Beyond the Right and the Left in Social Progress

Prabhu Guptara

Evaluating Three Alternative Approaches

Many programmes or ideas for social progress are emerging from that section of the global elite that is committed to technological domination of the earth (these focus on what C. S. Lewis once called the “abolition of man”—though he was referring to the assault on education and culture, rather than the current focus on science and technology). As evidence of this, I cite the resistance to moral limits on such things as cloning, genetically modified food, abortion, space exploration, and nuclear energy.

The elite view is that science and technology, if combined with free markets, will sort out all problems. Certainly, there is a good chance that all problems for the elite will be sorted out—and the attitude of the elite is that the cost to the rest of humanity is simply their bad luck. Slightly exaggerated, this is what may be called the “right wing” view.

In contrast to the approach to social progress from the global elite we find suggestions for social progress coming out of humanitarian-oriented individuals and groups such as are represented at the annual World Social Forum (WSF). These focus on state-intervention, social control, and grassroots activism—with all their limitations. These represent what may be called the “left wing” view.

In the last few decades, three main alternatives have emerged to these “right and left wing” views.

The first of these alternatives is represented by Buddhists and assorted New Agers (BUNA) who think that what is needed is some form of psychological experience through meditation and associated techniques that they believe will lead to a “change in consciousness.” Given such a change, everything will be well, because individuals will become oriented to peace, harmony, and the general good of humanity. BUNA seem not to be willing or able to consider that hard choices are necessary in politics, economics, finance, the global monetary system, science, technology, and so on. Nor do BUNA seem willing or able to consider the organisational work and the legal and social pressure (if not the actual application of psychological or physical force) that are necessary against the global elite if socio-political realities are to change. Indeed, BUNA do not even sufficiently recognise the suffering that is resulting from the psychological and physical violence applied by the elite.

The above groups and approaches have, however, various valid and worthwhile elements. For example, the global elite’s commitment to technological progress is admirable, even though their propaganda against human values is not—and is moreover entirely unnecessary to scientific and technological progress. We differ with them on what constitutes progress, because we consistently raise the question: “Science and technology for what?” They answer, “For their own sake, even when science and technology go against humanity.” We answer: “Not so. The only good science or technology is that which helps the mass of humanity. The rest is either a waste of resources or will eventually militate against the interests of the majority of people in the world by strengthening the ability of the elite to impose its interests against those of most of humanity.” The elite does not make any further answer because, if it did, it would have to say, “Precisely so,” which would of course be accepted by no one.

The social-progress suggestions coming out of WSF and similar bodies are, some of them, quite helpful. Moreover, WSF-types understand completely the clash between their values and the values of the global elite. But WSF-types have no means of dealing with this clash beyond asserting that grass-roots movements by themselves will succeed in overcoming the machinations of the elite. Well, history has evidence in favour of as well as against such an assertion.

Negative evidence is found in the way elites in such countries as Japan, Nepal, and China were able to lock away their people from any hint of what was happening in the outside world—and that for hundreds of years. Consider too the record over the last decades and down to the present in North Korea or Cuba, as well as what is happening in such countries as Iran and Algeria, whose elites are now beginning the process of locking their people away from the modern world. China seems to be wavering between the option of openness and the option of becoming closed. Liberals do not believe that it would be practically possible for China to go down the road of becoming closed, but China has done it earlier and it can do so again, particularly when assisted by the power of modern technologies.

On the other hand, there is evidence in favour of the WSF faith in grassroots movements too. This evidence is found outstandingly in the European Reformation of the sixteenth century and in the work of the Methodists combined with the Clapham Circle in nineteenth-century England. These demonstrate beyond doubt that grass-roots movements, when led and helped by even one or two able leaders, can indeed overcome the power of the rest of the elite.

Moreover, the work of the Reformation made both possible and easier the work of the Clapham Circle/Methodists, and those together in turn make the work of social progress easier for our day. This is because the Reformation led to the rise both of general prosperity and of science/technology (which increasingly place power in the hands of the masses), while the work of the Clapham Circle and their allies led to the universalising of the ethics of Jesus the Lord. Together, the Reformation and the work of the Clapham Circle with their group, led to the global realisation that political and legal actions could be a means of blessing the world. However, WSF-types both underestimate the scale and quality of the human and financial resources at the command of the global elite, and overestimate the willingness of “normal ordinary people” to invest in anything beyond their own peace and comfort. Just because WSF-types are fired up, they think that everyone else will be fired up as well.

That is where Buddhists and New Agers (BUNA) come in. They argue that without a “change in consciousness” there is no change in motivation and that, without that, nothing moves. A “change in consciousness” would bring increased motivation to work and give self-sacrificially for the good of humanity—and that is what actually moves things. However, good motivation is not enough by itself. Nor is it enough when combined with the sorts of ideas on offer from WSF-types, because the good ideas produced by WSF do not amount to an incisive analysis of what is wrong. Nor do they amount to a properly thought-through alternative for the future (as will become evident over time from the actions of the newly elected leftist parties across South America).

Here we come to what makes the Muslim programme attractive—the second main alternative to the right and left wings. In my view, Western liberals have no understanding of the intellectual appeal of Islam, just as they have no clue regarding why “ordinary” Muslims born and brought up in the West are willing to commit their own lives to killing innocent civilians or individual soldiers in an apparently hopeless attempt to overthrow the principles on which the world is globalising. The fact of the matter is that Islam does have an incisive understanding of what is wrong with the way the world is going (that is, that the world has gone against God’s ways) and a programme laid down from the time of the Prophet Mohammed that is based on the use of force to bring the world “back into accordance with God’s will.”

Modern liberals (Western as well as Muslim) cavil at that description of Islam, but it is clear to any student of the history of Islam that isolated Koranic texts about “freedom of thought” do not typify Islam in practice, except in very particular times and places. On the other hand, the use of force is what is characteristic of and essential to Islam from its beginning and right down to this day. This explains the reluctance of the Muslim world to give what the West calls “human rights” to minorities, women, and even individuals in terms of the basic freedoms of thought, association and speech. The questions of whether American soldiers are on Saudi soil, or whether Jerusalem should be an international city, or whether Israel should exist, are only symptomatic of what is wrong with the world, in the Islamic view. Liberal Muslims either ignore or do not understand this dimension of what is supposed to be their own faith. When they do pay it attention and comprehend it, it is not surprising that they “convert” to it very readily. That is what explains the sudden “radicalisation” of vast swathes of the Muslim world.

By contrast with all the above, the teaching of Jesus the Lord offers a challenging and altogether more revolutionary third alternative to the right and left wings. With Islam, the teaching of Jesus the Lord agrees that what is wrong is that the world has departed from God’s ways. With BUNA, the teaching of Jesus agrees that what is necessary is a change in consciousness that comes when we allow His Holy Spirit to live in us and transform us. And, against Islam, but with BUNA, the teaching of Jesus decisively rejects violence, though it goes beyond BUNA in rejecting the use of violence even in self-defence.

With WSF, the teaching of Jesus the Lord agrees that there is a clash between the values of the global elite and the values that are necessary for humanity as a whole to progress. On the other hand, with the global elite, the teaching of Jesus agrees that such institutions and structures as the family, marriage, and government all involve the exercise of authority—to be exercised in love and for the good of others, but authority nonetheless—which, in turn, implies rules, regulations, punishments, and incentives. Finally, the teaching of Jesus the Lord gives humanity a much deeper way than is offered by Islam and WSF of analysing what is wrong with global and national politics, economics, science, and so on. Jesus the Lord also provides a systematic alternative to current arrangements in each of these areas—an alternative* that will not and cannot be imposed by violence but can only be accepted freely by the transforming power of God’s love when that is experienced by us.  

Professor Prabhu Guptara (www.prabhu.guptara.net) is a Senior Fellow of The Trinity Forum and active in its programs in Europe and India. He lives in Switzerland and has contributed this piece in an entirely private capacity.

2 Responses (comments are closed) • Features, Faiths and Worldviews, Global Culture, Fri 24 Aug 2007