Baha’i Perspectives

nadim September 2nd, 2009

In his book Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Times, one of the 20th century’s most respected historians, Arnold J. Toynbee, puts his in-depth knowledge of human history and his concerns for its future into focus. He suggests that to avoid self-destruction and move towards unification, humanity must make a radical break from deeply ingrained habits built up over many generations. In cross-referencing Toynbee’s findings with the Baha’i writings, we discover a striking harmony between lessons learnt from history and Baha’i guidelines on lasting peace.

4. Should we be worried?

While researching this post, I stumbled across this list of sci-fi clichés, the ones we are repeatedly subjected to in movies and TV shows. Here are a few:

Today, we use crystals to make digital watches work. In the future, they’ll power entire starships.

“Reversing the polarity” is the solution to virtually every engineering crisis. It’s the futuristic equivalent of “turning it off and on again”.

Any intergalactic federation of planets will have a human president.

In the future, individuality, creativity and sex will be outlawed – and suppressed by a daily dose of drugs – while overpopulation will be solved by enforced euthanasia. Or… only heavy-metal fans will survive the apocalypse.

Laughable as some of these scenarios are, isn’t it strange that when postulating about the future many of them will sneak their way into our frame of reference? Some, like the first three above, are laughed away and soon forgotten, whereas scenarios like the last one, a future devoid of individuality and creativity, are a little harder to shake.

Toynbee himself ponders the potential effect that a future world authority would have on human creativity, and presents the following fictional metaphor as a warning –  based on the real-life stagnation and decline of the great Roman empire:

It is said to have been reported to one of the Roman emperors, as a piece of good news, that one of his subjects had invented a process for manufacturing unbreakable glass. The emperor gave orders that the inventor should be put to death and that the records of his invention should be destroyed. If the invention had been put on the market, the manufacturers of ordinary glass would have been put out of business; there would have been unemployment that would have caused political unrest, and perhaps revolution; and then the World might have been thrown back into the turmoil from which the Roman world-state had salvaged it.

The emperor clearly made an error of judgement by ordering the death of the inventor of unbreakable glass, much as he deemed it a necessary price to pay for maintaining the status quo. History has proven that states which stifle conscience and creativity are doomed to extinction (take the fate of the former Communist bloc).

It seems nowadays humanity is caught between, on the one hand, acknowledgement that looming world catastrophes such as environmental or nuclear destruction can only permanently be addressed by having empowered world authorities, versus a fear of “signing our lives and freedoms away” to the so-called mega state.

The result is a passionate debate within various strata in society, a debate that most Baha’is, as advocates of world unity, will at some point be engaged in. It makes sense, then, to examine some of the common arguments or misconceptions against world governance and offer a different angle:

1. Loss of freedom. This particular fear, or variants of it, are certainly among the greatest of all barriers in peoples’ minds. But let’s turn this argument on it’s head. Today’s governments use and abuse the “freedom” of national sovereignty to spend hugely on increasingly sophisticated armaments, far beyond what is necessary. Consider, if checks and balances were enforced to prevent this from happening, just how much more money could be channeled towards improving education or providing better healthcare?

2. Greater bureaucracy. While this may be true in certain situations, it can also be stated that challenges such as reducing global warming could actually do with increased bureaucracy and sanction, rather than the carbon emission free-for-all occurring around us all the time.

3. Dictatorship. It is interesting to note that where the law of the land precludes dictatorship from happening, it generally doesn’t. Take the federated union of American states discussed in the previous part of this series, or more recently, the states which together formed the European Union. These two examples are key evidence that world governance does not necessarily imply dictatorship – and the power of the law can ensure it.

For the sake of brevity I will leave it there, but would love to hear your own additions to this list. Finally, I am reminded of a talk given by one of my favourite Baha’i speakers, noted for his infusions of offbeat humour. Describing the vision of the future mentioned in the major Holy Scriptures, one of peace, unity and everyone getting along with each other, all of a sudden he exclaims: “But wouldn’t life be boring?!”

Chuckles fill the room, accompanied by a few barely discernible nods, and then an expectant pause. It is at this point that he presents this quotation from Shoghi Effendi, a glimpse into the exciting challenges that actually lie in store for the human race:

Destitution on the one hand, and gross accumulation of ownership on the other, will disappear. The enormous energy dissipated and wasted on war, whether economic or political, will be consecrated to such ends as will extend the range of
human inventions and technical development,
to the increase of the productivity of mankind,
to the extermination of disease,
to the extension of scientific research,
to the raising of the standard of physical health,
to the sharpening and refinement of the human brain,
to the exploitation of the unused and unsuspected resources of the planet,
to the prolongation of human life,
and to the furtherance of any other agency that can stimulate the intellectual, the moral, and spiritual life of the entire human race.

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p.204)

Tags: creativity, Toynbee

• General Interest , Society
• Comments(2)

nadim July 7th, 2009

In his book Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Times, one of the 20th century’s most respected historians, Arnold J. Toynbee, puts his in-depth knowledge of human history and his concerns for its future into focus. He suggests that to avoid self-destruction and move towards unification, humanity must make a radical break from deeply ingrained habits built up over many generations. In his quest to pinpoint these habits, Toynbee examines the would-be world states and would-be world religions that have appeared in human history, considers the impact they have had on our collective identity and then suggests the factors that, once realized, would bring us closer to the dream of a united world. In cross-referencing Toynbee’s findings with the Baha’i writings, we discover a striking harmony between lessons learnt from history and Baha’i guidelines on lasting peace.

3. Federalism as the way forward?

Given Toynbee’s assertion that world governance cannot be imposed by force if it is to succeed, do cases exist where voluntary union between member states has taken place and actually proven a success? Is there a positive model we can refer to and use as a point of reference? Well, peering back into the 1700s we find one such case, where a divided and oft-times hostile community was united under one system:

The stirring of a new national consciousness, and the birth of a new type of civilization, infinitely richer and nobler than any which its component parts could have severally hoped to achieve, may be said to have proclaimed the coming of age of the American people.

By agreeing to the federal system of governance, the member states of the United States of America ensured their own survival while simultaneously yielding to the promise of an “infinitely richer and nobler” civilization than they could alone achieve. Given their evident success against what seemed like impossible odds, there is quite clearly something related to the principle of federalism that holds promise for a global implementation of this model. Abdu’l-Baha, perceiving this potential, went so far as to encourage a high-ranking official in the U.S. government who had questioned Him as to the best manner in which he could promote the interests of his government and people:

You can best serve your country… if you strive, in your capacity as a citizen of the world, to assist in the eventual application of the principle of federalism underlying the government of your own country to the relationships now existing between the peoples and nations of the world.

Beyond the need for world leaders to rise to unprecedented heights of political maturity and high-mindedness in order to set up global federal structures, Toynbee mentions two mental barriers at the level of each individual that often impede progress towards the sense of world-citizenship spoken of by Abdu’l-Baha.

The first is to do with feelings of psychological discomfort. According to this theory from evolutionary psychology, there is a limit to the number of stable social relationships that we can maintain. This number varies widely depending on a variety of factors, but the upper limit (known as Dunbar’s Number) is about 150 relationships. Granted this number is open to debate with the emergence of online social networking, yet the fact remains that since the neolithic age we have been hard-wired to maintain strong relationships with no more than our family and a handful of close friends. And even though the sizes of our societal units have long since grown beyond our capacity to “connect” with everyone, there remains, according to some psychologists, an inherent fear of feeling dwarfed by the system.

In the end this fear is unfounded, states Toynbee. The price of feeling an extra bit of psychological discomfort for belonging to a slightly larger system is negligible when compared to the guarantee of a more prosperous future for all.

The second barrier which Toynbee mentions, and which is addressed directly by the Baha’i teachings, are physiological factors: cultural differences, racial prejudices, feelings of class superiority (in fact, all forms of blind imitation). In other words, emotions that run counter to the principle of the oneness of the human race — a truth with all the sciences affirm but which, as individuals, we have struggled to embrace. Baha’u'llah, Whose mission was to propel mankind towards the promised age of universal brotherhood, transcendent of man-made limitations, has stated in The Hidden Words:

68. O CHILDREN OF MEN!

Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.

By consciously acting this lesson out and encouraging others to do the same, we put God’s most recent counsel into practice in our daily lives. We learn to consider all as equals, brothers and sisters of a single human race, and in a very practical sense bring to life the concept of world citizenship. We find also that the pyschological and physiological barriers mentioned by Toynbee are far from insurmountable. And it follows that by our actions we are opening doors to more perfect systems of governance, such as world federalism, which will be greatly superior to the outdated models in our midst.

Tags: federalism, Toynbee, world-citizen

• General Interest , Society
• Comments(0)

nadim June 8th, 2009

In his book Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Times, one of the 20th century’s most respected historians, Arnold J. Toynbee, puts his in-depth knowledge of human history and his concerns for its future into focus. He suggests that to avoid self-destruction and move towards unification, humanity must make a radical break from deeply ingrained habits built up over many generations. In his quest to pinpoint these habits, Toynbee examines the would-be world states and would-be world religions that have appeared in human history, considers the impact they have had on our collective identity and then suggests the factors that, once realized, would bring us closer to the dream of a united world. In cross-referencing Toynbee’s findings with the Baha’i writings, we discover a striking harmony between lessons learnt from history and Baha’i guidelines on lasting peace.

WHY the need to look back into history? What can dusty books by grey-haired historians possibly have to offer when FOX news et al are screening “blow-by-blow” coverage of U.S. President Obama’s trip to the Middle East? Well, you may be interested to know that the follow up to Part I of this series also discusses that trip, but not in the way you think it does. First, some context…

2. Culture and the Impact of the Intelligentsia

Imagine a situation where a handful of powerful nations came to an agreement — motivations aside — to forcefully impose a global system of governance on the rest. Would this be effective? Would everyone merely shrug their shoulders and accept it? Not according to the lessons of history, says Toynbee, before listing a host of examples that illustrate his point.

Instead, there should be some universally agreed principles that would form part of a lasting pact. This would in turn would require some degree of uniformity between states. Toynbee ponders the following questions:

Would world government be practicable if it were not underpinned by a certain amount of unity and uniformity in the peoples’ outlooks and ways of life? What is the minimum amount of homogeneity in this field that would be needed? Has this amount of homogeneity been achieved yet? And, if it has not, what is the prospect of its being achieved in the foreseeable future?

When the British ruled India they were faced with a host of dilemmas. How would they go about reconciling prevalent cultural practices with their own notions of moral rightness? Take the practices of female infanticide and of sati (the self-immolation of a widow by burning herself to death on her husband’s funeral pyre). Such practices were seen as abhorrent to the conquerors but sacred form the standpoint of much of the Indian public. At the risk of being forcibly ejected from the country, as had happened to the missionary-minded Portuguese in Japan and Abyssinia, the British government in India eventually banned these practices.

Was this the right thing to do? In hindsight, with such practices now frowned upon and altogether rare, one may confidently assert that it was. But how would one deal with a similar situation today? How would humanity reach a general consensus on the aspects of culture that are conducive to the richness of life and to human upliftment, versus those aspects — be they steeped in tradition or not — that are self-abasing products of the human imagination?

Toynbee credits the phenomenon of the “Westernizing intelligentsia” with breeding a certain level of homogeneity between previously disparate cultures and nations. Intelligentsia is a Russian term that denotes a strata of society engaged in the development and dissemination of culture within a nation (nothing to do with any Soviet-era spy networks!)

Thus the Westernizing intelligentsia, according to Toynbee, spread a way of thinking that sought to reconcile Western expectations with prevalent norms and traditions (often by first mastering the culture of the West). Traces of their influence can be found in Russia under Peter the Great, Mustafa Ataturk’s Turkey or the colonial wings of the intelligentsia established in India and elsewhere, under the British Empire. Continue Reading >

Tags: intelligentsia, Toynbee

• General Interest , News & Current Affairs
• Comments(0)

nadim May 16th, 2009

In his book Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Times, one of the 20th century’s most respected historians, Arnold J. Toynbee, puts his in-depth knowledge of human history and his concerns for its future into focus. He suggests that to avoid self-destruction and move towards unification, humanity must make a radical break from deeply ingrained habits built up over many generations. In his quest to pinpoint these habits, Toynbee examines the would-be world states and would-be world religions that have appeared in human history, considers the impact they have had on our collective identity and then suggests the factors that, once realized, would bring us closer to the dream of a united world. In cross-referencing Toynbee’s findings with the Baha’i writings, we discover a striking harmony between lessons learnt from history and Baha’i guidelines on lasting peace.

The phrase New World Order has appeared in the press once again. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quoted saying it this time, and not for the first time either, having said it before he became PM. He joins a list of world leaders who, unhappy with the present situation, have used this phrase to describe the vision of a more balanced and equitable future; a place where we’ll have finally figured out all the economic, environmental, moral, political, you-name-it messes that afflict the human race. In the past this list included Woodrow Wilson, Rajiv Gandhi, Mikhail Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush and Tony Blair. Current leaders include Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili, Abdullah Gül of Turkey and, entirely ironic considering Iran’s unabated persecution of the Baha’i community, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This list, along with the list of leaders who have used related phrases like the “end of history” or the “era of globalization” (think Bill Clinton), or all those who have appealed in vain for greater political unity and justice in international trade, are sufficient evidence to indicate that a major shake up is needed. All signs indicate that while present-day global bodies, like the UN and WTO, promote these aims in principle, they are neither capable in their present format nor do they possess the unqualified support of member nations to bring about long-lasting change. 

Toynbee begins by taking a step back from this scene to look at what brought us here. He studies the characteristics of the so-called would-be world states, who through a process of conquest and victory, extended far beyond their original boundaries with the aim of bringing the world under one rule. He acknowledges their successes and examines reasons why they ultimately failed, in so doing gleaning numerous insights (of which I will only touch on four). If, as the saying goes, one should “look to the future through the lens of the past”, then this seems like the perfect place to start. 

1. Technology and world-mindedness

The rapid emergence of new technology over the past century has annihilated the distances that once divided tribes and nations. But technology, as pointed out by Toynbee and affirmed in the Baha’i writings, is a morally neutral force which can be used, at will, for good or evil.

In the atomic age, with nuclear warheads dotted all over the planet, the consequences of how we choose to make use of technology have been magnified beyond all compare. In other words, trying to mimic the approach of would-be world states of the past, that of using  force to bring about unity, has the potential to end in catastrophe. This outcome cannot be risked, for obvious reasons.

Toynbee optimistically asserts that throughout history, whenever man has been forced to choose between survival or destruction, the move has eventually been towards the former. However, the obstacles to surmount this time lie not only in making “correct technology decisions”, but more importantly in overcoming habits of division that have characterized 99% percent of the span of human history.

99% percent, really?

In brief, yes. The world split into separate parts over 900,000 years ago, and the earliest of the would-be world states, the empire of Egypt, was established under 5000 years ago. Thus, relatively speaking, the movement towards unity has occured in the blink-of-an-eye (nevermind the major acceleration over the past 150 years). It is clear, then, that humanity has an entire history of antagonistic feeling to overcome before embracing a new culture of world mindedness, which may partly explain why international diplomacy has been such a painful struggle for everyone concerned — we’re just not used to the realities of life in a global village. This disconnect between our (often noble) attempts at establishing international peace and our final decisions are encapsulated in this gem of a paragraph from the Baha’i International Community:  

Twice in this century humanity has attempted to bring about a new international order. Each attempt sought to address the emergent recognition of global interdependence, while nevertheless preserving intact a system which put the sovereignty of the state above all else.

BIC : 1995 Oct Turning Point For All Nations

The process, of transferring the loyalty one feels towards one’s tribe or nation to that of mankind as a whole, is according to Baha’is the single most vital condition to nurture for the sake of universal peace and prosperity. 

The chief Personages in history, according to Toynbee, who have striven to promote sentiments of universal goodwill have been the founders of the world religions and their closest followers. Interesting, then, that relatively few of the adherents of these religions have succeeded in breaking the shackles of tribal, national, or indeed religious loyalty, in exchange for a love of the entire human family. It’s almost as if a saturation point would be reached, beyond which societal unity could no longer be sustained.  

The reasons for this, according to the Baha’i Faith, have nothing to do with any failure on the part of Buddha, Christ, Muhammad or founders of the other religions. Rather, the problem lay in (a) human capacity at the time the message was delivered and (b) the existing conditions of society. It would have been futile, for example, to promote feelings of world unity at a time when the world was supposedly flat and didn’t extend beyond the point of the horizon!

In this age, Baha’u'llah renews the timeless message of universal love and extends it to encompass the entire globe:

Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind…

Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead.

Part II to follow.

Tags: history, technology, Toynbee

• Baha'i Concepts , General Interest , News & Current Affairs
• Comments(1)