The Western Hypocrite at a Crossroads

The Western Hypocrite at a Crossroads

The Western Hypocrite at a CrossroAnd also a bit about principles, the facts of life, and strength of character

“I’m obliged, unfortunately, to note that the word ‘hypocrite’ has been and will continue to be a fixture within the diplomatic lexicon,” Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, announced recently, while talking about Russia’s divergence from the West on the situation in Syria. It is hard to argue with the point. If the American and European rhetorical attacks on Russian internal politics have focused on Russia’s imperial ambitions and its aggressive “revisionism” within Post-Soviet space, then Russia has answered those accusations with reference to “double standards” and hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy has not only become a popular political term. It has also become one of the principle grievances Russia has with the West, which does not want to admit to the reality of the “multi-polar world.” It is implied that the West, while declaring fealty to humanitarian ideals and respect for international rights, continually undermines them. It is two-faced, saying one thing, but doing the opposite. The accusation of hypocrisy, therefore, gives the accuser an ethical superiority: they themselves are honest, and in service to this honesty they are obliged to tear off any mask the deceiver dons.

This position perfectly illustrates the well-known maxim of La Rochefoucauld: “Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” What the hypocrite tries to hide behind virtuous announcements is depravity (egoism, cruelty, profit, etc.). Their virtuous demagogy looks artificial, rings false, and only underlines their fundamental depravity. Moreover, since hypocrisy is in and of itself a vice, its continual use makes truly depraved natures worse.

But is there really a distinction between the true guise and the pretended one? Between that which the hypocrite actually is and that which they resort to hypocritical methods in order to seem to be?

In her book The Life of the Mind, Hannah Arendt describes how people reveal themselves on two levels when they show themselves to the world and interact with others: on the level of self-display and on the level of self-presentation. Self-display, which is situational, and can relate a person to any other individual being, simply indicates affinities and emotions. Self-presentation, in contrast, requires reflexive intellectual activity and relies on an “active and conscious choice of the image shown.” In other words, each person consciously creates the image in which others are obliged to see them.

Built with the help of the mind, this project, this “surface” of the person is their sole consistent resource for establishing a relationship with others. There is no other core “nature” that has social or political meaning. It simply does not exist.

Therefore, it is possible to distinguish pretense from truth only after one has located the “instability of the former and its inability to last long enough.” It follows that the hypocrite who is hypocritical all their life and doesn’t display themselves any other way is not a hypocrite at all, but, to the contrary, an honest and consistent person. Their honesty is nothing other than a stable and proper representation, a striving “to be as you wish to seem.”

The denunciation of the hypocrite is not the denunciation of a vice, but the denunciation of inconsistency in the choice between different potential behavioral possibilities. The hypocrite displays weakness of character. They lack the strength to decide how they want to show themselves to the world. The accusation of hypocrisy has nothing to do with ethics, for it does not, in and of itself, suggest an alternative image along which to orient oneself.

The critique of hypocrisy, as regularly practiced by Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presumes that the true self-presentation of the West, its fundamental character, is a depraved Realpolitik which uses any means necessary when it comes to the realization of its lasting interests. According to this view, the West’s avowed principles of humanism, which it uses to distinguish what means are “necessary” for others, only attest to the West’s indecision and spinelessness. Russia asks the West to make the bold choice and choose the more depraved over the less when deciding between two types of behavior. The Kremlin resists the Western hypocrite in Ukraine or Syria not with faith in ideals, but with “strength of character,” taking its own course in defiance of abstract principles.

Does this mean that the critique of hypocrisy is in and of itself meaningless? Of course not. But it all depends on the type of consistency that the critic sets against hypocrisy.

If Russia points out a discrepancy between words and deeds, trying to settle all doubts about how the hypocritical West is in service to its depraved practice, then liberals peremptorily proclaim their faith in Western declarations, incessantly concocting different justifications for why they do not correspond with concrete decisions.

The position of the civilian anti-war movements that have attacked the hypocrisy of their own countries’ governments at various times provides a completely different example. So, for example, hundreds of thousands of people protesting against the war in Iraq on the streets of cities in America and Britain demanded that it be prohibited to use their armies abroad in the absence of a real threat of war. They demanded, that is, that the government follow the principles in accordance with which it was endowed with power. The Soviet dissidents who told Brezhnev to “follow your constitution” exposed the same kind of official hypocrisy.

Regardless of the seeming modesty of such challenges to power, it is exactly these challenges that seem the most radical and intolerable to those wielding it. The same contradiction that is contained within every modern government’s constitution undergirds the international principles that are getting more eroded every day. This is an inherent conflict that cannot be resolved in the framework of the current system: a conflict between theoretical equality and actual exploitation, between the declared right of each person and the unwritten rule guaranteeing the powerful a claim to tyranny. One could say that under what is known as the “market democracy” hypocrisy acquired the character of a stable institution. This hypocrisy, which has already been stuck for nearly two centuries in irresolution, continually opens up space for two, radically opposed types of critiques: one from the right and one from the left. While the critique from the right decries hypocrisy on account of inequality and the naked power erected on its main and sole principle (Russian diplomacy is currently taking this approach), the left insists on real equality, on political and economic democracy, on the actual realization of the “right to happiness.” The right to which the western hypocrites are always swearing allegiance, and of which everybody, without exception, is today deprived.

(translated by Katharine Holt from the Russian original on OpenLeft: http://openleft.ru/?p=6894)

Ilya-150x150Ilya Budraitskis (1981) is a historian, cultural and political activist. Since 2009 he is Ph.D. student at the Institute for World History, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow. In 2001-2004 he organized Russian activists in mobilizations against the G8, in European and World Social Forums. Since 2011 he has been an activist and spokesperson for Russian Socialist Movement. Member of Editorial board of “Moscow Art Magazine”. Regular contributor to the number of political and cultural websites.

 

 

5 Responses to The Western Hypocrite at a Crossroads

  1. Pete says:

    ANy talk of hypocrisy in world affairs should also include anti-americanist pro-Russian leftists living outside Russia who do not condemn Russian imperialism . Such folk also think that the Russian version of neo-liberal capitalism is somehow preferable to the Anglo-American variety — thereby ignoring the fact that millions of Ukrainians, eastern Europeans, and Arab migrants seem to think otherwise. One might also want to remind such “fellow travellers” of the centenary of the Zimmerwald Declaration.

    http://republicancommunist.org/blog/2015/09/21/centenary-of-the-zimmerwald-manifesto/

    • lidia says:

      Ha-ha, Ilya got his portion just for being from Russia.
      Pete should know that the same Ilya just interviewed the veteran NATO leftist Achcar on the same website. Pete could get his fix of anti-Russian propaganda from this interview.
      And yes, how dare Russians complain of NATO politics and wars?
      Millions of Ukrainians? The same who call Bandera their hero? I wonder, what Poles think about it? eastern Europeans? The same who honor “their” SS and are used as cannon fodder by NATO? Arab migrants? From Libya, which NATO without any Russian role has turned to paradise by air bombing? Or from Syria, where NATO support such “moderates” as Al-Qaida?

      • Pete says:

        “lidia” should be thankful the editors allow Kremlin trolls on their site.

        Does “lidia” know the Russian ruling class, like all Russians and others emigrating to what Russians like to call “the west,” do not share her obvious hate of NATO and the US. I trust “lidia” at least lives in the country she supports and that he beliefs correspond to her behaviour. Fine gents like Yakunin and Konstantinov who finance the Russian neo-fascisit extremist slavophile propaganda disseminated by the Putin regime, she might care to know, do not and live by the saying — do as I say; not as I do:
        ” Они набивают шишки нам, разбивают лоб малому бизнесу, населению, пенсионерам, учителям, а сами сидят в валюте, в долларах. У них семьи, активы, имущество за рубежом. Они заинтересованы в том, чтобы в России было максимально плохо и чтобы был максимально дешевый рубль, чтобы потом, продав квартиру там, прийти в страну и купить себе заводик по дешевке.”

        http://pda.ura.ru/articles/1036265585

  2. Anne Bobrof-Hajal says:

    The main purpose of government ideologies everywhere in the world has been to justify the governments being in power, while disguising whatever they do in reality to stay in power and grab as many of the world’s resources as they can. (Hypocrisy was the subject of “Dress It Up In Resplendent Clothes;” my next giant triptych will be about American hypocrisy.) For eons, religion served a similar purpose: emotionally bonding those within a group, while justifying destroying those outside it (“the infidels”) and seizing their resources.

  3. Pingback: Batılı Riyakâr Yol Ayrımında | Sosyalist Demokrasi İçin Yeniyol | Antikapitalist, Enternasyonalist, Ekososyalist, Feminist

LeftEast is a platform that supports free expression in a climate of equally free speech for all persons that want to participate. This is why we shall moderate any comments that engage in discrimination, fighting words, or lead to an obstruction of dialogue and we shall ban the involved user from our community. Unless signed by the editorial board, articles do not necessarily express the opinion of the editorial board as a whole, but are positions within larger debates we would like to bring to the attention of our readers.