January 25, 2006
election
Canada elected a new government the other day.
My friend Matt said it best:
I’m glad we spent all that money, time and effort to topple a minority
government, simply to replace it with an even weaker minority government.
Indeed. Will we be going through this whole thing again a year from now?
One thing about this election that makes me happy: Michael Ignatieff was elected in Ontario.
He’s an accomplished author, scholar, critic, and teacher; an excellent public speaker possessing (in my opinion) a moderate, extremely well-informed worldview. I general I find him very inspiring.
I hope he finds success in his foray into politics. My dream scenario is that he replaces Paul Martin and becomes our next Prime Minister. Not sure if he wants that job, but I think he has the characteristics of a great and inspiring leader.
tags: canada, michael ignatieff, politics
posted: 7:21 pm
Ignatieff looks good on paper, but the sad reality is that he represents the newest form of cultural imperialism.
Ignatieff is all about "rights": the right to development, the right to sovereignty, the right to this, the right to that. Sounds good eh?
But there is a fundamental problem with both rights and the institution in which they are entrusted: the state. How do we negotiate between rights claims? What is defined as a right? How do we determine rights for citizens of states whose ideology we do not share?
Those are the least of the problems that are exacerbated by promoting the nation state as a sort of monism. Consider the relationship between the state and citizens in a country like Argentina or Bolivia, where "the right" to collectivization and self-ownership of product is literally illegal? Or what of the relationship between the state and religious orders? Is there an unspoken "faith" that defines both? Or only an unspoken faith in one of them?
The fact is, and which is revealed in his stance on "development", military intervention (a la Iraq), and the legitimacy of the United Nations, that Ignatieff thinks he knows what is universal right. And such men are the most dangerous kind there are.
>But there is a fundamental problem with both rights and
>the institution in which they are entrusted: the state.
>How do we negotiate between rights claims? What is defined
>as a right? How do we determine rights for citizens of
>states whose ideology we do not share?
You seem to be suggesting that because there are some complex rights issues, the whole concept of rights is flawed.
I think that with rights, just like with many things, there’s a gradient of complexity of problems.
Consider the statement:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
E.g. The RCMP is not allowed to pull my fingernails out in order to extract information from me.
That seems pretty straightforward.
Of course we can envision more complex rights issues that are very, very difficult to solve, or unsolvable.
Re: the nation state.
>Is there an unspoken "faith" that defines both?
I would say - of course. Nation states only exist because people believe in them. I think its built-in to the human psyche to want ordered/predictable agreement, customs, and relations with others. The nation state is just another expression of that deep need.
Problems are obviously inherent in any mode of association, and these are excacerbated when a system is imposed upon others who don’t have the same ideology, history, etc. And so we see the failure of the nation state in many parts of the world, the horrors of a social system unilaterally imposed, and the eventual horrors of the collapse of that system.
I too am skeptical about military intervention and development - but mostly because of how it’s done. I think that it is possible to have military intervention and development to achieve good ends, it’s just that they are often done for the wrong reasons, by the wrong people, in the wrong way. E.g. Iraq.
Maybe Ignatieff makes me want to "believe" - that it’s possible to do some of these things right, with wisdom and compassion - and that’s why I like him.
>>You seem to be suggesting that because there are some complex rights issues, the whole >>concept of rights is flawed.
heh no — i dont think "rights" is complex enough — or simple enough! as in the following example:
>>Consider the statement:
>>"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or >>punishment."
>>E.g. The RCMP is not allowed to pull my fingernails out in order to extract information from me. That seems pretty straightforward.
it is, but in the rights paradigm, state action is the ultimate exception to any rule and contingent on any perceived crisis, even for a universal as firmly entrenched beyond the state as is an international norm, like torture.
>>Of course we can envision more complex rights issues that are very, very difficult to solve, or >>unsolvable.
and this is more to the point: what is that unsolvability? why is that unsolvability in a rights paradigm? i think it is because rights are, in part, categories of the every day, pat identities and authorized speakers for authorized contexts. they come too easily to those who have them, and too hard for those who do not. what is responsibility to my neighbour beyond rights? are your meaningful relationships felt through "rights", or through something that is unlegislatable? something that doesn’t need legislating? and what are the limits of rights for those "unnatural persons", such as the environment or economic equality or non-citizens and the stateless ?
i think, even in the abstracted states that we live in, there are greater alternative ethics and first principles that we can refer to, such as the writing of Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas.
Ignatieff might make us feel good about the noble lie, but Levinas makes us feel whole.
>are your meaningful relationships felt through "rights",
>or through something that is unlegislatable?
no, my meaningful relationships are not felt through "rights". just like i don’t think in terms of "ethics" or "lawfulness" when i go about my day. the map is not the territory.
rights are an abstraction of that everyday experience, that allow people to create something more universal and general - agreed-upon boundaries. i don’t expect "rights" to make me feel whole. they are an apparatus of our social structure.
my own first principles are more spiritual / feeling / cognitive, like non-judgment. but non-judgment is such an ephemeral thing - it think it would be difficult to use it in an enforceable social contract.
it would be nice if we could use more spiritual or experiential principles to be the basis of our social structure, but i think this would require either a) dissolution of the state (or parts of it) into tiny communities along cultural/religious lines or b) massive spiritual growth / transcendence / enlightenment by millions of people.
ps. can you recommend any Levinas in particular?
this is a great exchange. wish we could have gotten together in Vancouver and done this live.
>>the map is not the territory.
i’d like to hear a lot more about this. i dont think it should be either, but i’m not sure how one escapes it. by looking for the beauty in everything? that would be ok by me.
>>my own first principles are more spiritual / feeling / cognitive, like non-judgment. but non-judgment is such an ephemeral thing - it think it would be difficult to use it in an enforceable social contract.
heh yeah tell me about it. my thesis is studying "aesthetic legal theory". its a whole galaxy of stuff, mostly from the last 15 years (in law studies anyway) about ways we can extend aesthetic judgement — or non-judgement in a lot of ways — to legality. the argument is that law and art share many of the same desires: communication, identification, the unity of universal expressions and subjective interpretation, and indeed authority.
my major stumbling blocks are the charge of nihilism (that without foundations, even ephemeral ones like a constitution, you’re in for trouble), and the charge of pragmatism (that the best decisions are made in context of their moment). to be honest i think the nihilists critique is pretty easy to overcome, but the pragmatic one is much harder. so far, the best i can muster is that pragmatic decisions (esp. in law) really actually are decisions "for the future", and thus conceal their utopian impulse beneath a sort of simulacra.
as for the idea of "social contract", it wouldn’t exist in the sense that Hobbes or Hegel or Trudeau use it.
>>it would be nice if we could use more spiritual or experiential principles to be the basis of our social structure, but i think this would require either a) dissolution of the state (or parts of it) into tiny communities along cultural/religious lines or b) massive spiritual growth / transcendence / enlightenment by millions of people.
of course one can not design a system — the pragmatics are just too complex, as you note, and grand theories tend to end in more violence of the artificially selected than anything (ex: fascism). but there is a principle of hope latent in the decisions every judge makes. i want to know if we can elevate that principle to a more conscious component of judgment, and if so, what the effects are (other than transformative).
>>ps. can you recommend any Levinas in particular?
one book that comes to mind, but which is unsatisfactory in a lot of ways, is Costas Douzinas, "The End of Human Rights" (hart publications, 2000).
> this is a great exchange. wish we could have gotten
> together in Vancouver and done this live.
yeah - totally
>>>the map is not the territory.
>
>i’d like to hear a lot more about this. i dont think it
>should be either, but i’m not sure how one escapes it.
>by looking for the beauty in everything? that would be
>ok by me.
i’ve heard it said that the challenge of any spirituality is to confront the fact that humanity is both of earth and of heaven. "escaping" this problem via inward reflection, questioning and meditation is probably the primary goal of most comtemplative traditions.
a method of many traditions is to gradually identify less and less with the body and ego so that one is able to witness all of these things happening "out there". there is only tension when you identify yourself with your thoughts, your emotions and your body (what eckhart tolle calls your "life situation"). as you peel off these layers, your true Self emerges more and more, and you actually perceive and can appreciate things more deeply.
one possible method of "escape" that may follow from this is to realize that, ultimately, both the map and the territory are arising in your awareness. the map can be seen to be something more coarse, gross, clumsy and the territory as more subtle and beautiful, but both arise from the same Oneness or Being.
I can recommend the writings of Eckhart Tolle, Ken Wilber and Ramana Maharshi, if you want to persue these ideas further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber
I find your thesis very interesting - even though I sometimes don’t fully understand it
I think there is crossover with the stuff that I am focussing on - meditation and contemplative spirituality. Many of the commonalities that you list between art and law show up in spiritual study/practice.