Just a quick take on Gillian Tett's article a while ago on the psychology of the eurozone crisis as it applies to distressed nations. It's obviously paramount to get a comprehensive historical understanding of the european political psyche post WWII to analyze how people and politicians have been reacting and why they do so but Tett makes an important, if not exact point.
The background is that (as British sociologist Dennis Smith puts is) - the post-war european experience has been self-characterized and presented as a post-humiliation regime constructed to heal the wounds of the second world war and foster liberty, equality, (and more tellingly), fraternity. Post-crisis, it is humiliation that has returned, drawing stark, naked and divisive lines among nations in the union.
Conventional psychologists differentiate between shame and humiliation through the source - one is internally driven while the other is external, characterized by "a loss of autonomy, demotion of status and finally exclusion of the group".
What's important is the response, which Tett says can be short-term (flight, rebellion or disassociation) and long-term (acceptance, challenge etc.)
But such thinking is commonplace. Investors often attempt to get a sense of state when analyzing market sentiment or crises by looking at position on the cycle of denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance. And it is here where the contrast is drawn between Ireland and Greece, with Spain open for debate.
According to Smith, Ireland, having lived in British dominance has innate "cultural coping mechanisms" to deal with this and the response to crisis has been escape (emigration), pragmatic conciliation (reform) and defiant compliance.
Naturally Greece looks nothing like this. Perhaps it is due to the high level of national pride and fervour - that during the prosperity years when millions were rescued by public sector expansion, the past was conveniently forgotten and the present (recent past) was embraced. This could explain the state of shock and reaction from Greece compared to Ireland, where "politicians are physically attacked in the streets...public buildings are set on fire...german politicians are caricatured as Nazis".
But what about Spain?
I would presume that Spain has an added state of confusion, with a lot of each thrown in - enough denial, dollops of anger, attempts at bargaining, an uncertain sense of depression and perhaps a latent form of acceptance.
Spain is not Greece, and to generalize sovereign nations under basic psychological reaction would be foolish but it seems the key here is pragmatic conciliation - something Greece has not and perhaps cannot adhere to. For all the pragmatism in the world will not ease the pain of conciliation and that is something Greece continues to learn in the worst of ways.
Tett shifts the focus of Spanish pride in requesting assistance to the 'strong eurozone leaders' (cue: Merkel). It should serve as a plea: to be mindful of the state of national psyche when attempting to enforce a solution.
The background is that (as British sociologist Dennis Smith puts is) - the post-war european experience has been self-characterized and presented as a post-humiliation regime constructed to heal the wounds of the second world war and foster liberty, equality, (and more tellingly), fraternity. Post-crisis, it is humiliation that has returned, drawing stark, naked and divisive lines among nations in the union.
Conventional psychologists differentiate between shame and humiliation through the source - one is internally driven while the other is external, characterized by "a loss of autonomy, demotion of status and finally exclusion of the group".
What's important is the response, which Tett says can be short-term (flight, rebellion or disassociation) and long-term (acceptance, challenge etc.)
But such thinking is commonplace. Investors often attempt to get a sense of state when analyzing market sentiment or crises by looking at position on the cycle of denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance. And it is here where the contrast is drawn between Ireland and Greece, with Spain open for debate.
According to Smith, Ireland, having lived in British dominance has innate "cultural coping mechanisms" to deal with this and the response to crisis has been escape (emigration), pragmatic conciliation (reform) and defiant compliance.
Naturally Greece looks nothing like this. Perhaps it is due to the high level of national pride and fervour - that during the prosperity years when millions were rescued by public sector expansion, the past was conveniently forgotten and the present (recent past) was embraced. This could explain the state of shock and reaction from Greece compared to Ireland, where "politicians are physically attacked in the streets...public buildings are set on fire...german politicians are caricatured as Nazis".
But what about Spain?
I would presume that Spain has an added state of confusion, with a lot of each thrown in - enough denial, dollops of anger, attempts at bargaining, an uncertain sense of depression and perhaps a latent form of acceptance.
Spain is not Greece, and to generalize sovereign nations under basic psychological reaction would be foolish but it seems the key here is pragmatic conciliation - something Greece has not and perhaps cannot adhere to. For all the pragmatism in the world will not ease the pain of conciliation and that is something Greece continues to learn in the worst of ways.
Tett shifts the focus of Spanish pride in requesting assistance to the 'strong eurozone leaders' (cue: Merkel). It should serve as a plea: to be mindful of the state of national psyche when attempting to enforce a solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment