Me gustó, no había leído nada de Soyinka. En realidad no tenía la menor idea de quien era. Pero conocerlo a través de esos 5 ensayos me permitió conocer todo un mundo que no conocía de los dictadores de África y Oriente Medio. Definitivamente debemos siempre perseguir la búsqueda de nuestra dignidad individual y posteriormente como especie humana.

Me quedo con esta frase:
"La búsqueda de la dignidad es uno de los atributos más fundamentales de la existencia humana"

An awesome series of lectures discussing the dynamic of power and freedom, and the meaning of human dignity. Invaluable insight into the political landscape of our world. Highly recommended.

As the title suggests, the five essays focus on the climate of fear developing in the world. The first essay is about the biggest landmark event in this regard, the attack on WTC, (which made USA realise that terrorism it had been encouraging in Asia and Africa is a bad thing). Soyinka points out that people of East were used to that kind of thing. (Kind of talks to my own experience. The amount of terror people feel is in direct relation to wealth and nationality of people who are attacked - if white people are terrorised the whole world is scared. In India, you must attack a luxuruious Taj hotel, something only rich to get media attention. Attacks on poorer, third world country people is not something media would pay attention to. Even natural calamities follow this rule - the thousands dying in famines in Africa is an everyday.)

The second essay focuses on the inverse relationship between power and freedom. In society, one's power is always at expense of other's freedom. The examples he gives are from Africa. Of a country where a government was elected after it promised to overthrow democracy.

n  
"We shall ascend to power on the democratic ladder—declared the evidently popular Islamist party—after which we shall pull up the ladder, and there shall be no more democracy."

"if you believe in democracy, are you not thereby obliged to accept, without discrimination, the fallout that comes with a democratic choice, even if this means the termination of the democratic process itself?"
n

The thing about democracy is not so much about elected governments but about balances and checks which keeps anyone from gaining too much power in government and thus costing people their freedoms. (That is what you tell someone who says that a country needs a strong leader who doesn't have to fear anyone.)

The third essay talks about hysteria which is one of consequences of this fear. The US response to WTC attacks is again an example. Politics is one way in which the hysteria is created. The other thing is religion. Politics will have you believe that you are better because you belong to particular nation. Religious fanaticism will have you believe that you are better than people of other religion.

The fourth essay is probably the best one. It is about concept of 'dignity'. When you have to live in climate of fear enveloping world which makes vulnerable souls lose your dignity. There is of course fear from natural calamities but that fear doesn't cost you your dignity. It is only when you are afraid for your life of other people - from religious fanatics, politicians or terrorists, that you lose dignity. It is like Job's tragedy - if he didn't believe in God, he might have suffered in silence, but Job's tragedy caused by a God, a being of intelligence, which meant that it was combined with loss of dignity for him.
n  

"...assault on human dignity is one of the prime goals of the visitation of fear, a prelude to the domination of the mind and the triumph of power"

n

The last of five essays is about the freedom of speech and how it is hampered by the religion and politics. I don't agree with Soyinka's support for ban of all religious symbols in schools and you probably already know about threats faced by writers and artists. The only bit that can be interesting in the essay is culture of tolerance in Africa and her religions, but that is something g discussed in better detail in Soyinka's other essay collection 'Of Africa'.

One more quote

n  
"Once righteousness replaces rights in the exercise of power, the way is paved for a permanent contest based on the primacy of the holier-than-thou."n

Soyinka is a supreme moralist, though the lecture format makes these essays somewhat meandering and unfocused at times. However, these are potent secular sermons, especially the final two, and should not be read in one sitting.

Reminiscent of Tariq Ali's writing; it is certainly more poetry than politics. Soyinka certainly knows how to turn his phrase, but reading this book makes the reader wonder what his point is beyond imperialism is bad and so are fear and xenophobia.

It is quite a nice read, although Soyinka as usual, made too much use of bogous/pompous words.

Nobel author delves into why the world must refocus our attention on establishing human dignity and freedom of expression as the core of human community life for the individual and state. Assigned reading in one of my courses.

A powerful collection of lectures by Wole Soyinka. He talks about fanaticism, intolerance and the need for dignity in this very troubled world. It should be required reading for everyone, especially those in power.

I think I would definitely have a different view if I read this 15 years ago. Enough time has passed that I wonder if the author would have also changed his mind on something things.

again another duo of books that were great to read together - added more to each. wole soyinka and bringhurst.

Discussion of the clever way some people couch an argument so that it is unanswerable or, at least, undeniable. Us vs. them becomes us vs. evil. Our side vs. their side becomes us vs. aliens, foreigners, less human, animals. Ultimately expresses the view (with Kurt Andersen, et al.) that religion, as a
point of faith (undeniability) produces bad results.

(after WTC attack) The world was treated to the performance of power when it becomes suddenly accessible to the powerless in relation to the even more powerless. p. xix
As each assault on our localized or global sense of security is counted or uncovered in the nick of time, the residual question is surely: What next? Where? How? Are limits or restraints any longer recognized? p. 6
. . . an expression of global dominance through a disregard for innocents. p. 20
Terror against terror may be emotionally satisfying in the immediate, but who really want to live under the permanent shadow of anew variant of the world's . . . Mutual Assured Destruction? p. 28
Wherever history is conceded its hour of fulfillment, revelation replaces inquiry or experiment, dictation replaces debate. p. 36
Once righteousness replaces rights in the exercise of power, the way is paved for a permanent contest based on the primacy of the Holier-then-thou. p. 38
Power is self sufficient, a replete possession, and must be maintained by whatever agency is required. We have already indicated that the readiest methodology to hand is the inculcation of fear. p. 51
The ideological route is an equally mixed bag, but usually more disruptive, more contradictory, since it lays claim to rational processes yet acts with the dogmatism of pure revelation. p. 64
Military success was equated with a divine vindiation of the war. p. 68 wrongly
Karl Marx's analysis of law; law was not neutral, but was an instrument to protect the interests of the ruling classes. * * * Karl Marx, which declared quite simplistically that all property is theft. p. 70 !!!!!!
. . . intellectual property, they declared, is not the product of any one individual. . . . p. 72
. . . refusing to credit her own person with authorship of her books, it was the work of collective humanity, she declared. . . . p. 73
. . . a deliberate exercise of blinding the mind to other considerations, screaming doubts into silence. p. 74
. . . when an entrapment piece of monologue of just four words -- weapons of mass destruction. p. 77 cf. ticking time bomb
the beauty of the political mantra has always been its ability to distill complex events and global relationships in a rhetorical broth that precludes digestion, but guarantees satisfaction. p. 78
. . . mantra there are no innocents. p. 79 !!!!!
. . . nation that draped its shoulders in a mantle of infallibility. . . p. 80
. . . only one of the structures of transcendental intimations, or superstitions, known as religion. * * *
province of the imagination. p. 83
Langston Hughes . . . "there is no lavender word for lynch. p. 86
We also have a duty to challenge a general reluctance to inquire why the adherents of some relgiions more than others turn the pages of their scriptures into a divine breath that fans the random homicidal spore to all corners of the world. p. 87 !!!!!!
The issue of the twenty - first century is clearly that of religion, whose cynical manipulations contribute in no small measure to our current climate of fear. p. 124 !!!!!
. . . architects (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) of the necropolis. p. 125
. . . the secret spaces of revelation. * * * The theocratic order derives its mandate from the unknown. Only a chosen few are privileged to have penetrated the workings of the mind of the unknown, whose constitution -- known as the Scriptures-- they and they alone can interpret. The fanatic that is born of this dogmatic structure of the ineffable, religion, is the most dangerous being on earth. p. 127 !!!!!!
The philosophy that sustained Nazism was not a philosophy for the amelioration of the condition of the poor; on the contrary, it was a philosophy of elitism, a philosophy of the Chosen versus the Rest. p. 128 !!!!!
The incursion of religion into the secular domain, appropriating the provinces of ethics, mores, and social conduct -- and even the sciences -- guarantees the clerical dominance of the total field of play. **** commands Muslims to resist inoculation against cerebrospinal meningitis. . . p. 129
The zealot is one who creates a Supreme Being, of Supreme Purpose, in his or her own image, then carries out the orders of that solipsistic device that commands from within, in lofty alienation from, and utter contempt of, society and community. p. !!!!!
. . . religion of Orisa (of the Yoruba people) has never engaged in any equivalent of the crusade or the jihad . . . p. 136 * * * Its watchword is tolerance, a belief that there are many paths to truth and godhead, and that the world should not be set on fire to prove the supremacy of a belief of the righteousness of a cause. p. 136-137

The Preliminaries:

Two Responses post 9/11:

"You are either with us and against the terrorists, or you are on the side of the terrorists. We do not require the world's approval since we are divinely guided." - George Bush

"The world is now clearly divided into two - the world of the followers of Islam against that of infidels an unbelievers." - Osama bin Laden

The world lives in the Climate of Fear today....No one knows when the terrorist would strike and how effective his/her action would be. Equally true is also the repercussions arising from it....

Addressing this issue, the Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka gave some five lectures in 2004 and they are collected together in this slim but powerful volume.

How does he address and analyse?

He is very systematic and his observations are very revealing and his thoughts are very much backed by logical arguments that are appropriately supported by the real life events.

Initially he speaks of the "Changing face of Fear". The world of today faces fear not like the world of earlier years. In earlier days, the fear was elicited mostly by the natural calamities, such as famine, wild fire, earth quakes, etc. The fear caused by the Nature was acceptable and people could live with it.

But the present day, the fear has gained a new face. It is the fear that is elicited from being eliminated by a known or unknown but a human being. The fear elicited by a fellow human being who wants to hold one's life in his hold. His/her will decides the life of another. While the first type of fear was acceptable this second type is unacceptable for a normal human being.

Why is the difference? Or why one face of fear was acceptable and the other face of fear is unacceptable?

The answer to this question lies in the fact of 'Human Dignity'. Man can lose anything and everything but to lose his dignity as a human being is very difficult (nearly impossible). Thus, logically speaking while the threat from Nature is very severe, yet one's humanity is never degraded. But when the threat for life comes from another human being, the human dignity is at stake.

Here he introduces the dichotomy of power and dignity. By power, one wants to subdue the other. Power is taking away the freedom from others and replacing it with fear. It is like saying: 'Now, you lot, I have you in my power. At this moment, I, and I alone, know, and am about to decide your fate.' The seeker of power, or the tormentor 'loves for his reward the expression of fear accompanied by an abject surrender of volition.'

But then, to lose one's dignity as a human being to another equal being is too difficult a stance to accept. Whereas, for the other it is the quotient of power which is driving him/her. To keep the power to himself he/she will go to any limits. In the present world, there is only one aspiration - to hold power over the other. The recording and telecasting of a beheading of a person , in this case, like any other terrorist act is to demonstrate one's power over the other. People viewing it are reminded of that primitive fear of being in one's submission.

An individual can do it or a Community can do it or a Nation can do it or a Quasi-state (terrorist organization) can do it. What everyone seeks is power over the other.

How is it fanned or how one's aspiration for power takes hold of an entire community?

As a response he speaks of the 'well aimed rhetoric' and the hysteria created as a consequence. Added to it, but most important is one's claim to a particular cause most preferably linked to a religion or an opposing view of a state/ideology. It begins in an insignificant manner and is initially overlooked but then later grows to a real hysteria, a monstrosity. He gives the example of the revolution/unrest in the Europe when Marxism was becoming a popular theory. The rhetoric used most often then was: All private property is a theft. That led to vandalism of many types, such as, students robbing the books from library, goods from the super market, stealing cars of the others etc.

The specialty of this rhetoric is that it is monologue in nature. That is, it is not ready for any dialogue or discussion to go deeper into the factuality of such claims. It claims self justification and nothing else.

His another example is from the political world in which US accused Saddam's Iraq of having many WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That became a rhetoric and every one was supposed to accept it. When France voiced its doubts the French restaurants and French goods in US over night became anathema...

Slowly this rhetoric which claims initially I am right and you are wrong turns into I am right and you are dead. The search for power is so strong that it can not tolerate the dissenting voices. "Deviationism - or heresy - is one short cut to death." He gives lot of examples to illustrate his claims and they are very convincing.

Where is the point of salvation? Does the gloomy situation have a chance to come to light?

There is only one hope. The search for dialogue. Monologue is to be avoided and dialogue is to be encouraged. The future depends on the dialogue between civilizations and in restoring social justice in every nation possible.

Final Remark:

There are interesting episodes in which Wole Soyinka deals with the issue of terrorism linked to religious fanaticism, Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, US attitude post 9/11, etc.