Gatherings | Seminars & Other Special Projects | NGO/UN Activities
Activities - Gatherings
The Idea of Progress and its Relevance for the 21st Century
Triglav Meeting - 9-10 July 2008
View Article on Meeting (PDF/1.6MB)
View full report here
AGENDA AND PROGRAMME OF WORK
Making
a contribution to the building of a peaceful world community is certainly the
raison d'etre of this Circle which was created when the United Nations, through
its world conferences, was performing the role of a global assembly of
governments and peoples. The various issues debated by Triglav since twelve
years are related, in some manner, to this search for a harmonious world order,
and, quite directly, the recent meeting in California was a discussion on The Cosmopolitan Ideal: Content and Actors. A
report of this meeting is available.
The
notion of progress was touched upon at the meeting in California and also, even
more recently, at a brief gathering of the Circle in Boston. The present
meeting is devoted to a fuller discussion of this idea of progress and its
relevance to the issues of the time.
In
addition to this main item, it is proposed to include two points in the agenda.
First to be considered is the possibility of bringing together the diverse
threads of the Triglav discourse on the search for a harmonious world in some
form of publication that would include a variety of essays and a comprehensive
introduction. And, secondly, the idea of holding week long seminars in this
area of France should be further explored.
The
Idea of Progress and its Relevance for the 21st Century
Central
to the Enlightenment was the conviction that through the progress of reason Man
will be able to shed various forms of obscurantism that had kept him in chains
and to reach if not perfect wisdom but at least social peace, prosperity and
happiness. The doctrine of liberalism and political regimes emphasizing the
rule of law and equality of rights were built on this conviction. It would be
absurd to downplay the extraordinary positive changes in the human condition
brought by the implementation through various domains of knowledge of the idea
that progress is possible. There are the accomplishments of science and the
marvels of their technological applications and, perhaps more importantly,
there is the propagation of individual freedom and the demonstration that people
can enjoy their basic human rights in ordered and creative societies.
Yet,
during the course of the 20th century, in the wake of scientism,
positivism and various pseudo-doctrines on race, the idea of progress took
irrational and deadly courses. Science showed its destructive face with the
atomic bomb and appeared to have forgotten its humanist roots when it erred in
undertakings such as genetic manipulations. Social progress, first heralded by
generous socialist utopians, courageous unions and political parties struggling
for the rights and dignity of the working class, became associated with fascist
and communist dictatorships. Moral progress, in turn, lost its spiritual and
optimistic dimensions to be appropriated by doctrines and organizations with
little esteem for the autonomy of the human person and great appetite for
control and repression. As a result the notion of progress –and its heir,
the notion of development- became progressively equated with improvements in
levels of living.
Is
this realism or deadly impoverishment? Is it likely that a polity animated
simply by a project of material improvement will be able to confront
successfully the formidable challenges humankind faces today? Are they actual
signs that a renewed vision of progress is here and there taking shape?
To address these broad
questions and structure the debate, three themes are proposed:
What is the place of the idea of progress in the
current culture? Idea of progress and liberal democracy Idea of progress and the realistic utopia of a Society
of Peoples
What is the place of the idea of progress in the current culture?
What is the
current understanding of the distinction between change and progress? What is the
"popular" idea of progress? What is the meaning today of the traditional saying
that "one does not stop progress"? Is the perception of progress – its
content, its desirability, the likelihood of its occurrence- very different
among the peoples of rich and poor regions? Within societies, is the view of
progress related to the socio-economic status of the peoples concerned? In which
intellectual/academic/religious circles is the concept of progress alive? Are
organizations of the civil society and non-governmental organizations motivated
by an idea of progress? Traditionally, at
least in western societies, public intellectuals have tended to criticize
manifestations of change brought by technological innovations and the interplay
of market forces. They saw as "decadence", or "alienation", what "the masses"
saw as "progress." Are the terms of this "gap" still roughly the same? What is the
meaning of expressions such as "moral progress", "ethical progress", or
"spiritual progress"? What can be said
of the old observation that there is always a gap between the level of
scientific and technological "progress" achieved by a society and the level of
cultural and moral "progress" of the same society
Idea of progress and liberal democracy
How should the
disappearance of the notion of social progress from the language of the United
Nations be interpreted? What will happen to liberal democracy if social
progress is considered obsolete and replaced by an increasingly improbable
project of material economic advancement? Are the signs of
the time – notably increase of inequalities, collusion of financial,
economic and political powers, weakening of parliaments and strengthening of
the executive branch, lack of popular participation in decision-making –
to be read as announcing a crisis of the liberal democratic ideal? From another
angle, can humanism survive the death of the idea of social progress? Is the
revival of religion a consequence of this decline of the notion of progress? Then, should
other signs of the time – including a new relation with Nature, the
search for simpler and balanced styles of life, the recognition that individual
lives and societies demand both growth and stability, the interest in the
religious sentiment and in various forms of spirituality, the development of a
renewed solidarity with the poor and the victims of man-made and natural
disasters – be read as announcing a new culture and a new civilization
liberated from the "illusions of Progress" and from excessive reliance on
instrumental rationality? Is a new wisdom in the making, and, with it, new
political arrangements?
Theme 3: Idea of Progress and the Realistic Utopia of a Society of Peoples
The words
"realistic utopia" and "society of peoples" are taken from the small book The Law of Peoples that John Rawls
published in 1999 as a sort of coda to his famous The Theory of Justice. "Political philosophy is realistically
utopian when it extends what are ordinarily thought to be the limits of
practicable political possibility and, in so doing, reconciles us to our
political and social condition. Our hope for the future of our society rests on
the belief that the social world allows a reasonably just constitutional
democracy existing as a member of a reasonably just Society of Peoples."(p.11) The juxtaposition
by Rawls of the adjectives "realistic" and "reasonable" with the noun "utopia" is
unusual. Under which conditions, could a realistic utopia have enough
mobilizing power to create the political forces necessary for the elaboration
of a society of peoples? This very Kantian reliance of Rawls in the power of
reason and in the appeal of what is reasonable is admirable. All the more so
when so much irrationality and violence is invading the spirit of the time. But
would it be sufficient? Where would the political passion necessary for
building a "society of peoples" comes from? How could the
"spiritual resources" and "different forms of knowledge" often evoked in the
debates of the Circle be concretely harnessed to create a momentum for the
realization of this society of peoples? Elements of the global civil society are
actively engaged in such task. What is then missing that explains the low
visibility of their efforts? Are the contours of the "realistic utopia" too
vague? What should be
the role of art in the building and "maintenance" of a wise world community?
The correspondence between Dag Hammarskjold and Barbara Hepworth offers an
appropriate introduction to this most important issue. From Barbara Hepworth:
"You have the fully integrated "vision" which demonstrates the naturalness and
beauty of the spirit of man which all of us, in varying degrees are striving to
obtain by the unity of mind and imagination." From Hammarskjold: "I can tell
you that my first impression (of her catalogue) is one of great beauty but also
of an increasing sense of the drama of the present fight between sub-human
chaos and human creative order (.) A work of art cleans your soul and
straightens out your will (.) A work of great art sets its own standard and
remains a continuous reminder of what should be achieved in everything." And
from Hammarskjold's address at the Museum of Modern Art: "Even in the political
sphere we are likely to look to the creations of the past with nostalgia. But
we know that those creations can never be brought back to life, that ours is
the duty to find new forms, starting often from nothing." Apart from
justice and respect from human rights, Rawls sees "reasonable pluralism" as one
of the constitutive elements of a society of peoples. At the Triglav meeting of
March 2008 in California a claim for "cultural equality" was made (see pages 10
and 11 of the report). There is a great difference between "reasonable
pluralism" and "cultural equality". Reflections on "thick and thin morality"
and on the concept of "truth" made last year in Ougny (see report, notably Part
III) should be pursued in relation with the issue of pluralism in a world
community.
The search for a
cosmopolitan ideal, or realistic utopia, is not an option, or a luxury, but a
necessity imposed by the fact that humankind is on a path of self-destruction.
Such was the main message of the debate in Santa Barbara last March. It follows
that constructed ideals or utopias are of no interest, or are only diversions,
if not accompanied or followed by practical measures, such as a disarmament
agreement, the prohibition of a particular technology, or the setting of an
institution with real power for addressing environmental issues. Would then
"progress" be understood as the development of the capacity of humankind to
control and orient its creativity towards a common good shaped by imagination
but also moderation and restraint? Should such "progress" be renamed wisdom, or
learning the art of living?
|
