busy since my youth, the phenomenon of the leader (Leaders). Ethology gave me an answer: As the civilization developed rapidly put, we in our society together even in the hunter-gatherer period, ie, we are deep within us still committed to the tribal culture (not only the peoples of the Middle East or China!). Us corresponds to the struggle for a place in the group in which we live, and taking over the leadership by the strong and the subject is characterized by the weak. To us was, however, a second characteristic of the period bond: We identify and very strong with our tribe, our group, just with the people we are among us, and we are very suspicious of strangers, as we say in children: We "foreign". This second property can (or must?), We now transfer to other "units", if or because we do not Stammeskulturen mehr sind: Wir identifizieren uns über gemeinsame Ideen, also über Ideologien, wobei wir auch Religionen ideologisieren können.
Wie ich meine, entwickelte sich aber mit der Aufklärung und der Globalisierung schon im neunzehnten Jahrhundert eine dritte Möglichkeit: Der Pluralismus, also das sich identifizieren mit Ideen, die nicht Ideologien werden möchten, sondern das Nebeneinander von verschiedenen Ideen und Religionen zu tolerieren oder noch besser zu akzeptieren versuchen, weil diese Menschen erkannten, dass wir Menschen keine absolute Wahrheit wissen, sondern diese immer nur glauben können. Diese Menschen öffneten sich damals vorerst für die grossen philosophischen Religionen des Fernen Ostens, liessen sich aber auch faszinieren vom Islam und bestritten vehement den Alleinseligmachungsanspruch der katholischen Kirche. Aus dieser Geisteshaltung entwickelte sich der Individualismus. Die beiden (Individualismus und Pluralismus) sind also Geschwister. Da es keine sichere absolute Wahrheit gibt, entscheidet sich jedes Individuum für seinen Weg: Es wählt seinen Glauben; es wählt seine Ideen; dadurch toleriert oder akzeptiert es auch die Wahl des anderen Individuums und anerkennt das Verschiedensein von religiösen Wegen, aber auch das Verschiedensein von Kulturen (Pluralismus).
Selbstverständlich lebten zu jederzeit die anderen Neigungen in uns fort, nämlich der Wunsch, sich mit einer Gruppe stark zu identifizieren, So "My" to own, and the desire to be either leaders or to submit. Instead of tribal chiefs, we then have opinion leaders, business leaders, political leaders, leaders in the entertainment industry (simply stars that we admire in sport, film and music, or those who are involved also like Bono, Anjelika Jolie, Sharon Stone and so on) We always have more queens and kings. We have the Boulvardpresse that maintains this leadership and the leaders often have a voice. It is actually a "press officer". Instead we have tribes nations with which we identify ourselves and to which we many tribal rituals transferred: the flags, the flags impressive transfers and so on. We also identify with the companies in which we work. Above all, we like to identify ourselves with politically like-minded people, ie, with ideologies.
with all living beings, we are afraid together, because dangers lurk everywhere: in nature, but also other living things or people we also, by other people. We feel these threats against us are often helpless and close then closer together. Both we get better if we unite in an ideology to protect us, to save or even promises to deliver or if we unite as a nation or our strong Hand of a "leader" feel safe.
out in the uncertain times to this regression, this retreat to "old" patterns of behavior. In Switzerland we do this in a polarization between right and left. The former feel united by their "leaders", the second in their ideology. The guide demonstrates to us almost every day, or tolerate, at least in public relations effective distances (not more than half a year) its real claim to absolute power, because leaders like he did not guide his side (next to the king's son, all the other dwarfs, which make it openly contemptuous may, for the "people" they do not defend, so it considers them as dwarves, and half the Federal Council or Federal Council called for and so on). The leader requires followers. Another tactical strength of "our" leader is that he does - most recently in privatizing state enterprises - very cleverly understands seize the opinion leadership itself. (On the last Sunday, it was clear who owns them, for example, during the vote on the privatization of the Swisscom already. The others can only react even more!) The left is united by their ideology. She has also staked out the fields in which it has thanks to this ideology of opinion leadership: She thinks an die Armen; sie ist eigentlich „die Soziale“ schlechthin; sie bekämpft den Neoliberalismus der Globalisierung, die unsere Reichen reicher und die Armen ärmer macht; sie will die demokratische Kontrolle über die Staatsbetriebe beibehalten; sie kämpft für Gerechtigkeit und das alte liberale Ideal der Gleichheit und so weiter und so fort). Beide Gruppierungen beanspruchen gleichzeitig die Vertreter der dritten Entwicklung zu sein, des Individualismus (ich meine damit immer den gesunden, nicht den krankhaften Egoismus!) und des Pluralismus. Die Rechte betont dabei den Individualismus: Die Eigenverantwortung und das Entscheiden jedes Bürgers und einige Mühe mit dem Pluralismus. Die Linke wiederum betont den Pluralismus and some trouble with individualism (which looks only to himself and neglects his duties towards the community) has.
And now is someone like me right in the middle. Everyone who worked with me (or had to work together), knows the trouble I have with authorities. I hate people who presume a right as a guide. Even more effort it makes me look, as follows roughly a fifth to a third of our population such a leader like sheep. (Donkey I can not say, because they are known to be stubborn!) Is even more difficult for me because I understand it also, because globalization and the buoyancy, the resulting About the National receives or the modern mass migration and spreading fear. In the left reminds me how to pray again and again their lyre (just their ideology), which from the lips of many of them very often sounds fake. And yet I understand the people who follow them, because they guarantee the fight against wage cuts, to degradation of the securities offered by the welfare state and, more recently, security for the public service. They are the white knight against the black robber barons of capitalism and neo-liberalism and globalization.
Understand, dear reader, dear reader, that this is a real pain when one is always right in the middle? It understands the people, because they tried so not to change ideology, but to take what they are. But they fear the way they go. One wonders: Are we a new leader to company with men like Chavez, the political leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, Putin, Sarkozy and hot like them all? Or we freeze in a world of welfare states European lines, which are suffocating in their bureaucracies. (? They were called in the last century, not fascists) The most dangerous thing I seem to be the "leader" which connect the national ideology with social With Chavez we have such in South America tended Peronism in Argentina always in this direction, the Chinese Communist Party can develop not unlike nationalist and socialist, if it wants to remain in power for the French nationalism, gave his flowers in the state prevented takeovers by foreign (europäische!) companies and Sarkozy calls for more power of the leader (the President ) and so on.
The fear of a man in the middle so that the third development, the healthy individualism ('s not about the now rampant hedonism!) And pluralism, ie the Enlightenment - as was once Europe and the U.S. accepted and lived but also have been developing - on the line or a phase in the history of mankind remains. The hope of a man in the middle is that they still continue to work and once again take the broad popular masses. The anger of a man in the middle is also directed against the leaders and also against the ideologues, but even more against the like-minded who write clever essays, can be taken in by the business leaders and not be standing at the front to just educate and such that it can understand everyone. We in the middle of the handicap that we do not have a simplistic ideology, and we do indeed heads, which may cause, but yes no autocrat. Maybe we should make a few concessions to the tribe of people in us, for example, ? A liberal international start with a flag and anthem (is the uniform without a guide and ideology in liberalism, there are - just the pluralism accordingly - different directions, but there are some important, especially now important in the ongoing globalization principles The mass and the gain of mass contrary to the Liberals, so it is repugnant. But shall we leave the field to the ideologues, nationalists and leaders to build? Maybe we need but also leaders, but they are likely true to the distrust of the power of single, never leaders for life to be as Christoph Blocher in his party, but only leader on time. What to feel The dilemma, dear reader, dear reader?) (Sorry, I lack the time this text to be corrected by. I hope he is still readable.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment