fact that herbalism is on the rise in the modern world, but that the whole area seemed to be so neglected by modern research. One would have thought that if there are some herbs which have some promising effects, then it would be in the interests of both society and industry to study and isolate, and commercialize the active ingredients. First of all there is a very real danger that active substances are being supplied and consumed with out real knowledge about how and why they work. Second of all, and more tragic and incomprehensible, is how many possible new leads in not only substances but how their combinations function, is being ignored.
There are two possible and depressing reasons which might contribute to this state of affairs. Firstly, proper research is such a costly and time consuming exercise, that the bulk of it is probably only done by well financed sources, namely the pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the necessary sums will only be invested if the returns will be profitable. This means it will always be the big western conditions which will be targetted primarily, since it is this market which will fork out for the final products. In addition, most herbal remedies do not claim or seem to be particularly strong - and a lot held by 'mild relief' from symptoms for everyday annoyances rather than life-threatening diseases - and it might be that such ills do not generate the necessary revenue. While there is commercial potential for a drug that 'completely' relieves pain - is there the same market for ones that 'slightly' relieve symptoms? Perhaps, but the business case is not as strong - if i have a debilitating headache I am likely to pay more than if I have a midly irritating rash.
But some herbal claims do target really important diseases - in the programme there was an example of a herb in South Africe being (seemingly successfully) used to care for AIDS patients. So why are such herbs being heavily researched? The second reason, also quite skeptical, is that perhap there is not the same potential for 'owning' a natural remedy if one spends a lot of time and money showing it to be effective. It is understandable that big business won't basically waste it's money on studying how good something is that can be found outside everyone's door....but it is less understandable why society as whole doesn't.
Although it was broadcast a few weeks ago, finally got around to watching the last episode of BBC2's "Alternative Medicine - the evidence", on herbalism.
(http://www.open2.net/alternativemedicine/programme3.html)
For me the debate about herbalism is more than just a simple question of whether certain herbs have medicinal effect or not, but also says something about how science fits in to our modern society, in people's perceptions, and in practice.
While people are right to be always a bit sceptical about all claims, scientific or otherwise, I find it worrying that in the area of health people are often so ready to think that something which is not manufactured is therefore more 'natural' and thus always better.
Being honest, I find 'natural' an oft abused and even incoherent concept. Not everything on this planet has always existed, or at least in it's current shape and form, so what is 'natural' will always have an element of parochial prejudice about it - what is natural for us might have been modern for previous ages, and so on. Natural in the sense of 'naturally occuring' is perhaps what is generally meant, but this hides an important shift in emphasis from what something is, to where it comes from. Any chemical, especially a medicine, must be judged by what it is, and more specifically how it behaves, rather than by where it comes from. Just because something is produced in a lab does not make it bad, in fact it is more often than not a purified and carefully controlled version of something first seen in nature. Nor is something good simply because it is 'found' in nature - as the many naturally occuring poisons and toxins show. The poppy gives us morphine, but can also be heroine. 'Natural' can be beneficial and dangerous at the same time.
That doesn't mean I always think artificial is best. For example in the realm of nutrition, I am often of the opinion that supplements etc. cannot compare with eating the plants that contain the substances being copied. But this is not because the substances are somehow more 'natural' in the plants, the substance is the same whether created in a lab or a lettuce, but I am not convinced that all the necessary substances are being supplemented, or that their combinational effect is the same as in the plant.
With nutrition, there are very good reasons why the thing itself can be relied upon - because our bodies have adapted to use the plant, and therefore the two are perfectly matched. Of course it is in theory possible to make supplements that provide everything without the hassle of eating a lettuce, but given the likelihood that something is being lost, it's easier to just have a salad.
Similarly it is possible that a supplement might be actually better than what is found in the plant - and some how 'hyper-stimulate' some beneficial function, but the odds are against it. Our gut has been doing trials with the lettuce for millenia, longer than any lab has been going.
However there is an important reason why this argument does not apply to medicine. The fact that for most of our history we had to survive on unprocessed plants necessarily shows we are adapted to live off these plants. If we weren't, we wouldn't be here. The same reasoning cannot be applied to the use of plants in medicine, since there is not the evolutionary dependence involved. Non-instinctive usage of herbs must rely on the existence of culture, and even language, which does not leave enough evolutionary time available. Given in addition the isolation of original cultures, even from a cultural evolutionary perspective this is unfeasible. While it might be possible that the usage of plant X consistently in a group might favour a gene pool which had positive reactions to plant X, the time and isolation of groups in earlier history would make it highly unlikely that the same gene pressure would exist in humanity at large. An example of how different groups handle natural substances differently is lactose intolerance - which while widespread throughout humanity is more predominant in certain ethnic groups, groups which in there history did not perhaps rely on dairy products as much as for example Europeans. Even with foodstuffs, while there are plenty of very beneficial plants out there, it is science and research more than human tradition which tells us nowadays which of them are most beneficial. For a long time red meat was traditionally seen as a healthier, supperior food, but this was largely due to its relative expense, and the assumption that the more something cost the better it was. There is more to our co-evolution with our food than human tradition can tell us alone.
And of course it it can be said that the very point of medicines is to counteract what might be viewed as 'natural' events - sickness and ultimately death are the most natural things describable - all part of the cycle of life. But in medicine mankind is trying to 'improve' on nature i.e. change the course of nature to something it thinks is 'better' - namely longer and healthier life. When people talk about preferring a 'natural' birth, they should realise that 'naturally' 75% of children wouldn't reach adulthood. What is very very natural in this case could hardly be considered 'good' by anyone. The evolutionary cycle only helps us long enough to reproduce. For things after or outside of this, we must often turn to our own devices.
There are 2 types of medicine, that which works, and that which doesn't
This is of course not to deny that some herbs work, perhaps in some cases better than currently available modern medicines. But the point which worries me is that people often forget they are not better because they are herbs, but they are better if they can be shown to work, and without side effects. And if a herb is studied and understood to the point which this happens, then it can (and should) be artificially reproduced, its dosages controlled, and it become a cure. Until that happens it is NOT a cure, but a 'guess' at one....perhaps an informed guess, based on tradition, but a guess nonetheless. For me medicines mean substances which have been scientifically shown to be real cures, if not perfect or absolute ones.
The basic point is that for something to be a true medicine, something which we should use on ourselves to improve our health, it has to be known (i.e. shown) to have a positive effect. And 'tradition' while a good indicator of starting points for research, is on it's own not a reliable enough source of knowledge, especially since if something is strong enough to have an effect, it is strong enough to have a bad effect (and if it is not strong enough to have an effect, there is no point in taking it).
And of course what is a 'good' effect is something that must be objectively decided, and the only way to do this is by trials which study the changes, both regarding the ailment to be cured, and any possible side effects. Of course this applies to modern drugs as well, which is why there are such trials. But in the case of modern drugs there is much more regulation, not least because the companies behind them can be sued. Perhaps it is the lack of legal responsibility ('Nature' can't be sued) that leads to the lack of such rigourous regulation in the herbal area....though there are no health-related reasons why there should not be. Anything is dangerous if not studied, regardless where it comes from.
Some work, so why so many neglected?
The most interesting thing that arose for me out of the programme, was not the fact that herbalism is on the rise in the modern world, but that the whole area seemed to be so neglected by modern research. One would have thought that if there are some herbs which have some promising effects, then it would be in the interests of both society and industry to study and isolate, and commercialize the active ingredients. First of all there is a very real danger that active substances are being supplied and consumed with out real knowledge about how and why they work. Second of all, and more tragic and incomprehensible, is how many possible new leads in not only substances but how their combinations function, is being ignored.
There are two possible and depressing reasons which might contribute to this state of affairs. Firstly, proper research is such a costly and time consuming exercise, that the bulk of it is probably only done by well financed sources, namely the pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the necessary sums will only be invested if the returns will be profitable. This means it will always be the big western conditions which will be targetted primarily, since it is this market which will fork out for the final products. In addition, most herbal remedies do not claim or seem to be particularly strong - and a lot held by 'mild relief' from symptoms for everyday annoyances rather than life-threatening diseases - and it might be that such ills do not generate the necessary revenue. While there is commercial potential for a drug that 'completely' relieves pain - is there the same market for ones that 'slightly' relieve symptoms? Perhaps, but the business case is not as strong - if i have a debilitating headache I am likely to pay more than if I have a midly irritating rash.
But some herbal claims do target really important diseases - in the programme there was an example of a herb in South Africe being (seemingly successfully) used to care for AIDS patients. So why are such herbs being heavily researched? The second reason, also quite skeptical, is that perhap there is not the same potential for 'owning' a natural remedy if one spends a lot of time and money showing it to be effective. It is understandable that big business won't basically waste it's money on studying how good something is that can be found outside everyone's door....but it is less understandable why society as whole doesn't.
22 Feb 'free speech in europe'?
(originally posted 22 Feb. reposted here)
Freedom of speech was in the news again this week, in this instance an example of how it is sometimes restricted in Europe, as David Irving was jailed in Austria charged on Holocaust Denial charges.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html
and of course the other week Abu Hamza was jailed on charges relating to incitement to racial hatred.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1704625,00.html
Given the recent protestations about freedom of speech, it might be asked if this is an example of European hypocrisy,since attacks on Muslim tradition are defended, whereas attacks on European/Jewish history are prosecuted?
The answer is no, but some people might at first think otherwise, because 'freedom of expression' is not really as it sounds, at least not at the moment.
Despite being much touted recently, in European countries there is most definately not absolute freedom of speech. Just as we are free in our actions only as long as we don't harm others, similarly we are only free in our words in similar way. So there are actually two questions involved. The first, which is not what I want to address at the moment, is whether any restriction on freedom of expression is ultimately justified. I am inclined to the view that while it is abhorrent to think that preachers of hatred and lies should be allowed spew their vitriol unchecked,there are strong philosophical arguments that any form of censorship is indefensible, even on practical grounds. Having certain things that cannot be said assumes that there is a general agreement about these things - and (more importantly) yields a power of suppression to government which can always be seen as the thin end of the wedge.
However there is also the fact that in a society absolute freedom is actually impossible. To be free to do anything does not broaden our possibilities, but rather limits them, since it exposes the individual to the ambitions and cruelties of others, and makes impossible the interdependent structures which provide more than could ever be achieved by even the strongest on their own.
To be free to attain the things that matter, to make those things possible, requires giving up some freedoms which are less important. To be free to accumulate wealth I must give up the freedom to try and take that wealth from others, since in doing so I am protected from them doing the same to me. Thus there is no such thing as total freedom possible, only a limited freedom, but one that encompasses the things that can be considered important and attainable.
This is why it is not a contradiction to call a 'free' society one where there are indeed limitations and restrictions, defined by law, and imposed by the state. Since violence and crime generally prevent people going about their business, the freedom to do these things is part of the freedom that has to be given up in order that we can be free in other ways. In my view there is no arguing against this, at least as far as actions are concerned.
However, in line with restricting actions, which can be easily seen to affect society directly, there are also restrictions on what we say, which can be viewed as affecting society indirectly. Whether this is ultimately the best course of action is debatable, but I won't get into it here. Perhaps it is not the ideal reaction, but it admittedly might be a necessary one. There is no doubt that one person can through words incite a group to do more harm than he/she could ever do on their own.
So let's grant this for the moment, which leads us to the second question, the one I want to deal with here. That is, are the restrictions or lack of them, as evidenced in the media recently, coherent, or do they reveal bias and hypocrisy?
To answer this we must keep in mind why any restriction is necessary - to allow society to function and to facilitate the freedom we really need. Hence, just as the actions which are prohibited are largely those which cause physical damage to person or property, so could this be logically extended to any comments that result in such damage.
In the case of Abu Hamza this seems to be the case. Examples of the charges on which he was convicted were "soliciting/encouragment to murder" and "using words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred", and this means his comments were seen as potentially causing injury and even death to innocent people.
It might be argued that he did not personally kill or harm anyone and should not be responsible for the actions of others, and in addition that the crimes he is blamed for were 'potential' crimes, and that in our society we do not punish people for crimes that 'might' occur, however likely. However, it needs to be realised that in terms of intent and effect, pulling the trigger of a gun (which fires the bullet, which hits the body, which kills the man) is in the same class of 'action' as convincing someone to go out and get a gun (and pull the trigger, to fire the bullet...) The intent of his actions was that people would be killed. The effect of his actions is that people most probably would be. It is not that he is being punished by crimes that have not yet occurred, but for crimes which have not yet completed. People might not have yet been harmed/killed, but the chain of events which he wilfully initiated, was underway. In this way it is no different to pulling the trigger but being caught before managing to hit the target.
The Irving case is different however. Denying the holocaust, while objectionable for obvious reasons, can not easily be shown to lead to direct physical injury. The fact of the holocaust has to be accepted given the scientific and logical reasoning we accept in society (and need to accept for there to be that society) - but ignoring that reasoning cannot be a crime in itself. To deny what can be shown to be historical fact is stupid, and in cases like this undeniably malicious, but can not be considered to be in principle a cause of harm. Indeed, the world is full of people with their own particular views of history (religious or otherwise) which might validly be considered logically or scientifically mistaken - but we do not (and should not) make this a crime as such.
So I think the general theory that supports some restriction of free speech cannot support jailing Irving.
But not all laws stem from grand philosophical principles, and a lot of them, instead come about to tackle particular problems. The laws under which Irving was prosecuted I think are an example of this - because there was (and perhaps still is) a very real need to stamp out holocaust denial, not because of the act of denial of history itself, but of the specific circumstances.
The holocaust was such a traumatic event in the Europe's history that there are lessons which must not be forgotten, and while in an ideal society lies would be ignored, the unfortunate fact is that in the modern world they can cause real damage. In order for society to progress it might sometimes be necessary to draw a line under some debates so that we can all move on.
I would think that this logic could be applied to Irvings case, and that it could be argued that the issue of the holocaust for Europe (and especially Austria) is just too important to let it continue to be questioned, because there is a very real problem that such questioning inflames and destabilizes society.
The main point however is that Irving's prosecution can not be viewed as part of a general restriction on free speech, but a particular reaction to a particular problem, which happens to limit free speech. This itself is of course something which can (and I think should) be evaluated...but not here.
So finally what about the cartoons of the prophet? There is obviously in Europe no specific law against such caricatures, no specific prohibition as for Holocaust denial, so they are not related to the Irving case.
But should they have been stopped by the more general restrictions on free speech? Restrictions deemed necessary because they prevent injury and destruction? While both have resulted from their publication, I think the cartoons themselves, and the intent to publish them, cannot be shown to be responsible, either directly or indirectly. There was nothing in them that could in principle be seen as a cause of physical attack on person or property.
Of course they did cause a kind of damage, namely a personal one in that they offended and angered some people. And while in a civil society we have a responsibility to not cause this kind of harm, this does not mean that we can legislate against it. The reason we have the other laws is everyone is viewed to have a right to life and property, and this right has to be protected. But to prohibit causing offence would be to assume a right not to be offended, which while perhaps honourable, would never work. Any criticism or comment will always offend some people, but to restrict criticism would be to decide not just what material things should be protected, but which opinions This would indeed be a worrying direction to take, since limiting the freedom to criticize would rob us of the most basic right necessary for any freedom that matters, namely the right to be yourself, and this means holding one's own opinions. Modern society might prevent you acting (or inciting others to act) on those opinions, but the right to hold them must be sacrosanct.
This means Europe is not hypocritical in allowing offensive cartoons be published and also jailing a cleric for encouraging murder, but it is a trickier question how it can justify jailing somone for voicing the opinion that a historical event never happened. Perhaps a better way of looking at it is considering whether Irving really believes the holocaust never happened, or is just using his works to further a project, which in itself might cause harm. Viewed this way, it is his project which is being punished, not his opinion. But this is itself a slippery slope of interpretation, one we should be incredibly careful about stepping on to.
Freedom of speech was in the news again this week, in this instance an example of how it is sometimes restricted in Europe, as David Irving was jailed in Austria charged on Holocaust Denial charges.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html
and of course the other week Abu Hamza was jailed on charges relating to incitement to racial hatred.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1704625,00.html
Given the recent protestations about freedom of speech, it might be asked if this is an example of European hypocrisy,since attacks on Muslim tradition are defended, whereas attacks on European/Jewish history are prosecuted?
The answer is no, but some people might at first think otherwise, because 'freedom of expression' is not really as it sounds, at least not at the moment.
Despite being much touted recently, in European countries there is most definately not absolute freedom of speech. Just as we are free in our actions only as long as we don't harm others, similarly we are only free in our words in similar way. So there are actually two questions involved. The first, which is not what I want to address at the moment, is whether any restriction on freedom of expression is ultimately justified. I am inclined to the view that while it is abhorrent to think that preachers of hatred and lies should be allowed spew their vitriol unchecked,there are strong philosophical arguments that any form of censorship is indefensible, even on practical grounds. Having certain things that cannot be said assumes that there is a general agreement about these things - and (more importantly) yields a power of suppression to government which can always be seen as the thin end of the wedge.
However there is also the fact that in a society absolute freedom is actually impossible. To be free to do anything does not broaden our possibilities, but rather limits them, since it exposes the individual to the ambitions and cruelties of others, and makes impossible the interdependent structures which provide more than could ever be achieved by even the strongest on their own.
To be free to attain the things that matter, to make those things possible, requires giving up some freedoms which are less important. To be free to accumulate wealth I must give up the freedom to try and take that wealth from others, since in doing so I am protected from them doing the same to me. Thus there is no such thing as total freedom possible, only a limited freedom, but one that encompasses the things that can be considered important and attainable.
This is why it is not a contradiction to call a 'free' society one where there are indeed limitations and restrictions, defined by law, and imposed by the state. Since violence and crime generally prevent people going about their business, the freedom to do these things is part of the freedom that has to be given up in order that we can be free in other ways. In my view there is no arguing against this, at least as far as actions are concerned.
However, in line with restricting actions, which can be easily seen to affect society directly, there are also restrictions on what we say, which can be viewed as affecting society indirectly. Whether this is ultimately the best course of action is debatable, but I won't get into it here. Perhaps it is not the ideal reaction, but it admittedly might be a necessary one. There is no doubt that one person can through words incite a group to do more harm than he/she could ever do on their own.
So let's grant this for the moment, which leads us to the second question, the one I want to deal with here. That is, are the restrictions or lack of them, as evidenced in the media recently, coherent, or do they reveal bias and hypocrisy?
To answer this we must keep in mind why any restriction is necessary - to allow society to function and to facilitate the freedom we really need. Hence, just as the actions which are prohibited are largely those which cause physical damage to person or property, so could this be logically extended to any comments that result in such damage.
In the case of Abu Hamza this seems to be the case. Examples of the charges on which he was convicted were "soliciting/encouragment to murder" and "using words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred", and this means his comments were seen as potentially causing injury and even death to innocent people.
It might be argued that he did not personally kill or harm anyone and should not be responsible for the actions of others, and in addition that the crimes he is blamed for were 'potential' crimes, and that in our society we do not punish people for crimes that 'might' occur, however likely. However, it needs to be realised that in terms of intent and effect, pulling the trigger of a gun (which fires the bullet, which hits the body, which kills the man) is in the same class of 'action' as convincing someone to go out and get a gun (and pull the trigger, to fire the bullet...) The intent of his actions was that people would be killed. The effect of his actions is that people most probably would be. It is not that he is being punished by crimes that have not yet occurred, but for crimes which have not yet completed. People might not have yet been harmed/killed, but the chain of events which he wilfully initiated, was underway. In this way it is no different to pulling the trigger but being caught before managing to hit the target.
The Irving case is different however. Denying the holocaust, while objectionable for obvious reasons, can not easily be shown to lead to direct physical injury. The fact of the holocaust has to be accepted given the scientific and logical reasoning we accept in society (and need to accept for there to be that society) - but ignoring that reasoning cannot be a crime in itself. To deny what can be shown to be historical fact is stupid, and in cases like this undeniably malicious, but can not be considered to be in principle a cause of harm. Indeed, the world is full of people with their own particular views of history (religious or otherwise) which might validly be considered logically or scientifically mistaken - but we do not (and should not) make this a crime as such.
So I think the general theory that supports some restriction of free speech cannot support jailing Irving.
But not all laws stem from grand philosophical principles, and a lot of them, instead come about to tackle particular problems. The laws under which Irving was prosecuted I think are an example of this - because there was (and perhaps still is) a very real need to stamp out holocaust denial, not because of the act of denial of history itself, but of the specific circumstances.
The holocaust was such a traumatic event in the Europe's history that there are lessons which must not be forgotten, and while in an ideal society lies would be ignored, the unfortunate fact is that in the modern world they can cause real damage. In order for society to progress it might sometimes be necessary to draw a line under some debates so that we can all move on.
I would think that this logic could be applied to Irvings case, and that it could be argued that the issue of the holocaust for Europe (and especially Austria) is just too important to let it continue to be questioned, because there is a very real problem that such questioning inflames and destabilizes society.
The main point however is that Irving's prosecution can not be viewed as part of a general restriction on free speech, but a particular reaction to a particular problem, which happens to limit free speech. This itself is of course something which can (and I think should) be evaluated...but not here.
So finally what about the cartoons of the prophet? There is obviously in Europe no specific law against such caricatures, no specific prohibition as for Holocaust denial, so they are not related to the Irving case.
But should they have been stopped by the more general restrictions on free speech? Restrictions deemed necessary because they prevent injury and destruction? While both have resulted from their publication, I think the cartoons themselves, and the intent to publish them, cannot be shown to be responsible, either directly or indirectly. There was nothing in them that could in principle be seen as a cause of physical attack on person or property.
Of course they did cause a kind of damage, namely a personal one in that they offended and angered some people. And while in a civil society we have a responsibility to not cause this kind of harm, this does not mean that we can legislate against it. The reason we have the other laws is everyone is viewed to have a right to life and property, and this right has to be protected. But to prohibit causing offence would be to assume a right not to be offended, which while perhaps honourable, would never work. Any criticism or comment will always offend some people, but to restrict criticism would be to decide not just what material things should be protected, but which opinions This would indeed be a worrying direction to take, since limiting the freedom to criticize would rob us of the most basic right necessary for any freedom that matters, namely the right to be yourself, and this means holding one's own opinions. Modern society might prevent you acting (or inciting others to act) on those opinions, but the right to hold them must be sacrosanct.
This means Europe is not hypocritical in allowing offensive cartoons be published and also jailing a cleric for encouraging murder, but it is a trickier question how it can justify jailing somone for voicing the opinion that a historical event never happened. Perhaps a better way of looking at it is considering whether Irving really believes the holocaust never happened, or is just using his works to further a project, which in itself might cause harm. Viewed this way, it is his project which is being punished, not his opinion. But this is itself a slippery slope of interpretation, one we should be incredibly careful about stepping on to.
18 Feb '9 dead in cartoon riots'
a bizarre yet tragic headline that's become quite common in the last few weeks. I meant to write something about it when it first started to break out, but didn't have the time.
First, back to the original publishing of the cartoons. Personally I think that the newspapers had a right to publish, but perhaps a responsibility not to. The simple fact that something may offend can never be grounds for censorship - after all, it is fundamental to a free society that there is robust criticism and comment, and that's always bound to offend someone. That said, just because we can say anything, doesn't mean we should always say everything. Newspapers and journalists have an influence in society (those unelected legislators of mankind!?), and hence have responsibities. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words might get other people's broken. If something is going to offend, and especially offend a significant section of society - then it has to be justified. In addition, the justification has to be stronger if there already is a sensitive climate about the matter, or to do with the section which might take offence. Satire about car dealers can be done with less introspection than satire on race or creed.
That said - were the cartoons justified? Some of them I think were just downright offensive - for example the one with Mohammed with a time-bomb turban. There is no witty insight here - since there is no logical basis to associate the founder of islam with what some of his misguided followers do. And even if Islam was initially a religion of conquest - so was Christianity at this time. Violence and 'terrorism' is not just a religious issue either - there have been many bombs dropped and planted 'legitimately' and not so legitimately in the name of secular causes.
The one with the line of suicide bombers turning up at paradise to be greeted with a 'stop,stop, we've run out of virgins'did at first make me laugh. But then again, I have to admit I've laughed at many a joke that I wouldn't want published. On the one hand it does make a satirical point - from some standpoints all religions are illogical, and especially in my view the ones that promise a world somehow different to this one, but yet with 'desirable' things from it. However, the problem I think with this joke is it appeals to a surface level of understanding of suicide bombers - that they just do it because they want the big pay off in paradise. I strongly believe however that religious conviction works slightly differently (it would be easier to overcome otherwise!) and more importantly, economic and social factors play a major role. I think religious ideals don't merely provide an incentive, but more often provide an outlet for built up frustration. This is something missed by the cartoon, and why it does pander to stereotypical conceptions about suicide bombings - and why in my view it is not respectable comment.
So respectable newspapers shouldn't have published them as such, at least before the controversy broke out. However when it did, I personally felt I had the right to know what all the fuss was about, and think it was right of papers to publish them afterwards, though maybe they could have somehow covered up mohammed, and referred to him indirectly - but would this have helped?
What is the real point of the story is however the reaction to it. The scary thing is it seems to have been portrayed in parts of the Islamic world as unfairly as they sometimes perceive themselves as being portrayed in the west. It was never 'us' insulting 'them'. It was a handful of individuals making a rather bad joke about 'them'. What worries me is how this all fed to easily into the hands of those on both sides who want to portray a 'clash of civilizations'. While I don't doubt that many in the muslim world (and muslims and non-muslims in the west) are angry about the cartoons, it is obvious in the more volatile areas like Palestine and Pakistan these feelings have been inflamed. Even in the riots, it struck me as odd that so many Danish flags were to hand. No doubt such places always have a handy stock of stars and stripes available, but I don't think even I in europe could get my hands on a full size Danish flag at short notice. Ok, this might be a small point, but I think all 'iconic' tv moments have to be approached with scepticism. Whether its toppling of statues or burning of flags.
Is this a sign of our times? Is there something it is indicative of - which we can do something about? Yes, and maybe. Definately the anger and frustration (often justified) in many parts of the world is something that has to be taken seriously. Given how they have been treated it is unsurprising that the anger of the Palestinians can flow out in all directions. But there is more to it then just that, because there are more people affected than just those living under the burden of occupation or poverty. The real problem is how these valid grounds for anger are inflamed with ideals and theologies into a more general alienation, even of sections with in our own society. I think in a way it is a reversion to tribalism, a sense of 'them' and 'us' which is natural in human nature, but not inevitable. It can and has been overcome by well constructed societies, but as those societies change, and become more interconnected with others that differ from them, both need to adapt.
A good example of something that can be natural but not inevitable is an experiment i read about regarding brain imaging of how people react to photos of someone from another race. The initial results showed that a part of the brain involved in aggression did indeed light up when people saw a face of a different race. This would seem to imply we are just naturally xenophobic, and while we might be able to control the behaviours with laws, we cannot control the instict. However in a more subtle extension of the test, subjects were primed to consider the face as an individual, for example by asking 'will the person in the next photo like celery?'. In such cases the relevant brain area did not light up. To me this shows how we can consciously change how we approach the world, and thereby modify how we unconsciously view it.
It seems a ridiculous question to ask, but we live in times when people are killed in 'cartoon riots'....so I wonder do suicide bombers like celery?
First, back to the original publishing of the cartoons. Personally I think that the newspapers had a right to publish, but perhaps a responsibility not to. The simple fact that something may offend can never be grounds for censorship - after all, it is fundamental to a free society that there is robust criticism and comment, and that's always bound to offend someone. That said, just because we can say anything, doesn't mean we should always say everything. Newspapers and journalists have an influence in society (those unelected legislators of mankind!?), and hence have responsibities. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words might get other people's broken. If something is going to offend, and especially offend a significant section of society - then it has to be justified. In addition, the justification has to be stronger if there already is a sensitive climate about the matter, or to do with the section which might take offence. Satire about car dealers can be done with less introspection than satire on race or creed.
That said - were the cartoons justified? Some of them I think were just downright offensive - for example the one with Mohammed with a time-bomb turban. There is no witty insight here - since there is no logical basis to associate the founder of islam with what some of his misguided followers do. And even if Islam was initially a religion of conquest - so was Christianity at this time. Violence and 'terrorism' is not just a religious issue either - there have been many bombs dropped and planted 'legitimately' and not so legitimately in the name of secular causes.
The one with the line of suicide bombers turning up at paradise to be greeted with a 'stop,stop, we've run out of virgins'did at first make me laugh. But then again, I have to admit I've laughed at many a joke that I wouldn't want published. On the one hand it does make a satirical point - from some standpoints all religions are illogical, and especially in my view the ones that promise a world somehow different to this one, but yet with 'desirable' things from it. However, the problem I think with this joke is it appeals to a surface level of understanding of suicide bombers - that they just do it because they want the big pay off in paradise. I strongly believe however that religious conviction works slightly differently (it would be easier to overcome otherwise!) and more importantly, economic and social factors play a major role. I think religious ideals don't merely provide an incentive, but more often provide an outlet for built up frustration. This is something missed by the cartoon, and why it does pander to stereotypical conceptions about suicide bombings - and why in my view it is not respectable comment.
So respectable newspapers shouldn't have published them as such, at least before the controversy broke out. However when it did, I personally felt I had the right to know what all the fuss was about, and think it was right of papers to publish them afterwards, though maybe they could have somehow covered up mohammed, and referred to him indirectly - but would this have helped?
What is the real point of the story is however the reaction to it. The scary thing is it seems to have been portrayed in parts of the Islamic world as unfairly as they sometimes perceive themselves as being portrayed in the west. It was never 'us' insulting 'them'. It was a handful of individuals making a rather bad joke about 'them'. What worries me is how this all fed to easily into the hands of those on both sides who want to portray a 'clash of civilizations'. While I don't doubt that many in the muslim world (and muslims and non-muslims in the west) are angry about the cartoons, it is obvious in the more volatile areas like Palestine and Pakistan these feelings have been inflamed. Even in the riots, it struck me as odd that so many Danish flags were to hand. No doubt such places always have a handy stock of stars and stripes available, but I don't think even I in europe could get my hands on a full size Danish flag at short notice. Ok, this might be a small point, but I think all 'iconic' tv moments have to be approached with scepticism. Whether its toppling of statues or burning of flags.
Is this a sign of our times? Is there something it is indicative of - which we can do something about? Yes, and maybe. Definately the anger and frustration (often justified) in many parts of the world is something that has to be taken seriously. Given how they have been treated it is unsurprising that the anger of the Palestinians can flow out in all directions. But there is more to it then just that, because there are more people affected than just those living under the burden of occupation or poverty. The real problem is how these valid grounds for anger are inflamed with ideals and theologies into a more general alienation, even of sections with in our own society. I think in a way it is a reversion to tribalism, a sense of 'them' and 'us' which is natural in human nature, but not inevitable. It can and has been overcome by well constructed societies, but as those societies change, and become more interconnected with others that differ from them, both need to adapt.
A good example of something that can be natural but not inevitable is an experiment i read about regarding brain imaging of how people react to photos of someone from another race. The initial results showed that a part of the brain involved in aggression did indeed light up when people saw a face of a different race. This would seem to imply we are just naturally xenophobic, and while we might be able to control the behaviours with laws, we cannot control the instict. However in a more subtle extension of the test, subjects were primed to consider the face as an individual, for example by asking 'will the person in the next photo like celery?'. In such cases the relevant brain area did not light up. To me this shows how we can consciously change how we approach the world, and thereby modify how we unconsciously view it.
It seems a ridiculous question to ask, but we live in times when people are killed in 'cartoon riots'....so I wonder do suicide bombers like celery?
halftalk moves back to blogspot!
ok....after moving temporarily away to bloghi.com - this blog is now back here at blogspot!
(bloghi soon to disappear into cyber trashcan of history....)
the next few posts will be re-postings from the bloghi site...
(bloghi soon to disappear into cyber trashcan of history....)
the next few posts will be re-postings from the bloghi site...
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Any hope,old or new, for European society?
The French-British, old-new europe debate was in the news again this week. On the one side there seems to be France, German, and I guess a lot of the other contintenal countries, with their sturdy social state, albeit also heavily subsidized. On the other is what portrays itself as a lean and realistic modernizing approach, combining both an old power such as Britain, and emerging players such as the new EU members of eastern Europe.
While the passions are probably very strong on both sides, what makes this debate the worst kind of argument is that in essence both sides agree on the ends, they just disagree on the means. And to be honest, given the complexity of the matter, and especially since it involves that dark and unruly, yet undeniably powerful horse economics, then I am obviously not in a position to propose a working solution as such.
But what I think we all can do, is comment on the issues involved, and add some philosophical perspective to the matter. We may not know what will work, but we might be able to help point out what won't, and, especially, what might be self-defeating. I also think it is a good exercise for ourselves, since its only when we make a stand, or attempt to, for things that we think matter, that we are forced to evaluate them properly. A double-edged consequence of this often is that we realise that while a certain position might have had first seemed to come from a valued principle, in fact either it or even we ourselves might not actually agree with that principle as much as we first thought.
First of all I should come clean about where I personally stand. I have to admit a definate affinity for the continental social model. I am in the highest tax bracket of where I live, and of course moan occasionally when a new bite comes out of bonuses etc., but by and large, as long as the money is not being wasted, then I fully subscribe to the system. I have a good car, and yet I think it important there should be a good public transport system, and occasionally get the bus/train somewhere, even if I could also drive (and not pay for the petrol). In other countries I could afford private insurance, but here I don't need to, since the state system is more than adequate.
And of course in all the other areas, unemployment security, education, even from a purely personal perspective, as someone who is definately not poor or at risk, I still like the idea that a social structure is there, since these things are so important and fundamental I think they should be held beyond doubt, even if at slightly more cost to those of us who could afford them anyway.
But, all this comes at a cost, namely high taxes and a rigid job market. A security in my job translates into a risk in creating yours. And of course large, state run or semi-funded enterprises can easily become detached and unfeasable in a rapidly changing world.
And this is where the 'anglo-saxon' model comes in. My understanding is that while the continental model seems to be one protecting the jobs that are there, and making the most possible from them, the British line of thinking is to have more jobs, and make less from each of them.
I wonder could it be described in terms of differing views on 'rights'. As I see it the continental model places emphasis on the right to a job, health service etc., but if this right is universal, then it inevitably puts restrictions on self-improvement of both companies and individuals. In contrast, I think the British idea out the stress on the right to the chance of a good job, health service, etc., and while this allows each person to work hard and benefit appropriately from that, it necessarily adds an element of risk into the community.
Of course neither side is so extreme - the French of course want to allow for a dynamic market, and the British also agree with some form of social net, but I think the above contrast roughly highlights what is fundamentally different in emphasis between the two approaches.
And of course both sides have very good arguments. The British might ridicule the 'French' model as being unfeasable, that the security they desire makes the economy too rigid and monolithic to survice, while the French might respond by saying the British have missed the whole point by thinking that invigorating an economy is an end in itself, whereas in fact it is meaningless if it doesn't actually deliver the social benefits one wanted in the first place.
What I think warps the issue slightly is the 'new' europe element, the countries in the East. These are countries starting basically from scratch. Not that they don't have a rich history and culture, but in an econmic sense the failure and then collapse of soviet communism has pretty much set them off from square one. A massive advantage that this brings is that they had the opportunity to start off in a new direction and bring in changes or implement new methods which could not be imposed so rapidly in more settled societies. The disadvantage I think is that they are joining the capitalist cycle at the start, and hence might easily miss out on the accumulated wisdom of other longer established capitalist societies. The problem I see is that capitalism is great because it brings opportunity, chances to work, to earn, and to improve one's life. This is its greatest feature. But a corrollary is that the pursuit of opportunity, the desire for work, not improvement can easily become an end in itself. And in societies where there are a lot of relatively impoverished people, where many people are prepared to make that bit bigger sacrifice to get that bit bigger gain. I think the nature of economics means that, at least initially, the sacrifices get bigger faster than the gains do.
Eventually I think, (hope!) , the economy reaches a stage where people have wealth enough that they can start to balance their lives, to decide as a community that they are not prepared to work for example 60 hours a week, since they could have a comfortable enough life with just 40. This I think is the stage that the western european countries have reached, when 'work' is refocused as means, and not an end. The problem is of course that for all this to work, the economy still has to live, and this would be problematic enough in isolation, and is nigh impossible if 'settled' economies, with their preaching of free trade, are exposed to 'developing' economies, which are now suddenly able to hold their own.
I am always sceptical of people bandying around phrases like 'harsh reality' and 'face facts', since it is very easy to grant them a sort of hardnosed authority without a case actually being put for it. There is a reality, and for sure it is harsh in some ways, but just appealing to it to support your way does not make it so. However I think one brute fact can be agreed to - instant redistribution to provide equality would make the entire world universally miserable. An example I think is the failed state-run experiments of the communist era. Economics is a force, which can only expressed through the free markets of capitalism, and we go against it at our peril. But that is NOT to say that it doesn't need to be restrained or harnessed in some way. It just have to be done slowly and carefully, and with full acknowledgement of its power. We don't try to stop a river reaching the sea. We may divert and even partially dam it, but
we never ever sotp it completely. And I think a similar approach is needed to free market forces. We have to recognize them, but strive to constraint them for our ends, not their ends in themselves.
And a basic fact of these forces is that when you have poorer, able people they can take the jobs from the richer able people. I don't think we can argue with that. And while we of course can want to improve their lot, we also have to be honest that we care about our own.
That does not mean as such we must keep them down, for that is as impractical as it is distasteful. But I think we can't deny that we also care for our own self-interests, as they care for theirs, and if we ignore both of these then a crisis will arrive where these interests erupt vicuously. It is all very well to want an equal world, but if we go about it in such a way that things get worse for all, then we will expose ourselves to the omnes-contra-omnes situation where everyone throws these notions away and looks out for himself.
The problem is, I think there is no 'silver' bullet, no win-win situation...rather eventually a t best draw-draw or at least a no-lose - no-lose outcome. Primarily I think we will have to accept a reduction in our level of wealth, but in a way that we still retain what is important to us, and not just 'wealth' for wealths sake. Basically this means paying more (and hence having less for other things) so as to support and keep our society and way of life. At first this might sound crazy, how could people willingly give up opportunities, cut back and restrain themselves? This goes against the whole idea of freemarket (ultimate consumer) capitalism which has proved itself so much. But not only is this possible, I think we do it to some extent already. We do it when we make the effort to carry shopping bags with us rather than pick up the free disposable ones, we do it when we contribute to charity, to help someone we don't know and will never meet, we do it when we choose the environmentally friendly option, or the locally made product, even though it costs us that little more. We do this because our value system is more complex that simple economics makes out. "gain" is not just monetory wealth, but other things as well. And this is I think our real source of hope - because it shows we are not just pure capitalists, and while capitalism is necessary, we can still rise above it to some extent.
Maybe its not possible. Maybe we are just too ignorant to how much we exploited the world, how much we still rely on exploitation, and now the tables are turning. But I really think there must be a chance that we could all pay that little but more, get that little bit less, but save our society. Of course this will have a cost, namely it will slow down the development of other areas in the world. If we don't buy the cheap good from China, but the more expensive one from Germany, then that takes its toll in China. not a great thing, but better for us in the short run, and perhaps better for all in the long. After all, why is it in China's interests to succeed except that they want what we have now? But if things get out of control then 'what we have now' might not be possible for anyone, at least not for generations to come, after a global period of Victorian age capitalism. And who can doubt that such global hardship will not again give rise to the social and political upsets of the last centuries - but with modern weapons to boot?
No, while it might mean the rest of the world grows more slowly, I think it is not just selfish interest for us to try and slow things down and support our own society first. The crucial thing is we need to do it reaslistically and humanely, tkaing into account both economic and human factors. All out protectionism as such is not the answer, since it doesn't work and turns our back on the rest of the world, at our own peril. But we need to be honest with ourselves. If we don't think we should work for more than 40 hours a week, then we should not buy products that are made by people working 80. If we don't want factories polluting our air, then we should not support those that pollute other peoples. Of course this (hopefully) doesn't have to be an all out boycott of foreign goods, but just a rational appraisal of what we're doing.
Food I think is an important example. Agriculture in Europe is one of the most subsidised areas, with significant knock on effects on poorer countries. As I understand it, farmers are supported because they are important, we cannot lose our farming, and yet they are often uneconomic. Obviously one solution would be for farmers to get a better price for their products, but the normal way of doing this, price floors, has effects on the economy as a whole. So what to do? We want farmers to be able to earn a living, but the free market makes this impossible. Is there anyway out of this? It would seem not - we need the free market and this drives the prices down....
But there is one element about the 'free market' is implicitly assumed, namely that it is 'price' and price alone that drives consumers. And of course if price is what is so important, then the market will follow the price. But my whole idea is that in a mature society like ours, price should not be the only factor - we have other values as well, environment, quality, charity etc, that we take into account.
This I think provides some glimmer of hope of a solution. We might not be able to compete with the rest of the world on price, but we can compete against it amongst our own societies in certain areas, by appealing to other things apart from price. Food I think is the best area for this. We care about what we eat, so we should basically start putting our money where our mouths are. If we can afford it, and I mean really afford it, as in CAN buy it even if it means cutting back somewhere else, then we should buy the more expensive better quality local food when possible. This is good for us, good for the farmers, and hence good for us again via a society that might eventually not have to subsidize them...
I really don't know...of course things will change and we'll have to adapt, but I think some change of 'cultural attitude' is needed - we really need to support with our wallets what we care about, and that means actively supporting local industry. Our tastes and consumptions are so diverse anyway that this will only ever be a small portion, so the rest of the world will still have plenty to sell us, and hopefully will develop, but we will be making a marker about what we care about - working hours, wages, environment, quality - which will stand to us and them in the future....
Though of course there is a massive assumption behind all this....I am assuming that we are indeed a wealthy society. I am not rich, but I am middle class, and I can buy organic chicken etc, without having to make much of a sacrifice. Being honest, I am lucky, and not everyone , perhaps not even most, even in my own society can do that. And all this high talk of money where our mouth is requires money in the first place. But I think a good proportion of the west is 'comfortable' at least, and i think it is our moral duty to not adopt an 'i'm all right jack' approach and constantly look out for just our gain, but realise that our gain is dependent on the society we live in...
While the passions are probably very strong on both sides, what makes this debate the worst kind of argument is that in essence both sides agree on the ends, they just disagree on the means. And to be honest, given the complexity of the matter, and especially since it involves that dark and unruly, yet undeniably powerful horse economics, then I am obviously not in a position to propose a working solution as such.
But what I think we all can do, is comment on the issues involved, and add some philosophical perspective to the matter. We may not know what will work, but we might be able to help point out what won't, and, especially, what might be self-defeating. I also think it is a good exercise for ourselves, since its only when we make a stand, or attempt to, for things that we think matter, that we are forced to evaluate them properly. A double-edged consequence of this often is that we realise that while a certain position might have had first seemed to come from a valued principle, in fact either it or even we ourselves might not actually agree with that principle as much as we first thought.
First of all I should come clean about where I personally stand. I have to admit a definate affinity for the continental social model. I am in the highest tax bracket of where I live, and of course moan occasionally when a new bite comes out of bonuses etc., but by and large, as long as the money is not being wasted, then I fully subscribe to the system. I have a good car, and yet I think it important there should be a good public transport system, and occasionally get the bus/train somewhere, even if I could also drive (and not pay for the petrol). In other countries I could afford private insurance, but here I don't need to, since the state system is more than adequate.
And of course in all the other areas, unemployment security, education, even from a purely personal perspective, as someone who is definately not poor or at risk, I still like the idea that a social structure is there, since these things are so important and fundamental I think they should be held beyond doubt, even if at slightly more cost to those of us who could afford them anyway.
But, all this comes at a cost, namely high taxes and a rigid job market. A security in my job translates into a risk in creating yours. And of course large, state run or semi-funded enterprises can easily become detached and unfeasable in a rapidly changing world.
And this is where the 'anglo-saxon' model comes in. My understanding is that while the continental model seems to be one protecting the jobs that are there, and making the most possible from them, the British line of thinking is to have more jobs, and make less from each of them.
I wonder could it be described in terms of differing views on 'rights'. As I see it the continental model places emphasis on the right to a job, health service etc., but if this right is universal, then it inevitably puts restrictions on self-improvement of both companies and individuals. In contrast, I think the British idea out the stress on the right to the chance of a good job, health service, etc., and while this allows each person to work hard and benefit appropriately from that, it necessarily adds an element of risk into the community.
Of course neither side is so extreme - the French of course want to allow for a dynamic market, and the British also agree with some form of social net, but I think the above contrast roughly highlights what is fundamentally different in emphasis between the two approaches.
And of course both sides have very good arguments. The British might ridicule the 'French' model as being unfeasable, that the security they desire makes the economy too rigid and monolithic to survice, while the French might respond by saying the British have missed the whole point by thinking that invigorating an economy is an end in itself, whereas in fact it is meaningless if it doesn't actually deliver the social benefits one wanted in the first place.
What I think warps the issue slightly is the 'new' europe element, the countries in the East. These are countries starting basically from scratch. Not that they don't have a rich history and culture, but in an econmic sense the failure and then collapse of soviet communism has pretty much set them off from square one. A massive advantage that this brings is that they had the opportunity to start off in a new direction and bring in changes or implement new methods which could not be imposed so rapidly in more settled societies. The disadvantage I think is that they are joining the capitalist cycle at the start, and hence might easily miss out on the accumulated wisdom of other longer established capitalist societies. The problem I see is that capitalism is great because it brings opportunity, chances to work, to earn, and to improve one's life. This is its greatest feature. But a corrollary is that the pursuit of opportunity, the desire for work, not improvement can easily become an end in itself. And in societies where there are a lot of relatively impoverished people, where many people are prepared to make that bit bigger sacrifice to get that bit bigger gain. I think the nature of economics means that, at least initially, the sacrifices get bigger faster than the gains do.
Eventually I think, (hope!) , the economy reaches a stage where people have wealth enough that they can start to balance their lives, to decide as a community that they are not prepared to work for example 60 hours a week, since they could have a comfortable enough life with just 40. This I think is the stage that the western european countries have reached, when 'work' is refocused as means, and not an end. The problem is of course that for all this to work, the economy still has to live, and this would be problematic enough in isolation, and is nigh impossible if 'settled' economies, with their preaching of free trade, are exposed to 'developing' economies, which are now suddenly able to hold their own.
I am always sceptical of people bandying around phrases like 'harsh reality' and 'face facts', since it is very easy to grant them a sort of hardnosed authority without a case actually being put for it. There is a reality, and for sure it is harsh in some ways, but just appealing to it to support your way does not make it so. However I think one brute fact can be agreed to - instant redistribution to provide equality would make the entire world universally miserable. An example I think is the failed state-run experiments of the communist era. Economics is a force, which can only expressed through the free markets of capitalism, and we go against it at our peril. But that is NOT to say that it doesn't need to be restrained or harnessed in some way. It just have to be done slowly and carefully, and with full acknowledgement of its power. We don't try to stop a river reaching the sea. We may divert and even partially dam it, but
we never ever sotp it completely. And I think a similar approach is needed to free market forces. We have to recognize them, but strive to constraint them for our ends, not their ends in themselves.
And a basic fact of these forces is that when you have poorer, able people they can take the jobs from the richer able people. I don't think we can argue with that. And while we of course can want to improve their lot, we also have to be honest that we care about our own.
That does not mean as such we must keep them down, for that is as impractical as it is distasteful. But I think we can't deny that we also care for our own self-interests, as they care for theirs, and if we ignore both of these then a crisis will arrive where these interests erupt vicuously. It is all very well to want an equal world, but if we go about it in such a way that things get worse for all, then we will expose ourselves to the omnes-contra-omnes situation where everyone throws these notions away and looks out for himself.
The problem is, I think there is no 'silver' bullet, no win-win situation...rather eventually a t best draw-draw or at least a no-lose - no-lose outcome. Primarily I think we will have to accept a reduction in our level of wealth, but in a way that we still retain what is important to us, and not just 'wealth' for wealths sake. Basically this means paying more (and hence having less for other things) so as to support and keep our society and way of life. At first this might sound crazy, how could people willingly give up opportunities, cut back and restrain themselves? This goes against the whole idea of freemarket (ultimate consumer) capitalism which has proved itself so much. But not only is this possible, I think we do it to some extent already. We do it when we make the effort to carry shopping bags with us rather than pick up the free disposable ones, we do it when we contribute to charity, to help someone we don't know and will never meet, we do it when we choose the environmentally friendly option, or the locally made product, even though it costs us that little more. We do this because our value system is more complex that simple economics makes out. "gain" is not just monetory wealth, but other things as well. And this is I think our real source of hope - because it shows we are not just pure capitalists, and while capitalism is necessary, we can still rise above it to some extent.
Maybe its not possible. Maybe we are just too ignorant to how much we exploited the world, how much we still rely on exploitation, and now the tables are turning. But I really think there must be a chance that we could all pay that little but more, get that little bit less, but save our society. Of course this will have a cost, namely it will slow down the development of other areas in the world. If we don't buy the cheap good from China, but the more expensive one from Germany, then that takes its toll in China. not a great thing, but better for us in the short run, and perhaps better for all in the long. After all, why is it in China's interests to succeed except that they want what we have now? But if things get out of control then 'what we have now' might not be possible for anyone, at least not for generations to come, after a global period of Victorian age capitalism. And who can doubt that such global hardship will not again give rise to the social and political upsets of the last centuries - but with modern weapons to boot?
No, while it might mean the rest of the world grows more slowly, I think it is not just selfish interest for us to try and slow things down and support our own society first. The crucial thing is we need to do it reaslistically and humanely, tkaing into account both economic and human factors. All out protectionism as such is not the answer, since it doesn't work and turns our back on the rest of the world, at our own peril. But we need to be honest with ourselves. If we don't think we should work for more than 40 hours a week, then we should not buy products that are made by people working 80. If we don't want factories polluting our air, then we should not support those that pollute other peoples. Of course this (hopefully) doesn't have to be an all out boycott of foreign goods, but just a rational appraisal of what we're doing.
Food I think is an important example. Agriculture in Europe is one of the most subsidised areas, with significant knock on effects on poorer countries. As I understand it, farmers are supported because they are important, we cannot lose our farming, and yet they are often uneconomic. Obviously one solution would be for farmers to get a better price for their products, but the normal way of doing this, price floors, has effects on the economy as a whole. So what to do? We want farmers to be able to earn a living, but the free market makes this impossible. Is there anyway out of this? It would seem not - we need the free market and this drives the prices down....
But there is one element about the 'free market' is implicitly assumed, namely that it is 'price' and price alone that drives consumers. And of course if price is what is so important, then the market will follow the price. But my whole idea is that in a mature society like ours, price should not be the only factor - we have other values as well, environment, quality, charity etc, that we take into account.
This I think provides some glimmer of hope of a solution. We might not be able to compete with the rest of the world on price, but we can compete against it amongst our own societies in certain areas, by appealing to other things apart from price. Food I think is the best area for this. We care about what we eat, so we should basically start putting our money where our mouths are. If we can afford it, and I mean really afford it, as in CAN buy it even if it means cutting back somewhere else, then we should buy the more expensive better quality local food when possible. This is good for us, good for the farmers, and hence good for us again via a society that might eventually not have to subsidize them...
I really don't know...of course things will change and we'll have to adapt, but I think some change of 'cultural attitude' is needed - we really need to support with our wallets what we care about, and that means actively supporting local industry. Our tastes and consumptions are so diverse anyway that this will only ever be a small portion, so the rest of the world will still have plenty to sell us, and hopefully will develop, but we will be making a marker about what we care about - working hours, wages, environment, quality - which will stand to us and them in the future....
Though of course there is a massive assumption behind all this....I am assuming that we are indeed a wealthy society. I am not rich, but I am middle class, and I can buy organic chicken etc, without having to make much of a sacrifice. Being honest, I am lucky, and not everyone , perhaps not even most, even in my own society can do that. And all this high talk of money where our mouth is requires money in the first place. But I think a good proportion of the west is 'comfortable' at least, and i think it is our moral duty to not adopt an 'i'm all right jack' approach and constantly look out for just our gain, but realise that our gain is dependent on the society we live in...
Friday, November 18, 2005
French riots - the enemy within (our nature, not our society)
Part I :
It doesn't happen often, but now and then some world event comes along that really makes one question one's assumed principles, and brings an edge of foreboding, that perhaps what one assumed is noble was at perhaps at best naive, and at worst irresponsible.
And it is also quite fitting that it would happen in France, one of the birth places of the Enlightenment, perhaps the most important influence on our sense of modern self, which seems not to be able to weather the current times as well as its lofty ideals might have suggested.
Here is a country which, in princple at least, was committed to the notion of all-important equality, something which I always thought I fully agreed on. I found it good that there it was postively illegal to record religious or ethnic information in surveys, or for this data to be a factor at all. This compared with Austria where when registering with the state (as one has to do, even if a native) one has to give a religion if any, and it is even expected that one would also mention it on a CV when applying for a Job.
For me all this was all personal information, and irrelevant to my position as a citizen, an immigrant, an employee. For me being a member (new or original) of a society was, and is, not about who you are, defined as that is by associations rather than essences, but rather what you do. What I am is not Irish, Catholic (if lapsed), migrant, 30 year old, male, white - these are all surface commonalities which may give statistical possibilities, but do not really define me myself. Rather what I really am is what I have done and do, and it is by this that I must be judged as part of society. That this is the cornerstone of our modern communities I think is reflected in the law, which is ultimately the boundary, the framework of society, if not the actual essence. In European countries, at least for the moment, one cannot be punished for what you might do based on statistical probability.
Well, that's the idea anyway. But the facts of the matter are quite different. We are human, and part of our evolved nature is to evaluated our environment, and especially other people, and make assumptions which then affect our behaviour towards them, and interactively, their behaviour towards us. And unfortunately those assumptions are based on associations, interpretations and guesses about class, culture etc. which while they might not make the person in question, define them for us until we know better.
There are two problems then that arise from ignoring the differences that now exist in our societies. First of all, since prejudice is a natural if surmountable trait, if it is ignored then it will flourish. Denying that people have different backgrounds is not going to stop it being noticed, perhaps subconsciously by the more open minded of us, but also viciously by the less so. Secondly, ignoring breeds ignorance, and that is the real danger. I think the worst attrocities in human history involve the transformation of one section of society, into some kind of 'other',a them and us situation. The holocaust, Rwanda, any of the really horrifying genocidal events in history are horrific not because of what happened, killing others is not so revolting to us as such since we can countenance war, but because of the breakdown of relationship between fellow humans. Slowly this is being extended to war, since the growth of a 'global' community blurs the 'them and us' that the nation state system easily invokes, but still this is a relatively new development, and we are still easily manipulated to lose all compassion for 'the enemy'. But what still has power to bring out disgust, is when the conflict is within our longer established communities, as it was when the Nazis turned against the Jews, or the Hutus lashed out at the Tutsis. We in our modern, supposedly civilized society can easily be led to think of this as an aberration - after all, how can neighbour turn against neighbour if they were ever really 'neighbours' in our developed society sense of the world. The answer is very simple, it can happen whenever that neighbour is somehow viewed as 'other' or different.
And the sad thing is this can happen very easily. Psychological studies have shown that even arbitrary distinctions, like labelling one random group 'the red team' and another 'the blue team' can quickly give rise to deep tribal passions, feelings of 'otherness' towards the opposing team. And similarly in society - as soon as people seem to be 'other' then its the slippery slope, which without being dramatic, can lead to anything....
I also think that the current atmosphere in Europe and the world, with the hot topics of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and integration of different cultures in a time of mass migration, is ripe for such a sense of 'otherness' to develop, especially towards muslims.
But why muslims in particular? Surely in somewhere like Europe there are many different cultures now present, and an influx of both economic and political refugees (and btw, I think both kinds can in a way be valid, material oppression is as bad as any other kind), so why not a hostility developing towards migrants in general? Of course there is, at a low, spontaneous and uncoordinated level, but what I think is most pressing about the so-called 'muslim' issue is because it has the potential to turn into something much bigger and cohesive, and hence much more serious. The reason why it has that potential is exactly the same reason as why I could refer to it as 'the muslim issue' and you probably think you know what I am talking about. I think there is the perception that because Islam is an active religion, and one spread across boundaries, it is therefore a potent unifying force - something which might command an allegiance above that owed to family, state or law. In the west as our religions decline, and anyway seem to have become 'personal' religions, I think we have trouble realistically comprehending a vibrant and outwardly practised religion like Islam. While on the surface we can easily say 'its just a religion and all should be tolerated' I think deep down a lot of us in the modern west just aren't religious in this way, and do don't know what to expect. And this ignorance is then exacerbated by the very noticable differences which we seem to perceive. These differences are probably just surface distinctions, understandable given the different cultures and histories and not due just to the different theology, but given the whole atmosphere they allow for the development of this chimera of an 'other' something which is all the more gripping given the fact that it is s seemingly monolithic and vast.
All though history, 'the jews' (as if some monolithic gang rather than a label of association) would have been seen as somehow 'other' by the christian culture in which they lived. Naturally a result of this shared culture, and reinforced by the hostility against them would have resulted in a jewish community - a shared network amongst people of similar heritage. But the existence of such a community is of course neither grounds not cause for the explosion of aggression against them in the Holocaust. Communities are just how one divides up society, and there are many possible permutations, some more sharply defined than others, but none as such result on their own in the extreme situation that came about in Europe in the mid-20th century. My interpretation is that somehow this slight perception otherness was tapped into at a time of turmoil, and inflamed until they really came to be seen as 'other', even to the extent that they were so other as not to be of the same race of beings. And of course once that happens, then there is no depth to which 'humanity' won't sink...
I think such 'dehumanising' can always take place, if the situations are right, and will always proceed along the perceived faultlines, the differences that can be used to generate a 'them' and 'us'. And I think that the hype about 'islam' and 'muslims' could easily be stages on that path, since it feeds into the same kind of ugly myth as 'the jewish conspiracy' idea does - that there is some vast and unified enemy out to get us, and lo, they even look different. This is a slippery slope that can lead right into the gas chambers...
But, its all very well for me to say that we should view others as 'others', because the brute fact of the matter is that people, and cultures, are different, and yet also are being thrown together in the melting pot of globalisation. And the other brute fact is that we humans are attuned to notice and react to 'otherness'. So a simple statement of 'equality' is not enough. It is not enough to ignore the realities of modern life, as the French approach tried to do, albeit from noble motives.
But is there a solution which can retain those noble motives, those worthy principles of the Englightenment and the French Revolution? What are those principles, and are they worthy? Why?
....Part 2 to come...
It doesn't happen often, but now and then some world event comes along that really makes one question one's assumed principles, and brings an edge of foreboding, that perhaps what one assumed is noble was at perhaps at best naive, and at worst irresponsible.
And it is also quite fitting that it would happen in France, one of the birth places of the Enlightenment, perhaps the most important influence on our sense of modern self, which seems not to be able to weather the current times as well as its lofty ideals might have suggested.
Here is a country which, in princple at least, was committed to the notion of all-important equality, something which I always thought I fully agreed on. I found it good that there it was postively illegal to record religious or ethnic information in surveys, or for this data to be a factor at all. This compared with Austria where when registering with the state (as one has to do, even if a native) one has to give a religion if any, and it is even expected that one would also mention it on a CV when applying for a Job.
For me all this was all personal information, and irrelevant to my position as a citizen, an immigrant, an employee. For me being a member (new or original) of a society was, and is, not about who you are, defined as that is by associations rather than essences, but rather what you do. What I am is not Irish, Catholic (if lapsed), migrant, 30 year old, male, white - these are all surface commonalities which may give statistical possibilities, but do not really define me myself. Rather what I really am is what I have done and do, and it is by this that I must be judged as part of society. That this is the cornerstone of our modern communities I think is reflected in the law, which is ultimately the boundary, the framework of society, if not the actual essence. In European countries, at least for the moment, one cannot be punished for what you might do based on statistical probability.
Well, that's the idea anyway. But the facts of the matter are quite different. We are human, and part of our evolved nature is to evaluated our environment, and especially other people, and make assumptions which then affect our behaviour towards them, and interactively, their behaviour towards us. And unfortunately those assumptions are based on associations, interpretations and guesses about class, culture etc. which while they might not make the person in question, define them for us until we know better.
There are two problems then that arise from ignoring the differences that now exist in our societies. First of all, since prejudice is a natural if surmountable trait, if it is ignored then it will flourish. Denying that people have different backgrounds is not going to stop it being noticed, perhaps subconsciously by the more open minded of us, but also viciously by the less so. Secondly, ignoring breeds ignorance, and that is the real danger. I think the worst attrocities in human history involve the transformation of one section of society, into some kind of 'other',a them and us situation. The holocaust, Rwanda, any of the really horrifying genocidal events in history are horrific not because of what happened, killing others is not so revolting to us as such since we can countenance war, but because of the breakdown of relationship between fellow humans. Slowly this is being extended to war, since the growth of a 'global' community blurs the 'them and us' that the nation state system easily invokes, but still this is a relatively new development, and we are still easily manipulated to lose all compassion for 'the enemy'. But what still has power to bring out disgust, is when the conflict is within our longer established communities, as it was when the Nazis turned against the Jews, or the Hutus lashed out at the Tutsis. We in our modern, supposedly civilized society can easily be led to think of this as an aberration - after all, how can neighbour turn against neighbour if they were ever really 'neighbours' in our developed society sense of the world. The answer is very simple, it can happen whenever that neighbour is somehow viewed as 'other' or different.
And the sad thing is this can happen very easily. Psychological studies have shown that even arbitrary distinctions, like labelling one random group 'the red team' and another 'the blue team' can quickly give rise to deep tribal passions, feelings of 'otherness' towards the opposing team. And similarly in society - as soon as people seem to be 'other' then its the slippery slope, which without being dramatic, can lead to anything....
I also think that the current atmosphere in Europe and the world, with the hot topics of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and integration of different cultures in a time of mass migration, is ripe for such a sense of 'otherness' to develop, especially towards muslims.
But why muslims in particular? Surely in somewhere like Europe there are many different cultures now present, and an influx of both economic and political refugees (and btw, I think both kinds can in a way be valid, material oppression is as bad as any other kind), so why not a hostility developing towards migrants in general? Of course there is, at a low, spontaneous and uncoordinated level, but what I think is most pressing about the so-called 'muslim' issue is because it has the potential to turn into something much bigger and cohesive, and hence much more serious. The reason why it has that potential is exactly the same reason as why I could refer to it as 'the muslim issue' and you probably think you know what I am talking about. I think there is the perception that because Islam is an active religion, and one spread across boundaries, it is therefore a potent unifying force - something which might command an allegiance above that owed to family, state or law. In the west as our religions decline, and anyway seem to have become 'personal' religions, I think we have trouble realistically comprehending a vibrant and outwardly practised religion like Islam. While on the surface we can easily say 'its just a religion and all should be tolerated' I think deep down a lot of us in the modern west just aren't religious in this way, and do don't know what to expect. And this ignorance is then exacerbated by the very noticable differences which we seem to perceive. These differences are probably just surface distinctions, understandable given the different cultures and histories and not due just to the different theology, but given the whole atmosphere they allow for the development of this chimera of an 'other' something which is all the more gripping given the fact that it is s seemingly monolithic and vast.
All though history, 'the jews' (as if some monolithic gang rather than a label of association) would have been seen as somehow 'other' by the christian culture in which they lived. Naturally a result of this shared culture, and reinforced by the hostility against them would have resulted in a jewish community - a shared network amongst people of similar heritage. But the existence of such a community is of course neither grounds not cause for the explosion of aggression against them in the Holocaust. Communities are just how one divides up society, and there are many possible permutations, some more sharply defined than others, but none as such result on their own in the extreme situation that came about in Europe in the mid-20th century. My interpretation is that somehow this slight perception otherness was tapped into at a time of turmoil, and inflamed until they really came to be seen as 'other', even to the extent that they were so other as not to be of the same race of beings. And of course once that happens, then there is no depth to which 'humanity' won't sink...
I think such 'dehumanising' can always take place, if the situations are right, and will always proceed along the perceived faultlines, the differences that can be used to generate a 'them' and 'us'. And I think that the hype about 'islam' and 'muslims' could easily be stages on that path, since it feeds into the same kind of ugly myth as 'the jewish conspiracy' idea does - that there is some vast and unified enemy out to get us, and lo, they even look different. This is a slippery slope that can lead right into the gas chambers...
But, its all very well for me to say that we should view others as 'others', because the brute fact of the matter is that people, and cultures, are different, and yet also are being thrown together in the melting pot of globalisation. And the other brute fact is that we humans are attuned to notice and react to 'otherness'. So a simple statement of 'equality' is not enough. It is not enough to ignore the realities of modern life, as the French approach tried to do, albeit from noble motives.
But is there a solution which can retain those noble motives, those worthy principles of the Englightenment and the French Revolution? What are those principles, and are they worthy? Why?
....Part 2 to come...
Saturday, September 24, 2005
re-start
Okay, after creating this blog it turned out that I didn't get the chance to actually make any posts. Hopefully that's changed, but time will tell.
My goal for this blog is to just provide a sort of noticeboard for commenting on current events. I guess world foreign policy (especially US) will feature heavily, and also probably my developing theories of a constructive aetheism, but with luck I'll really be able to make some comment on all aspects of this bizarre and absurd life about us...my slant on this mess of meaning, drifting in the nothingness...
Mark
My goal for this blog is to just provide a sort of noticeboard for commenting on current events. I guess world foreign policy (especially US) will feature heavily, and also probably my developing theories of a constructive aetheism, but with luck I'll really be able to make some comment on all aspects of this bizarre and absurd life about us...my slant on this mess of meaning, drifting in the nothingness...
Mark
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
another day, another blog
Hello world.
My blogs are becoming like buses. None around for ages and then two come along all at once....and neither particularly useful!
The other one is staggering in the direction of weird wafflings, so I thought I should start a second one which might be for stuff that might actually be read, as opposed to things that just needed to be said.
So here will go any comments, arguments, and various other ramblings about things that might actually matter - world affairs, day-to-day events, and real life themes. and of course George Bush.
My blogs are becoming like buses. None around for ages and then two come along all at once....and neither particularly useful!
The other one is staggering in the direction of weird wafflings, so I thought I should start a second one which might be for stuff that might actually be read, as opposed to things that just needed to be said.
So here will go any comments, arguments, and various other ramblings about things that might actually matter - world affairs, day-to-day events, and real life themes. and of course George Bush.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)