Prvi, Hararijev iz New Statemana.
Naslov je, zapravo, malo misleading, tekst je više o teškoćama gradnje nekog globalnog identiteta, ali je sjajna analiza uspostavljanja nacionalnog identiteta. Recimo, ovaj pasus je divna ilustracija Hararijevog britkog uma.
Nations solved some problems and created new ones. In particular, big nations led to big wars. Yet people were willing to pay the price in blood, because nations provided them with unprecedented levels of security and prosperity. In the 19th and early 20th centuries the nationalist deal still looked very attractive. Nationalism was leading to horrendous conflicts on an unprecedented scale, but modern nation states also built systems of health care, education and welfare. National health services made Passchendaele and Verdun seem worthwhile.
Drugim rečima, jasno je zašto su najveći i najgorljiviji pobornici nacionalnog identiteta neto izdržavana lica (u srpskom i hrvatskom slučaju, četnici i ustaše). Penzioneri, nastavnici, državni pesnici, policajci, vojnici, vojni invalidi najviše benefituju od samog koncepta nacije.
Tekst, naravno, pokreće i mnoga druga i zanimljiva pitanja, toplo ga preporučujem.
****************************************************************************************************
Drugi zanimljiv tekst je odličan long read o New Optimismu, struji "intelektualaca" koja tvrdi kako živimo u najboljem od svih svetova. Pored toga što razotkriva političku pozadinu samog pokreta, tekst je interesantan i zbog niza interesantnih teza, recimo ova, da Trumpa i Brexit nije proizvelo nepoverenje u sistem već, naprotiv svojevrsni confidence trap, tipa "it'll be all right", vera da je sistem toliko jak da može izdržati i takve šokove.
According to this argument, the people who voted for Trump and Brexit didn't really do so because they had concluded their system was broken, and needed to be replaced. On the contrary: they voted as they did precisely because they had grown too confident that the essential security provided by government would always be there for them, whatever incendiary choice they made at the ballot-box. People voted for Trump "because they didn't believe him", Runciman has written. They "wanted Trump to shake up a system that they also expected to shield them from the recklessness of a man like Trump". The problem with this pattern - delivering electoral shocks because you're confident the system can withstand them - is that there's no reason to assume it can continue indefinitely: at some point, the damage may not be repairable.
Naravno, svako zaključivanje o budućnosti na osnovu prošlosti, pogotovu relativno jako bliske, može čoveka odvesti u potpuni ćorsokak, i u psihologiji čak i postoji izraz za ljude deludirane sličnim glupavim razmišljanjem: anchoring bias.
Anyways, toliko od mene za ovo subotno, predpijačno javljanje.