September 19, 2024 –
Avel Ivanov
–
Articles and Commentary
Lightning storm above Sofia. Photo: Boby Dimitrov (CC)
In the nearly 40 years since Bulgaria’s democratic turn, liberalism has struggled to find a permanent place in the country’s kaleidoscope of a political spectrum. Its centre-left-in-name-only proxies have never been able to wholeheartedly endorse the philosophy given the stigma surrounding the term and the plethora of concerted misrepresentations of its true political nature. This persistent and fervent resistance to liberalism is partly rooted in the lingering residue of the global ideological divide between the Soviet Union and its adversaries. Though less publicly acknowledged today, the effects of this divide still exert a powerful influence beneath the surface of the country’s political landscape. In Bulgaria, as in other parts of Eastern Europe, being a liberal has vehemently been tarred with the brushes of propaganda and unreason to symbolize the “worst” elements of Europe and the West – two of Bulgaria’s most phantasmagoric modern enemies. Liberalism has come to represent things such as an obsession with political correctness; indoctrination in certain values that seek to take what is rightfully Bulgarian; and a complete transvaluation of national norms and practices related to family life, marriage and personhood. This short-sighted public awareness reflects either a widespread misunderstanding of what liberalism truly represents or, more concerningly, an active rejection of its key principles. This second point is indicative of a growing commitment to anti-liberal demagoguery in the face of a rapidly changing social and political environment around the world.
Indeterminacy
Historically, liberalism’s roots in the Enlightenment introduced the idea as a social philosophy in direct opposition to the traditional conservatism of the era, which was bound to hereditary privilege, state religion and the divine right of kings. Liberalism sought to “cut off the king’s head”, advocating for a radical reordering of societal conditions to allow for greater inclusion and access to power. This shift brought about the introduction of individual rights, property rights, equality before the law, and various freedoms, including those involving speech, the press and assembly. This revolutionary transition from a society steeped in tradition, custom, order and hierarchical power to one that was democratic at an individual level in the form of rights led to what the 20th-century French philosopher Claude Lefort calls the dissolution of the markers of certainty. Lefort characterizes this liberal shift as “opening a history in which men experience an indetermination with regard to the basis of power, law and knowledge, and with regard to the basis of relations between one and the other in all registers of social life”. It is in this very concept of indeterminacy – where every aspect of one’s role in the public sphere is open to radical uncertainty and individual interpretation – that liberalism’s enduring impact is felt in the 21st century.
At its core, liberalism creates a social chasm by dismantling the hierarchical order imposed by the institutions it seeks to replace – such as religion, tradition and custom. These institutionalized forms of order provide individuals with a sense of certainty, a kind of temporal repetition and established pattern, offering a sense of predictability based on past experiences. When such “markers of certainty” are removed, individuals must fill the resulting void themselves. They grapple with what the German philosopher Martin Heidegger termed the “thrownness” of their existence: the notion that from birth, individuals are thrust into pre-existing circumstances, a particular way of life, and a specific worldview, relying largely on themselves for navigation. Consequently, a defining feature of politics then becomes: how do I, as well as my community, navigate this uncertainty?
It is by beginning with such a question that we can better understand the contemporary responses currently being offered by critics of liberalism specifically in the context of Bulgaria, albeit ones that can be seen worldwide. The critique itself often stems from a profound reluctance to accept Heidegger’s thrownness as an intrinsic aspect of modern life. Instead of seeking meaningful and inclusive ways to address this uncertainty, various forces use fear to monopolize the space liberalism has opened, redirecting the discourse towards re-establishing old hierarchies and structures rooted in a nostalgic longing for a time when such existential questions were less pressing, and the chasm less open. This monopoly on fear often hinges on oversimplifying the predicament, ensuring that the full impact of one’s indeterminacy is overshadowed by a manufactured, easily digestible narrative which closes this chasm of instability and provides a seemingly stable social order. More often, it is at the expense of marginalized groups, foreign powers, or even fabricated phantoms that political actors vie to “solve” the contemporary crisis of meaning.
Nation
While the post-war era emphasized a growing commitment to globalization, internationalism and the dismantling of borders to foster cooperation, the 21st century has shifted toward re-establishing and reinforcing different categories of identification. One proposed solution for restoring the dissolved markers of certainty is the return to the importance of identity, particularly national and sexual identity. While critics of liberalism often argue that “identity politics” is a primary reason for resisting liberal policies of inclusion and representation, this criticism overlooks the anti-liberal fixation on finding meaning in national and sexual identity as a solution to the contemporary crisis of indeterminacy.
One readily exploited avenue for the growth of anti-liberal sentiment is in the opposition to the European Union. Critics often attack the EU, accusing it of threatening national identity and traditional ways of life. This opposition is largely fuelled by propaganda that exploits individual fears about losing a national identity. Far-right nationalistic rhetoric within Bulgarian parties such as “Revival” or the newly founded “Greatness” portrays the EU as a threat to cherished cultural elements. By creating a new political divide out of thin air – us versus them, insiders versus outsiders – anti-liberals shift the focus from the existential uncertainty of the modern world to an easily identifiable enemy, which temporarily distracts from one’s indeterminacy. In fact, it even reinforces one’s sense of identity by framing oneself as a victim and martyr against a fabricated threat, portraying individuals as resisting an enemy intent on imposing disorder. This artificial enemy provides a concrete target for blame, channelling emotional frustrations away from the ambiguous challenges of modern life such as climate change, disinformation and corruption, and giving individuals a more manageable form of opposition.
A study jointly conducted by BFMI, the Center for the Study of Democracy (CID), and the Center for Research, Transparency, and Accountability (Serbia) revealed that Bulgaria is the European Union country most susceptible to Russian propaganda. This propaganda frequently exemplifies the following conspiratorial narrative: “it portrays a global hegemon—comprising the collective West, the US, and NATO—as orchestrating a scheme to undermine European sovereignty through proxies, such as the Brussels Eurocrats and corrupt liberal elites in individual countries. According to this narrative, Europe is depicted as a victim of this assault, while Russia is framed as a victimized but justly resistant force. Ultimately, Russia is presented as rising from the ashes to save Europe from the perceived threat of Western domination.”
In such a narrative, one observes a well-documented strategy employed by those seeking to close the chasm of indeterminacy with a single, oversimplified answer. Instead of addressing the complex array of forces impacting the Bulgarian public – an approach that might struggle to capture widespread attention – these political actors craft a starkly dichotomous narrative that distinguishes between enemies and heroes. This emotionally charged presentation effectively stirs public sentiment, facilitating a more straightforward justification for irrationally restricting the rights of those perceived as threats to the in-group. Anti-liberal politicians adeptly channel ordinary people’s frustrations into easily digestible narratives, such as blaming the European Union for supposedly threatening cultural traditions like national dishes or abolishing traditional dances. As early as 2015, Bulgarian journalists such as Martin Karbovski began circulating baseless claims that the European Union aimed to seize Bulgaria’s cherished national dish of tripe soup. They argued that new EU regulations would mandate specific serving times for hot dishes, a requirement they alleged many Bulgarian restaurants could not meet. These assertions, however, were entirely unfounded and would have no effect on the selection of dishes offered.
Ironically, it is often only through financial support from European institutions that culturally significant monuments, towns and festivals in Bulgaria are funded and maintained – a reality that is seldom acknowledged by right-wing agendas. Even more ironic is the increasing number of individuals living abroad who, despite benefitting from the ease of work and travel within the European Union, fervently support parties that advocate for Bulgaria’s removal from the EU or blame it for the nation’s problems.
Gender
Another pervasive source of fearmongering by anti-liberals is the concept of “gender”, which is often blown out of proportion to encompass fears ranging from the complete dismantling of the family structure to the absurd notion that children might self-identify as animals. This fear too, however, is far removed from the actual intent of the gender concept, which aims to foster a constructive dialogue about the rigidity of traditional and often arbitrary gender roles – such as expectations around caregiving or the types of behaviour deemed appropriate for each sex. Engaging in such dialogue, however, would introduce a level of complexity that many ordinary Bulgarians might find overwhelming and beyond their capacity to navigate comfortably. This chasm could remain open and potentially foster a constructive dialogue that could help a wider range of members of society to feel safer and more able to freely express themselves without fear of discrimination. However, anti-liberal parties often exploit the fears of disorder and the unknown for their own gain by attempting to close this space left open by liberalism with their own interpretation of what groups of people deserve rights, what a traditional family looks like and what role a given man or woman should serve in society.
This effort to define oneself through exclusion, by labelling what is deemed abnormal or non-traditional, only deepens the divide between “us” and “them”, redirecting the uncertainties of indeterminacy toward a specific, perceived enemy: those who are different. The identity formed in opposition to this “other” becomes a rallying point for comfort, unity and collective purpose, but it does so at the cost of excluding others. Proponents of the traditional family often find their sense of identity not through inclusivity but by contrasting themselves against what is deemed non-traditional. A party like Revival, which recently claimed to “protect” the Bulgarian school curriculum from LGBT+ content – despite such material not being part of the curriculum to begin with – gains political favour by creating and then defending supporters against its own imagined threats. Moreover, by calling for an investigation into Single Step – a non-profit that provides crucial sexual, psychological and medical support to LGBT+ individuals – the leader of Revival reinforces his and his supporters’ identity as “true” Bulgarians at the expense of “fake” Bulgarians who will now be deprived of essential care and legal protection.
This approach covertly seeks to impose its own definition of family on the entire population, disregarding the right of others to make their own choices. As a result, part of the political strategy of anti-liberals is to leverage the very freedoms they enjoy in order to impose their own interpretation as the only possible one for everyone else as well. They invoke tradition and historical practices to justify a return to rigid hierarchies, including strict gender roles and conventional family structures, thereby entrenching social divisions as the accepted norm and the only possible determination for society. This is ultimately an attempt to close the open chasm of freedom that liberalism has produced.
Consider another incident from the summer of 2023, where men wearing t-shirts representing the far-right nationalist party “Revival” shut down the screening of the Oscar-nominated international film “Close” at the Sofia Pride Festival. The film, featuring a gay storyline, was condemned by these anti-liberals as potentially harmful to children and as promoting “pedophilia”. By exploiting deep-rooted social fears concerning child safety, anti-liberals attempt to justify stripping away the LGBT+ community’s rights to freedom of expression, including their right to watch films. They wield their own rights to assembly and freedom of expression as tools to argue that these rights should be exclusive to them, claiming that LGBT+ expression would harm children. This distortion of the issue misrepresents the nature of the problem and manipulates public sentiment.
The reality, however, is that the LGBT+ grooming conspiracy theory is a well-documented far-right narrative dating back to before the Second World War. This theory aims to instil widespread moral panic and vilify marginalized communities. Numerous studies from reputable academic sources worldwide, including the American Journal of Psychology, the American Pediatrics Journal, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Institute of Health, provide no evidence that LGBT+ individuals are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. It should thus go without saying that the belief that LGBT+ individuals are more likely to molest children is entirely unfounded. Yet, the emotional appeal of such statements bypasses rational deliberation, providing a pretext to justify limiting individual rights as it too offers an easily digestible narrative that can provide relief in closing the chasm of indeterminacy. If we scapegoat and blame a particular group for our societal problems, marginalizing and oppressing them will supposedly resolve these issues and bring about improvement.
If the true concern of anti-liberals blaming the LGBT+ community were harm to children, we would see equally strong protests against religious establishments like the Catholic Church, where the rate of minor abuse related to pedophilia is not only actually proven, but well-documented as well. Studies by the Spanish newspaper El País reported nearly 440,000 victims of abuse in Spain alone, with around 300,000 in France. Furthermore, a study by the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalistic outlet the Boston Globe, which was also the focus of the 2015 film “Spotlight”, revealed that the prevalence of pedophilia among priests in the Boston area was so widespread that it could be considered a psychological epidemic. Such patterns have been reported globally, at least in regions where such investigations and disclosures are permitted. However, many areas around the world lack the freedom or infrastructure for such efforts, suggesting that the documented number of victims of sexual abuse is likely much lower than the actual figure.
Ultimately, the motive behind restricting the freedoms of the LGBT+ community is not genuinely to safeguard children nor is it to protect traditional family structures. While some victims of disinformation may be unjustly manipulated into believing such narratives, the real motive that lies behind such propaganda is to monopolize fear to justify closing the chasm of indeterminacy with a single interpretation. This interpretation seeks to exclude certain groups from accessing rights.
Prideful inconsistency
Both examples in modern Bulgarian identity politics are meant to illustrate that the fundamental flaw in the anti-liberal position is its attempt to fill the chasm left open by the elimination of the markers of certainty with a single, narrow interpretation – its own. This approach is not only intellectually dishonest but also irrational given the nature of our contemporary political landscape. One of the enduring legacies of the liberal revolution is the opening of the public sphere to the opportunity for personal interpretation, reflecting the indeterminacy that Claude Lefort describes. Importantly, this chasm is indiscriminate; it affects everyone equally and encompasses an element of universality afforded to all. We each face the same question together. The anti-liberal stance however seeks to manipulate this very freedom and openness to impose its own solution to the indeterminacy of the human condition. It aims to enforce its version of identity politics and restrict liberal rights to certain groups, all while paradoxically benefitting from the same freedoms it seeks to undermine. This inconsistency is evident in the fact that anti-liberals are not opposed to identity politics per se but only to specific forms of it. Anti-liberals do not reject liberal rights outright, they only reject liberal rights for certain groups. Consequently, the key liberal principle emerging from this analysis can be articulated as follows:
Anyone whose political views necessitate restricting the rights of other groups or demand that others conform to a particular interpretation of their own determinacy will eventually, under rational investigation, face the challenge of justifying why the principles of liberalism, which should apply equally to all members of society, should be applied differently for themselves.
Such a justification does not hold up under rational scrutiny. As a result, this inability to withstand rational examination reveals the second facet of modern anti-liberalism: a pride in contrarianism that deliberately avoids rational deliberation. Anti-liberals not only exploit liberal freedoms to advocate for their own interpretations of social order as the only correct ones but, when faced with the contradictions inherent in their arguments, they retreat into a defiant and prideful inconsistency that is impervious to challenge. Anti-liberals often resent being told what to do while simultaneously revelling in the authority to dictate terms to others. This discrepancy becomes a tool for undermining principles of communication, understanding and reasoned debate. Ironically, once again, the anti-liberal embrace of irrationality as a political stance, unshaken by opposing viewpoints, ultimately highlights a form of “extreme liberalism” in which the privilege of freedom allows them to uphold contradictions without facing repercussions, a privilege afforded only to the special few.
Ultimately, this modern predicament in Bulgaria as elsewhere across the world makes upholding liberal values in today’s political climate twice as challenging. First, liberals must safeguard the openness of Lefort’s chasm from being monopolized by any group seeking to close it off with their own vision of what the social order should be. The essence of liberalism lies in the freedom it provides by removing fixed markers of certainty. This liberation allows individuals to define their own values and identities, embedding equality and fairness deeply within society. Second, liberals must also defend this very interpretation of freedom itself as the correct approach. Although various interpretations are offered by political actors that rights and freedoms can be safeguarded only by denying them to certain groups deemed phantasmic threats to order, the only rationally coherent understanding of liberal ideology is one that ensures consistency and is not contradictory in the granting of rights.
Today, liberals are not only required to engage in the political arena but must simultaneously defend the very principles that govern its existence and allow everyone else to equally be a part of it at the same time. Only by doing so can individuals be assured of the freedom to navigate the often-intimidating uncertainties of their “thrownness” without being unjustly constrained by any external determinations that do not align with their own values.
Avel Ivanov is a high school teacher of philosophy in Sofia, Bulgaria.
Bulgaria, democracy, liberalism, politics
Source link : https://neweasterneurope.eu/2024/09/19/defending-liberalism-in-bulgaria/
Author :
Publish date : 2024-09-19 07:00:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.