It will be always difficult to give an attribute to an entire nation - last but not least because it has to be clarified what is meant by a nation in the first place. Do we associate a political and/or an ethnic and/or a cultural unit with it? Then there is the attribut as such; its regularity virtually cries for the exceptions to the rule, too. No doubt there are diligent Spaniards, honest Poles, abstinent Russians, humourless Englishmen, lavish Scots, dull Frenchmen or enlightened Italians. In the end a German will be ashamed to have not borne that in mind and thinks this is typically German.
Here we are at the core of the issue. It goes without saying the image a nation has of itself is especially hard to conceive, for it gives other nations the opportunity to simply adopt its critical implications or to scold it for its arrogance. In other words, the national self-image suffers from the same problems as is the case with organizations: As soon as the reflection upon corporate identity starts, one gets into a hell of a mess.
Since the gradual EU East-expansion it has become more and more obvious the classical German attributes like punctuality, diligence, discipline cannot serve as the defining characteristics anymore which are solely reserved to Germany. In more globalized terms: Germany has lost its cultural USP. Other characteristics such as obedience, planning, militarism have been inopportune for quite a while, too. So - what is the German self-conception like?
Of course it does not make much sense to arm oneself with notepad and pencil and comb house for house, street for street, to ask each German for his or her opinion - this could be handled neither logistically nor intellectually. Fortunately modern societies are independent of that, for - after all: what is the public for? So we are allowed to pose the question more precisely with a sigh of relief: What image does the German public have of itself?
Till the inclined amateur will have been set right, it seems to him the present characteristic of German society is its wailing. Unemployment, the reforms of Public Health and of the national pension scheme insitution, the decreasing birth-rate, the Euro - apparently any issue is appropriate to make the public sullen. And whoever dislikes that is not wailing about these issues, but about the others' wailing. Above all, there is common consent the general mood is appalling. But how can wailing be characterized?
In contrast to other verbal actions such as complaining or mourning wailing can especially easily dispense with a precise object. Usually we complain about physial or mental pain, maybe to somebody, but wailing seems to be much more self-satisfactory. Furthermore its durative implications are more obvious, that is it knows neither a definite starting- nor an ending-point, but can easily become permanent. So the object of wailing remains indefinite, which makes wailing highly flexible. Virtually any fact can trigger it off. The main thing is keeping it going. Wailing is, to borrrow an Aristotelian thought, an action of praxis, not of poiesis; it pursues no aim beyond it, it is done, pardon, for the joy of it.
This modest analysis already displays why wailing is that unprofitable: it paralyzes, since it has no ending after which things could get better. Wailing will only result in a truly deplorable situation if it kept long enough, because in that case improvement will have been fatally delayed, so that only negative things can turn out. And then wailing will justify itself. Withoudt a doubt every kind of society has its own problems - some of them are more difficult, some less, some latent, some exaggerated. But their global weight differs. Even th emost reactonary progressive will not be able to help accepting the pile-up of reforms seems to be less important in comparison with famines or genocides in other parts of the world. From that perspective we hardly have any right to wail. All the same, it is typically modern to shift future to present and so to speak make projections whose attractivity increases insofar as they make us expect negative consequences. According to that, any change is a threat. And this is the point of wailing: It can be only justfied in future times, and, since it does not recognize that, it actually will be justified then.
Here we are at the core of the issue. It goes without saying the image a nation has of itself is especially hard to conceive, for it gives other nations the opportunity to simply adopt its critical implications or to scold it for its arrogance. In other words, the national self-image suffers from the same problems as is the case with organizations: As soon as the reflection upon corporate identity starts, one gets into a hell of a mess.
Since the gradual EU East-expansion it has become more and more obvious the classical German attributes like punctuality, diligence, discipline cannot serve as the defining characteristics anymore which are solely reserved to Germany. In more globalized terms: Germany has lost its cultural USP. Other characteristics such as obedience, planning, militarism have been inopportune for quite a while, too. So - what is the German self-conception like?
Of course it does not make much sense to arm oneself with notepad and pencil and comb house for house, street for street, to ask each German for his or her opinion - this could be handled neither logistically nor intellectually. Fortunately modern societies are independent of that, for - after all: what is the public for? So we are allowed to pose the question more precisely with a sigh of relief: What image does the German public have of itself?
Till the inclined amateur will have been set right, it seems to him the present characteristic of German society is its wailing. Unemployment, the reforms of Public Health and of the national pension scheme insitution, the decreasing birth-rate, the Euro - apparently any issue is appropriate to make the public sullen. And whoever dislikes that is not wailing about these issues, but about the others' wailing. Above all, there is common consent the general mood is appalling. But how can wailing be characterized?
In contrast to other verbal actions such as complaining or mourning wailing can especially easily dispense with a precise object. Usually we complain about physial or mental pain, maybe to somebody, but wailing seems to be much more self-satisfactory. Furthermore its durative implications are more obvious, that is it knows neither a definite starting- nor an ending-point, but can easily become permanent. So the object of wailing remains indefinite, which makes wailing highly flexible. Virtually any fact can trigger it off. The main thing is keeping it going. Wailing is, to borrrow an Aristotelian thought, an action of praxis, not of poiesis; it pursues no aim beyond it, it is done, pardon, for the joy of it.
This modest analysis already displays why wailing is that unprofitable: it paralyzes, since it has no ending after which things could get better. Wailing will only result in a truly deplorable situation if it kept long enough, because in that case improvement will have been fatally delayed, so that only negative things can turn out. And then wailing will justify itself. Withoudt a doubt every kind of society has its own problems - some of them are more difficult, some less, some latent, some exaggerated. But their global weight differs. Even th emost reactonary progressive will not be able to help accepting the pile-up of reforms seems to be less important in comparison with famines or genocides in other parts of the world. From that perspective we hardly have any right to wail. All the same, it is typically modern to shift future to present and so to speak make projections whose attractivity increases insofar as they make us expect negative consequences. According to that, any change is a threat. And this is the point of wailing: It can be only justfied in future times, and, since it does not recognize that, it actually will be justified then.
No comments:
Post a Comment