And so,
a new decade begins…
Just like New
Years are in many ways an arbitrary date in the year where we consider the last
twelve months and make plans, express dreams and hopes for the next year, so
too is a decade arbitrary. However, it is a useful framework in which to
consider the world and where one is going. As someone who is twenty-three as
this decade ends it is easy to see a difference in myself compared to who I was
at thirteen. It is difficult to separate my perception of the last decade from
who I was and have grown into. Despite the financial crash at thirteen, I was
much more optimistic about the world. At thirteen, I thought as a species we
were going in the right direction that as a species we were growing in humanity,
understanding and compassion. I still want humanity to develop these things but
today there is a greater cynicism. At twenty-three, I can the idea of progress
is alluring, but that it is naïve, and it can be even dangerous as it ignores human
weakness. We can discuss the precise interpretation of original sin is correct,
critique bad understandings, but if we ignore human sinfulness we do so at our
peril. I still believe that people are orientated towards the good, but that
sin can get in our way and blind us. I sit here at the end of a decade where
Ireland sits in between two countries where people have been polarised since
2016. I see people on the right and the left make caricatures of each other. I
see people who are pleased to see certain groups are against a particular idea
as it is evidence that the idea is worth pursuing. I see the most simplistic
understandings of religion, particularly the idea of a single Islam. It can
feel like I am seeing strawman, after strawman, after strawman. Brexiteers,
Trump supporters all hate immigrants. The Democrats, Labour want their
countries to become Venezuela. Religions want to take control of you and to
stop you from thinking rationally, especially if it contains any sort of hierarchy.
The list goes on and on.
 |
| ©Bart Everson |
So, where
does this leave us? I still want compassion, justice and understanding but if
this is to occur something needs to change. I do not think that this approach of
suspicion and ill will can continue. There is, I believe, a need for an
approach of hospitality similar to what is described by Paul Ricoeur. Ricoeur
sees that it is a shortcoming if one is only capable of speaking one language
as the more languages that one can speak, the more ways one is able to think
and understand. There is a need for linguistic hospitality, where one is open
to other languages. This idea he sees as being applicable to other cultures. If
this idea of hospitality is to occur, it requires an openness. It requires that
one is open in two ways, first it requires that the individual is open in what
they personally think. It also requires that people are open towards others that
they engage and attempt to understand what the other person thinks. It means
that it is necessary that people show in a very honest manner what they think,
the reasons for why they think that, the entire process of what they think, how
this links to other beliefs that they hold and also being open about the areas where
people are not exactly sure of what they think. We can feel at times that it is necessary to
make a choice, pick a side, possibly when there is a lack of information.
However, being open about areas of uncertainty, apart from being intellectually
honest, also allows others to appreciate that people’s views are evolving and
that they are still trying to figure out what they think.
Rather than
solely speak in the abstract let me give an example, my thoughts and beliefs
about refugees and immigration. Some of my reasons are secular, others are
religious and some of the religious ideas are translatable into secular
discourse. While I am very interested in virtue ethics, the perhaps more “deontological”
side of me is also very interested in considering what do we owe other people.
To answer the question “am I my sibling’s keeper?” the answer is yes. I, of course,
have a duty to care for those around me, my family, my community and my
country. But the reason I am likely to focus on them is not because they are
citizens but because they are in my immediate vicinity. This does not mean that
I see the boundary of the nation state to be the boundary of whom I am to care
for and to be concerned with. I also have a duty to those beyond my country and it would seem in a globalised world remiss not to consider their needs. But also because the modern nation state is a
human construct, where people at some point historically decided that they were
a nation based on a common language, culture, etc. I have as a result no
problem with a reassessment of that construct due to a necessity of meeting
certain ethical demands. A nation can decide to leave behind a previous
understanding of the construct. I think that the material conditions matter as
a socialist and therefore I do think we need to be concerned with not only
refugees fleeing war but also those who are economically destitute. Ultimately,
I am not sure of what exactly the ideal policy is, I only have an idea of what
one should be ethically concerned with. Hopefully, by being honest about my
understanding of the nation state makes it clear why I am not a nationalist and
my view of the ethical obligations helps one to understand my perspective. I
could go on to discuss other related ideas like human dignity, the biblical
understanding of the stranger and refugee and my understanding of the human
person. Even if we are unable to agree on a particular policy, I hope that this
approach would result in a more fruitful dialogue, because one may be able to understand
my perspective by seeing how exactly the various beliefs and convictions
interact.
Let me be
clear that I do not underestimate that genuine dialogue is challenging for many
reasons. The old slogan “the personal is the political” continues to be true.
There are many aspects of today’s society because they touch on personal issues
are seen as beyond question as they are seen to bring pain. I think this
approach is entirely understandable. But I would question whether the approach
of public reason, where people only argue in terms of what is generally
agreeable, works. I would argue that there is a greater chance of strawmen
because one is not engaging with people actually think. However, that does not
mean that it is excusable to use language is intentionally hurtful, offensive
or disrespectful. If there is to be dialogue between those who identify as
pro-choice and pro-life, it is much more fruitful to try to discuss what one
understands terms like autonomy and life are than to use extreme language like
murder. Refraining from such language shows that one is actually willing to
really listen and engage with what the other is saying. It also does not help in
understanding except on a very surface level, whereas considering each other’s
understanding of autonomy may help to see something very important in one’s
thinking but may not be particularly explicit in what they believe, though
their ideas build upon it.
It is also
important to state that any attempt to understand does not mean that one
condones the position or even that one refrains from criticising others. It may
be that there is an unseen bias or prejudice that the individual has not
observed in themselves. The honesty from the person in dialogue can lead to
personal growth. On the more extreme end of racism, sexism etc., the call for
dialogue is not a call for relativism. I think it is important, for example, to
understand those who support Brexit, even though I disagree with them,
particularly because of the consequences to Northern Ireland. By understanding
the system of beliefs, I hope to understand why Brexit is desired, but I am
going to be critical because of how it overlooks Northern Ireland’s peace
process and that it was not considered by so many and I am going to criticise the
arguments which are based upon racial prejudice. It does not help anyone to say
that they are not real problems. If in the quest to understand we no longer
challenge these ideas, then it is not better than public reason.
Another
challenge with engaging with different arguments and ideas is the problem of judging
ideas. To use the title of the work by Alasdair MacIntyre there is the question
of “Which Rationality? Which Justice?” Depending on the particular ethical
framework one is working in, if one is even working in a particular framework, it
can hinder one’s understanding of terms such as autonomy and justice. These terms
can hinder dialogue, insofar as my understanding of these terms do not
work in another’s argument failing to see that they understand the terms
differently. This can be seen in the argument over abortion, where it is in part
a hermeneutical question of how one interprets terms like life or autonomy,
what are the limits of autonomy, etc. I agree with MacIntyre that with
modernity which has meant that there is a break with tradition which has meant
that we are justifying and judging ethical questions differently. However, I do
not think that translation is impossible as a result. This is for me why I
think that dialogue is so important because I hope that in attempting to lay it
all bare that we will be able to at least understand each other to a greater
degree. Judging other ideas is in many ways is a second step after
understanding what the other person is saying, which requires thinking about
criteria. Thinking and arguing for certain criteria requires a post on its own,
which I may do in the future, but what I really want to underline here is that
if we are to judge other’s views, then we need to understand what kind of rationality
they are working in, how they justify things and how they define terms.
To
conclude, I hope in this new decade that we move past the partisanship and try to
really understand each other to the point where we would feel
comfortable saying how we understand another’s point of view without it being a
strawman but that it actually resembles what they think. This requires time and
patience, which is why I think for many of us it is best done in person rather
than online. I know it will be difficult since I began writing this piece, I
have already seen an infuriating post about Greta Thunberg, and I did not want
to try to understand their perspective. I also know that I am not always want to explain in a
detailed and honest way what I believe. But I hope to try. I am not naïve enough
to say that it will end divisions between people but I hope that by
understanding each other we can see each other better and that maybe we can
find areas where we might not have originally seen that we could work together.
