EPIDEMIOLOGÍA AMBIENTAL

Most mainstream philosophers have either ignored or dismissed cursorily the position and status of women. They have reiterated, justified and defended women’s subordination on the alleged natural and biological differences between the sexes, and have also pointed to the inherent physical and mental superiority of the male. In doing so, they have reinforced the stereotyped image of the woman as an emotional, irrational and sensual person in need of male guidance and domination. In many cases this has been without a critical examination of their personal biases and prejudices.

Most of them—which includes Aristotle, Rousseau and Hegel—contend that a woman’s rightful place is her home, and that being burdened with household chores she did not have sufficient time for politics, philosophy, art or science. While they articulate the need for men to have leisure time to devote to public causes and universal issues, they presume that women did not feel similarly. Rousseau and Hegel regarded women as subversive to the unity and order of the polity, and were willing to deny them citizenship rights. Even Kant, who spoke of moral equality and the importance of moral law, precluded women.

Plato, in The Republic (380–370 BC), was one of the earliest exponents of total political and sexual equality. He observed that women could perform functions that men did. But he too abandoned this idea and defended the patriarchal family system in the second-best state developed in the Laws (350 BC).

The ideas of freedom, equality, individuality, personal autonomy, contractualism and voluntarism which ushered in the modern period also brought about a significant transformation in the lives of both men and women. The early liberals were the first to accept the idea of sexual equality. They attacked patriarchy. They considered women as human beings with minds of their own, regarding them as free, equal and rational.

The intellectual and social ferment in the eighteenth century produced feminism. It arose as a middle-class movement demanding a reexamination of the theories of citizenship and natural rights. The French Revolution promised a free and equal society, but left women out. The Revolution, though libertarian in most respects, was conservative on the gender issue. Most men continued to see the home as the rightful place for women. Just as the failure of early liberalism to fulfil its own promise led to the rise of Marxism, similarly it was silence on the part of natural rights theorists on the status, role and position of women that gave rise to feminism. This neglect prompted Olympe de Gouges (1748–1793) in France to proclaim a manifesto of her own entitled the Proclamation of the Rights of Women and Female Citizens. In England, Wollstonecraft brought out her A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). The early feminists were inspired by Locke’s writings.

The only mainstream male philosopher to espouse the cause of women, pleading for the need to reorder the private sphere on the same lines as freedom, equality, justice, self-worth and dignity that govern the public sphere, was J.S. Mill. He not only rejected patriarchy, but also insisted that liberal principles apply to women, family and the home. He combined his academic concern with political activism when he campaigned for women’s suffrage in 1865, regarding it as the most important public service. Many socialists like Claude-Henri Comte de Rouvroy Saint Simon (1760–1825), Francois- Marie Charles Fourier (1772–1837), Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) and August Bebel (1840–1913)

also wrote on the gender question, linking women’s emancipation with the overall liberation of society.

The feminists during the first wave pleaded for equal rights and opportunities for women, while the second wave, beginning in the last quarter of the twentieth century, desired restructuring of society. There was a realization that the earlier demand for redistribution of resources and rights did not bring about substantive equality. Feminists brought out the limitations of mainstream Western political tradition, namely its male centredness. In spite of their confessions and attempts to offer universalistic prescriptions, most of the classics exhibit a gender bias and prejudice. The initial focus was to enquire the reasons for the exclusion of women from the political process. Subsequently, they resurrected texts, articles and writings to formulate a feminist political theory.

Eurocentricism

Furthermore, some of the great masters were also eurocentric, dismissing non-Western civilizations as unchanging and unhistorical. Along with Greece, the first philosophical world-views emerged simultaneously in two other centres—India and China both in the sixth century BC. Both of them developed their own distinct and individualistic styles of philosophy. We have evidence that the art of writing was invented in Egypt in 4000 BC, and subsequently in Mesopotamia. Writing here took the form of pictures. Soon these pictures were conventionalized, and words were represented in the form of ideograms, as they still are in China. It took thousands of years for the development of alphabetical writing. The earliest civilizations were along the fertile regions of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates. Here agriculture was the mainstay of the people.

Egypt had a highly evolved system of tax administration, with a standardized system of revenue collection and drastic penalties for extortion and bribery on the part of tax collectors. The legal code admonished its officials to be patient, impartial and just. The Mesopotamian empires, in spite of the theocratic pretensions of the royalty, had governments that had earthly concerns. The code of Hammurabi (1792–1750 BC) was a social product containing generations of political experience, thought and usage, with strict penalties for giving false witness, committing theft, and being unjust in marital relationships. The code embodied a conception of civil justice.

For the Hebrews, the monarch was both an agent of God and a symbol of the people, implying that besides divine sanction the monarch needed the support of his people. Hebrew thinkers repudiated the idea that priestly and kingly functions could be exercised by the same person. The reason for this separation was that the priest could check and criticize the king, if necessary. The Hebrews did not have a systematic and wellformulated theory of politics. Their thought mostly centred on religion. They were also convinced that divinity permeated all aspects of social and political life. This impeded the development of particular sciences. On the other hand, the interrelationship between religion and divinity prevented the Hebrews from developing an “other-worldly” approach to politics that characterized some interpretations of Plato and many versions of “Christianity” (Sibley 1981: 29).

Chinese political thought was rich and diverse. The first tracts were associated with the Chou dynasty, and these consisted of poems, historical and court records, cryptic and elusive sayings, with lengthy commentaries. Of particular significance was “the Mandate of Heaven”, which stated that the ruling house could govern the empire, provided its rule was virtuous and beneficent, which it would lose if it became corrupt or inflicted disasters on its people. The other equally significant concern was the impeccable moral behaviour of some early sage rulers, one of whom bypassed his own son

and selected a commoner, for the latter’s virtue was better than his son’s.

Confucius (Kung Fu Tzu, 551–479 BC) can be regarded as the first political thinker, whose views were contained in the Analects. He held a minor office in his native state and led a modest life. He was a scholar and teacher, though later accounts described him as a great official and one who possessed supernatural powers. His ideal was a rule by moral example rather than military superiority or hereditary succession. The ruler and his officials and advisers were to be virtuous and meritorious. He did not distinguish between political and familial authority, regarding society as an extension of the ruler’s household and a well-ordered family as the foundation of the state. He advocated self-control and duty towards others. He accepted social hierarchy and the division between the peasant and the literate, though he held that learning made human improvement possible. He taught that human beings should be in harmony with nature, through nature and government. Government was not a divine institution but a product of human reason and sound virtue. Here his ideas were similar to those of Plato and Aristotle.

Another Confucian philosopher, Mencius (Meng Tzu, 372–289 BC) advanced the doctrine of nature, reason and virtue as the basic requirements of a state. He looked upon the original human heart as reflecting the cosmic order. The Chinese did not look upon political authority as supernatural and the emperor as divine. They justified and defended revolution. Mencius even declared that a ruler who departed from reason and virtue could be executed. A ruler was responsible for the quality of governance and was accountable to his subordinates. Throughout Chinese thought runs an ideal that a ruler must ensure the safety and prosperity of his people.

A rival school of Confucianism was legalism, consisting of diverse elements but given a philosophical touch by Han Fei Tzu (280–233 BC). The earliest legalists were Shang Yang (d. 338 BC) and Shen Pu-hai (400– 337 BC). Shang Yang desired to organize the state along military lines as an efficient instrument of war. Hereditary officers would be replaced and encouragement would be given to agriculture and handicrafts to counter idle consumption and merchant activity. In a Taoist sense, he instructed the ruler to be non-attached and strive to attain sagehood. Han Fei Tzu preferred the state to be ruled by law rather than the will of a prince.

Taoist political theory is the most difficult to elaborate. Its earliest exponent was Chuang Tzu, stressing simplicity in human existence. Lao Tzu (middle of the third century BC) agreed with Confucius about the principles of a government. He also insisted that calmness of the mind came from a lack of attachment to transient things in the world. In fact, he anticipated Rousseau when he held that human beings became corrupt with the passage of civilization. He glorified rural simplicity, whereby the old practices were followed and the clever, prevented from having a definite say. He also instructed the sage ruler to adopt a principle of non-interference, similar to the physiocrats and Adam Smith (1723–1790), as the best way to secure happiness and prosperity. He held that more laws and regulations would only encourage thieves, for corruption increased with governmental control. Mo Tzu (479–390 BC), a rival and a critic of Confucius, held that every policy of the state should promote the needs of the common people and not waste resources on elaborate ceremonies and rites.

Confucianism and its variants remained the dominant philosophical tradition in China. Many elements of Confucianism were retained in Mao Zedong’s (1893–1976) Marxism. In recent years the Confucian value system has been regarded as being responsible for the stupendous success of the East and South-East Asian countries. A leading exponent of the Asian value system is the former prime minister presently a senior minister in Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, who attributed rapid industrialization, economic growth and high levels of productivity without dislocating the family and traditional values to Confucianism. In fact, Confucianism has been seen as communitarian, in contrast

to the individualism of the Western tradition. The Asian way is projected as a distinct alternative route to modernity. Huntington (1993) concedes that Confucianism is the most profound challenge to the hegemony of Western ideology, and that cultural differences not only exist but could also ignite clashes between civilizations. Huntington ignores the fact that the growth of human ideas and institutions is a result of cooperation of all civilizations, a point lucidly narrated by Durant. Doctrines like clash of civilizations or eurocentricism, and in recent times a refined version of Said’s orientalism, are particularistic challenges to mainstream political theory which is based on Grotius’ principle of universality and a minimum everywhere. The contention of the Asian values school that the Western tradition is wholly individualistic is not right. No tradition is wholly individualistic or wholly communitarian. Most of them contain a happy mix of libertarian individualism, with concern for social commitment and common good. While cultural plurality is to be respected, it should not be particularistic so as to become divisive. In fact: “We have a universal responsibility to use a single standard in judging human misfortune and injustice wherever they may occur” (Sakharov 1989: Preface).

A typical example of the Western assessment of Indian political thought is provided by Dunning (1902), who concluded that India did not have any political thought because of the dominance of religion and theology. Dunning, quoting Spender, mentions Egyptian and Chinese political thought, but omits India. This is a very prejudiced view. In fact, the tradition of Indian political speculation is very old, dating back to the Vedic period (1500–1000 BC). In the twelfth century, Kalhan’s Rajtarangini provided some very interesting insights into politics. Furthermore, the Upanishads, the Dharmasutras, the Buddhist texts, the Arthasastra, Manusmriti and the Santiparva of the Mahabharata provide a rich cluster of political ideas.

Unlike the wide variety of political ideas that ancient Greece provided, ancient Indian political theory follows the pattern beginning with the Vedas, except for the Buddhist tradition. The primary reason for this was the fact that though some states were oligarchical and republican, by and large most of them were monarchies. Two other crucial factors impeded the development of political theory. One was the sway of religion, and the second was the Brahmin domination, with strict division of society into four distinct castes, each performing distinct functions. Even with Kautilya (321–296 BC), with his elaborate and skilful dissection of public administration and statecraft, there was an overall acceptance of the social order. This explains that the Saptanga theory, though more elaborate than a similar theory in the Western tradition, needed divine sanction to buttress political authority. This led to a basic imperfection in theorizing, as divine laws were unchangeable and society was strictly divided into four groups with separate functions and duties. Added to this was the factor of domination by Brahmins (the most privileged group), with exemption from taxation and punishment, constituting a state within the state. Like the Chinese, ancient Indians also believed that a ruler’s first duty was to protect his people and their social needs. The ruler was subject to constitutional checks and could be questioned by his advisers and people. A just state was one that was based on dharma, an all-embracing term covering justice, duty and virtue.

From the eighth century onwards, the period of Islamic thought begins. With the predominance of an Islamic religious code, civil law was a part of religious law. Non-Muslims were not considered full members of society. In the fifteenth century, new ideas started emerging under the enlightened reign of Akbar, who tried to reform and bring about equality irrespective of individual religious beliefs. Jahangir and Shah Jahan followed the tradition of Akbar, which was totally reversed by Aurangzeb, who reverted to religious orthodoxy.

significance, because after a century of anarchy and stagnation it created awareness in the minds of educated Indians. This was because not only Aurangzeb but even the Marathas, who arose in protest against Aurangzeb, were not receptive to new ideas. The failure of the Marathas was due to their inability to innovate (Sarkar 1973). Modern Indian political thought begins with Raja Rammohun Roy (1774–1833). A distinctive aspect of political theorizing in the non-Western world has been that this exercise has been carried on by activist theoreticians like Gandhi, Mao and Roy.

CONCLUSION

Since the seventies, there has been resurgence in political theory, largely due to the efforts of Habermas, Nozick and Rawls. The themes that figure prominently since its revival are broadly social justice and welfare rights theory within a deontological perspective, utilitarianism, democratic theory and pluralism, feminism, postmodernism, new social movements and civil society, and the liberalism-communitarian debate (Marion-Young 1996: 481–500; Glaser 1995: 23). In fact, communitarianism fills the void left by the declining popularity of Marxism (Barry 1995: 24–29). This unprecedented lease of life that political theory has received is restricted to the universities and the academia and as a result it is “a kind of alienated politics, an enterprise carried on at some distance from the activities to which it refers” (Walzer 1989: 337). This resurgence also suggests that earlier pronouncements about its decline and/or demise were premature and academically shortsighted.

This new-found enthusiasm has been confined to liberal political discourse mainly due to the seminal work of Rawls, which fulfilled Germino’s wish for a need to strengthen the open society. Recent liberal theory in its revived sense focuses on the idea of impartiality and fairness, in the belief that “discrimination must be grounded on relevant differences” (Benn and Peters 1959: 133). It is no coincidence that a well-formulated and detailed analysis of the concept of justice, long overdue since the time of Plato, emerges in Rawls, for whom justice meant fairness. Rawls attempts to furnish an answer to how a just society should distribute liberties, opportunities, income, wealth and bases of self-respect.

Among the competing ideologies which ushered in the twentieth century, only liberal democracy, unlike Fascism and Communism, permitted free exchange of ideas, synchronized (and adapted, if necessary), theory in the light of practice and identified the elements that constituted a just political and social order, without being doctrinaire and dogmatic. However, much of this new, liberal political theory is in the nature of refining and clarifying the earlier theoretical postures. Moreover, the loss of challenge by both Fascism and Communism, the first because of its defeat in the Second World War, and the second, which collapsed due to its own internal contradictions, also prove that Utopian and radical schemes are no longer theoretically and practically desirable and feasible alternatives.

This is true even of postmodernism and deconstructionism, which are suspicious of the dominant discourse and build their formulations with references to differences. But the essential formulations of Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) and Michael Focault (1926–1984) provide new interpretations and meanings to old readings. They question the universalism and generalizations of Western theory and the Platonic-Kantian idea of good. They reject the possibility of the realization of the perfect set of laws, which would always lead to domination and unfreedom of some who constitute “the other”. However, postmodernism is also only a critique without much prospect of providing a viable alternative. Its impact has been more pronounced in literature than in the social sciences and political

theory. Another contemporary concern is multiculturalism. Charles Taylor (1931– ) justifies cultural recognition beyond rights of association, speech and tolerance, for culture is a way of life. He pleads for the preservation of indigenous culture mainly in the context of the French in Quebec. But commentators like Richard Rorty (1931–2007) point out the dangers of cultural essentialism, as even when individual rights are preserved, emphasis on culture can be both coercive and oppressive. “The implicit cultural essentialism of a good deal of celebratory multiculturalism disguises the powerful