Struggle, Identity and Interpenetration of Opposites
by Evelyn HealyDialectics is unpredictable in its results, so it is often better understood in retrospect, especially in the unity and/or struggle for social justice.
Many people feel confused and helpless politically—or tend to fundamentalism, while the media plays up dichotomies rather than unities as news—often distorting or concealing truth, as today for instance, by the powerbrokers’ myth that the market economy is entirely ‘self regulatory’. The following definitions of ‘Dialectics’ all seem appropriate:
- ‘A process of change that results from an interplay between opposing forces.’ (Macquarie Dictionary)
- `The art of investigating truth for logical discussion.’(Collins Dictionary)
- ‘The science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought.’(Frederick Engels)
Dialectics has been used since the early Greek philosophers, the materialist Heraclitus (544-484 BC) saying, ‘Everything proceeds according to necessity’. ‘Everything flows, everything changes’. ‘Strife is the father and king of all’.(This implies that struggle can continue indefinitely or until one side of a dichotomy rightly or wrongly, ‘necessarily’ wins.)
A note I recently re-read in Harry Gould’s ‘Marxist Glossary and Philosophical Dictionary’ (1967) pointed out that for nearly 20 centuries, ‘dialectics had regarded opposites in unity as mutually exclusive’. Then Hegel (1770-1831), classic German idealist philosopher of the early capitalist era ‘advanced dialectics to Identity and Interpenetration of Opposites” – a fact often overlooked since by the Left (even in much of the above glossary) due to ‘class struggle’ distortions and left vanguardism.
So, in spite of and as well as his idealist philosophical outlook, Hegel’s concept of unity and/or struggle, according to the circumstances, deserves due credit – and perhaps could be made more use of – at least to prepare us better for disappointing surprises (as in the recent federal election results) or in learning better how to WIN others for the common good, including so called ‘enemies’ (ie. opposites on other issues).
The major dichotomy of wealth/power versus poverty/deprivation continues world-wide, leading finally to wars.
To socio-political-economic struggles is added the necessity of values and their democratic assessment, as each side tries to influence outcomes.
The inspiring global apparatus for handling this dichotomy remains the United Nations (UN) set up after horrific World War 2, with its Charter (1945) and Declaration of Human Rights (1948), expressing the common ideals of world peace/security and social/personal development – and establishing conditions (laws) under which they could be implemented.
It is a system with as yet no equivalent, yet whose reform/restructure of, for example, its Security Council and its Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has never been adequately tried.
The NGO versus TNC struggle which developed within the UN (ie. of Non-government Organisations v Transnational corporations) has enormously increased the dynamics of each side, but has favoured the TNCs with their ‘helpful’ wealth and their voting influence on heads of states at UN Summits (where NGOs have no voting rights).
‘The United Nations will never be more than its individual parts . . . We have to work for the full transformation of our societies to realise the promises of the UN Charter’, said an official report in 1994 from WILPF (Womens International League for Peace and Freedom).
How then can the world community in 2005 (including ourselves) help reverse the TNC’s class power and selfish growth-driven process before further destruction to lives, infrastructures, environment and the United Nations itself. (Our present Australian Government is among those which ignore or deride it as suits their foreign policy.)
If individually we can’t do more to reverse this process, how can we improve how we ‘do it?’
Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN tells one way. He urges people to WIN others, especially parliamentarians for UN aims.
To WIN people, needs vastly improved empathy, listening and learning (preferably face to face) to find common ground, to build alliances at every level for peace and progress, to overcome feeling uncomfortable with people who disagree –are ‘opposites – in other ways.
(For me, this justified the dialectical term ‘Identity of Opposites’).
In Australia, an objective attitude dominated the Eureka Sesqui-centenary of December 3 – and would have helped raise the spirits of many disparaged by the 2004 federal election results.
Organised from Ballarat, Victoria – and reflected Australia-wide – these were week-long celebrations focussed on Eureka as a symbol of non-violent protest against arbitrary governments – and the difficult long process towards fuller democracy. Some past and present leaders of different parties were quoted as agreeing with Eureka’s historic role – so subordinating their differences. One recurring positive discussion during the Eureka 150th celebrations, was to work to change Australia Day from January 26th to December 3rd – the former being perceived as the anniversary of ‘Invasion Day’ 1788, the latter being that of Eureka Day 1854, perceived as the birth of Australian democracy.
‘Dissent, debate and individual action are essential in building healthy democracies and are valuable in the formation of community vi ews and public policy changes for governments’, said the official programme – and Dr. Anne Beggs-Sunter from Ballarat addressed a Sydney audience on the same theme.
This attitude reminded me of a broadcast address by Senator Bob Brown, as far back as 1997, to the National Press Club, telling how the Greens were ‘driving the pace of change’ (See People Centred Globalisation on the Move’ –Options Nov, 1997). They still do this creatively.
Rev. Tim Costello (in SMH 23.12.02) noted the freshness and moral clarity of the Greens’ leader, also perceiving that ‘spiritual inspiration of those active for peace, the environment and human development, does not necessarily emanate from Christianity or from any religion.’
Spirituality is far broader than religion – and, as Costello said ‘is concerned to renounce war and truly discover the sacred interconnectedness of all life’.
I congratulate Prof. Frank Stilwell on his thoughtful article in Australian Options, Spring 2004. But the Red-Green symbolism he advocates worries me as being outdated and because the red image could weaken the fresh radicalism of the Greens image.The Communist Party of Australia (CPA The ‘Reds’) dissolved itself in March 1991, after years of exhaustive debate.
(The dissolution was the rational outcome of the recognition that, in this age of technological revolution and threatened human species, the successful struggle for a new society pointed to an increasingly educated and participatory, democratic movement. The majority in the depleted CPA believed it was too identified with vanguardism to play an effective role, no matter what changes were made.)
I recall that already at that time there was an interpenetration of ‘red’ and ‘green’ views—and Frank has rightly praised Jack Mundy and his BLF comrades for their past role in showing there need be no conflict between jobs and the environment (nor for that matter, between academia and trade unionists).
‘Polarisation of opposites’, a feature of the mainstream press, has not escaped the Left either. The dichotomy of ‘revolution versus reform’ used by the Left, was deemed necessary because ‘reform’ was associated with opportunism, with a ‘sell-out’ of workers’ rights, with privatisation of public assets etc.
I like the term ‘radical reform’, which Frank applies to the Greens Party, because it surely involves both reforms and/or revolutionary approaches, as circumstances warrant – and encourages people to think and work for change as best they can.
Shock tactics often labelled ‘extremism’ are sometimes used by the Greens and others to draw attention to an issue.
The Asian tsunami on 26/12/04 shocked the world with its horror, havoc and death toll. It prompted compassionate outpouring of aid and a public reassessment of real humanitarian values.
Prominent individuals such as Nelson Mandela and Bob Geldorf, loved for their selfless caring, called out for actions—not words, particularly in debt relief.
For decades, some aid non-government organisations have worked directly with Third World peoples or their governments, where possible bypassing transnational corporations. But the needs were enormous.
Huge Third World debt is mostly due to ‘tied loans’ by banks and governments serving corporate interests.
The tsunami has compounded this problem and brought infinitely more.
Strict monitoring of relief funds and investment contracts are being assisted where possible, by pressure from aid NGOs and others concerned to help Third World countries towards governing themselves instead of being ‘reformed’ through privatisation.
To what extent the 100% debt relief promise will be honoured to some of these countries, remains to be seen, but praise should surely be given to various corporate gestures of softening or decency.
The surprise tsunami shocked the world. How much more so would a nuclear war? Would there be a world with any life on it to shock?
‘The world has nearly ended on quite a number of occasions,’ says John Hallam leading campaigner of Friends of the Earth (FOE) ‘and the fate of most living things has depended on correct judgements being made by missile officers or heads of state.’
In May 2005, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) comes up for renewal at the UN General Assembly(UNGA). While the Bush administration in America wants the NPT weakened, the New Agenda Group(Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Sweden, Ireland, Mexico, Slovenia and Egypt) have led the charge against the nuclear weapons states and is pushing for a much stronger NPT—that aims at complete nuclear disarmament. A step towards this requires a lowering of operating status of nuclear weapons, as unanimously agreed to in 1996 both in the Australian senate and European parliament.
Now with new threats of nuclear war, a campaign for urgent petitions to federal, state and local government leaders has been prompted globally by the New Agenda Group and suggested to be carried out locally.
Petitions can be a successful way to help mobilise public opinion to WIN parliamentarians particularly if individually and sincerely expressed.
Another fine way to help the push for a stronger NPT is to encourage each local mayor to join the Mayors for Peace network, to which already twelve Australian Mayors belong and more than 700 globally. This network was initiated by the Mayor of Hiroshima.
Credit can be given to Australia for having supported the renewal process since first ratifying the NPT in 1974. Hopefully it will do so for a strengthened NPT in 2005.
If dialectics is to work in humanity’s favour, let us strengthen urgently the struggle to minimise/abolish the terrible threat of extinction of life in its entirety. Let us also define more clearly in consciousness and actions, the meaning of ‘Identity and Interpenetration of Opposites’ and help as best we can individually and collectively towards a non-exploitative, open, honest, sustainable and compassionate social system.
*The editors of Australian Options are very pleased to publish this article by 92 year old Evelyn Healy who has been a fighter for peace all her life. Her peace activities date from the Movement Against War and Fascism in the 1930s of which she was a founding member. In 1984, she represented Sydney Artists for Nuclear Disarmament on a fact-finding mission to the Soviet Union. She worked at community level for the UN Social Summit 1995. She is author of the book Artist of The Left (1993) and numerous articles including one in Australian Options, Nov. ’97. She received the Eureka Award of 1998 from Ballarat City Council and was made a life member of UNAA in 2003.