Most readers probably haven’t spent much time thinking about the practice of nepotism. In this article, I don’t intend to convince you that nepotism is good or bad. Rather, I want to show that nepotism provides a useful entry point for thinking about contemporary trends in the politics of many countries.
Conservatives often Family, Faithand flagBut how much importance should we place on family, religion, and country? Consider this sliding scale of intensity:
1. No religion <—–> Moderate Religion <—–> A devout religious
2. Cosmopolitanism <—–> Moderate nationalism <—–> Strong nationalism
3. Pure Egalitarianism <—–> Nordic family values <—–> Strong family bias
People often describe fervent religious faith as “religious fanaticism,” a term that has negative connotations. I’m not religious, but I don’t see why it’s bad to fervently adhere to a set of beliefs that are considered good and important. I’ll try to stay away from value judgement in this article.
It’s the second and third issues – attitudes toward family and nation – that interest me most here. A cosmopolitan might call himself a “citizen of the world” and claim to have no prejudice against the country of his birth. A moderate nationalist might strongly oppose the intense nationalism found in places like Russia, but still might to some extent support social institutions that support the nation’s inhabitants over those of foreign countries.
In many parts of the world, it is considered unethical do not have They show strong favoritism towards those with whom they are related by blood. In contrast, in places such as Scandinavia, where nepotism in hiring is widely seen as unethical, family ties are weak. Few people show any kind of favoritism towards family members, but it is possible to imagine people who complain that they can choose their friends but not their family, and who are friendly towards those who have similar interests but are not close relatives.
I grew up in a culture that leans toward a “middle ground” position on all three scales, and I’m not interested in supporting or criticizing that position. Instead, I’m interested in thinking about the logic behind each position, especially on the last two scales (attitudes toward state and family). Why is it so hard to determine which attitude is appropriate? Is the “middle ground” approach I grew up with just lazy thinking? Remember? Thomas De Quincey’s Famous Joke:
Moderation is certainly something that all human beings should strive for. But it is easier said than done. My weakness is that I am notoriously soft-hearted and find it difficult to maintain a steady equinox between the extremes of too much murder on the one hand and too little murder on the other.
Why do the above cases seem so clearly different from one extreme to the other? Let’s consider two terms with very different connotations: bias and solidarity.
In America, prejudice is considered unethical, and there are various laws that prohibit favoring one group over another. In contrast, solidarity has positive connotations and is obviously linked to patriotism and family values, but also to union solidarity and loyalty to sports teams. But prejudice and solidarity go hand in hand.
It would be hard to come up with a “rational” reason for why I root for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team; I haven’t lived in Wisconsin for over 40 years, and I wasn’t in Milwaukee when I did. On the other hand, it’s easy to explain why I’m a Bucks fan; they were my local team on TV when I started watching the NBA in 1968, and once I got hooked, I stuck with them. Similarly, people usually (but not always) favor the religion, country, and family they attended in their youth.
Nepotism is a strong form of family values, or family favoritism. It may seem obvious to you that nepotism is unethical. However, many (most?) people around the world do not feel that way. In fact, they may consider your refusal to engage in nepotism to be highly unethical. Sociologists use the acronym WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) to describe our culture.
In my view, the tension between solidarity and prejudice increasingly dominates modern politics. Authoritarian nationalism, with some important exceptions, tends to lean toward the middle and right of the three scales. Liberalism, again with important exceptions, leans toward the middle and left of the three scales.
Concept tradition The right probably plays a bigger role than the left. In places like Russia, liberals are criticized (perhaps unfairly) for abandoning religion, family values, and patriotism. Liberals might counter that supporting the concept of same-sex marriage is actually consistent with family values. When conservatives criticize gay rights, transgender rights, abortion, etc., I think what they have implicitly in mind is the idea that once you start down that path, you end up with a kind of radical individualism that erodes the solidarity that is the foundation of family and nation. If there is no logical reason not to allow people to pursue certain lifestyles, then (as some might say) there is no reason why I wouldn’t switch from the Bucks to the Celtics, or change my roots from the U.S. Winter Olympic team to the Norwegian Winter Olympic team.
In some cases, tensions exist even within a particular ideological framework. My favorite example is the Dutch right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn, who opposed Muslim immigration because he feared it would threaten the country’s “traditional values” of liberalism in areas such as gay rights. French conservatives are against women of different cultures. I didn’t wear a bikini at the beach.That is, there are important exceptions, cases where people do not line up equally on all three scales.
(Recall the famous paradox: Should liberals tolerate the intolerant?)
Some experts point out that blue-collar workers in many countries are switching from left to right, which can be understood as a reaction to the collapse of communism: as the working-class dream of socialism became increasingly unrealistic, politics shifted focus to the issue of socialism. IdentityBoth left-wing trade unionism and right-wing nationalism can be seen as prioritizing solidarity over prejudice. From this perspective, the core ideology of the working class has not changed, rather the issues have. In contrast, liberals tend to be very concerned about prejudice and to place less importance on family and national solidarity.
Proposals to combat global warming are plagued by the “externalities problem.” It is not surprising, then, that voters who in the 20th century showed trade union solidarity when voting for socialism now show national solidarity when voting for a right-wing party that opposes a carbon tax, the benefits of which would go mostly to foreigners and the costs would be borne domestically.
In summary, 20th century politics tended to split along the lines of socialism and capitalism; in the 21st century, attitudes towards the relative importance of socialism and capitalism seem to be the dividing line. bias and solidarity.
P.S.: I have previously argued that nationalism and patriotism are entirely different things. I have not addressed that thorny topic here.
