beyond wishful thinking 43Th e point is not to deny any mea sure of reality to these diff erences or to
claim that they are bereft of moral and social consequence. It is to rec-
ognize that they pale in comparison to our fundamental unity. Th e
basis of this unity lies not only in our physical constitution but also and
chiefl y in our predicament: a predicament shaped by our mortality, our
groundlessness, our insatiability, and our diffi culty in overcoming the
disproportion between who we are and how we must live. To be justi-
fi ed, any division within humanity must deepen and develop the unity
of mankind. Otherwise, it deserves to arouse suspicion and to be torn
down. Until it is torn down, it should be disregarded in our most im-
portant choices and conceptions.
Most of the major world religions were authored and disseminated
in societies marked by a strong hierarchical segmentation. Prominent
among these societies were the agrarian- bureaucratic states that repre-
sented, until the present age of world revolution, the most important
po liti cal entities in the world. In the Indo- European species of this
segmentation, there were three major ranks in the social order: those
who guide and pray— the priests and phi los o phers; those who govern
and fi ght— the rulers and warriors; and those who work, produce, and
trade— everyone else. To this hierarchical division in the ordering of
society there corresponded a hierarchical division in the ordering of
the soul: the rational faculties that place us in communion with the
supreme order and reality, whether viewed under the aspect of cos-
motheism or of its rejection; the action- oriented impulses that inspire
vitality; and the carnal desires that pull us toward par tic u lar sources of
satisfaction. Th ese two hierarchies, in society and in the soul, support
each other.
Part of the religious revolution consisted in denying the ultimate
reality and authority of such an ordering of ranks within humanity.
As a result, any parallel hierarchical division in the soul was left un-
grounded in a sacrosanct or ga ni za tion of society. To that extent, it be-
came more open to challenge and revision. Th e possibility arose of an
inversion of values, by which the supposedly lower faculties could come
to play a subversive and prophetic role in the building of the self, if only
by robbing the person of some of his defenses against other people.
Once again, there is an ambiguity. Is the unity of mankind to be af-
fi rmed only as belief or is it to be secured through a reor ga ni za tion of