NEO-LIBERALISM, JATHIKA CHINTHANAYA AND CITIZENSHIP - A RESPONSE - I
I have to thank "Kathika" study circle for the article "Neo-liberalism, Jathika Chinthanaya, and Citizenship" that appeared in "The Island" on 31st October 2005. "Kathika" has taken the trouble to study Jathika Chinthanaya, unlike some others who dabble on the topic without trying to understand what it is all about. "Kathika" has identified the Presidential Elections as that between two candidates, one of them following what is known as Neo-liberalism, and the other Jathika Chinthanaya. At the outset, I must admit that Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse, though he has called his manifesto Mahinda Chinthana, is unlikely to identify himself with Jathika Chinthanaya as such. Both Mr. Rajapakse and Jathika Chinthanaya are in transitional stages, with the former attempting to achieve an alternative to neo-liberalism, while the latter is in the process of formulating concepts and theories relative to the culture and the Chinthanaya of the country.
"Kathika" like many others have translated Jathika Chinthanaya as national ethos. However, Jathika Chinthanaya is the Chinthanaya of the nation, and the latter has been recognized (or defined, if one who is brought up in the western intellectual tradition may say so) as the thread that binds all that has been constructed by the humans belonging to a particular nation, community etc. Thus the arts and crafts, music, literature, science, the attitudes, world view and any other human creation of a nation have something in common that can be called the Chinthanaya. Any Chinthanaya has at least a logic, and attitudes and a philosophy, which may be called the world view of the community or the nation. We do not wish to translate Chinthanaya into English or any other language as it could convey a different meaning. It is true that when Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera used the words Jathika Chinthanaya way back in 1986, he used them as a translation of the words national thought. However, in the evolution of the concept, Chinthanaya has acquired a much deeper idea than thought, though even in Sinhala many people who hear the word Chinthanaya for the first time are likely to mean thought by it. The concept of Chinthanaya is both holistic and reductionist. It is both analytic as well as synthetic. One could think of Chinthanaya as a concept to which everything is reduced and (not or) that synthetically combines everything into a whole. The logic of Jathika Chinthanaya enables us to consider Chinthanaya as both holistic and reductionist.
One of the theories that has been formulated within Jathika Chinthanaya is that knowledge is a human construction, as opposed to say a discovery, and that it is constructed relative to the mind, the sense organs and the culture of a particular individual. One could say that there is a school of thought in the western tradition as well which claim that knowledge is a human construction. It may be so, but we differ from them, as in our formulation, the construction is due to avidya of anicca, dukka and anatta. In that sense any knowledge including science is due to avidya. It has to be mentioned that anicca, dukka and anatta are not concepts and a "person" who "understands" them would have achieved nibbana. The knowledge that is constructed is thus relative to a particular culture, and hence is constructed within a Chinthanaya. We claim that the modern western knowledge is relative to Judaic Christian culture and is constructed within what we call the Greek Judaic Christian (GJC) Chinthanaya.
The GJC Chinthanaya itself was created only about five hundred years ago in the west, and what is known as modernity, renaissance, reformation, western science have been created within this particular Chinthanaya. We have our own theories regarding the creation of the GJC Chinthanaya, published mainly in Sinhala in the newspapers "Irida Divaina" and "Vidusara" which I am afraid are not reputed international journals where intellectuals publish their research. (I continue to lose points for my promotions under the UGC circular No 723 as I do not have so called research papers in reputed journals) Western modernity is in essence a creation in the last five hundred years in the west and is based on the GJC Chinthanaya. It is a continuing process, and in this regard we agree with Habermass, as opposed to the so-called postmodernists, though for different reasons.
We do not wish to use the word tradition in opposition to modernity. We have a tradition, as much as modernity has a tradition. The tradition of Western Christian (we identify it as Christian as well, opposed to Catholic) Modernity is based on the GJC Chinthanaya. The western Christian Modernity emerged in the fifteenth century with the GJC Chinthanaya being created in opposition to the Catholic Chinthanaya that prevailed in Europe at that time. When the westerners refer to tradition they use the word tradition with some kind of degradation. Thus traditional knowledge is not scientific knowledge implying that it is bordering on mythology if not mythology itself. Also modern is to be preferred with respect to tradition which is ancient and not relevant. I am not that concerned with what the westerners have to say about us, but as most of us also follow the westerners, we should be careful in the words we use as unconsciously we may degrade ourselves. It is the English who are very particular about reading between the lines, but when it comes to using their concepts and theories we have not only to read between the lines, but between the words as well. It has to be mentioned that all knowledge is mythology as knowledge is constructed as a result of avidya. Everything including the mind is a construction of the mind. (Those who are interested may read Vidusara to find out how mind constructs the mind!) This follows from the logic of Jathika Chinthanaya, which is cyclic unlike the linear logic of the westerners.
"Kathika" has referred to the individual as against the community. Before the advent of the modernist tradition the westerners were community minded. The western Chinthanaya was Catholic then, and that word itself implies whole. However, the western logic has always been Aristotelian, with their attempts to being "dialectic" ending up in formal systems (Please read Apohakaye Rupikaya or The formalism of Dialectics for details). Though the westerners changed from Catholic Chinthanaya to GJC in the fifteenth century, they did not change their logic. The logic remained Aristotelian and they continued to think in terms of binary oppositions. When Derrida says the westerners think in terms of binary oppositions such as white- black, with one of the terms in the pair dominating the other he refers to this particular characteristic in the western tradition that has remained unchanged to date in spite of Hegel, Marx and Derrida himself. None of them was able to create a system different to that of Aristotle with Derrida not even making an attempt. However, in the eastern traditions, especially in the Sinhala Theravada tradition we have a logical system known as catuskoti which incorporates the Aristotelian logic as well. Thus the Aristotelian logic could be considered as a subset of catuskoti.
What "Kathika" has pointed out is the emergence of the individual in the Western Christian modernity. Within the Catholic Chinthanaya the community or the whole was the dominant term in the binary opposition individual - community. When the Chinthanaya changed to GJC the binary opposition as a pair remained the same. However, unlike during the so-called European medieval period when the Catholic Chinthanaya was the prevailing Chinthanaya, during Christian modernity, the individual became the dominant term in the binary opposition individual - community. The David of Michelangelo that was created five hundred years ago could be considered as a symbol representing the change from the community to the individual. It represented the victory of the individual David over the community Goliath. The westerners could change only the dominant term, they did not know how to drop the binary opposition altogether.
We consider Capitalism, that emerged later in the Europe as the economic mode of western Christian modernity, just as much feudalism was the economic mode of the European medieval period. In the medieval period the community dominated over the individual, but when the individual became the dominant term, the latter lost everything except the labour that he could spend or sell. The individual gradually lost the relationship with the extended family, then the nuclear family and now he has alienated from himself as well. The alienation that Marx mentions is associated with Capitalism. For Marx alienation is a result of Capitalism. For us alienation as well as capitalism is the result of the change of the Chinthanaya of the Europeans. Not only Capitalism but even Luther and Calvin, not to mention Copernicus and Galileo are the results of the change in the Chinthanaya that began in the fifteenth century. Lutheran God of the individual was opposed to God of the community and mass of the Catholic Church. The next stage of alienation would see the individual alienating from himself and more and more cases of schizophrenia as a social phenomenon would have to be dealt with.
In the western society the individual is the most important concept and his, now hers as well, freedom from the society (community), individual liberty, human rights have drawn the attention of the academics legal pundits and administrators. The small David has grown up to be a Goliath in five hundred years threatening not only the community but himself as well. It has become a case of protecting David not from Goliath but from himself. The economic component has become the dominant component and welfare has become synonymous with individual economic prosperity. In the process, not only the environment but even the health of the individual has been sacrificed. The adage prevention is better than cure has been replaced by get ill and then get well attitude. If one has money he could get well, after getting ill. Even meditation has become a way to train the mind how to spend energy efficiently on accumulating wealth. Ever since Adam Smith talked about wealth of the nation individuals have been spending more and more energy to grab more and more wealth. Adam Smith should have written on wealth of the individual and not on the wealth of the nation.
(To be continued)
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>