Societal Sustainability

Witoubou Newmai

It has become extremely important for our ‘society’ to critically examine why some ‘societies’ easily split while other ‘societies’ sustain longer.

 The terms ‘society’, ‘evil’, ‘formulation’ and ‘components’ are under inverted commas in this editorial to mean that they are not limited to their literal meanings or they may not be necessarily carrying their literal meanings.

 Many people do not treat ‘societies’ as ontological givens. They are constructed informed by the sense of a common ‘evil’ in a given context and horizon. It must be noted here that a common ‘evil’ precedes the ‘formulation’ of a common goal. In other words, rarely common goals of any society precede common ‘evils’. Or, a common goal is ‘formulated’ as they become a matter of necessity to subdue a common ‘evil’. To put it simply, common goals are ‘formulated’ after seeing the common ‘evils’. As such, as long as a ‘society’ feels it is under ‘threat’ or as long as it perceives the common ‘evil’, the vibes of commitment and pursuit of the common goal often prevail. This will also mean to connote that a ‘society’ stops perceiving its common goal the moment it stops perceiving the common ‘evil’.

 Since ‘evil’ comes with loaded intentions and interests, it is not always there unveiled. It is such times when one fails to see the ‘evil’. In such times, since common goals are ‘formulated’ after seeing the common ‘evil’ in a given context and horizon, obviously the need for the pursuit of the goal is nullified. This is where one begins to rush for temporary conveniences by channelizing things. This tells us that since recognizing the importance of common goals also binds a ‘society’ in a given context and horizon, it is prudent to understand all forms of the common ‘evil’ so that one doesn’t miss to see the latter if the ‘society’ is to sustain. When we say this, we do not mean one needs a common 'evil' to sustain. But as most of the movements are responses to the common 'evil', the referent objective of this commentary is how a 'society' can subdue or withstand the projects of the common 'evil'. 

 It is also important to observe one of the signs that proves that a ‘society’ still perceives its common ‘evil’ in a given context and horizon. ‘Components’ of the given ‘society’ will definitely display empathic sensibility among them as long as they feel they are under threat or as long as they perceive their common ‘evil’. As commented earlier this month in this space quoting Jeremy Rifkin, the author of The Empathic Civilization, one empathizes with another person who shares one’s same vulnerable situation, fragilities or frailties. According to Rifkin, “Empathy is the ability to actually feel another’s struggle, and the desire to show compassion and solidarity”.

 From the above point, what one can confidently conclude is: the lack of empathic sensibility among the ‘components’ of a given society is only taking away the emphasis from the common goal and the very purpose of the ‘society’.

 The underlying coarse ugliness and brutality in our ‘society’ are nothing but due to the failure to recognize the varied forms of the common ‘evil’. It is time to accept that our “ability to doubt and to question is not beyond our reach” (Amartya Sen).