ABD’nin yeni Başkanı seçilen ve ne yapacağı önceden pek kestirilemeyen Donald Trump’ın nasıl bir dış politika izleyeceği konusunda farklı görüşler, çeşitli basın-yayın organları ve akademik platformlarda paylaşılmaya devam edilmektedir. Geçtiğimiz haftalarda, 2002 yılında kurulmuş Britanya (İngiltere) merkezli ve sağ-muhafazakâr çizgideki Policy Exchange[1] adlı düşünce kuruluşunun düzenlediği bir panel de bu anlamda dikkat çekmiştir. Panele konuşmacı olarak katılan kişi; 1952 doğumlu Amerikalı Uluslararası İlişkiler Profesörü, Hudson Institute uzmanı ve The American Interest dergisi editörü Walter Russell Mead’dir[2]. Bu yazıda, bu panelde dile getirilen görüşler özetlenmeye çalışılacaktır.
Konferans videosu
Profesör Walter Russell Mead, konuşmasına, ABD’de Donald Trump’ın sürpriz bir şekilde Başkan seçildiği ortamın, Soğuk Savaş sonrasında oluşan yenidünya düzeninin temellerinden sarsılmakta olduğu bir döneme denk geldiğine dikkat çekerek başlamaktadır. Mead, daha sonra, Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininde ve genel olarak dış politikada “jeopolitika” olgusunun yeniden canlandığına vurgu yapmaktadır. Mead, Rusya, Çin ve İran başta olmak üzere birçok devletin Soğuk Savaş sonrası oluşan düzeni desteklemediklerini ve bunu değiştirmek için aktif olarak çalıştıklarını söylemektedir. Mead’e göre; dünyadaki birçok ülke, kendi içlerinde oluşturdukları sosyal düzen açısından da sıkıntılı bir dönem yaşamaktadırlar; zira İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında sınıfsal çatışmaları önlemek için oluşturulan sosyoekonomik düzen, günümüzde yaşanan teknolojik gelişmeler ve dünya ekonomisinin şekil değiştirmesi neticesinde krize girmiş durumdadır. Mead’e göre; İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında oluşan dünya sistemi, kurumsal olarak da tehdit altında ve kriz içerisindedir. Bu bağlamda, Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (WTO) ve Avrupa Birliği gibi çok önemli uluslararası ve hatta ulustü kurumsal yapıların meşruiyet kaybı yaşadıklarına dikkat çeken Mead, önemli uluslararası ticaret sözleşmelerinin de (TTİP, TPP) son dönemde eleştirilmeye başladığına dikkat çekmekte ve bunların yerine bölgesel işbirliği platformlarının ön plana çıkmaya başladığını iddia etmektedir. Bu konuda en önemli gelişme ise, Birleşmiş Milletler’in efektif bir kurum olamaması ve Güvenlik Konseyi başta olmak üzere yapısının sıklıkla eleştirilmeye başlanmasıdır. Yine Paris İklim Anlaşması’nın küresel ısınma ve iklim değişikliği sorunları karşısında yeterli olabileceği ve dünya genelinde kabul göreceği tezine şüpheyle yaklaşan Mead, uluslararası siyasal sistemin toptan bir gerileme yaşadığını ve giderek daha ağır tehditler karşısında meşruiyet kaybettiğini belirtmektedir.
Walter Russell Mead
Bu ortamda, “establishment” ya da Türkçesiyle “müesses nizam” olarak ifade edilen yapılar ve “mainstream” yani ana akım politikacıların dünyada halkların sorunlarına çözüm üretemediğine dikkat çeken Mead, sistemdeki herkesle hatta kendi partisi içerisindekilerle bile kavga eden Trump’ın yükselişi ve sürpriz zaferini de işte bu bağlamda değerlendirmektedir. Artan mikro milliyetçilik bazlı sosyal hareketler (Katalonya ve İskoçya örneği), yükselen ulusal milliyetçilikler ve uluslararası politikada giderek dozu yükselen kimlik politikaları, bu anlamda Mead’in dikkat çektiği yeni siyasal trendlerdir. Bu seçime kadar ABD’de insanların genelde ihtiyatlı tercihler yaptıklarını ve daima daha güvenli gördükleri adaya yöneldiklerini söyleyen Mead, tam anlamıyla sistem içerisinden gelen ve çok meşru bir aday olan Hillary Clinton’ın Trump karşısındaki beklenmedik yenilgisini işte bu arka plan üzerinden açıklamaktadır. Mead’in düşüncesinde, ortalama Amerikan seçmeni için artık sistem meşruiyetini ve güvenilirliğini kaybetmiştir ve bu nedenle Trump gibi aykırı önerileri olan bir aday büyük halk desteği kazanabilmiştir. ABD’de bugüne kadar yüksek bir siyasi makama ulaşabilen herkesten çok daha farklı bir yapısı ve siyasi söylemi olan Donald Trump, bu yönüyle Mead tarafından daha çok Amerikan Ordusu içerisindeki bazı önemli kişilere benzetilmektedir. Mead’e göre, Trump, dünya bir kaos ortamı içerisindeyken işbaşı yapacak ve Başkanlık dönemi çok zorlu geçecektir.
Walter Russell Mead’e göre; Trump’ın Başkanlık stili konusunda üç farklı Amerikan Başkanı’nın etkilerine bakılabilir. Bunlar; Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt ve Andrew Jackson’dır. Amerikalı finans yorumcusu ve yazar Larry Kudlow’la geçtiğimiz günlerde bir görüşme yaptığını ve onun Trump’a yönelik yorumları ve desteğinden etkilendiği belirten Mead’e sözleriyle, Kudlow’un gözlemlerine göre bir işadamı olan Trump’ın temel düşüncesi “ekonomik büyüme”dir. Ekonominin yeterince hızlı büyüdüğü dönemde ülkesi ABD’de siyasi sorunların kolaylıkla çözülebileceğini düşünen Trump, bu nedenle tüm planlarını ekonomik büyüme temelinde yapacaktır. Bu, ABD eski Başkanlarından Ronald Reagan’ın yaklaşımıyla büyük ölçüde benzeşmektedir. Trump, ekonomik büyüme amacını gerçekleştirebilirse, ona yönelik dünyadaki bakış da kolaylıkla değişebilecektir. Mead’e göre; otoriter bir siyasal sistemi ve bazı yönlerden son derece korumacı ekonomik politikaları olan Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nin dünyada birçok ülke tarafından olumlu algılanması, aslında çok hızlı ekonomik büyüme oranları yakalaması ve bu sayede birçok ülkeye dış yatırım yapabilmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Trump’ın ABD’nin eski Başkanlarından Franklin Roosevelt’e benzer yönü ise, katı devletçi ve katı piyasacılar arasında bir orta yol bulmaya çalışan FDR’ı hatırlatır şekilde, Trump’ın da büyük siyasal angajmanlar ve ideolojik tahakkümler altına girmemesi ve farklı ideolojik gruplar arasında orta yolu aramasıdır. Trump’ın Andrew Jackson’a benzer yönü ise, 19. yüzyılda Amerikalılara karşı Kızılderili gruplarına silah satan İngiliz kuvvetlerine karşı koyan Jackson’ı hatırlatır şekilde, Trump’ın da ABD karşıtlarına ve teröristlere silah satan ve destek veren ülkelere oldukça sert yaklaşmasıdır. Bu anlamda, Trump, Jackson gibi popülist (halkçı) ve milliyetçi bir isimdir. Mead’in analizinde, Trump’ın düşüncesi, aynı Jackson gibi son derece basittir. Bu görüş, “ABD ile uğraşmazsanız sizinle uğraşmayız, ama ABD ile uğraşırsanız, size asla unutamayacağınız bir ders veririz” şeklinde özetlenebilir ve ABD’nin İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nda Japonya’ya karşı izlediği politikaya da benzetilebilir. Bu bağlamda, örneğin Rusya lideri Vladimir Putin, dış politika ve ulusal çıkarlar açısından ABD ile karşı karşıya gelmezse, onun Rusya’da daha da diktatoryal bir yönetime yönelmesi Trump’ı rahatsız etmeyecektir. Ancak Rusya ile ABD’nin çıkarları çatışmaya başlarsa, işte o zaman Trump’ın Putin’e ve Rusya’ya bakış açısı değişebilir. Bu anlamda, Trump’ın Başkanlığı, demokrasi ve insan haklarından çok, Amerikan ulusal çıkarlarının ön planda olduğu bir dönem olacaktır.
Mead’e göre; Trump’ın temel stratejisi, Amerika’nın enerji politikasını bağımsız hale getirmektir. Bu doğrultuda, Trump, enerji politikalarına küresel anlamda bir düzen vermek yerine, ABD ekonomisini ön plana alacak ve kârlılık ve bağımsızlık amaçları için çalışacaktır. Yine bu bağlamda, ABD’nin gelişmekte olan ülkelere yardım yapma stratejisi de Trump döneminde rafa kaldırılacaktır. İklim değişikliği konusunda da, Mead’e göre, Trump’tan olumlu adımlar beklenmemelidir. Uluslararası ticari anlaşmalar da, ancak ABD ekonomisi için kârlı olduğu sürece Trump tarafından desteklenecektir. Trump’ın Rusya’ya ve özellikle onun lideri Vladimir Putin’e sıcak yaklaşımları da oldukça dikkat çekicidir. Zira Trump’ın Rusya’ya yönelik olumlu açıklamalarına karşın, ABD’ye büyük ölçüde ekonomik bir tehdit olarak görülen Çin’den farklı olarak, Rusya, ABD için birçok bölgede bir güvenlik tehlikesi oluşturmaktadır. Ancak IŞİD ve Orta Doğu’daki radikal İslamcı terör grupları, Trump için öncelikli tehdit durumundadır. Bu gruplara Rusya’nın da sıcak yaklaşmadığı, Suriye’de cihatçı gruplara karşı durduğu ve kendisinin de Çeçen sorununun olduğu düşünülürse, bu doğrultuda Trump döneminde bir Rusya-ABD yakınlaşması mümkün olabilir. Ayrıca Trump, Ukrayna ve Kırım konusuna da Barack Obama gibi uluslararası hukuk ve normlar açısından yaklaşmayabilir. Ancak ilişkiler, bu alanlar dışında, birçok konuda halen daha rekabet durumundadır. Bu nedenle, Trump, Çin ve Rusya arasında kendisine daha yakın duran ve daha zayıf olanı kendi yanına çekmek isteyecektir.[3]
Donald Trump döneminde İsrail’le ilişkiler de çok iyi düzeyde olacak gibi görünmektedir. Trump ile İsrail Başbakanı Benyamin Netanyahu arasındaki sıcak ilişkilere rağmen, Trump, aslında Amerikan Yahudilerinden çok az oy almış -Mead'e göre tarihteki en düşük oy- bir Başkandır. Bu anlamda, Trump, Amerikan Yahudilerinden ziyade İsrail Yahudilerine yakın bir Başkan görünümündedir. Trump, Netanyahu ile iyi ilişkilerin kendisine Mısır’daki Sisi yönetimi ve Ürdün’le de iyi ilişkiler sağlayacağını bildiği için, bu konuda “realpolitik” anlayışa uygun bir politika izlemektedir. Bu bağlamda, Mead’e göre; Trump, Obama’ya kıyasla daha İsrail, Mısır ve Suudi Arabistan yanlısı bir Başkan olacaktır. Trump’ın İran’a ve İran’la yapılan nükleer anlaşmaya bakışı ise olumsuzdur. Bu nedenle, Trump döneminde ABD-İran ilişkileri son derece zorlu bir dönemden geçecektir.[4]
[3] İlk sinyaller, Trump’ın Rusya’ya yakın ve Çin’e karşı sert politikalar izleyeceği yönündedir. Ancak Çin’le ABD’nin ekonomik bağımlılığı ve simbiyotik ilişki biçimleri, bu alanda Trump’ın atacağı adımları kısıtlamaktadır.
[4] Nitekim birkaç gün önce Trump’ın ABD’ye geçici vize yasağı getirdiği 7 ülke arasına İran’ı eklemesi, İran’la büyük bir siyasal krize neden olmuş ve İran İslam Cumhuriyeti de buna tepki olarak Amerikalıların ülkelerine girişini yasaklamıştır.
Joseph Conrad (1857-1924)[1], born Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski, was a Polish-British writer regarded as one of the greatest novelists to write in the English language. Conrad is considered an early modernist, though his works still contain elements of 19th century realism. This article aims to analyze Conrad’s life story and his most famous work Heart of Darkness.
Joseph Conrad
Joseph Conrad
It is hard to believe that a gifted writer like Joseph Conrad was not even able to speak English until the beginning of his twenties. Conrad was originally Polish, but he later migrated to England and became a citizen of the powerful British Empire in which the “sun was never setting down” at those years. Conrad’s father was a Polish revolutionary fighting for the independence of Poland against Tsarist Russia. Conrad was grown up by reading works of romantic-heroic tradition of Polish literature. We can find traces of Conrad’s sympathy for heroes in some of his works like Prince Roman and Nostromo. However, Conrad loves revolutionaries only if they are frank in their ideals. Conrad always exalted traditional values like honor and fidelity in his works. Conrad was also disturbed of people’s tendency to call his father a revolutionary. In his idea, his father was a patriot and a nationalist rather than a revolutionary. Conrad had a problematic youth and even tried to commit suicide but he finally found happiness and success in working for British Merchant Service.
Contrary to many intellectuals of his period, Conrad was against the ideas and ideals of French Revolution. As a conservative, Conrad once said about French Revolution that “The glorified French Revolution itself, except for its destructive force, was in essentials a mediocre phenomenon” (Bhagawati, 1991: 18). Conrad did not like the idea of revolution and saw the reason of French Revolution as the inefficiency of European monarchies to increase their legitimacy. He believed in order and discipline. Conrad’s political views are considered to be close to Edmund Burke’s ideas. Both writers were defending conservatism, monarchical systems and exalted traditional values. However, contrary to Burke, Conrad was not a religious man. Burke saw the state as a sacred institution like famous philosopher Hegel. Although Conrad had sympathy towards revolutionist heroes like his father, he did not like Marxists because he never believed in class struggles and was disturbed of Marxists who were engaging in violent acts, anarchy and thus, making the state dysfunctional. According to Conrad, the only class struggle in societies was between honest, moral citizens and immoral, troublemaker ones. In his novel The Nigger Of The Narcissus, Conrad makes a resemblance between English society and the crew of the ship Narcissus. The captain of the ship is an honest, moral man whereas one sailor of the crew, Donkin, is a dishonest, immoral man that aims to provoke other sailors and create chaos. Similar to the conditions on the deck of the ship Narcissus, Conrad thought that there are dishonest, agitator members of English society who want to create chaos in the country. Joseph Conrad thought that democracy prevents the arise of feelings like nationalism and patriotism. Conrad also did not believe in the myth of progress and this constituted the base of his world view. As a conservative, Joseph Conrad did not support the fetish of science. In some ways, Conrad differs from other representatives of British imperialist fiction. Conrad, unlike Rudyard Kipling, did not clearly express his ideas about the superiority of Anglo-Saxon race over other races, but he still had the orientalist view like all of his contemporaries. Although Conrad was showing fearless, adventurous British explorers as heroes, he was aware and disturbed of the fact that there were some economic benefits hidden behind bringing civilization pretext in British policies. As a defender of monarchy, Conrad for sure did not want bourgeois class dealing with trade to become very powerful. This is why, many conservatives like Conrad did not support imperialism. Conrad loved courageous British explorers not degenerate, violent imperialists.
Conrad’s imperial works can be divided into three groups; early works about East, works about Africa and late works about Latin America. In most of these works, we can clearly distinguish that Conrad admires the spirit of exploration, a group of bold man sailing to unknown with their British flags by singing, telling sea stories to each other away from their families. While creating this kind of positive image of British explorers, Conrad was motivated by his admiration of Captain James Cook. Conrad also loved colonists; because he thought that these people were really trying to bring civilization and new ideas to primitive people. However, Conrad was doubtful about their chances to realize this ideal. Conrad has also pessimistic ideas about human nature and in this way he is considered as an Hobbesian writer. Similar to Thomas Hobbes, Conrad thought that human beings are selfish creatures who should live in a powerful sovereign state that would be responsible of regulating everything and punishing guilty people harshly in order to keep order and peace in the society. Conrad believed that away from a sovereign power, the evil nature of humans could come into light. Kurtz character in the Heart Of Darkness is a clear example of Conrad’s Hobbesian perception of human nature.
Heart of Darkness
Heart of Darkness
Joseph Conrad’s works contain many different themes related to imperialism. Relationship between white man and native woman is one of these themes. One of the most important themes he dealt with is the alienation of white man living with native people. Kurtz character in his most famous novel Heart Of Darkness can be a good example for this. The miserable condition of native people, who are forced to work like slaves, is another important theme in his works. Heart Of Darkness was published in 1902, in a period where the imperial enthusiasm was at the peak. England was disturbed of other European powers such as Holland, Germany and Belgium that try to get their share from imperialist robbery. Belgium King Leopold II was interested in dominating Congo and some other places in Africa because of rich ivory and rubber sources in these virgin lands. Due to his mission in British Merchant Service, Conrad visited many parts of the world and observed consequences of imperialism personally. He also lived in Congo for a while (6 months) and Heart Of Darkness is a product of his life in Congo. Conrad began to work on a Congo River steamer in 1890, 5 years after Belgium King Leopold II had found Congo Free State. Of course, Britain was disturbed of Belgium’s efforts to become a colonial power and also methods used by Belgians. At those years, before Conrad had published Heart Of Darkness, conditions in Congo had already become a political issue in England. Aborigines Protection Society was protesting systematic abuses of Belgians in Congo and the issue was even debated in British House of Commons. Conrad started to write Heart Of Darkness in 1898, in these conditions and the book which created a huge sensation was published in 1902. Edmund Dene Morel, who founded the Congo Reform Association in 1904, described Conrad’s story as “the most powerful thing ever written on the subject”. Probably, all characters and events are based on Conrad’s observations, realities in Congo. Conrad never believed that European presence in Africa would be beneficial for Africans or Europeans. Heart Of Darkness soon became a cult work of art and many artists, works were inspired of it. The great director Francis Ford Coppola adapted Heart Of Darkness into Vietnam settings and made the film “Apocalypse Now”[2] as a critic of America’s Vietnam invasion in the 1960s.
Summary
In the Heart Of Darkness, Conrad shows conflicts arising in imperialism in parallel with the main character’s internal conflicts. The main character is a young ship captain called Marlow who decides to join in a travel to Congo during Belgium imperialism for excitement and money as a steamboat captain of a big European company that has been showing a great deal of interest in the ivory sources in Congo. The company immediately offers a contract to Marlow, because the previous captain Fresleven was death after a fight with natives. Marlow’s mission is to find a man called Kurtz and bring him back to England. During the whole voyage, Marlow listens his crew and other people talking about Kurtz, the German administrator of the company who has collected more ivories than all other people, the man he has to find. After having listened all different kinds of stories about him, Marlow is impatient to see Kurtz. However, their voyage is not that easy. During the whole voyage, Marlow sees cruelties of white men in using natives like slaves and even killing them. He begins to question whether they bring civilization to these native people or just exploit them. Marlow feels darkness and senses evil as he approaches to Kurtz. When they get close to the inner station, the place where Kurtz lives, they are attacked by a group of natives shooting arrows. Marlow’s crew responds and fires their arms. After a while, Marlow blows a whistle and all natives escape. No one dies in this skirmish except Marlow’s native helmsman. Marlow finally arrives at inner station and finds a Russian man looking like a harlequin. The man who has great respect towards Kurtz tells Marlow more about Kurtz and says that Kurtz is very sick and worshipped by native people. Marlow understands that it was Kurtz who ordered natives to attack on their steamboat in order to prevent them to return to Europe. Marlow finds Kurtz in desperate situation, very sick, alienated and mentally abnormal. They have little conversation but Kurtz soon dies and before dying he says “The horror, the horror”. Marlow soon finds out that Kurtz has become a godlike figure in the area by killing thousands of natives and forcing them to collect ivories like slaves. He realizes Kurtz’s metamorphosis by looking at his report. He distinguishes a note saying “Exterminate all the brutes” at the end of Kurtz’s really well-written, academic report on the situation of Congo. He returns to England and visits Kurtz’s fiancée, but he does not mention about Kurtz’s cruelties and massacres in Congo. He only gives her Kurtz’s letters and the story ends.
Apocalypse Now intro (Song: “The End” by the Doors)
Analysis
When we analyze the Marlow character in the Heart Of Darkness, we can think that Marlow represents Conrad’s own views. He is enthusiastic about exploration, he is well-educated, stylish and also has the courage of a seaman. Marlow, like Conrad, admires sea and seamanship. “...for there is nothing mysterious to a seaman unless it be the sea itself, which is the mistress of his existence and as inscrutable as Destiny” (Conrad, 1983: 30). “They were men enough to face the darkness” (Conrad, 1983: 31). Conrad also shows his knowledge about sea by using Marlow character in the novel. “Deal table in the middle, plain chairs all round the walls, on one end a large shining map, marked with all the colours of a rainbow. There was a vast amount of red, good to see at any time, because one knows that some real work is done in there...” (Conrad, 1983: 36). He wants to believe in the idea that they will bring civilization to Congo; but soon after, he realizes that the aim of the company is just to collect ivories as much as they can and he gets disappointed of the situation. “I had no difficulty in finding the Company’s offices. It was the biggest thing in the town, and everybody I met was full of it. They were going to run an over-sea empire, and make no end of coin by trade” (Conrad, 1983: 35). “She talked about weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways, till upon my word, she made me quite uncomfortable. I ventured to hint that the Company was run for profit” (Conrad, 1983: 39).
Conrad always admits the economic priority of imperialism and thus, does not like it very much. So, we can say that Marlow represents Conrad, whereas Kurtz is an example of the imperial failure of European bourgeois class. For Kurtz, it is all about collecting ivories and making profit. In order to provide this, he creates a native God of himself, but later loses his psychological and emotional balance. He becomes alienated from civilization; he makes many cruelties to native people. This is an example of Conrad’s belief that it is nearly impossible for white men to live with natives who are totally different from them. Kurtz represents the whole Europe in the novel as we can understand from Conrad’s lines; “The original Kurtz had been educated partly in England, and - as he was good enough to say himself - his sympathies were in the right place. His mother was half-English, his father was half-French. All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz...” (Conrad, 1983: 86). Conrad also uses the term “pilgrim” for European explorers who come to Congo with the sole aim of collecting ivory. By doing this, he probably wants to show us the belief of many people in the holiness of imperialism. The portrayal of Marlow’s native assistant is also a sign of Conrad’s ideas about native people and constitutes an important part of the book. “And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen, he could fire a vertical boiler. He was there below me, and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hind-legs” (Conrad, 1983: 70). As we see from this passage, Conrad never believed in progress, modernization and thought that people should live according to their own cultures. The native fireman trying to act like a modern, white man was a source of laugh for Marlow. Similar to the fireman, the native helmsman of the steamboat was a grotesque picture; he was able to learn navigation but he was still a total stranger, a little child. Marlow was always getting annoyed due to the acts of the native helmsman. It was impossible for them to live together “He was the most unstable kind of fool I had ever seen. He steered with no end of a swagger while you were by; but if he lost sight of you, he became instantly the prey of an abject funk, and would let that cripple of a steamboat get the upper hand of him in a minute” (Conrad, 1983: 79). Conrad is aware that cultures have meanings only for people who belong to them and they should not be imposed to people since it would create distortion and alienation. Although Kurtz was a well-educated, good speaking European, he could not get used to the life in Congo and he got mad. He went far away from his ideals to bring civilization to native people and he established a kingdom of ivory in Congo. He even tried to kill his Russian assistant because of a single ivory. “Save me! - save the ivory, you mean. Don’t tell me. Save me! Why, I’ve had to save you. You are interrupting my plans now” (Conrad, 1983: 102). As we can understand from this passage, Kurtz was obsessed with the idea of collecting ivories. Portrait of a white man going mad while living with native people and native people obeying him like a God, shows us Conrad’s disbelief in the idea of progress. Conrad thinks that cultures are totally different from each other and trying to impose your culture in order to develop other people will not be beneficial for both sides. For Conrad, the idea of “progress” is just a myth that is abused by European bourgeois class which wants to increase its profit and power.
Another important aspect of Kurtz’s situation in the novel is that it gives us opportunity to analyze Joseph Conrad’s tendency towards Hobbesian thought. While living with natives, away from any sovereign power than himself, the true “evil” nature of human beings comes out in Kurtz. He gets mad and makes massacres and tortures. He wants to acquire more and more ivories and this is a sign of human being’s extreme selfishness. Kurtz’s situation is very close to the situation described by Thomas Hobbes as the “state of war”. However, Hobbes claims that the state of war would be “all against all”. When we look at Kurtz’s situation, we see that natives do not try to fight with him but rather they worship Kurtz. The meeting of Marlow and Kurtz is also an unforgettable scene. When they come face to face, each man sees a reflection of what they might become. Marlow who represents civilization and light, feels his potential for darkness, wildness when he sees Kurtz. Kurtz also thinks of his civilized past, ex-behaviors when he sees Marlow. When we look at the novel from a (Hobbesian) philosophical perspective, we can say that Marlow and Kurtz are both parts of the human nature. Marlow as a citizen of powerful, well-organized British state suppressed his dark side. However, Kurtz, although he was a fair citizen before coming to Congo, discovered his dark side in the state of nature in the lack of a central power.
Joseph Conrad is a very talented writer as we can understand from his poetic descriptions in the novel. His Thames River description is one the most delicious parts in the novel for a sophisticated reader. “The sea-reach of the Thames stretched before us like the beginning of an interminable waterway. In the offling the sea and the sky were welded together without a joint, and in the luminous space the tanned sails of the barges drifting up with the tide seemed to stand still in red clusters of canvas sharply peaked, with gleams of varnished sprits. A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness” (Conrad, 1983: 27). He also talks about the connection between Thames and Congo rivers in the opening plot for showing the imperial connection between two sides: Europe and Congo. In addition, he uses irony in some parts of the novel for showing contradictions in imperialism. “We pounded along, stopped, landed soldiers; went on, landed custom-house clerksto levy toll in what looked like a God-forsaken wilderness, with a tin shed and a flag-pole lost in it; landed more soldier – to take care of the custom-house clerks, presumably” (Conrad, 1983: 40). While showing conflicts in imperialist thought, Conrad also benefits from Marlow’s internal conflicts and clarity or darkness of the settings. Although Conrad was not a complete racist writer due to the conditions and habits of his period, in many parts of the book he uses racist vocabulary. “It was paddled by black fellows” (Conrad, 1983: 40). “He was an improved specimen, he could fire a vertical boiler. He was there below me, and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hind-legs” (Conrad, 1983: 70). The dog analogy here is very disturbing for our modern minds. He also portrays London as the brightest place in the world whereas Congo is one of the darkest places of the world in the novel. Despite of his usage of racist vocabulary in some parts of the book, Conrad several times makes descriptions to reflect terrible situation of native people. “Black shapes crouched, lay, sat between the trees leaning against the trunks, clinging to the earth, half coming out, half effaced within the dim light, in all the attitudes of pain, abandonment, and despair”, “They were dying slowly – it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, - nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom” (Conrad, 1983: 44). It is really difficult to understand Conrad’s ideas about racism because although he accepts cruelties done by Europeans to native people of Congo, he uses racist and humiliating language for describing them. Conrad’s attitude towards races should not be reduced only to his sentences in the Heart Of Darkness. When we analyze other novels of Conrad, for example in The Nigger Of The Narcissus, Conrad causes suspicions about his attitude towards other races.
Conclusion
There is no denying that Joseph Conrad is an important, talented writer that can be read with pleasure. However, due to the conditions of his period, Conrad is an orientalist and his ideas can be very disturbing for us in some parts of the novel. Conrad was right to show us internal contradictions of Marlow after observing cruelties done to native people by imperialist Europeans. Although Conrad also had orientalist views, he was at least objective and bold enough to acknowledge cruelties done to native people. When we look at Kipling’s works for example, we feel two times more disturbed because he believes in the racial superiority of Anglo-Saxon race and clearly expresses it. What surprises us most that the intelligentsia of Europe was not even suspicious about imperial acts of their states while all massacres and tortures were taking place.
George Orwell (1903-1950)[1]was a British writer who lived in the first half of 20th century and believed in socialist ideology. Orwell was later disappointed of the transformation of Soviet socialism into an authoritarian and oppressive system. George Orwell was a very successful writer who wrote in many different genres; but his satirical novels Animal Farm[2]and 1984[3], his two main chef d’oeuvres making criticism of Soviet version of socialism and authoritarian regimes in general, became masterpieces of 20th century literature and even leading materials for anti-communist propaganda. This assignment aims to make a detailed analysis of Orwell’s Animal Farm novel as a political satire. In order to analyze his famous novel, Orwell’s life and conditions of his period will be explained briefly. Then, we will focus on the summary and detailed analysis of the novel.
George Orwell (pen name for Eric Blair), in his wartime role as broadcaster at BBC
George Orwell
George Orwell was born as Eric Arthur Blairin 1903 in India. His father was a civil servant of British government working in India. Orwell’s India adventure lasted very short and he moved to England with his mother and sister in 1907. He was a writer from birth and he began to write at very early ages. During his years at college, he appeared to be “a rebel and intellectual” (Trilling, 1952: 36). After his failure to win a university scholarship in England, he went to Burmato work as a member of Indian Imperial Police. He observed the working and consequences of imperial system personally. He never liked this imperial job and soon returned to Europe. He worked in low-paid jobs and lived in difficult conditions. In 1928, he decided to become a professional writer. He published Down and Out In Paris and London and Burmese Days. In Burmese Days, he criticized British imperialism severely by using his observations in Burma. At those years, Orwell became a defender of socialism. He wrote Keep the Aspidistra Flying in order to criticize spoiled and interest-based relationships that are inevitable in a commercial society and capitalist regime. Orwell also went to Spain during the Spanish Civil War as a reporter. During the war, as a true socialist, he took the side of the United Workers Marxist Partymilitia and fought alongside with the communists, but was mortally wounded. He saw the ugly face of communism during the Spanish Civil War when USSR refused to help Spanish communists and Spanish communists from different factions (Stalinists versus Trotskyites) fought with each other. He wrote a book called Homage to Catalonia expressing his disillusionment with communism during his years in Spain. Gradually, Orwell began to lose his faith in Soviet socialism and prefer democratic socialist views defended by Labour Party in Britain. In the 1940s, during the Second World War, Orwell first tried to fight for his country against Nazi Germany, but due to his poor health, he started to work as reporter for BBC (British Boarding Company). He left BBC late in 1943 and focused on his new projects. He finished and published his masterpieces Animal Farm and 1984 at those years and also wrote in Tribune, a socialist newspaper in England. Orwell died from tuberculosis on 21 January 1950.
Animal Farm
George Orwell, like many of his contemporaries, lived in the bloodiest, most cruel and complicated period of human history; that is the first part of 20th century. Orwell witnessed the peak and negative aspects of imperialism and later its decline, two world wars and Nazi madness in Germany, a vicious civil war in Spain, a hopeful but also bloody revolution losing its innocence day by day in Russia, the emergence of two new super-powers USA and USSR following the Second World War and increasing tensions between different social segments and classes of European societies. After the Second World War, the rise of socialism gained enormous speed and socialist movements took the support of many European intellectuals. Hatred towards Fascism and Nazismafter the war also played a big role in the rapid rise of socialist thought. Orwell also was a supporter of socialism, a true believer who even fought in the Spanish Civil War. However, Orwell saw the unwillingness of Stalin to help Spanish communists, his methods used to suppress the opposition and his nonaggression pact with Hitler. He totally lost his hope for USSR and unlike many of his contemporaries making the imitation of “sun” for “Comrade Stalin”, he criticized the totalitarian aspects of Stalinism. 1984 and especially Animal Farm are clear political satires of Stalinism showing mistakes made by the USSR under the total control of Joseph Stalin. In the preface of Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm, he wrote “Nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and the very act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated” (“Satire And The Novel”: 78). Orwell hated imperialism and observed its effects directly when he was in Burma. He never lost his passion for fighting against injustices and inequalities, but chose the way of democratic socialism instead of Stalinism. His anti-Stalinist thoughts were used for anti-communist propaganda by European states and USA, thus, Orwell was often accused of being a British spy. However, he never accepted these accusations and claimed that the establishment of a collectivist system avoiding oligarchy was still possible. Orwell loved Trotsky and the idea of “international communism” (exporting revolution), but he was disappointed of his failure against Stalin and the idea of “socialism in one country”. George Orwell was a real bold and foresighted person who estimated and expressed many things decades before other intellectuals. He defended socialism in Britain when the majority of British people were still defending imperialism. In the 1940s, when majority of people began to gain sympathy for USSR and Stalin, he criticized the hypocrisy and opportunism of Stalinism boldly. His anti-Stalinist ideas were no doubt used by capitalist states as anti-communist propaganda, but this does not show that Orwell was not a socialist. Orwell always wrote for giving a message, for criticizing something disadvantageous for the society. In “Why I Write”[4], in 1946, he wrote “I write because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing” (Woodcock: 121). Orwell wrote for the society with specific political ideas and ideals.
Animal Farm
Animal Farm, which is often accepted as Orwell’s best work, is a political satire written in the form of a fairy tale. Satire is a method used by many writers starting from ancient Menippeans to criticize political events sarcastically (“Satire And The Novel”: 4). Jonathan Swift’s Travels of Gulliver or Rabelais’ Gargantua and Pantagruel are great examples of political satire written before Animal Farm. Affected by another political satire, Ignazio Silone’s Fox work, Orwell narrated the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Stalin in the form of fable. Richard Rortywrote that, in Animal Farm, “Orwell attacks the incredibly complex and sophisticated character of leftist political discussion by retelling the political history of this century entirely in terms suitable for children” (Ingle, 1998: 235). Animal Farm is the story of the rebellion of animals living in the Manor Farm, which is owned by drunkard Mr. Joneswho behaves animals terribly. Old Major, a pig who is considered as the wisest and most respected animal on the farm, one night convenes all the animals to the barn. He tells other animals about his miraculous dream, his death coming soon and his ideas about their miserable situation in the farm. He blames human beings to force animals to work like slaves, to steal products of animals without producing anything. He teaches all animals a march called “Beasts of England” and makes an enthusiastic speech encouraging other animals to demolish human tyranny by making a revolution. Old Major dies few days later, but his revolutionary ideas and spirit continue to spread out among animals in the Manor Farm. Two of the pigs, Snowballand Napoleonemerge as the leaders of animals and they begin to prepare plans for making a revolution. Another pig called Squealer appears as the orator making vigorous speeches about revolution. Napoleon and Snowball determine principles of “Animalism” ideology and Squealer announces them to all animals. All animals try to understand and learn these principles except sheeps who only memorize sentences and always repeat them. Napoleon and Snowball make necessary preparations but revolution comes out of a sudden, earlier than expected, a night when Mr. Jones is too drunk to feed animals and lock doors of shed. Suddenly, all animals attack Mr. Jones and his men with vengeance and they drive them away from Manor Farm.
Revolution is successfully made by animals and the name of the farm is changed into Animal Farm. Two leaders Napoleon and Snowball prepare Seven Commandments, simplified principles of Animalism. Seven Commandments are written on a wall with big letters. However, soon, pigs, which are accepted as most intelligent animal kind and governors of Animal Farm, begin to favor themselves. In addition, problems appear between two pig leaders Snowball and Napoleon. Snowball seems much more dynamic, intelligent than Napoleon, but Napoleon knows how to acquire power. Napoleon takes the puppies of Jessieand Bluebell and nobody protests this. Animalist regime begins very positively; all animals begin to work less and eat more, at the same time they enjoy the animal pride and the feeling of self-governance. They make a flag for their farm and every Sunday they organize festivals to celebrate their glorious revolution. Snowball initiates an education program which gains great success but some animals like the strong horse Boxer could not even learn the alphabet. However, Boxer works more than anyone else on the farm and always says “I will work harder”. “Four legs good, two legs bad” becomes the slogan of Animal Farm always repeated by sheeps. Other farms in England owned by Mr. Pilkingtonand Mr. Frederick soon learn what happened in Manor Farm and they are afraid of the same kind of a revolution in their farms. Mr. Jones takes the support of Frederick and Pilkington and attacks to Animal Farm. However, animals successfully defend themselves at the Battle of the Cowshed. Snowball is awarded because of his bravery in the war.
After the war, the leadership struggle between Napoleon and Snowball increases. Snowball puts forward the project of a windmill that will allow all animals to work less and produce more. However, Napoleon strongly rejects this idea. Snowball also wants to export their revolution to other farms whereas Napoleon claims that they should defend their farm primarily. When the project of the windmill will be put into vote, Napoleon gives a signal and all of a sudden wild dogs appear and attack on Snowball. Snowball hardly escapes from dogs but nobody sees him around the farm anymore. However, Napoleon often accuses Snowball for making nocturnalvisits to Animal Farm. Napoleon with the help of these dogs that he took when they were babies, acquires the leadership of Animal Farm. Although many of the animals become sad of what happened to Snowball, they continue to believe in Napoleon. Boxer continues to say “I will work harder”, but he also begins to say “Comrade Napoleon is always right”. Napoleon soon blames Snowball for being a traitor and gradually he tries to change the past and Seven Commandments. He decides to implement Snowball’s windmill project and convinces all animals that in reality this was his idea. He forces all animals to work like slaves in order to finish the windmill. However, the windmill collapses when Animal Farm is attacked by Frederick’s men. Although they lose the windmill, they are able to defeat Frederick’s men at the Battle of Windmill. Napoleon engages in politics and communicates with the outside world with the help of his man Mr. Whymper. He starts the windmill project again and forces all animals to work harder and harder. He also kills some animals by accusing them for supporting Snowball.
Pigs and dogs respectively become the dominant groups of Animal Farm. Napoleon rules the farm like a dictator, he changes all commandments and Squealer convinces other animals in the rightness of Napoleon’s policies. They finally change the commandment “All animals are equal” into “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal”. Life standards become even worse than Mr. Jones’ period and all animals lose their enthusiasm of the revolution. Pigs begin to act, dress and live like human beings. Napoleon changes the name of the farm into Manor Farm again. At the end, it becomes very difficult for other animals to separate pigs from humans when they sit together, drink whiskey and play cards.
Analysis of Animal Farm
It is very clear that Animal Farm is written for satirizing the degeneration of Bolshevik Revolution under the rule of Stalin. By using his imagination, Orwell created a brilliant satire in the form of a fable. Orwell was very successful; because he achieved to create a meaningful whole by finding always appropriate similes. All the characters, events in the fairy tale are meaningful and Orwell’s genius lies in his success of creating a perfect “satiric balance”. “If the animals are mere animals, the novel becomes a treatise or sermon. The art of the novelist lies in the selection of details, which will enable him to maintain what Greenblatt calls satiric balance” (“Satire And The Novel”: 80). Old Major represents both Lenin and Marx as founders of the Marxist theory and early leaders of the struggle. Old Major’s enthusiastic speech at the beginning of the novel reminds us some lines from Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing” (Orwell, 1951: 4), “Why, work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race! This is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion!” (Orwell, 1951: 5) lines are very similar to Marx’s some sentences like “Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win” in the Communist Manifesto. In that respect, The Old Major represents both Marx and Lenin as the ideologues of Animalism and the first leader of the rebellion. The song Beasts of England and its frequent usage in ceremonies remind us famous socialist marchs like Internationale. As Orwell very clearly showed, Napoleon represents Stalin whereas Snowball symbolizes Trotsky. Orwell, by giving characteristics of Stalin and Trotsky to these imaginary protagonists, made very easy for us to follow the novel. Like Trotsky, Snowball is a perfect orator, a war hero and the defender of exporting revolution idea. Similarly, Napoleon has Stalin’s characteristics such as acquiring power, suppressing the opposition by coercion, defending socialism in one country ideology and becoming a bloody dictator. Also, problems between Stalin and Trotsky, which resulted in the murder of Trotsky in Mexico by a KGB agent are reflected in the story. Mr. Jones represents capitalism and Tsarist regime as the ex-hegemon of the farm. Moses, the raven who always tells stories about a place called Sugar Candy Mountain, represents the religion and the Orthodox Church. After the revolution, nobody dares to listen his stories about this unknown place to where he says all animals will go after death. Boxer represents the honest, faithful, devoted proletariat class of USSR. Boxer always works harder and harder and believes in animalism and the rightness of comrade Napoleon. However, one day he gets weak because of his non-stop labor and Napoleon sells him to a slaughterhouse to earn money. Mollie, the spoilt horse who wears a ribbon and always wants to be caressed by humans, represents Russian aristocracy and bourgeoisie. Like the disappearance of Russian bourgeoisie after Bolshevik Revolution, Mollie escapes from the farm and does not come back. We can further discuss the role of sheeps. Sheeps are probably used to symbolize uneducated and indoctrinated Russian people who were not able to interrogate the regime in their country and defended Stalin’s dictatorship. The role of old donkey Benjaminis to represent the ex-generations of Russian people who suffered a lot in Tsarist regime and was not that enthusiastic after the revolution. Benjamin always speaks with pessimism and does not care too much of what happens in the farm. Orwell’s use of Mr. Pilkington and Mr. Frederick is also meaningful in the novel. Mr. Pilkington is an old-fashioned, capitalist exploiter like Winston Churchillof England whereas Mr. Frederickis a tough, foxy man symbolizing Adolf Hitler and Germany. The Battle of Cowshed is invented by Orwell to represent the Russian Civil War in which Russian forces that were loyal to Tsar took the help of British and French and resisted against the Red Army. The windmill project of Snowball symbolizes Trotsky’s plans for industrialization that later put into action by Stalin. Napoleon’s decision to execute some animals and send Snowball in exile represents Stalin’s “show trials” and purgesin the Communist Party. The Battle of the Windmill also represents the Second World War in which Frederick’s men violently attacked to animals, destroyed the windmill and killed some animals (similar to the defense of Stalingrad in the Second World War when USSR was attacked by Hitler’s Nazi Germany). Dogs also constitute an important part in the story. Dogs represent KGB which was used for eliminating opposite voices by Stalin. In the end of the novel, we see that dogs and especially pigs become dominant groups in the farm. Pigs represent the ruling class, the bureaucracy which was guarded by KGB. Pigs’ privileges are used to represent the autonomy of Soviet bureaucracy. Commandments changed by Napoleon are clear examples of the privileges of high-level members of the Communist Party and also the degeneration of the regime by Stalin. The role of Squealer is also important for the novel because it probably represents the state-controlled media of USSR. We see that, Orwell, both in 1984 and Animal Farm, shows us how media and language can be used for brainwashing people and changing the past. His years in BBC also could have affected him to form this opinion. In Animal Farm, Squealer changes the events in the past such as the bravery of Snowball in the Battle of Cowshed transforming into his treason in the war. In 1984 also, by using newspapers and television “The Big Brother” changes the past and manipulates people.
We can further analyze principles of Animalism here for finding similarities with socialism. “Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy” clearly symbolizes the absolute intolerance of socialists towards capitalist or bourgeois class. However, later Napoleon sits together with humans and engages in bargain, commerce. “No animal shall kill any other animal” is like one of the peaceful messages of socialism defending equality and liberty of people. However, later Napoleon changes it into “No animal shall kill any other animal without cause”. The last principle that is changed into “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” is a brilliant invention of Orwell showing the emergence of new upper class of bureaucrats after 1917 Revolution. This phrase has become a very famous sentence and has been using in politics since the first publication of the book. We can also find sentences showing the cult of personality of Stalin in the novel. “Napoleon was now never spoken of simply Napoleon. He was always referred to in the formal style as our Leader, Comrade Napoleon and the pigs liked to invent for him such titles as Father of All Animals, Terror of Mankind, Protector of Sheepfold, Ducklings’ Friend and the like” (Orwell, 1951: 62). Also, the last scene, in which Napoleon and some other pigs sit together with humans and play cards, symbolizes the meeting between Churchill, Stalin and American president Roosevelt after the Second World War. So, we can say that this meeting represents Yalta Conference (February 1945)in which the new world order and partition were decided by these three leaders. Playing cards may also symbolize the beginning of Cold Warand hard bargain between these three sides.
Conclusion
Finally, George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a simple but a great novel that appeals to everyone and shows how influential writing and literature could be if it is done properly. The novel reminds me of Lord Acton’s famous dictum “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” while criticizing authoritarian regimes brilliantly. The novel also amuses the reader because of Orwell’s magnificent imitations. For example, the idea of exporting revolution by sending messenger pigeons is very original and well-thought. The manipulation of commandments by changing or adding some words is also a great idea. Orwell achieves to attract attention and give his message without boring the reader. His language is very simple, but also elegant. Together with 1984, Animal Farm is one of the greatest works of political satire ever written. These two books are still on the education program of schools in many countries.
- Ingle, Stephen (1998), “The Anti-Imperialism of George Orwell” in Graham Holderness, Bryan Loughrey and Nahem Yousaf (eds.) George Orwell: Contemporary Critical Essays, New York: St. Martins Press.
- Orwell, George (1951), Animal Farm A Fairy Story.
Martha Nussbaum (1947-)[1] is an American philosopher and the current Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago.[2] She teaches Political Philosophy in the University of Chicago with particular interest in ancient philosophy, laws and ethics. Nussbaum is the author or editor of a number of books, including The Fragility of Goodness (1986), Sex and Social Justice (1998), The Sleep of Reason (2002), Hiding From Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (2004) and Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (2006). Being a follower of Aristotle, Nussbaum was also affected by John Rawls, Amartya Sen, feminism and social democracy. In her article “Aristotelian Social Democracy”[3], Nussbaum tries to outline the basis of her social democratic values by taking help from Aristotle’s classical writings. In this assignment, I am going to try to analyze Nussbaum’s views which take their roots from Aristotelian “good human functioning” conception.
Martha Nussbaum
In “Aristotelian Social Democracy”, Martha Nussbaum first uses Aristotle’s statement claiming that good human functioning and good governing are interdependent. According to Nussbaum, the main aim of Aristotle is to “make available to each and every citizen the material, institutional, and educational circumstances in which good human functioning may be chosen; to move each and every one of them across a threshold of capability into circumstances in which they may choose to live and function well” (Nussbaum, 1990: 203). In her view, Aristotle’s ideas can be considered as the basis of social democratic thought which breaks liberalism in certain points. Nussbaum takes two important quotations from Aristotle.[4] She claims that unlike thin liberal theories which are based on metaphysical grounds, Aristotelian social democracy has an ethical-political account and a more solid approach to good human functioning. At this point, Nussbaum makes two important statements which relate her analysis of Aristotle to liberalism; first of all, she claims that political liberalism is conceived as an American invention and based on American context and secondly, liberal theories take nation-states as basic units and do not dare to have universalistic claims (Nussbaum, 1990: 207). She asserts that in the era of globalization and increasing interaction among diverse societies, there is much chance for universalistic consequences, solutions to cope with international problems like famine, water and air problems. In Nussbaum’s idea, Aristotle believes that the politics cannot be understood completely without a “full theory of human good and what is to function properly” (Nussbaum, 1990: 208). Aristotle wrote; “It is evident that the best politeia is that arrangement according to which anyone whatsoever might do best and live a flourishing life”. Aristotle’s good human functioning theory is based on the idea that people should have enough material and natural circumstances to function, live well and have a flourishing life. This requires a proper definition of the good life for people and this is the point where Aristotle differs from liberal thinkers.
According to Nussbaum, Aristotelian conception of political arrangement is both “broad and deep” (Nussbaum, 1990: 209). For Nussbaum, it is broad because it concerns with the proper functioning of all citizens not of elites and it is deep because it does not only deal with material “good”, but rather with all things that constitute the good human life. At this point, Nussbaum criticizes Rawls and the liberal tradition. She thinks that liberal theories focus on a specific form of human good which is to arrange socioeconomic inequalities in the advantage of the least advantaged groups and to create a free environment. Aristotle does not ignore the importance of opulence and he accepts that richness and economic development is very important for good human functioning. A contemporary example of this tradition is to measure the GDP, GNP rates of countries (Nussbaum, 1990: 209). Although the first component of his theory is economic development, unlike the modernization theory for instance, Aristotle does not stop here. For Aristotle, the economic development is not an end, but rather just a mean. Another important dimension of Aristotelian social democracy according to Nussbaum is the distribution of wealth. Socialist theories claim that common ownership and equality in distribution are necessary for a well-ordered, good society whereas liberals think that this should be left to the market balances (invisible hand). Rawls’ second principle for instance aims to improve the condition of the worst off by tolerating inequalities only in the advantage of the most disadvantaged groups. However, Rawls’ theory is based on specific concepts like taxation, wealth and income. Moreover, Rawls constructs his theory from a rational choice perspective by creating a Kantian hypothetical situation. However, Aristotelian theory does not possess a precondition and prejudice and it draws a larger picture which tries to discover the way of good human life. “The basic intuitive idea used by Aristotelian conception to argue against this is the idea that wealth, income and possessions simply are not good in themselves” says Nussbaum in her piece (Nussbaum, 1990: 210). Aristotle rejects preconditions and thinks that we do not have right to assume in advance that there are specific conditions for a good human life. According to Nussbaum, this is caused by the “heretical and deeply peculiar thought, to those brought up in liberal capitalism” (Nussbaum, 1990: 211). Aristotle does not like excessive or limited choices and prefers intermediary solutions. So, eating too much or to eat less are harmful whereas to eat in accordance with the need and capacity is adorable.
Martha Nussbaum thinks that liberalism deals with creating equal competing conditions for “normally cooperating members of society”. However, in many cases many groups, actors may not be in the position of normally cooperating members of society because of previous inequalities or mental, moral deficiencies. Moreover, “People who have lived in severe deprivation frequently do not feel desire for a different way, or dissatisfaction with their way. Human beings adapt to what they have.” (Nussbaum, 1990: 213). Here, Nussbaum uses Karl Marx’s arguments from the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844”. Like Marx argued, the liberal capitalist economy leads to the dehumanization of workers since they are alienated from their own labor, their work as well as their human identity and humane life. As far as Nussbaum is concerned, although liberals claim that in a liberal capitalist economy people would be free to make rational choices, their position may not allow them to make right decisions and to demand something to improve their conditions with the aim of pursuing a good human life. Aristotle is aware of this and that is why Aristotle aims to promote “truly human functioning, in every sphere” (Nussbaum, 1990: 214). Thus, government should be responsible of preparing people necessary grounds to raise themselves in order to be able to make good decisions that would bring good functioning. Martha Nussbaum gives the example of Bangladeshi women to show how liberalism fails in improving the conditions of disadvantaged groups. Nussbaum claims that Aristotelian social democracy, with its insistence of removing all impediments that stand between people and fully human functioning, is the only way that could solve inequalities. So, now we need an outline sketch of the good life in order to draw the limits of good human functioning. Here, liberals blame Aristotle for creating a singular conception of good which harms plurality and forms this theory on metaphysical conceptions. However, Nussbaum thinks that there is still a way to defend Aristotle by basing his perspective on very basic human needs. So, by using countless stories that we tell ourselves about the basic structure of good life, we can prepare a list from an Aristotelian perspective. Nussbaum adds that “like most Aristotelian lists, our working list is meant not as systematic philosophical theory, but as a summary of what we think so far, and as an intuitive approximation, whose intent is not to legislate, but to direct attention to certain areas of special importance” (Nussbaum, 1990: 219).
According to Nussbaum, there are 4 basic conditions for this kind of a list. The first condition is the need for food and drink, hunger and thirst. Different cultures do not allow human beings to live without eating or drinking and this need is common to all people which should be guaranteed by the social state. Secondly, the need for shelter should be satisfied. Because of the fragility of human body, humans need to have houses, shelters to live. Thirdly, humans have sexual desires as human beings to pursue a good human life. Fourthly, human beings need to have mobility and move their bodies in order to have a good life both physically and psychologically. In addition to these basic needs, we have many important orientations that shape our lives. Practical reason is one of the most important of these orientations. Practical reason refers to human beings’ ability to plan and manage their own lives. In addition to practical reasoning, humans have affiliation with other human beings which direct people to cooperate and have a life based on solidarity. Relatedness to other species and to nature is another orientation of human beings, which is about to discover the rules of nature and try to live in a peacefully coexistence form. Humor and play and separateness are also included into the list of human orientations (Nussbaum, 1990: 219-222). Nussbaum proves that social democratic principles of Scandinavian countries are very much consistent with Aristotle’s list of basic human needs and orientations. According to Nussbaum, the realization of a social state based on these principles can be realized especially with the help of two orientations of human beings: practical reason and affiliation[5]. In fact, John Rawls, different from other liberals, by stating his two basic principles, tries to bring an ethical dimension to good human life, but his theory is still insufficient compared to Aristotelian social democracy.
The Aristotelian politics is about to make sure that no citizens would be lacking in sustenance. Nussbaum mentions that Aristotelian welfare program aims at producing two types of capabilities: external and internal. Internal capabilities are about “the conditions of the person (of body, mind, character) that make that person in a state of readiness to choose the various valued functions” whereas external capabilities are “internal capabilities plus the external material and social conditions that make available to all individual the option of that valued function” (Nussbaum, 1990: 228). By substantiating it, Nussbaum claims that a good human function can be provided by comprehensive health care, healthy air and water, arrangements for the security of life and property, protection of autonomous choices of citizens with respect to crucial aspects of their medical treatment (Nussbaum, 1990: 229). Nussbaum also tries to answer liberals’ criticism and questions towards Aristotelian social democracy on the basis of pluralism. As I stated before, liberals generally criticize Aristotle for involving a single conception of good instead of plurality of goods. Nussbaum defends Aristotle on the grounds of two ideas: plural specification and local specification. Aristotle always admits the importance of practical reasoning and thinks that “when it is well done, with a rich sensitivity to the concrete context, to the characters of the agents and their historical and social circumstances” a different form of plurality would exist and lead to better consequences than liberal plurality (Nussbaum, 1990: 236).
One criticism to be made against Nussbaum is that although she assesses Aristotelian philosophy as broad, we know that Aristotle defends natural slavery and tries to defend this by some biological experiments. Moreover, we know that in ancient Greece there was a rigid hierarchy in society and not all people including women were qualified as citizens and had these rights. So, it could be wrong to determine Aristotelian social democracy not as elitist and broad. Although Aristotle believes in democracy and the superiority of common decision unlike Plato, there is still much to discuss for his elitism. Aristotle’s citizenship conception does not include all people and unlike what Nussbaum said, does not have a universalistic claim. Aristotle wrote this specifically to the ancient Greek polis and avoided universalistic claims. Thus, it would be wrong for me to determine Aristotelian social democracy as universal. However, I must still say that we should assess Aristotle according to the conditions of his own time period. As far as I am concerned, although Nussbaum’s efforts to make concrete Aristotelian good human functioning are successful, there is still much room for debating whether Aristotelian “good” has metaphysical elements or not. Problem with all discourses, ideologies is that during time, they form their own hierarchy, enslaving indoctrination and do not allow opposition like Michel Foucault mentioned in several texts.
[4] “The things that we use most of and most frequently where our bodies are concerned, these have the biggest impact on health. Water and air are things of that sort. So good political planning should make some decisions about these things”.
“We must speak first about the distribution of land about farming... For we do not believe that ownership should be all common by way of a use that is agreed upon in mutuality. At the same time, we believe that no citizen should be lacking in sustenance...”.
[5] “All animals nourish themselves, use their senses, move about, and so on – and of all this as beings one in number. What is distinctive, and distinctively valuable to us, about the human way of doing this is that all these functions are, first of all planned and organized by practical reason, and second, done with and to others.” (Nussbaum, 1990: 226).
