Multiperspectivism

We currently find ourselves stuttering at the dead-end of monolithic progress, a so-called global civilization built on a modernity of hyperindividualism that sees identity as a construct of inherent positivist worth and which demands religious devotion. We are crafting our world of new tribalism in the rubble of past empires and the shadows of new ones, reminiscent of “dark age” Europe, as we vie for the right to determine the narrative of societal progress. While we do this, we also face unique historical, global challenges such as climate change and are simultaneously becoming cognizant of the slingshot we have readied for ourselves in the form of digitalization. Both the realization of the stagnation of the last decades and the building tension of a society on the brink of a new technological age highlight the dire need for a novel approach to understanding our place in the world.

To address one potential point of criticism from the outset, though the above talk of “we” and “our” may be said to be myopic or only concern the Western world, or the “global North”, the effects of any actions which may or may not arise from these cultural currents will have ramifications for the entire world, precisely because of the myopic view of these societies paired with their relative wealth and the corresponding effects on global value and supply chains, not to mention the cultural influence these societies wield across the board (from popular culture to academia).

A (very) quick run-through of the historical map of progress that has led us here will help to outline why this is the case. Progress, as we understand it today, is essentially a description of the geopolitical and technological developments of the last five hundred years. It is an idea that is rooted in a European perspective and experience of the world and how it was encountered throughout this period. The “discovery” of new continents, physical phenomena and the elaboration of sciences, the growth of the modern concepts of human rights, democracy, and the nation state, all combined to a narrative of a supposed singular historical trajectory. The momentum of this perspective and thinking birthed revolution as a means of human agency within this history, the theory of evolution, the industrial revolution, dialectics, and socialism, with the friction of these phenomena eventually leading to the final explosion of colonialism, the growth of capitalism, the advent of fully mechanized warfare, and the twin apocalypses of the world wars.

It was this cataclysmic launching into a wholly global dynamic – with the birth of dozens of new independent nation states out of former colonies, and the associated death of centuries-old empires – under the shadow of the nuclear age and the slow recognition of the inadequacy of a singular narrative for comprehending both history and current events that led to the rise of what is often referred to as post-modernism. In essence, post-modernity was simply an unveiling of the many perspectives inherent to modernity that had, until then, been denied or actively suppressed – such as feminism, minority rights, non-western perspectives, various forms of underground culture. These different interpretations of sociopolitical and cultural phenomena challenged Western modernity, enlightenment, and humanism, and forced them to make good on their claims of all-encompassing values and rights. The crumbling of post-war institutions and the stagnation of both capitalist and communist economies in the 1970s also weakened the cultural façade of equality and freedom and exposed the hypocrisy of monolithic progressive ideals. These quasi-religious overarching narratives could no longer address the demands and needs of the various, hitherto invisible groups surfacing to demand adequate representation. Since that time, we have lived in a world where the many singular narratives compete for dominance, with each pendulum swing from left to right and back again becoming more divisive. Rooted in the progressive understanding of singular truth, they continue to slog it out, these multiple paths of modernity and competing conceptions of the world have yet to find a common epistemological foundation that allows them to communicate as equals rather than rival creeds. This hypermodernity is a world in which the value of identity, so paramount in progressive cultural ideals, stands above everything.

The digital age and social media have drawn the curtain back on the myriad groups of human existence even further, yet the tools we currently have for building bridges are still the ones meant for conferring positivist worth and categorization along a one-dimensional axis. Is this person, idea, event, group to the left or to the right of where I stand? The individual perspective of observation, the “I” from which every idea and object is taken in and understood, the nucleus of Enlightenment epistemology, has us beholden to singular views of the world and history that lack any kind of depth, and has left us trapped with the onset of digitalization. Not only that, but it has shackled us politically in our comprehension of a world which now confronts us with its own reality and demands we think and act as flexibly as possible to address the problems at hand. That said, when we look at the historical map of knowledge creation, we see that it encompasses a universe of multiplicities. Be it medicine, the sciences, or history – the trajectories of ideas and their consequences spiral through time and space. We already have pockets of comprehension that multiple dimensions are possible, and their relations can be ambiguous, yet on the ground and in discussion we continue to attempt to crowbar every truth into our now-ancient one-dimensional spectrum.

We are not just simply aware of multiplicities and multiple dimensions in scientific or knowledge-related fields and activities. We actively live with multiplicities, ambiguity, and multiperspectivism every day of our lives. From our bodies, surrounding physical realities, through to navigating the emotional universes of family life, friendships, work, all the way to various forms of governance. We navigate multiple universes every day and do so quite successfully because we were raised with the natural intuition that these were the realities of life. A novel approach and methods are needed that would hopefully become just as natural, ones which would allow us to integrate and expand on the frozen, categorizing, individual, and positivist framework that saturate the world today. Multiperspectivism, as an approach, would not just alleviate the hysteria of our current time, but if viable, could also accommodate the widest swathes of ideas and identity currently doing battle in the public sphere, simply by making that battle completely illogical and unnecessary.

On an individual level, this would be akin to the dissolution of the subject/object distinction that we know from mediation – the understanding that there is no singular point of view. Even an experience with psychedelics is a helpful reference point here. It means taking the knowledge of what we accept as reality, of what constitutes perception, the subconscious, the ego, the individual, and breaking it down into constituent parts to then reflect on how that idea of reality has affected us. As you reassemble the various aspects you become aware that there is no singular perspective, no one point of reference. If, on an individual level, we can attest to the multiple perspectives of our reality and thought landscapes, what does that mean for our perception of identities across society? A sense of understanding and compassion should also then make it possible to inhabit not just the various perspectives of one’s own existence, but those of people close to you, or even strangers in a shared experience – expanding from the smallest element outward, we should be able to incorporate elements from different value sets, comprehend why these would change over time, and how values would be affected by region. This does not disregard the “I” or the various base reactions and emotions that arise but incorporates them into an overall understanding of the paradigm of experience, which should then allow for a more healthy and productive approach to life.

The tools for applying this approach on a societal level also already exist and there are plenty of people putting forward conceptual frameworks to resolve the current predicament, frameworks that go beyond the progressive holy scriptures of the last 250 years. One particularly attractive approach put forward by Latin American thinkers is to draw on indigenous understandings as a ready alternative to the Western individualistic perspective. It is akin to going from the one dimension of left-right to four dimensions, or even a bird’s eye view of four dimensions. It does not replace the Western perspective; it provides a paradigm within which the Western perspective can exist with many others. Generally speaking, it is the incorporation of more globally “southern” epistemologies into the dominant “northern” perspective in the hopes that it enables society to operate from an understanding of multiple perspectives, truths, and realities that are existent and always manifesting themselves.

Contrary to the nature of the Enlightenment progressive mindset, it is not a dominant universalist approach, which is the most important feature. It is an epistemological paradigm meant to remain open and flexible, to break away from the same fixed set of tools that have been used repeatedly. An innovative approach that allows for the integration of the necessary and proven qualities our democracies have to offer, while being able to accommodate an understanding of a society as made up of fluid multiplicities. It does not challenge but accommodates and shores up liberal democracy as an extremely valuable and potent tool for representing a society of multiplicities, with multiple views on society, for realizing a fluid society based on a common foundation.

Such a shift would hopefully also allow for a move away from the classic understanding of progress couched in religious-type thinking, morality, and action. Currently, the less ideologically driven, classic conservative thinkers also tend to be much less imaginative in their solutions, clinging to the conceptual purity of their classical liberal-democratic values as the timeless solution to all problems. On the other end of the one-dimensional battlefield, are their traditionally more ideological and presently more creative neo-Marxist, post-colonial siblings. In their attempts to grapple with the shortcomings of their own approach in light of phenomena such as climate change, they have been formulating enticing ideas on how to change epistemological frameworks to embrace a world of multiple realities and perspectives. Both share the inability to fully let go of the moral dogma of their specific church of progress, but combined, they can facilitate a productive way forward through a dissolution of strict and centered paradigms to a fusion of their different concepts and approaches. Many of the confusing alliances we see in politics today speak to the reality of multiplicities already present, the pandemic having pushed this reality to the fore. Embracing multiperspectivism would also make this less of an embarrassing surprise and much easier to navigate. Stripped of positivist value, religious morality, and righteous history, societal actors would (hopefully) be forced to engage in much more honest dialogue.

The dominance of single narratives has proven itself to be ineffective. Across the political spectrum and the world, systems are coming up short when having to offer perspectives that would benefit societies without excluding large sections of the population. Not only that, but the huge challenges we are facing around the globe have proven that only minor disruptions and shifts can have far-reaching and deadly consequences. There is more to come, and it is likely to be of a much larger scale – a novel approach is needed for this new world we are entering. Multiple perspectives and ambiguity simply reflect the reality we live in individually, as societies, and globally. These most recent contortions and the violent disagreements at the heart of so many debates reflect a state of denial, not wanting to make the change, not understanding that the world has already moved on. We must adapt, evolve, or dissolve. Reality continuously proves to us that our individual, one-dimensional, singular perspective on the world is wholly inadequate. At the same time, we master this ambiguity every day in multiple ways, and we can introduce it on a much larger scale. It denies no perspective and does not demand any dogmatic adherence, it drains the morality from pragmatic discussions, and still affords it room to exist.