|
Complementary Reflection,
African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
Social engineering and ambivalence of human interest: the Nigeria
experience
j. o. inyang
CONTENT
1. Introduction - - - - - 1
2. What is Social Engineering? - - - 3
3. The concept of the Ambivalence of Human
4. The Nigerian Experience of the Ambivalence
of Human
Interest and Social Engineering - 10
5. Conclusion - - - - - 15
Works Cited - - - - - 17
ABSTRACT
The common good in this write up is identified with the
harmonious complementalism postulated as the authentic foundation of all human
interest. It is argued that if the
common good is placed above all private interests in a society, social action
would then be judged as rational. This
is predicated on the reflection that no individual or group of individuals
would want to carry out an action that would devastatively affect his person,
relation or society. Where such an
action is chosen, then, it tantamount to an ambivalence of interest which entails
a double capacity effect. This implies
that the negative outcome of one’s action presupposes the ignorance of such an
effect prior to the action. This is
because no one would want to deliberately or consciously destroy himself. Self-destruction here is viewed as a
detachment from the common good and the lack of the awareness of our
multi-dimensional interests in a particular situation. The Nigerian society is considered as a case
in point where selfish actions are taken both in private and public life such
that sooner or later they produce negative effects directly or indirectly. This calls for a design or reconstruction of
our social institutions or structures that will enable us to rationalize our
interest/actions. The remedy includes
relating our interest to the ontological reality or absolute being viewed as a
total reality with no missing link.
INTRODUCTION
The term ambivalence connotes
phrases such as “both sides” or “double capacity”. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language
describes an ambivalent person as one “having conflicting feelings about
something or one who is simultaneously attracted and repelled by something”, The
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary in a similar sense or conception
describes an ambivalent person as one “having or showing mixed good and bad
feelings about a particular object”.
Precisely demonstrated, if Mr.
‘A’ has a strong desire to go swimming in order to cool down his body
temperature when the weather is hot and at the same time condemns swimming or
refrains from swimming because of the ill consequences of drowning associated
with it, then he is ambivalent about swimming.
He finds himself in a dilemma of conflicting interests or desire, which
definitely could affect his action.
In the social sciences, we deal
with human behaviour both in its social and cultural aspects or in general,
human beings as members of the society.
This raises the problem of whether we can apply scientific methods as
against scientific theories/principles in the study of the society. Here there is need to emphasize that human
beings in society are different from objects or facts found in the natural
sciences. With the understanding of
human beings as inexact entities and not obeying causal laws, we are compelled
to rely on the rules of operations and principles of sorting that is peculiarly
applicable to questions/problems in the social sciences.
Apparently, the society as a
system in which people live together in organized communities entails the
design and reconstruction of the institutions that makes part of the society
itself. Such institutions could be
economic, education, politics, etc which directly or indirectly influences both
individual and collective behaviour of the members of the society. The management and or control of these
institutions cannot be overlooked in as much as it affects social action. It is pertinent at this juncture to assert
that, in a society where these institutions/structures are absent, there is the
urgent need for a design and construction, for they are the very fabric of the
society and where they exist or had existed, there is need for a reconstruction
either holistically or in parts to meet human need. This no doubt can be done through policy/decision-making and implementation
as well as selfless- service.
Thus, in the social science the application of
the engineering or technological approach in solving social problems imposes a
discipline on our speculative inclination, which may lead us into the region of
metaphysics. To avert this problem, the
approach compels us to submit our theories to definite standards of clarity and
practical testability. Prima facie, the
engineering or technological approach implies the adoption of our activist
attitude towards social order.
Human interest in social groupings are
multifarious hence the difficulty to identify one interest at a time. There is
also the difficulty in applying the scientific methods of the natural sciences
in explaining and predicting social phenomena, since social behaviour defies
causal laws and the exactness associated with the natural science. To a very large extent, we sometimes lack
awareness of our multi-dimensional interest in a particular situation. Because of the ignorance of what we want at
a particular time, which invariably affects our choice or decision-making, we
are bound to have ambivalent interest; the consequence of which may be grave.
The double-capacity effect of our actions
(willful) presupposes ignorance, which precedes our actions. Most time we are beclouded by selfishness
and the natural tendency of man to have everything for himself. This kind of tendencies influences our
social actions and could lead to ruthlessness in both private and public
life. To remedy such a situation as the
case may be, calls for urgent application of the right engineering techniques
to the whole society. In this
connection, the Nigeria experience is a case in point where there has been ill
social policies and ruthlessness thus making both public and private life
questionable.
To make this work more focused and
precise, the work of Innocent. I,
Asouzu titled: Effective Leadership and the Ambivalence of
Human Interest: The Nigerian paradox
in a complementary perspective, is reviewed as a guide to our present work. It is nevertheless the subject matter of
this paper. Here Asouzu identifies the
phenomenon of ambivalence of human interest as something that can hold
individuals and societies to ransom because of its capacity to conceal its
devastating effect. He notes further
that because of the ambivalence of human interest, the life we choose to live
sometimes is paradoxical especially when we identify certain situations as good
but end up in the course of our actions doing those, which we recognize and
even criticize as wrong.
What is Social Engineering?
Social engineering simply put,
is theoretically a resemblance of physical engineering especially when we
regard the ends as beyond the province of technology. To buttress the point, just as the main task of the physical
engineer is to design machines and to remodel and service them, the task of the
social engineer in comparative terms is to design social institutions,
construct and reconstruct as well as run those already in existence. These include bodies of private and public
character among other social institutions.
Accordingly,
The social sciences
have developed largely
through the
criticism of proposals for
social
developments; or
more precisely, through
attempts to
find out whether
or not some
particular
economic or political action is likely
to produce
an expected or
desired result
(potter
418).
For example, the social engineer can investigate into the
techniques of business administration; or into the effects of improved working
conditions upon output. He can as well
investigate into the effects of prison reform or health services or the
stabilization of prices and even democratic reforms.
Writing on Social science and social progress using
Technological Approach, Karl Popper claims with a degree of caution
that the social engineer can generate knowledge, which is properly
scientific. For Popper, this can form
the basis of his highly favoured “piecemeal engineering”. In this connection, Popper is of the view
that the social science can be used as an aid to bring about reforms in the
society. Importantly Popper rejects the
claim that scientific technocratic thinking should become a substitute for
moral and political debate. He opined
that the social sciences and indeed the natural sciences can never tell us
which goal we ought to pursue, but can tell us the technically most rational
means of achieving whatever goals we choose to pursue. This can be reached through democracy as a
social institution.
Dwelling
on the piecemeal approach, the social engineer or technologist recognizes that
only a minority of social institutions is consciously designed while the vast
majority has just ‘grown’ as the undesigned results of human action. The engineer relies on the functional or
institutional point of view. Here he
studies the differences in institutions as well as the similarities and
expresses his result in the form of hypotheses.
In
another vein and in agreement with Popper, social institutions are to be seen
as fortresses and must be well designed and properly manned. Adopting the piecemeal approach in social
engineering, we learn from our mistakes and make our way step by step and
carefully comparing the results achieved.
Thus the engineer tries to achieve his ends by small adjustments, which
can be continually improved upon as against holistic adjustment. However, one need to point out here that
such piecemeal approach or tinkering may not agree with the political
temperament of many activists whose programme is described as holistic or
utopian engineering; and which is always of public character and aims at
remolding the whole of society in accordance with a definite plan or blueprint.
The Concept of Ambivalence
of Human Interest
and Rationalizing Social
Action
As earlier mentioned, a review of Asouzu’s work
Effective
Leadership and the Ambivalence of Human Interest: The Nigerian Paradox in a
Complementary Perspective; will be an adequate guide for our
understanding of the phenomenon of social action, and social
construction/engineering relating to the ambivalence of human interest or
‘double – capacity’ effect of our action especially as it affects the Nigerian
Social System as a case study. A
thorough understanding of the work reveals that it is directed towards the
discovering of the most fundamental sources of conflicts in society.
Precisely the book reflects on
the reason behind our inability as human beings to do those things we identify
as good but insist on doing those appalling things we vehemently abhor and
criticize from the beginning (Asouzu 5).
In other words, those things which people had earlier on abhorred and
criticized informs the choice of the good things but along the line of social
action, they become victims of the neglected.
The author
identifies problems such as injustice, negligence, misadministration and
disregard for the welfare of people as some of the attributes of the appalling
actions in any society. He posits that
all the problems inherent in a society are in strong terms as a result of our
inability to recognize that human interest is ambivalent. This might not be far from Socrates’
teaching that “knowledge is virtue” and vice is attributed to ignorance of that
which is good. That human interest is
ambivalent means it has a double capacity of representing something negative
and positive at the same time. Little
wonder the great philosopher Socrates in his social ethics admonished us to
examine our lives and is known for the dictum “an unexamined life is not worth
living”. This may be informed by the
need to be aware of our ambivalent interest since ignorance for Socrates is
vice and to be knowledgeable entails knowing the good and not the vice.
Thus the danger of inherent
ambivalence is located in the capacity of our interest to mislead us to
unintended but willful and insightful actions and conclusions. Here Asouzu gives a down to earth example to
buttress his explanations of the phenomenon of ambivalent human interest as
situated in Nigerian Social System. According
to him; we sometimes willfully and insightfully accord recognition to a person
of dubious character or antecedent thereby subscribing indirectly to the ill
consequences associated with the person’s lifestyle. Ironically when we become uncomfortable with the outcome of our
actions especially with its threatening effects, we turn round to reject
them. In this respect, I wish to state
that besides our inability to be aware of the negative consequences of our
actions from the start; our social actions are most often antecedented by greed
and selfishness. The factor of greed,
egoism or selfishness I presume beclouds or suppresses our rationality as
humans. Socrates had cautioned that one
should not allow his appetitive element of the soul to dominate the rational
one that deciphers between virtues and vice.
Here, the author with an emphasis points out that:
If we
were fully aware of the dangers associated
with the
ambivalence of our interest, we would
certainly not
sign our death
warrant; we would
vehemently
resist those things that will complicate
matter
later and put as into trouble (Asouzu 6).
Based on the general premise that human beings have fundamental natural
tendency to survive, Asouzu further notes that if we singly or collectively had
those acts that would cause our destruction, it means we have failed to
adequately identify those acts as dangerous.
This sounds more of Socratic teachings because were we to identify them
as dangerous and capable of bringing about our own destruction, we would not
have chosen them. Thus, it is plausible
to add that the awareness of the ills of our actions in the society affords us
the rational privilege of choosing that side of our interest that would augur
well with our survival instincts.
Addressing social actions in
relation to the ambivalence of interest, the case of the suicide bomber is
critically examined as an example. Here,
the action of the suicide bomber could be viewed as having altruistic goal or
as Asouzu puts it something positive. Besides
the achievement of its positive goal which was willfully carried out for the
good of the society as preconceived, the negative out come which could possibly
be averted if critically examined entails the bomber killing himself and in
most cases people who might be sympathizers of his course. Here the bomber may infuriate both his
enemies and friends for a retaliation.
He may equally cause members of
his family and friends pains in the heart for destroying himself especially
where they value him. In this
circumstance, one notes that the ambivalence of human interest makes the
suicide bomber to fail to realize that there are alternatives and more positive
ways of addressing the same problem that informed the bombing.
According to Asouzu; “It is the lack of adequate awareness concerning
the phenomenon of ambivalence of human interest that makes us to choose
wrongly” (7).
Thus, rationalizing our social
actions entails adequate awareness of the ambivalence of our interest, which
would make us to put up spirited efforts to avoid those things that we would
actually never desire even if they touch on our most cherished personal
interest. Stressing the point above,
the author notes that: “The moment a person is not aware of the double capacity
of his interests this person easily becomes a victim of error of judgment and
his actions, in worse cases, can have tragic consequences.” (7)
Inferring from the above, there
is need for a rational approach to the way we conceptualize reality and
contentious situations in our society or social life. This includes making our interest/action part of the whole of
society.
Rationalizing our social action entails a
critical review of every intended act by means of reflection. An action that results to negative
consequence it presupposes the lack of critical reflection or rationality. Thus to be rational in respect of social
action include among others:
1) An
inquiring into the preceding conditions of possibility for rational or
irrational human action. This is
similar to the root of contradictions and paradoxes in society.
2) Of
great importance is the principle of complementalism, which to a very large
extent bears on the thematic. Constitutive
of this principle are:
(a) Principles
of harmonious complementation and
(b)
Principles of progressive transformation.
These principles as noted by Asouzu help us to rise
above the constraints imposed by the ambivalence of our interest and the fact
of our historicity. Fundamental to the
operation of these principles is the methodological assumption that anything
that exists serves a missing link of reality.
Reality here is conceived in the Hegelian way that is, in absolutism and
this apparently enables us to come to terms with our finality and limitations. In other words we consciously accept them
(limitations) as given and at the same time see them as conditions through
which we can achieve higher levels of legitimization. With the notion of the totality of our being where everything
that exists serves as missing link of reality, the principles enable us “to
focus on the authentic joy that is intended in every fragmented moments of
existence” (Asouzu 8). Asouzu adds that
once the fragmented moments of existence can be transformed to those conditions
that make a fulfilled happy life a possibility; they become veritable
conditions towards overcoming the ambivalence of human interest.
It is pertinent to mention here
that the authentic foundation of human interest is or should be linked with all
world common goods accepted both as a theoretical or practical reality. Considering the foregoing, there is the
ontological precondition of human interest, which can be used in adequately
evaluating the practical situations of everyday life. Any act of personal interest is a detachment from the authentic
foundation – the common good and from the transcendental precondition, which is
a contradiction in itself. Accordingly,
Asouzu submits, “… any society that insists on the canon of self-interest as
means of personal and collective self-actualization is merely heading to ruins,
chaos or anarchy” (8). To avoid such a
chaotic or anarchistic society, argument is advanced for a reconciliation of
our interest with each in a manner that makes them harmoniously complementary
in view of their ultimate legitimizing foundation. This harmonious complementalism yields the common good postulated
as the authentic foundation of all human interest and is symmetrically related
to the authenticating foundation of all world immanent common good.
Finally in any society where
social action is precedented by the ambivalence of human interest, calls for
the creation of an awareness concerning the ambivalence which plausibly stated
turns out to be one of the greatest challenges towards building a just,
equitable, harmonious, democratic and violence – free society. This entails a new orientation in personal
character reformation as it affects all facets of social life.
The Nigerian Experience of
the Ambivalence of Human Interest and Social Engineering
Suffice it to say
that, the objectification of the total realities of human existence as it
affects the entire social system in which man has found himself involves the
articulation of the many facets of social reality into a holistic manner that
can be coordinated and controlled for the overall benefit of members of the
society otherwise expressed as the common good (Ozumba 1). These facets of social reality include
social institutions or structures like economic, culture, political, religious,
environmental, legal and psychological elements of the society.
All the
foregoing social forces among others seek expression in man’s interaction with
others in society. The articulation of
law, government and other legitimate agencies is necessitated by a proper
control and temper of their varying expressions. However, it is critically noted that the application of the
forces of control to human action is not practicable in the absolute
sense. Human action in the Nigerian
Society is very largely precendented by the ambivalence of human interest.
Reviewing
the effect of the ambivalence of human interest in Nigeria, Asouzu expresses
that though Nigerians are hypothetically not known for violent crimes, they
however indulge in clever crimes such as “419” example credit card swindle,
forgery, impersonation, counterfeiting and adulteration with a highly refined
and elegant versions. Crimes and
criminals are common features of every human society, its civilization and
industrialization not withstanding. However,
suffice it to say that the Nigerian experience in this connection is a
peculiarity because, as Asouzu puts it, the romanticisation of the idea of
being a crook is described thus: “Being
a crook in the Nigerian way is a phenomenon that evokes disgust, amusement and
bewilderment all over the world” (10).
A
practical example of the effect of the ambivalence of human interest in
Nigerian society is the dangers that substandard products and services might
pose to human life. Here manufacturers
in Nigeria indulge in the production of fake goods with a view of selfishly
making profits. What informs the
production of low quality products is the selfish interest in profit making.
This no
doubt has devastating consequences to human life especially in drugs and food
beverages. Recently the National Agency
for Food and Drug Control (NAFDAC) has been fighting a big battle against the
perpetrators of this heinous crime who are “more interested in their personal
interest and this has almost characterized our life style: Starting from the
private sector to the big co-operate undertakings the story is almost the same”
(Asouzu 11).
Equally
human services or labour is not left out.
Civil servants as well as private or public servants render services
that are not commensurate with what they earn.
The mason, carpenter, and other social services providers are more
interested in the unfair share of the gain they are likely to make and not in
the excellence of the work. Poor
quality materials are often used especially in the execution of public project
predicated on the interest of unjust profit making. The ill consequence from this ambivalent human interest ranges
from the destruction of individual lives like in the case of a collapsed public
building that was poorly finished to economic waste or sabotage having negative
effect on both the perpetrators of crime and the innocent ones including their
families and loved ones that were never targeted.
Another
case in point is that of politicians and those privileged to be in the
corridors of power. Bernard Williams
writing on politics and moral character in Stuart Hampshire (editor) makes
a general comment about politicians. According
to Williams:
There is of course one totally
banal sense of the claim that
they (politicians) are crooks,
namely that some break the
law for their own advantage, take bribes, do shady things
which are not actually
illegal for personal
gain.
…. It does raise
one or two interesting questions, for
instance the
absence from politics
of any very robust
notion of professional ethics. (Hampshire
56).
I will not hesitate to quickly state that
Bernard Williams has succinctly summarized the attitude of the Nigerian
politicians who run public offices and politics, as business enterprises or
cartel. Here the politician and even
the Nigerian citizens to a large extent perceive the politician’s professional
conduct as more like that of a businessman.
In
Nigeria it is a common phenomenon to observe that a morally right politician or
public servant who has respect for professional ethics or law but, comes home
after serving his mother land without booties of looting and fraudulent wealth
is often wooed and perceived as a failure by members of his family, friends and
neighbours. Here the ambivalence of
human interest is inherent in both the “common man” and the highly placed. Both suffer directly or indirectly the
negative consequence of their ambivalent interest via action.
In
another manner it is common in Nigeria for people to occupy public offices
without the required qualification and some out of selfish interest tell lies,
or deliberately bully others and mislead them, or let them down, or use them as
the case may be. However it may be that
when it is all explained, the people understand, but it is foolish to say, even
then, that they (the victims) have no right to complain. Williams here opines
that:
It may be said that the victims do not have a right
to complain
because their relation to the
action is
not the same in the political context as it would be
outside it: perhaps it is not
even the same action….
There are victims outside
it who get worst than
they could reasonably expect. (62).
Emphatically it is much better to be adequately
aware of the ambivalence of human interest when making political decision.
Public
crimes in Nigeria are in most cases modestly committed especially where
individuals involved are insulated. Writing
on Ruthlessness
in public life, Thomas Nagel in Hampshire (editor) aptly portrays the
Nigerian experience in his general comment.
According to Nagel:
… the growth of political power
has introduced a scale of
Massacre and
despoliation that makes
the efforts of
private criminals, pirates, and bandits
seem truly
modest. Individuals who play roles in political, military,
and economic
institutions commit public
crimes. Yet
unless the offender has
the originality of Hitler, Stalin
or Amin, the crimes don’t seem
to be fully attributable to
the individual himself. Famous political monsters have
moral personalities
large enough to
transcend the
boundaries of
their public roles,
they take on the full
weight of their deeds
as personal moral
property….
They act as officeholder or functionaries, and
thereby
as individuals they are insulated in a puzzling way from
what they do; insulated
both in their own view and in
the view of most observers. Even if one is in no doubt
about the merits of the acts in
question, the agents seem
to have a slippery moral
surface produced by their roles
or offices (Hampshire 75).
One would not fail to react that whether a
public office-holder is insulated by political or public circumstances or not,
the consequences of his ambivalent interest may not spare him directly or
indirectly.
Asouzu
argues in this respect that fundamental confidence, which is the basis of human
cohabitation, is almost a scarce commodity within the Nigerian context. The
question is how many people are willing to place the common good above their
private interest? For many people,
leadership in Nigeria today is measured figuratively stated by the number of
sacks of money that exchange hands during a person’s tenure in office. Also in the Nigerian context, a good leader
is one who creates conducive atmosphere for the unregulated and unaccounted for
distribution of public fund and assets.
Ironically when this act brings about the collapse of the entire economy
or polity, both the fraudulent leader and innocent ones become victims of such
an ambivalence of human interest directly or indirectly.
Conclusion
It is
paradoxically observed that a person seeks to conserve his interest by
embarking on those things that would ensure his own destruction. This apparently is the root of the problem
of the ambivalence of human interest as is shared by the Nigerian
experience. One would agree that in the
Nigerian experience, the failure to realize that an ambivalent approach to life
and the desire to accomplish selfish interest are contrary and as such not
practicable. This has become the root cause of most of the problems the
Nigerian society faces.
In a
manner that proffers solution to ambivalent interest, Asouzu admonishes that a
life built on contradictions breeds a poverty of a special type. It breeds poverty of the spirit and poverty
of the spirit reinforces all forms of deviant behaviours.
The
Nigerian society as a whole need a therapeutic exercise that entails a
non-violent social revolution rather a social reorientation; a measure that
would definitely remove the vail from our eyes and create adequate awareness of
the negative consequences of our actions either in private or public life. The canon or dogma that, “ascendance to any
public office … is a sure way to instant affluence” (Asouze 17) must of
necessity be eliminated from our society.
Stuart
Hampshire writing on public and private morality
recommends that:
The trade – off between
antithetical values would then
be the pursuit of an Aristotelian balance, an intuitive
moral compromise that
repudiates two extremes on
either side. The Aristotelian balance between public
and private life, with
their attached virtues,
and
between practical and
theoretical interests, is a feature
of that particular way of life
(45).
Besides
the Aristotelian balance, we must consciously and practically cease from the
choice of doing those things we abhor and criticize. This will in the end justify our actions both morally and
socially. As Nigerians, we precisely
must in the course of rationalizing our social action and engineering veritable
society for human habitation, desist from the act of corruption especially in
high places, mismanagement of public funds and property.
Conclusively
there is need for an adequate awareness of the negative consequences of our
social actions couple with the integration of our being with the total reality
or absolute being. Thus once we can
identify adequately the ambivalence of our human interest and the danger of
self-destruction inherent in it then we can build a peaceful and habitable
society for humanity. For no man would
want to deliberately and consciously destroy himself.
Works
Cited
Asouzu, I. I. Effective Leadership and the Ambivalence of Human Interest: The Nigerian Paradox in a
Complimentary Perspective. Calabar:
University of Calabar Press, 2003.
Bray Brooke, David. Philosophical Problems of the Social Sciences.
New York: The Macmillan Company
Limited (nd.).
Brown, Stuart and Co. (eds.) Conceptions of Inquiry. London:
Mathuen The Open University
Press, 1981.
Hampshire, Stuart (ed). Public and Private Morality.
London: Cambridge University
Press, 1978.
Outhwaite, William. New Philosophies of Social Science.
Realism, Hermeneutics and
Critical Theory.
London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
1987.
Ozumba, G. O. (ed) Nigerian Government and Politics.
Aba:
AAU Industries, 1997.
Potter, David (ed). Society and the Social
Sciences; An Introduction: London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd; 1981