A
couple of more philosophical items caught my feverish eye yesterday morning –
the first an elegant article in American Scholar about the “instant gratification” which, with “customisation”, has become an even more integral part of our
culture than it was when Christopher Lasch first tore it apart in his 1978 The Culture of Narcissism.
I’ve
excerpted a significant part of the article later in the post to whet your
appetite.
The
second item was a contribution by the President of the “European University
Institute” to the question of how easily an independent Scotland could
negotiate its way back into the European Union
I
watched the televised debates. Most of the sparring was utilitarian: Will we
better off, especially economically. More employment, yes or no. Better social
network, yes or no et cetera et cetera. So this is what will ultimately decide
things.This
runs diametrically contrary to the historical ethos of European integration.
The commanding moral authority of the Founding Fathers of European integration
– Schumann, Adenauer, de Gaspari and Jean Monnet himself – was a result of
their rootedness in the Christian ethic of forgiveness coupled with an
enlightened political wisdom which understood that it is better to look forward
to a future of reconciliation and integration rather than wallow in past
historical rights and identity.
There were, of course, utilitarian
considerations, but they were not at the normative core.
The
European Union is struggling today with a decisional structure which is already
overloaded with 28 Member States but more importantly with a socio-political
reality which makes it difficult to persuade a Dutch or a Finn or a German,
that they have a human and economic stake in the welfare of a Greek or a
Portuguese, or a Spaniard. Why would there be an interest to take into the
Union a polity such as an independent Scotland predicated on a regressive and
outmoded nationalist ethos which apparently cannot stomach the discipline of a
multinational nation? The very demand for independence from the UK, an
independence from the need to work out political, social, cultural and economic
differences within the UK, independence from the need to work through and
transcend whatever gripes there might be, disqualifies morally and politically
Scotland and the likes as future Member States of the European Union.
Do
we really need yet another Member State whose decisional criterion for Europe’s
fateful decisions in the future would be “what’s in it for us”?Europe
should not seem as a Nirvana for that form of irredentist Euro-tribalism which
contradicts the deep values and needs of the Union. Thus, the assumption of
Membership in the Union should be decisively squelched by the countries from
whom secession is threatened and if their leaders, for internal political
reasons lack the courage so to say, by other Member States of the Union.
So there! You're tell't!!
The
American Scholar article is focusing on bigger fish - in North American culture
– but resonated with me as I wrestle with the prospect of my country casting
aside its link with the rest of the UK
In
everything from relationships to politics to business, the emerging norms and
expectations of our self-centred culture are making it steadily harder to
behave in thoughtful, civic, social ways. We struggle to make lasting
commitments. We’re uncomfortable with people or ideas that don’t relate
directly and immediately to us. Empathy weakens, and with it, our confidence in
the idea, essential to a working democracy, that we have anything in common.
Our
unease isn’t new, exactly. In the 1970s, social critics such as Daniel Bell,
Christopher Lasch, and Tom Wolfe warned that our growing self-absorption was
starving the idealism and aspirations of the postwar era. The “logic of
individualism,” argued Lasch in his 1978 polemic, The Culture of
Narcissism, had transformed everyday life into a brutal social competition
for affirmation that was sapping our days of meaning and joy. Yet even these
pessimists had no idea how self-centred mainstream culture would become. Nor
could they have imagined the degree to which the selfish reflexes of the
individual would become the template for an entire society. Under the
escalating drive for quick, efficient “returns,” our whole socioeconomic system
is adopting an almost childlike impulsiveness, wholly obsessed with short-term
gain and narrow self-interest and increasingly oblivious to long-term
consequences……….
AO Hirschman, one of my favourite social scientists, wrote, in 1970, a famous book Exit,
Voice, and Loyalty which came to my mind as I mused about all this. “Exit”
means that individuals abandon a firm, brand, organization, or association when
they are no longer satisfied and see no chance for improvement. “Voice,” by
contrast, suggests that they seek improvement and want to make their
preferences heard and see their choices respected. “Loyalty” characterizes
one’s commitment to associations such as the family, the nation, the ethnic
group, or religious congregation that are based on formative and deeply held
values.
Voice
and power are central to any practice of self-determination. Hirschman argued
that the right championed ‘exit’ (market solutions) and the left ‘loyalty’
(solidarity), and both prioritised these above ‘voice’. In this, voice means
the collective self-organisation of people, something fundamentally missing from
the public life of Scotland, for all the talk of ‘civic Scotland’ and ‘the new
politics’.
Voice
relates to who has power, its use, expression and dynamics, and the reality
that in our society not only is it increasingly concentrated in a few economic,
social and political elites, but that any countervailing forces are much weaker
and more disparate in their influence. A Scottish self-determination movement
would understand the importance of voice and power, and aim to aid a shift in
how these are articulated and understood, supporting existing ideas and
initiatives which encourage a move away from powerlessness and dependency to
autonomy and empowerment at an individual and collective level.
The
ideology of ‘civic Scotland’ (that subset of civil society) believes that
Scotland’s supposed social democracy is enough; that our problems and
challenges are external – in the British state and market fundamentalism.Not
all of them are: our complacencies and silences are just as much a problem.
Our
nation and society is bitterly divided, with hundreds of thousands of Scots
adults and children living in poverty and hardship. The cosseted life of
Scotland’s super-rich and the widespread fawning in public life and media after
plutocrats and global tycoons such as Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch, isn’t a
product of external forces, but the ‘free’ choice of our politicians, public
bodies and business community.
This
won’t be ended by the demise of the union. Instead, Scotland needs a new
collective mission and purpose which mobilises our resources to tackle and heal
the divided, fragmented society we have become. That is one of the first
priorities in creating and acting upon a culture of self-determination.
Neoliberal
Scotland; Class and Society in a Stateless Nation edited by Davidson, N., McCafferty,
P. and Miller D
But
let’s return to the instant gratification culture -
Day
by day, there seem to be fewer reasons to follow the rules or think beyond
oneself or the present moment. Not so long ago, we told our children that
success required sustained effort, a willingness to delay gratification, and
the capacity to control impulses.
Children today, however, see their patient,
hard-working parents and grandparents tossed aside like old furniture—while
investment bankers and reality TV stars seem to easily make huge amounts of
money. Little wonder that cheating is now endemic in high school and
college. …….Community
and family are undermined by our consumer culture of individual gratification.
Worse, our political system, the traditional arbiter between public and private
interests, has been colonized by the same bottom-line impulse. Political
parties boil their philosophies down into extreme brands designed to provoke
target audiences and score quick wins. Voters are encouraged to see politics as
another venue for personalized consumption.
We’ve lost the idea that politics
is the means to build consensus and an opportunity to participate in something
larger than ourselves….. We
know the result: a national political culture more divided and dysfunctional
than any in living memory. All but gone are centrist statesmen capable of
bipartisan compromise.
A
democracy once capable of ambitious, historic ventures can barely keep
government open and seems powerless to deal with challenges like debt reduction
or immigration
The
people of Scotland, at one level, seem to have had enough……they have tried “loyalty”
(particularly to the Labour Party); and “voice” (since the discovery of oil
gave the nationalists their first political breakthrough in the 1960s. Some
started to exit from the Labour Party during the New Labour period – then in
droves after the 2010 General Election.
But
the “exit” from the UK started only months ago……when it seems that thousands of
loyal “undecided” cast off that loyalty……..