Between the poles of our geography

Human nature often seems to oscillate between extremes. In some cases, the combination of genetics and freedom may seem to direct the behavior of individuals towards the radically individual, and in others, towards the strongly social. This flow of biological and existential forces between two poles makes possible a broad range of possibilities in many senses, but particularly in regard to human aspirations. Psychologically, the pole in which said conflicts begin is the center of individuality, which claims the world for itself. However, said claim may run through a range that includes progressive manifestations of openness to the communitarian up to the great social ideals. The human being is often, in this manner, subject to internal and external fighting and conflict, with variable relevance to itself and to the community in which he or she lives, these being solved with different degrees of success. The consequences of this frequently model sections of the personal and communitarian universe, projecting themselves, articulated or inarticulated, into different quadrants of reality.

This logic is often applied by extension to the interaction of social groups with particular interests, be them economic interest groups, political interest groups, or any others.  This creates a changing flow of forces which, in its dynamism, tends to be blind, with the exception of its direction towards the above-mentioned particular interests. Maybe one of the most famous examples of this phenomenon is the Watergate political scandal in the United States of America, which most notorious participant was President Richard Nixon. Espionage, and according to some, sabotage, to the political party opposing that of President Nixon, were the reason for a series of investigations and political antagonisms which climaxed with the resignation of Richard Nixon to the presidency which he had recently won by being reelected to the position. The fire of indignation caused by the actions ultimately attributed to said President ran through the country of origin, amazing nationals and foreigners, creating a political pressure which weight was unsustainable. Finally, Richard Nixon’s resistance to accept any involvement was defeated, and his resignation to the presidency of the United States of America became inevitable.

After Richard Nixon’s resignation, David Frost, a British journalist, made a series of interviews by means of which he tried to obtain an explanation directly from Richard Nixon’s experience on different moments of his life and political career.  The 2008 film, Frost/Nixon illustrates the approach and the manner in which these interviews were made as well as the psychological process that took Nixon to reveal facts that evidenced his position in said affairs. To the domestic audience, a clarification, and more than anything, an acceptance of guilt on Richard Nixon’s part, was the ethically correct in view of the burdening importance of the facts discovered until then.

The development of the interviews showed a Nixon who sought, at first, to establish an evasive position and move towards the projection of an exculpatory image at any cost. The ex-president wished to return to political life and saw in the making of the interviews a means to rehabilitate his public image for him to be accepted again by the elites operating in Washington, D.C. However, the constant talking about the details of his performance as president in connection with topics such as the Vietnam war, the measures taken regarding the economy of the United States and the implementation of integrating measures in the area of civil rights, seemed to generate an empathic force between the interviewer and the interviewed party, while the existing rivalry between them grew.  The tension between the two increased tangibly, originating an unpredictable situation: the more Nixon sought to justify himself the more he seemed to become conscious of the flaws of his performance. This consciousness appeared to wear down his fierce defense, which he resumed again and again, creating a psychological conflict flooding the very core of the sense of his existence.

On the other hand, David Frost, whose initial shyness had permitted the avoidance of explanations, could resume a work of deeper delving into the topic of main interest for the American audience. Pressure by Frost on the topic of the Watergate scandal took this process to the point of pushing Nixon to say the shocking idea that if the president of the nation executed an illegal action, it would automatically cease to be illegal due to the fact that it was the president executing it. 

Unthinkable as it had been for many, the transit to the opposite pole had concluded. Nixon finally had admitted that he had made great mistakes and had failed to perform his duty regarding his position as statesman. Even though he didn’t admit to any responsibility for breaking any law, he seemed to have gone from the pole of self justification to the consciousness of his belonging to something bigger than himself, and before which he had a higher duty: his nation. This is how the national community seemed, progressively and in a short time, to become greatly important in his view of reality. Even if his individual perspective kept a very rooted relevance, the fundamental reference ceased to be his own person in order to look at someone else. 

It is clearly exemplified, in this manner, that the radicalization of personal aspirations taken to the extreme of breaching human laws and fundamental ethical principles may strongly oppose the correct direction of the human orientation towards the communitarian. This is why harmonization of the particularly individual and of the communitarian plays a key role for the balance and development of societies, due to the fact that it constitutes the constructive solution for the interests interplay and the activity arising from it.  The concept of common good could be considered as a ruling parameter, but this concept navigates without a compass amidst the waves of particular interests. Who determines what a “good” thing is? Who determines what the common good is for a concrete historical circumstance?

It is then that a Civilizational Direction becomes necessary. In said environment it is necessary to avoid that the flow of forces remain blind to needs bigger than those deriving from their reduced premises. In this manner it could be prevented that a society tears its own fabric or follows the path of its own extinction. If the human being is capable of overcoming this antinomy turning it into a harmony, maybe the hope of humanity growing out of its infancy is not an empty one.