Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2024 m. liepos 14 d., sekmadienis

An Era of Radical Transformations


"The Crisis of Culture

By Olivier Roy

Oxford, 232 pages, $29.95

Olivier Roy is a French political scientist, a man of the old-fashioned, realist, moderate European left.

He doesn't chase after progressive fads and doesn't applaud the secularism that has driven religion out of public spaces.

He has a healthy disregard for the wokeness that besets Western societies.

His disregard extends to the globalized economy, which he thinks has contributed to the "deterritorialisation" of anchorless human beings.

Most of all, he feels that something is badly amiss in the values of a Western world that appears to have lost its cultural swagger.

Mr. Roy, a professor at the European University Institute in Florence, addresses these (and other) subjects in "The Crisis of Culture," a book whose aim is to help us understand why the postwar West has ceased to be a place of cultural confidence, no longer secure in its values and sense of self. Mr. Roy writes in elegant but quasi-academic French (with a fondness for words like "axiological"), and his book has been translated -- admirably, one must say -- by Cynthia Schoch and Trista Selous.

While there are many factors that differentiate the U.S. from Europe -- and, within Europe, the Catholic countries from the Protestant -- all of the Judeo-Christian West suffers from what Mr. Roy calls "the erasure of shared implicit understandings." In other words, we've become "archipelago societies"; all cultures are subcultures jostling for influence and attention.

Four kinds of "radical transformation" have propelled this widespread deculturation, as Mr. Roy sees it: the metamorphosis in values brought about by the "individualist and hedonist revolution" of the 1960s; the tribalism and facile certitudes of the internet revolution; unchecked economic globalization, which has crashed through local cultures like a wrecking ball; and mass migration across national borders. This migration has put pressure on Western values and fueled apocalyptic fears of a "great replacement," a hypernationalist theory positing that native whites will be swamped by unassimilable foreigners.

In case we weren't already aware, Mr. Roy tells us that today's political conflicts center more on values and identity than on the economy and social questions. Particularly intense is the drive to extend the "domain of normativity" -- the imposition of rules on people, whether they like them or not -- to sexual intimacy. He cites a law from 2014, passed in California, that imposes an "affirmative consent standard" for all sexual activity. "We have gone from 'peace and love' to #MeToo," Mr. Roy writes, "from the harmony of desires to the denunciation of patriarchal domination."

The sexual freedom unleashed by the feminist revolution, he notes, has had unintended effects. It has enabled "a new type of male domination that is more brutal because it is no longer culturally contained (by gallantry, for example)." Some of the liberal Mr. Roy's thoughts are in sync with the writings of conservatives such as Harvey Mansfield, who makes similar points on the social eclipse of "manliness."

Readers will be amused that Mr. Roy kicks off his book by using Maureen Dowd -- who has written breathlessly for the New York Times for over 40 years -- as an exemplar of how American values have changed. He compares a column Ms. Dowd wrote in 1999, in which she likened the White House intern Monica Lewinsky to a "leech," with one she wrote in 2018, when America was in full #MeToo mode. In the latter column, she excoriates Bill Clinton for "an inexcusable abuse of power" in his sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. "How do you go," Mr. Roy asks, "from 'leech' to victim in twenty years, when no new element has emerged?" The paradigm shift, he says, lies in the radical remaking of our culture, from an assumption of permissiveness to an ironclad woke moralism.

The abandonment of high culture -- particularly the failure of universities to transmit it to the next generation -- has given rise to a free-for-all, Mr. Roy believes. We've gone from a common body of knowledge to "a catalogue of courses for all tastes. Latin, guitar, film studies and Chinese are all interchangeable options." An entire "architecture of knowledge" is teetering on the brink of collapse. The fault lies not just with our universities. Mr. Roy points out that the European Union is built on institutional and political procedures, not on a shared culture. In 2000 a fractious debate erupted over the inclusion of the phrase "Christian roots" in a draft European constitution. The phrase was dropped.

Although Mr. Roy has unkind things to say about conservative evangelicals in the U.S., he is critical, also, of militant French laicite (or state-mandated secularism). Whereas secularism in the 19th century was, he says, as much a spiritual as a rational alternative to religion, it is today (in France at least) a set of oppressive shibboleths that do nothing "other than to exclude religion." Faith is thus relegated to the margins of society, and jihadists and other radicals have seized the reins of religion.

Mr. Roy has made versions of this argument in a previous book, "Holy Ignorance" (2010).

For all its robust diagnoses, Mr. Roy's solutions to our crisis of culture are wan. He says, for instance, that the people of the West "must leave our protected spaces behind and rediscover heterogeneity, difference and debate." But it would be unfair to scold him for the apparent feebleness of his remedies. For this is a pessimistic book, and it is clear that there are no cures in sight. We have to live through this crisis and see where it takes us, reacting as best we can to social and political turbulence whenever it arises.

---

Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at NYU Law School's Classical Liberal Institute." [1]


1. An Era of Radical Transformations. Varadarajan, Tunku.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 July 2024: A.13.

Beijing Says Rare NATO Alliance Rebuke Is"Full of Prejudice, Smears and Provocations"

 

"HONG KONG -- China warned the U.S. and its allies not to "provoke confrontation" after NATO took the unusual step of explicitly identifying Beijing as a threat to its interests.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization described China as an enabler of events in Ukraine, and expressed concern about the expansion of China's nuclear arsenal. In a staunchly worded statement issued Wednesday at its annual summit in Washington, it also accused Beijing of acting irresponsibly in both cyberspace and outer space.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian hit back Thursday with similar vigor at a regular news briefing in Beijing, describing NATO's statement as "full of prejudice, smears and provocations."

Lin said NATO is threatening China's interests by extending its reach into Asia. He said the alliance should "avoid messing up Asia the way it messed up Europe."

The decision by NATO leaders to dispense with diplomatic restraint concerning China reflects heightened geopolitical tensions as conflict with Russia drags on through its third year, and as Beijing and Moscow push for an alternative to the U.S.-led global order.

NATO generally has avoided criticizing China, which fields one of the world's most powerful militaries. The country didn't appear in the alliance's main guiding document, known as the Strategic Concept, until 2022, when Beijing was first openly identified as a challenge to NATO interests.

Since then, China's posture on Ukraine, its military buildup and its alleged involvement in cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns inside NATO's borders have raised the level of concern in the West.

In its statement, NATO called on China to cease all support for Russia's effort, including the provision of so-called dual-use goods that have both civilian and military uses.

China's mission to the European Union criticized NATO's depiction of China as a "decisive enabler" of the conflict in Ukraine. "China has never provided lethal weapons to either party of the conflict and has exercised strict export control on dual-use goods, including civilian drones," the mission said.

Earlier in the week, Beijing said it would continue to promote peace talks and play a constructive role in pushing for a political settlement to the conflict in Ukraine.

NATO's warning went viral on China's heavily controlled social-media platforms, where it attracted a flood of nationalistic commentary as it rose to No. 1 on the list of hot topics on the popular site Weibo. Some said the statement signaled that China is NATO's next target.

"They are wrapping up the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and can now spare a free hand to target us," wrote one Weibo user in a comment that garnered more than a thousand likes." [1]

This is one of the biggest Biden's mistakes - to inflame a conflict with both China and Russia at the same time. 

1. World News: Beijing Says Rare Alliance Rebuke Is 'Full of Prejudice'. Fan, Wenxin.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 July 2024: A.8.

Pekinas sako, kad retas NATO aljanso priekaištas yra „pilnas išankstinių nusistatymų, šmeižtų ir provokacijų“.

„HONKONGAS – Kinija perspėjo JAV ir jos sąjungininkes „neprovokuoti konfrontacijos“ po to, kai NATO ėmėsi neįprasto žingsnio ir aiškiai įvardijo Pekiną, kaip grėsmę NATO interesams.

 

 Šiaurės Atlanto sutarties organizacija Kiniją apibūdino kaip įvykių Ukrainoje skatintoją ir išreiškė susirūpinimą dėl Kinijos branduolinio arsenalo išplėtimo. Tvirtai suformuluotame pareiškime, paskelbtame trečiadienį per metinį viršūnių susitikimą Vašingtone, NATO taip pat apkaltino Pekiną neatsakingai elgiantis tiek elektroninėje erdvėje, tiek kosminėje erdvėje.

 

 Kinijos užsienio reikalų ministerijos atstovas Linas Jianas ketvirtadienį per eilinį spaudos konferenciją Pekine atsiliepė panašiai tvirtai, apibūdindamas NATO pareiškimą, kaip „pilną išankstinių nusistatymų, šmeižtų ir provokacijų“.

 

 Linas sakė, kad NATO kelia grėsmę Kinijos interesams, išplėsdama NATO galią į Aziją. Jis sakė, kad aljansas turėtų „vengti sujaukti Aziją taip, kaip sujaukė Europą“.

 

 NATO lyderių sprendimas atsisakyti diplomatinio santūrumo Kinijos atžvilgiu atspindi išaugusią geopolitinę įtampą, kai konfliktas su Rusija tęsiasi jau trečius metus, o Pekinas ir Maskva siekia alternatyvos JAV vadovaujamai pasaulinei tvarkai.

 

 NATO apskritai vengė kritikuoti Kiniją, kuri yra viena galingiausių pasaulio karinių pajėgų. Šalis nebuvo įtraukta į pagrindinį aljanso gairės dokumentą, vadinamą Strategine koncepcija, iki 2022 m., kai Pekinas pirmą kartą buvo atvirai įvardytas, kaip iššūkis NATO interesams.

 

 Nuo tada Kinijos požiūris į Ukrainą, jos kariuomenės stiprinimas ir tariamas dalyvavimas kibernetinėse atakose ir dezinformacijos kampanijose NATO sienų viduje kelia susirūpinimą Vakaruose.

 

 Savo pareiškime NATO paragino Kiniją nutraukti bet kokią paramą Rusijos pastangoms, įskaitant vadinamųjų dvejopo naudojimo prekių tiekimą, kurios yra skirtos tiek civilinėms, tiek karinėms reikmėms.

 

 Kinijos misija Europos Sąjungoje kritikavo NATO vaizdavimą apie Kiniją, kaip „lemiamąja Ukrainos konflikto įgalinančiają“. „Kinija niekada neteikė mirtinų ginklų nė vienai konflikto šaliai ir vykdė griežtą dvejopo naudojimo prekių, įskaitant civilinius dronus, eksporto kontrolę“, – nurodė misija.

 

 Anksčiau šią savaitę Pekinas pareiškė, kad toliau skatins taikos derybas ir atliks konstruktyvų vaidmenį siekiant politinio konflikto Ukrainoje sprendimo.

 

 NATO įspėjimas išplito Kinijos griežtai kontroliuojamose socialinės žiniasklaidos platformose, kur sulaukė daugybės nacionalistinių komentarų ir pakilo iki 1 populiariausių temų sąraše populiarioje svetainėje „Weibo“. Kai kurie teigė, kad šis pareiškimas rodo, kad Kinija yra kitas NATO taikinys.

 

 „Jie baigia konfliktą tarp Rusijos ir Ukrainos ir dabar gali nepagailėti laisvų rankų, kad taikytųsi į mus“, – rašė vienas „Weibo“ vartotojas komentare, kuris surinko daugiau, nei tūkstantį, „patinka“ [1].

 

Tai viena didžiausių Bideno klaidų – tuo pačiu metu kurstyti konfliktą ir su Kinija, ir su Rusija.

 

1. World News: Beijing Says Rare Alliance Rebuke Is 'Full of Prejudice'. Fan, Wenxin.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 July 2024: A.8.

ES teisė įmonėms per sudėtinga: Europos įstatymai per sudėtingi

 „Kadangi įstatymai prieštarauja vieni kitiems, trūksta teisinio tikrumo, – apklausoje skundžiasi įmonės

 

.Tai trukdo skaitmeninimui.

 

 Daugelis Europos įmonių mano, kad sudėtinga teisinė padėtis ES trukdo tobulinti jų skaitmeninimą. Tai matyti iš audito įmonės EY ir Europos politikos centro (CEP) atliktos apklausos. 

 

Atitinkamai 75 procentai teigė, kad kurtų arba naudotų daugiau skaitmeninių sprendimų, jei būtų didesnis teisinis tikrumas. Tačiau pagrindinė kliūtis tam yra „teisės aktų sudėtingumas“ ir „kartais prieštaringas jų pobūdis“. ES iš tikrųjų nori palengvinti keitimąsi duomenimis naujais teisės aktais. 35 procentai įmonių skeptiškai vertina, ar tai pavyks.

 

 CEP apklausą įvertinusi teisininkė Anja Hoffmann daro išvadą, kad įmonėms „skubiai reikia didesnio teisinio tikrumo, sprendžiant Bendrąjį duomenų apsaugos reglamentą, pavyzdžiui, anonimizuojant duomenis, prekiaujant ar perduodant duomenis tarptautiniu mastu ir apskritai duomenų sąveikos atžvilgiu. Suderintinos duomenų apsaugos taisyklės su nauju ES skaitmeniniu reglamentu.“ [1]

 

1. Den Unternehmen ist das EU-Recht zu komplex: In Europa sind die Gesetze zu komplex. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (online) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH. Jun 8, 2024.

EU law is too complex for companies: In Europe, the laws are too complex

"Because laws contradict each other, there is a lack of legal certainty, companies complain in a survey. 

 

This is hindering digitalization.

 

Many European companies see the complex legal situation in the EU as an obstacle to driving forward their digitalization. This is the result of a survey by the auditing firm EY and the Center for European Politics (CEP), which the F.A.S. has received. 

 

According to the survey, 75 percent said they would develop or use more digital solutions if there were more legal certainty. However, a major hurdle to this is "the complexity of the legal acts" and "their partial contradictions". The EU actually wants to make data exchange easier with new legal acts. 35 percent of companies are skeptical as to whether this will succeed.

 

The lawyer Anja Hoffmann, who evaluated the survey for the CEP, concludes that companies "urgently need more legal certainty when dealing with the General Data Protection Regulation, for example when anonymizing data, trading with or transferring data internationally and generally with regard to the interaction of data protection rules with the new EU digital regulation." [1]

 

1. Den Unternehmen ist das EU-Recht zu komplex: In Europa sind die Gesetze zu komplex. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (online) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH. Jun 8, 2024.