White Papers
< back
Notes
on the Meeting of 22 February 1997
Continuing
its work on the spiritual dimensions of social progress
begun in Slovenia in 1994, in preparation for the United
Nations World Social Summit [Copenhagen, March 1995],
the Triglav Circle met at the Harvard-Yenching Institute
on Saturday, the 22nd of February. Twenty persons reflecting
diverse political orientations, cultures, walks of life,
and disciplines discussed how secular societies can
respond more effectively to the material and spiritual
needs of individuals and communities. Convinced that
any vision of human progress that does not take into
account the aesthetic, moral, and spiritual needs of
humanity is defective, the Circle regularly gave particular
attention to what ethics and the spiritual quest mean
in the context of current political trends and debates
on the organization and progress of societies.
On
the occasion of the Copenhagen Seminar convened by the
Danish Minister of Cooperation, in October 1996, in
Havreholm, Denmark, former Prime Minister P.E. Trudeau
made the following points:
•
It is imperative that citizens who are slowly awakening
to the dangers of unbridled globalization begin building
political counterweights.
•
In this regard, we must recognize that the corporate
world in general and the transnational corporations,
in particular, have been favored with a considerable
head start. Since Thatcherism and Reaganism heralded
the introduction of the minimalist state a decade a
half ago, the sovereignty of the people has been eroded
to the benefit of the sovereignty of the market. Deregulation,
decentralization, downsizing, and privatization followed,
and in their wake, came increased unemployment, poverty,
squalor and crime. As Emerson expressed it in equally
troubled times: Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.
•
As we all know, the free market may well be the most
effective and efficient way to allocate resources. But
it sounds no alarm bells against social injustice, nor
does it offer protection against the destruction of
an environment.
•
Political philosophers, whistle-blowers, stake-holders,
and assorted activists are not enough.
Globalization is not just happening, nor is it moved
by an invisible hand: it is being made to happen by
men and women of power with a lot of money at their
command. The fierce opposition mounted against the Tobin
tax on Casino economics illustrates that. It also reminds
us that "economics" are really "politics"
by another name.
What
is to be done? Solidarity between like-minded governments
and peoples is a first step towards challenging a world
order dominated by corporate interests. But, I venture
to predict that the real counter-forces will eventually
have to rely on a popular will mobilized by raw politics.
Only then can groups of sovereign states come together
and re-establish their power over the forces of disorder
and injustice.
This
strong and provocative statement generated discussion
on several different levels:
• Opinions on current economic and social trends;
• Primacy of and necessity for the public sector
(res publica) versus its subordination to the market;
• Ethics and politics;
• Transmission of ethics and values;
• Spirituality, society, and politics.
Opinions
on current economic and social trends
Not
only in the United States, but perhaps even more in
other parts of the world, the American society is perceived
as the yardstick of progress in the contemporary world.
Seen from different perspectives around the globe, this
society of individual freedom, opportunity for all,
and material achievement is a power which dominates
the world scene. For many, it is a political model,
the best ever achieved, a source of aspirations and
dreams. For many others, the American society is excessively
individualistic and hedonistic, and its social Darwin
style competition is generating a breakdown of its social
fabric. All these views are represented in the Triglav
Circle.
The
Unites States has problems of poverty and criminality.
This does not mean that the American civilization is
doomed. Rather:
Much
more thought needs to be given to how, in the U.S.,
the desire for a degree of equality and a degree of
humaneness in social life can be integrated with the
element of economic dynamism inherent in the American
tradition--the idea that some immigrant can come to
the U.S., at the age of 12 without a penny in his pocket,
and in 20 years can be living a very dignified and humane
life. For all its flaws, the U.S., offers opportunities.
It has done so more extensively than any other country
in the world. That is part of the challenge--that the
U.S. thinks of itself as an open, free market society
where there is a lot of opportunity for people, not
to be just greedy, but to improve their lives and have
decent opportunities.
There
are regions of the world, notably some in Europe and
Asian countries, which seem to have less serious social
problems. And, it is, in particular, tempting to regard
Scandinavia as a sort of paradise with happy and equal
people enjoying life and nature. But, apart from the
fact that the welfare state or society of the Scandinavian
type is in financial crisis, thus putting into question
the orderliness and extensive public services it offers:
It
is problematic to apply the Scandinavian model to a
very large and diverse country such as the US with 250
million people, racially, culturally, and ethnically
very heterogeneous. The kinds of challenges and problems
are vastly different. Smaller countries do not have
many Cubans, Mexicans, or Vietnamese arriving on their
shores. Nor do they have the kind of dynamic open society
that enables outsiders to come in and find a decent
life. One reason the US needs to keep focusing on decentralization
and encouraging experimentation at the local level is
that it may be possible in some communities to have
little Norways, Swedens, or Denmarks. But California,
Florida, and Texas have very mixed populations with
tremendous social challenges but also tremendous economic
dynamism. To try to import this very stable Scandinavian
model is inappropriate in these communities.
Another
reading of the functioning of the American society leads
to an emphasis on socio/economic inequalities and the
evidence of social breakdown:
We
live in a world that is seriously divided, even within
the U.S.. While the bulls are rampaging through the
stock market, the downsized companies are showing great
profits, taxes are being cut here and there, and budgets
are being balanced. Everybody seems to be happy. How
can one possibly complain? But, in the inner cities
murder rates remain at record levels, there is one bank
robbery per day, schools are closed because the roofs
leak, police officers are assassinated as they sit in
their cars, substitute teachers cannot be found because
school boards are only paying fifty dollars a day, there
is no recycling, and numbers of box people are increasing
building their civilizations on heating grates.
The
phenomenon of globalization, related to the influence
of the American economy and American model of civilization,
is also a source of controversy. Nobody denies that
the world is getting smaller, that the revolution in
communications is facilitating all sorts of exchanges,
from capital to tourism, from drug-trafficking to the
spreading of consumer goods throughout the world. Nobody
denies either that this is the driving force of an emerging
world economy and, perhaps world culture. For some,
however, globalization is a progressive trend, in the
sense that it represents a new phase in the history
of humankind, "progress" from a stage where
nations were isolated and struggling. Others see that:
Despite
the spread of global capitalism, especially in the wake
of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia
and a number of other so-called socialist states, racism
and poverty are still locked in. The relationship between
racism and poverty is much clearer now than it was in
under the old dispensation of industrial capitalism.
The discrimination, whether it is racial or gender,
is still exploitation. Workers who, in the 19th and
early 20th centuries, were protected by the Factory
Act, the Education Act, and the Public Health Act and
all benefitted from a fight for freedom, are now not
necessarily so protected by the new dispensation. With
advances in technology, capital is no longer rooted
in one place. It can go to where cheap labor is, particularly
to Third World countries. Western governments in particular
are enthralled by this multinational capital. Trade
no longer follows the flag, the flag follows the trade.
These are serious threats to efforts to eradicate the
racism and poverty we have seen for so long.
Moreover,
as Trudeau suggests, globalization is partly a "natural"
phenomenon and partly the product of the activities
and ambitions of the most powerful, individuals, corporations,
and governments. Hence the following judgement:
The
globalization that is taking place is the culmination
of the growth of various kinds of interdependence. It
has been driven by technological innovations that have
effectively dismantled many national boundaries and
created what some would call the global factory and
the global assembly line. At the same time that the
global village has been developing and the meaning of
boundaries has been shrinking or decaying, there are
problems in the economies of industrial countries. There
is heavy unemployment in many of the countries of Europe,
partially due to globalization; there is migration of
industries to low-wage labor parts of the world -- partially
due to the shift from industrial to post-industrial
to post-materialist societies and partially due to over-restrictive
monetary policies during the last decade in the industrialized
countries. Some is also due to demographic shifts. Some
European countries have gone into negative population
growth. The problem is that the global factory has been
created and our global village has been created along
side it but there is no global council to take care
of the global village or factory that now exists. What
has happened globally is the logical outcome of the
laissez-faire, free-market ideology.
Privatization,
has been a strong component of the globalization process.
In this context, it contrasts with a globalization process
built on the cooperation of governments and countries
though the United Nations and other institutions for
international cooperation. Privatization, not only of
the means of production, not only of public assets,
but also of services, traditionally considered subject
to public regulation and financing rather than to profit-making,
has been implemented by most governments and advocated
by all major institutional and regional organizations.
Dissenting voices, likely to become stronger as social,
environmental and economic problems mount around the
globe, can, however, be heard. For example:
We
are witnessing now what might be called the privatization
of international relations as the state, in a Marxist
sense, is truly withering away. This privatization has
consequences. Among them is the fact that there are
many things that states do and that markets do not.
There is a tendency toward market excesses. In British
history, when the market dominated and the government
was just beginning to consolidate its authority, there
was a large underclass which continues to be found in
many countries as industrialization takes place.
From
one perspective, in Britain, privatization freed resources
that could be spent on other things. From this point
of view the opposition to privatization is very puzzling
because on the whole, it has introduced efficiencies
and freed resources for use in other services. Both
in the U.S. and Britain, under conservative administrations,
more government funds have been spent on public health.
Another perspective sees in Britain, still the epitome
of state socialism, where the government is subsidizing
cities and covering deficits from private corporations.
The question is: Is privatization about freeing resources
in this way? Privatization is not simply elimination
of subsidies to large government firms, it is also a
means of turning back the clock on the nationalization
of industry and government ownership of industrial concerns.
Privatization is the contracting out of the traditional
functions of government to the private sector. In the
U.S. something similar is called out-sourcing. This
is one response to the need to free up more funds for
entitlements [which are squeezing government discretionary
funds]. Out-sourcing and privatization are a convenient
means of cutting budgets. As these decisions are made
with the best of intentions, there are second and third
order consequences not previously anticipated, including
higher costs to government for some out-sourced services,
than would have been the case had the government done
the job itself. People in business are there to make
money. One of the reasons there is a growing number
of rules and regulations is that people are trying to
make them substitute for ethics. But no one can think
of every ethical circumstance to be covered by the law.
Underlying
different views on the American society, on globalization,
on privatization, or on related issues such as liberalization
of capital flows and on the roles of transnational industries
and banks, are different political philosophies, notably
about the relations between politics and the market.
Primacy
and necessity of the political versus its subordination
to the market
There
is primacy of the political and of politics for those
who believe that "everything is political",
or to use the expression of Trudeau, "that ‘economics’
are really ‘politics’ by any other name".
This means that ethics, social relations, and institutions,
including the market, are shaped, if not dominated,
by questions of power and issues of competing interests,
ideas, and values. Such a view, seen by its proponents
as simply a quality of "realism" in observing
the functioning of societies, is not necessarily associated
with a "leftist" position on the political
spectrum. But, apart from the anarchists and libertarians
for whom power in all its forms is the enemy, persons
with leftist orientations tend to see the primacy of
the political as a positive fact which ought to be understood
and used to improve societies. For instance, to understand
the role of politics it is necessary to denounce the
pretensions of economists and other social scientists
that claim to be working in the realm of objectivity
but who are in reality often projecting their personal
views or supporting specific interests when making analyses
and offering interpretations and solutions to problems
of development and social progress. Persons on the right
of the political spectrum who recognize the primacy
of the political may do so in order to deplore it and
to advocate a retreat of the state and other public
authorities from the management of human affairs.
Primacy
of the political is not necessarily associated either
with a strong government, a strong state, or strong
political parties. When conservative elites dominate
a society, it is in their interests to weaken most functions
of the state except the maintenance of law and order.
Similarly, political parties and often political debates
and struggles are discreet when social classes and groups
share the view that things are in the saddle and should
indeed continue to ride mankind.
For
those who believe that it is a necessary and good thing
to have a strong and effective political process and
a strong government and public apparatus, times are
difficult. In the words of Trudeau, "since Thatcherism
and Reaganism heralded the introduction of the minimalist
state a decade and a half ago, the sovereignty of the
people has been eroded to the benefit of the sovereignty
of the market. Put in other words:
The
question to be raised is whether or not the state really
has been downsizing in the last 20 years. The proportion
of GNP that is going to the US Government has in fact
increased during the last 40 years. One tool by which
to measure if the state is shrinking and withering or
whether it is as strong as ever, is precisely the percentage
of the GNP going to the government.
Over the last decade, or if one is to speculate for
the future, this amount has leveled off or is declining.
But, the key point is the positive functions of the
state. If the state is increasingly engaged in the business
of transfer payments that is, taking taxes and passing
them on as social security checks, that also shows up
as a percentage of the GNP going to the government.
Projecting forward to the year 2020, US Medicare will
represent 90% of U.S. GNP and that will show up as government
expenditure. What is of concern to many is the discretionary
money that the government has at its disposal to invest
in essential public goods. No one is taking a look at
the long term impact of the diminution of the positive
functions of government while turning everything else
to market forces.
Weakened
governments are the result of governments being forced
to carry heavier and heavier burdens of entitlements.
In the U.S., 17 cents of every dollar spent by the government
is what is called discretionary spending, the other
83 cents is mandated by law. Of the 17 cents, approximately
70% is used for person/power expenses (judicial, executive
and legal branch expenses). Thus, in reality, about
3% of the tax dollar is left to do "good things,"
which is a partial explanation of why the popularity
of Reaganism, Thatcherism, and now Clintonism. The momentum
of entitlements, the graying phenomenon, everything
associated with this, is cutting down on the ability
of governments to govern. This is not only the case
for the U.S.. Presently, in France, there are only two
people working for every person in retirement. This
weighs heavily on governments budgets. The only way
governments have dealt with this in the OECD countries
is to disparage big government and by doing so they
have been cutting the positive functions of government
as they’ve evolved in the 20th century. The net
result has been to weaken the power of the state and
to strengthen market forces.
Very
few social scientists or observers of social trends
would deny that a weakened role of the state, and particularly
of its redistributing role, means an increase in inequalities.
Views differ greatly, however, on whether it is good
and useful to try to correct the inequalities that life
and society create, or whether it is possible to do
so without coercion and/or the triumph of mediocrity,
and whether or not, the struggle against inequalities
is compatible with innovation, entrepreneurship, creativity,
and economic growth.
Some
believe that in this matter few societies have any choice;
either governments and other institutions play an active
role in tempering inequalities and marginalization,
or social and political breakdown will ensue. Here is
such a view:
Unless
there are forces from below pressuring the government
into doing something about market excesses, nothing
much happens. Wealth will continue to accumulate in
the absence of enforced moral codes. Free markets have
almost always spawned serious inequalities and greed
becomes sanctified when there is no counterweight from
government. Ideally, what do governments for their people?
They create safety nets, educate the young, preserve
public morality, enforce rules to promote general welfare.
Without government society may regress to a war of all
against all. Governments have responsibilities for overseeing
socio-cultural evolution. Political scientist David
Easton, describes politics as the authoritative allocation
of values. Government oversees the passing of ethics
from generation to generation. Markets respond to public
wants, governments respond to human needs. Markets take
short term viewpoints while governments operate in the
long term. Without effective government there is no
vehicle to promote any common purpose and the political
community breaks down. Without public spending and investment,
without strong enforcement of public policies society
has lost two of three legs on the stool that supports
society. Without government authority there can be no
authoritative allocation of values, no laws, no safety
net and government does not even use its spending in
an ethically productive way. The question before society
then, as states get downsized and captured by markets,
is: Who protects human values and who defends the moral
dimension? Looking at a world in which only two classes
co-exist, if one were to build an ideal world would
it be designed this way?
Among
the arguments against reliance on governments and the
political process as a counter force to the interplay
of market forces, is the issue of corruption. Yet, it
is quite evident that the fact that governments may
have failed in many respects should not mean that governments
have nothing to offer, but rather that they should be
improved. Governments are needed in an open society
for their social proactivism and as forums for the discussion
of ideas. Market forums are not necessarily inherently
nor by definition more democratic than government forums.
They are ruled in large measure by global conglomerates
whose structures and modus operandi are often authoritarian.
Democracy in the market is the freedom of the individual
with money to buy what he/she seems to need. In the
absence of government, the market can become a jungle
where Social Darwinism prevails and there is no safety
for the weak players and small business prey. Governments
are needed to temper the short-term "What is in
it for me--profit considerations?" with long term
perspectives on what is the public interest. Without
some government regulation, bad things do happen. Consider
the social havoc caused by leverage buy-outs inflicting
whole communities with unemployment as businesses downsized
in the name of efficiency and at the increasing cost
of loss in the belief of a democratic system that has
more meaning than "the vote".
There
are alternatives to total reliance on revitalizing big
government to deal with social injustice and disorder
coming in the wake of the spread of transnational business
and globalism. The question is what the forms of government
would be consistent with the spirituality, human dignity,
and coming together of humanity. The following are some
considerations in the development of alternatives:
•
The basis of the foundation for seeking alternatives
is to think in terms of social cybernetics--or how societies
make decisions. People make decisions through: a) markets.
Governments through: b) spending and; c) laws, legal
systems and moral discourse. These three phenomenon:
markets, public spending, and legal systems constitute
a three legged stool (a+b+c) on which civil societies
rest. The questions is: How do you balance this three
legged stool--the market decisions by people, products,
and enterprises; public decisions concerning spending
and redistribution; and laws about uses. An example
of the operation of this balancing act is offered by
the case regarding relicensing a paper company in the
state of Maine: private corporations interested in development
versus non-governmental groups interested in preservation
and in the middle is the licensening agency. What set
of principles is Maine to rely on to define the "public
interest?" Economic, environmental, or something
else?
•
Revitalizing intermediary institutions is extremely
important in particular to deal with social injustice
and mediating between individuals and economic forces.
In doing so, differences in cultures and social orders
are not be go ignored. If intermediary institutions
are conceived and developed according to generic western
models of schools, churches, military by the dominant
international political forces--the question to be considered
is how they will remain or operate when transplanted
into other cultures. Will they be absorbed and reshaped
by the local ideology, dominant cultural practices,
religion? For each culture it is useful to determine
which institutions people turn to solve their problems.
There are radically different structures in different
societies but also similarities. In some countries intermediary
political institutions such as political parties and
interest groups, have difficulty to avoid being co-opted
by the state. In Egypt for example, NGO’s can operate
in only one sector.
The
call for more efficient government and by definition,
a more powerful role for the nation state is not necessarily
a juxtaposition of government as such versus individualism,
and the market. Such a call can be based on the assumption
that the effectiveness of the state government has actually
withered away and that what is occurring is a competition
among economic forces over which the government has
no control or input at all.
Ethics
and Politics
On the first level of analysis, the calls to avoid corruption
and to practice the virtues of honesty, integrity and
care for the public good, are non-ambiguous and non-controversial,
as the bridge between ethics and politics. While there
are many differences of views on whether or not such
and such government or society is entirely, partially,
or only marginally corrupt, there are no disagreements
on the need for ethical behavior of individuals in public
and private institutions.
Of much greater complexity is the second level of analysis:
are ethics and ethical behavior compatible with the
positions and stances on the political spectrum? Is
it possible to be leftist and ethical? Conservative
and ethical? Typically, a true believer in a political
philosophy or doctrine, or a militant in a political
party, will associate his or her political convictions
and positions with a full respect for sound and even
universal moral principles. And will, sometimes, in
all sincerity, believe that political opponents are
deprived of any moral principle and have no respect
for ethical behavior. At the same time, the politician
or militant immersed in a democratic culture, knows
that tolerance and respect for the opponent is actually
the first ethical principle to be applied in a civilized
society.
In
considering this question, the following basic points
are put forth:
o Some political positions and doctrines, like those
stemming from fascist and racist principles are unquestionably
unethical; and the only problem is whether or not a
democratic society has to remain fully ethical in the
choice of means for combating such doctrines.
o For most political stances and issues, ethics is compatible
with different positions, especially when the debate
and the options are about the means. To use a very simple
example, it would be unethical to state that poverty
is a normal and desirable feature of society, but perfectly
ethical to state that the market can take care of the
problem, or to believe that only governments can do
so effectively.
•
For most political debates, especially within a country,
there are advantages to limiting the number of issues
and the number of debates with explicit reference to
ethical questions. In this domain, inflation is dangerous.
•
It is very tempting to believe that politics and policies
have a great chance to be in harmony with ethical principles
if moderation is a shared value by all citizens. Yet,
there are causes and problems requiring passion and
an immoderate use of energy and imagination.
•
Is concentration of power unethical? Not necessarily.
The problem is that global capitalism with unbridled
market force and social Darwisnism is a central concern
and some kind of counter measure must at least be imagined
if one does not exist. Do we allow it to continue without
any ethical qualms where whoever’s moral power
is enhanced becomes a major player? Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. The question further arises as to whether
by criticizing the policies of a particular government,
one is "politicizing ethics."
Within
this loose framework, more ideas have been developed:
By
using the term ideology is meant that there is a generation
of economists in the U.S. that have dominated the social
sciences by looking at only one side of free-market
theory. Free-market ideology means free trade, optimization
of the production of goods and services world-wide.
While most people would agree that economic affluence
is a good thing, there have been a lot of side effects
and those are the things that have not been effectively
dealt with because there is nothing to counter the movements
of markets worldwide, that is ethics have no explicit
place in the governance of the global village.
One
stimulant of human initiative and progress is greed.
Adam Smith propagated that one of humanity’s natural
instincts is greed and greed breeds a good product.
Although in excess reprehensible, it is a powerful force.
Like all powerful forces such as nuclear power, greed
can be destructive to everything else. The same may
be said about capitalism. For both individual greed
and capitalism the best control can be the individual’s
own self control according to internal moral codes.
There are also government regulations. In applying government
regulations great care should be exercised to protect
and nurture human motivation rather than to suffocate
it.
While greed is the motivating force of a King Midas
society, greed is not the only motivator or stimulant
to human initiative in real societies today. People
may be moved by imagination and creativity as well as
an inherent need to be of service and the related desire
to better the lives of others. Such motivation is most
apparent on a national scale in the Nordic countries
with very modern and affluent economies. These countries
have adopted tax policies that temper divisions between
people along income lines. Gaps between CEO’s and
workers salaries in Norway are in the single digits
whereas, in the United States it can be several hundred.
In return every member of society has access to free
education and health care services on a genuine egalitarian
basis. Likewise, Denmark has committed 1% of it GNP
to foreign aid. Most other OECD countries have refused
to do this.
From
an economic perspective, however, peacefulness and orderliness
are not the requisite ingredients of progress:
In
Scandinavia there is a wonderful life but to the business
eye no great innovations are taking place there. In
a sense there is a running down, a using up of capital
from the past. In human society things happen, some
bad, some good. Once you start to bring things down
to peacefulness and orderliness much less takes place.
Many great leaders have attributed their success to
some traumatic event in their lives, like General Eisenhower
and others. In the art world, there have been no more
tortured people than artists like Van Gogh--slicing
his ear off. Perhaps there is something in human nature
that says that when things are nice and easy it is time
to relax. The same is seen in economic competition.
Human beings need challenges; they need to be up against
something tough or maybe even painful to be creative.
If so, there is a dilemma.
Transmission
of ethics and values
Particularly troubling today is the perception that
the well springs from which ethical or moral values
and the conduits through which they are transmitted
are disappearing.
Where do ethics come from and how are they passed from
one generation to the next?
Institutions are templates which pass on values and
ethics to the next generation. They include primary
institutions like families and secondary institutions
like schools: templates which replicate human behavior
that have been successful in the past and ethical codes
have been part of that successful behavior. Traditional
family structures are presently under assault and are
breaking down, as are many other institutions including
religious organizations historically responsible for
passing ethics from one generation to the next. Over-emphasis
on resort to market life, materialism, and scientific
progress to satisfy all material human needs and to
quell all its fears contributes to the destruction of
these institutions. Many people perceive no ethical
codes in markets which, as arenas for transactions,
are amoral in definition, structure, and purpose.
Ethics are the codes that organized religions have for
many years handed down. Organized religious institutions
are a valuable source of information on how humans can
get along. But if one does not choose to adhere to a
religious institution, there is an inherent morality
in the human spirit that can be normally relied upon
to pass on moral values to one’s children. That
point never seems to be emphasized. But, when one makes
such a pronouncement the question of moral relativism
versus moral absolutism arises.
Does
the same morality exist everywhere so that parents,
teachers, people on the street can all offer the same
correct moral answer to a child's question of whether
something is right or wrong? Do all religions even pass
on the same morals? If there are moral absolutes in
human nature, why doesn't the whole human species collectively
try to pass them on?
Certainly,
if one does not go to church, one does not forget the
difference between right and wrong learned as a child.
Looking back in history, one finds that the things considered
right and wrong today are the same ones that Socrates
and Chinese philosophers talked about. There is a universality
in the common chords: Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not
steal. Do not murder. And, treat others with respect
for their dignity. The underlying problem, however,
even where ethics are enounced, is turning these values
into habitual behavior. Ethical behavior has to do with
not just knowing what is right and wrong but practicing
that knowledge so that the behavior becomes habitual,
because, beyond punishment for non-ethical behavior
and reward for an ethical act, one realizes that one
experiences satisfaction, well being, and even happiness
in ethical living. This does not come without long term,
consistent, daily education.
One
often says today that young people do not even know
the difference between right and wrong. While most people,
whether taught by their parents or not, do have a sense
of what is right and wrong, society does not offer much
stimulation to act along those lines. One of the problems
is that children are growing up in modern societies
wherein parents are frequently absent and increasingly
children are being raised in single parent families
where that parent has to work one, sometimes two jobs.
In a great many of these cases, there is no continuous
parental presence to show the young how they ought to
act, let alone reinforce that instruction consistently.
What the young do get on a regular "day in/day
out" basis is what they see from their peers, leaving
the possibility for a "group mentality take over",
where lying, cheating, stealing and, killing, is not
only accepted, but not infrequently coming to be expected.
Education is the most important of all. Education means
to lead out not to "drum in."
With the breakdown of institutional religion and families
as moral templates, perhaps, one of the only institutions
left to transmit values is the public school system.
But many in the United States say: "We spend quite
a bit of money and don't get results." Schools
cannot be expected to do the job of transmitting ethics
that parents as the primary institutions are not doing
or even reinforcing at home. Part of the problem is
that the US establishment has decided that public schools
are not the place to transmit moral values. And, consequently:
In
the U.S., people are increasingly resorting to home-schooling
because in the public school system no values are being
taught. There is no consensus on what it means to be
a good person, and no sense of a national dream. Money
and materialism are left alone to dominate the life
field. Children, when asked what they want to be when
they grow up, say "I want to make a lot of money."
Well, what do you want to do with the money, "I
want to buy things." The market depersonalizes.
There is no spiritual backing out there. To have a meaningful
life, you need to have relationships.
Beyond
the mother, we do not encourage the nurturing of any
other relationships. To be pursued is the idea of Erik
Erickson: "Strengthening people strengthens yourself."
The
schools should have a part in value transmission. If
the military has to do it, so must the public schools.
Returning to the Scandinavian model it is noted that
"In Norway, school children have to take a course
in civic virtue or religion and they are baptized either
in church or in a civil service where they are baptized
as "good citizens." But elsewhere in Europe
there are other examples:
In
my childhood, I went to grade school in a grape growing
village on the outskirts of Vienna where they follow
the custom of having the same teachers remain with their
students from the beginning to the end of their course
of education in a particular school. So, I had the same
teacher for the first four years of my school life.
I don't know what I would've done without him because
my father was a resident and quarantined with his patients
for two weeks at a time. I only saw him every two weeks.
This teacher was my surrogate father. The interesting
thing is that at the end of the school year there was
a custom of bringing flowers to the teacher and this
teacher had an entire hay-wagon full, the village appreciated
him so much. My suggestion is to recruit more male teachers
who have the personalities of father figures in response
to this breakdown of the family and where single predominately
female parents are frequent.
Spirituality, society, and politics
The
strengthened political counterweight of the government
is not the only option nor necessarily the best option
for tempering and guiding globalization. Another countervailing
power is to be found on a different dimension. In the
first instance it should be emphasized that:
There is a distinction between spirituality and religion.
Religion should be everybody’s choice. But spirituality
is universal.
One
of the problems in assessing spirituality is that it
is tied in many minds to organized religions and most
of these mind-sets have difficulty going beyond that
conception. Organized religions are human institutions
which have the task of passing on values. But, as all
human institutions, they can become corrupt. Spirituality
is a transcendent quality. The search for spirituality
moves outward and inward at the same time. Spirituality
going outward is the Einstein version of recognizing
billions of galaxies and the possibilities of other
existences rather than just one’s own. One of many
inward dimensions is the concept of empathy - the ability
to put oneself in the place of another.
The
conjunction of spirituality and politics lies behind
what is the meaning of the pledge of the Social Summit
that societies should respond to the "material
and spiritual needs of the individuals, their families
and the communities in which they live"? Should
this be read as an appeal to provide people with the
necessary economic base and enjoyment of their human
rights in order that they can then pursue freely and
autonomously their spiritual quest? Or, should this
be read as an injunction to governments and all institutions
to encourage human beings to be fully human and not
only producers and consumers ?
Related
to the question of spirituality and politics is the
familiar notion of progress. It has taken different
roads during history. One is directed towards the whole
flourishing of the individual as a person independent
of economic or material growth and the other is progress
along the material road toward bigger and better things
through economics and exchange in the market. The later
is the preeminent vision in today’s society. The
economic definition of progress associates human dignity
with attainment of a certain level of material comforts
- to be achieved perhaps through the market or, for
the poorest, by foreign aid. The non-material vision
of progress views dignity as inherent in the spirit
of humanity - the well source of charity, native intelligence,
and a sense of oneness with the other creatures that
animate the universe.
The
material vision is not without its pitfalls and may
perhaps lead humanity towards a dead-end. A number of
people, notably Adam Smith, warned of the dangers of
the division of labor accompanying specialization stimulated
by competition in the open market. Smith noted that
specialization could render people the most stupid of
creatures if governments did not step in to stimulate
the mental and cultural development of people in danger
of becoming so immersed in the market that they were
no longer capable of considering other aspects of human
life. Karl Marx foresaw that progress along the economic
road might terminate in a situation where machines would
dominate human lives. More recently, Japan’s philosophy
professors Imamichi and Hashimoto have made the point
that in time technology takes over and that all moral
choices and objectives became conditioned by "things"
rather than some transcendental ideal which propelled
society at another time. If markets, things, and machines
control moral decision making, where is humanity progressing?
The
imminent environmental crisis, the growing alienation
in societies, and the weakening of traditional intermediary
institutions, schools, universities, local councils
and communities, churches, and other social organizations
that provided moral education and encouraged humility,
service, and discipline have provoked many to reconsider
the preeminent notion of progress and to give greater
pause to the later more transcendent vision. This vision
would seem to require a radical change in present mainstream
social thinking. This idea, in turn, raises the question:
What to do then if one is to maintain and invigorate
the human spirit? The immediate problem is the metamorphosis
of the mind-set. It is going to be a more difficult
problem than humanity has ever faced before to change
this mind-set which is currently in crisis. Remember
what Galileo got for his pains. It is comparable to
the task of turning around a giant ocean liner. It will
take a number of tugboats to do it and those tugboats
have to work in coordination. Certainly spirituality
would be one of those tugboats and science would be
another one. The challenge is to facilitate the realization
of our inherent spiritual potential. That is what the
snake in the medical symbol is all about.
The
medical symbol is two snakes winding around a staff.
Why snakes? The symbolism is traced back nearly 4000
years, to excavated versions of this symbol from the
Indus River culture. The Hindus venerated the snake
because it sheds its skin as it grows and it became
the symbol of rebirth. Typically, the snake makes three
and a half turns around the staff so it crosses the
staff seven times. This corresponds to the seven chakras
of Hinduism. The lowest chakra serves bodily functions
of excretion and nutrition. The highest chakra, the
seventh, the crown chakra, is the union with the universal.
The idea is that human spiritual development goes in
sort of a spiral course and ends up with the crown.
Apparently, the Aryans, coming down from the Himalayas,
were so impressed by that vision they adopted the symbol
themselves and took it back to Greece where it became
the symbol of Hermes, the messenger of the gods, carrying
the Caduceus. It is presumably this message that came
down from Olympus.
As
such it symbolizes holistic medicine and illuminates
one path to the spiritual core.
Holistic has nothing to do with alternative medicine
but there are some aspects of alternative medicine which
may have some spiritual value. One is in being able
to induce a relaxation response, particularly, with
meditation in which this response is coupled with a
transcendental leap or spiritual connection of individual
choice. The other is dream analysis which is still the
best way to understand the unconscious. Jung called
it individuation which means becoming undivided. He
didn’t feel that he became "whole" himself
until he was in his 80’s ands experienced an extension
of his consciousness.
Spirituality
has immanent practical implications. Heart-felt human
satisfaction, a purposeful human life and, by natural
extension, appreciation of Earth and Universe depend
on being able to respond to one’s own and to others’
spiritual needs.
To
facilitate this journey is to start at the beginnings
of life and in so doing to imagine a serene and majestic
polar bear cuddling its young. The image should be one
of unequivocal, unconditional love and affection for
the infant, the affective environment essential to the
development of this future adult’s "basic
trust, sense of well-being, and optimism." It is
from these initial seeds of trust in life and love that
the inner "spirit" is awakened. These ideas
were articulated in the pioneer work of Erik Erikson
and explained by Dr. Peter Kulka.
So-called basic trust in life is developed in a loving
maternal environment. It then leads to optimism which
carries a person through the rest of its life. That’s
where faith, hope, and the inclination to care seem
to come from.
The
environmental crisis makes it imperative that there
be a link between politics, philosophy, and spirituality.
In other words, economic drives must be tempered by
spiritual insights to realize a sustainable environment.
There is much that lies in the Biblical injunction,
Man does not live by bread alone. Similar injunctions
are clear in Confucian teachings and those of other
great religions. It is an old Viking principle as well.
Care for Earth cannot be imposed nor easily stirred
up in mindsets that have never experienced a nurturing
maternal environment, the soil in which the inherent
seeds of spirit may begin to grow. The foundation of
any kind of humane or caring society is that parent-child
relationship and that sense of trust which generates
a basic trust in life, optimism, and the most fundamental
moral values.
But
the point is, suppose the kid does not have it? what
is the substitute for it? There is a despair and lack
of hope in the younger generation. "I am a loser."
We need to do more than pass down the tablets inscribed
with the 10 commandments and simply say, "Reread
them."
This "maternal environment question" is all
too often overlooked. It should figure in the forthcoming
Earth Charter which to some peoples’ views would
be meaningless if it does not adequately emphasize the
need to protect and encourage the maternal environment,
the key requisite for developing a global community
that is capable of respecting Earth.
But today, society at large is not focusing on the processes
by which definitions of good and bad are being transmitted
to the next generation.
I
see nothing on the horizon that is going to focus us
in on that polar bear problem, that is, how do you socialize
the next generation, how do you keep ethical frameworks
alive, how do you impart values. That is where the collapse
is coming and nobody is paying attention to it.
Preserving Earth, or moving society towards support
for a sustainable and meaningful lifestyle is an inherently
spiritual, ethical, and common property question that
requires responsible public attention:
Strong
governments must oversee this common property resource,
or reliance on concentrations of wealth through market
mechanisms will tear that common resource apart. Unless
some set of institutions takes primary responsibility
for the authoritative allocation of values in a society,
humanity is likely to lose that dimension. Society cannot
abnegate the use of government simply in favor of markets
and preserve that humane dimension from generation to
generation. Something has to take the long-term view
and markets do not do that well.
While
there are other major institutions having nothing to
do with government that play a powerful role in transmitting
and defending environmental and ethical values i.e.
churches, the media, universities, foundations and the
like, these institutions do not have the power to pass
rules. And, they are in one way or another are either
in danger or dysfunctional:
For
example, equality of opportunity is essential. It is
important to preserve a first rate public university
system because that is where every one who desires to
learn will have a chance to achieve equality of opportunity.
As federal and state governments shrink down the quality
of public universities is threatened as an institution.
Telecommunications can be more negative than positive
because the mass media are taking over as the global
societal socializer with all of the messages that are
being carried to the next generation through that mass
media. The loudest message is "consume." For
these reasons and those mentioned above these intermediary
institutions have problems at this point in time. And
government does relate in a positive way to these institutions.
Although,
socio-cultural evolution has gotten way ahead of genetic
evolution, ultimately people can adapt to their advanced
technological culture and rekindle the ‘spirit’
as the independent decision-maker and determinant of
progress and human destiny.
Genetically,
science reveals that today’s humanity is not significantly
different from the Neolithic people. Genes haven’t
changed since the Ice Age. How did these people live?
In small groups. They knew each other well. These are
the type of communities today’s peoples need to
strive to reestablish. To achieve all these communities
solidarity is certainly a staring point. They may embrace
a rite of competition in caring. The Sioux Indians gave
away everything and in so doing, they competed with
each other in how much they could give away. In this
way they attained their self-esteem. Today’s societies
could form a network of fiduciary communities, groups
like those models traditional to China elaborated on
by Professor Tu Wei-ming.
For
this work there is a need to study other cultures:
According
to Carl Popper, it is very difficult if not impossible
to arrive at the truth if you are in the same universe
that you are talking about because what you do changes
everything else. By analogy, we are all in the same
social system so to get at the truth scientifically
we have to step out of the system. This is what we can
approximate by studying other cultures.
In this adaptation, children need to have some religious
upbringing even if only so that they will rebel against
it and question it to avoid increasing tides of fundamentalism.
What sort of spiritual institutions in the next century
would meet this need? Three new concepts are surfacing:
•
Emergence of a cosmological vision fueled by a religious
alignment among the main institutions;
•
Religious cosmologies are bridging their boundaries
and rediscovering their traditional roots, and;
•
The "new social contract" of the people that
embraces environmentalism and other great social concerns
of the people.
Plato
taught that governments could only be as good as the
political actors and the motivations that fuel their
public decision making and action. Aristotle pursuing
the same line of thinking, drew a distinction between
bad and good governments on the basis of whether the
governors served personal interests or whether they
served justice and the common good. In considering spirituality
and politics, one must address the quality of thinking
of the powerful that govern society, its economics,
and its politics. If there is to be a humane tone for
the global village, leaders must set it. Young people
are longing for such standards and for people to show
them the way, to take an interest in them as individuals,
to let them know that there is a right and wrong, and
that knowing this difference matters.
Leadership
in the military is the end-all and be-all of its function.
The military stresses the idea of ethics and also trust.
Responsibility carries with it accountability. There
is also a high standard of integrity to be adhered to.
Such leadership is essential because the military is
dealing with issues of life and death where these values
are essential.
Moral
leadership is as vital for industry as it is for government.
If global companies stressed leadership governed by
a moral and ethical code it would solve many of societies
problems.
While there is a striking difference between business
and military leadership it is no less vital for a sustainable
society. The increasing number of business schools that
are incorporating ethics courses in their curriculum
reflect this recognition.
In
considering leadership, democratic societies must not
deny the usefulness of the role that an elite class
can play for the betterment of society. Elite is not
synonymous with rich. Elites impose on its members moral
responsibilities: 1) to remain informed 2) to act as
providers for the less fortunate and, 3) to understand
the long-term interests in society.
Traditionally,
elites were patrons and protectors of the "arts".
Without a true elite class, the future of art as it
was known in the past is in jeopardy. In today’s
global society art is a luxury for the rich and a well-spring
for advertising. To the extent that art reflects the
destruction and hopelessness of the modern world; the
public now questions art as being essential in the moral
society.
In
the former Soviet Union, productive education was found
to be more important than art as the way of improving
society. In the first year after the October Revolution
in the Soviet Union, the Minister of Culture came to
Lenin asking for help to rescue the Bolshevik Theater.
Lenin couched his answer in a very interesting way.
He said, "My advice is, that you should be more
concerned about liquidation of illiteracy in the country
than to rescue the Bolshevik Theater."
In
terms of raising the living standards of the whole society
Lenin was right. The arts, however, remain vital for
the spirit of society and for the arts to survive they
need an elite of public intelligentsia to foster and
protect them and to lead society towards their appreciation.
If not the prophecy of Fukyamia may come true: "In
the post-historical period there will be neither art
nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the
museum of human history."
It
is interesting that in the old League of Nations they
had an intellectual committee. Something like that,
should be considered when the UN is reformed.
back
to White Papers main page
|
Photo: © Chris Black |
"It
is imperative that citizens who are slowly awakening
to the dangers of unbridled globalization begin
building political counterweights."
|
|
