Lanka Citizen

by Nalin de Silva

We have seen how in the western modernist tradition the individual became the dominant term in the binary opposition individual-community. This was a change from the western Catholic tradition which had community as the dominant term in the same binary opposition. The individual was raised above the community, and then he was “freed” from the ties or relationships that he had not only with the other individuals but with the community as well. The individual was encouraged and given the freedom to satisfy its “needs”. There were no restrictions imposed on the “sensual pleasures” of the individual. However, this did not mean that each and every individual had the same opportunities, but the individual was left to believe that he (later on she as well) was his own master, with the freedom to sell his labour, and to satisfy his “needs”. The community as such or the environment had no say on the freedom of the individual, with the only restriction coming from the freedom of the other individuals. As long as a person did not interfere with the freedom of the other individuals he was able to do anything, provided of course that he had the means to do so. The individual was also led to believe that even if he did not possess the means at a given time he had the opportunity to acquire them.

The state was supposed to make sure that in general no individual restricted the freedom of any other individual. The success of the individual was judged by the wealth, and in this regard the individual became the dominant term in the binary opposition man (individual) – nature. The individual had the freedom to exploit the nature and natural resources. Even the English word resources imply that the sources could be used many times, a source becoming a source again and again. This probably had roots in the medieval Catholic Chinthanaya of Europe and also in other Chinthanayas that had influenced Europe in the so-called dark ages. However, under the western modernist tradition the resources became sources. The individual exploited the sources making them useless in no time. Without the resources becoming sources there would not have been an “industrial revolution” that exploited the products that had been supplied by nature. The individual could exploit nature in order to increase his wealth. It also meant that any individual if he had the means could exploit the labour of any other individual as long as the former did not restrict the freedom of the latter. Any individual had the freedom to sell or not to sell his labour. However, after an individual decided to sell his labour he lost the freedom to do what he wanted during the time he was “employed”. There was a contract between the employer and the employee in this regard. The employee by deciding to sell his labour (physical/mental) took the decision to sell his freedom as well during the time his labour was being used by the employer.

It was the western modernism that gave rise to Lutheran religion, Capitalism and also western science and technology. All of them are interconnected, and one could see a fundamentalism associated not only with Lutheran religion but also in Capitalism as well as western science of going back to the Book. The man (Adam) who was created in the image of the God, and who was the controller of everything including the woman (Eve) that the God had created could do anything subject to certain restrictions (freedom of other individuals) as long as he had the means to do so. The western Christian societies and their intellectuals who accuse others of fundamentalism do not realize that the western Christian culture is more fundamental than most of the others who are accused of being fundamentalist. There would not have been a western science without a western technology, and no western technology was possible without the freedom to exploit nature and labour.
Of course, in the creation of the western science abstract theorizing played an important part as well. This abstract thinking came from two sources. One was the Greek Mathematical tradition that had made use of abstract objects (concepts) such as straight lines nobody could visualize (a straight line is supposed to have length but no breadth or width!), and the axiomatic method, and the Jewish tradition going back to an abstract God who could not be visualized. The absence of statues of God in the religions associated with the Book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is due to this abstractness. The Christians (Catholics) before Luther and Calvin were not as abstract as the Jews, as the concept of God coming to the earth in the form of Jesus had to do away with an abstract God. Jesus was there for anybody to see and hear and was not an abstract object. The Catholics could erect statues of Jesus a well as Mary, and they were not abstract in their thinking. It was Galileo who took the first step to create abstract laws and for that reason, not for the so called experimental method, he could be called the “Father of western Science”. The experiment he is supposed to have carried out in Pisa is an abstract or thought experiment in a way. He did not create a vacuum around the leaning tower, though his experiment was on objects falling in a vacuum!

The linear thinking of the western modernist tradition, with its reductionism, where resources became sources could also be identified with the creation described in the Genesis of the Old Testament. In more than one way Luther and Protestantism went back to the Book. In his “Protestant Ethic” Weber demonstrates that he had an idea of the roots of capitalism in contrast to Marx who tried to analyse social evolution in terms of class. It is our view that capitalism, western science and technology, Protestantism etc., are the results of the Chinthana revolution (the word revolution in contrast to evolution, shift etc. has a cyclic origin though Marxists would not like to think of social evolution as a cyclic process. The Marxists give a linear interpretation to revolution and understand it as a discontinuous shift) that began in the fifteenth century in the Eastern and Southern Europe. There are some western thinkers who would like to answer the question raised by Joseph Needham as to why western science originated in Europe rather than say in China which had a voluminous knowledge on natural and created phenomena, as due to capitalism. However it cannot be so for the simple reason that capitalism saw the light of the day long after Galileo and Newton had created their concepts, laws and theories.
The so called neo liberalism is only the present form of a social evolution that began in the fifteenth century in Europe. A reductionist linear Chinthanaya such as the Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya at some stage has to acquire the characteristics of neo liberalism. Neo liberalists have gone back to the Book even more than Luther. The intolerance of the Gods of the others by the Jews who destroyed the images and the statues of such Gods and who wanted others to follow their God or Yehovah, without the “freedom” to become Jews, could be seen in Neo Liberalism. Neo Liberalism, if possible, would not allow any culture other than the western Judaic Christian culture to exist in the world. The Neo Liberalists would pay lip service to the other cultures but want the others in the world to follow their culture, however, without becoming Anglo Saxons proper. The “kalu suddas” among us could imitate the neo liberalist culture including the Oxford accent (or is it the Bush accent now?), the sudda table manners, the western dress, western knowledge etc., but they could never become suddas proper, just as much anybody born outside a Jewish family could not become a Jew, in spite of having Yehovah as his God. Yehovah may have been replaced by the western Judaic Christian culture but simply by acquiring that culture we could not become a sudda. Michael Jackson though a well known singer who has contributed to western culture, could not become a member of the “real American” society even after attempting to become a sudda through plastic surgery. White Anglo Saxons want to dominate the world with their culture, economics and politics and want us to follow them with a soap box speech (without a murmur).

Occasional soap box speeches allowed at Hyde Park, London symbolize the limit of tolerance in the western Christian society. Our protests have to be confined to soap boxes. If we want to survive then we better follow what the world bank (The computer wants me to spell world bank as World Bank with capitals! When I write sudda the computer can “think” only of soda! In a way sudda is not different from soda with nothing but lot of gas.

We should, as they say, customize not only spelling but all knowledge that has been created in the west while creating our own knowledge) or the IMF or even UNESCO want us to do. We have to think the way they do and act the way they want us to act. The so called plural societies are only rubbish (I do not want to use the word bullshit as goma is not bullshit for us the Sinhalas and the Tamils) that are in the minds of the western liberal intellectuals. The dominant culture is the western Judaic Christian culture which has been erected on a pedestal while the other cultures are kept on soap boxes in the Hyde Park.

The Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors from the so called third world and living in USA to earn a few dollars selling their mental labour to the suddas know only to repeat what their master and mistresses (suddas and suddis) have said over the years. When Prof. H. L. Seneviratne (the computer does not suggest any spellings but “thinks” that it is wrong, whereas we know that he is wrong) poses the question as Jathika or Arthika he wants the others to do what he does in USA, and sell the Jathiya for Arthikya, meaning a few dollars. He is simply following his masters and mistresses who impose their thinking on us. What is the Arthikaya that he is talking about? There is no Arthikaya as such but Arthikayas. However, we are led to believe, in spite of so called pluralism, there is only the Arthikaya of neo liberalism. We have to expose what is behind the words used by the westerners, especially their intellectuals and show that there is no pluralism in the western society. Either one follows them and survives as a (mental) slave or be prepared to face hardships. Prof. Seneviratne who like his gurus from the Department of Sociology at Peradeniya has not produced a single concept or theory though they may have so called research publications in the reputed international journals with which Prof. Hoole of the UGC is obsessed, has heard of only one Arthikaya which he wants us to adopt. It is true that we are yet to formulate the concepts and theories of a Jathika Arthikaya but that does not mean that we do not have intuitive ideas of such an Arthikaya. To begin with there would not be any Jathika Arthikaya without a Jathiya, and when Prof. Seneviratne poses the question as Jathika or Arthika he only exposes himself and reveals that he cannot think independent of western logic. Ranil Wickremesinghe on the other hand does not pretend to be an intellectual and knows only one way for the economy of the country. He thinks that Bush has got some extra money which he can borrow to feed the people and hence solve the problem, whatever it may be. The Thulana Arthikaya or Jathika Arthikaya is based on the thulanaya between the individual and the community, and between the man and the nature. There are no binary oppositions with one term dominating the other in our Chinthanaya and it would not be long before we formulate concepts and theories of a Jathika Arthikaya. (To be continued)