Unfortunately We are Returning to the Failures of Last 40 yearsSam Ghandchi
http://www.ghandchi.com/2244-tekrare-shekast-english.htm
Unfortunately We are Returning to the Failures of Last 40 years
Sam Ghandchi
http://www.ghandchi.com/2244-tekrare-shekast-english.htm
متأسفانه بسوی تکرار شکستهای 40 سال گذشته بر می گردیم
http://www.ghandchi.com/2244-tekrare-shekast.htm
NEW PARADIGMS
http://ghandchi.com/07-New_Paradigms.htm
The dominant theoretical framework of the Iranian intellectual
thought during the post-WWII period has been the Marxist
perspective. At the present, only MKO is still limited in that
framework; and most other Iranian intellectuals have abandoned that
limitation.
But still the Iranian intellectual thought is within the confines of
that model of the world; when analyzing political, social, economic,
and ideological issues of our time.
It is not anybody' s fault, because this is the theoretical model
that has been learned for more than half a century by both Marxists
and non-Marxists in Iran. If one still uses, consciously or
unconsciously, the same model; the result will be mostly the same.
But this time since the world really is very far from what those old
models were used for, one may actually fall victim of a despair that
is not really warranted.
One solution is starting to read books with newer perspectives and
new paradigms. If one does not take the time to read new books,
which are written as a result of such research; and instead tries to
use the old model to new realities, one can end up being
disappointed that the world has forgotten those old paradigms and
their merits; or one may be like an X-Christian whose only way of
understanding the world is still through Christian dogma but without
the Christian tag.
One way of starting to see things from other perspectives is reading
authors who are looking at the world in newer ways. When it comes to
geopolitical issues, I would like to recommend a very interesting
book. The book is by JOHN NAISBITT and it is an older work of his
entitled MEGATRENDS. The significance of the book is not in its
particular positions, but its value is that it shows one good effort
to write a book on global issues using a new paradigm.
Once one starts thinking in a new paradigm, a more objective
analysis of the works of the older paradigms may become possible.
For decades the followers of the classical model of physics were
arguing the discrepancies of the new discoveries in physics within
the old paradigm, without getting anywhere. Einstein's significance
was in introducing a new paradigm which got them out of the
ineffectual fights (See THOMAS KUHN's "THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC
REVOLUTIONS").
Many times arguing within the same paradigm will keep both sides
limited by the paradigm and just creates useless fruitless
arguments. A good example of this issue are the debates of the last
centuries of scholasticism in Europe, where discussions such as the
number of angels that can sit on top of a needle were debated for
years after years without any accomplishment.
Actually the ten year debate between the models of THOMAS KUHN and
KARL POPPER of the development of new paradigms (see Boston Studies
in the Philosophy of Science); gave rise to DAVID BOHM'S explanation
of this phenomenon in his book "SCIENCE, ORDER, AND CREATIVITY"
where he elaborates on the underlying reasons of the process of
formation of new paradigms in science.
The works of authors such as ALVIN TOFFLER and DANIEL BELL are now
translated to Farsi and a book like ALVIN TOFFLER's THIRD WAVE (moj-e
sevvom) is among the best sellers in Iran. I heard Alvin Toffler's
excellent short book PREVIEWS AND PREMISES has recently been
released in Tehran. It is amazing to see the vast interest for such
pioneering works in Iran. It shows there are people in Iran who are
trying to make sense of the current global realities and are no
longer interested in counting the angels on top of the needle top.
Sam Ghandchi
March 22, 1994
PostScript 2002- The movements for progress and freedom in different
epochs have been done under different flags. In the last 150 years,
most progressive movements were fought under the flag of Marxism,
just as millennia before them, many such movements were done under
the flags of Islam, Christianity, etc. Some of those movements did
not succeed in some countries, but succeeded in some others, and
surely there were myriad of historical reasons as to why there was
the difference, and those are interesting topics for historians to
search. It is OK for historians to spend time and come up with such
analysis of various movements of the past, but if one tries to find
out how to figure out the best Islamic solution for interest rate
today, one is wasting the time. When a paradigm like Islam is
obsolete, the task is not to find the reasons why it did not succeed
in country X and find solutions to make the Islam successful in
country X, which even if it works and succeeds, it will be like
Khomeini’s “achievement”. The task is to recognize that the paradigm
is obsolete and use the latest advancements of today for country X
and leave the analysis of Islam to the historians. If a country X
never made a good horse carriage, if the times are the times of cars
today, one should not spend time to see how to make the best horse
carriage in country X today. Times have passed it.
The reality is that the Marxist movement, in both its traditional
and non-traditional versions, has accomplished what it could and it
has ended. Although learning from experiences of all movements and
all groups, Leftist, Islamist, Nationalist, Liberal, etc are useful
historical works, but trying to find the solutions of problems of
today, using these paradigms, will not get one anywhere. Our times
is not the times to fix the left, it is time for our intellectuals
to get rid of Islamist and leftist viewpoints and *learn* new
paradigms for finding solutions to our problems. For the ones, who
do not see the beginning and end of the Marxist movement, and want
to see how it has become a movement of the past, I suggest they read
an excellent three volume work by Leszek Kolakowski entitled "Main
Currents of Marxism". But as far as seeing the end of Marxism as a
viable model, Karl Popper's work "Open Society and Its Enemies" had
already said all that needed to be said long time ago, although
Popper did not publish it at the time of WWII because he thought it
may hurt the anti-Fascist War. Although further historical studies
about the left by knowledgeable people is of value, but frankly the
discussions with many of the ones who cannot cut from this
tradition, and it is like a leftover religion for them, is of no
value, because they are not even knowledgeable about it, and the
debates do not even have any historical value, and is a waste of
time, like talking to an illiterate Islamist. So for the ones
interested in history, I think participating in the discussions and
studies at the national and global level, just like study of any
other historical movement, they may be able to find some value, and
as I said the studies of Leszek Kolakowski is the best I have seen,
and one is better off to read Kolakowski, to avoid reinventing the
wheel.
But none of the historical studies, global or at national level, is
a substitute for new theoretical work to address economic, social,
political, cultural and philosophical areas of life in our times and
for that purpose studying Marxism will help as much as studying
Islamic or Christian theories in those fields. Studying Islamic and
Christian theories of economic cycles will not help us to solve the
economic issues of today, and the books like gharb-zadegi of
Ale-Ahmad and Shariati's works wasted the time of a generation of
Iranian intellectuals and distracted them from the latest
advancements of science and technology in the world ( http://www.ghandchi.com/23-Shariati_Al-e_Ahmad.htm
)
The reality is that *the great schism* of the left *today* is not
because of not being good at unity. It is *not* an organizational or
a personal issue. The left's paradigm is obsolete and it is
worthless to try to fix it, just as the attempts of Islamists who
differentiate eslAm-e sonnati and gheir-e sonnati are wasting their
time to fix the Schism in Islam . The sooner Iranian intellectuals
stop wasting their energy on fixing this great schism of the left,
and focus on real issues of our times, the sooner we will be able to
come up with real answers to the issues facing Iran in the
political, economic, social, cultural, scientific, and technological
areas of life.
Hoping for a democratic and secular futurist republic in Iran,
February 20, 2002
* The above article was first
posted on SCI (soc.culture.iranian) Usenet newsgroup on March 22,
1994. Postscript first posted on Jebhe BB on Feb 20, 2002
Related Articles
http://www.ghandchi.com/index-Page6.html
Featured Topics
http://featured.ghandchi.com
SEARCH
