BY JOSÉ ALEMÁN

In print | November 2, 2006

In my previous column, I wrote about how reasonable it is to imagine the possibility of a universal human solidarity that is able to go beyond individual or collective differences and can become the key to end conflict and hatred. A human solidarity that would operate through all social strata, and that has to take place obviously in daily life, in policies, etc.

Yet while reading it, I noticed that the way I dealt with those differences was superficial and, as a result, unacceptable. If such solidarity is possible, it won’t be realized without fully taking into account the differences that more often than not prevent its full realization and instead provoke prejudice and hatred, domination and all sorts of conflict. Ultimately, as I said in my last column, I believe that its realization is possible, but the way to accomplish it lies neither in futile violence seeking the elimination of those differences, nor in an apathetic conformity and relativism that exaggerates the differences and thwarts universals. It lies, rather, as I will argue, in dialogue, collaboration and participation. We all have stakes in this issue, and thus I invite you to join me in thinking about these differences in the context of the quest for solidarity.

Evidently, the initial and most basic differences between us are physical. These include, but are not limited to, the following: the color of our skin, color of our eyes, the color and shape of our hair, the racial features that would be constituted by what I just mentioned, our height and weight, our sex, our mannerisms, our disabilities, etc. Each feature or characteristic plays the social role of distinguishing one human being from another human being, and one group from another. An example of the impact of these differences can be found in its relation to power. It wouldn’t be a surprise if the powerful or the administrator will seek to categorize subjects in order to simplify the job. Why not start by categorizing by race? Or by sex? Why not assign different roles and different meanings to each? Yes, these differences actually “make a difference,” but the way these differences gain meaning seems to me chiefly dependent on cultural and societal aspects based on convention, along with the ever-present influence of power.

Similarly, there are also linguistic, psychological, behavioral and cultural differences, as well as many other subtler and more specific ones. Among these, I guess I would include: “deviant” sexual identities and practices (in the context of an actively heteronormative and heterosexist society), differences in terms of religious and spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), cultural and political traditions, including institutions and historical processes and, of course, class with all its implications in relation to upbringing, access and privilege, etc. The effects that these differences have both in daily life and in greater social structures are so complex and so vast, and the knowledge that I possess about them is so amateurish, that I must limit my analysis to these general statements. Let me just say that if we consider the interplay between human beings and this intricate network of differences, labels, categories and characteristics, the idea of an overarching human solidarity seems almost impossible and terribly unrealistic.

What do these differences yield? They yield individuals just like you and me, and groups such as our families, our friends, cultures and nation. All these factors coalesce in infinitely many intricate ways to shape who we are and how we interact with others and with social and political institutions. The amounts of “money” we have, our knowledge, the languages we speak, the clothes we wear and even the music we listen to, all serve to distinguish us and in a sense separate us. Furthermore, when these differences are perceived by, say, the state, they serve to categorize us and to

compartmentalize our lives and behavior.

So we’re different. OK, we get that. But now what? Are we doomed then to inexorable conflict and misunderstanding? I believe that when faced with the mystery of our common existence in the world and with the differences that separate us, we still have enough capability to think about how we want to deal with them and to act upon that thinking. There are constraints, there are particular circumstances that define our range, but that range of free will persists. The idea of democracy is an attempt to deal with these differences in an accepting manner, and yet it is imperfect and should not be imposed. Extremism of all kinds plagues the world, and has as its goal to demean and sometimes obliterate the other. Some institutionalized religions that advocate solidarity have even been fundamental in the deaths of thousands in the past.

And yet we are all human and we all have free will. Since neither obliteration nor exaggeration can deal effectively with this network of differences, I think that it is in interreligious dialogues, intercultural conversations and international collaboration where we can find the way to solidarity. But these are just words, and I don’t think any of us have all the answer to these questions. No one said it would be easy, right? Yet it is we who have the moral responsibility to set these foundations of solidarity for the future, and the future is already here.

José is a sophomore. You can reach him at jaleman1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »