Philosophy and Conflict

THE COMPANY BETWEEN CONFLICT AND HOPE

By: Henri BAH [1]

Conflicts and violence are so inherent in existence that they no longer appear as pathological facts
but as normal data to deal with. In fact, the elements are unleashed; the species eat each other;
Men are violent, abuse their strength and fight back. This reality seems a natural fact to the point
that it would be pretentious and
5 It is absurd to try to find a solution, as if it were a problem.

And yet violence and conflict have taken on such a dimension that they constitute for man a
danger and a serious problem to which an adequate solution must be brought. To be
This solution must probe its deep sources. In this regard, it has long been believed that conflicts
between men cease when reason appears and is imposed and introduced
10 order, negotiation, rule and contract. Reality unfortunately shows us that the era of reason, the
“positive state”, is rather the infernal reign of conflicts of all kinds, including religious, ethnic,
political and social. Reason unleashed itself attacks everything, violent everything and inflames
all sectors. Announced as light, reason appeared
as a kind of darkness. Needless to say, today more than yesterday, society is in crisis. Do we have
to
15 so much to despair?

Who can still save this world if the cycle of conflicts ignites all sectors, starting with the political
and religious circles without sparing that of the intellectuals who have become the barrels of
resonance of politics? Where can we find “pockets of resistance” to conflicts that can save the
world?

20 This reflection is a modest contribution to the attempt to resolve the conflicts that are tearing the
world apart. We believe that an “empathy” with the Bergsonian text can inspire a
solution which, while situating the deep source of these conflicts, gives the hope of a possible
humanity. Provided that everyone agrees to make this constantly renewed effort to dig to the
bottom of himself to meet the Other no longer as a product of his culture but as a
25 Man simply and completely.

1. THE CULTURE OR CULT OF REJECTION OF THE OTHER

To examine the sources of conflicts and to seek the conditions for their resolution is above all to
think of man as both the author, the victim and the solution of these conflicts. Therefore, the first
question is who is the man. To speak like Descartes, Who am-
30 I?» I who creates conflicts and who suffers the consequences?

Everyone agrees that man participates in a certain reason, even if the determinations of this reason
differ from one thinker to another. Descartes, whose formula seems to be the most well known,
said, “I am precisely speaking, only one thing that thinks, that is to say,
a spirit, an understanding or a reason” [2]. After presenting man as an animal
35 political, Aristotle adds and specifies that its distinctive character in front of all other animals is
the word (logos) made to express the useful and the harmful, the just and the unjust.

1
 To make man bear responsibility for conflicts is to recognize that conscience is the main cause of
quarrels. But consciousness itself is nothing more than the mass of culture it contains and which
does it. Finally, the source of our conflicts lies
40 fundamentally in the principle and functioning of our cultures. Hobbes could perceive this truth
when he argued that the three main causes of quarrel were human nature: First, rivalry; second,
distrust; and third, pride” [3]. Man leads the offensive either for profit, security or reputation:

45 For trifles, for example for a word, a smile, an opinion that differs from theirs or some other sign
of mistiming, whether this one relates directly to themselves, or reflects on them, being addressed
to their relatives, to their friends, to their nation, to their profession, to their name” [4].

Hobbes probably does not say clearly, that it is the consciousness that is at work in this
50 belligerent offensive. This attitude of consciousness is a guideline of culture which naturally puts
us on the offensive.

In order to remove any ambiguity in order not to fall into the ideology of the hierarchization of
cultures which leads to the distinction between "civilized" peoples and "savage" peoples, let us
say that culture here must be understood in the sense of civilization, meaning is:

55 “A complex set of social phenomena, of a transmissible nature, having a religious, moral,

aesthetic, technical or scientific character, common to all parts of a vast society, or to several
societies in relation”. [5]

Why does consciousness identify with culture? How does culture prepare us for
conflict?
60 The social order imitates by far the natural order. That is why man is attached to society as the bee
in the hive. “The members of society are like the cells of an organism” [6]. “Any phenomenology
of consciousness” reveals that initially consciousness is
that a reality in power, a heightened consciousness, that is not yet become. This power reaches the
Act only under the impetus of society. Consciousness became Act,
65 mature is nothing but the fruit, the product of society, of culture. To say that every conscience is
aware of something is to affirm that it contains the culture that made it exist. Indeed, our words,
our beliefs, our principles of life, our Values, even our
World view, are only the expression of our education, let us say of our culture. We belong more to
society than to ourselves. Our balance depends on our union with the
70 society. So there is no consciousness outside of cultural values.

But these Values that form the basis of our individual or collective value end up becoming our
Identity. The “I” is only the sum of the values it expresses. We already know, the first
desire of all consciousness, of all identity is to impose oneself on the Other while denying it. We
are naturally willing to play “superman”. Consciously or unconsciously, the
75 will of power” animates each of us. The “I” who does not have such a vocation is doomed to
disappearance, to death. To die is to no longer exist, let alone live. But what we’re most afraid of
is death. This fear motivates much of our energy. We must therefore fight to the death not to die!

Thus arises the conflict between men. In fact, this conflict is a conflict of cultures
80 reject, deny themselves because they do not tolerate the slightest difference. What I hate about the
other, what I find strange and foreign is basically the sum of the values that it is supposed to
release: its language, its political ideology, its religion, its way of eating, of laughing, of

2
 clothing, lodging, etc. Conversely, the other hates me for the same reasons. In everyone’s
consciousness, evil is the other. It has often been thought that this attitude is only characteristic of
85 Western culture. Yet this is the natural character of any culture. Lévi-Strauss noted that "this
attitude of thought, in the name of which one rejects the «savages» out of
humanity is precisely the most striking and distinctive attitude of these savages themselves." [7]
Towards the end of the twentieth century, they wanted to solve the problem with the phenomenon
of globalization
90 or the mixing of cultures whose defenders were certain politicians and intellectuals.
The failure of such a solution is obvious because at this “appointment of giving and receiving”,
each culture remained hard and opaque like a monad without door or window. Or when they try to
“kiss”, there is always a culture (the one that has a strong idea of its identity) that ends up
devouring the other. And she cries victory! It eventually came to the end of this
95 conflict that didn’t say his name. Bergson rightly says that our societies, whatever their level of
development, remain closed societies:

« A society closed is one whose members stand among themselves, indifferent to the rest of men,
always ready to attack or defend themselves, at last bound to a combat attitude». [8]

If there is often conflict within the same society, it is because in reality it does not have
100 culture but of cultures. Conflict arises from the slightest difference between these cultures. If a
society identifies with its culture, one could say that here there is not a society but corporations.
We do not deny the community of fundamental traits between the cultures of certain societies. But
very generally, the “same”, which is identical or even homogeneous, does not interfere with
consciousness. It seems normal to him. What she is focusing on and what she is attacking is this
105 which is heterogeneous, different, no matter how small. It is therefore a reductionist attitude to
speak of African, Ivorian or Wê culture, for example. [9] It can already be noticed that within the
same clan or ethnic group, apparently having the same custom, parts of the culture like the totem,
the funerals diverge by making of the other still the bizarre, The strange, even the stranger.
Xenophobia, racism, Nazism, terrorism, tribalism, the
110 fanaticism and religious fundamentalism, etc. are only the diversified expression of this conflict of
cultural values.

The philosophers of the contract believed that the establishment of a common power that could
hold men in respect could solve the problem. They seem to forget that politics itself, as a form of
organization and management of society, is an aspect of culture. Who
115 the more it is, more and more, the very field of explosion of this conflict of cultures.

2. THE RETROGRADE MOVEMENT OF POLITICS: FROM COMPETITION TO

CONFLICT.

All our conflicts, whether religious, ethnic, economic or social, are

120 mainly political conflicts. Politics is an exercise, a game whose stakes encompass and far exceed
those of other activities. The concord within a State and its peaceful relationship with other States,
just as the opposite of these situations, depend on the course of its political game.

We say of politics that it is a game because it puts in competition individuals or

125 a group of individuals who in principle are not enemies but adversaries. If democracy has ever
triumphed over other regimes, it is precisely because it is the most reflective of the spirit of
competition in politics.

3
 Unfortunately, there is a retrograde movement in the political game due to the fact that politicians
arrive at it with their mass of culture, and with it their principle of refusal of difference.
130 The opponent is perceived as an enemy. It is not uncommon to hear slogans like “not with me is
against me”. The ideological difference leads to the struggle to the death. Everyone rejects defeat
on the ground of politics because defeat is synonymous with death, we believe. It is therefore
necessary by every means to fight the other to kill him at the risk of dying himself.

In the end, the political game has lost its quality because men can’t do it either with the
135 concern to sympathize, in the deep sense of the word, but to fight in the true sense of the word.
Unfortunately, culture has acted here as well. If it is true that “physical violence appears
throughout the history of humanity as an ordinary means of political struggle” [10], it is precisely
because culture, which we hold primarily responsible, is inherent in society. The extent of these
conflicts certainly varies depending on the complexity of the issues or interests
140 (struggle for land, natural wealth, material goods, social prestige, search for identity, struggle to
save one’s god, etc.) and the means of combat (instruments of technique), but there is still
conflict, that is violence. So what humanity lacked were not the symposiums, the peace and non-
aggression agreements, let alone the creation of organizations
international or national peace; it is this epoch, this parenthesis, in the sense of
145 Husserlian of the term, of our culture, this descent into the depths of oneself to bring out the
human values proper to make us sympathize with one another.

3. THE MYSTICAL SOUL AND THE ADVENT OF HUMANITY

If the political field is the most prominent in the conflicts that tear the world apart, then
150 recognize that the resolution of these conflicts does not depend on the institutions. These conflicts
do not require a political solution. They require more than moral but mystical effort. This effort
must consist in that each one works in depth, digging deep inside himself, transcends the social
self to sympathize with the deep self.

We started from an idea generally accepted by all: man is a conscious being.

155 But if we take a balanced approach, we must recognize that man is duality. This duality is based
on this incessant confrontation between the superficial self, that is, the social consciousness and
the deep self or the human conscience. Of their constant and delicate relationships
emanates the unity of the person. The deep self is in us the representative of humanity while
the social self is the voice of society and its culture. If the superficial self develops solidarity
160 social and its corollary of rejection of the Other, the profound self invites to human brotherhood.
So if everyone made this effort to go to the deep self that is in him but is covered by the cultural
layer, all our differences would vanish. For the deep self makes us part of the community of men.
It is this community that Henri Bergson calls with all his wishes in Les deux sources, and that he
names the open society. It is therefore not a question of
165 a community of all men in the sense of an aggregate of juxtaposed individuals. In such a
community, men simply live “together”, but they do not live with each other. In the closed
society, that of cultures, men live together, that is, in a spatial homogeneity, but with a total
indifference to one another.
It is just like a farm where we raise chickens, sheep and sheep together.
170 lapins. Such existence or coexistence would be that of a regime of radical externality where
indifference is the norm. This indifference is a sign that each one stands firmly and firmly within
himself, even if they share the same space together. If our cultures are
It is precisely because they are already suitable for this spatial way of life. My society is defined
first in a given space. Beyond this space everything is only different,
175 less space, and foreign. Social consciousness is therefore a spatial consciousness. Gold the space

4
 divide and separate. Nor is it a question of this solidarity that has become too vague: the one
through which “cosmopolitans boast of loving everyone in order to have the right not to love
anyone” (ibid.). It is an osmosis of consciences, which have triumphed over the social
consciousness, producing the joy of human discovery and which we cannot enclose in a time
180 and in an enclosed space. We call for this profound self identity based on the active principle of
participation over time. For the duration is that dynamic principle which weaves the consciences
between them deafly, and which, although now their heterogeneity, unites them to one another. It
keeps them in a colourful and lively unity in which consciences penetrate and sympathize in the
deep sense of the term. International organizations cannot
185 not leading to these relationships between men. There is a difference between the United Nations
and open society, not only in degree but also in nature. The case is that through the deep self the
creative power of man is revealed, that which connects it intuitively to the mysterious force that
animates the universe. With such a mystical soul, our differences no longer constitute barriers,
obstacles but are heterogeneities that
190 contribute to the enrichment of all that is the human flow; just as varied sounds produce beautiful
melody.

What is said here is not a simple view of the mind even less a pure metaphysics. We believe that
the appropriate solution to these conflicts, which are in fact only the sign of “forgetfulness of
being”, is nowhere else but in the return to being. But being is nothing but this
195 mystical soul in each of us. Our solution is therefore not religious but mystical.
This solution is within the reach of all, only it requires an exceptional effort not to rise up in the
clouds but to dig deep. There lies the mystical soul that opens us to humanity and ignores all our
differences as well as our differences.

CONCLUSION

200 Conflicts that undermine the world are, to some extent, identity conflicts. Identity is not what is
immediately identical, that is, what is homogeneous. It is above all what constitutes our
originality; which while being immeasurable with others is meant to be a
heterogeneity that participates in the life-giving impulse that animates all beings and unites them.
Crises are the consequence of a reification of this identity, that is, its reduction to homogeneity
205 cultural identity that confronts us with other cultural identities. The solution to this crisis must
naturally consist in a return to our true identity which, far from opposing us, invites us to
sympathy: the mystical soul.

5
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BERGSON, Henri, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion, Paris, PUF, 1995, -

La pensée et le mouvant, Paris, PUF, 1993.

GAXIE, Daniel, La démocratie représentative, Paris, CLEFS, 1996.

KONAN KOUASSI, Ernest, “Identity, Identification and Conflict among African Students in
France,” in Annales de l’Université d’Abidjan, T.XVI, 1983.

ELLUL, Jacques, Autopsie de la révolution, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1969.

____________________________________________________________

NOTES AT THE BASE OF PAGE

[1] Department of Philosophy, U.F.R. Communication, Bouaké University, Ivory Coast.

[2] DESCARTES, Meditations, Paris, Flammarion, 1979, p.83.

[3] HOBBES, Léviathan, Paris, Flammarion, 1990, 1st part, chap. XIII.

[4] ibidem

[5] LALANDE, André, Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Paris, PUF, 1988, Vol II.

[6] BERGSON, Two Sources, Paris, PUF, 1995, p.6.

[7] LEVI-STRAUSS, Claude, La mentalité primitive, Paris, Alcan, p.20.

[8] BERGSON, op. cit. , p. 283.

[9] Western Côte d'Ivoire ethnic group.

[10] GAXIE, Daniel, La démocratie représentative, Montchrestien, CLEFS, 1996, p.11.

[11] ROUSSEAU, Social Contract, Paris, Pléiade, 1966, p.286.

Ethiopics No. 72. Literature, Philosophy, Art and Conflict. 1st Semester 2004.

[ Article posted on http://www.refer.sn/ethiopics ]