The Madness of Collective Responsibility

Public debate in the West frequently hinges on an ‘us-versus-them’ dichotomy: we are the victims, and they are at fault. We are currently witnessing rapid social changes rooted in deep-seated identity-based conflicts, be they ethnic, religious, or gender-based. It is worth noting that the widespread popularity of identity movements, such as Black Lives Matter, has brought postmodernist thought – which just two decades ago was on the fringes of academic discourse – into the mainstream.

As a result, we now live in a world where the prevailing sentiment is that my truth holds more weight than yours. There is no obligation to adhere to another’s logic and human nature is seen as a construct solely of culture and society; all in a climate of deep-seated animosities. Language and the philosophical foundations of our worldview indeed wield a powerful influence over the shape of our reality.

Accountability for Past Crimes

The question of reparations for historical injustices recurrently surfaces in the wake of various events. Ethnic groups and entire societies, especially from Africa, both the Americas and the Indian subcontinent, seek redress for the harms they have endured. Slavery, ethnic cleansing, and pillage are but a few of the many transgressions committed by European colonial powers. Many accept responsibility and acknowledge these crimes, with ongoing discussions on how to atone for them and make amends. However, amidst deep-seated antagonisms and social upheavals, a narrative has emerged suggesting that ‘all of them’ are responsible for the harm done to some. This evokes grim memories from the 20th century, a not-so-distant past. 

There is a consensus that the colonial expansion of European powers resulted in systemic harm to the subjugated peoples. While slavery has been a human practice since the dawn of civilization, prevalent in all cultures, the scope and impact of colonial expansion were unparalleled. As a result, vast numbers of people were deprived of their rights to shape their own culture, educate themselves, inherit property, and build social status for centuries. Thus, when the world began to shift in the second half of the 20th century and slavery became a relic of the past, a significant portion of these populations found themselves at a distinct disadvantage.

One can speculate about who specifically benefited from the colonial policies of countries like Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and France. It is clear that those in the most privileged positions reaped the most gains. This includes trading companies, monarchs, courts, in essence: holders of capital. However, the list does not end there. Monarchs used the looted wealth and valuable goods produced through forced labor to build roads, ports, bridges, and infrastructure. Entire societies have indirectly benefited from these, even to this day. Therefore, one can argue that while not every Briton, German, or Spaniard during the colonial era directly profited from the suffering of others, they indirectly benefited from it.

There is a noticeable trend of major powers acknowledging past wrongdoings, with ongoing discussions on how to redress them. Numerous suggestions exist. Direct cash transfers are often avoided, as determining an exact amount is challenging. Instead, discussions focus on integrating the affected countries into the modern economy and creating conditions for their rapid development. When there is agreement about perpetrators and victims, deciding on the form and extent of compensation remains an open debate: this hinges on the political will of governments and the negotiated consensus regarding the nature of reparations. Monitoring this discussion is essential, as its outcomes will have long-term implications for the budgets of major EU countries.

While the debate over reparations for colonialism is progressing, its pace is much slower than the rapid social changes which continue to take place. These shifts are swift, often abrupt, and rooted in identity-based antagonisms. Ultimately, the discourse in the West, if one can label the emotionally charged and sometimes violent public debate as such, seems to boil down to a basic dichotomy: ‘us’ and ‘them.’ We are the aggrieved, and they are the culprits.

When ‘They’ Are to Blame

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of large, organized identity groups of various natures. Broadly speaking, these are groups of people who are dissatisfied for one reason or another. Their discontent stems from diverse sources, often similar in nature, typically arising from systemic oppression. In multicultural societies, divisions tend to align with ethnic distinctions. The causes of societal tensions are intensifying almost as rapidly as the deepening economic crisis and increasing poverty. Parallel to this is the bombardment of information – all labeled as breaking, urgent, or last-minute – and mostly negative. People are weary and oversensitive from a prolonged period of continuous fear. Those economically marginalized feel helpless especially in the face of the current crisis. Many are losing hope for better days or a favorable turn in the economy, while the global news cycle certainly does not provide much optimism. Price surges, armed conflicts, and international tensions are plainly visible. Memories of the pandemic are still fresh. It is essential to recognize that regardless of financial standing, entire societies have experienced the trauma of isolation. To varying degrees, it has affected the majority of us, leaving people with a range of emotions and states of mind. Many have grown skeptical of any truth and seek simple answers to complex questions.

On May 25, 2020, in the American city of Minneapolis (population 425,000), African-American citizen George Floyd was either murdered or died from an overdose. The prevailing narrative is that a police officer suffocated him by pressing his knee onto Floyd’s neck while he lay on the ground. This incident sparked violent protests throughout the United States. Various media outlets have covered the story from different perspectives, allowing everyone to select their version of the truth. The Black Lives Matter movement became a global focal point. Although it was founded in 2013, it gained massive popularity following the protests triggered by Floyd’s death. The movement advocates for the equal rights of black and white citizens in America, opposes systemic racism and oppression, and addresses the alarming extent of racism within American policing, among other issues. As with many social movements, the prevailing narrative often shifts with time. However, at its core, the issue revolves around systemic oppression and discrimination against black individuals. 

There is an agreement that reparations should be made for past injustices, especially those that have predominantly affected black communities. The sooner this is addressed, the better, as people endure the consequences daily, and this issue is not new. There is also the consensus that skin color should not influence actions taken by public authorities, especially the police.

Taking an academic view, however, Black Lives Matter (BLM) is often characterized as a far-left organization with neo-Marxist leanings that has been accused of employing extremist tactics. Significantly, its doctrine is rooted in postmodernist philosophy and critical race theory. Although these intellectual currents were on the fringes of academic discourse just two decades ago, the rise in popularity of identity movements such as Black Lives Matter has brought them into the mainstream. Thus, understanding their principles and objectives is essential.

Postmodernism: When My Truth Might Outweigh Yours

Postmodernism is a philosophical movement greatly influenced by French thinkers. To engage in discussions within this framework, one would typically need to reference, at least in part, the works of minds such as Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida. However, for someone only vaguely familiar with philosophy or who has not delved into contemporary currents, the views of postmodernists might seem rather… unconventional. Yet, they possess their own twisted, from a classical perspective, or indeed, logic.

In essence, philosophy grapples with concepts like Truth, Man, and Nature. The stance on these three aspects determines the philosophical school once may align with.

From the Enlightenment perspective, which forms the foundation of contemporary academia, science and our understanding of the world, key premises emerge:

1. An objective Truth exists that we can discern through reason and experience.
2. Humans possess rationality, and the logic behind this rationality is universal for all.
3. There is a human nature—innate qualities we possess from birth, embedded in our genes, that influence our individual development. Talent, predispositions, genius—the concept of nature is elusive, and the challenge is determining its existence or lack thereof.

At a basic level, it might seem there is no room for debate. White is white, and black is black; there is no alternative Truth. For me, 2+2=4 is just as valid for someone in China; it is logical. I think, I exist, and I feel my nature—it guides me in one direction or another.

However, postmodernists upend these foundational beliefs.

1. They argue that there is not a single, shared, objective Truth. This is because my Truth and your Truth, on the very same topic, differ based on our unique experiences. To illustrate, consider an analogy that might be extreme but vividly captures the essence of this premise. When I look at the gate of the Auschwitz Nazi German concentration camp and compare it to the perspective of someone imprisoned there during the war, in the physical realm, we see the same gate. However, it does not symbolize the same thing for both of us because our emotions related to it are vastly different.
2. Next, the subject of humans and reason. Generally, we acknowledge scientific evidence in medicine, hard sciences, economics, and so on. These are rooted in the universality of logic. We share a common understanding of these terms, enabling us to tackle complex problems and share outcomes—as the world progresses. Postmodernists, however, posit that reason and logic are merely conceptual constructs, only relevant within the discipline that created them. They argue that they are not universal since they do not account for differing experiences, essentially neglecting an outsider’s subjective viewpoint. 
3. Thirdly, concerning human nature, this is relatively straightforward. Traditionally, we believe that we are born with an innate ‘essence’. Postmodernists contend there is no such ‘essence’ or any type of intrinsic human nature. We are merely biological entities drifting through space on a spherical rock, and society shapes and defines us; we are its creation.

Thus, the widespread popularity of identity movements—such as Black Lives Matter—has ushered postmodernist thinking into the mainstream. As a result, we now find ourselves in a world where the prevailing sentiment, both on the streets and in intellectual circles, is that my truth holds more weight than yours, there is no obligation to adhere to another’s logic, and that human nature is solely a construct of culture and society. This shift occurs amidst deep-seated ethnic, religious, gender-based, as well as any other conceivable antagonisms.

One might wonder, how did we arrive here? Indeed, postmodernism is largely to blame. Conservatives missed the emerging threat, given that not so long ago, postmodernists were not taken seriously. Yet, in just a few decades, amidst the fire and smoke of American streets, postmodernist thought has come to dominate the prevailing standards of worldview.

At the Beginning and End, there is the Word

Language is a powerful tool. It is important to recognize how the philosophical foundations of our worldview wield a powerful influence over the shape of our reality. Every day, new words emerge, entire phrases evolve, and different languages intersect with one another. Messages from all directions bombard us, and whether we intend to or not, we absorb them. Increasingly, we no longer interpret the same meaning from identical words. Finding common ground for discussion becomes ever more challenging. Defined and categorized differently, we approach opponents as enemies rather than partners.

We do not seek the Truth; we desire for OUR truth to be the ultimate truth. It is worthwhile to take a step back and examine the profound impact of postmodernist thinking on contemporary debates.

Read more on Holistic News