I think most readers don’t spend much time thinking about nepotism. In this post, I will not try to convince you that racism is good or bad, rather I will try to show that racism provides a useful place to think about contemporary trends in multinational politics.
Conservatives often talk about value family, faithonce the flag. But how much weight should we put on family, religion and nation? Consider the following sliding scales of intensity:
1. No religion has a strict religion
2. Cosmopolitanism is a strong central nationalism
3. Pure equality The Nordic family values strict family choice
People often describe deep religion as “religious zeal”, a phrase with a negative connotation. Although I am not religious, it is not clear to me why rigid adherence to a set of beliefs that are considered good and important is a bad thing. In this post I will try to break free from value judgments.
Here I am more interested in the second and third issue, the attitude towards families and nations. A cosmopolitan may call him a “citizen of the world”, and say nothing of choosing the country of his birth. A person with moderate nationalism may strongly oppose the kind of strong nationalism seen in places like Russia, and yet to some extent favor communication systems that benefit domestic citizens rather than those of foreign countries.
In many parts of the world, it is considered inappropriate not showing a strong bias towards those with blood relations. In contrast, family ties are weakened in places like Northern Europe, where discrimination in employment is widely considered unethical. Not many people show family preferences, but you can imagine someone who complains that they get to choose their friends but not their family, and have friendly relationships with those who share similar interests, not those who are close relatives.
I grew up in a culture that gravitates toward the “middle” of all three sliding scales, and I have no interest in supporting or criticizing that position. Rather, I am interested in thinking about the mindset behind each position, especially on the last two sliding scales (attitudes toward one’s nation and family). Why is it so difficult to decide which attitude is right? Is the “golden” way I grew up just lazy? Remember Thomas De Quincey famous joke:
The golden mean is what everyone should aim for. But it is easier said than done; and, my weakness being notorious for having too much milk of the heart, I find it difficult to keep that stable equator between the two poles of too much killing on one side and too little on the other.
Why do the above situations seem different from those where the other extreme is clearly desirable? Here it will be useful to think of two words with very different meanings: bias again unity.
In America, bias is considered so inappropriate that there are all kinds of laws against showing favoritism to one group over another. In contrast, solidarity has a positive meaning, obviously linked to patriotism and family values, but also to the solidarity of the labor movement and even loyalty to the sports team. But partisanship and solidarity are two sides of the same coin.
I would be hard pressed to give you any “logical” reason for my support of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. I haven’t lived in Wisconsin in over 40 years, and even when I did it wasn’t in Milwaukee. On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to explain why I’m a Bucks fan. That was the local team on TV when I started following the NBA in 1968, and I was hooked. Similarly, people often (but not always) love the religion, nation and family of their youth.
Nepotism is a strong form of family values, or family favoritism. It may seem obvious to you that racism is wrong. But many (most?) people around the world don’t feel that way. Indeed, they may find your refusal to participate in kin selection deeply inappropriate. Sociologists use the acronym WEIRD to describe our culture (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.)
In my view, the tension between solidarity and partisanship is increasingly driving recent trends in politics. Nationality of approval tends to lie in the center and the right side of those three sliding scales, with no significant differences. Freedom is strongly dependent on the center and the left side of the three dimensions, and without significant significance.
The concept of culture it probably plays a bigger role on the right than on the left. In places like Russia, liberals are criticized (perhaps unfairly) for abandoning religion, family values and patriotism. A liberal might counter that supporting the idea of gay marriage is actually in line with family values. When lawmakers criticize things like gay rights, transgender rights, and abortion, I think they have the idea that once you start down that road, you end up with a kind of indiscriminateness, which destroys the unity that supports the family and the nation. If there’s no good reason not to allow people to follow any lifestyle, then (some might argue) there’s no good reason I shouldn’t switch from the Bucks to the Celtics, or root for the US winter olympics team. on the Norwegian winter olympics team.
In some cases, there are disagreements even within the framework of certain ideas. My favorite example is Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, who opposed Muslim immigration because he feared it threatened the Netherlands’ “traditional values” of freedom in areas such as gay rights. French conservatives complain that women from different cultures she didn’t wear a bikini on the beach. So there are important exceptions, situations where people don’t stand the same way on all three scales.
[Recall the famous paradox: Should liberals tolerate the intolerant?]Some experts have noted that blue-collar workers are changing from the left to the right in many countries. This can be understood as a reaction to the fall of communism. As the working class dream of socialism seemed impossible, politics shifted to focus on issues of ownership. Left-wing activism and right-wing nationalism can both be seen as emphasizing solidarity rather than partisanship. In that view, the perspective of the working class has not changed, rather the problems have. In contrast, liberals tend to be more concerned with partisanship, and less focused on family or national unity.
Proposals to deal with global warming suffer from the “outside problem.” So it’s no surprise that the same voters who showed union solidarity when they voted socialist in the 20th century are now showing national solidarity when they vote for right-wing parties opposed to a carbon tax. Most of the benefits from carbon taxes go to foreigners, while most of the costs are borne at home.
In short, politics in the 20th century was often divided between socialism vs. In the 21st century, the error seems to be attitudes of limited importance bias again unity.
PS. Elsewhere, I have argued that nationalism and patriotism are two very different things. Here I have removed that thorny subject.
Source link