In a recent interview, French President Francois Hollande made the crucial, but often forgotten point that there are limits to the level of sacrifice that can be demanded of the citizens of southern Europe’s financially distressed countries. To avoid turning Greece, Portugal and Spain into collective “correctional houses,” Hollande reasoned that people need hope beyond the ever-receding horizon of spending cuts and austerity measures.
Even the most rudimentary understanding of psychology supports Hollande’s assessment. Negative reinforcement and delayed gratification are unlikely to achieve their goals unless there is a perceived light at the end of the tunnel — a future reward for today’s sacrifices.
Public pessimism in southern Europe is largely attributable to the absence of such a reward. As declining consumer confidence and household purchasing power deepen the recession, projections of when the crisis will end are repeatedly pushed back and those bearing the brunt of austerity are losing hope.
Throughout history, the concept of sacrifice has merged theology and economics. In the ancient world, people made often-bloody offerings to divinities, whom they believed would reward them with, say, good harvests or protection from evil. Christianity, with its belief that God (or the Son of God) sacrificed himself to expiate humanity’s sins inverted the traditional economy of sacrifice. In this case, divine suffering serves as an exemplar of the selfless humility with which earthly misfortunes should be endured.
Despite secularization, the belief that rewards, or achievements, require sacrifice has become an integral part of European cultural consciousness. The idea of a “social contract” — which arose during the Enlightenment in order to address, without resort to divine right, the legitimacy of the state’s authority over its citizens — rests on the premise that individuals surrender a certain degree of personal liberty in order to secure peace and prosperity for all.
As a result, political leaders have often asked citizens to sacrifice personal freedoms and comforts in the name of secular spiritual entities, such as the nation or the state — and citizens have often eagerly obliged. In his first speech to the House of Commons as prime minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill inspired hope in a beleaguered nation when he famously declared that he — and thus Britain — had “nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”
Given such countless precedents, it may be surprising that the rhetoric of sacrifice under the banner of austerity has proven so ineffective in Europe’s current crisis. Some observers blame declining levels of commitment to anything that transcends the individual, including the political system.
However, resistance to austerity in southern Europe is not rooted in general hostility toward sacrifice. Rather, Europeans have come to believe that their leaders are demanding sacrifices that do not advance their interests. Churchill gave Britons something to look forward to: victory. Without a clear end that justifies it, sacrifice becomes meaningless.
Prosperity was supposed to legitimize the EU. After the period of rapid economic growth ended, Europe’s leaders came to rely instead on the threat of an evil greater than austerity: further destabilization of debtor countries, leading to expulsion from the eurozone as well as economic, social and political collapse.
However, the rhetoric of fear is losing sway, because the “new deal” taking shape across southern Europe offers more repression and less protection, thus violating the social contract’s fundamental tenets.
Indeed, while European citizens are being asked to sacrifice their standard of living — and even their livelihoods — for the sake of the “national economy,” transnational corporations are apparently thriving.
The conditions imposed by the “troika” — the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF — amount to an indefinite delay in addressing the needs of those asked to sacrifice and in repairing tattered social safety nets. Yet national governments continue to implement policies that exacerbate injustice. For example, Portugal’s budget for next year reduces the number of tax brackets from eight to five — a move that will devastate the middle class.
Sacrifice used to involve ransoming the body — its pleasures, basic needs and even its vitality — for the sake of the spirit. While the discourse of sacrifice persists, the logic that has shored it up for millennia has been abandoned.
Europe’s leaders must imbue their citizens with renewed hope. The legitimacy of “post-national” Europe — based on the EU’s obligation, enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, to promote “the well-being of its people” — is at stake.
Michael Marder is a research professor at the University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and