Dahrendorf’s Theory
Ralf Dahrendorf was born in Hamburg in 1929. He was a sociologist, a political scientist, a politician, and a philosopher. He served as the director of the London School of Economics for ten years and was the Warden of Oxford’s St. Antony’s College. One of his notable works is “Economic Opportunity, Civil Society, and Political Liberty,” an essay presented at the UNRISD conference on “Rethinking Social Development” in Copenhagen in 1995. This period was significant, falling between the foundation of the European Union with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the creation of the euro in 1999.
In his essay, Dahrendorf presents the challenge of creating the proper balance between economic prosperity, social unity, and political liberty in an era that seems like a “zero-sum game.” He argues that increasing one aspect often requires decreasing the other two. Dahrendorf praises the First World for its powerful economies, individualism, and democracy but acknowledges the constant flux and the perverse choices that arise from economic opportunities.
The First World’s Apologia
Dahrendorf makes three clarifications about his statements to help understand his vision and the premises for his discussion. He quotes Karl Popper and Herakleitos: “παντα ρει—everything is in flux, nothing lasts, not even the blessings of prosperity, civil society, and democracy.” He further clarifies the criticism of his thesis by stating that the countries of the OECD world have reached a point where the economic opportunities of their citizens lead to perverse choices. To remain competitive in growing world markets, they must take measures that damage the cohesion of civil societies beyond repair. If they are unprepared to take such measures, they must resort to restrictions on civil liberties and political participation, leading to a new form of authoritarianism.
Our Challenge
Dahrendorf’s concept of perverse choices refers to the difficult ethical decisions individuals face in modern society. These choices are influenced by moral preparation, knowledge, and ethical dilemmas.
For example, in Italy, there is a discussion about a referendum on the citizenship law, while the abortion debate has resurfaced. These topics require moral preparation, knowledge, and difficult ethical choices. Each path is taken with difficulty and massive moral baggage, whether one is Catholic, progressive, or liberal.
Explaining It to Our Grandparents
Another case is the individual ethical and philosophical life we face daily. With the growth of well-being, the improvement of welfare systems, and the diffusion of schooling, we now face different ethical choices than our grandparents. This process is speeding up quickly, making it more challenging for new generations to explain their views to older ones. For instance, explaining the concept of an influencer or the job one is studying for to grandparents can be difficult.
The fact that this article is being written on my laptop while sitting in a university library in Perugia using writing software and the inability to explain this to my grandparents demonstrates this thesis. Different problems require different solutions and ethical decisions.
The Mini Metro Paradox
Georg Simmel’s work on the metropolitan man illustrates the complexities of modern life. The mini metro paradox, observed in Perugia, demonstrates how individuals in a metropolitan setting become indifferent to their surroundings due to overwhelming stimuli. This indifference is a coping mechanism to handle the constant influx of information and connections.
Every morning, hundreds of students get off at Perugia’s train station and take the mini metro. Despite the congestion, nobody talks to anyone except for friends and small chats of convenience. Simmel suggests that the best way to adapt to the metropolis, a context full of stimuli, is indifference. Engaging with everyone at the mini metro station would be overwhelming, so people remain indifferent to cope with the situation.
The challenge is to maintain coherence while making ourselves available to others, fostering understanding and building bridges.
The Shattering of Consciousness
Simmel also suggests that modernity leads to the shattering of consciousness. For example, helping friends with their local church’s after-school program reveals the diversity of opinions among youths.
For instance, let’s suppose I have a friend named Mary, who is Catholic, progressive, and a woman. This demonstrates the complexity of modern identities. She agrees with progressive views on euthanasia and has doubts about abortion, reflecting her unique perspective.
Mary’s example shows that we can no longer think in black-and-white categories. The emancipation of our thinking has led to a lack of a single, unified circle that can be called completely “our own.” An intriguing experiment would be to describe oneself with adjectives, revealing the complexity of modern identities.
Radicalization and Building Relationships
In response to the complexity of modern identities, two paths emerge: radicalization and building relationships. Radicalization involves confining others to predefined, simplistic roles or relying on straightforward solutions, including extreme ones. Building relationships, on the other hand, involves understanding and accepting the challenge of making ourselves available to others.
Bauman affirms that we live in a world of connections rather than relationships. These connections are non-binding and can be dissolved with a click. To build relationships, we must understand first and change second. The goal is to break the mini metro paradox, give people the freedom to express their ideas, and foster understanding and coherence in society. Let’s make bridges, not walls.
Follow the comments:
|
