The Trials of an American Dilettante

Friday, April 18, 2008

Creative Destruction

For thousands of years, man has had the idea that through destruction there is creation. The phoenix rising from the ashes dates back to the Egyptians and nearly every civilization on earth mentions the concept. Plus, let’s be honest, the whole circle of life concept isn’t that novel considering it is ubiquitous in nature.

Strangely, though, there is something a little inaccurate about human descriptions of creative destruction prior to the 20th century. Whether it is the phoenix, Jesus’ resurrection or the Hindu cycle with Brahma and Shiva, there is death before birth. In “Thus Spoke Zarathura,” Nitzche wrote “Whoever must be a creator always annihilates” and “the man who break…is the creator.”

But they have the order all wrong in actuality. Creation does not follow destruction and destruction does not facilitate creation. In fact, as we see in nature and society, it is the opposite. Destruction follows birth and destruction prevents birth. On the other hand, it is creation that leads to more creation. Destruction is mainly just the result of redundant and superfluous creation.

For instance, organisms are not reborn after death. They are born from other living creatures. Usually after procreating, they then die, but never before.

The same is true of construction projects. Almost never will one tear something down to rebuild it better. Instead, one builds the new one and then tears down the old one.

20th century economists, were the first to get things right. “Creative destruction” was a way of describing the way old businesses die off and make room for new more efficient businesses. Never, though, does the old business die off first. The old business is rendered useless by the new business and then vanishes.

There is a simple, yet oft forgotten lesson for the anarchist or the nation builder to be learned here. Create before one destroys.

Friday, April 04, 2008

Promoting Democracy

So, last night I collected my kickball team together for a drink at Ventnor. Naturally, because it’s me, I somehow got into a discussion about the promotion of democracy. One of my new teammates works for some democracy NGO and I asked her about what activities they did. She said they promoted election oversight and free press.

Now, certainly I agree with free and fair elections and a free press. But, I also believe that minority rights and secular governance are essential to a stable democracy. Fair elections lead to majority rule, but as John Stuart Mill pointed out, there is the tyranny of the majority. Democracy needs to be more than just two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Minority rights must be protected and, in order to achieve this, there must also be secular governance since it is fairly clear that religious governments create laws that interfere with the practices of the minority.

Egypt is a prime example of a nation where many in United States do not want majority rule. Mubarak holds crooked elections in order to maintain power against an Islamic opposition party and the US supports him. If the Islamic opposition party took over, the US would have one fewer ally in the Middle East and the secular and Coptic minorities of Egypt would probably be persecuted.

Francis Fukiyama pointed out in “the End of History” that most people in the world agree with democracy. That idea has won and is considered legitimate. Even in nations where there is little democracy, they think it’s a good idea. When the US supports an anti-democratic regime, it loses legitimacy. Thus, when movements against crooked regimes become the populist movement, being anti-American becomes the populist movement. When the US struck down anti-democratic regimes in Eastern Europe, the populist movement became pro-American.

But, rather than go with the democratic flow, the US is picky and choosy about promoting democracy because, while they fear religious states, they don’t want to look like they are against that particular religious. Instead, they act in a subversive manner to keep back the religious party, which in the end fools no one.

Oddly, I see few international calls for secular governance and religious freedom. We debate the issue in our own nation and praise out First Amendment, but few are willing to say that there should be no states based on religion abroad. Yet, oddly people are willing to say there should be democracy. Even this girl’s democracy NGO tried to steer away from discussion of religion.

Of course, I may be wrong about this whole secular governance thing. If anyone has an example of a religious state with a functioning democracy that protects minority rights, please let me know.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

The Myth of Just Being Oneself

Often in life and quite frequently with relationships, when people are indecisive about how to act or proceed, they are given the advice to “just be yourself.” The advice is not new; in Hamlet, Polonius (who was probably being played by Bill himself) famously tells his son, “this above all, to thine own self be true.”

Most of us understand, at least on a subconscious level, that this advice is, at worst, completely wrong and, at best, needs to be supplemented with some serious disclaimers. In truth, as individuals with Tourette syndrome show us, we can never completely be ourselves. Additionally, adding the word “just” in front of such a task is the equivalent of ordering someone to just fall asleep. You can do it if you don’t think about it, but you cannot if you do.

The advice of being oneself seems to be based on the occasionally positive result of being independent and self-confident. People are attracted to people that are driven and assured and the advice assumes these traits will come out. Additionally, the advice assumes that by acting like oneself, one will attract like-minded individuals who will appreciate the individual. It is also based on the negative results of acting phony. Putting up a front makes people seem dishonest, pretentious and unrelaxed. Each of these qualities would likely drive someone away.

But being oneself and being honest is incredibly complicated. Which aspect of one’s personality does one present out of the infinite possibilities? Is New Jersey a highway with trailers or is it a state with numerous national parks? If someone asked you about New Jersey, which facts would you present? Is a failure to mention its negative qualities lying?

And what about politeness? Changing one’s behavior to suit those around you is inherently a controlling of oneself. If someone loves the opera and their friend hates it, is the friend honest or do they bend the truth? How far is being disingenuous? Eddie Haskell level?

And what about displaying a knowledge of social norms and control? My father once interviewed a man and asked him why he went into medicine. The man responded that women ignored him when he was young and he wanted power and prestige. Though honest and perhaps the real reasoning for many doctors, the answer displayed a professional ineptness. When it comes down to it, social norms require lying in certain circumstances.

Also, being oneself actually assumes that oneself is a good thing. What if a person is boring or, worse, evil? Then, pretending to be someone else is an improvement. Additionally, we all should want to improve, thus resigning to completely being oneself rather than striving to be someone better goes against this idea.

Not to mention the fact that our personalities change dependant upon who is around us and we aren’t even sure who we are in the first place. The Ancient Greeks said “gnothi seauton” (know thyself).

And those clever Greeks knew what is was all about. We live in a world with complex social norms, language, laws and paths to success. We interact with others who have complex desires, thought and emotions. We have to weigh our goals, wants and principles against everything around us. Being ourselves is simply not always, if ever, an option. But that’s the price one pays when one enters into a relationship of any kind.

Crap, I can’t even write a blog of my own thoughts with audience of less than ten of my close friends without offending someone.