O progressive we talk about the system of values, solidarity and mistrust with Zoran Pavlović, full professor at the Department of Psychology Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade.
"WEATHER" What are the main characteristics of social values promoted by political, the media and cultural elite who have been at the head of Serbia for the last 13 years?
ZORAN PAVLOVIĆ: If we pay attention to the declarative, the elites are "mouthful" of democracy, human rights, the best of everything, it would be said that we live in a country of Dembele where honey and milk flow. However, what elites practice as guiding principles or promote as ideals (which, by the way, values are by definition) has nothing to do with it. There are various - isms, such as nationalism (glorification of the past and national identity), authoritarianism (suppression of critical voices and independent media, building a cult of personality), populism (condescending to the "ordinary people"), corporatism (cooperation between the government and the private sector, privileging certain interest groups), economic pragmatism (emphasis on economic growth at the expense of practically everything else)... In short, the price is that everything has a price, everything can be bought and sold, be an object of economic exchange. To Ilita, nothing is sacred, whatever comes to mind.
How similar or different is all that compared to the period after 2000?. or with the time of Milosevic's reign?
It is difficult to really compare different periods in the last couple of decades, but it is clear that the period from 2000 to 2012 was marked by some kind of democratization of social reality, and literally by the liberation of Serbia - it only became "formally" after 2000. viewed, a free society, which in the meantime, that is, again, has ceased to be. Today we are living the "second wave" of the nineties. Times have changed, and so have the instruments of coercion, less is governed by fear and more by popularity, but the common point could perhaps be best described as - the absence of democratic values. Serbia is not a democracy at the moment, mostly because its elites neither want nor (are able to) exercise democracy, nor do any of those they despise (those "outside") ask them to do so. We have been an unfree and unequal society for decades. We won't be "Dembele" anytime soon, we are (always) Domanović's "Stradia".
What is the meaning and what are the consequences of promoting the mentioned, freakish social values?
In the most general sense, all the actions of the current elite are aimed at maintaining the popularity of the top of the state, primarily the president, or economic benefit for privileged individuals or groups, or both. Since this can never be openly admitted in the best spin-dictator manner - you cannot say that, for example, the upcoming EXPO exhibition is simply a buffet for various corrupt schemes - you will present it as national pride, promotion of the state of Serbia and so on. And who will oppose something that glorifies their own country? With the exception of state enemies and traitors, of course, and we already know what is done with them... In other words, everything that is done serves to legitimize the government as a self-proclaimed defender of the interests of the people, while it defends the interests of only part of that same people and shouts: "hold thief!” In this way, power is not only preserved and resistance minimized, but it also ensures the support of some key groups in society. The consequence of all this is the polarization of society, the weakening of democratic institutions, the erosion of human rights... In political philosophy, which does not know about equality and general interests, and does not try to establish them at the level of practice, the only sure consequence is the disintegration of society, i.e. togetherness. And quarrelsome and isolated individuals are easy to control.
Dominant fear is often talked about, opportunism and lack of solidarity in practically all social strata and structures...
A regime based on media control, suppression of opposition and repression of critical voices certainly creates an atmosphere of fear. People fear for their jobs, safety, and freedom, which can lead them to behave opportunistically — they look for ways to adapt to the system rather than challenge it. This inevitably leads to the erosion of the sense of community, and solidarity becomes increasingly rare, often due to the fear that showing support to other people could lead to personal problems, and partly because selfishness in such a context becomes a completely meaningful and rational strategy. "In each and every one of them".
This is actually a perfect answer to regimes of this type, because their ideal is a passive electorate that can be (bribed) and that sees politics as a dirty and dishonorable job and stays away, in other words, passively observes instead of actively participating in social changes. making any form of organized rebellion or resistance difficult. The lack of solidarity and the fear of expressing mutual support leads to the fragmentation of society, which further complicates collective action and mobilization. The mobilization potential is as great as the limits of what we call "We", those who are together in good and bad. The more pronounced and numerous the divisions and animosities are, the narrower and more impenetrable these borders are, and thus those directly affected by injustice and hardship are only lonelier and fewer in number. For changes, it is necessary to create spaces for open discussion, support initiatives that strengthen solidarity, strengthen educational institutions that encourage critical thinking... It simply sounds surreal and fairy-tale in a society where the regime cannot tolerate even an iota of criticism.
When type terms are used "broken society", there is often talk of a high level of mistrust, again in practically all social strata and structures. Of course, it is most present on the political scene, let's say the opposition, but also everywhere else you can encounter a high level of passivating suspicion among people. Can you comment on that?
Low trust among people here is a chronic, almost endemic species, a peculiar characteristic of our culture. Various studies show that interpersonal trust in Serbia is among the lowest in Europe. The European Social Survey (ESS) from a few years ago showed that trust in politicians and political parties in Serbia is among the lowest of the 29 countries that participated in it. Quite precisely, in terms of expressed trust in politicians and political parties, Serbia is third from the bottom (27th out of 29 places). In a survey of young people aged 14 to 29, political parties were trusted as much as NATO a few years ago, i.e. very little! The same applies to trust in other people, where, according to the ESS study, we are in the fourth place in terms of expressed distrust. In such a situation, the weak "forces" that keep us as social "atoms" in the big "molecule" of society loosens the social "glue" or, as is often said, there is not enough social capital. The term "disintegrated society" actually very precisely describes that state in which people increasingly withdraw into their private worlds and the closest circle of people, and mutual trust is seriously damaged.
As Borislav Pekić used to say: "Whoever cultivates chronic distrust of others could only acquire it through experience." And the opportunities for such experiences in these areas have been around for decades, even centuries. Perceived as "alien" (in the past it really was), imposed, steeped in corruption and insensitive to any citizen's demands, the government, which not only considers that it owes the citizens nothing, but constantly stirs up animosities between them, divides and reigns - such the government simply does not deserve any trust because it has been proven that it does not work in the interest of everyone, but only its own. Political trust is a matter of legitimacy, which then does not exist (you cannot consider as your political representatives those whom you simply do not trust), and it is built by becoming worthy of trust (being efficient in your actions and contributing to the betterment of all). As for social mistrust, that among "ordinary people", it is a natural reaction to the socio-political context in which the norm of cooperation, solidarity and mutual trust (read: democracy) is simply not guaranteed or defended, in which not all of us are "ours" and in who can be left without their "piece of the cake" if others are expected to behave fairly and justly, i.e. if they are trusted... In a society where citizens are oppressed by corruption and injustice, a Unfortunately, selfish people only have a chance to survive "from below" with misery and poverty of a general type. That harmony, which we have been crying about for a long time as a saving solution, is long gone, if it ever existed.
