![]()
Part I
Concepts, causes and consequences
![]()
1
On the emergence of peaceful coexistence
Pasi Heikkurinen
The philosopher George Henrik von Wright noted that the gift of language was the central element in the rise of human cultures. By means of language, humans are able to transfer their experiences and their acquired skills to following generations, and hence create tradition. One of the problems von Wright ([1978] 1981) identified was that language also enabled the transmission or the reproduction of those traditions that were destructive, or violent. And, unfortunately, the transmission of violent human traditions can be witnessed in the contemporary Anthropocene epoch, where brutal force is used to dominate the non-human world, as well as human citizens. To become a part of, as well as to pass on, a non- or less-violent human culture, a central task is to first identify the violent patterns of human existence and then to investigate carefully how to break free from them.
As a linguistic species, humans cannot fully escape the categories that their language creates, even if they would like to. After a commitment to a practice of stillness, one may experience a state of non-thought where all categories become absent, but language cannot be dismissed entirely. That being so, language remains a fundamentally important part of human life due to its power to shape thinking and action. The organization of everyday routines and living with fellow humans would not be feasible without the use of language, but that is not to suggest the use of language is never problematic. Words and numbers are what humans use to separate and form order in the objects of human thought, and the objects are then named to distinguish them from other objects. While sentences can combine words and mathematical formulas bring numbers together in a logical order, the narratives and models formed separate them again from other orders that are often competing sets of narratives and models. And this way, language effectively divides the world into ones and the other ones, or to self and the other from its essential whole, where being is one. This splitting, I would describe as the greatest problem of language.
Language can, once the method of addressing things is shared, of course also be thought of as a connector of communities. However, it is important to recall that Martin Heidegger ([1976] 1981) noted with regard to the limits of language that language is never fully shared. Hence, one cannot completely translate a thought or a poem: ‘[a]t best, one can paraphrase it’, [but when] ‘one attempts a literal translation, everything is transformed’ (Heidegger, [1976] 1981, p. 63). This fluidity bounds the idea of shared communication with language. ‘Language is like some kind of infinitely interfertile family of species spreading or mysteriously declining over time, shamelessly and endlessly hybridizing, changing its own rules as it goes’, as Gary Snyder (1990, p. 7) remarks. But while the complete, mutual understanding by means of language continually escapes its users, and can hence be considered a cul-de-sac, some degree of shared language is certainly within the reach of humankind.
The so-called bridge language, or lingua franca, has appeared to address the practical challenges between people who did not previously share a language or a dialect. In the past, most often the reason for finding a common ground for mutual understanding of the state of affairs has been related to trade, but cultural, religious and diplomatic reasons have also undoubtedly motivated the exchange of words and numbers between communities. Today, a common language of many humans from Western-influenced cultures is English, a dialect first spoken in early medieval England. The reasons for using this West Germanic language as a lingua franca are diverse and beyond the scope of this text, but its role today is significant. Albeit the English language has a clear Western bias, the central importance of having an almost globally shared language is arguably the enhanced ability to read and listen to a variety of viewpoints from a variety of backgrounds. Another worthy aspect of a somewhat shared language is the possibility that it provides for people to comment on other people’s viewpoints and, hence, to begin creating a dialogue.
Such a language, which many citizens of the Earth can speak in addition to their regional language and dialect, importantly also opens up an opportunity for integrating existing ideas into new, more inclusive narratives and models that are able to capture the complexities and shape the intricacies of life in a sound manner. What is meant by the notion of ‘sound’ in this context calls for a consultation of not only the English dictionary but also the community that attempts to accomplish such an ambitious task of language reconfiguration and use. Let us first turn to the lexicon. According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary, ‘sound’ when used as an adjective refers to a good condition or judgement and to completeness. In other words, when something is sound it is not broken or damaged, but is whole and healthy. The second interpretation of the word relates to showing good judgement and being trusted. For instance, ‘she gave me some very sound advice’, or, ‘the pesticides were not ecologically sound’. And as a third reading of the term, someone can have sound knowledge or understanding of a particular object or phenomenon.
To obtain a more insightful description of the concept, however, it is requisite to also turn to the community that is after a sound language and practice. In 2013, my partner and I moved to Costa Rica for work. Before we left Europe, a few of my dearest colleagues encouraged me to organize a conference under the Latin American sun, which is of course the same sun but it feels quite different there. One of the colleagues, Susan Meriläinen, was interested in gender, another one, Toni Ruuska, in nature, and a third, Niklas Toivakainen, in technology. Besides their curiosity towards pura vida, it was not clear what united these persons in scholarly terms. It was not until later that I realized that some of it had to do with their courage and openness to explore original ideas and their keenness to develop novel perspectives that had societal and political relevance; and by relevance, I do not mean the suitability for any kind of purpose – and definitely not to be apt for the homogenizing mind-sets and practices that lead to exclusion – but research that contributed to the consideration of others. Another important aspect worth mentioning here is their mutual integrity as reflected in academic work. All of them seem to be driven by the cause rather than their career, which is rather exceptional in today’s higher education and research industry.
But problematically in pragmatic terms, these beautiful personal qualities of theirs were difficult to translate into a conference theme that could be used in the organization of the desired meeting. As the nominated and self-selected chair of the conference, I had to put out a semi-formal written document to call for research papers, and of course to devise a name for the colloquium. So the search for the lynchpin began. The University for Peace, where I worked at that time, had its mission statement printed on the wall of the foyer. As determined in the charter of the university, the mission of this United Nations mandated organization was, and hopefully still is:
to provide humanity with an international institution of higher education for peace with the aim of promoting among all human beings the spirit of understanding, tolerance and peaceful coexistence, to stimulate cooperation among peoples and to help lessen obstacles and threats to world peace and progress …
On the way to lunch, I often stopped to read this passage, which is quite unique for a university. It captures one of the most important missions of our time, namely putting an end to violence. But, of course, the statement (as it comprises of words) is not perfect. When certain words are used, others are left out. Language is always exclusive. For example, the first thing that may cause a few raised eyebrows is the lack of explicit mention of the non-human world, or the natural (or non-human built) environment. In the midst of the severe climatic catastrophe that the Earth is enduring caused by the long-standing systematic violence towards the non-human world, one might expect that this be addressed boldly in the mission statements of all conscious organizations striving for peace. Another related aspect of the passage might also ring a bell, namely the use of the heavily loaded and bloody word progress. Without a doubt, the final nail in the coffin of this precious planet and the majority of its beings is surely the removal of the obstacles and threats to conventional progress, as encouraged by the mission statement.
Or could the word ‘progress’ signify something else in this context? Does it really refer to increasing the affluence and rights of humans at the expense of non-humans? Is progress here to signify the same kind of quantitative progress that the planet and its inhabitants have witnessed since the Industrial Revolution, that is: the development of more advanced means to transform the non-human-made world for the economic and political gain of the capitalist class? Because, if it truly is so, then the soundness of the statement must be questioned for two weighty reasons.
First, on the more social side, there is a strong empirical case for the rising inequality between humans both globally and locally, as reported by Thomas Piketty (2014). In other words, within the human species, a greater lack of fairness or justice exists. While the people living in poverty might have increased their incomes by a dollar or two, the ultra-rich are creating a class of their own, a global elite that is beyond any standard comprehension of affluence and power (e.g. Vitali, Glattfelder and Battison, 2011). Secondly, and on the more ecological side, there is robust evidence of the increasing rate of habitat destruction (e.g. Wake and Vredenburg, 2008). That being so, a greater lack of fairness or justice exists also between species – not to mention the objects of the vegetal and mineral spheres that seem to be beyond the ethical consideration of even the most ‘peaceful’ humans.
To return to the mission statement, a peculiar thing about language is that it often allows an alternative interpretation; and at times, words and numbers in sentences even start to take on a life of their own, one independent of their original, intended meaning. So, perhaps the term ‘progress’ might refer broadly to a ‘movement to an improved or more developed state, or to a forward position’, as the Cambridge Online Dictionary suggests. This could then refer to the kind of qualitative economic development that Herman Daly (1996) calls for, or the moral development that Lawrence Kohlberg (1971) has described. ‘Progress’ could even be thought of in the sense of the existential evolution that Friedrich Nietzsche ([1883–1891] 1997) spoke of, or viewed as relating to exploring a higher consciousness, as several spiritual teachers, such as Jiddu Krishnamurti ([1969] 2009), have advised. In this context, maybe progress refers to peace among beings? And perhaps the preceding part of the mission statement that leaves the non-humans unmentioned may not have to be so anthropocentric after all. The ‘spirit of understanding, tolerance and peaceful coexistence’ that is to be promoted among human beings can doubtless also include the consideration of the needs of the non-human world.
At least for now, the two chosen meanings above will be my reinterpretations – generous or otherwise. Nevertheless, it may not be a good idea to deploy the word progress in any desired connotation, as it is still largely favoured amongst the inherently violent cornucopian tradition and other dangerous techno-optimists. Peaceful coexistence, which was also mentioned in the mission statement, seems again to be an attention-grabbing conceptual pairing yet still up for grabs, that is, open to interpretation by different parties.1 What I mean by this availability is that it has not been co-opted by the homogenizing techno-industrial machine or hijacked to serve the purposes of any other progressive political or economic ideology, as has happened to some extent to the concept of sustainability. And aptly, for the purpose of finding a name for the conference, a close colleague of mine from Sweden, Karl Johan Bonnedahl, had recently published a book on sustainable development where coexistence was also presented as a central, complimentary concept to sustainability. Subsequently, I became convinced that ‘peaceful coexistence’ would be a fitting name for this conference. It is simultaneously both broad and informative. It embraces the diversity of perspectives and participants but still magically attracts people from outside the mainstream, somewhat on the fringes of academia, where all the sunniest ideas tend to be. Most importantly, peaceful coexistence can be considered a precondition for not only sustainable but also meaningful life on Earth.
First, the concept of coexistence is vital, as the human species cannot exist without other beings. Existence is essentially coexistence (Nancy, [1996] 2000). Existence always comes with the prefix ‘co’, referring to cooperation or working together. The adjective ‘peaceful’ is also critical because approaches to coexistence can also become violent. For instance, groups of people and non-humans can be forced to coexist, to live side-by-side, which of course is not desirable due to the involuntary nature of the arrangement and the restriction of their freedoms. Efforts to protect environments may also entail forms of violence towards the human population, as is happening to indigenous communities (see Dalby, 2016). So what is important to note is that the escalation of the ecological and social problems creates a fertile ground for violent approaches. Hence, the exhortations of Mahatma Gandhi ([1961] 2001), Henry David Thoreau ([1845–1949] 2012), and Vandana Shiva (2016) to follow non-violent forms of resistance ought to be explored and taken seriously in order to avoid reproducing the violent traditions of humanity. Finally, when it might be too late for human society to reach global sustainability, instead of resorting to violence and other desperate acts, people can still find meaning by peacefully coexisting until the end of (human) time.
I sat down for lunch. At the table, I was quickly drawn into a rather animated discussion with members of the faculty of the Department of Environment and Development. The debate was over the concept of the Anthropocene. Should scholars use this term to refer to th...
