Nationalists can talk to one another; with internationalists, oddly enough, talking doesn’t work so well.
Individuation
Does being an independent human being, or even nation, make it easier or harder to get along with neighbors? Arguing in Harper's, French novelist Michel Houellebecq
stirs up the chattering class by suggesting that Trump's nationalism is a good thing:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That's an interesting perspective. I think I agree strongly with some middle percentage of it, disagree strongly with another percentage; but I'm glad to hear such a perspective given frankly on its own terms.
I had similar thoughts. there were some "No, wait a moment Michel you've gotten that wrong" moments, but other bits I didn't like at first but did see some justice in. Best of all, he says things that his audience would never hear from an American, so they might benefit hearing it from him.
So nationalism, for some definitions and self-understandings of "nation", can make international relations easier. If you think of it as related to federalism it seems almost obvious. Encapsulate the interactions between (sometimes wildly different) peoples, and mediate them through agreed-on interfaces. Then you can do trades, and maybe even lawsuits, between people who don't believe interest is moral and between peoples who believe it good. It dramatically reduces the number of laws and rules you have to define.
The internationalist types seem to either be "everybody is really a generic European under the skin" believers, or naive "Let's write one giant conglomeration of laws that does everything" believers.
Are most of us familiar with "Modular Programming?"
Yeah, I mean if your main idea is 'everyone should belong to the one big group' than outliers are your enemy. If you believe we all have a group to belong to, outliers are just others, perhaps not an enemy.
We've all experienced the difference between dealing with people who frankly contend for what they want and are willing to compromise, and dealing with people who believe that whatever is good for one person is ideal for everyone. Compromise with the latter is very hard; they perceive it as capitulation and annihilation. The very idea that there are different goods for different people, and that grownups should trade willingly, is foreign to their way of thought. For one thing, whether they acknowledge it or not, they seem secretly to believe that forcing on us what they believe is good is not only their duty but their right, and they will be aggrieved not only if we resist but if we are not actively grateful. A properly individuated person doesn't expect gratitude when someone compromises with him. He knows both parties gave up something willingly and are willing to live with the trade-off cheerfully, without pretending it had no price tag. They were forced to think through whether the price was worth the benefit. If it was, then no whining.
Post a Comment