Until Emotions Do Us Part

Hege Brækhus, law professor at the University of Tromsø, recently suggested in Norwegian daily Aftenposten that the marital rituals should omit the part where man and wife promise each other everlasting faithfulness, for good and for worse until death do they part.

-"I'm not sure whether it's ethically defensible to demand such a promise from people", Ms./Mrs. Brækhus mused (I haven't been able to verify her marital status). -"The relationship is emotional, and you can't dominate your emotions by pure will" (Quotes are freely translated; regrettably, the article's only available in Norwegian).

Furthermore, the professor builds her argument on the empirical fact that fewer and fewer marriages are "everlasting", while arguing that several couples that actually stay together do so due to factors more trivial than love, such as economical considerations.

While Ms./Mrs. Brækhus' statements and indeed her conception of ethics surely are worthy of discussion (or perhaps one can't expect other from professors of Law), I'd like to elevate the underlying dilemma, and a recurrent one in debates on institutions, of ideals vs. empirical observations: Should institutions be adjusted in comfort with societal developments, or should they uphold ideals worthy of being pursued? Personally, I incline towards the latter. If we should heed the the former, wouldn't society slowly degenerate into a hedonistic anarchy?

The line of argument could be made much longer, but I'll conclude by expressing my support for retaining the line "Until Death Do Us Part", thus upholding a worthy ideal in an age of self-interest maximizers.

The Centrifugal Society

Today's edition of Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reports that renovation personell complains over half-smoked cigarettes and chewing gum flourishing the capital's main street Karl Johan amid several garbage disposals. "People just throw their cigarettes; they don't care about the ashtrays", complain Toyfik Boukherache, responsible for daily renovation of the center of Oslo.

Surely, the causal explanations of this trend are numerous. One might be the wealth and extremely high living standards (on a global comparative scale) that Norwegians enjoy; our newly-acquired patterns of consumption have tought us to throw away instead of saving (Not that I propagate saving old chewing gums or used cigarettes; the same behavior of reckless consumption might be transferred to other areas of life). Another explanation may be found in the vague notion of "moral deterioriation". Still, holding this opinion would be pretty normative as it assumes some moral norms to be superior or more worthy being pursued than others. I'm not outright rejecting this claim (saving that contentious debate for another day), but rather I'd like to focus on the individual's attitude towards society - or the collective, to clearly spell out the dilemma of polarization.

Along the history of philosophical thinking and ideological currents man has been understood primarily as an individual (liberalism) or a member of a group (Marxism). Somewhere on the middle ground is Martin Buber who suggests that the I only exists in relation with the You under the postulate that "all actual life is encounter" (I and Thou, 1923). More trivially, patterns of demography forces man to relate to other men and thus organize themselves in groups or societies, be they interest groups, religious affiliations or nations. Today, membership in the latter group is inevitable by birth (excluding for the sake of a parsimonious line of argument the sad fate of numerous persons who are denied citizenship in any country), and therefore every individual has to relate to society.

However, the degree of attention one places in society is another question, and this is where I return to the chewing gum in Oslo's main street. Broadly speaking, one's attitude towards society can be either centripetal or centrifugal (from physics, a centripetal force is a "center seeking" force while the centrifugal force is a “center-fleeing”force; click here for Wikipedia's entry on centrifugal/centripetal forces). In other words, one can be attentive to community and the common good, or one can recklessly pursue one's own interests. Needless to say, this is a polarized distinction which not necessarily exist in its pure form in the real world. But my point is that the way the sum of individual attitudes moves towards one or the other pole of this continuum, will severely affect society as a whole.

For instance, after having suffered five years of German occupation during the Second World War there was a tremendous sense of fellowship among most Norwegians (the treatment of quislings (sic) was a national disgrace, as in most European countries that were under occupation during the war). Finnmark, the Northern-most part of the country, had been torched by the Germans fleeing Russian forces, and post-war reconstruction of the country was a top - and common - priority of the Norwegian people. The attitude towards society was clearly centripetal. However, in recent years, particularly from the 80s and onwards, there's been a marked shift towards a more centrifugal society. Kids and adults alike throw garbage in the streets, weekend rampage is on the increase (so is alcohol consumption), and there is a general mood of complaining about high taxes and public services. These are just a few examples of the more self-centered priorities which govern common Norwegians nowadays, gradually turning Norway, "the most livable country in the world", into a centrifugal society.

Perhaps this is a too gloomy picture. Perhaps things aren't really that bad comparatively speaking: I've lived one year in Honduras, Central America, and seen people show total neglect towards common values and society, but in my opinion that might just as well stem from an apathic feeling of being caught in poverty and hopelessness. Fortunately, Norway - and Norwegians - aren't close to being in the same situation, neither economically nor mentally, but the alarm sign has started to blink. Are we aware or is it none of my business?

PS: The distinction between the terms "individual" and "collective" is hilariously demonstrated in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" in a scene where Brian tells the crowd that they are all individuals, where-upon the crowd in unison replies: "We are all individuals!" - while on the sideline a man stubbornly protests "I'm not!" Couldn't find the descriptive picture, so I went for one of the cast.

Inside the Kafkaesque Labyrints of Brussels

The power structures of the EU aren't particularly well-known for their transparency and proximity to ordinary people. However, in August 2004 Swedish politician Margot Wallström was appointed Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication, and she is actually shedding some light into the daily routines and current agendas of her department. She is a frequent blogger, and it seems that she also reads the many comments and responds them once in a while. Her blog is well worth a visit; it's quite interesting to get a glimpse of some of what's happening on the inside of the EU and her personal opinions on various topics. As a fellow Scandinavian I'd like to fancy that this novel EU openness is due to her cultural background, but it may be just a new strategy from her department, whose name suggests enhancing communication with the public. Whether Mrs. Wallström actually writes the entries herself is another question, but I'll remain agnostic to this question.

- Say: S-U-B-S-I-D-I-E-E-E-E-E-S!

European leaders are gathered for one day in the UK to informally (yeah, right!) debate the "economic challenges posed by globalisation", reporting BBC. Needless to say, the word "globalisation" has become semantically polymorphous as politicians handily reaches to this conceptual dustbin when they need to divert public attention from pressing domestic concerns. Nevertheless, the EU actually faces several big challenges from globalisation, but the most contentious - and arguably the most important - issue is the Union's generous agricultural subsidies to European farmers, called the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The ongoing Doha round in the WTO deals with exactly these questions, and the developed countries are getting more and more cornered: "Developed countries must cut their highest farm tariffs by 75 percent if the world's poorest nations are to benefit from a World Trade Organization attempt to liberalize agricultural trade", experts at the World Bank said on Wednesday. For a heterogeneous group as the EU (who has offered to cut subsidies by 50 percent) the disparate views on tariff cuts is likely to spark hefty debates, informal or not.

Moreover, the Doha round has to be completed on time. Delays means the certain death of the talks given that the US president's so-called fast-track authority to negotiate and firm trade agreements expires early in 2006. Observing Mr. Bush's dismal performance and ditto approval ratings it seems a sure bet that the lame-duck president won't obtain a renewed fast-track authority. Furthermore, recalling the US Senate's protectionist and localist inclinations the likelihood for any Doha agreement to pass the necessary legislation resembles the survival odds of a snowball in hell.

The case of Norwegian farmers and the center-left government is another case of concern which requiers separate treatment, though. Perhaps I'll return to that matter in a subsequent post.

Armed and Dangerous - and Sponsored by Google

Following up this blog's previous post, I'd like to point to a certain publicly available terrorism planner, namely Google Earth. Notwithstanding its virtues in visualising world geography, the program seems to offer perfectly clear pictures of strategic war- and terror targets, such as public buildings in mega-cities, infrastructure, military installations and so forth. The British web page The Register even mounted a competition where its readers where supposed to find "black helicopters", i.e. military installations. And the overwhelming response should cause alarm. As The Register itself announced the entry pictures:

"Well, the results are in, but before announcing the winners, we thought it would be a lovely idea to have a look at some of the other entries which prove just why Google Earth will eventually provoke the complete collapse of Western civilisation."

Reassuringly, they added: "If your stuff isn't included, don't take it too hard: we had so much material that it would have taken us another month simply to knock it into shape for publication."

Above: Minutemen nuclear rockets, Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, USA

An Armed and Dangerous Place

I have to admit that I'm pretty worried about the militarization of the international society. Particularly one should be worried about the spread of weapons of mass destruction (henceforth WMD). Of course, at a first glance it may seem ridiculous that just a few countries should agree upon who has the right to develop nuclear weapons, but come to think of it I'd be more than happy to live in world with as few atomic bombs as possible threatening the very existence of humanity. So I'm not enthused that the nuclear club now has been expanded to eight members with Israel, Pakistan and India having developed and tested A-bombs during the last two decades or so. Furthermore, rouge state North Korea alledges that it is the ninth country to have entered the club, an event that unravelled a clandestine network of spreading nuclear knowledge and technology within an extended axis of evil. Libya admitted to having been working on a bomb, but abandoned their project. Talking of nuclear ambitions, Iran denies vehemently that it is constructing a bomb (even though the smoking gun evidence could appear anytime), while Brazil vows its ambitions on developing its own bomb. And one shouldn't rule out Japan, nor South Korea, nor South Africa, nor...

Adding to pessimism so far, consider the spread of other WMDs, the frail support for the anti-personell mine convention, and that there is no convention regulating the spread of hand weapons. Resorting to weapons and violence has always been the compelling argument of the strong, but also the voice of the oppressed. Two most interesting blogs, The Armchair Generalist and Arms and Influence, discuss in depth military affairs and the political use of violence, respectively. Both should be recommended reading for people interested in realpolitik and the current state of our world.

Pop Idol and Democracy

One-and-a-half year ago there was an incident in the Norwegian Pop Idol contest that sparked public debate: The indiscutable favorite, Anh Vu (picture), failed to qualify to the next programme at a relatively early stage. Viewers were enraged over this "unjust" outcome, while the judges bluntly commented that they had to acknowledge "the voice of the people". Both arguments, however, are flawed.

The first argument, that the outcome was "unjust", fails to take into account that everybody in position of a mobile phone (and too much money than to know what to do with it) were free to vote for their favored candidate. Still, as Anh was a clear favorite to become the Pop Idol and was widely considered as the best candidate, viewers who would otherwise have supported her, probably failed to vote because they were sure that she would qualify to the next stage. Without intending to besmirch economic theory with stains from popular culture, one could classify this inaction as a collective action problem. A rational calculus of this situation would find that, considering the costs of voting and the (perceived) likelihood of Anh to qualify, it would be rational for an individual viewer not to vote. Probably many individuals arrived at this conclusion, with the unexpected consequence that Anh received too few votes.

Now for the second argument, that Anh's departure was in accordance to the people's will. Well, did the outcome reflect people's will? Obviously not, considering the posterior reactions. However, when several viewers failed to vote for Anh, the mainstream favorite, radical opinions weighed disproportionally heavy. Political science teaches that radical voters are more easily mobilized because they on average have a more ardent passion for their cause than moderate voters. Therefore centrist parties are anxious to "get out the vote" from ordinary citizens, who usually hold moderate opinions. When these voters stay home, then, a smaller group of radical voters will have a disproportionately large say in elections. Thus, the political landscape may be more radical and polarized than one would expect from the demographic landscape. Former US president Richard Nixon coined the expression "the silent majority", which refers to the large number of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. This argument may hold in several contexts, but may also be abused in order to justify one's own opinions in the light of the public's general will, famously promoted by Rousseau. Still, Anh Vu obviously was a victim of the radical opinions' disproportionately large say in the Pop Idol contest. Pretty trivial, but still a lesson in the workings of democracy.

Even if Pop Idol can provide useful reminders of the democratic system to the people of established democracies, the same competition can give people living under autocratic regimes a taste of democracy. As happened recently in communist China, reporting The Economist: "In a country conspicuously lacking in democratic voice, this rare opportunity to vote and make a difference - even if only to the outcome of the 'Mengniu Sour Yoghurt Super Voice Girl' competition - has inspired a remarkable debate. The fact that around 400 million Chinese (almost 1/3 of the country's population) has contributed to spark a debate about participatory and representative government in a country ruled by party officials not subject to popular election or consultation. Still, most Chinese seem to follow the show mostly for reasons familiar to Norwegians, Britons, Americans and other nationalities exposed to Idol contests: 'Super Girl', as the show is commonly known, appealed mainly because of its racy format (at least until the authorities began insisting on more downbeat folksy songs) and the pleasure that many enjoy from watching amateur singers embarass themselves. And the final outcome of the contest also sounds remarkably familiar, as commented by the loyal paper China Daily: How come an imitation of a democratic system ends up selecting the singer who has the least ability to carry a tune?

Nothing's new under the sun, I'd say. Just tune in to the next Norwegian Pop Idol contest. Or observe the outcome of our recent parliamentary elections.