‘Let us live that all will be free.’
Julia Ward Howe (1862), hymn writer
Over fifty years ago, I recall going to a concert by The Who near Ottawa; several thousand young people were there. There was a particularly unpleasant act of smashing their instruments on stage: just wanton destruction designed to whip up the charisma of the crowd. I got up and walked out, feeling quite sickened by this performance and the mass adulation of their audience.
Are humans individual and free thinking, or are we herd animals? Populist politicians and football teams would prefer to think the latter, but Thomas Jefferson clearly thought the former in laying down his ‘self-evident truths’ for the American constitution:
‘That all are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’
There's no doubt that we are a social species: in family, at work and in sport, people gain considerably from interaction with others: but ‘each to their own’ is a valuable recognition of everyone's right to live their life as they wish to.
Our tendency towards a herd mentality only really becomes a problem when it's accompanied by a high degree of self-interest. When that self-interest is shared as a common purpose to the detriment of other groups, this is when collective tensions develop.
That's fine in sport, because everyone accepts that winning or losing is all part of the game. It's also fine in business, as the market sorts the wheat from the chaff and helps to point people in new, more profitable directions.
It starts to become a challenge in politics, particularly in autocracies, and in two-party systems like that in the United Kingdom, which are schooled by ‘first past the post’ in order to foster a sense of opposition and tension.
But its real challenge is in international relations, when fear and greed are intensified by mass charisma until conflict breaks out. Many would say that this has been what lies behind the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and there is plenty of evidence to support that view. However, the sheer antiquity of that collective tension is remarkable, going back over more than three thousand years.
We have to recognise that too much emphasis on collective self-interest is not a healthy way forward for humanity, and to look for ways to value the diversity and individualism of human life.
The key to this is to allow generosity of spirit to overcome those natural characteristics of fear and greed, so that we look beyond the things that divide us and allow benevolent curiosity and goodwill to take their place.
In western democracies this is encouraged by ethnic mixing, as people and businesses develop more international perspectives; it's not so easy in current and former communist countries such as Russia, whose history has been shaped by fear and greed for centuries.
But much of the world embodies faiths which encourage this generosity of spirit. In the Christian faith, it is wrapped up in the second great commandment, ‘to love your neighbour as yourself’ — your neighbour being the person least likely to be the person living next door to you. It extends to that most challenging of all biblical instructions, ‘to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you’.
But Churches themselves foster a sense of combined purpose, and that can extend to placing more emphasis on the collective rather than the individual. In the Christian faith, we are currently celebrating the 1700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed, the prayer which summarises Christian belief in a triune God.
Some years ago, in the General Synod of the Church of England, this prayer was embedded into what is now described as ‘Common Worship’: liturgy using modern-day language for everyday use.
I recall the debate over whether the beliefs set out in the Nicene Creed should be individual or collective: ‘I believe …’ or ‘We believe …’. Supported by the phalanx of bishops, the latter won through, but not without my speech defending use of the first-person singular.
It is my view that each individual has the right to shape their beliefs and their life in the way that they consider right for them, and it is not for others to speak on their behalf. Or, as Voltaire said four hundred years ago rather more dramatically, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it’.
Free speech continues to be challenged by extremism, and often because it contains an intolerance which works in total opposition to generosity of spirit. If we were to teach more of the latter to young people, we might find it easier to live together peaceably as individuals, rather than flexing our muscles across ideological divides as members of self-interested collectives.
Gavin Oldham OBE
Share Radio