Category Archives: Pluralism

We Seem to Disagree on Everything

Extremism, Gender Warfare, Moral Humility, Pluralism, Social Issues, Woke

 

The divisions in America keep growing in number and in the depth of those divides. As usual, Canada is the same just a little more gently. Polls have shown that many Americans think those divisions are so deep that the country will not be able to survive its problems.  In other words, because of polarization we are doomed.  But are things that bad?

 

Mark Edmundson writing for the New York Times pointed out that evolutionary biologists have determined that,

 

“binary behavior is an evolutionary adaptation. It inheres in the reptile brain. There was a time when it was incumbent on us to decide and decide quickly who was friend and who was foe. Will it eat me? Am I safe around it? Err, if you must, on the side of enmity. You don’t want to equivocate about a sabre-toothed tiger.”

 

But, he also said, he did not agree things were that bad. Edmundson suggested the famous philosopher Jacques Derrida had some important things to say on the topic.  Derrida hated the compulsion so many of us have to divide the world into binaries or polarities.  Life just was not that simple he said.  That is why according to Edmundson, Derrida was an “an enemy of simple, dualistic thinking.” That is not a bad thing. Such thinking deserves critics. Added to that, he said “Derrida worried that compulsive binary thinking, in which one seeks opposition everywhere, could readily lead to violence…”  Edmundson agreed with Derrida. So do I.

 

Edmundson preferred the position of that modern philosopher Ted Lasso, who said instead, we should “Be curious, not judgmental.” That is often good advice. As a result Derrida called for thinking that did not require polar opposites but instead “resembled a form of thinking that was not based on the tension of opposites but resembled an ever-expanding web of rich associations.” Derrida’s curiosity led him to affirm the free play of the interpreting mind.

 

I agree with both of them but put it just a little differently.  My take is that we should not think and see in black and white, nor even gray. We should think and see in colour. Glorious colour. But that is not what we do.

 

Instead of that we think in black and white. We think the world is either A or B. 2 choices no more.  Pick a side and stick with it. As Edmundson said,

 

“Our culture is amok with binaries. We have two major parties, just two, and they are forever opposed. When a group tries to start a third party, it can be summarily disabled by the existing powers. We love sports, generally the most binary of activities. One side wins; one side loses. Root hard for your squad and the devil take the opposition. We savor debates where one side wins and one side loses.”

 

In the larger world, we find allies and we find enemies. We are, as I say, Democrats or Republicans, realists or idealists, people of much faith or people of none. We wear our team jerseys with pride and scoff at the opposition’s colors.

 

 Such binary thinking is just plain impoverished and so are we if confine ourselves to black and white.  Yet it is everywhere.

 

There is one clear modern example of this deficiency which is pretty plain if you look. That is thinking about  sex and gender.  More and more people are saying there are only 2 sexes and 2 genders.  A person is a male or female. Oner or the other. The pendulum is swinging. There are no other choices. In fact this is an issue in the municipal elections in Steinbach this year, as odd as that seems.

 

But life is not that simple, even if we would like it to be.  It is an uncomfortable fact that some people are born with ambiguous sexual organs. It is just not clear whether the person is male or female. Such a person could be one or the other or some combination of both. Such people are called intersex.

 

The differences between the genders is even less clear. There seem to be a lot of choices when you look. As Edmundson said, “Insisting on purity — you must be one thing or another — will inevitably create confusion and resentment.” That really is the point.  Insisting on simple answers will just bring about a lot of unnecessary unhappiness and pain.  There is no need to insist upon a clear distinction. There is nothing to be gained by such simplified thinking. Its none of our business. Let others live and let live.

 

Edmundson had a better approach, which he found in eastern religions. This is what he said,

 

“A person influenced by the great Eastern texts, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, would be likely to see it differently. The best state of mind is one in which you can look out on all creation, other people in particular, and say to yourself: That, too, I am.

 

We are all part of one being; we all possess the same soul. This way of seeing does not cultivate opposition or conflict. It accepts what comes its way without picking sides and initiating strife.”

 

This does not just apply to issues of sex or gender. We should look at the other and keep our opinions to ourself.  If the other person is suffering from confusion let him or her or they choose. Be happy.

 

I am not sure the Bible actually says, as some suggest, “we are all God’s children,” but it could still be true. If you believe in God surely you would say we are all God’s creation. Is that not enough to give us all dignity? Sometimes, we should give up judging in favour of accepting. As the Beatles said, “Whispser words of wisdom. Let it be.”

 

Is that not enough?

We are all Beloved of God

Extremism, Pluralism, Polarization, religion

 

Will Braun, who facilitated the class Christiane and I took at Canadian Mennonite University is also the editor of the Canadian Mennonite Magazine. I think it is fair to say he is a progressive Mennonite. Though he says he is very experienced in interviewing and talking to others with views different from his own.  These include, prominent Zionists, right-wing politicians, truck convoy organizers, pro-industry Indigenous leaders, and Trump supporters. He said he wants to understand them.  That is a good beginning.

 

 

He tries to be very fair in explicating their views. That is not always easy. This is particularly hard in the modern polarized world in which we live.

 

Braun is also a self-professed Christian. I found his views on how to live in a polarized world very interesting.  Braun said, as a Christian, that the bedrock for him is: “we are all the beloved of God.” We are the children of God. The light of God is in us all. For him this is a fundamental position. That is what empathy is all about. God does not love me more than others. We are all made in the image of God.  To him, that is foundational Christianity. Unlike feelings of superiority. If you think about it, feelings of superiority seem deeply un-Christlike?  Is that not true? This is also the basis of pluralism.

 

In a parable in the Bible, in Luke, Jesus goes to talk to the hated tax collector.  No one’s favourite person.  And the tax collector asks for forgiveness because “I am a sinner.”  Braun said “this is not a right-wing mantra. Nor is it a left-wing mantra.” Zealots do not speak like that. Zealots don’t ask for forgiveness. And no one offers mercy to the other side. Donald Trump is loud and proud about never asking for forgiveness. He sees that as a sign of weakness. And to Trump weakness is the cardinal unforgivable sin.

 

“Mercy is so out of date,” said Braun, painting a bleak picture of the modern world. Is that really what it is like? I hope not. I could not stand to live in a world like that. I like a world in which Christians like Braun speak freely. I learned a lot from him.

You can see that I am rambling, but what else can you expect from a meanderer? Besides, Braun rambled too. I am trying to give you his views through the lens of mine. At best, he and I are stumbling towards the truth. If we are lucky that is. Even is we are not always together.

Viewpoint diversity is as good as biodiversity

Extremism, Liberalism, Moral Humility, Philosophy/Ideas, Pluralism, Polarization, syncretism

 

If we really want to find the truth, we need viewpoint diversity. It is as important as biodiversity and basically for the same reason. Cross fertilization breeds strength. As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher of liberalism, said,

 

“He who knows only one side of the case knows little of that.  His reasons may be good and no one may have been able to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no good ground for preferring either opinion.”

 

Such an attitude automatically respects that others may have some truth. We may have something to learn from others. As a result, such an attitude automatically leads us away from extremism.  We then can’t just shout hooray for our side.

Mill makes the point that if you have no viewpoint diversity and listen only to one side, and as a result your ideas are not exposed to challenge, you get stupid! You get intellectually lazy and you just believe dogmatically and then, if you are pushed to explain your viewpoint or defend it, you can’t.

Mill says you should listen to the other side because you might be wrong and because the other side might be right. If you are wrong and you listen to another viewpoint your error might be exposed and then you might avoid making a mistake. That is good!  Similarly, if you are right and yet you listen to another opinion you learn how to defend your opinion and strengthen it. Your opinion will be more solid, more defendable. That is good too! Such humility is also the basis of syncretism and pluralisms, two of my favourite things.

 

Will Braun is a person who enjoys talking with the other side, because he is curious about them, but also because he realizes he might actually learn something from them that he did not know before.

 

Braun, like me, lives in a very conservative area of Manitoba.  When Justin Trudeau was first elected, he said we must remember, “Conservatives are not our enemies; conservatives are our neighbours.” In nearly every debate of substance we must remember, the other side is not our enemies, they are fellow travelers. In Steinbach it is literally true. The conservatives are my neighbours not my enemies. Sometimes I forget that. When I do forget, I am wrong. My bad. Maybe Trudeau forgot that later too. It is easy to forget these wise words. We all do it.

 

Remembering we might be wrong can temper the extremes. That is another good reason to have doubts. Doubts are good.

 

 

Heroes?

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Exploitation, Hungary, Pluralism

Our first stop of the day was at Heroes’ Square a UNESCO World Heritage site that features the Millennium Monument with statues of Hungarian Kings or chief-tans of the Magyars, the ancient Hungarians, as well as some other important leaders. It is considered an iconic plaza in Budapest of which the local are extremely proud.

 

We delighted in a Guided Sightseeing tour of Budapest, including the iconic Heroes’ Square, where we got off the bus and took a walk around the heroes and then followed this with a city tour of the exquisitely beautiful city of Budapest (pronounced Buda Pesht).

 

The monument was commissioned in 1896 to commemorate the foundation of the Hungarian state formed when the Magyars conquered the Carpathian Basin. In other words, that is when the Magyars took the land away from the indigenous people that occupied it at the time. Isn’t that how states work? It is called conquest, and conquests are rarely pretty. I wondered what was really heroic about that? Did the people from whom they took the land see them as heroes?

The monument consists of a semicircle of Doris columns with statues of various Hungarian figures on them. There is also an obelisk crowned with a statue of the Archangel Gabriel. I guess they are claiming that the conquest had God’s blessings. Aren’t Gods always thanked for military victories?

It was called Heroes’ Square for the first time, in 1906. In 1906 the Habsburgs ruled Hungary and they expected to add more of their family as years went by, for of course, they expected to rule forever. But the Hapsburgs lost their empire 12 years later. In fact, the Habsburg empire which had lasted for centuries, and in 1906 was commonly believed that it would endure forever, actually collapsed shortly after World War I ended

 

The Habsburgs lost their empire of Hungary with the collapse of Austria-Hungary following World War I, when Hungary declared independence and the last Emperor, Charles I, renounced his role, formally ending centuries of Habsburg rule over Hungarian lands, thus and ushering in a republic. That lasted until the communists of Russian captured it after World War II. All of these empires remind me of a famous English poem which I studied in high school.

 

 

 

 

Ozymandias

 

By Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Similarly, nothing remains of the glory of the Hapsburgs, though members of their family are still alive and well. Empires fade in time. Thankfully.

 

At the site we also saw the tomb of the unknown soldier as is commonly exhibited around Europe. I suppose it was intended to persuade the common people that it was heroic of them to offer their lives for the Habsburgs.  I am not so sure that one such tomb is worth the price. Unlike some of the tombs in Europe this one contains no human remains.

Who thinks it is worth it? Who thinks there is anything heroic here?

 

I wish more monuments were put up for people who worked hard at helping people to live together. Heroes for pluralism. That’s what we really need. Heroes for plunder not so much.

The square remains a focal point in Budapest and celebrations, ceremonies and the occasional protest are known to take place here. It’s a popular place for tourists to visit in the summer, and its giant proportions remain impressive.

 

Yet tourists are always brought here. We were brought here by our tour guide in 2004 and again this year. Just like last time, I got out of the coach and took a few photos. They call it a World Heritage Site and I think I have to photograph it.

Mohács: A place of Syncretism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Hungary, Moral Humility, Music, Philosophy/Ideas, Pluralism, religion, syncretism

 

After seeing the watermills, the next thing we did was to tour the town of Mohács. The first thing that struck me, was the lovely pastel colours of the buildings.  I could not remember seeing anything like them. I could not resist photographing them.

The most interesting thing in the city centre where we walked was a large concrete Catholic Church. What interested me is that the church was designed in the style of a mosque.  And as we know, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. It was not a case of a mosque being taken over by Christians; it was a case of Christians giving a nod to Islam.

 

This area of the world had been rocked by wars with a deep element of religious opposition for centuries, but here was a case of one religion admitting maybe the other religion had something good as well. This was a case of them living together in peace. A marvel. Imagine that, Christians admitting they could learn something from Muslims. For once, after the Christians took over Mohács they did not have to destroy a mosque or cover it with a new building, they could admit we can learn from each other. Could this herald a new world order? I sure hope so.

I have for a long time thought that syncretism, as a philosophy, is the way to go.  Syncretism refers to the  blending of elements from one culture, religion, or philosophy with another to create something new in the process. Religions, or philosophies, or cultures don’t have to compete, they don’t have to claim superiority. They can join hands and make something better.

One good example, is the celebration of Christmas in Europe and North America actually merges various traditions of their own with traditions in the Egypt or the Near East  and with traditions of the winter solstice in northern Europe.  Some claim this is heretical. Personally, I celebrate the combination. Another good example is combining elements of Christian religion with spiritual traditions of North American Indigenous people. The fusion can create wonderful new creations.

This photo is from inside that church.

Musicians and artists have been doing this forever . For example, combining  Jazz artists with European musical notations and African elements  to produce a unique sound. For another , I have long loved the combing of rock, country, and bluegrass music.

No single genre or culture has the secret to it all. No single religion has a monopoly on truth. No philosophy has all the answers.  Culture is always a rich tapestry of strands that multiply the magic.  James W. Loewen, the author of the book Lies My Teacher Told Me, said this: “ultimately syncretism illustrates he interconnectedness of human societies and the shared nature of cultural development.”

In my view, syncretism can be used to defeat the narrow-mindedness of those who live under the illusion that their philosophy, or their religion, or their ideas are the fount of all wisdom.

Mohács: Learning to Live Together

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Hungary, Pluralism

 

 

The last country we visited on our journey through the Balkans was Hungary.

Sadly, due to mobility issues we had to pass on the intriguing Guided Tour of Pécs to see its 4th-century Christian underground tombs. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, with fascinating murals and what we were told by those who attended was an outstanding organ concert. Old people must learn they can’t do it all, and we are trying to recognize that. We humbly took a less adventurous excursion.

Our tour director said it would not be wise for Christiane to take this excursion and I decided to stay with her. Mohács is a city on the Danube River that is famous for its battle in 1526 when it was fought over by the Kingdom of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (Turks) in a battle very near to here. The Turkish invaders were led by Suleiman the Magnificent who this day at least was pretty magnificent in that he managed to overcome the Europeans by means of better planning, fire-power and a very well-organized encirclement that overwhelmed the Hungarians. The Turks stayed for 150 years after that.

The Turkish forces been duped the local Hungarian nobility to engage the Turks prematurely. As a result, most of the nobles were killed, the royal army destroyed, and the dynasty at that time of Hungary and Bohemia was ruined. After that battle, Hungary was partitioned between the Turks, the Hapsburg Empire, and the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom.

After that battle, for centuries, Ottoman-Habsburg wars ensued and the  eventual decline of Hungary as an independent power followed.  In Hungary, it is still considered a major tragedy. In this part of the world, tragedies are not swiftly forgotten. They are remembered and later used to kindle new flames of outrage. Mohács is viewed by many Hungarians as the decisive point at which things went wrong and many want to make Hungary Great Again. Hungarians often say, “More was lost at Mohács.” Many Hungarians, hundreds of  years later are still stung by the humiliating defeat. They see this event as the point at which it lost its independence and power.

 

Really, Hungary lost because of happened next, namely, 200 years of constant warfare between the Habsburg and Ottoman empires that turned Hungary into a perpetual battlefield and during which its traditional territories were divided into 3. The country was frequently ravaged by armies moving back and forth across it and devastating the population.  What should have happened—but did not—was that the empires should have learned to live together in peace. The constant battles proved futile and costly. Had both sides concentrated on living together and building up their countries both Turkey and Hungary would have been much better off. Once again, extremists who preferred battles to peace led the people astray. I keep coming back to the idea of pluralism—people getting along with each other instead of fighting. It may not be as grand, but it sure is a lot better.

 

Mohács is a quiet town on the Danube River and there we toured the remarkable medieval St. Nicholas Watermill—one of only a few remaining watermills performing stone-ground grain processing.

 

It had been recently restored as it suffered serious damage during the Croatian War. Interestingly, on the grounds there was a large image of what it looked like in 2007 more than 10 years after the war.

Our guide Zsuzi, tried very hard all day to make the day interesting for us. She cleverly loves Mohács and tried to make us understand why. The mill is one of of the very few remaining watermills performing stone-ground grain processing.

There are actually 4 active mills here and I was particularly interested by the one mill there which was not driven by stream power, but instead human power. Originally, the humans who did the work of driving the huge mill, were slaves. Apparently, this is now unique in the world. The slaves  had to tread on the mill’s wheel for many hours every day. I guess that is where the word “tread mill” comes from—The wooden wheel is large and heavy. It would have been extremely hard work, but who ever said slave’s work was interesting?

 

Has the newest American Civil War started?

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Death of Democracy, Decline of the west, Extremism, Hate, Pluralism, Polarization

 

 

Ignatieff pointed out when he first published Blood and Belonging in 1993 that federal states were all having trouble remaining unified.  He mentioned of course, Yugoslavia which was in the act of breaking up violently.  It actually had 5 Civil Wars in quick succession. All of them violent. But he also mentioned Canada which was facing strong chances of breaking up with the rise of Quebec nationalism. He also mentioned that most other federal states, such as India, Belgium and the former USSR were also facing challenges to thier  federal system.

 

Of course, since then things have got worse. Canada is now facing a threat to its union by Alberta in addition to Quebec. More importantly, the United States which is also a federal state but was not on his list of trouble federal states is now clearly in that camp as many of its so-called red states and blue-states seem to find living together increasingly difficult. Federalism is a political system designed to permit people to live together even though they have some pretty big differences without breaking up.  Such a system did not allow Yugoslavia to stay together. I would add another factor that is challenging federal states, and this is the rise of polarization. Polarization is clearly affecting federal states by driving its elements apart.

 

One of the regular political commentators I read, even though I often disagree with him, is Thomas Friedman, who has won 3 Pulitzer prizes.  That is pretty outstanding for a journalist. I read an article by him this week in the New York Times  in which he said this about his country, “in my view, we are in a new civil war over a place called home.” He thinks the United States is already in the midst of Civil War!   Last year I watched a film called Civil War, about an imagined Civil War in the United States. It was horrifying. Is that what the US is facing?  Even if it is not that kind of a break-up we have to ask, ‘What is happening to the United States?’

It’s horrifying about sums it up.

Nationalism and Pluralism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Extremism, Hate, Moral Humility, Pluralism, Polarization, Serbia

 

I think we all know what nationalism is. It has been with us much longer than pluralism. Unfortunately, nationalism is also much more common than pluralism.

 

Nationalism is usually considered an ideology which emphasizes loyalty to a particular nation. It can be a force for good. Often it is a force for bad. It often promotes devotion to one’s own country above all.  The lates strong iteration of it, is the MAGA movement in the US. Make America great again. Or for those who already think it is a great, make it greater.  America First would be a more important principle for American nationalists. When it leads to feelings of superiority it has usually gone too far. A strong love of one’s own country is a natural feeling and unobjectionable.  But feelings of superiority are often unjustified and not very productive.

 

Pluralism is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a society, where different groups, interests, and beliefs coexist and interact peacefully. It sees strength in diversity which all can benefit from. It not only tolerates diverse views, and even peoples, it celebrates in diversity. Respect of other cultures is essential to the philosophy of pluralism.  Feelings of superiority are an anathema. Nationalism can be a fierce opponent of pluralism. In such a case, in my view, nationalism has gone too far. Pluralism is incompatible with extremism. You can one but not both. Pluralism is born out humility.

 

The struggle between nationalism and pluralism is often fraught. For example, recent examples close to home, are the relationship between Quebec and its separatists, who want to form the independent, or sovereign nation, as they like to call it, of Quebec. In Canada, Alberta is the latest example of where feelings are tending towards separation. How far those feelings will lead that province are not known.

 

In Yugoslavia feelings of pluralism were swamped by nationalism, except in those states where a yearning for separation by smaller groups  prevailed. After their leader Tito died, many Croats wanted to have Croatia secede from Yugoslavia. At the same time, Serbians within Croatia did not want to secede because they felt they would become a minority in the new country, when they had been a majority in power in Yugoslavia. As well, some Slovenians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia, and that was opposed by the Croats within as well as Serbians.

 

The struggle for separate national states often leads to serious political problems. It can, and has, frequently led to serious conflict. Around the world people have come to favor nationalism at the expense of pluralism. That is usually a serious mistake. In the former Yugoslavia after the death of Tito, clearly nationalism had the floor. Pluralism seemed dead. Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, all wanted to be sovereign states even if violence was the only way to achieve it.

 

There was no credible force for pluralism.  I often quote William Butler Yeats who described this phenomena well: The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” Serbia claimed to be the leader for unity of the states, but all the others lacked confidence that its claims were not based solely on its interest in dominating the other states. No one argued for all for one and one for all that is the precondition pluralism requires.

Pluralism was dead; war of all against all commenced. And the people suffered.