Hegel and politics

I'd like to expand on the idea that the dialectic is a metaphysical phenomenon which makes civilization possible.

As I wrote in an earlier essay, Robert Fulford of the National Post wrote an article about a metaphysical, behind the scene characteristic that is at the core of our existence. The article was "What divides us makes us Hegel". The article discussed the division that has existed between Canada's two founding but conflicting cultures, English and French. He writes that this division paradoxically has made Canada what it is today, an exceptional country. But as I see it he also could have been writing about the world in general.

Hegel, who popularized the dialectic, was a world-system thinker and a visionary. He saw a grand plan for the world, not determined by individuals but by civilization itself. He believed the whole world represented a single civilization on a common course. His thinking foresaw today’s globalism. However, he must have known that the coming together of the world wasn't going to be easy as he saw from the divisiveness that engulfed his beloved Europe of the 19th century. He believed, though, that unification would eventually come through the  political reconciliation of differences. He named the process by which it would happen the dialectic - the argument – the conflict/contradiction of opposing ideas culminating in resolution. Through the dialectical process Hegel believed humans would discover common sense and Reason, which would advance them and teach them to live in harmony. He believed that in the discourse of the dialectic the world would become a pragmatic place, where future human confrontations would be of a cognitive nature rather than physical ones. He saw the dialectic as a life force for human progress.

When Hegel formulated his theory of the dialectic shaping and making the world more intelligent he couldn't have imagined the physical conflicts the world would first have to endure, such as two world wars and countless other skirmishes, before it found a measure of common sense and Reason. Looking back one might imagine that after the destruction of WW1 the world might have learned a lesson or two and resolved to create the League of Nations, like many leaders wanted, in order to stop similar horrific acts. Obviously, though, WW1 was not horrific enough to bring sufficient reconciliation between nations as one might have imagined. The dialectic of ideas WW1 provoked was obviously not sufficient enough to bring Reason to bear so that the world might organize itself in order to prevent future wars. WW1 did not smarten up the world as Hegel might have hoped. It took a second world war to dialectically induce the world with sufficient Reason to establish a agency that could put an end to such wars, like the United Nations.

Hegel believed that we need conflict to remain alive and awake, to keep us from growing stale and atrophying. He didn't mean physical conflict but the conflict brought on by politics and the world of ideas. He believed that the conflict of ideas - the dialectic, and the struggle for resolution stimulates us cognitively , provoking further thinking and new ideas. This process not only revitalizes us but also keeps us lucid of mind and adds to our intelligence. The process is one of mentally spiraling upwards in which we develop new skills, which also brings forth solutions to complex problems we may never have imagined possible.

This is what Fulford was writing about, that the divisive and contradictory make up of Canada, with its two opposing cultures, is the engine that keeps Canada humming, in tune and alive. Canada, in true dialectic fashion, has used this division and the conflict that arises from it to its  advantage. It has learned from it, developed and improved its operational philosophies. Instead of these opposing cultures continuing to quarrel with each other they have learned to coexist and created an exceptional state of affairs. Subsequently, in its struggle to equalize things between the English and the French, Canada developed extraordinary governing skills that have become extremely useful in managing another of it unique situation, its growing multicultural society. Intellectuals recognized Canada as a Hegelian nation years ago because of its dualistic nature and that it didn't completely try to extinguish the clash between its two founding cultures but used it in a dialectical fashion to create a unique and exceptional country, something that would have made Hegel proud. And it the course of things Canada‘s experience has become an example for the rest of the world.

I want to use a phrase I just made up, ‘deliberative philosophy’. It is akin to deliberative democracy, a process that helps sustain Democracy. In a discoursive manner deliberative philosophy also is sustaining and is what the dialectic process is all about. Through the clash and the deliberation of two opposing forces, two ideas that are contradictory but are assumed equally valid, (like Canada’s two founding cultures) it reasons out and synthesizes a pragmatic philosophy and a course of action that is mutually beneficial. Confronted by two contradictory forces, its two cultures, Canada was wise not to abandon one in favor of the other but instead used both, through discoursive give and take, to devise a philosophy and political policies that has made it socially richer and more harmonious. Had Canada not taken this route and instead favored one culture over the other as its chief governance there certainly would have been a ‘clash of civilizations’ which most likely would have torn the country apart. One thing that has encouraged this process in Canada, of reaching out, is that the alternative was not an option and unthinkable.

I am fond of saying litigation creates civilization. What happens within the dialectic is a litigation of sorts. Under the proper conditions the dialectic provokes and enables litigation and mediation in resolving political and cultural differences, as those between the English and the French in Canada. As a result Canada has developed a unique civility between diverse cultures.

The economist Julian Simon once made a classic Hegelian remark, "that the world needs problems because they make us better. Problems make us better off than if they never happened." I am sure you can imagine what Simon was saying, that in having problems intelligent people work together and seek solutions, thus advancing themselves. However, I think Simon made that remark unsuspectingly because he was no Hegelian. Nevertheless, I think his remark proves that we live in a Hegelian, dialectic world whether one knows it or not. It also shows that what conflicts us can make us stronger if we work to resolve it. For example, after 9/11 a clash of civilizations didn't occur as some had predicted but instead the world that existed prior to it continued in its globalism and interdependence because people came together to resolve their differences, because there was the understood that we are all in the same boat and have common goals, of common needs and aspirations.

Hegel didn’t invent this system of the dialectic. He discovered it as he observed the world, knowing that it was the natural procedure of things. He also discovered it with the help of a previous thinker, Heraclitus, an ancient Greek philosopher who realized that the world is made of contradictions and that their existence and reconciliation makes the world possible. In his article Fulford expounded on this theme and the cultural contradictions that makes Canada possible, exceptional and vibrant.

Multiculturalism in Canada

The National Post has been doing a series of articles about some of the biggest political mistakes in Canada. Barbara Kay wrote an article about multiculturalism being Canada's biggest mistake. I composed a letter in response and this is what I wrote:

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for the provocative article. It appeared to me in a timely fashion as I was contemplating the subject.

Perhaps multiculturalism is a mistake but I don't think it's been a matter of much choice. Canada had multiculturalism thrust open it from the beginning with its to founding cultures, English and French. Canada was wise to adopt both cultures for its governance. If it hadn’t it truly may have been a 'clash of civilizations', one that would have torn the country apart. Similarly, it has been wise of Canada to allow the cultural differences of others to survive and continue because stymieing them could have led to social unrest. Instead Canada has learned to cultivate them all, maximizing their potential.

In contrast, had multiculturalism been practiced in Yugoslavia and its different cultures been treated equally it probably would not have been torn apart as it was. Tito, who ruled the country with an iron grip, forced everybody to coexist, but mainly his ethnic group ruled the country. Subsequently, after he died, the country and Tito's cohesion fell apart.

You deny that multiculturalism has made the country richer. Dynamically it has, economically and in overall human relations. It has made Canada an exceptional country and an admiration of the world. People who have experience multiculturalism in other parts of the world find it blends best in Canada because of it unique situation and of it first having two founding cultures that prepared it for more.

People think that in multiculturalism each separate culture carries on as it wants. That misconception is why people are bothered by it. But in all fairness, the people who come from other countries culturally assimilate more to Canada's way of life than Canadians do to theirs. For instance, they adopt Canada's laws, we don't adopt theirs. For the most part they adopt the countries values and practice its philosophies of democracy and capitalism. In fact, multiculturalism helps expand democracy because it encourages diversity, putting pressure on democracy to live up to it reputation of being an all-inclusive governing system. For democracy to remain legitimate and vital it require many masters, which multiculturalism tends to be. The demands of multiculturalism rejuvenate democracy.

Some people think multiculturalism doesn’t make common sense because it defies a ‘centre’. Yeats said of a civilization, if the centre doesn’t hold things fall apart. He would have viewed multiculturalism as having not center. However, he said that in a less sophisticated world, a world that was still chiefly racist and xenophobic, and less understanding of diversification. Today, with human rights at the center of world politics, racism has subsided and the world is more diversified. The championing of multiculturalism has been one way of combating racism and promoting human right, with the freedom to choose and keep one's identity. Canada, with its multiculturalism, is at the forefront of this brave new world.

Robert Fulford, another writer at the Post, wrote an article entitled "What divides us makes us Hegel". He was writing about the division that has existed between the English and the French. As he says, that division has paradoxically made Canada possible and exceptional. Canada wisely did not pick one founding member in favor of the other for its governance. Instead it has worked to reconcile the division between the two and in so doing has developed and incrementalized its governing skills and operational philosophies. Multiculturalism has further heightened this exceptional about Canada because it encourages Canada to constantly reflect and refine its skills. Multiculturalism has kept Canada politically alive and awake.

In multiculturalism Canada has been an example and a laboratory to the world. Canada is really a harbinger of the world to come, or the one that is already hear because of globalization.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Barbara Kay was kind to write back but she thought I had the wrong end of the stick. She said that she isn’t against biculturalism, the origin of this country, and that I had it confused with multiculturalism. However, I made the connection because Canada’s biculturalism in many respects laid the ground for the later acceptance of multiculturalism. In other words, biculturalism morphed in multiculturalism. She also contrasted Canada with the US. She wrote. “ As for making a country great, what greater country is there than the US, made great by the melting pot and forced integration? If you consider Canada great now, imagine it 10 times greater, which is what forced integration would have done.”

All I can say is that the US and Canada are different places. I don’t think integration, per se, was forced on Americans. It happened sort of naturally, like multiculturalism happened sort of naturally in Canada. Each country made different choices. People went to each country for different reasons. Moreover, the US is more densely populated than Canada so cultural differences there, personified, would have been more frictional and perhaps worse. One thing that has makes the US different is a common patriotism, crossing all cultures lines. Canada didn’t go that route. But I think Canada is better prepared for a globalized world because of its multiculturalism. And today we notice how different the makeup of the US is becoming with more people choosing to keep their own cultural identities.

The Dialectic

It just dawned on me that the dialectic is a metaphysical phenomenon. The dialectic is a behind the scenes phenomenon, like anything metaphysical, which makes civilization possible.

I got the idea after reading an article entitled "What divides us makes us Hegel" by Robert Fulford in the National Post. He writes that the division that has existed between Canada's two founding cultures, English and French has made Canada not only possible but exceptional, due to its dialectical nature.

Instead of adopting one culture and one language to govern the country Canada went the duality route and adopted both cultures. This certainly made it more difficult to run the country but in the process of reconciling its two conflicting members, as in the dialectic, Canada has become a richer and a more sophisticated nation. As Hegel argued, the clash of ideas, as has been occurring between the English and the French in Canada, has an incremental effect on people and in the process expands their skills and improves their operational philosophies.

The clash of ideas causes problems but it also forces a mindful and determined nation like to Canada to seek solutions. In its clash between English and French identities, Canada's dialectically has developed and implemented a unique form of governance that makes it not only exceptional in the world but has prepared it to be home for other ethnic groups and to become a truly multiculturalism nation.

"Behind the 'Modern' China"

As I was thinking about what else I could say about democracy I came across Robert Kagan's article in The Washington Post, "Behind the 'Modern' China". The article is about the lack of real democracy in China. Kagan emphasizes the word 'Modern' to emphasize the presumption of China's modernity. Just because it has embraced capitalism and free-market principles doesn't mean China is modern. Kagan says that without democracy China isn't real a modern country or living in the 21st century. In fact, he says, it is still living in the 19th century.

He has a point. A country has to be modern, more like postmodern, to deal with democracy. Nevertheless, there is a modernity to China in that it does accept capitalism and the free market. But capitalism generally comes easier to most nations because it appeals to the human predisposition for consumption and wealth. Democracy, though, requires a higher and more sophisticated level of modernity, or postmodernity, which China doesn't yet have. However, Kagan thinks that China will never become that sophisticated.

There are other things Kagan has been wrong about, likes the war in Iraq, the staying power of neoconservatism and America's hegemony. I think that eventually he will be proven wrong about the emergence of democracy in China. In his argument he forgets about all the historical baggage China has to deal with before its people can truly adjust and deal with democracy. (China’s autocracy is preparing its people for democracy.) Moreover, the Chinese people have more freedoms than they had a generation ago, in personal mobility, employment and consumption, freedoms that eventually will lead to democracy. And there is a parallel between China's fledging democracy and America's since economic freedoms also first came to America before full-blown political freedom. He also forgets that South Korea and Taiwan, countries with similar backgrounds to China, were once dictatorships. But as they industrialized and got richer they eventually evolved into democracies. Kagan should be more patient.

There is something naive about Kagan's analyses. In the past he showed his naivety in supporting the war in Iraq, the Bush administration, preemptive war and neoconservatism. Now he shows his naivety about democracy.

I don’t think he realizes that democracy can be very destabilizing for countries that have never practiced it before, hence their reluctance to embrace it. For instance, when Russia first attempted democracy in the 90's it was very destabilizing and ruinous for its people. Some people really took advantage of it for their own personal gain, at the expense of everybody else. As a result most people in Russia were in favor of some form of autocracy to stabilized thing, hence Putin and his strong-arm tactics. Similarly, the Chinese people are not ready for full-blown democracy, because they are not familiar with its ins and outs as we are in the West, where it has taken centuries to develop. Chinese leaders are aware of the instability democracy can bring if one is not versed in its nuances. That's why their cautious and leery approach to it.

Kagan points to a long held doctrine in the West that believes if autocracies are engaged economically they will eventually liberalize themselves politically. Well, he says, it hasn't happened in places like Russia or China. In fact, he adds, as these countries have gotten richer they have shunned the political liberalization that was supposed to have accompanied the liberalization of their economies. However, he doesn’t see to the underlying things that are occurring in both these countries that eventually will lead to more political freedom.

Trade with China has had its liberalizing effects in that it has encouraged a more open society there. Though Kagan knows this he hasn’t mention it. An 'open society' is a prerequisite for democracy. There was an instance recently where China was distributing tainted products throughout the world, products as diverse as toys, pet food and medical ones. People and pets have died from these tainted products. This has come back to China with demands from its trading partners that it cleanup its act and adopt stringent regulation to protect people from tainted products if it wants to continue to trade with the West. This ultimately has opened many aspects of China's economy to internal and external scrutiny. China, therefore, has had to become more transparent and accountable, in the process opening itself up and preparing itself for more liberalization and democratic procedures.

Another incident that has contributed to China becoming more open, because of it economic engaged with the rest of world, is SARS. SARS created quite a health scare around the world, as we know in Canada. Canada, like China, was negatively impacted by it, financially. Again, if China wanted to be part of the global community and prosper from world trade it had to clean up its act in regards to health because people were not willing to do business in or with a country that had contagious deceases. In the past, when China was more isolated, it could hide contagious deceases from the rest of the world and its people. However, now that it has integrated itself into the rest of the world in has to act more responsible and open about such matters. As a result every individual has had to become more responsible in order to insure a healthier China. This rise and expectation of individual responsibility is further preparation for the emergence of democracy.

With their newfound wealth and economic freedoms the Chinese are doing a lot of traveling, something they could not have done under communism. Travel has an incremental democratizing effect on people and a nation, especially when done on mass as the Chinese are doing. As Jeffery Sachs said, “ Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.” The removal of those negative attitudes bodes well for the development of democracy in that it also contributes to a more open society. And travel is also fatal to an autocracy because people who travel tend to get infected with new ideas and a sophistication that ultimately questions authority. The Olympics and trade have also incrementally opened China the other way, in that it has brought travelers into China who have also brought with them ideas and procedures that eventually challenge authority. Trade and travel are cotangents that unhinge autocracies.

One of the many institutions that have developed in Russia and China is that of private ownership. Under communism private ownership was forbidden. Private ownership is now a way of life in these countries and more and more protected by laws. Private ownership is a bedrock of capitalism and of eventual democracy. As the wise Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once said, "Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom". Both Russia and China have opened that Pandora's box, one that is unlikely to be closed by anyone.