In the previous article, we saw that the trend toward authoritarianism in the West is not new. It is linked to the erosion of values like prosperity and work under the pressures of globalization and digitalization. This deep-seated trend signals dark times ahead in the coming years and decades, and the recent election of Trump seems to mark its beginning.
With growing national and international tensions and the rise of nationalism, there can be a strong urge to take a stand or act to prevent further dramatic missteps. However, trying to fight protectionist idealizations with liberal or egalitarian ones will only fuel conflicts without addressing the underlying issue: the questioning of prosperity and work.
As long as this questioning remains unspoken, conflicts are likely to feed on themselves. For example, when politicians continue to rely on promises of prosperity—offering grand visions or, at the very least, economic improvements—they only exacerbate tensions while undermining the credibility of the political sphere.
In this geopolitical context, it’s easy, especially through psychological projection, to get caught up in social chaos. It’s also possible to take a step back from a situation over which we have no control, accepting a sense of powerlessness that contrasts sharply with the idealizations of power we’re fed daily, politically and economically.
The notion of distance has gradually become central to my philosophy because, over the years, I’ve realized how much nurturing idealizations and trying to convince others of their validity only fuels opposition, even when driven by the “best intentions.” Two incompatible conceptions of the good can lead to war. The competition and conflict between idealizations are socially and psychologically harmful: along with economic competition, these tensions are major sources of stress and anxiety in contemporary societies.
On the contrary, peace—both social and mental—is cultivated by stepping back from idealizations and from those who carry them, which requires a deep analysis of the psychosocial reality. It is cultivated by expressing one’s views, shaped by prior analysis, without striving to convert others—and sometimes by remaining silent. It involves a form of tolerance that goes beyond mere acceptance of differences: it’s the acceptance that others, including our closed relationships, may stray or even head toward their downfall. This tolerance is a kind of freedom—the freedom not to sacrifice oneself for those who are blinded and not to feel guilty for situations, however tragic, for which we are not responsible.