Back in June of this year, I attended a conference at Loyola University, Chicago, which was entitled: Globalization for the Common Good. This conference held many of the most intelligent minds in Higher Education, not only in the U.S., but on a global scale. There are two main points though which deserve some critique concerning not only the content of this conference, but a repackaged phenomenon which seems to be developing within the scope of Peace and Justice Studies in Academic Institutions. The first point deals with the formation of the paradigm or position, such as "The Common Good". The common trait of this theme of the "Common Good" which was a plumb line of this conference to an appeal for rational discourse, which seems to be reminiscent of the old claim to common sense. I remember eight white clergyman appealing to Martin Luther King, Jr. to hold to common sense and not create conflict in the Jim Crow South, but this Common Sense did not appeal to MLK, Jr., but was simply an appeal to the already existent power structure. (Letter from Birmingham Jail)
This type of discussion was developed by asking the question, whose rational discourse we should be appealing, since there was a recognition of power structures. The final verdict though was a rational discourse which in the end would acknowledge human beings as part of a global world, which directly affects the second point of a repackaged modern quest for the enlightened individual. What this means is that we as individuals need to not have any of the previous boundaries, which held us to our "tribal identities", but now we need to move beyond these human boundaries to understand the beauty of other cultures and languages.
It seems as though this could become the new colonialism, through the dominant modern person moving into various cultures and ethnicity's, and instead of colonizing with weapons, we colonize with reason. This "Common Good" may not be common at all, it may be the good of those who are already in power and want access to various cultures, since ours no longer possesses any resources that have not already been hoarded.
There was also an overwhelming fear of what has been termed, "Tribal identities", which would of course eventually result in tribal conflicts. My perception of the conference speakers was that conflict was negative and if one engaged in conflict with another, the one engaging lacked the necessary reason to move beyond the conflict. In terms of Conflict Resolution, allowing conflict to have its place within the scope of the dialogue is essential for growth and actually suppression of the already existent conflict will produce further harm. Hence, peace is not known outside of conflict, since we only know one through the other. But, it is not the tribal identities which are the dominant problem or the subsequent conflicts that will result from these identities. The main problem is the system of domination which attempts to violently suppress the voice of those that sound different. Violence is not necessarily physical, but should be seen as emotional, spiritual, and social through the hoarding of resources.
Many conference speakers feared remaking God into this horrible "Tribal Deity", would force god to fight the other existent tribal deities with violence. Once again this is the repackaged premise of the Enlightenment's quest for an overarching scientific rationale which will eventually suppress conflicts through Leviathan. Leviathan is no longer the monolithic monster of military conquest, but the monolithic monster of reason and good thinking. In terms of tribal identities, we as Christians have to acknowledge the god of the incarnation found in Jesus, which at its very core is tribal. We claim that Israel's god made a covenant with her, to bring forth the redemption of the world through one tribe, that "all tribes" would be blessed. So, in the end, yes can we affirm the monotheistic faiths of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as having a commonality and pursue the good in humanity, but we also understand that we as Christians affirm that the fullness of the revelation of God is found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. As Jurgen Moltmann has said, "Jesus is not like God, but God is like Jesus." (The Crucified God) This good will also not be brought forth without suffering and not without death. This is probably where conference speakers would part company, because this does not sound very "Good". Christians must affirm that we as human beings suffering for and with other human beings and as a result of our participation with "the others", will our rational discourse then be afforded to us.
Many would ask, "Why would any of this be important"? Because without the tribal nature of god, it diminishes the unique attributes of human beings. Part of the unique attributes of humans will inevitably cause conflict, because of the pull of manipulation and control. This conflict though must be the process through which we understand one another, not a suppression of the conflict through the universalizing of god. Jesus bore the violence of humanity into his own self, without taking up violence and killing those to whom he himself died. Christians as body of Christ are not called to universalize, which will eventually cause Christians to not bear this violence, but only appeal to a "higher logic", or "rational discourse". Which in my opinion means the suppression of emotion, instead we desire the redirection of emotion toward the proclamation of the gospel. I fear the appeal to this repackaged Enlightenment model of "pure reason," will eventually contribute to the lack of growth, through suppression of any and all conflict as negative, thorugh demonizing those who we perceive as not being reasonable.
In conclusion, our Western culture in a typical post-Enlightenment fashion continues the process of objectifying the subjective. Instead of a word possessing various and nuanced meanings, words are used to make into an object something which should have been intended to be subjective. If we look at the term, The Common Good, it has become an object which overwhelms the our unique worlds, which have god given differences, which are supposed to be utilized to benefit humans. If a term then no longer acts within our world, but exists outside of the world in which we inhabit, it causes humans to demonize the subjective realities of people who do not possess the common good. If we also perceive of ourselves as subjective and in direct relationship with another, then I have to recognize that I too can be part of the problem as well as the solution. I can seek the common good, but I might not necessarily possess the common good, since my interests are very one dimensional. People are objectified in order to control their actions and they are formed into idols in the minds of the oppressor. We also have tendency to project our scorn and ridicule into an object. The problem with forming an object from a subjective movement is that the object does not allow for its voice to be heard. In order for me to truly understand the other, I must listen intently to their movements, but objects tend to not speak out against my projections and therefore solidifying my original convictions that I was truly correct in what I thought. We do not want to be found correct, but truthful in our story in how it engages another's story.
