HIstorical Consciousness
All peoples compile their history to leave its memory to posterity: we could say
that civilization truly begins when some means are invented to fix words in
writing and thus the story can be transmitted without time limits. But
historical consciousness is something else: it is the awareness that everything
changes, that the world of the past is not ours and vice versa, and it is a
discovery of the West perhaps no less important than scientific discoveries.
Until the 1700s, even we Europeans considered Greeks and Romans as
contemporaries; there was a continuous reference to them in every aspect of life
with the idea that they could still be examples to follow for contemporaries.
However, slowly the idea took hold that the world of the ancients was something
very different from the modern one, that what could be judged good and just in
ancient times might not be so in our era and vice versa. The turning point came
with idealism, which spread historicism, the idea of progress as the key to
understanding reality. Later, especially in the 19th century, it was realized
that the new is not necessarily progress, it can also be regress: it depends on
the parameters of judgment, but the idea of change remains. There has also been
talk of the self-centeredness of each culture in the sense that every
civilization uses its own parameters of judgment that cannot be considered valid
for other civilizations. The essential point is that we have convinced ourselves
that we cannot judge the past with the parameters of the present just as it is
not possible to judge the present with those of the past. For example, for the
classical world, an Achilles who violently assaults a maiden (Briseis) after
massacring her family is a hero, for us, he would be the worst of criminals.
Similarly, Muhammad, who marries Aisha, a 9-year-old girl, was considered by
contemporaries as the saint sent by God, for us, he would be a despicable
pedophile.
Historical consciousness has spread throughout the Western world, which is
therefore predisposed to change, while in other civilizations, there is a
pretense of remaining anchored to principles considered eternal and immutable.
Let's make, for example, a comparison with mass Islamic culture that has not yet
been Westernized, in which this process has not occurred. A pope who today
proclaimed a crusade would be drowned in ridicule, while an ayatollah who
proclaims jihad is followed by masses of aspiring martyrs: the difference does
not depend so much on religious differences (which certainly exist) but on the
evolution of the West, on the historical sense that pervades it. The consequence
is that in Europe, even at the religious level, norms need to be adapted: Pope
Francis is very different from Innocent III, while in the Islamic world, there
is a thought of returning to the early caliphs because the rules are eternal and
do not change over time. After all, in the past, holy wars were proclaimed by
both religions.
Even regarding the condition and function of women, there was not much diversity
in the past in the Christian and Muslim worlds. However, now it seems abysmal
because the West has embraced changes, the unfolding of reality, while the
Islamic world still considers the differences in male and female roles and
conditions as something eternal, immutable, let's say natural and not linked to
the historical moment.
Historical understanding is very important. We tend to believe that our
principles are the true and just ones and therefore those who do not share them
are barbaric and evil. In the end, it's a natural illusion. Realizing, instead,
that in the past or in other places there are different, perhaps opposite,
principles makes us understand that it is an illusion, that they correspond to
different needs and conditions. We Westerners have discovered (or invented)
history and therefore adapt our judgment to the times. It is true that God's law
is immutable, however, it can always be interpreted, so Pope Francis is not
comparable to Innocent III, certainly not. In the Islamic world (I would say
non-Western), instead, what was right 1000 years ago is just as right today:
this creates an unbridgeable gap between the world that is changing ever faster
and the claim of the eternity of principles