Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Some thoughts while reading "For the betterment of the world"

In Sen's blog: "For the betterment of the world"

"'Discouraging active political involvement' on the one hand and preaching 'open revolution' on the other are two extremes. But there is a middle ground: the Bahai Teachings encourage political and social activism, where it is possible without partisanship."

In my understanding, "strive to translate that which hath been written into reality and action" (Gleanings p. 249) includes trying to help remedy social ills and improve political systems. I see Baha'u'llah advising us how to go about that without doing more harm than good. As I see it, some popular ways of trying to remedy social ills and improve political systems are self defeating in that they actually help perpetuate and sometimes even aggravate the underlying causes of social ills and abusive behavior of political systems. Current Baha'i policies against involvement in contentious politics might be a result of consultation in Baha'i institutions about how to apply that advice from Baha'u'llah. That consultation would of course include consideration of how it was applied by Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

"The Bahais are intended to be in the party of progress, the party for the betterment of human condition, and they share this stance with many people of all religions."

Exactly. As I see it, one of the things Baha'is need to do, to help end global violence, is to learn to treat people of all religions, and non-religious people who are working to improve the world, as equal partners in that enterprise.

Sen concludes:

"When we look at what Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi said and did, as regards politics and the Bahais’ role in it, we need to consider which kind of society they are talking about: a premodern society with a weak state and no politics, or a society of the modern age, with a strong ideological state and politics that dominate life and intrude into civil spheres — and then we need to apply the principles, not the detailed rules, to whatever more-or-less postmodern state we are dealing with ourselves. The stark choice between 'discouraging active political involvement' and preaching open revolution is one which we face in only the worst kind of modernist state, which is an abnormal condition for a human society."

I don't imagine that the possibilities are ever reduced to those two, even in the worst kind of modernist state. Also, the possibilities are different for different people, and we always need different people doing different things, complementing and reinforcing each other's efforts. There are always some people in a position to directly and personally influence the behavior of governments, or counteract its harmful effects, and some popular kinds of activism might help, or they might get in the way. And even if they help, that doesn't mean that there is no better way for anyone to help, or that anyone who doesn't jump on that bandwagon or wear that uniform is wrong. There might be other things some people can do that will help even more, and make better use of their interests, capacities, resources and time.

"and then we need to apply the principles, not the detailed rules"

That brings up what I said in my fictional view in an earlier post, that the biggest obstacle to progress in the Baha'i community is worship of the administration. That includes blind resistance to changing any administrative policies or practices initiated by Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi.

Going back to an earlier part of Sen's post, it looks to me like he's equating Baha'u'llah's "ever-advancing civilization," "reformation of this age," rehabilitating "the fortunes of mankind," "betterment of the world" and "reconstruct the world" with what he calls the program of "the party of progress."

As I see it, Baha'u'llah's "betterment of the world" is not synonymous with any program of any party, including Sen's "party of progress," and it never will be. In my understanding, Baha'u'llah's "betterment of the world" is far, far better than any program anyone can imagine now, and necessarily in some ways contrary to everyone's ideas of progress.

As I see it, equating Baha'u'llah's "betterment of the world" with any fixed ideas of progress can have detrimental consequences for anyone who does so, and for the world. At the same time, in my view, we can serve Baha'u'llah's purposes much better if we have some concrete ideas about what we're aiming for. For some people, whatever Sen means by the program of the party of progress might serve that purpose very well. It becomes detrimental if we depreciate people whose ideas are contrary to ours, or if our ideas are not continually evolving in a context of learning from Baha'u'llah, and serving Him.

No comments: