The defining feature of the current western 21st century version of personhood is its vulnerability. Although society still upholds the ideal of self-determination and autonomy, the values associated with them are increasingly overridden by a message that stresses the quality of weakness. And if vulnerability is, indeed, the defining feature of the human condition, it follows that being fearful is the normal state.
Frank Furedi - Hungarian sociologist, commentator, and author of 25 books
Greetings!
This week we do anything in our power to show we’re the good guys, strive to create a new world order, obsess about emotional safety, and fight a war without firing a single shot.
Enjoy.
Image: © Sergey Taran | Dreamstime.com
COVER YOUR OWN ASS: The belief that “silence is complicity” (a.k.a. “silence is violence” and “guilty by association”) has become so ingrained in the Western psyche that we now seem to be much more concerned about the potential damage to our own reputation for having links with ‘anything Russian’ than we are about any other potential fallout from the war in Ukraine. The modus operandi consists of redirecting the prolific social justice arsenal towards whoever is deemed a menace, with “cancel culture” as the weapon of choice. It’s not only the variety of ways in which this guerrilla-style warfare is applied that I find jaw-dropping, but the complete lack of concern for presumption of innocence that is embedded in such behavior. Here are just a few examples: The International Paralympic Committee banned Russians from participating in the Winter Games. The Russian State Ballet of Siberia tour was canceled in the UK. The Montreal Symphony canceled a performance by the 20-year old Russian virtuoso Alexander Malofeev. A Formula 1 racing team fired the Russian driver Nikita Mazepin. Fired! And the International Cat Federation banned Russian felines from competitions.
What’s next? Will diners be required to show proof of Ukraine support before entering a restaurant?
IN THEIR OWN WORDS: While the prevailing media narrative surrounding the war in Ukraine continues to focus on the attrition between NATO countries and Russia, it is still rare to see anyone offering a serious analysis on what the end game might be for any of the key parties involved. So let me dare to ask a question: What if Vladimir Putin knew exactly how the West would react to his antics, including the overblown moral panic and the attempted financial blockade? And if that’s the case, why would he opt for bringing that upon himself and his country? Some very smart people have suggested it wouldn’t be so easy for Russia to shift its economic activity eastward because most of its population and major urban centers are located closer to Europe. But is that true?
Let’s hear it in their own words. On February 4th (three weeks before the invasion of Ukraine), Putin was invited to China by Xi Jinping, after which they issued a 5,000-word “Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era”. The document, which reads almost like a contract between the two nations (referred to as “sides”) overtly calls for a “redistribution of power in the world” and “greater interconnectedness between the Asia Pacific and Eurasian regions”; it declares that “the Russian side confirms its readiness to continue working on the China-proposed Global Development Initiative” and “the Russian side reaffirms its support for the One-China principle, confirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and opposes any forms of independence of Taiwan”; it asks the “international community to respect cultural and civilizational diversity”; it issues stark warnings like “Russia and China stand against attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions, intend to counter interference by outside forces in the internal affairs of sovereign countries under any pretext, oppose color revolutions, and will increase cooperation in the aforementioned areas” and “the sides […] remain highly vigilant about the negative impact of the United States' Indo-Pacific strategy on peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region”. And here’s the cherry on the cake: “Friendship between the two States (sides) has no limits, there are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation …”. Let that sink in.
BIFURCATION: I’ll ask the same question I posed earlier in a slightly different manner. What if Putin’s plan all along was precisely to decouple Russia’s economy from the West? Sounds pretty outrageous, right? Political risk strategist and long-term thinker and strategist Samo Burja suspects this might indeed be the case - “I think you never let a good crisis go to waste”, he says. He goes as far as asserting that the West (which he’s also careful to properly define) no longer controls the rules of the game, and that Russia now has very little to lose. Burja’s most terrifying prediction is that there could be an increase in repression of domestic dissent in countries like the U.S., as a consequence of foreign defeat and humiliation, as well as the general failure of globalism. Conversely, all of this might be exactly what we need to stimulate productivity, innovation and competition. It is an astonishing conversation, one that offers a truly fresh perspective and makes us wonder what the future holds.
CULTURE OF SAFETYISM: The term “vulnerability” didn’t really appear in the popular lexicon until the 1950’s, which is quite paradoxical considering the state of the world during most of the first half of the 20th century. You may positively associate the word with Brené Brown, who conducted great research on why this emotional state can serve as a portal to our creative potential. But what happens when “vulnerability” becomes an identity or a way of showing up in the world that is not just accepted but also rewarded? In this video by the Academy of Ideas, the authors suggest that such attitude paves the way for mental illness and authoritarian rule. It argues, on the other hand, that risk-taking, experimentation and the courageous exploration of the unknown are essential ingredients for a free and prosperous society, as well as a fulfilling life of its members.
FLICK OF THE WEEK: If you are in the mood for a biographical war film, then Hacksaw Ridge (2016) might interest you. It is based on the true story of Desmond T. Doss, an archetypal conscientious objector, who won the Congressional Medal of Honor despite refusing to bear arms during WWII on religious grounds. Doss was drafted and ostracized by fellow soldiers for his pacifist stance but went on to earn respect and adoration for his bravery, selflessness and compassion after he risked his life - without firing a shot - to save 75 men in the Battle of Okinawa. The film received six Oscar nominations at the 89th Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Sound Editing, winning the awards for Best Sound Mixing and Best Film Editing.