Paavo Lipponen lists nation´s intellectuals in new book

BOOK REVIEW

print this

By Juha Sihvola
     
      Being a civilised person requires humility, consciousness of human limitations, and respect for others. However, humility is not cowardice, giving up on the search for truth, or on defence of those who are weaker.
      Being civilised can include aspects which, according to the established way of thinking, might be considered bad behaviour. This is why Socrates expressed contempt towards those in power and had to pay for it with his life for annoying those who feared for their positions.
      This is what former Speaker of Parliament and Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen writes in his new book. Alongside civilisation, the writer ponders the position of the intellectual, control of the past, and national identity. He also sketches an overall image of Finnish history from the point of view of the Social Democratic ideals of Väinö Tanner.
     
Lipponen’s unusual linguistic imagery has caused people to accuse him of being sullen and short-tempered. Lipponen himself seems to feel that he is following in the footsteps of Socrates.
      His book, Järki voittaa (“Good Sense Will Win”), offers juicy material for columnists and bloggers. We can read that [former Foreign Minister] Erkki Tuomioja keeps repeating his anti-neo-liberal mantra, but that his real problem is his lack of originality.
      The former Prime Minister says that his own Foreign Minister was unbeatable in his thinly-veiled air of superiority, but was able to easily escape personal slanders.
      Lipponen does not recall any proposal that would be as arrogant and silly an attempt to bypass the rule of law as the initiative made by Green MP Heidi Hautala, in her anti-Social Democratic zeal, according to which a working group should be set up to investigate contacts that Finns may have had with the East German security service Stasi.
     
In the chapter titled “Intellectuals - do they exist?” Lipponen mentions about 70 Finnish and ten foreign influential cultural figures, and ponders whether or not they can be seen as real intellectuals. No fewer than seven of the 30 pages in the chapter are devoted to the evaluation of a single person.
      The honour is bestowed upon Heikki Patomäki, Professor of International Politics at the University of Helsinki, who has accused Lipponen’s first government of pushing through neo-liberalism in Finland.
      Lipponen suspects that in Patomäki’s new book on neo-liberalism in Finland, no stone is left unturned in uncovering the evil deeds of the faceless neo-liberal conspiracy.
      Lipponen does not grant Patomäki the title of intellectual, in spite of his intelligence and high educational level. On the contrary: conspiracy theories and the lack of rational argumentation make the professor Finland’s leading anti-intellectual in the eyes of the former Speaker of Parliament.
     
Lipponen manages to find cultural figures in Finland who he feels merit the title of intellectual. However, he exaggerates the positions of Georg Henrik von Wright, Jörn Donner, and Matti Klinge in the global intellectual firmament. Contrary to what he claims, none of them as intellectuals have written very much in a foreign language.
      Von Wright wrote his purely academic works in English, but his societal statements were written in Swedish. Klinge’s popular works have been published abroad mainly in translation.
      In the younger generations, linguistic skills have increased. However, Finns do not write much in such internationally prestigious journals, such as The New York Review of Books or Le Nouvel Observateur. Lipponen’s observation of the provincial nature of Finnish intellectuals is quite fitting.
     
Socrates behaved badly in the eyes of his contemporaries, when he dared criticise the dominant elite of his society. Does Lipponen feel that Tuomioja, Hautala, and Patomäki deserve as caustic criticism as the politicians and warlords of Ancient Athens?
      Why is it that researchers who critically evaluate the cooperation between Finland and Germany during the Second World War, or the policy toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War, spark so much irritation in Lipponen?
      Wouldn’t a modern-day Socrates direct his intellectual fire toward real holders of power, such as banking and insurance tycoon Björn Wahlroos, Nokia Chairman and former CEO Jorma Ollila, or Finance Ministry mandarin Raimo Sailas?
      Lipponen has his reasons. He feels that the red-green critics of neo-liberalism are the pets of the media. Therefore, nobody dares unmask the hollowness of their arguments. Perhaps he wants to establish himself in the role of Socrates and question the myths that are accepted with silence.
      Defence of economic neo-liberalism and the toppling of the red-green myth would require evidence that the market, competition, and privatisation would have brought more good than harm to those who are less well off, at least compared with the alternatives.
      According to Lipponen, warnings that the welfare state is being pushed to the side are not based on facts, because personnel and funding in education and health care are on the increase.
      However, Lipponen does not mention that new statistics indicate that social welfare spending is below the EU average, and lags behind the other Nordic Countries, Germany, France, and Switzerland.
      The real value of income supplements has declined since 1996 - that is, since the first Lipponen government came to office.
     
The Socratic method requires both the defence of one’s own view, and the countering of the arguments of the opponent.
      In this respect Lipponen leaves something to be desired.
      A follower of Socrates does not rebut arguments by calling those who present them silly or arrogant, but rather by showing that the opponent would be wiser to change his or her mind on the basis of his or her own starting points.
     
Lipponen describes how the publication of the So-called "Tiitinen List", containing tipoffs about Stasi connections, would lead to a situation in which the “pictures of the individuals would be circulating in the grudge media for weeks, magnified to the maximum, so thoroughly that not a single person could ever get rid of the label.”
      He does not devote as much attention and emotional fire to the question of how the transparency of the use of power and confidence in officials should be taken into consideration when decisions are made on public access to documents.
     
Lipponen's is a thought-provoking book written in a flowing style.
      For a Finnish professional politician, the educational level of the writer awakens respect.
      It is only good that the occasionally gruff style and the inadequacies in the defence of arguments should raise the readers’ eyebrows from time to time.
      It means that debate can continue on good questions.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 16.5.2008
     
     
The writer is the director of the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies at the University of Helsinki.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Debate over disclosure of Stasi material heats up as Security Police director resigns (30.7.2007)
  Security Police will not release Stasi list (7.9.2007)
  Supreme Police Command finds no fault with Security Police procedures in Stasi matter (27.8.2007)

See also:
  Third Life (29.4.2008)

Helsingin Sanomat