420 becoming more human by becoming more godlikeconcerns and society is always on the verge of descending into anarchy,
violence, and oppression; the grounding of social order in a set of obli-
gations that we owe one another by virtue of the roles that we occupy;
the hope of improvement through a dialectic between the roles, rules,
and rituals of society and the cumulative development of our ability to
imagine the experience and the aspirations of other people; and the
abandonment of eff orts to revolutionize established social regimes in
favor of the attempt to purge them of their cruelties. Its crowning ideal,
reserved to those who have advanced furthest in self- improvement, is
the spontaneous identifi cation of our desires with our obligations. Th en
all heteronomy disappears.
Th ere is much in this way of thinking that accords with the argu-
ments and proposals of this book: the idea that the central problem of
our relation to others is the reconciliation of our need to connect to
them with the imperative of escaping the threat of subjugation and loss
of self with which every such connection threatens us; the belief that we
fail to enhance life and to become free to the extent that we fail to
achieve such a reconciliation; and the doctrine that our advance in this
direction depends on the reform of our cooperative arrangements as
well as on strengthening of our ability to imagine the experience of
other people.
Th ere are, however, at least three crucial points at which the ideas
justifying the eff ort to break out of the mummy confl ict with those
that are central to the humanization of the world. Th e fi rst point is
the imperative of refusing to accept the established social order as the
template in which we can hope to achieve connection without subju-
gation. It will never be enough to moderate the cruelties of inherited
and established social regimes through the observance of role- based
obligations and reciprocities or the emphasis on merit and capability.
It will be necessary to reshape their institutional content. We cannot
respect individuals without disrespecting the structures of society and
culture.
Th e second point of confl ict is the inadequacy of any role, or any sys-
tem of roles, even in the freest and most equal society. No role is entirely
worthy of any human being. It follows that an individual’s per for-
mance of any role must be ambivalent. We should perform it and defy
it at the same time, converting it to ends for which it was not designed.