You are here

Home

Contradictions in appreciation of extremism and otherness


Cultivating the Myth of Human Equality (Part #8)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

As variously implied above there is a strangely paradoxical ambiguity to the appreciation of extremism (military heroism, sporting accomplishments, creativity, and radical inventiveness) and to its deprecation. The latter is exemplified by current preoccupations with the radical initiatives of jihadists.

Although both offer instances of human inequality, there is considerable difficulty in distinguishing between them in a balanced manner -- in preference to assumptions regarding the purportedly desirability forms of normality, as discussed separately (Norms in the Global Struggle against Extremism "rooting for" normalization vs. "rooting out" extremism? 2005; Eradication as the Strategic Final Solution of the 21st Century? 2014).

Radical initiatives, whether appreciated or deprecated, necessarily imply a form of radical thinking at variance with norms of human equality (Radical Innovators Beware -- in the arts, sciences and philosophy: terrifying implications of radical new deradicalisation initiative in France, 2016). Curiously for a country priding itself (in contrast to others) on its cultivation of both philosophy and high fashion creativity -- and as such indicative of human inequality -- France has chosen to exemplify its interpretation of human equality in terms of its deprecation of the Islamic burka and the burkini. This righteous official policy compares strangely with the early French promotion of the provocative bikini, as can be variously explored (Facism as Superficial Intercultural Extremism: burkha, toplessness, sunglasses, beards, and flu masks, 2009).

How is distinctiveness to be cultivated -- in fashion and lifestyle -- without undermining human equality? Especially intriguing is the evolution in fashion over time, given that the veiling and body coverage of European women has varied so dramatically over the past century -- in contrast to the nudity deprecated in indigenous cultures during the colonial period. Could the standard of equality relating to acceptable coverage be determined by one (subjective) definition of the miniskirt: long enough to cover the subject; short enough to be interesting? But what of the norms previously associated with the codpiece?

The dilemmas of human equality can be explored otherwise through extreme renown, as exemplified by:

  • orders of precedence (and associated protocol): most notably in formal settings in which hierarchical relationships are clarified, reinforced and celebrated
  • preoccupation with celebrities, most notably by the media -- as with the A-list of movie stars (see Wikipedia Lists of Celebrities)
  • preoccupation with elites, as any small group of powerful people in political and sociological theory (typically in contrast to celebrities)
  • preoccupation with VIPs (namely very important persons), possibly variously inclusive of the above

Characterizing human inequality, these are all considered to be "somebodies" in contrast to the "nobodies" excluded from such preoccupation. Such characterization may well be vital to the sense of identity and self-esteem of those so distinguished. Distinctions of equality may then be explicitly framed in terms of whether someone is "in" or "out".

As noted with respect to the medals awarded for sporting endeavour, human inequality is also distinguished by systems of awards (see Wikipedia List of prizes, medals and awards), These notably feature:

Whilst the above are the readily acceptable manifestation of human inequality, there is a curiously problematic counterpart to those so distinguished, namely those especially recognized for their criminal activity, corruption, crimes against humanity, or as constituting a danger to public safety. In featuring on other lists (most wanted lists, Interpol, terrorism, sexual offenders, debtors, etc), they exemplify another form of human inequality.

The nature of this counterpart is further highlighted by demonization -- a widespread process for the affirmation of human inequality (notably through "excommunication" and "shunning"). The pattern of the notorious witch-hunts of the Catholic Inquisition continues to echoed in the framing of political opponents as "evil" and "demonic", even within the presidential campaigns of the world's superpower (Trump Sticks to Claim That Hillary Is 'Evil', Fox News Insider, 20 February 2016; John Halle and Noam Chomsky, An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting), 15 June 2016; Existence of evil as authoritatively claimed to be an overriding strategic concern, 2016).

Far more controversial are the dynamics associated with inequality recognized in terms of otherness as unhuman or nonhuman. This is evident with respect to:

  • humans framed as nonhuman or subhuman, typically those associated with behaviours framed as abnormal, bestial or "evil" -- as with some forms of criminality and terrorism. This distinction is readily extended to opponents, notably those of different race, culture, or ideology. Historically it has notably given rise to nonpersons, second-class citizens, an underclass and, even more controversially, to eugenics

  • animals with which humans may have a very special bond, as with companion animals treated with a degree of equality otherwise reserved for humans, as discussed separately (Marrying an Other whatever the Form: reframing and extending the understanding of marriage, 2013). The Justice Network argues:

    The equality of animals and humans is immortalized in the biblical story of Noah and the Flood. Noah was commanded to save every species of animal on Earth; in contrast only a relatively few human beings were saved from the flood. This story is presented here not as a historical fact or religious believe, but as an ancient myth showing the animal/human bond and the indispensable relationship of animals and humans. (...Animal-Human Equality - Noah and the Flood...)

    Any assumption regarding the inherent inequality of animals merits further consideration in the light of the metaphorical comparison of humans commonly made with many animals: bull, tiger, ape, snake, wolf, dog, pig, cow, worm, etc -- whether as deprecation or appreciation. Also of relevance is recognition of the degree of genetic equivalence between humans and animals, to the point that many animals are most valued for their use in animal testing because of their capacity to emulate the response of humans to drugs and surgical procedures (organ replacement, etc). Worldwide it is estimated that the number of vertebrate animals used annually for that purpose -- from zebrafish to non-human primates -- ranges from the tens of millions to more than 100 million.

  • the emerging issue of human relations with robots (notably those endowed with a high order of intelligence) has been extensively explored in science fiction and tentatively from a legal perspective (Robots could demand legal rights, BBC News, 21 December 2006; Phil McNally and Sohail Inayatullah, The Rights of Robots: technology, culture and law in the 21st century, Futures, 1988: Robert A. Freitas Jr., The Legal Rights of Robots, 1985).

  • a predicted degree of convergence between humans with robotic characteristics and robots as conventionally understood (Sharon Gaudin, Hail Cyborgs ! The line between humans and robots is blurring, Computerworld, 6 June 2014; Catholijn M. Jonker and Annemiek Nelis, Human, Robots and Robotic Humans, 2007). The latter argues that humans and machines are, at present, viewed as two distinct categories differentiated by their unique biological or artificial configuration and capabilities. It can be anticipated that the two will, in the near future, increasingly partake of the nature of the other as a result of technological enhancement. Modern technology thus has the potential to aid and even modify the human organism by artificial means. The construction of such advanced forms of humanoid machines, or "androids", requires a reconceptualisation of what makes humans characteristically human, as well as requiring us to pay attention to the potential consequences of constructing such humanlike machines.

  • irrespective of the focus on robots, the increasing extent of behavioural programming (resulting in what may be indistinguishable from robotic behaviour) has been variously framed by George Orwell (Nineteen Eighty Four, 1944) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World, 1932) as reviewed by Richard K. Moore (Mind Control: Orwell, Huxley, and Today's Reality, Information Clearing House, 8 September 2014).

  • attention is required to the degree to which familiar technology (most notably vehicles) may be anthropomorphised by the user, to the point of being named and given special care -- even a focus of conversation. Whilst this may be deprecated or considered ridiculous to others, it is a feature of human reality which will be reinforced by the emergence of intelligent robots (Forthcoming Major Revolution in Global Dialogue, 2013).

  • the potential relation to extraterrestrials (for which human science so desperately quests), as discussed separately (Communicating with Aliens: the psychological dimension of dialogue, 2000). This is characterized by a certain degree of irony given the challenge for normal humans to communicate with other human readily framed as "alien". There is also a degree of presumption implied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the common expectation that aliens will share human values, as noted by Finn Brunton (Petit guide de conversation avec les extraterrestres, Le Monde Diplomatique, Aout 2016) -- or even be recognizable as such (Dyani Sabin, NASA Says We Won't Recognize Alien Life When We Find it, Inverse, 25 August 2016; Robby Berman, E.T. Could Already Be Among Us and We Wouldn't Know, Says NASA, BigThink, 29 August 2016).
These instances are a reminder that consideration of human inequality merits a broader framework to encompass perspectives of traditional cultures and knowledge systems and their particular relation to their environments, as extensively documented for the United Nations Environmental Programme by Darrell Posey (Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, 1999). These may well call into question a degree of arrogant exceptionalism associated with the preoccupation of humanity with human equality. The values implied in the appreciation of humanity may well be attributed more generally to other features of the environment -- with a conventionally unrecognized degree of respect and humility.

The issues extend to the unconventional engagement with animals (notably totem animals), plants (especially trees), rock forms and rivers. Traces of these issues are to be found in unusual legal proceedings in countries such as Iceland and Ireland, in which a degree of (traditional) legal personality is accorded to animals, trees, and rocks (Justin Erik Halldór Smith, The Moral Status of Rocks, 21 May 2013; Jeremy Harte, Do Elves have Rights? At the Edge, 10, 1998; David Favre, Living Property: a new status for animals within the legal system, Marquette Law Review, 2010). Aspects of these issues are notably evident with respect to the many sacred mountains and sacred rivers to which a form of personality may be attributed.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here