Hannibal is in the City. Several Reflections on Contemporary Barbarians. a Social-constructivist Approach

7/31/2019 Hannibal is in the City. Several Reflections on Contemporary Barbarians. a Social-constructivist Approach

1/30

STUDIAUBB.EUROPAEA,LVII,1,2012, 55-84

HANNIBALISINTHECITY:SEVERALREFLECTIONSON

CONTEMPORARYBARBARIANS.ASOCIALCONSTRUCTIVIST

APPROACH

EmanuelCopila

Abstract

For the renownedPolishphilosopherLeszekKoakowski, barbarism equateswith

the incapacity of persons or whole societies to reason and assume themselves

critically. Barbarism is therefore the main ingredient of totalitarian regimes,

dogmatic ideologies and discretionarypractices. In the developed countries, the

presenteconomicandidentitarycrisishasshiftedtheattentionfromtheresponsible

Westernbarbarianstoexteriorones, immigrantsorforeignculturesbeing inthis

casethemostconvenientscapegoats.But,asthetitleofthisessaymetaphoricallypointsout,Hannibalisnotatthegates,itisinsidethepolis,ardentlychampioning

adiverse repertoireofdiscourses likedemocracy,human rightsorfreemarket in

ordertosilentlyconsolidateitshegemonyattheexpenseofrealrights,democracy

andfreedom.MaterialandpoliticalasymmetryisgrowingintheWesternworld,a

clear sign of barbarizationfor socialconstructivists likeNicholasOnuf.On the

otherhand, theWest stillpossessesboth thematerial (economy)and intellectual

(modernity) resources necessary to overcome the crisis, even if thegeopolitical

configurationoftheworldisslowlyshiftingtowardsEast.Insocialconstructivist

terms,wecanavoidthebarbarizationofthisprocessbyimpellingactorstoreshape

structures trough aprotest culture thatwill claim alternative, less asymmetricconstructionswheneverthesituationcallsforit.

Keywords:barbarism,modernity,crisis,capitalism,agents,structures

EmanuelCopila,PhD, is teachingassistant,FacultyofPoliticalScience,PhilosophyandCommunicationSciences,WestUniversity,Timisoara.Email:[email protected].


2/30

EmanuelCopila56

Theproblem

TheWestandthewholeworld,butespeciallytheWestandduetoits fault undergoes amajor and plurivalent crisis today. Its economicdimension issurelythemostmediatizedone,buttherearealsostructuralproblems of different natures, like economic, social, identity andmoralones. It ishard to saywhich comes first, although I am tempted to riskgivingcredit to theeconomicones.But itwouldbeat least imprudent toproposesuchahierarchy.IfMarxthoughtussomethingintheend,itwas

that he was never a Marxist after all. In other words, Marxism is aphilosophy,aperspective,aliving,autoreflexiveandfirstofalldefinedbyapermanentregeneratingprocess.

One of themain continuators and developers ofMarxs thinkingwasAntonioGramsci.Imprisonedduring themajorpartofits intellectuallife,Gramscisworkowesmuch,paradoxically,totheItalianfascistregimethatconvictedhimofcommunistagitation.Ifhewouldhavesucceededinescaping Mussolinis persecutions against leftist groups, it is highlyprobable he would have ended up in Stalins gulags. Gramsci hasconvincingly argued that in the case of a historicbloc (the expression

corresponds approximately to Marxs production mode), the structureand respectively the superstructure share the same hegemonic weight.Actually, hegemony, a term Gramsci introduced, is exercised especiallytroughthesuperstructure.Thisconsistsindifferentphilosophiesofsocialclasses that, during historical periods determinedby certain modes ofproduction,composehistory.UnlikeMarx,forwhichthesuperstructureisadirectconsequenceof thestructures formandcontent,Gramsciadmitstheexistenceofseveralphilosophiesdisplacedwithratio to theeconomicand social scaffoldingonwhich theygrewup.Hereonehas to take intoaccount the philosophy of practice, critical philosophy, the attribute of

criticalintellectuals,whichactivelypleadsforbeingawareofhegemonyinthe firstplace, thanharmonizing thephilosophieswith the structureandtheirmixtureinanunitarycritictroughwhichthestructuresuperstructureduality is annulled and the hegemony of the historicbloc overcome. Inshort,thiswouldbeGramscisacceptionoftherevolutionaryprocess,one


3/30

HannibalIsintheCity:SeveralReflectionsonContemporaryBarbarians... 57

in which dialectics has place within the structuresuperstructure ratio.1Marx postulated, as we remember, that the dialectic process, historicalmaterialism, takes place exclusively at the structural level: quantitativechanges bring about, sooner or later, qualitative changes, i.e. therevolution.2

Today,Iconsidersocialconstructivism,whichIwillbrieflydiscusslater and which massively recuperates conceptually elements of criticaltheory3themostappropriatescientificmethodologyforgraspingintermsandeventuallyovercomingthestructuralproblemswhichconfrontusnow.

Barbarismandbarbarians

Accordingly,wecansayforsureonlythatweareincrisis,andthecrisis iscomposedofseveral interconnected layers.Whatarethecauses isthe naturel question that comes next. Resisting the avalanche ofinterminable answers, I have decided for one only: barbarism. Beforeargumenting, the scientific common sense imposesdefining the terms ofthe analysis. In Leskek Koakowskis reading,barbarism represents theintrinsically incapacity of a culture or person to reason critically and

especially selfcritically.The incapacity to regenerate andprogress,Marxwould have probably said. And classical Europe reached a privilegedglobalposition,amongotherthings,becauseThiscapacitytoselfdoubt,torenounce tobehonest, facingapowerful resistanceselfsuffiencyandcomplacencydefines it. Ultimately,Koakowski continues, we can saythatEuropes cultural identity is consolidatedby its refuse toacceptanylimited,closedform,fromwheretheconclusionthatEuropeanidentitycan

1AntonioGramsci,OpereAlese,Bucureti:EdituraPolitic,1969,p.58.2AnexcellentbookwhichanalysestheMarxistinternationalsociologywhileopposingittothe Leninist political ideology, and in which Gramscis name is in forefront id that ofVendulka Kublkova and A. Cruickshank, MarxismLeninism and theory of internationalrelations,London,BostonandHenley:Routledge&KeganPaul,1980.AnexcellentchapterregardingGramscianpolitical thinking is tobe found inLeszekKolakowskis,Principalelecurentealemarxismului.Prbuirea,(vol.III),Bucureti:CurteaVeche,2010.3IhavebrieflyanalyzedcriticaltheoryscontributiontosocialconstructivisminDincolodeteoria critic. O posibil inserare a filosofiei politice habermasiene n teoria relaiilorinternaionale,inSferaPoliticii,nr.138,2009,pp.96113.


4/30

EmanuelCopila58

only affirm itself trough uncertainty and anxiety.4 But there are otherreasons, just as important, which contribute in explaining Europeansupremacy.Iwilldiscussthemonthenextpages.

WhatdoesEuropeandtheWest ingeneralespeciallytheUnitedStates have todowith thepresent crisis is truisitc: theybear themainresponsibility. But, in the same time, the intellectual legacy of the sameWest contains the necessary resources for overcoming the presentdifficulties.Andwhatbarbariansandbarbarismarewetalkingaboutintheend?AboutabarbarismcondemnedevenbyMarxinlargerterms,namely

ideology. I will use here a more specific sense for this concept: theincapacity to understand and relate to alterity trough the prism of itsfundamental legitimacy to exist.And, or, the undermining of empiricalcriteriastoevaluatethetheoreticalinthenameofa(barbarian)assaultoverreality in itself. Imposing therefore your images and perspectives as theonlypossibleanddesirablealternatives.

Now, one shouldnotice thatbarbarians have twomajor features:theyareofseveralkindsand theyexistandacteverywhere,regardlessofthe zone, region state or cultural environment taken into account.Furthermore,theyexisteveninourselvesindifferentdosages.So,onemust

be aware of snobbism, convenience, selfsufficiency, intransigency orpedantery.Withthem,nooneisbig.Butwithoutthem,nooneisalive,toparaphrase Constantin Noica with a memory quote, who wrote in hisPhilosophical diary about similar attitudes andbehaviors: envy, pettiness,cowardness,hate.5

Let us insist abit onWesternbarbarians, others like the Islamicones,forexample,beinghighlymediatizedbynow.Iwouldclassifythemas hard barbarians, including here religious fanatics and politicalextremists, respectively softbarbarians,howeverno lessdangerous, likethe convinced followers of postmodernism. Hardbarbarians, Fascists,

Communistsandbigots,sharewiththesoftonesthecontemptforthebestproductofEuropeanculture,towhichwewillreturn,modernity.Thefirstwant topreservematerial, technicalmodernity,but tocircumscribe it toapremodern grid of values, based on tradition, the preeminence of

4LeszekKoakowski,Modernitateasubunneobositcolimator,Bucureti:CurteaVeche,2007,p.33.5ConstantinNoica,Jurnalfilosofic,Bucureti:Humanitas,1990.


5/30


communityovertheindividual,romanticheroism,onaorganicconceptionover society and a love relation between rulers and ruled, the firstinterpreted as virtue models, while the latter counting as obediencemodels. It is a historical fact that Fascism has its ideological roots inGerman romanticism,bywhich itwasprecededwith a century,moreorless.6 Communists, on the contrary, aim to overcome modernity,reproaching it the exacerbationof freedom (readprivileges)with ratio tosocialequality.Egaliberte,an ideadiscussedbyAlexCallinicos followingEtienne Balibar, assumes just the recovery of the equitable sense of

unfulfilledmodernity,of itsfailedpromise toreconcile the two ideas inafairandprosperous social framework.Asmoralguide, this idea isa realtreasure.7Butasapoliticalproject,itdegeneratesintoLeninism.Modernitynever assumed more than harmonizing its ideals with social practices.However, Leninism confounds the two parts. As for bigots, theindivisibility of their truth and the rigidity with which they attemptimposing itasunique toallother formsofspiritualalternativesdisclosesthematonceasirreconcilableenemiesofpluralism.

But, as I have affirmed earlier, softbarbarism isjust as harmfuland dangerous to the intellectual health of the West. Postmodernism,

relativistmoralnihilism,representsthe lastexpressionofEnlightenmentsselfundermining once it renounced its prerationalbenchmarks, namelyChristian philosophy, Koakowski argues.8 Yes, Christian philosophy,becausemodernitywas not necessarilyborn as a new paradigm, to useThomas Kuhns famous concept,9butmostly trough a dialectic relationwithWestern Christianity, fromwhich it emerged, asMarcel Gauchetpertinentlyargues.10 It is true that,due to its claim topossess theunique

6SeehereNicolaeRmbusexcellentworkRomantismulfilosoficgerman,Iai:Polirom,2001.SeealsoRicardaHuch,Romantismulgerman,Humanitas:Bucureti,2011.7SeeAlexCallinicos,Egalitatea.Srcie iinegalitateneconomiiledezvoltate,Bucureti:Antet,2004.Essaysrepresentative fortienneBalibarsanalysescanbe found in Masses,Classes,Ideas.StudiesonPoliticsandPhilosophybeforeandafterMarx,NewYork&London:Routledge,1994.8Koakowski,Modernitatea,pp.2650.9ThomasKuhn,ThestructureofScientificRevolutions,ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1996.10SeeIeireadinreligie,Humanitas:Bucureti,2006andespeciallyDezvrjirealumii.Oistoriepoliticareligiei,Bucureti:Nemira,2006.


6/30


7/30


metamorphosed,as inpostSovietRussia, intooligarchsandnow,whenweareborrowing inorder topaysalariesandpensions in the firstplace,nottoinvest,wefindourselvesconfusedanddisillusioned.

Itmay seem contradictory to recognize the democratic virtues ofChristianity and soon after to incriminate the savage capitalismwhichruined Eastern Europe at the beginning of the 1990s. But it is notnecessarilyso.Becausemodernity,onitsturn,facedanditisstillfacingitsownbarbarian temptations, alreadymentioned: political extremism andmoral relativism. And something else, as insidious and pernicious,but

harder tospotdue to thedemocraticcamouflage itdull forsoworn.Yes,capitalism. As the Inquisition represents the supreme expression of theideologizationandbarbarizationofChristianity,capitalismiscorrelatively,along with Fascism or Communism, a barbarization of modernityunderstood as reason, critical thinking and the ability of societies todifferentiate themselves in relation to theirpasts inorder toprogress, asAnthonnyGiddensargues13 todifferentiateinrelationto,nottorenouncepast a parasitation and suffocation of the free marketbased on freeexchanges according to the Marxist equation merchandise money merchandise, monopolistically transformed in the direction money

merchandisemoney; but the free market is not completely abolished,Braudel argues, and it continues to existjust as a legitimizing source ofcapitalism which claims itself from it, from free competition, whiletransformingfreecompetitioninexactlytheopposite.

MattTaibbiprovesconvincinglyinarecentandeasyreadablebookthat freemarket needs speculatorsbecause the request and offer do notmeet each other always face to face. To a certain extent, they areindispensable for lubricating the commercial process, buying fromproducersand selling to consumers fora certain commercialaddition,ofcourse.Butwhentheyareallowed,bythesamestatewhichwassupposed

to contain their activity, to expand theirbusiness indefinitely, theywillcreate monopolies and increase the distance between consumers andproducerstothepointoftheirtotalseparation.Inthisway,speculatorswillbecometheonlyorthemostimportantclientsofdirectproducersandtheywillselleverythingtheybuyatarbitrarypriceswhichtendtogoup.Once

13AnthonyGiddens,CristopherPierson,ConversationswithAnthonyGiddens:makingsenseofmodernity,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1998


8/30

EmanuelCopila62

themarket is completely controlled and the statebecomes,on its turn, aspeculator,aneconomiccrisisissoontofollow:speculatorscanrisepricestothepointofextreme,orlowerthemandborrowmoneytoconsumersatattractiveinterestratestostimulatetheminbuyingmore.Thisistheexactmechanism that led to the real estate crisis in the United States. Giantfinancial corporations, the speculators, were ensured by the federalgovernmentagainstbankruptcyunderthetechnicaltermriskabsorption.Theircollapse,itwasargued,wouldhavetriggeredmajoreconomicshortcircuits causing on their turn unemployment and social unrest. The

governments position encouraged speculators to a behavior calledpredatory lending: once the safemortgageswere exhausted, subprimemortgageswereput inplace.Theyhadhigher interest rates,due to therisksthebankorfinancialcompanywasassuminglendingmoneytopoorpeople,manyof themMexican immigrantsorBlacks.After the crisishit,theywere the first toblame, firstofallby the companies theyhave lendthemmoneyjusttoobtainthosehigherinterestmentionedabove.Everyoneknew thiskindofcreditwas risky,but thebankspushed thematurityofthecreditsdecadesinthefuture,hopingtheywillnevermeetthefinancialjudgmentday.And they continued toborrowpoorpeoplemoney, often

falsifyingthepaperworksotheycouldaskforhigherinterestrateslater.Inthis way, and in different economic fields, speculative bubbles haveemerged,swelledandfinallyexplodedinaseriesofcrisesthatstakedouttheentireeconomichistoryofAmericas20thcentury.Troughinflationandby lowering interest rates the federalgovernmentwasable to eventuallyovercome theproblemby creating anew andbiggerone instead.Lowerinterest rates affected the economies and safe investments of thepopulation,whichwasbasically forced to place their savings in riskierinvestmentswithbiggerinterestrates,nothingmorethananotherbubbleinthemaking.This iswhatalsohappened in2008,onlyatan incomparable

higher level. Companies like Goldman Sachs borrowed frantically,knowing thegovernmentwillbail themoutonce the crisiswillmake itspresence felt. New financial products like derivatives, credit defaultswaps or securitization pools appeared. The first arebonds with anunusual longmaturity term and generally low interest rates, especiallydesignedtoattractmoneyindifferentformsforfuturespeculativebubbles.A credit default swap is a procedurebywhich abank that lent a risky


9/30


credit, like a subprimemortgage,buys awarranty from a third part, towhichitpays,letssaymonthly,acertainamountofmoney,payingintheendapproximatelyaquarterof the total loan. Inexchange, the thirdpartwillpaytheentireloan iftheclientdefaults.Inthisway,colossalsumsofvirtualmoney, credit,were transformed apparently in liquidmoney andtherebyallowing financialorganismswhichwereengaged in thiskindofpracticesamongthemandwiththestatetoborrowandinturnlendmoremoney. Securitizationpoolswere common accountsbanks createdwiththiskindofcreditcosmeticizedtolooklikemoney.Thefederalgovernment

helped the ongoingbubbleby allowing the diminishment of marginalrequirementswhichwasabout1/10,whichmeantthatforeverytendollarsborrowed, thebankhad tohaveareserveofonedollar incash.Thestatealsogot involved,likeaprivateactor,on therealestatemarket.Awareofthedevelopingfinancialstorm,theAmericanbanks,interestedonlyinthehigh interest rateswhich they collected everymonth, soldmanyof thesesecuritizationpoolsandderivativesontheinternationalmarkets.ButoncetheAmerican realestatemarket reached its limitand someof thepeoplesubjected topredatory lending started todefault, thepricesdroppedandthebillcamemuchquickerthanexpected.Thistime,some nottoomany

of thebanksand financialcompanies thatdidall this in thenameof freemarkethadtocometotermswithbankruptcywhentheylooked,asusual,to thestate forhelp.Therealestatebubble,connectedwithotherparallelones,wassimplywaytoolargetobedepreciatedtroughinflation.14

Whatkindofbarbarismisthis,tousetheconceptuallensproposedabove? Neither hard nor soft, it couldbe named the capitalist (thehistorical process) or neoliberal (the highly speculative form globalcapitalism adopted at the end of the 1990s)barbarism, an ideologizedcombination of the two, although emphasizing the last one, thepostmodern relativist and idealized agenda which claims for every

discoursealmost the sameweight, therebyallowingneoliberalbarbarismthe protection of discursive legitimacy. But profit, theft and economiccrimespossesanobjectivesocialexistencethatgoesfarbeyondthesimpletextuality, to useRichardRortys term, abstruse, confusing, ambiguousandirrelevantduetosocialisolationandselfunderminingrelativism.

14SeeMattTaibbi,Griftopia.Bubblemachines,vampiresquadsand the longcon that isbreakingAmerica,NewYork:SPIEGEL&GRAU,2010.


10/30

EmanuelCopila64

Turningback to the relationbetweenmodernityand the religiousphenomenon, several years ago, in a farreaching dialogue, JrgenHabermas andJosephRatzinger,whilediscussing about thedialectics ofsecularization,reachedasurprisinglyunanimousconclusion:bothreligionand reason cannot exist without constantly balancing each other,reciprocallyexposingtheirpathologies.15

But the capitalist pathology escaped, until now, untreated (andmany times, undiscovered) because a lot of reasons which cannot bedetailedhereandprobablybecauseitwasthefirst toshoutout:thief!But

let us repeat the essential, namely the need to avoid the frequent andseriousmistakeofequatingcapitalismwithmodernity likeLeninismandpartiallyMarxism do, although Leninism on its turn is a pathology ofMarxismwhich, on its turn, canbeunderstood as a critical and radicalform of modernity, an indispensible corrective, if you like, ofEnlightenment. Should modernity be renounced due to pathologies itdeveloped andwillpossibledevelop in the future, or shouldwe correctthesebarbariantendenciesandhopefully,someday,preventthem?Mybetisonthesecondposition.

Was thisanEurocentristdiscoursetothispoint?Iconsiderthat,in

order to firmlygrasp theprofoundstakesof thedebate, it isnecessary torenounce the multiculturalist fatigue. First of all,because it fragmentssocieties,wakeningnotonly theircohesionbutalso theirciviccapacity tomobilise in order to claim their rights fromneoliberal,neocommunist oroppressivegovernmentsingeneral.16Second,multiculturalismandtosomeextentpolitically correctness arejustmasks ingeniously instrumentedbyour capitalist pathology in order to reconfirm and reinforce its ownhegemony.

LetusbrieflytakeintoaccountthematerialgenesisofcapitalismorhowEuropecametobethecentreoftheearth.FernandBraudel,Immanuel

Wallerstein and EricWolf explain: due to several geographic, political,economic and social particularities, not necessarily in this order.Surroundedby seas and oceans,Europewasbasically invited to get out

15JrgenHabermas,Joseph Ratzinger, op. cit. Koakowski reached the same conclusionearlier:Modernitatea,p.49.16 See here Alexandru Mamina, Redefinirea identitii. Pentru o socialdemocraie critic,Trgovite:CetateadeScaun,2010,pp.4345.


11/30


into theworld.ButChinadid itmuch faster andmuchbetter, even if itabruptly stopped at thebeginningof the 15th century.Why?Because theimmensenorthernborderoftheprosperousempirewasfrequentlypiercedbyincursionsmadebysomenomadtribesanditsresourcesweremobilizedin this direction. The times of sea travelling were over. In about twocenturies, all marine skills were forgotten. How Chinas emperor didachievethis?AndwhyisChinesepoliticalculturemuchmoreauthoritarianthantheEuropeanone,ifwearetopolitics?Letusstartaresponseattemptbyfirsttaking intoaccountmaterialfactors.InChinapeopleeatrice.Rice

hasamuchbetteryieldperhectare thanwheatand, insouthernChina, itproducesaveragelytwoharvestsayear. Andthereisplentyoftimeforaharvestofcabbageorcarrots.Furthermore,ricedoesnotneedrotationorfallowground.Itgrowsinthesameplacesforthousandsofyears.ThatiswhyitwasabletosustainahugedemographicgrowthcomparedtothatofEurope. But rice plantations do not care for themselves. Thousands ofpeopleareneededforthistask.Acentralauthoritarianrule,dominatedbymandarins,becomesalmostunavoidable,alsotoprotectthecropsandtheSky Kingdom from northern barbarians (far less dangerous than thebarbarians thepresent essaydealswith).Europe, on the otherhand, fed

itselfwithwheat.Bettersaid,theEuropeanaristocracy.Thecommonersatemillet, ryeoroat.But thepoint is that theyieldof these cereals ismuchsmallerthatofrice,theyproduceonlyoneharvestperyearandtheyneedyearlyortwoyearsrotationsandfallowground.ThisiswhyEuropeansarefewer andmore individualistic, to force the argument.Without a centralpolitical rule,buthundred,even thousandsofcitystatesandsmallstateswhich competed against each other in variousways, every one tried toobtain advantages on the expense of others. They encouragedinventivenessandprogressinordertobenefitfromthemandoutruntheircompetitors, not necessarily from some noble humanistic and moral

initiatives.Thisrepresentedthecrucialaspectoftheinitialdevelopmentofcapitalism. And there is something more: the Chinese,being so many,countedascheaplaborers,afactwhichretardedaChineseindustrialboom.TheEuropeans,on theotherhand,where fewerand thereforeexpensive,somethingwhichboosted industry.Whygunpowderandpaper that theChinese invented centuries before they were introduced in Europe,


12/30

EmanuelCopila66

stagnated on their birthplace? Due to the absence of the competitivedynamicthatstructuredtheoldcontinent,itscapitalistpropulsion.

Of course,material factors arejust one part of this story,whichwouldnotbecompletewithouttheEuropeancriticalcapacities,previouslymentioned,itsspecificculture,religionandsoon.Allplayamajorroleinthe development of European identity. Furthermore, all are important,although I incline towards thematerialdimension of this identity as theinitialmoving force of thewhole process.One could argue neverthelessthatotherpartsoftheworldwerealsoopenedtooceansandseas:Turkey

orGreece,intheproximityofWesternEurope,and,ontheglobalmap,theAmericas,AfricaorAustralia.Whydidtheynotdevelopaccording to theEuropeanmodel? First of all, they lacked the social, cultural,political oradministrative fragmentednessofpostRomanEurope, impelled to resorttoprimitivetypesofeconomythatdidforalongtimewithoutcoinageand,consequently, major commercial breakthroughs.17 Furthermore, severalhundred up to a thousand years later, that particular fragmentednessresulted in consolidated political diversity fueledby numerous types ofcompetition. In turn, competition led to increased risk assuming, amongothers,intheformoffinancinginventions,whichcouldgainadvantagefor

somepoliticalunitsat theexpenseofothers bothon landandoceansorseas.TheAmericas,AfricaorAustralia,allof themdevelopedinfarfromsimilarsocial,politicaloreconomiccircumstances.AsforGreeceorTurkey,whowitnessed and sometimes took partmore closely in the process ofEuropeanglobalaffirmationone should remember, firstofall, the longperiodofTurkishdominationoverGreeceinthemodernera.Therefore,forthepurposeofthepresentargument,theycanbetreatedasawhole.Andletusrememberanotherthing:thedeclineoftheOttomanEmpirebasicallyoverlapped the ascension of Western Europe. Centuries of strongbureaucracyandcentraldiscretionaryrulegraduallyincreasedthedistance

between a diverse, dynamic and now fully experiencing the industrialrevolutionEurope,ononehand,andamilitaryweakeningandeconomic

17 See in this regard Robert Heilbronner, Filosofii lucrurilor pmnteti. Vieile, epocile idoctrinelemariloreconomiti,Bucureti:Humanitas,2005andGlynDavies,Ahistoryofmoney.Fromancienttimestothepresentday,Cardiff:UniversityofWalesPress,2002.


13/30


contractingempire.18As in thecaseofChina,although the twosocialandcultural units are highly different theOttoman Empires progresswasretardedbystrongcentralruleandbureaucracy.

Until here, nothing bad, one could say, about the ascent ofcapitalism in Europe: progress, competition, inventions, and welfare.Welfare, yes. But not for everyone. Only for the elites. It is true that,gradually,capitalismimprovedthelifestyleofthecommoners,butonlytostimulate them to producemore. And also gradually, the gapbetweenaristocracyandthemasseskeptongrowing.Butcapitalismbecomesreally

noxiouswhenglobalexpansionandthediscovery(readexploitation)ofthenewworldtriggeredmassiveenrichmentdesiresforkings,aristocratsandmerchants. Let us not allow ourselves tobe fascinatedby the piratestreasures: theywere only getting the crumbs. Slowly, credits, loans andbanks emerged, alongwith the appetite for profit. And this led to theinfamous colonial experiment and to the use and abuse of enormousquantities of resources and goods.The resultsofdevelopment,however,were disproportionately confined outside the spaces which held thoseresources.What ishappening todaywith theMiddleEastoilcanofferaninsightful,althoughnotexactlyaccurateanalogyovertheprocess.19

Gradually, our capitalistbarbarism started to suppurate. Amanwhichbuysfishwhile it isstillin thewatermaygetonlythesmellintheendsaysandoldFrenchproverb.Theadviceofthissayingresumesratheraccuratecapitalismsdevelopmentsandsetbacks.Thecreditsstartedtobeexponentiallyamplified,thedebtsclimbedthreateningandthetemptationof fast and substantial gaindiverted the attention from reason, commonsense and thewidening economic gap. The distancebetween real andvirtualeconomy increaseduntil thewholemiragecrumbled.Only tostart

18ForabriefbutinterestingglobalaccountofOtomandecadenceduringmoderntimessee

Robert van de Weyer, Islamul i Occidentul. O nou ordine politic i religioas dup 11septembrie,Bucureti:ALLFA,2001.19FernandBraudel,CivilizationandCapitalism,15th18thCentury,vol.1,2,3,TheStructuresofeveryday life. The limits of thepossible; The Wheels of change, The Perspective of the World,(London,Glasgow,Sydney,Auckland,Toronto,Johannesburg:WilliamCollinsSons&CoLtd, 1985, 1983, 1984); Immanuel Wallerstein, Sistemul mondial modern, vol 1, 2, 3, 4,Agriculturacapitalist ioriginileeconomieimondialeeuropenensecolulalXVIlea,Mercantilismiconsolidareaeconomieimondialeeuropene,16001750,Bucureti:Meridiane,1992,1993;EricWolf,Europa ipopulaiilefristorie,Chiinu:Arc,2001.


14/30

EmanuelCopila68

again, with vengeance (see supra the brief discussion of some of thefinancial mechanisms that triggered the present American and soon tofollowglobaleconomiccrisis).

AndnowbacktoourWesternbarbarians.Theyaremoreimportantormorepowerful thanother culturesbarbariansbecause theWest itselfbecamemorepowerful,troughacomplexofcircumstancesbrieflysketchedabove.Aswehaveseen,multiculturalismandpoliticalcorrectnessbasicallyeludethestakeofthepresentsmainproblems.Sodoesthedebatebetweenuniversalismandexclusivism.Wearewhereweare todayand fromhere

we must start the claim for civil rights and social equality. Globally,modernity contradicts itself if, trying to avoidbarbarian temptations, itconcedes others the right tobebarbarians (emphasis in orig.).20 Reason,discernment, critic and selfcriticarenotvalidonly for theWest,but foreveryone.

Thesocialconstructivistsolution

Beforeapplyingsocialconstructivistconceptstothebarbariansandbarbarisms identified below, we should turn our attention to the

development and some of the central tenets of this new type of socialtheory.

Socialconstructivism,anew international theorydeveloped in thelast years of theColdWar and actually anew sociologicalmethod, in alarge sense, is experiencing today an enviable reputation. As a postpositivisttheorybasedondenouncinghardscientifichypotheseswhichoperate by distinguishing between the researcher and the object ofresearch, respectively facts and values it brings forward a newepistemology,onenotsoradicalasthepostmodernone,norrelativistic. InEmanuel Adlers terms, constructivism proposes a middle ground

between, on one hand, the restructuring of the scientific principles ofknowledgeand,ontheotherhand,theempiricalvalidationoftheaffirmedresults.21Betweentheemphasisoninterpretationexistentinpostpositivistphilosophical currents, respectively the classic rationalist perspective ofmodernity,centeredontheindividual.

20Koakowski,Modernitatea,p.38.21EmmanuelAdler,Communitarianinternationalrelations,Routledge:NewYork,2005.


15/30


Socialconstructivismhasdeep roots in the innovativesociologicalapproachesfromthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury,aperiodinwhichthehardsocialstructuresenouncedandanalyzedEmileDurkheim,evenMaxWeber, are undergoing major contestations. The accent lays now onprocesses,onsocialdevelopment.Theimplicitstaticscientificapproachofthe19thcenturyisisrejectedinthenameoftheintersubjectivedynamicofsocial groups, permanently constituted and reconstituted trough theinteractionbetweenagents (individuals,nongovernmentalorganizations)and structures (political power, administrative, institutional or cutumiar

networks),havingaconstitutiveroleinsocialfunctionality.Thestructurescreate normsand resources,Giddensargues.Normsrepresent the legalwaystroughwhichagentsproduceresources.Throughoutthisprocessandtrough a set of well defined practices, the agents effectively reproducesocialstructuresoutsidewhichtheycannotexistintheend.Butagentsarenotpassiveinstrumentsatthearbitraryofstructures,butconscioussubjectsthat can andmust reconstitute structures, composed in the endby theirown interactions.On their turn, the structures interactpermanently, thisdynamicsconstitutingthesocietysmovingforce.22Constructiviststakethesociologicaldistinctionbetweenagentsandstructuresandextrapolateitat

theinternationallevel.Anticipatingthemethodologicalconfusionthatcanarouse in thispoint (agents canbe individuals,politicalparties, statesorinternational organizations and so can the structures, excepting the firstmentioned category), Harry Gould proposes taking the problem intoaccount on various social levels of analysis. The agent is the part; thestructure is the whole. At the next level of analysis, the originalstructure/wholeisnowtheagent/part,whileattheinferiorlevelofanalysis,the original agent/part is now the relevant structure/whole.23 In otherwords, inagivencity, theagentscanbe thecitizens,and thecityhall thestructure.Then,atthenextlevelofanalysis,thecityhallbecomestheagent

inrelationwith thecountycouncilor therelevantpoliticalparties in thatspecificcounty.Moreover,thecountycouncilsandcityhallsandthelocal

22AnthonyGiddens,Theconstitutionofsociety.Outlineofthetheoryofstructuration,Berkeley&LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1984.23HarryGould,Whatisatstakein theagentstructuredebate?,inVendulkaKublkov,NicholasOnuf, Paul Kovert, International relations in a constructed world,Armonk:M. E.Sharpe,1998,pp.79100.


16/30


17/30


sociallyconstructed.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheinfluenceofnaturalforcesisnotrecognized,notatall;whatitmeansistheinfluence,theimpactandthe knowledge of this forces, eventually, cannotbe something differentthan a superposition of social constructions. The sea can drown us incertaincircumstances,yes,butdrowningisasocialconstruction,andsoisthesea,toacertainpoint;nonecanexistoutsidehumaninterpretationsandactionswhichoffersthemsenseandmanagestheminsocialacceptedways.Pigsdonotfly,butonlyahumancanimaginethemdoingso:thisimageistherefore,on its turn,a social construction.Anavalanche is,accordingly,

tragicjustbecausepeopleattributeitconnotationslikethese;intheabsenceof the human factor, the avalanchewould notmean anything. Itwouldhave a physical existence, nobody denies it,but itwouldbe somethingoutsidethedirecthumanexperienceandknowledgeanditcouldnotexisteventuallyasanavalanche.Thedenominationin itself,avalanche,reflectsthesocialconstructionattributedtothephenomenoninacertainsociety;inothersocietiestherearedifferentdenominations,eachlanguageexpressingdifferent,but interdependent to a certain degree, although not always socialconstructions,respectivelysocialconstructionsofnaturalphenomenathathave thesamephysiceffects,butwhichenter insocialconsciousness

andrealities,again,troughdifferent,evenifsimilarconstructions.Language, experience, culture, habits, tradition, fears, aspirations,

hopesall thissocialconstructions indebted to theperemptorydynamicsand flexible relationsbetween agents and structures, gradually sedimentidentities. These are individual or social and they represent socialconstructivismscentralconcept.25Identitiesarenotfixed,astheytendtobeperceivedbyothertheoristsdealingwithinternationalrelationslikerealists(conservatives), pluralists (liberals) or Marxists (socialdemocrats) butflexibleanddynamic,reflectingtheratiobetweenagentsandstructuresondifferentlevelsofanalysis,fromlocaltoglobal.

Untilnow,socialconstructivismdoesnotseemtohelpmuchinourefforts to analyze present daybarbarians. Itwould appear tobe ratherdescriptive and eclectic than analytic, besides confronting us with amethodologicalproblem:barbariansandbarbarismsareagents,structuresorboth?Howdo they interact,among themorwithothers,whatare theconsequencesofthose interactionsandwhat identitiesaretheystruggling

25Ibidem,p.224.


18/30

EmanuelCopila72

to produce?Even if, intuitively,we can observe thatbarbarians and theideologies they advance are agents aswell as structures, thiswould notmakeanotableoranycontributionatalltoouranalysis.Soletusmoveonto Onufs radical constructivism, a much more useful tool in ourmethodologicalquest.

Firstofall,Wendtsconstructivismdoesnotbenefitanappropriatemethodologyforsocialsciences,despiteof itsgenerousethical intentions.The problem of empirical analyses is not at all negligible in socialconstructivism, questioning in the end even itsdisciplinary status.26This

minus is covered, in my opinion, by Nicholas Onufs works. Onufproposes,inordertosolvethemethodologicaldualismagentstructure,theconceptofnorms(rulesandnorms).Rules(lawsingeneral,butalsopracticesandhabits)andnorms (moralandbehavioraldispositions that legitimizerules inagivensociety)areplacedatthe intersectionbetweenagentsandstructures, essentially constitutingboth parts.Agents use rule to followtheirinterests(definedassecurity,positionandwealth),materialandnonmaterial,whileforthestructuresrulesstabilizeandhomogenizethesocialframework in which agents interact and by doing so they basicallyreproduce the structure itself. Each agent acts rationally, following to

maximize its interestwithminimum costs amid legislation and an ethiccodeboth anterior and interdependent. From an external point of view,agentsdonotseemtoalwaysactrational,butthisisduetothecomplexityof socialexistenceand the impossibility tograsp itand lessexhaust it inscientific terms. In their regard,agentsact rationally, fromwhichwe canconcludethatreasonitselfisasocialconstructiondependentontheculture,values,interestsandhabitsofsocieties,evenifthesedifferentreasonscanintersectandsuperposeonconsistentlevels.

Rules and the ways in which agents use them can also haveunintendedconsequences. Whenever ruleshave theeffectofdistributing

advantagesunequally,theresultisrule.Rule,inOnufsconceptualization,meansleadershipgeneratedbysocialinequalities.Politicswouldrepresenta narrow and incomplete substitute for Onufs rule. Every society isasymmetric,unequal to a certain extent andneeds rules andpolitics inorder toexistand toadministrate itself;butwhen thatasymmetrygrows

26AndreKukla,Constructivismandthephilosophyofscience,NewYork:Taylor&Francis,2002.


19/30


too much, it does soby generating tyranny.27 Therefore thebarbarian,absolutisttemptationispermanentlyintheshadowofpluralsocietiesandit is up to us, the agents, to keep it there trough rules as equitable andefficientaspossible.Inthisway, thepossibilityofstructuralbarbarizationdiminishes,althoughitnevercompletelydisappears.

Onuf renounces discourse analysis favored by postmoderns,proposinginstead speechacts.Discourseanalysis,asErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffeunderstandit,couldhavebeenusefulinthepresentessay.Intheiracception,whichisnotatallrelativist,discoursesaremechanisms

that strive to create social identities in certain social environmentsstructuredby conflicts and antagonisms. Based on the linguistic turn,which favors languageand ingenerala reflectivistapproach to science,LaclauandMouffesunderstandingofdiscourseisthefollowing: wewillcall articulation any practice establishing a relation among elements suchthat their identity ismodifiedasa resultof thearticulatorypractice.Thestructured totality resulting from the articulatory practice, we will calldiscourse (italics in orig).28 Therefore, discourses are strategies offragmenting societies in order to relegitimize and reinforce certainhegemonies upon them. Why I favor Onufs socialconstructivism over

Laclau andMouffesdiscourse?Although socialconstructivism appearedalso after the linguistic turn and it is also reflexive in itsmethodologicalapproach, and although Laclau and Mouffe transposed the concept ofdiscoursefromthepostmodernfieldtothatofsocialtheorydiscourses,inmyopinion,donotgrasp sufficiently enough the social realities that aresupposedtoarticulate.Manyofthemareirrelevantinthedaytodaylife.More important, and this is a critic John Searle addresses to socialconstructivism itself, discourses fall in the logical trap of circularregression: if everything isdiscursively created, than thediscourse itselfneeds discourse. But a theory can be validated only in relation with

somethingelse,notbyitsownconceptsandmethods.29Ishallanalyzenext

27NicholasOnuf,World,p.22.28 Ernesto Laclau, Chantall Mouffe, Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radicaldemocratic politics, London, New York: Verso, 2001, p. 105. See also Lucian Vesalon,Populism ineoliberalismndiscursulmodernizriistatului,inSergiuGherghina;SergiuMicoiu, (eds.), Partide i personaliti populiste n Romnia postcomunist, Iai: InstitutulEuropean,2010,pp.191194.29SeeJohnSearle,Realitateacaproiectsocial,Iai:Polirom,2000.


20/30

EmanuelCopila74

Searles contribution to and also itspertinent criticofwhat Ihave calledhereradicalsocialconstructivism.

From Searles works in cognitive philosophy, Nicholas Onufborrowsthetermspeechacts.Wetellpeoplehowthingsare(Assertives),wetrytogetthemtodothings(Directives),wecommitourselvestodoingthings(Commissives),weexpressourfeelingsandattitudes(Expressives),and we bring about changes in the world through our utterances(Declarations).30FromthefivespeechactsSearleproposed,Onufusesonlytree,thefirsttreetobeprecise:assertive,directiveandcommissivesspeech

acts.According toacertain illocutionarymodel inagivensocietywearecorrelatively dealing with hegemonic societies (the Indian castes),authoritharyhierarchizedsocieties(authoritarianandtotalitarianregime)and formally hierarchized societies (democraticliberal regimes).31ExpressivesandDeclarativesarenottakenintoaccountbecause,inOnufsopinion, they do not produce relevant social effects. Speech acts aremeaninglesswithoutintheabsenceofrules,ruleandalsoresources(socialwealth distributedby structures for agents,butmostly for themselves).Assertive speech acts create assertive rules (practices, habits) andhegemonicsocieties(assertiverule),directivespeechactsproducedirective

rules and political authoritarianism (directive rule); finally, commissivespeech acts create heteronomy, or the unintended consequencesmentioned above: agents which act rational but produce neverthelessirrationalconsequences.Therefore,hegemony isunavoidable inaformoranother,Onufargues,butthelessasymmetric,thebetter.32IftheWestbuiltitsidentityonbothdirectiveandcommissiverules,havinginturnafferentrule, today, assertive rules and rule are becoming more and moreimportant.This, Iargue, isaconsequenceofbarbariansand theiractions.Assertiverulesaretechnical,instructiveand,whatismostimportant,theyeliminate any kind of criticby claiming to have sole possession of the

truth(inwhateverformitsuitsthem).Withthedebatesout,hegemonycanonlybecomeprogressivelyasymmetric.OnufwarnedaboutthisinWorldof

30 John Searle, Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts, New York:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999,viii.31NicholasOnuf,Constructivism, inVendulkaKublkov,NicholasOnuf,PaulCovert,op.cit.,pp.5878.32NicholasOnuf,World.


21/30


ourmaking,arguingabouttheaggressivepublicityandincreasingspectaclecharacterofWesternsocieties,instrumentedbyeliteswhichlegitimatetheirprivilegestroughbothpremodern,ritualisticmeans(secularceremoniesofpoliticians,bureaucratsormanagers)andalsorational,modernones, likemanagingsocialresourceswithscientificinstrumentsandgoals.

TurningbacktoSearlewhichOnufcallsclearlyapositivist33heisdismissive about radical socialconstructivism, accusing it of the samecircularregressionthatIhaveappliedtodiscoursetheory.Ifeverythingissocially constructed, than socialconstructivism itself needs tobe socially

constructed.Beside thismethodological imputation,Searle is also skepticregardingtheemancipatorybreathofsocialconstructivism,regardingitasnave.So,issocialconstructivismatheoreticaltrap?MyanswerisnoandIwilltrytodetailitfurther.

Searles fundamental ontology consists in particles which findthemselvesin fieldforcesandcreatelivingornonliving systems.Someliving systems have evolved to the point where they developedconscience,whichisnothingmorethanabunchofcellslocatedinsidethebrain; conscience is therefore a physical,material aspect. Some of thoseevolvedsystemsalsodevelopintentionalityorthecapacityofthemindto

representobjectsandstateofthingsfromtheoutsideworld,differentfromitself.34Furthermore,Searledistinguishesbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveepistemologyand,respectively,subjectiveandobjectiveontology.IfIlikeapainting more than another I place myself in the field of subjectiveepistemology.IfIinformmyselftofindoutwhereandwhenthatpainter,letssayVanGogh,lived,Ioperatewithobjectiveepistemicdata.IncaseIaccidentally hit a rock, I also have access to subjective ontology: pain issomething that,alonghumans,animals feelaswell.Onedoesnotneedalanguagetoexperiencepain.Itisaprelinguisticsensation.Andtherefore,thinkingcanbealsoprelinguistic.Butthisiswheremyknowledgestops.I

cannot have access to objective ontology. Thought is the last resort thatallows me to experience subjective ontology. Subjective and objectiveepistemology needs more than thinking, they need to be sociallyconstructed.But,tobesociallyconstructed,theyneedanobjectiveontologyto relate to. Otherwise theybecome captives of the circular regression

33Ibidem,p.94.34JohnSearle,Realitateacaproiectsocial,pp.1819.


22/30

EmanuelCopila76

specter. In this way, Searle brilliantly objects to postmodernismsrelativism: it is a question of epistemology, not one of ontology. Noteverything that exists is relative, but everything that we know. Andknowledge canbeboth relativeandobjective.Relative,because therearemany scientific methodologies that provide access, within their ownconceptualizations, to different kind of truths. Objective,because theyprovide specific ways of analisis independent with relation to theresearcher,althoughhowaresearcherchosesitsfieldofstudyisaquestionof husserlian phenomenology, and therefore not totally safe from

subjectivity.On short, for Searle mountains have an objective ontology that

allows them to exist likemountains even in the absenceof everyhumanbeing or every living thing. For Onuf, on the other hand, mountainspossess and undeniable objective ontology,butwedo nothave a singleclueofwhatthisontologyisandhowtoapproachit.Mountainsaresocialconstructionsaccessible tousonlyasmountains.Wehavearrivedhereatthe old philosophical disputebetween realists, forwhich things exist astheydoindependentofhowweperceivethem,andnominalists,whoarguethat the labelweattach to thingsmakes them intelligible tousas things;

outside this labels or names, theworld is absolutemeaningless.We canconclude that constructivism isdivided todayby amodern form of thiscontroversy, which would pace Wendt on the realist side, along withSearle,althoughheisnotaninternationalrelationsscholarandOnufonthenominalist side.But, changing theperspective, constructivismasawholepostpositivistepistemologycanbeplacedinthenominalistside,whilethephilosophiesthatinfuseintellectuallifetothe,letuscallthemprelinguisticturninternationalrelationstheories,arerealist.

So, can we save Onufs radical constructivism from circularregression?Shouldwe,inthelightofthepertinentobjectionsSearlemakes

against it? We should not forget that the world of humans is sociallyconstructed on different degrees. Structures, for example, are sociallyconstructed institutions that have sedimented in time and thereforeachievedanobjectiveexistence.Inrelationtoagents,however,theyarelesssocially constructed. And, what is more important, they need to bepermanently reconstructed inordernot todistance themselves toomuchfromagentsandbydoing this increasingasymmetry.Asasocialscience,


23/30


constructivism deals primary with the social and political world. Itsconceptscannotbeappliedtoallscientificfieldsorallexistenceingeneral,atleastnotsatisfactory.Andasasocialandpoliticalscience,constructivismcannotrenounceanormativeveinintheabsenceofwhichitwouldbenotonly relativistand thereforepostmodern,butalsodangerous in thesensethatitwouldprobablytendtoequatetheNaziorcommunistdiscoursetothe liberalone.Politicsand thesocialworld ingeneralarenotonlyabouthow things are,but, infinitelymore important,how things are andhowshouldtheybe.

Last, but not least, constructivism means, beside concepts andmethodologies,empathy35:inordertoproperlyrelatetotheotherone,wemust,firstofall,knowandunderstandhiminhisownterms.Theconverseisnonethelesstrue.Onlyafterthatwecanbegintoconstructasolidandmutual advantageous relation. Idealistic? Maybe. But all progress theworldexperiencedwasanimatedbyideals.Idealsmustnotbeconfoundedto politics, it is true, but they must act as a corrective against thebarbarizationofpolitics.

As for our barbarians, we can now return to them after thistheoretical constructivist periplus. Although it seemed to syncope the

conceptual continuity of the present essay, the brief discussion ofconstructivism operated in the above pages actually helps clarifying thestake and also somemethodological details of this paper. Namely thatpresentdaybarbariansusepreponderantlyassertivespeechactsandrulesin order to advance alternative constructions in the form of moreasymmetric hegemonies and, nevertheless, barbarians act, on differentsociallevels,bothasagentsandstructuresinattainingthisgoal.

Insteadofconclusions:Hannibalwasneveratthegates,butinside

Thecontemporarycrisissignifies thechanceofmodern identity toimpose itself againstbarbarism andbarbarians. I repeat: the chance ofmodern,notEuropeanidentity;wehavealreadyestablishedthatthiskindofpostmoderndilemmadonotbelongtothepresentessay.Wearelookingfortoolonginawrongdirection. Barbarianswerealwaysandcontinueto

35 Michael Shafir, Radiografii i alte fobii. Studii contemporane, publicistic i pubelistic,Iai:InstitutulEuropean,2010.


24/30


25/30


pacifiersof tiredanddisillusioned agentsand reformersofunresponsivestructures. If agents learned anything from history, now is the time toproveit.Totheassertiveanddirectivespeechactsoftherepresentativesof(neoliberal) structures agents can oppose successfully declarative andcommissive speech acts. And not only speech acts, but also the rulesincorporatingthem.LikeOnufhadanticipatedovertwodecadesago,evennotiftakingintoaccountafutureeconomiccrisisofthescaleandimpactofthepresentonegrowingassertivity isdisbalancing thehistoricorderoftheWesternworld, leading to increased asymmetries and, consequently,

barbarization.Barbarian agents (propagandists,politicalparties,differentextreme movements, some multinational corporations or monetaryinstitutions,dictatorialstates)donothingbesidesgivinginstructionsaboutwheredidweendupandhowwecanovercomethepresentstateofaffairs.Inotherwords,thereisnoothernarrativebuttheirown:weareinvitedtoeither be part of it or be part of it later, after regretting our initialimprudence.Criticalapproachesordebates,alternativeconstructionstobeprecise, are condescendingly dismissed as eternal wails which onlycomplicate the situation further instead of resolving it. Barbarianstructures,ontheotherhand,(someofthemalsoagents,dependingonthe

interactions and the social level of observation), distribute resources inwaysthatdisadvantagesocialagents(peopleprotestinginthestreets,nongovernmental organizations, human rights activists and any other formsocialorganizationcondemningtheworkofbarbarians)butpresentingitastheonlypossibleandrationalwaytoact.Themeaningofrationality,likethemeaningofmucheverythingelse, isthereforeconfiscatedandbecomesaprivilegedtoolforelitespreoccupiedofconsolidatingtheirpositionswiththepriceofincreasingasymmetriesandtheassertiverulesandrulebehindthem.Hannibalisthereforeinthecity.Andhispowersaregrowing.

We should finally overcome the anarchistic conceptions of the

possibilityofexistenceandprosperityforagentsoutsidestructures.Wrong!Agentscannotexistoutsidestructuresandstructurescannotexistoutsideagents. The activities of agents, whatever are they, can only reproducestructureswhich,on their turn, try to temperate theagents,evenproducethem in a consumeristway and thereby removing them from their realinterestsandpossibilitiesofaction.Allthatremainsisthereproductionofstructures in adirection as equitable aspossible.Buthow can agentsbe


26/30

EmanuelCopila80

motivated to actwhen their carelessness only consolidates structures inundemocraticways?Idonotknow.WhatIdonow,toparaphraseMarx,isthattheyhaveonlytheirchainstolose.Whatworldcouldbegainedafterthecrisis?Hopefully,alessasymmetricone.

I cannot finishwithoutpointingoutonceagain thatmy intentionwasnottopraisetheWest,buttoaffirmacommonsensetruth,namelytheWesthas,today,themost importantmaterialandintellectualresourcestodeal with the crisis. How it obtained them is another story. I am notimplyingtheWestwillonceagainreconfigurethepostcrisisworldafterits

image and likeness. This is no longer undesirable,but impossible. Thestructureof thepostAmerican internationalsystemor thepostAmericanworld, as FareedZakaria refers to it,36with the risk ofusing hard andgeneral terms,belongsnow, inBraudels longuedure, to thepopulatedEast of the globe. It is neither the time nor place to start interminablediscussions over a new international ethics, a newmentality and so on.Thisisalreadydonebysomanyothers.Letusjustlookatthemigrationofinternational capital in China and India. And to the growing Asianinvestments in research and exact sciences.37 The crisis did not affect somuch the emerging markets as it hit the global economic centre. The

neoliberalspeculationsmadethevirtualprosperityofcreditscrumblelikeahouseofcards,whileChinasmonetaryandmercantilepolicies,basedonstocking liquidities, helps Beijingmovemore freely in the internationalfinancial chaos.But thepriceordinaryChinesepay for this isbarbarism.Withotherwords, letusnotdesireanother formofbarbarism to replaceourowntypes. Thisisnothingmorethanbarbarismitself.

In a way, the undergoing global process is similar to whathappenedattheendofthe16thcentury,andataconsiderablesmallerscale,inEurope:theprotestantnorthernpartofthecontinenttriumphedagainsttheCatholicsouth.WasitWebersprotestantethicthatwon?Orthephobia

of predestinations uncertainties, which would have triggered wealthaccumulations from the part of believers in order to please God, as

36FareedZakaria,ThepostAmericanworldandtheriseoftheRest,NewYork:PenguinBooks,2008.37 See in this regard Thomas Fiedman, Theworld isflat.A brief history of the Twentyfirstcentury,NewYork:Picador/Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2007.


27/30


Hirschmanexpandstheargument?38Noonecandenythatprotestantethicsplayedamajoridentitaryroleinamoreandmoreuncertainandbasicallyforced to reconstruct itself space, as Catholicism kept the old socialstructures of the Roman Empire, immobile and little or not at allpredisposed to accept the socialeconomic dynamics and the permanentrisksentailedbycapitalism.ButtheEuropeannorthimposeditselffirstofallbecauseitfacilitatednavigationbybuildingsmaller,cheaperandfasterships than the heavy Portuguese galleys, for example.And the costs ofshipping merchandise, capitalisms moving force, become proportional

much lower.Moreover, thewoodor cereal reservesof thenorth impulsethedevelopmentofalongdistancetransportnetworkwhichthecapitalistboom amplified exponentially, also profitingby the massive economiccrisisthatthesouthunderwentattheendofthe16thcentury.39Wallersteinshares the same opinion.Although it considers that protestant theologyreasonsmorewithcapitalismthanCatholictheologyhedoesnotforgettoadd that, On the other hand, it seems generally true that any complexsystem of ideas canbemanipulated in order to serve a certain social orpolitic objective. His conclusion resonates profoundly with that ofBraudels: Trough a series of accidental historical developments,

Protestantismcame tobe identified, ina largeextent,during theReform,with forces that favored the expansion of commercial capitalism,withinstrong nationstates, and with countries in which these forces weredominant.40 Global south is today in a similar position to that of theEuropeannorthapproximatelyhalfofmillenniaago.

TheWestcanonlyhandoverthetorchtoapostWesternworldtowhichsgenesisweareassisting,occupyingofcourseacentralpositioninthismaybenotsolongueduretransition.Idonotregretthenewsideofevents and I am not complaining, like Oswald Spengler or Samuel

38SeeMaxWeber,Eticaprotestant ispiritulcapitalismului,Bucureti:Humanitas,2007andAlbertHirschman,Pasiunile iinteresele.Argumentepoliticenfavoareacapitalismuluianterioaretriumfuluisu,Bucureti:Humanitas,2004.39FernandBraudel,Civilization andCapitalism,15th18thCentury,TheWheels of change,pp.569572.40ImmanuelWallerstein,Sistemulmondialmodern,vol.1,p.220.


28/30

EmanuelCopila82

Huntington did, about the decline of the West.41 I am just trying tounderstand itandplead,with themeansavailable tome, for its fairness.Every systembifurcates, sooner or later,Wallerstein argues, and is tobereplacedbyanotherone.Whatwecanandmustdoiswarnandactagainstthebarbarizationoftheworldabouttobeborn.

Bibliography:

1. Adler, Emmanuel (2005), Communitarian international relations,Routledge,NewYork.

2. Balibar,Etienne (1994),Masses,Classes, Ideas.StudiesonPoliticsandPhilosophybeforeandafterMarx,NewYork&London,Routledge.

3. Braudel,Fernand,(1981,1982,1984),CivilizationandCapitalism,15th18thCentury,vol.1,2,3,TheStructuresofeveryday life.The limitsofthepossible;TheWheelsofchange;ThePerspectiveoftheWorld,London,Glasgow, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto, Johannesburg: WilliamCollinsSons&CoLtd.

4. Braudel, Fernand (1994), Gramatica civilizaiilor, vol. II, Bucureti:Meridiane.

5. Callinicos,Alex (2004),Egalitatea. Srcie i inegalitate n economiiledezvoltate,Bucureti:Antet.

6. Copila, Emanuel (2009), Dincolo de teoria critic. O posibilinserare a filosofiei politice habermasiene n teoria relaiilorinternaionale,inSferaPoliticii,nr.138,pp.96113.

7. Davies, Glyn (2002),A history of money. From ancient times to thepresentday,Cardiff:UniversityofWalesPress.

8. De Tocqueville, Alexis (2005), Despre democraie n America,Bucureti:Humanitas,vol.II.

9. Friedman, Thomas (2007), The world is flat. A brief history of theTwentyfirstcentury,NewYork:Picador/Farrar,StrausandGiroux.

10.Gauchet,Marcel (2006),Dezvrjirea lumii.O istoriepolitica religiei,Bucureti,Nemira.

11.Gauchet,Marcel(2006),Ieireainreligie,Bucureti,Humanitas.41SeeOswaldSpengler,ThedeclineoftheWest,NewYork,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006 and SamuelHuntington,Ciocnirea civilizaiilor i refacerea ordiniimondiale, Bucureti:Antet,1998.


29/30


12.Giddens,Anthony (1984), The constitution of society.Outline of thetheory of structuration, Berkeley & Los Angeles, University ofCaliforniaPress.

13.Giddens, Anthony; Pierson, Charles (1998), Conversations withAnthony Giddens: making sense of modernity, Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress.

14.Gould, Harry (1998), What is at stake in the agentstructuredebate?, in Kublkov Vendulka; Onuf Nicholas; Kovert, Paul,Internationalrelationsinaconstructedworld,Armonk,M.E.Sharpe.

15.Gramsci,Antonio(1969),OpereAlese,Bucureti,EdituraPolitic.16.Habermas,Jrgen;Ratzinger,Joseph, (2005),Dialectica secularizrii.

Despreraiune ireligie,ClujNapoca:Apostof.17.Heilbronner, Robert (2005), Filosofii lucrurilor pmnteti. Vieile,

epocile idoctrinelemariloreconomiti,Bucureti:Humanitas.18.Hirschman,Albert(2004),Pasiunile iinteresele.Argumentepoliticen

favoarea capitalismului anterioare triumfului su, traduceredeVictorRizescu,Bucureti,Humanitas.

19.Huch,Ricarda(2011),Romantismulgerman,Bucureti,Humanitas.20.Huntington, Samuel (1998),Ciocnirea civilizaiilor i refacerea ordinii

mondiale,Bucureti:Antet.21.Koakowski, Leszek (2007),Modernitatea sub un neobosit colimator,

Bucureti,CurteaVeche.22.Koakowski, Leszek (2010), Principalele curente ale marxismului.

Prbuirea,vol.III,Bucureti,CurteaVeche.23.Kublkova, Vendulka; Cruickshank, A. (1980), MarxismLeninism

and theory of international relations, London, Boston and Henley,Routledge&KeganPaul.

24.Kuhn,Thomas(1996),ThestructureofScientificRevolutions,ChicagoandLondon,TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

25.Kukla, Andre, (2002), Constructivism and the philosophy of science,NewYork,Taylor&Francis.26.Laclau, Ernesto; Mouffe, Chantall (2001), Hegemony and socialist

strategy. Towards a radical democratic politics, London, New York:Verso.

27.Mamina, Alexandru (2010), Redefinirea identitii. Pentru o socialdemocraiecritic,Trgovite:CetateadeScaun.


30/30

EmanuelCopila84

28.Noica,Constantin(1990),Jurnalfilosofic,Bucureti:Humanitas,1990.29.Onuf,Nicholas (1989),World of ourmaking.Rules and rule in social

theory and international relations, Columbia: University of SouthCarolinaPress.

30.Onuf, Nicholas (1998), Constructivism, A users manual, inKublkov Vendulka; Onuf Nicholas; Kovert, Paul, Internationalrelationsinaconstructedworld,Armonk,M.E.Sharpe.

31.Rmbu,Nicolae(2001),Romantismulfilosoficgerman,Iai:Polirom.32.Searle,John (1999),Expression andmeaning. Studies in the theory of

speechacts,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.33.Searle,John(2000),Realitateacaproiectsocial,Iai:Polirom.34.Shafir,Michael (2010), Radiografii i altefobii. Studii contemporane,

publicistic ipubelistic,Iai:InstitutulEuropean.35.Spengler,Oswald(2006),ThedeclineoftheWest,NewYork,Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress.36.Taibbi,Matt(2010),Griftopia.Bubblemachines,vampiresquadsandthe

longconthatisbreakingAmerica,NewYork:SPIEGEL&GRAU.37.VanderWeywer,Robert(2001),Islamul iOccidentul.Onouordine

politic ireligioasdup11septembrie,Bucureti:ALLFA.

38.Vesalon, Lucian (2010), Populism i neoliberalism n discursulmodernizrii statului, in Gherghina, Sergiu; Micoiu, Sergiu,(ed.),Partide ipersonalitipopuliste nRomniapostcomunist, Iai:InstitutulEuropean.

39.Wallerstein,Immanuel(1992,1993)Sistemulmondialmodern,vol.1,2,3,4,Agricultura capitalist i originile economieimondiale europene nsecolul al XVIlea; Mercantilism i consolidarea economiei mondialeeuropene,16001750,Bucureti:Meridiane.

40.Weber, Max (2007), Etica protestant i spiritul capitalismului,Bucureti:Humanitas.

41.Wendt,Alexander (1999),Social theory of internationalpolitics,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.42.Wolf,Eric,(2001),Europa ipopulaiilefristorie,Chiinu:Arc.43.Zakaria, Fareed (2008), ThepostAmerican world and the rise of the

Rest,NewYork:PenguinBooks.

Documents

Hannibal is in the City. Several Reflections on Contemporary Barbarians. a Social-constructivist Approach