© Roger M Tagg 2011
Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
A uni social studies student doing a scholarship placement in Africa recently
reported (see University of South Australia Alumni Newsletter
"The Difference", Winter 2011) that she kept getting told by the locals "we
have spirituality, you have science".
This seems a great example of where we might well wonder "what's the
meaning
behind saying this?" - what should we read "between the lines"?
The intended meaning might be something like "You may well have science (and
hence presumably all your money, gadgets and advanced lifestyle); we may be
behind on these but we're ahead on something more valuable (our 'spirituality'
includes family values, respect for our environment - as well as religious
spirituality, i.e. recognizing powers beyond material influences)".
The meaning here may not necessarily be an intended put-down of the 'western'
student, unless that student had gone around with an unconscious air of
'superiority', the "I'm here to help you benighted natives catch up with the rest of the
world" sort of attitude.
It might be a form of self-justification on the part of the locals, trying to
convince themselves that they are no less fortunate or capable at living in
their given situation.
Alternatively, The Africans might be saying "We know we don't have the
science, but to our eyes you don't seem to have the spirituality".
This is more likely to be a put-down. To say someone doesn't have any spirituality
is pretty insulting. Judging someone else's 'spirituality' would be biased by always being relative to one's own values and culture.
Another meaning could be simply "We're not so bothered about engaging with
the science, we think the spirituality is more important".
This could be implicitly trying to offer a justification for holding back on
development. People who intend this meaning might be those who have power and
influence now, but don't want to risk losing that
influence. Suspects here might be tribal chiefs and elders, religious leaders
(maybe there are still some witch doctors?) and males in general.
In the newsletter article, the student went on to say "There was a pervading
view that change was not achievable in their lifetime. Hence, they were content
with the standard of living they were experiencing. I got the impression that
the ways of the western world seemed far too complex, fast-paced and isolating
compared to their family-orientated, spiritual and relaxed lives."
People do not have exclusively spirituality OR science - we all have a blend. No civilization is all spirituality and no science; even primitive tribes discover what is safe to eat, what weapons are effective, what patterns to expect from seasons etc. Equally, a civilization cannot operate successfully with science alone, without any degree of spirituality.
The issue is whether or not any particular civilization, culture or individual has a good blend for:
Of course the decision on which game - a) or b) - we are (or should be) playing is itself in the spiritual domain, not the scientific. Is it always good to have aspirations and be always looking to improve things? Is it better to accept our lot just as we find it, and not take on the God-like pretence of deciding what a 'better' world should be like?
The implication in the original statement, whichever option of meaning we
take, is that 'spirituality' is always a good thing. But this is questionable.
There are many examples of bad spirituality: mass hysteria or hate, prudishness
and excessive puritanism, 'holier-than-thou' ramps, rule
by narrow-minded religious hierarchies, xenophobia, 'sacred book' fundamentalism
and jihad/crusade culture. And it seems that spirituality is always in danger of
being hi-jacked by power-seeking cliques. These consist most frequently of reactionary males, but
sometimes of revolutionaries and occasionally of females (dare one say social
science academics?).
This is not to say that science is immune from being hi-jacked - one only has to
think of atomic or poison gas weapons. But the trigger to such misuse of science
is a spiritual one, not scientific. Generally, bad science is caused by bad
spirit; good science is about being honest with oneself (which is itself a
spiritual thing).
The balance in western culture between spirituality and science has, since the initial rise of science itself, changed significantly. We feel less need to ascribe many of our human experiences to 'spiritual' powers. But we also have less time and energy to think or communicate spiritually. It may be that, although we are getting rid of some of the sillier elements of our more spiritual past, we are also at risk of throwing out the 'baby' with the bath water. How we can counter this I am not altogether sure.
The student was led by her experience to confess "I no longer believe in financial aid to the extent that I did previously. For aid to be truly effective, it needs to be skills-based. Development hinges on a desire to change, and hard work. If underdeveloped nations do not want assistance, they are not going to maintain changes once foreigners leave."
Personally, I don't think it is easy for any civilization in the world today to isolate itself - let alone "turn the clock back" - on most of the technical and organizational advances that we have today. As China, Japan and Korea attempted to do between the 17th and 19th centuries, a nation may try to live in isolation from progress elsewhere in the world, but any barriers it tries to enforce are bound to be leaky. Outsiders will get in and its own nationals will often escape the restrictions, converse with people in the outside world and engage with modern methods. This is truer than ever today with international air travel, economic globalization and the internet.
"Wittgenstein thought that if you want to understand a type of discourse, such as religious discourse or any other type of discourse, look at the role that it actually plays in people's lives. For him, the characteristic mistake of twentieth-century intellectual life was to treat all intellectual endeavours as if they were attempting to be like science. He thought that science had its place like everything else, but that it was a mistake to treat subjects which were plainly not forms of science and technology as if they were second-rate attempts to achieve science and technology." John Searle, in conversation with Bryan Magee, in 'The Great Philosophers', BBC 1987, ISBN 0 563 20583 0 page 335.
I'm all for that view, as long as the proponents of religious doctrine, alternative health remedies, Celtic mysticism and so on also accept that they shouldn't try to impose their language games on science.
Index to more of these diatribes
Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 21st June 2012
If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au .