|
After Politics I recently read an article on nanotechnology. The enthusiasts say that nanotechnology will usher in changes as massive as the computer age. They welcome this so-called revolution, regarding it as good. But the critics fear the effects on human and environmental health. They see materials created or changed by nanotechnology as an evil. [Ed. Note: Nanotechnology is the creation of totally new matter, working with subatomic particles of existing matter.] Regardless of who is right, nanotechnology is here and it will inevitably spread. Nanotechnology is but one instance of something much larger occurring in the world today, something perhaps I should try to understand. But setting out on a quest I need also to define and live “who I am.” I need to remember: agere sequitur esse. So, back to basics: I am a believer, a Christian, and a Catholic. Or, more accurately, such is my hope. I want to be a believer, a Christian, a Catholic. I cannot assume a fait accompli—that would be the sin of presumption, for an assumption can become a presumption. For a believer, a Christian, and a Catholic, the entire world, I and all of nature, are Creation; we are created. I can then reason to a truth: I and all about me are not their own raison d’etre. Most elementally, to be created is to be caused. I can further reason that I and all about me exist through participation in the being of our Creator. We are all contingent being. If at any instant the Creator/God were to withhold our participation in “his” existence, we would dissolve into nothingness. Participation is demanded in every instant of our existence, and it does not vary or diminish. Thinking about this truth, I must acknowledge that Creation is a gift, a gratuitous gift; in fact, the primary gift or, in other words, the most fundamental gift. For humans, a further gift, grace, a sharing in God’s very life, is an infinitely greater blessing or gift. In this line of argument I can speak of another truth, namely, God is good, in fact, merciful. I begin to see something of the nature of God. Today, it seems that Creation is under attack on many sides. Some of these attacks are not so evident, for example, research in to what is called the genetic code. Other attacks are more blatant, constituting a kind of “in your face” challenge, such as genetic engineering, which appears to be, simply, eugenics. Overall, the society in which we live may be characterized as a consumer society; it is also a convenience, a throwaway, a wasteful society. So much around me, whether it be goods or services, is designed and organized in terms of consumption. What Ivan Illich wrote is more true than ever: “In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy” (Tools for Conviviality, 1973) . Because of the way we live in the consumer society, we produce a good deal of waste; we are swimming in waste. The results are evident: the polluted air, water, soil, and ever larger landfills. Further, I must think in terms of new kinds of pollution, for example, of time. The distractions available in advanced, technological society are attractive. Therefore, they can pull me away from activities that are ontologically more important. Through the distractions displayed today I can become less and less. I can become a member of the walking dead. Given the character and effects of consumption, I can argue to what in effect becomes the marginalization of certain formerly central realities in society. A primary example is politics. Perhaps the fact that formal politics in America is dominated by two parties whose difference is not so great is a clear manifestation of this marginalization. Given the character of my beliefs, the most important issues in politics are those in which Creation is attacked. What can I do to defend Creation? How affirm its graceful continuation? In November 2004 we’ll have a presidential election. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, Creation will be diminished. Under one, more rapidly, under the other, perhaps more slowly. Basing my belief on the Book of Genesis, I see all of Creation as good, indeed as holy. If I live in Creation and am part of it, I cannot be indifferent; I must clearly define where I stand, I must take a stance. I cannot go along with the status quo, I cannot be a lemming. I must think in terms of resistance, I need to state: I will not obey, I will not conform. Resistance must come to be the beginning of my being and action. I must be able to say: I am because I resist. What are the possibilities of resistance? Also, what resistances can I attempt? Resistance can be active or passive, loud or quiet. It can include non-cooperation. It can involve public demonstrations. I can write letters to the editor and to government officials. I can hold up a sign on the street. I can pass out leaflets and flyers. I can choose to engage in civil disobedience. I can look for actions that would attract and impress the media, that would result in free publicity. It would be good if others, too, share my concern and act. This would mean the resistance of many, the mounting of mass actions. But the presence or absence of another or of many should not affect my decision to act. Resistance can confront the predominant character of today’s existence, namely, the consumer society. Unlimited consumption, the American Way of Life, means the ultimate destruction of Creation. There is a great need for thrift and care, for saving and conserving. For me, immediately, that means cutting back, imposing limits on myself. But such a realization must be more than empty rhetoric. I need to recognize the allurement, the attraction, of commodities, the power of consumption over me. I need to work on a certain characteriological stance, achieved through a regular regimen. The overriding notion is that of askesis, an asceticism, namely, a discipline. The effects of asceticism and resistance can be felt immediately. The daily practice of different disciplines, together with a search for resistances, leads to greater freedom. Finally, I can become a different person. I can thus embrace the statement attributed to Ammon Hennacy: “My actions may not change the world, but the world is certainly not going to change me.” But I must avoid any intimation of self-righteousness. With St. Paul, I need to say, “I am nothing.” (2 Cor. 12. 11) As I learned last December in Philadelphia, the one-man revolution of Hennacy may be quite far-reaching. But my first concern must be a concentration on self, not on society-wide effects. The results “out there” are not something I should expect or hope to effect. Lee Hoinacki,
10/04 Lee is
a member of CPF; he just completed a new book Dying Is Not Death.
|