Sorry if this diary is a little "stream of consciousness," rambling, and long, but that's exactly what it is. I've been mulling over these thoughts for awhile now and thought getting them down "on paper" and getting some feedback and comments might help me bring some coherence to it all.
UPDATE: Was gonna do two diaries, but apparently you can only publish one a day, but since I will be outta town and incommunicado for the next couple days, I've gone back to one diary.
This line of thought has been building in my head for close to a year now, and all began when I began my PhD coursework in International Studies. In my International Relations (IR) Theory class, we delved into various paradigms on how states (perhaps needless clarification: in the IR literature, states are countries, not Virginia, New York, etc.) interact with each other on the international stage. The theory that stuck with me most was neorealism, and not because I agreed with it. Quite the contrary. To a hopeless romantic and humanist like myself, neorealism downright repulsed me.
Brought to prominence by Kenneth Waltz in his "Theory of International Politics" and propagated by the likes of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, neorealism basically says the single greatest factor in IR is anarchy, the fact that there is no single, overarching authority, law, or community on the international scene. As such, national security is the number 1 concern of all states, to the exclusion of almost everything else, since anarchy means almost any threat to a state is an existential threat. If you've ever wondered where neoconservatives get their ideas, neorealism is it. The whole democracy export at the barrel of a gun we've seen in Iraq is primarily a Bush43 ideal, it doesn't really have its foundations in neoconservatism, or neorealism.
From the central tenet of anarchy (which exists in nearly all theories of IR, but not to the same extent as in neorealism), Waltz and his fellow neorealists construct an extremely mechanistic view of IR, where security and self-interest rule all, where states are reduced to billiard balls of various sizes smashing into each other, the bigger of which obviously exert more force on those around them. The extent to which the human element is removed in neorealism is hard to exaggerate, which is what drives me so insane.
The mechanical nature of it all reminded me of a speech in Thucydides' "The Peloponnesian War," where an Athenian by the name of Diodotus was seeking to convince his fellow citizens to show mercy towards the Mytilenians. Some quick history, Mytilene was a colony of Athens, whose leaders allied with Sparta during the war. The citizens of Mytilene, however, when provided with weapons to fight the Athenians, instead turned on their leaders and surrendered to their former patrons. Originally the Athenians decided to kill all the men and enslave the women and children in order to set an example to any other esrtwhile colonies. However, after sleeping on it, the Athenians had second thoughts and reconvened on the matter. Diodotus urged mercy for the Mytilenians, because, in his view, it was human nature to act in one's self-interest. The Mytilenians could no more be blamed for seeking more power by breaking free of Athens than the sun could be blamed for rising and setting. In the end the Athenians decided to show mercy, and sent a messenger to Mytilene to stay the executions, who arrived just before the sentences were to be carried out.
In this case the mechanical view of human nature saved lives, and seems prima facie moral since the citizens of Mytilene never revolted against Athens, only the aristocracy. However, such a view of human nature could be used to justify all kinds of heinous acts. The expansion of Nazi Germany. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Russia's war in Chechnya. Everything is a threat to the existing power dynamic and everything is justified in the name of national security. With a heavy dose of hypocrisy, herein lies the insidiousness of neoconservatism. Hypocrisy because you would never hear a neocon arguing like Diodotus that such-and-such rogue state was only doing what was natural so we should show mercy.
One of the reasons I started at the international level in this discussion is to illustrate the disconnect that exists between what is considered "good" behavior for individuals and for states. This disconnect can be traced all the way back to Plato's "The Republic," where Socrates uses the example of his perfect city-state to reason backwards to what justice means. He believes if he can define justice on the macro level, in the perfect city-state, he can define justice on the micro level, among individuals. However, he uncovers the aforementioned disconnect and never really acknowledges or resolves it. Basically, he argues that justice on the micro level is every citizen performing their assigned roles, broken down into the merchant class, the military, and the ruling aristocracy (the so-called Guardians). Everyone working for the collective good of the city-state, minimizing individualism and self-interest, under the rule of law. However, Socrates also points out that this is only really possible if the city-state is free from external enemies, and that ensuring the city-state's security may require committing acts abroad that would be illegal within the city-state. In other words, as one of my profs in undergrad put it, "Virtue at home may require viciousness abroad."
And herein lies the problem. As we've seen all too many times, the kind of acts of charity, altruism, and heroism that receive so much praise within states, at the micro level, are derided as naive, idealistic, even dangerous when applied at the macro level, from state to state. Even liberals in America, who would seem most apt to try to utilize virtue and altruism in their international relations, often couch foreign aid and such in terms of national interest and security. How many times have we heard that money for fighting disease, poverty, and famine in other countries will help reduce the conditions that spawn terrorists, radicals, and dictators, which is good for the U.S.'s security, which is in our best interests? How many times have you heard a politician say such foreign aid was "good" or "just" in and of itself? And actually believed them?
Why are virtues at home naive abroad? If you buy into the neorealist premises, the answer is simple. Anarchy forces states to be vicious abroad. National security is the dominant concern, to the exclusion of everything else. But I refuse to believe that people don't matter on the international level. I refuse to believe that states are simply flying around, smashing into each other like so many atoms, beholden to the "laws" of international relations. I refuse to believe virtue at home requires viciousness abroad. But why does this kind of mindset persist?
I think one reason, perhaps the biggest reason, is that people can't understand virtue and altruism. Everyone understands self-interest. It's simple economic theory applied on the human level, maximizing benefits, minimizing costs. But why do some people work to benefit others while shouldering the costs themselves?
Some people do it because the Bible or God or Allah or whoever or whatever tells them to. But is it really virtue or altruism if some ethereal father figure is wagging his finger at you to be good? I know this is a gross generalization, but given the premium placed on getting into Heaven, Paradise, etc., it seems an accurate one.
Some people argue virtue and altruism are evolutionary tools, that we are hardwired in our DNA to sacrifice for the next generation to ensure our DNA continues to be passed on, or that occasional altruism brings its own benefits in the long run that help us survive and pass on our DNA. But this doesn't make much sense either since the best, most reliable way to ensure you get laid and protect your offspring is to be a badass motherfucker (BAMF), from cavemen days to now. All that's changed is the definition of a BAMF, from muscly caveman that kills lots of mammoths with a big club to bash women over the head and drag them away, to Wall Street wizard with a beemer, the better to get the women all hot and bothered. Is it the only way? Hell no. But it's certainly the most reliable.
The truth is, we have no rationalization for why people are virtuous and altruistic. And that's okay as long as it's only a few people, only sometimes. We can dismiss them as exceptions, nutjobs, immature, idealistic, counting down the years until cynicism sets in and they become like the rest of us. We understand self-interest, therefore we embrace it.
Which is why virtue and altruism are kicked to the curb on the international level. What if an entire country sacrificed, and I mean really sacrificed, something for another country, for another people? Do you know how many heads around the world would explode?! We wouldn't be able to fathom it. How could an entire country do such a thing for someone else? Why would an entire country do such a thing for someone else? There's no readily available answer.
And like most things humans don't understand, we fear it. Therefore we quash it under the guise of "self-interest" and "national security." Virtue and altruism just don't make sense to us.
You wouldn't think a movie review would be very memorable, but there's a line in Roger Ebert's review for "Hotel Rwanda" that has stuck with me all these years:
Deep movie emotions for me usually come not when the characters are sad, but when they are good.
You will see what I mean.
Watch "Hotel Rwanda" if you haven't seen it. It's cinematic perfection. And think about when you are moved the most. And think about your reactions at those times. Do you laugh? Do you cry? Some combination of the two? Or something else entirely? None of the reactions make sense. You laugh when something's funny. You cry when something's sad. But the body has no kneejerk, standard reaction for good. It just doesn't know how to cope, and so it throws all kinds of physiological reactions at you.
One of my favorite monologues comes from the movie "Coach Carter." I don't know how or why this quote ended up in a sports movie, but it gets to the heart of what I'm trying to say:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine as children do. It's not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own lights shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
"It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us."
We understand humanity's darkness. It's ruled by Freud's id. It's the "gimme gimme now now now" mindset. It's self-interest to the exclusion of all else. We get it.
Humanity's light, however, is inexplicable. It's beautiful. It's potentially endless. And so it scares the shit out of us.
But as anyone who's taken Psychology 101 will tell you, the best way to not be afraid of something anymore is to confront it, to expose yourself to it as much as possible until you're desensitized, until the fear is gone. I think it's time for humanity to start desensitizing itself to good.