Cultural Complementarity
By Hector E. Garcia
email to Charlie Mundale 2009
All humans see only a small part of reality, which brings about a sense of insecurity (this is one of the assumptions of CC). Our tendency is to subconsciously allay anxiety by acting as if what our group sees in our time is all of the true reality; consequently, all other groups must be totally or partially wrong. Since all groups are doing the same, conflict easily develops and grows. We then try to validate our position, and often our aggression, by showing current and past evidence for that position. This is not difficult for any group to do since the present and the past hold multiple facts and human errors to pick from and take offense. (The time I have spent as a consultant has taught me that you can usually select from an abundance of facts to validate most positions you want to sell). Parties in conflict will continue to assign fault to each other until the more powerful one puts an end to the never-ending argument by exercising its power; as a victor, it will acquire the credibility to gain support for its position.
Culture is the set of values, practices and institutions derived from a given group's perception of a segment of reality, consolidated over generations, which are intended to manage the reality perceived.
In the dynamics proposed by CC, groups or cultures would focus on building a better future together on the basis of constructive common goals. They would not focus on proving who is better or worse, who is the greatest or the most evil, who is right and who is at fault nor would they desperately defend their cultures in fear of change or criticism and the uncertainty it might bring. By the same token, they could each continue to commit to their individual beliefs (the paradox of individual support for the commonweal and the common support for the fulfillment of the individual). The perception of a segment of reality of each group would become an asset since it would add a) to the understanding of a larger part of reality and b) to the capacity of the "alliance of cultures" to manage that enlarged perception of reality.
Another assumption of CC is that most human beings aspire to build a better future for their children (particularly when they are free from fear and anger). The extremist and violent groups are exceptional in the degree that they have allowed fear and anger to guide their actions. They have chosen to believe in a better future by destroying rather than by building and to selectively and persistently focus on past events, which validate their anger and fear. Following a similar mental process, cynics create and foster the ideas on which the violent extremists act.
Therefore, CC requires: 1) a focus on the future, which by definition is unseen (it is in this “gestational” dimension where Complementarity both in culture and in physics is applicable); 2) courage and vision to trust in and work with "the other" as long as "the other" shares common goals for the future (this excludes violent extremists until they are willing to pursue similar constructive goals); 3) an assumption that there is an ultimate Good possible (otherwise cynics would be correct in assuming that nothing is worthwhile and relativists would be right in thinking that all is worthwhile—CC is unfortunately often understood as being an expression of the latter); 4) the acknowledgement that all cultures (not radical and destructive sub-groups) have a unique and valuable perspective as well as the tools of management, which evolve from that perspective; 5) the commitment to perpetually pursue a greater understanding of reality and a more constructive management of it.
The ultimate Good (in #3), CC assumes will never be grasped completely by any group (or individual) as long as humans have human limitations. It will always be the Purpose in the ever-receding future, creating the adventure and need for contribution by all individuals and cultures of all generations. The attempt by individuals and cultures to claim omniscience and infallibility for themselves at a given point in history, rather than being contributing elements to ever greater understanding, is an illusion that leads inevitably to conflict.
I believe democracy is an expression of CC and that it fulfills in theory all of these 5 requirements. In practice, modern democracy has been applied only within the nation-state and, to a lesser degree, among democratic nations. It has not been applied among all nations and cultures because the democratic nations have fallen into the trap that aristocrats fell into before modern democracy was accepted: the democratic nations have now assigned themselves an entitlement to the only right and virtuous way of thinking and living ("the end of history" and "the only indispensable nation"), which then justifies their marginalization, mistreatment, and exploitation of the others. Ironically and in repetition of history, this marginalization, mistreatment, and exploitation creates the ideal breeding ground for the cynics and the violent extremists. Instead of following, for instance, Thomas Jefferson's for constant renewal (#5), the West insists on keeping its progress as an exclusive and static accomplishment, as if were provided by DNA or race (the aristocrats used to claim it was thanks to their "blue blood" among other peculiar reasons).
There are other expressions of CC, such as economist Ricardo's Comparative Advantage. George Soros has been promoting his theory of reflexivity (I recommend his latest book "The New Paradigm for the Financial Markets") which is based on the philosophy of the Open Society and uncertainty; I believe this theory has a parallel thrust to CC. It seems to me that the two would combine well in a similar way to how Bohr's Complementarity and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principles combined in creating quantum mechanics. Years ago, I tried to make contact with Soros but was unable to do so; I should try again.
Hector
612 998 3014
-----Original Message-----
From: cimundale@comcast.net
Sent: May 3, 2009 10:55 PM
To: Hector Garcia
Subject: Chapter 8
Hola Hector,
I have read Chapter 8 and now understand much better what you mean by Cultural Complementary.
Once again, I am impressed with your command of English and the depth of your thought. Now: let's see if I really have the message. As I read your chapter, I understood you to say that each culture is an expression of "human." In effect, each culture is a statement about what humans can be, and no culture can clam that it is a statement about what humans must be. Yet, all cultures tell us something about what humans are,
Thus far, I agree, but I worry about expressions of cultures -- call them "sub-cultures" -- that strike an objective observer as perversions of the principal expression. For example, the form of Islam expressed by al Queda strikes me as a dangerous, anti-human expression of Islam. Similarly, I find some expressions of Christianity or Judaism as dangerous and anti-human. I suppose all these perversions make statement about what "human" is or can be, but that does not relive us from an obligation to judge them.
I hear you saying that we should avoid judgmentalism by viewing culture as Bohr viewed particles/waves. I hear an profound message there, but it seems to go only so far.
Paz,
Carlitos