Yuri Tarnopolsky ESSAYS
Essay 30.
Tinkering with Justice
Saul Bellow. Justice. Equality Use Firefox browser or see essays-complete.pdf |
Essay 30.
Tinkering with Justice
I begin to
think that the idea of equality has become as much
American as it used to be Communist. I recognize it in
political correctness and the principle of "equal
treatment for all, no matter what," especially, in the
"no matter what." I feel uneasy with the familiar
pattern and I want to understand why. Regarding the
idea itself, there is no question in my mind. It is
natural for human mind to explore the space of ideas
in search for comfort and surprise and to invent a new
one if none is found. The idea of equality, however,
is one of the most ancient ones, trampled all over
along and across. The phenomenon of absolute equality,
as that of eternal motion—another member of the
club—has never been observed on earth. Complex ideas
live in populations. Like any biological species, they
are presented as packages consisting of the main idea
and its derivatives. Thus, the ideas of Christianity,
Islam, or Communism are ensembles of variations
ranging from stiff orthodoxy to very liberal
interpretation. They follow a distribution around a
certain average, existing or imaginary. The real
ideology can be represented by a stack of index cards
with an interpretation written on each, arranged
according to the logical distance of the
interpretation from the average. A few rare extreme
interpretations will sit on the outside of the pack,
and many slightly different will huddle in the middle.
The largest distance is between the opposites.
Any change, therefore, is a shift or reshuffling of
the package, with the former off-center idea becoming
the mainstream. The number of the cards in the pack
remains the same, but the content on some of them
changes. It is only rarely that a new interpretation
is added on a separate card, but no card is ever dis-carded.
Simple ideas,
for example, that life is good, do not have this kind
of fluidity. Instead, the thesis and its negation are
born as twins. It is only when the idea develops to a
certain size that it splits into a population in which
a slight change does not destroy everything and the
general pattern is preserved. For example,
the idea (1) "life is very good but sometimes can be
very bad" can mutate into (2) "life is very bad but
sometimes can be very good" and (3) "life is good but
often can be very bad". All three are pretty close,
but the distance between (1) and (2) is larger than
between (1) and (3). There are methods to calculate
the distance, for example, as the smallest number of
single minimal changes to convert one into the other (Hamming
distance).
The most
fascinating—and terrifying—example is the shift of the
ideological distribution in Germany with Nazism
becoming the mainstream. There was certainly enough
traditional components of national mentality
preserved, but the mutations happened to be about
questions of life and death. It was literally a lethal
mutation. Another lethal mutation has, apparently,
happened in terrorist spinoffs in Islam. I suspect
they inherited the "no matter what" from Communism,
itself with German ancestry. But in fact, "no matter
what" has really ancient pharaonic and imperial roots.
It is, actually, a meme, a gene of ideology (see Essay
6, On the Yahoos, or Apologia of Samuel Butler).
We all have the
same ideological genotype. We all can be cruel,
aggressive, and vengeful, as well as compassionate,
humble, and altruistic. We all can be murderers and
martyrs, although mostly in imagination. We combine
codes for incompatible properties like the insects
combine the codes of incompatible metamorphic stages
in their genomes: egg, larva, pupa, and adult form. The difference
is that an insect can exist in only one form at a time
while a human being is a superposition of all possible
qualities, some in negligible proportion, others
dominating, and some unpredictably popping up under
the influence of emotions. The individual is as much a
dynamic system, a multitude, and a society of selves
as the society itself. NOTE: This seems unrelated to Marvin Minsky's concept of the society of the mind, but there is a deep underlying similarity with O.G. Selfridge's concept of pandemonium.
A probability is
assigned to any possible implementation of ideas as a
quantity is assigned to any ingredient of a cake. The
proportion can vary within certain limits. As a
curiosity, somebody could even make a cake of salt
alone, but this is as rare as a human being who is
plotting murder 24 hours a day. My problem with
the current stack of ideological index cards is the
following. Triumph
and
shame, pride and defeat, honor and disgrace seem to be
antiquated and frayed concepts in the uninhibited and
opportunistic society that thinks in purely dynamic
terms of progress and setback, growth and decline,
gain and loss. I feel uneasy about this mechanical
image of a living system and I know why: without the
old-fashioned polar categories I feel blind and
helpless. They are the last limits of what I can shed
in my adaptation to the new life. At the same
time, the displacement of the moral labels to the
periphery of the stack is egalitarian. Nobody will ask
you whether it is honorable or shameful to buy a
toothbrush or to sell a car. People get equal
treatment in a supermarket where moral measure has no
use. Political correctness follows from the principle
of equality because it ensures stability and the
widest possible range of potential customers.
You are not so much concerned with making friends as
with not alienating anybody. When you rely on the law
for your welfare, you don't want to alienate the
judge. Conversely, if you don't trust the law,
you want to make friends and care less about enemies.
Political
correctness, therefore, has the same roots as
bureaucracy: the priority of inaction over action. All
acts of inaction are equally safe, while action can
have unintended consequences. I realize that
all extremes, for example, militarism and pacifism,
with their corresponding overtones of chauvinism and
self-hate, are what they are: extremes. In time of
transition, the extreme voices are always louder than
the hum in the middle. But history is full of examples
how margins switch places with the former core when
the stack is reshuffled by winds of history. Modern social
and ideological extremes are full of stress because
they are pushed to the periphery of influence,
literally, marginalized. They do not have to
compete for the focus of attention because the media
notice the extremes first and run the core survey only
as a scheduled maintenance. Instead of attention, the
core gets the power to fence off the extremes on its
own. Why are the
carriers of extreme views so militant? Because, as
everything in the world, they try to minimize their
stress and find peace in the middle of the humble
core. They dream of ceasing the fretful status of
militant minority and taking rest in the easy chair of
the complacent majority. A continuous
mixing goes on in our souls and in the distribution of
public opinion, as if it were a dance show with
dancers who step into the limelight to do their number
and step back in the shadow while a new contender
takes the center stage. Unlike the scripted show, our
ideas feed, grow, fight, and fall into hibernation in
a not quite predictable manner. Same happens in
personal life: emotions give us strong illegitimate
and mutant impulses while the day-to-day median sends
us drifting down the routine. From time to time
everybody jumps off the train of routine to his or her
peril, albeit only in dreams. Today, by the
end of the year 2001, for example, biological research
with human embryonic cells seems a marginal and
extreme idea to the conservative block. Today a few
people can see that the logical consequence of the
illogical but seemingly pious conservative attitude is
the idea that society has the right to refuse a
gravely sick child, woman, and man any hope of a
cure. But if the new idea is accepted and if it
pushes the old and not so much ethical as religious
interpretation of the sanctity of life to the
periphery, a new heresy will pick up the gauntlet:
everybody can be left to die if the price of life is
too high. The change
never comes from the middle: it comes from the most
energetic wing of the bell curve (Essays 14 and
16). While all molecules are the same, the
ideas are all different, as if we copied our cards on
tiny tags and tied them to molecules, one to each. The silence of
the majority is the self-defeating trait of democracy.
The expression "hunger for power" should be understood
literally: a minority hungry for power is as active
as hungry animal on the prowl for food and the
satisfied majority is in after-dinner slumber. Why do I care
at all about such problems at this inactive stage of
my life when the categories of ethics do not apply to
me anymore because I have no opportunity to put them
to test? My addiction to thinking in abstract terms
makes me blow everything out of proportions: I have to
fill the void of categories, which requires a lot of
hot air. The true proportions can be seen only from
infinite distance, but, as a decent clockwork, I
am on a short tether with the current moment and show
almost the right time. I find the
picture of world transformation as exciting as
the birth of a volcanic island. The nascent soil comes
from the four Aristotelian elements: earth, fire,
water, and air. My own quasi-Aristotelian elements are
past, present, future, and imagination. What occupies
my mind most is exactly the period of transition,
uncertainty, and ambiguity that normally do not
last. In personal decisions it is the period of
weighing pro and contra, when a pair of
alternatives sits on the opposite pans of the balance.
My anxiety is transient, but I want to learn something
permanent from it. When people
regard victory and revenge as politically incorrect,
it troubles me as a photo of a mutilated body. I am less
troubled by the phenomenon of people who lost the
powerful instinct of self-preservation because there
are many examples of self-destructive and suicidal
behavior in history. But the loss of the powerful
instinct of triumph is something I cannot link to a
historical precedent. I perfectly
realize that both are rare deviation from the crude
but healthy average human nature preserved in the
formalin jars of history. People want to live and win
as much as they want to love and be loved. I could not
believe my eyes when I saw the verse from my favorite
Dhammapada in a poster in
the Siberian labor camp, the most unlikely place to
find it if not to take to account its closeness to the
Mongolian border: If
one man conquer in battle a thousand times thousand
men, and if another conquer himself, he is the
greatest of conquerors. (Dhammapada, 8:103). It never seemed
to apply to suicide. It applies to triumph. I am
comforted by the rarity of murder-suicide, but I am
disturbed by the realization that without
self-sacrifice no human greatness is possible.
Greatness is also something out of fashion, except in
sports. I begin to
think that my internal dissonance is centered on the
concept of justice. I try to be
tolerant to the view that all people in the world
equally deserve life, even in times of war. I
believe, however, that the armed enemy deserves life
less than a friend, whether armed or not. My belief is
far from the abstract blanket well-wishing: from my
personal viewpoint, all the other people in the world
are at different ethical distances from me and from
each other. We can lie about it to ourselves but we
act accordingly to our secret maps in the heart. People have to
choose when the choice is imposed on them, and,
fortunately, making life or death decision does not
happen too often. To choose for somebody or
between two people, regarding the matter of gain or
loss, pleasure or pain, promotion or demise, and
consent or refusal—it happens every day. Some people
take a great pleasure and satisfaction in deciding the
fate of other people. It would be the greatest pain
for me, and I suspect, for many others. To ease the
pain of making life or death decisions in the absence
of a despot, people hand over the personal
responsibility to the law. In terms of geometry, by
sentencing a person, they increase the distance
between themselves and the offender. In terms of
topology, they cancel the nearness. "You are not one
of us." There is the
third source of decision: controlled chance. In
extraordinary circumstances, people agree to draw lots
in the matter of life and death. They control the
fairness of drawing lots. The fourth
source is blind chance: something that happens on a
highway, in a flight, or just in obstructed
arteries. It is also the blind chance of
biological evolution. Thinking about
the reasons why Darwin is still under siege in some
parts of America, I find that the idea of
justice, even slightly infected with chance, is the
major challenge to any religion. People love lotteries
and casinos, but they cannot stand the idea that
they need a Green Card to go through the doors of
Heaven, which they can get only by the Green
Card Lottery. Thinking about
the reason why sports are so universally popular,
while Darwin is not, I see that people create heaven
on earth in the form of a Hall of Fame. They believe
that a great baseball player owes his greatness to his
own energy, talent, and skill and they admit his or
her soul to the eternal paradise. This is so
strange... Life in a free society is utterly
competitive. Unlike the struggle for existence in
nature, it is regulated to some extent, and
nevertheless it is based partly on pure luck, not just
on talent and skills. In economics, the more
participants, the more fair the competition. But the
more participants, the more unfair it can be toward
any individual participant because it does not
guarantee a chance to fair hearing. Economy is the
court where people are admitted to hearing by lottery
because there are too many of them. Large
corporations buy bags of lottery tickets, and small
fish buys one or two. That can be said about the
One-Percent, too. Darwinism
implies that adamant justice is nowhere to be found on
earth. There is nothing more atheistic than the
idea of evolution as the game of chance and
necessity. Even Albert Einstein felt some
discomfort at quantum injustice in the form of
randomness. What
is very plain, however, is that the ideas having the
highest invading potential are those that explain man
by assigning him his place in an immanent destiny, in
whose bosom his anxiety dissolves. (Jaques Monod, from: Chance and Necessity)
Thinking about
the reasons why American democracy and its history
stand alone in the rest of the Western world, I
attribute it (no pretense of originality) to the
phenomenon of the open frontier which for a couple of
centuries provided the nowhere else to be found
abundance of free land. As result, the
probabilistic injustice was for a while suspended for
the White American. Competition was not so much for
life itself as for money. The picture looked different
through the eyes of Indians and Black slaves. But when I try
to see the world through the eyes of a mass murderer,
there is nothing but red haze in my eyes. I believe
that my mind needs to be severely twisted for such
ability. And yet we all, each of us, have the same
human nature as common for us as the bee’s nature is
for various social types of bees: queen, worker,
and drone. Our genome produces them (us) all, and when
the queen dies, a new one takes the available place.
We do not worship the King, but we may worship the
King of the Hoop or the Queen of Pop. There is a card
with "hail the King" in everyone's personal stack. The mass
murderer, the terrorist, the dictator impose their own
justice and their own ratio of chance and necessity.
Confronting this kind of justice, we have to either
accept, or fight, or cheat it by our own justice. To speak
against equality is politically incorrect. But
would that be politically incorrect in our times that
women and children leave the sinking ship first and
the captain leaves last? I am against equality as an
imperative. The absolute universal comprehensive
equality means the world without love because love is
inequality. Equality is nothing but the political
eternal motion: equality of civil rights,
opportunities, responsibilities, and numbers. It is
never completely achievable and the capitalist
economics is based on inequality. Communism collapsed
because people began to accumulate wealth while
the ideology limited the inequality. Finally, I see
why I cannot find peace of mind: I have no
intellectual friends. I feel myself as a member of a
quiet minority, which may be even more stressful than
being in a militant minority. I am looking for allies.
If you have even a single ally, you are not at the
very tip of the distribution wing. I discovered
Saul Bellow while in Russia. Even after his Nobel
Prize of 1976, Saul Bellow was not permitted to be
translated. A friend of mine who lived in Moscow and
had contacts with foreigners, supplied me with books
in English, Saul Bellow among them. I read all his
books up to Humboldt's Gift. It was a
difficult reading at my level of English, and it still
is, at a much higher level. Bellow, like Montaigne, is
an intellectual writer, introspective and rambling,
with his incessant monologues and treading
intellectual water. The action goes nowhere but the
thoughts are boiling, sometimes down to shreds, as
overcooked fish. I was completely happy with the thick
mental chowder that would repel most readers. Action
can be found elsewhere, but the thoughts could not. The Dean's
December, the first
book written by Saul Bellow after his Nobel Prize, had
the familiar tense and badly lit air. After my life in
Russia and my one year stay in Chicago I still could
equally identify myself with both the American setting
and that of Communist Romania. The title
character of the book, a Dean of a Chicago College,
publishes papers about the problems of inner
city. This leads to his conflict with the
Provost. I quote from the paperback edition:
Saul Bellow, The Dean's December, New York:
Pocket Books, 1982. Capitalistic
democracies could never be at home with the
catastrophe outlook. We are used to peace and plenty,
we are for everything nice and against cruelty,
wickedness, craftiness, and monstrousness. Worshipers
of progress, its dependents, we are unwilling to
reckon with villainy and misanthropy, we reject the
horrible—the same as saying we are anti-philosophical.
(p.220) Why? Because
catastrophe is an ultimate inequality: I die and you
don't? To reject the horrible means to reject violent
response to it. I am uncertain
whether long quotations are allowed (a mind-boggling
paradox: free speech and intellectual property) and I
add only three more. A
tender liberal society has to find soft ways to
institutionalize harshness and smooth it over
compatibly with progress, buoyancy. So that with us
when people are merciless, when they kill, we explain
that it's because they're disadvantaged, or have lead
poisoning, or come from a backward section of the
country, or need psychological treatment. (p.305) Suppose
the
public expense of kidney dialysis is ninety thousand
dollars a year in a clinic that keeps six or seven
dim, unproductive lives going—will we let these old
folks watch the television for another year yet?” (p.305-306) They're
just a lumpen population. We do not know how to
approach this population. We haven't even conceived
that reaching it may be a problem. So there's nothing
but death before it. Maybe we've already made our
decision. Those that can be advanced into the middle
class, let them be advanced. The rest? Well, we do our
best by them. We don't have to do any more. They kill
some of us. Mostly they kill themselves. (p.229) The author
should never be identified with his character, even in
memoirs. What the Dean says, in my re-interpretation,
is that every society sets an acceptable, i.e.,
institutionalized "level of pain," in Bellow's term. Mass executions
and death of hunger were openly acceptable in Lenin's
revolutionary Russia. Stalin was already hiding them.
The mutilations were an acceptable level of pain in
Sierra Leone. Rape of a child as cure of AIDS is said
to be culturally institutionalized in South Africa. However
liberal, American society still approves of the
pain at the level of capital punishment, which the
European Union does not, but Europe has nothing
comparable with the American underclass. Any society
accepts some level of pain, suffering, injustice, and
accidental death. The American society is constantly
bleeding from automobile and airplane accidents, gang
shooting, drug overdose, and child abuse, which is as
socially tolerable as a certain rate of fire, flood,
and tornado damage. We may expect hiking the pain
level to the additional bleeding from terrorism,
internal and external. This seems to me the most
probable outcome. Another compatible move is raising
the barriers of inequality. Bellow's book
is an unintended illustration to the concept of
historical progress. A lot of things have happened
since 1982: the World Communism has been dismantled
and the National Communism of China substantially
decreased its level of pain. Whether life of Chicago
housing projects or Miami gangs changed, I have no
idea. It is not in daily news.
Generalizations on this issue are not a popular
news topic. My position
regarding the level of pain is that: (1) it is part of
life, (2) it historically subsides in some forms, and
(3) it historically appears in new forms. It is being
reshuffled, like all ideas. In other words, cruelty is
a form of life, and it evolves through new species and
decline of old ones. This is a fatalistic view, but if
we acknowledge competition, it is as natural as to
deny eternal motion. The idea of equality, even in the
form of equal opportunities, and the idea of
competition are logically incompatible. This is one of
the hidden fissures of the American mind. At least it
(the mind) is not closed.
|
Page
created:
2001
Revised:
2016 Essays 1 to 56 : http://spirospero.net/essays-complete.pdf Essays 57 to 60: http://spirospero.net/LAST_ESSAYS.pdf Essay 60: http://spirospero.net/artandnexistence.pdf |