I have been reading about Niall Ferguson, the Scottish historian who teaches at Harvard. I was reading about his "thought experiments". His thought experiments involve history and are like "what if" argument, such as what if John Kennedy had not been assassinated or what if Hitler had been killed when a truck hit his car. Such thought experiments, also known as counterfactual thinking, can be used to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. However, mostly they are just intellectual parlor games because as we know history can't be changed.
Ferguson does not believe the world is governed by Reason or by a class struggle or by any other deterministic laws. Therefore he is no a Hegelian. Hegel believed history is the product of Reason and determinants, and sculpted by the actions of all humankind. However, Ferguson thinks that world history could have been different if events had handled differently by its leaders. For instances, he believes Britain could have avoided getting involved in WW1 if its leaders and diplomats had acted differently. And the same goes for WW2. A Hegelian thinker, though, would explain that those two events could not have been avoided because they were a culmination of other inextricable events. In other words, a world ethos determined those events, not just a few wrong decisions made here and there. To paraphrase Emerson, history was in the saddle riding humankind, meaning those wars were in the works long before they happened.
I don't think you can particularly isolate world’s event as Ferguson has done in his thought experiments. He has particularly isolated two events, WW1 and WW2. He thinks Britain could have avoided those wars if it had used more diplomacy or if had acted earlier on their causes. Why I don't think you can isolate those events and think they could have been prevented is because they were embedded with too many variables, which, even with hindsight, are impossible to separate.
Many things can cause wars and they happen for a multiple of complex reasons. One reason I think WW1 and WW2 happened is because the political will or wisdom – the political technology - didn't sufficiently exist to prevent them. There was another friction factor that could have ignited those wars, a collective stubbornness for political change. Another reason was that there were very few legitimate democracies in those days that may or would have counseled against war, being that democracies don't go to war with each other. No, history culminated itself into those two wars for a number of human shortcomings and intransigencies. Conflicts tend to insinuate themselves because of human inadequacies, as a means of transcending and resolving them. What I think also made the wars unstoppable is the collision of two histories, a world history that was on a course of integration and globalization and a nation or state history that still had the attitude of isolationism. World history being the more powerful induced those wars as a way of transcending the opposition to internationalism.
Had the nations who were victorious in WW1 been wiser, most likely WW2 would not have occurred. Received wisdom believes that WW2 was an extension of the unfinished WW1. Had a League of Nations been put in place after WW1, as the United Nations was after WW2, WW2 most likely wouldn't have occurred. Had Germany been forced into an unconditional surrender, like it was after WW2, WW2 most likely would never have happened because the conditions for future European wars would have been greatly diminished. Had Germany not been burdened with payments of remuneration to the countries it attacked, a burden that destroyed its chances for a peacetime recovery, but instead been rehabilitated like it was by the allies after WW2, WW2 most likely would not have occurred. Alas, the victors of WW1 were none the wiser and had not yet learned the art of preventing global wars.
However, when counterfactual thinkers like Ferguson reshape history in their minds they don’t consider the fact that people back then were not privy to the wisdom or the wherewithal we have today to stop conflicts and maintain peace, hence the reason why leaders acted as they did. Also, in the past there was a different attitude towards war. Men were more apt to go to war because of a greater allegiance to the state. Also, back then war was viewed more as the courageous, honorable think to do. That attitude towards war doesn't exist much anymore.
The famous historian Edward Gibbon said that history is essentially the recounting of “the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind”. There have been so many crimes, follies and misfortunes committed during the span of humankind that they are virtually impossible to separate and unravel. I think all this entanglement makes speculating about what may or may not have happened in history quite a questionable endeavor.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Human rights and the way of the world
I have been reading a book entitled "Inventing Human Rights" by Lynn Hunt. Imagine, human rights had to be invented. However, I think human rights have always been there, just hidden from view. Instead, they’ve had to be discovered and revealed to the world. And as a result, human rights have substantially determined the ways of our world.
There are those who have thought the idea of human rights is nonsense. The utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham thought of them "nonsense on stilts". He came to that conclusion on seeing what was being perpetrated in their name during the French Revolution. Edmund Burke, the inspiration of modern conservatism, thought that people should be more concerned about natural rights. James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, also thought of them as ridiculous, that the idea should be abandoned and instead the focus should be on human needs and aspirations. But as the historian Francis Fukuyama pointed out, human needs and aspirations have virtually become synonymous with human rights.
I don't think human needs and aspirations can be met without human rights being constitutionally entrenched or legislated. Sustainable democracy certainly wouldn’t be possible without that occurring. For instance, democracy finds its credence and vitality in the demands placed on it by the many, people who have been emancipated and empowered by rights, especially the right to challenge governments and hold them accountable. And if women and minorities are excluded from also having rights, as they once were and still are in many parts of the world, then democracy is a sham.
As Hunt outlines, it is mainly three declarations that have entrench human rights throughout the world, the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789 and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. (In England, the cradle of human rights, they evolved more empirically, not through any single declaration.) These declarations, she writes, declared sovereignty to nations and to citizens, not to kings or any one group, but pronounced everybody equal before the law. A profound point Hunt made is that because of these declarations of equality, positions of governance and organization were opened up to ordinary people, not just to the ruling classes, making society less corrupt and more efficient.
I was captivated by the passage "all men are created equal" in the American Declaration of Independence. It seems clear that all men are not created equal. And why weren't women and minorities included in that thought. It is obvious the declaration had a certain class of "men" in mind, men of property and of a certain race. However, theoretically and interpretively it went beyond that original meaning. Had that idea not truly become universal and the foundational mindset of America, America as a democratic nation would not have been possible. People had to at least have a sense that they were equal and had rights if America hoped to develop its diversity of people into a coherent mass. And as America matured that phrase lost much of its earlier emptiness and strove to encompass all people.
Embracing human rights seems like the proper humanitarian thing to do. There is a reciprocal element to it in that if you treat others with such respect you can expect the same. However, I also see a more basic and practical reason for embracing and promoting human rights. The observance of human rights empowers individuals, from which emerges responsible and accomplished citizens. This empowerment makes people feel like they are worth something, that they have a stake in the system and therefore are more engaged and productive. As Hunt points out, the idea of equality also opens up positions of governance to people who normally would not get them. In the past, without this equality, positions of governance went to the elite and those who inherited them. The idea of equality based on talent and merit broke up this traditional system of governance. Human rights and the equality it introduced into work force meant that no longer would jobs in governance go to the ruling class as they traditionally had but to those who were most competent. Thus, equal rights expanded the workforce, curbed corruption and introduced new blood and vitality to it. And as one may have notices societies that foster human rights are the most successful.
Hegel talked about human rights. He talked about them in terms of recognition and freedom. He believed that humans were entitled to those rights and that the struggle for them would determine the ways of the world and history. He was right. For instance, the struggle for recognition and freedom determined the ascendancy and triumph of democracy and capitalism because those two systems of governance have best fulfilling those desires. In contrast, the systems that opposed democracy and capitalism, communism and other authoritarian regimes, collapsed because they denied individuals their due rights of recognition and freedom.
If human rights and equality had been observed in countries like Rwanda and Yugoslavia the genocide and ethnic cleansing that occurred there would never have happened. If those nations had observed human rights they would have been democracies and thus never would have behaved in such a manner.
As I was reading Hunt's book I was thinking about another book, Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism". Totalitarianism has occurs in places where human rights have never been observed, where the idea of individual recognition and freedom never existed. Much of her book addresses the "Jewish question" and was aroused by the denigrating treatment Jews received under the Third Reich. That was one of the worst violations of human rights ever perpetrated against humankind. As I thought more about her book it became clear to me that the violations against Jews at that time and how the world has addressed the issue since is what has made human rights one of the cornerstones of our time. And how Jews were treated by the Third Reich most definitely helped give birth to the United Nations Universal Charter of Human Rights, a document that has most definitely changed and defined our present world.
There are those who have thought the idea of human rights is nonsense. The utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham thought of them "nonsense on stilts". He came to that conclusion on seeing what was being perpetrated in their name during the French Revolution. Edmund Burke, the inspiration of modern conservatism, thought that people should be more concerned about natural rights. James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, also thought of them as ridiculous, that the idea should be abandoned and instead the focus should be on human needs and aspirations. But as the historian Francis Fukuyama pointed out, human needs and aspirations have virtually become synonymous with human rights.
I don't think human needs and aspirations can be met without human rights being constitutionally entrenched or legislated. Sustainable democracy certainly wouldn’t be possible without that occurring. For instance, democracy finds its credence and vitality in the demands placed on it by the many, people who have been emancipated and empowered by rights, especially the right to challenge governments and hold them accountable. And if women and minorities are excluded from also having rights, as they once were and still are in many parts of the world, then democracy is a sham.
As Hunt outlines, it is mainly three declarations that have entrench human rights throughout the world, the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789 and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. (In England, the cradle of human rights, they evolved more empirically, not through any single declaration.) These declarations, she writes, declared sovereignty to nations and to citizens, not to kings or any one group, but pronounced everybody equal before the law. A profound point Hunt made is that because of these declarations of equality, positions of governance and organization were opened up to ordinary people, not just to the ruling classes, making society less corrupt and more efficient.
I was captivated by the passage "all men are created equal" in the American Declaration of Independence. It seems clear that all men are not created equal. And why weren't women and minorities included in that thought. It is obvious the declaration had a certain class of "men" in mind, men of property and of a certain race. However, theoretically and interpretively it went beyond that original meaning. Had that idea not truly become universal and the foundational mindset of America, America as a democratic nation would not have been possible. People had to at least have a sense that they were equal and had rights if America hoped to develop its diversity of people into a coherent mass. And as America matured that phrase lost much of its earlier emptiness and strove to encompass all people.
Embracing human rights seems like the proper humanitarian thing to do. There is a reciprocal element to it in that if you treat others with such respect you can expect the same. However, I also see a more basic and practical reason for embracing and promoting human rights. The observance of human rights empowers individuals, from which emerges responsible and accomplished citizens. This empowerment makes people feel like they are worth something, that they have a stake in the system and therefore are more engaged and productive. As Hunt points out, the idea of equality also opens up positions of governance to people who normally would not get them. In the past, without this equality, positions of governance went to the elite and those who inherited them. The idea of equality based on talent and merit broke up this traditional system of governance. Human rights and the equality it introduced into work force meant that no longer would jobs in governance go to the ruling class as they traditionally had but to those who were most competent. Thus, equal rights expanded the workforce, curbed corruption and introduced new blood and vitality to it. And as one may have notices societies that foster human rights are the most successful.
Hegel talked about human rights. He talked about them in terms of recognition and freedom. He believed that humans were entitled to those rights and that the struggle for them would determine the ways of the world and history. He was right. For instance, the struggle for recognition and freedom determined the ascendancy and triumph of democracy and capitalism because those two systems of governance have best fulfilling those desires. In contrast, the systems that opposed democracy and capitalism, communism and other authoritarian regimes, collapsed because they denied individuals their due rights of recognition and freedom.
If human rights and equality had been observed in countries like Rwanda and Yugoslavia the genocide and ethnic cleansing that occurred there would never have happened. If those nations had observed human rights they would have been democracies and thus never would have behaved in such a manner.
As I was reading Hunt's book I was thinking about another book, Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism". Totalitarianism has occurs in places where human rights have never been observed, where the idea of individual recognition and freedom never existed. Much of her book addresses the "Jewish question" and was aroused by the denigrating treatment Jews received under the Third Reich. That was one of the worst violations of human rights ever perpetrated against humankind. As I thought more about her book it became clear to me that the violations against Jews at that time and how the world has addressed the issue since is what has made human rights one of the cornerstones of our time. And how Jews were treated by the Third Reich most definitely helped give birth to the United Nations Universal Charter of Human Rights, a document that has most definitely changed and defined our present world.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
China & Democracy
Some fifteen years ago I said, from out of the blue, that I had an interest in democracy and was going to study it. At the time I didn't take my comment too seriously. Nevertheless that is what I am doing today, studying democracy.
This essay was inspired by an editorial I read In the Washington Post: "In Fear Of Chinese Democracy" by Harold Meyerson. A book by James Mann, “The China Fantasy”, in which Mann outlines the non-democratization occurring in China, inspired Meyerson’s article.
Mann attributes the non-democratization of China to an unsuspecting bunch, American corporations. That's ironic. One would think that American business leaders would want to encourage democracy in China, having grown up with it. Instead, American corporations are thwarting its development by preventing employs from organizing trade unions or gaining legal rights, which could challenge corporations' decision-making. However, this should be of no surprise because corporations have never been known as bastions of democracy.
America business has generally been ambivalent to democracy. Corporations see democracy as a hindrance, getting in the way of doing business and drives up the cost of doing it. Businessmen are generally short sighted about democracy, not realizing that in the long run it is essential for capitalism's continuance. They are also narrow minded, interests only in profit and growth. Milton Friedman famously said “…while economic freedom facilitates political freedom, political freedom, once established, has a tendency to destroy economic freedom.” That is a sentiment a lot of business people share, so it is no surprise they aren't encouraging the development of democracy in China. Coincidentally, I am reading a book called the "Age Of Betrayal: The Triumph Of Money In America, 1865 -1900" and it describes how America's earliest tycoons and corporations deterred democracy’s development. Today in China we see a similar attempt by big business to stifle democracy's growth.
In America it was really economic freedom that came first and then political freedom. This is the way I see it is occurring in China. However, the totalitarian state there is still very much in control and it will take many years to break that political grip. In contrast, when America first embarked on getting political freedom, Americans did not have such an entrenched state totalitarianism as the Chinese do. So it is not just American corporations that are stifling the establishment of democracy; the Chinese government is also party to it. However, I think capitalism is the foot-in-the-door that will eventually lead China towards broader democracy.
Interestingly, though, the Chinese have been practicing forms of democracy for years in that they have economic freedoms and choices, something they didn't have just a few decades ago. And ironically, it is American corporations that are helping to give them those economic choices through the all the consumer good they produce. The Chinese are now also free to travel. Another amazing democratic development involves the Chinese constitution. It was recently amended so that it acknowledges and upholds property rights. This is another huge step towards full-blown democracy. This change in the constitution came about because business leaders demanded protection of their assets from the state. Without this change investment in China may have dried up. This constitutional change is slowly trickling down to the masses. Because of this change the Chinese now have a measure of protection from their government. I recall something the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote on the subject: “Democracy is impossible without private ownership [as the Chinese are acquiring] because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom.” Taking all this into account, the Chinese government, along with their American corporate partners. is inadvertently giving rise to democracy.
People wondered why China was awarded the Olympics in 2008 since it wasn’t a democracy. Well, democracy doesn’t seem to be a criterion for getting them because the Soviet Union, also a communist nation, got them in 1980. However, I think the Olympics is also a door through which the Chinese are gaining democracy. One thing that the Olympics have wrought that weighs heavily on the minds of its rulers is how the world will perceive China. The Chinese want to put their best face forward to the rest of the world. And this concern is having an incremental effect on its democratization. For instance, in wanting to improve China's appearance, the Chinese authorities are engaging individual Chinese to improve their manors, to act more civilized and help improve the environment. This type of engage draws on individual initiative, which in turn is a springboard for individuals to further eek out additional rights and freedoms from the state, in that their helping the state garnishes a measure of respect and recognition which are also hallmarks of democracy.
Full democracy will take some time to come to China. However, it is interesting and riveting to watch it develop. Never has the world had such a front row seat to such an economic and political unfolding. Something else that might be considered is that perhaps China is not yet ready or sophisticated enough to deal with full-blown democracy, hence its slow progression towards it. After all, it took western nations centuries to cultivate and understand it. And, China’s experience with democracy only started a couple of decades ago.
This essay was inspired by an editorial I read In the Washington Post: "In Fear Of Chinese Democracy" by Harold Meyerson. A book by James Mann, “The China Fantasy”, in which Mann outlines the non-democratization occurring in China, inspired Meyerson’s article.
Mann attributes the non-democratization of China to an unsuspecting bunch, American corporations. That's ironic. One would think that American business leaders would want to encourage democracy in China, having grown up with it. Instead, American corporations are thwarting its development by preventing employs from organizing trade unions or gaining legal rights, which could challenge corporations' decision-making. However, this should be of no surprise because corporations have never been known as bastions of democracy.
America business has generally been ambivalent to democracy. Corporations see democracy as a hindrance, getting in the way of doing business and drives up the cost of doing it. Businessmen are generally short sighted about democracy, not realizing that in the long run it is essential for capitalism's continuance. They are also narrow minded, interests only in profit and growth. Milton Friedman famously said “…while economic freedom facilitates political freedom, political freedom, once established, has a tendency to destroy economic freedom.” That is a sentiment a lot of business people share, so it is no surprise they aren't encouraging the development of democracy in China. Coincidentally, I am reading a book called the "Age Of Betrayal: The Triumph Of Money In America, 1865 -1900" and it describes how America's earliest tycoons and corporations deterred democracy’s development. Today in China we see a similar attempt by big business to stifle democracy's growth.
In America it was really economic freedom that came first and then political freedom. This is the way I see it is occurring in China. However, the totalitarian state there is still very much in control and it will take many years to break that political grip. In contrast, when America first embarked on getting political freedom, Americans did not have such an entrenched state totalitarianism as the Chinese do. So it is not just American corporations that are stifling the establishment of democracy; the Chinese government is also party to it. However, I think capitalism is the foot-in-the-door that will eventually lead China towards broader democracy.
Interestingly, though, the Chinese have been practicing forms of democracy for years in that they have economic freedoms and choices, something they didn't have just a few decades ago. And ironically, it is American corporations that are helping to give them those economic choices through the all the consumer good they produce. The Chinese are now also free to travel. Another amazing democratic development involves the Chinese constitution. It was recently amended so that it acknowledges and upholds property rights. This is another huge step towards full-blown democracy. This change in the constitution came about because business leaders demanded protection of their assets from the state. Without this change investment in China may have dried up. This constitutional change is slowly trickling down to the masses. Because of this change the Chinese now have a measure of protection from their government. I recall something the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote on the subject: “Democracy is impossible without private ownership [as the Chinese are acquiring] because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom.” Taking all this into account, the Chinese government, along with their American corporate partners. is inadvertently giving rise to democracy.
People wondered why China was awarded the Olympics in 2008 since it wasn’t a democracy. Well, democracy doesn’t seem to be a criterion for getting them because the Soviet Union, also a communist nation, got them in 1980. However, I think the Olympics is also a door through which the Chinese are gaining democracy. One thing that the Olympics have wrought that weighs heavily on the minds of its rulers is how the world will perceive China. The Chinese want to put their best face forward to the rest of the world. And this concern is having an incremental effect on its democratization. For instance, in wanting to improve China's appearance, the Chinese authorities are engaging individual Chinese to improve their manors, to act more civilized and help improve the environment. This type of engage draws on individual initiative, which in turn is a springboard for individuals to further eek out additional rights and freedoms from the state, in that their helping the state garnishes a measure of respect and recognition which are also hallmarks of democracy.
Full democracy will take some time to come to China. However, it is interesting and riveting to watch it develop. Never has the world had such a front row seat to such an economic and political unfolding. Something else that might be considered is that perhaps China is not yet ready or sophisticated enough to deal with full-blown democracy, hence its slow progression towards it. After all, it took western nations centuries to cultivate and understand it. And, China’s experience with democracy only started a couple of decades ago.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Libertarianism & Derrida
Wondering what to write about next I gave myself a challenge, to write an essay linking libertarianism and Derrida. I got the idea while reading a book review about the history of libertarianism and while thinking about deconstructionism and its author, Jacques Derrida. My thinking this way may have originated from my mental state, of perhaps being both a liberal and a deconstructionist.
My idea to link these two seemingly unrelated subjects also comes from my tendency of wanting to connect things. In the past I have written essays connecting such odd subjects as Hegel and thermodynamics, Hegel and Ayn Rand, Freddy Laker and Karl Marx, and democracy and capitalism. Each time I think I was successful in make the connections. But with libertarianism and Derrida I'm not so sure. So it will be interesting to see what I come up with.
One thing I understand about Jacques Derrida is that he introduced – no – invented the philosophy of deconstructionism. However, I don't understand much else about his philosophy although I have tried. I thought Hegel was hard to comprehend. At least Hegel had a worldview and his ideas immediately caught my imagination. Derrida has not captured my imagination unless my dwelling on him in order to understand him means he has captured me. I understand from others that the term deconstructionism has defied definition and Derrida himself avoided defining it. Nevertheless, as a verb the term is closely associated to the process of analytical philosophy, of undoing ideas –taking them apart, and putting them back together, to perhaps discover an alternative truth.
Libertarianism is most associated with the writings and philosophy of Ayn Rand. She championed libertarianism, as the means to combat the collectivism that she saw was gain grounding in America. America, she argued, was not founded on collectivism, but on libertarianism and the free spirit of individualism. She had as much contempt for collectivism as she did for communism. Her contempt for collectivism was also a reference to the growth of government and its insinuation on the American way of life. She saw collectivism not only threatening the liberty of individuals and their ability to be self-reliant and responsible but in so doing also smothering their potential to be great and innovative.
“Language, Derrida said, is inadequate to provide a clear and unambiguous view of reality. In other words, the fixed meaning of an essay, a book, a personal letter, a scientific treatise or a recipe dissolves when hidden ambiguities and contradictions are revealed. These contradictions, inevitable in every piece of writing, he said, reveal deep fissures in the foundation of the Western world's civilizations, cultures and creations.”
That passage makes it sound as though the world is constructed on and by language. But the world is constructed more on human behavior, actions and conduct. Language is used to convey our behavior, actions and conduct. The way I hear it, Derrida seems to say that if our language was different or interpreted differently our behavior, actions and conduct would be different; the world would be different. But I think that Derrida understood that language alone could not change our behavior, attitudes or the world for the better. Thus, I think Derrida's ultimate aim, like that of many philosophers before him, was to transform his philosophy of deconstructionism from the text into the real world of human actions in order to make it a conscious and working life force. Deconstruction in this context is the reexamination of our lives and behavior so as to improve it by being more open and accommodating. The world, like civilization and humankind, is always changing, deconstructing and reinventing itself. This is a natural process. Derrida, I believe, thought human behavior and attitude should mirror those changes and should be a constant re-construction of those changes.
Imagine my surprise when I read in a review of Derrida's life that he was view as a political libertarian. A libertarian, the dictionary defines, is a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. Imagine, Derrida is also a libertarian like Rand is but with a difference. Derrida is a libertarian of the left while Rand is of the right. Rand thought more along the lines of economic liberty and Derrida along those of political liberty.
What is the difference between a libertarian of the right, a conservative, and a libertarian of the left, a socialist? (Sounds like the opening for a deconstructionist joke.) I can think of one, in economics. A libertarian of the left would think that personal liberty should include the entitlement of a job, the inherent right to employment. A libertarian of Rand's persuasion would think a job is not an entitlement but only if is capable and worthy of one. As a Frenchman T think Derrida was a socialist libertarian, thinking not only of the liberty aspect of it but also of fraternity and equality. I wonder, then, if that kind of French libertarian thinking was the basis for a clause in the European Constitution - a constitution that never passed - a clause that guaranteed the right to employment, for any one wanted a job.
In conclusion, I wasn't wrong to think of those two seemingly unrelated subjects. I discovered two forms of libertarianism. These two libertarianisms counterbalance and challenge each other in the development of the best possible social/political world. As the French would say, viva la differance.
My idea to link these two seemingly unrelated subjects also comes from my tendency of wanting to connect things. In the past I have written essays connecting such odd subjects as Hegel and thermodynamics, Hegel and Ayn Rand, Freddy Laker and Karl Marx, and democracy and capitalism. Each time I think I was successful in make the connections. But with libertarianism and Derrida I'm not so sure. So it will be interesting to see what I come up with.
One thing I understand about Jacques Derrida is that he introduced – no – invented the philosophy of deconstructionism. However, I don't understand much else about his philosophy although I have tried. I thought Hegel was hard to comprehend. At least Hegel had a worldview and his ideas immediately caught my imagination. Derrida has not captured my imagination unless my dwelling on him in order to understand him means he has captured me. I understand from others that the term deconstructionism has defied definition and Derrida himself avoided defining it. Nevertheless, as a verb the term is closely associated to the process of analytical philosophy, of undoing ideas –taking them apart, and putting them back together, to perhaps discover an alternative truth.
Libertarianism is most associated with the writings and philosophy of Ayn Rand. She championed libertarianism, as the means to combat the collectivism that she saw was gain grounding in America. America, she argued, was not founded on collectivism, but on libertarianism and the free spirit of individualism. She had as much contempt for collectivism as she did for communism. Her contempt for collectivism was also a reference to the growth of government and its insinuation on the American way of life. She saw collectivism not only threatening the liberty of individuals and their ability to be self-reliant and responsible but in so doing also smothering their potential to be great and innovative.
“Language, Derrida said, is inadequate to provide a clear and unambiguous view of reality. In other words, the fixed meaning of an essay, a book, a personal letter, a scientific treatise or a recipe dissolves when hidden ambiguities and contradictions are revealed. These contradictions, inevitable in every piece of writing, he said, reveal deep fissures in the foundation of the Western world's civilizations, cultures and creations.”
That passage makes it sound as though the world is constructed on and by language. But the world is constructed more on human behavior, actions and conduct. Language is used to convey our behavior, actions and conduct. The way I hear it, Derrida seems to say that if our language was different or interpreted differently our behavior, actions and conduct would be different; the world would be different. But I think that Derrida understood that language alone could not change our behavior, attitudes or the world for the better. Thus, I think Derrida's ultimate aim, like that of many philosophers before him, was to transform his philosophy of deconstructionism from the text into the real world of human actions in order to make it a conscious and working life force. Deconstruction in this context is the reexamination of our lives and behavior so as to improve it by being more open and accommodating. The world, like civilization and humankind, is always changing, deconstructing and reinventing itself. This is a natural process. Derrida, I believe, thought human behavior and attitude should mirror those changes and should be a constant re-construction of those changes.
Imagine my surprise when I read in a review of Derrida's life that he was view as a political libertarian. A libertarian, the dictionary defines, is a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. Imagine, Derrida is also a libertarian like Rand is but with a difference. Derrida is a libertarian of the left while Rand is of the right. Rand thought more along the lines of economic liberty and Derrida along those of political liberty.
What is the difference between a libertarian of the right, a conservative, and a libertarian of the left, a socialist? (Sounds like the opening for a deconstructionist joke.) I can think of one, in economics. A libertarian of the left would think that personal liberty should include the entitlement of a job, the inherent right to employment. A libertarian of Rand's persuasion would think a job is not an entitlement but only if is capable and worthy of one. As a Frenchman T think Derrida was a socialist libertarian, thinking not only of the liberty aspect of it but also of fraternity and equality. I wonder, then, if that kind of French libertarian thinking was the basis for a clause in the European Constitution - a constitution that never passed - a clause that guaranteed the right to employment, for any one wanted a job.
In conclusion, I wasn't wrong to think of those two seemingly unrelated subjects. I discovered two forms of libertarianism. These two libertarianisms counterbalance and challenge each other in the development of the best possible social/political world. As the French would say, viva la differance.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
"Post-modernism is the new black"
The title of this post comes from the title of an article that appeared in the last edition of The Economist in 2006. It was published under the heading "Shopping and Philosophy". The subtitle of the article was "How the shape of modern retailing was both predicted and influenced by some unlikely seers".
Jean-François Lyotard is the philosopher The Economist identifies as most responsible for predicting the rise of postmodernism. He disliked the mega-narrative and generalities that modernism offered and saw the emergence of a more culturally eclectic world attitude. He equated postmodernism with a kind of 'eclecticism' and said that "eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture; one listens to reggae, watches a Western, eats McDonald's food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and retro clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter for TV games". I think he was also speaking to the paradoxical, schizophrenic nature of globalization and it eclecticism, where the world is simultaneously becoming united and interdependent on one level while independent and fractured on another.
I never thought much about post-modernism until I read that article. I was trying to figure out what was meant by "postmodernism is the new black". I figured it out. Black is supposed to be 'cool'. So postmodern is the new cool, the new 'with it'.
The Economist article talked about postmodernism in retailing. It's about retailing catering to niche markets within a mass market. It's about retailing being constantly innovative and supper agile. Whereas 'modern' retailing catered to a homogenous market, postmodern caters to a fractured, splintered market within the larger market place. It is more exotic. In other words, the postmodern consumer market is far more diverse and multitasking and thus more sophisticated. The article points to the Selfridges, a London department store, where this model of retailing began. Because this retailing proved so successful for Selfridges - it revived Selfridges and saved from bankruptcy - it has been adopted by department stores elsewhere.
Retailing is not the only aspect of postmodernism. It also applies to architecture. Modern architecture, also know as the international style, is generally a sleek glass box building. Much of today's new architecture has been labeled postmodern, buildings designed by the likes of Foster, Libeskind, and Gehry. There is a deconstructionism about the buildings these architects built, as though a modern building has been disassembled and put back together differently, rejecting the modern design. It is a reinvention of the modern and assembled differently to reflect the changing times of more diversity and input in society.
I would thing the difference between the two architectures is the same in philosophy. Postmodern thinkers are those who grew disenchanted with modernism, which seemed to say everything had to be uniform and the same. Postmodern thinkers are deconstructionists who, unlike the moderns, are not accepting carte blanche that the world has one basic narrative but multiple narratives, exactly what Lyotard thought.
To me postmodern means that there are parallel worlds coexisting, held together by an overarching, not completely absolute world but one constantly consummating itself. I get the sense that the modern world was more absolute, whereas the postmodern world isn't. The postmodern world is more flexible and diverse. The modern world thought narrowly whereas the postmodern world things broadly and outside the box. The postmodern world is not afraid to be different and 'push buttons'.
The modern world was more socially conservative. The postmodern world is more socially liberal. The world became postmodern in the sixties, during the social upheavals that occurred then, which demanded social change. Ironically, the modern world didn’t like change whereas the postmodern world embraces and relishes it.
Many believe that the postmodern world and all its variables will not last because it has no center, the argument being that if the center doesn’t hold things fall apart. Today’s world, though, has evolved into many power centers, the reason being that in the past a concentration of power often lead to tyranny and authoritarianism. As The Economist article suggested, postmodernism’s mission is to “emancipate the individual from the control of the state or other authority, through thought and through economic power”.
In some circles postmodernism is viewed as distructive and chaotic, disrupting the order. Ironically, though, its chaos creates and preserves order and the whole, as shown by the example of Selfridges. Globalization is a postmodern phenomenon that also creates a chaos but at the same time it preserves order by embracing it instead of shunning it. Postmodernism, like globalization, is an agent of blending.
Postmodernism is a social revolutionary done insinuatingly, stealth like, not done through the dramatic and distructive social upheavals of the past. It is a social revolution that occurs constantly, not in fits and starts like others before. The Frankfurt School of philosophy, in the 30s, had its postmodern seers. When one member asked, “who in the future will replace the proletariat as the agents of revolution” another answered in very postmodern manner: “a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women, homosexuals, and other socially marginal elements”. The Economist might have added that consumers with their demands, needs and aspirations, will also be part of this ongoing revolution.
Jean-François Lyotard is the philosopher The Economist identifies as most responsible for predicting the rise of postmodernism. He disliked the mega-narrative and generalities that modernism offered and saw the emergence of a more culturally eclectic world attitude. He equated postmodernism with a kind of 'eclecticism' and said that "eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture; one listens to reggae, watches a Western, eats McDonald's food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and retro clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter for TV games". I think he was also speaking to the paradoxical, schizophrenic nature of globalization and it eclecticism, where the world is simultaneously becoming united and interdependent on one level while independent and fractured on another.
I never thought much about post-modernism until I read that article. I was trying to figure out what was meant by "postmodernism is the new black". I figured it out. Black is supposed to be 'cool'. So postmodern is the new cool, the new 'with it'.
The Economist article talked about postmodernism in retailing. It's about retailing catering to niche markets within a mass market. It's about retailing being constantly innovative and supper agile. Whereas 'modern' retailing catered to a homogenous market, postmodern caters to a fractured, splintered market within the larger market place. It is more exotic. In other words, the postmodern consumer market is far more diverse and multitasking and thus more sophisticated. The article points to the Selfridges, a London department store, where this model of retailing began. Because this retailing proved so successful for Selfridges - it revived Selfridges and saved from bankruptcy - it has been adopted by department stores elsewhere.
Retailing is not the only aspect of postmodernism. It also applies to architecture. Modern architecture, also know as the international style, is generally a sleek glass box building. Much of today's new architecture has been labeled postmodern, buildings designed by the likes of Foster, Libeskind, and Gehry. There is a deconstructionism about the buildings these architects built, as though a modern building has been disassembled and put back together differently, rejecting the modern design. It is a reinvention of the modern and assembled differently to reflect the changing times of more diversity and input in society.
I would thing the difference between the two architectures is the same in philosophy. Postmodern thinkers are those who grew disenchanted with modernism, which seemed to say everything had to be uniform and the same. Postmodern thinkers are deconstructionists who, unlike the moderns, are not accepting carte blanche that the world has one basic narrative but multiple narratives, exactly what Lyotard thought.
To me postmodern means that there are parallel worlds coexisting, held together by an overarching, not completely absolute world but one constantly consummating itself. I get the sense that the modern world was more absolute, whereas the postmodern world isn't. The postmodern world is more flexible and diverse. The modern world thought narrowly whereas the postmodern world things broadly and outside the box. The postmodern world is not afraid to be different and 'push buttons'.
The modern world was more socially conservative. The postmodern world is more socially liberal. The world became postmodern in the sixties, during the social upheavals that occurred then, which demanded social change. Ironically, the modern world didn’t like change whereas the postmodern world embraces and relishes it.
Many believe that the postmodern world and all its variables will not last because it has no center, the argument being that if the center doesn’t hold things fall apart. Today’s world, though, has evolved into many power centers, the reason being that in the past a concentration of power often lead to tyranny and authoritarianism. As The Economist article suggested, postmodernism’s mission is to “emancipate the individual from the control of the state or other authority, through thought and through economic power”.
In some circles postmodernism is viewed as distructive and chaotic, disrupting the order. Ironically, though, its chaos creates and preserves order and the whole, as shown by the example of Selfridges. Globalization is a postmodern phenomenon that also creates a chaos but at the same time it preserves order by embracing it instead of shunning it. Postmodernism, like globalization, is an agent of blending.
Postmodernism is a social revolutionary done insinuatingly, stealth like, not done through the dramatic and distructive social upheavals of the past. It is a social revolution that occurs constantly, not in fits and starts like others before. The Frankfurt School of philosophy, in the 30s, had its postmodern seers. When one member asked, “who in the future will replace the proletariat as the agents of revolution” another answered in very postmodern manner: “a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women, homosexuals, and other socially marginal elements”. The Economist might have added that consumers with their demands, needs and aspirations, will also be part of this ongoing revolution.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
What have we learned from philosophy?
At the last World Philosophical Congress, held in Boston in 1998, the theme was "What have we learned from philosophy in the 20th century?" I have been pondering that question ever since.
The most prominent philosopher at the Congress was Willard Van Orman Quine of Harvard. He died at the age of 92 in December 2000. His philosophy was naturalism, which believes that philosophy is part of science. One of the most poignant remarks he ever made was "philosophy of science is philosophy enough", meaning that the most important philosophical questions arise from scientific activity and scientific knowledge should be able to answer them. Perhaps, then, the question at the conference should have been "What have we learned from science in the 20th century" because Quine evaded the original question, as did all the other participants, as though it was impertinent or irrelevant.
One reason given for why that question was not answered was the ambiguity of the word "we". One participant, Mr. Strawson, an Oxford metaphysician and philosophy of logic asked rhetorically, "is the question about what we have learned collectively or what each of us has learned individually". He answered, "If it's the former, the possibility of any reply seems remote. And if it's the latter there is no shortage of replies." Except, none were offered. One philosopher who was also reluctant or incapable of answering the question asked what kind of philosophy are we talking about? Does it include Eastern philosophy?
I would think that the question was intended to be in the context of the whole world, not east or west. It was asked in the collective sense because philosophy is basically a collective subject, chiefly to benefit the collective. Nevertheless, philosophies that are tailored to the individual, like individualism, free will and self-interest, are also extremely important. After all, the individual should also be philosophically cultivated because he/she is a prime element of the collective, its chief source of inspiration and innovation. However, the first among equals should be collective philosophy because it cultivates the cohesive unit in which we individuals live and coexist. So perhaps one thing we learned from philosophy in the last century is that a delicate balance exists between the individual and the collective and both should be cultivated because neither can exist without the other. They are mutually dependent on each other. I think that in the past century we really began to understand the philosophical axiom "all for one and one for all" because during the 20th century the world grew closer together, more politically united and economically interdependent.
Philosophy is basically about discussing situations and trying to figure them out. One big philosophical question during the 20th century was about human relations and how we ought to treat each other. The most obvious such discussion, especially in the West, has been about the relationship between the sexes. In the 20th century women demanded to be treated equal. That demand brought on the philosophical debate about sexual harassment in the work place, that it should no longer be tolerated as it once was. Through philosophical debate the 20th century also tackled the issues of racism in society and discrimination in the work place. From these philosophical debates we learned that having diversity of people in society and in the work place is a big plus and has an advantage. We learned that diversity makes life richer and more fluid. In the 20th century we learned that suppressing diversity and minorities could lead to social upheaval, like that which occurred in the 1960s when minorities and women became serious about demanding their rights.
If that question was asked about philosophy in the 20th century, we might as well ask whether we have ever learned from philosophy? Sure we have. Philosophy gave birth to the natural and social sciences, from which we have derived the tools to enable and facilitate civilization. From those sciences we have learned what is mutually good for humankind and what isn't. Philosophy was the first to discover the natural forces of the world and then science, its offspring, transformed them so as to benefit us. From political science we have learned that democracy is the best means to achieve and preserve peace in the world. As Kant rightly speculated more than 200 years ago, democratic nations don't go to war with each other. That philosophy grained momentum during the 20th century, hence its popularity today. In the 20th century we learned that democracy is the best form of governance to meet the needs and aspirations of individuals, and contain the collective.
Some philosophers think philosophy should remain mysterious and complex, so as not to be easily understood. I think that is one reason why the question at the World Philosophical Congress in Boston was not answered, so philosophy might preserve its mystery, and philosophers keep their jobs.
The most prominent philosopher at the Congress was Willard Van Orman Quine of Harvard. He died at the age of 92 in December 2000. His philosophy was naturalism, which believes that philosophy is part of science. One of the most poignant remarks he ever made was "philosophy of science is philosophy enough", meaning that the most important philosophical questions arise from scientific activity and scientific knowledge should be able to answer them. Perhaps, then, the question at the conference should have been "What have we learned from science in the 20th century" because Quine evaded the original question, as did all the other participants, as though it was impertinent or irrelevant.
One reason given for why that question was not answered was the ambiguity of the word "we". One participant, Mr. Strawson, an Oxford metaphysician and philosophy of logic asked rhetorically, "is the question about what we have learned collectively or what each of us has learned individually". He answered, "If it's the former, the possibility of any reply seems remote. And if it's the latter there is no shortage of replies." Except, none were offered. One philosopher who was also reluctant or incapable of answering the question asked what kind of philosophy are we talking about? Does it include Eastern philosophy?
I would think that the question was intended to be in the context of the whole world, not east or west. It was asked in the collective sense because philosophy is basically a collective subject, chiefly to benefit the collective. Nevertheless, philosophies that are tailored to the individual, like individualism, free will and self-interest, are also extremely important. After all, the individual should also be philosophically cultivated because he/she is a prime element of the collective, its chief source of inspiration and innovation. However, the first among equals should be collective philosophy because it cultivates the cohesive unit in which we individuals live and coexist. So perhaps one thing we learned from philosophy in the last century is that a delicate balance exists between the individual and the collective and both should be cultivated because neither can exist without the other. They are mutually dependent on each other. I think that in the past century we really began to understand the philosophical axiom "all for one and one for all" because during the 20th century the world grew closer together, more politically united and economically interdependent.
Philosophy is basically about discussing situations and trying to figure them out. One big philosophical question during the 20th century was about human relations and how we ought to treat each other. The most obvious such discussion, especially in the West, has been about the relationship between the sexes. In the 20th century women demanded to be treated equal. That demand brought on the philosophical debate about sexual harassment in the work place, that it should no longer be tolerated as it once was. Through philosophical debate the 20th century also tackled the issues of racism in society and discrimination in the work place. From these philosophical debates we learned that having diversity of people in society and in the work place is a big plus and has an advantage. We learned that diversity makes life richer and more fluid. In the 20th century we learned that suppressing diversity and minorities could lead to social upheaval, like that which occurred in the 1960s when minorities and women became serious about demanding their rights.
If that question was asked about philosophy in the 20th century, we might as well ask whether we have ever learned from philosophy? Sure we have. Philosophy gave birth to the natural and social sciences, from which we have derived the tools to enable and facilitate civilization. From those sciences we have learned what is mutually good for humankind and what isn't. Philosophy was the first to discover the natural forces of the world and then science, its offspring, transformed them so as to benefit us. From political science we have learned that democracy is the best means to achieve and preserve peace in the world. As Kant rightly speculated more than 200 years ago, democratic nations don't go to war with each other. That philosophy grained momentum during the 20th century, hence its popularity today. In the 20th century we learned that democracy is the best form of governance to meet the needs and aspirations of individuals, and contain the collective.
Some philosophers think philosophy should remain mysterious and complex, so as not to be easily understood. I think that is one reason why the question at the World Philosophical Congress in Boston was not answered, so philosophy might preserve its mystery, and philosophers keep their jobs.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Litigation creates Civilization
"Litigation creates Civilization."
I don't know whether I invented that thought or I read it somewhere. I might have read it in a review regarding a law book. Nevertheless, it is one of my favorite thoughts. But like most complex ideas, it's not easy to explain.
Generally we associate litigation with the law and the judicial system. However, I am also thinking about it in a broader context. I am thinking of the litigation that goes on in everyday life between people, through deliberation, when people come together, engage each another and work out their differences or decide on a mutual course of action. In other words, my litigation occurs not only in the legal arena but also in the arena of the ordinary hubbub and friction of every day life. It is this kind of litigation that has really defined the consensus and common practices that exist between us. This litigation is an act that demands a clarity and honesty from people when they engage each other.
However, the idea is easier to understand if you think about it in legal terms rather than in the broader social/political context I've described. For instance, our laws, which have had an enormous civilizing effect on us, have been forged through judicial, litigious means. One might point out, though, that the core of our laws have come from The Ten Commandments, laws that never came to us via litigation but providentially, without litigation. True, but I think it is through the litigation of those laws when they have been broken that we've really learned and internalized them. Without litigation, without that kind of confrontation, those laws would have remained meaningless. Litigation has animated those primal laws and made them effective, making them operational and entrenching them in our psychic. In other words, litigation has given us the understanding, the sense and feeling of those laws. Litigation put us through the paces, cultivating the understanding of those laws. It is through such litigation that we have transcended our tribalism and become a cohesive society.
A lawyer would agree that litigation fosters civility between opponents. In the past adversaries were more apt to do battle to resolve their differences than litigate or negotiate. But in this world that kind of conflictive behavior is no longer an option or acceptable. Civilized people don't go to war anymore, they litigate. Politics is a form of litigation. Throughout the world political activity has expanded and become the way of resolving difference, not through wars as it once was.
America has the most lawyers per capita, making it the most litigious society in the world. There is something to that. I think this has something to do with the fact that America was born of an astonishing array of diversity and an abundance of competing interests. Something had to keep those parties separate, from fighting with each other. Lawyers are what separates them, helping to work out their differences. It is said that a true democracy has many master who place a multiple of demands on it. This makes democracy a very complex situation and thus a potentially very confrontational and litigious affair, hence the need for many lawyers and their litigious skills. And as such America has been at the forefront in creating social policy and more prepared than any other culture to litigate the contentious issues of our time.
This is what the dictionary says about the origins of the word litigate: Latin lītigāre, lītigāt- : līs, līt-, lawsuit + agere, to drive. The term 'agere', part of the origin of litigate, is associated with the word act, like a thing done or set in motion, driven urged, chased or stirred up. So to my way of thinking, litigation is an act occurring all the time between people, like acting things out.
Litigation is a process of working things out. It’s a process of discovery, discovering how to proceed with contentious issues. Often society is confronted with new and puzzling circumstances, which need figuring out, on how to handle and proceed with them. New circumstances usually arise without prior knowledge or forethought on how they should be dealt with. Such circumstances are often void of a known value and require the establishing of rules and regulations on had to go about them. One example is abortion. When this issue first manifested itself into a serious social issue it had all sorts of implications that required a social and legal framework. There have also been scientific discoveries, like life prolonging procedures that have also required litigation to determine their social value and how to deal with them. In these matters the litigation done by courts on society's behalf has done much to civilize and sophisticate us.
The area in which litigation has had the most success and impact is in human rights. There would be no human rights without litigation, without people having their day in court and demanding their rights. African-Americans eventually got their equal status in America by going to court. It was through litigation at the height of the civil rights movement that they achieved integration, equal education and justice under the law, something the American Constitution had vowed to do but society hadn’t yet accomplished. It was through the litigious proceedings during the Nuremberg trials in Germany after WWII that the world got to learn about some of the worst violations perpetrated against humans and humankind. From those trials a universal court for human justice was established, under the auspices of the United Nations. Without such a portal civilization could not have proceed.
I don't know whether I invented that thought or I read it somewhere. I might have read it in a review regarding a law book. Nevertheless, it is one of my favorite thoughts. But like most complex ideas, it's not easy to explain.
Generally we associate litigation with the law and the judicial system. However, I am also thinking about it in a broader context. I am thinking of the litigation that goes on in everyday life between people, through deliberation, when people come together, engage each another and work out their differences or decide on a mutual course of action. In other words, my litigation occurs not only in the legal arena but also in the arena of the ordinary hubbub and friction of every day life. It is this kind of litigation that has really defined the consensus and common practices that exist between us. This litigation is an act that demands a clarity and honesty from people when they engage each other.
However, the idea is easier to understand if you think about it in legal terms rather than in the broader social/political context I've described. For instance, our laws, which have had an enormous civilizing effect on us, have been forged through judicial, litigious means. One might point out, though, that the core of our laws have come from The Ten Commandments, laws that never came to us via litigation but providentially, without litigation. True, but I think it is through the litigation of those laws when they have been broken that we've really learned and internalized them. Without litigation, without that kind of confrontation, those laws would have remained meaningless. Litigation has animated those primal laws and made them effective, making them operational and entrenching them in our psychic. In other words, litigation has given us the understanding, the sense and feeling of those laws. Litigation put us through the paces, cultivating the understanding of those laws. It is through such litigation that we have transcended our tribalism and become a cohesive society.
A lawyer would agree that litigation fosters civility between opponents. In the past adversaries were more apt to do battle to resolve their differences than litigate or negotiate. But in this world that kind of conflictive behavior is no longer an option or acceptable. Civilized people don't go to war anymore, they litigate. Politics is a form of litigation. Throughout the world political activity has expanded and become the way of resolving difference, not through wars as it once was.
America has the most lawyers per capita, making it the most litigious society in the world. There is something to that. I think this has something to do with the fact that America was born of an astonishing array of diversity and an abundance of competing interests. Something had to keep those parties separate, from fighting with each other. Lawyers are what separates them, helping to work out their differences. It is said that a true democracy has many master who place a multiple of demands on it. This makes democracy a very complex situation and thus a potentially very confrontational and litigious affair, hence the need for many lawyers and their litigious skills. And as such America has been at the forefront in creating social policy and more prepared than any other culture to litigate the contentious issues of our time.
This is what the dictionary says about the origins of the word litigate: Latin lītigāre, lītigāt- : līs, līt-, lawsuit + agere, to drive. The term 'agere', part of the origin of litigate, is associated with the word act, like a thing done or set in motion, driven urged, chased or stirred up. So to my way of thinking, litigation is an act occurring all the time between people, like acting things out.
Litigation is a process of working things out. It’s a process of discovery, discovering how to proceed with contentious issues. Often society is confronted with new and puzzling circumstances, which need figuring out, on how to handle and proceed with them. New circumstances usually arise without prior knowledge or forethought on how they should be dealt with. Such circumstances are often void of a known value and require the establishing of rules and regulations on had to go about them. One example is abortion. When this issue first manifested itself into a serious social issue it had all sorts of implications that required a social and legal framework. There have also been scientific discoveries, like life prolonging procedures that have also required litigation to determine their social value and how to deal with them. In these matters the litigation done by courts on society's behalf has done much to civilize and sophisticate us.
The area in which litigation has had the most success and impact is in human rights. There would be no human rights without litigation, without people having their day in court and demanding their rights. African-Americans eventually got their equal status in America by going to court. It was through litigation at the height of the civil rights movement that they achieved integration, equal education and justice under the law, something the American Constitution had vowed to do but society hadn’t yet accomplished. It was through the litigious proceedings during the Nuremberg trials in Germany after WWII that the world got to learn about some of the worst violations perpetrated against humans and humankind. From those trials a universal court for human justice was established, under the auspices of the United Nations. Without such a portal civilization could not have proceed.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Circumstances
The philosopher Bertrand Russell once said something very interesting and thought provoking about philosophy: "There is a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men's lives does much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances."
Although I understand what Russell was saying I've had trouble expanding on it and coming up with examples. Now I think I have some. Take war and peace as an example. War is a circumstance that eventually directed humans to a philosophy of peace, a philosophy that established a more secure and saver world. War has been part of men's lives for a very long time. And in some parts of the world it still is. However, for enlightened humans wars have become a thing of the past and unthinkable. Far instance, the two world wars of the 20th century radically changed much of human philosophy to be against war. Those two wars, especially the second one, were so horrendous that they begged a change in our philosophy. The disastrous consequences of those wars directed us to work towards never having to go through such conflicts again. From those two wars we learned that such future conflicts would be the undoing of all of us. Human philosophy definitely changed after the Second World War in so far that in the wake of it an institution was created to help cultivate and preserve peace, the United Nations. As an institute for world peace the United Nations was born as a result of years of warring circumstances. Enlightened human have realized that little if anything is gain from war in this day and age and instead have adopted a philosophy that promotes the opposite.
Russell's observation puts philosophy in a different kind of light other than in its general ivory tower status. It makes philosophy sound like a working activity. He makes philosophy sound like it is a tool that we all have at our disposal to manage and improve our lives. Philosophy is not the only the stuff of great thinkers but the stuff belonging to everybody. In this light philosophy is not only a written text but also a means to reason, to improve our attitudes and the human condition.
The operative word in Russell's observation is *conversely*. Its root is *converse*, from Latin meaning to turn around and see. So what is happening here is that one is turning around one's mind to view and reason one's circumstances, comparing and reflecting on them, creating a logic that will alter and color future behavior. If the circumstance is bad, like war, the mind modifies and tries to improve things, thus altering future circumstance. Philosophy, then, also is a sort of database from which one draws on to progress.
Democracy, like peace, is a philosophy that grew out of past world circumstances and reflecting on them. Humans came to understand what Kant meant when he said that democratic nations do not go to war with each other. Thus, the philosophy of democracy was encouraged as the way of preserving peace. However, it took time for humanity to grasp this concept. After WWII the defeated enemies, Germany and Japan, were not abandoned or made to pay reciprocity to the victors as Germany was forced to do after WWI. That financial imposition crippled Germany and embittered it so that two decades later it again lashed out militarily against its foes, for enforcing such harsh measures against it. If Germany had been encouraged to develop the philosophy of democracy after WWI and the world had developed the United Nations as some had tried, WWII probably would never have occurred.
On an individual basis circumstance can also determine personal philosophies, in different ways. For instance, I believe if one is born in a fairly secure and loving environment one tends to be optimistic about life, whereas if one is of a volatile environment one would tend to be pessimistic about life. People's philosophies can also change later in life when circumstances change for them. For example, people who suffered the atrocities of WWII would have a very different outlook on the world than those who didn't. And I think people who are immigrants to a country like Canada have a different philosophy and attitude towards multiculturalism than those born there. Immigrants tend to be more accepting of multiculturalism because they are aliens who are adopting a different way of life in a foreign country, hence their becoming more accepting of cultural differences. Also, the circumstance of being male or female certainly produces different philosophies and approaches to life.
I remember years ago discussing a very rare occurrence, a two headed child. Both heads, meaning children, were very alert about the world. And both had different views about things. A friend, though, was wondering why both girls didn't think alike and have the same attitude towards things since they were both connected to the same body. You would think that they would think alike because of their virtually being the same person. I thought about it and then realized, naturally they both would have different views, thus different philosophies, because each head and its pair of eyes viewed a different aspect of the world, since they looked in different directions. My point is this, it doesn't take much difference in one's circumstance to conjure and determine different philosophies towards life. It also depends on a little thing like which way one's facing.
Although I understand what Russell was saying I've had trouble expanding on it and coming up with examples. Now I think I have some. Take war and peace as an example. War is a circumstance that eventually directed humans to a philosophy of peace, a philosophy that established a more secure and saver world. War has been part of men's lives for a very long time. And in some parts of the world it still is. However, for enlightened humans wars have become a thing of the past and unthinkable. Far instance, the two world wars of the 20th century radically changed much of human philosophy to be against war. Those two wars, especially the second one, were so horrendous that they begged a change in our philosophy. The disastrous consequences of those wars directed us to work towards never having to go through such conflicts again. From those two wars we learned that such future conflicts would be the undoing of all of us. Human philosophy definitely changed after the Second World War in so far that in the wake of it an institution was created to help cultivate and preserve peace, the United Nations. As an institute for world peace the United Nations was born as a result of years of warring circumstances. Enlightened human have realized that little if anything is gain from war in this day and age and instead have adopted a philosophy that promotes the opposite.
Russell's observation puts philosophy in a different kind of light other than in its general ivory tower status. It makes philosophy sound like a working activity. He makes philosophy sound like it is a tool that we all have at our disposal to manage and improve our lives. Philosophy is not the only the stuff of great thinkers but the stuff belonging to everybody. In this light philosophy is not only a written text but also a means to reason, to improve our attitudes and the human condition.
The operative word in Russell's observation is *conversely*. Its root is *converse*, from Latin meaning to turn around and see. So what is happening here is that one is turning around one's mind to view and reason one's circumstances, comparing and reflecting on them, creating a logic that will alter and color future behavior. If the circumstance is bad, like war, the mind modifies and tries to improve things, thus altering future circumstance. Philosophy, then, also is a sort of database from which one draws on to progress.
Democracy, like peace, is a philosophy that grew out of past world circumstances and reflecting on them. Humans came to understand what Kant meant when he said that democratic nations do not go to war with each other. Thus, the philosophy of democracy was encouraged as the way of preserving peace. However, it took time for humanity to grasp this concept. After WWII the defeated enemies, Germany and Japan, were not abandoned or made to pay reciprocity to the victors as Germany was forced to do after WWI. That financial imposition crippled Germany and embittered it so that two decades later it again lashed out militarily against its foes, for enforcing such harsh measures against it. If Germany had been encouraged to develop the philosophy of democracy after WWI and the world had developed the United Nations as some had tried, WWII probably would never have occurred.
On an individual basis circumstance can also determine personal philosophies, in different ways. For instance, I believe if one is born in a fairly secure and loving environment one tends to be optimistic about life, whereas if one is of a volatile environment one would tend to be pessimistic about life. People's philosophies can also change later in life when circumstances change for them. For example, people who suffered the atrocities of WWII would have a very different outlook on the world than those who didn't. And I think people who are immigrants to a country like Canada have a different philosophy and attitude towards multiculturalism than those born there. Immigrants tend to be more accepting of multiculturalism because they are aliens who are adopting a different way of life in a foreign country, hence their becoming more accepting of cultural differences. Also, the circumstance of being male or female certainly produces different philosophies and approaches to life.
I remember years ago discussing a very rare occurrence, a two headed child. Both heads, meaning children, were very alert about the world. And both had different views about things. A friend, though, was wondering why both girls didn't think alike and have the same attitude towards things since they were both connected to the same body. You would think that they would think alike because of their virtually being the same person. I thought about it and then realized, naturally they both would have different views, thus different philosophies, because each head and its pair of eyes viewed a different aspect of the world, since they looked in different directions. My point is this, it doesn't take much difference in one's circumstance to conjure and determine different philosophies towards life. It also depends on a little thing like which way one's facing.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Happy New Year
Two posts ago I wrote about Niall Ferguson, the LA Times columnist who wanted to wish everybody Happy New Year in his New Year's Day column but decided against it because he said that for most of the world New Year’s doesn't start on January 1st. He used the song Auld lang syne" to illustrate his point and added that only English speakers understood the meaning of that song. So his point was that not only did New Year’s not start on Jan 1st for a large percentage of the world but that most of the world didn't speak English and thus could not share in the sentiment that accompanied the closing of the old year.
Ferguson was really lamenting the shrinking of the Anglo, English-speaking world. He is, I believe, a bit of a traditionalist and sentimentalist. He once admitted to being a pessimist. I think he really wishes the world were still set in the British Empire. He ended his New Year's Day article with this: "Yes, let's have a drink 'for auld lang syne' this New Year's - for we English speakers have our best years behind us"
His last comment prompted me to fire off a letter to the Times. To my delight they published it. This is what I wrote: Niall Ferguson should take some comfort in the fact that the world is turning out more in the fashion of the English-speaking world than any other. The English-speaking world has made and established the rules and methods within which the world operates. Those rules and methods are not likely to change because they have proved, through a process of elimination, that they work best for the modern world. The world's needs and aspirations cannot be met without democracy and capitalism [, the DNA of the modern world].
The last phrase I put in brackets because it was omitted from the Times letter, though it was in my original draft. I used that phrase because it was, ironically, an idea Ferguson introduced me to in his book the "Cash Nexus". In it he suggested the idea that perhaps democracy and capitalism constituted the DNA of the modern world, which together probably make up the only workable form of governance for the modern world.
I think, though, Ferguson was being sarcastic with that suggestion. He was really being critical of Fukuyama's idea that liberal democracy, aka democracy/capitalism, was the end point in human governance. As I interpreted Ferguson, he was saying something like, 'Do you mean say, as Fukuyama believes, that those two doctrines together make up the essential ingredient necessary to run and sustain the modern world and nothing else will do? Where does he get off with such an idea?' Nevertheless, I find the DNA analogy interesting because I had come to believe that the reason democracy and capitalism have paralleled each other in developed democracy like ours is because neither can exist without the other, nor can our modern societies continue without them working in tandem.
There are people like Fukuyama and myself who believe the world is on a trajectory. And that trajectory is a defusing of power and the world becoming more alike, more politically unified, more power sharing, with no country truly dominant. On the other hand, I think Ferguson thinks the world still needs a controlling power, like an empire, to be a broker and an enforcer, so as to keep the world safe and secure. He saw America as that power, especially after 9/11. Now he laments that not happening because America has lost a lot of its influence in the world due to its poor judgment in the Middle East. But as I see it, with the world becoming more alike and unified, there is no room for empires anymore. The world is beyond that. And even America has had a hand the decline of its influence in the world by suggesting and persuading other nations to be more like it, which is happening more and more with the spread of globalization. No, the decisions of the world are not for any one empire anymore.
Ferguson was really lamenting the shrinking of the Anglo, English-speaking world. He is, I believe, a bit of a traditionalist and sentimentalist. He once admitted to being a pessimist. I think he really wishes the world were still set in the British Empire. He ended his New Year's Day article with this: "Yes, let's have a drink 'for auld lang syne' this New Year's - for we English speakers have our best years behind us"
His last comment prompted me to fire off a letter to the Times. To my delight they published it. This is what I wrote: Niall Ferguson should take some comfort in the fact that the world is turning out more in the fashion of the English-speaking world than any other. The English-speaking world has made and established the rules and methods within which the world operates. Those rules and methods are not likely to change because they have proved, through a process of elimination, that they work best for the modern world. The world's needs and aspirations cannot be met without democracy and capitalism [, the DNA of the modern world].
The last phrase I put in brackets because it was omitted from the Times letter, though it was in my original draft. I used that phrase because it was, ironically, an idea Ferguson introduced me to in his book the "Cash Nexus". In it he suggested the idea that perhaps democracy and capitalism constituted the DNA of the modern world, which together probably make up the only workable form of governance for the modern world.
I think, though, Ferguson was being sarcastic with that suggestion. He was really being critical of Fukuyama's idea that liberal democracy, aka democracy/capitalism, was the end point in human governance. As I interpreted Ferguson, he was saying something like, 'Do you mean say, as Fukuyama believes, that those two doctrines together make up the essential ingredient necessary to run and sustain the modern world and nothing else will do? Where does he get off with such an idea?' Nevertheless, I find the DNA analogy interesting because I had come to believe that the reason democracy and capitalism have paralleled each other in developed democracy like ours is because neither can exist without the other, nor can our modern societies continue without them working in tandem.
There are people like Fukuyama and myself who believe the world is on a trajectory. And that trajectory is a defusing of power and the world becoming more alike, more politically unified, more power sharing, with no country truly dominant. On the other hand, I think Ferguson thinks the world still needs a controlling power, like an empire, to be a broker and an enforcer, so as to keep the world safe and secure. He saw America as that power, especially after 9/11. Now he laments that not happening because America has lost a lot of its influence in the world due to its poor judgment in the Middle East. But as I see it, with the world becoming more alike and unified, there is no room for empires anymore. The world is beyond that. And even America has had a hand the decline of its influence in the world by suggesting and persuading other nations to be more like it, which is happening more and more with the spread of globalization. No, the decisions of the world are not for any one empire anymore.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Hegel and Bush
The other day I was thinking that I had not thought about Hegel for some time. Perhaps I had tired of this great philosopher who I regarded to be the greatest of them all. Then I came across an interesting article that offered a Hegelian explanation for George Bush. Then I thought, one can't avoid Hegel because we live in a Hegelian world.
The article I refer to was written by Scott McLemee, entitled "The Great Man Theory". Mclemee points out that Hegel had, in his book "Philosophy Of History", postulated a great man theory in which he describes specific men in history as “World-Historical Persons”. For instance, Hegel believes Julius Caesar and Napoleon were great men of history because not only did they make history but also they changed the world dramatically. Mclemee said that as he was reading Hegel's "The Phenomenology of Spirit" he began to wonder if Bush fitted Hegel's criteria as a world historical person. From what he read Mclemee concluded that GWB did fit GWFH's criteria.
To Hegel's way of thinking the thing that made men historically great is not just that they made history or changed it but that they were single-minded about it. They were not men of intellect or complex ideas, or men that nuanced. Their minds were not clutter with a lot of other ideas, like justice or the welfare of others. They were obsessed men who were focused like a dog with a bone, men that could not be distracted from their vision just like a dog can not be distracted from his bone. They were possessed. GWB is such a man, possessed by a crusade that believes the world should be only one way.
(I imagine Bush's management style to be like this: If things remain intransigent and immovable create a mess of it and let the chips fall where the may and generally they will fall in the right place. This is his Middle East Policy.)
I like the idea presented by McLemee. It sort of explains the unexplainable, why George Bush and his mediocrity exists in this day and age. I thought the American people were smarter and I couldn't believe that so many could have considered him at for president. Not in a million years. But since Bush was picked to be president, by a hair, I thought there must be something providential about his becoming president. Mclemee doesn't think his arrival on the world stage was providential but I do think he believes some convergence of history picked him for this time and place.
Perhaps Bush is a product of History. He became president in a sense accidentally. Historical circumstances picked him. (That can be the only explanation for his being.) History needed a single-minded person it could use and manipulate to break the historical impasse that has existed between the West and Islam. Modernity was making the situation worse between them. Islam was not adapting well or quickly enough to the modern world. The West in turn had to become more understanding of the islamic world. History needed a single minded person like Bush to do its bidding. The strategy he would use was not important, whether corrupt mismanaged or perverse, just as long as he some how upended the status quo and started Islam’s belated reform. Bush in his bubble, with his ‘gut feelings’ and hubris has fueled a revolution in the Islamic world, and its relations with the West, that is irreversible. He has done History’s bidding when no other person would have. History perversely used Napoleon and Hitler in the same way, to change the world when Reason alone would not do it.
The article I refer to was written by Scott McLemee, entitled "The Great Man Theory". Mclemee points out that Hegel had, in his book "Philosophy Of History", postulated a great man theory in which he describes specific men in history as “World-Historical Persons”. For instance, Hegel believes Julius Caesar and Napoleon were great men of history because not only did they make history but also they changed the world dramatically. Mclemee said that as he was reading Hegel's "The Phenomenology of Spirit" he began to wonder if Bush fitted Hegel's criteria as a world historical person. From what he read Mclemee concluded that GWB did fit GWFH's criteria.
To Hegel's way of thinking the thing that made men historically great is not just that they made history or changed it but that they were single-minded about it. They were not men of intellect or complex ideas, or men that nuanced. Their minds were not clutter with a lot of other ideas, like justice or the welfare of others. They were obsessed men who were focused like a dog with a bone, men that could not be distracted from their vision just like a dog can not be distracted from his bone. They were possessed. GWB is such a man, possessed by a crusade that believes the world should be only one way.
(I imagine Bush's management style to be like this: If things remain intransigent and immovable create a mess of it and let the chips fall where the may and generally they will fall in the right place. This is his Middle East Policy.)
I like the idea presented by McLemee. It sort of explains the unexplainable, why George Bush and his mediocrity exists in this day and age. I thought the American people were smarter and I couldn't believe that so many could have considered him at for president. Not in a million years. But since Bush was picked to be president, by a hair, I thought there must be something providential about his becoming president. Mclemee doesn't think his arrival on the world stage was providential but I do think he believes some convergence of history picked him for this time and place.
Perhaps Bush is a product of History. He became president in a sense accidentally. Historical circumstances picked him. (That can be the only explanation for his being.) History needed a single-minded person it could use and manipulate to break the historical impasse that has existed between the West and Islam. Modernity was making the situation worse between them. Islam was not adapting well or quickly enough to the modern world. The West in turn had to become more understanding of the islamic world. History needed a single minded person like Bush to do its bidding. The strategy he would use was not important, whether corrupt mismanaged or perverse, just as long as he some how upended the status quo and started Islam’s belated reform. Bush in his bubble, with his ‘gut feelings’ and hubris has fueled a revolution in the Islamic world, and its relations with the West, that is irreversible. He has done History’s bidding when no other person would have. History perversely used Napoleon and Hitler in the same way, to change the world when Reason alone would not do it.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Individualism, the ROM and Happy New Year
This was going to be an essay about individualism but then I thought the subject was too self-glorifying and hedonistic. And people soon tire of the subject. Nevertheless, individualism is what makes the world go round and it is a philosophy we can't deny or avoid.
Then I thought I would write about a LA Times columnist who was going to wish the world Happy New Year in his column but then changed his mind. Instead he wrote, "Why bother" because " for a huge and growing number of people around the world, today isn't the start of a New Year". I will probably write on that later.
I then decided to go for a walk. I walked through Toronto's trendy Yorkville district, eying its many construction sites. I am fascinated by construction sites, especially the big wholes that are dug for the foundations of new buildings, of which there are a few in the works at the moment. Then I came upon the new extension to the Royal Ontario Museum, hence the ROM in my title.
I was overcome by what I saw when I stood across Bloor St. and looked at the ROM's new extension. It's overwhelming and fantastic. It is very impressive. It reminded my of a huge cruise liner moored in port, a liner that looked like no other because of its dramatic angles . As I was standing there taking it all in I moved a few steps and then looked at it again. I seemed to repeat this a few times; moving down the block a bit and then stopping to look again, like a camera. I mean, it's fantastic. It's great to have this in Toronto, a building designed by one of the leading architects in the world, Daniel Libeskind.
Some people don't like the postmodern design of the ROM's new extension because they think it is out of place and does not conform to the old building, which is of a 19th century design. Well, in many cases modern extensions to old buildings have been failures. That's because those extensions have been too timid and weak in design, so naturally they look awful. This extension is not weak but at the same time it does not overwhelm the old Victorian building. Instead, it juxtaposes the older building. I think it would have been silly and impossible to replicate the old building in this day an age as some have suggested. As I have said before, if you are going to build an extension to an older building there are no half measures and you can't be wimpy about it. You have to be radical to successfully blend with an older building since whatever is done will never match. And this building is radical and goes to the limit. Such a design also attracts significant attention and tourists.
As I was walking and looking at this fabulous extension I was thinking how lucky the merchants across the street from it are, to have this great view. And as I was walking I spotted someone taking pictures of it. I stopped to talk to him and ask his opinion of it. I though I could get from him some material for this essay I was planning. I asked him what he thought and he said he loved it. I told him how lucky I though the people across from it were and he told me that the architect, Libeskind, used to sit across from the site, perhaps in a cafe, to sketch his design for it. We both thought Toronto was very fortunate to have such a great building.
Now I will touch on the subject of individualism. Without the individual or individualism this great building would not be possible. The design was picked from a competition of several individual architects. And I think, like most people think, the best design was picked. Imagine such a building being designed by committee instead of an individual. Most likely it would have turned out to be lackluster like so many past extensions to old buildings have been, because most have been influenced by committee. Communist countries are noted for their ugly modern architecture because committees instead of individuals designed them. Communism is a system that didn't believe in individualism and that is one big reason why it collapsed. Communism didn't understand that the strength of any society first starts with the individual, it prime element.
On that note I am reminded of a quote: "For best results, cultivate individuals, not groups". Not only will we get the best governance and organization possible by cultivate individuals but also the best buildings.
Now on the topic of Happy New Year. Niall Ferguson is the author of the article I mentioned who decided not to wish everybody a Happy New Year. He thought it was too Anglo-centric a tradition to bother, that most of the world was not Anglo and thus did not participate in New Year's eve celebrations. What nonsense. By what one saw on TV New Year's eve most of the world has been Anglo-ized because most every major city in the world from Tokyo to Mexico City, plus most every culture, were ringing in the New Year as though it was also their custom. More on this topic later.
Then I thought I would write about a LA Times columnist who was going to wish the world Happy New Year in his column but then changed his mind. Instead he wrote, "Why bother" because " for a huge and growing number of people around the world, today isn't the start of a New Year". I will probably write on that later.
I then decided to go for a walk. I walked through Toronto's trendy Yorkville district, eying its many construction sites. I am fascinated by construction sites, especially the big wholes that are dug for the foundations of new buildings, of which there are a few in the works at the moment. Then I came upon the new extension to the Royal Ontario Museum, hence the ROM in my title.
I was overcome by what I saw when I stood across Bloor St. and looked at the ROM's new extension. It's overwhelming and fantastic. It is very impressive. It reminded my of a huge cruise liner moored in port, a liner that looked like no other because of its dramatic angles . As I was standing there taking it all in I moved a few steps and then looked at it again. I seemed to repeat this a few times; moving down the block a bit and then stopping to look again, like a camera. I mean, it's fantastic. It's great to have this in Toronto, a building designed by one of the leading architects in the world, Daniel Libeskind.
Some people don't like the postmodern design of the ROM's new extension because they think it is out of place and does not conform to the old building, which is of a 19th century design. Well, in many cases modern extensions to old buildings have been failures. That's because those extensions have been too timid and weak in design, so naturally they look awful. This extension is not weak but at the same time it does not overwhelm the old Victorian building. Instead, it juxtaposes the older building. I think it would have been silly and impossible to replicate the old building in this day an age as some have suggested. As I have said before, if you are going to build an extension to an older building there are no half measures and you can't be wimpy about it. You have to be radical to successfully blend with an older building since whatever is done will never match. And this building is radical and goes to the limit. Such a design also attracts significant attention and tourists.
As I was walking and looking at this fabulous extension I was thinking how lucky the merchants across the street from it are, to have this great view. And as I was walking I spotted someone taking pictures of it. I stopped to talk to him and ask his opinion of it. I though I could get from him some material for this essay I was planning. I asked him what he thought and he said he loved it. I told him how lucky I though the people across from it were and he told me that the architect, Libeskind, used to sit across from the site, perhaps in a cafe, to sketch his design for it. We both thought Toronto was very fortunate to have such a great building.
Now I will touch on the subject of individualism. Without the individual or individualism this great building would not be possible. The design was picked from a competition of several individual architects. And I think, like most people think, the best design was picked. Imagine such a building being designed by committee instead of an individual. Most likely it would have turned out to be lackluster like so many past extensions to old buildings have been, because most have been influenced by committee. Communist countries are noted for their ugly modern architecture because committees instead of individuals designed them. Communism is a system that didn't believe in individualism and that is one big reason why it collapsed. Communism didn't understand that the strength of any society first starts with the individual, it prime element.
On that note I am reminded of a quote: "For best results, cultivate individuals, not groups". Not only will we get the best governance and organization possible by cultivate individuals but also the best buildings.
Now on the topic of Happy New Year. Niall Ferguson is the author of the article I mentioned who decided not to wish everybody a Happy New Year. He thought it was too Anglo-centric a tradition to bother, that most of the world was not Anglo and thus did not participate in New Year's eve celebrations. What nonsense. By what one saw on TV New Year's eve most of the world has been Anglo-ized because most every major city in the world from Tokyo to Mexico City, plus most every culture, were ringing in the New Year as though it was also their custom. More on this topic later.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Invisible Hand
The other day I read a review of a book about Adam Smith. Smith is the Scotsman who in the 18th century introduced the world to the idea of "free market capitalism". He coined the phrase "invisible hand" to describe the unseen force he thought guided free market capitalism.
At the time of Adam Smith free market capitalism did not yet exist. But it was beginning to emerge, like democracy was beginning to emerge. It is believed that Smith invented the idea of capitalism, that his ideas instigated it. Really, though, capitalism invented itself, to reflect and address what was happening in human affairs. Nevertheless, Smith contributed to it in a big way. He was the one astute enough to name and understand it. Furthermore, by identifying and explaining what was transpiring in human affairs, he helped facilitate and expand it.
I imagine Smith standing in the middle of the 18th century, looking around and trying to figure out the phenomenon that was swirling around and consuming his world. This phenomenon was the Industrial Revolution, which was just developing and creating unparalleled social upheaval. It was mind-boggling. Smith believed that something inevitable and natural was behind this revolution, with its churning, laissez faire, entrepreneurial ways. It was this market anarchy and its money that compelled Smith to name it free market capitalism. However, he also realized that this free market capitalism was no random event but was due to an emerging new order. He also realized that it was this new order's very nature of production and distribution of goods that compelled the economic system of free market capitalism to develop. From Smith's stand point the Industrial Revolution and capitalism were mutually inseparable. Each begot and necessitated the other.
From the book review I also learned a little known fact about Smith's invisible hand. His idea grew out of natural philosophy, a philosophy that was gaining acceptance due to thinkers like Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon before him. These natural philosophers – scientists, linked the activities of humans to those of the natural world, believing that the laws and economics of nature also applied to humans because, as it seemed obvious, humans were also bound by the natural world. Bacon also thought that society could and should be organized and governed along the same principles as nature. This is probably where the idea of the 'survival of the fittest' came from, as an explanation for those humans that adapted well to the social upheaval of the Industrial Revolution and those that did not, similarly to what happens in nature. Perhaps also, Smith's free market principles were intended to reflect the 'free market' principles that occur in nature, with its ebbs, flows and fluctuations.
Having recognized that humankind is part of the natural world and influenced by it, Smith wondered if there was anything comparable to the force of gravity in the social sense. Was there a force like gravity that grounded humankind socially, like that which grounded the natural, physical world? That is when he came up with the idea of the invisible hand, perhaps for want of a better term. So, to Smith's way of thinking the invisible hand was social gravity, the thing that grounds us and establishes our ethical behavior.
The social gravity of the invisible hand that Smith had in mind is not quite what I had in mind. Where as I think of the invisible hand as the economic instrument that organizes society in accordance with nature’s economic imperatives, he thought of it as an instrument that would naturally balance society’s economic imbalances and right the wrongs brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, with its laissez faire capitalism, brought about an economic upheaval never witnessed before. While some people got rich a lot of others got very poor and lived in terrible conditions. It was a revolution sparked by and centered on individualism and individual initiative. And while it allowed some people to advance themselves economically it left may others far behind, living in squalor. Some believed that the rich were exploiting the poor without much regard for their welfare. However, Smith thought that the invisible hand, by assisting individuals to pursue their own self-interests and become rich, would inadvertently help the poor to also advance themselves. Smith believed that the invisible hand would in time level the playing field.
I have another idea about the invisible hand, other than it just being the equalizer Smith believed it to be. It is also the guiding hand that has led humankind to an economic system that is capable of sustaining our future. It has also taught us that economics is humankind’s number one discipline, which without it being addressed first and foremost little else is possible. Apart from that, the free market, which the invisible hand has guided us to, is the only workable system that can address the ever-present conflict between human needs and the economic imperatives of the natural world. It is also the best system to afford us the new technologies we need to survive and continue. And as to evidence of its exceptionalism, free market capitalism is now the unchallenged economic system of the world. However, until recently there was another competing economic system, communism, which was rigid and centralized, not free or open. But communism is now debunked because of the invisible hand and the knowledge that inflexible economic markets do not have the sustainability necessary for the modern world.
At the time of Adam Smith free market capitalism did not yet exist. But it was beginning to emerge, like democracy was beginning to emerge. It is believed that Smith invented the idea of capitalism, that his ideas instigated it. Really, though, capitalism invented itself, to reflect and address what was happening in human affairs. Nevertheless, Smith contributed to it in a big way. He was the one astute enough to name and understand it. Furthermore, by identifying and explaining what was transpiring in human affairs, he helped facilitate and expand it.
I imagine Smith standing in the middle of the 18th century, looking around and trying to figure out the phenomenon that was swirling around and consuming his world. This phenomenon was the Industrial Revolution, which was just developing and creating unparalleled social upheaval. It was mind-boggling. Smith believed that something inevitable and natural was behind this revolution, with its churning, laissez faire, entrepreneurial ways. It was this market anarchy and its money that compelled Smith to name it free market capitalism. However, he also realized that this free market capitalism was no random event but was due to an emerging new order. He also realized that it was this new order's very nature of production and distribution of goods that compelled the economic system of free market capitalism to develop. From Smith's stand point the Industrial Revolution and capitalism were mutually inseparable. Each begot and necessitated the other.
From the book review I also learned a little known fact about Smith's invisible hand. His idea grew out of natural philosophy, a philosophy that was gaining acceptance due to thinkers like Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon before him. These natural philosophers – scientists, linked the activities of humans to those of the natural world, believing that the laws and economics of nature also applied to humans because, as it seemed obvious, humans were also bound by the natural world. Bacon also thought that society could and should be organized and governed along the same principles as nature. This is probably where the idea of the 'survival of the fittest' came from, as an explanation for those humans that adapted well to the social upheaval of the Industrial Revolution and those that did not, similarly to what happens in nature. Perhaps also, Smith's free market principles were intended to reflect the 'free market' principles that occur in nature, with its ebbs, flows and fluctuations.
Having recognized that humankind is part of the natural world and influenced by it, Smith wondered if there was anything comparable to the force of gravity in the social sense. Was there a force like gravity that grounded humankind socially, like that which grounded the natural, physical world? That is when he came up with the idea of the invisible hand, perhaps for want of a better term. So, to Smith's way of thinking the invisible hand was social gravity, the thing that grounds us and establishes our ethical behavior.
The social gravity of the invisible hand that Smith had in mind is not quite what I had in mind. Where as I think of the invisible hand as the economic instrument that organizes society in accordance with nature’s economic imperatives, he thought of it as an instrument that would naturally balance society’s economic imbalances and right the wrongs brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, with its laissez faire capitalism, brought about an economic upheaval never witnessed before. While some people got rich a lot of others got very poor and lived in terrible conditions. It was a revolution sparked by and centered on individualism and individual initiative. And while it allowed some people to advance themselves economically it left may others far behind, living in squalor. Some believed that the rich were exploiting the poor without much regard for their welfare. However, Smith thought that the invisible hand, by assisting individuals to pursue their own self-interests and become rich, would inadvertently help the poor to also advance themselves. Smith believed that the invisible hand would in time level the playing field.
I have another idea about the invisible hand, other than it just being the equalizer Smith believed it to be. It is also the guiding hand that has led humankind to an economic system that is capable of sustaining our future. It has also taught us that economics is humankind’s number one discipline, which without it being addressed first and foremost little else is possible. Apart from that, the free market, which the invisible hand has guided us to, is the only workable system that can address the ever-present conflict between human needs and the economic imperatives of the natural world. It is also the best system to afford us the new technologies we need to survive and continue. And as to evidence of its exceptionalism, free market capitalism is now the unchallenged economic system of the world. However, until recently there was another competing economic system, communism, which was rigid and centralized, not free or open. But communism is now debunked because of the invisible hand and the knowledge that inflexible economic markets do not have the sustainability necessary for the modern world.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, died recently. He was a proponent of monetarist theory, which regards the money supply as the central controlling factor in economic development. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976 for his theory. He also believed in laissez faire capitalism (as laissez faire as it can be) and small government. Many insisted he was a conservative but he insisted he was a liberal.
Friedman became best known to the general public in the 70's chiefly for his idea that governments should be kept small and that the free market, not government, makes people's lives better. He believed that the chief purpose of government is to create an hospitable environment in which individuals can pursuit their own self-interests.
In the 70's the American economy went through a period know as 'stagflation', a period of high inflation, very low growth and fairly high unemployment, culminating in a stagnant economy. Theoretically this combination of economic events was not supposed to occur simultaneously. Friedman blamed government policy and its economic meddling for this bizarre performance. He believed that if government 'got out of the way', loosened its grip on the economy and used a better monetary policy things would improve substantially. He urged governments around the world to privatize and deregulate so as to free things up and allow economies to reach their full potential. Two of his most devoted followers were Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan.
Friedman first came to prominence in the late 40's with his theory about what really caused the Great Depression of the 1930's and why it lasted so long. He believed it basically had to do with the monetary policy of the time. He believed that if in the late twenties the Hoover government had reined in the circulation of money the over speculation of the stock market would not have happened, causing its crash. Similarly, Friedman argued, an increase in the money supply after the crash, instead of cutting back on it, could have prevented the Depression. In other words, he believed that if the money supply had been handled more wisely the Depression may not have happened or have lasted as long as 12 years. His theory was radical but it put him in good standing.
With hindsight wisdom makes itself known. However, did the economists of the time possess the monetary wisdom Friedman suggested they might have, which could have averted the Depression. Maybe he didn’t believe that they possess such wisdom but he certainly talked as if they did. Nevertheless, in his analysis he projected his hindsight on that time, as if the knowledge of prudent monetary policy existed then. But that knowledge didn’t exist then.
Because of Friedman's death the issue of what really caused the Depression came up again. The argument: It wasn’t the stock market crash of October 1929 that caused the Depression but the bad monetary policy of the time that did. I find this kind of argument misleading because of what it implies. That argument puts what happened back then in the context of today and what we know today. It suggests that people knew enough in those days to stave of a Depression. However, people back then did not have the economic resources or wisdom they have today to avoid such economic disasters.
And that is the problem with some analyses of past events. People tend to put yesteryears in the context of the present, thinking that in the past people knew as much as they know today. Some people think that in the twenties and thirties people had as much knowledge about economic matters as we do today. They think that the world then was as fluent and sophisticated in economic matters as it is today. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the twenties and thirties the world was economically backward in comparison to today. The world had no comprehension of things like money supply and liquidity like it does today. The world has learned empirically from those days and from the economic mistakes of the past.
It is wrong to think the Depression could have been prevented by means we know today because back then those means were non-existent. The economic sophistication of today didn’t exist then to prevent the Depression. Such knowledge wasn’t even a twinkle in the eyes of economists. The means of preventing recessions today were learned from the mistakes made back then and even from the mistakes made just 20 years ago.
In those days the governments of the world did not work in tandem to prevent economic disasters as they do today. That necessary interaction took at least a world war and a few other incidents to discover. The world has had to learn from experience on how to handle its economics. The way I hear it from some, though, is that there is some kind of bible out there, which specifically outlines how to do the right thing economically. But there is no such bible. We have had to learn the ins and outs of economics empirically, through trial and error. And that bible of economic wisdom is still being written.
There is one thing Milton Friedman regretted, that he helped institute the payroll tax during WW2. It was designed to help pay for the war effort. After the war it was supposed to have been dismantled but it wasn't. He regretted it because this tax became a cash cow for the government, which became a direct source of funds for its expansion. For an economist who believed in small government this was unintended consequence. And as we know, the world is full of unintended consequences.
Friedman became best known to the general public in the 70's chiefly for his idea that governments should be kept small and that the free market, not government, makes people's lives better. He believed that the chief purpose of government is to create an hospitable environment in which individuals can pursuit their own self-interests.
In the 70's the American economy went through a period know as 'stagflation', a period of high inflation, very low growth and fairly high unemployment, culminating in a stagnant economy. Theoretically this combination of economic events was not supposed to occur simultaneously. Friedman blamed government policy and its economic meddling for this bizarre performance. He believed that if government 'got out of the way', loosened its grip on the economy and used a better monetary policy things would improve substantially. He urged governments around the world to privatize and deregulate so as to free things up and allow economies to reach their full potential. Two of his most devoted followers were Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan.
Friedman first came to prominence in the late 40's with his theory about what really caused the Great Depression of the 1930's and why it lasted so long. He believed it basically had to do with the monetary policy of the time. He believed that if in the late twenties the Hoover government had reined in the circulation of money the over speculation of the stock market would not have happened, causing its crash. Similarly, Friedman argued, an increase in the money supply after the crash, instead of cutting back on it, could have prevented the Depression. In other words, he believed that if the money supply had been handled more wisely the Depression may not have happened or have lasted as long as 12 years. His theory was radical but it put him in good standing.
With hindsight wisdom makes itself known. However, did the economists of the time possess the monetary wisdom Friedman suggested they might have, which could have averted the Depression. Maybe he didn’t believe that they possess such wisdom but he certainly talked as if they did. Nevertheless, in his analysis he projected his hindsight on that time, as if the knowledge of prudent monetary policy existed then. But that knowledge didn’t exist then.
Because of Friedman's death the issue of what really caused the Depression came up again. The argument: It wasn’t the stock market crash of October 1929 that caused the Depression but the bad monetary policy of the time that did. I find this kind of argument misleading because of what it implies. That argument puts what happened back then in the context of today and what we know today. It suggests that people knew enough in those days to stave of a Depression. However, people back then did not have the economic resources or wisdom they have today to avoid such economic disasters.
And that is the problem with some analyses of past events. People tend to put yesteryears in the context of the present, thinking that in the past people knew as much as they know today. Some people think that in the twenties and thirties people had as much knowledge about economic matters as we do today. They think that the world then was as fluent and sophisticated in economic matters as it is today. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the twenties and thirties the world was economically backward in comparison to today. The world had no comprehension of things like money supply and liquidity like it does today. The world has learned empirically from those days and from the economic mistakes of the past.
It is wrong to think the Depression could have been prevented by means we know today because back then those means were non-existent. The economic sophistication of today didn’t exist then to prevent the Depression. Such knowledge wasn’t even a twinkle in the eyes of economists. The means of preventing recessions today were learned from the mistakes made back then and even from the mistakes made just 20 years ago.
In those days the governments of the world did not work in tandem to prevent economic disasters as they do today. That necessary interaction took at least a world war and a few other incidents to discover. The world has had to learn from experience on how to handle its economics. The way I hear it from some, though, is that there is some kind of bible out there, which specifically outlines how to do the right thing economically. But there is no such bible. We have had to learn the ins and outs of economics empirically, through trial and error. And that bible of economic wisdom is still being written.
There is one thing Milton Friedman regretted, that he helped institute the payroll tax during WW2. It was designed to help pay for the war effort. After the war it was supposed to have been dismantled but it wasn't. He regretted it because this tax became a cash cow for the government, which became a direct source of funds for its expansion. For an economist who believed in small government this was unintended consequence. And as we know, the world is full of unintended consequences.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Hawking & Outerspace
Stephen Hawking, world famous scientist and author of the best selling book "The Brief History of Time", recently said that humans should go into outer space because that's where the human race will find its future survival and continuance. He thinks that in time our planet earth will become uninhabitable because of global warming or nuclear annihilation.
I think we should go into outer pace for the same reason Columbus came to America, to preserve and continue civilization. Columbus’ adventure saved Europe. However, Columbus wasn't aware that he was discovering a new world for that reason, to save Europe. (He was looking for a new trade route to the Orient.) But essentially that is what he did. Similarly, we may not be aware that humans have been venturing into space with the purpose of saving the human race. There is a saying, expand or perish.
At the time of Columbus Europe was in need of a savior. It needed to be saved from itself, from its social and political problems. Europeans were crowding each other, getting on each other’s nerves, constantly feuding over domain and ideas. The New World offered expansion and an outlet where, for one, people could live and practice their religions without being harassed. The Jews of Spain helped finance Columbus' voyages in the hope he might find them a homeland. As well, Europe was running out of resources that needed replenishing. Areas of Europe were being depleted of trees for building ships. In the New World there was an abundance of trees. The gold Spain found in the Americas helped lift it out of bankruptcy. For better or for worse, the New World helped rejuvenate the Old World. And later, not only did The New World come to the aid of The Old World in two world wars in the 20th century but also helped rebuild it economically and politically.
Hawking is right. Our survival depends on us going into outer space, but not only for scientific reasons but also for philosophical ones. Going into outer space will alleviate some of the problems the world faces as well as stimulate and ignite new technologies that will help save it. We need two types of technologies, scientific and philosophic.
Science and philosophy have accompanied each other as though they were both essential to sustain humankind. They work like a tag team. Science discovers things and philosophy reflects on them, putting them into context, debating their meaning and ethics. Science is essentially neutral, philosophy isn't. Philosophy challenges science to be relevant and moral, and makes it operational. Science gives use our material world. Philosophy gives as the ideas and techniques to govern and organize our world.
Science keeps on expanding in order to sustain us materially. New technologies have to be developed because old ones ware out, become inadequate or need replacing. Philosophy, as facilitator and provider of ideas, has the same problem. It has to keep on expanding to sustain us cognitively because with time some of our ideas about organization and governance grow stale and inadequate. Both science and philosophy are susceptible to atrophy and changing circumstances. They have to innovate and reinvent themselves to keep up with the times. Like Columbus' coming to America did, going into outer space will stimulate the rejuvenation and expansion of both.
Science, back in the late sixties, afforded us a marvelous, spiritually moving picture of the earth from outer space. As a globe in the dark sea of outer space the earth looked serene and majestic. This was the first time humans had ever seen the earth this way, as the capsule of the human race. It moved some of us to think like we had never thought before, that humanity was one. We also sensed a vulnerability about it because as we looked at this globe of ours in the darkness of space we knew we were not exactly taking good care of it, with our polluting and fighting over it. To some of us the earth looked fragile. Science let us see the earth this way and this view heightened our senses and consciousness, which we expressed philosophically, about what this sensation meant to us.
Science didn't force us to think what we did when we saw the earth the way we did in outer space, as a fragile capsule that needed better taking care of. Yet it moved us in that direction. A new philosophy grew out of that vision. We became a little more conscious about our destructive nature, which in turn changed our philosophical outlook. Some of us became far more environmentally conscious. That isolated image of the globe and what it mentally conjured is one thing that motivated the environmental movement. Perhaps the last time the world changed that dramatically in its philosophical outlook was when humanity saw for the first time the destructive nature of another scientific invention, the atomic bomb. In both cases we developed a new language and attitude which focuses more on our self-preservation. The image of the annihilative force of the first atomic bomb altered political and philosophical thought enough to dissuade us from using such a destructive force again. Our seeing the world as we did in outer space made us a little more conscious about other things we should be doing to prevent is destruction.
I think we should go into outer pace for the same reason Columbus came to America, to preserve and continue civilization. Columbus’ adventure saved Europe. However, Columbus wasn't aware that he was discovering a new world for that reason, to save Europe. (He was looking for a new trade route to the Orient.) But essentially that is what he did. Similarly, we may not be aware that humans have been venturing into space with the purpose of saving the human race. There is a saying, expand or perish.
At the time of Columbus Europe was in need of a savior. It needed to be saved from itself, from its social and political problems. Europeans were crowding each other, getting on each other’s nerves, constantly feuding over domain and ideas. The New World offered expansion and an outlet where, for one, people could live and practice their religions without being harassed. The Jews of Spain helped finance Columbus' voyages in the hope he might find them a homeland. As well, Europe was running out of resources that needed replenishing. Areas of Europe were being depleted of trees for building ships. In the New World there was an abundance of trees. The gold Spain found in the Americas helped lift it out of bankruptcy. For better or for worse, the New World helped rejuvenate the Old World. And later, not only did The New World come to the aid of The Old World in two world wars in the 20th century but also helped rebuild it economically and politically.
Hawking is right. Our survival depends on us going into outer space, but not only for scientific reasons but also for philosophical ones. Going into outer space will alleviate some of the problems the world faces as well as stimulate and ignite new technologies that will help save it. We need two types of technologies, scientific and philosophic.
Science and philosophy have accompanied each other as though they were both essential to sustain humankind. They work like a tag team. Science discovers things and philosophy reflects on them, putting them into context, debating their meaning and ethics. Science is essentially neutral, philosophy isn't. Philosophy challenges science to be relevant and moral, and makes it operational. Science gives use our material world. Philosophy gives as the ideas and techniques to govern and organize our world.
Science keeps on expanding in order to sustain us materially. New technologies have to be developed because old ones ware out, become inadequate or need replacing. Philosophy, as facilitator and provider of ideas, has the same problem. It has to keep on expanding to sustain us cognitively because with time some of our ideas about organization and governance grow stale and inadequate. Both science and philosophy are susceptible to atrophy and changing circumstances. They have to innovate and reinvent themselves to keep up with the times. Like Columbus' coming to America did, going into outer space will stimulate the rejuvenation and expansion of both.
Science, back in the late sixties, afforded us a marvelous, spiritually moving picture of the earth from outer space. As a globe in the dark sea of outer space the earth looked serene and majestic. This was the first time humans had ever seen the earth this way, as the capsule of the human race. It moved some of us to think like we had never thought before, that humanity was one. We also sensed a vulnerability about it because as we looked at this globe of ours in the darkness of space we knew we were not exactly taking good care of it, with our polluting and fighting over it. To some of us the earth looked fragile. Science let us see the earth this way and this view heightened our senses and consciousness, which we expressed philosophically, about what this sensation meant to us.
Science didn't force us to think what we did when we saw the earth the way we did in outer space, as a fragile capsule that needed better taking care of. Yet it moved us in that direction. A new philosophy grew out of that vision. We became a little more conscious about our destructive nature, which in turn changed our philosophical outlook. Some of us became far more environmentally conscious. That isolated image of the globe and what it mentally conjured is one thing that motivated the environmental movement. Perhaps the last time the world changed that dramatically in its philosophical outlook was when humanity saw for the first time the destructive nature of another scientific invention, the atomic bomb. In both cases we developed a new language and attitude which focuses more on our self-preservation. The image of the annihilative force of the first atomic bomb altered political and philosophical thought enough to dissuade us from using such a destructive force again. Our seeing the world as we did in outer space made us a little more conscious about other things we should be doing to prevent is destruction.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
"The right to bear nukes"
There is a saying, " An armed society is a polite society." That statement probably was made in defense of the right of Americans to have guns and bear arms.
That statement made me think of nuclear arms. I was thinking that since the advent of nuclear arms the nations of world have become more polite, at least more restrained and responsible about making war. For example, the Cold War could have been a hot one if it wasn't for the possibility of mutual annihilation between the world’s two nuclear powers, the U.S. and the USSR. The possibility of mutual annihilation contained their propensities for aggression. Likewise, Indian and Pakistan have been more polite to each other since they both acquired nuclear arms, each careful not to be too provocative towards the other in case of the possibility of a nuclear exchange between them. And the possibility of North Korea acquiring a nuclear bomb has made its neighbors, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, more polite with each other. All of a sudden there is a flurry of diplomatic activity in that part of the world like never before.
Iran having the nuclear bomb might have a positive effect in the Middle East, in helping to resolve the Palestinian issue.
The possibility of nuclear war between the U.S. and the USSR eventually brought a détente between them. I think the possibility of North Korea having the bomb is bringing a thaw in relations between its neighbors, forcing them into diplomacy and political engagement. The nuclear issue has made the world more politically polemic and less war-like. It has forced adversaries to engage each other in preventing conflicts because the alternative could be devastating. All this holds with my theory which is that we develop and progress through perverse means. For instance, we do the opposite to disarming to preserve peace. Instead we arm ourselves to the teeth and saber rattle in order to cultivate and preserve peace.
There is at least one commentator who believes the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in August 1945 had a utilitarian effect, "in that it brought the end of World War II in the Pacific and so saved millions of lives". The commentator, though, is well aware that is a dicey argument. However, there was a perverse utilitarian effect from the dropping of those bombs. That act was so horrific it spurred the world to act to create the United Nations as an institution for world peace, an institution the world rejected prior to WW2 because the lack of will to do so. Those atomic bombs, because of their unbelievable destructive nature, changed the world's attitude towards war. It forced countries to act against the possibility of future nuclear wars. Every military devise invented has found its use. If the atomic bomb had not been used then, sooner or later it would have been. However, its use then forced a sea change and the realization among the world’s nations that if there were wars in the future they could never escalate to a level where nuclear weapons would be used.
Sooner or later humankind had to see the destructive nature of the atomic bomb. Perhaps it was better to see it at the climax of a war rather than at the beginning of one. From that moment humankind's mindset changed towards war. Since seeing the unimaginable destructive nature of those two atom bombs the world has worked to prevent that use of atomic energy ever again. This was the first time humankind collectively saw and understood such a destructive force. It captured the world's imagination instantly, all at once. Ironically those two atomic bombs have acted as a deterrent for using such devastating devises again. Nevertheless, sad but true, it is better that it happened then to end a war than to start one.
Perhaps the world is better adjusted because it has nuclear arms. It seems to be more peaceful, with fewer wars, in comparison. Maybe the nuclear bomb is the ultimate weapon after all because its awesome destructive force has virtually rendered it unusable. What state would be foolish enough to use it? The United States could have used in Korea and Vietnam but it didn't because of what that might have brought about. However, there is the fear that it might be used by some 'rogue' state or fall into the hands of a terrorist group. Once nuclear weapons were the preserve of a few elite states. Now it has become a weapon that possibly any body can own, like all the other weapons developed throughout history. Hopefully the world and its people will keep this weapon to the status of deterrent.
That statement made me think of nuclear arms. I was thinking that since the advent of nuclear arms the nations of world have become more polite, at least more restrained and responsible about making war. For example, the Cold War could have been a hot one if it wasn't for the possibility of mutual annihilation between the world’s two nuclear powers, the U.S. and the USSR. The possibility of mutual annihilation contained their propensities for aggression. Likewise, Indian and Pakistan have been more polite to each other since they both acquired nuclear arms, each careful not to be too provocative towards the other in case of the possibility of a nuclear exchange between them. And the possibility of North Korea acquiring a nuclear bomb has made its neighbors, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, more polite with each other. All of a sudden there is a flurry of diplomatic activity in that part of the world like never before.
Iran having the nuclear bomb might have a positive effect in the Middle East, in helping to resolve the Palestinian issue.
The possibility of nuclear war between the U.S. and the USSR eventually brought a détente between them. I think the possibility of North Korea having the bomb is bringing a thaw in relations between its neighbors, forcing them into diplomacy and political engagement. The nuclear issue has made the world more politically polemic and less war-like. It has forced adversaries to engage each other in preventing conflicts because the alternative could be devastating. All this holds with my theory which is that we develop and progress through perverse means. For instance, we do the opposite to disarming to preserve peace. Instead we arm ourselves to the teeth and saber rattle in order to cultivate and preserve peace.
There is at least one commentator who believes the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in August 1945 had a utilitarian effect, "in that it brought the end of World War II in the Pacific and so saved millions of lives". The commentator, though, is well aware that is a dicey argument. However, there was a perverse utilitarian effect from the dropping of those bombs. That act was so horrific it spurred the world to act to create the United Nations as an institution for world peace, an institution the world rejected prior to WW2 because the lack of will to do so. Those atomic bombs, because of their unbelievable destructive nature, changed the world's attitude towards war. It forced countries to act against the possibility of future nuclear wars. Every military devise invented has found its use. If the atomic bomb had not been used then, sooner or later it would have been. However, its use then forced a sea change and the realization among the world’s nations that if there were wars in the future they could never escalate to a level where nuclear weapons would be used.
Sooner or later humankind had to see the destructive nature of the atomic bomb. Perhaps it was better to see it at the climax of a war rather than at the beginning of one. From that moment humankind's mindset changed towards war. Since seeing the unimaginable destructive nature of those two atom bombs the world has worked to prevent that use of atomic energy ever again. This was the first time humankind collectively saw and understood such a destructive force. It captured the world's imagination instantly, all at once. Ironically those two atomic bombs have acted as a deterrent for using such devastating devises again. Nevertheless, sad but true, it is better that it happened then to end a war than to start one.
Perhaps the world is better adjusted because it has nuclear arms. It seems to be more peaceful, with fewer wars, in comparison. Maybe the nuclear bomb is the ultimate weapon after all because its awesome destructive force has virtually rendered it unusable. What state would be foolish enough to use it? The United States could have used in Korea and Vietnam but it didn't because of what that might have brought about. However, there is the fear that it might be used by some 'rogue' state or fall into the hands of a terrorist group. Once nuclear weapons were the preserve of a few elite states. Now it has become a weapon that possibly any body can own, like all the other weapons developed throughout history. Hopefully the world and its people will keep this weapon to the status of deterrent.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
History
The other day I was reading the Times Literary Supplement (TLS). It is a tabloid size paper that since 1902 has been reviewing the works of leading writers and thinkers. I generally find it an awkward read. Nevertheless, I found the latest issue (Oct. 13.06) interesting because it touched on a subject close to me, the meaning of history. It talked about how 40 years ago it devoted three issues to "New Ways in History". It commemorated those forty years ago with a feature article entitled "New ways revisited: How history's borders have expanded in the past forty years". The discussion 40 years ago was about the new approaches that were being used in discerning and evaluating history. A new bread of historians, unorthodox historians who incorporated other disciplines to understand and explain history - sociology, anthropology, psychology - wrote those articles. Also, some of those historian believed that current events, rather than past events, were better at explaining history.
"The twentieth century is the first in which comprehending world history has become possible." I thought of that remark as I read the TLS article. I believe it's true. However, scholars have pointed out that that notion is nothing new. It also was believed in the 19th century. For instance, Hegel thought that history had reached a climax in 1806 and that future history would be comprehended and shaped from that moment on. However, human history marched on and historians know that what happened then didn't really settle anything, let alone the meaning of history.
I'm really not sure what Hegel sensed in 1806 that made him think that from that moment on world history could be comprehended. (He did see Neapolitan ride by on horseback in Jena, Germany, after defeating the Prussians.) How, though, could world history be fully comprehensible after 1806 when it had not yet experience the horrendous world events of the twentieth century. Yet around that time Hegel must have experiences something significant because he became aware of the very force that drives and determines human and world history. He discovered that one thing that made the comprehension of history truly possible. Without knowing this force it would be impossible to give any historical meaning to human endeavour. Hegel recognized that the main driving/ determining forces of history was the human struggle for freedom and recognition.
Obviously the TLS article made me think about history. It also made me think of a book that is probably the antithesis to what the TLS postulated in its New Ways in History articles. The book is "The Killing of History: How Literary Critics And Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past" by Keith Windschuttle. One social theorist of history Windschuttle railed against was Francis Fukuyama, because of his book "The End of History". What Windschuttle disliked most about Fukuyama's approach to history is his economic determinism and his injecting philosophy into it, not just any philosophy but Hegelian philosophy. Fukuyama also used history to discern a truth, something traditional historians are against. According to Windschuttle history should just be a narrative and accounting of events, without injecting meaning or a truth into it. Windschuttle doesn't believe that history should be mixed with other disciplines in order to troll for meaning.
Fukuyama's interpretation of history impressed me because I was thinking the same thing. We both believe that the collapse of Communism means that there is now only one alternative in human governance left to the world, Democracy. Humankind had exhausted all other possible forms of governance in its struggle for freedom and recognition. History had an empirical purpose, helping prepare human governance for the modern world and establishing Democracy as the only true governance of human freedom and recognition. Fukuyama saw that the universal human struggle for freedom and recognition could only realistically be fulfilled within and by Democracy.
I noticed that TLS did not include Fukuyama in their revisiting New Ways in History. However, as things go he is a giant in new ways of viewing history. He discovered one of the defining, pivotal moments in history by linking it with the human condition and needs and aspirations, the collapse of Communism and the ascendancy of Democracy. As an historian he believes that current events can explain the meaning and trajectory of history. He introduced one big new way of examining history, through human governance. He re-introduced the idea of ideology in history and the idea that we have reached an end point in our ideological evolution when in comes to defining and establishing legitimate human governance. He rightly pointed out that if humans hope to fulfill their needs and aspirations in this modern world the only realistic alternative form of government is liberal democracy - capitalism and democracy - Democracy.
I am surprised TLS omitted Fukuyama in its revisiting of New Ways in History because he discovered a new way of evaluating history, through human governance.
"The twentieth century is the first in which comprehending world history has become possible." I thought of that remark as I read the TLS article. I believe it's true. However, scholars have pointed out that that notion is nothing new. It also was believed in the 19th century. For instance, Hegel thought that history had reached a climax in 1806 and that future history would be comprehended and shaped from that moment on. However, human history marched on and historians know that what happened then didn't really settle anything, let alone the meaning of history.
I'm really not sure what Hegel sensed in 1806 that made him think that from that moment on world history could be comprehended. (He did see Neapolitan ride by on horseback in Jena, Germany, after defeating the Prussians.) How, though, could world history be fully comprehensible after 1806 when it had not yet experience the horrendous world events of the twentieth century. Yet around that time Hegel must have experiences something significant because he became aware of the very force that drives and determines human and world history. He discovered that one thing that made the comprehension of history truly possible. Without knowing this force it would be impossible to give any historical meaning to human endeavour. Hegel recognized that the main driving/ determining forces of history was the human struggle for freedom and recognition.
Obviously the TLS article made me think about history. It also made me think of a book that is probably the antithesis to what the TLS postulated in its New Ways in History articles. The book is "The Killing of History: How Literary Critics And Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past" by Keith Windschuttle. One social theorist of history Windschuttle railed against was Francis Fukuyama, because of his book "The End of History". What Windschuttle disliked most about Fukuyama's approach to history is his economic determinism and his injecting philosophy into it, not just any philosophy but Hegelian philosophy. Fukuyama also used history to discern a truth, something traditional historians are against. According to Windschuttle history should just be a narrative and accounting of events, without injecting meaning or a truth into it. Windschuttle doesn't believe that history should be mixed with other disciplines in order to troll for meaning.
Fukuyama's interpretation of history impressed me because I was thinking the same thing. We both believe that the collapse of Communism means that there is now only one alternative in human governance left to the world, Democracy. Humankind had exhausted all other possible forms of governance in its struggle for freedom and recognition. History had an empirical purpose, helping prepare human governance for the modern world and establishing Democracy as the only true governance of human freedom and recognition. Fukuyama saw that the universal human struggle for freedom and recognition could only realistically be fulfilled within and by Democracy.
I noticed that TLS did not include Fukuyama in their revisiting New Ways in History. However, as things go he is a giant in new ways of viewing history. He discovered one of the defining, pivotal moments in history by linking it with the human condition and needs and aspirations, the collapse of Communism and the ascendancy of Democracy. As an historian he believes that current events can explain the meaning and trajectory of history. He introduced one big new way of examining history, through human governance. He re-introduced the idea of ideology in history and the idea that we have reached an end point in our ideological evolution when in comes to defining and establishing legitimate human governance. He rightly pointed out that if humans hope to fulfill their needs and aspirations in this modern world the only realistic alternative form of government is liberal democracy - capitalism and democracy - Democracy.
I am surprised TLS omitted Fukuyama in its revisiting of New Ways in History because he discovered a new way of evaluating history, through human governance.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Technology
The other day I was using a new technology. I am a picture framer and the technology I was using was a cloth for cleaning glass. It is odd to think of a cloth as technology. But technically it is a technology. A definition of technology is "The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives". And that is what was occurring.
3M made this cloth, one of the world's most technologically driven companies. They are most famous for their adhesive tapes and glues. What is great about this cloth is that it can be washed and used again and again. In picture framing having clean glass is vital, so it isn't lightly that I praise this cloth because I am fussy about clean glass. I found that with this cloth I could use plain water instead of glass cleaner and get just as good results.
Another technology I am enthusiastic about is LED technology. LED stands for light-emitting diode. So far most of us have only experienced this technology in Christmas lights and in cars. But I am sure that LED bulbs will replace traditional light bulbs in the near future. Many of the traffic lights in our cities are now LED based. This type of lighting technology will do a lot to help conserve energy because it uses 80% less, plus it doesn't generate heat like conventional lighting, thus requiring no additional energy for cooling, saving even more energy. Imagine when LEDs are in full use. The savings! This technology will revolutionize the energy business.
The electric generating industry needs revolutionizing, and overhauling. A few years ago the industry in the United States was deregulated. The thinking back then was that allowing competition to enter the industry would bring down prices, the theory being that more electricity would be produced, thus making it cheaper. But prices have not come down like they did it other deregulated industries. Instead prices have gone up. Electric utilities in the United States have been playing a shell game with consumers, flipping electric utilities and passing on the cost to them. The industry has not been regulated properly. One of the most notorious companies for doing unscrupulous things with energy and overcharging customers was Enron. Perhaps the new technologies for generating electricity, like LEDs, solar cells, wind turbines and batteries, will wrestle some of the power away from utility companies and eventually give us lower prices. If the past is any indication, technological advances will eventually make electricity cheaper. I even heard talk of nuclear batteries some day.
Years ago a survey was taken among scientist asking the question, what has been the most important technological development of the 20th century. The response was, the laser. The laser is probably the most diverse technology ever invented. And imagine, when it was first discovered it was not known what it might be good for. Today it has multiple uses. It is used in fiber optics for communications. Neither the Internet nor capable TV would be possible on the massive scale it is if it weren’t for the laser and fiber optics. Lasers are also used in construction, for measuring distances and laying pipes. Lasers are used in printing newspapers and books. Lasers are used in all kinds of surgery. I understand they are now working on lasers that will link computer chips instead of using wires, which are susceptible to overheating and breakage. What would we do without lasers? For one thing we certainly wouldn't have the Internet and it fountain of information.
Technology has brought about both the modern world and has made the modern world possible. I remember the movie "Brazil: A state of Mind". The movie offered a view of the future, albeit a pessimistic one. But the future it presented was a futuristic version of the 1930s and 40's, so it was distorted. For instance, the telephones pictured in the movie were made to look modern and supposedly up-to-date by having hundreds of wires connected to them, making them bulky and inefficient looking. What impressed me about the movie is that the technological advances were made to look big and bulky, meaning ‘more is more’. Really, though, modern technology does the opposite, making ‘less means more’. That future in the move didn’t look very modern because technological advances took up to much space. The modern world has put a premium on space and resources because those things are not been made any more. In the real world technology has reduces the size of things while at the same time increasing their efficiency. Remember IBM's first computer? It was the size of a small house and used plenty of electricity to run and cool. (At the beginning IBM though it would only sell a few computers a year. It also wondered what computers might be used for.) Technology has also found alternatives and better use of our scare natural resources.
A few years ago I became interested in desalinization. For those countries that are short of drinking water there certainly is plenty of it in the ocean. However, it needs desalinated before it can be used. Recently I learned that Spain has been desalinating sea-water for over 40 years and is the most advanced in this technology, which it has been selling all over the world for years.
Democracy! Where would it be without technology? Technological advances gave us the printing press and the information age. Democracy is impossible without information and communication. Mobility is also important to Democracy. It has given us the freedom to move around and discover the world for ourselves. In communist countries such mobility was forbidden, denying that personal democratic freedom the West took for granted. Technology has certainly given us many modes of mobility. And our traveling has expanded and strengthened Democracy.
3M made this cloth, one of the world's most technologically driven companies. They are most famous for their adhesive tapes and glues. What is great about this cloth is that it can be washed and used again and again. In picture framing having clean glass is vital, so it isn't lightly that I praise this cloth because I am fussy about clean glass. I found that with this cloth I could use plain water instead of glass cleaner and get just as good results.
Another technology I am enthusiastic about is LED technology. LED stands for light-emitting diode. So far most of us have only experienced this technology in Christmas lights and in cars. But I am sure that LED bulbs will replace traditional light bulbs in the near future. Many of the traffic lights in our cities are now LED based. This type of lighting technology will do a lot to help conserve energy because it uses 80% less, plus it doesn't generate heat like conventional lighting, thus requiring no additional energy for cooling, saving even more energy. Imagine when LEDs are in full use. The savings! This technology will revolutionize the energy business.
The electric generating industry needs revolutionizing, and overhauling. A few years ago the industry in the United States was deregulated. The thinking back then was that allowing competition to enter the industry would bring down prices, the theory being that more electricity would be produced, thus making it cheaper. But prices have not come down like they did it other deregulated industries. Instead prices have gone up. Electric utilities in the United States have been playing a shell game with consumers, flipping electric utilities and passing on the cost to them. The industry has not been regulated properly. One of the most notorious companies for doing unscrupulous things with energy and overcharging customers was Enron. Perhaps the new technologies for generating electricity, like LEDs, solar cells, wind turbines and batteries, will wrestle some of the power away from utility companies and eventually give us lower prices. If the past is any indication, technological advances will eventually make electricity cheaper. I even heard talk of nuclear batteries some day.
Years ago a survey was taken among scientist asking the question, what has been the most important technological development of the 20th century. The response was, the laser. The laser is probably the most diverse technology ever invented. And imagine, when it was first discovered it was not known what it might be good for. Today it has multiple uses. It is used in fiber optics for communications. Neither the Internet nor capable TV would be possible on the massive scale it is if it weren’t for the laser and fiber optics. Lasers are also used in construction, for measuring distances and laying pipes. Lasers are used in printing newspapers and books. Lasers are used in all kinds of surgery. I understand they are now working on lasers that will link computer chips instead of using wires, which are susceptible to overheating and breakage. What would we do without lasers? For one thing we certainly wouldn't have the Internet and it fountain of information.
Technology has brought about both the modern world and has made the modern world possible. I remember the movie "Brazil: A state of Mind". The movie offered a view of the future, albeit a pessimistic one. But the future it presented was a futuristic version of the 1930s and 40's, so it was distorted. For instance, the telephones pictured in the movie were made to look modern and supposedly up-to-date by having hundreds of wires connected to them, making them bulky and inefficient looking. What impressed me about the movie is that the technological advances were made to look big and bulky, meaning ‘more is more’. Really, though, modern technology does the opposite, making ‘less means more’. That future in the move didn’t look very modern because technological advances took up to much space. The modern world has put a premium on space and resources because those things are not been made any more. In the real world technology has reduces the size of things while at the same time increasing their efficiency. Remember IBM's first computer? It was the size of a small house and used plenty of electricity to run and cool. (At the beginning IBM though it would only sell a few computers a year. It also wondered what computers might be used for.) Technology has also found alternatives and better use of our scare natural resources.
A few years ago I became interested in desalinization. For those countries that are short of drinking water there certainly is plenty of it in the ocean. However, it needs desalinated before it can be used. Recently I learned that Spain has been desalinating sea-water for over 40 years and is the most advanced in this technology, which it has been selling all over the world for years.
Democracy! Where would it be without technology? Technological advances gave us the printing press and the information age. Democracy is impossible without information and communication. Mobility is also important to Democracy. It has given us the freedom to move around and discover the world for ourselves. In communist countries such mobility was forbidden, denying that personal democratic freedom the West took for granted. Technology has certainly given us many modes of mobility. And our traveling has expanded and strengthened Democracy.
Friday, October 20, 2006
More significance of 9/11
The people who instigated the attacks of 9/11 naively thought they could bring down a civilization, Western Civilization. Instead, the attacks showed the resilience and strength of this Civilization, to survive and carry on. In fact, I am impressed how robustly this Civilization has come roaring back from that disaster, with its cosmopolitism and internationalism. Many thought globalization was domed because this event conceivably could have ended it and spread isolationism throughout the world. The terrorists were hoping for that. The terrorist failed. I believe the fact that Western Civilization has shown such resilience and strength since the attacks signifies and confirms its preeminence in this world.
Another significant development of 9/11 is that it started the Islamic Reformation. Islam has never gone through a reformation in the way Christianity has. I find it interesting that Islam is five hundred years younger than Christianity and that its reformation is starting almost five hundred years after Christianity's.
What was done in the name of Islam on 9/11 by its Islamic perpetrators, and to a further extent by the bombings in London, Madrid and Bali, has provoked an awakening and a reflecting in the Islamic world, on what it is to be Islamic/Muslim. Because of this terrorist act done in their name, Muslims around the world have been looking inwardly and questioning their faith on mass. For the first time in history the Koran is being interpreted, something that in the past was vigorously discourage. The Bible, on the other hand, has been interpreted and debated for centuries. I think it is great that this kind of discourse has begun in Islam.
I think that the discourse started by of 9/11 among Muslims is really the only way of starting the process of democratization in the Islamic world and not through regime change or by military means. It has provoked politicking and independent thinking and self-expression among Muslim lay-people and scholars alike, something that has rarely occurred. This is an excellent start on the road to democracy. This is the way it started in Christianity, through its Reformation, which led to the Enlightenment, which paved the way for Democracy.
Perhaps the Islamic Reformation started before, but 9/11 blew it wide open. The antagonism Islam has endured from some sectors of the Christian world recently, like the Danish cartoon episode and the Pope's comments, has fueled and spurred on this Reformation.
Martin Luther was responsible for staring the Reformation in Christianity in the 16th century. The New York Times had an opinion piece entitled "Looking for Islam's Luther. That essay is what encouraged me to write what I am writing here. It also got me thinking of a falsehood, about the Reformation started by Luther. If anything, the Reformation he started, as we know it, was the result of an unattended consequence. It originally started off as a fundamentalist movement. We generally think of a reformation as an event that tends to liberalize and open things up. But Luther was a traditionalist and his idea of reformation was a way to push the Catholic Church back in time, to its original principles and traditional roots. Luther also thought the Church had become too liberal and wayward. Luther's Reformation was intended to clean up the Roman Catholic Church and put it back on the straight and narrow, not open it up to change and modernization as is what eventually occurred.
Luther was a fundamentalist and so were the perpetrators of 9/11. However, as we see from history, though Luther unleashed a reformation that was intended to restore traditional values in the Church, it had the opposite effect. This reformation did have some desired effects, in that it stopped some of the Church's capricious and corrupt behaviors. But it also had the undesired effect of splintering the Church and ushering in the Enlightenment, which started the development of Democracy. So instead of tightening things up, Luther’s Reformation cause a social upheaval. I think the Islamic/Muslim world is facing a similar prospect from the salvo that was launched on 9/11, which was hoped would push the world back to a more traditional, non-modern time, by its perpetrators. The idea backfired, as it did in Luther's time, The Islamic world is now in a social upheaval and is engaged in soul searching. And more often than not, when such things start things never remain quite the same and things usually change mutually for the better.
Another significant development of 9/11 is that it started the Islamic Reformation. Islam has never gone through a reformation in the way Christianity has. I find it interesting that Islam is five hundred years younger than Christianity and that its reformation is starting almost five hundred years after Christianity's.
What was done in the name of Islam on 9/11 by its Islamic perpetrators, and to a further extent by the bombings in London, Madrid and Bali, has provoked an awakening and a reflecting in the Islamic world, on what it is to be Islamic/Muslim. Because of this terrorist act done in their name, Muslims around the world have been looking inwardly and questioning their faith on mass. For the first time in history the Koran is being interpreted, something that in the past was vigorously discourage. The Bible, on the other hand, has been interpreted and debated for centuries. I think it is great that this kind of discourse has begun in Islam.
I think that the discourse started by of 9/11 among Muslims is really the only way of starting the process of democratization in the Islamic world and not through regime change or by military means. It has provoked politicking and independent thinking and self-expression among Muslim lay-people and scholars alike, something that has rarely occurred. This is an excellent start on the road to democracy. This is the way it started in Christianity, through its Reformation, which led to the Enlightenment, which paved the way for Democracy.
Perhaps the Islamic Reformation started before, but 9/11 blew it wide open. The antagonism Islam has endured from some sectors of the Christian world recently, like the Danish cartoon episode and the Pope's comments, has fueled and spurred on this Reformation.
Martin Luther was responsible for staring the Reformation in Christianity in the 16th century. The New York Times had an opinion piece entitled "Looking for Islam's Luther. That essay is what encouraged me to write what I am writing here. It also got me thinking of a falsehood, about the Reformation started by Luther. If anything, the Reformation he started, as we know it, was the result of an unattended consequence. It originally started off as a fundamentalist movement. We generally think of a reformation as an event that tends to liberalize and open things up. But Luther was a traditionalist and his idea of reformation was a way to push the Catholic Church back in time, to its original principles and traditional roots. Luther also thought the Church had become too liberal and wayward. Luther's Reformation was intended to clean up the Roman Catholic Church and put it back on the straight and narrow, not open it up to change and modernization as is what eventually occurred.
Luther was a fundamentalist and so were the perpetrators of 9/11. However, as we see from history, though Luther unleashed a reformation that was intended to restore traditional values in the Church, it had the opposite effect. This reformation did have some desired effects, in that it stopped some of the Church's capricious and corrupt behaviors. But it also had the undesired effect of splintering the Church and ushering in the Enlightenment, which started the development of Democracy. So instead of tightening things up, Luther’s Reformation cause a social upheaval. I think the Islamic/Muslim world is facing a similar prospect from the salvo that was launched on 9/11, which was hoped would push the world back to a more traditional, non-modern time, by its perpetrators. The idea backfired, as it did in Luther's time, The Islamic world is now in a social upheaval and is engaged in soul searching. And more often than not, when such things start things never remain quite the same and things usually change mutually for the better.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Democracy
I don't think Democracy has been studied enough, about how and why it works. And even though I have been studying it for some time I still find it hard to explain. Much of it seems to be a mystery. Nevertheless, I am going to tell you what I think.
Some people have been naive about establishing Democracy in Iraq. George Bush is one. Another is a noted scholar and teacher of Democracy at Stanford University, Larry Diamond. He eagerly went to Iraq to help establish it. In doing so he felt that he was party to something unique and helping to develop a new frontier. He soon left in despair because he realized that Democracy could not be established in an insecure environment. Iraq is socially, politically and militarily insecure, more so since the war began.
Some people naively think that since America managed to establish Democracy in Germany and Japan after WWII the same can be done in Iraq. Iraq is a different place. Those two countries had some of the basic components for Democracy prior to America’s involvement. Japan and Germany were pretty much socially homogenous nations. Iraq is not. Homogeny is one essential for Democracy taking hold. Also, Germany and Japan were industrially based nations prior to Democracy. Iraq is not. Industrialization pre-organized the populations of those countries and prepared them for Democracy. Industrialization and the culture it spawned, like the middle class and compulsory education, gave the populations in those countries a direct interest in the welfare of their countries, helping to establish the foundation that would later serve in developing Democracy. Autonomous hierarchal social structures such as corporation, unions and religious institutions were also critical in preparing Japan and Germany for Democracy. Those autonomous centers helped cultivated Democracy's future lieutenants. Iraq had no such political power centers waiting in the wings to help launch Democracy. A secular society is also essential for Democracy because it affords a common environment in which it can unfold. Iraq is not a secular society or a society that can easily put its religious differences aside, like Germany and Japan did.
One thing I have noticed is that democracy has a better chance in complex societies. But a thinking seems to suggest the opposite, that less complex societies would be better for Democracy's chances because there is less involved and less to worry about . However, Democracy is not like a machine that functions best with fewer moving parts - the fewer parts the better and the less chance of a break down. There also is a Catch-22 involved here. For instance, how can a nation like Iraq or Haiti who have never done Democracy before hope to achieve Democracy if they lack the complexity Democracy demands? How are nations and societies like Haiti and Iraq supposed to attain the complexities of the modern world if they have always shunned it or are incapable of it, so they can establish Democracy. The complexities of the modern world and Democracy were made for and necessitate each other.
By complex I mean that there has to be a whole host of different activities and self-interests competing and meshing with each other for Democracy to truly work. Iraq is not a very complex society. It does not have corporate and individual interest vying with government, religious and social interests. Even the complexity that is generated between men and women in Western societies, which is almost non-exist in the Middle East, makes a difference. Democracy, in order to really work, requires many masters making many demands on it. The many demands put on Democracy, ironically, are what keep it alert and alive. This is something Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, touched on in his book "What Went Wrong?", meaning what went wrong in Islam. He said that one think lacking in Islamic societies, which discourages the development of Democracy, is polyphony - many voices competing, demanding to be heard and juggling each other. In Islam there aren't many voices speaking out, inquiring and expressing themselves. That is one thing Democracy seems to require and thrives on, polyphony and diversity.
Most people think democracy is just about voting, that is why so many people got so exited about the first election in Iraq. Well, that has not lead to Democracy nor will it any time soon. Democracy requires back-up systems, like a truly free press, pluralism, secularism, a sense of equality, the rule of law for all, property rights and honest individual recognition and freedom. Democracy requires a whole host of things happening at the same time for it to really work. Under this scenario Germany and Japan were ripe for democracy with their diversity of intellects, scientists, educators, industrialists and politicians. But Iraq and the Islamic world do not have the diversity Democracy requires to take hold. In the West democracy has taken centuries to develop and here, astonishingly, it is expected that Iraq pick it up just like that, as if it was natural. Democracy doesn't come naturally. It seems natural because it addresses basic human instincts but it takes nurturing, though a long arduous process
To Western countries Democracy has come in a backward fashion, through the back door. First, people in Western nations gained economic freedom and then political freedom followed. This is how Western women eventually got the vote in the 20th century, because of the economic clout they acquired in running the household. With economic freedom women gained a measure of respect and recognition. With their economic clout women could not be easily ignored. And from that evolved, with addition pressure from the suffrage movement, political freedom for them. This is how Democracy is slowly emerging for the people of China. First they are economically empowered and engaged and then they will become politically empowered and engaged.
At the moment I don't know what the answer is for Iraq, whether Democracy will ever be possible there or not. I can only see that they are incapable of Democracy. I mean, if they ever hope to achieve Democracy their culture will require a revolutionary change. But is that possible? America has sure tried in a clumsy way.
Some people have been naive about establishing Democracy in Iraq. George Bush is one. Another is a noted scholar and teacher of Democracy at Stanford University, Larry Diamond. He eagerly went to Iraq to help establish it. In doing so he felt that he was party to something unique and helping to develop a new frontier. He soon left in despair because he realized that Democracy could not be established in an insecure environment. Iraq is socially, politically and militarily insecure, more so since the war began.
Some people naively think that since America managed to establish Democracy in Germany and Japan after WWII the same can be done in Iraq. Iraq is a different place. Those two countries had some of the basic components for Democracy prior to America’s involvement. Japan and Germany were pretty much socially homogenous nations. Iraq is not. Homogeny is one essential for Democracy taking hold. Also, Germany and Japan were industrially based nations prior to Democracy. Iraq is not. Industrialization pre-organized the populations of those countries and prepared them for Democracy. Industrialization and the culture it spawned, like the middle class and compulsory education, gave the populations in those countries a direct interest in the welfare of their countries, helping to establish the foundation that would later serve in developing Democracy. Autonomous hierarchal social structures such as corporation, unions and religious institutions were also critical in preparing Japan and Germany for Democracy. Those autonomous centers helped cultivated Democracy's future lieutenants. Iraq had no such political power centers waiting in the wings to help launch Democracy. A secular society is also essential for Democracy because it affords a common environment in which it can unfold. Iraq is not a secular society or a society that can easily put its religious differences aside, like Germany and Japan did.
One thing I have noticed is that democracy has a better chance in complex societies. But a thinking seems to suggest the opposite, that less complex societies would be better for Democracy's chances because there is less involved and less to worry about . However, Democracy is not like a machine that functions best with fewer moving parts - the fewer parts the better and the less chance of a break down. There also is a Catch-22 involved here. For instance, how can a nation like Iraq or Haiti who have never done Democracy before hope to achieve Democracy if they lack the complexity Democracy demands? How are nations and societies like Haiti and Iraq supposed to attain the complexities of the modern world if they have always shunned it or are incapable of it, so they can establish Democracy. The complexities of the modern world and Democracy were made for and necessitate each other.
By complex I mean that there has to be a whole host of different activities and self-interests competing and meshing with each other for Democracy to truly work. Iraq is not a very complex society. It does not have corporate and individual interest vying with government, religious and social interests. Even the complexity that is generated between men and women in Western societies, which is almost non-exist in the Middle East, makes a difference. Democracy, in order to really work, requires many masters making many demands on it. The many demands put on Democracy, ironically, are what keep it alert and alive. This is something Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, touched on in his book "What Went Wrong?", meaning what went wrong in Islam. He said that one think lacking in Islamic societies, which discourages the development of Democracy, is polyphony - many voices competing, demanding to be heard and juggling each other. In Islam there aren't many voices speaking out, inquiring and expressing themselves. That is one thing Democracy seems to require and thrives on, polyphony and diversity.
Most people think democracy is just about voting, that is why so many people got so exited about the first election in Iraq. Well, that has not lead to Democracy nor will it any time soon. Democracy requires back-up systems, like a truly free press, pluralism, secularism, a sense of equality, the rule of law for all, property rights and honest individual recognition and freedom. Democracy requires a whole host of things happening at the same time for it to really work. Under this scenario Germany and Japan were ripe for democracy with their diversity of intellects, scientists, educators, industrialists and politicians. But Iraq and the Islamic world do not have the diversity Democracy requires to take hold. In the West democracy has taken centuries to develop and here, astonishingly, it is expected that Iraq pick it up just like that, as if it was natural. Democracy doesn't come naturally. It seems natural because it addresses basic human instincts but it takes nurturing, though a long arduous process
To Western countries Democracy has come in a backward fashion, through the back door. First, people in Western nations gained economic freedom and then political freedom followed. This is how Western women eventually got the vote in the 20th century, because of the economic clout they acquired in running the household. With economic freedom women gained a measure of respect and recognition. With their economic clout women could not be easily ignored. And from that evolved, with addition pressure from the suffrage movement, political freedom for them. This is how Democracy is slowly emerging for the people of China. First they are economically empowered and engaged and then they will become politically empowered and engaged.
At the moment I don't know what the answer is for Iraq, whether Democracy will ever be possible there or not. I can only see that they are incapable of Democracy. I mean, if they ever hope to achieve Democracy their culture will require a revolutionary change. But is that possible? America has sure tried in a clumsy way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)