Children of Darkness and Children of Light - Essay Example

Introduction Niebuhr defines ‘children of darkness’ as moral cynics who know no law past their own interest and will andon the other hand, ‘children of light’ as moral sentimentalists who ‘seek to put their self-interest not only under the discipline of a more universal law but also in harmony with a more universal good.’ In simpler terms, the two distinct natures of children represent a struggle that exists between the ‘self’ and the ‘community’ in which Niebuhr gives a warning. He warns that no level of human social or moral achievement that is devoid of some corruption of inordinate self-love. This is irrespective of the extent to which the human mind’s perspectives may reach; the broadness of the loyalties that the human imagination may conceive; the universality of the community that the human statecraft may organize; or even the purity of the saintliest idealists’ aspirations. Niebuhr further warns that the liberal idealism’s modern culture underrates the historical existence of human self-interest. In effect, within modern liberal rhetoric of American democracy, self-interest normally disguises itself. This paper narrow down to looking into four ‘icons’ who mirrored Niebuhr’s critique that predatory self-interest deeply permeates American liberalism including Malcom X, Martin Luther King, Gunnar Myrdal and the framers of the Port Huron statement. Malcom X seems to symbolize one of supreme examples of ‘child of darkness’ that Niebuhr gives wherein self-interest and the black movement’s segregation pushes the society further into isolation, but this is not the case. In his article, Niebuhr did not describe the modern revolt against the medieval culture and the feudal order as a conflict between children of light and children of darkness. He instead described it as a conflict amid pious and less pious ‘children of light’, both of whom were not conscious of the self-interest corruption in all ideal achievements as well as pretensions of human culture. From “The Ballot or the Bullet”, one can indubitably draw a parallel with Malcom X and the revolt in opposition to feudal order. The revolt against the medieval order in Niebuhr’s view was purely democratic to the degree that it challenged not only the tentative and premature unity of a society but also the stabilization of a culture, over and above developing new cultural and social possibilities (Hollinger, 281). Malcom X was in the same way democratic to the extent of challenging capitalism disparities for his exploited people over and above suggesting an alternative to new cultural and social possibilities. Actually, within the white community, chances for black mobilization and power were minimal. Hollinger asserts that the white man fears separation more than he fears integration – since segregation denotes that he puts someone away from oneself, but not far enough to make them be out of one’s jurisdiction; the white man will integrate faster than he will segregate (p.443). In my view therefore, Malcom X mirrored Niebuhr’s ideas more than he challenged them. The “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King also gives support to Niebuhr’s thoughts in his struggle to delineate unjust and just laws. As earlier discussed, the all-encompassing framework upon which Niebuhr claims the “children of light” stride toward is the ‘just law’, which Martin Luther King’s defines as ‘a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God’ (Hollinger, 415). An ‘unjust law’, upon which Dr. King bases the example of segregation, is not rooted in natural law and eternal law and it degrades human personality in addition to giving the segregated a false sense of inferiority and the segregator a false sense of superiority (Hollinger p. 415). Segregation, which is an explicit example of the penetration of the ‘children of darkness’ into practiced government, obligates Dr. King and others of one mind with him to break the law. Albeit the illumination of democratic liberalism limits with regard to class, King believes that the acceptance of the imprisonment penalty in order to arouse the community’s conscience over its injustice is certainly expressing the uppermost respect for the law, (Hollinger, 415). Thus, unlike to the order of written law, King’s imprisonment is respectful to the order of a moral law, which “children of light” seek. Although Niebuhr could acknowledge the oppressed black movement’s self-interest, he would considerably criticize the American liberalism limits. As Hollinger’s points out, the confidence of modern secular idealism in the possibility of an easy resolution of the tension between nations, races and classes, or between community and individual is derived from a very optimistic view of human nature (282). Additionally, Dr. King believed that the goal of freedom would be attained in Birmingham and all over the country since the goal of America is freedom (Hollinger, 420). Hence, Dr. King incorporates Niebuhr’s ideologies within a vision in which he presents ‘the children of light’ confronting ‘the children of darkness’ (Lecture, 08). Using the example of American Negroes and their neglect in the ‘American Creed’, Gunnar Myrdal mirrors Niebuhr’s thinking. The American Creed takes in the indispensable dignity of an individual human being, of certain inalienable rights to fair opportunity, justice and freedom, and of the fundamental equality of all men (272). Myrdal argues that the Creed penetrates American rhetoric, intellect, behavior and religion, but concerning the class struggle of American Negroes, it has not lived up to its promise. America is ‘paradoxical’ in that its discourse contradicts the “large geographical regions as well as fields of human life, which are evidently lagging (274). Myrdal is for the view that tangible resources’ distribution comprised a more generalized structure of inequality. He explains that this is owing to the fact that Negroes in America have not yet received the elemental political and civil rights of formal democracy, not to mention a fair opportunity for earning his living (278). According to Niebuhr, universal ideals’ egoistic corruption is a lot more relentless fact in human conduct than any creed is inclined to make a clean breast (283). Hence, in response to Myrdal’s views, Niebuhr might argue that Negroes’ class disparity within America is an upshot of the historical penetration of the ‘children of darkness’ into the American Creed and the foolish misidentification of the inherited aristocracy by the ‘children of light’. Over and above aligning themselves with Niebuhr’s philosophy, the founders of the Port Huron Statement made an attempt of distinctly spotting out the ‘children of darkness’ within their own communities. Their most explicit examples of criticism began from their very foundations – in fact, even Niebuhr himself had not thought of attacking this area. Corey points out that the Port of Huron statement’ drafting birthed what later turned out to be the SDA/the people of this generation, a sense of control and a moral purpose. The 1950’s black mommies raised majority of these founders, which enhanced their racial consciousness of the ‘color-line’. Moreover, majority of them were Vietnam draft victims and the peril of nuclear technology disturbed them. Additionally, since privilege in their minds was tainted, majority of them were anxious about the amount of privilege that they had been given (Lecture, 08). Claiming that these founders’ concern was encompassing Niebuhr’s aspects of ‘children of light’, Corey further aligned the founders with Dewey. These people sought after being mature human beings that conceived values for regulating humankind living in a peaceful, equal and most importantly, efficient way. Conclusion Apparently, Malcom X, Martin Luther King, Gunnar Myrdal and the founders of the Port Huron Statement mirrors Niebuhr’s critique that ‘predatory self-interest deeply permeates American liberalism’. These ‘icons’/intellectuals take in the many aspects in which ‘the children of darkness’ permeate themselves historically and demand a self-interest evaluation in people’s day-to-day interpretations and actions. Works Cited Read More