Communism was, of course, for that special generation of Western
intellectuals from the 1930s-1950s “the God
that failed” and there is indeed an entire book with that
name, published in 1949, with contributions from Arthur Koestler, Andre Gide,
Richard Crossman and Stephen Spender.
The last post may have borne the same title – but the God in this case who has disappointed the
region in which I live – at least according to the title of “the
long read” in yesterday’s The Guardian - is not Communism but Liberalism.
It was, typically, a long post which took some time to reach its point since
I found Krastev and Holmes’ 2018 article Explaining
Eastern Europe – imitation and its discontents a much more satisfactory
analysis than the Guardian
“long read” with which I had started the post.
Let me therefore try to summarise
what I found the three most original and important points of that analysis –
and remember I have lived in the countries concerned for the entire 30 years
period (apart from the first year – and the 7 years I spent in central Asia).
I will then explore briefly the
question whether Liberalism has indeed failed the wider region.
- 1. The newer members of the EU feel their inferior status. When,
a couple of years ago, a friend used the term “colonial”, I resisted it but I now realise he was right both
literally (in a scale of economic takeover which is nothing short of
exploitative) and in the extent to which they have had to comply with EU
legislation. As a consultant I was very aware of the utter insensitivity of my colleagues with their perceptions of “best practice”
– in which the EU systems were as much as fault as the individual arrogances….I
don’t think outsiders can begin to
understand how much this has hurt proud and well-educated people
The
imitator’s life inescapably produces feelings of inadequacy, inferiority,
dependency, lost identity, and involuntary insincerity. Indeed, the futile
struggle to create a truly credible copy of an idealized model involves a
never-ending torment of self-criticism if not self-contempt.
What makes
imitation so irksome is not only the implicit assumption that the mimic is
somehow morally and humanly inferior to the model. It also entails the
assumption that central and eastern Europe’s copycat nations accept the West’s
right to evaluate their success or failure at living up
to Western standards.
- 2. Krastev and Holmes, secondly, explore
what the expectations were in the beginning, emphasising the importance of the word “Normality” – and how these
have changed….
If, in the
immediate aftermath of 1989, ‘normality’ was understood largely in political
terms (free elections, separation of powers, private property, and the
right to travel), during the last decade normality has increasingly come to be
interpreted in cultural terms of identity – racial and sexual and of
multiculturalism.
As a result, Central
and East Europeans are becoming mistrustful and resentful of norms coming from
the West. Ironically, eastern Europe is now starting to view itself as the last
bastion of genuine European values.
There’s a parallel (of a sort) with the Brits who feel that they joined
in 1973 a “Common Market” or economic union which, as the European Union, has developed
into something very different…
- 3. A Very different “Open society”. Perhaps no phrase has changed its meaning
within a decade as greatly as this one
In 1989, the
open society meant a promise of freedom, above all a freedom to do what had
been previously forbidden, namely to travel to the West.
Today, openness to the
world, for large swaths of the central and eastern European electorate,
connotes not freedom but danger: immigrant invasion, depopulation (by scale of emigration of their country’s
qualified young professionals), and loss of national sovereignty.
We rarely hear the voice of ordinary people in this sort of
geo-political analysis but
Aftershock
– a journey into Eastern Europe’s Forgotten Dreams 2017) is based on
interviews with people the author, young American journalist John Feffer, met
in the early 90s and then, 25 years later, went back to interview. The
interviews can actually
be accessed here
But let me return to the question of whether it is Liberalism that has failed the central and eastern Europeans…..
It has become quite fashionable to argue against liberalism – I first
noticed this some five years ago and the trend has intensified recently with
books such as “Why
Liberalism Failed
My argument in the 90s was that it was neo-liberalism which was the
false god – with bodies like the World Bank pushing
for the minimal state
Certainly “conditionality” was always a demeaning relationship for a
country to have with bodies such as the EU, the IMF and the World Bank but I have
to say I saw it at the time as a not unreasonable process - and was therefore
struck with this section of the Krastev and Holmes article -
”Thus the rise of authoritarian chauvinism and
xenophobia in Central and Eastern Europe has its roots not in political theory,
but in political psychology. It reflects a deep-seated disgust at the post-1989
“imitation imperative,” with all its demeaning and humiliating implications. [End
Page 118]
The origins of the region’s current illiberalism are
emotional and pre-ideological, rooted in rebellion at the humiliations that
must necessarily accompany a project requiring acknowledgment of a foreign
culture as superior to one’s own. Illiberalism in a strictly theoretical sense,
then, is largely a cover story. It lends a patina of intellectual
respectability to a desire, widely shared at a visceral level, to shake off the
colonial dependency implicit in the very project of Westernization.
This is indeed a fascinating argument – if not quite an attack on Liberalism
in itself. Its focus on psychology actually reminds me of the Romanian tutor, Zevedei
Barbu, I
had at University in 1963/64 who had written “Democracy
and Dictatorship – their psychology and patterns of life” (1956) a book
whose three parts were entitled “The psychology of Democracy”, “The psychology
of Nazism” and “The psychology of communism” respectively. This must have made
use of Adorno’s The
Authoritarian Personality (1950) one of the first of a stream of
books produced in the immediate post-war period to try to make sense of the
power of the totalitarian model eg Hannah Arendt’s The
Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) and JT Talmon’s The Origins of
Totalitarian Democracy(1952). They were all required reading on the small
Political Sociology class I took under Barbu who had defected in 1948
from the Romanian Legation in London (despite being an avowed communist who
spent a couple of years in prison for the cause). He was a great teacher – it
was he who introduced me to Weber, Durkheim and Tonnies – let alone Michels and
Pareto – all of whose insights still resonate with me.
It’s an interesting reflection on our individualistic and egocentric
times which have seen such a huge expansion in psychological book titles that such
political psychology seems to have disappeared?
Except they haven’t – but they’ve morphed their focus into studies of
left and right voting behaviour if Haidt’s
“The Righteous Mind” and Lakoff’s “Moral Politics” are anything to go by.
Rather different from studies of the authoritarian personality!
Or, indeed, from the writings of Daniel Bell, Christopher Lasch or Richard Sennett about whom I wrote recently
background reading
interview with Krastev -
Rather different from studies of the authoritarian personality!
Or, indeed, from the writings of Daniel Bell, Christopher Lasch or Richard Sennett about whom I wrote recently
background reading
1989
at 30; an interesting 30 page essay which focuses a bit too much on the
earlier period
A recent (and rare) global history
of the area
A famous English
historian living in California offers useful insights on a younger one let
loose in central europeinterview with Krastev -
Encourage the budding writers in your life to “Zoom-In” on their writing by adding, even the smallest, details. http://qwvc0hbezv.dip.jp http://k35ougc9ad.dip.jp http://g3fad6q7x5.dip.jp
ReplyDelete