Potential socio-political implications

Being What You Want: problematic kataphatic identity vs. potential of apophatic identity? (Part #7)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

Jumble of categories: It is curious that anyone interested in understanding who or what they are -- or might be -- is confronted by a vast array of religions, disciplines, philosophies, ideologies, worldviews and authoritative criteria asserting an answer or a royal route to obtaining one. These are all configured such that the "individual" is faced either with the confusion arising from their lack of coherence, the challenge of each to "buy into" the perspective offered, or the threat of possibly dire consequences should the individual fail to do so.

The interaction is such that it is implied that only the foolish would question the authoritative insight of what is proposed -- irrespective of the fact that each proposal in all probability contradicts or questions that of its neighbour -- from whom it is claimed it would be even more foolhardy to seek a response. Curiously some of the products on offer come with ironclad guarantees, whether by a discipline or a religion. In the latter case the guarantee may not only be "life-long" but "for eternity".

The situation may be very appropriately compared to a bazaar. It does not even have the degree of order of a supermarket. However, in those cases the individual has some degree of freedom in interacting with the range of products on offer. With respect to the existential challenge for the individual of obtaining responses to who, why and what -- the interaction is far more invasive and manipulative in ways that would be highly questionable in any modern commercial relationship. Arguably all claims to provide a response could be questioned as "misrepresentation" under any "trading practices" legislation. Some claimants may engage in a degree of threat, some may deliberately engage in negative representation of their competitors, or offer contracts with obligations articulated in what is effectively illegible small print.

Curiously those that have bought into any given framework see it as what is best described metaphorically as a transcendent temple or cathedral -- appropriately separated from the mundanities of the bazaar in which so many products of dubious value are on offer. Such transcendent worldviews typically claim to be global and comprehensive to a significant degree, even it means treating as insignificant that which it is considered better to exclude from such understanding. Each may be fruitfully understood as a gated community (Dynamically Gated Conceptual Communities: emergent patterns of isolation within knowledge society, 2004).

The contrast between the dynamics of the cathedral and those of the bazaar have been usefully analyzed in relation to the open source software movement by Eric S Raymond (The Cathedral and the Bazaar, 1997). The relation between allopathic and "alternative" approaches to health care provides a valuable metaphor of this. In the case of religions, rather than mortal danger to the body of unauthorized products, it is the danger to one's soul that is presented as a threat.

Whereas there may be no significant order to the array of products offered to the questing individual, the kataphatic mode offers another device emerging from the discipline of classification of the information sciences -- namely the catalog or, more recently, the web search engine. But such tools merely turn the question back on the questor -- "for what are you searching"? Typically multiple answers are available for any question, with each answer implicitly challenged from any other perspective so catalogued. The individual may feel fully justified in declaring "Not this, Not that".

Whilst the situation may be defined as analogous to that of a bazaar, of greater interest is the possibility that it is the pattern of relationships between proponents of worldviews that is a more fundamental pattern -- engendering and sustaining that which is so tangibly evident in a bazaar. Subtler forms of order have not become apparent in either case -- or are dependent on their exclusion of less subtle forms of order.

DIY: Define It Yourself? One common response on the part of individuals is to "pick and mix", namely to select approaches to identity from the range of frameworks and methods proposed by authorities of different kinds. This approach is strongly deprecated by most such authorities. Clearly it does both question and undermine the integrity and coherence of the particular framework or approach of which they are advocates.

Religious authorities are especially articulate in arguing against any form of "pick and mix". These arguments are notably to be found with regards to the condemnation of syncretism.

This said, most authorities are totally challenged in addressing the fragmentation of worldviews and understandings of identity. It is a topic that is systematically avoided -- leaving it up to the individual to either adopt a particular framework or to take responsibility for defining identity for themselves in a DIY ("Define It Yourself") approach. Curiously it might be argued that the reasons DIY (as "Do It Yourself") has been adopted so successfully in home construction are quite analogous to those justifying such an approach with respect to understanding personal identity.

Social construction of reality: The theme of constructivism has been extensively studied (Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge, 1967; Paul Watzlawick, Invented Reality: How Do We Know What We Believe We Know? 1984). The emphasis however is on how some degree of conventional consensus is reached -- sufficient to enable coherent functioning of social life. Where there is unfortunate fragmentation between worldviews the consensus may then be understood as operational within cognitively gated communities within a particular sense of reality is coherently constructed and sustained (Dynamically Gated Conceptual Communities: emergent patterns of isolation within knowledge society, 2004).

The challenge for the individual, once again, as with which such community to associate. Or, more interesting, how to travel from one such community to another -- developing the capacity to "translate" between their worldviews. Ironically it is then left to the individual to become a kind of Rosetta Stone maintaining coherence between communities unable to reconcile their worldviews in any meaningful manner (Guidelines for Critical Dialogue between Worldviews, 2006; Avoiding Dialogue with Alternative Worldviews at any Cost, 2005).

In-the-box vs. Out-of-the-box thinking: These terms are a recognition of the inherent limitations to envisaging creative strategic responses to perceived challenges. In this sense, for any individual, what one knows -- with which one identifies and by which one defines oneself -- is the fundamental constraint inhibiting more adequate response. In-the-box thinking exemplifies the kataphatic mode.

Collective expressions of in-the-box thinking focus attention -- affirming collective identity -- on strategies that are inherently comprehensible in the light of past thinking within the known operating framework. This leads to consequences that have been expressed through the much-cited quote: "For every human problem there is a solution that is quick, simple, inexpensive -- and wrong". This is evident in the advocated responses to most major social problems -- including current preoccupation with global warming. As noted by Simon Tisdall (Weapon of choice in the fight for moral supremacy, The Guardian, 7 Auguat 2008) in commenting on a UK Foreign Office report (Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World, 2008):

Look at today's biggest global issues -- climate change, pandemics, energy security, terrorism and other 'shadow sides' of globalisation -- and it's striking that the challenges governments find it hardest to deal with are highly diffuse, involving the actions and beliefs of millions (if not billions) of people.

Hence the focus on high tech solutions, as a comfortable product of exsisting business models, whose problematic impact only becomes evident long after profits have been made and the responsible government has changed. Apophatic thinking, as the out-of-the-box mode that questions reliance on "the box", clearly merits attention.

Denial: Denial is now the preferred means by which discomforting knowledge is rejected. In the case of the individual it has been extensively studied in psychoanalysis. It is the method by which relevance is typically clarified in the kataphatic mode. It is increasingly blatant at the collective level, as practiced by government:

• at the time of writing, the Chinese government and the International Olympic Committee have declared that the evident haze in Beijing was merely humidity rather than particulate pollution (measured at 250 units) -- far above the WHO standard of 50 units) that had been set as the target for the event.
• at the time of the "mad cow" disease in the UK, the chief veterinary officer of neighbouring Belgium stated publicly -- "we have that too, but we call it vitamin deficiency".
• any evidence of problematic actions by security forces is typically denied, at least initially

There is a paradox to the apophatic mode in that through questioning conventional knowledge, as reinforced by recognizable patterns of information, it employs a process that may be difficult to distinguish from what others reject as "being in denial". Hence the challenge for "believers" in divinity when dealing with "unbelievers" (as discussed below). Radical denial in the apophatic mode, especially in the case of theology, is the recognition that understanding of fundamentals cannot be constrained to any conventional views which may constitute merely an instance or facet of the complexity to which comprehension is called to respond.

The more general challenge in a faith-based context is handling the distinctions between denial by fundamentalists, denial of fundamentalist beliefs, and radical denial of the cognitive rigidity associated with both. These challenges call for exploration -- to a far greater extent than responding militarily to the violence and "terrorism" that they engender in the "battle for hearts and minds", as discussed elsewhere (Thinking in Terror: Refocusing the interreligious challenge from "Thinking after Terror", 2005).

Classifying and shredding history: Recent decades have made evident the extent to which information, supposedly vital to the future of humanity, is "classified" by authorities -- namely treated as secret, possibly with its very existence denied. With the simultaneous development of news management ("spin") beyond earlier forms of propaganda, it could be argued that, unsuspected by most, apophatic strategies are already being deployed in the "unsaying of reality" by authorities. The most concrete manifestation of this is the extent to which official archives are "lost" or systematically shredded.

This unmaking of the past -- of the unknown dimensions of secret history -- is accompanied by a reformulation of the historical context of reality, as noted by Gary Younge (Never mind the truth. The Guardian, 31 May 2004):

Politics has, to an extent, always been about the triumph of symbols over substance and assertion over actuality. But in the case of Iraq this trend seems to have reached its apogee, as though statements by themselves can fashion reality by the force of their own will and judgment. Declaration and proclamation have become everything. The question of whether they bear any relation to the world we actually live in seems like an unpleasant and occasionally embarrassing intrusion. The motto of the day both in Downing Street and the White House seems to be: "To say it is so is to make it so." These people are rewriting history before the ink on the first draft is even dry.

If such is indeed the case, then all are presumably free to reframe history -- as they find it convenient to understand it as a context for their own identity.

Problematique: Much has been made of the complex of world problems, named by the Club of Rome as the world problematique. It is the crisis of crises as foreseen by John Platt (What We Must Do, Science, 166, November 1969), As a network of over 50,000 world problems, it has been articulated in the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential (1976-2000). In reviewing there how problems were defined, emphasis was placed on their nebulous nature as subjective, fuzzily defined, boundary phenomena, in which solutions might be understood as problems (World Problems Project: Definitions).

However it is clear that society is much challenged to come cognitively to grips with this "reality" as "socially constructed" with all its unspeakable horrors (as noted above). Many assertions are made about its nature and as many denials are made in response. Climate change denial is but a current example. More intriguing is the manner in which features of that reality are cognitively "shunned" (Institutionalized Shunning of Overpopulation Challenge: incommunicability of fundamentally inconvenient truth, 2008) in preference for more convenient conventional explanations.

Understood as the most complex and intimate subtlety into which humanity claims some form of insight, the challenge of understanding divinity might be considered analogous to that of comprehending appropriately the significance to humanity of the complexity of the problematique. The most popular approach to deeper understanding of divinity -- the kataphatic way -- is through appreciative imagery, symbols, words and other symbolic forms of experience. It may usefully be compared with positive thinking. But given the complexity of that problematique, and the cognitive and strategic challenge it implies, consideration of an alternative approach would seem to merit attention. [The widely acclaimed merits of "positive thinking" have been usefully challenged by Barbara Ehrenreich, whose book (Bright-Sided: how the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America, 2009) is reviewed by Emily Wilson (see also Carole Cadwalladr, Welcome to the Bright New World of Positive Living, The Observer, 11 October 2009)].

Is there a case therefore for recognizing that more appropriate understanding of what the problematique implies for humanity -- and especially for individuals -- can only be understood in some apophatic manner. Is there a case for some form of "negative problemology" by analogy to negative theology? This approach would give refreshing legitimacy to "not knowing" the nature of the problematique, rather than asserting particular understandings from particular worldviews -- and denying other understandings of it from other worldviews.

Resolutique: The Club of Rome has also postulated the need for a "resolutique" through which to respond strategically to the problematique. Again many assertions are made with regard to the need for "global action plans" articulated authoritatively by particular frameworks. However it is quite evident that the coherence of such global initiatives is severely undermined by the unresolved challenges between them and by their remarkable track record in failing to deliver on commitments made. Most are significant primarily as exercises in tokenism and wishful thinking -- although such assessments would necessarily be contested from particular framework, as well as being affirmed from others.

The question raised by the apophatic approach is the possibility that appropriate humility might be a necessary cognitive precursor for more appropriate creativity -- if the much acclaimed human ingenuity is expected to respond appropriately to the problematique. Recognition of not knowing is a first step in more fruitful approaches to social organization in response to crisis. Is there a case for Structuring around unknowing in a learning society?

Given the embarrassment of people who claim to know collectively and authoritatively, how should the individual then understand any personal engagement with that dynamic in what may, or may not, be appropriately understood as crises?

Futures: In considering both the problematique and the resolutique, much is made of the human capacity for creatively envisaging the future of human civilization -- and responding to its challenges. Indeed, with nature now declared to be "dead", it has now been formally announced that humans have "taken charge" in a new "anthropocene era".

Curiously again, there is almost no humility, or confession of ignorance, in articulating future human potential (In Quest of Optimism Beyond the Edge -- through avoidance of the answering process, 2007). This is in marked contrast to the personal experience of many -- including the increasing numbers suffering from some form of depression. Utopian visions systematically ignore dystopian possibilities (whether or not articulated by authorities) and the challenge for the individual in engaging with any personal understanding of the future. Also curious is the failure to take account of analyses of the longer-term possibilities of collapse (Jared M. Diamond. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, 2005) and the requirements for adaptation and resilience if there is to be any renewal (Thomas Homer-Dixon, The Upside of Down: catastrophe, creativity, and the renewal of civilization, 2006).

Given its apparent inaccessibility, surely there is a case for an apophatic approach to the future to compensate for the plethora of kataphatic assertions through which the future is systematically colonised -- possibly as a desperate unconscious attempt to ward off its inevitable emergence and the degree of impact of its surprises (Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable, 2007). These may even be agreeable -- as foretold by authorities on "end times" scenarios. In terms of any precautionary principle, as apophatic approach might well be assumed to be the most healthy approach for the individual.

This possibility is partially explored in contrasting the essentially kataphatic approach of the AQAL-based "integral futures," inspired by the work of Ken Wilber, with the potential l of more open approaches (Self-reflexive Challenges of Integrative Futures, 2008).

Terrorism: As what has been framed as the most fundamental crisis to civilization, what does an apophatic approach suggest with respect to events since 9/11 and recognition of the extent of "terrorism"? (Varieties of Terrorism: extended to the experience of the terrorized, 2004).

It could be argued that the cognitive response to these events, as they have informed military strategy and democratic nation building, is above all characterized by conceptual closure. This may be described as tunnel vision, silo thinking or groupthink -- by the best and the brightest that money could buy (Cui Bono: Groupthink vs Thinking the Unthinkable? Reframing the suffocating consensus in response to 7/7, 2005; Transforming the Encounter with Terrorism, 2002).

The evident and costly failures of that thinking -- perhaps to be recognized by the future as historically unprecedented -- have been repeatedly characterized by the ready assumption of the relevance of conventional expertise and technology. It is only after nearly a decade of such failure that a degree of recognition has been accorded to the possibility that other neglected and deprecated insights might be relevant to understanding how groups of tribes people, in one of the most backward areas of the world, could successfully defy use of the most sophisticated military technology produced by human civilization. Hence the announcement by the Pentagon of a Minerva Research Initiative (MRI) -- a US Department of Defense sponsored, university based, social science research program initiated in 2008.

Curiously this recognition is framed by two complementary understandings:

• the much-quoted remark of an aide to President Bush (Ron Suskind, Without a Doubt, The New York Times, 17 October 2004):

  We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too....

• the cognitive challenge is perhaps forcefully made by the capacity of military intelligence to assess the nature of terrorist organization against which unprecedented resources have recently been allocated. As noted by Peter Preston (A Nation as yet Unbuilt, The Guardian, 23 June 2008) regarding Afghanistan:

  But because we persisted in thinking of al-Qaida as some disciplined "terrorist army" pitted against our armies, because we talked in conventional terms that seemed to turn this wreck of a non-state into a nation like any other, we thought that conventional tactics could work. They won't. They have no foundations.

  The point has been reinforced by Jason Burke (The not-so-winnable war against terrorism, The Guardian, 19 July 2008).

Ironically it might be argued that these both reflect the emergence of an apophatic strategic approach. This might be understood as framing psycho-social organization for the coming century -- as was the ambition of the Project for the New American Century. But its implications are highly dependent on how "we" is defined, or defines itself -- and on how "we" decides who "you" is as exemplifying uncreative stasis. It effectively indicates the radical freedom which any "we" has to create its own reality -- a freedom which has been an appeal of American articulations of democracy.

It frames a dynamic situation in which reality can be recreated continuously -- rather than the very static framing it has been given in the past. In this respect it also highlights the disempowering disengagement characteristic of conventional approaches to reality -- notably the manner in which it is "judiciously" studied and accredited by academic. administrative and religious authorities. Of course the challenge is that this radical possibility has been fully grasped by unconventional groups like Al-Qaida -- seemingly unrecognized by those who have so judiciously studied them in their war against terrorism.

More curious, and perhaps to be considered the strategic triumph of "Al-Qaida", is the extent to which the response by security counter-measures has severly inhibited human freedom in democrativ countries. This has notably implied invasive challenges to the validity of individual identity, notably the requirment for considerably enhanced biometric descriptors so that the security services know "who" you are. Ironically, following the cognitive failure of military strategy, these measures have been accompanied by what is described as much "heart searching" at the failure to win the "battle for hearts and minds" amongst those in remote tribal areas (or urban slums) whose identity has not been established.

Believers vs Unbelievers: The vital importance from any fundamentalist perspective of the distinction between "believers" and "unbelievers" is directly related to the kataphatic mode. Divinity as understood in particular, authoritatively specified, ways is held to be a mark of belief. Failure to understand divinity in this way is held to be a characteristic of an "unbeliever" to which specified actions are enjoined by "believers".

The question is whether the apophatic mode is acceptable to fundamentalists, notably those with a mystical tradition in their religion. If so then the characteristic of a "believer" is open to a variety of understandings consequent open both mystical insights and what is distinguished as divinity -- for example, in the light of reflections such as those of Sallie McFague mentioned above.

Given the manner in which violence against unbelievers is driven by kataphatic understandings of believers, the apophatic mode offers a way of reframing such considerations.

Inter-ethnic relations: As with the relations between "believers" and "unbelievers", similar considerations apply to the stereotyping of people of different ethnicity -- and the consequences arising from definitive kataphatic judgements.

The apophatic mode is especially interesting in considering the alternative knowledge systems of indigenous peoples as extensively documented by Darrell A. Posey (Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, 1999).

Extraterrestrials and their UFOs: By extension of the arguments applicable to inter-ethnic relationships, the approach to any understanding of extraterrestrial life and culture could considerably benefit from an apophatic mode of reflection as argued elsewhere (Self-reflective Embodiment of Transdisciplinary Integration (SETI): the universal criterion of species maturity? 2008; Communicating with Aliens: the psychological dimension of dialogue. 2000). This necessarily applies to any understanding of the technology that may be represented by UFOs -- notably in the light of the "third law" of Arthur C. Clarke (Profiles of The Future, 1961): Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Interpersonal relations: More generally, and more specifically, whereas the apophatic mode offers the possibility of many questions and alternative ways of wondering about who one is (Am I Question or Answer? -- problem or (re)solution? 2006), it is especially relevant to the understanding of any "other", notably Goethe's "Elective Affinities" (1809). This has been remarkably explored by Martin Buber (I and Thou, 1923). One speculative example relates to the notion of extraterrestrials (People as Stargates: an alternative perspective on human relationships in space-time, 1996).

The challenge of the "other", as recognized by philosophy and psychoanalysis, is now evoking increasing attention -- as discussed elsewhere (Existential challenge of "The Other", 2007; "Human Intercourse" "Intercourse with Nature" and "Intercourse with the Other", 2007).

Human equality: It is curious that so much emphasis has been placed on kataphatic assertions of human "equality" in the face of every variety of difference in form, competence and disposition. Such simplistic assertions continue to be made in the face of the tragically evident disparities in quality of life and access to resources. David Rothkopf identifies one extreme as a "superclass", numbering 6,000 on a planet of 6 billion (Superclass: the global power elite and the world they are making, 2008). Who is kidding who?

It is the kataphatic mode, par excellence, which affirms with such certitude the distinctions and commonalities between species -- despite considerable technical challenges to such categorization and attribution. To what extent is it appropriate to understand "human equality" as a product of kataphatic thinking -- a form of fig leaf to obscure other dimensions of reality that social convention prefers not to face?

The apophatic mode might make it more fruitful to explore "human speciation" from a psycho-social perspective -- avoiding the traps of social darwinism -- in order to frame the range of senses of identity in a richer context. Different possibilities are, for example, suggested by David Abram (The Spell of the Sensuous: perception and language in a more-than-human world, 1997) and Ron Atkin (Multi-Dimensional Man: can man live in 3 dimensional space? 1981). Such freedom to explore the many dimensions, unrecognized in the dominant kataphatic mode, might give credibility to new modes of identity to which people may anyway be obliged to have recourse in order to avoid fatal exposure to those who might be fruitfully identified as dinosaurs. The latter may perhaps be caricatured as the dominant "species" in the Jurassic economic and financial system artificially currently sustained for their benefit and for that of other "species" dependent on their leavings.

Assumptions of consensus: Despite issues highlighted in the previous paragraphs, there is a prevailing assumption that agreement can be reached on the basis of appropriate argument amongst reasonable people -- with respect to appropriate collective action for the future. This assumption is increasingly questionable in the light of past difficulties in reaching consensus on non-trivial matters or other than in the ineffectual form of tokenism and lipservice. It might be argued that the expectation of consensus is the fantasy cultivated in the kataphatic mode. It empowers campaigns of persuasion and is a feature of the justification for forceful persuasion by some.

The apophatic mode requirs an appreciation of the mystery of inexplicable and incommensurable difference -- as experienced in any clash of civilizations or cultures. In the light of astrophysical speculation, it is the recognition of the probable existence of parallel universes. Such a metaphor highlights the merit of reflection on the possibility of "extraterrestrials" -- given that in a society characterized by alienation it is indeed with "aliens" that it will be necessary to come to terms. The apophatic mode enables radical differences in worldview but also enables radically different possibilities of association between seeming incompatible worldviews. It will enable more creative and fruitful approaches to disagreement -- avoiding vain expectations of agreement and the procrastination they justify.

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]