BACK
The Fascist Side Of The Golden Rule
Reifications (like biological entozoic infections
of the gut) are proto-socio-neurological
enculturations and as useful fictions are
not necessarily symbiotic with, nor necessarily
benignly adjuvant to the welfare of their
unwitting and often naive hosts.
Jud Evans. "Reification and the Philosophy of the
Unreal"
Freedom in humans consists of the ability
to liberate oneself from the tyranny of reificationalist
imprinting. Antonio Rossin. "Democracy, Religion, Drugs". |
I always knew about Fundamentalism but didn't
yet know about institutionalised Fundamentalism--wherein
an institution is so permeated with Fundamentalism
that people are not even aware that what
they say or do is fundamentalist. I question:
is Fundamentalism the trait of a few extremist
religion-based communities, or is it a hidden
but pervasive component of human mind, really
a meme?
What concerned me was the widespread practice
of authoritarianism in parenting, through
the application of the "No-Contradiction
Principle" in family dialogues and parents
doing "their best" for the child,
but in doing so encroaching the latter's
right of initiative and self-awareness. From
Family onwards, this authoritarian attitude
characterises most social relationships,
up to the State being managed "top-down"
by an elite pretending they only know "what"
is the best for, and should be done to, the
people: regardless of the latter's right
to any "bottom-up" participatory
sharing in collective policy-making.
This concern brought me to become a founding
member of the Worldwide Direct Democracy
Movement and to hold discussions about Democracy
Founding Documents, General Rules and Global
Ethic issues. Throughout these discussions,
I always criticised anyone's attitude to
foisting top-down policies on a people whose
right of self-expression in the form of bottom-up
proposals and participatory initiatives had
been oppressed by the "No-Contradiction
Principle"; a principle practiced all
through their family education model to the
point of becoming the common habit. Education
towards aware, autonomous participation since
the earliest family patterning was a key
priority, I guessed, to building bottom-up
democratic communities.
I've met resistances against this bottom-up
approach everywhere, by fundamentalist-like
people wanting to perform their own Principles
top-down on the people. I realised soon,
most of my opponents legitimated their right
to do the best for the people from a "positive"
spelling of the Golden Rule:
" Do onto others what you want to be
done onto you"
I can't agree. My basic reasoning is, if
we wanted to do "what's good for the
people", no Golden Rule could allow
us to decide top-down what this "good"
should be. Only the people themselves could
make such a decision! Only by the decisions
being made "bottom-up" by directly
interested people, could qualify as the participatory
social arrangement which Democracy stands
for. Really, too many people claim they implement
policies "for the people's good"
by pretending to be empowered to decide what
the people's good should be--thanks to the
Golden Rule--but thereby they encroach in
a very fascist manner on the people's direct
decisional autonomy, responsibility and participatory
rights. Wanting to avoid such evil misunderstandings,
I've searched for the Golden Rule's correct
"spelling". I've found this excerpt
from Leonard Swidler's "Toward a Universal
Declaration of a Global Ethic":
astro. ocis. temple. edu/~dialogue/Center/intro.
htm
A glimpse of just how pervasive the "Golden
Rule" is, albeit in various forms and
expressions, in the world's religions and
ideologies, great and small, can be garnered
from this partial listing:
1) Perhaps the oldest recorded version--which
is cast in a positive form--stems from Zoroaster
(628-551 B. C. E.):
"That which is good for all and any
one, for whomsoever--that is good for me...
what I hold good for self, I should for all.
Only Law Universal is true Law"
(Gathas, 43.1).
5) The 3rd-century B. C. E. Mahabharata,
states that its "Golden Rule",
which is expressed in both positive and negative
form, is the summary of all Hindu teaching:
"Do not to others what you do not wish
done to yourself; and wish for others too
what you desire and long for yourself--this
is the whole of Dharma; heed it well"
(Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8).
7) The deuterocanonical biblical Tobit was
written around the year 200 B. C. E. and
contains a negative version --as most are
--of the "Golden Rule": "Never
do to anyone else anything that you would
not want someone to do to you" (Tobit
4:15).
8) The major founder of Rabbinic Judaism,
Hillel, who lived about a generation before
Jesus, though he may also have been his teacher,
taught that the "Golden Rule"--his
version being both positive and negative--was
the heart of the Torah; "all the rest
was commentary": "Do not do to
others what you would not have done to yourself"
(Btalmud, Shabbath 31a).
A comment immediately transpires: No substantial
difference between positive and negative
"spellings" of the Golden Rule
has even come to light. Fundamentalism, meaning
one's self-legitimisation to do what one
dogmatically judges to be the best for others,
seems to be the literal consequence of its
"positive spelling": "Do onto
the others".
Indeed, what if 'the others' who are subjected
to the "Golden Rule" as expressed
in the initiatives and related policy-making
of a power-holder disagree with the latter's
top-down judgement of WHAT is to be done?
What about if 'the others', for some reason
of their own which the power-holder couldn't
know, or neglected to know, were to feel
that the top-down policy was really hurting
them?
This is why I suggest we eradicate the exclusive
recourse to the "positive spelling"
of the Golden Rule from any Founding Document
of our Participatory Democracy: for it allows
the power-holders to feel self-legitimated
to "Do unto the people" whatever
"No-contradiction Principle"-based
policies they feel inclined to execute. And
this at any level of society, from the parent/child
relationship to the State, independently
of any agreement of the recipients of such
policies. Conversely, its "negative
spelling", "do not do", implies
that one's wish "to do" is insufficient
in itself for doing things "unto others",
as the latter's participatory agreement then
becomes mandatory.
Hence a more democratic concept becomes ethically
necessary in order to "do" any
policy unto others: viz., the others' permission,
or conscious asking for, before carrying
out any "doing": which elucidates
a relevant difference. That is, the "positive"
spelling of the Golden Rule makes us judge
"unto others"; whereas its "negative
spelling" makes us become the servants
of a necessarily aware people, our neighbour,
or indeed our children. Let us therefore
put this difference into a greater evidence
in any Founding Document of Democracy
|