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...
No comments:
Post a Comment