TRIGLAV CIRCLE- MEETING IN FRANCE –LE VIGNOT- 9-10 JULY 2009

SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION

The subject was “Revisiting the notion of “material and spiritual needs of individuals and societies”.

This “notion” is a quote from the text adopted by the United Nations World Summit for Social Development, meeting in Copenhagen in March 1995. The Summit stated that societies must respond more effectively to such material and spiritual needs. This language was unusual in UN documents and responsibility for it can plausibly be attributed to the report on the Seminar on Ethical and Spiritual Dimensions of Social Development organized by the Secretariat in Bled, Slovenia in October 1994. Since this Seminar is at the origin of the Triglav Circle and since this Circle has used this sentence on spiritual needs has a sort of motto for its reflections, it was felt that a new debate on the subject was appropriate.

Two themes were proposed in the agenda for this meeting:

• What are the spiritual needs of individuals and societies?
• In what manner are public institutions involved in the meeting of spiritual needs?

At the outset, two facts were emphasized: first, the text adopted in Copenhagen, rich as it is in commitments of governments to foster the betterment of the human condition, has been rapidly pushed aside by the United Nations and by most of its member-states. The Millennium Development Goals, which have superseded everything else in UN policy, are centered on the limited objective of eradicating half of extreme poverty in developing countries by 2015. Secondly, the specific notion of “spiritual needs” has been completely ignored by the United Nations after Copenhagen, even by the Secretariat in its work of monitoring the results of the Summit. It was also noted that in the fall of 2008, the president of the UN General Assembly, Miguel d’Escoto, tried to revive the Copenhagen text and insisted on its relevance in the light of the crises –financial, environmental, moral and spiritual- besieging humankind. This effort was in vain. At least in UN circles, the discourse on human affairs remains resolutely pragmatic and technocratic. More on the interpretation of these facts at the end of this summary.

My daily bread is a material question. The daily bread of my neighbor is a spiritual question. We, human beings, are in communion with one another. All the contributions of the spiritual are relational. Thus, spirituality is transcendence in the midst of human condition and human undertakings. It is not an “au-dela”. But it allows us to reach beyond the confines of our existence.

Can the spiritual have a relation with the institutional? Can it be institutionalized? The response to this question is an emphatic No. The task of political institutions is to protect, to secure that space within which the spiritual can flourish. The spiritual realm cannot, must not be controlled. Any mixing of the realm of power with the realm of spirituality is extremely dangerous.

The two points of this first intervention – the nature of the spiritual and its necessary separation from institutions and power- set the tone of the debate.

There is indeed great risk of misuse of the spiritual by the polis. One can find obvious evidence of this risk in the history of established religions, perhaps especially of the monotheist religions. Today, the dangers inherent in the couple politics/religion are becoming again evident. But this dangerous and unholy couple should not lead us to dismiss the importance and urgency of what underlie the current interest in values, their foundations and their relevance to the problems of the modern world. There is a great interest in everything that transcends the material, in everything that is not quantifiable and measurable. This “something” might be called a vague aspiration towards a different way of life, a call to fraternity, to conviviality, to solidarity. People look for a new type of human relations. Fraternity is a concept that has fallen in desuetude. And yet it expresses well the form of spiritual quest that is perhaps the most noticeable in today’s “developed” societies.

The spiritual is indeed essential. But if it is “defined”, “proclaimed”, advocated”, it loses its quality, its essence. This represents a difficult paradox. To always think and act so as to treat Man as an end and not as a means (traiter l’Homme comme une fin et non comme un moyen) is the solution proposed by Kant. The human being is a spiritual being, a reasonable being, and a free being. The notion of liberty is critical in this context. It is a liberty that concerns all human relations. Man is certainly a relational being, but these relations have to preserve the possibility of Man to reach and enjoy the spiritual realm. Hence, again, the decisive importance of freedom. And Man, in this Kantian approach, is the only “end” (l’Homme est la seule fin”). If, however, God is considered as the exclusive source of faith and hope (“la foi et l’esperance”) spirituality and freedom enter in a different relation. And Kantian rationality does not apply.

Spirituality and religious faith remain closely associated, even identical, for many people, perhaps especially those of the Christian tradition. The freedom to make choices in everyday life, the freedom to be open to the Other and to the world, such freedom, it was emphasized, cannot be separated from faith.. It is, for example, the morning prayer that makes the person free, open to joy, compassion and creativity. God “is” in our relation with the self, the Other and the world.

Spiritual needs? This is an ambiguous notion. Its link to institutional religion, indeed strong in many minds, is disqualifying in the political realm. Through this notion of “spiritual needs” some are trying to undermine the separation of religion from state. Instead, why not give a new impetus to the notion of the common good? In the human rights movement there is a lot of discussion, not always well informed, about the term “dignity”. As for the “spiritual”, “dignity” can become a “catchword” without content. To affirm the importance of principles without connecting them to concrete actions and policies is a recurrent temptation and a frequent method of government. Human rights are always challenging to the political powers. But it remain true that, notwithstanding its frequent manipulation, the principle of the inherent dignity of every human being has to support and to orient the protection and development of human rights. And religion and spirituality do not have to be considered as the indispensable foundations of the conviction that the pursuit human dignity is central to any decent society.

Spirituality? Spiritual needs? These words are used and abused (ils sont mis “a toutes les sauces”, y compris des sauces, notamment politiques, fort peu ragoutantes…). We need to put in brackets the spiritual, a notion inextricably linked to religion, and to concentrate our efforts on ethics and morality, or morals.  The point of departure of our reflections should be the notion of “morale naturelle”. This a clear notion. In all advanced civilizations there is a common foundation (un socle commun) made of universal moral principles, We ought to discuss the content of these principles, notably by analyzing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rights and duties, however, cannot be separated. They go together. Among other inquiries, it would be useful to look at the debates that occurred during the discussion and adoption by the French revolutionaries of the Declaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen.

As to the idea that the United Nations should be involved in debates about the “spiritual needs” of peoples, we ought to appreciate the fact that this organization has been created as an instrument of cooperation among governments. This is not only useful but fundamental to international relation and the UN is perfectly equipped to play this role when governments are interested. Through international cooperation, approximations to the common good of humankind emerge. It is dubious that the explicit introduction of the “spiritual” in this endeavor would be an improvement.

Moreover, the opposition between material needs and the spiritual realm is artificial. The “material” is evidently necessary. The spiritual is often perverse, as it expresses itself through sectarianism and bigotry. But there is a noble spirituality, a sort of metaphysical spirituality that has inspired the universal morality (morale universelle) mentioned above. 

The spiritual is what makes possible the permanence of the human spirit. As the spiritual expresses itself through human relationships, humanitarian action is a privileged vehicle for the spiritual enrichment – or simply survival- of the world. The economy, and society, are dynamic. Modern societies force people to live in an unstable and constantly moving environment. This permanent state of flux creates a large number of excluded and marginalized. Humanitarian action seeks these peoples to bring them back into the mainstream of society. The spiritual is the essence of this action. 

There is a need to define carefully ethics and morals. One might note that Calvin detested morality (la Morale). 

A reflection on rights and responsibilities will have to include rights and duties.

Modern societies generate inhumanity. Individualism implies irresponsibility towards the Other. 

Often, the poor are perceived and treated as if they were deprived of their spirituality. This goes for the civil servant behind the counter where the poor try to claim the rights and benefits that society grants them.  And it goes for all of us, when we failed to relate to the poor with full recognition of the common humanity they share with us. The space required for spirituality must be protected. And this is not only a personal and social issue, but also a political problem. The spiritual and the politics are de facto linked in many ways. 

One should abandon the use of such talk as “this person exudes spirituality” or “this individual has no spirituality”. Obviously, such judgments are highly problematic – besides being arrogant- and they are too convenient to push aside awareness of both the material conditions that, for many people, render impossible the expression of their dignity and, on the other hand, the materialism –the burden of “things” and of materialistic aspirations-  that suffocate others.

Man has a dimension beyond the confines of Nature. Or, to put it differently, Nature, of which Man is part, has a dimension beyond the material and the perceptible by senses. This dimension might be called the spiritual, or consciousness, and does not have to be separated or opposed to the material. It should not be separated. But it “exists”, as certainly and as evidently as what we called the “real”. This real, or material is made of particles of energy and “exists” through our senses. The spiritual is made by our mind and by what used to be called our soul. To deny either the material or the spiritual is equally absurd. Pure spiritualism and pure materialism are two temptations with equal disastrous effects for our humanity. Pure materialism, however, is much easier to succumb to, both individually and collectively. To nurture the spiritual dimension –of a life and of a community, and of a culture- demands efforts. Hence the role of ascetism, particularly in the Western Christian tradition, to enable Man to reach sanctity. But ascetism, perceived today as akin to masochism, is not the only path to spiritual grandeur. The “exercices spirituels” of Ignace de Loyola would deserve to be revisited. Eastern cultures have an increasing appeal to those looking for an holistic life and for an harmonious fusion of the self with the universe. And the quest cannot be solely personal when the excesses of the Western civilization render imperative a frugal approach to the bounties of the world.

Thus, a path towards the “Way” needs to be reinvented. Such reinvention includes the recognition that there are different sources of knowledge, which are accessible through the various capacities of human beings – reason and emotion, science and the arts – and which open the doors to fully appreciate the beauty of life and the wonders of nature. Man needs to re-enchant the world.

Spirituality is not necessarily a useful concept in international relations and in the work of the United Nations. To promote the spiritual dimension of the human condition in the international discourse, there are ethics, morality, as well as human dignity and human rights. The Millennium Development Goals, for example, ought not to be treated as responding solely to the material needs of people. Material issues should not be disconnected from spiritual issues. The raison d’etre of public international organizations is to develop and disseminate the notion of common or universal humanity. This is a formidable and necessary task: the survival of humanity might be at stake. And it is a task with many facets, ranging from solidarity of the rich and powerful with poor peoples and nations to the preservation of our natural environment, and including the punishment of crimes against humanity through the International Criminal Court. To the space where universal humanity becomes a reality, there is a great richness of entry-points and a great number of stepping stones. The meeting of basic needs, the promotion of decent work, the implementation of the right to education, are, among others, such entry-points and stepping stones. Spirituality, however, is not.

In life, there are three domains where the spiritual is immediately accessible, almost visible. The first is the passage from life to death. In all cultures, a dignified burial is seen as important. In Germany, for instances, churches were among the first monuments to be reconstructed after WWII. In all cultures also, death is associated with some belief in the soul of human creatures, with some form of transcendence. A second area of accessibility to the spiritual realm is goodness (la bonte). Each human being has a potential for goodness, charity, compassion and justice. The expression of these sentiments, through thoughts and deeds, is a spiritual experience, for both the giver and the receiver. Thirdly, in the hope that is lodged is the heart and soul of Man, in the virtue of “Esperance”, is a spring of spirituality. Beyond our physical limitations, beyond the reality of a world full of suffering and violence, we looked for universal harmony. Seeking this harmony pushes us beyond ourselves, gives us access to a spiritual realm where fraternity is a reality.

Access to the spiritual, to the divine, is possible with words, and without words. If we discover the divinity of the human beings we encounter, contempt, or nastiness, or exploitation, is no longer possible. But this discovery is not effortless, is not easy, unless we have reach ourselves a “sufficient” level of spiritual development.

Looking at a beautiful landscape, not necessarily a spectacular one but a forest, a pond, a meadow waking up and shaking its dew under the first rays of the sun, looking at nature with attention and calm, letting the beauty of the world  penetrates one’s soul, is a wonderful spiritual experience. And for some, on occasions, painting such landscape is a spiritual undertaking. 

The rejection of the material/spiritual dualism is necessary, but not at the cost of losing sight of the fact that a harmonious life is the fruit of a balance between the spiritual reality and the material reality. And this balance is not static. It requires giving to one’s life a sense, a purpose, a direction which is more that the satisfaction of immediate needs and desires. The dominant modernity forces people to concentrate their efforts on such satisfaction. It is a mutilating perception of life and society. This form of modernity has to be opposed, without hesitation or concession. 

A distinction has to be made between the operational discourse (le discours operatoire) and the symbolic language (la parole symbolique). There are two forms of communication. The operational discourse, founded on a scientific and technical logic, analyses and orders facts and ideas without preoccupation of their finality. Questions of meaning (de “sens”) are pushed aside.  Through the symbolic discourse, human beings are recognizing each other as vehicles of meaning (porteurs de sens), and as persons continuously in quest of such meaning. The languages of art, poetry, philosophy are loaded with this search for meaning. Communication through these languages opens rather than closes the space that is indispensable for human flourishing. 

It would be useful to classify the various arts and sciences according to their relative “amount” of operational and symbolic content. For there is no discourse that is purely symbolic or purely operational, or instrumental. There is no absolute objectivity. (the theorem of Godel was evoked in this context). And there is no symbolism totally oblivious of the world as we perceived it with our senses. But, clearly, poetry and arts are extremely rich in symbolic and therefore “relational” content. Equally rich, philosophy is however different. Philosophy is elsewhere (ailleurs). It asks how the questions of meaning can be approached. And theology responds to the question of how and to what extent the revealed texts respond to the questions posed by philosophy. Clearly also, most sciences, as they are perceived today, are overloaded with operational considerations. And economics, in its dominant mode, refuses to enter into issues of meaning.  

Policies of recovery from the current malaise that affect modern societies ought to include an effort by the state to invest in domains in which the “market” does not invest because returns are too small, at least in the short term. Examples of such domains ran from railways to artistic development. It is essential to rehabilitate philosophy, the education to philosophy and the education to spiritual practice. One has to find again and to redevelop the spiritual dimension of Man, to rediscover silence, to learn how to breathe, to build the material foundations of spirituality. John Stuart Mill, who was aware that greed is a form of mental sickness that has to be cured –including by taxes- favored an upper limit to personal income.  In the same vein, one has to separate misery from poverty. There is a poverty that is a deliberate control of the need for the continuous satisfaction of our appetites and desires. And there is a poverty that is the refusal of competition as the driving force of life and society. 

Human dignity is not separable from human spirituality. Could it even be argued that human dignity constitutes human spirituality? Human dignity is the foundation of the United Nations Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a concept that precedes and edignity. And there a universal understanding of what humiliation is. Dignity is inherent to the nature of Man. Dignity comes before the rights. One should remember that the Charter was elaborated after two devastating world wars. Now, we have the responsibility to understand, to discover the experience of our times and to find again the meaning and implications of the apparently simple notion of human dignity.

This starts with the understanding of the self. I am myself thru you. I am participating in the life of my community – family, village, town, nation, region, the world- therefore I am. We can only be human in relation to others. Paul Ricoeur wrote beautiful thoughts about esteem and self esteem. The victims are those who are de-humanized. Equality, certainly of rights, also of opportunities, and, depending on the prevailing economic circumstances, of conditions, is dignity. To treat people – when you are in a position of power- as an end and not as a means, is  to respect dignity. This notion of human dignity has deep philosophical and theological roots. The encyclicals, at least most obviously since Rerum Novarum, have human dignity at their roots. 

One approach, well represented at this meeting, is to shy away from the words “spiritual dimension” or “spiritual quest” and to identify (not to reduce!) this essential need and capacity of humankind with the ethical and moral dimension of the human condition. Being spiritual, is to be ethical, to be concerned with private and public morals and morality, and to seek the common good. There is a common humanity and a universal sense of the right and wrong, of the benevolent and the malevolent. There is an awareness of the Golden Rule in all cultures and across times. The work of Hans Kung has provided evidence, or confirmation, of this shared body of moral inclinations and principles in all cultures. The moral dimension of Man is a reality. But, if it is on this common foundation that all systems of morality are constructed, it is equally true that such systems exist only by their concrete manifestations. A moral or immoral act is not an universal abstraction: it is an act involving a person and having consequences. Moral concepts, summarized in the Golden Rule, take different colors when they are implemented and it is through this implementation that individuals and societies take their quality. Universal precepts make the “thin morality”, common to all, and their application to concrete situations constitutes the “thick morality”. When reflecting on the state of the world and possible paths to improve the human condition, it is useful to realize that morals and morality are alive only in the “thickness” of social relations and institutions.

The same analysis of the relationships between the universal and the particular applies to the question of human rights. It is through the discourse on human rights that the discourse on ethics came to be part of the political life. At the same time, there is no denying that this discourse on universal human rights represents a challenge to specific traditions and cultures. The public authorities of China or the governments of Islamic countries may have self-serving motives when they denounce the Western origins and Western biases of human rights instruments elaborated by the United Nations. The human rights language was not born only from the Christian tradition and it is convenient to forget that it is a language that was and remains revolutionary and liberating. It is an idea that was and remains opposed by authoritarian governments and religious clerics anxious to control the lives of “their” peoples. Yet, a critical discussion on the ways to articulate universal human rights with specific cultures – including the emerging Western culture- is both necessary and urgent. Such discussion is taking place, for example, within the Islamic community. Efforts are made to use the process of appropriation of the human rights language as a way of building bridges between the ethical traditions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. This process of appropriation of the universal language of human rights by religious languages that also have or had claims at universality create a public space for reflection and dialogue that is occupied and animated by civil societies acting beyond national governments. As it involves non-monotheist religions and, hopefully, also non-religious philosophies of the humanistic tradition, it is an important process that belongs to the peoples of the world that ought to be preserved and nourished. The opposite dangers of vague and meaningless syncretism and of control by a single credo are always present.

A reflection on human rights, these being perceived as a privileged expression of the spiritual dimension of Man, ought to take into account a number of issues and problems that affect the current human rights discourse and practice. Some were alluded to during this gathering. There is a large number and diversity of human rights instruments that have their origin in the Universal Declaration. The “process of appropriation” mentioned above is certainly not made easier by this proliferation, which, on the other hand, is perfectly logical from the viewpoint of human rights proponents. Human rights is a movement and not only the defense of established legal rights. So far, the international community has focused its attention on the rights and obligations of states. There are other entities, notably the large multinational corporations, that have, de facto if not de jure, attributes of sovereignty and power. The articulation, present in the Universal Declaration, of rights and duties and rights and responsibilities, tend to be forgotten. “My right” is a leitmotiv of the Western dominant culture. Perhaps in a related manner, the questioning and rejection of the human rights idea tend to become radical. Human rights are not only attacked from a relativist perspective – what is seen as a right in country X is seen as a crime in country Y- but pushed aside as irrelevant. What matters is not the autonomy of the individual but the capacity of the community/country to survive and prosper in a dangerous and conflicted world. Another issue is that the indivisibility of human rights is still questioned: civil and political rights are, so to speak, taken much more seriously than economic, social and cultural rights. In addition, collective rights such as the right to a safe environment, or the right to development, or the right to, peace, are still footnotes in the human rights discourse. Still another issue is the difficult relationship between the public and the private spheres in the lives of individuals and in the organization of societies. That, for instance, the rights of women should include protection against domestic violence is an unquestionable progress. But the capacity of public authorities to intrude into personal life through various technologies is not such an unambiguous development. Also mentioned was the fact that a society centered on individual rights but ignoring generosity and compassion is a sad and doomed society. And, gratitude and praise are human needs. And so are ascetism, mysticism and the search for perfection.