The pursuit of rational self-interest, long thought to be the single most important factor determining the behaviour of political actors, may no longer be regarded as such. Andrey Bystritskiy, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club, describes the “politics of impressions” that has come to define the contemporary political climate—in this environment, emotions and feelings reign supreme, while traditional notions of calculated profit-seeking end up relegated to the background.
Until quite recently, money, capital, and economic self-interest were universally regarded as the dominant forces shaping global processes. As Joseph Dunning famously put it—in a passage later quoted by Marx in Capital—with a 300 percent profit, there is no crime a capitalist would not dare commit. Recent developments, however, seem to challenge this view.
A considerable portion of the world politics we witness today is extremely difficult to explain through simple rational interests. Take, for example, the leadership of the European Union, whose actions are quite obviously damaging the very countries of Western Europe themselves. One may, of course, argue that not everyone loses out: the Baltic states, for instance, are in a fairly advantageous position. They are effectively beneficiaries of Brussels’ actions: they receive subsidies, foreign soldiers from every conceivable country increase the takings of local bars and raise the birth rate, while unemployed builders find work erecting concrete posts and barbed wire around military training grounds. Or, one might point out that amid general economic decline, heavy industry, arms production, and the manufacture of assorted military goods are flourishing.
Yet if we accept these considerations—and they are almost self-evident—then this means that EU policy reflects the inability of its leadership to look soberly at reality and formulate policies that correspond to the shared interests of the Union’s member states. Moreover, Brussels’ conduct vividly demonstrates that at the foundation of this union lies the worldview of a rather specific group of people. Thus, their views and prejudices, their childhood and adult traumas, their selfishness and short-sightedness, are precisely the ingredients from which their public—and, more importantly, their non-public—activity is composed. Self-interest and economic considerations certainly play their role, but by no means as straightforwardly as was still believed relatively recently. And one must also take into account the entirely new communicative, digital world, in which, it seems to me, we have not yet learned how to operate.
The idea mentioned above—that a 300 percent profit justifies any crime—is, of course, a reflection of the nineteenth century: an age steeped in rationality, positivism, and the hope of universal happiness. Yet even then, the classical Marxists understood and clearly stated that human beings differ radically from bees precisely because they think and devise plans to achieve what they desire. Hence, it has always been an oversimplification to assume that a narrowly conceived lust for profit and the interests of capital alone drive the engine of development. Coins, for example, are believed to have appeared only in the sixth or seventh centuries BC. The value of gold was not self-evident for a very long time. Spanish conquistadors struggled to explain to the indigenous peoples that gold possessed great value. Gold existed, certainly, but the idea that it constituted the supreme measure of worth was unknown to them. Consequently, they treated it without particular reverence.
The principal source of all human action in any sphere lies within the human mind. And human beings compete only with other human beings. If, within a given society, success is defined as the accumulation of gold, then people will fight for gold. If, within a given community, the possession of weapons is admired, then weapons will be amassed, collected, and flaunted. And if, within a research institute, the measure of achievement is scientific discovery—rather than gifts to the director—then science will flourish. Naturally, much is mediated. The reference group by which a person measures himself may even be imaginary and consist of mythological heroes. Yet it nonetheless exists. And intra-species competition is always fiercer than inter-species competition, as Konrad Lorenz once observed.
But let us return to the present situation. Many of the decisions made by the European Union, taken here as an example, are the product of two vectors: the ideas residing in the minds of Eurocrats, and competition for positions within the hierarchy of power. Naturally, material self-interest is present here as well, but it merely serves as additional fuel for the competition. The competition itself unfolds within a space constructed in the minds of those fighting for their place in the sun—albeit in the shadow of Ursula von der Leyen.
In general, people’s ideas about what they need and what is worth spending money on are largely based upon conscious or unconscious expectations regarding the impressions and emotions that an acquired product or service will evoke. The “experience economy”, so to speak. And now, it seems, the time has come to begin speaking of a “politics of impressions”. That is, of a situation in which anticipated emotional experiences determine the character of political action more strongly than the rational interests of the actual political actor.
Of course, it would be mistaken to assume that emotional, or even irrational, behaviour in politics is something new. The Crusades and the Age of Discovery were motivated not only by geopolitical considerations, hopes of rich plunder, or high and solvent demand for spices, but also by spiritual and psychological experiences. In situations of acute conflict, emotional experiences play no minor role, often transforming a more or less comprehensible quarrel into a bloody massacre with unpredictable consequences.
So, again, the importance of emotional experience, mental constructs, and systems of values in politics has long been recognised. People—including politicians—have not changed all that much. Their behaviour appears fundamentally similar to what it was centuries ago. What has changed is something else—the communicative environment in which we live. The digital space has arrived, along with all manner of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, through which we now operate within this space.
The aforementioned experience economy emerged only recently not because consumers themselves became different. Just as before, they wish to buy what is beautiful and delicious, attractive, and capable of enhancing their self-esteem. As is well known, when people purchase a product, they are buying their future self, their dream. It is no coincidence that advertising is built upon selling the client an image of the future they desire. This, in itself, is nothing new. What is new is the incredible abundance of goods, the fierce competition, and the fantastical level of technological development and engineering mastery. Consequently, reaching the consumer and getting through to them has become far more difficult. The ability to captivate and enter into the consumer’s emotional system has become an essential part of a product’s value. It is no coincidence that design has developed so extensively—it is a means of individualising a product and making it recognisable.
Naturally, the rules of political life are somewhat different, and there is, of course, no direct equivalence with economics. Nevertheless, political life itself has largely migrated into the digital environment. This means that political communication has become far more effective, faster, and more complex. Furthermore, the new informational and communicative environment has made it possible radically to alter mass participation in political life, and in at least three ways. First, not only the right, but also the practical possibility of expressing one’s opinion has become accessible to virtually everyone. Second, an age of informational abundance has arrived—the number of information sources is, without exaggeration, limitless, while the reliability of these sources is exceedingly difficult to verify. Third, the creation of communities of every conceivable orientation, including political ones, has become vastly easier.
No less interesting is the evolution in the dissemination of political information. It appears that, in full accordance with the characteristics of this “politics of impressions”, the aim of political information flows is no longer to spread knowledge so that the voter or citizen may make a rational choice. Instead, the aim of information dissemination is now to create impressions and manufacture emotions. This occurred in the past as well, but the scale was incomparable. And most importantly, the new environment—the digital, electronic space in which political life now unfolds—did not yet exist.
Naturally, politicians themselves are transforming and adapting to this new environment. And the aforementioned European Union is a vivid example of this. Before our very eyes, its politicians have become victims of their own propaganda and of the illusory conceptions of reality that they themselves instil. In effect, a vicious circle has emerged: delusions generate false information, while false information sustains the delusions.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
