In his TED talk, Dan Dennett speaks about the strange inversion of reasoning which allowed for the idea behind Darwinism to be born. This theory is still counter-intuitive to us, as we are quite used to the notion of things created by our own intelligence. We cannot imagine that nature has simply built itself up from nothing and so we presume that everything is just laying out there for us to use. One example he gives is that we don’t eat sugar, because it is sweet, but rather it tastes sweet to us, because we need it. It’s really an evolutionary thing. Such an invention of thinking doesn’t really change the taste of our coffee in the morning, but how we understand our own thinking process and how we look at things.
I would claim that we need a similar sort of inversion when it comes to th!nking about the EU and its affairs. Currently we employ in extensive discussions about the inner- and interstate politics, balance of executive power, the effect of legislation over different EU member and finally, but quite importantly – the EP election and the issues that MEP candidates may bring along or solve. Talking about such topics will take forever and might resolve some problems, but will not make the EU any less boring and more „sexy“ for the public.
Instead, we should discuss individual cases. I know that the EU is a union and it’s the big picture that counts. Europe however is so diverse in terms of culture, economics and understanding of the world, that I don’t see how we can have just one big picture. That is why we should show the people how this union will be beneficial in their own cases. We have many examples to be inspired from - a businessman, who is able to travel and export goods across the borders more easily, the buyer, who can purchase from different countries on the same terms or the farmer, who is able to enlarge his farm thanks to external funds. This economic effect is important, but we shouldn’t forget the political benefits as well. In Bulgaria the public is disillusioned with the government and politics as a whole. The EU brings hope of better control and accountability. In the more general case, the combined diplomatic weight of the EU could ensure that gas prices and imports will stay stable, so that each family and business can better plan their future.
We all see the EU differently as we are ourselves very different. The eastern countries see it as a new opportunity, a stabilizing factor and a recognition of their progress. Western countries on the other hand fell a bit tired of the political games over the past 50+ years and perceive the acceptance of new members as a sort of charity. This wide gap is widened even more by numerous small struggles between EU members and sadly it shifts the focus of our goal - to be united. We put most of our energy in keeping the EU from falling apart, instead of seeking a different design. This is where an inversion should take place - we should not see the EU as monument, which we are to build from parts that don’t match, but rather as a tool for resolving our differences that has a few setbacks. This approach to EU affairs may not seem that different from the current dialog, but to the public it could mean a big change. I am sure that every EU citizen can add a piece to the puzzle of misunderstanding and disjointness of the union from his/her own experience. I strongly believe that once we build that picture, we will be able to see what we need the EU to be and not just hold on to what we’ve got.
In my recent post about a trip around Europe that several students have undertaken, you can find a good example of an approach, which I see as a step in the right direction.
Bulgarian version of this article here:
(26 votes, average: 4.23 out of 5)
Loading ...
that’s an interesting view!
Thank you.
This whole idea has been maturing in the back of my head for the past few weeks. I know it is not directly related to the EP elections, but if people see my point of view, it may change the way we look at the election campaigns.
I think it can be related with the EP elections: if the way of thinking changes than this might effect electorate behaviour. Or are we just too idealistic :)?
not than but then-sorry
Well, we are both a bit too idealistic, but that’s the point of all this - putting out our ideas and suggestions in hope that the readers will pick them up. Thus each of us could induce change in a few minds and the combined effect may improve things. This may seem idealistic, but it turns out to be the reality at the same time.
[...] статията ви харесва, моля гласувайте в блогa Th!nk About It: Why we need an inversion of th!nking about the EUТам ще намерите английската версия на статията, както [...]