Book Review: Five Moral Pieces by Umberto Eco

Five Moral Pieces by Umberto Eco

Umberto Eco is most famous for writing The Name of the Rose, a medieval murder mystery in a monastery. He is also a professor and prolific writer. This small collection of essays deals with some moral issues in unique and interesting ways. Here's an essay by essay review:

Reflections on War--Eco argues that the nature of war has changed substantially in the twentieth century. Before, a war meant that two sides would come to blows along a front. The armies would oppose each other and one or the other country would be invaded. Other countries stayed on the sidelines, maybe making a profit on selling arms to one or both sides. In the modern age, transportation mixes citizens of various countries all over the earth--every country has ex-patriots from not just one but several other countries. Communications are so immediate that information about the conflict is available, often from both sides of the conflict. In the old days, nationalist propaganda kept citizens more or less on the same side. Dissidents were traitors who would be interned in camps or jails. Modern democracies are very reluctant to take such actions. Eco comes to the conclusion that the new concept of a "cold" war is a better way to create the equilibrium between countries--the battle lines are already blurred and the casualties are much lower than an all-out war with massive casualties, both military and civilian. I don't agree with everything Eco argues but this essay is very thought-provoking.

When the Other Appears on the Scene--How does someone who doesn't believe in God or a categorical imperative come to morally certain conclusions? This was the question put to Eco by an Italian cardinal; this essay is a response. Eco talks about "elementary notions" that all humans have regardless of their culture, e.g. we are erect beings so that we have a sense of up and down and being upside down is an undesireable situation for longer than a short while. He cites lots of other examples of solitary experiences that generate a sense of right and wrong with regard to personal freedom. Then Eco discusses social situations and norms (e.g. romantic or economic) that also ground judgements of what is right and wrong. He discusses this all quite persuasively without ever mentioning Natural Law, the theory that his idea is clearly based on.

On the Press--Eco provides a fairly interesting analysis of the state of newspapers in Italy (though the situation is mirrored in other countries). Once television news started, daily papers were no longer the first source of breaking news. In an attempt to keep readership, the dailies expanded their coverage to be more like weekly papers or Sunday editions, with a lot more fluff padding out the page count. That turn forced the weeklies to adapt as well. None of these effects have been good, as more and more papers become like USA Today (Eco's example, not mine). He provides some ideas to solve the problems.

Ur-Fascism--In the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Eco gave a speech about Fascism at an American university. Eco speaks from his experience as a child in World War II Italy. When the liberation came to his small town, it was shocking for him to realize there was more than one political party in Italy and that love of country hardly had to equate with love of Mussolini. He then reflects on the nature of generic fascism (the "Ur-Fascism" of the title), which includes under its broad umbrella many characteristics that are mutually exclusive (much like existentialism, which includes both atheists and theists). He gives fourteen characteristics, starting with the "cult of tradition" and ending with "use of newspeak" which certainly appear contradictory. They are all potential danger signs for which we need to be vigilant. "Freedom and liberation are never-ending tasks. Let this be our motto: 'Don not forget.'" [p. 88]

Migration, Tolerance, and the Intolerable--In an essay stitched together from several other essays, Eco discusses the distinction he makes between immigration and migration. Immigration is a politically-governed activity where the person moving adopt the new home's culture. Migration is a natural flow of people where their culture is integrated into the new home's culture. Eco predicts (from the late 1990s) that Europe will turn into a mixture of the two. Some peoples will be subsumed by the local culture, others will keep apart and keep their own customs. It's the sort of social evolution that's uncomfortable for the locals and can cause strife and intolerance. A mature and discerning tolerance is needed. But how much tolerance? The final section of the essay discusses the case of Erich Priebke, a former SS officer extradited from Argentina to Italy to face a war crimes tribunal. He was let off on a technicality, which certainly seems like a travesty. The Holocaust was so barbaric and unimaginable that intolerance is called for. Working out how that fits with the earlier part of the essay makes for interesting reading.

Recommended. I liked the book but I realize that it may not be to everyone's taste.