Creating future together
Thesis #11*
Everyone should know that their own future also lies in the hands of others. In the course of our lives, we learn to set limits to our own narcissism, to open ourselves to others and to treat them with compassion and respect. One prerequisite for living together better and more peacefully is the ability to recognize the unique character of others through their history and culture and to search together for universal values and rules of coexistence.
Our encounter with life begins with the perception of others. Touch plays a special role in this. It is our first language. The sense of touch, which develops in the embryo as early as the eighth week, is the emotional bridge to another person. Through touch we are nourished and soothed; it is through touch that our first physical bonds are formed. Human beings need the care of others from the very beginning. For the German philosopher Hannah Arendt, it is part of the human condition “to be surrounded by people whom we love, hate, who are indifferent or mysterious to us, from whom an abyss or nothing separates us, who deceive us and whom we deceive, to whom we pretend and they pretend to us.” With every birth, we as human beings are involuntarily thrown onto the “stage of the world” and thus mark the “beginning of a being that is itself in possession of the ability to begin.” With this formulation, Hannah Arendt characterizes her philosophy of beginning. Anyone who sees the light of day has the ability to take the initiative as a beginner and to claim the freedom to act. For social coexistence in a democratic sense, every newcomer is an asset, provided they are given the opportunity to get involved. “This is the opportunity of democracy: it creates and preserves the vitality of society by individuals helping each other to start anew.”
In a social constitutional state, this assistance is guaranteed by the principle of subsidiarity. Individuals are required to help themselves as far as possible. As soon as they are no longer able to do so, they are offered state support. This happens, for example, in the case of rehabilitation after a serious illness or accident, in the case of resocialization measures for offenders or in relation to educational policy offers to ensure equal opportunities. A democratic culture is characterized by the fact that it offers everyone the chance of a new beginning. This approach also has consequences for the understanding of history. History is the result of sometimes chaotic and contradictory strands of action, the outcome of which cannot be planned. Neither postulated historical regularities nor political action according to supposed historical constraints are compatible with the principle of democracy. Any attempt to seize control of history ends in authoritarianism, destroys and devalues the political initiative and creativity of free citizens. The decisive factor is likely to be whether liberal democracies succeed in meaningfully integrating the potential of civil society into the shaping of coexistence and political culture.
For Hannah Arendt, interaction is the “deep structure of human action”. She makes the elusive intermediate space of this mutual action the subject of her analysis. “It is that sphere where people exist in their plurality, the many different people who also actively want to distinguish themselves from one another, who pursue different interests and meet in public spaces as individuals who nevertheless produce a common history.” In her view, as acting and speaking individuals, we are integrated into a “fabric of reference” through various narratives, expectations and social imprints, which does not make the horizon of our actions unconditional. The decisive factor here is how our actions are “read”, because we have to distinguish between the intention and the consequence of our actions. For one person, an action may appear generous, for another it may appear domineering and overly caring. These subjective dimensions and situational interpretations of our actions shape interpersonal relationships and require an ongoing dialog in order to ascertain the effect of our actions and correct them if necessary. No matter how proud individuals may be of their own convictions, customs and traditions, according to former South African President Nelson Mandela, this does not give them the right to impose them on others or to despise people if they do not follow them.
What conditions must be created so that people can treat each other with respect in their plurality? Are there universal principles that can become the standard for humanity? The Taiwanese philosopher Qian Yongxiang distinguishes between three different types of universality. The first emphasizes the struggle between domination and subjugation, life and death, in which one achieves “universality by the negation of the other” through conquest. This corresponds to the self-image and policies of autocratic and totalitarian regimes. The second universality, which goes hand in hand with liberalism, uses avoidance to transcend the other by striving for a kind of neutrality between the self and the other. The third form of universality is oriented towards a democratically legitimized and equal interaction. It arises from the mutual recognition of the self and the other, based on respect for differences and the active search for dialog and consensus.
In his essay published in 2015, Chinese historian Xu Jilin presents an alternative model for overcoming a nationalistic and particularistic understanding of the Chinese state. He argues that Chinese civilization has endured for over 5,000 years, and not because it has isolated itself. Rather, China has benefited from its openness and a policy of inclusion during the various dynasties, as it has integrated the values of foreign civilizations — sometimes voluntarily, sometimes involuntarily — into its own traditions in a variety of ways. The model of thought and rule that was applied was the principle of tianxia, which means “everything under heaven”. On the one hand, this referred geographically to the vast sky above the plateaus of central China, but metaphorically to the idea of the validity of universal values. Xu transfers this principle to the present day and proposes a new, global “tianxia 2.0” that is not organized hierarchically and centrally, but is based on the mutual recognition of the autonomy and uniqueness of independent states and the authenticity of their populations. The “shared universality” of the new “tianxia” is similar to Qian Yongxiang’s third form of universality, which is based on the recognition of the other. “It does not aim to establish the hegemony of a particular civilization among many different civilizations, cultures, peoples and nations, nor does it belittle the particular ways of major civilizations. Instead, it seeks dialogue and the achievement of common ground through equal interactions between multiple civilizations.”
The Italian philosopher and political scientist Lorenzo Masili argues for a universalism that is not a singular, all-encompassing worldview, but consists of a multitude of “concrete universals”. This refers to a collection of specific, universalized laws, institutions and public goods that bind humanity together. This includes the acquis communautaire, a technical term used by the European Union to describe what has become the standard for all member states. In his opinion, the European Union has the opportunity to set new standards for international cooperation. He sees the cohesion of its member states and thus their unified action as a gradual but necessary process. Depending on how the respective political conditions allow, more or less will be done together: “Europe is developing a scalable, expandable and modular concept of political unity and citizenship” . The extension of some public goods of EU member states to other countries according to the principle of so-called sectoral integration is also a form of universalization. For example, Tunisian universities were given access to shared research funds and Ukraine was given access to the EU’s more favorable roaming conditions in the telecommunications sector. Masili sees these measures within the EU as a model for joint global agreements in the fields of health, civil protection or investment in the transformation of the fossil fuel industry to a renewable energy economy.
In contrast to these approaches of pragmatic universalism, the Israeli philosopher Omri Boehm argues for a concept of humanity that goes beyond purpose orientation and usefulness: “People must only be seen as an end in themselves, i.e. as valuable in themselves, and never merely as a means. That is why they have dignity and no price.” Kant declared this insight, which is based on Plato, to be the core idea of Enlightenment humanism. It is reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By declaring human dignity to be a moral principle, it gives rise to a universal obligation towards humanity to defend it. It follows that it is our duty to question a legal system that undermines human dignity. According to Boehm, “human dignity is at the beginning of the law” and “not state sovereignty”. This means that we must “imagine human beings as beings who first and foremost have duties. For only if we are beings who have genuine duties are we also subjects of genuine rights”. In modern societies, which are profit- and purpose-oriented, focused on competition and self-interest, it is undoubtedly difficult to comply with this universalist principle. But those who place the principle of humanity at the beginning of living together will be able to rise above their own selfish personal and economic interests in order to help create a “we” and more humane conditions.
*This essay is written complementary to Thesis #11 of our paper 48 Theses — How we can live together better, that you can find at https://48thesen.de/en/. This series will be continued. Further information about the author on my LinkedIn profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-udo-g%C3%B6%C3%9Fwald-077a711a7/.