One might think that mankind has not changed for millennia – we are still antiquated, as Günther Anders had pointed out after his visit to Hiroshima shortly after the atomic bombing. Basically, Anders argued that technical-industrial possibilities have rushed far ahead of comprehension and our moral responsibility – as evidenced in the use of nuclear power, the possibility of self-destruction of humanity during the nuclear arms race (especially in 1983), which was partly prevented only by chance, genetic engineering, and medical possibilities at the beginning and end of life. Add to this climate change and obscene inequality throughout the world.
Looking at the current explosions of violence on the macro level (Ukraine, Syria, new arms race between the great powers) as well as on the micro level (for example in Central America the Maras) one might think that mankind has not changed for millennia – we are still antiquated, as Günther Anders had pointed out after his visit to Hiroshima shortly after the atomic bombing. Basically, Anders argued that technical-industrial possibilities have rushed far ahead of comprehension and our moral responsibility – as evidenced in the use of nuclear power, the possibility of self-destruction of humanity during the nuclear arms race (especially in 1983), which was partly prevented only by chance, genetic engineering, and medical possibilities at the beginning and end of life. Add to this climate change and obscene inequality throughout the world, we must ask ourselves who we are as humans? How can we explain to our children and grandchildren what we have done for them – or more importantly, not done? Statistically, however, we are living in the most peaceful age in human history to date. The present dominance of the violence topic, of fears and despair as world-politically effective emotions can therefore be a question of the increased and partly medially staged perception – or nevertheless a real setback. But also, here it could be true that mainly our terms and conceptions are put to the test. For such setbacks primarily question the idea of the linearity of progress, not necessarily progress itself. If we assume the models of a linear ascending progress as in the Enlightenment or in Kant or an equally linear pure history of decay, we cannot integrate contrary developments into our world view – and every contrary development calls the whole model into question. In contrast, models of history based on a cycle (Greek Stoa, Hinduism) are able to capture the constant in change but can only imperfectly explain progress at the societal level. The historical model of a Machiavelli, on the other hand, includes change, but change is always repeated and can best be compared to a sine curve.
The argument about models of history is by no means abstract, as it appears at first sight. The Marxists as well as Leninists and finally the Stalinists have pursued radical politics with the linear model of progress, just as the idea of the thousand-year Reich had influence on the politics of the National Socialists. Are there alternative models beyond pure decay, equally linear progress, or the assumption that humans do not change after all, or lag behind their technological capabilities in moral and spiritual terms?
Models for Understanding History – G W F Hegel
These positions are not unfounded – however, their absolutization is wrong. As in various psychological (Piaget and Kohlberg) and sociological (Auguste Comte) approaches, the German philosopher Georg W.F. Hegel starts from a stage model in which he develops a progress of world history in the consciousness of freedom. Despite his own Eurocentrism, stage models are in principle capable of countering a pure binary opposition of affirmation or negation of progress in human history. They also do not imply an absolutely inevitable development, as can be seen from the fact that Kohlberg, for example, does not assume that all people reach the highest level, but emphasizes, like all stage theorists, that one cannot skip any of the stages. But Hegel was just not in the tradition of the Enlightenment and Kant, who assumed a linear model of progress, but developed a dialectical sequence of stages, which in my interpretation could best be compared to a sine curve (as in Machiavelli) but erected on an ascending x-axis. In such a model, we can think of the Enlightenment’s idea of progress (in the ascending x-axis) as well as cyclical developments (Machiavelli) of rise and fall, progress, and regress in world history together.
In this model developed by the author, there is progress, but it is not linear, but itself cyclical. We know such cycles from the business cycle theories in the wake of Kondratieff’s research or also from hegemonic cycles. In contrast to these theoretical approaches, the model of history advocated here is related to a (more or less) slightly ascending x-axis and is derived from Hegel’s conception of becoming at the beginning of his monumental work on the “Science of Logic”, since coming into being and passing away are not completely cancelled out, but a “surplus” arises which goes beyond the infinite coming into being and passing away. Such a model is on the one hand closed (with respect to the high and low points on the Y-axis), at the same time open on the X-axis and develops “between” its high and low points.
Hegel’s stage model has itself been a great historical advance; at the same time, we need to go beyond Hegel to overcome his tendency of constructing a systematic closure (which was then taken as an absolute by Marx in a perfect society of communism) in favour of an approach that is at once closed and open. Despite his Eurocentric reductions, Hegel develops a systematic development of the idea of freedom. In his sequence of stages, human history begins with the development of states in which at first only one was free – the ruler, mostly in the figure of the priest-king, who symbolizes the laws of the gods and rule. Still with Plato we find the construction of the philosopher, who must be at the same time king and vice versa. This all-surpassing freedom of the priest-kings is clearly found for Hegel in the pyramids of Egypt. Hegel calls this phase the infancy of history. Greek antiquity, and here especially the city of Athens, is for him the adolescence of world history – the first individualities are formed. The aesthetics of the Greek statues symbolize for him this phase, in which man understands himself as free, when he professes his free polis. In a certain sense, this phase can be understood as that of the aristocracy, because Athens symbolizes the beginning of democracy, but of the approximately 200,000 inhabitants, only about 30,000 were free – slaves, women and metics (“strangers”) were excluded from freedom.
The focus is no longer on the individual, but on the supra-individual law. Even today, the study of law begins with Roman law (e.g., in dubio pro reo or nulla poene sine lege). Of course, not only Hegel’s choice of words is problematic (e.g., that of “oriental despotism” as the beginning of world history), but also the identification of the fourth stage with the “Germanic period” as the “goal of world history.”
For Hegel, the manhood of world history is that of the Roman Empire. Here, not the individual but the state has become the supreme purpose and Roman law is developed. The focus is no longer on the individual, but on the supra-individual law. Even today, the study of law begins with Roman law (e.g., in dubio pro reo or nulla poene sine lege). Of course, not only Hegel’s choice of words is problematic (e.g., that of “oriental despotism” as the beginning of world history), but also the identification of the fourth stage with the “Germanic period” as the “goal of world history.” Nevertheless, his characterization is noteworthy. In this stage the state is ordered according to reasonable principles, the individual is completely free because he lives in a reasonable society whose laws he recognizes and to which he can refer. Community and individual are reconciled, the ups and downs of world history (as illustrated in the sine curve) seem to have come to their end and now the real history of mankind begins, a happy time.
Of course, we know that this was not so, as Hegel assumed – the violent conquest of the world in colonial times, two world wars, Auschwitz, and Hiroshima, the almost self-destruction of mankind in the cold war, all this was still to come. But is Hegel thereby refuting? Or can and perhaps must we continue Hegel?
Differences to Hegel
In contrast to Hegel’s conception of world history as a progress in the consciousness of freedom, I argue that this development is a progress in the consciousness and practices of humanity to be a wholenessness. Hereby, I no longer foreground Kant’s four questions concerning the individual human being or even an “I”, but rather transform them into who is humanity, what should we do as humanity, what can we know and hope as humanity? The concept of humanity contains the single individual, but this goes beyond the generalization of the individual as in Kant’s categorical imperative. Also, here the old sentence of Aristotle is valid that the whole is more than the sum of the parts – and so I would like to add, mankind as a wholeness is more than the accumulation of at present over 7.8 billion people. At the same time, humanity is realized in individual human beings; there is no humanity without individual human beings.
According to the “Out of Africa thesis,” the genus Homo originated in Africa and spread from there to all continents. One of these groups, immodestly calling itself homo sapiens, has not only outlasted all other human species, but has populated even the most distant tip of this earth, moreover, is making its way to other planets of our solar system. Arnold Gehlen’s determination of man (as also already Aristotle) as imperfect, forces mankind to develop more and more. During this time of spreading over the whole planet, however, the individual groups lost contact with each other, because this lasted for millennia and the distances became too great for the time to bridge in shorter periods of time – they became estranged from each other and lived in isolated cultural islands (for example in China, India, in Africa south of the Sahara, the two Americas or also in the more European part of Eurasia as well as in West Asia). With the increasing spread of these initially isolated cultural islands, they came back into contact with each other – which turned out to be peaceful or sometimes warlike. Huntington’s thesis that these contacts were mainly violent underestimates the mutual cultural influences and learning processes. Globalization since European colonization brought humanity into ever closer contact with each other and made it possible for the first time to think of humanity as a wholeness.
Of course, the setbacks and low blows must not be forgotten – the wars between the great empires, the almost perpetual state of war at the edges of these empires, colonialism, Islamic and Atlantic slavery, racism, two world wars and Auschwitz as a sign of history – but in the end they confirmed the dictum of Goethe and, derived from this, systematized by Hegel as the cunning of history. This is a part of that force which always wills evil and yet creates good. This does not mean to relativize the suffering of countless people. But perhaps we must differentiate and not already take the ideals of the Enlightenment at face value. For this was not only compatible with racism, colonialism, and slavery, two world wars and the Cold War – according to Zygmunt Bauman, these were even direct consequences of a one-sided Enlightenment.
There is currently a worldwide biologisation of the social in the form of ethnicities, gender antagonisms, nationalism and tribalism (Make America great again by Donald Trump, the Chinese Dream by President Xi Jinping, New Russia by Vladimir Putin, Salafism, right-wing nationalist movements in Europe).
If, on the other hand, we assume that the impulse of the realization of human rights could actually only fully develop after World War II and the Holocaust, and included all people, not just one’s own ethnic, cultural, or religious group, we are only at the beginning of the realization of human rights. Again, while it is true that there are setbacks at present – in the form of a discourse of “We against the Rest,” the current replacement of global governance by a renationalisation of world politics, the return of tribal thinking to cope with the demands of globalization, this is not the whole picture. It is also true that globalized liquid modernity (Bauman) is leading to the dissolution of all traditional identities including patriarchy as well as consumerism and many states and nations are updating ancient identities because they trust them to outdo even this accelerated transformation, There is currently a worldwide biologisation of the social in the form of ethnicities, gender antagonisms, nationalism and tribalism (Make America great again by Donald Trump, the Chinese Dream by President Xi Jinping, New Russia by Vladimir Putin, Salafism, right-wing nationalist movements in Europe). Nevertheless, while we are simultaneously witnessing the (often violent) dissolution of the old world, we are also experiencing the birth pangs of a new world. After the West defeated the rest of the world in the 19th century, colonised or submerged peoples and civilizations in the 20th century had to learn to live with the victorious West. In the 21st century, the world’s civilizations must finally learn to live with each other.
In the 1990s, Samuel P. Huntington put forward the much-publicised thesis that the cold war between the ideologically opposed superpowers would be replaced by a similar contest between the world’s civilizations and their respective core states (Russia, India, China, the United States). On the surface, Huntington received more criticism than approval. A closer reading of his approach reveals that he had not drawn up an instruction manual for the “clash of civilizations,” but had formulated a warning to avoid it. The liberal critics, however, emphasized in particular that not only should there not be a clash of civilizations, but also that there could not be, because there was only one civilization in the world, the Western one. The other civilizations mentioned by Huntington are determined by different religions and cultures, but they would not be civilizations. In contrast, the “clash of civilizations” involves a conflict, but the implicit recognition that civilizations other than the Western one exists at all.
In the 21st century, the world’s civilizations must finally learn to live with each other.
This recognition of a limited plurality of civilizations makes possible for the first time the thinking, experiencing, and acting of humanity as a wholenessness. In such a wholenessness, opposites, conflicts and even wars are conceivable – from a sociological perspective, conflicts are not opposed to a socialization of humanity (sociology of conflict in the wake of Tönnies and Simmel), even if these bring much suffering with them. All high religions that emerged between the 7th century B.C. (Judaism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity) and the 7th century A.D. (Islam) formulate an overcoming and renunciation of infinite suffering. This ethicization of transcendence (Jaspers) or also of immanence (Confucianism) contains in its core a perspective of the abolition of suffering, which can be overcome either in transcendence or, with appropriate conduct of life, already in immanence. Suffering, war, and violence are thus no longer accepted as “natural”, but an attempt is made to leave them behind. Although in Hinduism the cycle (symbolized in the wheel) is emphasized – but the goal of life in the different rebirths consists in overcoming this cycle. Therefore, a core message of Hinduism is the statement that the end is good – but if it is not good, it is not the end. While in the “nature religions” like also the Egyptian mythology, before the emergence of these high religions the transcendence was only a mirror of the earthly life, this is explained now to be absolute good – connected with the perspective to orientate the own life at this construction.
in Hinduism the cycle (symbolized in the wheel) is emphasized – but the goal of life in the different rebirths consists in overcoming this cycle. Therefore, a core message of Hinduism is the statement that the end is good – but if it is not good, it is not the end.
Here it should not be concealed that this ethicization of the transcendent as well as of immanence can be and has been used to legitimize violence – in direct inversion to Goethe and Hegel we have to acknowledge that the absolutization of the good has also contributed to the legitimization of war and violence in the form: “this is a part of that force which always wants the good and yet creates evil” (Herberg-Rothe). In contrast to positions that attribute the positive sides of religions only to these themselves, the negative ones exclusively to the respective social, political, cultural, and historical circumstances, I assume that the absolutization of the respective ideas contains a tendency to violence. After the western modernity had written the generalization of the presupposed individual on the flags, a new balance of the individual and the communality is to be constructed for a dialogue of the civilizations, which contains at the same time their further development.
Mankind understood in this way does not include a pure juxtaposition in the sense of a diversity of the civilizations of the world, as this is laid out – despite all remarkable insights – in the conception of a multiplex world or a Global International Relations Theory (Global IRT), both by Amitav Acharya, which is connected only by communication. The conceptions of diversity also do not go beyond mere multiplicity. All these conceptions in the wake of the French post-structuralisms have their strength in the critique as well as overcoming of totalitarian and authoritarian social relations or system constraints and discourses of power. However, since their own approach excludes borders per se, they cannot include any border of their respective approach. Diversity is wonderful and colourful – also the questioning and de-construction of the “normal” following Foucault has been an essential progress, just as tolerance is a moral value to be demanded always. The question, however, is where the limits of tolerance are – we should be far less tolerant of human rights violations, even if the understanding of human rights remains contested in different “cultures.”
Conclusion
From Thomas Hobbes we have learned that unlimited freedom leads to war of all against all, civil war. Freedom must therefore be limited in order to enable people to live together peacefully. But how can freedom be meaningfully limited without oppressing people? Kant’s solution, that my freedom ends where the freedom of the other begins, is a nice metaphor, but far from adequate when two or more parties lay claim to the same good in the broadest sense. The idea that it is not an oppression of freedom if it is limited only by the freedom of the other is a pure illusion. Even if in the wars and civil wars of the present, the refugee movements and in the worldwide slums, a human life seems to count for little, it must be maintained that all human beings have the same human rights, they are equally endowed with dignity and conscience. Freedom thus finds its limits not primarily in the freedom of others, but, since it is not an abstract freedom, rather one of human beings – thus in their fundamental equality as human beings and thus human rights. Following Hannah Arendt, one can say that freedom does not consist in arbitrariness, but in the right to be different from others. The path of humanity is shown here as self-preservation based in our equality and self-transgression in the freedom to differ from other humans. Such an understanding of the equality of us all as humans seem to contradict all current developments and appears as a kind of wishful thinking. But it is perhaps not just an idea of a better future, but the question how mankind could see itself as a wholeness in order to survive.
References:
Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (ed.). Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Anders, Gunther; Christopher John Muller. Prometheanism: technology, digital culture, and human obsolescence. London: Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd., 2016.
Arendt, Hannah; Danielle Allen and Margaret Canovan. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2018.
Arendt, Hannah and Anne Applebaum. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt: Brace & co, 1951.
Bauman, Zygment. Modernity and the Holocaust. New York: Cornell University Press, 2000.
Bauman, Zygment. Born Liquid. Polity Press, 2018.
Comte, Auguste and Harriet Martineau. The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte: Freely translated and condensed by Harriet Martineau. New York: C. Blanchard, 1858.
Gehlen, Arnold. Man, his Nature and Place in the World. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke, 1651.
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Kant, Immanuel; J M D Meiklejohn. Critique of Pure Reason: Tr. from German of Immanuel Kant. London: Bell, 1881.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. Discourses. S. I.: Open Road Media, 2020. Internet.
Magen, Nathan H. The Kondratieff Waves. New York: Praeger, 987.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels; David McLellen. Communist Manifesto. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Shuman James B., and David Rosenau. The Kondratieff Wave by James B. Shuman and David Rosenau.New York: World Pub, 1972.
Tonnies, Ferdinand; edited by Jose Harris. Ferdinand Tonnies: Community and Society. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Feature Image Credit: NDTV
