Man and Conflict

The year 2006 of the Gregorian calendar will mark another year of technological progress and human evolution. Technological progress is evident as discoveries and innovations abound in theoretical and applied sciences helping our communities grow and lifestyles evolve. Human evolution has been marked as well, more by mental than physical development. Modern man is relatively more compassionate and more intuitively aware of right versus wrong due to a highly developed conscience that facilitates self-accountability.

Yet, Man is still a threat to itself. Our communities remain susceptible to violence and strife driven by mis-trust, jealousies and often hatred. This ensures the need for centralized authority to manage community development, upkeep and ensure accountability for those that break the societal laws balancing personal and community interests. These centralized authorities also jostle among themselves to better serve the interests of their constituents or in come cases, simply themselves. This fuels strife and violence on an even larger scale. Hence, Man still has some ways to go before it masters the ability to balance self-interest with the interests of others. Unfortunately, this journey up the path to greater compassion, inclusiveness and respect for the values, beliefs and interests of others is being hampered by institutions that are purported to guide Man on this quest, making this next step in human evolution all the more difficult.

These institutions have through history encouraged superiority complexes that underlie human relations. Superiority of one man over another can be perceived through race, religion, genetics, social status or money, access to organized education and even access to technology. Centralised authority in the form of government, religious authorities in the form of the clergy, Think Tanks or Rich Men clubs, prestigious universities and research foundations and even political parties have all been guilty at one time or another of perpetuating cults and superiority complexes. In many ways, encouragement of supremacist attitudes provides legitimacy to many of these organizations.

Especially in the case of organised religion, adherents are repeatedly told that the only way to salvation is through observing various articles of faith, dogma and the intermediation of the clergy. The clergy takes great pains to emphasise the difference between “believers” and unbelievers” by dehumanising “unbelievers” and condemning them to hell without any marks for “good behaviour”. This is ironic given that each organised religion advocates a life of “righteousness” and reminds that accountability rests with God. For most of the clerics this is but a way of reminding their adherents that the only way to God is through them. In this way they justify their existence and protect their power base. Belief in a Supreme Being or God should bring the best out of us, yet the worst is witnessed spurred by the belief that “if we are right, the others must be wrong”, which through history has provided license to murder and genocide. Adherents are generally not ready to accept that there could be many paths to God and the importance of “conduct” is not highlighted especially when it comes to relations with other religious groups. This is quite contrary to the central message of all major religions and a quote taken from the last sermon of the Prophet Mohammad exemplifies this:

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action.”

A verse from the Quran (Chapter 49: Surah Al-Hujuraat, verse 13) also sheds light:
“O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.”

However, the clergy are not the sole perpetrators of conflict as secular leaders have often used both race and religion to further their interests. Conflicts that were a fight over resources (land, labor, food, economic capital and commodities) were coloured as a fight for the primacy of tribes, nations or religions. Or, conquest and occupation was painted in benevolent terms alluding to the incapacity of the “inferior” community to help itself.

This brings us to the question, what then? How are we to stop this endless conflict among the communities of man? There is room for optimism as pointed out at the beginning of this essay for Man is evolving and is evolving into a better version of itself. We are a far cry from the law of the jungle days of the Middle Ages. Slavery is, for the most part, not practiced and accepted. Inhumane punishments and torture are decried. Democracy, at least at face value, provides the opportunity for all to reach the corridors of power and autocrats are generally looked upon with disdain. Governments across the world are reminded of their duty to protect and uphold human rights and when they falter there are tireless groups of campaigners out there ensuring that such mis-steps are highlighted. Human conscience is slowly but surely awakening. What we need to do is to ensure that this development continues down the path of enlightenment and must guard against a retreat. To help this effort we must recognise that we are all the same essentially. We all want a better life for ourselves and for our children and we need to realise that this doesn’t have to come at the expense of someone else. If we learn to truly share, to be more sensitive to the needs of others and shed our biases, we would have made a major contribution towards the continued evolution of human civilization.