gentarou のすべての投稿

The Philosophy of Conflicts

The Philosophy of Conflicts

Profile of the Author : Gentarou Kurosaki Born in 1961

Research Institute of Gentarou Kurosaki(Japan)

Profile of the Translator Yu Takioka Born in 1988

Affiliated with University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology

Accepting conflicts is far more reasonable and appropriate than demanding excessive corporation to cope with interpersonal troubles. No consensus is there. Consensus is not a goal. Inappropriate objectives can cause the worst conflicts. If it is true, then people should make an effort to express reasonable conflicts and seek for better conflicts. The philosophy of conflicts is the most peaceful thought. It can facilitate in keeping better and sustainable conflicts. Peace can be constructed by passively. This is neither pessimism nor optimism.

1.Anger

Who is angry if a school trip is cancelled due to a bad weather? Certainly not. If there are, there would be a few people. What on the earth are supposed to be angry with? Would it be nature? Would it be the earth? Would it be natural laws? Would it be a low pressure atmosphere floating above the Japanese Sea?

I have never seen such a person. In terms of these situations, people might feel sorry, regret, depressed or disappointed. Would you feel angry with a stray dog if you are bit? If you feel angry with the dog, it must be extraordinary cases, and you would be angry with the government that did not prevent people from suffering. It is, however, natural that people would be angry with a friend if the friend is late or ignored the promise.

Moreover, people might be angry if people do not say hello, do not present a gift, do not consult with them before taking an action, or do not expose an appropriate attitude.

Why are people angry? It is because some people did not display an attitude which is expected or the attitude might not be recognized as a common sense. If I expect some attitude and it must be naturally occurred, this expectation?as if often case with it?must be just an unreasonable belief. I think that those people with angry with their belief must be disrespected because the angry caused by this mechanism is based on their innocence. Besides, this attitude reveals their infancy and a deficiency of imagination.

Someone, however, might argue that angry must be natural under some specific conditions. There are people who angry with those do not respect a manner. A person might claim that the problem is that most people do not angry with others’ disrespectful behaviors and attitudes.

Is it true? No, blaming and reproving are conceptually different. Blaming is originated in feeling while reproving is originated in reason. If you are a normal adult, then feelings caused by such case would be not angry but be disappointing, disrespect, dislike, sorrow, pity, or disgust. If you are wiser, you might not be affected by such situations.

On the one hand, there are cultural norms in the human society, and it is uncontestable that people must obey those cultural norms. On the other hand, those cultural norms have been divergent recently and people have been faced with multi-cultural contexts in every day. Thus, those divergent cultural norms must be distinguished. Some might adhere to one cultural norm and even believed that must be respectful, although I think it is in vain.

In summary, those who excessively connected to one cultural norm must be a person with incompetency to tell cultural differences and must be too conservative to understand it. Cultural differences have rapidly been expanded. Thus, angry as such must be originated in an incompetency with recognizing multiculturalism or those individuals must not accept that situation.

Anger and hate from these kind of level are indifferent for me to analyze, although it might cause homicide. Thus, it could be carefully observed. It was widely accepted that people might feel angry with someone who killed some family member of them. Moreover, angry is provoked by the War because an individual might be suffered vital damage by the War. The angry might cause hate and might drive people to revenge.

Would it be justifiable such kind of anger might cause revenge? It is obvious that the presupposition of this anger holds that the others who triggered anger are also the same human. Since they are the same human, people cannot pardon them. If they do not recognize them as the same human, it must be hate not angry. There might be a theory that can deny angry and reason is predominant to feeling, although I cannot easily conclude that theory would be correct.

Do you think that reason must be more significant than feelings? Do you think that reason must be always significant than feelings? Do you think there is a rule for an exception? If you believe these statements are true, what are feelings for people? I believe that feelings are the essence of human. In these days, rapid decision making are praised, whereas it is also true that the long term decision making process is also respectful based on philosophical tradition, particularly, if you must make significant decision. I would argue this issue later and then go to the next chapter.

  1. The Inside and The Outside

The psychological wall divided into the inside and the outside is an inevitable element of organizations or communities. The psychological wall is consciously or unconsciously constructed by the members of the organizations or communities, such as family, school, company, a pastime club, a regional community, a municipality, a nation, the Japanese society, the international society. The functions and the domains are different among these organizations or communities albeit every organization or community has their different psychological domains divided them into the inside and the outside.

A community?whether it is unrepresentative or representative? has their unique ideas, objectives, and values. Assimilation pressure facilitates in maintaining the order between members within the inside of the community. The role of the member is assigned by the community in order to maximize the efficiency of it. If the individual does not adapt to one’s role in the community, the one can be eventually excluded from the community. If it is in a family, it can disown, running away from home, and divorce.

The most typical strategy for strengthen the inside harmony is to create the enemy or threats outside of the community. As a result, that community becomes “closed”. If the community attempts to strengthen the familiar friendships between the outside of the community, it would be “opened” community. The Japanese has been in favored of reading the study of the Japanese or Japan, although a few people noticed that this is a universal tendency of human beings, and people recognize uniqueness as an identity from it. If it is overemphasized, then it would cause a “closed” tendency of the Japanese. Thus, it needs to pay attention to it unless it is overemphasized.

A famous scholar, who studied in Europe, wrote several books with his experience in Europe based on the concept that there is no society in Japan, but is seken, an invisible closed and homogeneous community. A famous critic wrote the book whose concept is that Japanese office worker is not an individual. These statements are easily acceptable for the Japanese, and even it can convince the Japanese that these statements make sense.

It is unfavorable statements because they discredit the liberalism constructed by the modernism, and they even deny the modernism itself, namely, denying democracy. I am not confident that these authors might have limited imagination capabilities or might have unknown intentions. It is, however, necessary that people should not only have reasonable attitude toward the statements, but also should have imaginations of consequences of the statements. I do not recognize the modernism or democracy as absolute values, and do not worship it as a holy scripture. Rather, I realized that there are several criticisms and improvable concepts of them. I simply disagree with those prior statements which discredit the worthwhile ideas of the modernism, and I believe that the valuable ideas of the modernism must be held as a historical heritage.

Individuals are affiliated with multiple communities. If they are acknowledged their contribution to their communities, they can be given the higher position, given the reward, or recognized as justice in the communities. If these communities were recognized as higher evaluations in the society, their reputations and honor would widespread beyond their affiliated communities. Whatever the communities are observation of the inside and the outside of the communities are always required to review. Moreover, people have to remark that extreme concepts can be prone to be an opposite concepts even though the concept incorporates supreme ideas.

Considering these global age, the better strategy is “opened” than “closed”. Organizations and people have to recognize the “opened” strategy as a goal of the organizations. I reemphasized that recognizing the differences between the inside and the outside and having the interests in the outside are not only important strategy for the outsiders but also it is important for insiders. One Japanese Proverb holds that those who help others are to be helped by others.

  1. The Gaps.

In these days, the gaps between the rich and poor have been picked out as a social problem. Economic statistics underlines the fact, and there are some individuals who criticize the government as a responsible agent for the gaps. Some individuals disagree with the governmental economic policy. Their criticism is toward not only the government or the members of the cabinet, but also toward the Market fundamentalism, and Capitalism in general. If I explain that the current society guarantees the equal opportunity and it is in the Pareto optimum point, they will not understand them. Rather, it can facilitate in intensifying their resentment. “Equality” means that this is the equal rights as natural rights. Those are few people who do not recognize the existence of the gap as the results, or private property system. They are usually called as daydreamers and people will not count on them.

The gaps do not only exist in the economics but are in competencies, techniques, expertise, connections, reputations, popularity, the fields of the interests and its domains and depths. People are tended to enlarge distinction or uniqueness from others as they are growing up. Denying the private property system is nothing more than the denying one of the aspects of the gaps. I wonder if someone does not understand that it is an idea that discounts the freedom, and even it deteriorates other worse gaps.

That is the question whether it presupposes that people are naturally unique or naturally the same. If people do not agree with one of these propositions, then it is impossible to reach the conclusion. In this case, how can you reconcile this?

The issue in Japan in 2006 is not what kind of the gaps are justifiable or not, but the poverty covered beneath the gaps. The issue is not increasing the gaps but the increasing the social class recognized as poverty and working poor. The problem is how the society can deal with these issues are substituted for the issues of the gaps, although the central argument should be how to reduce the poverty and how to preserve the right to live.

The cause of this issue is decreasing the typical employment and semi-destructed the Nenkojyoretsu system?it is the Japanese unique reward system that people can get larger amount of earnings based on their working year of the company. The age when the forms of employment itself should be discussed has come.

Employment is one of welfare. The reason why nation attempts to increase the employment and to reach complete employment is because it is a part of welfare. It is basic policy that the government makes those individuals who might not be hired work, in terms of economic reasonability, and cope with the life without receiving any support from the government. The transitions of the economic environment and industrial environment, however, challenge the traditional thoughts of the relationships between employment and welfare.

A lot of philanthropists say that there are many people who are living less than $3 in the world, and they should be paid attention. Yet it is difficult to compare and comparison between such kind of world and Japan. It is possible to live without earning money in the world, whereas it is impossible to live without earning much in Japan.

In Japan, economic activity is fully dependent on the currency, so people will die if they do not have money due to starvation.

It is natural that required labor force decreases as the civilization is progressing. In the past, the slogans?represented labors’ demand ?were to reduce the working time and free from working. It does not need to criticize it when it makes true in these days. Moreover, it is in vain to idealize working. An employment as ”slavish working style“ is a special forms whose history is only a few hundreds of years. It is plausible that it will be extinct.

The argument of the basic income may reflect the transition of the age. The idea of the basic income is that the government is responsible for distributing minimum amount of money for everyone that they can live. If the government is unable to provide complete employment, then they must warrant the right to live for those individuals who cannot get a job. People who are worried with the increasing the gaps between the rich and the poor do not understand the reality. It is a daydreamer who believed the existence of the government?have competency to warrant the equality of all of the gaps among people?created by omnipotent God. The idea that the government has to reduce the gaps of the results is not a justice but is an individual belief. In addition, some might criticize Capitalism as an ultimate cause of the gaps, although it is not reasonable.

The very issue which is discussed seriously is to reduce not the gaps among people but to reduce poverty. The obstacle of this discussion is a politician who wants to enlarge their influence by insisting on the reduction of the gaps. These politicians attempt to discount the very central issue, reducing poverty. This kind of illogical argument is widespread through mass media. It is required that the “conflict spirit” and the “conflict technique” to correctly evaluate the validity of the argument. Details of these notions are discussing in the later chapter.

  1. Moral

Human beings live in two different worlds, namely, the first world is constructed by biological perspective, and the second world is constructed by cultural perspective through language. Keizaburou Maruyama once argued that the first world is defined as “Miwake structure” and the second world as “Kotowake structure”. These two worlds would not be integrated. It is the predisposition of human beings that they have to live without reconciliation of two worlds, with hurt, injured and depressed.

There is no justice in the animal world. They behave based only on their instinct. Animals can live with only desire. This seems to be brutal, although it is the way they live. There is no domain of the will.

Some might discriminate drive caused by physiological needs and desire caused by cultural needs. They would think that drive is legitimate but desire is illegitimate due to its excessiveness. It is, however, unreasonable. There is no longer pure drive. All of the drive and desire are integrated and it is impossible to differentiate them. Human beings are the creatures who are broken or broke their instinct. It was often said that human beings do not have instinct but its ashes of instinct.

Sleeping is also not pure drive. When you are dreaming, you will notice that its world is constructed by the reflection of the cultural world. To be human beings is to live inside of the cultural world. The only distinction between drive and desire is whether it is included physiological factor or not, however, it is also implausible.

Greedy used to be recognized as sin. Despite, it is recognized as moral and as a condition to success in these days. There are culture and desires in the world. It is individual preference that it is fascinating or not, disgust or not, threats or not. If language is excessive, then culture and desire are also excessive. It is, however, not justify regulating them due to their excessiveness. Rather, people should accept them.

Moderation, simplicity and even abstinence are also desire. It is inevitable to recognize desire and drive are inextricable.

It is just that people will attempt to acquire desired social position, earnings and fame. These desires are evaluated as normal and can be evaluated as necessary desires. People can get a desired position and reward by making a contribution for an organization. The contribution demanded here is how to work as a function. In other words, it is value as a tool. People often make an effort to enhance value as a tool and might proud of it. This is admirable; however, it can be possible that people would considered those individuals to be excellent as tools but not to be interested in human if those individuals value themselves as tools.

On the one hand, there is a person who is handsome, rich and has a respectful social position but not interesting when chatting. Moreover, this kind of person may believe that he/she spoke interesting story. It can be possible to think that a trivial story form the rich can be proverb. On the other hand, there is a person who is interesting, however, is not useful as a tool or not adaptive to an organization, so to speak “social maladaptive”. I think this is extreme case, however, people will think the world as tool if people are adaptive to enhance value as tool. It means that those individual are prone to evaluate people as social position and earnings. They will eventually decrease interests in human characteristics. This phenomenon is called a bureaucratic pathology. Someone, however, might argue that the most valuable factor of human beings is the character. Is it true?

Human beings are creatures who live in cultural world and social world. In these contexts, they are responsible for some social role as it is natural. This social role can have strong duty, and its duty can be against people’s own will. People are not completely free, although freedom is respectful in this age. People are still regulated by their environment. In general, the more people can adaptive to their environment, the more people can live under satisfactory conditions. If people attempt to preserve their free will excessively or to preserve idealistic view on the world, they can have numerous dissatisfactions.

Nevertheless, it is plausible that to make society more liberal because society and culture are constructed by human beings. If this is true, then it is appropriate strategy to adapt its environment for happiness as individual strategy, but it is better strategy to attempt to reasonably behave based on free will as the whole. Human beings have a capability to change environment into better and worse. It may be one option not to change the social environment, and it may be need to take a responsibly for it. Someone might argue that there should not be any responsibility for it because there is not such a strong power to change the social environment.

Moral, however, is not only to obey the rule, authority or regime but also needs to have self-awareness for them as citizens. This self-awareness can differentiate moral people from non-moral people. Unfortunately, moral people can be minority in the society.

  1. The Post-Modern Age

What is the post-modern age when we live? Is it be the age of an exhausted modern, the age of terrorisms, the age of empire, knowledge and information, or the age of a controlled society?

It is possible to interpret this age from multiple aspects, and recognizing and evaluating it is also diverse. Everyone live in the same age, although recognition of it is diverse. The same logic can apply to the age which became past. It is not reasonable to think that metaphysics warrant the absolute truth. This is the ground where post-modern philosophy opened up. Everything is relativized. Cultural relativism is one of them. This was considered to be the basis of the post-colonialism movement. It is, however, used for legitimizing the argument that freedom and democracy are not exception for this relativism. It is true and nothing is exception.

The Post-modernism disproved the absoluteness, suppression, and a controlled society, which were produced as by-product of the modernism. This is justifiable and fruitful, although it is a critical distinction between what there are issues in the modernism and disproving the legacy produced by the modernism.

It is a general notion for the liberalists that values of freedom, human rights and democracy in the modern age and in the post-modern age are not required to be evaluated by the same paradigm. No one seeks for the absolute truth or reason. In addition, metaphysics does no longer exist. It must be the part of religion.

How can we legitimate freedom? Would it be due to popularity or superiority of history? No, these are not necessary argue to legitimate freedom by reasoning. It is enough to legitimate freedom if you represent your confidence of the existence of freedom. Schumpeter, an economist, articulated that being aware of what self-confidence of the validity is relatively true, and representing this self-confidence without shirking back, both of which can differentiate citizens from savages.

The modernism has light and shadow, advantages and disadvantages. Despite, there are numerous points to be modified. It is not an appropriate way to think about the modernism to pay only attention to its disadvantages and to discredit its advantages. Who could illustrate the political expectation without considering advantages of the modernism?

There are unfathomable issues when recognizing the age, objectives and values. It is implausible to integrate these as one absolute truth. Moreover, conversation and progresses of culture and science cannot promote mutual understanding. In fact, it can be unavoidable conflicts between them. It seems to be true that the only way to deal with issues? catastrophes of violence and war, discriminations and poverty?is to reasonably continue these conflicts. This is the practical objectives to deal with these conflicts.

People’s introspection has been progresses since the modern age. According to Yi-Fu Tuan, he pointed out that words refer to the introspection and opportunity to use these words has dramatically increased since the modern age. Brutal situations have decreased in daily life. It has also been produced the consciousness of empathy as human beings since the modern age. It is the modern condition that people would feel sympathy with people with poverty live in the opposite side of the earth. War became more devastating due to the progresses of science and technology, although it is hard to conclude that people’s mind is deteriorated. This is one of the hopes.

  1. The Public and The Private

Someone regrets that predominance of the individual freedom violates the public order of the society and asserts that people should obey the public rules. Of course, the order in this context means the visible hierarchy of the power and the authority.

Nevertheless, I wonder if it is true that the individuals are surrounded with excessive freedom. I suspect that an independent and free individual from the public. It can be true that “the private” individual are nothing more than the individual with suppressed by the power of “the public”. In other words, “the private” individuals are the individuals who are given some choices by “the public” and make a decision from them.

For instance, “the private” individuals are working for the company by train, doing the same tasks and going home every day. This enables us to get bread and butter. People consume entertainment provided with by the public in holidays in a week. Acquiring information and thinking about it is nothing more than the reaction to mass media.

“The public” knows everything about individuals’ reactions. Is the private room remained? If there is “the private” room in the world, then it is controlled by “the public”. Pierre-Felix Guattari pointed out that there is a “self-renunciation toward the subjectivity of the market”. No one voluntarily wants to renounce “the private” room. Rather, this is the result of uncontrollable conditions. It is the cliche; however, this situation is “self-domestication”. Self-domestication warrants the security and the life, although it forces to lose freedom instead.

The person with the higher position in a company is prone to be kicked out by one letter. I don’t understand the meaning of the higher position due to its instability. Hierarchy in the organization is nothing more than the means of enhancing motivations to work. Those are lamentable who are convinced to believe in the pseudo-value of the hierarchy in the company.

The world “private” are reduced to a symbol. This issue is criticized from the perspectives of “individual” and “mind”. Not only does proclaim the reconstruction of “the public”, but also someone does proclaim the reconstruction of “the private”. “The public” is no longer conveyed the government, but it represents the society as power including the government. This can be the real aspect of “the public”.

Considering the origin of these worlds, it can be true that there were conflicts but both were not inconsistent with each other. Thus, it is required to maintain the better “the public” to promote “the better private”. Sometimes, the private is devoted for the public because it presupposes that this judgment can eventually cause “the better private”. The problem is this presupposition does not always reach the consensus among people.

Some?people who are at the end of the spectrum from my position?might argue that it does not matter because they believe that “the public”, consisting of beautiful order, is the only value of the human beings, and the private is valueless. Moreover, they might replace the meaning of “the private” to the condition that do a volunteer work for and make a contribution to “the public”. I don’t understand the position of these individuals. Would they argue this is not the private utterance?

Regardless of their consideration, it is the fact that this is paradoxical situation because there is no private that can support “the public”. “The public” that should contribute to me is putrefied and perplexed. If this recognition is true, then I wonder it might exist other than despair. In this situation, the power is not restricted. Yet, there are conflicts between powers.

The individuals who have the power are not concerned with the private or with the public, but if they are concerned with something, it must be the power as means but not objectives. The notion of “the private” and “the public” are about to be utilized by the power. People should notice their manipulations of meanings. It is natural that the alertness of these manipulations of the meanings is responsible for the journalism and the mass media. I discredit them because they are also the part of the power.

  1. The Power and Violence.

The answer of the question of what is the power is not the only one. Steven Lukes argued three different types of the power. The primary power is the power which A makes B do. The secondary power is the power that A is multiplied. The tertiary power is the power that B cannot notice the existence of A. this is the critical problem whether people can notice the power or not.

Foucault conceptualized that the power resides in every human relationship and it was promoted from the bottom but not the top. I would not argue the details of this because the issue I point out is not the micro power but the macro power including the government. The most noticeable characteristics of the macro power are that it monopolizes the legitimate power. This is the essence of the power of the nation state. The power in this context means the police and military power. The counter violence against crime and evil is legitimated by the law. The power is observed in the capitalists and in mass media, although the center of the power is the nation.

Yet, as Negri and Hardt argued, the new subject of the power came out. This is “the empire”. The empire showed up because the power of the nation has decreased since the end of the cold war in 1990’s. “The empire” is defined as the subject that has the power as the network of the nations. This is the age when the power transcends the boundaries of the nations.

The issue of this age is not the matter of the international law or the matter from the humanitarian standpoint, but the matter of the “global order”. Moreover, they emphasized that war becomes usual conditions for the exceptional conditions. Furthermore, in the modern war, the power relationship between the stronger and weaker is obvious. The stronger states the objective that they do not produce the dead soldiers. The power and war are facing to the new condition.

What is the relationship between the power and people? The normal condition of them is found obedience and dependence. People would not recognize the power as legitimate if they cannot gain the security, the order, efficiency, proficiency, secure and peace instead. If people do not recognize the power as legitimate violence, then the power will threat the individuals who fight resistance, abhorrence, and malignance against the power.

The problem may not be the power itself but be the way of the power. Anarchism is plausible in theory, although it is not realistic. To seek for acquiring the power is to obtain the will that makes this predominance temporally to permanent that is over the generations.

Whether it is fortune or not, there are filled with factors that can exert it. The capital can not only be accumulated or be taken over, but also can be augmented. The capital itself is the power in these days. The power is the tool that allows people to be satisfied with their drive and desire. People think that it is impossible to live in better conditions without preserving the power. In addition, people cannot live without being dependent on the power. Additionally, people even believe that the better society is the society which people are dependent totally on the power. It might be illusion, although there is not enough time to realize it as illusion. If people articulate that, they would be told not to think about it and are told to enjoy this situation. Seeking for desire and pleasure is recommended by the society compared with critical thinking.

As noted before this chapter, the most noticeable characteristics of the power are that it is used as the legitimate violence. Violence is considered from different aspects. Some philosophers think about it is the essence of the existence of human beings, and the others think about it is as holly. Yet, I have questions about the methods of the interpretation of it. I am not sure that there is universal essence of human beings. Some might prefer to use or observe violence, the others might not. It can be the matter of preference or the matter of individual characteristics.

Violence is not only being the means but it also is objective. If it is means, it can be another means. If it is objective, it cannot be replaceable. What is the condition that violence is becoming the objective?

Regardless of the power or violence, power contains devilishness. The more strengthen the power is the more devilishness is. People would recognize it as nobleness and holiness. These notions can easily trespass the judgment of goodness. Human reason must fight against this devilishness. Moreover, people must notice that the subject is incorporated by the violence structure and the power.

A large number of people show their obedience and respect to the power, although they criticize the putrefaction and unjust of the power. It might be the true attitude toward it, or it might be a gesture to pursue for another objective. The power knows the wisdom and a mean spirit of people who obey to it. When people are controlled by the power and when people are incorporate, the power will strike people as violence.

  1. Goodness

It is nonsense to argue good or evil for someone’s way of life. This question is not the problem of good or bad but is the problem of the necessity. The criteria of this question are inappropriate. Human beings are the social animals so that they can adapt to the society.

Let me think this question as philosophical question. What is the good or bad? Once, the ancient philosophers thought about the absolute good or bad, although it is a common sense for intelligent people that there is no such absolute good or bad in these days. If there is bad, then it must be the “bad”, such as “the social bad”, “the moral bad”, “the economical bad”, “the religious bad” but not the “absolute bad”. The absolute bad is not unnoticeable but it does not exist.

Children are told that telling a lie is bad whereas psychologists argue that children become adults when they understand and how to use it. One Japanese proverb states that telling a lie predicts being a theft. Another Japanese proverb says that telling a lie can be useful. In these contexts, lie is not an” absolute bad”, although there are some cases that telling a lie can violate the credibility and if someone is labeled as a liar, then he/she would lose some profits. If someone tells a lie in the court, that individual are sued as crimes of perjure. Telling an “appropriate lie” can be helpful to smooth communication or it can produce profits.

How about committing homicide? Is it absolutely bad? This is not an absolute bad; however, a murder can probably be punished because it is considered to be “the social bad”. Human beings attempt to exclude these kinds of individuals and punish them as a social animal. I do not argue whether capital punishment can be legitimized or not because this is not the central matter, and it can lead the wrong track of this argument. In this case, there are multiple aspects to be argued other than “ethical bad/good”.

One might argue that individual homicide is a crime, however, the war is different form it. This is the argument from the transcend law perspective. This is also not “the absolute bad”. Despite, trying to avoid a war is a majority opinion. This thought is based on the “ethical field” of human rights and humanity.

There are some implicit advocates for eugenics: a superior gene must survive and inferior gene must be excluded. I disprove this idea not because supporting the minority rights but because I believe that it is impossible to decide for human beings to what is superior or inferior. If god exists, he could not decide as well. What if you are facing to a dangerous beast? Wouldn’t you trigger your gun? Would you hesitate to trigger due to respect animal’s rights? What if it is not an animal but dangerous human beings? To live essentially conveys to fight.

What are the worst bad in bad? It is an extreme good. What if determining social bad completely? What if eliminating the grey zone of the law and determining absolute good and bad? Majority of the population agree with the idea that the homicide is a crime. How about love neighbors? How about enacting a law to punish telling a lie in daily life? How about punishing people those who do not represent nationalism? All of these challenge human rights and human nature or challenge “human life”. Try not to criticize relativism frivolously but to criticize frivolous relativism. I question what is bad with understanding the fact that there is not such an absolute bad. This is not mutually exclusive.

  1. The Grounds of Conflicts

Democracy is a political process which is finally determined by the number of the votes. It seems to be obvious that avoid discussing the details of the issue to reach a large number of consensuses. Politicians often illustrates the ultimate objectives?peace, freedom, love and equality?of politics, although these are illusions. They articulate these illusions because these illusions can convince people that they feel empathy with politicians. This empathy is used by politicians as a tool to appeal solidarity with people. Reformation or nation can be one of the key words to be used as illusion. Consequently, these politicians sophism justify the war or bombing in the name of peace keeping operations or intervention to protect human rights. It is irony.

How can people face to these kinds of irony or in general, how can we face to the conflicts, and how can we face to the light and shadow taken over the legacy from the modernism? The recognition for these conflicts is filled with differences. Differences can be replaced for conflicts. The world is constructed by the conflicts?

such as recognition, values, standpoints, and emotion? between people.

Taking into consideration for the enchanted word, love, this word also conveys conflicts. Some lions push their child down to the valley. This is called love. Affirmations of violence are called a whip of love. Love affairs, attachment with family, patriotism, attachment with school, attachment with company, nationalism, and compassion with human beings, all of them imply common specific emotions.

Despite, the concepts of these phenomena are different. For instance, some would argue that the emotion elicited by nationalism is different emotion elicited by compassion with human beings. The other people might argue that these are not mutually exclusive. I do not imagine the emotion elicited by compassion, although I understand the emotion elicited by love affairs and attachment. The direction of these loves is limited within those who know each other.

How about love between people live in the same country? I think it is hard to believe that the specific emotions?elicited by love affairs or attachment with family?would be elicited. They might share the same characteristics, such as, race, ethnicity, or human beings in general. Yet, they cannot get enough information to feel the specific emotion because they just know general information but not individual information. In this case, they might imagine the illusions of those individuals which might not elicit love like specific emotion.

Some might argue that the characteristics and concepts of love can be shared with animals, creatures on the earth, and with creatures live outside of the earth. In other words, every phenomenon which seemed to be caused same types of love is stemmed from love in general.

The idea itself may be reasonable, although it can lead to a few problems?excessive arrogant attitudes were elicited by this idea? in applying this idea to practice. The humanists who misunderstood that expanding freedom, democracy and capitalism produced by developed countries to feudalistic developing countries are good and justice exemplifies that arrogance attitude toward people who live in developing countries. In addition, these humanists deteriorate poverty condition in the name of developing, and even send troops to help expanding freedom, democracy and capitalism from humanitarian standpoint. Would this behavior be caused by love? It seems to be cause by arrogance of people who notice their superiority to people living in developing countries. I do not believe the love as a concept. Love in this context must be nonplus for people live in developing countries.

It is often the case with people who shared idealistic goals; however, they may not reach the consensus in terms of specific policy. There are only three options?consensus reached by the compromise each other, consensus reached by the power, or rupture?to deal with this situation. What can we expect to temporal solidarity? It seems to be far more intelligent and efficient to deal with the problems by presupposing the distinctive conflicts and by seeking for the values from them. Complete consensus of everyone is not the objective at all, but rather, it is corrupt practice of totalitarianism and democracy. The objective to be dealt with is to clarify the conflicts and recognize it each other. It is completely a false belief that people can be labeled as one group. It is called “overgeneralization” in psychological term.

The philosophy of conflicts does not have objectives which force integration or solidarity. The fundamental standpoints of the philosophy of conflicts are to clarify the conflicts and to obtain practical resolutions. Therefore, it allows for people to recognize the conflicts not as negative but as positive that can help people to feel pleasure due to the clarity of the problems. Moreover, it enables people not to convert conflict into emotional conflict.

The philosophy of conflict primarily suggests respects for everyone. Looking back on the example of the humanists discussed before. Do you think that person respect for the people living in the developing countries? It can be exaggeration; however, I guess that that person just has sympathy and superiority. Respects do not mean providing aids. It is, however, not easy to obey this respect principle. Abhorrence and animosity may suddenly come out. It sounds paradoxical; however, it is possible to represent respect for people with abhorrence.

In other words, the conflict came out only after the respects are represented. If someone does not have respect for some person, it cannot come out the conflict. It is nothing more than “pre-conflict”. Why respects are the necessary factor to construct the conflict? I think this is because it is necessarily that to have respects for preserving intelligent attitudes toward conducting intelligent behavior in a specific context. Everyone might select the behavior which can be seemed to maximize the profits in order to live. If people commit a crime or did unreasonable decision, the choice itself can be the results of serious consideration for them. It is immature attitudes if someone cannot respects for those individuals who can make a decision by themselves to predict maximum profits for them. The goal of the philosophy of conflict is to accept and coexistence with the conflicts without escaping from it or concealing below the illusions.

Very first problem which the philosophy of conflict suggests is the grounds of the conflicts. Would it be possible to argue that the pre-conflicts problem is dealt within this framework? In other words, the problem is how to convert savage conflicts into intelligent conflicts. The philosophy of conflicts targets at the savage conflicts. If the philosophy of conflict does not convert it into the intelligent conflict, the philosophy of conflict cannot be philosophy of life.

  1. Bullying: A Conflict Case 1

A student told a teacher that he had no reason to bully someone. The student who bullied responded. There is no reason to do so, although it is possible to analyze and imagine the reason. The victim of the student did not do anything with him. He said that he did not want to school because the student might bull again, and he articulated that his feelings were filled with fear and uneasiness.

The teacher told student that bullying was bad, and not to bully again. There was no reason. This is a lie. He just did not understand the reason and did not make any effort to understand it. A victimized student was a student who had a lot of experience in foreign country. He was outstanding in the class because he asserted his opinion unflinchingly. The student who bullied this student might feel a kind of threats; however, this student could not understand why he felt the threats. Yet, he had emotion to express his state of mind by any means. This emotional state was so strong that he bullies the student. Bullying is his means to express his strong emotion.

Anyway, what the teacher said was unsophisticated. The student could understand bullying is bad or violence is bad. The problem is not why bullying is bad either. The problem is why this student could not understand his emotion by reason and language. The teacher’s duty was not only tell students knowledge what was prohibited but also should help students to develop their cognitive ability to understand their emotion as language. Moreover, that teacher would have understood the feelings and emotions of him. The teacher might be responsible for not telling him how to develop patient attitude toward outstanding people.

Despite, someone might argue that understanding some situations by emotion is more significant than by reason. This person even may argue that the victim has responsibility to be bulled and the victim could have had more cooperative attitudes toward students. This is undoubtedly unreasonable. The modernism presupposes the ego with thinking thing (cogito) but not presuppose the ego without thinking thing (cogito).

This presupposition is neither truth nor absoluteness of the human beings, but it was widespread consensus and promises among modern citizens.If someone rejects this consensus, then he/she also will reject modernism. The person who argues the problem based on this kind of reasoning is an enemy of the modern civilization. I was lamented by seeing the book written by this kind of silly logic. The example which I pointed out is a typical bullying case. It is not seemed to be paid special attention.

Yet, I think this example can provide a lot of interesting points to be analyzed seriously. That case can light shed on the numerous points; the role and duty for teachers, the limitation of acceptance to cultural differences, whether seeking for the identity of the classroom or not, and what is the definition of bullying? If I analyze all of these problems, I can write a book for this topic.

Anyway, let me focus on the definition of bullying. Bullying is often done by several persons to one person or a few persons. The problem I point out is whether there are qualitative differences between a quarrel and a bullying. How these are different? Is it possible to say that a bullying is bad but a quarrel is not?

Take into consideration of the case; it is obvious that there was no quarrel but a bullying. A quarrel requires for at least two people to have the will to start a quarrel each other. In that case, no will was found from the victim. He did not have any will to quarrel. There was only violence. This was asymmetry conflicts; rather it was completely unidirectional conflicts and there is also found in the world as well.

How to cope with this situation for the victim?

In this specific case, the victim can avoid injured if he transfer into another school. He also can adapt to this environment by exposing more corporative attitudes or playing such kind of behavior. It can also be alterative to cope with this situation by discussing in class.

This specific case exemplified the immature and emotional conflicts. It is; however, these kinds of conflicts are observable in the society where immature adults live. If this is true, and criticize and disrespect its immaturity, then it cannot change this immature conflict structure. If people want to change the structure of superiority, then they must change the conflicts structure. What does it mean? I will be back this problem light after analyzing other examples.

  1. Pre-Conflicts: A Conflict Case 2.

It has been passed for ten years since a person worked. He was over 30 years old. He was not interested in working so much or he was not special hobby. He was unmarried and a single. He lived independently from his family, and he felt it abnormal that the thin human relationship was built. He has no friend, although he made some communication with his colleagues and sometimes he went drinking with them. Nevertheless, he was not interested in doing so. He just did so because it was custom. He thought that he should not make personal relationship in a company. Thus, it was natural that he did not have any rivalry relationship or solidarity with his colleagues.

He might have feelings to build the human relationship that needs to consider introspection of other people. Yet, he might not know how to build such kind of relationship, and he might not want to be involved in annoying psychological problems. He said that he had never met the person who was interested in. It can be the problem of his sensitivity or he can believe that he was not an interesting person. As I discussed before, conflicts presuppose relationship. If this is true, then there is no conflict in this case. Is it true or is it preferable due to no conflict? I define this situation; there is no relationship, as a pre-conflict stage.

It is a global phenomenon that in sociological field, thin human relationship became a hot topic. People who feel loneliness in the city are not a few. There are people who have a lot of friends, although they cannot build interpersonal relationship in the inner level. It can be one leading question to analyze the phenomenon why people have to build this interpersonal relationship.

To begin with the analysis of this question, I will discuss the opposite case.

It is how people can build good emotional relationship. The key factors I assume are respect, love, empathy, and compassion. These emotional factors can be produced by personal relationship. Fellow feeling can be one of the opposite as well. It is, however, I will not analyze because this feelings are indirect feelings these are produced via organization. Conflicts between organizations will be argued in the next chapter. It seems to be unreasonable that recognizing the opposite notion from the philosophy of conflicts as good. Yet, I hypothesize this as good temporally.

Respecting people are feelings come out with jealousy and envy evaluated by some specific values and perspectives. Empathy is produced by pleasure elicited by sharing some specific values each other. Values in this context are not limited by the representation of language. It can be value which is expressed by arts or nonverbal activities. It can be better to be understood to say “the world” instead of values. Attachment with “the world” can produce special ties between people.

Friendships or compassion are not the things to be discovered. These are born and raised unconsciously. I think that it might not be an appropriate example; however, I argue the case of loving dog. Who will ask the values=the world to a dog in feeling compassion with a dog? My point is not to say that the creature must be respected equally but my point for this example is to love what or not to love what is the matter to be argued by human’s wisdom. It does not seem to be plausible to elucidate these questions if the neuroscience might develop incredibly. Rather, considering the statement what is has to be loved is in vain. It would express the deficiency of the decency toward the love.

Interpersonal relationships?defined as inner relationships with people?can be the origin of the conflict and the pleasure. Would it be better to say that it is the origin of the chaos? In other words, pleasure, sadness and angry are originated in the chaos. Would it be fair to say that it is the essential part of the human beings?

If it is true, then I can conclude that absence of the human relationship is pre-conflict from the interpersonal conflict perspectives. It is; however, fair to say that the structure of the phenomenon is conflict against a life.

  1. Identity: A Conflict Case 3

Here is a conflict story between two people who are working in the same company. One of them is a worker, and the other is a manager and is a supervisor of him. Let’s say, Tom for worker and Jason for the manager. The relationship between Tom and Jason were not bad. One day, Jason blamed Tom for putting Tom’s favorite figure on the desk in the office. Jason said, “This figure is not appropriate to have because you are mature adult.” This trivial phrase dramatically changed their relationship. For Jason, this figure was valueless whereas this figure was one of the significant symbols which embody Tom’s value. Thus, it was unacceptable violation for Tom to be blamed for having this figure and he might feel disrespect from Jason. Tom started having antagonistic attitudes because of this unacceptable attack from Jason afterwards. Jason noticed this attitudinal change, although he did not notice the reason. Tom became less conscientious for working and he felt uneasiness in seeing Jason’s face. Tom still puts his favorite figure on the desk.

I will discuss not the figure but identity. I wonder if the figure for him may be the idle for religion. If it is true, then it can be inappropriate to bring such religious and holly items in the office. A lot of company prohibit bringing the religious items, although Tom’s favorite figure are a clearly religious item or not.

Alternative interpretation is that it can be a star for Tom but not religious item. The constitution protects the freedom of speech, thoughts and religion. If this alternative interpretation is true, it can argue that Jason’s behavior can be considered to harm this freedom.

Now, I do not argue the questions: who should be judge and how should the judge evaluate specific value. Instead, I will answer the question why this situation is caused. It is reasonable to think that judgments are unavoidable and the judge must be human beings. In the case argued above, it is not required to judge and no possibility to be judged. In many cases, I assume that the conflicts are usually not judged, and are invisible or covered up. I think that people initially assert their situation that they are injured their identity when they felt disrespect, disgrace and when they guess its reason.

Identity is unique. Not a few cases are invisible from others. People feel their identity when they are affiliated with specific social and cultural groups. Family, the place where people were born, school, a company, a club, a party, a group with sharing specific interests, a religious group, social activist party, a political party, a social position, a career, generation, ethnicity, nation, and specific historical views, all of them can be the origin of the identity. If people analyze the identity of themselves or others, then they can notice that the strength differences among demographic characters, or notice that some characters are not consciously recognized, or notice the distorted and complicated figures of identity.

Identity is an extension of social and cultural aspects of self-recognition. Therefore, people can feel pride, self-awareness, responsibility for the group or notions which can produce solidarity with them. Identity?these characteristics produced by the solidarity with specific group or notions?must not be disproved or disrespected. Rather it must be natural and sound, although it depends on the characteristics of the group or notion.

Considering the case of a baseball game, a pitcher threw a ball at the middle of high where an idle batter of a pitcher can easily hit a homerun, without thinking a team. This case must be criticized. If he exposed this thought, he could be expelled from a team, and no team could recruit him. A game exists when the players recognize their identity each other. If this game is inside of the civilization, then there must be respect each other. It is, however, in real world, not a few coaches told players that they should have antagonistic mind as if they were killing the members of the other team. It did not violate the law, so it can be protected due to the right of freedom of speech. It is free to do so, however, not a few people think it is immoral.

Some people might feel their school as their identity. There are many people who graduated from the famous institutions take a pride of their educated school, even though they do not explicitly say so. Yet, I do not understand how to evaluate such people who graduated the most prestigious schools and do not make any contributions for the academia or the society. I highly expect that they would make a contribution not to devaluate their institution, although those people who think as I thought are minority.

Thanks to the fame of the school, it is nothing more than the psychological effects to believe exaggerated self. Nevertheless, people are prone to have overestimated images of them. For instance, I heard many cases that corporations recruit people as executives those who graduated the most prestigious institutions, even though just appeal their company to the public. One professor said that the purpose of the university is to sale the name and fame to students. It is true because it is impossible to obtain the brand of the most prestigious school if the individual do not graduate from that school.

Identity has both positive and negative meanings. On the one hand, it can facilitate and promote the activation and development of a specific group. On the other hand, it can also provide the cause and reason of conflicts with people. Considering its effect to individuals, it can be true that excessive and exaggerated identity can cause satisfaction and pleasure. This, however, can also make people machine that can be functioned as a part of the organization. This is the case that individual lose their identity. Yet, someone might justify this situation as right way of life not as a result of depraved identity. Revaluation of self-identity and imagining others identity must be valuable in order to live with furthering the understanding of human nature and the society.

  1. Conflicts and Interests: A Conflict Case4

Here is a story between a person who work as a chief of the human resource department, and a person who work as a head of a section of the same department. Name James for the former and Alex for the latter. In the human resource department, the reformation of the evaluation for people was discussed in order to adapt the current economic environment. James and Alex were agreed with the basic concepts of the reformation plan. This section is special because a lot of people are working only for this section and as a result, the solidarity between people is strong.

James changed his attitude toward the reformation plan when they provide the document with the member of the meeting to discuss this reformation plan. He said that the reformation plan will not be accepted by the workers above 40 years old, and he told Alex that this plan should be completely revised. Not only was Alex perplexed, but also other colleagues of him were so. Alex was perplexed because the meeting will be held in a month. It seemed too impossible for him to revise and write a new document for the meeting. Moreover, Alex was not sure what kind of reformation plan can be acceptable because James did not point out specific points. Furthermore, Alex was responsible for making this reformation plan. He was afraid of being penalized if he cannot make a new reformation plan only a month. Thus, Alex became nervous with James.

James rejected the reformation plan because he thought his interests. He calculated the effect of the new plan. As a result, he notices that he could lose 20,000,000 yen for life-earnings if this plan was passed. James knew that this plan was profitable for the company, although he did not want to accept this plan because of his interests. He also thought that Alex was responsible for this plan. He knew that he would not receive any damage if this plan was not accepted.

In this case, they share the same goal, values and means. In addition, their personal relationship was not distracted. It is; however, it must be recalled the fact that the differences in the standpoints can cause different interests. There are few people who can free from their own standpoint. Moreover, it may harm others.

It is really difficult to give up the status quo for people even though they believe that the society should be more equal. It is extremely difficult to free from own standpoints. It is easy to criticize that behavior as egoism, although it is also easy to advocate egoism. Thus, the problem is the limitation of the egoism. The egoists want to be recognized their maximum autonomy regulated by the law and culture. They try to argue that minimum regulation of autonomy whereas anti-egoists argue to maximize the minimum regulation. This debate is in vain because most of the problems are end of the spectrum.

The strength of the standpoint is different. In this case, James is in a stronger standpoint than Alex. James utilized his position to reject the reformation plan. I do not want to argue that the problem is strength and weakness of each standpoint. It is inevitable that there are strong and weak standpoints in the world. In some cases, these differences are large and fixed, but in the other case, are not.

In this case, I am not sure that Alex who seemed to be a weaker standpoint did counterattack or he might be succeeded as a result of the attack. Differences in standpoints are different from the relationship between dominance and obedience. Foucault pointed out the fact that there is some sort of freedom, and this freedom produces the power and it was represented as different standpoints. If there is no freedom between dominance and obedience, then it can eliminate standpoints and it can be the condition that the complete domination eliminates the notion of the domination. It eventually eliminates the notion of the standpoints.

People are affiliated with the multiple societies and multiple standpoints. Some might devote his life to utter their idealism whereas the others might devote their life to criticize egoism. I am thinking of both and consider to how to balance these different notions. I am not sure that I can have another option.

I am not able to sympathize with the optimists who ignored the real world or egoists who cannot understand others. As Shakespeare says, “All the world stage, every men and women were merely players.” It is not the problem of judgment whether it is good or evil but it is reality in the worlds. Standpoints or interests are naturally produced. It is not reasonable to reject and disprove that fact. Rather, people should recognize themselves as players in the world.

  1. Pressure of Tolerance

Interpersonal conflicts, in many cases, converts into conflicts of feelings. If the conflicts are in the field of academia, it is really rare case that people cannot bring its conflicts to friendship. Conflicts in religion are also easily converted into conflicts of feelings, if there is a man of religion who is expected to have tolerance, or a man who told that one achieved enlightenment and call them as a man of religion. In both cases, these are preferred conflicts because there are grounds to conflicts.

Conflicts of feelings can be expressed as “unforgivable”. Unforgivable feelings can be attributed to the fact of the past, to the conflicts of thoughts or to cultural differences. Some might attribute these feelings to physiological sense, to emotion, or to “no reason”. If someone threats property or life, then unforgivable feelings can come out. Unforgivable feelings can be elicited by reason or unreason, although there are a few individuals who think its origin. It is because the feelings of unforgivable are temporal feelings that alleviate, extinct or shut it up before it is converted into concrete conflicts.

In a daily life, in many cases, cost is greater than the benefit to express individual conflicts. It is impossible to obtain larger gain than the cost except for winning the litigation or settlements that enables for people to get a large amount of compensation. Conflicts are much larger costs for organization and the society than individuals. The case which is required to corporative attitudes or tolerance is recommended not because it is a moral but because it is profitable. One of the ideal goals of education is to cope with individual conflicts by smoothly and sociably.

Considering to the Japanese society, its social condition? corporative attitudes are excessively demanded?prevent them from maturation of conflicts. Suppressed conflict energy is released to the target as bullying because bullying is a rare opportunity to release this energy. The unique Japanese bullying as social pathology? a lot of people can be forced to have corporative attitudes toward to the person who is bullying? is attributed to the absence of reasonable conflict experiences.

One of the remedies for this social pathology is to make people understand that rejecting or ignoring of unforgivable feelings as negative is unreasonable. People who speak ill of their supervisor with drinking should not be disrespect as immaturity of self-regulation. Whatever the form is, it is important to express or recognize these feelings. Excessive suppression as tolerance can distort the recognition of their natural feelings. It is required that people should notice its risk to distort people’s recognition and feelings.

It is also true that speaking ill of their supervisor with their colleagues cannot be conflicts. The important point here is to judge if it should be the problem to be dealt with speaking ill of or should make it real conflicts. If individual always attempt to avoid any conflicts because of cost-benefits calculations, then they may be prone to select the option which seems to make maximum profits. Yet, someone may have this thought as belief or may think it is inevitable judgments. There is however, not a few people disagree with that belief. These people believe that people can change their future society by their will and have the will to seek for the better world. It is natural that there are conflicts between people who recognize and take responsibility to long term goals, and people who are prone to get short term benefits.

Expressing conflicts can convert asymmetrical conflicts into symmetrical conflicts. In order to express conflicts, it needs to be the better grounds and technique of conflicts. That better grounds have to allow people to express their conflicts with reason and language in front of the opponents but not expressing as violation, speaking ill of, or conspiracy.

This is the opened and flattered world where there is easy access to the Internet. The Internet can allow people to expose their information and utterance. This indicates that the Internet can be used as a basis or an infrastructure of conflicts. I think that people should use the Internet as means for this purpose.

The important lessons from the philosophy of conflicts are what people should reevaluate the origin of conflicts, should have the will to express conflicts beyond personal interests without thinking conflicts as negative, should make better grounds to reasonable conflicts, should have enough experiences of conflicts, should exclude the excessive corporation and should fight against tolerance pressure. Having these attitudes is the responsibility for future, and can produce hope and can help to preserve humanity.

Taking a conflict position appropriately is far better choice to suppress their feelings to avoid making conflicts in a daily life. Appropriate conflicts mean what expressing true reason and tell the reason of unforgivable feelings appropriately. It is easy to say. It is; however, difficult to practice it if there are asymmetry between standpoints. If people face to such a case, then they should consider the strategy that enables for individuals to express the conflicts and take an advantage of them. In this case, interpersonal conflicts turned into conflicts which connect to the third party.

  1. Indifference

Some philosopher thinks that human beings have progressed when it comes to morality since the modern age. The reason is that people can feel unforgivable feelings for unreasonable harm or injury of people who live in the opposite side on the earth or other parts on the earth in general beyond race and ethnicity.

Individuals who do not have that kind of feelings cannot say so because they think it is shameful, evil, anti-intelligence and anti-modernistic attitudes to speak so. It became a common sense that people, as the same human beings, cannot recognize poverty or anti-humanistic behavior or harm, as a result of these behavior, as just. It is usually argued that moral evolution occurred in human beings because of extension of interests and empathy.

A lot of philosophy of success demands that people should have sincere interests in others. It means that people who have no interests cannot be successful. In this context, having interests are praised and indifference are criticized.

The critical point is that these interests are not the same. Interests argued in the context of moral evolution are not interests in people but in the moral society. If there are interests in people in this context, then these interests may be the by-product of the interests in the moral society. It is the same interests if people are interested in their own society. In this case, people are interested in the way to the society but not in individuals as well.

The more extending people’s interests, the more the view point of the interests move toward the society from individuals. The more increase the interests in the society, the more decrease the interests in people in the real world. The society is divided into the small societies and becoming diverse: life-style, preferences, special fields of expertise and interpersonal relationship. If people are meeting neighbors, then people may meet with them as a member of different groups. I do not focus on whether it’s good or not. I just believe that it is important to note the fact that the post-modern people are always separating interests in people from interests in the society. This idea is necessary to think about the different conflicts between an individual vs. an organization /society.

I heard the story about an elite student who was jailed because of excessive demonstration about workers’ right. This student did not have conversation with workers who were also in the jail. It indicated that the student was interested in the thought but not in people.

It is also the similar story that a person who is interested in human rights may not be interested in people. These people are not a few. Rather, it seems to be clear tendency of the modern society. I may be the one of them.

Is there anyone who you are talking with but you are not interested in? Why?

Is it because of the deficiency of empathy or of benefits? Is it because of conflicts? Conflicts can generate either strong interests or indifferences. In many cases, risks are in the indifferences. I do not care about philosophy of success; however, I think it is important to have some interests and not to be indifferent in any case. It is not necessary to have strong interests but to have minimum interests so that it can facilitate in understanding the others.

c 2011 Research Institute of Gentarou Kurosaki(Japan)

The Survival of the Fittest in the Age of the Cyber Economics.

The Survival of the Fittest in the Age of the Cyber Economics.

Theme of the Essay:

How Can Japanese Companies Make Profits Models and Rectify Japanese Brand for Economic Growth: How You Can Make an Innovation with 21Century Conditions?

Contents

1. Preface
2. The age of the Cyber Economics
3. Reconstruction of Profits Models
4. Game Theory
5. Remedies for Rectification of Japanese Brand
6. Dealing with External Economy

Profile of the Author
Gentarou Kurosaki
Born in 1961
Research Institute of Gentarou Kurosaki(Japan)

Profile of the Translator
Yu Takioka
Born in 1988
Affiliated with University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology

Abstract

In this essay, I analyze and describe the special conditions of the Japanese companies under the new age of the world economy. I argue this special conditions and possible suggestions for regrowth the Japanese economy from 4 different perspectives (1 ) Reconstruction of the profits models (2) Game Theory (3) Remedies for rectification of Japanese Brand (4) Dealing with the external economy under the special conditions.


1. Preface

The objective that I applied to this essay contest is to claim the topic of this essay contest itself. I felt discomfort of the distinction such as “Japanese-capital company” and of the direction of “growing policy”. In this global age, why do you have to distinguish “Japanese-capital company” from “foreign-capital company”? For instance, the CEO of SONY, one of the most famous Japanese companies, is Howard Stringer.
How about Nissan? How about Small and Medium Enterprises that there are more than half employees’ nationalities are foreign? How about the percentage of the foreign nationalities of the stake holders for the companies that is represented in Primary Tokyo Stock Exchange? How about the Japanese company but is located on foreign countries?

In these days, Japanese athletes were refused to use its institution of the company whose capital is in Japan during the Beijing Olympic. Emphasizing “Japan” and commonsense of this discourse can be one of the issues of the globalization age.
In my opinion, the essence of the globalization is not Neo-liberalism but technological innovations (Tokunaga 1991). As global broadcast broke down the wall of Berlin, pervasiveness of the Internet caused the world to be flatter than before (Freedman 2008). Moreover, development of mathematics caused financial engineering, and it is merged with the Internet technology, which produced the “Cyber Economics”.
To be analyzing this globalization, it is indispensable that the global economic environment is completely different form the 1980’s capitalism. There are some people those who call this environment financial-capitalism which is connoted sarcastic tone, although I would like to call it the Cyber Economics which is named by Kojima (2001).
I believe that this is political correct and it represents the real situations more precisely. Derivative minimizes the risk and it enables large amount of speculations. Gigantic capitals are immediately transferred into the other countries. Consequently, this mathematics can make it present even though it must be future profit, although it is inevitable that it contains uncertainty. For example, the fund established by the Myron Scholes, who was the novel laureate and found The Black-Scholes Equation, went bankrupt and the world economy faces with serious danger due to subprime issues. As, George Solos used the term the explosion of the Super-bubble to describe current situation, it is certain that economic environment can contain uncertainty.
However, if we claim anti-globalism because of paying attention to the negative influences, then it would not be logical or not be reasonable. (Even though you point out some of the issues of the globalization, it cannot refute the Globalism itself.)
I point out that the central issue for the Globalization is how we can adjust to the Cyber Economics. In these circumstances, there is nonsense if we distinguish Japanese-capital company and foreign-capital company. The most critical points are the Japanese economy and Japanese people. Excessively conservative attitude or strategy for holding their status quo is not for the profit for the Japanese economy and Japanese people. In this Cyber Economic age, it does not make sense that distinguishing the nationality and capital of the companies. In terms of the claim for the growing policy is arguing in the different chapter.

2. The age of the Cyber Economics.
The critical issue in the Cyber Economics is that the more profitable a company is the higher risk of being the target of buyouts. The differences between investment and speculation are not vague; however, I remark these differences.
Investment is an activity for utilizing the capital for expected productive factors which would produce profits in the future. For instance, an individual who expects dividends is an investor. While, a speculation is an activity that an individual who attempts to make a gain by changing the market value. An individual who makes a profit by changing the value of the stock is called a speculator.
People might preserve a little amount of stocks and make a little profit. The big capital and the funds attempt to purchase not the stocks of the companies but companies themselves. It is called an age of the big M&A: a large number of companies merge for protecting the company from antagonistic M&A, and some companies attempt to antagonistic M&A in these days.
Executives must be concern about the Tobin’s q— a ratio of total market value of firm divided by total asset value— and ROE. The noticeable significance which executives must consider is neither the amount of the sales nor the share of the markets. The executives must reconsider the common sense of the pre-Cyber Economics, and even they must be skeptic whether that common sense would not make any sense. Mass Media also notice that the pre-Cyber Economic common sense would not be applicable to this new economic environment.
Taking into consideration around the Japanese economy, Japan is not only the decreasing its competitive competency in the world economics but also it has become fewer competitors in the Asian Economy. Despite this paradigm shift has gone, a few executives recognized this change. It would be impossible for many companies to survive in this new economic paradigm unless the executives recognize this change and get out of the ghost of the common sense of the pre-Cyber Economics age.
Another aspects of the Cyber Economy are the increasing the gaps between the rich and the poor, and employment issues. In the United States, the family which their earnings are more than 1million has become double, and it reached 9,000,000 families through 1995 to 2004( Frank 2007). Considering the Japanese culture, it may not be possible to become the same country as the United States; however, it can be true that it is inevitable that the higher knowledge society can produce the considerable amount of gaps between the rich and poor.
The reason of causing this gaps and employment issues are dependent of two different types of employment. The first type of employment is the employment which is corresponded to the capabilities of individuals, whereas another type of the employment is the employment which is corresponded to the institutionalized wellbeing functions. The former seeks for the higher salary and can select the working environment. The latter, however, cannot seek for higher salary and the job is replaceable. Moreover, it is often determined by the employers.
It is undoubtedly true that the increasing the number of non-regular full time workers and the decreasing the number of regular full time workers can limit increasing the average wedges. This leads to the shrinkage of the domestic demands. According to the White paper on the labor economy in 2008, it stated that the limitation of the average wedge can cause to reduce the productivity. It is annoying issues. It is true that the technological development leads to decrease employments. There was a hot debate over the work-sharing several years ago. Who argues that issue now?
P.F. Drucker once stated that the meanings of the corporations are about bankrupt and being excluded from the market if they do not make a profit. It is, however, decreasing the number of employment. If you try to expand wellbeing employment, then you would need to build up the strong financial basis.
Considering this fact, it comes to be the “Turning Point” to think about the strategy for raising multiple new industries for Economic growth, but not for individual strategy for surviving. In my opinion, these can be tourism, agriculture, contents and design industries. It is not appropriate to think about the old age stereotype that Japan is the country which can make profits from the exporting and it is dependent on the second industry.

3. Reconstruction of the Profit Models.
The essences of the corporations are the distinctive technique, knowledge and the culture. It is no value as corporation if they do not provide special values. Some executives might say that they do not have distinctive products. It is, however, not exactly correct. In other words, they just do not notice their special values which would give competitive competency in the market. If every employee has detailed information for the faithful customers, it can be the distinctive values for the corporation.
Adrian Slywotzky (2002) argued this “customer-solution profit models” in the first chapter of his book named The Art of the Profitability. In this book, he also argues 23 profits models including time profit models and special production models. It does not necessary means that there are the only 23 models for making profits but the point is to establish the profit models based on special values for the corporations, and to challenge the new models and to be success by these new models.
I think that many corporations cannot make profits from their special values. The old-fashioned strategy based on the break-even point is no longer the strategy or the profits model. It is the fundamental steps. The issue is that how you can establish the quality of the strategy and the profit models. Moreover, I think that it might not be organized by the higher management level, although it might be shared as the part of the strategy in each section. This issue lights shed on the sense of the strategy making and the effectiveness of the strategy. In addition, that strategy must be dealing with the issues of the age of Cyber Economics. It is essential that executives and strategists must recognize the appropriate strategy to the Cyber Economic conditions.
Nonetheless, there are Japanese employment cultures which can be an obstacle for thinking about the appropriate strategy for survival in these new conditions. It is reasonable that paying higher salary whatever the age is if the one has the excellent capabilities. Despite, few corporations can do that. An excellent worker—at least workers those who believe that they are to be an excellent— is tend to work for the foreign capital companies, financial companies, and think-tank. David Ogrubi stated that peanuts are just enough to hire a monkey. It seems to be quite exaggerated, but I believe that it can be real. Many companies do not pay enough money to hire an excellent workers but the company pay much consulting fees by excellent workers. It is rare that the rewards are successful rewards. The company which would not reconsider these kinds of cultures cannot have competitive competency in the world market. I would reemphasize that the obstacle is Japanese employment cultures.
In these days, some people reevaluate the Japanese employment cultures, including permanent employment and the “Nenkojyoretsu payment system”, the Japanese cultural employment system that the wedge is dependent on the age and experiences but not on their competency. I suggest that they must adherence to the dream of the old-fashioned Japanese culture which used to guarantee the success. I strongly believe that these cultural issues are actually not to be dealt with by the corporations, but by the government as a wellbeing policy.

4. Game Theory
It is critical that understanding the position and environment around the company to make a vision statement of a company. The PEST analysis—it is a comprehensible macro analysis that accounts for the factor of politics, environment, society, and technique—provides a company with useful information to make an appropriate vision statement. Limitation and degree of the PEST analysis are dependent on the category, such as a global player, a regional player or a domestic player.
On the one hand, a company whose volume of sales is small might become a global player. If those small companies have a special advantage to produce precision equipment, then they could gain the higher amount of shares in that market. On the other hand, a company whose volume of business is large might not become a global player if they do not recognize their special values.
Advancing overseas in order to enlarge the volume of sales is not only nonsense, but also it is high risk. There were not a few companies which failed their business. These exemplified that it is not appropriate means to just enlarge the volume of sales to make a vision statement true. The enlargement of the volume of sales is nothing more than one of the indications of the vision statement. A vision statement is essential values and meanings of the company, and it embodies the existence of the company itself.
In the old capitalism, the pre-cyber economics, competition has always been encouraged and an oligopolistic market has been criticized as bad. The competition in the market has been considered to be a condition that produces fair trade. Current Game Theory, however, proved that the model of Complete competition would not guarantee the equal and free market. The Nash equilibrium –that is the converged point where it is resulted from the consequences of strategy for each player, although it is proven that this point does not guarantee the Pareto efficiency point— under the non-cooperative game indicates that situation. In other words, if two companies make a competition between them by discounting products, then both of them would go bankrupt. This is one of the examples that the non-cooperative game model can lead to social loss.
I understand that fair trade is significant and the law regulates the oligopoly. In addition, people’s interests in fair trade are extremely high and consultation before the bid is absolutely unacceptable because it violates the CSR. Despite, it is absolutely necessary that to reconsider the strategy for the market to beat the rival by Game Theory. The significant implication from this perspective is not that you should fight because you can win but you should select the strategy which can make the profits maximum. It is fact that ROE of Japanese companies is relatively lower than the average of foreign companies. It seemed to be the result of the old-fashioned mentality of the executives that they prioritize enlargement of the volume of the sales and the share in the market rather than raising ROE.
I argued that the core of the strategy for companies is dependent on the profit models in the previous chapter. In the marketing field, 3C –customer, company and competition—are considered to be significant; however, it is not enough to build an appropriate strategy. Moreover, it needs to the perspective from Game Theory to account for beating competitors. It is too complicated to be described in this essay, although cooperative models are better studied than the non-cooperative models. Executives must weigh the profit models which are resulted from the Game Theory.

5. Remedy for Rectification of Japanese Brand

It is no doubt that the manufacture industry spurred the miracle economic growth. Moreover, it is fair to say that this was the result of initiative by Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Nevertheless, Japanese Brand –as I discussed in the previous chapter— has already become cliché and it has been lost the actual values. The value of Japanese Brand resides only in cooperated brand, category brand and production brand.
I reconsider the definition of the brand. What is the definition of the brand? It is not only the symbols which can differentiate it from another, but it may also represent its credibility and it may even cause attachment to customers. The value of the brand can be defined as a power that can legitimate the value differences from another, and it can override the disadvantage of utility or quality of it. If it is not true, then it is unable to explain why luxury brands can be preferred to another. Thorstein Veblen, however, might claim that the power of the brand cannot cause attachment to customers but can represent the ones’ self-assertiveness.
I rejected the differentiation between Japanese and foreign company per se in the first chapter, although I did not discredit that the individuality of the nation, land and culture of Japan have a potential to contribute to reestablishing the new Japanese Brand. Rather, I point out that companies have to make profits by its specialty of Japanese Brand and it has to give its profits back to the companies and the Japanese people. In terms of the manufacture industry, the world is flattered. Technique and the ideas can easily trespass the borders between countries. As well as the manufacture industry, the labors in the service industry can trespass the borders through telephone lines. One of the call-center of the Japanese computer companies is located on China, and the Chinese labor can respond to the questions in fluent Japanese. Moreover, system engineers can create the software with colleagues live in the other countries in their home due to the borderless world.
It is understandable that the pride of the old-fashioned industry brand, although it is unreasonable to think about that the manufacture industry can lead the economics and can survive in the world again. It is indispensable that to develop new industries and new demands. Obviously, this does not advocate the advancing overseas without a vision statement.
Reconsidering Japanese strength, there are three potential candidates for rectifying Japanese Brand. First, it is true that there are plentiful tourist resources and attractions. It is worthwhile to promote the Tourism Nation in order to rectification of Japanese Brand. Additionally, this can be a remedy of depopulation of the rural areas. Therefore, the government has to ponder over these ideas seriously.
Second, Fishing and farming industries can also contribute to establishing new Japanese Brand. It was used to be said that the best fish in Hokkaido was transported to Tsukiji, a fishing market located in Tokyo, although it is transported to Hong Kong in these days. Thus, it is valuable that to build a reputation that the Japanese food is high quality and security. It can also enhance the self-sustenance rate of foods in Japan.
The last and not least, Manga, the Japanese cartoons, can be a significant candidate to rebuild Japanese Brand. In this year, “Slam Dunk” and “Death Note”—
a Japanese high quality Manga and a movie— were positively evaluated in the United States; however, the profits of these were not returned to Japan. This is the issue to be discussed to how to produce profits from these contents and how to promote these contents. I remark the fact that the flattered world presupposes the world where the common spoken language is English. Thus, it is extremely disadvantage if English competency is poor.

6.Dealing with External Economy.
Environmental issues were recognized to be one of the most critical concerns in the 21st century. This can be interpreted as a typical external economy problem: this is a problem that can produce losses for people who do not engage in a specific economic activity such as producing and consuming. Kojima (2006) disapproved to impose Pigovian tax—a tax for imposing a negative consequences as a result of economic activity such as environmental tax— for dealing with external economy. He argued that estimation of the negative effects of the specific economic activity is not calculable.
Despite, I think that it is reasonable to impose environmental tax if this is considered to be the problem which is calculated by Game Theory. The more the environment is devastated, the more people concerns with environmental problem, namely, with CSR for companies. Ecological images of companies are critical to establish the positive brand images. Although it is impossible to estimate its effects as figure, it is crystal-clear that it would not harm the environment. If these premises are true, then it is also true that the Pigovian tax cannot reduce the profits of companies.
Finally, I reemphasize that old-fashioned common sense was dead. Rather, it is inevitable to think about the new strategy and about reestablishing the new Japanese Brand, which enables to survive in the 21century economic conditions. This age is the literally “Turning Point” of the civilization, as P. F. Drucker altered, whether the Japanese companies, people, and Brand can establish the new models, strategy and the new Japanese Brand in order to regrowth of the Japanese economics and survive in the age of Cyber Economics or not. Although this seems to be difficult to overcome this unprecedented economic environment, I hope that the Japanese companies threw the old myth away and rebuild the new legacy for future economic success.


References
Kojima, H. (2001). The Cyber Economics. Shinchousha Publishing,Co.,Ltd.
(2006). Economics for Ecolgists. TOYO KEIZAI, INC.

Frank, R. (2007). Richistan: A Journey Through the American Wealth Boom and the
Lives of the New Rich. New York: Three Rivers Press, Inc.

Friedman, T. (2008).THE WORLD IS FLAT: THE GLOBALIZED WORLD IN THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. Translated in Japanese. NIKKEI, INC.

Slywotzky, A. (2002).The Art of Profitability. Translated in Japanese. Diamond, INC.

Tokunaga, I. (1991).Information Changes the World:The Age of Satellite and
Borderless. Maruzen Co., Ltd.

ブログ一覧

1.ある愚者の生涯  はてなブログ
旧:次世代文明研究所別館
研究所のメインブログです。

2.文学秘密基地@白井京月  アメブロ
白井京月のオフィシャルサイトです。
今はニュースリリース専用です。

3.狂月日誌  ライブドア
2012年6月から2020年3月までの精神疾患日誌です。

4.場末泡沫の霊界通信  むらごん
きまぐれに書いてます。

5.お気楽サバイバー研究所  gooブログ
社会問題の討議の場でした。

6.白井京月の読書メモ  はてなブログ
2009年5月に始めた最初のブログです。
内容は一番濃い。
2014年7月を最後に、更新していません。

7.素振り文武両道  はてなブログ
くろいぬさんの人気ブログです。
メインブログを凌駕しています。

8.白井京月の世界 mixi
代表的論文、対立の哲学の後釜です。

9.カクヨム/白井京月 カクヨム
文学関係のメインサイトです。
「精神疾患日誌」「狂った季節」「ちょっとシュールなショートショート」「私の履歴書」「バックギャモンな人々」「宇宙人会議」「銀河の使者コピコ」「白井京月・詩集」ほか、いろいろ書いてます。

10.FC2小説/白井京月 FC2小説
昔の、小説、詩のサイトです。今は更新していません。

にほんブログ村 ライフスタイルブログ ささやかな暮らしへ
にほんブログ村

知識人のための36章

1.人間とは何か
2.現代日本のクレイジーな価値観
3.ニートのための10章
4.精神科医療とは何か
5.国家と雇用そして勤労の地平線
6.言葉はどこまで自由か
7.意識の商品化という悪夢
8.日本は貧困国なのか
9.闘技的民主主義
10.労働という神話装置
11.心理主義の危険
12.活動に対する存在の優位
13.知性は重要か-人間、昆虫、ロボット
14.価格と賃金の経済理論
15.「健全な従属」と「野心」
16.欲望進化論
17.SNSの光と影
18.世界経済の大潮流
19.進化経済学の視座
20.ポスト・グローバリゼーション
21.権力・システム・生活
22.生物学的反人生論
23.黒い経済成長
24.人間らしさの世紀
25.センチメントな主権議論
26.貧困の基準を考えよう
27.生活保護から最低時給を考える
28.日本は厚みを増す貧困層にどう対応するのか
29.貧困の撲滅
30.全日本喫煙飲酒自由党
31.道化師の不在
32.人生のテンプレート
33.認識の欠落と非対称性ー次世代と旧世代
34.生態人類学から見た未来予測
35.グローバル階級の誕生と民族意識
36.令和に思ふ

 

旧トップ


http://gentaroukurosaki.blogspot.com/

黒崎玄太郎研究所とは、2011年4月に設立された、超特異な研究所です。

玄太郎というのは、世界的に有名な著作「アメリカのデモクラシー」(A.トクヴィル)を日本語に翻訳した井伊玄太郎氏に因んだ名前です。特定の個人の本名ではありません。
因みにトクヴィルは、民主政治の堕落と腐敗を予見した人です。

さて、本研究所のテーマは、狂騒の現代文明の文法を解体し、更新することです。

現代文明が終わり、次世代文明を生きる人々の快適な生活に貢献できればと考えています、としていましたが改めます。

新しい研究領域は「精神疾患とその周辺」です。

増え続ける精神疾患と、巨大利権について。

1.精神疾患とは何なのか?

2.精神病患者が増える理由

3.拡大する精神病薬市場の実態

4.日本の福祉制度の概要と問題点

書こうと思いましたが、力及ばず。やめました。爆
しかし、2020年は何かやりますよ。乞う、ご期待。

(令和二年元旦、最終更新)

ブログ

次世代文明研究所別館
文学秘密基地@白井京月
白井京月の読書メモ
素振り文武両道

にほんブログ村 ライフスタイルブログ ささやかな暮らしへ
にほんブログ村

テーマ曲「愛の湧き出る泉」

白井京月の世界

「狂った季節」

「宇宙人会議」

「銀河の使者コピコ」

「詩集。ロバート劇場、ほか」

対立の哲学

対立の哲学、日本語ブログ版。

The Philosophy of Conflicts

 

対立の哲学

予備的な省察

黒崎玄太郎(2009年1月)

■序文

「和」を強要するよりも、

「対立」を許容する方が、

はるかに理性的であり、

はるかに健全である。

合意などあり得ない。

合意はゴールではない。

誤った目標が最悪の対立を生んでしまう。

ならば、より合理的な対立を模索するべきだ。

より良い対立を。

対立の哲学こそ、最も平和的なのだ。

より良い形での持続的な対立を実現すること。

平和は消極的な形でしか達成できない。

それは悲観でもなければ、楽観でもない

1.怒り

楽しみにしていた遠足が雨で中止になったからといって天候に怒る人はいない。いるかもしれないが、それは圧倒的に少数だ。一体何に対して怒ればいいのか。自然か、地球か、神か、物理法則、あるいは日本海に張り出した高気圧に対して怒りをぶつけるのか。そんな人は見たことがない。こういう場合 の通常の感情は、悲しいとか残念に思う、落胆する、失望するなどだ。

道で野良犬に噛まれた場合、その犬に対して怒るだろうか。特別な状況を除いては怒らないのが普通だろう。怒るとすれば、そのような野良犬を放置した行政に対してだろうか。

一方、友人が待ち合わせの時間に遅れたり、約束を破ったような場合に怒る人というのは珍しくない。また、挨拶がなかった、中元をよこさな い、俺に相談がない、あの態度は何だ、といって本気で怒る人達もいる。なぜ怒るのか。それは、自らが常識であり当然であると考える行為を、他者が示さなかったからだ。自らが当然と考える行為。多くの場合、それは合理性の無い個人的なビリーフだ。私に言わせれば、そのような怒りは無知に基づくのであり、つ まらないことで怒ってばかりいる人は軽蔑されて当然なのである。そのような怒りは、自らの幼児性と想像力の欠如を表明しているだけのことだ。

しかし、怒って当然という場合もあるでしょう、と反論されるかもしれない。マナーの悪い奴が許せないという人もいる。むしろ誰も怒らないこ とが問題ではないですか、と。そうだろうか。怒ると叱るはまるで違う。怒るは感情に属するが、叱るは理性に属する。通常の大人ならば、そのような場合に生 まれる感情は怒りではなく、落胆か軽蔑か嫌悪、あるいは悲しみか憐れみか不快感ではなかろうか。より賢明な人であるならば、その程度の状況ではまるで感情 が動かないだろう。

人間の社会には文化規範がある。それを遵守するべきなのは言うまでもない。しかし、現在は文化も多様化している。一人の人が複数の文化に日 常的に接している。そこでは、当然のこととして、規範も使い分けられる。昔ながらの一つの文化に固執し、それを美学だと思っている人もいるが、お好きにど うぞとしか言いようがない。要は文化的な差異の認識が出来ていないだけで、スロライクゾーンが狭いだけの話だ。多文化の、めまぐるしく変化する時代であ る。そのような怒りはただ、差異を認識できないか、許容できないかのいずれかだ。(まあ、嫌悪感くらいなら妥当だろうが)この程度の怒りは論ずる対象にす らならない。とは言え、このレベルの怒りで殺人事件まで起こる世の中だから、注意は必要だろう。

怒りというからには、のどかな話ばかりするわけには行かない。親族を誰かに殺された場合、その犯人に向けられる怒りは当然のこととされている。戦争の犠牲になった場合の怒りというものもある。その怒りは憎悪と結びつき、復讐にまで発展するかもしれない。このような重大な犯罪に対する怒りとは正当なものなのだろうか。さらに、復讐まで正当化されるのだろうか。

この怒りの前提に、相手が同じ人間であるという認識があることは明白だ。いうこと、同じ人間だから許せないのだ。この認識がなければ、それは怒りではなく敵意である。

怒りという感情を否定する理性優先の論理もある。しかし、私にはそう簡単に結論を出して良い問題だとは思えない。感情より理性を優先させな かればいけないのはなぜか。そして、それは常にそうあるべきだという例外のない原則なのか。ならば、人間にとって感情とは何なのか。感情があるからこそ 人間ではないのか。

最近では迅速な意思決定が賞賛される風潮にあるが、知の伝統として、重要な決定は遅ければ遅いほどよいという見解もある。ここでは結論を保留して次に進もう。

2.内と外

組織とか共同体と呼ばれるものは、必ずそこに、内と外を分ける壁を作る。作ることを強く意識する場合もあるし、あまり意識することなく自然に壁が出来る場合もある。家族、学校、会社、趣味のサークル、市町村、国、地域社会、日本社会、国際社会。性格や規模がちがっても、内と外という関係に変わりはない。

共同体は、明示されているか否かは別にして、理念や目的を持ち、特定の価値観を共有する。共同体の内部では秩序を維持するために同質化の圧 力が働く。効率を上げるためにメンバーの役割が示される。適応できない者は、最終的に排除される。それが家族であっても同じである。勘当とか家出とか離婚 だ。

内部の結束を高めるために、もっとも良く用いられる手法が、外部に敵や脅威を想定することだ。これによって、共同体は、より<閉じた>ものとなる。逆に、外部との友好な関係を拡大しようという戦略は<開いた>ものと言えるだろう。

日本は昔から「日本論」や「日本人論」が好きだが、そのような傾向自体が普遍的であるということにすら気がつかない人が多い。そのような 「独自性」にアイデンティティを求めるというのは、普遍的な傾向なのだ。ただ、そのような議論が行き過ぎると、<閉じた>傾向も持つ場合が多いので注意が 必要だ。

ある高名な学者は、自らのヨーロッパでの留学経験をもとに「日本に社会は無い、日本にあるのは社会ではなく世間だけだ。」と述べ、このコン セプトで何冊もの本を書いている。また、ある有名な評論家は「サラリーマンは個人ではない」と言い放った。こういった言説は、そうなんだよなあ、という感 想を持ちやすく、ややもすると納得してしまいそうになるという点で、きわめてたちが悪い。このような言説は、近代が築き上げた良質の部分を侵食し、近代否 定の論理へと容易に転化する。すなわち、民主主義そのものの否定である。発言する側に、そのような想像力が欠如しているのか、あるいは、それこそが意図なのか、については言及しないでおこう。ただ、私たち は言説を評価するに際して、その内容に対して冷静であるだけでなく、その言説によって生じる影響についても、想像力を働かせる必要があるのだろう。

なにも、近代をそして民主主義を絶対視するのでも至高のものと崇めるのでもない。批判される部分も改善すべき部分も大いにあることは認識している。ただ、このような形で近代を否定するのは乱雑に過ぎるのであり、近代の良質の部分は歴史的遺産として大切に継承しなければなるまい。

私たちは今、多くの共同体に属している。その中での貢献が認められれば、賞賛され、より高い地位、あるいはより高い報酬が得られる。あるい は、その貢献は正義と位置づけられるかもしれない。また、その組織が社会的に高い評価を得ていれば、地位や名誉は共同体の内部に留まらないだろう。

ただ、どのような共同体の中にあっても、その内と外に対する十分な観察を忘れてはならない。そしてまた、いかに崇高な理念に基づくものであれ、行き過ぎると反対物に転化してしまうということを知らなければいけない。

国際化された時代を生きる中で、<開いた>戦略が、<閉じた>戦略より優れていることは言うまでもあるまい。そして組織も、また個人も<開 いた>状態を志向したいものだ。内と外の壁を認識しながらも、外に対する眼差しを忘れないこと。それは、外のためだけでなく、内のためでもあるのだ。「情けは人のためならず」の本義でもある。

3.格差

格差の拡大が社会問題として取り上げることが多くなった。各種の経済統計もそれを裏付けており、それを政府の責任として非難する人たちもいる。政府の政策に不満を持つ人たちがいる。それらの人たちの非難の鉾先は、政府や閣僚にとどまらない。市場原理主義や、資本主義一般にまで向けられたりする。

下流と自称する人たちに、「今の社会は、ほぼ機会平等です」とか、「パレート最適と言えます」などと説明しても納得は得られない。それどこ ろか、彼らの怒りを増すだけに終わる。そもそも、平等という概念は、自然権としての権利の平等のことだ。結果としての格差を認めない、あるいは私有財産制 そのものを否定するという人たちは圧倒的に少数派であり、彼らは夢想家とよばれ、一般的には相手にされない。

格差は何も経済的 なものだけではない。各種の能力、技術、知識、人脈、人望、人気、関心を持つ領域とその深さなどなど、格差は歴然として存在する。人は生まれて以降、差異 ないし個性を拡大する方向に成長して行く。私有財産の否定というのは、格差の一部を消そうとすることだ。それが、どれだけ多くの自由を失い、より悪い性質 の格差を増すだけのものであることを知らないというのは悲しい。人間は誰一人として同じではないという事実を前提にするのか、人間は皆おなじであるべきだ という理念を前提にするのか。スタート地点が異なれば、目指すべき方向も違う。このような場合、どこから対話をはじめればいいのだろう。

日本の現在(2006年)の問題は、経済学的にどのような格差が妥当なのかという議論ではない。現実の問題は「格差」という言葉の背後にある「貧困」である。格差の拡大が問題なのではなく、貧困貧困一歩手前の層の増大が問題なのだ。いかにして貧困を減らすかという問題が、格差はどの程度が望ましいのか、という問題にすり替えられている。議論されなければならないのは、生存権レベルの問題だというのに。

原因は、正規雇用の減少と年功序列賃金制度の半崩壊である。雇用という労働形態そのものが問われる時代になったということだ。雇用は福祉の一部である。国が雇用の促進を画策し、完全雇用を目指すのは、それが福祉だからだ。経済的な合理性から言えば雇用されないであろう人にも、何とか働いてもらうことで生活してもらうというのが基本方針なのだ。しかし、経済環境の変化、産業構造の変化は、従来のこの考え方に大きな転換を迫っている。

「世界に目を向けると、1日3ドル以下で生活している人が何億人といます。世界の貧困に目を向けましょう。」と叫ぶ慈善家は多い。ただ、そのような世界と現在の日本を単純に比較するわけにはいかない。世界には、お金がなくても普通に生活し、生きて行ける社会もある。しかし、日本の場合はちがう。経済活動は全面的に貨幣に依存している。お金が無くなれば飢えて死ぬ。そういう社会だ。

文明が進歩すれば、必要とされる労働が減るのは自然なことだ。一昔前は労働時間の削減や、労働からの解放こそがスローガンではなかったか。 それが実現可能なものとして見えてきた時に、それを問題視するなど本末転倒だ。いまさら、労働というものを美化する必要もあるまい。まして、雇用という 「奴隷的労働形態」は、歴史的に見ればここ数百年の歴史しか持たない特殊な制度で ある。いずれ消滅すると考えても間違いではないだろう。そのような時代の変化を背景に現れたのが、「ベーシック・インカム論」ではなかろうか。つまり、すべての人に基本的な生活に必要なお金を配ることが政府の役割であるとする考え方である。政府が雇用を供給できないのであれば、生存権を平等に保証する義務 があると考えられるからだ。

格差の拡大を問題視する人たちの多くは、根本的な間違えを犯している。政府に平等を実現する能力がなければならないとする事が、まず間違え だ。そんな神の如き能力のある政府など、存在するはずがない。結果としての格差の縮小という目標を掲げるべきだというのも、正義ではなく、個人的な信念に 過ぎない。ましてや、資本主義が悪いなどという主張は論理的な大飛躍であり、論外だろう。真に主張すべきは、貧困の解消という点にしかないのではなかろうか。

厄介なのは、この問題を自らの政治的影響力のために利用しようとする人たちである。彼らは議論をすり替える。そのような非論理的な説が、今のマスメディアでは無批判に流通する。ここでも、「対立する精神」と「対立する技術」が求められている。安易な対立の回避が最悪の対立を生む。

4.道徳

人間は、種の本能に基づく世界観と、言語で構成される文化的世界観という二つの世界を抱えている。丸山圭三郎はこれを「身分け構造」「言分け構造」と呼んだ。この二つの世界は決して統合されることがない。いつも引き裂かれ、傷つき、痛み、悩みながら生きること。それが、言語を持ってしまった 「人間」の宿命なのだ。

動物の世界には、正義も悪もない。動物はただ本能に基づいて行動しているだけだ。欲求に従うこと。それがどれだけ残酷に見えたとしても、それは自然であるに過ぎない。意思が介在することはない。

本能に基づく生理的な欲求と、文化的な次元の欲望とを分けて考えるという人もいる。欲求には正当性があるが、欲望の多くは過剰であると主張 する人達だ。しかし、これは滑稽な話だ。人間には純粋な欲求などもはや無い。すべての欲求は欲望と混ざりあっているのであり、それを区分することなど不可 能な事だ。人間とは本能の壊れた動物、あるいは本能を壊した動物だ。「人間に本能はない。あるのは本能残基だけだ」とも言われる。その通りだろう。睡眠だけは純粋に生理的だなどと思ってはいけない。夢ほど文化が輻輳する空間はない。人間であるということは、文化内存在であるということだ。欲望と欲求の関係 で識別できるのは、生理的な要素を含むか否かという点においてだけなのだが、これすらもかなり難しい問題を孕んでいると言えよう。

貪欲は、昔は大罪とされていた。しかし今では成功の条件であり美徳とすら言われる。巷には、文化も欲望も氾濫している。それに魅力を感じる か否か、あるいは嫌悪感や危機感を感じるか否かは人それぞれだ。言語が過剰であるとするならば、文化も過剰であり、欲望も過剰に違いない。しかし、過剰だ からといって制限できるような性質ものではあるまい。もはや、過剰を受け入れるしかない。節制や質素も立派な欲望だ。禁欲すらも欲望の一種だ。逃げ道な ど、どこにも無い。

人が社会の中で地位を築き、富を貯え、名声を得ようと努力することは正当なことだ。このような欲望は正常なものとして評価されるし、むしろ 必要な欲望と言うべきかもしれない。組織に対して貢献することで評価され、それにふさわしい地位と報酬が与えられる。ここで要求されているのは、どう機能 するかという「道具的な価値」である。人は自らの道具としての価値を高めるために努力し、またその価値を誇りに思う。それはそれで素晴らしい。しかし、そ の価値にだけ目を奪われると、道具としては優秀だが人間味に欠けたつまらない人になってしまう。かっこ良くて金も地位も申し分ないけれども、話ていてまっ たくつまらない人というのもいる。さらに、本人は素晴らしい話をしていると思い込んでいるから大変だ。もっとも「金持ちの戯言は格言になる」という諺もあ るので、こういう話をありがたがる人も少なくないのかもしれない。それはそれで、また頭の痛い話である。

逆に、人間的には実に面白いのだが、組織には馴染まないし、道具としてはさっぱり役に立たないという人もいる。いわゆる社会不適応だ。もち ろん、これは極端な例なのだが、道具としての階段を上がって行くと、世界はどんどんと道具的なものに見えてくる。人間を地位や所得で評価する傾向が強くな る。さらには、人間的なものへの関心が薄れて行く。これが官僚社会の病理と言われるものだ。「とんでもない。今の世の中で最も換金性の高い能力は人格なん ですよ」と反論する人も見かける。この説は本当なのだろうか?

人間は文化内存在であるとともに社会内存在である。その中で人は当然のように役割を担う。それが強い強制力を持つ場合もあるし、自らの意思 にそぐわない場合もある。自由が尊重される時代の中でも、人は多くの部分で縛られている。それは環境と言っても良い。一般的に言えば、環境受容能力が高け れば高いほど、生きるのが上手い。逆に、自由意志を尊重する傾向が強過ぎたり、理想主義的 な傾向が強いと不満も多くなる。しかし、文化も、また社会も人間が作り出すものであり、より良い方向へ変更可能なものだ。であるならば、個人的には環境に 適応する方が幸福かもしれないが、全体の利益を考えるならば、より理性的に自由意志を働かせることの方が重要であるとも言える。意思に基づいて環境を変え る力を人間は持っている。逆に、悪い方向へと変える力も。

社会に対して何もしない、というのも一つの選択であり行為である。何もしないことに対して問われる責任もある。そんな責任などない、という 主張もあるだろう。責任を問われるほどの力は持っていない、と言えるのかもしれない。しかし、道徳とは単に規範を遵守することではない。権威や体制に服従 することでもない。道徳とはまさに市民としての自覚なのであり、これこそが道徳的であるかどうかの境界線である。

残念なことだが、道徳的な人は少数派なのかもしれない。

5.時代

私たちの生きている現代とはどういう時代なのか。疲弊した近代。テロの世紀。帝国の時代。知識情報社会。管理社会。インターネットの時代な どなど。見る方向はいくらでもあるし、それについての認識や評価も多様である。物理的には同じ時代を生きていても、人によってその認識は大きく異なる。こ れは、現代ではなく歴史となった過去についてでも同じことだ。いまや、真理などという形而上学に合理性はない。これがポストモダンの切り拓いた地平である。すべては相対化された。文化相対主義。それは植民地解放の論理的な支えでもあったのだが、今やこの相対主義は、当初の思想が基礎としていた自由と民主主義という概念すらも特権的なものではないのだという理論に転用されている。それは正しい。特権性などどこにもないのだ。

ポストモダンは、モダンの基盤である「絶対性」を否定した。近代の中にある「抑圧」や「管理」を攻撃した。それは妥当であり意義のあることだ。しかし、近代が多くの問題を抱えているという事実と、近代の残した遺産を放棄するべきだという主張とは、まったく別の問題だ。自由、人権、民主主義の出自と、その現在における価値とを同列に扱う必要はない。これは、現代のリベラリストの一般的な認識である。

私たちはもはや真理や合理性などというものを求めてはいない。形而上学などというものは存在しない。そのような発想自体が宗教的なものだ。 宗教を否定しているのではなく、それは宗教の領域だと示しているだけだ。では、何を根拠に自由を主張しているのか。多数性に依存するのか、歴史的な優越性を主張するのか。そうではない。そのような根拠を示す必要などない。自らの確信を表明するだけで十分なのだ。経済学者のシュンペーターは次のように言った。「自己の確信の妥当性が相対的なものであることを自覚し、しかもひるむことなくその信念を表明すること、これこそが文明人を野蛮人から区別する点である」と。

近代には光も影もある。美点も欠点もある。しかし、改善できる余地は多分にあるのではないだろうか。欠点だけを見て、美点を切り捨てることは得策とは言えまい。まして、誰がその後の政治的展望を示せただろうか。

時代の認識においても、目指すべきものについても、あるいは価値についても、到底理解し得ない深い溝がいくつもあるだろう。統一などという 幻想を抱くことは明らかに間違っている。対話や、文化的科学的な進歩が相互理解を促進すると考えるのも幻想だ。事実は、対立が必然であるということだけで はなかろうか。

問題は、いかに理性的に、暴力や戦争といった惨事を、あるいは差別や貧困といった苦痛を回避しながら、対立をうまく継続させるのかという事でしかないように思われる。これこそが、現代の現実的な目標であり課題なのだ。

私たちの内面性は近代以降急速に進歩した。イー・フー・トゥアンの研究によると、近代において、内面性を示す語彙は膨大に増え、それらが語 られる機会も増えた。日常的な残忍さは大きく減少した。さらには、人類という同胞意識が生まれたのも近代以降のことだ。地球の裏側で飢餓に苦しむ人の事を 思って胸が痛むなどという心情も極めて現代的な感覚である。戦争は科学技術によって破壊的になったが、心が蝕まれたと考えるべき根拠は少ない。これは一つの希望だと思う。

6.公と私

ある人はこう嘆く。あまりにも個人の自由が優先されてしまった結果、社会の秩序が崩れてしまったと。そして、公の規範を強く打ち出すことを主張する。もちろん、この場合の秩序というのは権力と権威の単純明快なヒエラルキーのことだろう。しかし、本当に個人は自由に溢れているのだろうか。

独立した自由な個人など、どこでお目にかかれるだろうか。<公>というものの圧力に服従するだけの存在。それが<私>の現実ではないの か。<公>が示す選択肢から、何かを選択するだけの存在。毎朝、電車で会社に行き、毎日同じような仕事をして家に帰る。それによって、何とか食料を確保す る。週に2回の休日も<公>が提供するエンターテイメントを有り難く消費するだけだ。情報も思索もメディアに 反応するだけのことであり、どう反応したところで、すべては<公>の想定内だ。私的な領域。そんなものが残されているだろうか。私的な空間は存在しても、 その空間はすべて<公>によって支配されている。フェリックス・ガタリの表現を借りれば「市場的な主観性への自己放棄」が生じているのだ。

別に放棄したくて放棄するわけではない。放棄せざる得ない状況があるということだ。古臭い表現を用いるなら「自己家畜化」だ。人間が人間自 らを家畜化すること。自由を失う代償は安全と生存だ。会社の中で偉いさんと称される人が辞令一枚で引越しだ。いったい何が偉いのか意味不明である。組織の 中のヒエラルキーなど、モチベーションを高める手段でしかない。そんなものに騙されて何十年も過ごす人が山のようにいる。可哀相な人がたくさんいる。

<私>はもはや、ひとつの記号になってしまった。そういう問題意識が<個人>や<精神>といった視点から鋭く指摘されている。公の復権を叫 ぶ人がいるだけではなく、私の復活を叫ぶ人たちがいる。ここでは<公>という概念を政府に限定してはいない。権力としての社会。それが現在の<公>の実相 ではあるまいか。

そもそも、公と私は対立を孕んではいるものの矛盾するものではなかった。より良い<私>を実現するためには、よりよい<公>が必要とな る。<公>のために<私>を犠牲にするのは、それが最終的にはより良い<私>になると判断するからである。問題はこの判断が分かれる点にあるのではないの か。

いや、そんな事ではない。<私>などは眼中に無く、美しき秩序である<公>こそが人類の価値なのだという、正反対の主張をする人たちもい る。あるいは、より良い<私>というものを、<公>への奉仕や貢献へと置き換えるかもしれない。それにしても、こういう人達は、どういう立場で発言をして いるおつもりなのか。<私的>な発言ではないと強弁するのだろうか。

それにしても厄介な状況だ。公を支える私なるものは存在しない。私に貢献すべき公は腐敗し混乱している。そんな認識が正しいならば、絶望の 他に何があるだろうか。もはや権力は自由自在だ。いや、権力間の闘争だけがある。権力の関心は公にも私にもない。関心があるとすれば、それは目的としてで はなく手段としてに過ぎない。

公や私という概念もまた権力に利用されようとしている。私たちは注意深く概念のすり替えに気づかなければならない。本来ならばそれはジャーナリズムやメディアの役割なのだが、彼らは信用に値しない。彼らも立派に権力の一部なのだから。

7.権力と暴力

権力とは何かという問いに対する答えは一つではない。スティーヴン・ルークスによれば、「Aという主体がBに何かをさせる一次元的な権力。 さらに、Aが複数化する二次元的な権力。そして、AがBを洗脳し、もはやBからはAの存在が認識できなくなる三次元的な権力」に分類される。私たちには権 力の存在が見えているのか。これは重要な問いかけである。

また、フーコーは、権力はあらゆる人間関係の中に権力は存在し、それは上からではなく下から発生するのだと言う。このような権力の性質についてここでは論じない。これは、国家といった大文字の権力ではなく小文字の権力だからだ。 ここで論じるのは大文字の権力だ。

権力の最大の特性は、それが正当な暴力を独占しているという点にある。これこそが近代国民国家の持つ権力の本質である。ここで言う暴力とは、もちろん警察力と軍事力のことだ。犯罪や、あるいは「悪」に対する暴力は、法律がこれを認める。したがって、権力が資本やメディアの中に認められるとしても、権力の根幹は国家でしかない、ということになる。

しかしながら、ネグリとハートによるならば、東西冷戦の終結以降、つまり1990年代になって国家の権力は弱体化し、替わって登場するのが、国家のネットワークとしての権力<帝国>なのだと言う。国家を超えた権力の登場。私たちはそういう時代にいるらしい。問題は国際法でも人道的見地でもなく、「グローバル秩序」になったのだと彼らは指摘する。そして、戦争は例外的状況ではなく日常的状況になったのだと。さらに、現代の戦争では強者と弱者の力関係は明白であり、強者の側は戦死者を出さないという目標すら立てているのだ。権力も、そして戦争も、新しい状況に突入している。

そもそも、権力と私たちはいかなる関係にあるのだろうか。正常な関係とは、服従と依存だろう。一定の服従の代わりに、安全や秩序、効率や豊 かさ、安心や平和を得ること。そうでなければ、私たちは権力を認めない。そのような状況では、権力に対する抵抗や反発、嫌悪、敵意が充満する一方で、権力 は恐怖を与える。問題は権力そのものではなく、権力のあり方なのではないのか。アナーキズムは理論的には理想かもしれないが、まったく現実的ではない。

権力を求めることは、自らの優位性を一時的なものから長期的なものへ、さらには世代を超えた永続的なものにしたいという意思を持つことだ。 幸いなことか、不幸なことかは別として、現代社会はそれを可能にする要素に満ち溢れている。何と言っても、富は蓄積し相続することが可能であるばかりか、 増殖させることが出来る。現代において富は権力そのものと言っても良い。権力は多くの欲求と欲望を満たす道具である。

私たちはもはや、権力なしでは、ろくな暮らしは出来ないと考えている。いや、実際に権力に依存しなくては生きられないような社会になってい る。そして、より良い社会とは、さらに全面的に権力に依存していれば良い社会なのだとすら考えている。それは恐らく幻想なのだが、それが幻想だと考える時 間が与えられることはない。そんな事を言い出すと、「難しいことを考えてないで、もっと楽しみましょうよ」と諭される。今や、欲望や快楽を追求することは 社会によって推奨されている。少なくとも、考えることよりは。

前にも書いた通り、権力の最大の特性は暴力を正当に行使できるという点にある。暴力。それに対してはいろいろな見方がある。暴力を人間存在 の本質と見る哲学者もいれば、暴力を非正常な状態と見る哲学者もいる。さらには、暴力を聖なるものとする哲学者もいる。しかし、私はこのような解釈の方法 自体に疑問を持つ。そもそも、この点について普遍的な人間の本質などというものが存在しうるだろうか、と考えるからだ。暴力を好む者もいれば、嫌う者もい る。単なる嗜好とか性質の問題ではないのだろうか。

暴力は、それが手段であるというだけではなく、それ自体が目的であるという場合もある。手段であるならば代替案が存在するだろうが、目的であるならば代替はない。では、暴力それ自体が目的になるとは、どういうことなのか。

権力や暴力に限らず、力というものには魔性が宿る。力が強大であればあるほど、その力には魔力が備わる。人はそこに、崇高なものや、神聖なものを見い出してしまう。それは容易に善悪を超える。理性はまず、この魔力と戦わなければならない。そして、私たちが権力というものに、すなわち暴力の構造に組み込まれた主体であることを自覚しなければいけない。

多くの人が権力の腐敗や不正を非難しながらも、権力に対する尊敬と恭順を示す。それが、本音である場合もあるし、打算である場合もあるだろう。権力は服従する者の狡さと卑しさを熟知している。魔力に流される時、魔力に呑みこまれた時、権力は暴力という牙を剥く。

8.善悪

処世が善か悪かを問うことに意味は無い。それは、善悪の問題ではなく必要なのだ。そのような設問は、その基準からして誤っている。 人間は社会性の動物なのだから、社会に適応しなくては生きて行けない。

さて、少しだけ哲学的になろう。

善悪とは何だろうか。

過去には、絶対的な善や悪を想定した哲学者が多数いたが、 そのようなものが存在しないことは、現代知識人の常識だ。 あるとするならば、<社会的悪><道徳的悪><経済的悪><宗教的悪>などの括弧つきの悪なのであって、<絶対的悪>ではない。

<絶対的悪>などというものは不可知であるということではなく、存在しないのだ。

子供は、「嘘をつくことは悪いことですよ」と教育される一方で、心理学者は嘘を覚えることで人は子供から大人になると言う。「嘘つきは泥棒 の始まり」という諺とともに「嘘も方便」という諺もある。嘘は<絶対的な悪>ではない。(絶対的な悪など存在しないのだから)ただ、嘘をつくと信用を失う 場合があるし、嘘つきだというレッテルを貼られると明らかに損だろう。また、それが裁判等での証言であれば、偽証という罪になる。逆に、上手い嘘は社会の 潤滑油にもなるし、幾多の利益の源泉ともなるだろう。

では、人を殺すことは悪いことだろうか。これも<絶対的悪>ではない。(絶対的な悪など存在しないのだから)ただ、人を殺すことは、<社会 的な悪>として裁きを受ける可能性が高い。私たちは社会で共生する動物として、そのような危険分子を排除するように努めるし、裁きを加える。死刑論、死刑 廃止論には言及するまい。議論がそれるからだ。これには死刑そのものの<倫理的な善悪>という議論だけではなく、いろいろな観点がからんでくる。

個人的な殺人は悪だが戦争は異なるという議論もある。それは、超法規的な世界、勝てばすべては正義になるという思想である。これも<絶対的な悪>ではない。(絶対的な悪など存在しないのだから)ただ、現代社会は、戦争は回避すべきであるという考え方が主流である。それは、もっぱら<倫理的視座>に基づくものであり、人権や人道の領域に属する。

悪名高い「優生思想」(優れた遺伝子が残り、劣った遺伝子は淘汰されるべきだという思想)にも、隠れた支持者は多い。私はもちろん、「優生思想」には反対なのだが、その理由は弱者の権利によるのではなく、何が優で何が劣かは人間に判断できるような問題ではないし、神がいたとしても、それは判 断できないと考えるからだ。

自分に危害を加えるかもしれない野獣が近くにいたとして、貴方は持っている銃の引き金を引かないだろうか。動物愛護の精神から、引き金を引 くことを躊躇うだろうか。もしも、それが野獣ではなく、危険な人間だったならばどうだろうか。生きるということは、本質的に<戦い>という側面を持つので ある。

さて、いろいろとある悪の中で、一番の悪は何だろうか。

逆説的だが、それは行過ぎた善である。

<社会的悪>を細部まで示そうとすると、どうなるだろうか?

グレーゾーンの白黒を決めると、どうなるだろうか?

殺人が犯罪であることに反対の人は極めて少ない。では、すべての隣人を愛せよ、となるとどうだろうか? 日常生活で、嘘をつくことが犯罪になったらどうだろうか? 愛国心(そんなものは定義によるが)の無いことが犯罪になるとしたらどうだろうか? それは、人間的自由、人間的自然、あるいは<生>の否定である。

浅薄に相対論を批判するのではなく、浅薄な相対論を批判するべきなのだ。私たちは、<絶対的な善悪>など存在しないことを知りながら<善悪>を問う。それは、矛盾ではない。

9.対立の射程

民主主義とは最終的には数の論理だ。より大きな合意を得るためには各論など語らない方が良いことは明白だろう。究極の目標である平和や自由や愛や平等という幻想を与えることで、より多くの共感を獲得し連帯を誇示する。改革や国家が キーワードになる場合もあるだろう。そして皮肉なことに、平和と自由のために、あるいは人道的見地から、空爆が繰り返される。近代の光と影にどう向き合う のか。その認識は差異に満ちている。差異はそのまま対立と置き換えても良い。認識の対立。価値観の対立。立場の対立。感情的な対立。世界とは対立に他なら ない。

愛という魔法の語彙にしても、その形は対立に溢れている。子供を谷底に突き落とす愛もある。愛の鞭という暴力の肯定もある。恋愛。家族愛。郷土愛。母校愛。愛社精神。祖国への愛。人類愛。愛という文字は共通しているものの、その性質は大きく異なる。ある人は国家への愛と人類愛は対立する愛であると語り、ある人は国家への愛が人類愛に通じると説く。私はと言えば人類愛にすら否定的だ。恋愛や家族愛は理解できる。その対象は自らが知っている者だ。しかし、同胞となるとどうだろうか。同じ人種、同じ民族、あるいは同じ人類というだけで、個の姿は想像であり虚像だからだ。一般的な愛(LOVE)は動物、生命全般、あるいは宇宙 にまで延長可能な性質を持つ。それは悪いことではないのかもしれないが。

さてしかし、人類愛を行動に移すとなると、傲慢と怠慢が溢れ出す。先進国の自由と民主主義そして資本主義を素晴らしいと考えるヒューマニストは、これを封建主義の途上国に普及することが善や正義だと錯覚する。そして、開発の美名のもとに貧困を生み、人道的見地から部隊を派遣する。それらは、愛という言葉で許されるのだろうか。これらは優位を自覚する者の驕りに過ぎないのではないのか。私は観念としての愛を否定する。そんな愛は、愛される側に言わせれば迷惑に違いない。

崇高な目標を共有していても、具体的な方策はなにひとつ一致しない。あるのは、双方の妥協という合意か、力関係による合意、あるいは決裂だけだ。とりあえずの連帯に何が期待できるだろうか。それよりも対立を明確にし、対立を前提として、その中から何かを見い出そうとするアプローチの方が遙かに知的であり有益なように思われる。完全なる一致は目標であるどころか全体主義的な、あるいは民主主義的な悪弊である。目指すべきは対立点を明確にし、それを認め合うことだ。大衆を一括りに認識することなど完全なる誤謬である。心理学用語ではこれを「過度の一般化」という。対立の哲学は、統一や連帯を求めたりはしない。対立を整理し、現実的な解答を得ること。対立を決してネガティブに捉えないこと。むしろ、それが明確になることに喜びを感じること。さらに、対立を感情的な対立に転化しないこと。これが対立の哲学の基本的な立ち位置だ。

対立の哲学がまず第一に要求することは、あらゆる他者に対する敬意である。先進国のヒューマニストに途上国の飢餓に苦しむ人々への敬意があ るだろうか。僭越な言い方かもしれないが、そこにあるのは憐れみと優越感ではないのか。敬意とは尊重であって援助ではない。ただ、現実の局面においては敬 意の原則が難しくなる場合もあるだろう。嫌悪や敵意は望ましくないと知りながらもやってくる。ただ、不思議なことに、敬意は嫌悪とも共存できる。相互が敬 意を持った時、はじめて対立が成立する。言い換えれば、敬意の無い対立は対立と呼ぶに値しないのであり、対立以前なのだ。そのような対立を「対立前対立」 とでも呼ぶことにしよう。

なぜ敬意なのか。それは、対立という知的な営みを行おうとする者にとって、必然的に備わる態度なのだと私は思う。すべての人は、生きていく 中で常に最善と思われる行動を選択してきたはずだ。それが犯罪であれ、不合理なことであったとしても、その選択は真実なのである。そのような「生」に対し て敬意を持てないという理性は未熟に過ぎる。

対立の哲学が目指すものは、対立との共生と言っても良い。対立から逃げないこと。対立を隠蔽しないこと。対立を受容すること。これが、対立の哲学の原点だ。

ここで提起される最初の問題は、対立の射程である。「相互に敬意を持たない対立」=「対立前対立」という状態を対立の哲学は射程に収められ るのか。それは、簡単に言えば野蛮な状態だ。この「野蛮な対立」を「知的な対立」という土俵に引きずり込めないのであれば、「対立の哲学」は生きた哲学と 言えない。当然ではあるが、対立の哲学は、この野蛮な状態を射程に入れて行われる。

10.事例ー1 いじめ

「とくに理由なんて無いですよ。何となく気にいらないってとこかな。」いじめをしたA君は教師にそう言った。 理由はない。もちろん、理由を分析することはできる。想像することもできる。いじめを受けたB君は、A君に何もしていない。 B君は言った。「A君に対する感情は、恐怖と不安、それだけです。A君がいるような学校には行きません。」

教師はA君に言った。「いじめは悪いことです。もう、いじめてはいけませんよ。」

理由は無かった。それは嘘である。A君は理由を理解していないし、それを理解しようとしていないだけのことだ。B君は帰国子女でクラスの中 でも異質な存在だった。臆することなく反対意見を述べる子供だった。A君はそういうB君を自分とは異なる種類の存在として、ある種の脅威と不快を感じてい たのだ。A君は、その不快感が何であるのかを言葉に出来なかった。しかし、何らかの手段でそれを表現したいとする情動はあった。その情動は、極めて強いも のだった。そして、その表現の形式が「いじめ」となったのだ。

それにしても、この教師の対応は稚拙に過ぎる。いじめは いけない。暴力はいけない。その程度の認識はA君にもあったはずだ。問題は、それがなぜいけないのか、という点でもない。そうではなく、A君が情動を、そ の情動の理由を、理性=言語で理解できなかった、しようとしなかったという点にこそある。教師の役割は、そのような理性の発達を促すことなのであり、何が 禁止されていて、何が禁止されていないかという知識を教えるだけでは不十分なのだ。

また、教師はA君の情動と心理を理解する必要がある。異質なものに対して寛容な態度がとれるようになるには、どうすれば良いのか。それを教えられなかった教師にも責任があるかもしれない。

しかし、一方ではそのような理性よりも情動を優先させようという議論もある。むしろ、いじめら れる側に問題があるのであり、協調性を育むべきだと主張するのだ。もちろん、これは暴論である。近代文明は、コギト(考える私)を前提にしているのであっ て、コギトなきエゴ(自我)という存在は想定していない。これは、真理とか絶対性の問題ではなく、広汎な合意であり、約束事なのだ。この約束事を否定する ということは、文明の放棄であり、議論の対象とすべき事柄ではない。そのような議論をする人は、反文明主義者であり、文明の敵と言っても言い過ぎではな い。余談だが、最近の日本の書店には、この文明の敵と呼べる本が山積みになっている。実に嘆かわしい現象だ。

どこにでもあるような事例だが、ここから引き出される論点は極めて多い。教師の役割とは何なのか。異文化をどこまで許容すべきなのか。クラスのアイデンティティをどこに求めるのか、あるいは求めない方が良いのか。どこからがいじめで、どこまでがいじめではないのかなど、それだけで一冊の本にできるくらいだ。

また、いじめは通常、多数で徒党を組んで一人ないし少数の者に対して行われる。では、いじめと、1対1の喧嘩の間に、どのような質的な差異があるのだろうか。いじめは良くないが、喧嘩なら良いと言えるのだろうか。

しかし、この事例の場合、A君とB君の間に喧嘩はなかった。あったのは、いじめだ けである。喧嘩は、双方にその意思が存在してはじめて成立するものだが、B君には喧嘩をする意思などなかったのだ。一方的な暴力。このような非対称な対 立。いや非対称というよりも完全に一方的な対立というものも、この世界には存在する。では、B君はどうすれば良いのだろう。

この場合は、学校を変わることで障害を回避できるかもしれない。あるいは、現実の環境(クラスの同質性)に適応するべく協調的な態度や行動を演じることも出来るだろう。もしかすると、いじめの問題についてクラスで徹底的に議論することが望ましいのかもしれない。

情動による一方的な対立。これはなにも、未熟な子供の世界に留まらない。未熟な大人の社会にも存在する。しかし、それを未熟だと非難し、軽 蔑するだけでは対立の構造は変わらない。優位に立つには、対立の構造を変化させなければならない。対立の構造を変化させるとは、どういうことなのか。これ については、いくつかの事例を検討した後で整理することにしよう。

11.事例ー2 対立未満

会社に就職して10年以上が過ぎた。30を過ぎたが、仕事に情熱を傾けるわけでもなく、特に趣味があるわけでもない。結婚もしていないし、交際している女性もいない。両親とは疎遠であり、学生時代から一人暮らしを続けている。それに不満があるわけではない。ただ漠然と、この人間関係の希薄さは異常なのではないのかと感じている。

会社に友達はいない。もちろん挨拶はするし、普通に会話はする。飲みに行くこともある。ただ、それらは儀礼的な形なのであって、それ以上で も以下でもない。そこには人間的な興味や関心はまったくない。会社の中に私的な人間関係を持ち込むことは良くないことだと考えているのだから、こうなるの は当然だろう。特に競争心もないし(競争心があるように演じてはいるが)、仲間意識もない(仲間意識があるように演じてはいるが)。

内的な心情を伴なう人間関係を求める気持ちが無いわけではない。しかし、どうすればそのような関係を築けるのかも分からないし、煩わしいこ とに巻き込まれたくないという気持ちもある。だいたい、人間として面白い人、興味の持てる人に出会わないのだ。それは、感受性の問題なのかもしれないし、 そもそも自分自身が面白い人間ではないと思っている。

対立は関係を前提としている。このように、関係そのものが存在しないなら、対立などあり得ないのではないだろうか。それは、対立が無いということで望ましい事なのだろうか。対立未満。これが、事例-2である。

世界的な傾向として、社会学では人間関係の希薄化が問題とされることが増えている。都市という現象の中で、取り残されてしまう人たちは少な くない。また、常に友人達といるような人でさえ、内的な意味での人間関係が存在していないという場合もあるだろう。より掘り起こせば、<内的な意味での人 間関係>がなぜ必要なのか、から問うこともできる。

この事を考える手順として、対立の反対側にある、人と人との良好な感情というものを考えてみたい。それはおそらく、尊敬や共感であり、友愛 や慈愛である。これらは純粋に、人と人、個人と個人の間で生まれ得る感情である。対立の反対物として、「仲間意識」をあげても良いのだが、これは小か大か はともかく、組織あるいは共同体を介在した感情なので、ここでは除外する。組織における対立は、次節以降で検討する予定だ。対立の哲学を標榜しながら、対 立の反対物を「良き物」と無条件に決め付けることに少し抵抗も感じるが、暫定的にそれらを「良き物」と仮定して話を続けよう。

尊敬とは、特定の価値観に照らしての評価であり、憧れや羨望を伴なう感情である。共感もまた、特定の価値観を共有できたことの喜びから生ま れる。ここで言う価値観は、言語的=ロゴス的なものだけを指すのではない。芸術的なものでも良いし、言葉では表現できないような価値観もあるだろう。むし ろ、ある種の「世界」と言った方がわかりやすいだろうか。そこに絆を見い出すのだ。

これに対し、友愛や慈愛という感情は、「発見する」という性質のものではない。それは、いつのまにか「芽生え」そして「育まれる」。例えが 悪いかもしれないが、人が犬を可愛がるときに価値観=世界を問うだろうか。すべての生命は等しく愛されるべきだ、などと言いたいのではない。可愛い犬もい れば、可愛くない犬も、危険な犬もいる。そこで、何を愛し、何を愛さないか、というのは人智を超えた問題である。脳科学がどれほど進歩しても、この謎が解 明できるとは到底思えないということだ。ましてや、「何を愛するべきだ」などという言説は、愛についての無思慮を自白したことにしかならない。

人と人との<内的な意味での人間関係>は、喜びの源泉であるとともに、対立の源泉でもある。そんな二分法的な言い方ではなく、ただ「混沌」 の源泉であると言った方が適切だろうか。言い換えれば、喜びも、悲しみも、怒りも、すべてはこの「混沌」の中にしかない。これは、生きるということの本質 的な部分だと言えないだろうか。であるならば、人間関係の不在は、人と人の対立という視点からは対立未満だが、その形は、<生>そのものと対立している姿 と言えよう。

12.事例ー3 アイデンティティ

些細な出来事だった。A氏は30代の善良な会社員。上司のB部長とも関係は良好だった。しかし、その関係はある一言から激変した。B部長はA氏の机の上に飾られたガンダムのフィギュアを見ながら言った。「いい年して、こんなもの置くなよ」

B部長には何の悪意もなかった。しかし、A氏にとってはこの一言が許せなかった。「こんなもの。」その一言は自分自身に対する侮辱以上に許 しがたい一言だった。これは、おもちゃではない。精神的な支柱なのだ。A氏は怒りが込み上げてくるのを覚えた。以降、A氏はB部長に敵対する言動をとるよ うになる。B部長は関係の変化は認識したものの、理由には気がついていない。

A氏は仕事も不真面目になり、未だにB部長の顔を見ると不快になる。当然、机の上にはまだ、ガンダムのフィギュアが置かれている。

さて、この事例はガンダムについて論じるためのもものではない。A氏にとってのガンダムとは、ある種の宗教のようなものだったのだろうか。 であれば、そのような聖なるものを会社の持ち込むことは不適切かもしれない。仏像を会社のデスクの上に飾る仏教徒がいるだろうか。多くの企業では、職場で の政治的、宗教的活動を禁止している。もっとも、ガンダムのフィギュアを置くことが宗教活動だとするような裁判官はいないだろうが。

それとも、宗教ではなく、スターのような精神的支柱だったのだろうか。崇拝すること。それを非難したり、否定したりすることは、いわゆる思想・信条の自由なのであり、B部長の発言が、自由を侵すものだったと言えるのかもしれない。

私たちは、誰が、いかに審判すべきなのか、という問いかけに答える段階ではない。審判の必要な状況が、なぜ発生するのかを明らかにしている 段階だからだ。ただ、審判は必要なのであり、その審判は神ではなく、人のみが行えるものであることだけは明らかだ。この事例の場合、審判の必要はないし、 審判が行われる可能性もない。対立というものは、大多数が、この審判なき対立に属するのであろう。それどころか、この対立は見えない対立であり、隠された 対立でもある。

さて、侮辱されたと感じた時、屈辱を味わう時、その理由を問う時、一番最初に出てくる言葉が、「アイデンティティを傷つけられた」ということではなかろうか。損害を受けた場合は、侮辱ではなく被害である。

アイデンティティは多様である。そして、それは他者からは見えない場合も少なくない。親族や出身地、学校、会社、クラブ、サークル、派閥、趣味、嗜好、宗教、思想、政党、地位、キャリア、世代、民族、国家歴史観などなど、あらゆる社会的、文化的諸相の内にアイデンティティを置くことが考えられる。ある個人のアイデンティティを見れば、そこには強弱はもちろん、自覚的か否かという区分もあるし、屈折した形も含む複雑な姿になることだろう。

アイデンティティは社会的、文化的な次元における自己の拡張でもある。ただの私ではなく、より大きなもの、深い絆で結ばれた集団の一員であ るということに対する責任と自覚、あるいは誇り。それは否定すべき性質のものではなく、自然で健全なものと言えるかもしれない。もっとも、その集団の性質 にもよるだろうが。

例えば、野球をしている時に、ピッチャーが憧れの選手をバッターボックスに迎えた。ピッチャーは自分のチームなどどうでも良くなり、ホーム ランを打ってくださいと真ん中高めにストレートを投げた。この行為は非難されるべきだろう。それを告白したならば、チームを追われても文句は言えないし、 彼を受け入れるチームは現れないかもしれない。ゲームというものは、お互いのアイデンティティを前提として成立しているのであって、それが文明的なもので あれば、そこにはお互いに敬意があるべきなのだ。ただ現実には、気持ちの上では相手を殺す気持ちでやれとか、敵意や憎悪を掻き立てるような指導をする人も 多い。現実には法を犯していないのだから、それも思想・信条の自由だと言うのだろうか。それは確かに自由かもしれないが、誉められたものではないと思うの は私だけではあるまい。

また、出身大学に強いアイデンティティを持つ人も少なくない。有名一流大学卒 だと、口にはしないものの、それが誇りであり、自慢であり、支えであるという人は多い。しかし、東大を出たというだけで、学術的に、あるいは社会的に何の 貢献もしていない人を、どう評価して良いのか私にはわからない。少なくとも、その誇りに見合う成果を見せて欲しいのだが、そのような感覚は無いようだ。大学名によって自らを誇大化すること。それは、心理的なものでしかないのだが、世間は学歴をありがたがる。東大卒というだけで、是非うちの役員に、名前だけで結構ですので、という企業はいくらでもある。某大学教授は、大学とは学歴を販売すると端的に書いておられたが、その通りだ。東大卒は東大卒というお金では買えないブランドを持っている。そのブランドに憧れる人は多い。それだけのことだ。

アイデンティティは両刃である。それは集団を活性化し発展させる原動力となる一方で、過熱すると大きな火種になる。また、個人の中にあって も、適度なアイデンティティは充実感や満足感をもたらすが、行き過ぎると個人というものが消滅し、組織において機能するだけの機械へと堕落する。もっと も、それは堕落ではなく正しい生き方だ、という人もいるのではあるが。

自らのアイデンティティを点検するとともに、他者のアイデンティティについて想像力を働かせること。それは生きる上で、また人間と社会についての理解を深める上で有益であるに違いない。

13.事例ー4 対立と利害

人事部長であるA氏の態度に、課長のB氏は苛立っていた。

人事部では、企業の競争力を高めるため、時代の流れにそって、年功序列賃金から成果主義的賃金への移行を命じられ、その企画を詰めていた。 基本的な考え方においても、具体的な道筋においても、意見は一致していた。もともと人事部は特殊なセクションで、会社生活のすべてを人事畑で過ごすことも あり、特に結束の強い部署だった。

しかし、経営会議に資料を出す段階になって、部長の態度が変わった。この案では40歳以上の社員の反発が大きすぎるから、提案を抜本的に見直すべきだと言いはじめたのだ。

B課長をはじめ、部下は動揺した。経営会議は1ケ月後に迫っている。その期間で新しい案を作成し、資料を纏めることなど事実上不可能だ。し かも、どこをどう変更すれば、部長の承認が得られるのかも曖昧だ。さらに、このプロジェクトの事実上の責任者はB課長である。経営上の重要プロジェクトが 遅れるようでは、処遇の面で責任を問われることになるだろう。少なくとも、確実に地方に飛ばされる。そんな想像が、B課長の脳裏をよぎった。

A部長の内心は、別のところにあった。

50歳を過ぎて、最終段階は平の取締役程度という未来が見えていた。そして、この制度になれば、自分の生涯賃金が2000万円程度減るという試算が出来たのだ。確かに、賃金制度の変更は、会社にとっては必要だろう。しかし、A部長自身にとっては何のメリットもないどころか、益するところがない。そして、このプロジェクトが頓挫した時の責任は、B課長にとってもらおうとも考えていた。それが、A部長の利害に基づく判断だった。

目標も価値観も、そこに到達するための手段も共有している。さらに、人間関係も円滑である。そんな状況においても、それぞれに立場が異なる ということは知っておく必要がある。「無私」になれる人は極めて少ないし、「無私」というのが逆に、その周りにとっては迷惑であったりする。

立場の違いから利害関係が生じるということは良くある。公平であるべきだと思っていても、獲得した権益を自ら手放そうという潔癖な人は少ない。どこまで行っても、そこには「私」がある。

それを利己主義として批判することはたやすい。しかし、利己主義を擁護することも、たやすい。議論は、どの程度までなら、利己主義が許され るのかという綱引きになる。利己主義者は、法と文化が認める範囲内での利己主義の徹底を一つの理想とする。最小限の制約をどこにするかを論点にしようとす る。一方で反利己主義で論陣を張れば、どの範囲でなら利己主義が認められるかという側に制限を設けようとする。意味の無い議論だ。大多数の問題は、その両 極の中間にあるからだ。

立場という言葉から、強い立場/弱い立場、という関係性も想起される。今回の事例で言うならば、A部長は、B課長よりも強い立場にあった。 そして、A部長はその強さ(力関係)を利用した。立場に強い弱いがあること自体が問題だ、などという非生産的な議論をするつもりはない。立場には常に強 い、弱いがある。それが著しい違いか、硬直的なものか、という見方があるだけだ。この事例でも、一見すると弱い立場にあるB課長は反撃したのかもしれない し、その結果、勝利したかもしれない。立場の違いは、完全な支配/服従という関係とは性質が異なる。フーコーも指摘したように、ある程度の自由が与えられるからこそ、そこに権力(power)が、すなわち立場の違いという関係が生じるのであって、完全に支配(domination)したのでは、立場という見方すら消滅する。文字通り、立場が無くなるということだ。

現代社会の中で、私たちは複数の世界の複数の立場に身を置いて生活している。理想を語り主張することに全精力を傾注する人もいれば、利己主 義の追及に全精力を傾注する人もいる。私はと言えば、どちらも考えて行動している。そして、どうバランスを取れば良いのかという事に悩まされる。しかし、 それ以外に選択肢があるだろうか。

私は、現実の自分を無視したような夢想家にも、他者を理解できない利己主義者にも、共感することが出来ない。すべての人々は、世界という ゲームの中でのプレイヤーだ。それは、良い悪いではなく現実なのであって、立場は自然についてくるし、利害も自然に生じてくる。それを拒否したり、否定し たりすることは賢明とは言えない。それよりも、私たち一人一人がプレイヤーであることを、より強く自覚することが重要なのではなかろうか。

14.寛容の圧力

個人における対立は、多くの場合、感情的な対立へと発展する。それがいかに専門的な分野における高度な対立であっても、それをあくまで学問上のことと分離してとらえ、プライベートではあくまで親友だ、というような人格者は極めてまれなのだ。人格を売りにしている宗教家であれ、悟りを開いたと自称する宗教家であれ、宗教上の対立が感情の対立に至るというのは通例だ。しかし、このような対立はむしろ、恵まれた部類に属する対立である。というのも、そこには「対立の場」が確実に存在するのだから。

感情的な対立は、「許せない」という言葉に集約できる。それは、過去の事実に由来するものであったり、思想上の問題であったり、価値観や文 化の差であったりする。あるいは、純粋に生理的な感覚や感情、いわば「面白く無い」という場合もあるだろう。また、相手の存在自体が生命や財産に対する脅 威であるような場合も、許せない、ということになる。それは合理的な場合も、非合理的な場合もあるが、日常の中で対立の由来を吟味することは、あまりな い。なぜならば、許せないという一時の感情は、現実の中では具体的な対立に至る前に緩和され、消滅あるいは幽閉される運命にあるからだ。

実社会の中で、個人的な対立を表に出すことを、コストとベネフィットから考えた場合、コストが大きすぎる場合がほとんどである。裁判という 合法的な手段で大金を得られるような場合を除いては、対立のコストに見合うだけのベネフィットは得られない。また、対立は個人にとって以上に、社会や組織 のとっての大きなコストとなる。協調性が強く求められ、寛容が奨励されるのは、それが美徳だからではなく、極めて打算的な要請と言えるだろう。教育の大き な目的の一つは、この個人的な対立を、いかに円満に社交的にこなせるようにするかという事でもある。

特に、和を重んじる日本社会では過剰な協調性が求められ、対立の成熟を阻んでいる。抑圧された対立のエネルギーが、いじめという「機会」を得て、代理の対象に向かって噴出する。そこには、いじめへの参加という協調性までが顔を出すのである。日本に特有の「いじめ」という病理は、この過剰な協調性の産物だと思う。言い換えると、「健全な対立の不在」が問題なのである。

まず、許せない、という心理をネガティブなものとして否定したり、無視したりすることが不健全であるということを理解する必要がある。会社 の同僚と飲みに行って、上司の悪口に花を咲かせることを、みっともない、と馬鹿にしてはいけない。どのような形であれ、この心情を表現すること、自覚する ことは大切なことだ。我慢という抑圧が心を歪め、人を純粋な感情から阻害して行く。この怖ろしさに気がつくべきだろう。

もっとも、酒を飲んで同僚と愚痴を言い合うだけでは、対立にはならない。問題は、それですませて良い対立なのか、より本格的に対立しなけれ ばいけない問題なのか、という点を見極めることにある。すべてを、短期的かつ個人的なコスト/ベネフィットで判断して対立を回避するという姿勢は、長いも のにはまかれろ、勝ち馬に乗れ、ということだ。それこそが信条という人もいるだろうし、ある程度はそれもやむを得ないと考える人もいるだろう。しかし、そ れでもなお、譲れない事がある、という強い思いを持つ人は少なくない。その背景には、未来は私たちの意思で変更可能であるという信念がある。より良い世界 を求める意思がある。そのような未来に対する責任を自覚する人たちが、その責任を自覚しない人たちと対立することは当然のことだ。

対立を表に出すということは、非対称であった対立を対称化することでもある。そのためには、より良い対立の場が必要なのであり、より良い対立の技法が必要なのだ。暴力や陰謀や陰口ではなく、正面から言論で対立することが必要なのだ。

現代は開かれた世界であり、またフラット化した世界である。インターネットによって、誰でも情報や言説を発信できる。それはまた、対立の基盤、対立のインフラとも成りえるだろうし、また積極的に、そう活用するべきでもあるだろう。

対立の由来を吟味し、対立をネガティブなものとして否定することなく、問題によっては利害を超えて対立する意思を持つこと。また、より良い 対立の場を作ること。そして、対立の経験を積むこと。過剰な協調性を排除すること。寛容の圧力に安易に屈しないこと。それが未来への責任であり、希望であ り、人間らしさなのだ。

日常の中でも、うまく対立することは、対立を我慢することよりも、はるかに勝っている。うまく対立するとは、対立の真相を、許せない理由 を、うまく伝えることだ。言うのは簡単だ。力関係で劣るような場合には、そんな事をしたら立場が危うくなり危険であったりする。そのような場合には対立を 表面化させ、かつ、自らが有利になるような戦略を描かなくてはいけない。必然的に第三者を巻き込むことになる。こうして、個人的な対立は、単に個人と個人 の対立ではなくなって行く。

15.無関心

近代以降、人間は道徳的に大きく進化したという説がある。それは、人種や文化を越えて、別の地域や、地球の裏側にいる人達の非合理的な苦痛 にすら、許しがたいとする感情を持つようになったからだと言う。本当はそのような心情を持たない人も、それを公言することはしない。それは、恥ずかしいこ とであり、間違ったことであり、反知性的、反現代的なものと考えられているからだ。飢餓や反人道的な行為と、それによる苦痛を、同じ人間として認めること ができないというのは、現代人に共通する感覚となった。同じ人間としての関心の拡大、共感の拡大を根拠として、道徳的な進化という主張がなされるのであ る。

あるいは、成功哲学の多くが、人に対する誠実な関心を持つことを要請する。逆説的に言えば、人に対して関心を持てない人は成功しないということだ。ここでも、関心を持つことは奨励され、無関心は非難される。

注意すべきは、この二つの関心が異質であるという点だ。「道徳的な進化」とされる人類全体への関心は、つきつめると、道徳的であるべき社会 に対する関心であって、人に対する関心ではない。そこに、個人的な関心があったとしても、それは二義的なものでしかない。別に地球の裏側でなくても良い。 自分の属する地域社会であっても同じである。関心を寄せるのは社会のあり方であり、実際の個人に対して関心を寄せてはいないことが多いのである。

私たちの関心は大きく広がると同時に、その視線は個人から社会へと移行している。社会に対する関心が増す一方で、現実の世界での人間に対す る関心は希薄化している。社会は確実に細分化されている。ライフスタイル、趣味嗜好、専門領域は多様化し、人間関係も複数の特殊な集団内でのみ築かれて行 く。隣近所であっても、一つではなく複数のグループに分かれて行く。それが良いとか悪いということではない。社会に対する関心と個人に対する関心を切り離 し、使い分けている現代人の姿を把握しておくことが、個人と組織、あるいは個人と社会における対立の違いを考えるうえで必要になるのだ。

労働運動で服役したインテリ学生が、刑務所で労働者と同室になりながら、会話すらしなかったというエピソードがある。この学生が共鳴したの は思想であって、労働者では無かったのだ。同じように、人権には関心が高いが、人間そのものには関心が薄いという人も少なくない。というよりも、それが現 代の傾向のようにすら思える。もしかしたら、私も例外ではないのかもしれない。

あなたには、身近な存在で日常的に会話をしているものの、個人的にはまったく関心を持っていない人がいないだろうか。そして、それはなぜ か。共感の不在だろうか。利害の不在だろうか。それとも対立だろうか。対立は強い関心を生む場合もあれば、無関心を生む場合もある。そして、多くの場合、 無関心には危険が潜んでいる。成功哲学を支持するわけでも、成功を称賛するわけでもないはが、どのような場合でも、無関心に陥ることなく一定の関心を持つ ことは必要である。強い関心を持つ必要はない。必要最小限の関心で良いだろう。相手を理解できる程度に。

 

03.アバウト・アス

所長:黒崎逸郎1961年生まれ。1984年より2011年までアサヒビール(株)に勤務。自由定年退職後、黒崎玄太郎研究所を立ち上げ現在に至る。神戸市在住。ペンネームは白井京月
元スーパーコンサルタント・システムエンジニア。学者崩れ?
現在は作家、詩人、時々コンサルタント。
通称「しろいぬ」

https://www.facebook.com/Itsuroukurosaki

マネージャー兼野球担当:黒澤浩1965年生まれ。明石市在住。フリーランス。趣味は素振り。バックギャモン。
通称「くろいぬ」

https://www.facebook.com/hiroshi.kurosawa.77

今は白黒コンビで進めています。

さあ、世界の空気を刷新しましょう。洗練された戦略と戦術で。

スポンサー様、お取引様用の口座は、こちらです。

りそな銀行
神戸岡本支店
普通0064263
黒崎玄太郎研究所
黒崎逸郎