Lesson 2
Why do they walk around in blankets?
We are accustomed to thinking that poverty and injustice in the world are natural and are not resulting from human relations. Accepting the idea that the world we are living in is the most refined stage in the history of human civilization, we forget that it is human beings that are causing poverty. It is a paradoxical world in which, on one hand, there is a process of secularization represented by the values of individual freedom and autonomy, and on the other, the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and the growth of conservative movements, fundamentalism and populism. In such a reality, not many are willing to question the injustice, exploitation, and poverty in the world. It is only those of us who refuse to be indoctrinated by the idea of universal human progress through global capitalism that can question the world's distribution of wealth.
In dominant-liberal and neo-liberal concepts an ideological justification of the unfair distribution of wealth existing in our world is provided. Some of these concepts use social Darwinism to justify the distribution of wealth. They present the history of the world as a stage in which different individuals and societies compete with one another. Alongside these lines, they claim that exploitation, underdevelopment, and poverty are natural and are therefore acceptable in their nature. Based on this, they argue that we do not have a moral obligation to equally distribute wealth.
In philosophical terms, the injustice and unequal relations that exist among different societies are justified through an appeal to a Nietzschean philosophy of the will to power. It is claimed that the powerful shall triumph over the weak. Master-slave morality is a central theme of often misunderstood German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's works. He argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: "master morality" and "slave morality". Master morality creates its own life-affirming values which stand beyond good and evil; slave morality values kindness, humility, and sympathy. Slave morality to Nietzsche is life-denying, because "slaves" find solace in the belief of a reward after death. Based on this, it is argued that the rich and those who manage to succeed in this world are embodying master morality. Just like the argument from social Darwinism, the Nietzschean argument also provides legitimacy to the exploitation and injustice that we see today.
An ideological justification of the unfair distribution of wealth in the world is also provided in the end of history argument. Those like the political economist Francis Fukuyama tell us that we are living in the most refined and developed stage in the history of human civilization. It is people like Fukuyama who say that even though wars, destruction, injustice and exploitation exist in the world, we are still making moral and material progress as a species. Is this the case, and should we be optimistic about the change happening in the world? Are human societies really being more democratized, and is there really a commitment to the values of liberty?
Things that my daughter Amara said after seeing the BBC Ethiopian famine news report, which led to the Live Aid concert of 1985 made me question that particular philosophical position. One could argue that a responsible parent should not have shown a seven-year-old a graphic video report like this. That may be so. But I did it to put the privileged life Amara enjoys in Switzerland into a greater perspective.
After watching the BBC News report about several million people becoming famine victims during the East African drought of 1984, during which one million Ethiopians died, Amara asked me why the people in Africa have no food, why they walked around in blankets, and why they were so poor. In these simple but provoking questions, Amara critically scrutinized the validity of the neoliberal global order that is premised by the idea that the institution of a free market economy in different parts of the world is the path towards societal progress and emancipation. In her analytical mind, she can see the rift that exists between the promise of infinite progress on one hand and the inhuman conditions in which people live, in different parts of the world on the other hand. Why are these questions Amara raised so significant?
In observing that the people living in the African continent do not have the basic means needed to sustain their existence, Amara did not understand poverty and inequality as the natural stage within which human beings are found. She was able to see that there is a huge gap in the global order which results from the current uneven distribution of wealth. In her mind, basic access to goods needed for self-preservation is not something that we can take away from others. Because of this, she finds herself in a state of shock that there are people in the world who do not have the basic facilities and entitlements needed to preserve their life.
In saying that Africans who are living in a condition of poverty simply walk around in blankets, she can understand that there are subjects in the world that are dehumanized and subjugated in relation to otherness. These human beings are excluded from the realms of civilization and are subjugated in relationships of superiority and inferiority. In watching the documentary, Amara found herself in an intercultural and hermeneutical exercise that can reveal the darker side of western modernity. She was able to understand the limitations of Western progress and rationality.
In asking, "and why are they like this?" Amara can see that the world we are living in is not benefiting the whole of humanity. She can understand the paradox we meet whenever we find ourselves in a world of others. Hans-Georg Gadamer, a dominant philosopher in the development of twentieth century hermeneutics, would call this a hermeneutic exercise that reveals the limitations of one's existence. Hermeneutics refers to the theory and practice of interpretation, where interpretation involves an understanding that can be justified. Hermeneutics is an attempt to interpret the world we are living in by studying our history and language as a text. In these illuminative moments, we can understand that our way of existence is not the only mode of being in the world. Through the documentary, Amara came to the realization that things are not as they seem.
In the questions she has raised, Amara is dealing with the issue of emancipation. As Karl Marx tells us, emancipation is a universal human goal that is unfulfilled because exploitation exists in our society. He believed that it is the rich who exploit the poor by taking away their freedom to engage in creative work that stands in the path of human freedom and autonomy. As a subject with a radically different horizon, Amara saw that there are still subjects that labor under relations of oppression and marginalization. In the questions that she has forwarded, Amara is trying to understand what is needed so that all of us can live in a free and an equal world.
Since Amara is not trying to maximize only her own interest but is also concerned with the good of others, her thinking does not operate within the assumption that the world we are living in will always involve the rich and the poor. In her mind, there are no human beings that are fundamentally inferior to others, and all human beings are equal. Because of this, coming to the realization that there are subjects deprived of basic human needs was a shocking experience to her. Within the BBC documentary, she was able to observe the contradictions in the world. These are found in a world that promises universal emancipation, but unfortunately for some, lead to further and further enslavement.
Amara's words also reveal that universal emancipation is a Utopian project which finds expression in the cognitive efforts of all human beings in the world. As the "Philosopher of Hope" Ernst Bloch has shown, human beings always imagine a Utopian reality as a way of showing that it is possible to create a better world. As a subject that also has the capacity to develop a Utopian imagination, Amara is surprised to see that there is such grave exploitation in the world. In her words, "and why these people are like this", she can posit the blueprints of a new world in which all human beings are equal.
The injustice that Amara has witnessed and responded to by questioning the distribution of wealth in the world, finds expression in Marxist philosophy. The only thing is Amara didn't find her consciousness from the class that she belongs to in a society. As someone that is witnessing exploitation and inequality in the world, Amara can realize that the condition of the people found in Africa is not natural or essential. Marx tells us that it is a revolutionary consciousness which leads to the realization that exploitation is man-made and not created by nature.
In the documentary, Amara can understand the structural exploitation which leads to the negation of human essence that Marx equates with alienation. She can see that the Africans, who are wandering from one place to the other in search of food, are not just denied the means required to sustain one's life, but in fact, their basic humanity. Amara can identify them as subjects that are treated as things and objects. They are subjects neglected by the global system, and as alienated objects that are human beings, whose capacity to lead their lives by using their ability to work is taken away from them, they are not able to create meaning for their existence.
Amara's actions belonging to a revolutionary form of consciousness can be seen as the solution to the fetishism of commodities that Marx discusses. This is the process through which humanly created realities attain a false picture of relationships that are established among mere objects. In Marxism, this process is called reification. Reification means that an abstract concept comes to be seen as something concrete. Using such concepts, Marx developed the argument that in the world of capitalism, we wrongly assume that things created by human beings are natural. Because of the ideological role culture plays in the world of capitalism, human beings will start to assume that poverty is natural, and not caused by exploitation. It is questioning the roots of the system like Amara did that helps us to put an end to the exploitation in our world.
Amara's words and interrogation of the system of capitalism show that without necessarily appealing to a Marxist thesis of a class revolution, all human beings have the ability to end the injustice in the world. The solution, as Amara realized, is to identify those actions that degrade our common humanity. Amara does not see human beings as mere objects or commodities. In her worldview, human beings need to have equal places in the world. In such a context, coming across individuals who lack the status of proper humanity is a cause of enlightenment. A great many people cannot question such relationships of exploitation because they are educated by a capitalist system. These people live under the illusion that capitalism will lead to the creation of a society that promises the good life for all.
What Amara saw in the documentary is that there is no justice in the world. Starting from the time of Ancient Greek, philosophers like Plato have argued that justice is the foundation of a good society and moral excellence. As most philosophers have shown, the act of philosophizing starts whenever we are no longer satisfied with our conventional beliefs and concepts of truth. What is seen in the BBC famine documentary was the cause of wonder in Amara's mind, resulting in a radical process of questioning the origins of poverty. Most human beings are not willing to question why there is all this inequality in a world in which there is so much wealth.
Amara is questioning the reality and legitimacy of the world that is presented in front of her eyes. She can do this because her thinking does not operate under a Foucauldian discourse on normality and abnormality. Michel Foucault used the term discourse to denote a social system that has the power to produce knowledge and meaning. As Foucault has shown, the very meaning of who we are as a person is created under a discourse that decides what is normal and abnormal. The only form of action available to subjects in such a world is resisting the discursive order. In posing questions regarding the dehumanization of Africans, Amara is putting up a resistance to the existing discourse. She is not willing to accept the reality created by the discourse as it is, and has an interest in exposing the origins of inequality.
In a world in which art has been turned into an ideological tool functioning as the culture industry, the things that Amara was able to realize from the documentary show that art can play a role in exposing existing reality and proposing emancipatory solutions in the future. From the famine documentary, Amara can capture images that show debilitating and dehumanizing conditions under which Africans are dwelling. The images that she saw led to an inquiry into questions such as: Why is it that Africans do not even have the basic means required to support one's life? Why is it that they simply wander as lifeless subjects still trying to find their place in the world and most fundamentally: Why is it that things are as they are?
The most important philosophical question that Amara indirectly asked is: Why is it that things are as they are? In asking such a question, Amara is coming to the realization that things are not meant to be this way, and that a better world could be created. Primarily she is not thinking of the creation of a new world in which human beings live in a state of perfection. Her critical exercise is interrogative since it shows the holes and the limits within the system. She can realize that there are hierarchical and exploitative relationships between Africa and the Western world. Amara's mind cannot classify the exploitation in the world as a mere historical challenge that is encountered in the path towards progress.
.