Martin Luther King

January 18 is Martin Luther King Day in the US. I am sure it was this observance that prompted an admirer to write that Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) is perhaps the greatest philosopher of our time.

I never thought of Martin Luther King as a philosopher but I guess he is, even those he is not listed in any philosophy dictionary as such. Nevertheless, his philosophy transformed America, and as a result, the world. His philosophy was aimed at ending segregation and racism in America, and improving human rights. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, circumstances determined Kings philosophy and in turn his philosophy determined circumstances. He is what is known as an operational philosopher, an advocate who put his philosophy/beliefs to work, a philosopher who walked the talk, so to speak. Other operational philosophers who advocated and advanced the human condition are Freud (psychoanalysis) and Benjamin Spock (child rearing).

It was probably the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to desegregate all schools in America that provoked King to do battle against segregation and racism. No matter how influential and unanimous (9-0) that Court ruling was, on its own it had little power to improve race relations in America. It was a start. But many jurisdictions, mostly in the south, ignored and fought that ruling. And there still existed a cultural stubbornness and a lack of will in the country that had to be addressed before the old folkways on race would change. As an abstraction the Court’s dictate was insufficient to change cultural attitudes and behavior. True social change would have to come from beneath, in a more tangible form, not through court rulings, but through peaceful activism and the process of appealing to people’s better instincts and sense of universal justice. It was the mechanism of King’s philosophical conviction and diligence about America doing right by its people, and not the law per se, that started to turn things around and began transforming America racial relations for the better.

But would his philosophy have resonated as well in another time as it did in the 1950-60s? Would people have listened to his message 20 years earlier, before WWII? My feeling is that earlier, America wouldn’t have been so receptive to his call for social and racial justice because they were preoccupied with other issues, like surviving and just making a living. But the era of the 1950-60s was different. His message was in tune with the time, which was more affluent, thinking about the future and wanted change. His philosophical outlook alined itself perfectly with the demographics and the sociopolitical sensibilities of the day.

What made his philosophy especially poignant and powerful was not just that he was a great orator but that the world was ready for it. Prior to King the world was engrossed in other issues, like economic recovery and wars. Furthermore, the technology to distribute his grievous message did not exist yet. It was television that created the mass audience that made the difference. Without television I don't thing enough people would have visualized or appreciated what King was talking about, that race relations in America were scandalous. The people who counted and could make a difference saw on television, for the first time, the injustices perpetrated in the southern US, of Americans attacking other Americans. People were horrified and motivated by what they saw on TV, scenes of racial injustice and brutality, and demanded reform. King's speeches on TV gave it all the more impact and urgency.

The world at the time of King was changing dramatically. Human rights had come to the forefront because of what happened during WWII and the Holocaust. People had become more aware of the ill treatment many people around the world were receiving, because of the growth of information and communications, such as from television. King was central to the issue and the point man in changing attitudes towards race in America, changes that would eventually resonate around the world.

Issue 75 of Philosophy Now was about existentialism, a philosophy that centers on the individual and the human condition. It came to prominence after WWII as a reaction to authoritarianism from despots like Hitler. Under Hitler many individuals were grossly maltreated. Jews and others were stripped of their personal dignity and put in concentration camps, either as slave labor or to be executed. The ideals and purpose of existentialism was to empower people, to build self-esteem and create an army of independent minded thinkers and activists that would challenge and fight authoritarianism in order that no government or ethnic group would ever strip others of human dignity. King emerged on this wave of existentialism that was sweeping the world. He helped put existential ideals about human dignity and civil rights into practice like no other individual before.


What gave King’s call for racial equality further traction was the generation he was speaking to. This generation was the so-called baby boom generation, whose mass numbers began emerging at the close of WWII, in the second half of the 1940s. After the war the birth rate shot up dramatically as soldiers returned from the front and as the world began to feel more optimistic. It was a generation like no other, in numbers and sensibilities. As Leonard Steinhorn wrote in his book, the Greater Generation: In Defense Of The Baby Boomer Legacy, it was a generation that was not blindly going to accept the status quo set by the previous generation, of social intolerance and unquestionable deference to authority. This generation of boomers was in sync and exceptionally empathetic with Martin Luther King’s fight for social justice. It was a generation determined to hold America to its founding ideals of equality for all under the law. Without this reforms-minded generation King’s philosophy may have fallen on deaf ears and not led to the social transformation America needed, if was going to be the exceptional nation it trumpeted itself to be.

King’s influence was also felt in the fact that he drew attention to America’s Achilles heel at a very critical time in its history. During the Cold War, America, touting its democratic values and superiority, was in competition with its rival communism for the hearts and minds of the world as to which was the more ideal form of governance. America had to show the world that it was truly the land of justice and opportunity for all, as advertised. But King, in drawing attention to its social inequality, embarrassed America in its propaganda war with communism. King's pursuit for racial justice and equality for all forced America to reexamine itself and work to end its segregationist policies against African-Americans if it hoped to win the propaganda war against communism.

For America King was a savior. At the time it was a country sitting on a tinderbox of race relations. This too points to him as being the man of the hour. A significant portion of America’s population felt alienated in their own country because of their color. What heighten tensions more is that many African-American’s had become more educated and conscious of the injustices perpetrated against them. They wanted the same rights that were accorded their white counterparts. Other African-Americans who had recently returned home from wars, defending America and democracy in WWII and Korea, expected equality and recognition for their contributions. These people wanted their due rights as citizens, especially if they were expected to help defend and build the nation. Although there were race riots during King’s tenure, his peaceful marches for equal justice for all Americans and the awareness he raised, helped defuse a situation that potentially could have gotten worse and ripped the country apart even further.

King's philosophical legacy empowered millions of people economically and politically. He also fought for workers rights. His fight for emancipation provoked legislation that gave the vote to millions of African-Americans, who, because of their race, had been deliberately denied that right. Because of his efforts the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pasted, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in history. Perhaps King's greatest political legacy is the election of America's first black president, Barack Obama, which couldn’t have occurred if it wasn’t for the struggle he waged.

Machiavelli wrote: “The human tragedy is that circumstances change, but man does not.” We humans still don’t like change. But if Americans had not heeded King’s advocacy for social change in order to combat racial discrimination that would have been a real tragedy.

Egypt and Democracy

Egypt has no hope of becoming a democratic society without secularism, where people of all stripes and beliefs have a hope of being treated equally. The chances of secularism (which also includes the separation and sharing of power) taking hold there in the near future is remote. But in the far future it is possible. But a lot of social upheaval and violence is going to have to occur first, like happened in Europe over the centuries.

True and lasting democracy is impossible without secularism. If Egypt was a country of only one religion then secularism would not be a problem, because everybody would be of one mind and of one culture, wanting the same thing. In the West we have managed to develop a culture of inclusion and multiculturalism, where different ideas reconcile and coexist with each other. But Egypt and most of the Muslim/Arab world do not understand this culture. It is not in their blood, or DNA. They are still tribal. A major belief that continues to persist in this world, among tribes, is that either one rules or dies at the hands of another. Power sharing among tribes or political parties is not an option or a component, such as it is in the West.

If Morsi, the deposed president of Egypt, acted secular and shared power with his opponents he would still be president. His followers say he was democratically elected so he should still be in office and not have been removed by the military. But he certainly didn't acted democratically in office. He consolidate power within his own tribe and like minded supporters. Democracy doesn't work that way. One problem is that even though Morsi was elected democratically the institutions to backup and uphold the democracy people voted for didn't exist to insure or implement it.

Egypt is still a closed society, not open to the majority. Until it begins to open up to all Democracy is out of the question.

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey once said that democracy is like a train you get off when you arrive at the station. In other words, he believes that the democratic process is just about being elected and once elected, in a democratic fashion, you forget about it until the next election. This is how Morsi and his followers in Egypt see democracy; it is just about being elected and nothing more. For these men (Putin of Russia is another one) democracy is just a means to and end - legitimately gaining the opportunity to consolidate power.

Erdogan is wrong. Democracy is an ongoing proposition. Democracy is also about being accountable and transparent with the people. But he ignores that part. When journalists try to keep his government accountable and transparent, and challenge his authority, they are arrested and thrown in jail. Turkey has more journalist in prison than any other country.

One of Erdogan's ministers said that those journalist in jail are not real journalist. I guess if people reporting in the media and the press disagree with you they are not true journalists, because they aren't towing the party line. While in office Morsi of Egypt tried to do the same thing.