Home » Writer's Blogs » Gorazd-Andrejc

Gorazd's Edge

Gorazd Andrejc ⁽³⁴⁷⁾ United Kingdom

Gorazd Andrejc

http://exeter.academia.edu/GorazdAndrejc

Barack Obama and the Image of US in the World

Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 (1 year 86 days ago.) Viewed 722 times.

Let me offer you a non-american perspective on this year's US election race between Barack Obama and John McCain. In this short article I want to explain to you especially you, dear readers and friends from the US why many Europeans such as me (and many other non-americans too) feel that Barack Obama would be a much better option for the US president than John McCain.

As I offer this perspective, I want you to have in mind that I have never lived in the US, I do not feel the economic problems of US personally (however interdependent the world has become, this has not influenced my life in any significant way yet), I am enjoying a universal health care (currently, in England) and I am not writing this particular piece out of my sympathy for many Americans who suffer problems because of bad US economy or the high costs of health care.

What I want to talk about is the image of US in the world and how electing Barack Obama would help to correct that image. It is very clear that, during the last decade, this image eroded to its lowest point (probably in the whole history of US!) all over the world. America has never before been perceived in such an unfavorable light. I have several American friends and many of them have a hard time to even grasp how unloved their beloved country has become. Majority of the world has a grim picture of the US, said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) when he was commenting the large international poll for BBC. "Negative feelings about Bush are high and are generalizing to the American people who re-elected him", worries Kull.

Of course, this perception is much worse in the Muslim world than in Europe , and it produces a deep motivation to fight against US and its allies. But I am not the only European who feels that the behavior of US leadership in last decade has been disastrous and has made the world more dangerous place. Unwise moves and oil-hunger-driven wars, a great lack of understanding of the mindset of the people whom US operations are supposed to help (like Iraqis or Afgans etc.) and turning a blind eye towards the regimes like Saudi Arabian or Pakistani, who happen to suit America's interests all this has undermined the fair amount of trust US have once enjoyed, also in Europe.

All this has left the world hoping for a significant change in the White House. Those who speculate and make theories out of Barack Obama's middle name never seem to get it that this very Muslim-sounding name could actually reduce the number of the terrorist threats to USA , although all the "Muslim theories" about this name are complete nonsense. And another seemingly superficial thing is also significant: If Barack Obama will become president, the color of the president's skin will speak loudly and greatly about the victory over racism in USA !

Remember: public perception of the president (at home but very much so also around the world) is hugely important factor for the success of his country on many fronts, even if he makes mistakes. Kennedy was very popular in Europe and around the World also because of his youth and charm. And there can be no serious discussion about public perceptions of Barack Obama vs. John McCain in the world: Barack is doing much better. Even in Israel , he "leads" the republican candidate by a big margin. This alone is hugely important even if Barack Obama's political program would be up for grabs. But it isn't.

Permalink Comments (18)

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) Report and Eco Skeptics

Posted Saturday, February 02, 2008 (1 year 295 days ago.) Viewed 32 times.

Although I find it always desirable to hear two or more opinions on a matter, it is very strange to read or hear the global warming skeptics preach their doubt. Of course some estimations can be inaccurate or exaggerated in some cases, but to doubt the whole phenomenon is a willful ignorance for some other motives than search for truth.

Some skeptics would be quick to imply that what the doubt is about is actually a causal connection between human activity and global warming. Although this sounds like a less irrational type of skepticism, it is still extremely problematic for many reasons. As is widely known, the findings of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on global warming state that the probability that changes in the climate system are a result of man made increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) concentrations is "very likely larger than 90%". It is to this claim that the eco-skeptics object, many of them claiming this probability is less than 50%.

Now, of course any government or scientist can be wrong. But even without going into the scientific details of the debate, which convince a vast majority of experts in the world that the influence of human element in global warming is indeed beyond reasonable doubt, one can have very good reasons to disregard the claims of the skeptics. Let me state some of these from a "lay" perspective.

First is a very strong degree of agreement among scientists. The report was revised line-by-line, scrutinized by 600 authors, 620 expert reviewers and 113 governments and their teams, not to mention thousands of other scientists around the world who endorse the claims in it. Studied by some of the finest minds in the world, it was approved by vast number of countries, irrespective of their political ideology, economic development or cultural norms. The report is a definitive review of all the available evidence. So, in this case, the very scope of the consensus is a good argument from the perspective of non-experts.

Second: many governments act against their immediate interest when accepting this report and the actions which are recommended with it. It is a difficult task to change the policies and systems of functioning of society. Praxis on which the very economy of the country is based is the toughest one to tackle. Despite that, governments and their hired experts can not but accept the report of IPCC and many also sign their commitment to the duties it implies.

Third: Even if the report would be wrong on any point, it still definitely makes sense to actually go for the changes in lifestyle and economies in order to lessen enormous human CO2 impact. Even if the threat would not be as immediate as it is (many think it is even too late to do something about the global warming at all), the supposed changes of lifestyle are nothing but good in the long term anyway.

So, why this zeal for skepticism? I strongly suspect (if it is not outright obvious), that in most cases there is a selfish interest and determined unwillingness to change behind the "skepticism" about the claims of the IPCC report. Also, the attractiveness of the conspiracy theories, and a great feeling of being in opposition or a rebel to a mainstream culture or thinking will always be "in". So, even active eco-skepticism should not surprise us.

To read more, explore or discuss on the topic, visit the Eco Friendly Lifestyle Blog (http://ecofriendlylifestlyle.co.uk).

Permalink Comments (1)

Religious Language-Games (The Case of the Word "Holy Spirit")

Posted Sunday, January 20, 2008 (1 year 308 days ago.) Viewed 141 times.

In my experience, many Christians think neither long enough nor deep enough about application of religious language and about how interpretations, and even the truth and the falsity of doctrines, are decided in different Christian communities. It does not hurt to observe our language-use and to think "from the bottom up" about these matters - with "from the bottom up" I mean starting with observation and with the awareness of the actual use of religious terms in communities, and then think about the doctrines and interpretations of the Bible in the light of the dynamics of how Christians have used and are using religious terms.

For example, when Pentacostals are talking about the "Holy Spirit", they are using this term in connection with their religious practices, which frequently include speaking in unrecognizable tongues, sometimes falling to the ground in trans-like state etc. The meaning of the word "Holy Spirit" for them is determined by the use of this word in the context of their practices. For (believing) Roman Catholics, the word "Holy Spirit" is usually closely associated with the institution and performing of the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, and this determines the meaning of the word for them. Yet another example to mention are Seventh-day Adventist, who usually associate the word "Holy Spirit" with more intellectual leading of the individual believers (or converts) to "the truth" as they understand it, which for Adventists (and not only for them) means their own interpretation of the biblical text. (Note that in all three cases we are talking about Christians of Western Christianity, and still the differences of the usage of the term are easily observable to the person minimally familiar with the communal lifes of these communities).

The point is of course that the meanings of religious terms is determined by the usage of these terms in religious communities. There is no fixed extension, the unmovable point of reference, unfortunately, outside the human life and word-usage, to pinpoint this term once and for all from the neutral point of view. This is not to deny that Holy Spirit exists objectively, independently, so to speak, of humans (even if all people would die, Christians believe Holy Spirit would still exist, althuogh I an not sure who and how would determine the meaning of the word "Holy Spirit" then, as God hardly uses English, or even usual human grammar, in heaven!). Rather, my statement means that it is always people who use the term "Holy Spirit", and they do that in negotiation with others, immersed in the usage of this term by the communities, past and present (the "tradition" and the present Church) - never individually and independently of the community, which is impossible.

If you are a more conservative protestant, you might say at this point: "But hey, in the Bible it is God who speaks about the Holy Spirit, and you can see there what the word really means! That solves it." Here again, things are not that simple. When biblical writers are using language, they are using words of course in the contexts of their cultures, lives and communities. These ways of life include specific situations in which people and whole communities have found themselves, and this crucially influences their use of words, the analogies they use to convey meanings etc. Think of the hebrew Ruach Elohim ("Holy Spirit"), which comes from the notion of "breath", physically speaking, and is even used in this way at places in OT, but is also extended of course to include more spiritual sense). The Bible as an inspired text is nevertheless not and can not be outside of the human language, and any language gets its meaning from human lives, the communities, traditions, customs.

And it is here that some interesting negotiations are involved. To what sort of experience or events Christians associate the workings of "Holy Spirit"? This has to be negotiated by individuals in the community. Is my experience similar to, say, that of Apostle Paul as described in the Acts of Apostles? Is the language that is used in the Bible the only possible or only appropriate language to describe the "works of the Holy Spirit" still today? If Holy Spirit today does not act like it acted in the biblical times, as some believe, how do we use the word today? Who decides these questions and how? Well, obviously the Christian communities decide and therefore "regulate", for ex. whether someone has had experience with Holy Spirit or not. And the processes of deciding these matters, which means also deciding on the correct language use, are negotiations inside the Christian communities.

Theologically speaking, we Christians are involved in the life of a Christian community as religious beings, God's creatures, who as such have religious emotions and intuitions. And as such we can and usually do contribute to the negotiating process of the community (activelly) in determining the nuances of meaning of the word "Holy Spirit", or indeed, we might only be passive receptors of the teaching, meanings which we accept as givens by the community. As even different individuals in the same local communities can have sligthly different understanding of the term "Holy Spirit", the negotiation process (which includes the Bible teaching and interpreting) inside the communities regarding the application of the terms is a constant process, as is life.

To many such line of thinking sounds very relativistic, even dangerous, for a Christian to take. But I am not denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, neither of the inspiration of the Bible. What I am talking about is the practice of the usage of religious language of Christian communities. We have to be honest and observant regarding this. Remember that there is no "neutral point" outside communities and outside language which any of us is privileged to stand on, and from which we could judge or see what application of the term we should adopt. I firmly believe that grasping this fact enables us to understand our faith better, whatever Christian denomination, or even religion, we belong to.

------
Gorazd Andrejc is a PhD student at University of Exeter, UK, studying philosophical theology. His academic website is http://exeter.academia.edu/GorazdAndrejc.

Permalink Comments (0)