True words are not fine sounding;
Fine-sounding words are not true.
The good man does not prove by argument;
and he who proves by argument is not good.
True wisdom is different from much learning;
Much learning means little wisdom.
The Sage has no need to hoard;
When his own last scrap has been used up on behalf of others,
Lo, he has more than before!
When his own last scrap has been used up in giving to others,
Lo, his stock is even greater than before!
For Heaven's way is to sharpen without cutting,
And the Sage's way is to act without striving.
Religion is a strange thing. I can see the appeal to it, a person – while settled into society – is left wondering as to what exactly they are doing there, what is their purpose. They are asked to look at their world for what it is and accept it, yet they don’t understand why, or for what purpose. Spend some time around nothing but very religious people and it begins to make sense. Religion gives them a purpose and a reason. But more importantly it goes a long way towards taking the onus for their lives off of themselves and applying it to something else, a separate entity that they are not responsible for.
If I am me and I am sitting here in my own little world there is little I can do for myself that I am not responsible for. Yes, I know my other philosophical tenets discuss the socialization and constructivist aspects of life as foundational, but this is on a philosophical and informational level, but this is not in the sense of the decisions we make. We still own those decision more than anyone else. No matter where I learned something, if I do it, it becomes mine and me. If I treat people poorly because I was taught to treat people poorly ‘why’ still doesn’t change the outcome, the outcome is still there. That being said, our actions are founded upon the actions social origins, but at the same time they still happen, thus they are ours. However, with the existence of ‘God’, both of these actions cease to become ‘ours’. The world is still constructed – this time by god – but in our actions it is ‘God’ that dictates them and preordains them. Yes it is said that we control our own actions on a daily basis, but this is all done in relation to ‘God’s’ wishes, plans, etc. The onus for one’s actions rest externally from our own self. People do things, because God either makes them do it, or they do it for ‘him’ (yes, not her :-/).
This line of existence is of course appealing as it takes the fundamental basis of our lives and puts it in someone else’s hands, and absolves us of responsibility on the most fundamental of levels. When times are tough, you don’t have to look in the mirror and take the responsibility for yourself, but rather sigh and believe that it is all for a reason – a divine/ordained reason.
This is not to say that religious people do not have responsibility or are not responsible people. They are responsible on a day to day basis as the tenets of most religious orders espouse responsible actions. But again, on a fundamental level, they are being responsible because someone (or something) else ‘says’ so, or rewards them for such, not because they take it solely from themselves.
I try to be good because I think it is the right thing to do, not because I will be punished if I am not – i.e. go to hell, etc. Action by fear is not voluntary or wholly honorable. Living yourself for someone else or per their wishes is virtual slavery. Living for a cause or a belief system is one thing, but living for someone else or to do their wishes is a tough one – especially for a society that values the individual first and foremost.
Anyway, there is an appeal there, it gives 'answers' to previously 'unanswerable' questions, it absolves the self of some responsibility, and provides momentary happiness. And this last one is a key. If I believe that I am the only one responsible then life is going to be tough on me, there is no scapegoat, no one to blame, only me. With someone else to 'blame' and someone else directing my life I can take those weights off of my shoulders – there is an easy way out. That is the biggest thing I walked away from a recent religiously engorged long weekend with. If I want my life to be easy – then I can take the easy path and just give it all over to God, let ‘him’ handle the big things, and I’ll just deal with day to day maintenance. Its like the difference between being the CEO of a multinational 'you', and being a localized assembly line working 'you'. A person with less ‘worries’ within their daily existence.
This may sound like a tough way to put it, but it is in fact an admirable position to be in. Less worries, simpler lives – I mean life is so much easier when you have someone else working for/with you. The problem for humanity is that absolving your self of this responsibility for you and your greater picture does not help present society in a quest for a better now. You can work for yourself, towards your own self salvation, but what of how your actions (or inactions) affect others? What are you/we doing for others? What of the system that everyone else must live in? If we all give ourselves to god, then who will truly and independently work for others, who will take the initiative to ‘make’ a better place for us and for future generations after a person has 'gone to heaven’?
Life is about motivations and rewards, if our lives are about giving away responsibility and focusing on ourselves then were do we as a society go? No long term goals, no present day initiative or responsibility, and most importantly very little hope of making life better here on earth.
Good people that do good things, or help others, because it just seems like the right thing to do are much more admirable than people that do good deeds because they will be rewarded if they do them, or punished if they don't. Break free...
So I'm perplexed... how is it that perhaps the world's penultimate and foundational capitalist city – New York – is so appallingly disparate and poverty stricken? I mean, if capitalism is such a great system then why wouldn't its bright shining star be able to provide for all (or at least almost all)?
“The city and surrounding region had its share of grim news: The Bronx remained the country’s poorest urban county; the income gap in Manhattan was still higher than in any other county; and the poverty rate in Connecticut rose faster than in any other state.”
Nearly 20% of the city's people live in poverty. Obviously this is not abject poverty of African standards, but the word still means the same thing. “The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence” (dictionary.com). This poverty also falls more excessively along racial, ethnic, gendered, and locality lines. Even Connecticut's poverty rate is almost 25% - a quarter of the population in poverty!! Think about it. Even the suburbs have risen to 20% there.
I would expect a great metropolitan region and socio-economic system to be able provide for all. But maybe that is really the biggest misnomer. The concept that a rising tide rises all ships, omits the concept that waves by definition still produce great crests and troughs, and also – in attempting to navigate the turbulent seas of a storm – many an overturned ship. This is the crux of our current situation, as the difference between rich and poor, the amplitude of these 'waves' is immense... “The median income among those in the top 5 percent was $857,000, and that group collected nearly twice the total income of those in the bottom 60 percent. The top 20 percent made about 42 times as much as the bottom 20 percent. Income disparities were higher in New York than in any other state.”
Think of the social implications here, of want and desire. If we all have nothing, there is no desire as there is no knowledge of something to want. And again, if we all have everything, there is nothing to want. Yet if some have and others don't, there is want, there is desire, and there is a motivation to have what one doesn't. Who is to say that this desire manifests itself cooperatively and peacefully? If the social system is predicated on cooperation and sharing of resources for all, this could be a functional distributive mechanism, however, if the system – as is that case with capitalism – bases its cultural norms on the self interest of individual actors and on satisfying wants and desires for one's self, competition, contention, and eventually conflicts arise. It is not about sharing, or working together, it is about working within the system enough to try to get yourself onto the crest – above the rest, not with the rest. The disparity of means is a great motivator, but is it for 'me' or 'us'? I think it is pretty safe to say that Capitalism – and its grand showcase in New York – are not about 'us', and they are not providing for all of 'us'. Rather it is providing for a few and suppressing most. Why is it that we believe in it so much as for it to be our greatest export? Capitalism is not the answer.
I hate to seem like a 'party-pooper' or the barer of reality, but can someone please actually think about what we are all saying about Iran and nuclear weapons? We are saying: I can do something, but you can't. It is not more complicated, or in-depth than that, it is a simple case of one entity (or entities) claiming that they are allowed do one thing while while another can not.
I understand that there are legally and internationally recognized treaties that have been signed, but these treaties are based on 'belonging' to an international regime that is in no way freely joined or adhered to, but necessitated. In order to be a respected part of the international community it is important, even mandated, to be a part of these treaties. Yet, still, how does one navigate this community when it is so grossly skewed in the favor of one set of power brokers or ideological distinction? Iran is sitting on the outside looking in at a world who's global 'laws' are controlled by the five permanent members of the UN security council. Iran holds no real international sway and are at the mercy of others both economically and militarily (as are virtually all nations).
Iran is caught in a region of the world who's ideological predispositions are already marginalized and who's power is waning. In countries throughout Europe there is a drift to the far right as people try to maintain their 'cultural heritage' and ethnic homogeneity. This is of course in a place that is in a dominant position in the global race of ideology and power and only marginally affected. In the Middle East, there is a great diverge between older customs and the westernization that has been overtaking the region for hundreds of years now. Of course there is blow back here.
Iran, in looking to defend its own interests has fought regional wars and has always been deeply caught up in the Middle East's religious struggles. Israel has nuclear weapons and their main benefactor, the United States, is the world's dominant power player – nuclear or otherwise. Iran falls on the other side of any strategic discussion with these two countries and is viewed as an enemy in both places. Given this situation, why in the world wouldn't Iran want to obtain nuclear capabilities? Especially after the world saw what this meant for North Korea upon gaining nuclear capabilities.
Unfortunately, the world we live in is still based on the uncivilizing tenets of self/national-interest, and the use of force to gain advantage for one's interests. Iran has every right to pursue nuclear weapons given these principles (that the West pushes) and the only reason the international powers (specifically the West) feels like it can 'legally' tell Iran what to do on this subject matter is that, for all intents and purposes, the these 'powers' wrote the rules on nuclear arsenals and don't want to see the 'balance of power' change (i.e. they don't want their unbalanced power relationship with another country to actually become more balanced.)
I find this logic absurd when looking at the world as a whole and not from the viewpoint of one actor. Yes, I understand that the world is a 'dangerous' place, but this is of its own historical making and can be lessened by its own making. The world today is predominantly 'run' (politically that is) by the five victors of World War II. I mean just think about this. How is it ever possible to think that the world's governance can be set up to include all and function, when only one side is represented? Granted the system has functioned very well at times as those victors fell out of favor and into two distinct camps that had their own cold war. But seriously, this is no way to govern a world, especially now that those two camps are not so far apart as they once were – and are economically coming closer and closer to the point where they are wholly dependent upon each other.
Iran is a part of the international community and has tried to maintain a relationship within it. But this community is not set up for a country like Iran to succeed – at least not along its own lines, only those set out in Western principles and goals. Iran wants to protect itself and its own interests (this is also the fundamental ideological tenet of the Western countries and their peoples, and very much a Western concept as per its institutions). Iran – given its adversarial position with other major players in the region and world – should be pursuing an alteration in the balance of power currently held, and should be seeking for a more assertive voice. This focus on the self is a profoundly Western concept – Liberalism, Civil liberties, Democracy, Human Rights, Private property, Free-markets, etc. – are all admirable concepts pushing for individual liberty, yet seemingly only when these 'liberties' fall into line with Western principles. A state or foreign culture looking to its own independently originated interests and maintenance of power (what the West is trying to teach it to do) is not allowed. Iran can profoundly do this by gaining nuclear capabilities. This gain will give it voice and power far sooner than 'economic development' ever could. Currently, the US, Israel, and others in the region are in a position to bully Iran. The US in general is in a position of bully throughout the world. I for one, would like to see this power held further in check. Given the norms found in today's world, I'd like to see Iran and other non-western oriented states gain nuclear capabilities, strictly so the US and other uncivilized actors in the world can not bully those that do not share their cultural, economic, and political views.
I do not believe that nuclear weapons are something that will actually ever be used by states again. Iran – and specifically its leaders – will know full well that if they used these weapons that it would be suicide for themselves. And yes, some entities throughout the world do not see this martyrdom as a problem. But I fail to see how a state actor could possibly use the weapon as anything but leverage and an attempt to readjust the balance of power it has with the world. Even if used, a lesson learned we would have. To take others seriously, treat them with respect, and not think that they could or should be bullied. People like Osama bin Laden are reactionaries. They are defending their cultural and ideological views (just as Americans and others do). Terrorism is a term used by those in power to demean the point and means of their adversaries. Yet these people, are no different than America's revolutionary war heroes. They are fighting for their freedom and independence. Would you want a Saudi Arabian military base in Maryland? Americans don't even want maximum security prisons that house 'terrorists' in relative vicinity to themselves, never mind a foreign military base from an ideologically different country with ulterior motives close by. We must show respect to the world and its ideals in order to function amicably within it. And by this I do not mean in verbiage, but in fundamental goals and systemic desires. The current capitalist regime's focus on growth and expansion does not allow for this respect. The goal is to gain scarce resources for our own (or companies, or nations) immediate reward, not to live respectfully and cooperatively with others or for another's development.
Actually, if you really want to know my true ideological view on it all, we should all just get rid of nuclear weapons entirely, US, Russia, everyone. But unfortunately that is not realistic. So I figure that perhaps a true balance of power is more apt to help the world. If more states have nuclear weapons, the world will be playing on a more equal playing field, and it will be less likely that someone will use them for fear of their own demise. Perhaps it is far fetched given the more of some thing there is the more likely it could be used – as is seen with guns. But this is on a different scale, a riffle and a nuclear warhead are of different levels. And while it would be nice to take away all of these means of easy death, some are more influential on a mass population and political level than others. Given the world's political, economic, cultural, and military power situations, right now all I see is the bully trying to tell the bullied that the bullied can not do what the bully does out of fear that the bully will no longer be able to bully. This is a simple power trip saying “I can do this, but you can't, and because I said so.” The worst thing to me about it all, is that the general populaces of these 'democracies' do not recognize the absurd logic in this line of thought, and simply condone this bullying behavior because that is the message presented to and ingrained within them. Despite that being bullied is not OK on the playground that one's child plays on (where a bruised eye/ego and lost lunch money are about as tough as it gets), but it is ok on the world's geo-political landscape where economic dearth, political isolation, and war tend to be ready outcomes of bullying behavior. Billions of people in the world, and we're only concerned about and/or allow ourselves to identify with the few that live near us or share cultural similarities. Think people, don't listen, think.
Development as a concept is interesting. The general implication in its usage today is usually either in terms of something happening – 'a development' – or in a more positive sense of something growing, expanding, or 'becoming better'. The usage of the word as generally seen in economic, social, and political terms in regards to the 'developing' world is generally the later: that they are 'developing', i.e. growing, expanding, or 'getting better'. This concept rests on some pretty large assumptions, and not much more profound than: that the area to be developed is in 'need' of, or desires to become, something else – something deemed 'bigger', 'better', or the like.
This is in fact tricky though, as in order to be something 'else', whether more developed or not, the 'thing' must first be either envisioned or influenced by another entity and then evolve to another stage or position. As 'the status quo' is followed, there is generally little but standard, small scale intermittent change that slowly and sporadically builds upon itself. However, upon a distinct external actor with different information influencing the original object, change then becomes a visible option and thus can be envisioned as an end game. The general developmental evolution of small scale change is generally on a step by step basis that is slowly evolving and envisioned by local actors throughout each step. In the situation where a new external actor enters the fray, there is no longer a simple step by step scenario, but rather an vision of an end result further ahead, but no real distinct path from A to B.
In the sense of colonial development, entity A is a local African social institution, object B becomes the life style and material goods of the European. The African's can not easily see what it took to make B, they can not see the step by step directions as they happened, they can only speculate through their own eyes as to what happened or to take the word or direction from the Europeans that introduced the concept of 'B' to their own preexisting world. Both of these situations have substantial shortcomings. In using their own indigenous speculation ideas like Cargo Cults come to the fore. Local populations then end up trying to 'reinvent the wheel.' However, it is not a simple reinvention, as they are doing it without the stone or wood used prior. In listening to the European path of development, they are subject to the selective memory of the Europeans' developmental existence and subconscious interpretation of the current self-interest of both man and country. The history of 'development' in Africa is a direct by-product of this 'missing link' developmental pathway.
It has still been asserted though in some academic circles that a period of colonial rule is a 'necessary precondition' for the emergence of modern and technologically advancing states from precolonial Africa and Asia.1 This line of thought was pronounced as justification for the implementation of a well thought out and adhered to practice that started as colonialism and then transformed into what we now call 'development'. The problem with this line of practice is that it is technically flawed, not only along the lines directly discussed above, but it also fundamentally begs the question as to where did the European colonizers come from? If they managed to develop without the need of an overlord's expertise, what makes their developmental pathway so culturally different from those on other continents? If they developed naturally, why couldn't other areas? This brings us directly back to the concept on another external entity forcing change, and skewing the pathway to the final outcome. Agneta Pallinder-Law brings attention to several cases where it has been argued that the adoption of some elements of western technology were present before colonization – independent of European rule – and that ‘modernization was in many cases frustrated rather than accelerated by the European conquest.' (Pallinder-Law, P. 65).
If this line of thought is in fact the case, is the generic model of 'modernizing' that the West has been applying – first as colonialism and in current day as development – in the 'less developed' areas of the world more an imperialist agenda than anything else? A fictitious road map to 'modernity' that administrators may not even realize is fallacy? Even the best of intentions – if that is in fact what they are – can go wrong. In fact, the system that has created the West, and the system that the West now lives in and seems to believe is the harbinger of 'development' and 'success' in life, has produced a people and system that is based on self-interest – whether personal, regional, national or otherwise. This system, as it consumes its own resources, sees the 'development' of other areas of the world as paramount to its own self-interests and success. The fact that the West has things that to the touch (in the productive aspects of life) and in a military sense seem more useful and powerful than another cultures 'stuff', produces a self-arrogance and belief in ones own system that 'justifies' the expansion of this system over others in the eyes of the originator and expander. They see themselves as 'civilizing' the others, but in fact they are merely changing them into something more similar and comforting, something more like there own 'civilization'.
It is in fact this self-interested motivation that creates a system that is based upon competition rather cooperation. Competition can not exist without a hierarchical structure based on status and power that does not seem to be able to willfully be changed from the top down. The developed countries will not wholly welcome the equality of the ‘lower’ raising to the level of the ‘higher’. Some countries – mostly democracies lead by a small swell of ‘concerned voters’ that bring the plight of the less advantaged to light – will attempt to put forth development programs that speak of helping the less developed world. But in reality, whether a few individuals want to or not, the country's policies don't end up really looking to raise these countries to the highest levels given political and democratic compromise. Whether they say they do or not, intrinsically – conscious or not – they are motivated by self-interest. The countries end up more importantly looking to accumulate the means of production in ownership terms and then to create a group of countries with a strong set of middle managers that can help with the extraction and route to market of the rich amount of resources in said countries. It is not about equality, it is about accumulation by dispossession, whether they consciously believe it or not.
Some of the ramifications of this line of thought are succinctly discussed by Arturo Escobar in Encountering Development as he expands upon the competitive aspects of the system in stating that “The system that generates conflict and instability and the system that generates underdevelopment are intricately bound.” (Escobar, P. 34) Escobar believes that “massive poverty in the modern sense appeared only when the spread of the market economy broke down community ties and deprived millions of people from access to land, water, and other resources. With the consolidation of capitalism, systemic pauperization became inevitable.” (Escobar, P. 22)
Capitalism does not allow anything else on a motivational and systemic level. There are of course always outliers that will try to generally do alternative things (i.e. best intentioned developmental concepts), but on the whole, the system rewards and thus produces self-interested actors (individual, state, or otherwise) that will put their own situations ahead of others even if it appears otherwise as they do what looks to be good-natured developmental work. Profit maximization – ‘I’ll save lives if I can profit from it’.
Competition is an interesting and often unchallenged foundation of western society. In America it is the unfettered absolute of social interaction – espoused as the way to move and motivate individuals to make themselves better, and to provide society with social and economic growth. In Europe it seems to take a softer tone, finding verbiage in business and ‘right-of-center’ political circles, and has only been a part of the vanguard since the privatizing 80’s. I myself – having been raised stoutly within an ultra-competitive athletics atmosphere – was once called ‘the most competitive person’ my coach had ever seen (and he’d coached several world class athletes). This motivation has begotten me a great deal of what I am in life, yet today I find myself at war within myself over this drive and determination. After all, competition by another name is the drive to be better or best – the unquenchable thirst for self satisfaction in relation to others; or better termed as the drive to make someone, or everyone, worse than you – inferior to yourself. Do I really want everyone else to be worse than me?
Society today rewards the ‘winners’ and puts more pressure on the ‘losers’ (See the movie Bigger Stronger Faster), as our present day society – capitalist society – is at its core based solely on the ‘individual’ as the primary actor and motivator. But this motivating force in-turn puts the individual at odds with their surroundings and all others inhabiting them. Competition has innocuously seeped into all realms of society. It starts to get indoctrinated into us as culture with youth sports and gold stars in school classrooms, then with placement in schools, athletics, and status groups; upon which it is finally realized in the jobs, material items, and money of our adulthood. Capitalist society is based upon this competition between wage-laborers, and it relies upon the reserve (unemployed) labor pool to always have another person to fill your post unless you are ‘better’ than them (or they are ‘worse’ than you).
Most people in Anglo-American society are ok with the above concept; after all, if you work hard you can achieve anything, right? But look at the world around us. And no, not just the one outside your country’s borders (often personified as being lead by 'barbarians, heathens, and other distasteful interlopers') but the one within our borders. The poor, the disparate, the crime, gang violence, school shootings… the list goes on for days. Western society is not healthy, and it is tough to justify promoting a sickly model to other parts of the world especially while selling it off as idyllic. The current system is not fundamentally based upon ‘success’, but upon competing amongst our selves, our groups, and our countries – competition that easily turns conflictual, and is never ‘successful’.
Put two individuals (solely focused on themselves) into a vacuum with one plate of food, and they will compete over said plate as within this scenario it is their sole motive to think of their own self and survival. If their mindsets are night and day, self versus group, they will come into conflict as it is me v. you. Only within a cooperatively motivated environment can this situation not actually come to conflict, as the option to share would now be a possibility as they could think about more than themselves. You may of course then say, yes but we don’t live in a vacuum there are so many other societal factors that come into play: altruism, compassion, charity, even negotiation and compromise. Of course, but if at our core – in our soul – our intrinsic motivations focus on the self, opening the door for conflict, then it is a paramount need for society to counteract this competition and subsequent conflict. This is specifically why it is of the utmost importance to create/live in a society that minimizes these singular self motivations. This is not to say that human nature is negative or ‘evil’, but that as we see society today it leads to competitive conflict (if man is a ‘social being’ then it is in his/her nature to compromise the space around themselves in order to share it with others). To create a systemic social, economic, and cultural setting that decreases the chances of competition, thus decreasing conflict, should be our goal – not to expand the institutionalization of individualized competitive scenarios that pervade Western society to other areas of the world.
Think of it like this: today’s society idolizes selfless acts (‘taking one for the team’, taking the bullet for another, accepting responsibility for another’s failure, etc.), yet at the same time society does not ‘set itself up’ to actually facilitate or reproduce these acts, never mind to truly or tangibly reward them, either literally or from within its systemic infrastructure. Singular rewards chosen from 6.5 billion people like the Nobel peace prize are not given to the ‘average’ person. ‘Regular’ people don’t think about this award past a fleeting glance, never mind receive it, and the selfless person that takes individual responsibility for a group’s failure is often ‘fired’ from their job. It is sad, but despite the rhetoric, the ideals and principles of ‘the self-less wo/man’ are but festering and decayed road kill resting under capitalism’s bus…
