Huston Smith on Terrorism: an Interview with Kaisa Puhakka
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HUSTON SMITH ON TERRORISM: AN INTERVIEW WITH KAISA PUHAKKA Kaisa Puhakka, Ph.D. 80 N. Cabrillo Highway, PMB Q-111, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 ABSTRACT: On two occasions, in May and June 2002, I (KP) interviewed Huston Smith (HS) at his home in Berkeley, CA on the topic of terrorism. My initial hesitations about engaging him in a topic that speaks to the dark side of the human spirit were quickly dispelled, as his deep concern and passion about this topic were evident from the outset. In the following conversation, he makes a powerful case for understanding the fundamental cause of the conflicts and divisions among people around the world that have intensified with technological advances and globalization of economies in recent decades. He also examines the role that religion plays in the larger historical and cultural context of present day conflicts. He challenges us all to recognize how very important it is to think deeply and clearly, and with courage, about this topic. KP: Thank you, Huston, for agreeing to share your thoughts and reflections on terrorism. HS: Well, it is important, very important that we not engage in denial, as psychologists would say, and turn our faces away from it. So, it is good that we are doing this. KP: I appreciate what you are saying. I must confess that I found this interview to be quite a challenging assignment. After all, Huston Smith has spoken and written so eloquently about what is best in all religions. Terrorism, however, is as far removed from what is best in religion as anything can be. HS: Well, I am very glad that you rose to the occasion. You are right. I have tried to point out to our secular age of widespread disbelief the values that I think we are missing out on, and also to redress the negative image that the media, by and large, leaves us with about the affairs of humanity. KP: Yes, the news coverage tends to focus on where the dramatic action is— disasters and violence. HP: I don’t want to fault them exclusively. Actually, we all share the blame because we are addicts to violence. That means that we like to read about it. We also shudder and are in shock. Nevertheless, if we see violence our attention goes there, and so that is what sells newspapers and raises the audience ratings on television and news programs. To give a concrete illustration, if a pro-life advocate shoots an abortionist Email: [email protected] We thank both Huston Smith and Kaisa Puhakka for their time and good energy spent in this meaningful dialogue, designed for the express purpose of sharing with JTP readers. Copyright Ó 2002 Transpersonal Institute The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 2002, Vol. 34, No. 1 1 lawyer, it will be on the front page of every newspaper in the nation and maybe in the world. Meanwhile, on that day, millions of people may have reached down into their inner life and into their spiritual practices, trying to throw the switches that make the difference between courage and despair; but those go unnoticed by the media. When the World Trade Towers fell, our world changed forever. When something like this happens, it is time to put the pleasant things aside—not to forget about the good in them but just set it aside for the moment—and to confront evil. Both sides are involved, and we will talk about that, but it is of the utmost importance to think clearly and deeply. So, again, I am just very glad that the Journal is taking on this topic. KP: Terrorism seems to have taken over our national consciousness. We are obsessed with it. Let’s begin by defining the word. How do you define it? HS: Abstractly it simply refers to acts that spread terror in people’s hearts, but in the political climate that has followed the toppling of the Trade Towers and gouging of the Pentagon it has become reified, which is to say, we have turned it into a kind of ‘‘thing.’’ Specifically, in the American mind it has come to signify horrendous, unjustifiable ‘‘things’’ that our enemies do. Thus 9–11 was a terrorist act—which it truly was—as were Saddam Hussein’s acts of using chemical weapons against his own Kurdish people in 1988. But we don’t class the over one hundred military acts the United States has inflicted on the world since WWII as terrorist, for those we consider to have been justified, which is to say in our national interests. During the month or so that we were bombing Afghanistan, thousands of Afghanis must have been living in terror, but it’s probably impossible for a nation to think of itself as terrorist. If they did they would change their ways. One of the dangers in defining terrorism in this way—to repeat, as monstrous acts perpetrated by our enemies—is that it gives our government a blank check to do anything it wants to do in the name of checking terrorism. The chief victim here is the hard won civil liberties that have been one of our nation’s most envied showpieces. Soon after 9–11 Supreme Court Justice Sandra O’Connor warned the nation that we would experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case, and those restrictions have transpired. With swift, successive strokes of the Supreme Court and executive pen, our freedoms have already been seriously compromised, and more restrictions are likely to follow. All our rulers need do is say that they are acting to protect us from terrorists and in knee-jerk response we let them do anything they want to. KP: What causes terrorism? HS: Anger. Hatred that can escalate into fury. Humiliation, arising in good part from a feeling of impotence. And despair. KP: I want you to elaborate on those four causes, but first—and right here—I want to ask why you don’t include religion in that list when most Americans tie terrorism 2 The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 2002, Vol. 34, No. 1 quite tightly to Islam. Are they right in making that splice? More broadly, does religion bear on the terrorist issue? HS: Good point. You are of course right in implying that it is in the picture. Religion bears importantly on terrorism, but I don’t think we see clearly how it figures. The relationship is complicated, so I hope you will excuse me if I make this what will probably be my longest answer to your questions. I want to take it in two steps. First, in conflict situations religion provides both sides with their respective identities. In the Islamic world that identity is openly religious for Islam is by definition a religion. On our side the separation of church and state makes the matter more complicated. It debars us from characterizing ourselves as a religious nation, but Paul Tillich has been useful here. He dug below the usual trappings of religion (doctrines, creeds, rituals, and the like) to define it as ‘‘ultimate concern:’’ religion is what concerns us ultimately. By this existential definition we are a religious nation, our religion being (de facto if not de jure) the American way of life and our own well-being. So religion enters at this basic level by providing both parties with their respective identities. The next step is the tricky one, the place where commentators most often go wrong. These different identities provide, as philosophers say, the necessary condition for conflict, but not the sufficient condition. A fight requires at least two people, but being two doesn’t require that they fight; they could just as well use their twoness to be friends. This simple point, too often overlooked by the media, as I say—gives the lie to the charge that religion causes conflicts when in fact its typical role is to provide belligerents with their respective identities. KP: That’s helpful, but if it’s not religion, generically speaking, that causes conflicts, and in the present instance terrorism, we are back with the four interlocking causes you cited before I interrupted you. Can you say more about them? HS: I will, but not before pointing out that underlying the four is the foundational cause of all conflicts, and that is human nature, or more precisely its egocentric propensities. We humans are richly endowed with capacities for virtue, but self- centeredness is the shadow side of our character. It may be needed for biological, Darwinian survival, but be that as it may, it is the underlying cause of all our woes. Christians attribute this flaw in our nature to the fall, Jews to sin, Muslims to ghaflah (forgetfulness of who we essentially are) Hindus to avidya (ignorance of who we really are), Buddhists to tanha or grasping. But by whatsoever name, this tendency to put ourselves first, before others, is the root cause of all conflict. When we group together in families, communities and nation states, self interest compounds rapidly, for here it is reinforced by a virtue—fellow feeling. If we don’t put our group’s interests ahead of other groups, we will be letting our companions down. KP: What you are saying sounds right, but it’s also quite abstract. How does all this connect with terrorism? HS: Good. Having disposed with the misconception that religion is the direct cause of Huston Smith on terrorism 3 terrorism, as I hope I have, I can now say what the direct cause is, and the answer is: The bad things terrorists think the parties they attack have done to them.