It has now been 40 years since humans first walked on the Moon, and amid all the retrospectives, the usual debates about the present and future of space exploration have also become more heated. While support for and opposition to the space program comes from all parts of the political spectrum, it often seems to me that this is an issue where my view is contrary to that taken by a large proportion of my fellow progressives. When the value of the space program is debated, I often hear the same old argument, offered by people who I presume are fellow liberals, that money spent on space would be better spent on Earth. But is this really the case? I would argue that current spending levels for the space program are a small price to pay for what we get; if anything, I'd like to see spending increased. There are many reasons for this, some admittedly rather subjective, others more objective.
In a general sense, it should be obvious to everyone that our ability to launch objects into space has dramatically transformed our lives. Though it's been just over 60 years since the Soviets launched the first satellite, it would be hard now for most people living in the developed world, and even many in the developing world, to imagine living without the satellite technology that so much of our communications system depends on. Satellites have also been key to our understanding of problems such as climate change and its effects on the world, and study of the Sun and other planets has been and will continue to be vital to understanding climate change. For the future, some have envisioned using satellites to collect solar power in space to be beamed down to Earth, potentially solving all of our energy problems in a manner that would minimize environmental impact. Of course, none of this necessarily requires a human presence in space, so the question of the value of missions like Apollo still remains.
It must be acknowledged that the space race of the 1960s was a product of the Cold War. If the US and the Soviet Union had not been in such intense competition, it is unlikely that humans would have gone to the Moon, at least at such an early date. But this does not take anything away from the achievement. Of course, many question whether the human race is any better off due to the fact that humans have been to the Moon. In fact, achieving such a difficult technological feat forced a rapid development of many different types of technology, many of which proved useful in other fields. Today, the space program continues to be a major driver of technological development. But practical considerations aside, there's also the inspirational factor. The Apollo missions inspired many young people of the time to enter careers in science, so unless we argue that science is of no benefit to humanity (and many of the world's problems, climate change foremost among them, will not be solved without science), then the Moon landings certainly did some good. The current space program has been less successful in inspiring young people in this way, but this is because for most people, it takes something dramatic like going to the Moon (or, in the future, Mars) to really grab them. And while our chief priority should be creation of an equitable society where every child can realistically aspire to lofty goals, we also need to provide those lofty goals. While I wouldn't see anything wrong with my child aspiring to follow in the footsteps of Michael Jordan or Madonna, all things considered I'd prefer it if she wants to follow in the footsteps of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
But to take another angle, we should ask ourselves what we would gain if the money spent on space, whether in the past or the present, had been diverted elsewhere. Many people seem to have the idea that NASA has an enormous budget and that huge sums have been and are spent on space. And indeed it's true that major space missions, especially if they involve human spaceflight, can have price tags in the billions. But we have to put these numbers into perspective. The annual NASA budget over the past several years has been in the neighborhood of US$15 to 17 billion. This compares to over US$500 billion for the Defense Department, not including discretionary spending, debt servicing, and many other military-related costs. Half a dozen military procurement programs have annual budgets that equal 20% of more of NASA's entire annual budget. Since the early 1990s, NASA's annual budget has been less than 1% of the total annual government budget. Congress is now debating a health care reform bill that many people consider highly inadequate but which nevertheless is projected to cost US$1 trillion. If NASA's budget were devoted entirely to health care, it would hardly make a dent in that. In fact, all of the money spent by NASA in the 51 years since its founding in 1958 totals US$416 billion, less than a single year of the US military's budget and less than half of the price tag of the health care bill. Even if inflation is taken into account, the figure is US$806 billion, still less than a trillion dollars over a period of more than half a century, not really all that much relative to government spending as a whole. While spending on NASA may not bring any direct benefits to impoverished and disadvantaged people in the US or elsewhere, the US government spends plenty of money on much worse things.
The space program's problem is not really that it's so expensive, but that it's an obvious target. The money that goes to a lot of government programs is only visible to most people as abstract numbers in the budget, while the space program is something that everyone can see. But if anything, that should be evidence that we are at least getting something for our money (though I would not dispute the fact that NASA, like other government agencies, has often been guilty of major incompetence). Another problem is that it is easy to contrast our achievements in space with our lack of them here on Earth. People say things like "How can we send people to the Moon when people are starving on Earth?" But the same question could be asked of many other things the government spends money on, not to mention private spending (how many billions do people spend on cosmetics, sports or movies every year while others starve?), and most of them are clearly less beneficial than the space program, if not downright harmful. And even if all the money spent on space were spent on poverty alleviation, there would not be a noticeable impact on poverty.
Ultimately, however, the reason I find self-professed progressives who argue against spending money on space so disappointing is that I expect progressives to have more vision. Human expansion into space over the next centuries can provide us with a greater understanding of our world and the universe it inhabits and lead to improvements in technology that can benefit everyone. What's more, in the short term attempting the difficult task of trying to live in a colony on the Moon or Mars will provide valuable lessons in how to manage our environment in a sustainable way, and in the long term going into space will give us opportunities to create new societies in which we can attempt to put progressive ideals into practice without the centuries of cultural baggage that exist in terrestrial societies, in turn setting an example for those back on Earth. Certainly, this will not happen until far in the future, but progressives should be able to take the long-range view, attempting things that will benefit future generations, if not those alive today. Progress doesn't just mean improving our world of today, but looking to the future for the good of all humanity. The space program can be an important part of that future, if we devote but a tiny percentage of our effort to it.
Postscript -- Here's a quote from a 2008 article in USA Today that is relevant to the above: "Space scientist Lennard Fisk of the University of Michigan states, 'Any country that can spend $800 billion on a war in Iraq can afford a space program.' NASA's entire $17 billion budget, he notes, equals the exploration tax breaks given to oil companies every year."
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Tibetan and Uyghur Struggle Against Chinese Imperialism
The following is an essay I wrote several days ago, in response to the riots in Urumqi. It deals mostly with the historical background of the region, rather than the riots themselves. The truth about the riots is not suprisingly disputed between the Chinese and the Uyghurs, and exactly what happened will probably never be known exactly (another instance of the problem discussed in my previous essay). No doubt there are guilty and innocent parties on both sides, and the legitimacy of the Uyghurs' grievances against the Chinese government does not justify violence against innocent Han Chinese (though I suspect there is some truth to the Uyghurs' assertions that the Chinese government has exaggerated Uyghur violence against the Chinese and minimized Chinese violence against the Uyghur, just as happened with the riots in Lhasa last year). This essay has already been published in a shorter form elsewhere on the web. At the end of the essay I have added a few paragraphs I wrote in response to a reader's comments on the published version.
The news that large-scale rioting has taken place in Urumqi is a reminder that the Tibetans are not the only people who are not happy with Chinese rule. But to understand the situation in either place it is necessary to be clear on a few background facts. Historically, Tibet and the Central Asian region sometimes known as East Turkestan (known to the Chinese as "Xinjiang") have been inhabited by the Tibetans and Uyghurs (sometimes spelled "Uighur") respectively. Neither of these peoples is Chinese; their languages, customs, cultures and religions are completely distinct from China's. So why does China rule them now? First it might be helpful to get an idea of the extent of China proper. The easiest way to do this is to look up a historical map of Ming dynasty China. You'll notice that Chinese territory in the Ming dynasty did not include Tibet, Turkestan, Mongolia, or the lands north of the Korean peninsula that now make up northeast China . This is because these lands were not inhabited by Chinese. But in the 17th century, China was conquered by the Manchus, a non-Chinese people from the northeast, who set up the Qing dynasty. The Manchus were regarded by the Chinese as foreigners, though over time they eventually were assimilated by their subjects. In the first decades of Manchu rule, they expanded their empire far beyond China, conquering Mongolia, East Turkestan and Tibet. These territories were imperial possessions, just as India was an imperial possession of the British, Central America was an imperial territory of Spain, and so forth. In most cases, the Manchu did not run these territories the same way they ran China, as neither they nor the people of these regions was Chinese. The main thing these regions had in common with China was that they were all part of the same empire.
In 1912, after a long period of decline under pressure both from foreign imperialists and domestic rebels, the Qing dynasty fell and the Republic of China was proclaimed. The ROC laid claim to all the territory of the Manchu empire, despite the fact that much of it was not Chinese. The new government was unable to enforce its claims, so most of the non-Chinese regions became independent (for that matter, the central government did not even effectively control all of China proper, as most of it was ruled by autonomous warlords). However, they maintained their questionable claims of sovereignty over all the empire, so when the ROC government was forced out of China to Taiwan and the People's Republic of China was set up, the PRC in turn claimed all of the same empire (except part of Mongolia, which their Soviet allies forced them to recognize as independent). Unfortunately for places like Tibet, which had been a de facto independent country for several decades by this time, the PRC was able to enforce its claims militarily, conquering all of the non-Chinese areas that had once been part of the Manchu empire except outer Mongolia (ironically enough, before they actually gained power, Mao and other communist leaders had at times supported full independence for all these outlying regions, only to change their minds once they had the power to take them over).
Are the Chinese claims to sovereignty over these places justifiable? One way to answer that is to ask whether other imperial claims are justifiable. Did Britain have the "right" to rule India, Malaysia, east Africa, and all its other imperial possessions? Did the French have the "right" to its colonies in West Africa, Indochina, and so on? Did Russia have the "right" to rule Poland, which it did throughout the 19th century? Most people now would agree that imperialism and colonialism as practiced by the Europeans was wrong, and all of those countries were justified in struggling for independence. So is Chinese rule in historically non-Chinese areas justified? China runs these places, which they "inherited" as part of an empire, in exactly the same exploitative fashion that the Europeans ran their colonies. In some ways Chinese rule is even worse, as the Chinese government have actively tried to suppress local culture (the Europeans did this in some places, but not everywhere) and it is using the vast population of Chinese to swamp the local people by encouraging the Han (as the ethnic Chinese are called) to move to these places in large numbers to make money. Most of the money from economic development in place like Tibet and East Turkestan goes into the pockets of Han Chinese, so the local people see that not only have they lost their independence, but their homeland is being turned into a Han-majority region in which they will be an impoverished minority with a culture that is slowly withering away. It's no wonder that some of them are inclined to riot.
In the case of Tibet, China tries to blame any rioting on the Dalai Lama, despite the fact that he has bent over backwards to emphasize his opposition to violence and his willingness to settle for autonomy rather than independence. In East Turkestan ("Xinjiang"), China blames all violence on Islamic fundamentalists and "terrorists". This is a particularly disingenuous effort to lump Muslims struggling for independence for their own homeland with al-Qaeda terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Some Uyghurs were indeed captured by American troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan and imprisoned in Guantanamo, but the US has since determined that they were not a danger to it. It should surprise no one that Uyghurs who chose to turn to violence in their struggle against Chinese rule went to camps associated with al-Qaeda for training; Afghanistan and Pakistan are just across the border from East Turkestan, and it's not like they had any other options. They can be faulted for choosing violence in their struggle, but to consider them the same as anti-Western militants like bin Laden just because they went to the only place they could for weapons and training is foolish and even counterproductive, as they may conclude that as Western countries are helping China to oppress them, they might as well consider Westerners their enemies along with the Chinese. In fact their only enemies are the Chinese military and government, which will happily torture and execute them if it gets its hands on them. But the point to remember is that both the Nobel Peace Prize-winning advocate of non-violence the Dalai Lama and the Uyghurs in Guantanamo, as well as those who rioted in Urumqi, have something in common -- they are all victims of old-fashioned imperialism and colonialism at the hands of China.
We can also expect to hear numerous complaints from Chinese that the Western media is biased against China and is distorting the truth to make the government look bad, just as the Iranian government has done with regard to the post-election violence there. The irony, of course, is that while they claim that Westerners don't know the true situation in their country and so make up lies about it, they won't let anyone actually go and see for themselves. After the rioting in Tibet, foreigners were kicked out of the region and barred from entering it, particularly if they were journalists (much as Iran banned journalists from leaving their offices to do news reports). In Urumqi, there are already reports that an American academic who happened to be in Urumqi was arrested after being caught taking pictures of the riot and forced to delete the pictures he'd taken. Selective use of footage of the incident is also apparent, with Chinese media showing violence by rioters rather than clips of peaceful marchers or police violence against protestors. Whether foreign journalists will be allowed completely free access to Urumqi (rather than being taken on tours by the government) is still open to question, but it is already clear that the government will try to control reporting of the incident. The Chinese also like to claim that most people in Tibet and East Turkestan are happy with Chinese rule. If that is the case, why are they so afraid of letting people speak their minds about it? If a desire for independence is indeed a minority opinion, then they have no more to fear from it than the US government has to fear from the Alaskan Independence Party. More likely, the Chinese know or at least fear that, given the chance to speak freely, most Tibetans and Uyghurs would support independence.
So the question for the rest of the world is, should we support or acquiesce in Chinese colonial rule in Tibet and East Turkestan, or should we support the Tibetans and Uyghurs in their desire for the same independence that has been granted to most European colonies around the world? Will we be bamboozled by Chinese assertions that these areas are historically part of China (which is no more true than saying, for example, that India is historically part of the UK) and so their colonial rule is justified? Will we be fooled by claims that the rioting Uyghurs are al-Qaeda-allied Islamic terrorists instead of fighters for independence? Will we just sit back and watch as the Chinese government once again crushes a challenge to its rule? Or will we call on the Chinese to let the Tibetans and Uyghurs decide their own future and the future of the lands that were theirs long before the Chinese came? As individuals, if enough of us speak out against Chinese colonialism in Tibet and Turkestan and call on our elected leaders to take a similar stand, perhaps we can put enough pressure on China for it to see that it cannot continue to maintain its empire through repression, and that if it truly wants to be a world leader, it has to respect the rights of all the people in its territory.
One of my purposes here is to counter the incessant Chinese propaganda insisting that China has a legitimate and indisputable historical claim to the region, and to make clear that both the Uyghurs and Tibetans have very legitimate reasons for advocating independence. However, that does not mean that instantly granting these places independence (if that were possible) would solve all the problems they have. The fact that there are already many Han Chinese in these places (particularly in East Turkestan, where there are almost as many Han as Uyghur) means that an independent Turkestan would face a situation similar to that of Baltic states such as Estonia, which after independence from Russia were left with sizable Russian minorities (in fact East Turkestan's Han minority would be even bigger). So a theoretical independent East Turkestan would have to be able to guarantee the rights of the Han as well. Whether relations are so bad that a situation like that would be unworkable, I can't say for certain; I'm afraid it's quite possible. This problem of course arises all the time all over the world; Kosovo has its Serb minority, Georgia has its breakaway regions, an independent Quebec would have a very large population of non-French origin, etc.
Secondly, there is unfortunately no chance that the current Chinese government would grant East Turkestan independence. Probably the only way that could happen is is China underwent a political collapse (usually the best opportunity for borderlands to break away). A more realistic near-term solution is real autonomy, such that the local people have real power in their region. This doesn't just mean appointing Uyghurs (or, in Tibet, Tibetans) to high government positions; the Chinese do this already. It would ideally mean that Beijing would relinquish control over everything but a few key things (foreign policy, the military, trade with other parts of China, etc.) and these regions would have their own laws and be free to practice their own culture (as it is, there are many restrictions on for example the practice of religion; see this article in Time) In fact a situation similar to this (local autonomy under overall Chinese control) existed in central Tibet in the 1950s, where initially the Tibetan government was left in place. Unfortunately the Chinese did not honor their promises to keep out of local affairs, which ultimately led to the uprising in Lhasa in 1959 and the flight of the Dalai Lama to India.
In a way, advocating independence for East Turkestan and Tibet is a bargaining position. As I said, the first thing is for everyone to acknowledge that there are legitimate grounds for a pro-independence stance. That doesn't mean independence is the only solution. While in principle I would consider it ideal, I think both the Uyghurs and Tibetans should be willing to consider a compromise, which would be real autonomy (and restrictions on migration to their regions) under Chinese rule (this is in fact the Dalai Lama's position). The problem is that at this point China isn't willing to give them anything at all, and even refuses to acknowledge they have any legitimate rights. If the Chinese can be forced to acknowledge the true history of the regions and the real current situation, then maybe a compromise can be reached.
The news that large-scale rioting has taken place in Urumqi is a reminder that the Tibetans are not the only people who are not happy with Chinese rule. But to understand the situation in either place it is necessary to be clear on a few background facts. Historically, Tibet and the Central Asian region sometimes known as East Turkestan (known to the Chinese as "Xinjiang") have been inhabited by the Tibetans and Uyghurs (sometimes spelled "Uighur") respectively. Neither of these peoples is Chinese; their languages, customs, cultures and religions are completely distinct from China's. So why does China rule them now? First it might be helpful to get an idea of the extent of China proper. The easiest way to do this is to look up a historical map of Ming dynasty China. You'll notice that Chinese territory in the Ming dynasty did not include Tibet, Turkestan, Mongolia, or the lands north of the Korean peninsula that now make up northeast China . This is because these lands were not inhabited by Chinese. But in the 17th century, China was conquered by the Manchus, a non-Chinese people from the northeast, who set up the Qing dynasty. The Manchus were regarded by the Chinese as foreigners, though over time they eventually were assimilated by their subjects. In the first decades of Manchu rule, they expanded their empire far beyond China, conquering Mongolia, East Turkestan and Tibet. These territories were imperial possessions, just as India was an imperial possession of the British, Central America was an imperial territory of Spain, and so forth. In most cases, the Manchu did not run these territories the same way they ran China, as neither they nor the people of these regions was Chinese. The main thing these regions had in common with China was that they were all part of the same empire.
In 1912, after a long period of decline under pressure both from foreign imperialists and domestic rebels, the Qing dynasty fell and the Republic of China was proclaimed. The ROC laid claim to all the territory of the Manchu empire, despite the fact that much of it was not Chinese. The new government was unable to enforce its claims, so most of the non-Chinese regions became independent (for that matter, the central government did not even effectively control all of China proper, as most of it was ruled by autonomous warlords). However, they maintained their questionable claims of sovereignty over all the empire, so when the ROC government was forced out of China to Taiwan and the People's Republic of China was set up, the PRC in turn claimed all of the same empire (except part of Mongolia, which their Soviet allies forced them to recognize as independent). Unfortunately for places like Tibet, which had been a de facto independent country for several decades by this time, the PRC was able to enforce its claims militarily, conquering all of the non-Chinese areas that had once been part of the Manchu empire except outer Mongolia (ironically enough, before they actually gained power, Mao and other communist leaders had at times supported full independence for all these outlying regions, only to change their minds once they had the power to take them over).
Are the Chinese claims to sovereignty over these places justifiable? One way to answer that is to ask whether other imperial claims are justifiable. Did Britain have the "right" to rule India, Malaysia, east Africa, and all its other imperial possessions? Did the French have the "right" to its colonies in West Africa, Indochina, and so on? Did Russia have the "right" to rule Poland, which it did throughout the 19th century? Most people now would agree that imperialism and colonialism as practiced by the Europeans was wrong, and all of those countries were justified in struggling for independence. So is Chinese rule in historically non-Chinese areas justified? China runs these places, which they "inherited" as part of an empire, in exactly the same exploitative fashion that the Europeans ran their colonies. In some ways Chinese rule is even worse, as the Chinese government have actively tried to suppress local culture (the Europeans did this in some places, but not everywhere) and it is using the vast population of Chinese to swamp the local people by encouraging the Han (as the ethnic Chinese are called) to move to these places in large numbers to make money. Most of the money from economic development in place like Tibet and East Turkestan goes into the pockets of Han Chinese, so the local people see that not only have they lost their independence, but their homeland is being turned into a Han-majority region in which they will be an impoverished minority with a culture that is slowly withering away. It's no wonder that some of them are inclined to riot.
In the case of Tibet, China tries to blame any rioting on the Dalai Lama, despite the fact that he has bent over backwards to emphasize his opposition to violence and his willingness to settle for autonomy rather than independence. In East Turkestan ("Xinjiang"), China blames all violence on Islamic fundamentalists and "terrorists". This is a particularly disingenuous effort to lump Muslims struggling for independence for their own homeland with al-Qaeda terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Some Uyghurs were indeed captured by American troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan and imprisoned in Guantanamo, but the US has since determined that they were not a danger to it. It should surprise no one that Uyghurs who chose to turn to violence in their struggle against Chinese rule went to camps associated with al-Qaeda for training; Afghanistan and Pakistan are just across the border from East Turkestan, and it's not like they had any other options. They can be faulted for choosing violence in their struggle, but to consider them the same as anti-Western militants like bin Laden just because they went to the only place they could for weapons and training is foolish and even counterproductive, as they may conclude that as Western countries are helping China to oppress them, they might as well consider Westerners their enemies along with the Chinese. In fact their only enemies are the Chinese military and government, which will happily torture and execute them if it gets its hands on them. But the point to remember is that both the Nobel Peace Prize-winning advocate of non-violence the Dalai Lama and the Uyghurs in Guantanamo, as well as those who rioted in Urumqi, have something in common -- they are all victims of old-fashioned imperialism and colonialism at the hands of China.
We can also expect to hear numerous complaints from Chinese that the Western media is biased against China and is distorting the truth to make the government look bad, just as the Iranian government has done with regard to the post-election violence there. The irony, of course, is that while they claim that Westerners don't know the true situation in their country and so make up lies about it, they won't let anyone actually go and see for themselves. After the rioting in Tibet, foreigners were kicked out of the region and barred from entering it, particularly if they were journalists (much as Iran banned journalists from leaving their offices to do news reports). In Urumqi, there are already reports that an American academic who happened to be in Urumqi was arrested after being caught taking pictures of the riot and forced to delete the pictures he'd taken. Selective use of footage of the incident is also apparent, with Chinese media showing violence by rioters rather than clips of peaceful marchers or police violence against protestors. Whether foreign journalists will be allowed completely free access to Urumqi (rather than being taken on tours by the government) is still open to question, but it is already clear that the government will try to control reporting of the incident. The Chinese also like to claim that most people in Tibet and East Turkestan are happy with Chinese rule. If that is the case, why are they so afraid of letting people speak their minds about it? If a desire for independence is indeed a minority opinion, then they have no more to fear from it than the US government has to fear from the Alaskan Independence Party. More likely, the Chinese know or at least fear that, given the chance to speak freely, most Tibetans and Uyghurs would support independence.
So the question for the rest of the world is, should we support or acquiesce in Chinese colonial rule in Tibet and East Turkestan, or should we support the Tibetans and Uyghurs in their desire for the same independence that has been granted to most European colonies around the world? Will we be bamboozled by Chinese assertions that these areas are historically part of China (which is no more true than saying, for example, that India is historically part of the UK) and so their colonial rule is justified? Will we be fooled by claims that the rioting Uyghurs are al-Qaeda-allied Islamic terrorists instead of fighters for independence? Will we just sit back and watch as the Chinese government once again crushes a challenge to its rule? Or will we call on the Chinese to let the Tibetans and Uyghurs decide their own future and the future of the lands that were theirs long before the Chinese came? As individuals, if enough of us speak out against Chinese colonialism in Tibet and Turkestan and call on our elected leaders to take a similar stand, perhaps we can put enough pressure on China for it to see that it cannot continue to maintain its empire through repression, and that if it truly wants to be a world leader, it has to respect the rights of all the people in its territory.
One of my purposes here is to counter the incessant Chinese propaganda insisting that China has a legitimate and indisputable historical claim to the region, and to make clear that both the Uyghurs and Tibetans have very legitimate reasons for advocating independence. However, that does not mean that instantly granting these places independence (if that were possible) would solve all the problems they have. The fact that there are already many Han Chinese in these places (particularly in East Turkestan, where there are almost as many Han as Uyghur) means that an independent Turkestan would face a situation similar to that of Baltic states such as Estonia, which after independence from Russia were left with sizable Russian minorities (in fact East Turkestan's Han minority would be even bigger). So a theoretical independent East Turkestan would have to be able to guarantee the rights of the Han as well. Whether relations are so bad that a situation like that would be unworkable, I can't say for certain; I'm afraid it's quite possible. This problem of course arises all the time all over the world; Kosovo has its Serb minority, Georgia has its breakaway regions, an independent Quebec would have a very large population of non-French origin, etc.
Secondly, there is unfortunately no chance that the current Chinese government would grant East Turkestan independence. Probably the only way that could happen is is China underwent a political collapse (usually the best opportunity for borderlands to break away). A more realistic near-term solution is real autonomy, such that the local people have real power in their region. This doesn't just mean appointing Uyghurs (or, in Tibet, Tibetans) to high government positions; the Chinese do this already. It would ideally mean that Beijing would relinquish control over everything but a few key things (foreign policy, the military, trade with other parts of China, etc.) and these regions would have their own laws and be free to practice their own culture (as it is, there are many restrictions on for example the practice of religion; see this article in Time) In fact a situation similar to this (local autonomy under overall Chinese control) existed in central Tibet in the 1950s, where initially the Tibetan government was left in place. Unfortunately the Chinese did not honor their promises to keep out of local affairs, which ultimately led to the uprising in Lhasa in 1959 and the flight of the Dalai Lama to India.
In a way, advocating independence for East Turkestan and Tibet is a bargaining position. As I said, the first thing is for everyone to acknowledge that there are legitimate grounds for a pro-independence stance. That doesn't mean independence is the only solution. While in principle I would consider it ideal, I think both the Uyghurs and Tibetans should be willing to consider a compromise, which would be real autonomy (and restrictions on migration to their regions) under Chinese rule (this is in fact the Dalai Lama's position). The problem is that at this point China isn't willing to give them anything at all, and even refuses to acknowledge they have any legitimate rights. If the Chinese can be forced to acknowledge the true history of the regions and the real current situation, then maybe a compromise can be reached.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Problem of Objectivity
As someone who studies history and has an interest in science, I am perhaps more aware than most people of the importance of objectivity. But objectivity is important in every area of life, whether it is making decisions about our own future or giving advice to friends. We are often advised (and I myself often advise others) to "try to be objective" in passing judgment on things. However, is it actually possible to be objective? If not, should we even bother to try to be objective? If we want to be as objective as humanly possible, are emotions like empathy desirable or not?
To answer the first question, it is not possible to be entirely objective about anything. It is not even possible to perceive the objective reality of any one thing, even assuming there is such a thing as objective reality in the first place. I personally (speaking subjectively) do not doubt the existence of an objective reality, at least in a sense, but as pointed out by Einstein and others, certain aspects of reality are relative, and so it is impossible to make an objective statement about them. To take an example, an astronomy textbook may tell you that certain stars are moving away from us while others are moving towards us. But why not say we (here meaning our solar system) are moving away from or towards them? Presumably it is some of both, but how much of each? That question cannot be answered objectively, as the answer is always relative depending on the point of reference taken (for instance, the galactic center). So while the existence of the stars and the fact that they are moving can be said to be objective reality, when it comes to the details of their motion, it can be argued that there is no true objective reality.
If we leave questions of relativity aside and look at individual objects, can we arrive at an objective understanding of the objects in question? Let's say we look at an apple. We can start by agreeing that the apple itself has an objective reality. But can we fully perceive that objective reality? The answer to that is no. Some might argue that it is obvious that the apple is red, and has such and such a shape. But while we may perceive it as red, would someone who is colorblind perceive it the same way? Ah, the counter-argument goes, but that because their perception is defective, so they are unable to see the objective reality. But is our own perception perfect? Speaking simply of color, we would perceive the same apple as having different colors depending on the light under which it was viewed. If we saw it under a red light, it would look quite different from the way it would under a blue light. So which is the way it really looks? Even if we view it under a white light, we are still not perceiving the complete reality of its appearance, as out of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, we only are able to see a narrow group of wavelengths commonly known as "visible light". What would the apple look like under ultraviolet or infrared light, not to mention the X-ray or radio parts of the spectrum? In many parts of the spectrum it might not be visible at all (as it would not reflect any significant amount of radiation in those wavelengths), but in any case our eyes are incapable of seeing its appearance (or non-appearance) in anything other than visible light. Certainly we now are able to take pictures of objects at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum; astronomers do this all the time using X-ray telescopes, radio telescopes, and so on. But even then, for us to actually look at the results, the image has to be converted (translated, in a sense) into one in the wavelengths of visible light in order for us to actually look at it, so we are no longer seeing the actual reality, just an approximation. So we can never fully perceive all aspects of the objective reality of any object. The best we can do is, by studying it in as many ways as we can, come as close as possible to a complete objective understanding (an important point that I will return to below).
Obviously, if it is impossible to objectively describe an object (even leaving aside the philosophical objection that words are already imperfect representations of the realities they are used to describe), it is likewise impossible to describe human events and interactions objectively, and even harder to come close to doing so. For history, this is especially difficult. We might accept as an objective fact the statement that Hannibal invaded Italy in 218 BCE, or that Alexander of Macedon died in Babylon in 323 BCE, since we have multiple sources that agree on this much. But when it comes down to details, like the route followed by Hannibal or the way Alexander died, there is no way to be certain of the objective facts. Did Alexander die in great pain or relatively peacefully? What were his last words? What caused the fever which killed him? Our knowledge of these events comes from people who were not actually present at the time, so we obviously cannot be certain of the accuracy of their accounts. Indeed, much of history is based on second- or third- or even fourth-hand information, with all the problems of inaccurate transmission that entails. But even if we have first-hand accounts of event, does that mean we can know objectively what happened? If you and another person both witness an event or take part in a conversation and are later asked to recount it, will the two of you agree on every detail? Often you won't, because each person will perceive, fail to perceive, or misperceive different details, even assuming both peoples' memories of what happened are clear, which is often not the case. Perhaps if the event in question was recorded we can come closer to an objective understanding of it, but even if both video and audio exist, a perfect knowledge of the objective facts is still not guaranteed, as no visual recording will show every possible angle (think for instance of slow-motion replays in sports; they can often clarify things, but other times a poor camera angle means they still leave a lot of uncertainty).
When motivations also have to be considered, an objective understanding becomes even more remote. Why did this person take a certain action? How did that person feel at such and such a time? Though in some senses John Donne was correct to say that no man is an island, in other ways every human being is an island, as we can never truly understand the feelings and perceptions of another. Only the person in question knows their motivations and feelings, if anyone does. In fact, even if a person attempts to tell others what they felt at a certain time or what motivated them to act a certain way, there is no guarantee that we can thereby know the truth. Even if the person is doing their best to be perfectly honest in recounting their feelings, they are simply telling us what they remember feeling. We cannot be sure that this memory is entirely accurate, or that they are able to convey it clearly. So it isn't really possible to be sure exactly why anyone does anything.
Even if we know the facts as well as it is possible to know them, can we then judge them objectively if we are asked to about the rights and wrongs of a matter, or even for our advice as to how to deal with it? Again, the answer is no. Our view of things is inevitably influenced by our subjective views of what is right and wrong and our knowledge of what actions are effective in particular situations. If a friend asks you for advice on how to deal with a difficult boss, even if you get all the information it is possible to get about the problem and the motivations of your friend and their boss, your advice will still be affected by your knowledge, your personal experiences, and your view of what is acceptable or preferable and what isn't. Of course you can make your advice as objective as possible by getting as many facts as you can and trying your best to exclude any prejudices on your own part, but complete objectivity is not possible. Likewise, while I would argue (and indeed have in other essays) that many basic moral and ethical principles can be arrived at through a rational (and therefore mostly objective) thought process, there will always be certain assumptions at the root of them (for instance, that our individual happiness is a good thing) even if we try to limit them as much as possible, and, more to the point, there will always be a large amount of subjectivity in the application of these principles, even if they were arrived at (mostly) objectively.
Let's look at what this all means for a topic of some contemporary interest, namely whether a judge can make an objective ruling in a court case, and if not, what approach they should take. From what has been said above, it should be clear that no judge can ever be completely objective. A judge (Antoin Scalia, for instance) may claim to be objective in his rulings; he may even truly believe he is objective, but, if so, he is kidding himself. Even if he has a through knowledge of the law and the facts of the case and is able to come up with very sound, logical arguments for his opinion on the application of the law, there will always be an element of subjectivity present. It is generally agreed that rule of law (meaning that people are judged based on the law) is superior to rule of man (meaning that the judge himself or herself can judge a person who comes before the court however they feel like judging them). I would not dispute this, as if judges could be completely arbitrary even the last shreds of objectivity would go out the window. But it is worth remembering when we talk about rule of law that not only are the laws made by men and women with all their subjective prejudices and preconceived notions, but they are also interpreted and applied by men and women, and like all humans, they can never be completely objective.
Since we are talking about principles of law, we should also mention the oft-seen tension between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. In some ways it might seem that holding to the letter of the law is actually the more objective approach. But, even leaving aside the fact the laws are written by people and are therefore imperfect, no law can cover every possible situation. Furthermore, it is worth asking what the purpose of having laws is in the first place. The answer, ideally at least, is to create a just society. And what is justice? Essentially in a legal situation it means those who deserve punishment are punished appropriately and those who don't deserve punishment are not punished. Of course whether a punishment is "deserved" or not is also a subjective opinion, but leaving that aside for now, if justice is the goal then it is clear that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, since following the letter of a law which does not cover a situation adequately may result in injustice.
So how can we make judgments according to the spirit of the law, given that this is an amorphous thing which is even more difficult to identify objectively than the letter of the law? Of course we have already said that perfectly objective judgments are not possible; nevertheless, we can attempt to come as close as possible. This is where empathy -- more specifically trying to understand the feelings and motivations of others -- comes in. Some will object that I've already said that it is impossible to really understand others' thoughts and emotions. Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to have an approximate understanding of them, just as we can gain an approximate understanding of the appearance of an object at electromagnetic wavelengths invisible to us. To do that, we need to be able to emphasize with others as much as possible. Only if we are capable of imagining ourselves in a situation faced by another person can we come close to understanding their motivations. To be sure, understanding does not mean condoning; we might understand why a person under stress might lash out violently at a family member, but that doesn't mean we should excuse such behavior. However, if we want to make a just decision, understanding is essential, and we can't have understanding where human beings are concerned without at least some capacity for empathy.
I should stress that when I say that it is necessary for a judge (or anyone with the power to make a ruling on some issue) to be able to empathize with those involved I don't just mean that they have to be able to empathize with the poor and disadvantaged. In order to be as objective as possible, they also have to be able to empathize with the rich and powerful. While most of us might find it difficult to empathize, say, with a government official who accepts a bribe, with a sufficient effort we may be able to do so. We may still conclude that they deserve punishment, but again it would be impossible to make a fair and just judgment in the matter without attempting to see things from their perspective. Nevertheless, if justice is the goal, it could be argued that the ability to emphasize with the disadvantaged is more important, as things are already weighted against them. Or to put it another way, those in authority for the most part are already able to empathize more easily with those with similar backgrounds (assuming they are capable of empathy at all); what they are more likely to be lacking in is the ability to empathize with those who are not so well off. Of course people find it easier to empathize with those like them; that is why a wide variety of life experiences are helpful, or, lacking that, an adequate understanding of the widely different situations people may face and sufficient imagination to put ourselves in such situations.
To conclude, while I recognize that complete objectivity is an unobtainable goal, the best way to come close to it is by obtaining as complete an understanding as possible, and if we are dealing with human actions, that means we need to be able to empathize with others, to put ourselves in their shoes, as the saying goes. We also have to do our best to rid ourselves of, or at least temporarily put aside, our own biases and preconceived notions. Only then can we make judgments or offer advice or opinions that, if not actually objective, are as objective as it is possible for them to be.
All of this is, to some extent, a roundabout way of saying that I do my best to be as objective as possible in anything I write (unless I'm being ironic), but at the same time I recognize that I can never completely succeed. I hope that I can succeed at least partially, and I welcome comments and opinions from others who are willing to make the same effort. Also, when I write about history, science or other topics, I will treat various things as facts, but with the caveat (not always stated) that, as explained above, it's very difficult to be truly certain what is a fact and what isn't. All I can say is that certain things seem to be facts based on my understanding, incomplete though it may be. Again, I welcome corrections from those who have some relatively objective basis for their alternate version of the facts.
To answer the first question, it is not possible to be entirely objective about anything. It is not even possible to perceive the objective reality of any one thing, even assuming there is such a thing as objective reality in the first place. I personally (speaking subjectively) do not doubt the existence of an objective reality, at least in a sense, but as pointed out by Einstein and others, certain aspects of reality are relative, and so it is impossible to make an objective statement about them. To take an example, an astronomy textbook may tell you that certain stars are moving away from us while others are moving towards us. But why not say we (here meaning our solar system) are moving away from or towards them? Presumably it is some of both, but how much of each? That question cannot be answered objectively, as the answer is always relative depending on the point of reference taken (for instance, the galactic center). So while the existence of the stars and the fact that they are moving can be said to be objective reality, when it comes to the details of their motion, it can be argued that there is no true objective reality.
If we leave questions of relativity aside and look at individual objects, can we arrive at an objective understanding of the objects in question? Let's say we look at an apple. We can start by agreeing that the apple itself has an objective reality. But can we fully perceive that objective reality? The answer to that is no. Some might argue that it is obvious that the apple is red, and has such and such a shape. But while we may perceive it as red, would someone who is colorblind perceive it the same way? Ah, the counter-argument goes, but that because their perception is defective, so they are unable to see the objective reality. But is our own perception perfect? Speaking simply of color, we would perceive the same apple as having different colors depending on the light under which it was viewed. If we saw it under a red light, it would look quite different from the way it would under a blue light. So which is the way it really looks? Even if we view it under a white light, we are still not perceiving the complete reality of its appearance, as out of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, we only are able to see a narrow group of wavelengths commonly known as "visible light". What would the apple look like under ultraviolet or infrared light, not to mention the X-ray or radio parts of the spectrum? In many parts of the spectrum it might not be visible at all (as it would not reflect any significant amount of radiation in those wavelengths), but in any case our eyes are incapable of seeing its appearance (or non-appearance) in anything other than visible light. Certainly we now are able to take pictures of objects at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum; astronomers do this all the time using X-ray telescopes, radio telescopes, and so on. But even then, for us to actually look at the results, the image has to be converted (translated, in a sense) into one in the wavelengths of visible light in order for us to actually look at it, so we are no longer seeing the actual reality, just an approximation. So we can never fully perceive all aspects of the objective reality of any object. The best we can do is, by studying it in as many ways as we can, come as close as possible to a complete objective understanding (an important point that I will return to below).
Obviously, if it is impossible to objectively describe an object (even leaving aside the philosophical objection that words are already imperfect representations of the realities they are used to describe), it is likewise impossible to describe human events and interactions objectively, and even harder to come close to doing so. For history, this is especially difficult. We might accept as an objective fact the statement that Hannibal invaded Italy in 218 BCE, or that Alexander of Macedon died in Babylon in 323 BCE, since we have multiple sources that agree on this much. But when it comes down to details, like the route followed by Hannibal or the way Alexander died, there is no way to be certain of the objective facts. Did Alexander die in great pain or relatively peacefully? What were his last words? What caused the fever which killed him? Our knowledge of these events comes from people who were not actually present at the time, so we obviously cannot be certain of the accuracy of their accounts. Indeed, much of history is based on second- or third- or even fourth-hand information, with all the problems of inaccurate transmission that entails. But even if we have first-hand accounts of event, does that mean we can know objectively what happened? If you and another person both witness an event or take part in a conversation and are later asked to recount it, will the two of you agree on every detail? Often you won't, because each person will perceive, fail to perceive, or misperceive different details, even assuming both peoples' memories of what happened are clear, which is often not the case. Perhaps if the event in question was recorded we can come closer to an objective understanding of it, but even if both video and audio exist, a perfect knowledge of the objective facts is still not guaranteed, as no visual recording will show every possible angle (think for instance of slow-motion replays in sports; they can often clarify things, but other times a poor camera angle means they still leave a lot of uncertainty).
When motivations also have to be considered, an objective understanding becomes even more remote. Why did this person take a certain action? How did that person feel at such and such a time? Though in some senses John Donne was correct to say that no man is an island, in other ways every human being is an island, as we can never truly understand the feelings and perceptions of another. Only the person in question knows their motivations and feelings, if anyone does. In fact, even if a person attempts to tell others what they felt at a certain time or what motivated them to act a certain way, there is no guarantee that we can thereby know the truth. Even if the person is doing their best to be perfectly honest in recounting their feelings, they are simply telling us what they remember feeling. We cannot be sure that this memory is entirely accurate, or that they are able to convey it clearly. So it isn't really possible to be sure exactly why anyone does anything.
Even if we know the facts as well as it is possible to know them, can we then judge them objectively if we are asked to about the rights and wrongs of a matter, or even for our advice as to how to deal with it? Again, the answer is no. Our view of things is inevitably influenced by our subjective views of what is right and wrong and our knowledge of what actions are effective in particular situations. If a friend asks you for advice on how to deal with a difficult boss, even if you get all the information it is possible to get about the problem and the motivations of your friend and their boss, your advice will still be affected by your knowledge, your personal experiences, and your view of what is acceptable or preferable and what isn't. Of course you can make your advice as objective as possible by getting as many facts as you can and trying your best to exclude any prejudices on your own part, but complete objectivity is not possible. Likewise, while I would argue (and indeed have in other essays) that many basic moral and ethical principles can be arrived at through a rational (and therefore mostly objective) thought process, there will always be certain assumptions at the root of them (for instance, that our individual happiness is a good thing) even if we try to limit them as much as possible, and, more to the point, there will always be a large amount of subjectivity in the application of these principles, even if they were arrived at (mostly) objectively.
Let's look at what this all means for a topic of some contemporary interest, namely whether a judge can make an objective ruling in a court case, and if not, what approach they should take. From what has been said above, it should be clear that no judge can ever be completely objective. A judge (Antoin Scalia, for instance) may claim to be objective in his rulings; he may even truly believe he is objective, but, if so, he is kidding himself. Even if he has a through knowledge of the law and the facts of the case and is able to come up with very sound, logical arguments for his opinion on the application of the law, there will always be an element of subjectivity present. It is generally agreed that rule of law (meaning that people are judged based on the law) is superior to rule of man (meaning that the judge himself or herself can judge a person who comes before the court however they feel like judging them). I would not dispute this, as if judges could be completely arbitrary even the last shreds of objectivity would go out the window. But it is worth remembering when we talk about rule of law that not only are the laws made by men and women with all their subjective prejudices and preconceived notions, but they are also interpreted and applied by men and women, and like all humans, they can never be completely objective.
Since we are talking about principles of law, we should also mention the oft-seen tension between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. In some ways it might seem that holding to the letter of the law is actually the more objective approach. But, even leaving aside the fact the laws are written by people and are therefore imperfect, no law can cover every possible situation. Furthermore, it is worth asking what the purpose of having laws is in the first place. The answer, ideally at least, is to create a just society. And what is justice? Essentially in a legal situation it means those who deserve punishment are punished appropriately and those who don't deserve punishment are not punished. Of course whether a punishment is "deserved" or not is also a subjective opinion, but leaving that aside for now, if justice is the goal then it is clear that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, since following the letter of a law which does not cover a situation adequately may result in injustice.
So how can we make judgments according to the spirit of the law, given that this is an amorphous thing which is even more difficult to identify objectively than the letter of the law? Of course we have already said that perfectly objective judgments are not possible; nevertheless, we can attempt to come as close as possible. This is where empathy -- more specifically trying to understand the feelings and motivations of others -- comes in. Some will object that I've already said that it is impossible to really understand others' thoughts and emotions. Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to have an approximate understanding of them, just as we can gain an approximate understanding of the appearance of an object at electromagnetic wavelengths invisible to us. To do that, we need to be able to emphasize with others as much as possible. Only if we are capable of imagining ourselves in a situation faced by another person can we come close to understanding their motivations. To be sure, understanding does not mean condoning; we might understand why a person under stress might lash out violently at a family member, but that doesn't mean we should excuse such behavior. However, if we want to make a just decision, understanding is essential, and we can't have understanding where human beings are concerned without at least some capacity for empathy.
I should stress that when I say that it is necessary for a judge (or anyone with the power to make a ruling on some issue) to be able to empathize with those involved I don't just mean that they have to be able to empathize with the poor and disadvantaged. In order to be as objective as possible, they also have to be able to empathize with the rich and powerful. While most of us might find it difficult to empathize, say, with a government official who accepts a bribe, with a sufficient effort we may be able to do so. We may still conclude that they deserve punishment, but again it would be impossible to make a fair and just judgment in the matter without attempting to see things from their perspective. Nevertheless, if justice is the goal, it could be argued that the ability to emphasize with the disadvantaged is more important, as things are already weighted against them. Or to put it another way, those in authority for the most part are already able to empathize more easily with those with similar backgrounds (assuming they are capable of empathy at all); what they are more likely to be lacking in is the ability to empathize with those who are not so well off. Of course people find it easier to empathize with those like them; that is why a wide variety of life experiences are helpful, or, lacking that, an adequate understanding of the widely different situations people may face and sufficient imagination to put ourselves in such situations.
To conclude, while I recognize that complete objectivity is an unobtainable goal, the best way to come close to it is by obtaining as complete an understanding as possible, and if we are dealing with human actions, that means we need to be able to empathize with others, to put ourselves in their shoes, as the saying goes. We also have to do our best to rid ourselves of, or at least temporarily put aside, our own biases and preconceived notions. Only then can we make judgments or offer advice or opinions that, if not actually objective, are as objective as it is possible for them to be.
All of this is, to some extent, a roundabout way of saying that I do my best to be as objective as possible in anything I write (unless I'm being ironic), but at the same time I recognize that I can never completely succeed. I hope that I can succeed at least partially, and I welcome comments and opinions from others who are willing to make the same effort. Also, when I write about history, science or other topics, I will treat various things as facts, but with the caveat (not always stated) that, as explained above, it's very difficult to be truly certain what is a fact and what isn't. All I can say is that certain things seem to be facts based on my understanding, incomplete though it may be. Again, I welcome corrections from those who have some relatively objective basis for their alternate version of the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
