(THE END OF THE
"END OF HISTORY" ILLUSION?)
Although I have
been writing for decades about apocalyptic dangers,
even I was
shocked by the American tragedy of September 11th. It
touched me very
personally as well because a part of my family,
including my
grandson who was born just three weeks earlier, lives
right on
Manhattan.
Here in the U.S.
not only the short term but also the long term
"awakening
of America" is constantly invoked.
Few are those, however,
who take a radical
approach and draw radical conclusions.
Prior to that
attack, many in the United States and beyond truly
believed in
Fukuyama's thesis about the "end of history". As we know,
more than a
decade ago he expressed in Hegelian language the
conviction that
the triumph of the West over communism secured the
democratic-capitalist
culmination of history, which would further
develop,
alongside more or less unsuccessful
opposition, exclusively
along the lines
of that paradigm. Will
"Fukuyamists" today
acknowledge the
end of that illusion of "post-history"?
Surely, Hiroshima
and Nagasaki already heralded the possibility of the
self-annihilation
of humanity. By means of a radically
new,
self-apocalyptic
capability, mankind initiated an
absolute about-face
in its
history. Today even apocalyptic means
are globalized. The
extent of the
tragedy in the U.S. can easily mislead: still it was an
attack by
conventional and not apocalyptic means. It's surprising that
in the shock of
great human and material loss, allegedly without
precedent, few are those who recall the incomparably
greater Japanese
tragedy. Why, from the collapse of the Soviet Union
until September
11th, was the
world lulled into believing that apocalyptic danger had
essentially
passed?
All our
fundamental concepts, institutions and practices were created
and developed
before the self-apocalyptic turn. In order for mankind
to be spared, a
new, anti-apocalyptic way of thinking, feeling and
acting is called for.
The prevailing
negative, competitive understanding and exercise of
power constitutes
a good example of this unmet need. At issue is the
"zero sum
game," tug-of-war concept and practice of power: one attains
only that degree
of power that is lost by others. I do
not believe
that humankind
has a future if it does not unite in avoiding a
self-apocalypse,
but that presupposes a change to a positive,
collaborative
conceptualization and application of power.
The U.S. was
misled by the notion of a superpower that suggests
invulnerability,
almost omnipotence. For that reason, in
my opinion,
it is more
accurate to speak of the U.S. as a single global power,
since its power
possesses planetary reach. Nonetheless,
in order to
bear in mind the
relativity of even its power, it is useful to
introduce the
category of apocalyptic power, be it total or partial.
That would of
course include Russia, China, Great Britain, France,
Israel, India,
Pakistan. . . However, the greatest
innovation now is
that, aside from
nation states, apocalyptic power can be accessed as
well by
non-governmental groups and organizations.
For that reason I
have, since long
ago, applied the term of apocalyptic terrorism.
Since,
presumably, Americans too have realized that their fate can no
longer be secured
in isolation from that of the rest of the world, I
hope that from
now on U.S. presidents will link their yearly message
of “The State of
the Union" with that of “The State of Humanity."
Another example
of the inadequacy of existing conceptions is that of
great religions.
I know not a single one of them that could, without
destructive
self-contradiction, incorporate the possibility, much less
the likelihood,
of the self-annihilation of the human race. Christians
would, say, have
to acknowledge that humankind, itself divine creation, can usurp from the hands
of the Creator the power of the Final Judgment. That would be the absolute, definitive sin. That is why, twenty
years ago in a public discussion with me in Washington DC, the French
theologian J.H. Calvez acknowledged that he was unable as a Christian to admit
the self-apocalyptic possibility and that, accordingly, what was left to him
was solely the firm hope and faith that the Lord would not allow us to do this.
Secular morals
and legal systems are no more than religious and theocratic ones capable of
confronting that which I call apocalyptic dilemmas. It has long been easy to envision a
statesperson who is notified of the threat of a terrorist attack by, say,
biological means, from some corner of the world, and can only by means of a preventive
apocalyptic attack save tens of millions of lives, although at the cost of
numerous no-less-innocent victims. The
US president's order to destroy planes that may eventually fall again into
suicide-terrorist hands is mere "child's play" in comparison with
such apocalyptic situations and decisions.
I have said that
all our fundamental institutions and activities as well are not up to the
self-apocalyptic potential of humanity.
It is common knowledge that there is a growing, global gap between rich
and poor, the comfortably populated and over-populated, the centrally
positioned and marginalized, the educated and uneducated, those with very long
and those with very short life expectancy, the main ecological polluters and
their victims…That gap exists as well within many countries. Nevertheless, in
terms of power that gap is now largely
relativized since
the poor, over-populated, marginalized, uneducated,
those with short
life expectancy, ecological victims…can access
apocalyptic means
and begin using them e.g. to blackmail others.
Enlightened
egoism, if not humanism, should
motivate the more
fortunate part of
humanity to undertake as soon as possible a
voluntary radical
redistribution of goods, benefits, wealth.
The major issue
is whether in the final analysis it is in fact
possible to do
so without establishing some kind of
world
(con)federal
government. Without it, how can we
successfully resist
the danger of
apocalyptic conflicts of nationalisms,
chauvinisms,
religionisms,
civilizationisms, and other collective identitisms?
It is unfortunate
that many in the U.S., at least up until the
September 11
tragedy, disparaged the United Nations, although the
latter probably
constitutes the only possible embryo of a "new world
order,"
whose fundamental goal and task must be the battle for the
survival of
humanity. One should wholeheartedly
welcome that the Bush
administration
has, by launching a "world anti-terrorist coalition,"
begun in practice
to abandon its sovereignistic and unilateralistic
illusions.
______________________________________
The author is Professor
Emeritus both in Yugoslavia and the U.S. This text was first published in
Serbian in the Belgrade daily “Politika” October 17, 2001 and is included in
the forthcoming book by the same author entitled “Democratic Revolution in
Serbia in the International Context”, Humanities Books/Prometheus, Amherst NY.
(All rights reserved by the author who can be contacted at: STOJANOV@INSTIFDT.BG.AC.YU)