An Idealist, a humanist and an individual walk into a bar... what happens?

A walk through Coptic Cairo made me wonder about the conflict between respect, change and individualism. I walked down an obscure alleyway, tempted by the delicious taste of discovery and the ornate entrance, as I stepped through this dark passage I reached a door with beams of bright light shining through. I pushed it and walked out, I waited for my eyes to adjust and for my senses to adapt to the intense heat coming from the cruel sun and the burnt earth. I had fallen upon a cemetery. A Christian one. As I looked up streched before me were the silhouettes of a mosque and a synagogue. I looked back down and saw industrial red brick tombs being used by young dust covered children playing football with a brown paper bag, as goalposts. I saw grey, delapidated, buildings between these tombs from which came the sounds of life, a veiled woman cooking, an old man in a long blue Galabeyya bending over to pick up his walking stick, a young girl wearing a torn Minnie mouse shirt sucking a lollypop skipping past me. This as stricking as it may be, didn't make me contemplate these notions. I saw two young women walk past me, as i sat on a stone bench covered in cardboard under a tree, one was veiled, the other was not.


To a westerner's eyes one was a sign of progress, the other was a sign of an archaic and unfair tradition. But maybe it isn't what we think, maybe the young girl wears a veil by choice, after all most women veiled in Egypt apparently choose to wear it, or at least want to. But at the very base of it the symbolism and the meaning of the veil, even on the most subconscious level is that of submission, of conformity and tradition. How do you respect someone who practises something which is a tool for repression? Do we respect the human, realising the inner-potential of that individual and forcefuly encourage them to throw away the chains of oppression, because they deserve better? or on the other hand do we, regardless of wether or not we respect her choice to wear the veil, let things be, because it is a cultural trait, and as a westerner i'm using my western values to judge her's which are dissimilar, and anyway it's not my business? or can she "free" herself through her sheer strengh of caracter and the power of self determination which is inherent to all humans? Respect for a human, respect for a person or tolerance, they appear incompatible. However it is possible and necessairy if we all are to reconcile the three and resolve conflicts.


It is a difficult question and it can be enlarged to a the conflict between liberal interventionism, classical idealism and pragmatism . But the very fact that this conflict of ideas can be distilled to the most real of situations, and manifest itself outside the artificialities of political speeches and party manifestos, shows how difficult a question it is, how real and serious the repercussions of regulation, legislation or even confrontation on veils, on racism and the deportation of fundamental clerics (for exemple) can be. It also shows how a non-blinkered approach must be practised if we are to live peacefully side by side.

It's too easy to choose one or the other. The consequences of respecting a human over their person (or vice-versa), or not even caring, are dangerous. The hard part and probably the appropriate and most effective solution would be a synthesis of the three. It's an incredibly hard balancing act, giving people and civilizations (even governments) enough space to change things for themselves, but at the same time giving them the tools and capabilities to progress in an otherwise stagnant situation, while making these acts beneficial to the givers. Yet it must be all three if progress is to happen.

Certain international situations have been mishandled because, i believe a lack of one or more of the notions which can bring about progress and respect. In the case of Iraq for exemple an outright invasion was a bad idea, the regime change in Iraq was not brought about or at least in part by an internal force, imposed regime change could never have worked, what lacks here is a respect for the person. In the case of China, we have a selfish interest in China, in terms of the economic profit we can draw from it, what lacks here in pushing forward a greater democratisation of China, a strong enough pressure within the international community to make China repect the human. What I'm trying to say is for there to be a progress and a willingness to make others do so, the condtions of respect for the human, the person and a personal interest must be met.

This dynamic would create a climate from wich we all benefit, a sort of cycle of progress, enlightenment and cooperation, but this process is incredibly difficult as one can all into the trap of favouring one of the notions too much. One can be tempted to be ethnocentric, one can fall into moral relativism and accept the status quo, or one can take advantage of the status quo to draw a profit from it. Many politicians have blinkered themselves because it is the easier way, the toughest challenge would be to keep the balance, maybe it's impossible.

International relations is so often entrenched in the game of power politics that even the best intentions turn out or turn into twisted compromise and deals. Surely the sheer exeptionality of Tony Benn becoming more left wing after being in both the governments of Wilson and Callaghan, highlights the perversion of politics on even the most hardened Idealists and Humanists. Or maybe it just highlights the inescapable truth that abandoning idealist convictions is an integral part of the maturing and empirical process during one's life? But it is important that we move away from this mentality. It is imperative to have hope and to fight, this is the clincher which makes all possible, which makes the interaction, of the notions of personal and human respect along with self interest, a reality.

A friend of mine once told "If everyone believe's in it (socialism) and fights for it, it can happen", though socialism is not what i'm defending here, I agree with her to a certain extent. The idea that belief and hope can make men do some of the worst things, clearly shows that it can make men do some of the greatest things, because nothing exists without it's opposite. I really do think it's possible, that people can educate each other and rise above the pettiness and greed of the human condition, while still benefiting from it, to truly respect each other and change, it can't be easy but we must fight and believe otherwise we will endlessly repeat the mistakes of our predecessors, we shall all be but a wave beating on the beach for eternity.