World Disorder(s): Is Kant or Hobbes Relevant? Notes on the Human Condition and Implications on American Foreign Policy

World Disorder(s): Is Kant or Hobbes Relevant? Notes on the Human Condition and Implications on American Foreign Policy

The continuing and persisting travails-economic and political- of the European Union, the structural dead end that the Arab Spring appears to have met, the massacres in Syria at/on a quotidian level, the roller coaster relationship between the United States and Pakistan, the morass that is Africa all convey and connote a portrait of the human condition that is bleak and dismal. It, among other things, appears to validate the insights and prognostications of that great political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes’ famous dictum,’ life is nasty , short and brutish’ and that competition for survival defines the human species appears to describe aptly the contemporary human condition.  Kant, the philosopher who posited a contra philosophy to Hobbes then appears to be wildly optimistic Cassandra whose prognostications and assessment of the human condition may sound intuitively right but impractical and bizarre.

 However, things may not be as clear cut as the surface and superficial reading of the human condition suggests. Humanity, collectively, has made great strides and a certain underlying theme toward(s) progress may be discerned in the trajectory of humankind. One need only peer back a few centuries down the lane of time and get an idea of the progress that human kind has made. This historical era-preceding the Enlightenment and the Renaissance- was defined by darkness, regression and torpor. Take any indicator and contrast it with the time and historical juncture then and now and immediately the conclusion that can be drawn validates the theory of progress that human kind has made.

Gradually and inexorably, progress or indicators of what constitutes progress, has percolated from the torchbearer and doyen of progress, the West, to humanity. Whether it be democracy, economic growth, mortality rates, the stupendous and almost sci fi like strides that science has made, the mastery over nature and natural calamities, the scorecard is positive. Perhaps this trajectory of progress boils down to  the principles and premises of modernity which, in turn , was inspired by the combination of the Enlightenment, Renaissance and Capitalism. These set the tone for what is contemporarily called globalization. The end result is progress and emancipation for human kind punctuated by violent chasms and spasms. That this process initiated and pioneered in the west is ‘good’ and salubrious maybe indubitable. The question is how to accelerate this process and bring the entire mass of human kind into its ambit. Can this is done? And who can potentially do it?

First and fore most, it bears iteration that modernity is a good thing and that bringing the entire humankind under its ambit would improve the human condition. The question, to repeat, is how this can be done? It is probably globalization- project modernity writ large- that can potentially carry both the seeds of modernity to all corners of the globe. And globalization, as we all know, has been happening since centuries. In its latest avatar, of intensive and extensive globalization, it has been propelled and pushed by the doyen of the west, the United States. Whether it be through crafting post war institutions that crystallized economic   growth, or the Marshall plan, or opening up of the world’s economies, it is the United States that has pioneered and crystallized the contemporary phase of globalization. And it is upon the United States that the onus of maintaining the tempo and momentum of globalization falls. Why?

Simply because the United States encapsulates and stands as the metaphor for modernity and its principles. Other centers, like Europe have regressed and are in no position to either conceptualize modernity and its concomitant, globalization or promote it. And second, because the United States, on account of the power and prestige it has, can. What needs to be done is to integrate vigorously promotion of globalization into the foreign policy of the United States.

Specifically, it means bringing non western powers like India, Brazil and South Africa into its orbit, rejuvenating the institutions of global governance, infusing life into free(r) trade and maintaining a more open world. What could and should buttress this should be the exercise of benign hegemony by the United States. There really is no other choice or option. Retreating into itself and resisting globalization is not an option for the United States. It is indeed the shining city on the hill and it has to correspond to this formulation. It, in the final analysis is not an altruistic exercise. In fact, it may even constitute America’s national interest. Forging and crystallizing a world that corresponds to modernity and is in the image of the United States can only be an unalloyed good for both the United States and the world. It will axiomatically and inevitably lead to a more peaceful and prosperous world and this can only be beneficial for all.

Project modernity has worked and is working.  It needs spurring, prodding and pushing. Its conduit is globalization. The spreading and crystallization of modernity has salubrious effects-politically, economically, socially and culturally. Kant , in the final analysis, was far head of his times and prescient. The intuitive appeal of Hobbes perhaps rests on his accurate analysis and portrait of the times he lived in and its projection politically. It then behooves the sole superpower to throw its weight around Kant’s philosophy and vigorously work to improve and ameliorate the human condition. Human kind needs it and it is only the United States that can bring about the world that corresponds to the tenets and principles of modernity. Let the country gird itself for this role.