UNSPEAKABLE FUTURES

It is difficult to escape the notion that our in our present time we experience a new threshold of history. Much can go wrong, much can still go well. And many interests worldwide are at stake. Today’s financial muddle is just a symptom of a more profound and substantive historic agony. It extends beyond mere economic stagnation or ‘climate’. Our world – our planet – is on the verge of a burst. We have arrived at a stage where every inspiration, every ideology, every invention and – most specifically – every resource has reached its near exhaustion. In baffling speed we have broken down the traditional fabric of our communities to the point where either we secure the continuity of our advanced, high tech and interdependent global society or we fall back to the greatest disarray that humanity has ever experienced. In both scenarios we pay a considerable price.

Continuity implies great adjustment. This includes a sizeable investment in new technologies to sustain the level of material comfort to which we have become accustomed – and in which most people living today were born. Previous generations lived through adversities – both in material and in humanitarian terms – which we consider unthinkable. All we – should – know is that there is nothing romantic about a world falling into collapse, with everything that is bound to follow.

But a future of sustained welfare and ongoing advancement is far from certain. We truly have come the end of a history that is crying for another rebirth. Before we know it our world of privilege – particularly our Western World.- will find itself in the same position that some hundred years ago the elite of kings, emperors and their entourage found themselves in: abundant, ignorant of the true needs of their people, consuming wealth they did not really earn. At a global scale, we are now that elite, potentially oblivious of the needs of the rest of our world, its huge population, its dying wildlife and its barren fields. Are we going to defend our privileges at all cost, our access to the last remaining oil wells, the last gallons of fresh water, our last kilos of beef and tons of steel to just continue as we are?



I am not in the habit of being a doomsayer. It is merely a contemplation of possible futures that occupies me. My understanding of history – at every stage – in the past thousands of years is that it very much derives its character from discontinuity, manifold perils – not limited to the perils of war and conflict – which caused humanity to readjust, not necessarily for the better at every instant. It can be a gradual, creeping process that suddenly hits, or it is an unexpected great disaster. The Roman Empire took decades if not a hundred years to finally collapse, both from within and outside. The old European world of Kings and Emperors required one irreversible shot to trigger its demise, however much it was a world at its end anyway.




Hotspots of our present world

One could also look for examples in history where progress was achieved beyond prevailing paradigms without any cataclysm. Can societies arise above stagnation by the force of their own energies? Some civilizations did manage to do so, at least to some extent, but never without great sacrifices amongst themselves, such as the Chinese. But we can also think of the Renaissance of Europe, in the 14th and 15th centuries. Battlefields and disease did accompany it, but it was a substantive transition.

Paradigm shifts are called for, in many fields, whether or not technology will help us to overcome the emerging material scarcity. We should ask the question whether indeed we can allow the pressure to mount, populations to grow, resources to remain exploited in the way we do now. We actually know that we can not.

Among the futures that we face are those which we better do our utmost to escape. We are world filled talent and youth to achieve this. At the same time we tend to waste it and we allow our consumer habits to rule our interests as human beings living on a lonely but highly precious planet. We accommodate sizeable migrations, there seems very little choice, but we fail to invest sufficiently in blending newcomers into the rhythm of our societies.

Vulgarization, alienation and complacency may threaten us more – from within - than any present day conflict or natural crisis may do from outside. To sustain what we have and what we are is not enough. Stagnation means disintegration. Strong, forward looking ambitions should guide our world to a new horizon. It will demand every leadership and inventiveness available.





My sincere wish is that such leadership will also take us away from the antagonisms that plague our present world and articulate new, inspiring missions for humanity. Traditionally we look at the Western World – the US or Europe – to mobilize the critical mass to this end. But this another great question mark. It is not because such leadership may be absent, but because we have become too self-interested to understand its necessity.

The world in 2050 will be vastly different from the world we know. By reasonable reckoning I will not live to see it. I am nonetheless as much concerned about that world as anyone belonging to our younger generations. We have to be. Most of the decisions – and hopefully: breakthroughs – of the next couple of years will determine the parameters for the longer term. We either strike out the potential for disaster, or we will have to embrace it.

WHY NOT TAKE THE DEEP DIVE TO PROTECT LIFE ON OUR PLANET NOW?

A new age of invention


Looking beyond the current crisis

Our world is bogged down by a financial crisis at a time when forward looking investments are most needed. We need to move towards a clean global economy as rapidly as we can. The sooner we reach it, the least disaster we risk and the better quality of life we achieve.

My question would be whether the crisis should not be a trigger instead to make us take such a move with even more pressure. Investments in sustainable wealth will make us prosper beyond imagination – if we succeed. This is a certainty.

I just read the announcement of a new car made in China: it is a car powered by electricity. The article suggests that China may be pushing harder – harder than we do – towards a green economy. Most likely, if this were the case, the country will be stronger in our world because of it.

Life preservation is wealth. This should be our economic axiom. We should create richness for every natural habitat we preserve and for every new habitat we create. If need be, we pay for clean air. Let’s make clean air an element on the DOW Jones Index, but in reverse. The lower its share value, the cleaner we have become.



The 21st century should become known for its ability to advance on the merits of the 20th but also for cleaning up its downsides. We should pass a clean, sustainable world to the 22nd.

This, in my view, is the kind of inspiration too that can in fact drag us out of the current financial problems and the stagnation this has caused. Financial institutions, industry and commerce have a large role to play in reducing waste, increasing product relevance, in enhancing the entire habitat of life, and in making it a joy for all humanity on this planet.


What's in the bag?

But is an effort too which can not succeed without our own contribution. Humanity has gone haywire in its use of the markets. We are being led by many needless, wasteful things. Just look at what goes out, week after week, with the garbage collector. We can be more pro-active, as a consumer, in dictating the market and not allow us to be simply exploited by it. In a sense, as I have indicated in my previous blog, consumers should at least in part be producer too.

There is lots of talk about innovation and new invention. There should be. It is best achieved if we are imaginative in our needs too. How do we really want to run our lives. What are the thins – materially and otherwise – I really need and what should they be like? What can make my life most “nature friendly”? What, today, is the state of the art?

I do believe that if we let our imagination go wild over saving life on our planet, new economic growth will follow to the benefit of many

UNLEASH YOUR SHACKLES, SLAVES OUGHT TO BE FREE

In a truly democratic economy, we can take production in our own hands


I have been meaning to say this for a long time. It is one of my main intellectual preoccupations. Something I can not solve in my own mind, or just by myself.

As I see it, our present day consumer society is nothing different, but much more pleasant to live in, than the ancient society of Roman slaves. The instrument of our submission is our seduction by manifold commercials and attractive contracts of labor. The key force behind our slavery is our very existence as a consumer.

Can we have it otherwise? I think we can.

For instance, I believe we do not need to stand passive when bankers and CEO’s of big companies cash in monetary benefits far beyond their actual added value. It is outrageous that we allow people to be paid huge sums for exercising powers that they should not have in the first place.

Secondly, on the other side of the fence, I think we are able to say no in all clarity to the massive waste that is produced at high cost every day in terms of useless products, superfluous advertisement, unnecessary packaging, meaningless diversity and senseless illusions, which we are expected to buy and to pay for.



Thirdly, it is my firm conviction that we have allowed our public interest and the interests of our markets to take a much too divergent course. We should re-assess what in our own minds, as citizens and as private individuals, is the true distinction between things which are relevant for us all and things in which we wish to retain our private choice.

But when I follow through my thoughts about these issues, I can almost not avoid – at least in my own mind – to end up in the construction of an utopia that would dwarf communism in most of its further implications.

What was so bad about communism? Essentially it was the arrogance of ‘state’. The gruesome inefficiency of centrally planned demand and supply; Its degeneration into murderous absolutism and its inability to rise effectively above collective poverty and mediocre industrial performance. The Trabant, the only car of fame built in the former East Germany, is the icon of the chronic lack of incentives to constantly improve as it persisted throughout the former East Block world.

Nothing of that we should wish for as an alternative to our present state of consumer slavery. Nobody would vouch for it, obviously. We rather cherish the illusion of our happiness than undermine it by the force of a terrorizing war against superfluity.



Secondly the weakness of my utopia is its assumption that humanity is basically ‘good’: economic, loving, social, cultivating the spiritual rather than the material, and so on. My utopia in other words is too naive to be realistic – as a rule of thumb - from the start.

So here you see my problem. Unless there is no such thing as scarcity (which is a fundamental underlying reality in every ‘model’). we can never be really free. But does this mean we should continue to accept corporate imperialism as it gradually undermines our sovereignty as citizens? Perhaps we should now recognize – at least – that ‘markets’ in our time are not the places of real choice as they used to be. And it follows that as consumers the only way to really counter this, is to become producers ourselves, each of us individually, if we were to restore true market freedom. Our technology in fact could help us along this way. It allows us to tell companies, just by pushing ‘enter’ on our laptop, to produce only as we order, in all dimensions, and give instructions for design as well. If we want to stand tall in the face of corporate power, then let us take the power of supply out of their hands.



The reality is, we can. We only need to put our minds to it. We are able to unleash our own shackles and share every bonus among each other.

In a world in which consumers are the producers at the same time, corporations are – nothing more and – nothing less than arbiters of resources, technology and distribution as we direct them according to our true needs. This seems to me a workable market. It would also mean that consumers push suppliers to be as mean and lean – and only as powerful – as we need them to be to supply us with the necessary goods in the most efficient, sustainable way.

But have I neutralized all my possible objections to the utopia that I have described above? It all boils down of course, however we look at, to our own behavior, the rigid application of our own sense of economy – of our needs and of the means in which we wish to satisfy them – and to our understanding of the bigger picture of the markets in which we wish to be active. This will take time, I have no doubt. But in fact we are already actively testing this in many different corners, however primitively as yet, such as news, clothes, books, photo albums etcetera.

The next implication is a political one. It requires governments to rethink markets and their own role in them just as much. We are on a long road, but I am convinced that in ten years time we will find ourselves much further on this road than most of us would now think feasible.

But perhaps, if we realize that this is about our freedom in all dimensions in the first place, we might feel we have many more incentives ready at hand to make all of this happen soonest.

CAN HUMANITY STILL IMPROVE ITS WAYS?

Homo egoisticus – 4.000.000 B.D.


Many, many years from now, those who will be our descendants might look back at us the way we look at the Neanderthals. They will recognize our advancements and capabilities but they will also see the flaws which after many eons the successors of human kind will have overcome.

Is this a likely scenario? We will never know, of course. But we can speculate.

In essence human kind as it is today is capable of almost everything that it wasn’t made for. This is the beauty and it is our potential tragedy.

It is first of all a recognition of everything that Darwin told us. The clockmaker who brought us to life, was blind and he will always be. Mutations which some 200.000 years ago enabled us to become more skilled hunters, also led us to send a man to the Moon. It is accidental. No intelligent being with a sound mind would ever have concocted the modern human being and let it loose on the planet Earth on purpose to do its work, unbalanced and unfinished as we are.

For instance, why would an intelligent designer think of a life form which is actually a regression from the norm that prevails in the rest of the animal kingdom, which is the natural inclination to preserve life’s balance? Every animal – every predatory animal especially – knows this by instinct. So why not the humans?

Why do humans not have an absolute resistance – and I mean: absolute – against killing off its own kind? One could say, of course: but this is the prerogative of the dominant animal in every other species too. Lions kill the offspring of competitors. Baboons do it too. If you want to have strong genes, needed to maintain the versatility of the species, well, in fact humans are much too kind. So here perhaps is a point in favor too, and not necessarily against ‘us’.

Third: why would an intelligent designer create so much variety, even within a narrow band of genes, in terms of intellect, quality and level of talents, reason, emotion, etcetera? The first answer could be: it isn’t a failure of design, it is a failure of behavior. Humans have cancelled the mechanism of selection on those qualities themselves! They go for stupid things like looks and form. Stupid men prefer stupid blondes. But then, this is the very failure of our design, or it is the handicap that proves the fact that actually there was no designer at all.

I am going for the latter, as people may well understand from my earlier postings in this blog. It is out of pure curiosity, out of my private speculative interest in the future of mankind that I raise this issue. The first issue, of course, is whether in actual fact man is such an imperfect animal in the first place, and whether my alleged weaknesses are not, by further analysis, the inevitable corollaries of our uniqueness – or to put in another way: our very perfection.

We should not get ourselves blindfolded by our own humanity in judging who we are. This is the conundrum. The very qualities which the blind watchmaker, accidentally, ignited in us – indeed: our humanity, our intelligence, our intellect, our variety and so on - in the end both help us to survive and they challenge us, constantly, in our very sustainability. We are destructive and we are kind. One is very necessary to foster the other. Our intellect, which provides us with new ideas, inventions, solutions etcetera, is at the same time our greatest threat. But of course. How can it be otherwise?


We can't just do away with the money wolves, or should we?

Still, the question remains: can we improve? Can we consciously foster the benefits of our qualities and downplay our weaknesses, not just in an individual, but at larger scale, for a longer period, to benefit us all? The dilemma may be whether we can enhance humanity’s beauty – in its widest sense – and relinquish our selfishness at the same time.


Selfless love to the extreme

I am coming back to my first thesis: we are capable of things for which we haven’t been ‘made’. This in fact is a potential of which we haven’t yet seen the absolute limits. We can not say today: this is as far humanity gets; over to some other species. We will never say it.


Is it possible that one day she will walk the Earth?

We can’t look into a million years future. So many things along the way can happen, out of ourselves or just by nature, including out of space. But we do have the capability to critically asses our potential as a species. This is what makes us unique anyway. So why not look at ourselves more critically, in the context that we can reasonably foresee. We can do this in an ambitious way. We can make a treaty to save our planet, as I have been promoting in this blog. But we can also create an agreement, among all human beings, about ourselves. Why wait for another Mozes to lay down some new commandments if we are intelligent enough to make them for ourselves and agree to nourish our strengths and reduce the impact of our imperfection?

TOTAL FALL-OUT, OR NEW PROGRESS

The conundrum of a huge horse shit problem

Early 2001 I was in the mood to say to a young history student: “We will experience another Middle Ages!” I knew it was an exaggeration to utter such a prophecy but I did foresee turmoil and confusion before, not much later, it actually hit us. Things were going ways they couldn’t last, I felt. And bang! 9/11 happened and there was a subsequent burst of the economic bubble. It is not a delusion coming out of wisdom by hindsight.

Every since, the world has been too optimistic about the immediate future. A bubble had burst, the world adjusted to a point – but by far not enough, Afghanistan and Iraq were overrun by the Western world, many tens of billions of dollars are drained from the world economy and after a few years the bubble sizzles again, big time… and things as yet are getting worse. Still, we are led to believe that our leaders are on the right track.

The crisis that we experience now is going to be a long one, I am convinced of that; long and still more painful, not less, both for the stagnation in our economy and for reasons of world politics.

But does this all amount to such disintegration or disfigurement of our world that real times of darkness and strife lay ahead, a world – a western world in particular – going out of control? Anyone contemplating such prospect would find it both highly unlikely and plausible at the same time. On the one hand we are too sophisticated – in all dimensions – to let this happen. Whatever forces of disintegration may challenge us, our societies have too many vested interests to uphold their intricate structure, their governance (at all levels) and infrastructure, the organization of our markets and services and so on. But all of this at the same time is our great vulnerability. If only we think of a worldwide failure of the internet (however this may happen) or of the potential fall-out as a result of secondary consequences of Global Warming. None of it may be around the corner, but we can not rule them out. Increased interdependence at ever increasing scale in terms of systems, governance, markets and supplies inevitably offers us as many opportunities as it offers the potential of great peril.



Dali's pessimistic view of our world

At the same time we have severe unresolved conflicts in our world and the responses thus far have not brought us close to a sustainable resolution by any measure. The combination of age old regional strife, a long history of Western interventions, and protracted social and economic stagnation in the Arabic world is a major complication in our present time. We tend to reduce the antagonisms which plague the Arab world, including their considerable adverse spin-offs in our world, into simple – indeed, often medieval - terms of political and religious conflict. Our interest – more than ever – is in grasping its complexity, in many more than mere political (or religious) dimensions. 1)


A future of our world as we wish to see it

The underlying failure of the Western world is to come to terms with its own role, indeed in a long-winding history going back more than a century, in the creation of these antagonisms, with the impact of its current (largely military and political) involvement and with its true interests in the longer term. I am not suggesting that all of this is negative or driven by our own interests only. Nor am I suggesting any excuse or justification, for instance, for the violence caused by countries and people in the Arab world itself. Again, there is too much complexity to put it into terms of good versus bad. We do have interests of course, which can not merely be expressed in our desire to secure peace and security in the world, let alone our projection of freedom and democracy as the best recipe to affect these. One such interest is the continued exploitation of and access to the remaining oil resources.

But if it is true, as many contend, that the present state of affairs – and the daily draining of huge resources needed at least to not make it worse – is an exercise without end, then only some thorough rethinking on all sides will ever get us out of it. Mere pacifism and idealistic benevolence are insufficient and will prove just as ineffective as a protracted projection of military might and corporate muscle. But this is only self-evident. The key first of all is understanding, not any immediate solution or intervention.

But however this may be, the political climate to really rethink our concept of sustainable solutions for the multifaceted issues between the Western and the Arab world on our side is not helped, to say the least, by the images we hold (perhaps first of all of ourselves and) of Muslims, the Islam in general and of the general character of Arabs. Deep down many of us nourish the sense of their backwardness, cruelty, lack of imagination and their obstinate refusal to align with the modern age. When we see them, in increasing numbers, walking on our own streets, occupying our space, erecting Mosques and draining our social resources, and there is an outcry: stop the Islamization! A single sentence that summarizes the mind prison that we have allowed ourselves to be locked into. But it isn’t as if the armies of Iran or Egypt stand at our front door, the reality is quite the reverse. We call it upon ourselves if our medieval prejudices lead to the disintegration we profess to counter. Without sympathy we will never succeed.

Every time I think of the seemingly insoluble issues of our time – resources, population, economy, security, all up to and including the very sustainability of life on our Planet – I am reminded of the greatest issue facing the government of New York City by the end of the 19th century: the cumulating pile of horse manure, caused by increased traffic. It wasn’t solved, eventually, by effective “horse manure drainage provisions” or traffic policies of any kind. The issue simply disappeared from the agenda by the advent of the motorcar.


The true solutions of many issues are still hidden in the Chrystal Ball

Perhaps, in hundred years time, historians will look at our issues much in the same way. We struggled to win a lost cause, but were saved by one or the other innovation, a new perspective, perhaps a common enemy, or a combination of all. We can not foretell. But I am convinced that by merely wishing to solve the issues of the Middle East and related issues, we will not succeed. Intrinsically this would offer noting, no true perspective beyond the known horizons to the people involved.

All of this seems to point at magic as the single force that can save our world. Indeed, how Medieval can one become? To a certain extent, we have no alternative, at least if we are to sustain our material prosperity. Some breakthrough in the search for new, durable energy capable of lighting and moving the masses, is obviously required. But in a time when Facebook has decided to run its servers in part on coal, this prospect should for be projected at considerable distance in the future.

In the mean time, it is better not merely wait for the magic. What counts is not when solutions are found, it is the commitment and (self-) confidence that we need to get there. Otherwise indeed the slope downwards will be one without end.

---
(1) I find myself greatly inspired, for instance, by Robert Fisk, Arabist and celebrated journalist of “The Independent” and author of a number of books on the history, nature and underlying complexities of the present-day conflicts in the Middle-East. In one sentence he describes the insoluble reality of the US presence in Iraq: “America should leave Iraq, it will leave Iraq, but it can’t leave Iraq”.

WILL RELIGIOUS FERVOR EVER RISE AGAIN IN EUROPE? - PART II

An exploration of the future

This is my second posting on the role of religion in our present day European societies. My first posting, under the same title, can be read when you scroll downwards.

Having attempted an overview of current trends the question remains what the developments described in the first part of this essay – both the remaining role of confessional institutions in our public life and the increased presence and articulation of Muslims in our Western world – tell us about the prospects for the future in respect of the role of religion and religious institutions in our societies.


Christianity and the secular world
Perhaps, in response to this question, a first note to make is about the nature of secularization. We tend to think of secularization as a process undermining Christianity or its legacy. But we forget that in fact it is its very product. Even in our secularized world we harbor most of the values and principles which were established in the heydays of European Christendom. (1)We have largely absorbed them as the core of our humanistic values. There is no fundamental hostility between (Christian) believers and non-believers and when it comes to it we will jointly defend the entire achievement of our civilization. Christianity and European civilization have been synonyms ever since Charlemagne. The main divergence is between the dogmatic Catholic version of Christendom and our broader, protestant and secularized (and humanist) sense of it.

However, the actual dividing lines may shift over time, whether as a result of internal forces or external. The post-war decades of political and social liberation (including sexual liberation) may be seen as an example of internal pressures shifting the main divides within our societies. Today, as indicated above, we experience external challenges to some of our fundamental postulates and this may lead us to re-assert the heritage of our values and convictions and perhaps even to re-embrace Christianity as our guiding legacy in more explicit, though still primarily secularized terms. And thus we may forge new bonds between the various segments of our society which in certain periods of our history were divided, especially on the boundaries between church and state. To be clear, I am not saying that this is what necessarily should happen. I am only stating that such a prospect is more plausible at this time than has been for a long period before.



Confusing State and Religion started here, when Jesus appeared in front of Pontius Pilatus


State and religion
At the political level in Europe, as indicated above, Christian-democrats have all but relinquished their post-war balancing role in the wider political spectrum. I take the developments in my own country, The Netherlands, as an example. In the mid-nineties social-democrats and liberals embarked upon the much welcomed experiment of a coalition and many believed they could once and for all reduce Christian-democrats to insignificance. Ironically this was called the “Purple” coalition (red mixed with blue), a color most often associated with papal Rome. But eight years later, Christian-democrats were firmly back in their seat, not so much because of an outright failure of the purple coalition, but because of new political developments, within and especially outside The Netherlands (e.g. 9/11, the killing of a popular political leader, economic stagnation). Voters associated Christian-democrats with security, order and the kind of moderation needed to ease tensions in our agitated society. Over time, further cracks emerged in the memory of “Purple” and - rightly or wrongly – people increasingly have come to discredit its achievements.

The political realities are similar in many other (most of all northern) European countries, most notably in France, Germany and even the UK. (2)It is reflected too in the strong representation of Christian-democrats (European People’s Party) in the European Parliament, where they occupy almost 40%, the largest single segment of the seats.


The Roman Senate was a profound exercise in secular rule

Although in essence the re-assertion of Christian values is fed primarily by conservative, perhaps even defensive sentiments it would be a mistake to qualify this development as merely reactionary. I may also refer to Mueller’s observation (3)at the political level (France, UK): “Especially in the face of the financial crisis, religion has been presented as a source for what Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have called the project of moralizing capitalism.”


Re-assessing the role of religious institutions
As indicated above, in the past decades the institutions of Christianity have largely been a force of moderation and social responsibility – in politics, education and other societal institutions – and they should rightly be seen as a vital, though never exclusive, factor in maintaining the overall fabric of our societies in the foreseeable future. I tend to stress this especially in the face of massive global inequities, not simply between rich and poor, but between our materialist pursuits and the actual possibilities to sustain them over the longer run.


Let's not send him away

But even without dramatizing this gloomy reality and most certainly without advocating the role of Christian – religious – institutions to come to our moral rescue, the prevailing challenges of our societies demand an inclusive approach. Governments would do nothing wrong in re-engaging religious institutions both at national and local levels to help ease out tensions between the various segments of society and in the process re-enforce a sense of common values. (4) What is stressed here is the potential future role of religious institutions (including Islamic institutions) as a moderating force, and not as government sponsored missionary agents.


Spirituality, religion and the public’s mind
My last main point concerns the things that are going on in people’s minds. For as much as my own education was driven by “rational observation, disciplined thought and rigid analysis” (see introduction) this is not necessarily the common denominator in our societies at large. And even the staunchest atheist can harbor a superstition or “belief”, often fueled by personal experience, which takes him close to a sense of divine providence (example: surviving an accident, or having escaped a particular accident). Those who deny that they are susceptible to this at least to some degree should be met with considerable scepticism. In short: when it comes to it, we are all human. Moreover, I believe our irrationality is what feeds our spirituality, our imagination and sense of romance – all of which are vital in the further progress of our societies. A purely scientific world would be an emotional wasteland, prone to total stagnation. In our quest for the meaning of life, of our own lives, and for ‘purpose’ we know that we have to look beyond science. In fact, I would contend that this is what drives the progress of science itself, however rational and rigid its actual process must remain. (5)


We are all on our own road to inspiration and spiritual enlightenment

If anything, events in the past decade have proven that public sentiments can be still be stirred in unexpected magnitude, for instance when a disaster has occurred or when people wish to share their response to specific events, happy or otherwise (as has for instance become apparent after the tragic death of Princess Diana in 1997). The time is long past when religious institutions, by virtue of their community and social functions, held a monopoly in channeling such collective emotions. Mass media have firmly established a prime function in this respect, however much we may contend that they also serve to nourish false sentiments, creating a world of fake exaltation and solidarity. But none of these and similar phenomena of themselves point at the media as feeding grounds for the re-enforcement of anything in the neighborhood of common religious or moral values. (6) Most of all they appeal to the human needs of community and belonging rather than to his craving for collective myths.



Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we should be interested in the pursuits of our younger generations who are perhaps the least impressed by epic myths and legends yet spend much time dwelling in them – in their computer games, in the movies they watch and in a popular culture which offers abundant pulp fiction and staged stardom. Their most predominant pursuit, I believe, is in communicating with one another, across varied networks or platforms, exploring their individuality and that of others. It is their key process, overriding all other processes, whether at school or at home, in which they develop their own sense of life and of the world around them. Neither religion nor its denial bears any significance for them, so it seems (7). They largely live in urban environments which so obviously are the product of the human hand, so totally devoid of any remnant of divine creation, that for them the whole question of religion indeed is here nor there. They are more immune than any previous generation to institutionalized influences or indoctrination. Over time this may well constitute an entirely new level playing field for all institutions that wish to contribute to sustained social and cultural cohesion and to any common spiritual language capable of rallying the people’s minds to causes of common interest. For that matter the twenty first century could see a total obliteration of religion the way it is still in existence today as much as its rejuvenation.


On further evaluation and conclusion
I have started this exploration with an open mind, simply asking myself whether religion, however defined, is here to stay and whether there is any reason to expect a renewed upsurge in religious sentiments in the future, affecting our public order . I have addressed this question out of curiosity, very much because I realize that the course of history can never be taken for granted. Out of ignorance rises enlightenment, facts, figures, reason and tolerance – and thus shall it ever be. This is not necessarily the only plausible future of our history. Nor do I contend that religion and ignorance are synonym in all respects, however critical one may be to this day about certain postulates of Christianity and other theologies. Nonetheless, the increased vocalization of religious fanaticism, not merely out of the Islamic world, inadvertently revives our attention to the very presence and impact of religion in our societies. Our key interests are progress and the improvement of the human condition in rational, factual terms. Our situation today seems more remote from that promise than ever before, both as a result of our own actions and as a result of onslaughts from outside. It is only natural that one seeks for countervailing forces. This may explain my positive attitude to religious institutions as a constructive factor in our societies.

As it stands, I nonetheless arrive at an ambiguous outcome. The greatest challenge is to look at this subject – as much as possible - in objective terms. For true objectivity indeed is extremely difficult. No doubt, my essay no doubt reflects the bias of those who wish issues relating to religion (and institutions inspired by it) had disappeared from our public life altogether.

Another difficulty in assessing the picture is the fact that most research on this topic and the majority of publications are the effort of religious institutions themselves. On the other side of the spectrum I find the people who take issue with religion as if the Reformation and subsequent secularization in our part of the world have not yet taken place. This is how I look at the eagerness of certain scientists, with Richard Dawkins as their main proponent, to claim their ultimate victory over religion on topics such as evolution versus creation. Why should we wish such a victory? I don’t see any point in bashing religions for their misguided concepts, if only they don’t bother us with them. But I do say this as the citizen of a country where the real plague of dogma has effectively been eradicated a long time ago. It has to be recognized that to this day in our part of the world the error of dogma and superstition does perpetuate itself, as Dawkins e.a. have amply demonstrated, especially through education, and there is all good reason to openly expose and counter this wherever it still occurs.

I also realize that all of the above is an essentially European outlook. Although we are united in what we call the Western world, the difference with the American outlook is astounding, more so than we care to admit. This runs through every vain of our existence – in the public domain, in our communities and even in the way we present ’science’. For instance, for a European it is appalling to see a serious and respected institution such as National Geographic treat biblical stories as if they actually happened, full swing, without reservation. Similarly it seems utterly strange to us when we see American public figures, including their President, frantically embrace God as a common truth for all Americans. Well, to a large extent, God is the common truth for Americans. (8)

For the European mind it can only be highly disconcerting that this American religious conservatism in fact determines the way in which on a global scale conflicts, especially the conflicts which largely evolve around religious issues, are handled. Indeed, there is more reason for Europeans to be a little more vigilant about the prevailing religious dogmatism in the US than about the remaining ignorance of Catholics in respect of the true age of our planet Earth and the origin of species.



In conclusion it is clear that the impact of religion and its further prospects in our world constitute a far more complex theme than could have been envisaged a few decades ago. Demographic developments and social and cultural change in our societies interplay with factors and events in the wider global scene. One could say that this is a historic constant and not a discontinuity. Present day conflicts in which ethnic and religious play an important role challenge our civilization in some of its most fundamental precepts. It is insufficient to respond to these challenges merely in defensive terms. The object is not to reconcile religions or religious traditions. Our main concern should be that whatever religious sentiments persist in our societies, they should be freely celebrated in a public order which safeguards each and everyone’s rights and responsibilities regardless these sentiments. It seems a platitude, but it isn’t. If it were, we would not have politicians, as for instance in The Netherlands, who take up battle against an entire religion, thinking that they have a cause to win, and we would have concentrated our efforts in the public sphere to securing responsible citizenship full stop, without entangling ourselves in the conundrum of integrating people’s minds and attitudes in dimensions where they should remain perfectly free to make their own choices.

---

1) For instance: Six out of the Ten Commandments constitute general moral precepts which are fully absorbed in our civil and penal codes (the other four being of purely religious nature).

2)Jan-Werner Mueller – The Return of Religion to Europe, 2009 - Project syndicate. His article can be found: www.project-syndicate.org.

3) Jan-Werner Mueller, ibid.

4) I have avoided to use the term ‘morality’ as this is a highly loaded term. But we should not deny that it is aimed at a shared morality at least to some extent.

5) Most enlightening especially in respect of present day spirituality and – the transformation of – religion is offered in “The Future of Religion” by Graham Ward, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 74.1 (2006) 179-186.

6) Nonetheless, with the advent of Radio in the nineteen twenties, religious and ideological institutions were the first to establish an organized broadcast function of which in The Netherlands the remnants exist to this day.

7) This is a sentence I have actually copied from an observation made by Jonathan Miller in his BBC series “A Brief history of Disbelief” (2004) when he walks around in Paris in search of traces of people long dead who played an important role in challenging Christianity’s claims to moral supremacy and truth. If I had been in Miller’s place I would rather have dubbed his series “A Brief History of the Arrival at Reality”. Interestingly, on the website dedicated to this program there is a poll on the question “Do you believe in God?”. 15% of the respondents say yes, 85% say no.

8) It is interesting for those who wish to gain a better understanding for the American outlook on religion to watch the documentary “The God who wasn’t there” (2005) – wwww.watch-movies-online.tv.

WILL RELIGIOUS FERVOR EVER RISE AGAIN IN EUROPE? - PART I

A personal exploration


This essay follows the theme which I took up in my posting of March 2008:The origins and future of Christian Europe. In it I attempted to address the various issues affecting the continuity and future of our European civilization. The following exploratory essay takes this topic from a specific angle. However much we may consider ourselves to be part of a secular world, in which everyone has his own freedom of belief and worship as much or as little as one wishes, we cannot dismiss religion as a phenomenon of mere private interest. This is both because of sensitivities arising out of the ongoing social and cultural evolution of our societies but also because of the increased presence of people with a different religious background, most notably Muslims.

I have embarked upon this essay with an open mind, i.e. without any predetermined conclusion that merely required substantiation. I am not even sure whether the question raised in this essay, in the end, are the truly pertinent ones. The only point to make here is that, even though I respect each and everyone’s private inspirations of whatever attribution, I strongly cherish the secular outlook of the society in which I live, especially where it concerns the handling of our common public interests. Hence, when I raise the issue of renewed religious fervor, it is in that context that I wish to address it. Whether people become more or less religious is not of itself my immediate concern nor do I harbor any prejudices in this respect (1).


An overview of current trends


Most people of my generation have taken the ongoing secularization of our society largely for granted. This includes the rules and values that guide our public and social life and the key choices in our private life. Our understanding of history is the ultimate demise of dogma and superstition as a source of power and authority in the modern world. Indeed, our entire education was founded in the victory of rational observation, disciplined thought and rigid analysis and most of all in our freedom of expression and association. Gods nor priests had any serious role in this process.

God is not dead
In the mean time religion has all but disappeared from our public life. In part this is due to the revival of right wing religious sentiments, and secondly, largely as a result of massive immigration out of the Muslim world into European countries, we are forced to deal with many more people who are motivated by their religious dictates than have been around for considerable time. In essence the culture of Islam is felt by many as an alien reality in our society and this sentiment has as much fueled today’s social and religious antagonism as the Muslim culture or Islam may have fueled itself. Obviously the conflicts between the Arab world and the Western world have played an important role in filling people’s minds with the idea that in fact we are faced with an ongoing and age old religious strife rather than anything else.



Still, across the board, we can not say that religion itself has again become a major topic of consideration in the conduct of our public institutions. Our main response thus far has been to guard and where necessary to tighten the constitutional and legal framework both at national and European level aimed at securing the irrelevance of religious arguments in our public domain. At the same time we wish to secure everyone’s freedom of worship as a matter of our greatest privacy.

Remaining footholds of religion
Nonetheless, there are those who are not convinced that this framework is sufficiently solid and unambiguous. First of all the political spectrum of continental Europe includes a significant segment strongly associated with the various (Catholic and non-Catholic) denominations of Christianity. Although the parties concerned may be guided by religious convictions, their actions are by no means dictated by their religious institutions and authorities. They rather tend to secure their – predominantly center right - position through moderation and through a power strategy in which their ability to communicate and deal with all other segments of the political spectrum plays a key role. Any overt religious dogmatism would obviously stand in the way of this. Nonetheless, they do act as the guardians of the Christian legacy, not merely by emphasizing Christian values (which in fact are non-exclusive, as many are shared by other political parties) but also by securing all remaining constitutional arrangements in which Christianity has kept its foothold, most notably in education.



This is the second major reality. Although in most European countries the position and financial entitlements of Christian (catholic, protestant) schools are founded on the – liberal - principle of freedom of education, these entitlements nonetheless constitute a fixture in the overall fabric of schools and academic institutions. They have thus far been able to retain certain privileges, especially in respect of the selection of students and teachers. These privileges have become subject of increased scrutiny. For instance, in The Netherlands, the fact that certain Christian schools refuse to engage homosexual teachers or fire them if they ‘come out’ is severely criticized on the grounds of the principle of (and constitutional entitlement to) non-discrimination.

Just the same, one could say that such concerns are a trifle compared with the broader issue of an education system which so heavily depends on the availability and competence of confessional institutions. From a purely liberal perspective this could be seen as a self perpetuating force in favor of religious bias among a great many people in each new upcoming generation. However, I do not believe this is such a strong force nor is it one that should necessarily be viewed in critical terms. On balance, a situation in which both public and private institutions run what is essentially a public schooling system seems more beneficial to the vitality of our schools than a situation in which public institutions have a monopoly (2).

The advent of Muslims in Europe
There is a third dimension, next to politics and education, in which those who cherish the fruits of Enlightenment feel less than comfortable, especially in our present day. And it is in this dimension where it can be said that Christians and non-believers throughout Europe share the same or at least a similar embarrassment. It is the echo of a massive embarrassment, especially in view of sacrifices already made to free ourselves from the reign of prejudice and absolutism, which the Western world experienced in the first half of the twentieth century. The terror of fascism and its claims on racial and ideological supremacy are imprinted in our collective memory as a gruesome aberration of history that should never again be allowed to visit us. In its wake we have erected an extensive legal framework to secure our personal freedoms and to safeguard our citizens against every undue discrimination. But now it seems as if we are being slapped in our face because of it. The Muslim world and Muslims living in our own countries are not necessarily impressed by our freedoms and legal safeguards and in fact some feel highly insulted when we use them, as they feel, at their expense.



The case of the Danish Mohammed cartoon haunts all for the massive response it ignited in the Muslim world. Though our freedom of expression is not boundless (especially where it hits other fundamental rights and freedoms such as non-discrimination, and where it leads to inciting hatred against specific groups or persons) we prefer to interpret its scope as wide as possible. This includes our acceptance of expressions that some may find ill mannered, crude or even offensive. We rather tolerate such utterings than make them an object of the law. Still, this is a fine thread and susceptible to social and cultural changes over time (example: the – non – acceptance of sexually explicit images on TV). Also, we employ our sense of humor and sarcasm as an outlet for manifold emotions and opinions and in this respect cartoons (caricatures, comics etc.) fulfill and essential cultural role. We accept the other side of the truth without necessarily losing our respect for our side of it or for any side of that truth. This is the essence of our civilization and of our hard fought freedoms. Thus, the violent threats which ensued from the Danish Mohamed cartoon indeed are an embarrassment for us all, Christians and others, in that they constitute an attack in the heart of what we consider to be a civilized and most of all tolerant world. The worst response, however, is to shy away from it or to make public amends to it, as unfortunately has happened.

If we continue to walk away from the very safeguards against such undue compromises, we seriously risk falling back to the same distrust and authoritarian rule which terrorized our part of world in the past ages. Tragically our fear of terrorist reprisals has further tightened our sense of political correctness v.à.v. the Muslim world but it has also tightened the general belt of our freedoms. More people have come under the scrutiny of justice for their public expressions than at any time in the past decades (3).


Next blog: Part II - An exploration of the future

----


1) A recent overview of the religious trends can be found in H. Knippenberg e.a., “The changing religious landscape of Europe”, University of Amsterdam (2005).

2) At the same time increasing concern is expressed in respect of the establishment of Islamic schools both in terms of their quality and in terms of their (alleged) role in propagating societal and political convictions among the younger generation that go against the grain of our fundamental human rights and freedoms.

3) Example: the prosecution of the Dutch right wing politician Geert Wilders for igniting hatred and for expressing himself in discriminatory terms after speaking in derogatory terms about the Islam and Muslims in general.