Vassilis Vamvakas: "The cultural chaos is an unprecedented experience of planetary dimensions and the threats it creates are also new" April 3, 2024 – Posted in: Books – Tags: , , , , , ,

The an. Professor of Sociology of Communication in the Department of Journalism and Media at AUTH, Vassilis Vamvakas, speaks on the occasion of his book "Ekremes" (published by Archive) about the swaying of the country between different trends and impulses, but he does not consider that there is any "Greek specificity" ». And the contradictions? "In the Greek political system there is an elasticity that in some cases proves to be a lifesaver," he notes. To conclude: "Can you imagine what would have happened if Mr. Tsipras had not done the butt somersault?"

Interview with K.B. Katsoulari

Looking for the core of your book, I would start with the title. Something pending, not yet done, a pending? Or a country that goes from one extreme to the other, that weathers, following the movement of a historical pendulum? Or something else;

Individuals, groups, social identities that fluctuate between many and different trends within a relatively short period of time. Greek society and the subjectivities that exist in it are not lacking in fluidity that often leads to the oscillation between extreme situations and options. Perhaps the only difference is the speed of the oscillation, where in the Greek case it is faster and more abrupt.

"Globalization has brought widespread insecurity, which is why almost no one supports it politically anymore."

The concept of crisis has taken on, one might say, an almost metaphysical connotation in our time. Why do we need it so much to describe what we live? I mean, even in the years before 2000, we were living cosmogonies, like for example the domino of the fall of the communist regimes. What has changed?

From the beginning of the 21st century onwards - September 11 is a pivotal event - the Western world is experiencing successive crises that do not significantly differentiate it from other societies in terms of the sense of danger. Globalization has brought widespread insecurity, which is why almost no one supports it politically anymore. In particular, the pandemic has shown that the well-known divisions of developed and non-developed countries are not always enough to understand and deal with risks. Civilizational chaos is an unprecedented experience of planetary proportions, and the threats it creates are also new. As much as we want to relegate them to the past, as much as we are reassured by the thought that we have been through something like this before, huge changes have occurred that we still do not fully understand and others are coming that will set even more complex parameters (see AI) .

In the so-called cultural dualism of Greece, between tradition and modernization, some intellectuals lean towards the view that in the end, underground, tradition wins, while others, that ultimately Greece is also a country that progresses in modernity, with whatever difficulties. What is your position?

This dualism is productive only if we begin to see the results of its dialectical synthesis and not its constitutional juxtaposition. After all, Greek society is also possessed by important elements of the postmodern situation (fragmentation of identities, consumerism, convergence of private and public spheres, conspiracy theory, etc.) which are far from discounting a traditional or postmodern preference. The resulting mixes of pre, post and modern elements are never preconceived and certainly don't have a single winner.

"There is no Greek particularity, it was proved beyond doubt after the Greek economic crisis in Britain (Brexit), the USA (capitol occupation) in many European countries and probably more to come."

Forces that served radicalism and anti-Semitism ultimately, you say, primarily served political anachronism. Why is this happening; Is it a rule of law, or a Greek peculiarity?

There is no Greek particularity, it was proved abundantly after the Greek economic crisis in Britain (Brexit), the USA (occupation of the Capitol) in many European countries and probably more to come. There has been a very strong trend in the previous decade of political anachronism that brought back political violence (symbolic and real). Hate speech against opponents became fashionable and was not perceived as such, often because it entered new technologies, equated insult with truth or disguised itself in alternative clothes. In this we were sadly pioneers but not unique. We were followed by others who may come out of the political darkness much later (see the return of Trumpism) because their own pendulum moves at a slower rate.

But the Greek political system as a whole, the examples are many, is characterized by a peculiar flatulence and contradictions. The anti-memorandist Samaras became an ardent zealot of the memoranda reforms, the man who brought the memoranda, Giorgos Papandreou, then flirted with anti-memorandum forces, Kostas Karamanlis, through representatives always, showed an initially incomprehensible sympathy for the anti-systemic Syriza, while Alexis Tsipras with his Ovidian changes brought the term "butthole" into the European political vocabulary. How can there be trust in the Greek political system and politicians – if trust is a question?

Contradictions indeed breed a reasonable lack of political trust. On the other hand, this easy change of positions may also be an indication that there is an elasticity that in some cases proves to be life-saving, while in others it is tragic. Can you imagine what would have happened if Mr. Tsipras had not done the flip? Obviously this also cost him, his party (with a time delay) and the political system more broadly (see increased abstention), but at the same time society emerged from a long-term regression between fear and flirtation with the great disaster. And even with difficulties and setbacks, he is once again walking the difficult path of European "normality".

"Can you imagine what would have happened if Mr. Tsipras had not done the flip? Obviously, this also cost him, his party (with a delay) and the political system more broadly."

In your book you refer to many cultural phenomena, but also phenomena of pop or popular culture. From trap music, to soap operas, comedy shows on TV, and many other phenomena. This need to look so low, at appearances, what sociological look does it serve?

Popularity is a reliable indicator of social, cultural and political trends. Domestic sociology tends to ignore the popular, to consider it trivial, opportunistic, marketable, stupid. He prefers to study only the alternative, the marginal, the partial. The ambiguities of the popular in the "spectacle society" clearly reflect where its ideological and value pendulum is and where it is going. If we do not study ordinary culture, where the many meet and sometimes clash, we cannot do social science with a democratic sign, we will do social science for the few, those whom we always want to demonize or idealize.

In continuation of the previous question: With so much fragmentation in political and cultural phenomena, have modern societies become so complex and contradictory that they become opaque? A text that is difficult to understand and without meaning, that is, both for ordinary citizens, who are looking for an answer to conspiracy theories, and even for you social scientists? How do you as a social scientist respond to this problem, if I have described it correctly?

It is indeed becoming more and more difficult to explain contemporary social phenomena. But this is not only due to them and their complexity. It is also due to the fact that social scientists, at least those who are not enlisted in some idea, faction or culture, do not have preconceived patterns of interpretation and understanding of the world. They are ready to revise schemes and findings that are no longer sufficient and that in the past seemed like "gospel". Of course, there are always those who simplify the world to fit their theories. But I think that they are slowly overcome by the same reality which, fortunately I would say, is never unambiguous.

THE Vassilis Vamvakas is Associate Professor of Sociology of Communication in the Department of Journalism and Media at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. His research interests and publications are in the sociology of communication, with an emphasis on popular culture and the relationship between ideology and media. Books he has written and edited are: Elections and communication in the Post-colonial period. Politics and Spectacle (Savvalas, Athens, 2006), Greece in the 80s. Social, political and cultural dictionary (Epikentro, 2015 Thessaloniki, co-edited with Panagi Panagiotopoulos), The Reason of the crisis. Polarization, violence, reflection on politics and popular culture (Focus, 2015), American series on Greek TV. Popular culture and psychosocial dynamics (Papazisis, Athens, 2017, co-edited with Angeliki Gazi), 50 years of Greek television (Epikentro, Thessaloniki, 2018, co-editor with Grigoris Paschalidis), 70 years of Greek print advertising: Consumer culture, consumer standards, communication strategies (Epikentro Thessaloniki, 2021, co-edited with Cleo Kenderelidou).

Source: bookpress
https://bookpress.gr/sinenteuxeis/ellines/19680-vasilis-vamvakas-sto-elliniko-politiko-systima-yparxei-mia-elastikotita-pou-se-orismenes-periptoseis-apodeiknyetai-sotiria