Bahá’í World/Volume 28/Education as Resistance to Forces of Disintegration

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 28

Next→

[Page 129]

Luiz Gushiken, labor leader and former

federal representative, talks about paradoxes of the twentieth century and the importance ofmorah'ty in human development as we progress into the next century.

EDUCATION As RESISTANCE To

FORCES 0F DISINTEGRATION

I

he invitation to comment on the text Who is Writing the

F uture? Reflections on the Twentieth Century is extremely disturbing. In addition to the very breadth of the issue, which mocks us as we face the challenge of unveiling it, this is a document whose Vigor, depth, universality, and synthesis intimidate anyone who attempts to expound on it.

What follows, then, are modest considerations or, perhaps, concerns of a political militant who, at times, strove to raise some issues relating to strategies for the future.

An old Eastern sage says that one of man’s most complex challenges is the act ofbreaking old habits and learning new ones. This difficulty of our spirit in adopting new ways to act is, paradoxically, one of the dilemmas Oftoday’s world.

Paradoxical because the century that is now ending has unleashed creative forces unheard—of in the history of humankind but, at the same time, is not showing itself to be capable of providing adequate answers to old problems—the impoverished state of huge numbers ofpeople, the disproportionate wealth of certain

129

[Page 130]THE BAHA'I' WORLD

nations and individuals, the ravishment of nature, rampant individualism, various forms of fanaticism, etc.

What is even worse, however, is that instead of being reduced, these multiple problems are, on the contrary, expanding and reaching dangerous and unbearable levels—in spite of the Vigorous and increasing mastery of our knowledge in the most diverse areas of science and technology.

This seems to be the paradox of the late twentieth century: man can master nature, but not his own nature.

In defining strategies that might countervail the evils that assail the world today, this lag is clearly expressed in the preface of this publication, the text of which says:

The task of delivering humankind...requires that we question some of the most deep—rooted assumptions developed in the twentieth century regarding what is right and what is wrong.

What are these unquestioned assumptions? The most obvious one is the conviction that unity is a distant, almost unattainable ideal, to be sought only after we have solved—no one knows exactly how—myriad political conflicts, material needs, and injustices.

This comment raises the crucial issue of developing alternative strategies for the future and the foolishness of believing in the primacy of old formulas and old mindsets, to the detriment of the new, whose essence is a concerted effort to create broader and broader social units—an effort based on the concept of humankind as a Vital source.

This is an idea that was in the past evoked by Visionaries, but that has today become a necessity corroborated by the evidence of facts.

II

We belong to a privileged generation of politicians who always ardently sought a “utopia,” understood as an expression of a socially necessary and morally justifiable ideal that would promote concrete action and Vitalize the spirit.

In our political upbringing, of particular importance was the influence of an internationalist ideal as conceived by a variant of

130

[Page 131]WHQ EWRITING :iiE FUTURE ?

revolutionary Marxism and which might be summed up in the renowned phrase, “the proletariat is Without nation.” That is, only within a worldwide-scale socialist organization would it be possible for humankind to shake off the fetters of capitalism and find new bases to build a more just and humane society.

This internationalist ideal shaped our ideas about the future and acted as a kind of strategic focus from which a new institutional, moral, and cultural concept might lead to concrete political actions.

The text Who is Writing the Future? raises all these issues once again, but on a higher and deeper level.

In 1992, I had the privilege of organizing in the House of Representatives a solemn session honoring Baha’u’llah. On that occasion, the considerations 1 made regarding our Honoree were entirely relevant in terms of the strategies for the future and I therefore transcribe below an excerpt of my speech in the tribune of the House: “The focal point in the writings of Baha’u’llah is the unity of humankind, expressed in the celebrated phrase: ‘The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.”

From this simple sentence derives the most ambitious political project ever conceived: a supranational state, accepted as legitimate by the entire world, endowed with coercive power, expressing the summit of a worldwide organization in which all nations, races, and beliefs are united in a single body, free from the warmongering influence of governments and peoples, with its economic resources duly organized and exploited, its markets duly coordinated and developed, and the distribution of products regulated by equitable principles. A federated system of nations, with legislative, executive, and judiciary powers on a world level, capable of deploying an international military force but allowing for internal armed forces in each country, organized to maintain and uphold the norms of a new international code based on the principles of mutual cooperation, solidarity between peoples, and the protection of humankind.

For Baha’u’llah, the great problems of the contemporary world are rooted in social structures and their value systems. A new covenant among nations—setting up new institutions,

131

[Page 132]T1113 BAHA'l WORLD

ordering new and well-defined objective clauses on the rights and obligations of each government, establishing frontiers and limits for each country, and rigidly limiting and controlling the weapons of each country—must become the supreme effort to which the rulers of the world and the entire human race dedicate themselves in order to usher a new age for humankind. As long as this does not happen, according to the prophecies of Baha’u’llah, it will be impossible for the world to achieve serenity, and humankind will not be able to avoid great tribulations.

This new world order, prescribed by Baha’u’llah as the only remedy for the ills of humankind, does not derive from the belief that men and nations are perfect in their moral behavior or devoid of material interests. It does not seek any homogenization of peoples or individuals; on the contrary, it takes into account ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversities as well as those of thought and habit as natural expressions, and it nurtures the differences in the human race. This new order will in no way conflict with noble and intelligent sentiments of healthy patriotism, but nationalist rage and racial hatred will definitely be abolished.

Thus, the imperatives of a world unified upon new bases will increase the autonomy of countries while avoiding the excesses of an exaggerated centralism.

The principle of the unity of the human race, the central axis of Baha’u’llah’s prophetic revelation, is not an emotional appeal to principles of human fraternity, nor a mere idealist proposition, but rather the objective expression of the current stage of humankind—now pleading for an organic unity on the political sphere, seeing that in the realms of economics and communications interdependence is now taken for granted.

The nation-state, bulwark of a certain stage in our development, has become exhausted as a means of organizing humankind. National sovereign states must now evolve into a new system that joins them in a worldwide federated body, whereby the concept of “citizen of a nation” is extended to the concept of “citizen of the world.”

An issue that is always raised when one debates these matters, usually expressed as an argument to reject the propositions

132

[Page 133]WE IszlNG THE FUTURE?

mentioned above, runs like this: How can an ordinary citizen participate in the building of something as grandiose as a supranational institution if he or she is far from the decision-making centers and does not even have the minimum necessary knowledge for such an endeavor?

This is a valid objection, albeit badly formulated.

A body politic organized on a worldwide basis is certainly the ultimate expression of the principle of the unity of the human species in its institutional form. Bringing it about must result from a joint decision by the great representative leaders of all nations and will constitute the synthesis of a multiplicity of efforts in widely varied fields of human activity.

The principle of unity is, above all, a sentiment that, if apprehended by the human spirit—either by logical reasoning, a moral sense, or the evidence of facts—may swiftly become an active principle. This sentiment may be shown in multiple aspects of our lives. In its propagation we will find the bases to teach new values, and the new institutions will structure themselves and acquire legitimacy.

When we rebel against all kinds of prejudice—racial, religious, sexual, etc.——it is the principle of the unity of the humanity that pulsates in our hearts. When we exalt ecological values to preserve nature as an attitude to be heeded by every individual, regardless of where one lives, it is the feeling of unity that is moving us. The moral indignation of a citizen from another country in the face of ethnic prejudices that generate violence (against the citizens of Bosnia, for instance) is a feeling that derives from the same principle. And when this very same citizen demands an international force to sustain military action to defend those citizens, he or she is expressing, in his or her own way, the pn'nciple of unity in active form. Likewise, when we agree that a certain tyrant, a former head of state such as Pinochet, should be judged by an international court of law, we are expressing the same principle.

Thus, the struggle for unity is a manifestation of the will to open up increasingly broad areas in the vast universe of cultural, economic, political, and social relations. It is a manifestation of

133

[Page 134]THE B&M WQBLD

the will that, at times, expresses a merely bureaucratic View of unity, acknowledging its functional effectiveness, but that, sooner or later, will be adopted by most citizens of the world as a moral imperative.

Whatever the reasons that compel individuals to struggle for unity, and regardless of the importance they attribute to these acts, they are certainly following the natural path to the future and are thereby abbreviating the “time of suffering” of the birth of the new world order.

III

Another strategic aspect of the future world order pertains to the type of relationship between people in their collective processes, that is, the form by which people will get together to decide or settle issues within the scope of the social group to which they belong—e.g., family, neighborhood association, or club of friends—or even within the context of more complex groups, such as public agencies and corporate enterprises.

According to an old tradition, the most appropriate form of working in groups is that based on the principle of verticality, of a superior authority, whereby those who are below usually do nothing but take orders emanating from above—offering, at the most, opinions. This authoritarian method is one of the main factors hindering the liberation of creative potentialities inherent in each individual. Contemporary societies are being deprived of a monumental source of human energy because of a pernicious habit intent on perpetuating itself.

Many are becoming aware of this flawed model of human relationships and are proposing other forms. The Worker’s Party [PT] in Brazil, for instance, has pioneered the principle of “Participative Budgeting” as a distinctive element in its program. This social and political mechanism enables us to increase the participation of people in the destiny of their cities, encouraging popular organization and, through representation, opening up the decision-making process whereby the use of public resources is discussed. Many companies have similar approaches to ensure the participation of all employees in defining products, marketing policies, etc.

134

[Page 135]WILD IS WRITINQ DIE FUTURE?

However, these extremely propitious initiatives seem to have a major conceptual limitation. In politics, the method of group consultation and participation is understood as an extension of the concept of democracy, a kind of enhanced power sharing (no small feat, actually). In companies, consultation and participation are seen as mere instruments to leverage the organization.

As I see it, the framework for consultation and participation should derive from other premises.

When we speak of direct participation, we are referring to the direct involvement of ordinary citizens in issues that bear upon them—in the places of actual social intercourse. This implies a multitude of places and relationships in which human energy is actually concentrated and from which a new creative and transforming force will be bred.

When different individual capabilities are brought together, the result is more than the mere sum of these skills, for a doubleedged operation is set in motion. First, the faculty of perception is enhanced, making for discoveries 0r understandings of realities that had heretofore remained hidden or undiscovered. In other words, the scope of our knowledge of increasingly complex levels of reality expands and, therefore, we acquire greater control and command over the object of investigation or debate. Second, the reciprocal influence between participation and enhanced knowledge turns the consultation method into a dynamic, progressive, and proactive factor endowed with synergistic capabilities—quite unlike pyramidal decision structures that are by nature static. Thus, it is not hard to imagine the gigantic force that might be extracted fiom a society if its members were allowed greater freedom of consultation and participation in decisionmaking processes.

But the most important aspect in the consultation and participation method is that is promotes loyalty and commitment among people, a feat that is achieved when individuals are allowed to understand the meaning of what is right and wrong in the issues with which they are involved.

Societies have long forgotten and forsaken an ongoing pursuit ofjustice as an element to stimulate action and propagate

135

[Page 136]TE Bahá’í WORLD

loyalty. The notion of justice has always been associated with formal normative precepts (laws, regulations, etc.) and with the institutions that enforce them—either those properly pertaining to justice (the tribunals) or those of a punitive nature (police stations, for instance). However, although fundamental for progress and civilization, this concept of justice, which is predominantly associated with concepts of restriction and punishment, does not measure up to that feeling of “justice” we all have deep within ourselves, telling us what is right and wrong in each concrete experience.

Consultation and participation as elements of interactive processes among people extend and liberate our primal perception of a sense of justice, an attribute inherent in the human spirit that can promote infinitely more powerful forms of commitment and loyalty—and, for this very reason, is also capable of stimulating action. That is why I believe it would not be altogether incorrect to state that consultation is, in and by itself, an expression of justice on the simplest operational level. In this manner, paraphrasing Baha’u’llah: if you base yourself on it, you will see with your own eyes, and not those of others; you will know through your own understanding and not through that of your neighbor.

Considering that the behavioral mien that predominates in collective activities is the spirit of distrust and individualism, one may question whether men are prepared to introduce the method of consultation, as outlined above, in their day—to—day matters. This is a cogent doubt and our response to it, as with other great issues, will depend on a tremendous educational effort to make people aware of something that exists potentially in their spirit and has an incomparably superior transforming power over other social mechanisms.

The method of consultation and participation, seen from this perspective, is much more than a mere instrument of social action; it is a veritable generative source that forms social units capable of countervailing the dangerous process of social fragmentation that characterizes life in most contemporary societies.

As a last observation on the method of consultation, we must stress that it achieves its maximum strength when individuals

136

[Page 137]W70 L WRITING THE FUTURE?

U1

participating in collective processes are imbued with feelings of candor, honesty, and honorable intentions.

IV

A reflection on the matter of morals is another important aspect in defining the elements that comprise a strategy for the fiJture. Any diagnosis of the serious problems we are now facing will come upon a worrisome phenomenon, namely, the increasing fragility of the moral structure of individuals and contemporary societies.

A clue to understanding this complex problem may be found in the history of this century’s great ideologies.

Capitalist ideology, in its desire to value individualist traits, has in effect led us to neglect the social dimension as the fundamental goal of moral purpose. In capitalism, social problems are seen not as results of specific policies engendered by those who wield economic and political power, but as anomalies of an abstract entity called “marketplace”—the regulation of which, however, is generally abominated. These psychological mechanisms, on the one hand, dilute responsibilities for social ignominies and, on the other, tend to lead us to see the unemployed more as volunteers for idleness than as casualties of economic policies of exclusion.

In capitalist ideology, the stimulus toward self—sufficiency and individual competition is taken to such extreme degrees that values that inspire cooperation and solidarity very rarely find a place in people’s hearts. But while sophisticated forms of extolling individual values (which this system is prodigal in creating) may at times camouflage its intn'nsic perverse selfishness, in the end they cannot but entangle people in the traps of hypocrisy and guilt.

It is undeniable that the exacerbation of individualism, which seems to be reaching an apogee now, bears close relationship with the increasingly swift social deterioration of our days and with our enormous confusion regarding values such as liberty and mutual respect.

Socialist ideology, in turn, has encouraged people to blame only society for the existing evils and deviations, ignoring individual responsibility and thus paving the way for upsurges of

137

[Page 138]T1113 BAHAj WQRLQ

authoritarian and arrogant feelings, and stifling emotions such as respect and compassion. All the violence that has been committed against millions of people in the name of socialism will remain indelibly imprinted on our perception of the twentieth century as a tremendous paradox, whereby policies aimed at a supposed social good transformed the state into a veritable machine ofterror.

Realizing this particular moral vision certainly implies a new strategy for the moral transformation of individuals. In this process, morality is to be understood not as reverence for human virtues but as an operational principle that stimulates action and is valued as a dynamic factor. In this manner, people will feel impelled both toward their own individual progress and toward the implementation of changes in their environment. Thus, we need a dialectic capable of expressing this double objective: from the personal point ofview, it must seek to develop the talents and qualities that distinguish human beings and that constitute their natural gifts; from the social point of view, it must strive to promote the well-being of the human species, assuming justice and solidarity as essential values of social intercourse among individuals and nations.

Only by availing themselves of strategic long-range supports, including the perspective of educating fiJture generations, will leaders at all levels, the media, and our various institutions be imbued with convictions consistent enough to build a true civilization, providing society with the skills it needs and counteracting the disruptive forces that are being unleashed at the end of this century.

The march of events in the historical stage we are now living in is so vigorous that every gesture and every thought, from the most trivial to the most complex, end up by disturbing and putting our convictions to the test.

We must seek new paradigms.

For the time being, however, we are unfortunately being engulfed by the greatest of tragedies: our own banalization.

138