Procrustean rulers

In my last post in this section (“Let me be multidimensional”), I addressed the issue of the alleged unidimensionalism that characterizes human beings, according to certain proponents of multiculturalist worldviews. Now I would like to take on the governmental attempts to diminish social pluralism. In principle, the fragmentation of societies in a myriad of unidimensional groups I refered to in my previous post seems to be the opposite of the efforts to end up with diversity, but we shall see how they share the same underlaying mechanism.

By and large, political and social leaders do not like pluralism for, on the one hand, it erodes the foundations of their power; that is, their ability to present themselves as embodying or guaranteeing certain core values of the group or nation they lead. Achieving this goal is difficult if the group is very diverse -as the values and traits of its members are likely to be as diverse as them-, and less so if it is more homogeneous. On the other hand, and this is perhaps more important, political leaders whose aim consist mainly in helping guarantee the highest possible freedom to their fellow citizens in every possible realm are the exception and not the norm. Most governments exercise power with a precise agenda inspired by a particular notion of what is morally good or desirable. Bringing about this political agenda -encouraging or even imposing a specific notion of the good- requires a certain degree of moral conformity, something that, in turn, leads to an increased social uniformity. This phenomenon is all too apparent in dictatorial regimes, and much more so in those labelled as “leftist” or revolutionary, and in those based on some kind of religious fundamentalism. The Ukrainian author Adam Zagajewski captures magnificently this idea when describing the efforts of the former Eastern Europe socialist dictatorships to wipe off social heterogeneity:

«The aim of this coup was the complete and ultimate making over of the human collective, also made up of types and forms constantly modified but appearing anew with each generation, as in Tarot cards: we will always find a Cheater, Globetrotter, Gafdy, Drunkard, Proprietor, Tenant, Seducer, Seduced, Pawnbroker, Priest, Artist, etc. Thus the social upheaval planned by the communists assumed that there was something evil and sinful in this variety of types that has existed since time immemorial and the authorities strove relentlessly to produce only three types of man: Functionary, Worker, Policeman». [1]

However, not only dictatorships abhor moral and social diversity. Those of us living in democratic regimes are constantly bullied into behaving in virtuous ways not chosen by us but by our rulers. Democratic governments almost never resist the temptation to remain neutral among different conceptions of the good -thought this should be a central tenet of liberal regimes- and, as a result of this “Fatal Conceit” (in the words of Friedrich Hayek), of this belief that goverments can and should change the world with their actions, we endure ceaseless campaigns prompting us to eat certain food, wear certain clothes, avoid certain lifestyles, and so on. This would be not more than another example of the annoying public intromission in our private lives if it was not by the fact that most of them are mandatory and carry serious sanctions for the law-breachers, distort markets in very important ways and nearly always try to control choices whose consecuences affect no other than the individual making them. The list of examples is never-ending, from governmental attacks on fast food chains to the absolute prohibition to produce, distribute and consume recreative drugs or even take our own life; from which languages we should speak or avoid and what exact words should we employ to refer to other people or describe a variety of social conditions (think of the epidemic of political correctness), to who are we allowed to buy certain services from in basic realms as health, education and labour, and in which terms.

Governments will always try to do away with diversity and pluralism and impose their own moral agendas, and the huge differences existing in this sense between dictatorships and democracies should not conceal the fact that those are of degree and not of substance. [2]

Where is the link here with my previous comments on the purported unidimensionalism that, according to most communitarian theories, defines our social beings and renders our belonging to identity-based groups an ineluctable reality? Both -though not all- governments and identity groups seek to impose homogeneity to a certain degree; both -though not all- usually rely on the belief that there are essential traits in us that makes us natural members or a group or a nation and disciplinedly share a common set of values in its entirety.

Ultimately, these attempts to wipe off the personal qualities that diferentiate us from others and -contrary to what collectivist thinkers seem to believe- allow us to relate to others as free, responsible individuals and bring society into existence-, amount to no more than a strategy to acquire, exercise and maintain power on the part of those social and political elites, rendering us as means and not as ends in ourselves, worthy of respect, privacy and free rein. And it is precisely this procrustean endeavour to make everyone fit in the same bed, at the price of amputating our legs, streching out our arms, or getting rid of our brains altogether, what Stefan Zweig, praising the works of the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne, has masterfully labelled as an error and a crime:

«Il n´est qu´un erreur et qu´un crime: vouloir enfermer la diversité du monde dans des doctrines et des systèmes. C´est une erreur que de détourner d´autres hommes de leur libre jugement, de leur volonté prope, et de leur imposer quelque chose qui n´est pas en eux. Seuls agissent ainsi ceux qui respectent pas la liberté, et Montaigne n´a rien tant haï que la “frénésie”, le furieux délire des dictateurs de l´esprit, qui veulent avec arrogance et vanité imposer au monde leurs “nouveautés” comme la seule et indiscutable vérité, et pour qui le sang de centaines de milliers d´hommes n´est rien pourvu que leur cause triomphe». [3]

Notes:

[1] Adam Zagajewski, 1995, Two cities. On exile, history, and the imagination, New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1995, pp. 37-38, trad. Lillian Vallee, originally published in Polish under the title Dwa Miasta in 1991.

[2] For those of you who find it difficult to read between the lines, my argument does not criticize governmental intervention per se, but only in relation to wholly private affairs and in particular realms of social life.

[3] Stefan Zweig, Montaigne, quoted in the introduction to the 2002 edition of Les essais, by Michel de Montaigne, Paris, Arléa.

Photo: George Grosz, The City, 1916/17, Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, Madrid @ abcgallery

Let me be multidimensional

As any other higher education institution in North America, the university that currently harbors me is swarming this week with thousands of new students arriving for the start of the academic year. A walk around the crowded campus allows one to perceive the multicultural, multiethnic nature of this country, as young individuals of all races, languages and cultural backgrounds move around getting ready for classes and the needs of student life. All over the place, one may find official university posts or companies offering a variety of administrative or commercial services or organized groups of students trying to get fellow students involved in a wide range of voluntary activities. Among these, I have not failed to notice an extraordinary profuseness of groups basically defining themselves by means of one communitarian trait or another. Let´s see… we have religious groups (”Ambassadors for Jesus”, “Christian Students Association”, “We are Jewish”, “Korean Campus Mission”, “Muslim Students Association”, “Sikh Students Association”…), national origin groups (“African Awareness”, “Asian Canadian Cultural Organization”, “Bangladesh Students Association”, “Gado-Gado Indonesian Student Association”, “Kababayan Filipino Students Association”, “Persian Group”…), sexual orientation groups (“PrideUBC”, all kinds of GLBT groups…), disability groups, and so on. It is quite common some (though not all) of these groups try to appeal to students as if they were essentially unidimensional beings, whose life lacks any meaning if their overriding characteristics -ideally only one per person- are not nurtured. In other words, what some of these groups are saying is “We are Catholic, or Gay, or Jewish, or Chinese, or disabled, or Muslim, or women, or African Americans, or conservatives, or progressives, or Canadian… and only that. So, if you are like us, you necessarily see the world through that specific trait, and it is only natural for you to join us. We are your (homogeneus) community”.

Somehow, we humans have always tended to surround ourselves with people like us. This seems to be a natural -that is, instinctive- trend. However, it is paradoxical that nowadays that we human beings have cut ourselves off so much from the restrictions of nature (instinct) to embrace a dynamic social life (culture), are lately strongly reproducing those restrictions to an open and fruitful interaction among us by stressing that which is suposedly distinctive in us and that fundamentaly differentiates us from others. It is a sign of our communitarian times that we apparently are valuable as humans by means of belonging to a group (and to that group only), as if one of our many attributes as individuals was clearly predominant over the rest of them. Thus, according to this widespread view, it is nearly unnatural, for example, to be feminist and not to hate men; to be gay and Republican; to be Jewish and support Palestinian demands; to be an intellectual and enjoy American Idol; to be progressive and firmly defend free markets; to simultaneously love haute cuisine and McDonald´s burgers; to be a devout believer but favour a radical separation between church and state; to love your mother tongue and the landscapes that saw you growing up and not being a nationalist; to be Chinese and Spanish and black… In other words, it is unnatural to act differently than the group you supposedly belong to and which gives meaning to your existence.

Why, nowadays that freedom is the paramount social value, cannot we have multiple affiliations and unlimited contradictions? Why -what a truism- cannot we be valued just as individuals, regardless of the many families we may belong to in a given moment? Why is it so difficult to be naturally multidimensional?

Photo: ‘The flickr portrait gallery hall of excellence 2007′ © amsterdamned