Evelin Lindner's Global Life World and Scientific Enquiry

• December 2004
• June 2004
• Very short summary of my theory, 2007
• Geographical and chronological vision of my global life design, 2008
• Footnotes
• References

December 2004
I was born into a so-called refugee family (more precisely, a family of forcibly displaced people) and I grew up, not so much in my actual geographical and cultural environment, but in my father's imagination and stories of the farm that he had lost (which is now in Poland). I grew up with the deep-felt refugee identity of "here were we are we are unwelcome guests, we are not at home, but there is no home to go back to." Most of my early years were characterized by the feeling of a lack, lack of belonging, lack of roots.

Slowly, over the years, I learned that identity is something people can choose and construct. I understood that I could construct different layers of identity and choose or "hook up to" refugee identity, displaced-people identity, or German identity, or Polish identity, or European identity, or global identity.

I found peace and calm and a tremendous sense of belonging in constructing my personal identity as follows: When I am asked "Where are you from?" I usually reply: "I am from planet Earth, I am a living being, and I am a human being like you. If you wish to know more, I will tell you more, but it is a long story." In other words, my identity is today constructed like an onion, or like a sunflower. At its center, its core, there is my identity of being a living being, a fellow human being. This is my essence, and more, here is the limit of my essence. All the rest is secondary and "a long story": I love the Norwegian landscape, I love Jerusalem, I love the desert, I love flying, I love my friends around the world, I am ashamed of the atrocities inflicted by Hitler, or Stalin or any other perpetrator and their followers, in other words, I am ashamed of the atrocities that humankind has perpetrated, and I am proud of humankind's achievements, and so forth.... When I am in Japan, just to give an example, I explain that Japanese history is MY/OUR history and that I wish to learn more about MY/OUR history. And that Japanese culture is MY/OUR culture; I would avoid saying sentences entailing the words "your history," or "your culture."

In other words, I would never say a sentence such as "I am..." and then complete this sentence with the name of a nation. Why? Because my essence is not to belong to a nation. My essence is to be a living creature and human being. This is my primary identity. This does not mean that I am not in love with or attached to specific places or people more than to others. But all these attachments are secondary. If I were to say, "I am European," for example, I would introduce a misplaced essence into my identity, an essence that creates false fault lines to people from other parts of the world. Clearly, this does not mean that I am not particularly attached to Europe. Clearly, I grew up there, I know it very well, and care for Europe in a specific way. However, this is not the core essence of my identity. The core essence is to be a fellow human being to all other human beings on our planet.

I know that my choices, though relevant to me, are not necessarily convincing to others. When Hitler came to power, a number German Jews were adamant that they were Germans more than Jews, in short, they had constructed a German identity more than a Jewish identity. Still they were subsequently killed because their essence was seen to be Jewish by their murderers.

I believe therefore that conceptualizing the essence of our identity in other ways than as our shared humanity, is potentially dangerous.

Because of this, I promote my layered identity-building as a blue-print that is furthering peace. I consequently adamantly refuse replying to the question of "where are you from" with the name of a country or nation, or with an otherwise lesser entity than the entirety of humankind. Instead of giving the usually expected answer, I explain my point, I explain that the usually expected answer is, to my view, prone to undermining world peace and that I therefore have developed an alternative answer. So, what I do is not just some kind of theoretical dream, I apply it everyday....

The result is a wonderful anchoring that I feel in the world. And it is not just my imagination that gives me this feeling. My way of presenting myself as a fellow human being, indeed opens hearts and minds of people around the world to our human commonalities. Their warm-hearted love that they then extend to me, is what anchors me in this world and gives me a deep sense of belonging and roots.

June 2004
In order to understand a globalizing world, we need "global" research, as well as the participation of researchers who have a global outlook and global experience. In my case, a specific biography made me acquire a profoundly global perspective and identity. As a result, in my conceptualization, psychology is embedded within broader historic and philosophical contexts and is profoundly intertwined with global changes. The aim is to avoid single interest scholarship, work transdisciplinary, and probe how even local micro-changes may be embedded within larger global changes.

In my case, a specific biography made me acquire a profoundly global perspective and identity. The lack of a clear sense of belonging during childhood (being born into a family of displaced people) made me particularly sensitive to identity quests and urged me to learn about and become part of the rich and diverse world culture that belongs to all of us, as opposed to being part of any particular national sub-culture. Nagata, 1998, wrote an article, Being Global: Life at the Interface, whereby living at the interface means living as an immigrant in another culture. In my case, I have accustomed myself to living in many cultures and in many interfaces, more so, have made the very interface my home.

My personal development parallels recent epistemological trends in many ways. Psychologists, for example, are at present beginning to overcome their "physics envy" (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 180) and start to integrate quantitative research approaches into larger contexts and allow for triangulation with qualitative research paradigms. My personal development also parallels the current trend towards rather relational theories in social science, away from individualist concepts that do not capture the complexities of a relational, emotional, and social world.

I believe that both, my personal maturation and current epistemological trends are intertwined with and nurtured by a growing awareness that humankind is One single family. As long as people lived rather apart, it was not seen as possible, for example, that people from different cultures could indeed understand each other. Cultures were regarded as a priori separate, and not as part of one single culture of homo sapiens, where people react to each other in relational ways, and altogether are perhaps more similar than different.

My conclusion after three decades of global experience is that we, the human inhabitants of the earth, are more similar than different and that there is ample common ground on which we can build. I suggest that this common ground connects people and draws them into relationships, and, if this trend is cherished, respected and nurtured, and if people are attributed equal dignity, it can help turn separating differences into valuable diversities and into sources of enrichment as opposed to sources of disruption.

Even though having a "global horizon" is on the increase,(1) still most people respond to the question "where are you from?" with the name of a country. This outlook entails a framing of the world in terms of my people, my history, in relation to your history and your people. In my case, I have developed an identity of being a citizen of the global village, and thus all people's history is my history and all people are my people. This does not mean a rejection of local, national or regional identifications; it means lovingly including them within larger outlooks, broadening inner horizons and going beyond usually taken-for-granted inner boundaries. In my case, side-effects of this inner development are, among others, a longer time horizon as to my academic analysis, and transdisciplinarity in my academic positioning, both incidentally representing also current avant-garde trends.

There are still few people around with such broad backgrounds and global anchoring, yet their number is increasing and more and more people are drawn into this trend at least to some extent. Thus, my perspective and standpoint is not only particularly "global" but also future-oriented. My experiences and analyses will probably become more common in the future, both in the daily lives of lay persons as well as in scientific practice.

Ray and Anderson, 2000, carried out surveys and interviews, which show that we currently witness the emergence of a new movement, the Cultural Creatives. When I read their characterizations, I appear to be at the forefront of this movement with my global outlook, my quest for broader meaning (2) (as opposed to narrow material or status gratifications), my desire to build bridges, between what Ray and Anderson call Moderns and Traditionals as well as toward what Ray and Anderson would perhaps call Pre-Moderns. I also bridge the Consciousness Movement and Social Movement that make up the Cultural Creatives Movement, according to Ray and Anderson.

To my view, my intuition that humiliation, a deeply relational concept, plays a core role in a globalizing world is deeply anchored in my global life world. Few people from the rich West try to enter into deep relationships with the rest of the world. Even when they travel, they pay visits, from my country to your country, and maintain the illusion that the West is somewhat independent from the rest and that discord can be attributed to culture difference, to them and their (backward) culture, or their unfathomable evil motives. Many travelers overlook that the rest of the world is deeply connected with its rich parts and that this relationship is probably more relevant than cultural differences. And, this relationship may be characterized by feelings, such as admiration, or envy, or, when we talk about serious disruptions such as terrorism, by feelings of humiliation.

Very short summary of my theory, 2007
I am often asked to summarize my message. Please see here a short narrative, a brief table, an executive summary, and a somewat longer paper. However, let me make an attempt to be even shorter in the following paragraphs. I have one main message, that I sometimes break down into four sub-messages or sub-objectives (see further down). The starting point for my work is that we, humankind, have to humanize globalization. I have coined the term egalization to signify that we need to implement truly - not just in rethoric - the idea that every human being possesses equal rights and dignity. A decent global village (see Avishai Margalit's work) has to be built from the ramshackle global village that we live in at the current point in time. If humankind fails to achieve this, humankind might share the fate of the Titanic and face its demise. In an interdependent world, we are all in one boat. Self-interest confluxes with common interest. Working for common interest is no longer optional altruism, but imperative for self-interest. Since the wealthy of this planet have more resources, and will face lethal backlashes (for example, terrorism) if they fail, they need to hurry and urgently take on the task of egalizing globalization in partnership with the rest. Everybody can and should contribute to this project (see in this context our Call for Creativity). By doing so, one does not only help "save the world," but also reaps a sense of meaning that otherwise cannot be achieved. This project is nobody else's responsibility and opportunity but mine and yours. The state of the world is dire, far beyond pessimism or scepticism. We need to be profoundly alarmed and put all our energy into saving the Titanic from going down - rather than indulge into denial, panic, finger-pointing, or destructive pesssimism.

I break this main goal down into four sub-objectives:
1. The story of Marie Antoinette may illustrate the first sub-objective. It certainly is not true that she said "Let them eat cake" when told that people were starving. However, the story could still be taken as a short-hand description of elite ignorance and how it may lead to death (the French aristocracy lost their heads under the guillotine). In other words, I wish to convey the message to the privileged of this world that their blindness (or worse) may cost them their lives. It is suicidal to stay unaware of the fact that casually displayed ignorance on the part of the wealthy may trigger feelings of humiliation in the beggars. It is suicidal because these feelings of humiliation may backlash. And feelings of humiliation do backlash the more the world becomes interdependent, the more underlings are touched by the human rights call for equal dignity for all, and the more underlings and those who identify with them (see research on mirror neurons) gain access to lethal weapons. I call feelings of humiliation the "nuclear bomb of our emotions." Double humiliation is the result when the haves preach human rights to the have-nots, while at the same time allowing their ignorance to make the situation for the have-nots more humiliating. Double standards humiliate doubly. In other words, the wealthy do not only carry a particular responsibility, it is also live-saving for them to engage forcefully in egalizing globalization.

2. The story of the Wall Street financier illustrates the second sub-objectives. It is the story of a wall street financier, who, after having indulged in luxury (sports cars, penthouses, trophy girl friends, etc.), ends up investing in social responsibility, because it provides more meaning than any accumulation of self-focused gratifications could ever render. The message is that we need to ask "what can I do for the world?" and not "what can the world do for me?" The first question is much more gratifying than the latter. Investing one's energy into humanizing and egalizing globalization provides more meaning and satisfaction than holding on to self-centered "just world" beliefs. Many among the wealthy choose to define themselves as victims of injustice ("why should I care..."), or as comparably poor ("others are richer than me, why don't they go first..."), and thus avoid taking responsibility for the world. Yet, just-world thinking has no protective effect; in an interdependent world it is potentially both suicidal and homocidal. The haves of this world need to stand up and partner with the poor of the world. All together need to come out of humiliation in a Mandela-like fashion (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Anwar el-Sadat...), and not with genocide and terror (Hitler, genocide, global terror).

3. It it useful to look at long-term human history. This has three pay-offs, at least. First, it provides the calmness, composure, and serenity that is necessary to undertake the constructive social change that is needed at the current point in history. Second, it opens space for mutual respect across fault lines. Third, it spells out a roadmap for the future and offers underpinnings for hope. By looking at long-term human history, we detect that a culture of honor is an adaptation to the fear of the security dilemma (a term used in international relations theory) that reigned during the past 10,000 years of human history, when people lived in a fragmented world and used land as resource for their livelihood (see William Ury's work). The security dilemma is a tragic dilemma, and consequently, the culture of honor forces people into tragic choices ("better dead than humiliated " drove heads of families/states into duel-like wars that devoured millions). In contrast, a culture of dignity, or, more precisely, a culture of equal dignity for all, can emerge in a unified human family where knowledge is the resource. The culture of dignity is much more benign than the culture of honor - among others, it opens for the Mandela path out of humiliation. Even though the culture of dignity is not yet realized anywhere on planet Earth - it is a vision for the future - it is worth working for it. The culture of dignity is not only more hopeful, it also represents the only suitable adaptation to the new world of global interdependence that we live in. The culture of honor is of little help today. It was an adaptation to a different past. None of humankind's forefathers saw planet Earth from the perspective of an astronaut. The term "global village" did not exist, nor did concepts such as "global cooperation to solve global social and ecological challenges of climate change, poverty, and violent conflict." In the past, under circumstances of the security dilemma, the aim was to keep enemies safely out of one's ingroup. This was old Realpolitik (or "security," or "counterterrorism"). A new concept of Realpolitik needs to focus on "human security." This means grasping the fact that in an interdependent world unilateral action no longer stays unilateral, that violence and humiliation no longer pacify, but come back in kind, in a boomerang fashion. A formerly fragmented world needs to be united today into a new global ingroup, or global community, to tackle common challenges and give the survival of all humankind a chance. To reach that end, the available cultural diversity within the human familiy must be mined and harnessed within unity. Elements that violate equal dignity and/or are divisive have no longer a place. Cultural diversity needs to be boosted in today's world - it is as crucial to protect and nurture cultural diversity as much as biodiversity - however, diversity enriches only when embedded into unity (see the discussion of the Unity in Diversity principle above).
Reasons for hope are, among others:
•  Knowledge as the resource for livelihood offers a win-win frame that is more benign than the win-lose lose frame that is forced into the foreground when land is the main resource.
•  All humankind defining itself as one single ingroup is more benign than many outgroups confronting each other, not least because it frees humankind from malign outgroup biases.
•  The ideal of equal dignity for all invites everybody into developing their full personal potential; no longer are underlings tools in the hands of their masters.
•  Cooperation is more constructive and benign than keeping enemies away.
•  Avoiding, preventing, and healing humiliation is easier than tackling the security dilemma.

4. The most significant danger at the current point in human history stems from the risk that the path toward a culture of dignity may be hampered by ubiquitous feelings of humiliation, which, when translated into retaliatory acts of humiliation, might send humankind back into the past of a fragmented world. I call this risk the danger emanating from "clashes of humiliation" (rather than Huntington's "clashes of civilization"). Clashes of humiliation need to be healed and prevented, not taken as pretext to turn back into the past.

Geographical and chronological vision of my global life design, 2008
Please imagine that you have the task to develop a global network, a truly global network. Imagine also that you have decided to live globally so as to be able to identify potential new members for your network in person, as a kind of globally mobile ambassador, and invite them into your network personally. The first question coming to your mind may be the folowing: What is a truly global network?
You will notice that usually global networks comprise many members from the so-called "West," and fewer from the "rest." In other words, your first task would be to design your global life in ways that bring you to the "rest."
When I began creating our HumanDHS network in 2001/2002, I started out with inviting those people I already knew through my doctoral dissertation on humiliation. Since my dissertation was located in Europe, with strong links to North America, and my field work had brought me to Africa, we soon had members from Europe, North America, and Africa. However, Asia, and South America, to name just two regions, were not well represented. As a consequence, I accepted an invitation of friends of our network to use their apartment in Japan as a platform to include more members from Asia into our network. In this way, I spent altogether ca. three years in Japan, China, and Australia (2004-2007).
Clearly, other parts of Asia still require more attention, however, my plan is to turn to South America before giving more attention to Asia. I hope and plan to spend time in South America in 2011, and I am grateful for any invitation!
Currently (2008/2008/2010), I insert a "writing break" so as to be able to finish new books. For writing, I look for invitations anywhere in the world, where friends of our network are kindly providing me with the daily support I need.
As you see, my global life design follows the needs of our network. In order to develop it globally, I have to spend time in those world regions where we wish to strengthen our network. These requirements have to be balanced with other needs, for example, I have to spend time at the locations where our conferences take place, and I need to retreat for writing. In any case, this life design requires much more pre-planning than "average" life designs would demand, yet, this is not impossible to achieve.
I hope that one day we will have many HumanDHS Dialogue Homes around the world, where people are welcomed who wish to experience global citizenship like me.

Footnotes

(1) Ray and Anderson, 2000, carried out surveys and interviews and report that there is a newly emerging movement, the Cultural Creatives, who have a global outlook, even if global experience is lacking.

(2) I was early on influenced by Victor E. Frankl and his work on Sinn (meaning), see Frankl, 1972, and Frankl, 1963, and recently I detected a related Japanese approach of "Meaningful Life Therapy" by Morita and Levine, 1998, see also Reynolds, 1987.

References

Frankl, Victor E. (1963). Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy. New York, NY: Washington Square Press.

Frankl, Victor E. (1972). Der Wille Zum Sinn: Ausgewählte Vorträge Über Logotherapie. Bern: Hans Huber.

Morita, Shoma and Levine, Peg (1998). Morita Therapy and the True Nature of Anxiety-Based Disorders (Shinkeishitsu). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Nagata, Adair Linn (1998). Being Global: Life at the Interface. In Human Resource Development International, 1 (2), pp. 143-145.

Ray, Paul H. and Anderson, Sherry Ruth (2000). The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Reynolds, David K. (1987). Water Bears No Scars: Japanese Lifeways for Personal Growth. New York, NY: William Morrow.