Teilhard de Chardin and Senghor on the civilization of the universal

1.2.2. Unity in diversity

There is no hesitation that humanity, taken in its concrete nature, is really composed of different races. Human races exist, but this needs not give room for any antagonism or racism. In effect, there is no need for us to try to deny our differences. Teilhard de Chardin wonders:

Les nier? Mais pourquoi donc? Les enfants d'une même famille sont-ils tous également forts ou intelligents ? Egaux, les peuples le sont par valeur biologique, en tant que « phyla de pensée » destinés à s'intégrer progressivement dans quelque unité finale qui est la seule vraie humanité. Mais égaux, ils ne le sont point encore par la totalité de leurs dons physiques et de leur esprit. Et n'est-ce point justement cette diversité qui donne à chacun son prix ?...Sinon, pourquoi parler d'une synthèse de tous ?^21(*)

We cannot but acknowledge the fact that people are different like chalk and cheese. Even the children of the same family are not all equally strong or equally intelligent. People are equal by their biological value, as «phyla of thought» destined to progress together; but they are not equal in their physical and spiritual talents. This diversity is what gives merit to each and every one. If it were not so, one could not talk about a synthesis of all.

In order to lay a foundation of a racial morality, we are called to acknowledge our differences. People are all equal in dignity, but each individual person is different from another in terms of talents, temperament, character and personality. We cannot but accept this fact in order to talk about the Civilization of the Universal, or about globalisation, where there is a synthesis of all human races. It is therefore important for us to point out here with Teilhard de Chardin, the error of feminism. Woman is not man, and it is precisely for this reason that man cannot do it all alone, without woman. A mechanic for example, is not a football player, or an artist, or a farmer; and it is thanks to these diversities that the national organism functions. Similarly, a Cameroonian is not a Frenchman, nor is a Frenchman a Kaffir or Japanese. This is most providential for the total prosperity and future of man.

It is important to note with Teilhard de Chardin that these inequalities and or differences may appear as detrimental so long as the elements are regarded statically and in isolation. Observed however from the point of view of their essential complementarity, they become acceptable, honourable, and even welcome. Will the eye ever say that it despises the hand?

Once this functional diversity of human races is admitted, in Teilhard de Chardin's opinion, two things follow instantly. The first is that the duty of each race is not to preserve or rediscover some indefinable original purity in the past but to complete itself in the future, according to its own qualities and values. The second is that in this drive towards collective personalisation, aid must be sought from each of the neighbouring branches of civilization.

* ²¹ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, La vision du passé, Paris, 1957, P. 297.