The art of living together

Four important lessons from philosopher Jaime Nubiola on social cohesion and integrity in public life.

POLARISATION AND PLURALISM

For many years now I have given seminars and lectures in defence of pluralism. Against fundamentalism — which claims to be the owner of truth — and sceptical relativism — which claims there simply is no truth — I have always wanted to present a more modest path based on what scientific development is actually showing us. The key is to be convinced that from all the seriously formulated opinions there is something we can learn and therefore we must listen to everyone.

But, gradually, I’m coming to realize that the problem nowadays is not so much scepticism as the systematic confrontation of two positions whose mutual identities are defined in opposition to the other.

It seems as if sporting rivalry (Barcelona/Real Madrid, Boca/River, etc), which formed identity-based emotional communities decades ago, has infected many other spheres, particularly the political sphere, and now the whole of Western society has been contaminated by hatred.

If we stop to think a little, we will immediately recognize that in many fields we encounter radical binary conflicts today: men/women, fascists/communists, progressives/conservatives, young/old, rich/poor, people/caste, nationals/immigrants, believers/atheists, etc, etc.

What’s worse is that it’s often thought that any one of these categories can totally define people. Or worse still, that what defines one group is the hatred of their opponents.

I do not know how this harmful polarisation of society can be neutralised, but for my part I will endeavour to persevere in the loving and gentle defence of reasonable pluralism, based on positive confidence in human reason, especially when it develops communally.

As the Pope recently recalled, “Truth is sought in community.” Or to say the same negatively, the Spanish poet Antonio Machado writes: “In my solitude / I have seen very clear things, / that are not true” (New songs, 1917-1930, Complete works, II, p. 629).

LIVING IN BERLIN

I enjoyed escaping to Berlin for some days to visit my writer friend Jaime Despree, who has lived in that city for years. We have been able to speak slowly — as they say — of everything divine and human. I was glad to see how despite a very disabling illness his creative imagination is still alive and he continues to write tenaciously on his tablet. In recent years AI has helped him a lot in his thinking and writing process.

Berlin is a beautiful city that challenges the soul for many reasons. When I visited Jaime, it was sunny, with a winter sun very low on the horizon and a deep blue sky which brought to mind Machado’s last verse: “These bright blue days and this sun of childhood.” The yellow trees gleamed in the autumnal sunlight. Christmas lights are already up, waiting to be turned on in a few days. People of all nationalities were moving on the streets, huddled up in their coats.

One particular conversation with my friend gave me much food for thought. It was about immigration, so important an issue in Berlin, specifically of people from Russia, the countries of the former Soviet Union and Turkey. 

Jaime told me that in his neighbourhood, populated mostly by immigrants, there were often episodes of harassment against them by groups of Germans who do not want them. Screams, firecrackers, even late at night, all make coexistence ever less comfortable.

At the same time, I could see for myself that in the residence where my friend lives, he is cared for with extraordinary kindness by women from Moldova, Chechnya and from many other places.

How important it is to learn to live with people from different traditions!

I like to think that friendship between citizens does not depend on national origin, but rather on the shared commitment to create friendly spaces for human coexistence.

WE NEED PEOPLE WITH INTEGRITY

These days the Spanish media seems overwhelmed by the corruption that has drowned the corridors of government turning them into sewers. It seems neither a problem of the moment nor just a local one. Indictments — and when these happen, convictions — for corruption affect many other democracies.

In addition, there are numerous countries where the most corrupt accumulate power and do not have a democratic structure to enable their replacement.

The antonym for ‘corruption’ – its opposite – is ‘integrity’. I am convinced that the only thing which can really counter corruption at all levels is personal integrity, the commitment of each to be exemplary, to help others, not to yield to the temptations of those who want to buy their favour with unfair benefits.

Therefore, those invoking ‘political realism’ to justify working outside the law do terrible damage to a democratic society.

Neither does it seem fair to me to claim that all governors or politicians are corrupt, but it is true that many honourable people — especially young people — walk away from public service for fear of being contaminated in that swamp.

I was impressed recently to read an evaluation of the famous anarchist Emma Goldman (1869-1940) in the interesting book Visión en Llamas (Vision en Flames) about her participation in the Spanish Civil War. Says the editor David Porter, also an anarchist: “As she saw it, preserving personal integrity in lifestyle and political practice was definitely more important than the approval of her comrades in the movement” (El Viejo Topo, 2006, p. 60).

Goldman’s effort to be exemplary in her way of life and in her political action led her to clash with many other influential leaders of the anarchist movement, but her integrity is what makes her remain, decades after her death, an admirable character while those other leaders have been totally forgotten.

It is worth repeating that we need people of integrity who are dedicated to public affairs in our country, in Brussels and around the world. It is worth encouraging young people with gifts for those tasks to engage generously in politics in the service of others, knowing that first, above everything else, is their personal honesty.

ANIMALISING THE OPPONENT

I was interested in the article by Mauricio Vázquez “Mandrills, Gorillas and the Animalisation of Democratic Speech”, published in the Argentine magazine Ambito, which my dear colleague Gabriel Zanotti has sent me.

Apparently, in the political scenario of that beloved country, relationships have become so strained that it is not uncommon for one group to label the other as ‘dirty mandrills’ (a mandrill is a type of monkey), ‘gorillas’, ‘rats’ or ‘parasites’.

I sent the article to my friend Xavier Cabús, expert in social anthropology.

The animalisation of one’s opponents, he told me, is not simply a way to insult them, but opens the door to violence and has a lot to do with the human phenomenon of war.

Reducing our peers to the category of beasts is always the first step towards their extinction, because by denying them their humanity – as Konrad Lorenz explained –, we lose the natural barrier that prevents the killing of our peers.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. To animalise the opponent is to render impossible the debate which is at the core of a democratic society. “If you consider your opponents human”, Cabús wrote to me, “you will argue, but you will not kill.” Mandrills, gorillas, rats and parasites are caged or eliminated, but there is no dialogue with them.

In a sense, to animalise the opponent is to return to George Orwell’s Animal Farm and the cruel empire of the pig Napoleon who kills anyone who opposes him.

The above article is based on various recent Facebook posts by Jaime and is published in Adamah with his permission. For some other Adamah articles by Jaime, see here and here.

Like what you’ve read? Consider supporting the work of Adamah by making a donation and help us keep exploring life’s big (and not so big) issues!