A special thanks to Vienna student, Sigrid Stangl for the thoughtful and challenging response to my post of a couple of days ago. I urge you to read Sigrid's positon. I do reply below, Bob Corbett.
==========================
Sigrid Stangl ladidadida@escapeartist.com
Bob,
I find myself agreeing with you, but think you're over-estimating your "objecting audience." Provided that you had still some sort of "society" in mind and weren't arguing for complete anarchy, that is. Anyway, the example of world hunger in your note sparked the following thought train in me.
The "ideal" behind social policy is too ensure a "minimum equality" that can then in turn ensure again, a "degree" of equal opportunity. The critical part involved and for which every legislature must defend itself for, is the threshold at which one sets the "mininums" at.
The degree to which we devote ourselves today to assessing and arguing about what it is "we" all MUST have (where we have created for ourselves several "we"s to worry about) is a modern day phenomena, but the over-all concept lies at the very heart of community and/or "society." Hobbes' Leviathan dead. We escape anarchy, as the ultimate expression of individualism and self-responsibility, by means of "society."
This is no ingenious thought, but it in this context it occurs to me now, that with the first great exploratory voyages of the imperial continent, and later the industrial and technological revolution - the need for this "safe-society" has with time spread to the extent of the world. Enter early globalism.
With increasing involvement, those with the greatest stakes in the fire devised hegemonies of their idea of a safe and sound world society, and depending on their abilities, imposed them on "their" world. Strong, predictable regimes, as far reaching as possible are the ends to be met. Historically this strength and predictability of regimes was ensured by various kinds of oppression. Colonialism and slavery, the Third Reich, Communism and the Cold War, split up the world into colors, and the political map needs recoloring every so often. The actors involved in these elitist schemes of "extending one's own society" have not changed. Important is however, that this "imperialist communitarianism" takes place within a greater system of anarchy, hence war and revolution. The most disastrous of these wars in the 20th century resulted in an "international community" solution (starting with the UN), ala Hobbes (although proclaiming to aspire to a more Kantian ideal) to ensure increasing predictability and 'less fear' in the world.
The post-1945 "international institutions" have not taken the colors away, but rather imposed a veil of gray over all of them. What is this new "society" we find ourselves in? The world submits to the scrutiny of international institutions, that are not elected, cannot put forth a "government program" for periods of legislature. The historic elite sits in the permanent armchairs and divides the world into good and evil, productive and non-productive. How does an "international society" with the capabilities of intervention in sovereign affairs, i.e. War, reconcile the paradox of 'society' and anarchical 'sovereignty?'
It doesn't. The Western elite controls the assets, pulls the political strings, and the newly acknowledged "second and third world states" are left with the a mere "idea" of sovereignty and "freedom." [Now we're slowly getting to the hunger issue]
In 1968, the developing countries within the UN organized themselves in a bloc called "Group 77," (by 1975, membership was well over a hundred states by 75 when total UN membership comprised 142 states.) With the majority in the General Assembly this group soon became of great annoyance to the Western aligned state. A kind of third world solidarity circled around infamous "non-alignment" movement that identified the US and the old imperial powers as its sole enemies, and called for a "New International Economic Order" that did not exactly spark enthusiasm in the "charitable West."
However, the third world grievances were real, despite radical and arguably unreasonable politically (and ego) motivated voice tantrums. "The prices of manufactured imports kept rising while the prices of their exports of raw materials and farm produce for the most part fell. Industrialized markets kept Third World products out with high tariffs."
It seems to me that indeed, the often "ex-colonial states" have been arguing for a kind of "retroactive justice" that sticks to a demand of "equality of wealth" rather than "equality of opportunity" - however, this to me appears to be no "live option" and I won't discuss it. Rather, "equality of opportunity" should be the name of the game here.
Going back to the beginning of my discussion now, why this overwhelming concern for "equality of opportunity" in - to us - remote parts of the world? Quite simply, the responsibility for the historic practice of infiltrating, destroying, unequally assimilating and making dependent on one's own - culture and natural way of living - falls without question on the western world. If an agrarian society is pressed into submission to a world economy that has determined agriculture to be an unproductive burden, only upheld by immense state subsidies; if this society suddenly is measured by an economic scale fixed at by a western's standard, that derives capital and capitalist advantages in the exploitation of these 'developing countries,' and if the natural habitat of too many indigenous societies has simply been destroyed, by industrialization and a decaying environment, for which the industrial West is responsible for; then the question of responsibility for achieving and ensuring "equal opportunity" should be clearly answered. The Western capitalism has infiltrated the world without many exceptions. Those' whose system and culture did not come by western materialism and capitalism "naturally," are almost exclusively to be found in the list of "developing states."
In 2001, after the collapse of communism, it appears as if Western hegemony and capitalism have murdered any alternatives, erstwhile. Natural and "man"-made catastrophes appear as the only way out and another Noah with a small enough boat to leave enough of the old outside, and allow the possibility to start from scratch. Human kind and it's self-destructive "advancement" seems to unconsciously approach this solution by elimination currently anyway, only disguised under efforts for immortality - which isn't so wrong considering that the mortality of all human kind is increasingly at stake (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, destruction of the environment, genetic engineering and, more remotely, A.I.)
[But I'm distracting!] Again, the fact that the Third World must suffer the negative implications and effects deriving from the short and long-term gains the West is making, qualifies as making the West responsible for its direct and indirect actions and policy concerning the Third World.
And one more time, I agree with your idea of "freedom" and "self-responsibility," however, the freedom has long been taken from the non-Western world to "chose," and "self-responsibility" is impaired because the indigenous notion of the "self" has been pushed aside and vulgarized by a foreign, Western self that is not reconciled as natural by other folk.
In this capitalist prison, the West must take responsibility for giving substantive aid, that isn't carelessly - thrown into the hands of corrupt leadership only to impoverish states further, nor is it to come in mere emergency aid to alleviate famines and sickness which are the mere product of problem not the problem in itself. In other words, if we are to view the world as a society, and since the economic dictatorship has prematurely made one of us, then committed and substantive aid must not be seen as charity, but as the only means for achieving the "freedom" (as limited already by capitalism however) and "self-responsibility" you advocate. On both sides of the story, this realization of responsibility take place. And not in the form of never-ending charity that only legitimizes further exploitation, but instead a less fearful exploration of the true problems at hand, and solutions helpful and beneficial for the people at stake (and not for the outside thinkers.) I requires first-hand and on-scene engagement not so much in times of crisis (and one may thrive on heroism a bit too much), but rather beforehand.
The example in the Camus story is, at least as you recounted it in class, a little exaggerated. I don't know what to think of a notion of the self, which does not see itself as an inclusive "whole" of mind, body and soul, but only picks out the mind. Such a restricted self is prone to crumble under the restraint of such severe self-elimination (at least in my 'holistic' view.) If one can follow my line of thinking here, then the demise of the man inheriting the wealth of his friend, is that he uses the money as an opportunity to strive for his idea of the self, that in the end turned out to be the wrong idea. Maybe a similar kind of self-deception, that we see in the tranquilized middle classes in the West, which have equally set up - my means of relatively high 'equality' - a'nihilist' non-reflective standard self based on materialism and consumerism.
To bring this note to an end, as I actually have 'assignments' to complete, I belief my stand on equality of opportunity and respective responsibilities is clear. That I, as an individual stemming from the privileged West feel responsible and worry about these issues is clear to me, as I - and I am in good company - am benefiting if not exploiting in my daily luxuries (that most in my environment don't even consider as such any more,) the individuals that provide me with my daily coffee, and are behind the "Made in India," or "Made in Mexico" signs we read over while looking for the washing instructions of our "non-luxurious," because "really cheap" (wonder why!) clothes.
But I am enjoying this life as I know it, nevertheless, I cannot rid myself of this egoism. Coffee is good, so is a glass of wine; I find myself in little conflict enjoying them. However, as I am consuming, although I am superbly alienated from the sources of the produce consumed, I nevertheless feel the need to critically assess "where all this stuff is 'miraculously' coming from?" And I will see that the workers on the coffee plantations are getting a minor fraction of the money that I am paying for the end product. And later I may watch a tear-jerking TV-ad calling for donations, because of the dreadful situation there and there. On the news, the third world is depicted with a tone of superiority that suggests the primitiveness of a people that cannot help themselves alone. This may further suggest to you that there is a need for "self-responsibility" in a people that appear to first ask for different kinds of aid, before they ask what can they do. The problem here to me, is that the West has enjoyed giving covert blame and holding up "self-responsibility" as their battle cry against any demands of substantive"justice," while itself has taken little to no responsibilities for its action in the past and present.
The Western capitalist cross, the Third World must carry without much choice, is a hegemonic burden I - at present - do not see a viable alternative for, looking at this fast paced world. That the people of non-Western societies have inherited by force a new measure of "self" I cannot undo. This is pessimistic, but I feel that this "international society" (despicable as it may be) has gone too far by the effects it has had on the world, as that it could now draw back from its responsibilities (after it's claimed all the rights) and hide behind the "sovereign state systems" in conflict with the idea of democratic society.
The international regime, as it is presently structured in this half-hearted way and leaving all doors open for opportune retreats, picks out all the raisins of the cake and then invokes "individualism" and self-responsibility (in IR we could call it raison d'etat) when it comes to claims of responsibility against it. Self-reflection is something that cannot only be the task of the less "fortunate" but must also be practiced on both ends. The fact that an anarchic international system has allowed the peoples of a few geographic regions to -relatively - come out "on top" shouldn't simply instill a blind thankfulness for having "made it," but also an assessment of how many - this is a German saying - "corpses you walked over" before getting there.
Phew. I'm not sure if this lead anywhere. Just an impromptu thought train as sparked by your email. Sorry it got so long - now I wonder if you ever got to reading these last lines(-: - I tend to think of more than one thing once I get going
Sigrid
July 7, 2001
============================
Bob Corbett replies:
Sigrid,
Thanks so very much for the thoughtful reply. I don't have any disagreements with what you say as HISTORY. You rightly tell us how the state of the world arrived where it did.
I'm not satisfied you tell us much about what ought to be our response or how to deal with the conflict (where there is any) between the will and power of government and the will and power of the individual.
I'm interested in the person; me in particular and not in the government, at least in the questions I raised earlier. I accept that I am "thrown" into a society to use a term I like a lot, and I would argue that the situation of the human has always been one of a difficult tension in the relationship between thinking, and choosing humans and society. I would accept that contemporary society faces a harder challenge for individuals since the modern state is more complex, being not only the nation state or the kingdom, but the international state and economy -- strong forces pressing against the individual were the individual to differ from the state's being and aim.
States tolerate more or less divergence in individual behavior. There is nothing inconsistent with individuals sharing the values, aims and goals of the state in genuineness. This often seems to happen in periods when the society/state is threatened as in a war or major natural catastrophe or even periods of unusual economic hardship such as famine, plagues or economic depressions. However, what interests me is the case of the individual when he or she does not share the values of the state in this or that part of life.
Since I have tended to live in such a state in huge portions of my life. I live in a state of great tension with the state and exercise extremely little power in relation to the state. What I can do, at least in the states where I've chanced to live most of my life (much of my time in Haiti is an exception to this -- disagreeing with the state in Haiti often brings quick and painful death) is to speak out and announce my disagreement, urge others to reject the state's policy, try to expose the state's policies to criticisms and so on. I also try to find those spaces where I can live outside the state's standard view and yet have this either tolerated or not noticed by the state. This is where I live and come from. I would expect you are in a very similar situation.
However, the world of such "voices of the minority" tend in our time to come from two primary political orientations: the political right, which tends socially defend traditional society and economically defend radical economic individualism, and the political left, which tends to defend a wide range of personal lifestyle options, but also universal social values of equality of FACT, while wishing to significantly limit economic freedom of corporations more than individuals.
I simply represent a third minority, the minority minority if you will: the defenders of the moral and rational sense of supporting the individual against any aspect of society's encroachment it can both seriously choose (as a person situated where he or she is) and have the power to escape the power of society to force conformity to its will. Increasingly government wields more and more power to limit persons and we in the so-called "free" democracies often falsely believe we have these huge "free" spaces. I would tend to believe the past 30-40 years have been a net loss. There have been some spectacular gains in areas of sexual and lifestyle freedoms -- very important things -- and tremendous loses as government, using modern technologies knows and controls much more of a person's daily life than ever before possible. Add to this the social weapon in the United States of the power of ever present law suits (which often reinforce the notion that people are NOT responsible for their acts so that if anything negative happens to one someone else must be at fault and made to pay), and human freedom is reeling on the ropes.
Central to this discussion is the question of what are my responsibilities to distant others (strangers / people not within the sphere of my person contacts). This is a question, as I ask it, to individuals not governments.
I try to figure out how I come by obligations in the first place. You rightly point out that some of my relationships to others are really obligations to my own well-being and safety. I accept that. But again, for me this is not a question of the nation state, but of my own personal life. What affects MY world is what in fact threatens it. None of us ever get a world of complete safety and one pays a price for getting safety at all, a limit on freedom. A very difficult, and I would argue non-objective question is: how much risk am I willing to live with? For me the question is not: Situation A may have some danger, thus I am obliged to do something to protect myself. No. The question is: since virtually every situation in life carries some dangers, which ones are dangerous enough that I'm willing to sacrifice some of my freedom in order to protect against the danger. This will vary from person to person.
In sum, there are two very different forums in which the issues I touch upon are carried out:
The first has to do with whether one is talking about behavior of individuals or of governments and corporate entities.
The second has to do with concrete values themselves as opposed to broad abstract values.
I am much more concerned with individuals and concrete cases of value.
I read your response as almost exclusively concerned with acts of governments and corporations and with a constant eye toward abstract values (ie. equality, democracy and justice).
I'm not sure if we are much in disagreement -- though we are to the extent that any abstract values exist anywhere except in the wishes of individuals -- as we are just talking about different aspects of reality.
Bob Corbett
Bob Corbett corbetre@webster.edu
| HOME | FORUM |