Flanked by roads and colonial style bricked buildings on either side I walked along Commonwealth Avenue Mall under the humbling shade of elm trees. The day had been promising to be one ridden with clouds of ominous hue and winds foretelling the coming of winter in spring. By some error in forecasting by the meteorological center however the clouds did not remain overhead for too long, parting ways to give the people of Boston a glimpse of the summer to come.
The mall is strewn with memorials in remembrance of great figureheads the likes of Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Collins (the second Irish-born mayor of Boston), firefighters who lost their lives, a memorial commemorating the strength and valor of women, among others.
I did not give a second glance to William Lloyd Garrison. It, like the others, was standing mute and static; the only hint of color and dynamism showing in the flowers that some Samaritan had handed over in an act of appreciation. Yet as I walked past, the inscription on the side riveted me.
"My country is the world. My countrymen are all mankind."
These words, etched into the granite, are immortalized for centuries to come. Many before have espoused a similar strain of thought. Dating as far back as 5th century B.C. the Cynic, Diogenes of Sinope has been attributed with the following statement:
"Asked where he came from, he answered: 'I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês)'"
In the 2nd century A.D. the emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius, espoused this universalist philosophy as well, where an appreciation exists for not just the part (the state) but also the whole (the universe), recognizing their interconnected-ness:
“As [emperor], my city and fatherland is Rome; as a human being, it is the universe; so what brings benefits to these is the sole good for me.”
Humans evolved to garner preferential treatment towards those deemed their kin. The most direct relation would thus be that of the family, bonded by blood. Then comes the community, the tribe, the ethnicity, and finally the nation. It is important to note all these concepts are imaginary manifestations of our intellect; how we decide to demarcate lines to distinguish ethnicity or nationhood are purely arbitrary. Even the notion of "blood" is a misleading for it is not sharing the same "blood" that ties a family together but the link forged by evolution that makes a mother fend and nurture her children, and for the children to be attached to their mother.
Patriotism, for example, is a convenient concept used to forge an imaginary cohesion between a variety of different people, whether as a means to fend off foreign colonial invaders, struggling for a separate homeland, or fighting wars in far-off lands on flimsy premises; in essence to maintain the state and its interests.
Yet this "truth" is constructed and inculcated into each and everyone of us through the culture we are brought up in. Whether by showing obeisance to the national flag, singing the national anthem everyday at the start of school, treating flags as sacrosanct objects that must not touch the ground or are used as shrouds for fallen soldiers, every aspect ingrains in our minds the respect and observance of gratitude towards the state.
Culture differences are a reality; the history of a place defines and inherently molds us into having different outlooks from others. Yet such differences are learnt rather than innate. Culture is a dynamic and morphing abstraction composed of an assortment of artistic influences, language, rituals, behaviors and social customs that change with the passing of time and the shifting tide of minds. We can observe over the course of history a particular culture changing over time, influenced by other cultures it interacts with; influences that ride on the tailwinds of military advancement or economic progress. From the ability of cultures to vary we can hence surmise the affiliation an individual has to one [culture] or another is the roll of a dice - being born in a particular time and place - but also choice.
An awareness of self and a strong sense of moral responsibility is necessary to leap from the concept of ethnic or national affiliation to a global consciousness. Exposure to people of different cultures is helpful to counter such overzealous pride that we may tend to harbor for those we consider "our own".
Whether to impoverished communities, war-torn lands, or lands devastated by natural disasters we do see people donating money and resources across these imagined borderlines. It is during such moments the idea of nationhood diminishes, prevailed by a sense of camaraderie with humankind.
But is such a way of thinking sustainable as a continued thought process? Can we always keep in mind the other beyond the wall when we make decisions that could potentially affect someone else in some distant land?
The way the world is currently set up I would argue it is not possible. All our dealings are abstract and a-human. There is no involvement of empathy at a macro level. That is the problem with the way the world's economic backbone is structured. We do not care how we are hurting each other, through environmental pillaging or the exploitation of labor, for example. If the burden of responsibility is placed on the individual to ensure the fair treatment of every other human, and that every decision made is the best possible with the least amount of empathetic dissonance, then it would be impossible for there would be too many choices to be made at all times of one's waking life (and perhaps even sleeping). All it would cause is one either being completely indecisive and unsure how to move forward or giving up all together for the choice being too overwhelming.
Indeed the burden should rest on the individual but for such a system to function it requires most, if not every, individual to inhabit such a viewpoint. Through empathetic individualism we may see a rise in a collective consciousness which is not merely an abstract pipe dream but a concrete reality as discourses and frameworks would develop to incorporate empathy. These aspects need to be incorporated in the way commerce is carried out - how companies are established, the way they are run, how natural resources are used, how profits are made and shared; each stage being influenced by this fundamental concept that would ground each decision being made, thus not leaving the onus of empathetic responsibility solely on the individual.
In essence what we need to see is an overhaul of economic and financial models that are used to keep the global economy afloat, how we calculate economic growth and progress, and for that matter, more fundamentally, how we perceive the concept of progress.
Regardless to say politicking would also need to be redeveloped.
So how do our choices affect people on the other end of the world?
Buy eating quinoa it might raise the purchasing power of farmers. But the longer term also means they will be more susceptible to price fluctuations. [1][2]
Or by giving into the fast fashion industry like H&M, Forever 21 and Gap are we willing to accept the working conditions workers experience in Bangladesh or Vietnam because of our want for a new look every 4 months? [3]
Excessively using one's fossil-fuel driven car to commute may be increasing traffic congestion in one's city, causing stress not just to one's self but also to others. But it would also cause a rise in the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere thus causing an increase in ocean acidification and a rise in sea levels in the coming decades due to melting polar caps.
When we look at such examples, the amount of cross-cutting reasons can be overwhelming. But I conjecture things would self-regulate at micro-levels, while individuals may still harbor some macro-empathies such as environmentalism that would help them decide with greater clarity. And with larger entities like corporations and governments also having empathetic leanings then the policies they would formulate would also have those tendencies.
I am rather critical of the shortcomings of Pakistani society and its government, and voice my concerns with my family and friends from time to time. Living in the US for almost a decade has definitely painted the way I view things, and although I am not all praises for the US either - for I see its problems with a unique lens as well - one would be led to believe I have an inclination for this figment called "the West".
Which is why one day during lunch my mother rather bluntly asked where my loyalties lay after I had gone on a tirade about one thing or the other. I sat and pondered for a brief moment, not for my response for I knew what my answer would be, but rather on my mother's question which I found intriguing for it was tinged with that imaginary notion of belonging.
A smirk gradually appeared across my face.
"With no One," I responded. "With Everyone."
References
[1] Against the Grain, The Economist, https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21699087-fad-andean-staple-has-not-hurt-pooryet-against-grain
[2] Your Quinoa Habit Really Did Help Peru's Poor. But There's Trouble Ahead, NPR, http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/31/472453674/your-quinoa-habit-really-did-help-perus-poor-but-theres-trouble-ahead
[3] The True Cost, Documentary, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/771418456/
Influences for the article
The Expanding Circle by Peter Singer
Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari
Related Posts
The featurelessness of the Ka'abah is symbolic of this non-representation, and an affirmation of the monotheistic creed. And particular to Islam, its veiled-ness symbolizes the unknowability, the ineffability, and hence the inability to represent or depict Allah.