Discussing a central aspect of the experience of the Holocaust with a view to exploring its contemporary implications, this volume focuses on the figure of the bystander - the bystander to the destruction of the Jews of Europe and the bystander to more recent atrocities. Its goal is to consider the moral consequences of looking on without active response at persecution and suffering. Norman Geras argues that the tragedy of European Jewry has not yet found its reflection within political philosophy. He adapts an old idea from within that tradition of enquiry, the idea of the social contract, to the task of thinking about the triangular relation between perpetrators, victims and bystanders, and draws a sombre conclusion from it. Geras goes on to ask how far this conclusion may be offset by the hypothesis of a universal duty to bring aid.
| |||||||||||||||
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Norman Geras is Professor of Government at the University of Manchester. His other books with Verso include The Legacy of Rosa Luxemburg, Marx and Human Nature and Solidarity in the Conversation of Humankind: The Ungroundable Liberalism of Richard Rorty
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The Moral Economy of By-Standing,
By
This review is from: The Contract of Mutual Indifference: Political Philosophy After the Holocaust (Paperback)
For the first time, I purchased a book by a blogger whose Blog I read regularly. Norman Geras, the man behind Normblog (http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog), is a Professor of Government in Manchester University, and the author of "The Contract of Mutual Indifference: Political Philosophy After the Holocaust".
Unlike Professor Geras's remarkably readable Blog, his book is a dense read. That's not to deter anyone from reading it, thought, because the ideas in it are definitely worth engaging. Geras's Big Idea is the "Contract" of the title. Unlike John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance", Geras's contract is not a thought experiment designed to answer moral questions. Rather, like Richard Dawkins's "Selfish Gene" and Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" it is a metaphor designed to explain how the world works. Genes behave as if they were selfish, and market economies behave as if they were governed by an invisible hand. Similarly, humans behaves as if we are part of a contract between every individual and almost every other one - an agreement stating that I won't lift a finger when you need help, and you won't help me when I'm in need, either. Most of Geras's title essay is dedicated to two tasks: First, Geras defends his concept of the Contract of Mutual Indifference from several challenges, like Does the existence of families and States prevent it from being a good model of the real world? Second, Geras is trying to save us from the implications of the Contract of Mutual Indifference. And this is where the Holocaust comes in: Geras argues that even within the worst of the world's tragedy, there were displays of comradeship, kindness, and selflessness. If even in Auschwitz people managed to transcend the cold bitter logic of the Contract of Mutual Indifference, then surely we, in a much more benign environment, can do the same. This is an uplifting vision, but there are, I think, two problems with it. The first is that the kind of help that people gave each other during the Holocaust was very different then the one needed to solve the world's problems. The Holocaust's displays of humanity (if we can call them that) were acts of kindness to people whose suffering was nearby and visible. The problem with the world's suffering is that we have trouble connecting with the suffering in Sudan and the Congo and even the slums on the other side of town; it is surely hopeful to know that even in Auschwitz, there was empathy. But learning to extend that empathy to people far away is a challenge of a very different sort. The second problem is that while Geras's book is all about the motive for mutual help, it does not reflect enough on the means. What, if anything, can we actually do to improve the lot of the world's impoverished? Geras correctly points out that people convince themselves that nothing can be done in order to rid appease their own consciences(pp. 130-132). But the argument surely goes the other way around, too - demonstrate that aid can make a difference, and surely more people would do more. Dr. Geras also points out another implication of the Holocaust - that even if the world can become a much better place then it is today, mankind can not be cured from its evil tendencies. Geras realizes that this means we must seek - relatively - conservative goals ("modest or minimum utopia" in his phrase), but he does not think that it also requires conservative means (p. 117). Specifically, Geras is still against Capitalism "a social and economic order systematically producing... conditions of extreme want and oppression... not responsible for all evil, capital social relations and values contribute their massive share of it" (p. 169). Occasional sentences like that non withstanding, Geras's committed to Socialist means of achieving his utopia is not quite clear. As a signatory of the Euston Manifesto (http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/), one hopes he is more moderate then the quotation makes him to be. This is where focusing of the Holocaust may be the wrong move for the purposes of discerning a political philosophy for our age - because the Holocaust disguises the major story of the twentieth century: The Triumph of Liberal Capitalism. Economist and Blogger Brad DeLong titles his as yet unpublished history of the twentieth century's economic progress "Slouching towards Utopia", and I think he's right. Capitalism has delivered - first in the West and now in East Asia and India as well - not only spectacularly better life for its followers, but also: Democracy and the Rule of Law. This is not the place for the argument about the linkage between Capitalism and Freedom (for my take on it, see http://the-thousand-words.blogspot.com/2006/04/poverty-question-revisited_12.html), but the failure of the alternatives to Capitalism is manifest. To put is crudely, Capitalism has had its hits and misses, but it had hits. The fate of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century, whether the Holocaust, Stalin's forced Collectivization or Mau Tse Tung's Giant Leap Forward should teach us the lesson of the dangers in trying to radically change the human condition. Slouching may be a slow path towards Geras's Modest Utopia - but it is the only path we know.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
What comes to one must come to us all,
By
This review is from: The Contract of Mutual Indifference: Political Philosophy After the Holocaust (Paperback)
The Contract Of Mutual Indifference explores the phenomenon of the Passive Bystander with reference to the Holocaust and atrocities like those in Bosnia. Geras discusses a phenomenon that reveals mankind's remarkable ability to enjoy life while ignoring the suffering of others. He observes that the road to Auschwitz was built by hate but paved with indifference.
The book becomes an investigation of the moral consequences of ignoring oppression and persecution. But it's not all abstract theory. What makes the work so readable is its compelling blend of historical analysis, human nature and philosophy. The author argues convincingly that the tragedy of the Shoah has not yet been adequately dealt with in the field of political theory. There is no denying the reality of the contract in the title of the book. In the past 15 years the world has witnessed atrocities of genocidal intent in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur, for example. In addition, there are ongoing crimes like the modern version of slavery, the practice of torture and child labour. There does seem to be reluctance to face up to evils like these, in political philosophy and in society as a whole. The picture that Geras gives us of the relation between perpetrator, victim and bystander is not a pretty one. He considers many angles of the phenomenon, including the human survival mechanism of blocking out unbearable thoughts. And its opposite also exists: the concept of a universal duty to help others beyond one's immediate friends and family. C S Lewis touches on this aspect of human nature in his classic Mere Christianity. The book does not fall into the trap of arguing for collectivism as a remedy for the contract of indifference. Very appropriately too, since the atomistic lifestyle is found as much in European welfare states as in capitalist economies. A case might indeed be made that the welfare state encourages atomism since it relieves the individual of personal responsibility towards others. Paying tax as substitute for charity. On the negative side, Geras assumes that everybody is burdened with unrestricted moral liability and if we indulge in the pleasures of life whilst ignoring brutality, we are all as morally culpable as the Europeans who ignored the plight of the Jews. The idea has merit, but there are different degrees of responsibility and culpability that are not properly identified or distinguished in the text. On the other hand, there does seem to be a widespread move towards nihilism globally (read Andr' Glucksmann), and hedonism & narcissism, especially in the West. The lack of real compassion for the suffering of others is often disguised with political correctness and blaming the scapegoats America and Israel for all the world's woes. This moral inversion is particularly prevalent amongst the entertainment and media elites. A thorough historical study is needed to compare the Left and isolationst Right's shrill reaction to the liberation of Iraq with their silence to e.g. the genocidal second Russian invasion of Chechnya, the madness of Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Kim in North Korea, and the horror in Darfur. Or their eerie denial of human rights abuses in many other third world countries. In his short essay on Leon Trotsky, the author claims that the revolutionary had an intuitive grasp of those emotions that are transformed into evil actions under certain social conditions and could thus predict the Shoah. But I get a different impression from Paul Johnson's great work A History Of The Jews. It was Trotsky who expelled the Jewish Bundists from the 1903 Russian Social Democrat Congress in London, with a zeal "close to hatred." This was a direct cause of the Bolshevik triumph. He called Herzl "repulsive", ignored Jewish suffering and refused to see Jewish delegations when in power. Sounds like a bit of a Chomsky or a Finkelstein to me. Geras believes that certain obligations to help those who suffer ought to be enforced by law, but recognizes that such legal duties could only partly meet the requirements. He rules out any coercion that involves danger or self-sacrifice and points out that there are limits to the law. Of greater importance are pervasive norms of care that to the author seem to include the encouragement of such mutual support via taxation. But how can compassion be legislated? Mmm ... I think this has been tried in Western Europe. The result is a Post Christian continent where the Welfare State has replaced religion with its emphasis on personal responsibility. Not only has this rendered the culture defenceless against a growing threat in its midst but also had a disastrous influence on birth rates. European cultural elites have taken the concepts of The Other and multiculturalism to an extreme where Judeo-Christian roots are despised whilst oppressive and frankly disgusting elements of other cultures are ignored. There is indeed a minority of people who care deeply, but even these will go insane if they focus on worldwide atrocities all the time. Balance is needed, for any individual that concerns her- or himself with the suffering of others to the exclusion of all else, will soon be mentally exhausted and thus of no practical use to those in need of help. I think ultimately the only solution can be a spiritual one, when the heart of stone is turned into a heart of flesh. This most valuable and thought-provoking work draws on a deep well of Holocaust literature and encompasses reflections on psychology, literature and politics. I think to understand the problem addressed here in its wider context, one ought also to read (it is irrelevant that these 2 authors are found on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Geras) the following books: Our Culture, What's Left Of It by Theodore Dalrymple and The Dragons Of Expectation: Reality And Delusion In The Course Of History by Robert Conquest. And of course A Matter Of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War In Iraq, edited by Thomas Cushman, to which Geras is a contributor.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
