Ukrainian society will mark the third anniversary of the Revolution of Dignity in a somewhat disoriented state. People keep asking themselves why suffer all this and realize that this country, its elite in the first place, can’t generate a clear picture of what lies in the offing. This is making the current hard domestic economic and social situation even more painful. Could philosophy be of help? In the following interview, Dr. Andrii BAUMEISTER, Associate Professor, Faculty of Philosophy, Taras Shevchenko National University, Kyiv, shares his ideas concerning moral guidelines after Ukraine’s revolutions, the public intellectual’s role, and ideological transformation in the world following the US presidential election.
EACH SHOULD ASSUME RESPONSIBILY FOR WHAT HE’S DOING
In one of the blogs on Den/The Day’s website you noted that Ukrainian society is obviously losing moral guidelines. After the Revolution of Dignity that will be marked in a couple of days, much has been said about certain virtues gaining weight within Ukrainian society. Now you’re saying there is a trend to the contrary. Why? Where to look for other moral guidelines?
“Maidan, revolution, armed conflict – these address only so many moral virtues, namely, valor, dedication, and patriotism. However, any society needs other virtues in order to evolve: honesty, incorruptibility, and responsibility. Maidan laid foundations for change. But in a society that shows no progress, there emerges a ‘return’ situation. In one of my messages I used Nikolai Gogol’s vicious circle metaphor. Now we appear to be moving in circles, moving further, then returning. We lack the elites capable of assuming responsibility.
“We can’t just read the code of ethics. People must have elites to look to offer examples worth emulating. A personal example works better than any sermon. If there are no such examples, we’re in for what I call moral disorientation. The moral climate within a society is generated by intellectuals, individuals held in esteem, representatives of the elite. They show others the way to live well and proper. The shock our society experienced after reading our elite’s online personal income and property declarations, the scandals that followed, all this serves to cause [moral] disorientation. This is a signal to our society that we actually have no elite, that there are no examples worth emulating. Don’t you think so, too?”
You’ve made a point that’s hard to argue. What do you think is the reason? Could this be a habit developed historically?
“I started my research when the whole country was one [uncontrollable] market. My colleagues and I agreed that we were taking a big risk – and also that we were assuming responsibility for our science. You, as journalists, are responsible for your reporting. Each should assume responsibility for what he’s doing.
“However, I think there is another problem. Those online profit and property declarations show that our elites do not believe in their country. There has been that double-talk rhetoric since the late 1990s. On the one hand, we are urged to show patriotism, working for our country, trusting our national currency and culture. On the other hand, what’s actually happening shows that no one believes in national culture. No one wants to teach children in Ukraine, just as no one is funding our sciences. Now this funding is the privilege of individuals, because the state can’t afford to foot all the bills.”
DONALD TRUMP QUICKLY GRASPED THE SITUATION
Donald Trump’s victory is still in the limelight with the media. Now is probably the time to discuss a new trend in the West, with forces coming to power and criticizing principles that have for quite some time been accepted as having no alternative: free trade, multiculturalism, and globalization. How is the political class, the man in the street in Ukraine and across the world, to respond to this challenge?
“All forces have to consolidate within [a given] country in the first place. Our dependences and weaknesses are explained by the absence of a consolidated society and responsible elite. Here the first step [in the right direction] would be by forming a single front.
“I believe, however, that some positive changes are taking place. All those democracies in the West are countries where the state is linked to certain civic groups. In my opinion, the EU officials have got carried away making well-wishing humane slogans, while losing touch with their citizenries. The result was a conflict between the European values (which I personally hold in esteem) and the possibility of implementing them in a situation that kept changing.
“I placed a feature from Die Welt on my web page. The author is a German sociologist and economist. It is dedicated to Africa and it reads that there were 150 million people there, back in 1950, and that now it is one billion, with 2 billion 200 million expected in 2050, including 800 million ready to flee to the European Union. The EU currently numbers 500 million residents. If this policy continues, Europe will shortly explode.
“People like Donald Trump – in Europe, they usually represent various nationalistic movements – were the first to sense such tectonic shifts below, and were the first to respond. Not that they were exceptionally good politicians. I don’t consider Mr. Trump to be a good politician, but he quickly grasped the situation, something the European democratic leaders failed to do. This is also helping Russia’s politics. Some European intellectuals, particularly in France and Germany, have long taken a liking to Russia. Now we have a triangle, with most Europeans being disillusioned, with right extremists being aware of that disillusionment and trying to use it to their best advantage, and with the Russian political elite trying to follow suit. I believe European politics will radically change in the next couple of years. In fact, the Western visage must gradually change unless they decide to discard some democratic values.”
Western, particularly French media, are often accused of focusing only on domestic events.
“Don’t forget that France and Great Britain are former empires. A small country whose population once made up 25 percent of that of the globe, France is still present on all continents. There is no way to dispose of this imperial consciousness. Ukraine, conversely, was part of an empire. We’re talking different mentalities. For Ukrainians, building their own small national paradise on earth is a cherished dream. There is a line in our National Anthem: ‘And we, too, brothers, we’ll live happily in our land.’ But that’s a dream that remains to come true.”
In one of his latest presentations, French philosopher Alain Badiou said that Donald Trump, like Silvio Berlusconi, is an enemy of democracy who is just playing democracy while being outside it. He went on to say that Donald Trump and politicians like him have no respect for logic and rational thinking, that they prefer manipulative, affected rhetoric. He called Mr. Trump a democratic fascist. One could object that, unlike Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and Silvio Berlusconi were elected in a truly democratic manner. What do you think? Is rationality a prerequisite for democracy?
“I suspect that Mr. Badiou has a very specific understanding of rationality and democracy. Margaret Thatcher wrote in her book Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World that the acts on human rights adopted in the 1950s-1960s, as well as the contemporary understanding of democracy, could be regarded as the Lefts’ revenge in Europe. She was resolutely opposed to that. The Left have a very special view on democracy and rationality. I’d describe the rational stand taken by quite a number of French intellectuals as very emotional and politically committed. The rationality of analytical philosophy envisages the presence of arguments and counterarguments. Reading the philosophers who used to be popular in Ukraine, one finds suggestions and emotions. I think that Mr. Badiou is contradicting himself. I’d like to ask him, ‘Isn’t your rationality more on the emotional side? You’re finding faults with Donald Trump’s rationality, but isn’t he your mirror reflection?’ Eighty percent of the French media are leftist and certain distortions are only natural – just as there are distortions in the US media, most of which supported Hillary Clinton.
“What is democracy all about? This rates a very long discussion. Is democracy about power in the hands of the majority or of a system of institutions that neutralize radical ideas and movements? I’m convinced that there must be certain ‘locks’ that can be shut to cut off radicalism, even if this radicalism is adhered to by the majority. This is a very difficult job and the West is in no condition to cope with it now. Donald Trump’s victory threw the door open for a majority that is not rationally articulated. Here I would agree with Mr. Badiou. During the debates, Hillary Clinton was the only one to take a rationally augmented stand. I also think that this subject should be discussed at length and depth later, after we see Mr. Trump’s administration in full strength and his first steps as President, primarily with regard to US-EU-Russia relationships.”
GETTING USED TO A BROADER WORLD OUTLOOK
During the US presidential campaign, American and Ukrainian media generated parallel simulacral realities in which Donald Trump stood no chance. His victory is now regarded as a response of the US electorate to the elite and media’s lack of response to a number of problems that are of vital importance to the man in the street. Do you think that Mr. Trump’s victory could have an impact on the world’s public space?
“I’ve written on the subject. I remember German media headlines after Donald Trump’s victory, something like ‘OMG,’ ‘Never-Ending Nightmare,’ and so on. The German foreign minister even failed to congratulate Mr. Trump on his election... I think that at this point a transfer from politics to philosophy of mind is in order. For the past 15 years neurophysiologists and psychiatrists have been debating over man having no free will, over one’s ego being illusory, with some claiming that human consciousness is physical by nature. Such studies encourage the editing of statements made by individuals. Here one is tempted to tamper with others’ minds by using not totalitarian but what seems to be totally rational means. Mass media in the West have a far greater impact on their audiences than in Ukraine, so they should have been able to generate Mr. Trump’s totally negative, unacceptable image. Yet the response proved to be the exact opposite. Why do I regard this as a positive result? Mr. Trump’s victory should serve to expose the falsity of that virtual world. Democratic politicians should deal with the real directorate, not fantasies.
“European politicians, the Ukrainian Establishment and President, all were banking on Hillary Clinton. Now what? How will Ukraine build its relationships with the United States, considering that there wasn’t a single analyst on President Poroshenko’s team capable of warning against such emotional support of the presidential candidate on the losing side? A politician must know the language of diplomacy. Commenting on the US election, our President should have said something like, ‘We can have our preferences, of course, but the American people has the final say.’
“One has to get used to a broader world outlook. Some Ukrainian media, especially online periodicals, appear to focus on events in Ukraine only, without offering the whole picture, thus isolating their audiences from what is happening elsewhere in the world. People in France, Germany or Poland are being told that they are responsible for what’s happening in the world. And rightly so. They know that events elsewhere will inevitably have an impact on them, and the other way around. Ukrainians, more often than not, care little about what’s happening outside their country.”
LIVING IN SOCIETY WHERE PHILOSOPHY MUST COME FROM UNIVERSITY CLASSROOMS
Over the years of national independence, our learned philosophers have tended to act as research interpreters. You are acting as a philosopher per se, stating your own views. This takes intellectual stamina, being prepared to respond to criticism. What made you take this stand?
“Taking up academic philosophy appears to protect you. There is a degree of respectability, but we live in a society where philosophy must come from university classrooms. This is very important. Over the past two decades, we have been witness to a decline in public interest in the intellectual product, to a degree of disillusionment. It is necessary to restore the values of science and knowledge. In order to do so, we need broad diversified audiences. I recently attended the ceremony of opening a high school ‘Olympiad’ competition. There were children aged 15,16, and 17. That’s the age when one can take an interest in philosophy.
“I believe that the philosopher in Ukraine should be an individual who can frequently contribute to newspapers, magazines, appear on television, and always be prepared to meet criticism. I have programs featured on YouTube and these videos are often severely criticized. Philosophers must listen to people who frankly speak their mind with regard to them.”
You mean a philosopher must be a public person?
“In our country, every philosopher must be one. Philosophy should start as a public event, the way it used to be in Athens where the Lyceum was like what we have in Kyiv, the downtown section known as Podil, or the residential district of Lypky. There used to be a large park frequented by all those keen on philosophy. In the Middle Ages, philosophy – and science in general – went to the universities, and this lasted until the 17th-19th centuries. I think that we’re getting back to the antique roots. Philosophy reduced to university classrooms is no longer possible. What is happening is getting back to public places without losing the [academic] depth. Here one should consider the danger of profanation, lowering the level of discussion. The difficult but very important task is to find simple words to discuss important things.”
NOT USED TO DISCUSSING THINGS CALMLY
A public person often risks falling prey to the audience’s response, making a presentation and trying to remain popular. This is especially true of social networks. You’ve broached the subject in one of your blogs. What was the audience’s response?
“It takes stamina. Social networks are like fan clubs. You can have between ten and twenty thousand fans, so you have to get across to your audience. Sometimes saying what you really think is risky; you can lose some of your fans.
“Our society is very radicalized, we aren’t used to discussing things calmly; we tend to get overemotional. A calm discussion takes experience, people who can voice their ideas counter to what most in the audience believe.”
UKRAINIAN PHILOSOPHY: RENAISSANCE
President Poroshenko recently unveiled a monument to Hryhorii Skovoroda in Slovenia. Is Ukrainian philosophy of interest to the rest of the world?
“Ukrainian philosophy is in a renaissance phase. Over the past 20 years, it has accomplished more than throughout its history. So many interesting monographs and dictionaries have appeared in print, including the fourth volume of the ‘European Dictionary of Philosophies.’ This is a great French-Ukrainian project that was later joined by other countries. Add here Oleh Khoma’s ‘Descartes’ Meditations Mirrored by Modern Interpretations,’ Oleksii Panych’s ‘On the History of Skepticism in British-American Epistemology,’ and Serhii Sekundant’s ‘The Normative-Critical Foundations of Leibniz’s Epistemology.’ These are brilliant writings, unmatched in Ukrainian philosophy.
“As for elsewhere in the world, there is a problem. The Ukrainian language is still to represent a certain philosophic culture. This is capital still to be accumulated. A French professor can be invited to teach a course in Descartes at Harvard or Columbia, and this will be a tribute to the great French cultural heritage – even though Sorbonne can no longer be described as the world’s most prestigious school of philosophy. We have to prove that the Ukrainian language articulates a certain important sense that will be of interest to the world.
“The situation with fiction literature is easier. Noted modern Ukrainian authors show the world certain elements that are close, for example, to Austro-Hungarian culture. Yet when it comes to making universal sense, Ukraine is somehow off the guests’ list. We have to prove that we can maintain an adequate dialog. This takes a great deal of effort. First, making payload, writing a certain number of monographs, articles, organizing conferences. They are not financed [by the state] here. How can they find us in the West, considering that we seldom travel there?”
UKRAINIAN DREAM AND ARISTOTLE
This year marks the 2,400th anniversary of Aristotle. His birthday was marked in Ukraine and you took part in the ceremony. What do you think makes his philosophy important for the modern world? What should Ukrainians know about him?
“Sergei Averintsev wrote about Aristotle and the cultural situation in Russia, stressing that Russian culture has missed Aristotle. The ancient philosopher taught the West to build economy, politics, and legislation in terms of rational debate. Without this [wrote Averintsev] Russia is afflicted with a dichotomous worldview, with extremism, absolute will [power] – or totalitarianism. Aristotle taught that, besides those pluses and minuses, there existed a certain middle phase in the development of a society, based on the theory of virtue and rationality.
“I tend to agree with Sergei Averintsev and I’d write a book about Aristotle and Ukraine. We have a similar situation here. We also represent a ‘culture of pluses.’ Aristotle taught the sense of proportion and respect for rationale. His theory of common good is also important. What we badly need today is ‘Project Ukraine’ involving all people living in this country. All we have been building these past 25 years have been exclusive projects, with some social groups constantly marginalized out. Aristotle taught that the state is where there is a common good, where each and every person realizes that they have to combine efforts to serve the common cause. After losing the campaign, Bill Clinton said in his farewell address: ‘We must work harder... always moving toward a more perfect union of our founders’ dreams.’ What is our Ukrainian dream all about? We should learn from Aristotle in the first place. Ukrainian intellectuals, journalists, political and business elite should realize the necessity of quickly shaping up this inclusive joint project, our common good. We have to generate a coordinate system in which we’ll be able to move forth.
“Since we have no common good idea, we have no state (I don’t mean the formal institutions we have too many). Common good comes from a joint effort. This is what can unite us and create an atmosphere of solidarity. I mean self-government on a municipal level and a local culture that can gradually evolve and start working for the common purpose.
“We’re now building a model I could describe as one a la Kant, where there is a sphere of what is appropriate and a certain reality that does not correlate with it. We hear declarations like ‘Human rights must be respected!’, ‘Politicians must be honest!’, ‘No bribes!’ – yet these are just words. Aristotle taught that what you need you can have only when that need arises from daily practice. If you are a schoolteacher or lecturer, can you accept bribes? How do you treat your students and cope with your professional tasks? Are your classes or lectures, your research of sufficient quality? Such practices must have set patterns of conduct, so the best can serve as examples. People can see such good examples and try to emulate them. By best examples I mean members of the elite. There is no way to secure the equality of all individuals.”
Combating the outside enemy has apparently become a common idea over the past several years.
“That’s very bad. Why are we suffering today? Previously we seemed to know we had one common enemy. This served to unite us and helped us achieve a political breakthrough. Now our society is divided, with some fighting the enemy, paying dearly for it, and the others, the elite, pretending nothing is happening, living their elite lives. Business keeps being done, with quite a few Ukrainians finding jobs in Russia. In other words, there is no solidarity even in our attitude to the enemy.
“No common good can be achieved by pointing the finger at the enemy and citing only negative examples. The external enemy can be a factor serving unity, but only for a short while. Life is a long process of evolution. Science, business, and culture demand a continuous effort. Not so war or revolution. Revolution is like an explosion that can change the cultural, intellectual, and economic landscape. We lack this experience. We want everything here and now, and when we can’t have this, we start complaining. We have to get used to the long process of evolution. How to generate the idea of common good? Obviously, broader social strata should be invited to join the effort.”
