Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.61 AVERAGE
3.61 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Hmm, tätä oli vaikea arvioida! Tykkäsin alusta enemmän ku lopusta ja tässä oli kyllä monia asioita joista en oo Fukuyaman kanssa samaa mieltä. Rivien välistä välitty esimerkiksi hänen jonkintasoinen "mitään ei saa enää sanoa" -asenne liittyen vaikkapa sukupuolineutraaleihin virkanimikkeisiin tai sukupuolen olettamiseen ylipäänsä. Ihan lukemisen arvoinen kuitenkin!
Modern liberal societies are heirs to the moral confusion left by the disappearance of a shared religious horizon.
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
This new book by [a:Francis Fukuyama|32633|Francis Fukuyama|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1226219290p2/32633.jpg] about the hot issue in the US and EU politics today – identity. He doesn’t take neither left nor right side in the debate, but shows that the debate itself maybe out of focus.
He starts with [a:Plato|879|Plato|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1393978633p2/879.jpg]'s [b:The Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1386925655s/30289.jpg|1625515] and introduces concept of thymos - third part of the soul (first two are desires and reason, roughly equivalent to id and ego concepts of Freud) acts completely independently of the first two. It is the seat of judgments of worth: like a drug addict wants to be a productive employee or a loving mother. Human beings crave positive judgments about their worth or dignity. Those judgments can come from within, but they are most often made by other people in the society around them who recognize their worth. If they receive that positive judgment, they feel pride, and if they do not receive it, they feel either anger (when they think they are being undervalued) or shame (when they realize that they have not lived up to other people’s standards).
This leads to two more concepts: isothymia (all people have equal worth) and megalothymia (some people are better). Note that the latter case doesn’t mean only racist douchebags, but everyone, who thinks that e.g. it would be ok to kill Hitler or Stalin (assuming some people are worse). To some extent thymos is similar to virtues as described by [a:Deirdre N. McCloskey|43854|Deirdre N. McCloskey|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1447727276p2/43854.jpg] in [b:The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce|786362|The Bourgeois Virtues Ethics for an Age of Commerce|Deirdre N. McCloskey|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328872357s/786362.jpg|772359].
Then the author discusses Martin Luther, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Nietzsche, who added to the modern concept of identity. In the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century, the state was held responsible for protecting basic rights such as freedom of speech and association, for upholding a rule of law, and for providing essential public services such as police, roads, and education. The government “recognized” its citizens by granting them individual rights, but the state was not seen as responsible for making each individual feel better about himself or herself.
In the second half of twentieth century the focus shifted: “the triumph of the therapeutic” (see [a:Philip Rieff|153999|Philip Rieff|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]), when the decline of a shared moral horizon defined by religion had left a huge void that was being filled by psychologists preaching a new religion of psychotherapy. Traditional culture, according to Rieff, “is another name for a design of motive directing the self outward, toward those communal purposes in which alone the self can be realized and satisfied.” As such it played a therapeutic role, giving purpose to individuals, connecting them to others, and teaching them their place in the universe. But that outer culture had been denounced as an iron cage imprisoning the inner self; people were told to liberate their inner selves, to be “authentic” and “committed,” but without being told to what they should be committed. Under the therapeutic model, however, an individual’s happiness depends on his or her self-esteem, and self-esteem is a by-product of public recognition. Governments are readily able to give away public recognition in the way that they talk about and treat their citizens, so modern liberal societies naturally and perhaps inevitably began to take on the responsibility for raising the self-esteem of each and every one of their citizens.
The disillusionment is classic left (communists) after the 1960s shifted the left from the industrial working class and Marxist revolution to the rights of minorities and immigrants, the status of women, environmentalism, and the like. This actually is one of the reasons that white blue collars voted for Trump or Brexit – they still have problems, but the left care mainly about other issues. It was easier to talk about respect and dignity than to come up with potentially costly plans that would concretely reduce inequality. The left continued to be defined by its passion for equality, but that agenda shifted from its earlier emphasis on the conditions of the working class to the often psychological demands of an ever-widening circle of marginalized groups. Many activists came to see the old working class and their trade unions as a privileged stratum with little sympathy for the plight of groups such as immigrants or racial minorities worse off than they were. Recognition struggles targeted newer groups and their rights as groups, rather than the economic inequality of individuals. In the process, the old working class was left behind.
According to Fukuyama, the right currently hi-jacked the left’s identity politics, vocally protecting not the usual targets (black, women, LGBTQ+) but native-born workers and dominant long-established cultural identities. The latter can also feel threatened and it doesn’t matter whether there is a real fact under this threat – the identity is subjective by definition!
What he suggests? He fully agrees that there is inequality and a greater equality of opportunity is desirable. He likes the idea of Bassam Tibi’s Leitkultur, “leading culture,” as the basis for a national identity, which was defined in liberal Enlightenment terms as belief in equality and democratic values.
He starts with [a:Plato|879|Plato|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1393978633p2/879.jpg]'s [b:The Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1386925655s/30289.jpg|1625515] and introduces concept of thymos - third part of the soul (first two are desires and reason, roughly equivalent to id and ego concepts of Freud) acts completely independently of the first two. It is the seat of judgments of worth: like a drug addict wants to be a productive employee or a loving mother. Human beings crave positive judgments about their worth or dignity. Those judgments can come from within, but they are most often made by other people in the society around them who recognize their worth. If they receive that positive judgment, they feel pride, and if they do not receive it, they feel either anger (when they think they are being undervalued) or shame (when they realize that they have not lived up to other people’s standards).
This leads to two more concepts: isothymia (all people have equal worth) and megalothymia (some people are better). Note that the latter case doesn’t mean only racist douchebags, but everyone, who thinks that e.g. it would be ok to kill Hitler or Stalin (assuming some people are worse). To some extent thymos is similar to virtues as described by [a:Deirdre N. McCloskey|43854|Deirdre N. McCloskey|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1447727276p2/43854.jpg] in [b:The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce|786362|The Bourgeois Virtues Ethics for an Age of Commerce|Deirdre N. McCloskey|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328872357s/786362.jpg|772359].
Then the author discusses Martin Luther, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Nietzsche, who added to the modern concept of identity. In the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century, the state was held responsible for protecting basic rights such as freedom of speech and association, for upholding a rule of law, and for providing essential public services such as police, roads, and education. The government “recognized” its citizens by granting them individual rights, but the state was not seen as responsible for making each individual feel better about himself or herself.
In the second half of twentieth century the focus shifted: “the triumph of the therapeutic” (see [a:Philip Rieff|153999|Philip Rieff|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]), when the decline of a shared moral horizon defined by religion had left a huge void that was being filled by psychologists preaching a new religion of psychotherapy. Traditional culture, according to Rieff, “is another name for a design of motive directing the self outward, toward those communal purposes in which alone the self can be realized and satisfied.” As such it played a therapeutic role, giving purpose to individuals, connecting them to others, and teaching them their place in the universe. But that outer culture had been denounced as an iron cage imprisoning the inner self; people were told to liberate their inner selves, to be “authentic” and “committed,” but without being told to what they should be committed. Under the therapeutic model, however, an individual’s happiness depends on his or her self-esteem, and self-esteem is a by-product of public recognition. Governments are readily able to give away public recognition in the way that they talk about and treat their citizens, so modern liberal societies naturally and perhaps inevitably began to take on the responsibility for raising the self-esteem of each and every one of their citizens.
The disillusionment is classic left (communists) after the 1960s shifted the left from the industrial working class and Marxist revolution to the rights of minorities and immigrants, the status of women, environmentalism, and the like. This actually is one of the reasons that white blue collars voted for Trump or Brexit – they still have problems, but the left care mainly about other issues. It was easier to talk about respect and dignity than to come up with potentially costly plans that would concretely reduce inequality. The left continued to be defined by its passion for equality, but that agenda shifted from its earlier emphasis on the conditions of the working class to the often psychological demands of an ever-widening circle of marginalized groups. Many activists came to see the old working class and their trade unions as a privileged stratum with little sympathy for the plight of groups such as immigrants or racial minorities worse off than they were. Recognition struggles targeted newer groups and their rights as groups, rather than the economic inequality of individuals. In the process, the old working class was left behind.
According to Fukuyama, the right currently hi-jacked the left’s identity politics, vocally protecting not the usual targets (black, women, LGBTQ+) but native-born workers and dominant long-established cultural identities. The latter can also feel threatened and it doesn’t matter whether there is a real fact under this threat – the identity is subjective by definition!
What he suggests? He fully agrees that there is inequality and a greater equality of opportunity is desirable. He likes the idea of Bassam Tibi’s Leitkultur, “leading culture,” as the basis for a national identity, which was defined in liberal Enlightenment terms as belief in equality and democratic values.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I don't know enough about politics, economics, or the humanities to make a critical judgement of this book. I don't even understand it completely. The last few chapters were easier to grasp though, because they were way less abstract and philosophical, and talked about concrete, tangible events.
Another thing to note, the author seems to love the word "Indeed" and writing time periods as "the second decade of the twenty-first century" instead of 2010s. Lol.
Another thing to note, the author seems to love the word "Indeed" and writing time periods as "the second decade of the twenty-first century" instead of 2010s. Lol.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
medium-paced