1945: the Second World War is ended. Throughout
Germany is ruin, not only material but also moral. The Germans are awakening
from a nightmare: How had it been possible? Why had they not understood the
aberration of their Nazi regime? The Allies say they are guilty. Are they? Some
try to justify themselves, to advance excuses; others reject this accusation
and project their guilt on the enemies. The philosopher Karl Jaspers decides
that he must deal with this problem and dedicates to the question of German
guilt a series of lectures. In Jaspers’ view, this is fundamental, because Germans
“are indeed obliged without exception to understand clearly the question of [their]
guilt, and to draw the conclusions. What obliges us is our human dignity. […]
The way we answer it will be decisive for our present approach to the world and
ourselves. It is a vital question” (Jaspers, 1947/2001, p.22).
October 2013: At least 130 African migrants have died
and many more are missing after a boat carrying them to Europe sank off the
southern Italian island of Lampedusa (BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24380247).
The world wakes up: how was this tragedy possible? Who is responsible for it?
As Italians, as Europeans, as Western citizens, are we guilty? Some declare Europe
has to assume its responsibility: why are you leaving alone the willing but impotent
Italians? Some reply that Italians had a lot of money from Europe in order to
do this job. Some claim that we must empower Northern-African counties to
control fluxes, i.e. to impede migrants to leave (do you remember how they are
treated in that countries? Anything to say about abuses, torture and violence?).
Some shift the attention and project guilt outside: the criminals organizing
the journeys are guilt; the politicians and the warriors of the African nations
from which migrants escape are guilt. In this moment in Italy there is only one
recognized moral authority: the pope Francis. He clearly spoke against “the
globalization of indifference” (Jul 8, 2013). Yesterday, after the shipwreck,
he declared: “The word that comes to mind is ‘shame’. [...] Let us unite our
strengths so that such tragedies never happened again”. In other words, the
world should feel shame over the Lampedusa disaster (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Boat-Sinks-in-Italy-Pope-Francis-Says-the-World-Should-feel-Shame-over-Lampedusa-Tragedy-388269.shtml).
So the same question arises today as in post-war
Germany: are we guilty?
Let us return to Jaspers. We see that present-day
commentaries are similar to the reactions of the Germans: I am not guilty,
someone else is. The criminals are guilty, not ourselves, we are good citizens
and we have no responsibility of what happened. Jaspers clearly showed that no
steps ahead could be made without dealing with the question of guilt, i.e.
without assuming responsibilities in first person. Similarly, we cannot avoid
new tragedies and propose solutions without understanding what is our role and
our responsibility. We all knew that people were dying in the Mediterranean Sea,
it had happened many times before (even the day before this new tragedy). We all
know that migrants are obliged to travel in such risky conditions because
European laws on immigration do not give them any alternative. We all know that
many of these migrants are likely to be recognized as refugees, which obliges
us to give them assistance. So, are we guilt for this?
Jaspers’ reply to his question was that Germans were
guilty, but that there were differences, that not all kinds of guilt were the
same. To understand, to self-understand what kind of guilt concerned them was
the only way to assume responsibility and to start a process of
self-transformation necessary to re-open a possibility of future. Germans
largely did it.
We need it too. We must understand our responsibility
in order to change things. We must clearly make a diagnosis in order to find
the appropriate treatment.
Jaspers distinguished four kinds of guilt. Criminal guilt
is not our guilt; it is the guilt of those making money by organizing these
travels. However, in Jaspers’ terms we are politically and metaphysically
guilt.
Political guilt refers to “my having to bear the
consequences of the deeds of the state whose power governs me and under whose
order I live. Everybody is co-responsible for the way he is governed (Jaspers,
1947/2001, p.25). As European citizens, we are all guilty because our laws on
migration are a direct reason obliging migrants to try to enter in Europe with
such risky means.
Metaphysical guilt is defined as follows: “There
exists a solidarity among men as human beings that makes each co-responsible
for every wrong and every injustice in the world, especially for crimes
committed in his presence or with his knowledge. If I fail to do whatever I can
to prevent them, I too am guilty (Jaspers, 1947/2001, p.26).
We all knew that
people like us were dying in the Mediterranean Sea. We should be aware that
migration is a process that cannot be stopped but just (partly) governed. We
must know that paying Maghreb’s governments to stop migration is hypocritical;
it is just to delegate to them the prosecution of violence and injustice but
outside our view. We must clearly recognize our responsibility, our political
and metaphysical responsibility. We have to do everything we can to have a
clear view of the matter, and to change European laws and organization of
migrants and refugees’ assistance. We must do it, if we really think that we
must prevent such tragedies. Otherwise in a few weeks we will talk about
something else, waiting for the next announced tragedy.
References
Jaspers K. (1947/2001) The question of German guilt.
Fordham University Press, New York.
