“I resist evil with knowledge.” – Todorov
Introduction:
I have always believed that the Bulgarian French philosopher Tzvetan Todorov, who died in 2017, was, and is one of the most important philosophers of the modern era. I believe that Todorov’s intellectual theories deserve to be raised in our modern contemporary societies, given that his theories touch on our reality and aspirations in our various life experiences.
Todorov talks about the motives of his intellectual project. According to him, it was when he first encountered evil in the Republic of Bulgaria, where he was born in 1939, at the time under Soviet rule, or as he called it, Stalinist rule (after Joseph Stalin). However, after Todorov moved to France, at the age of twenty-three he encountered a different kind of evil, one too subtle to be associated with a particular system or person. That was his personal starting point for this intellectual project.
Before we review this intellectual project, it is important to review the definition of culture, based on Todorov’s collective writings. Culture is “the name given to the totality of the characteristics of social life, the ways of living and thinking collectively, the forms and methods of organizing time and space. It also includes language, religion, family structures, the ways of building houses, the tools, and the ways of eating and dressing.” Therefore, the term culture is an umbrella for the ways we deal with life in its various terms: How we deal with others, with the earth, and with all the creatures that inhabit it, both inanimate objects and living beings. Thus, there are two fundamental aspects of culture, one based on our actions, and the other on the ideas and convictions that generate and guide these actions.
The Three Characteristics of Culture:
If we agree on the previous definition of culture, as defined by Todorov, then it would have three imperative qualities. The first of these qualities is its historical connection, which means that, as one generation, we inherit our culture from the generations before us, and we pass it to subsequent generations, which is commonly called “cultural heritage”. After that, there is the inevitability of multiculturalism as well, whether from the interaction of one culture with another, or its influence on the broader culture of contemporary life, or even the overlap of cultures with each other in one human being. Or, as Todorov puts it, “we don’t have a single cultural identity, but multiple identities capable of integrating or emerging in the form of intersecting groups.” Finally, culture is necessarily changing. All cultures change and transform, with varying levels of preparedness and response to this change. Thus, cultural heritage includes all the changes that successive generations have added. “However, it is precisely when a culture no longer changes that it is a dead culture.” Todorov gives an example in Latin, because it has failed to keep up with the times, or as he puts it “Nothing is more normal, more common, than the disappearance of the former state of a culture, and of its replacement by a new state.”
First: Cultural Heritage
The truth is that cultural heritage, whether inherited from the family, society or the human experience, contributes to the creation of our memories and personal experiences, making it one of the most important characteristics for man, which distinguishes him from the rest of the living creatures on this planet. Or, as the Italian philosopher Umberto Eco puts it, we are “our memories” and that “the shared memories for groups of people is what shapes their identities.”
Thus, the transmission of this common memory from one generation to another is the first essential characteristic of the formation of culture, and the formation of our affiliations in turn. As Arabs, for example, we cannot display our current identity without linking it to the cultural heritage throughout history, especially the Islamic religion. Also, it is not surprising that non-Muslim Arabs use some words of an Islamic character in their daily conversations.
Going back to what Umberto Eco said, libraries represent a state of cultural memory of human experience. I agree with him completely if the idea of libraries is generalized, in the form that began from the Library of Alexandria about two centuries BC, to include all the means used by man in cultural heritage. Writing is no longer the only means, and books are not the only tool. Due to the technological development in our days, which changed the form of libraries and the means of knowledge, books are no longer the only means of spreading knowledge. The role of libraries is no longer limited to displaying and preserving books as well, as knowledge tools are different today.
Second: Multiculturalism
Every human being has multiple cultures with multiple sources of knowledge. The simplest example of this can be seen through the attitude of all other cultures towards American culture and its globalization; some aspects of American culture in the past have become global phenomena, but this connection does not mean a disconnect from their own cultures.
We cannot deny that multiculturalism, in our current era, has become a necessity and an unavoidable reality compared to the global situation two centuries ago, for example. This is due to the expansion of resources and tools that participate in its manufacture and formation, both at the individual and societal levels, and as a result of globalization and technical development that we are witnessing in the current era, such as the abundance of information, progress in means of communication, ease of movement between distant cities, and others.
One of the most important aspects of multiculturalism is the difference in cultural formation and individual identity between any two individuals, no matter how many common denominators they have in common, and regardless of the conditions they shared while growing up, like siblings. We can say that the final composition of everyone’s identity will be completely different from the other, as if it were a special cultural imprint formed after a unique experience. Especially after the informational openness between different cultures and civilizations, which in turn made it easier for a person to communicate with another civilization or culture and delve into its details, arts, and effects. Individual identity consists of several identities and affiliations, whether in terms of linguistic or religious identity or even social identity and others. This multiplicity is not considered a conflict or a combination of opposites, of course.
Like Edward Said mentioned in his memoirs when he stated that for the Arabs, he was the Western “Edward”, while for the Western world he is the Eastern “son of Said”. At the same time, however, we still share many human concepts, on the scale of family, city or geographical area, political nationality and other things that shape our personal identities on many levels.
Third: Cultural Evolution
The third and final point is cultural evolution or cultural development: the constant search for optimal solutions to the problems facing us as individuals or societies. Identities are not static; in fact, they adapt and change according to the circumstances and challenges they face. It is obvious that each has its own different inputs, which necessarily calls for the use of different tools each time, and this is what makes cultures unique and distinct regardless of their economic value.
Cultural development is also motivated by the contact of one culture with another, and even if anyone looks at the human experience, you will find that different civilizations and cultures have contributed in one way or another to the creation of this general human experience, which in my opinion is great. Just as different civilizations have contributed to each other’s development, the relationship between different civilizations and cultures is usually a relationship of knowledge exchange that contributes to their development, improvement and preparation for the conditions of life. The study of these changes and the exchange of knowledge between cultures has different tools, one of the most prominent of which is to trace this influence linguistically, for example, by retrieving the origins of vocabulary and its original meanings, or with other scientific tools in the study of societies and people.
Todorov’s Intellectual Project
Jean Sénié sums up this project by saying “For several years, Tzvetan Todorov has been working on the issue of altruism and on the relationship between us-and-the other. In his work, he follows a threefold perspective:
1) Deconstructing the discourse of the clash of civilizations, which is fueled by fear of barbarism
2) Identifying the genealogy of the ideas that feed into this discourse
3) Remedying the dilemma”
The Us vs. Others Dichotomy
The fundamental cultural problem of the present era, according to Todorov’s intellectual project, begins with the term Barbarism. It is especially important here to add the definition to this term; for Todorov, barbarism refers to men who are seen as primitive or uncivilized, as a mockery a culture, less civilized and organized.
It is an existing term, dating back to Greek thought, one interpretation views others with extreme superiority and abhorrent racism. Todorov says: “If we define barbarism as the refusal to consider others as human beings like us, we should consider this world ruled by a unilateral power based on economic influence as the complete embodiment of barbarism.” Todorov even argues that some contemporary human sciences, such as sociology, are based on this principle, on dealing with other cultures with some superiority or based on exploring other civilizations from the Western man’s point of view, rather than leaving each civilization to express itself appropriately.
Bastien Engelbisch wrote regarding this subject “The relative meaning lies in the consideration that a barbarian is one who does not speak the same language as me, and therefore will remain far from my mental structure. […] Todorov does not deny the existence of a form of barbarism, nor does he deny the existence of a form of urbanization between different cultures, but he refuses to link urbanization with technological development and artistic prosperity. Todorov even stresses that the idea of civilization lies first in the ability to recognize the humanity of the other, through our participation in the unity of humanity in general, with the multiplicity of forms and aspects of our cultural formation.”
Is mental structure a product of language?
It is no secret to many that language has a basic role in shaping the mental structure of the individual. Linguistic terms are a major reason for the ability to distinguish a connotation and its purpose, and to deliver this connotation as a message to another person to be aware of the same purpose of the sentence. But it can be more difficult, especially if the recipient of the phrase is from another linguistic culture, especially if their mother language does not contain synonyms for those words.
This space between the two constituents of the previous virtual dialogue becomes a means of differentiating and distinguishing each language from the other, but it does not necessarily require racial discrimination. I mean that being able to identify differences does not mean that one is better than the other, just as technological development does not necessarily mean cultural progress and urbanization either.
Language in its simple sense consists of three basic levels: 1) it is a set of sounds, figures or symbols that refer to these sounds, known as letters. 2) The formation of a number of letters in a certain way leads to words and terms, which also symbolize a number of people, things, or actions. 3) Lastly, the arrangement of these words, according to certain grammatical and linguistic rules, leads to the formation of sentences, which form the meanings, and lead to the purposes.
Every language will describe the tools and inanimate objects to which it was exposed, and what it naturally found in its surroundings. It is also the nature of languages that some parts die, and others are born in their dealings with life and its circumstances; words die and are born just as language adopts vocabulary from other languages. It is very strange that this concept is used to sow division, especially since its goal is primarily to communicate with each other and to deal honestly accordingly, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell argues. If a child is taught the meanings of these words falsely, the language’s purpose will be lost, and a different arbitrary language may even form.
The Experience of Arabs as an Other:
Returning to Todorov’s intellectual project and his fight against the Us vs. Others dichotomy, it should be noted that he criticized the use of this dichotomy in Western society. He wanted to gain his cultural legitimacy and the sympathy of the public; starting with the war against the indigenous population, and then the Cold War and the fight against communism at the beginning of the last century AD, led by Joseph McCarthy in the United States of America. On the other hand, there is the war against Nazism and everything German or Asian during and after World War II. The Western identity has always relied on its definition of itself as the opposite of the other. The common denominator of all the above ideologies, which have been treated as other, from McCarthy to other Western politicians dealing with anyone who disagrees with their political orientations, even if not necessarily communist, is their falling into the us and others dichotomy and even demonizing the other in the discourse followed by both sides.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, and as stated by Todorov sometime later about the state of the war on terror, and its association with the cultures of others (Arabs and Muslims) by Western politicians: “The vast majority of the Arab and Muslim population, or simply the non-Western population, will feel that this war is an insult and humiliation. In this case, humiliation, in forms of suffering or perception, gives birth to arrogance. Nothing fuels terrorism more than the convergence between the ability to self-sacrifice and the technology of destruction that has become available to all.” It is precisely this sense of humiliation that has been exploited by terrorist organizations for recruitment, and it is also the same discourse used in any radical ideology [Us and others].
Just as Arab and Muslim countries and organizations have stood against these terrorist organizations that attack peaceful civilians, Todorov, on the other hand, according to his value system, has stood against the use of this dichotomy in Western discourse as well: “I have realized for some time that a certain use of freedom may pose a danger to democracy.” Todorov writes in one of his writings, “The threats that weigh heavily on democracy do not come from outside, but rather from the inside. […] The precondition is that Western elites stop considering themselves the ultimate embodiment of truth, virtue, and cosmic order, and must stop disdaining the laws and judgments of others.”
To Accept the Other, or Protect Cultural Identity?
Despite the ugliness of all the above mentioned, including the repercussions of this dichotomy on the human scene as a whole and the horrific events that we are witnessing on a personal level or as international news, the reader of the cultural scene still finds that this dichotomy still exists in various aspects of our lives. It can even be said that it dominates the opinions we witness in various digital and traditional means of communication, and from all segments of people, regardless of their economic levels, cultural affiliations and nationalities. One would almost say that this dichotomy predominates in thinking about the human cultural scene, as evidenced by the election of presidents of different democratic states, based on their adoption of the same dichotomy based on national grounds, and justifying it as protecting societies, their identities, and affiliations, and this is what brings us to the next point.
Which would be the first option for the people of a certain culture? Protecting their culture or coexisting with the other? To answer this repeated question, Todorov’s view can be cited, which describes this dichotomy as a systematic fallacy. The confusion of the question of cultural identity in modern times, according to Todorov, is the result of two main factors: First, is the “acceleration of globalization,” which represents an explosion in the communication between identities in front of the cultural identity that tries to maintain its cohesion. The second would be the “rise and growth of individualism,” which is represented by the overwhelming desire for the individual to choose his personal identity, regardless of the commonly shared identity.
Of course, I do not want to label these two factors as evil or good, as they are an inevitable consequence of the current situation, as we mentioned earlier. But because of the second factor in particular, Monique Hébrard says: “Todorov is also concerned about the weakening of power within families, which leads to amplified obsession with power and oppression.”
To confront this problem, it is necessary to first provide an environment that “allows for a balance between the individual and the collective, between economic goals and spiritual aspirations, between the desire for independence and the need to belong to a group,” and then work to “get rid of the sterile conflict between the oppressive patriarchal society and the ultra-liberal and savage society,” as Hébrard believes. In other words, Todorov means a balanced state of society, between a system that tries to disrupt women’s community participation and a system that seeks moral decay and measures this against the rest of ordinary life.
How can this dilemma be addressed?
Engelbach says that “There is no civilization that can be confined to one culture.” He then goes on to say, “Barbarism, on the other hand, is the attitude by which we reject a person outside the circle of humanity, by completely negating his/her differences or what constitutes these distinctive characteristics. Overall, civilization is an expression of a common humanity that is aware of its profound unity, capable of interdependence and cohesion in the midst of this diversity of cultural expressions.”
Engelbach further explains Todorov’s project by expressing that “Yearning for an identity and belonging to a culture provides the necessary condition for building an integrated human personality. But it is openness to the other that provides the universal horizon, fulfills the meaning of civilization, and provides us with the sufficient condition to achieve this goal.”
Is Getting Rid of the Enemies a Priority?
One of the most mistaken practices in constructing one’s identity is to define it based on being the opposite of the other (The same logic that makes those who disagree with a prevailing opinion in a particular environment adopt the opposite view entirely). Todorov says, “To identify oneself and to live on the other hand, it will be necessary for each human being to determine one’s position in relation to others, without reducing this relationship to a state of war; but as a call for love, respect and the demand for recognition.”
In that same article, he goes on to say “We must abandon Manichaean thought itself, based on the doctrine of the conflict between light and darkness, or good and evil. We must also shift our focus from the subject to the analysis of the action itself. Instead of freezing collective identities and confining them into a fixed and static essence, we must persevere in analyzing different situations that are always specific.” Or, as Todorov sums it up at the end of his article: “It is not hostile identities that cause conflicts. Rather, it is conflicts that create hostile identities.”
In his intellectual project, Todorov lays down two necessary conditions for forming a civilization, which enable this civilization to be built and developed with a mechanism that embraces all the diverse cultures, including the majority or minorities.
The First Condition:
“The first condition for all inhabitants of a country, whether born in it or immigrated to it from elsewhere, is respect for its laws and institutions, and therefore, the obligation to engage in a social contract as a basic rule.” Just as multiculturalism is a necessary imperative in any society, “there is no reason to exercise the role of censorship of each other’s cultural identity. In general, the culture of immigrants will remain different from the culture of the majority, and therefore it is destined to join the chorus of multiple voices before, which constitutes the culture of a country.”
Todorov then asks the most common question regarding this opinion, “However, certain customs and elements of cultural traditions contradict the laws of the country where the people who practice these customs live. So, what to do? The initial answer is clear. Even if it is always difficult to enforce, the law overcomes customs and traditions.” Or, as he put it in another article, published in the Journal of Human Sciences in 2009: “Moderation is the organization of a public space in which human diversity is considered. We do not give in to violence, and on the contrary, our identities should not be compromised either.”
The Second Condition:
“The second principle of peaceful coexistence between communities of different origins under the same homeland requires that these communities, regardless of their own traditions, possess a common cultural base and a body of knowledge about the regulations in force in this society.” This is one of the principles in which the role of society and its dealings emerges, more than the legal role. “Herein lies the role of education; in the sense that it includes school and then goes beyond it. These systems are not about moral and political values, which remain multiple, but about the cultural components that ensure our integration in the space.”
He then proposes that the subject of ‘civic studies’ at the primary level be developed through examples, stories and narratives of the country’s historical positions, which in turn aims to reinforce the single idea that we share citizenship, “no matter how many and different our cultural identities are.” This is confirmed at the preparatory or intermediate level by studying the history of the country, “without falling into systematic criticism.”
Todorov’s Advice:
Todorov concludes his article The Coexistence of Cultures by emphasizing that “the great religions, in past and present, command one to perform the duties of hospitality, to help the poor and needy, to love the neighbor.” This is a commandment that stems from social formation, rather than law. “In today’s world, which is characterized by the rapid development of means of communication and technology, as well as the unification of the economy, people in different countries have become closer and more dependent on each other. Meeting with foreigners is an inevitable and necessary outcome. It is our responsibility to make better use of these meetings, in their homes as well as ours, because what happens there in cooperation must be crowned here with integration. The strengths of our interests and beliefs push us to go in the same direction.”
In conclusion, it is clear to see what the nature of evil was in Todorov’s discovery of intellectual maturity: “In need of each other, some do not give what they give willingly, and thus evil arises. This egocentrism becomes dangerous if it is a collective situation. The most terrible crimes that have been committed, historically, are caused by the instinct to survive and protect ourselves and our loved ones. With this murderous Manichaeism, all the binaries like Us vs. the Other, Friend vs. Enemy or in a worse case, Good vs. Evil coincide.”
T1678
