Second Prize Short Essay in Spanish
Templo sin dioses
Author: Victor Carmona Vara
Bachelor in International Relations
Templo sin dioses
Ruido, silencio y pulsiones
Carlos León Escudero, “Mujer desnudándose muchísimo", 2008.
«Y yo sabía que no estaba tras la puerta, sino en mí, y que cobraría vigencia real sólo cuando yo estuviera en él.»
Antonio di Benedetto, Zama.
Templo sin dioses
Existe, quizá, un Dios racional, un ente cartesiano, fruto de la razón, indispensable para el conocimiento positivo de las cosas, para establecer coordenadas y puntos de apoyo a la hora de conocer el mundo; puede ser, también, que exista un Dios moral, fuerza castigadora, padre tierno, dadivoso e incluso indulgente, pero fulminante cuando es necesario; pero luego existe un Dios, más bien una idea de Dios, que es del inconsciente, un Dios que no es metafísico, que no es retórico ni moral, una fuerza jungiana, la vibración última de la mística. Ese es el dios que asoma vagamente la cabeza en Eros y civilización, en las obras de Álvaro de Campos, en los claros del bosque de María Zambrano. Es una divinidad esquiva, que se manifiesta con reservas, puntualmente, y no toma forma ni figura ni presencia alguna, sino que arrastra al sujeto y lo desnuda, y entonces lo expone a un breve éxtasis, a una revelación que no es ni interna ni externa y opera lejos, en la distancia, en lo Otro. Si para Wittgenstein lo Uno nace del asombro ante el mundo, de la imposibilidad de asir, en un sólo golpe, lo particular y lo abstracto, y para Kierkegaard el salto de fe era algo más que un tropo de la razón, debemos asumir entonces con Zambrano aquello de que el claro del bosque es un centro en el que no siempre es posible entrar. Y es por eso que el Dios que existe no es asible, ni comprensible, ni necesariamente real.
Todos, o casi todos, hemos sido niños practicantes. Hemos recibido unciones y promesas, regalías y reprimendas, y en un día que se nos vendía como trascendental hemos participado de una comunión que no entendíamos. Hemos oído hablar de alianzas que son, a la vez, nuevas y eternas, y en la partición del pan hemos conmemorado una pasión lejana y brutal; en otras latitudes le han rezado a otros dioses, a otras figuras míticas, personajes que nacen cuando la comunicación se vicia y se pierde lo humano y que de repente, al entender su vida de forma narrativa, no como una sucesión azarosa y desvencijada de eventos, adquieren poder y categoría universal y se alzan para redención de nuestros pecados de duda, de miedo y de soberbia. Es en la idea de destino donde se limpian de escoria, de morralla, los personajes que destacan por encima del resto de nuestras cabezas, y todo porque adquieren sentido único y pulsión trágica. Edipo es más Edipo cuando ve y se arranca los ojos, y es que en él se consuma algo que no cristaliza en la mayoría de nuestras vidas: un presagio. Pero el don de la transfiguración es minoritario. Nosotros no debemos decrecer para que otros puedan aumentar porque nunca fuimos grandes, porque al nacer no teníamos frente a nosotros un camino marcado. De ahí nace nuestra pulsión narrativa, que es en el fondo una de las máscaras de Dios. Tenemos sed de divinidad, queremos ser, nosotros mismos, contradictorios y unívocos a la vez, y sin embargo nos desvelamos a la vez como mucho más banales y complejos que las figuras míticas de la tragedia.
Sabemos, por tanto, que si nuestra pulsión es la de parecernos a un Dios-padre, esto es, a una entidad independiente, determinada, preexistente y no sujeta a cambios, esa univocidad vendrá determinada en primera instancia por la dominación: dominación de sí, dominación del otro, dominación del entorno y, por tanto, dominación de la narrativa. Uno quiere ser escritor de su propia biografía y de ahí nacen las pulsiones estilísticas, que se convierten en una encrucijada. Esta paradoja del demiurgo enfrentado a su vacuidad la expresó antes y con mayor acierto Maurice Blanchot en “De la angustia al lenguaje”: «El escritor se encuentra en esa condición cada vez más cómica de no tener nada que escribir, de no tener ninguna forma de escribirlo y de estar obligado por una necesidad extrema a escribirlo siempre. No tener nada que expresar debe ser entendido en el sentido más simple. Cualquier cosa que quiera decir no es nada. El mundo, las cosas, el saber no constituyen para él sino puntos de referencia a través del vacío. Y él mismo ya ha quedado reducido a nada. La nada es su materia.»
Es en el enfrentamiento con la nada donde se descubren las incongruencias y las debilidades de los hombres. La experiencia, la contemplación de la nada, aquello que María Zambrano vino en llamar los claros del bosque, no es más que un silencio ajeno a la forma que tiene un precedente de análisis místico-religioso inmenso en Ibn-Arabi, fray Luis de Granada, Santa Teresa de Jesús, Miguel de Molinos, San Juan de la Cruz y la tradición quietista del barroco español, y es que esa experiencia de la nada, como decía, es el lugar donde se produce el encuentro con la corriente de conciencia: es ahí donde se templa y forja el temperamento individual. La pulsión general, que es la de la universalidad, la máxima expresión del instinto de conservación, se divide entonces en dos senderos divergentes: por un lado, el de la mente colonizadora, que expresa su deseo de perdurar en la conquista del otro, de cuerpos ajenos, vidas ajenas, y que es, en definitiva, la expresión de un deseo voluptuoso; por el otro, el camino de la contemplación, que está vacío, igualmente, de respuestas, pero que ofrece la dicha de enmudecer por contraste con la ansiedad de la dominación.
En la lectura de La moneda viva, de Pierre Klossovki, encontramos algunas de las claves de la pulsión dominante, transaccional y colonizadora. El cuerpo del otro, esta vez en términos sexuales, es un cerro a tomar, un enemigo a batir, un ente a reducir. Es así como el placer físico queda supeditado en buena medida a la ilusión breve de la conquista. Leemos:
«En el estado pulsional, la búsqueda de un equivalente del fantasma responde a su coacción; la unidad orgánica que la sufre como un goce irresistible tiende a desquitarse, porque es responsable de esta obsesión estéril con respecto a la solidaridad específica de las unidades entre ellas.
Todo equivalente, en la unidad orgánica del individuo, representa por consiguiente una doble sanción: la de la coacción interna y la de la afirmación de sí externa; de ahí el dilema: goza sin afirmarte o afirmate sin gozar para subsistir solamente.»
Gozar sin afirmarse, desde el punto de vista narrativo, es un ejercicio estéril. Sólo cuando reclamamos para nosotros mismos el cuerpo ajeno, cuando lo vejamos, cuando establecemos relaciones de poder desiguales respecto a él, podemos encontrar un vector director: he aquí la dialéctica del dominado y el dominante. En la consecución y realización voluptuosa del poder se materializa el destino trágico del colonizador de cuerpos: con cada nuevo envite se desgasta físicamente, disminuyendo así su fuerza, su potencial respuesta contra el individuo subyugado, y además en la agonía breve del orgasmo contenido encuentra el horror vacío de lo finito. El que posee un cuerpo sin ánimo caritativo, sin ver el ejercicio lúdico, puramente inútil y enfocado sólo al placer, toma un cuerpo y por contra pierde la posibilidad gozosa de la inhibición. En el momento de asumir el capital sexual que le otorga el cuerpo dominado, en el momento en el que se consuma un ejercicio que para el dominador es puramente transaccional, una verdad oscura se pone de manifiesto: las limitaciones de la carne son imposibles de soslayar. Establecer una dominación violenta sobre el cuerpo social en su conjunto es imposible, requiere una fuerza de orden y de voluntad que no es recompensada más que en la posteridad. El ejercicio del poder voluptuoso, que es el que se dirige hacia el gran Otro sin comprenderlo, sólo adquiere perspectiva y sentido unitario desde la distancia. Es por eso que la dominación en todas sus formas es estéril porque no puede dotar de sentido a la vida del individuo, solo da empaque al personaje que trasciende lo vital, arrastrando a la persona que persigue la dominación a una espiral de difícil resolución y enrevesada consecución lógica ajena a toda realización. En la toma de los cuerpos, de las ciudades, del poder simbólico o fáctico no se encuentra gozo ni contemplación real: la nada que se ve desde las alturas del cuerpo dominante es desasosegante, poco meditada, porque es el infinito espacio indeterminado y sin color que se manifiesta a los que tratan de medirse con el mismo silencio.
Volvemos por tanto a Blanchot, a esa pulsión que nos lleva a escribir y a narrarnos nuestras propias cuitas, una pulsión que levanta andamios condenados al desplome. Escribir es nadar a contracorriente, es no adquirir conciencia del tópico banal del todo pasa y todo llega. Ante la conciencia de la mortandad de todas las cosas sólo cabe una actitud contemplativa. Queremos ser dioses, es decir, queremos tener la paz de un ente que preexiste y que seguirá existiendo mucho después de que todo lo terreno haya desaparecido; queremos ser dioses, es decir, albergamos en nosotros la pretensión de univocidad, que es la de un destino y una narrativa claras. Y para conseguir la paz del ente que existe por encima de todas las cosas, que es el silencio, y para encontrar un destino entre tanto delirio debemos aprender a disfrutar de la dicha de enmudecer. Debemos dejar de escribir, dejar de narrarnos a nosotros mismos como héroes de tragedia o como personajes estables, y aceptar con resignación la naturaleza cambiante y trémula de nuestra personalidad. Es preciso mirar arriba, al silencio. Al silencio que antecedió a nuestro nacimiento, al silencio en el que se suman los que han muerto y al que se reintegra la naturaleza cuando estamos lejos y no oímos al árbol caer en medio del bosque. He ahí nuestro destino, nuestra univocidad, nuestra constancia. Este breve interín en el que se nos permite jugar a las casitas y hablar y tomarnos el pelo y, por encima de todo, hacer como que nos escuchamos, no es más que una interrupción brevísima de un silencio que, por lo general, se mantiene plano y sin oscilaciones. He ahí el verdadero Dios: un Dios que no es personal, que no sabemos si es ente o inteligencia pero que no puede servirnos de asidero frente al mundo terreno; una divinidad que habita en lo más oscuro. Pero esa oscuridad es buena porque no ilumina obstáculos ni bloques ni nos impone pruebas ni crueles tentaciones. El silencio nos recibe de vuelta con un dulce abrazo paternal. Volvemos a él como quien vuelve al verdadero hogar. Es por eso que es tiempo de asumir que a las preguntas sobre lo que nos cabe esperar y lo que debemos creer o hacer no vamos a encontrar respuesta. La nada nos dice: en el mundo tendréis luchas; pero tened valor: yo he vencido al mundo. Y es que a Dios, parafraseando a Juan, nadie lo ha visto jamás, y es posible que ahí resida la única verdad que podamos alcanzar: el mundo se hizo por medio de Él, y el mundo no lo conoció. Todo lo que vivimos es contingente, sólo el silencio es necesario. El cambio de mentalidad tiene que venir a través de una progresiva renuncia, una renuncia que no es dura, que no exige privaciones, pero que sí que pide que asumamos que todo el gozo abigarrado de este mundo, todas las calles llenas, no son sino una especie de sueño, y que la verdad subyace en los momentos de soledad. Dominar esa momentánea y poco frecuente soledad es dominar la única teología posible.
Y así, cuando lleguemos a la vacuidad de vacuidades, al silencio que ha nacido para imponerse sobre todos los demás silencios, podremos cobrar vigencia real en ese espacio sin cuerpo ni pensamiento: un lugar de paz que se nos promete como un verdadero paraíso y que alumbra lo intrascendente de nuestras vidas terrenales, que debemos asumir como el raro y fulminante destello que media entre un inmenso continente de silencio sin horror ni culpa y el siguiente.
11 al 12 de abril de 2023
Fuentes y citas:
Esta reflexión nació al abrigo, fundamentalmente, de Claros del bosque, una de las obras más conocidas de María Zambrano, y bajo la innegable influencia de los evangelios canónicos entendidos más como texto sapiencial que como obra sagrada. Desde luego cabe mencionar el papel decisivo de Merleau Ponty y su ensayo Lenguaje y filosofía, que no aparece citado directamente, y del Unamuno de La agonía del cristianismo.
Los libros que sí han sido citados directamente son:
- Blanchot, M. (1943) París, Editions Gallimard, “De l'angoisse au langage”/”De la angustia al lenguaje”, Editorial Trotta, Madrid, traducción de Luis Ferrero Carracedo y Cristina de Peretti, 2021.
- Klossowski, P. (1970) París, Éric Losfeld, “La Monnaie vivante”/”La moneda viva”, Editorial Pre-Textos, Valencia, traducción de Manuel Arranz, 2012.
La cita de Zama, de Antonio di Benedetto, sigue la edición que Adriana Hidalgo Editora hizo de la obra en su sexta reimpresión en 2022.
First Prize Short Essay in English
ARCHIPELGAL IDENTITY FROM: HIROSHIMA – HONOLULU
Author: Yuzuko Kitta
Dual Degree, Bachelor in Business Administration and International Relations
ARCHIPELGAL IDENTITY FROM:
HIROSHIMA – HONOLULU
From the mid-20th century in Japan, traditional Japanese values — arguably the result of Chinese influence — were met with “tetsugaku”(哲学), or Western philosophy, as the United States spearheaded the economic restoration of Japanese society. Political economist Francis Fukuyama views the end of the Cold War as the end of a Hegelian dialectical game that has, since the end of the 21st century, pitted democratic capitalism against other forms of regimes, such as Japanese feudalism. He concludes that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the dialectic had run its course and that when the time comes, democratic capitalism will be globalized1. Fukuyama points out that “the time” could take place after a long time, perhaps even after centuries in some countries, and I agree with him.
Whether or not a truly independent Japanese philosophy exists is a question that has been posed by philosophers, like Michel Foucault who said,
“Regarding the memories of my first stay in Japan, I rather have a feeling of regret for having seen nothing and understood nothing. It absolutely does not mean that nothing had been shown to me. But, during and also after I went around to observe many things, I felt that I had not grasped anything. For me, from the point of view of technology, lifestyle, the appearance of social structure, Japan is a country extremely close to the Western world. And, at the same time, the inhabitants of this country seemed to me on all fronts much more mysterious compared to those of all the other countries of the world. What impressed me was this mixture of proximity and remoteness. And I couldn't get any sharper impression.”2
The separation between the West and East was very significant. My mother attended a single-sex religious school—a traditional school with the typical Japanese uniform—and wanted us to be reminded that even though we lived abroad, our roots remained in Japan. She was a young mother who raised two children alone and is what we might consider a modern supermom. However, despite having adopted modernity in her adult life, a part of her still cherished her traditional upbringing. Hence, she made countless efforts to maintain our Japanese roots. My sister and I went to Japanese school after our normal school and on Saturdays as well. My mother made sure that we spoke Japanese with her in the household. Ironically, since I have lived abroad my whole life, the longest amount of time I have spent in Japan was in my mother’s womb. Furthermore, one can point out that I may look Japanese by western standards, although I share many western ideals. At my core, I am still truly Japanese, faithful to my country and captivated by it. I read Japanese literature, adore its culture, and I even live in a traditional Japanese house. Although I identify very strongly as Japanese, when I am in Japan people tend to think that I am either a 外人 (an outsider) or a ハーフ (someone of mixed race). Always standing on the fringes of society has proved to be a frustrating experience at times.
There is a correlation between Japanese philosophy and my cultural identity. Even though Japanese philosophy is not a sentient being, it personifies certain human elements of frustration and confusion, the same dichotomy that I am sensing in myself. Japanese philosophy and I are stuck in between two different worlds; the West and the East.
In considering “Japanese philosophy”, our first instinct is to think about the conception of Zen Buddhism. However, Buddhism was imported from China and Korea and it emerged in Japan around the 6th century3. Thus, such conception is only fair in line with the reality of philosophical practice as it has been found in Japan since the period in question. This does not mean that Buddhism and traditional thought have not had an impact on Japanese philosophy.
On the other hand, Western science and philosophy were introduced to Japan at the start of the Meiji era, when the country reopened to the outside world, ending the 200-year “closure period”4. Everything from the West was then incorporated into the nation of the Rising Sun's new political, socioeconomic, cultural, and theological systems.
Nishi Amane (西周), a Japanese philosopher during the Meiji era, helped to incorporate Western thought and philosophy into Japanese education5. He is most commonly known for introducing Rousseau’s “Social contract” 6. Moreover, he also applied to bring the term “philosophy” to Japan in the early 1870s in order to express western thought and ideas. He translated it by using Chinese characters7 (which are also used in the Japanese alphabet and language) and Greek etymology of the word “philosophy” (study of wisdom), resulting in 哲学 (tetsugaku). This example exemplifies but also emphasizes Nishi's prodigious productivity in the development of not only philosophical terms, but also the vocabulary required to provide a sufficiently formal synthesis of European thought in Japanese. He also translated and published8 a number of legal, philosophical and political science works, such as “International Law” (国際法) and an encyclopedia, the “Hyakugaku Renkan”(百学連環) .
These findings culminated in the famous yet controversial declaration of Nakae Chōmin (中江兆民) (1847-1901): “Japanese Philosophy does not exist in Japan”'9 As a result, several Japanese scholars who belonged to the feudal clan system10 like the Rokugo-shi clan (六郷氏) saw Nishi's declaration as evidence of the complete absence of Japanese philosophy in their academic heritage prior to the Meiji Restoration of 1868.
Indeed, it could be interpreted that the Japanese rejected their own tradition of any philosophical character and considered themselves justified in asserting that European philosophy, characterized by its creative force and theoretical approach, could not find its equal in traditional11 Japanese thought.
Nonetheless, I believe that this issue extends beyond that. We could always question whether there is a proper Japanese philosophy in Japan, since it has always been heavily influenced by the West. From the Meiji era when they re-opened their borders to the consequences of post-World War II with Pearl Harbour and the Hiroshima bomb. However, I would also consider the perspective that the Pearl Harbour attack and the retaliation-Hiroshima bomb has seen further emphasis of western influence that has consequently become a key element in Japan’s philosophy as a whole.
I spent most of my childhood in Honolulu on the island of Oahu where Pearl Harbor is located. In retrospect, I feel conflicted since I am still grappling between the East and the West. The geographical location of the Hawaiian Islands—midway between Japan and continental America—is almost symbolic of the struggle between eastern and western influence on myself.
On August 15, 1945, 70 million inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago turned on their radio. After the national anthem, Emperor Hirohito addressed them, recognizing the defeat of the Land of the Rising Sun. However, the Japanese citizens expected to hear the emperor “call them to national suicide”12, as French journalist Robert Guillain said in his article “The Japanese Citizens and the War”.The loyal Japanese were ready to die in the name of their country. However, that was not the will of Hirohito, whose life was spared by Truman’s government. Japanese history was forever changed, after the emperor's call, and as American troops prepared for landing, the Japanese poured “sincere tears of true patriotism”, while the country took on an impassive mask as they stoically acknowledged defeat.
One could point out that, from a western outlook, it could have been seen as a challenge to democratize the Japanese population and change the lifestyles forged by imperialism. Nonetheless, Douglas MacArthur13, the general in charge of Japan, took the time to understand Japanese culture in order to figure out what was best for them. MacArthur believed and had respect for “Bushidō”, the code of honor of the samurai. Bushidō is a Japanese word meaning “the way of the warrior”. The samurai were the warrior class who ruled feudal Japan for almost 700 years. Most samurai dedicated their lives to Bushidō14, a strict code that required loyalty and honor until death. If a samurai failed to keep his honor, he could regain it by committing the seppuku (ritual suicide), which we know better in the West under the term of “hara-kiri” or “the action of slaughtering one’s stomach”. The moral code covers all sorts of relationships between individuals and groups. Which is why the general let the Japanese citizens continue with their daily life not interfering as much since he believed in them. As a matter of fact, for centuries, the Bushidō had regulated conflicts between large powerful families15 in Japan, and by not respecting it would be considered a dishonor. When the American troops arrived several days after Japan’s defeat, to their immense surprise, they saw women and men who greeted them respectfully despite the backdrop of a country devastated by two atomic bombs. The American occupation lasted from 1945 to 1952—seven years during which the United States set itself the mission of demilitarizing16 and democratizing Japan.
One of the heavy consequences post-atomic bombs was the fact that Japan was met with a resource shortage. They had just lost 2.5 million people, not to mention its agriculture reduced to nothing and was destroyed up to 80%17. Food and other basic necessities were almost nowhere to be found. Other resources were in need for families whose fathers and sons died in war, and millions of survivors who saw their homes go up in smoke.
In the animated feature film “Grave of the Fireflies” (1988), Isao Takahata portrays with poignant realism the fate of Seita, a 14-year-old teenager, and her younger sister Setsuko in a Kobe, a city in the south of Japan destroyed by the bombing. Due to injuries and other drastic consequences such as hunger, they eventually passed away. Setsuko died from exhaustion and Seita from starvation. When the film was released, some critics criticized the filmmaker for his miserabilism and a certain propensity for melodrama, but this overwhelming work reflected the sad reality of the archipelago hit by scarcity until 1948. It is estimated today that 1 million18 Japanese died of undernourishment during the period.
In a complicated and paradoxical fashion, the occupying Americans sometimes brought little comforts to the Japanese. Soldiers who distributed American sweets to children and gifts to women portrayed themselves in a good image. Soon after, little Japanese boys no longer made samurai helmets folded in “origamis”, but American soldier helmets that they proudly displayed. Little by little, Coca-Cola appeared in bars, even if Japan was still far from the American way of life19 which mainly developed in the 1950s.
The influence of the occupants was also felt in the health sector. Japan was far behind in the health sector. The Americans organized vaccination20 campaigns, quarantines to limit the spread of diseases and in a few months, the population saw certain epidemics disappear as François Kersaudy mentioned.
Thus, for these reasons we can say that the occupation was not so badly lived, and that the westernization of Japan affirmed its position. Furthermore, by abiding by the “bushido” the Japanese did not protest and even willingly deferred to the country that defeated them. In addition, the Japanese were also humiliated, traumatized and felt responsible for many crimes during the imperialism era, which they felt compelled to change for the best—the most viable solution being to accept the occupation and adopt western values.
After my upbringings and how the Hiroshima bomb and the westernization of Japan has impacted my history and philosophy, we can observe an irony in the narrative. The only answer to that question is the fact that the irony of modernity will always remain in the narrative of history.
As for my reconciliation of my understanding of Japanese philosophy, it could be argued that the war between the United States and Japan involved a clash of civilizations. Civilization identity21 will become highly relevant in the future, as Samuel Huntington predicted. The author of “Clash of Civilizations” considers Japan to be its own civilization and culture. Japan has carved a unique position for itself as an impartial mediator between the West and the East: it has adopted certain aspects of the West but evidently remains a part of the East.
1Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Francis Fukuyama. New York: Perennial, 1992. 3-18. Print.
2Polac, C. "Michel Foucault Et Le Zen:." Michel Foucault Et Le Zen: Un Séjour Dans Un Temple Zen Michel Foucault. 1978. Web. 10 May 2021.
3Saitō, Hishō. "Chapter IV - Chapter VI." A History of Japan. London: Routledge, 2011. Print.
4Kazuhiko, Kasaya. "Bushidō: An Ethical and Spiritual Foundation in Japan." Nippon.com. 11 June 2019. Web. 10 May 2021.
5Havens, Thomas R. "Scholars and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Japan: The Case of Nishi Amane." Modern Asian Studies 2.4 (1968): 315-24. Print.
6KAUFMAN-OSBORN, TIMOTHY V. "Rousseau in Kimono." Political Theory 20.1 (1992): 53-85. Print.
7Havens, Thomas R.H. "Nishi Amane and Modern Japanese Thought." 44 (1971): 110-11. Print.
8Havens, Thomas R. "Comte, Mill, and the Thought of Nishi Amane in Meiji Japan." The Journal of Asian Studies 27.2 (1968): 217-28. Print.
9Dufourmont, Eddy. "Nakae Chomin and Buddhism." International Inoue Enryo Research (2013): 63-75. 2013. Web.
10Minear, Richard H. "Nishi Amane and the Reception of Western Law in Japan." Monumenta Nipponica 28.2 (1973): 151-75. Print.
11Shun'ichi, Takayanagi, and Kuwabara Takeo. "Nakae Chomin No Kenkyu (Studies on Nakae Chomin)." Monumenta Nipponica 22.3/4 (1967): 493-94. Print.
12Danton, George H., and Robert Guillain. "Le Peuple Japonais Et La Guerre." Books Abroad 22.4 (1948): 386-87. Print.
13James, D. Clayton. The Years of MacArthur. Vol. 4. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970. 282-83. Print.
14Daidoji, Yuzan, and Thomas Cleary. The Code of the Samurai: A Modern Translation of the Bushido Shoshinshu of Taira Shigesuke. Boston: Tuttle, 2000. 15-17. Print.
15Kazuhiko, Kasaya. "Bushidō: An Ethical and Spiritual Foundation in Japan." Nippon.com. 11 June 2019. Web. 10 May 2021.
16Williams,, Justin. "American Democratization Policy for Occupied Japan: Correcting the Revisionist Version." Pacific Historical Review 57.2 (1988): 179-202. Print.
17Rothman, Lily. "After The Bomb: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Share Their Stories." Time. Time, 6 Aug. 2017. Web. 10 May 2021.
18Ito, Masami. "Isao Takahata's Stark World of Reality." The Japan Times. 12 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 May 2021.
19Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, and Takurō Seiyama. Japanese Capitalism since 1945: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge, 2016. 28-104. Print.
20Danton, George H., and Robert Guillain. "Le Peuple Japonais Et La Guerre." Books Abroad 22.4 (1948): 386-87. Print.
21Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. London: Penguin, 2014. 183-98. Print.
Second Prize Short Essay in English
The Paradox of Tolerance
Author: Kseniia Trifonova
Bachelor in International Relations
PARADOX OF TOLERANCE
Case Study: Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Party in Germany
Introduction
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, tolerance is the “willingness to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them”.1 As any other phenomenon, tolerance is a controversial topic having its own ups and downs making it a compelling and worthy subject of study. Moreover, it allows one to dive into the complexity of the modern globalized world as well as study cultural, social and political diversity.
This work is concentrated around the so-called paradox of tolerance as its core idea. It states that a tolerant society should have the right not to tolerate intolerant, otherwise, it would destroy itself. Though acknowledging the value of free speech and pluralism of opinions, it is significant to regulate the “marketplace of ideas” to a certain level. The main question arising from this is as follows: to what extent should society tolerate potentially “dangerous” ideas in order to keep in balance freedom and safety?
The first part of the paper is devoted to studying the theoretical background behind the paradox of tolerance. The initial source taken into consideration is a book by Karl Popper “The Open Society and Its Enemies” in which the term was introduced for the first time. Later it was studied in such works as “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls which I would also mention later on. Additionally, I will link the paradox of tolerance to the study of John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” where the scholar introduces the famous “marketplace of ideas” and the “harm principle”. Though the paradox itself was formulated long after the work of Mill, it was interesting for me to elaborate on the possible occasional limits of freedom the scholar sets despite being one of the major advocates for individual freedom in human history. The theoretical framework developed in this section of the work, provided me with the possibility to analyse the case study which is described in the second part. The case taken is concentrated around the activity of a far-right anti-immigration German political party, namely Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), and the official reaction of its actions. From my point of view, the case of AfD clearly demonstrates that in a tolerant democratic society such as Germany, it is possible to maintain the diversity of the political spectrum without threatening the security and safety existing in the country. Lastly, I provide the reflections gathered from the research and consider broader implications of the theory.
Learning about the topic seemed very insightful and thought-provoking to me which I strived to reflect in the paper and I hope you will enjoy reading it as much as I did.
Theoretical Background: The Paradox of Tolerance
The first and most important academic source I would like to take into consideration is a book “The Open Society and Its Enemies” (published in two volumes: “The Spell of Plato” and “The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath”) by Karl Popper. The book relates to the field of philosophical political science and advocates for the establishment of an open society based on such values as individuality, humanitarianism, and universalism within the context of liberal democracy. It was written during World War II and first published by Routledge in 1945. The name itself provides readers with the understanding of its essence: “open society” expresses the ideals of the author while “enemies” represent those who Popper argues with, namely Plato, Hegel, and Marx. The mentioned “opponents” are chosen for a variety of reasons. Popper acknowledges their place among the most influential thinkers in Western history, making an emphasis on them building a comprehensive philosophical theory to describe how the world around them worked. However, most importantly, he considers them “enemies” of his ideal open society, directly arguing their perspectives about the benefits of a strong authoritarian state.
Not desiring to fall into a trap of simply describing the book, I would like to devote my research to one specific term introduced in the work, namely the paradox of tolerance. This term appears in “The Open Society and Its Enemies” as a note to Chapter 7 (first volume) where the author devotes his attention to discussing concepts by Plato on “benevolent despotism”.
“Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. —In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them, if necessary, even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” 2
The given citation explains that unlimited tolerance would eventually lead to intolerance, in other words, if the tolerant society would tolerate the intolerant, then it would eventually destroy itself. The society should keep the right to suppress those who stand against the concept of tolerance but only in case they are not ready for discussion on the level of “rational argument” and remain standing for their position with violent determination. On such occasions, even force may be applied to those considered a threat to the “open society”.
Another bright scholar, namely John Rawls, in his work “A Theory of Justice” (1971) provides the argument in favor of tolerating intolerant in the society pointing out that, otherwise, the community will become unjust. Nevertheless, he still allows that some circumstances are exceptional for this desired pattern.
“While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.” 3
While doing research on the concept of the paradox of tolerance, I came to the conclusion that it strongly reminds me of the ideas proposed by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” (1859). Though the author did not address the term “tolerance” specifically, in my humble opinion, it is worth mentioning him here. Mill strongly favored the so-called “marketplace of ideas” - from his point of view, the only way to find truth. “Silencing an opinion is robbing the human race” is a quote reflecting Mill’s position on censorship. Moreover, he also considered that silencing does not only deprive the society of finding truth or getting a clearer perspective on it (in case the presented knowledge is wrong) but also highlighted the political and social consequences such as tyranny of the government or the majority. However, despite being the main advocate of individual freedom, John Stuart Mill was the very scholar introducing the famous “harm principle” in his already mentioned book. According to Mill, there is one justification for the suppression of freedom: one’s actions can be limited in case of them harming other individuals. On such an occasion, the decision will be made in favor of the good of the many by preventing one from exercising their freedom.
In this section we received a glimpse of understanding of the core concept which will be used as the theoretical framework for discussing the case study further - the paradox of tolerance. Concluding, I find it important to make an emphasis on the fact that though all the mentioned scholars can rightfully be named the protectors of freedom, all three of them acknowledge some limits to tolerance and liberty. This discourse raises the question of balance within the society which should be kept for its “open” and prosperous functioning.
Case Study: Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Party in Germany
The ideas of nationalism and racist supremacy were one of the biggest problems in the past, and, unfortunately, do not fade away nowadays. Even with all the horrors of the Nazi Party in Germany during the last century, nationalist and white supremacy movements continue to be present in Europe. Though not all of them expose their true ideas and values directly, they can be characterized by the appeal to the European economic and cultural heritages forming national identities which, according to them, are endangered by immigrants and ethnic/ religious minorities. Nazism is not always claimed to be the core ideology, however, tools similar to those used by the Nazis to picture Jews are applied to describe migrants till this day. The narrative on such occasions is highly populist which helps such parties to attract attention and appeal to emotions especially in times of economic crisis and other forms of instability. Therefore, such democratic values as multiculturalism and diversity are attacked, raising the controversial question: should Western democratic societies tolerate political parties and organizations standing for intolerance as their essential value?
Further I would like to discuss an example of such a party, namely Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland or AfD). The party was founded in 2013 in Germany by Bernd Lucke, Alexander Gauland and Konrad Adam, and co-chaired by Tino Chrupalla and Alice Weidel. Initially considering itself a conservative party with a mild Eurosceptic approach, it soon moved towards the far-right wing of ethno-nationalism in a populist and radicalized manner. Despite not being linked to evident acts of violence, the party’s ideology and values are highly debatable. AfD is best known for its anti-immigration position, attacks on the Jewish community, and Euroscepticism (the last tenet remained firm even after the radicalization of the party). In the 2016 Manifesto the party claims that “Islam does not belong to Germany” and directly accuses Muslim migrants of worsening the quality of life in Germany. Moreover, AfD also targets the Jewish part of the population and calls for the dramatic change of existing German policy towards the Holocaust.
In 2015 Bernd Lucke decided to resign from his position in AfD considering the narrative of the party xenophobic. The leadership was taken by Frauke Petry soon after being best known for claims that German police should “if necessary” shoot those trying to cross the German border illegally.
The popularity of the party was gained by promising to “defend” countries against foreign non-European influence and mainly relied on the German average working class. In September 2017 the Alternative for Germany became the third largest party in the German parliament taking 92 of 631 seats. The next year former German Chancellor Angela Merkel signed an agreement on cooperation between Christian Democrats party and Social Democrats resulting in AfD becoming the main political opposition. The same year Merkel stated her position on the topic of migration naming the majority of refugees victims of the political events. “Escape and expulsion are part of our German and European history” - she said addressing the issue.
In March 2020 Germany’s intelligence service (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz or BfV) commenced investigating AfD for promoting extremism. Their precise attention was devoted to the Flügel (“wing”) - a fraction of AfD connected to far-right extremists, and neo-Nazis. The Administrative Court of Cologne allowed BfV to put Flügel under surveillance presuming tracking personal data, including phone calls. Soon the decision by the executive department of Afd to dismiss Flügel was made, believing that the group would bring further scrutiny on the party as a whole.
In the last parliamentary elections, the party lost 11 seats from the gains of 2017 weakening its position in the German opposition. As of March 2020, AfD counts 35 000 members across the country and continues to be active on such social media platforms as Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Following the official governmental reaction on the activity of the party, we can see the balancing between favoring pluralism and diversity of opinions in the representative branch of power, and controlling AfD’s activity via governmental structures. The addressed issue is representative of the phenomenon of the paradox of tolerance while the policy of the German government is a great example of balancing freedom and public security.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like once more to refer to my argument stating that it is necessary to accurately balance between allowing freedom of speech and action in regard to the political spectrum, and building some boundaries to maintain order and public safety. In my opinion, the German governmental surveillance over Alternative for Germany showcases a great example of how authorities of the state can keep the activity of a highly questionable political party under control while allowing the representation of various opinions. Regulations of such nature do not simply prohibit the party from operating but make it less radicalised (it is important to remember that AfD was not involved in any violent activity so far) and provide argumentative critique of its ideals via legal means. From my point of view, this may be called the most effective way of regulation which in the future is unlikely to lead to mass support of the given party.
As for the further implications of the theory, I believe it may be interesting to study a more negative case within the context of the paradox of tolerance. The rise of totalitarian states under the leaderships of Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini could serve as very insightful examples of tolerating intolerance and its dreadful consequences. It is explicitly important to remember that prosperity and stability can be gained only via the balancing approach while the policy of all-permissiveness and total lack of barriers, though seeming attractive at the first glance, will eventually lead to the radicalization of society and inevitable crash of democratic values.
1Tolerance. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance
2Popper, K. R. (2008). Plato’s Political Programme: 7 The Principle of Leadership. In The Open Society and Its Enemies (pp. 114–129). essay, Routledge. Note on the "Paradox of Tolerance"
3Rawls, J. (1999). In A theory of justice (p. 220). essay, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Bibliography
- AFD. Alternative für Deutschland. (n.d.). https://www.afd.de/
- Alternative für Deutschland. Counter Extremism Project. (n.d.-a). https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy/alternative-fur-deutschland
- European Ethno-Nationalist and White Supremacy Groups. Counter Extremism Project. (n.d.). https://www.counterextremism.com/content/european-ethno-nationalist-and-white-supremacy-groups
- McCrum, R. (2016, September 26). The 100 best nonfiction books: No 35 – The open society and its enemies by Karl Popper (1945). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/26/100-best-nonfiction-books-karl-popper-open-society-its-enemies
- Mill, J. S. (1998). On liberty and other essays. Oxford University Press, USA.
- Plamenatz, J. (1952). The Open Society and Its Enemies [Review of The Open Society and Its Enemies, by K. R. Popper]. The British Journal of Sociology, 3(3), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/586813
- Popper, K. R. (2008). The Open Society and its enemies. Routledge.
- Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Tolerance. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance
Video
FIRST PRIZE
Amine Harboul
Zambezia: A Well for Change
THIRD PRIZE
Fiona Conlon. Albert Strauss Bjertrup, Maud Nygard Lutdal, Ana Pilar Manzanares Palacios, Niki Agnes Charlotte Falkenberg, Pedro Álvarez de Mon Nuñez
Guitarrero Mariano Conde
Watch the video
