I'm supposed to write about Robben Island so here it is: it's an island about seven and a half kilometres from Big Bay in Blouberg and I swam it. It was where former President Nelson Mandela was incarcerated for two and a half decades before his release and his eventual election as President of the first democratically elected South African Government. There's a lot more to this, connecting the island to the swim, on a psychological, moral and political level and I will write about that in my next post.
Howerver, in this blog, I'd rather impress you with someone else's prose: Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.
He was recently awarded the Templeton Prize and I'm going to transcribe here part of his acceptance speech.
For the full podcast go to
A previous winner is our very own Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.
For more about the Templeton Prize go to: http://www.templetonprize.org/
For more about Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks go to: http://www.rabbisacks.org/
For the FULL transcript go to:
Here's the extract:
"I want to define what I see as the central moral and spiritual challenge of our time. This is I believe, a fateful moment in history, because wherever you look, politically, religiously, economically, environmentally, there is insecurity and instability.
It's not too much to say that the future of the West, and the unique form of freedom it has pioneered for the past four centuries, is altogether at risk. I want tonight to look at one phenomenon that has shaped the West, leading it at first to greatness, but now, to crisis. It can be summed up in one word: outsourcing.
On the face of it, nothing could be more innocent or productive. It's the basis of the modern economy, it's Adam Smith's division of labour, David Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage that says 'even if you're better than me at everything, which you probably are, still, we both gain if I do what I'm best at and you do what you're best at, and we trade.'
That has shaped the modern world, but the question is, are there limits? Are there things we can't, or shouldn't outsource? The issue has arisen because of the new technologies and instataneous global communication, so instead of outsourcing within a community, today we do it between economies.
We've see the outsourcing of production to low-wage countries. We've seen the outsourcing of services, so that you could be for instance in one town in America, booking a hotel in another town in America, unaware that your call is being processed in India.
Now, this seemed like a good idea at the time. It was as if the West was saying to the world, 'here's a good division of labour - you do the producing, we'll do the consuming.' It was a lovely idea. But is that sustainable in the long run?
Then banks began to outsource risk, lending far beyond their capacities in the belief that property prices would go on rising forever, or more significantly, if they crashed, it would be someone else's problem, not mine.
But there's one form of outsourcing that tend to be little noticed, and that is the outsourcing of memory.
Our computers and smartphones have developed larger and larger memories from kilobytes to megabytes to gigabytes, while our memories and those of our children, have got smaller and smaller. In fact, why bother to remember anything at all if you can look it up a microsecond on Google or Wikipedia?
But here, I think, we made a mistake. We confused history and memory. They're not the same thing at all. History is an answer to the question, 'what happened?'. Memory is an answer to the question, 'who am I?' History is about facts; memory is about identity. History is about his story - it happened to somebody else, not me; memory is my story - the past that made me who I am, and of whose legacy I am the guardian for the sake of generations to come.
Without memory there is no identity, and without identity we are no more than dust on the surface of infinity.
Lacking memory, I think we forgot.
One of the most important lessons to have emerged from the wars of religion from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the new birth of freedom that followed - even to say it today sounds antiquarian, but here it is - a free society is a moral achievement.
Without self-restraint, without capacity to defer the instinct of self-gratification, without the habits of heart and deed that we call virtues, we will eventually lose our freedom.
That is what Locke meant when he contrasted liberty, the freedom to do what we ought, with licence, the freedom to do what we want. It’s what Adam Smith signalled when, before he wrote The Wealth of Nations, he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
It’s what Washington meant when he said, “Human rights can only be
assured among a virtuous people.” And Benjamin Franklin when he said,
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” And Jefferson when he
said, “A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of
it is personally responsible for his society.”
At some point the West abandoned this belief. When I went to
Cambridge in the late 60s, the philosophy course was then called Moral
Sciences, meaning that just like the natural sciences, morality was
objective, real, part of the external world.
I soon discovered, though,
that almost no one believed this anymore. Morality was no more than the
expression of emotion, or subjective feeling, or private intuition, or
It was, within limits, whatever I chose it to be.
fact, there was nothing left to study but the meaning of words. To me
this seemed less like civilisation than the breakdown of a civilisation.
It took me years to work out what had happened. Morality had been
split in two and outsourced to other institutions. There were moral
choices, and there were the consequences of our moral choices.
itself was outsourced to the market. The market gives us choices, and
morality itself is just a set of choices in which right or wrong have no
meaning beyond the satisfaction or frustration of desire.
The result is
that we find it increasingly hard to understand why there might be
things we want to do, can afford to do, and have a legal right to do,
that nonetheless we should not do because they are unjust or
dishonourable or disloyal or demeaning: in a word, unethical.
reduced to economics.
As for the consequences of our choices, these were outsourced to the
state. Bad choices lead to bad outcomes: failed relationships, neglected
children, depressive illness, wasted lives.
The government would
deal with it.
Forget about marriage as a sacred bond between husband and
wife. Forget about the need of children for a loving and secure human
environment. Forget about the need for communities to give us support in
times of need.
Welfare was outsourced to the state.
As for conscience,
that once played so large a part in the moral life, that could be
outsourced to regulatory bodies.
So, having reduced moral choice to
economics, we transferred the consequences of our choices to politics.
And it seemed to work, at least for a generation or two. But by now,
problems have arisen that can’t be solved by the market or the state
To mention just a few:
- The structural unemployment that follows
the outsourcing of production and services
- The further unemployment
that will come when artificial intelligence increasingly replaces human
judgment and skill.
- Artificially low interest rates that encourage
borrowing and debt and discourage saving and investment.
- Wildly inflated
- The lowering of living standards, first of the working class,
then of the middle class.
- The insecurity of employment, even for
- The inability of young families to afford a home.
collapse of marriage, leading to intractable problems of child poverty
- The collapse of birthrates throughout Europe, leading to
unprecedented levels of immigration that are now the only way the West
can sustain its population, and the systemic failure to integrate some
of these groups.
- The loss of family, community and identity, that once
gave us the strength to survive unstable times.
And there are others. Why have they proved insoluble?
First, because they are global, and
governments are only national.
Second, because they are long-term, while
the market and liberal democratic politics are short term.
because they depend on changing habits of behaviour, which neither the
market nor the liberal democratic state are mandated to do.
though, because they can’t be solved by the market and the state alone.
You can’t outsource conscience. You can’t delegate moral responsibility
When you do, you raise expectations that cannot be met. And when,
inevitably, they are not met, society becomes freighted with
disappointment, anger, fear, resentment and blame.
People start to take
refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far
right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism.
far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was.
The far left
seeks a utopian future that will never be.
Religious extremists believe
you can bring salvation by terror.
Aggressive secularists believe that
if you get rid of religion there will be peace.
These are all fantasies,
and pursuing them will endanger the very foundations of freedom. Yet we
have seen, even in mainstream British and American politics, forms of
ugliness and irrationality I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
We have seen on university campuses in Britain and America the
abandonment of academic freedom in the name of the right not to be
offended by being confronted by views with which I disagree. This is le trahison des clercs, the intellectual betrayal, of our time, and it is very dangerous indeed.
So is there another way?
Two historical phenomena have long fascinated me. One is the strange
fact that, having lagged behind China for a thousand years, the West
overtook it in the seventeenth century, creating science, industry,
technology, the free market and the free society.
The second is the no less strange fact that Jews and Judaism survived
for two thousand years after the destruction of the Second Temple,
having lost everything on which their existence was predicated in the
Bible: their land, their home, their freedom, their Temple, their kings,
their prophets and priests.
The explanation in both cases, is the same. It is the precise
opposite of outsourcing: namely the internalization of what had once
Wherever in the world Jews prayed, there was the Temple.
Every prayer was a sacrifice, every Jew a priest, and every community a
fragment of Jerusalem.
Something similar happened in those strands of
Islam that interpreted jihad not as a physical war on the battlefield but as a spiritual struggle within the soul.
A parallel phenomenon occurred in Christianity after the Reformation,
especially in the Calvinism that in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries transformed Holland, Scotland, England of the Revolution and
America of the Pilgrim Fathers.
It was this to which Max Weber famously
attributed the spirit of capitalism. The external authority of the
Church was replaced by the internal voice of conscience.
possible the widely distributed networks of trust on which the smooth
functioning of the market depends. We are so used to contrasting the
material and the spiritual that we sometimes forget that the word credit comes from the Latin credo, I believe, and confidence, that requisite of investment and economic growth, comes from fidentia meaning faith or trust.
What emerged in Judaism and post-Reformation Christianity was the
rarest of character-types: the inner-directed personality. Most
societies, for most of history, have been either tradition-directed or
other-directed. People do what they do, either because that is how they
have always been done, or because that’s what other people do.
Inner-directed types are different. They become the pioneers, the
innovators and the survivors. They have an internalised satellite
navigation system, so they aren’t fazed by uncharted territory. They
have a strong sense of duty to others. They try to have secure
marriages. They hand on their values to their children. They belong to
strong communities. They take daring but carefully calculated risks.
When they fail, they have rapid recovery times.
They have discipline. They enjoy tough challenges and hard work. They
play it long. They are more interested in sustainability than quick
profits. They know they have to be responsible to customers, employees
and shareholders, as well as to the wider public, because only thus will
they survive in the long run.
They don’t do foolish things like
creative accounting, subprime mortgages, and falsified emissions data,
because they know you can’t fake it forever.
They don’t consume the
present at the cost of the future, because they have a sense of
responsibility for the future. They have the capacity to defer the
gratification of instinct. They do all this because they have an inner
moral voice. Some call it conscience. Some call it the voice of God.
Cultures like that stay young. They defeat the entropy, the loss of
energy, that has spelled the decline and fall of every other empire and
superpower in history.
But the West has, in the immortal words of Queen
Elsa in Frozen, “Let it go”.
It has externalised what it once
internalised. It has outsourced responsibility. It’s reduced ethics to
economics and politics.
Which means we are dependent on the market and
the state, forces we can do little to control. And one day our
descendants will look back and ask, 'How did the West lose what once made
Every observer of the grand sweep of history, from the prophets of
Israel to the Islamic sage Ibn Khaldun, from Giambattista Vico to John
Stuart Mill, and Bertrand Russell to Will Durant, has said essentially
the same thing: civilisations begin to die when they lose the moral
passion that brought them into being in the first place.
It happened to
Greece and Rome, and it can happen to the West.
The sure signs are
- a falling birthrate
- moral decay
- growing inequalities
- a loss of
trust in social institutions
- self-indulgence on the part of the rich
- hopelessness on the part of the poor
- un-integrated minorities
- a failure
to make sacrifices in the present for the sake of the future
- a loss of
faith in old beliefs and no new vision to take their place.
the danger signals, and they are flashing now.
There is an alternative: to become inner-directed again.
recovering the moral dimension that links our welfare to the welfare of
others, making us collectively responsible for the common good.
recovering the spiritual dimension that helps us tell the difference
between the value of things and their price.
We are more than consumers
and voters; our dignity transcends what we earn and own.
remembering that what’s important is not just satisfying our desires, but
also knowing which desires to satisfy.
It means restraining ourselves
in the present so that our children may have a viable future.
reclaiming collective memory and identity so that society becomes less
of a hotel and more of a home.
In short, it means learning that there
are some things we cannot or should not outsource, some responsibilities
we cannot or should not delegate away.
We owe it to our children and grandchildren not to throw away what
once made the West great, and not for the sake of some idealized past,
but for the sake of a demanding and deeply challenging future.
If we do
simply let it go, if we continue to forget that a free society is a
moral achievement that depends on habits of responsibility and
restraint, then what will come next – be it Russia, China, ISIS or Iran –
will be neither liberal nor democratic, and it will certainly not be
We need to restate the moral and spiritual dimensions in the
language of the twenty-first century, using the media of the
twenty-first century, and in ways that are uniting rather than divisive.
The moral and spiritual dimensions of human flourishing are what the
Templeton Prize and the Templeton Foundation have always been about, and
it will be by developing these themes globally, together with others,
over the coming years that I hope I can repay a little of the honour you
have bestowed on me today."
Well said, Rabbi Sacks!
for more, go to his website: http://www.rabbisacks.org/