I Am Because We Are — Part 1
A Look At Western Understandings of Ontology
(Ontology = the study of being or concepts that directly relate to being)
How do we move away from ideas and perspectives that have shaped us? Is it possible to shift from a place where one says not “I” but “we”? We are the event, we are the constitution of ontology, and I am because of you; in my essence, I am constituted by my responsibility, and that is, my ability to respond to you.
Among the topics of criticality and pressing relevance is this; that the Western contemporary society in which we live situates itself within the rot of capitalism. That rot, unable to break away from antiquated concepts of foundational truth, origin, and a hierarchical structuring of power has melded with and tainted our perspectives and outlook throughout centuries, impacting our being to the core. Individualistically, we are already territorialized before we begin. Our current situation begs for a restructuring of the way we relate to ourselves, to one another, our communities, and our consciousness.
From Plato through to Descartes and into the modern era, Western consciousness has separated the practices of thought and intuition, of mind and body, of individual from individual, of human from the environment. Traditionally we have categorized and striated our world using binaries and have tried to unite them with dialectic relationships only to be surprised to discover the oppressive structures that lay beneath our cultural surfaces.
Plato valued reason and logic over emotion, separating and placing the mind over the body. In The Republic (a text that I admittedly admire for its attempt at building a political system that strives to be incorruptible) the ability of man to exert control over his body through reason is paramount. He argued that the pursuit of the mind is more pure and more true than the body. A hierarchy of truth was established. Theorists like Horkheimer and Adorno have highlighted that although this “enlightened” understanding of reality has been taken as objective truth, it actually has roots in mythical thinking and implies a domination threefold: a domination of nature by human beings, a domination of nature within human beings, and the domination of some human beings by others. The western cannon should thus be careful to accept its understanding of consciousness as foundational.
Furthermore, Descartes’s “I think, there, I am” presumes the placement of the individual at the forefront of ontology, and thus reinforcing the Platonic separation and elevation of thought. But also, with this statement, ontology is being viewed from an individual perspective, one that is constructed of an individual’s worldview, and further lays the groundwork for a culture of hierarchical violence. What does it imply to view the world simply as an extension of an individual’s own experience? Is it possible that one’s own consciousness does not come first?
The relevance of this then becomes clear; it is not possible to work within a structure that situates itself as a perpetuator of domination and then attempt to gain freedom from its oppression by pointing out the flaws and requesting they be fixed. As the cliché goes: the system is broken, and we cannot accept a structure that systemically is not able to achieve our goals, that is, the pursuit of equality, freedom, and the embodiment and practice of life and creativity. And so, it is critical to consider the ways in which we are shaped, and to rethink our relationship with our bodies as they exist in the world.
Western rhetoric has not always been individualistically centered, Debord once stated that “nothing new can be built on these ruins”. (2000) So why does common perception not reflect this? For instance Levinas uses the phrase “always already” to understand the way in which our subjectivity is being shaped, that we are faced with an impossible task of finding an exit from the pathways that we are born into. (1998) However, Levinas also leaves an opening for a shift in consciousness in an argument for a re-evaluation of the center of subjectivity. This “always already” is social, thus I am “always already” shaped by you, and he suggests that the whole idea of the individual existing without the other is a fallacy. “I am defined by the other. I am because you are. I am impacted, affected, my consciousness relies on you.” This is where ethics takes over from ontology: with responsibility to the other. With the recognition of such an intersubjective experience comes a responsibility, not only to look into the face of the other and accept and potentially reflect the face back, but to make oneself available. When Levinas states that “consciousness makes and remakes presence, it is the life of presence”, what he offers is a shifting of perspective that will begin to open possibilities for the exploration of equality and freedom. It is a call for a shift from interior individual perspective towards the exterior, “to be is to participate”.
In closing, the western conception of consciousness was based on a hierarchical individualism. Although there have been many writers and theorists that have challenged this, it is still the common assumption that not only is our mind separate from our bodies, but that one’s consciousness is separate from another’s. Upon reflection, it is clear to see how it is impossible to think of a way in which equality and freedom can even exist within a culture that places these attitudes as its foundation. What is required is an un-doing of this foundational fallacy and a re-interpretation of what we are.
Debord, Guy. 2000. Society of the Spectacle. Black & Red Press.
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1998. Entre Nous. Colombia.
Plato. 2000 The Republic. Dover Publications
