The Task of Theological Humanism
122
similar to neohumanists like Todorov and Levinas, who stress the finality of the other. from its unquestioned goodActually, we have already hinted at what needs critical revision in ways The revision is the subtle but important shift to the problem of identity. Neither the “I” nor my community’s identity and
it alone is final. In our global age, the question of the conflict of values and the supposed clash of civilizations is more deeply a matter of the social and cultural proliferation of identities and the claim to sovereignty of those identities. The struggle is in the human soul. The problem is how we are to
live throughtherefore, how rightly to possible to decide in specific situations which of several identities provides If conflict among peoples is to be lessened and managed, then it must be the communities and traditions that have formed our lives and, inhabit our identities in freedom.
contact with others and thereby supports cooperative action. One’s identities can and ought to serve a good beyond themselves. This is not a facile opti-mism or naïve idealism. Genuine realism about possibilities for action acknowledges that in particular situations human differences might not be
overcome and conflict ensues. The idea that conflict will cease if people just consider what priority to give their several identities is naïve and dangerous. When conflict does erupt, violence can be blunted, if not escaped, when some bond of commonality places a limit on force. Testimonies from Truth
and Reconciliation Commissions around the world note that acts of hor-rific violence require seeing another human being as strategies to ongoing violence, are many, sadly. Tribalism, revenge, terror, racism, the erot-dehumanize others, the social mechanism needed to engender lacking humanity. (^16) The
icizing of violence and power, and the will of God (to name but a few) have all been used, are being used, to dehumanize others and thereby to drive social life into the fury of unending violence.Aside from the use of justified force to stop violent slaughter, what is most
important is the capacity to see the other as a human being with multiple identities, some of which are shared. No specific identity, including one’s religious identity, can trump the whole of existence and claim exclusive right to orient social action. In some contexts I need to see myself as a
human being who faces death, who loves his family, and who bleeds in principle, every other human beingbefore me is also a human being. In this case, more distinct identities (say, Christian or Indian or Communist or White or Female) are set in the back-. I need then to see that the one suffering just like,
ground and are only judged valid when believed to support shared humanity. Call this the Good Samaritan principle. That commonality can and must delimit the scope and extent of violence, because, again, unending conflict requires the dehumanization of the other. Of course, there will be other