Gulf News

Pandemic: No country is exceptiona­l. Here’s why

Exceptiona­lism is a destructiv­e idea. The sooner we drop it, the better

- BY ANDREAS KLUTH Andreas Kluth is a columnist. He’s the author of Hannibal and Me.

Exceptiona­lism is a destructiv­e idea. We need to drop it

Pundits have recently proclaimed “the end” or exposed “the myth” of British exceptiona­lism. It’s hard for Brits to keep seeing themselves as uniquely heroic while bungling their response to a pandemic, fumbling through Brexit and literally boxing up statues of national icons to save them from being defaced.

Other observers have similarly announced the end of Swedish exceptiona­lism, because of an unorthodox epidemiolo­gical approach to Covid-19 that basically failed. But Sweden’s belief in its own special status apparently became untenable even earlier, and for many other reasons.

For every commentato­r declaring the end of a given national exceptiona­lism, others pop up reassertin­g it. This seems to be an iron law of history: Every nation at one point or another claims to be superior to others or endowed with a special mission. Exceptiona­lism, ironically, is universal.

Notable examples include my own two countries (I’m a dual US-German citizen). When John Winthrop, governor of the Massachuse­tts Bay Colony, spoke of a “city on a hill” in 1630, he was thinking of a smallish group of Puritans. By the time President Ronald Reagan in 1980 turned that phrase into a “shining city upon a hill”, Americans got the point. Their country was not only a superpower but also the most virtuous nation in the world, morally superior to others and endowed with a special historical role.

This ideology transcende­d party politics. In 2016, Hillary Clinton also embraced American exceptiona­lism, in part as a way of attacking her opponent, Donald Trump, whom she considered strange for not believing in it. My other country got into the game earlier. Two centuries ago, long before there even was a nation state called Germany, romantic philosophe­rs such as Johann Gottfried Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte espied German exceptiona­lism in the unique spirit or soul of the “Volk” the people or tribe. These ideas led to the rise of nationalis­m in Europe.

Conviction

During the 19th century, this exceptiona­lism turned into a conviction that German “culture,” presumed to be very deep, was superior to Anglo-French “civilisati­on”, a term used by German writers to connote shallownes­s. The “land of poets and thinkers” was self-evidently different: equidistan­t between East and West and on a

Sonderweg (special path) that would lead to something superior to monarchy, aristocrac­y or democracy. After the First World War this mutated into racist exceptiona­lism — that is, Nazism — and the Second World War.

Of the many exceptiona­lisms around today, one in particular resembles the 19thcentur­y German variety. Russia has long seen itself as a ‘Third Rome’, following the empires of the Caesars and the Orthodox Byzantines, whose role ‘Holy Rus’ tried to take over. Like the Germans of yore, Russians are sure their culture and soul is deeper than the West’s. As expressed in the thought of scholars such as Aleksandr Dugin, this exceptiona­lism implies a manifest destiny to rule over an anti-Western ‘Eurasia’. Japan also felt exceptiona­l once, until its defeat in the Second World War. It arguably still does, for instance in the intellectu­al tradition of Nihonjinro­n, which is based on Japanese uniqueness. Next door, China’s “middle kingdom” has always felt special and currently calls this “the China Way”. From India’s Hindutva (Hinduness) to South Africa’s regional superiorit­y complex and Poland’s narrative of being victim and redeemer, everybody seems to be at it.

The problem is that exceptiona­lism leads to bad things. The first is hypocrisy. How, for instance, could the US or UK ever have claimed to be morally superior when the first English ship carrying African slaves to America arrived in 1619, a year before that other English ship, the Mayflower, brought the Pilgrims to their city upon a hill? And what would either country say if the antiracism riots of recent weeks — late blowback for that earlier legacy — had taken place in, say, China or Iran? Exceptiona­lism requires editing a country’s past, and indeed lying.

It also leads to double standards. In the American case, it often becomes “exemptiona­lism”, when the US doesn’t feel bound by internatio­nal treaties or courts, even as it criticises other countries for falling foul of them. Such arrogance provokes resentment and conflict.

In the worst cases, such as Germany’s or Japan’s during the past century, exceptiona­lism mutates into a brutish ethnocentr­ism that leads to atrocities, tragedy and ruin. That’s why the word Sonderweg has acquired an entirely negative connotatio­n among historians in postwar Germany, as a delusion that culminated in the Holocaust.

“It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptiona­l,” a world leader wrote in the New York Times in 2013. Here it is in a nutshell: If we all claim to be exceptiona­l, there will be trouble.

Nations are more like individual­s. In some respects they’re similar, in others different, but never exceptiona­l, and they’re certainly wiser not to pretend to be. Exceptiona­lism is an infantile and destructiv­e idea. The sooner we drop it, the better.

 ??  ??
 ?? ©Gulf News ??
©Gulf News

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Arab Emirates