Analysis of a World Split Apart

WORLD SPLIT APART: AN ANALYSIS Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard Commencement Speech, titled “World Split Apart” discusses the differing ideology of the East and the West, and how this “split” is impossible to overcome without violence. Furthermore, he says that beyond an irreconcilable difference, Western ideology should not be spread over the entire world, because it has become twisted from its origin. Even beyond that, Solzhenitsyn warns that the due to the increasingly anthropocentric (man-centered) view of the world, people in the West have become ignorant and unaware of their fundamental morals, and as a result are dangerously close to falling prey to the enticements of socialism and other dangers. The first premise that Solzhenitsyn makes is that the world is divided into at least two powers. The most obvious “powers” are the East and the West, but if one looks more specifically, they include “China, India, the Muslim World, and Africa” (1). Solzhenitsyn argues that this split is unavoidable but dangerous, and that having two opposing powers weakens society’s ability to resist corruption. He bluntly states that “a Kingdom -- in this case, our Earth -- divided against itself cannot stand” (1). By ignoring the rival ideologies of different parts of the world, Western Culture allows itself to drift from its fundamental ideals. Solzhenitsyn goes on to say that this divide is unchangeable except through violence. The two sides will never agree or conform to the opposite view unless violently forced by the other. Since the beginning of mankind, people have used war to force other people to follow their beliefs, and this is still true today. For example, the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam sprang from Americans’ resistance to communism, and since neither side would willingly concede to the other, both used violence to force their views onto each other. Solzhenitsyn suggests that Western Culture is no longer a “model” country, due to the ideological shift and warped nature of its government, law, and press. It is illogical and impossible to believe that one method would work for all other cultures, and the fundamental problems of Western society would damage other cultures as much as it would “help” them. Solzhenitsyn says that if Western culture was imposed over the rest of the world, “it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country” (7). The United States has fallen from its origin of freedom and justice for all, and as a result, it should not be the model for all other countries to follow. One of the reasons that Solzhenitsyn gives for the descent of Western culture and ideology stems from the purpose of government. Today there is a view that government was made to serve man and aid him in his pursuit of happiness—a concept supported by the Declaration of Independence when it says that all men are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” However, the idea that government’s purpose is to give man happiness has fueled a downward spiral in behavior, as “the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings” (3). By focusing on the material and allowing a culture that feeds depression, the United States has increased its susceptibility to both a moral relativism (people only worry about their own happiness) and socialist ideology, as people no longer have the moral standards which should repel them from the injustice of such a society. Another failing of Western Culture is the warped nature of the American legal system. Over the years, the law has become so detailed and complicated that it has lost the essence of justice. Instead of “justice” being given to the deserving party, it is now given to the lawyer who knows how to work the system the best. Solzhenitsyn says that “People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law” (4). Similarly, the press has also become corrupted—instead of being used for objective education, the press has grown into a monstrosity that twists news and facts to suit those with power. Solzhenitsyn says that the press “has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary” (6). This is especially concerning when you realize that while the press might not have the legislative power, they are the only ones that the public routinely hears, and there is virtually no way to stop them. When both the legal system and the press are corrupted and twisted, there is no place for people to find justice, and this is not a culture that should be spread to the rest of the world. Because of these changes in ideology, instead of having the strength to resist the other powers in the world, such as socialism, American culture has become corrupted and weak, unable and unwilling to resist the encroaching ideals of other worldviews. Solzhenitsyn says that “to defend oneself, one must also be ready to die” and that “there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being” (9). Because Americans have been conditioned to always get their way, and to believe that their culture is the best, they have become ignorant and useless in the battle to preserve their fundamental freedoms. Solzhenitsyn claims that the root of the problem is Humanism, specifically anthropocentricity, which puts man “at the center of everything that exists” (9). With this mentality, it is no wonder that people fail to look outside their lives to the larger world—because in their eyes the world revolves around them. When people take out any kind of higher being, they end up with a meaningless life, where the only purpose should be to further a person’s own desires, and not those of their fellow man. As a result, the world is irrevocably split, and the twisted nature of Western Culture is not nearly as dangerous as the mentality behind it.