What fascinates me about these struggles is their origins. It's all about the rights of man and beast. The struggle is to prove which idea is superior or whose culture is superior. Democracy is based on superiority and the Occupy Wall Street movement embraces that with "The 99% against the 1%". Where does this superiority come from and is it moral?
Let's look at both the 99% and the 1%. The protesters, the ninety nine percent, are the majority in influence based on physical superiority. The financial elite, the one percent, are the majority in influence based on monetary superiority. It doesn't make sense to say that both sides have a majority in influence, because money doesn't have rights, physical people do. But, yet that is exactly what is being protested, that the 1% has too much influence through financial (economic) channels and that their physical superiority should have the influence through social (society) channels. This is the classic socioeconomic struggle. The rights of the people are their morals. Most of these rights seemed to be handed down through religion with all of the "shall" and "shall nots". Moral superiority, therefore, is held by the people in their god-given rights. We don't need religion to know what is right and wrong, what is moral and just. So we'll keep this somewhat secular.
"Sphere of Influence" is a geopolitical term used to describe one culture's influence within another, or the superiority of one culture over another. The Anglosphere is one such example and is described as all english-speaking cultures; England, the U.S., Canada and Australia as well as several nations within the African continent, India and Pakistan, because English is their official language even though it isn't the majority language. Interesting how the U.S. doesn't have an official language, but English is the majority language. Sphere of Influence doesn't have to be relegated to language, but includes any cultural norm, or moral value shared with multiple cultures. People will argue that the Anglosphere is bigoted and for good reason because it bases its existence on the idea that English is the superior language of these cultures and the definition of racism is: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." But there are other sphere's of influence such as the Sinosphere that includes many nations in Asia whose language is based on Chinese or Kanji. The Hispanosphere is made up of all countries that have a Spanish-speaking population, to include the U.S. The U.S. is in two spheres of influence? Yes, multiple spheres (melting pot of spheres of influence) and just like those that say the Anglosphere is bigoted and that the 1% have too much influence, the issue is far more complex than just catch-phrase generalizations.
To break it down and pick through the complexities of these spheres let's break it down caveman style, down to the most basic influences. To do this I want to write a little about the history of the grey wolf and a microcosm in part of Montana that is currently dealing with one of these struggles; Ravalli County. The history of the grey wolf is pretty well-known, especially in areas where the animal once roamed in vast numbers and by people within the environmental movement. Wolves have spheres of influence just like we humans do, but this is not to say that we share environments as we have evolved beyond living in caves and dens in a hunter/gatherer culture. Our environment now consists of man-made structures and machines. This is an environment that wolves do not share with us, just as we would not survive comfortably in their environment. Our sphere of influence does, however, overlap into theirs via wilderness designations and setting aside national forests and the formation of the Endangered Species Act. The overlap in these spheres has a dark past for both them and us, because we could not live within their sphere of influence, or rather our livestock couldn't live, so we pushed them out and eradicated them from the lower 48. Those species that they once predicated upon began to thrive and grew in numbers and we hunted the elk and raised the livestock and expanded our sphere of influence, becoming a superior influence in their old environment. So superior, it seems, that we've brought them back to flourish in their old stomping grounds. Their sphere of influence has grown massively since their reintroduction, biologists would call this their expanding territory. The hunting of wolves has, once again, been allowed. This is simply to manage the sphere of influence by forcing ourselves into theirs and limiting their influence in ours. It is easy to see why environmental groups are so upset about it right now, because they see history starting to repeat itself. Let's revisit that definition of racism, but with a slight change in the wording:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various species determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own species is superior and has the right to rule others." Speciesism? Animal rights versus human rights and spheres of influence. While I know wolves can't form doctrine, they do have instincts or beliefs and their instinct is to kill, indiscriminately. This is the trait that we struggle against in trying to cope with them as they expand their sphere of influence, their territory, to become the superior species in the environment and our sphere of influence. Matt Kanenwisher, a Ravalli County commissioner, put together a fact-finding board to see how the wolves are influencing and impacting the citizens of the West Fork of the Bitterroot. This area is the major overlap between the two spheres of influence and the source of contention on both sides of the issue. His presentation can be found on YouTube. There is data supporting a decline in elk populations and official reports of attacks, by wolves, on livestock. This is a real issue where we have to look at the superiority in the spheres of influence of multiple species to see if we are going to be superior, or if the wolves are going to be superior. Our superiority in this case will ensure the survival of all of the other species there. The culture in Ravalli County will have to change drastically to accommodate the wolves' influence, because we can't make wolves accommodate our influence without the use of hunting, which led to eradication in the first place. That's the caveman style struggle. So, let's go back to a couple of these other issues and let's face fact that these are cultural issues.
The Occupy Wall Street movement pits wealthy elites and their sphere of influence against the rest of the population's sphere of influence. We can see that their influence comes from money and our influence comes from shear numbers. Again, rewording the definition for racism comes in handy:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various classes of wealth determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own class is superior and has the right to rule others." Classism actually is a real "ism" defined as: prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class. The reworded definition of racism also fits. The people in the Occupy Wall Street movement say this isn't about class warfare, but it truly is and to lie about that is disingenuous. The warfare, or struggle for superiority, in the Bitterroot shows that point as well.
Lastly I want to use the reworded definition again for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the issue that got me thinking about spheres of influence in the first place:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human ideologies determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own ideology is superior and has the right to rule others. Ideologism? Doesn't quite roll eloquently off the tongue but "Ideologue" does.
Ideologue: an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
That could be used to describe both religious organizations and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. One sphere of influence seeking superiority over another is always seen as a struggle where the only loser is society itself. The struggle between wolf and man is only different because it is purely about survival on a primitive level. An atheist's survival is not based on a statue on a mountain in Montana. Struggle for survival can lead to the moral high-ground. That is moral superiority: ensuring survival, ensuring continued existence and avoiding eradication. That is exactly why racism has to be stopped and why speciesism has to be stopped, why classism has to be stopped and why ideologues have to be stopped. The survival of all species, all races, all classes, all ideas is superior to a one-sided society. This is why liberty trumps equality and egalitarianism. The survival of liberty AND equality is the key. Last I checked, this country was founded on both of those ideas. That sphere of influence isn't necessarily ours either. That idea came from the Age of Enlightenment and was used in the Storming of the Bastille and the three important words: Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, equality, fraternity). Yes, the U.S. does fall into another sphere of influence. Funny how the best ones tend to overlap more frequently in one place.
One last reworded definition:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human morals determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own morals are superior and has the right to rule others.
Moralism: (Philosophy) the practice of moral principles without reference to religion.
For any organic cultural shift there has to be something that all people can agree to shift towards. Freedom from Religion? You'll never be free from it and its sphere of influence, so why not expand a sphere of moralism and maybe one day a better form of religion will emerge, organically.
Go ahead and think of any derision in society and use the definition of racism as a template:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Just replace the words "races" and "race" with any human condition or remove "human" also for other conditions. The resulting "ism" will certainly point you in the right direction in any argument just as it does by being accused of racism.
Try it with:
"Climate theory" (maybe even expand the english language: "climatetheorism")
"Environment"
"Politics"
"Legal Entity" (Corporation vs. an Individual) "Legalentitism" would be a good one to spring on some corporate elites who see themselves as Too Big To Fail and deserve taxpayer dollars to line their coffers or use their superior campaign contributions to get what they want out of government. They have no respect for the individual's survival.
The resulting "ism" will always be the term to show bigotry in the argument to help you push for the moral high-ground...
Bigoted: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
...in any issue with two sides that is causing derision of epic proportions in this day and age. Remember that the moral high-ground comes from the most primitive of needs: Survival of all and the continuance of both sides of the issue within both spheres of influence. It won't be easy to do, just as the case between wolves and humans, but that's why they call it a struggle.
(I certainly hope I haven't recreated any of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals with this philosophy. He tended to move towards removing liberty from society. Mine is intended to preserve it.)
No comments:
Post a Comment