Niall Ferguson is Wrong

I notice time and again there is common narrative used by Western historians (I can only read English, so I only read Western academic history) to describe the transitions of power and the characteristics of European and American society and governance contra non-European and non-American society and governance. The narrative goes that ‘the rest’ lacked economic competition (hence had no entrepreneurs) and free thought. This lack is one side of the coin with fits together with the other part of the narrative, namely that there was uncompromising despotic, centalised rule, which nearly all of the time was completely isolationed and shunned contact and (free) trade the rest of the world. Niall Ferguson seems to represent the latest incarnation of this viewpoint, perhaps with a nuance or two but definitely the narrative as described above is there. In his new propagandistic treatise written solely to corrupt the youth book his lists six features (‘killer apps’) which explain the West’s rise to power and why everyone else were bystanders to this ascendancy. The decisive features are: competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic. Firstly it should be noted that consumerism is only really a century old and democracy is effectively two centuries old, so these can hardly be the gamechangers that powered the West to become the most powerful region of the world around the 18th century. Second Weber’s work ethic is thoroughly discredited (and really, despite my admiration for Weber, the notion of it was always a form of proto-Fergusonism, that Westerners had more initiative and worked harder than everybody else.). Medicine and science are a bit of a strange argument to make. They comprise of the larger argument that the Western had better technology and technical knowledge than everyone else. I didn’t include this in the argument because few, even conservatives, pretend that China, the Ottoman empire, Persia, India and more had poor technology or limited medicine. To made that argument that overall the West had superior medicine and science seems frankly out of place anytime after the 1960s and 1970s. If the argument was the West had an industrial revolution then that should of been stated, to pretend there is more to it than that is very dubious. I also think the medicine and science point boils down to the argument that the West had room for free thought whilst everyone else, apparently were like worker drones in some Orwellian imagining. Lastly there is competition. This is perhaps the line of argument I am least disapproving of, specifically that Western countries like the Netherlands and Britain developed social practices where money and exchange was perhaps more open and unencumbered. More specifically financial instituions (e.g. banking) existed and possibly there was less of a guild heavy economy (though I really think many, like Ferguson, downplay the role of the guild system in European economies). Nonetheless the competition argument is based on a notion that people of the West have more initiative and more creativity than ‘the rest’. I have a feeling that even this argument is flawed, and furthermore that overall it can’t be said to be central to why Britain than America assumed global power and dominance.

The (sufficiently) perfect history is yet to be written (perhaps Ian Morris comes close), yet that history will involve disabusing itself of the above common, all too common narrative.

One Ring to Rule Them All

The Lord of the Rings is largely about power. Also as it is an epic it inevitably details the human condition, or a view of it. Corruption, or to use Christian terminology sin or fallenness, dominate the tale. This implies pretty much that humanity is significantly troubled by itself, by inherent weakness which is strong enough to dangerously corrupt. The film is also pretty manichean as despite the conflict that exists within humanity between goodness and corruption/evil there is  a ‘dark lord’ Sauron and there are insular hobbits who keep to themselves and savour peace and calm. The fact that Sauron wants complete domination over the world by wielding the ring of power, that is the ring, while the hobbits, exemplified by Frodo and Sam, are simply honest folk seeking to arrest Sauron’s power grab and ensure that peace rules throughout the world clearly colours in a ‘good’ and an ‘evil’.

All those who govern are idiots. It is difficult to try and parse if this is a critique of aristocracy or whether this is a critique of human governance in general. I think that there is barbed criticism for humans’ ability to govern themselves in general, as governors are shown to be vainglorious careerists, bad decision-makers and people who are relentlessly cynical and mistrustful. Some criticism is that political leaders are neglectful of their present family and forever trying to imagine themselves and live in the shadow of previous aristocratic generations is more of a criticism of aristocracy with nonetheless some applicability to democracies. Overall though the actions taken by the characters seem to be an indictment of human politics and governance, with non-humans (elves particularly) and Gandalf, a wizard, being those who guide successful governance. Wizards and elves rather serve as a thinly veiled type of human being, namely better and morally superior human beings who are studious and knowledgeable, while also with an awareness of the epic (that is an acknowledgement of big picture matters and not being content with the provincialism of the hobbits. Pretty much in my opinion thinking, focusing and living for the long term).

The ring corrupts all humans and all hobbits (except one, Sam, I believe) who come near it. The nine human lords who had rings which became ring wraiths, whereas the Dwarves and the Elves were not corrupted equally. And the end of the film has the ring only being destroyed by the selfish desire for the ring of Frodo and Golem clashing and unintentionally resulting in the ring’s destruction. The unintentional destruction I find a saddening moral of the story. Humanity couldn’t get its act together over a very long tale and only dumb luck leads to the survival of humanity from destruction. Furthermore many humans actually ally with Sauron to destroy the main city of humanity, humans who ride elephants and are dressed somewhat exotically…

 

There is an interesting quote at the end of the movie which touched on another issue, but I think it coheres into a harmonious view of the human condition as stated above:

Frodo: [voiceover] And thus it was. A fourth age of middle-earth began. And the fellowship of the ring… though eternally bound by friendship and love… was ended. Thirteen months to the day since Gandalf sent us on our long journey… we found ourselves looking upon a familiar sight. We were home. How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on… when in your heart you begin to understand… there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend… some hurts that go too deep… that have taken hold. Bilbo once told me his part in this tale would end… that each of us must come and go in the telling. Bilbo’s story was now over. There would be no more journeys for him… save one. My dear Sam. You cannot always be torn in two. You will have to be one and whole for many years. You have so much to enjoy and to be and to do. Your part in the story will go on.

The quote in full touches on many things in the film but I’m mainly interested in the passage highlighted. There is a humanistic view that effectively all things (even if they take a while) relating to humanity can be modified and consequently all problems can be overcome. Poverty can be aided and worked out of, depression can be treated and overcome through therapy, physical wounds can be healed, ignorance can be educated and possible dangers can be rendered effectively harmless. The passage in bold I found a stark riposte to this view. Sure, the passage is largely individual and phenomenological, I have been reading Kierkegaard’s The Seducer’s Diary around the time which is perhaps why it is so poignant, but overall a powerful sense of fate and inevitability hit me when I heard that passage. Especially in the context of humankind as precariously divided internally with inherent weaknesses that corrupt that message of inevitability is really strong. Sometimes I think this view of humanity, which logically ties up with realism (well if humans are so constantly corruptible we can rely on them to constantly lust for power, right?) and, sigh, conservatism (well humans don’t deserve entitlements if they can’t wish them upon others and systems of trust can’t be established) is simply correct and I willfully go about ignoring it. I’m not sure anything could convince me to stop ignoring ‘the truth’ if that was so the case. Humanistic ideals to me are what’s true and must be pursued, even seeking such values are a fool’s hope, an uncertain hope who’s pursuit stands upon the edge of a knife.

Shawshank Redemption

I just watched Shawshank Redemption and doing so was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had. Not a million reviews could do it justice, it’s ultimately ineffable blah blah blah. I will mention a few words on it. I believe the film is essentially an ode to hope. It is one of the most nourishing experiences I can recall, watching that film without having seen or known about it. It was like a shot in the arm for my humanism and I feel it and myself reinvigorated.

In Mark 1:2-3 of the Bible we have a misattribution where Mark says the passage he quotes is from Isaiah whereas that is simply not accurate. At the beginning (in the beginning!!) of the text such a thing happens! I find this nourishing as a human being that something often regarded as sacred through and through has error, something profane, within it. At the beginning as well is like dropping an unmistakable hint. Error and not doing complete, perfect justice to things (like with precise, accurate – perfect – knowledge) is something that gets to me. After seeing the film the channel was switched and up popped Justin Bieber advertising skin cream. With my considerable education my mind cannot fathom or conceive of something more profane. And that is life (if only we listened & learned from the French!!). Reality & it’s intrinsic profanity interrupts, it interrupts our sublime moments and always contextualises them, thus destroying any claims to purity. There are moments when the sublime is experienced (that is, felt as overawing, something perfect) but this is always downplaying something profane and imperfect. There are no perfect moments unto themselves, but for human beings (God’s imperfections) there is perfection and the sublime to be found. Only imperfection can find perfection in imperfection. Thus grace.

Rick Roderick, a quaint and endearing philosophy professor, stated a sentence which has stuck in my mind and which apparently resonates with the heart of much Eastern philosophy: “don’t sweat the small stuff”. Don’t sweat the small stuff. It is easy to preach, to talk, talk is cheap. It is even easy to preach hope, to advocate this powerful human virtue. But I think there needs to be a flip side, namely a reaction to the profane. Which is: not to despair over the imperfect or what is not sublime. I was rather crestfallen that with all the most perfect, that is the most insightful and most succinct, words I could craft to speak about Shawshank Redemption very suddenly were unrealisable as the setting and context unravelled before this player could utter all of his carefully constructed words and ideas. They were evicted, exiled. To try and mold the context back to something similar of what existed immediately after the end of the movie would of been foolish contrivance. The moment had passed, ‘immediately after’ was gone and all that flickered was transitoriness. I feel I lost too much heart through, and one must, as Nietzsche commands dance!, live with levity, lightness and not be weighed down by the world. Being hopeful without being able to dance is perhaps impossible. The profane must be negotiated and a shard of hope, an imagined elsewhere cannot be kept close as if it alone were enough.

The religions of Abraham perhaps overemphasised the sacred profane distinction. You cannot have hope, something sublime, sacred which is mystically connected to real phenomena of the world without having and/or acknowledging the profane and learning to live with it. No hate can be held in the heart, no despair cultivated over its imperfections. The profane must be lived with, only then may it become a conduit to the sublime and not a hindrance to it but even (as it is really necessarily) a facilitator of it. I have long felt the religions of Abraham went wayward in trying to programmatically map out the profane and the sacred. You can put reality or life in a neat box, a precise definition of both could be the impossibility of attempting to do so. I hold dear Yeshua and much wisdom of the Abrahamic traditions which acknowledge the connections between the profane and the sacred. Yet I shun some of their orthodoxies which deny this truth.

 

Hope to the humanist is what faith is to the believer.

The Three Issues

I think there are three prime issues for the 21st century and I believe history is still the best author regarding originality as can be seen by offering up these particular issues.

 

(NOT in order of importance or any order)

 

* Climate Change. Global warming rebranded climate change will shake up the globe with more disregard for national borders then the next two issues and is fairly used as the emblem of a problem in the era of globalisation. Industrial activity, long the hallmark of progress and advancement through history, has become the problem which must be tackled with considerable effort or catastrophes will arise with rising sea levels, many climate change refugees, hazardous volatile weather, agriculture being significantly troubled (both economic growth in poor countries, whose economies largely depend on agriculture, and food security are very important matters) and  so on. We have a lot of habits we need to break, or a lot of new habits we need to start to overcome this not directly seen, experienced over lengthy time periods issue.

 

*Islam. It must be reconciled with modernity and non-Islamic elements. Around 1 to 1.5 billion people follow the faith and shall continue to do so throughout the century, meaning all the clashes which could happen between Islam and modernity and/or the non-Muslim world need to be sorted out. Following the Enlightenment there were those who thought religion was, politically, out of the game and very insignificant in the world. Despite the secularisation thesis which to my judgement accurately maps out decreases in religiosity around Europe and some other places (e.g. Australia, Canada and the exception to the thesis being, of course, America) and decline of religion in general the 21st century will have to deal with religion again, with the whims of the few who hope for its complete abandonment deceiving themselves. Religion is not ‘pre-modern’ and it will be very consequential, with Islam admittedly largely being the main part of religion worldwide throughout the 21st century. Due to the winding paths of history Islam and the non-Islamic world, along with modernity, never intertwined to the amount necessary to ward off many potentially serious conflicts that may happen this century. Dialogue, making the twain meet, will be vital for the 21st century.

 

*The rise of China and Asia. Yes, I mean Asia in large part and not just China will prosper in the 21st century. The geographical continent of Eurasia has never had it’s all inhabitants meaningfully connected. Europe and Asia (most pertinently with China, yes), like with Islam and the non-Muslim world & modernity, need dialogue and mutual understanding. There is a long and proud tradition of both regions largely keeping to themselves up to colonialism but now they must see eye to eye with each other on equal footing. The prospects of a war between China and the USA ranks with highest the currently imaginable prospects for world war. There can no longer be any ‘Middle Kingdoms’ or poles of power. The world is round. We need sufficient peace worldwide and that will only take place when Asia and the Resterners all recognise their civilised sides and coexist together.

 

The three issues have to do with thinking differently. Importantly, they all have to do with expanding human self understanding and human understanding of itself living in the at once robust and fragile environments belonging to the planet Earth. Self understanding has to do with incorporating the other, the Muslim, the Asian, the Chinese, whoever, into one’s understanding of humanity so coexistence is possible is violence towards one another is impossible. Daunting to imagine so many people thinking and living so markedly differently? You bet it is. But we’ve done it before to a degree which can be deemed a success. The acknowledgement of women’s importance in the world being equal with men’s which can be seen most clearly in the world’s democracies illustrates that such dramatic changes are possible. Getting beyond segregated societies, black and white and all together is comparably an amazing achievement. In the 21st century we simply must expand our humanity to include the rest of humankind being intrinsically equal and undeserving of violence as ourselves. Once we have thought and began to live in such a manner, which shall be accomplished upon overcoming the three issues and forever bettering all fronts of coexistence, along with rightly living in Earth’s environments humanity will finally have overcome all fundamental problems of living on Earth.