Dependency, power and the new humanism moment

The word dependency means to be subordinated to a person or to some things. To be dependent is to be subjugate, to be subordinate to a system of power, and a system of relationships imposed by one entity on another – such as a strong power on a weak one, a dictatorship “vis-à-vis” a people, etc. Dependency is a psychological mental state connected to a system of economic, political, sociocultural, subordination by a group of people to another group. As a rule, the weaker entity is in a relation of dependency on the stronger. 


Dependency can have a natural or an artificial (imposed) historical origin; an example of the former is parent and child; developed versus developing countries. There is various form of dependency. But in most of these forms we find ourselves in front of similar result which is the violence and the domination of one by another.


For centuries the problem of dependency has been a fundamental issue for any people and group that struggle for equality, freedom and human rights. Even today, the new form of struggle such as the environmental group, are confronted with the issue – the dependency of the majority of people of this planet for fossils fuels, plastic and the crazy modern life style that cause many damage to human being and to the environment. Dependency is also obvious in the case of colonized people. Now still people and ethnic group are struggling for the sovereignty of their territory and culture – such as the First Nation in Canada and the French people in Canada and in Quebec.


Today, although relations of dependency of weaker countries on the major powers have no legal validity and are even condemned morally and legally by the world community, they continue to exist in practice. Notwithstanding the fact that all UN member states are recognized as independent, in reality significant financial, economic, and military control (and in some areas even administrative control) continues to be exercised by former metropolis. What about the power of the State that have nuclear weapon? Most people know that these countries control vast region of the world trade and economy. In fact in the Security Council at the UN every State member are nuclear weapon powerhouse! – except for most State invited to join the council for a mandate of a couple of years.


In 2010, Silo spoke in Berlin at the Nobel Peace Prize Summit and described the situation in the world as “extremely complex. He spoke about the growing nuclear threat, the resurgent arms race, the widespread poverty and the clash of cultures, and a possible crisis of the international financial system. In his view, these were not isolated crises, however, “but rather a picture that reveals the global failure of a system whose method of action is violence and whose central value is money.” In particular, Silo denounced the irresponsible interests of the world’s nuclear powers and the madness of violent groups with possible access to nuclear weapons, which have put the entire planet at risk of an accident or confrontation of disastrous proportions”. I have to say that I agree with Silo point of view on the irresponsible interest link to money and nuclear weapons.


Good new, thing have change since 2009 with the elaboration of the “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)” in 2017. The Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, was the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons with the goal of leading towards their total elimination. In order to come into effect, signature and ratification by at least 50 countries is required. As of 23 January 2020, 35 states have ratified the treaty.


A few weeks ago I watch several video to understand the perspective of rich guys on nuclear weapons. I was surprised to find out that many billionaires in USA think climate crisis and AI are more damaging for human and than nuclear warfare. Obviously climate crisis need urgent action from everyone and every State.

Actually many rich guys don’t really express themselves about banning nuclear weapon.Nevertheless I think most of them are link to the defense industry in some ways with their big capital. So they cannot express their opinion freely about banning nuclear weapon. I would like to know if the billionaires from Africa and South America have the same perspective on nuclear weapons. 

Nuclear weapon, power, and dependency


Nuclear weapon is power and to talk about it is Taboo. But what about the dependency relationship maintaining by nuclear weapon powerhouse State, Take the State of France. France play a major role with countries in Africa ? and now the President Macron is telling European members to join in and buys more weapons. Take United States “vis-à-vis” countries in East Europe– that were link not a long time ago to Russian nuclear weapons powerhouse. We understand that many people with a lot, a lot of money don’t wanted to be disturbed any of theses power, because the status quo serve their interest. So obviously, the nuclear ban will not come from the economical and political elite of this world onless they experimented some kind of epiphany! 


Women and dependency

Women group struggling for equality have been confronting with the issue of dependency throughout pression of the patriarchal system. The patriarchal system is base on dependency relationship and it’s manifested in the superiority of the man over the woman, the elder over the younger, etc. The division between women and men generated many sufferings and discrimination. A 100,000 ago the first patriarchal organization created discrimination.  As a rule, the weaker entity, women is in a relation of dependency on the stronger the men. 


Today, although relations of dependency have no legal validity and are even condemned morally and legally by the world community, such as the # MeToo movement, they continue to exist in practice. 


Humanist attitude and anti-humanist


Today everywhere we find people with humanist attitude that strives to overcome dependency and to strengthen sovereignty through good-neighbor policies, realizing the equality of all peoples, and the observation of universally recognizes international norms and standards. While struggling for equal rights, freedom, and solidarity, speaks out against all forms of dependency in relations between human beings, peoples, and nations.


These people strive at any practical and/or theoretical position that tends to support a structure of power based on the anti-values of discrimination and violence.


In fact, they strive at this anti-humanist behavior that is in practice the inverted image of the humanist attitude. It does not refer to particular situations or to the commission of specific acts that may well be reprehensible from the perspective of humanist ethics. In concrete terms, the anti-humanist attitude is a personal emplacement or stance in the world, an “objectifying” mode of relationship characterized by the negation of the intentionality and liberty of other human beings – for centuries this personal emplacement provided the ground for maintaining various forms of dependency –and violence and generated war and monstrosities.


Moreover today, still old prejudices concerning human nature and the passivity of consciousness are once again being asserted, transformed into neo-evolutionary theories embodying such views as natural selection determined through the struggle for the survival of the fittest. Again we find the “dependency relationship” in the version currently in fashion, now transplanted into the human world, this sort of zoological conception attempts to go beyond former dialectics of race or class by asserting a dialectic in which it is supposed that all social activity regulates itself automatically according to “natural” laws. Thus, once again, the concrete human being is submerged and objectified…it’s the total dependency of the survival of the fittest.


Historical humanist moment


Humanist moment is an historical situation in which a younger generation struggles against the generation in power in order to modify the dominant anti-humanist framework. Such a period is often identified with social revolution. A humanist moment acquires full significance if it inaugurates a stage in which successive generations can adapt and further develop the founding proposals of this process. Frequently, however, the humanist moment is canceled by the very generation that came to power with the intention of producing a change of schema or system.

It may also happen that the generation that initiates the humanist moment will fail in its project. Some have wished to see in the social consciousness of certain cultures the presence of humanist moments represented by a person or group of persons who have attempted to institutionalize this humanist from a position of power (whether political, religious, cultural, etc.) in an elitist way, “from the top down.” One of the more notable historical examples of this was Akhenaton in ancient Egypt. When he attempted to impose his reforms, there was an immediate reaction from the generation being displaced. All of the structural changes he had initiated were dismantled, which brought about, among other new circumstances, the exodus of certain peoples, who in their departure from the lands of Egypt carried with them the values of that humanist moment. In other cultures about which current knowledge is not extensive, this phenomenon can still be observed. For example, in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, the Toltec governor of the city of Tula, Topiltzín, has been credited with the implanting of the humanist attitude called “toltecayotl.”

A similar thing took place with Kukulkán, the ruler of Chichen-Itzá and founder of the city of Mayapán. Similarly, with Netzahualcóyotl in Texcoco we observe the opening of a new humanist moment. In pre-Colombian South America, a similar tendency appears in the Inca ruler Cuzi Yupanqui, who was given the name Pachacutéc, “reformer,” and in Tupac Yupanqui. The cases multiply as the information on cultures increases and, of course, as the linear historical account of the nineteenth century is challenged.


So, too, has the influence of the great religious reformers and cultural heroes been interpreted as the opening of a humanist moment, which continued forward in a new stage and even at times a new civilization, but which have eventually come to an end, deviating from and annulling the initial direction.


New humanist moment


The new humanist moment is characterizes by the humanists attitude that existed long before words such as “humanism,” “humanist,” and others like them had been coined. The following positions are common to humanists of all cultures : 1) placement of the human being as the central value and concern; 2) affirmation of the equality of all human beings; 3) recognition of personal and cultural diversity; 4) a tendency to develop knowledge beyond conventional wisdom or that imposed as absolute truth; 5) affirmation of the freedom of ideas and beliefs; and 6) repudiation of violence.


Beyond any theoretical definition, the humanist attitudes can be understood as a “sensibility,” a way of approaching the human world in which the intentionality and freedom of others are acknowledged and in which one assumes a commitment to non-violent struggle against discrimination and violence.


Today with the configuration of the single, closed global civilization (*planetarization and general destructuring) that is now taking shape, it is no longer possible for a new humanist moment to be inaugurated from the top down, of the summit of political, economic or cultural power. Rather, we believe a new humanist moment will emerge as a consequence of the increasing disorder in today’s closed system, and that it will be protagonized by the social base, which, as it suffers the general destructuring (*) and “dependency power” , will have the possibility, driven by its immediate needs, of promoting the growth of small autonomous organizations. These specific actions today are in a position to convert themselves into a demonstration effect (*), thanks to the shrinking of space that is offered by technological development and, in particular, the growth of communications.

The worldwide synchronization of protest of the new generational stratum to save the planet, social justice and peace is a symptom of this type of phenomena. Another case is that of the social upheavals, capable of synchronization between geographical points far removed from one another. 


_______________________________________________________


Source: New Humanism dictionary.


Note 


When we speak of destructuring we mean the fragmentation or disintegration of a structure in which the tendency of the process that gave it origin is discontinued. Since we live on a planet, we live in a closed system, the disarticulation of both a structure and its environment is correlated in a way that does not allow the new surpassing the old.

Demonstration effect is used by the new humanism movement to indicate a social event capable of acting as an example or model in places both near by and far removed. In the latter case, ever more rapid and numerous means of communication contribute to shrinking distances, and thus the phenomenon of the demonstration effect is becoming more frequent. In addition, the similarity of structural situations within a system now becoming global, favors instances of the demonstration effect being “imported” and “exported” with greater ease. 

The importance of this phenomenon is that it shows the possibility of incorporating an event or pattern of action into a wider sphere than that of its origin. This is the case of a “weak” influence, which follows the reverse path of a “strong” influence. A strong influence is something directly imposed on cultures or social groups, which are thus made increasingly dependent. 

The phenomenon of reciprocal influences between social groups or environments that are far removed may be observed today in various spheres of activity such as environmental group, women struggle and indigenous people struggle. We should bear in mind that no social or cultural formation remains passive or inert, but always acts as a small or large-scale demonstration effect, and is modified as it arrives in new ambits. The ongoing series of demonstration effect that cultural diversity can generate clearly enriches the present process of planetarization.