When Worlds Collide

A point of disagreement I have with Del Gandio has to do with part of his doctrine of many realities. I suppose it is largely a problem with the post-modern world view in general. He states “Neo-Radicalism believes that every reality should be accepted, respected and appreciated so long as one reality does not impede another reality.” This raises some questions. Since these two realities are in opposition to each other, how are we to determine which reality is impeding which to the greatest degree. One method is to allow the two to interact, and through epistemological exchange, come to synthesis of these two views. Fair enough. But is this really fair? As I understand the thesis/antithesis exchange, one can dominate the other, not through strength of philosophy, but through the crude, coercive methods of the physical world. We are, after all, engaged in not a detached debate of philosophy, but in changing social institutions, which directly impact the lives of human beings. How would Del Gandio judge realities superior and inferior? “Realities are accepted or rejected based on ideas of social justice.” Basically, Del Gandio is asking whether your world view is moral. He uses the phrase social justice, which suggests organized morality. The phrase “social justice” has been used as a call for charity in religious groups, a rallying cry for left of center activists, and a phrase that causes Glenn Beck to yell “Communism, Communism!” like a political junkie with turrets. Good paper topic: is social justice a logical extension of morality, or a perversion of it?

General Reaction

This book is interesting. The chapter on ends and means creates an interesting moral philosophy. The book suggests that morality can be rejected in the pursuit of a new society in a number of ways. He suggests morality is relative to the cause and does not exist in absolutes. He claims that the more important the cause is, the less important the moral considerations of the means to a successful end become. He also suggests that any successful tactic will become immoral in the eyes of those the tactic is defeating. The only thing that the claim of immorality is absolute for is inaction because of a perceived lack of a moral base. This he suggests is akin to “good men doing nothing” and proclaims that it shows the individual putting his own moral perversion over the wellbeing of his fellow man (that being the root of morality).
I also enjoy his thoughts on class distinction, calling them the trinity, which brings about a religious context to what he says. Basically upper class, middle class, and lower class, which he calls the haves, the have a little but want mores, and the have-nots. The language for the middle class is needlessly obtuse. He then classifies them by temperature, which was another interesting way of looking at it. He has a real love hate relationship with the middle class. He simultaneously makes them the key to successful revolution, while also being its greatest obstacle. This fits into the duality he was talking about within life.

Malcolm X and MLK: Closed Fist, Open Palm

Chapter 4 focused on the civil rights movement as it relates to Birmingham Alabama and Doctor Martin Luther King non-violent resistance as a form of agitation. This chapter is interesting as it serves as a case study of the Birmingham marches success. The thrust of the argument involves using the brutality of the establishment and juxtaposing it against the peacefulness of those seeking change. This serves to make the agitators look reasonable and the establishment to look like the radicals. One point I wish the chapter would have addressed is the dichotomy within the civil rights movement. On one hand you had leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., who followed in the tradition of Gandhi’s non-violent resistance against British occupation of India. On the other, you had leaders like Malcolm X, who exemplify the “closed fist” of civil rights era rhetoric. What I believe this dichotomy accomplished was to create a good cop bad cop scenario in which the vast white middle class would be terrified of Malcolm X just enough to make the peaceful MLK an even more desirable leader for the civil rights movement. He became the leader the establishment could deal with. If they chose not to, they would risk violence from more radical elements.