Observations On the Oppressive Nature of Freedom

The Creation of AdamMichelangelo

Paradise Lost

Thou wouldst go into the world, and art going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand, which they fear and dread — for nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.” – The grand inquisitor – The brothers karamazov – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

A century after the dissolution of absolute monarchies and centralised power, we gravitate once again hand in hand into the institution of a centralised form of government. We wave our placards and scream for social justice; we demand free health-care, we beg for free education, free housing and free food.  

We plead for a return to paradise, a return to preconscious bliss before our first parents ate of the fruit of knowledge and inflicted the curse of freedom upon us. We yearn for an all-powerful, well-meaning government that we can all voluntarily pledge our freedom to so we can be free of the responsibility that freedom demands. Emancipated from the yoke of our overbearing freedom we believe we could actually be free! But we could only be free of the need to be the active agents of our own destiny.

Authors to themselves in all

Both what they judge and what they choose;

For so I formed them free, and free they must remain,

Till they enthral themselves” – The almighty Paradise lost – John Milton

The Oppressive Nature of Freedom

Man is tormented by nothing more persistently than his gift of freedom. All the days of his life he is at pains to find one he can hand his freedom to and thereby abdicate his responsibility, for with freedom comes inescapable responsibility.   So long as men are free the onus is on them to decide their fate, and so long as this burden rests on them and them alone, they find their freedom oppressive. In consequence, they willingly deny their humanity, their own capacity for self-determination. They hunger for oppression and then languish in it, exalting and glorifying the most oppressed among them. For freedom is indeed oppressive, Oppressive because Freedom confers responsibility.

The Tyranny of Fisherman

The old maxim goes “If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day; if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime”.

But what if the man doesn’t want to learn how to fish? What if deep in his heart he knows, the moment he learns how to fish he becomes free. He also knows the moment he becomes free, the responsibility of a daily meal falls upon his person.

If he takes the fish today, not only can he be sure of being fed today but he knows he can always ask for more tomorrow, after all, he really does lack the skill to catch fish himself so as long as other men have fish to spare he can be fed for a lifetime.

If they do refuse to feed him, he also knows he can always accuse all who have fish to spare of being miserly and cruel.  At some point he may even unite with more of his brothers who are bereft of fishing skills and they will rise up and take to the streets to protest the heartless tyranny of fisherman. 

The Saints who were Promised

Disillusioned by our own freedom, We search high and low those who will come to save us by taking upon themselves this burden and freeing us from our suffocating responsibility. We shall go to them as we have done before and freely lay our freedom at their feet saying “Feed us, give us our daily bread and we shall be in a state of contented bliss.”

With heavy hearts, they will accept this burden and take it upon themselves to decide what’s best for us. For all men need is bread and a full belly then virtue will follow right? Fed and clothed man will be content and live in peace without desire or want for anything else right?  On the promise of this they will rise as they have risen before, the Stalins, the Castros, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Mugabes and now the Jeremy Corbins and Benny Sanders’,  like gods they will rise our saviours, pure and well-meaning, ready to take on the yoke of our loathsome burden and lead us to the promised land.

They preach a return to paradise, this they do in the name of virtue, for who among us can deny the necessity of virtue. They are not corrupt; they care not for the vices of this world, they are ready to sacrifice themselves to the task of ensuring bread for all, watching over us like our Lord in Eden, distributing fairly to all. Where would these saints have come from if not on high? Only from these god sent paragons of virtue can we expect the salvation of humanity…Or its ruin.

Freedom and Revolution

Freedom has always seemed to me to be one of man’s most treasured rights; I have always been convinced that no matter what people would always fight for their freedom and even harder to preserve it. It is not until recently that I have started to genuinely doubt this notion.

 I have gradually come to believe that a vast number of people do not only feel indifferent to their own freedom, but they feel outright oppressed by it. Rarely is this feeling ever expressed explicitly; in fact, I believe most people are entirely unaware of it. However this subtle aversion to total freedom drives not only their thoughts and actions but stands at the root of their entire belief systems. A close examination of the underlying motivations behind some of today’s radical political and social movements will very clearly illustrate this point

The women’s rights activists of the 1960s fought for their freedom, their right to self-determination. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela fought for their freedom and their right to self-determination. Strong, independent women like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem stood firm against the odds, risking life career in the pursuit of freedom.

None of these people ever fought to take from some and give to others, none of them ever fought for special treatment, none of them struggled to impose their views and opinions on others. Regardless of what they suffered, none of them were driven by hatred of the other or the desire to run from their personal responsibility. They all fought and took their stand simply because they wanted to be free.

This, however, does not deter any of the misguided, self-proclaimed revolutionaries of our age from extolling the virtue of these great men and women to bolster the legitimacy of their own pseudo-moralistic causes.  What masquerades as a desire to fix a broken world tends to stem from a deep desire to abdicate personal responsibility by hiding behind the veil of virtue and collective responsibility.

There are indeed real battles to fight in this cruel world, but only individuals strong enough to take on the burden of the responsibility that freedom demands can hope to strive towards perfection in an imperfect world.

These self-styled revolutionaries that now claim to stand for the oppressed have become the inquisitors of our day. In the name of social justice they attack and seek to destroy any who have opposing views, they have no qualms about destroying the lives of men and women who have worked hard to make something of themselves. This is because these men and women serve as mirror to their inadequacy; they serve as a reminder of the stifling nature of their freedom.

So whether or not the actions of these contemporary revolutionaries actually help those they claim to represent seems like less of a priority to them, and in the final analysis it is not a love for the less fortunate that drives them but a hatred for the successful, who have voluntarily taken upon themselves the burden of personal responsibility and prevailed.

A careful study of history shows the danger of these radical revolutionaries who masquerade as soldiers of freedom. 

They were the logical outcome of the radical idealism of the 1840s. Above all they now abandoned the old morality of their parents, believing some vague socio-political end could justify any revolutionary means. What was worse, they enjoyed the idea of practical revolution so much that the ends were never clearly defined. Vagueness of purpose did not preclude attention to destructive detail” – Introduction to The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Written by A.D.P Briggs

Man Shall Not Live by Bread Alone: The Fallacy of the Socialist Utopia

But Thou wouldst not deprive man of freedom and didst reject the offer, thinking, what is that freedom worth if obedience is bought with bread? Thou didst reply that man lives not by bread alone.”- The grand inquisitor – The brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Man cannot be contented by material possessions alone. This one point invalidates the functional utility of fully socialist or communist forms of government; it forms the basis of why in the past they have always failed.  

These forms of government are predicated on the idea that if people are well fed, clothed and provided with an adequate roof over their head; they will be content and only concern themselves with virtue and creative enterprise. This is paired with a belief that people will only pursue things that are not in their best interests because they are not aware of it, because they lack education or the social status to understand what’s best for their well being such that if you were to correct this state of affairs people would do what’s right for them and those around them. The fundamental assumptions here being that all people value the same basic things and are driven by the same impulses.

This ignores the plethora of evidence to the contrary, people’s conceptions of value and the impulses compelling their actions are as numerous as the people themselves. Some have given away their clothing for alcohol, some have foregone their bread for spiritual enlightenment, and some have given up their corrugated roofs for a life in the wilderness under a tent.  Regardless of our thoughts and feelings towards these choices, it is the fact that these individuals have the capacity to make them that matters.

Freedom doesn’t mean everyone will be happy with how others conduct themselves, but it does mean everyone is free to conduct themselves as they wish, personally responsible for weighing the merits or demerits of their own actions. The alternative is giving away our capacity to choose, in other words, our freedom to an all-powerful government that decides what’s best for us,

As far-fetched as that may seem now, at some point soon, we are going to have to make that decision.

The record of the 20th century, however, has been more than sufficient proof that as simple as it may seem “man shall not live by bread alone”.

Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so necessary— that men still are men and not the keys of a piano” – The underground manNotes from the undergroundFyodor Dostoyevsky

I realize the flaws of the capitalist system, and even though my impression is that these flaws are more to do with human nature than the system itself, I am willing to concede that maybe to some extent the system has built within it some qualities that encourage the more base aspects our nature, however I firmly believe the solution to the pathology of capitalism cannot be found in the adoption socialism or communism.

I hold this view not because I am against the philanthropic principles that these forms of economic and social organisation profess but because I am sceptical about the real motivations behind wanting to structure society in such a way. I am of the belief that this represents us giving away our freedom for the sole purpose of unburdening ourselves with responsibility for our own lives. It is grounded in the Utopian vision of a world where a well-meaning government handles the means of production and distributes the proceeds so we are not burdened by self-determination

From a psychoanalytic perspective, this represents the desire for a return to the “garden of Eden”, the return to a childlike state where a well-meaning parental figure takes care of all our needs and decides what is best for us. However the price for this return to infantile dependence is steep, freedom is our curse, a curse we cannot shake, for as soon as Adam and Eve tasted the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, there was no turning back.  They became conscious, and because we are conscious too there is no returning to that blissful state of ignorance.

Freedom and Bread for all

And then we shall finish building their tower, for he finishes the building who feeds them. And we alone shall feed them in Thy name, declaring falsely that it is in Thy name.

Oh, never, never can they feed themselves without us! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free.

In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, ‘Make us your slaves, but feed us.’ They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious.

They will marvel at us and look on us as gods, because we are ready to endure the freedom which they have found so dreadful and to rule over them- so awful it will seem to them to be free. But we shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name.

Oh! Then he will cast away Thy bread and follow after him who has ensnared his conscience. In that Thou wast right. For the secret of man’s being is not only to live but to have something to live for. Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, and would rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance.

Even with bread in abundance, man cannot go living without purpose.”The grand inquisitor – The brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Further Reading

Utilitarianism/On liberty – John Stuart Mill

The social contract – Jean Jacques Rousseau

Paradise Lost – John Milton

Leviathan – Thomas Hobbes

Faust – Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

Devils – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Notes from the underground – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Thank you for reading! Please share, comment and subscribe to the blog for more content like this.

Fire and Blood : Daenerys’ Fall and the role we all played

Source: Unknown

SPOILERS!

Episode 5: The Bells

What choice did we have? Us who held Daenerys as the ideal leader, who named our children after her then had to defend her virtue after she burnt innocent children the same age as our own. What choice did we have but to blame the “incompetent” producers. Our beloved Khaleesi would never have done something so heinous.

This was the dilemma many supporters of the communist doctrine found themselves in after being sent to the gulag in soviet Russia, having to defend their beloved social theory behind the bars of the cells it created.

How could it be anything but hard! It was more than the human heart could bear: to fall beneath the beloved axe — then have to justify its wisdom. But that is the price a man pays for entrusting his God-given soul to human dogma.”  – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

With palpable disbelief, shock and disappointment we watched as our dream for a better Westeros, a free Westeros ruled by the benevolent Queen Daenerys was reduced to ash. How did we get here? A deep, pervasive feeling that we have somehow been cheated sets in. But by who dear Reader? The writers or Our Khaleesi?

I have to admit, I was outraged and I too vented my frustrations on the producers. I have now come to believe however that this conclusion was inevitable, it was merely the culmination of a cult of personality that we all partook in until we were unwillingly forced, Kicking and screaming to open our eyes and see through its benevolent guise.

Nature or Nurture?

In psychology, there is an ongoing debate about nature vs nurture. The premise is simple “to what extent do psychological processes reflect biological or environmental influences”. Daenerys Targaryen did not have a pleasant life, Hers was the real tragedy from beginning to end. She lost everyone she ever loved, her husband, her unborn son, her dragons and in the end, it was a man she loved who ended her life at the foot of a throne she had dedicated her whole life to.

Undressed by her brother and then raped on her wedding day. The question is, Did she lose her mind in the end or was she already damaged by the traumas of her past? A combination of both maybe? Some say it was in her blood, perhaps even destiny. What I can say for sure is that many like her have transcended the horrors of their past without burning down whole cities. Maybe, like the rest of us, she always had the capacity for both good and evil but lack of opportunity made her seem virtuous, until the tables turned. Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “Fear is the mother of morality”. So what was it nature or nurture? I’ll leave this one for you to decide.

The Signs

The harmless, timid, wide-eyed girl we first encounter does not stay that way for long. Carrying the son of warrior king Khal Drogo Daenerys becomes the Khaleesi of a vast Dothraki horde. For the first time, she is happy but even more importantly, she has power. Former U.S president Abraham Lincoln once remarked “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”, freed from the adversity of her upbringing it is not long before we start to see Daenerys’ true character.

Her husband decides to execute her older brother, She does not aid him, but she raises no finger to stop it. Viserys looks at her little sister and he screams “Danny please”. She looks on and doesn’t utter a word, and make no mistake this is not the look of a terrified little girl afraid to speak up, this is the look of a Queen indifferent to the impending death of her own brother. Granted Viserys was no saint, far from it to be honest but he single-handedly protected and educated her since she was a helpless child. Nonetheless, Daenerys remains unmoved, even anger would have shown a capacity for emotion but she is just cold. He shouts out again, one last plight of mercy to his little sister.

Silence…

His final cries, his last breath, nothing provokes an emotional response from the Khaleesi, Instead she says softly “he is no dragon, fire cannot kill a dragon“.  Right then dear Reader we should have known who she was. If she couldn’t muster the emotional strength to care about her own blood what chance did the peasants of kings landing have?

What about you and me. We stood there with her and cheered from the comfort of our couches. Who doesn’t like to see someone rise above their past weaknesses and become strong and assertive, But was that the lesson here? Most of us just said nothing, we didn’t condemn her actions but we didn’t cheer for her either, That makes us innocent right? Well, in any case, Viserys was evil so he deserved to die, right?

On Saturday 30 December 2006 former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was executed. The event was broadcast on live tv. We watched, some cheered, some were indifferent. When it was all done, we went about our business as if nothing happened, went to the mall, watched a movie, went to watch our son’s soccer practice, just another Saturday.

Fiction it turns out, is often just the mirror of our own perverse reality.

Wikipedia notes “While officially released footage of the event stopped short of showing the actual execution, an amateur video shot using a camera phone from a staircase leading up to the gallows surface, contained low-quality footage of the entire hanging. The amateur footage, unlike the official footage, included sound; witnesses could be heard taunting Saddam at the gallows.

Yes, witnesses taunted the condemned man and don’t be quick to judge them either, They are you and me, they are well-intentioned individuals thoroughly convinced about the just nature of their cause. What would you have done if you were a Dothraki screamer, would you have exercised mercy? If you were part of the unsullied infantry mutilated and enslaved all your life and then finally free, if you were one of the women raped by the masters, if you had watched your father get mauled by a bear in the fighting pits, would you have exercised mercy?

To quote Solzhenitsyn once again, “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” 

Those that taunted the hanging corpse of Saddam Hussein are not unique individuals that much different from you and I. Only that in the moment they believed themselves paragons of virtue, their hatred and murderous intent vindicated by the purity of their cause.  Saddam Hussein was evil so he deserved to die, right?

The Queen’s Justice

When Daenerys killed the masters in Astepor, we got our first taste of the Khaleesi’s justice. She doesn’t bend, she breaks. She said “Harm no children” and therefore cleared her conscience, but to see your father murdered was this not harm enough for the children? Justice we all called it.

The masters of Mereen had to die. It was for a good cause, but whose cause exactly? The masters were not good people; they were slavers and murderers but did murdering them in return make our queen any better? Does being evil to someone who is evil make your actions good? Do good intentions justify the means by which they are pursued?

Ser Barristan Selmy councils her saying, “ your grace the city is yours now, all these people are your subjects now sometimes it’s better to answer injustice with mercy”, she responds “I will answer injustice with justice“, then she has 162 men nailed to crosses alive, Justice!

After world war two nazi war criminals were tried and sentenced at the Nuremberg trials.  We could have given in to our baser impulses and nailed them to crosses too, lord knows they deserved it, but would that have been a good foundation for the future? Doing so would only have sown more resentment and anger. Instead, we tried them legally and convicted them. 20 years on we are better for it. We practice justice with mercy lest our darkness consumes us and we become much like those we condemn.

What separates us from other animals is not just our capacity for evil but our ability to transcend it. We are not free of temptation, but through a continuous process of self-reflection and discipline, we can tip the balance towards the good.

Beyond Good and Evil

In Astepor a butcher named Cleon among the man Daenerys freed deposed the council she established before she left and declared himself his imperial majesty. Not all victims are good.

Daenerys meets with Hizdar Zo Loraq and he mentions his father who oversaw the maintenance of all of Mereen’s landmarks, Daenerys thanks him for this and she says she would be honoured to meet him. Hizdar responds “you have your grace, you crucified him. I pray you never see a member of your family treated so cruelly” She replies haughtily “ your father crucified innocent children”, to which Hizdar responds “ my father spoke against crucifying those children, he decried it as a criminal act but was overruled”.  He then asks “ is it justice to answer one crime with another?Not all who have power are evil.

The Dangers of Ideological Possession

How could we see the monster our Khaleesi was turning into when the veil of her admirable social theory was draped over our eyes.

She says to Hizdar “I am sorry you no longer have a father, but my treatment of the masters was no crime, you’d be wise to remember that”. Like all those possessed by the necessity and virtue of their ideology, Daenerys employs her subjective morality to impose her will on those she condemns.

Let the priests argue over good and evil” she says and what this means is whatever serves her mission is good and everything that goes against it is evil. If her proclaimed mission is to end slavery, then it is a good mission right? By this definition, any impediment to that mission is evil. The citizens of kings landing stood as impediments to this mission, So by their unfortunate birthright they stood condemned as impediments to the pursuit of Daenerys’ Utopia.

Much like the kulaks in soviet Russia had to perish in the millions because by their unfortunate birthright they stood as impediments to Stalin’s Marxist Utopia.  The citizens of communist china too had to pay the human price for Chairman Mao’s “Great leap forward“, and they paid it in the tens of millions.

All these atrocities and many others were born out of sympathetic social theories whose intent was to help “the people”. Good as a mission may be it is what can then be justified in its pursuit that is dangerous. The world is not a perfect place and working towards alleviating the suffering that’s endemic to existence is a noble pursuit, The question always is however, at what cost?

Rarely are there neat solutions to the problems we have in the world but only trade-offs. We mostly have to choose what we are willing to forgo to achieve our desired end. This requires not only understanding the desired end but the consequences of pursuing that end.

Ideology blinds us to these realities and makes the goal paramount regardless of the cost.

Maybe the citizens of kings landing were guilty and Daenerys was indeed divinely ordained judge, jury and executioner, Maybe. We never asked if she ever deserved to rule anyone in the first place. She believed she was the rightful ruler because of her birthright and her superior blood, But so did Adolf Hitler.

We ignored Daenerys’ past atrocities much like today’s proponents of Communist, Socialist and even fascistic theories ignore the crimes perpetrated in their name because ideological possession traps you in a fog. There was never any difference between Daenerys and her brother Viserys, Just that Viserys didn’t pretend to be motivated by a desire to help the innocent.

We understand very little about our own capacity for malevolence so we look at the people In history from a moral pedestal. Do you really think that the german people were intimidated by a single Hitler into ignoring what was happening during the holocaust? Do you think they somehow just didn’t know what was happening? Maybe you believe that a whole nation just turned evil? No dear reader these were all well-meaning people like you and me, who loved their children and were kind to their neighbours. Ideology blinded them to the evils they were complicit in. If we ignore history and we view ourselves as morally and intellectually superior to those who came before us, we are doomed to repeating their mistakes.

To quote C.S LewisOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Valar Morghulis

As she stood atop the steps of what used to be the red keep.  Much like Adolf Hitler’s speech at Nuremberg in 1927, The Khaleesi gave her final speech with decisive force, elevated and surrounded by her massive army.  She promised to liberate the whole world from the back of Drogon. We all felt chills as she addressed her loyal soldiers ”you have freed the people of kings landing. But the war is not over, we will not lay down our spears until we have liberated all the people of the world. From Winterfell to Dorne, from Lannisport to Qarth, from the summer isles to the jade sea! Women, men and children

We don’t quiver because we fear the prospect of worldwide liberation. We quiver because now we know the cost.

Now we are painfully aware of the Khaleesi’s brand of liberty,

Fire and Blood!

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek justification for his actions.

Macbeth’s self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.

Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and other’s eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.

Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor suppressed. How, then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist? And who was it that destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn(The gulag archipelago)

A few Questions for the Reader.

  • Was Daenerys born an evil tyrant?
  • Or was she just the victim of a traumatic past?
  • Was she a well-intentioned but misguided leader, whose ignorance of her intrinsic capacity for both good and evil led her to eventually lose control of the precarious balance between the two, then she gave in to her baser impulses?
  • Or was she merely guilty of ignoring her true motivations, the deeper unconscious impulses dictating her actions?
  • Maybe it was the interaction of all these that led to the massacre at kings landing?

Further Reading

The gulag archipelago – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The possessed – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Crime and punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Notes from the Underground – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Unit 731 Testimony – Hal gold

1984 – George Orwell

Ordinary men – Christopher Browning

Thank you for reading! Please share, comment and subscribe to the blog for more thought provoking content.

Observations on culture: Its genesis, purpose and multiculturalism.

Illustration by Stephanie Gonot for The New York Times

Culture, A definition

Culture is a cognitive framework that guides our subjective understanding of the world and shapes our behavioural interactions with other people. It is a way of thinking about the world and the way that attitude manifests itself as behaviour. Culture is perception and perception manifest. In social application, it is the act or fact of a group of individuals thinking about and interacting with the world within the same framework. The dictionary defines culture as “the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.” From a Darwinian perspective, culture represents the thoughts, actions and patterns of behaviour adopted by individuals who faced the unknown and prevailed. Updating of culture necessarily requires the incorporation of ideas and structures utilised by those who prevail against new iterations of the unknown that arise due to the passage of time and societal innovation.

The genesis of culture

The world is shrouded in chaos, this chaos or “the unknown” which is characteristic of unexplored nature causes anxiety due to its capacity for both danger and promise. Culture arises as an antidote to this anxiety, It represents the state of order that emerges from exploration of the unknown and reconstituting it into the “known” removing its a-priori affective valence which is anxiety and or fear. As a result of the actions undertaken by those who face the unknown and triumph rules governing interpersonal interactions and interactions with nature arise, these rules help regulate affect by rendering parts of the world as known(order) even for those members of society who haven’t voluntarily faced the unknown. Culture in essence provides structure and predictability. “Participation in the processes and representations comprising cultural structure means heightened capacity to predict behaviour of self and other, therefore capacity to regulate emotion” Dr. Jordan Peterson, Maps of meaning.

Society and culture

Society is characterised by a group of people engaging in interpersonal interactions mediated by culture. When people within a society have the same cultural values, it is possible for them to have a sufficient level of trust for each other which enables them to engage in personal interactions without fear or anxiety, and this happens as a consequence of everyone operating within the same value structure. They all have the same conceptions of what’s good and bad, and relatively the same overarching goals which means every individual’s behaviour within this society is rendered to some extent predictable. Individuals are also less likely to act radically different from each other when they share similar value structures, this maintains equilibrium within a society.

The expression, preservation and transmission of culture

Most of the raging debates about culture focus on fashion, food, religion e.t.c which on their own are not culture but merely symbols of culture. All cultures develop cultural Symbols, sometimes as a way of differentiating themselves from the other and at times due to practical necessity. A society that resides in a desert may develop a style of dress to better cope with the environment and as a consequence, this style of dress may in time come to be recognised as a symbol for that society and its culture. Symbols also stand as a way of conveying a meaning recognised by all members of a particular culture.

Appreciation of music, food and other art forms does not represent appreciation of culture, it is merely the appreciation of external characteristics that symbolise it. To appreciate a culture is to embody its ideals and to live by its values plus beliefs, in essence, it is to practice its ideology. One can appreciate the fruits a culture bears but that does not mean one understands it, to do so would be to live by its values. Even bad culture can bear seemingly good fruit so an analysis of the results alone is not enough pass judgement.

Culture and art

Cultures develop art as a way of expressing the culture’s ideology in a dramatic structure as well as communicating that ideology across its members and across time. This may take the form of music, painting, architecture, sculpture e.t.c. Art serves as a vehicle for the expression and preservation of cultural values, art on its own is not culture, it is both a symbol representative of culture and a tool for communicating the values of a culture.

Culture and religion

Religion can be a part of culture but faith alone is not culture, the two are often confused because they are very closely linked. Many cultures grow out of religious doctrine and vice versa. However one may practice a religion that is very different from the culture they identify with. There are many Americans, Australians, Canadians e.t.c who practice different religious faiths but have all adopted western cultural values. There are also billions of people on earth who practice Christianity but are from a diverse range of cultural backgrounds. Religion does play a more significant role in our modern-day cultures than is often recognised, such concepts as intrinsic human rights for instance can trace their existence back to Judeo-Christian principles.

Cultural symbols in society

Due to the interconnected nature of the world we live in now, cultural symbols have crossed borders and can now be found all around the world, sometimes in places very distant from where they were originally conceived. Fighting for exclusive ownership of cultural symbols as if they were culture itself is rampant, this fighting includes and is generally comprised of people who have an ethnic connection with the place where the symbols originate. In most cases however, these individuals have adopted very different cultures from the one they claim to fight for and reside very far away from any places that actually practice the culture they yearn to represent. We want to feel like a part of something greater than ourselves so sometimes we grasp at straws and fight for cultural symbols that represent what our grandparents embodied but we barely understand.

Cultural appropriation

In light of all this, what is usually called “cultural appropriation” tends to be at most cultural symbol appropriation and to what extent that is a negative thing is entirely subjective. Cultural appropriation would be to steal not only the symbols of a particular culture but the culture’s entire perceptual framework and value system. This to me does not even seem probable, and it is not entirely self-evident that this would be a bad thing even if it did somehow occur. All cultures learn useful ideas from the different cultures they encounter and this is actually something essential for human progress.

Culture, race and ethnicity

Our modern-day societies consist of people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and all these people live and work together harmoniously because even though externally they may look very different, they all operate within the same cultural framework. An example of this is well illustrated by many of today’s children’s cartoons. These may feature a young Indian boy in traditional garb, a young Caucasian girl in western fashion and a little African girl dressed in a colourful dashiki. This serves as an attempt by the media creators to depict multiculturalism, the depiction works until you pay attention to the behaviour of the characters. Watching the characters interact you quickly start to realise that their differences are only external and the same cultural structure mediates all their interpersonal interactions, they may even be speaking the same language with distinctive vocal accents. This sad reductionist version of multiculturalism that relies on symbolic imagery to create the illusion of multicultural interaction is widespread in contemporary entertainment and often stems not from malice but a lack of understanding of what culture is. It does not matter what your background is because even your parents and siblings can be part of a culture different from yours. Ultimately it boils down to how you frame the world and how you behave within it, that is your culture and in part your character.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is defined as “the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society.”
This as an abstract concept is not bad, even desirable, however in practice it is complicated. What is multiculturalism in practice? There is multiculturalism as defined by two or more different cultures living together as one coherent society or multiculturalism as defined by people from different cultural, social and ethnic backgrounds living together as one society governed by a single cultural framework. Only one of these forms of multiculturalism can function without causing conflict. One of the reasons why this is such a hard topic to deal with is because most people conflate culture with race, religion, ethnicity e.t.c, which makes any position opposed to multiculturalism sound racist or intolerant, however given the true definition of culture, opposition to multiculturalism is not an opposition to any ethnic, religious or racial group but an opposition to the idea of a functional society comprising of fragmented cultural groups.

Given the fact that culture forms the preliminary guidelines for social interaction, multiculturalism is only a desirable form of social organisation when some precise requirements are met.

These are as follows:-

When two or more cultures inhabit the same geographic location and form a society, it is necessary for

  1. Everyone involved to adopt one of the cultures present
  2. When this is not possible, the formation of a new culture to govern all future interactions is necessary

If this does not happen, conflict is inevitable because no institution or society can function when everyone operates on different principles. In the case of sovereign states, it is the society that dictates what culture governs the country and its the duty of that country to ensure that everyone who is a part of the community is aware of the culture and conforms to it. A visitor or new inhabitant of a sovereign state has to comply with the rules of the culture that underpins the society and state or face retribution from the state because it is the state’s job to maintain the peaceful coexistence of its citizens.

An interesting phenomenon takes place when people of different cultures find themselves in the same country. They break down into small groups/communities comprised of people that share the same cultural values. These groups act like small surrogate societies within a larger society and some people may live for decades in a country without ever learning the language spoken by the majority of people in that country, they never feel the need to interact with anyone outside the confines of their smaller society. On the surface, this is all well and good, but because all these smaller communities exist in the same social environment with other societies, social interaction is inevitable and this is when conflict arises. Disagreements about things like morality and what governs social interactions between individuals will ensue. There will likely be conflict on political policy as well stemming from conflicting cultural values, the “abortion laws” debate is a prime example of this. A society that consists of these fractured communities cannot function properly for long and conflict is inevitable.

All this said I believe that:-

Multiculturalism, as defined by two or more different cultures living together as one coherent society is not possible.
Multiculturalism, as defined by people from different cultural, social and ethnic backgrounds living together as one society governed by a single cultural framework is probable.

Are all culture’s equally worthy of respect?

Some cultures advocate murder, the oppression of women and class or racial segregation. Indeed these are unique cultures nonetheless but their adopted beliefs beg the question,
Are all cultures equally worthy of respect? The nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said “Truth serves life” so I believe culture is only truly good if it serves well the needs of its people without oppressing or otherwise negatively affecting them in the process. No matter how unique a culture is if its beliefs and ideals are not consistent with or against fundamental human needs, then that culture is not worthy of respect.

Thank you for reading! Please comment, share and subscribe to the blog for more thought provoking content.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started