Taboos as Toteems – Excerpt from my book Olkapäämepin kantapääkausi

17. Taboos as Totems

Observing politicians as I often do, I have recognised two basic breeds. The classic one ends up in politics for a particular reason: issues burn in their mind, be they perceived inequalities in the world or a simple conviction born at a meeting of the local community association that they put a warning sign at a dangerous crossroads. Another breed of politician awakens to social concerns through his or her own navel, as it were: I am sociable, I have the gift of the gab, and I can make an impact – what cause should I champion? I could discover what the Finns value from the research at the Centre for Finnish Business and Policy Studies.

But because life is not black or white, both types could become excellent politicians. There is a shade of difference, though. I confess I enjoy the burning-soul quality of the classic type. And there are none too many of them. There are elements in our present media-dominated culture that attract more of the latter, somewhat more opportunist, breed.

The most interesting sort of opportunism may be hidden from the practitioner himself. One can be quite an angry young man or woman, critical of the culture and keep lashing out at social phenomena, despising conformists – but going safely with the wind. When it is done skilfully, quite unconsciously, he is able to hold his head high for a long while. It is sweet to be both murderous and innocent all at the same time.

This kind of opportunism has long been connected with an instinctive contempt for any discussion about ethics. For example, they will label those who talk about the need for constraints as being censorial. Allusions to judgement and paternalism have killed many important and necessary discussions in Finland. When for example there is a debate about whether it is really necessary to show so much violence on television, there will always be some ingenious person to remind us that there is always an off-button. We know that. But nobody ever finds time to explain why there is this gluttony for violence.

Recently, the son of a close friend of mine working in the Commission was knifed one night in Brussels. There was no reason. It was done just for the fun of it. The knife struck two centimetres from his heart and pieced his lungs. Badly shocked by this, I talked next day with a friend who belongs to the European Liberals. I suggested they would begin to plan a tax on violent entertainment. The Liberals could ensure a hard-hitting initiative, I reasoned. People would listen to them. But if the Christian-Democrats suggested the idea, it would come to nothing: we would only trigger a reflex in those progressives whose inner opinion-policemen would begin to scream: “paternalism, moralism, guilt-mongering!” That charge is the easiest in the world to make by those whom our culture has released from the burden of proof. And if there is no need to substantiate a claim there is reason for concern.

As an environmental legislator, I am continually reminded of the “polluter pays” principle, and that is good. But it is quite unreasonable that the entertainment industry can make limitless amounts of money polluting society with violence without having to pay compensation for the damage it causes. There is enough proof of the connection between violent entertainment and violent behaviour. Therefore it would be reasonable that the polluters help pay some of the costs incurred. My Liberal friend took the suggestion seriously. I don’t imagine that the violence would cease with taxation, but if only it would at least lessen. Even one mugging is one too many.

During recent years much has happened almost without our noticing it. If I had not had children I would not have even become aware that the evening papers began to have naked pictures in the 90s. At first I thought it unimportant. But I became unsure when I had to explain “the funny picture” to my little boy. Would there be a sensible reason why, throughout the millennia, humankind has had an innate sense of shame? Or, as we believe, will this enlightened, relaxed and uninhibited generation eventually show the world that it was all in vain?

Intuitively, it is clear as day that when sexual intimacy becomes cheapened it is repulsive and robs sex of joy. What else can it do?

French lecturer in philosophy and professor of comparative religion, Rene Girard, has presented a theory about sexual norms being the last protection against human violence. And the Finnish professor, Risto Saarinen, wrote about the subject in an interesting essay in the Finnish book Religions and Europe (Uskonnot ja Eurooppa). According to Girard, periods of sexual liberation are followed by times of naked violence. He believes that taboos and norms protect the community from violence and lawlessness. Taboos are like totems around which human beings structure their lives.

Society is having to do a balancing act between maintaining norms on the one hand and cultivating individual freedom on the other. We need both. Undoing sexual taboos forms an interesting borderline. Girard asks how much sexual freedom can be allowed by a society without itself breaking down.

Girard’s thoughts are discussed much in Europe these days. It says something about our times. The daily news shows that his point of view cannot be rejected simply because of its seeming conservatism. The present undoing of taboos in society is of course a problem only if Girard should happen to be right about the character of the human species as being inclined to violence. If, however, human beings are rational, peaceful and kind, loosening norms is a harmless pursuit.

In my view, our society’s and our whole culture’s mistake is just this: our faulty perception of human nature. We lack the means of handling badness in ourselves. Because we don’t believe in it, recognise it or deal with it, it overtakes us in a moment of rage. We are no longer taught at home how to handle negative feelings safely. Therefore so many people just say their nerves snapped. Those who have been taught to recognise the warning signs of this “snapping” and to whom a continuous “tapping” is part of their self awareness, seldom succumb to committing such desperate actions. This is what the Christian concept of original sin is about. It tries to communicate the fact that we must be saved from ourselves. Not only is some politician’s greatest problem the politician himself. Everyone’s greatest problem is under his or her own skin.

Finnish philosopher, Urpo Harva, said that no ideology in history has caused more harm than misleading people into believing that a human being is inherently good.

The Christian view of human nature recognises that it is potentially both good and bad. Like Niko Kazantzakis, it acknowledges that “we have much gloom, many layers, coarse voices, hairy, starving beasts”. And also, that it is possible to bring order to the inner chaos. In my view, preserving this concept of human nature in our cultural framework would protect society. This same understanding of human nature has produced the dream of freedom but the end result is not durable if some of the foundations are rejected. We will not withstand a freedom that doesn’t at the same time acknowledge human constraints.

When we have recently talked about the violence of children and young people I have wondered about their role as if they were onlookers. So far, the discussion about violence does not usually include the observation that children and young people themselves are also responsible. It would perhaps be healthy to bring that element to the discussion. For, gradually a view of human nature has emerged whereby a human being is a total victim to a good or a bad upbringing. It is true that a society and a family, and love or lack of it, create a framework but they don’t determine the young person’s choices. It is dangerous to get used to thinking that everything is influenced by environmental factors. Above all else, it is worrying if a young person learns early on to disclaim responsibility: I can’t help beating-up others because my life is so difficult. Something has then gone seriously amiss.

If a young person is included in taking responsibility, it is not to make him feel guilty: it is to take a fellow traveller seriously. We acknowledge his value as a moral being and capable of judgement and we give him the responsibility he deserves. Freedom is accompanied by responsibility and only then is freedom realised. Freedom without responsibility makes anyone sick.

We also live in the crisis of liberalism because liberalism has lost the undergirding idealist worldview from which it was born. Classic liberalism was not relativism; rather, it cherished pluralism. It was born out of a worldview where human freedom was not without limits; human beings got their freedom from God and were responsible to him. Sirkku Hellsten, a Finnish lecturer in philosophy, analyses the crises of liberalism in an interesting way. Without idealism and values, she says, the tolerance liberalism calls for turns into an indifference that in the end leads to an extremely intolerant society.

Another Finnish philosophy lecturer, Juha Sihvola, has noted that liberalism has good reason to stop pretending ideological neutrality. We cannot remain impartial regarding views about human goodness. Professor Pekka Suvanto’s article in the Finnish book From Westphalia to Amsterdam (Westfalenista Armsterdamiin) discussed the same issue. He criticised the model of American liberalism, which is understood to be freedom from something, not for something. “If people do not observe a sufficient set of moral rules it is impossible for a government to uphold the moral base needed for the common good. Also, a rapid change in values or their disappearance has turned out to be dangerous in history. People have the right to think whatever they will about religion, but the disappearance of the protestant ethic, characteristic of our culture, would cause concern for the proper functioning of both the state and the free market economy”, Suvanto wrote.

Before every election, people call for law and order. Politicians promise it. There are two ways to achieve it. One is increasing surveillance: more cameras, police, fences, control. Another way is that we all, including politicians, citizens, fathers and mothers, homes and schools ask what is the matter with us, and if anything can be done about it.

After the Nightmare

Some years ago I read an unusual story about an English family whose three children suffered from a rare hereditary disease. Both healthy parents had carried the same hereditary gene which their offspring inherited from each parent and caused them not to feel any pain. For a silly moment I thought “What a marvellous sickness”.

A second later I realised, of course. The fact that these children didn’t feel any pain didn’t make them invulnerable. On the contrary, it exposed them to a continuous deadly peril. Because there was no pain to warn them, the children could go too near a hot fireplace and burn themselves or break their limbs in boisterous play. They had already injured themselves and crippled each other and none of them were expected to reach adulthood.

In addition to the sense of physical pain, human beings are supposed to have a sense of spiritual pain. Some might call it a conscience and others a super ego, but the idea is the same: to warn of boundaries, to prevent human beings from hurting themselves and others.

All the increasing news of mindless violence has made me wonder whether the whole of our society could become sick and no longer be able to feel the warning pains while it destroys itself, its very life. Could a collective feeling of pain disappear, become numb? If so, all of us would be the losers.

Almost everyone is able to value the freedom our Western society and culture guarantees. Since the rise of liberalism our societies have been resolutely built on the principle of individual freedom. Politicians have been quite unanimous: if we want to build a society where people are content, freedom is much more efficient than force.

But its worth thinking about what ethical foundations are assumed when we have freedom in a community. How can they be built and maintained? And is it still being achieved?

This was discussed some years ago by philosophy lecturer, Sirkku Hellsten, in her Finnish book Oikeutta ilman kohtuutta (Justice without Equity). In that brilliant work she wondered why the values which originally gave the liberal theory of society its strength and flexibility now seem to be turning against society itself. This happens when there is no commitment to anything. The ideal of impartiality quenches ethical discussion. The concept of tolerance, for example, turns upside down if it is thought that it is achieved through moral indifference. For that, in turn, leads to intolerance.

I write all this because one morning I woke up with a nightmarish thought. I realised how short a step it is from an extremely free society to an extremely controlled one. If freedom is not accompanied by an inbuilt sense of responsibility, it is clear that the only guarantee of a peaceful society is continuous, all embracing, total control. We already have the necessary technology.

(Column in a Finnish newspaper Uutislehti 100, February 2001)