The constructivist regards the natural numbers as the fundamental datum of mathematics, which neither requires nor is capable of reduction to a more basic notion, and from which all meaningful mathematics must be constructed.
The Platonist regards mathematical objects as already existing, once and for all, in some ideal and timeless (or tenseless) sense. We don’t create, we discover what’s already there, including infinites of a complexity yet to be conceived by mind of mathematician.
The formalist rejects both the restrictions of the constructivist and the theology of the Platonist. All that matters are inference rules by which he transforms one formula to another. Any meaning such formulas have is non-mathematical and beside the point.
The role of proof in class isn’t the same as in research. In research, it’s to convince. In class, students are all too easily convinced!
**
The view I favor is humanism. To the humanist, mathematics is ours—our tool, our plaything. Proof is complete explanation. Give it when complete explanation is appropriate, rather than incomplete explanation or no explanation. The humanist math teacher looks for enlightening proofs, not necessarily the most general or the shortest. Some proofs don’t explain much. They’re called “tricky,” “pulling a rabbit out of a hat.” Give that kind of proof when you want your students to see a rabbit pulled out of a hat. But in general, give proofs that explain. And if the only proof you can find is unmotivated and tricky, if your students won’t learn much from it, must you do it “to stay honest”? That “honesty” is a figment, a self-imposed burden. Better try to be clear, well-motivated, even inspiring. This attitude disturbs people who think proof is the be-all and end-all of mathematics—who say “a mathematician is someone who proves theorems” and “without proof, there’s no mathematics.” From that viewpoint, a mathematics in which proof is less than absolute is heresy. For the humanist, the purpose of proof, as of all teaching, is understanding. Whether to give a proof as is, elaborate it, or abbreviate it, depends on what he thinks will increase the student’s understanding of concepts, methods, and applications.
**
In the general classroom, the motto is: “Proof is a tool in service of teacher and class, not a shackle to restrain them.” In teaching future mathematicians, “Proof is a tool in service of research, not a shackle on the mathematician’s imagination.” Proof can convince, and it can explain. In research, convincing is primary. In high-school or undergraduate class, explaining is primary.
Philosophy of mathematics should be tested against five kinds of mathematical practice: research, application, teaching, history, computing.
**
The need to check philosophy of mathematics against mathematical research doesn’t require explication. Many important philosophers of mathematics were mathematical researchers: Pascal, Descartes, Leibniz, d’Alembert, Hilbert, Brouwer, Poincaré, Rényi, and Bishop come to mind. Applied mathematics isn’t illegitimate or marginal. Advances in mathematics for science and technology often are inseparable from advances in pure mathematics. Examples: Newton on universal gravitation and the infinitesimal calculus; Gauss on electromagnetism, astronomy, and geodesy (the last inspired that beautiful pure subject—differential geometry); Poincare on celestial mechanics; and von Neumann on quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics, computer design, numerical analysis, and nuclear explosions.
**
G. H. Hardy “famously” boasted: “I have never done anything ‘useful’. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world.” Nevertheless, the Hardy-Weinberg law of genetics is better known than his profound contributions to analytic number theory. What’s worse, cryptology is making number theory applicable. Hardy’s contribution to that pure field may yet be useful. Twenty years after the war, mathematical purism was revived, influenced by the famous French group “Bourbaki.” That period is over. Today it’s difficult to find a mathematician who’ll say an unkind word about applied math.
**
On the basis of this reduction, philosophers of mathematics generally limit their attention to set theory, logic, and arithmetic. What does this assumption, that all mathematics is fundamentally set theory, do to Euclid, Archimedes, Newton, Leibniz, and Euler? No one dares to say they were thinking in terms of sets, hundreds of years before the set-theoretic reduction was invented. The only way out (implicit, never explicit) is that their own understanding of what they did must be ignored! We know better than they how to explicate their work! That claim obscures history, and obscures the present, which is rooted in history.
An adequate philosophy of mathematics must be compatible with the history of mathematics. It should be capable of shedding light on that history. Why did the Greeks fail to develop mechanics, along the lines that they developed geometry? Why did mathematics lapse in Italy after Galileo, to leap ahead in England, France, and Germany? Why was non-Euclidean geometry not conceived until the nineteenth century, and then independently rediscovered three times? The philosopher of mathematics who is historically conscious can offer such questions to the historian. But if his philosophy makes these questions invisible, then instead of stimulating the history of mathematics, he stultifies it. Computing is a major part of mathematical practice. The use of computing machines in mathematical proof is controversial. An adequate philosophy of mathematics should shed some light on this controversy.
Doğduğum köyde hiç balık yemeyen insanlar vardı. Hatta bunlar balık pişirilen bir eve girmezdi.
Bunun nedeni tarihsel bir trajediden kaynaklanıyordu: Ruslardan kaçan Çerkesler, gemilerle Karadeniz’i geçerken pek çokları hastalıktan yahut açlıktan ölmüştü. İnsanlar ölmüş yakınlarını (belki anne belki baba belki evlat) çaresizce denize atmak zorunda kalmışlardı. Kimbilir, bu ölülerin bazılarını balıklar yemişti.
Belki de bu kahredici çaresizlik içinde ölülerini denize atanlar böyle düşünmüştü.
Canları malları telef olan bu insanların hakkını kimse soramadı.
Yapan yaptığı ile ölen öldüğü ile kaldı.
Daha da ötesi, pek çok Çerkes bugün Rusya ile yakınlaşmanın mimarı partilere oy veriyor.
Halbuki mazlumlar her zaman haksızlığın hesabının sorulacağı bir günü bekliyor.
Avrupa’da, ülkesini terk etmiş pek çok insanın konuşmalarını süsleyen bir cümle var:
“Bir gün hukuk geri gelince…”
Bu cümle, bir zamanlar hukukun Türkiye’de var olduğunu varsayıyor.
Peki bu zaman ne zamandı? Türkiye’de ne zaman hukuk vardı?
1988 mi? 1998 mi? 2008 mi? 2005 mi?
Öyle bir zamana geri dönsek, bizim fark etmediğimiz ne çok mazlum bulacağız.
Belki de bugün Türkiye’de mutluluk içinde yaşayanlar da ileride bir zaman diliminde mazlum olacaklar ve “bir gün hukuk geri gelince” diyerek cümleler kuracaklar.
16 yaşında intihar eden Bahadır’ın cenazesine elleri bağlı getirilen babanın hıçkırıkları o yüzden bize şunu hatırlatıyor:
Türkiye bir kahır toplumudur.
Bu kahır toplumunda kastlar vardır, zamanlar vardır. Herkes başka bir kasttır. Herkes başka bir zamanda yaşar.
Bir kast ezilirken diğer kast mutlu olabilir.
Bir zamanı yaşayanlar ağlarken diğer zamanı yaşayanlar gülebilir.
Şimdi biz (tabii öncelikle Türkiye’deki KHK’liler) toplumun en alt kastını oluşturuyoruz.
Bunları dövmek, tutuklamak, mallarına el koymak mümkün ve meşru.
Bu açıdan, her devirde Türk toplumunun paryaları var olmuştur. Parya, ancak kırık veya eski kap kullanır. Parya olduğunu belli edecek bir işaretle boyanmış olmalıdır. Mesela eski zamanda bir parya at bile alamazdı. O ya bir eşeğe binecektir yahut yürüyecektir.
Bahadır da babası da birer paryaydı. Çocuk kendini öldürdü. Babası elleri bağlı oğlunun cenazesine getirildi.
Bugün bir KHK’li paryadır.
Alt kastın bir üyesidir.
Toplum buna üzülüyor mu?
Maaşlarına zam yapılan emekliler ve asgari ücretlilerin bir kısmı son anketlerde tekrar AKP’ye dönmüşe benziyor.
Muhakkak üzülenler de var. Ancak ağır bir rejim karşısında insanların bir şey yapması kolay değil. Ama bütün olumsuzluklara rağmen uğraşan didinen aydınlar, gazeteciler ve siyasiler de var.
Üzülmeyenler de vardır.
Takip ettiği siyasi partiye göre dünyayı algılayanlar için Bahadırlar ve diğerleri tam aksine ‘hak ettikleri’ bir durumdadır.
Rakamlar da önemli. Devletin sopa ile oradan buraya sürüklediği insanların sayısını toplasan 3-5 milyon. Kalan büyük kalabalık, günlük hayatı içinde yaşıyor. Yüzlerce yıldır süren bu model bir alışkanlığa dönmüş:
Bir grubun hakları sistematik yok edilirken insanlar onu yok sayıp yaşamaya alışmış.
Yüzlerce yıldır terbiye tezgahından geçmiş bir büyük kabalık bu. “Böyle gelmiş böyle gider” ezberi içinde tek başına itiraz etse bile bunun bir şeyi değiştirmeyeceğine ikna olmuş. Hal böyle olunca yok saymaktan başka sığınılacak yöntem kalmamış: İnsanlar hiç yokmuş gibi yapıyor.
Hiç yokmuş gibi yapmanın tuhaf sonuçları da var: Bir yansıtma ile bütün yabancı milletler kötü ilan ediliyor. Bütün bu hamasi lafların, altına işeyen çocuğun “bunu komşunun oğlu yaptı” demesinden hiçbir farkı yok. Aslında bunlar bir züğürt tesellisi.
Bu hamasetin büyüklüğü aslında memleketin sorunlarının büyüklüğünü gösteriyor.
Haksızlıklar arttıkça bunları örtmek için işe yarayacağı düşünülerek “daha çok vatan daha çok ezan daha çok bayrak” muhabbeti yapılıyor.
Kahır toplumunda o yüzden haksızlıklar dinsel ve milli bir tören hatta bazen ibadet havası içinde gerçekleşiyor.
Meşhur hikayedir:
Çin’de bir köye yağmur yağmış içenler delirmiş. Bu suyu iki arkadaş içmemiş. Ancak herkes delirdiği için onlara deli muamelesi yapmışlar. Çaresiz iki arkadaş sonunda suyu içmiş.
Halihazırda Türkiye hikayedeki bu Çinli köy gibi bir yer.
Ya kahrolup yaşayacaksın yahut kalabalığa karışıp yok olacaksın.
Your grade school math teacher probably told you that being good at math would be very important to your grownup self. But maybe the younger you didn’t believe that at the time. A lot of research, though, has shown that your teacher was right.
We are two researchers who study decision-making and how it relates to wealth and happiness. In a study published in November 2021, we found that, in general, people who are better at math make more money and are more satisfied with their lives than people who aren’t as mathematically talented. But being good at math seems to be a double-edged sword. Although math-proficient people are very satisfied when they have high incomes, they are more dissatisfied, compared to those who aren’t as good at math, when they don’t make a lot of money.
Many researchers have suggested that more money only increases life satisfaction and happiness up to a certain point. Our research modifies this idea by showing that satisfaction derived from income relates strongly to how good a person is at math.
We investigated the relationship between math ability, income and life satisfaction, using surveys sent to 5,748 diverse Americans as part of the Understanding America Study.
The study included two questions and one test relevant to our research. One question asked participants about their household yearly income. Another one asked respondents to rate how satisfied they are with their lives on a scale of zero to 10.
Finally, people answered eight math questions that varied in difficulty to get a sense of their math skills. For example, one of the moderately difficult questions was: “Jerry received both the 15th highest and the 15th lowest mark in the class. How many students are in the class?” The correct answer is 29 students.
We then combined the results to see how they all related to one another.
Math skills and income also are tied to level of education, so, in our analyses, we controlled for education, verbal intelligence, personality traits and other demographics.
Connecting math skills to income and satisfaction
On average, the better a person was at math, the more money they made. For every one additional right answer on the eight-question math test, people reported an average of $4,062 more in annual income.
Imagine you have two people with the same level of education, one of whom answered none of the math questions correctly and the other answered all of them correctly. Our research predicts that the person who answered all of the questions correctly will earn about $30,000 more each year.
The survey also showed that people who are better at math were, on average, also more satisfied with their lives than those with lower math ability. This finding agrees with a lot of other research and suggests that income influences life satisfaction.
But prior research has shown that the relationship between income and satisfaction is not as straightforward as “more money equals greater happiness.” It turns out that how satisfied a person is with their income often depends on how they feel it compares to other people’s incomes.
Other research has also shown that people who are better at math tend to make more numerical comparisons in general than those who are worse at math. This led our team to suspect that math-proficient people would compare incomes more, too. Our results seem to show just that.
This chart shows that people who scored highest on the math test (red line) appear to be happiest when they make a lot of money (top right of graph), but also the least satisfied when they make less money (bottom left of graph). Different color lines correspond to the number of math questions answered correctly.Ellen Peters, Pär Bjälkebring, CC BY-ND
Simply put, the better a person was at math, the more they cared about how much money they make. People who are better at math had the highest life satisfaction when they had high incomes. But deriving satisfaction from income goes both ways. These people also had the lowest life satisfaction when they had lower incomes. Among people who aren’t as good at math, income didn’t relate to satisfaction nearly as much. Thus, the same income was valued differently depending on a person’s math skills.
Money does buy happiness for some
An often-quoted fact – backed up by research – says that once a person makes around $95,000 a year, earning more money doesn’t dramatically increase satisfaction. This concept is called income satiation. Our research challenges that blanket statement.
Interestingly, the people who are best at math did not seem to show income satiation. They were more and more satisfied with more income, and there didn’t appear to be an upper limit. This did not hold true for people who weren’t as talented at math. The least math-proficient group gained more satisfaction from income only until about $50,000. After that, earning more money made little difference.
For some, money does seem to buy happiness. While more work needs to be done to really understand why, we think it may be because math-oriented people compare numbers – including incomes – to make sense of the world. And maybe that’s not always a great thing. In comparison, those who are worse at math appear to derive life satisfaction from sources other than income. So if you are feeling dissatisfied with your income, maybe seeing beyond the numbers will be a winning strategy for you.
In this World Risk Poll, people from 141 countries were asked if 10% was bigger than, smaller than or the same as 1 out of 10. Participants were said to be bad with numbers if they did not provide the correct answer – which is that 10% is the same as 1 out of 10. Our analyses found that people who answered incorrectly are often among the poorest in their country. Prior studies in the United States, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Peru had also found that people who are bad with numbers are financially worse off. But our analyses of the World Risk Poll further showed that people who are bad with numbers find it harder to make ends meet, even if they are not poor.
When we say that they found it harder to make ends meet, we mean that they reported on the poll that they found it difficult or very difficult to live on their current income, as opposed to living comfortably or getting by on their current income.
Our analyses also indicate that staying in school longer is related to better number ability. People with a high school degree tend to be better with numbers than people without a high school degree. And college graduates do even better. But even among college graduates there are people who are bad with numbers – and they struggle more financially.
Of course, being good with numbers is not going to help you stretch your budget if you are very poor. We found that the relationship between number ability and struggling to make ends meet holds across the world, except in low-income countries like Ethiopia, Somalia and Rwanda.
Why it matters
The ability to understand and use numbers is also called numeracy. Numeracy is central to modern adult life because numbers are everywhere.
A lot of well-paying jobs involve working with numbers. People who are bad with numbers often perform worse in these jobs, including banking. It can therefore be hard for people who are bad with numbers to find employment and progress in their jobs.
People who are bad with numbers are less likely to make good financial decisions. Individuals who can’t compute how interest compounds over time save the least and borrow the most. People with poor numerical skills are also more likely to take on high-cost debt. If you’re bad with numbers, it is hard to recognize that paying the US$30 minimum payment on a credit card with a $3,000 balance and an annual percentage rate of 12% means it will never be paid off.
What still isn’t known
It is clear that people who are bad with numbers also tend to struggle financially. But we still need to explore whether teaching people math will help them to avoid financial problems.
What’s next
In her book “Innumeracy in the Wild,” Ellen Peters, director of the Center for Science Communication Research at the University of Oregon, suggests that it is important for students to take math classes. American high school students who had to take more math courses than were previously required had better financial outcomes later in life, such as avoiding bankruptcy and foreclosures.
Successfully teaching numeracy also means helping students gain confidence in using numbers. People with low numerical confidence experience bad financial outcomes, such as a foreclosure notice, independent of their numeric ability. This is because they may not even try to take on complex financial decisions.
Numerical confidence can be boosted in different ways. Among American elementary school children who were bad with numbers, setting achievable goals led to better numerical confidence and performance. Among American undergraduate students, a writing exercise that affirmed their positive values improved their numerical confidence and performance.
Other important next steps are to find out whether training in numeracy can also be provided to adults, and whether training in numeracy improves the financial outcomes of people who do not live in high-income countries.
Getting better at something involves emotion. When we do well, we have good feelings—pride, pleasure, excitement—and these emotions help reinforce whatever behaviors we just engaged in. Similarly, the pain of failure makes recent behaviors less likely in the future. This is conditioning, and we’ve all experienced it—when we’re awake. But what about when we sleep? Sleep reinforces memories. We know this because after half an hour of sleep, people can remember things better than when they spend half an hour doing something else, like watching TV. Studies of rats show that their brains rehearse running through mazes while they sleep, in a process known as sleep replay. Memory’s function is to store information that will be useful. Because of this, our mind prioritizes remembering some things over others. Studies have shown, for example, that it’s easier to remember things that are useful for survival. Might sleep similarly focus on things that are particularly good or bad for us, like food and dangerous animals, and ignore things that are irrelevant to our well-being, like the exact shape of a cloud?
Our minds are rehearsing things during sleep and they preferentially feature things that are good for us over experiences that don’t matter to us. Does this have anything to do with dreaming? Well, none of the participants entered rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep, which is when most dreams happen, during their time in the sleep lab. The neural replay happened only during slow-wave sleep when dreams tend to be infrequent, dull, and go unremembered. The participants might not even have been aware of the rehearsal their brains were engaged in. These rehearsals might not even be conscious!
Other evidence suggests that dreaming during REM sleep tends to be more negative—bad dreams are more common than good ones. This leads to the interesting idea that positive experiences are rehearsed during non-REM sleep, and negative ones are rehearsed during REM sleep.
The Atlantic’in Aralık 2021 sayısı, kapak hikayesi olarak Anne Applebaum’un “Kötü Adamlar Kazanıyor” adlı makalesiyle çıktı. Nisan 2018’de Foreign Policy de çok etkili bir kapak ve başlıkla çıkmıştı: “İnsan Hakları’nın Sonu mu?” Bu o zamanlar hala bir soru cümlesi ve gidişatı çevirmek için bir uyarıydı. Diğer birçoğu gibi işe yaramadı. Sonunda birinin cesaret gösterip hezimeti ilan etmesi gerekiyordu. Anne Applebaum hiç evirip çevirmeden, bazı kişi veya kurumlar alınabilir demeden hezimeti ilan etti: “Eğer 20.yüzyıl, yavaş ve düzensiz de olsa, komünizm, faşizm ve ölümcül milliyetçilik karşısında liberal demokrasinin zaferine doğru ilerleyişin hikayesi idiyse, 21.yüzyıl artık bunun tam tersinin hikayesi.”
Peki insan hakları ve liberal demokrasiyi dert edinmiş insan ve kuruluşlar, hatta ülkeler, sayıları ve nitelikleri hiç hafife alınmayacak düzeydeyken bu savaşı neden kaybediyor? Ben “ekonomik kaygılara teslimiyet” izahatına burada hiç değinmeyeceğim çünkü hem bu savunmaya tam katılmıyorum hem de yenilginin asıl sebebi olarak gördüğüm şeyler başka. Benim gözlemlediğim kadarıyla, faşizmin her türüyle girilen savaşta, bu savaşın diskur, medya ve örgütlenme ayaklarında kan kaybedilmesinin esas sebepleri şunlar:
Politik doğruculuk: Faşistlerin asla böyle bir kaygısı yok. Aksine özellikle çiğnedikleri bir hassasiyet ve bariyer, ki böylece yayılması çok kolay olan nefret suçlarını rahatlıkla yayabiliyorlar. İlk ortaya çıkışında nefret suçlarını önlemek, kırılgan toplulukları korumak için geliştirilen bu hassasiyet, faşistlerin istismarı ve kurnazlığı sayesinde yeni bir sindirme, susturma, sansür aracına dönüştü. Despotlar konuşup propagandalarını yayarken; hiçbir şekilde konuşamaz, fikrini açıklayamaz, farklı düşünemez hale getirilen çeşit çeşit topluluklar, müzminler var: Birbirine tutkun, yekpare ve ahlaklıların önemsediği hiçbir etik bariyeri önemsemeyen faşistler karşısında bir türlü birleşemeyen sayısız müzmin gruplar.
Entelektüel bağımlılıklar: Liberal demokrasiyi savunan kişi ve kurumların en ayırt edici özelliklerinden biri entelektüel birikim. Ancak bu da, tıpkı politik doğruculuk gibi, bazen kendi aleyhlerine bir dezavantaja dönüşüyor. “Overanalysis” yani her şeyi aşırı analiz etme ve hep meta düzey düşünme bağımlılığı ve bunları yaparken fiile aktarımın plan ve kararlılık bakımından hep ihmal edilmesi sözkonusu. O yüzden elde zebil gibi seçkin yayın, sosyal bilimci, konferans, seminer, zirve, çalıştay, toplantı kirliliği var, ancak hissedilir sonuç yok. Tabi insan hakları savunuculuğunun kendisinin artık bir endüstri haline geldiğini; neredeyse bu alandaki yayın, toplantı, konferans gibi etkinliklerin kendisinin artık bir amaç ve kariyer etkinliğine dönüştüğünü de farkediyoruz ne yazıkki.
Depresyon ve Şefkat Yorgunluğu: Zekayla depresyona yatkınlık arasında korelasyon olduğunu gösteren bulgular var. Zeki insanlar, çevrelerinde olup bitene daha duyarlı oluyor, acıyı daha fazla algılayıp zihinlerinde işliyor, dolayısıyla depresyona da daha yatkın oluyorlar. Depresyonun en bilinen kötü etkilerinden biriyse karar alma becerisini zayıflatması yani bir tür eylemsizlik. Zeki ve yüksek eğitimli bireyler hakkındaki bu depresyona yatkınlık bulgusunun, topluluklara da genişletilebileceğini düşünüyorum. Şu an dünyadaki yoksulluk, savaş, mülteci sorunu, ırkçılık gibi büyük sorunları en fazla dert edinen ve tercihli olarak bu konularla ilgilenip kendilerini mecburen acıya şahit ve maruz bırakan insanlar elbette faşistler değil, aksine yine insan hakları savunucuları, liberal demokrat bilinçli fikir insanları. Elbette diğer ideolojilerden veya politik görüşlerden insanların da böyle hassasiyetleri vardır. Ancak liberalizm doğuşu, kökeni, kuramsal çekirdeği itibariyle zaten insan hak ve özgürlükleriyle ilgili olduğu için, liberallerin de insan dramına özellikle ilgi, hassasiyet geliştirdiğini düşünüyorum. Dolayısıyla, süresiz şekilde ve adeta mesai gibi bu kadar politik krizle ilgilenip, kendini bu kadar travma ve insan dramına şahit ve maruz bırakan politik insan topluluklarının da, tıpkı bireyler gibi depresyon ve şefkat yorgunluğundan (*) muzdarip olacağını ve zamanla karar alma, uygulama, eyleme geçme becerilerinde gerileme yaşayacaklarını düşünüyorum.
Mücadeleye giriştiği her tür faşizm karşısında liberal demokrasinin artık eski gücünü koruyamamasının bir nedeni de, kendi nimetlerine geliştirdiği bağımlılık ve zaaf olabilir. Liberalizm adeta bireye övgüdür. Zamanla birey ve dünyası öyle büyür ki, onu başkalarıyla birlikte hareket edemez, kolay örgütlenemez hale getirir. Böylece onu zamanla diğer sosyal kimlikleri ve aidiyetlerinden soyup, karmaşık ama yalnız, gelişmiş ama örgütlenemez hale getirir. Milyonlarca tanrıcık; kendi dünyasının tanrısı ama dışarıda yalnız ve güçsüz. Kendi benliğine, kariyerine, duygularına aşırı duyarlı ama dışardaki dünyayla, ait olduğu dünyayla o kadar ilişkili değil…
Tüm bu faktörlerin liberal demokrasileri, onları oluşturulan kişi ve kuruluşların karar alma ve harekete geçme yetilerini biraz da olsa zayıflattığını düşünüyorum. Buna karşılık faşizm cephesi tüm bu hassasiyetlerden ve etik kaygılardan uzak olduğu için az düşünüp, az tereddüt yaşayıp, kolay örgütlenip, hızlı harekete geçebiliyor. Geçmişteki bazı eylemsizlikleri, geç kalmışlıkları anlatmak için mesela Kilise’nin “meleklerin cinsiyeti” gibi o devrin acil sorunlarından kopuk şeyleri tartışmakta kaybolduğu anlatılır. Bugün kısmen de olsa garip teferruatlarda kaybolma sırası akademilerde, uluslararası toplumda, medyada, hatta mağdurların kendilerinde belki. Faşizm karşısında birer Hamlet’e dönüşmüş haldeyiz. Trajedilerin özelliği, ana kahramanın karakterindeki bir zayıflık etrafında örgülenmeleridir. Hamlet’in zayıflığı, kararsızlığıydı.
Not: * Şefkat Yorgunluğu (compassion fatigue): Yoğun biçimde yaşanan başkalarının acısını dindirme isteğine bağlı gelişen bir travma türü. Zamanla hiçbirşeye aldırış etmeme, en trajik olaylardan bile etkilenmeme ve devamında yardım etmek için yapılabilecek en basit şeyleri bile yapmama gibi belirtileri var. Sağlık çalışanları arasında çok gözlemlenmekle birlikte, başkalarına yardım etmeye dayanan birçok başka meslek/etkinlik grubunda da rastlanıyor: Avukatlar, polis memurları, sosyal çalışmacılar gibi.
All of us have in our minds a cartoon image of what an autocratic state looks like. There is a bad man at the top. He controls the police. The police threaten the people with violence. There are evil collaborators, and maybe some brave dissidents.
But in the 21st century, that cartoon bears little resemblance to reality. Nowadays, autocracies are run not by one bad guy, but by sophisticated networks composed of kleptocratic financial structures, security services (military, police, paramilitary groups, surveillance), and professional propagandists. The members of these networks are connected not only within a given country, but among many countries. The corrupt, state-controlled companies in one dictatorship do business with corrupt, state-controlled companies in another. The police in one country can arm, equip, and train the police in another. The propagandists share resources—the troll farms that promote one dictator’s propaganda can also be used to promote the propaganda of another—and themes, pounding home the same messages about the weakness of democracy and the evil of America.
This is not to say that there is some supersecret room where bad guys meet, as in a James Bond movie. Nor does the new autocratic alliance have a unifying ideology. Among modern autocrats are people who call themselves communists, nationalists, and theocrats. No one country leads this group. Washington likes to talk about Chinese influence, but what really bonds the members of this club is a common desire to preserve and enhance their personal power and wealth. Unlike military or political alliances from other times and places, the members of this group don’t operate like a bloc, but rather like an agglomeration of companies—call it Autocracy Inc. Their links are cemented not by ideals but by deals—deals designed to take the edge off Western economic boycotts, or to make them personally rich—which is why they can operate across geographical and historical lines.
Thus in theory, Belarus is an international pariah—Belarusian planes cannot land in Europe, many Belarusian goods cannot be sold in the U.S., Belarus’s shocking brutality has been criticized by many international institutions. But in practice, the country remains a respected member of Autocracy Inc. Despite Lukashenko’s flagrant flouting of international norms, despite his reaching across borders to break laws, Belarus remains the site of one of China’s largest overseas development projects. Iran has expanded its relationship with Belarus over the past year. Cuban officials have expressed their solidarity with Lukashenko at the UN, calling for an end to “foreign interference” in the country’s affairs.
In theory, Venezuela, too, is an international pariah. Since 2008, the U.S. has repeatedly added more Venezuelans to personal-sanctions lists; since 2019, U.S. citizens and companies have been forbidden to do any business there. Canada, the EU, and many of Venezuela’s South American neighbors maintain sanctions on the country. And yet Nicolás Maduro’s regime receives loans as well as oil investment from Russia and China. Turkey facilitates the illicit Venezuelan gold trade. Cuba has long provided security advisers, as well as security technology, to the country’s rulers. The international narcotics trade keeps individual members of the regime well supplied with designer shoes and handbags. Leopoldo López, a onetime star of the opposition now living in exile in Spain, has observed that although Maduro’s opponents have received some foreign assistance, it’s “nothing comparable with what Maduro has received.”
