On the European side of the Atlantic one hardly ever hears mentioned the contributions of American academics to the fierce debate on multiculturalism going on in Europe. Given that America is a symphony of cultures, or a nation of nations, it seems obvious to me that the American contribution to such a debate would prove at the very least valuable, if not essential.
Alas, that is not always the case, more often than not it is simply dismissed with spurious condescending charges that somehow American popular culture has vulgarized and reduced to a lower common denominator the more sophisticated culture of Europe.
The above may contain a kernel of truth but it is that kind of rather superficial analysis that, in my opinion, renders a great disservice to any serious dialogue on multiculturalism between the two sides that that ought to be going on but is often missing. I’d venture to say that frankly, this phenomenon smacks of elitism and condescension. When Matthew Arnold finally visited America in the 19th century he realized that his own European culture had fed him with many misconceptions about America and changed his mind on quite a few of them.
After Croce in Italy, the intellectual that did an great deal of work to popularize Vico in America was Giorgio Tagliacozzo who ailed from Italy but lived and worked in America for many years and via Vico was able to build a crucial bridge of cultural understanding between the two continents.
Indeed, there is much more to American culture than Disney’s Mickey Mouse and Las Vegas, or making money on Wall Street, and global business and the assorted vulgarities of popular culture and entrepreneurship, as the caricaturists love to assert. Unfortunately a President Trump will be the icon of that sort of culture for the forseable future.
Nevertheless, I am always bewildered, whenever I visit Europe, at how many Europeans, who consider themselves well educated, have no inkling of the fact that Disney and Las Vegas are not the whole of American culture, and not even an important part of it, even if millions of Europeans flock to it every year and then proceed to make negative judgments on the whole culture. Admittedly American culture is slightly different from European culture, if for no other reason that it has the Afro-American and the Native-American and Asian-American component, but I would submit that it is a culture worth knowing on more than a superficial level.
I’d like to now introduce to the MD readership Claes G. Ryn, another American author and academic who originally was a European ailing from Sweden, but was educated in America (Ph.D in 1974 from Louisiana State University) and subsequently taught at the University of Virginia and Georgetown University. He presently teaches political philosophy and Ethics at the Catholic University of America. One of his later books is A Common Human Ground: Universality and Particularity in a Multicultural World (2003), a highly commendable book on the subject of historicism and multiculturalism. He is also the editor of the academic journal Humanitas and president of the Academy of Philosophy and Letters.
Ryn’s fields of teaching and research include ethics and politics; epistemology; historicism; politics and culture; the history of Western political thought; conservatism; the theory of constitutionalism and democracy. He has written on ethics and politics and on the central role of culture, specifically, the imagination, in shaping politics and society, has sought to reconstitute the epistemology of the humanities and social sciences, paying close attention to the interaction of will, imagination and reason.
Most importantly, he has criticized abstract, a-historical conceptions of rationality as inadequate to the study of distinctively human life and to the study of real universality. He has argued that there is a much different, experientially grounded form of rationality, the reason of philosophy proper, that is capable of at once humble and penetrating observation. He has therefore developed a philosophy known as value-centered historicism, which demonstrates the potential union of universality and historical particularity and is redolent of Vico’s philosophy. In political theory he has been a sharp critic of Straussian anti-historical thinking and so-called neo-conservatism.
Many in the Western world trust in “democracy,” “capitalism,” “liberal tolerance,” “scientific progress,” or “general enlightenment” to handle this problem. Ryn argues that the problem is much more complex and demanding than is usually recognized. He reasons that, most fundamentally, good relations among individuals and nations have moral and cultural preconditions. What can predispose them to mutual respect and peace? One Western philosophical tradition, for which Plato set the pattern, maintains that the only way to genuine unity is for historical diversity to yield to universality. The implication of this view for a multicultural world would be a peace that requires that cultural distinctiveness be effaced as far as possible and replaced with a universal culture. Undoubtedly, the Enlightenment set the pattern for this view.
A very different Western philosophical tradition denies the existence of universality altogether. It is represented today by postmodernist multiculturalism—a view that leaves unanswered the question as to how conflict between diverse groups, especially when originating from religious principles, might be averted.
Ryn questions both of these traditions, arguing for the potential union of universality and particularity. He contends that the two need not be enemies and mutually exclusive, but in fact can complement each other. Cultivating individual and national particularities is potentially compatible with strengthening and enriching our common humanity. His book embraces the notion of universality, while at the same time historicizing it. His approach is interdisciplinary, discussing not only political ideas, but also fiction, drama, and other arts. To be sure, this is an approach proposed by Vico in the 18th century, and by Croce in the 20th century.
Ryn’s discussion of modern democracy emphasizes that popular government can assume radically different forms, only some of which can be judged compatible with a higher, ethical striving. Theories of what he calls plebiscitary democracy assume romantic and utopian notions of human nature and society. Constitutional democracy is based on a more realistic view of man and is more consonant with the actual moral terms of human existence. This form of government has demanding moral and cultural preconditions and is endangered wherever those preconditions are not satisfied.
In the year 2000 Ryn gave the Distinguished Foreign Scholar Lectures at Beijing University, which also published this lecture series in Chinese translation as a book, Unity Through Diversity (2001). He has lectured and published widely in China. In 2007 he gave a keynote address at the Chinese Academy of Social Science in Beijing. The Chinese edition (2007) of his book America the Virtuous became one of the most hotly discussed in China. Dushu, China’s preeminent intellectual magazine, described it as “the kind of classical work that will be read over the generations.”
The above background ought to convince the reader of how important is Ryn’s thought for present philosophical political and ethical concerns. I believe that his most signal contribution is in the field of historicism, or the restoration of Vichian historicism in an academic world devastated by a-historical abstract Cartesian absolutistic thought. In 2005 Ryn published a devastating critique of Straussianism in Humanitas (Vol. XVIII, n. 1 and 2) in an article titled “Leo Strauss and History: the Philosopher as Conspirator.” The article points out how dangerous it is for those teaching philosophy to choose a pet philosopher (in Strauss’ case, Plato) from the ancient world and subsume the whole philosophical enterprise to his thought as a sort of footnote, as if nothing had been thought and nothing had happened in the field of philosophy in two thousand plus years.
Here is a selected but relevant excerpt from the article which renders the idea and hopefully will motivate the reader to pick it up and read it in its entirety:
“So radical and seemingly forced is this dichotomy between philosophy and history that one has to suspect that its origins are mainly non-philosophical. The dichotomy seems to have more to do with a felt need to discredit tradition, presumably to advance a partisan interest. It might be said that Strauss and the Straussians are simply following the pattern set by Plato, who also taught disdain of what he thought of as history. But Strauss is presenting his arguments more than two millennia after Plato, and in the wake of philosophical developments that can only make the adoption of a Platonic conception of the relation of history and universality appear to the philosophically educated to be archaic and far-fetched.
Strauss is also more radically anti-historical than any ancient Greek could have been. It might be retorted that Strauss and the Straussians are not alone today in ignoring centuries of philosophical development, but this means merely that the question of extra-philosophical motives must be raised with regard to others as well. It is not uncommon in intellectual history for groups to avoid facing up to profound philosophical challenges to themselves by acting as if nothing had really happened and by hiding behind some old, more pleasing figure who is accorded the status of unimpeachable authority and is interpreted as representing just what the group thinks he should represent. This is philosophical evasion, group partisanship intensified by intellectual insecurity, for which the particular group pays a high price in the long run. Strauss’s exaltation of Plato, as he chooses to interpret him, would appear to be in large measure an example of such evasion, however helpful it may be in discrediting tradition and dislodging corresponding elites.
Though not a philosopher in the more narrow, ‘technical’ sense, Burke sees deeply into the connection between history and universality. Other philosophically more systematic and conceptually precise minds, including Hegel in the nineteenth and Benedetto Croce in the twentieth century [and I would add Vico in the 18th century], have, in spite of philosophical weaknesses of their own, provided a more penetrating account of what Burke understood more intuitively.
One of the weaknesses of modern American intellectual conservatism has been its failure fully to absorb the historical consciousness that gave rise to and gave distinctiveness to modern conservatism. A certain resistance in the Anglo-American world to philosophy above a certain level of difficulty helps explain this problem. One finds, for example, in a thinker like Richard M. Weaver a failure similar to Strauss’s to grasp the possibility of synthesis between universality and the particulars of history. To be sure, that deficiency does not make Weaver as unfriendly as Strauss towards tradition, but, although Weaver himself may not recognize it, it does give tradition a philosophically precarious existence. The absence in Weaver’s thought of the idea of synthesis makes him see the need for a choice between ‘imitating a transcendent model,’ which is to him the appropriate stance, and giving prominence to individuality.
What will invest life with meaning is ‘the imposition of this ideational pattern upon conduct.’ To Weaver, ‘ideas which have their reference to . . . the individuum . . . are false.’ Echoing an ancient notion that had long been challenged by historicist philosophy when Weaver wrote, he asserts that ‘knowledge’ has to be of the universal, not the individual. He decries ‘the shift from speculative inquiry to investigation of experience.’ That universality might be a concrete, experiential reality rather than a purely intellective, a-historical truth does not here occur to him.
Eric Voegelin provides a much needed counterweight to the abstractionist intellectual trend that affects even a thinker like Weaver. Voegelin does so by drawing attention to the experiential reality of what he calls the Ground. Unfortunately, he at the same time and inconsistently gives aid-and-comfort to anti-historicism by propounding a notion of radical transcendence. That notion, too, tends to rob history as such of meaning and contradicts the possibility of incarnation. Straussians and Voegelinians find common ground at the point where their respective positions are philosophically the weakest. Straussianism has been able to invade American conservatism on its philosophically perhaps most unprotected flank, which is its halting, fumbling conception of history and its correspondingly weak notion of universality or ‘higher values.’”
A rather long quote, but perhaps necessary to make the case that indeed Ryn may have it on target in insisting that Philosophy and Cultural Anthropology are the sine qua non for a recovery of what is best in Western Culture. Some have called the approach a conspiracy, a conspiracy of hope.
Of Here and Now: Pandemic and Society in 2020
After a century, the world population faced a new pandemic that fast spread globally, affecting individuals both physically and mentally. Covid-19 started in late 2019 in Asia, spreading so fast that despite the global connectivity and highly sophisticated information technology and communication systems, the interconnected society of the 21st century was incapable to fast react in order to avoid contagion and prevent the worst. Gradually, the pandemic is making a tour around the globe contaminating citizens even in rural communities from all continents. Worldwide, there have been 32 million confirmed cases with over 1 million deaths during the first 9 months of this year.
From this universal pandemic we learned that the interdependent globalized world of 2020 is connected but not synchronized – or as earlier in crisis, prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic well-noted ‘world on autopilot’. All scientific, technological and digital knowledge accumulated over centuries remains inept to protect our civilization from an invisible virus that, ironically, can be eliminated with just soap and water. Obviously, the magnitude and the economic, social and cultural impact of this pandemic took humanity by surprise.
Society was already undergoing a deep process of transformation on all fronts. Debates were focused on the fragility of democracy, climate change and sustainability, inequality and inclusion, gender and race, social media and fake news, virtual payments and crypto currencies, artificial intelligence and blockchain. Science, knowledge and technology were advancing at a fast rate in all fieldsincluding genetics, neuroscience and biotechnology. Nevertheless, health-care was not a top priority for public investments or national budgets. Yet, with the eruption of the pandemic, priorities had to be immediately revisited. A human-centred and inclusive approach became imperative in every corner of the planet. Incontestably, the 2020s is bringing irreversible disruptions.
Lockdown measures and social isolation deprived individuals of free movements, restricting social gatherings and citizen’s mobility. The home-office dismantled solid organizational structures of daily work conviviality. Closure of schools prevented children from accessing formal in-person education, creating a childcare crisis for working parents. Crowded metropolis became empty urban centres, no shopping, no restaurants and no city life. Cultural festivities and spaces such as theatres, cinemas, and museums had their activities suspended leaving artists, cultural and creative professionals as well as street-vendors out of jobs. Parks and sportive centres became inactive and international tourism ceased.
Conversely, family life became the heart of social order. Parents that were extremely busy with their jobshad to juggle between work and the education of their children. People became less egocentric and started showing more empathy with the needed ones. Solidarity has been manifested in donations and collective assistance by civil society. Companies engaged with social responsibility. Artists, cultural and creative workers were defied to work even harder at home to find new niches in the virtual domain. The confined society had to rediscover its ethical values, principles and priorities.
Free-time and leisure at present
Paradoxically, this shift in human behaviour brought us back to a theory of economics that emerged a century ago (Ruskin, 1900) “There is no wealth but life”. In this new-old context, free-time, leisure, well-being and culture are closely associated. Usually, we use our free-time to carry out activities that are not directly related to work, duties or domestic occupations. May be free-time is an illusion because only in exceptional occasions our time is completely free. Leisure, however, is a subjective concept which varies depending on the society which we belong. It is connected with our participation in cultural life, reflecting the values and characteristics of a nation. Thus, it can be considered a human right according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and in particular the International Convention on the Economic, Social and Cultural rights (1967).
Despite some divergent definitions of leisure there is convergence around three distinctions: (i) leisure as time; (ii) leisure as activity; and (iii) leisure as a state of mind. Firstly, it is defined as the constructive use of available time. Leisure as a variety of activities includes the practice of sports or actions related to intellectual and human development like reading, painting, gardening etc. and those can be leisure for ones and work for others. Understanding leisure as a state of mind is complex since it depends on individual perceptions about concepts such as freedom, motivation, competency etc. Certain skills can be considered leisure depending on the degree of satisfaction, emotion or happiness it causes. Yet, the most important is the possibility of free will.
Time available for leisure also varies according to cultural, social and even climate considerations. The notion of time can be different in Africa, Asia, Latin America or Europe. Usually people who live in areas of hot climate enjoy outdoor activities and sports while Nordic people whose habitat is in cold weather prefer indoors socialization and hobbies like playing chess, classic music etc. Social leisure embraces communitarian happenings such as going to the beach, practicing sports in a club etc. Behavioural studies indicate the benefits of social leisure for the well-being of individuals, self-esteem and cultural identity.
Moments of leisure are essential in all phases of our life. During childhood and adolescence most of our time is devoted to study and sports while at adulthood our time is mostly consumed with work and family. Indeed, it is at senior age that retired people generally have extra free-time to enjoy cultural events, leisure and tourism. Globally people are living longer and a newage structure is taking shape: the young senior (65-74 years), the middle senior (75-84 years) and the older senior as from 85 years old. According to the United Nations, in 2018 for the first time in history, persons aged 65 years or over outnumbered children under age five. This partially explains the vast number of people in the group of risk requiring quarantine protection throughout the pandemic period.
Well-being and spirituality in pandemic times
During the pandemic, reflections about well-being and spirituality gained space in our minds. It is undeniable that the constraints brought about by lock-down measures and social distancing, offered us more free-time but very limited leisure options. We gained additional time to be closer to loved ones and to do things we like most at home. Enjoying family life, including eating and even cooking together became a shared pleasure and a new leisure style. Individuals had to optimize the quality of their temporarily sedentary lives.
Global pandemics affect our collective mental health. Given the prevailing health and economic insecurity, the focus of our attention has been on well-being, strengthening friendships, expanding social network, practicing solidarity, improving self-esteem as well as reflecting on spirituality and religion. Suddenly the exuberant society of 2020 is afraid of the unknown virus and its long-term harmful consequences on day-to-day life. Well-being and happiness became the essence of achievable goals.
People are emotionally fragile in this moment of anxiety. Individuals are suffering losses that will persist long after the pandemic will be over. Some feel stressed or depressed while others react by searching for relief in exercising, relaxation, meditation, yoga or mindfulness training. Individuals are finding new ways to overcome solitude and boost mental resilience. Current philosophical thinking (Harari, 2018) is reminding us that homo sapiens have bodies but technology is distancing us from our bodies.
Inspirational talks in likeminded groups have been helpful for reconnecting people dealing with an uncertain future. Social engagement and advocacy for health causes are used for promoting social change. Thus, besides upgrading healthcare systems and putting in place special measures for accelerating economic and cultural recovery, targeted governmental support will be needed to improve mental well-being and raise the overall level of satisfaction and happiness of citizens in the post-crisis.
Culture and e-learning nowadays
In a short period of time, many went from an exciting social and cultural lifestyle to a simple life. People had to assume the role of protagonists of their actions. Due to open-air limitations, free-time activities had to be less physically-intensive (no bike, tennis, jogging etc.), and more creative-oriented such as designing, playing music, writing. Much time has also been spent watching TV series, surfing the internet, viewing live music concerts, video-gaming, attending video-conferences as well as socializing in virtual chats. Equally, there are growing concerns about the ethics of consumer technology and internet addiction “time well spent” (Tristan, 2015).
A recent study carried out in the UK to track digital cultural consumption during the pandemic, indicates that the median time spent daily watching TV are 4 hours, while listening to music, watching films and playing video games each day are 3 hours respectively. Understanding human behaviour, in particular youth habits can help to indicate new cultural trends and consolidate social cohesion in post-pandemic times. Moreover, policy-makers could consider engaging cultural institutions and employing artists and creatives to help facilitate a collective healing process and kick-start recovery.
It is widely recognized that the arts, culture and creative sectors were hit hard by the pandemic. Whist digital cultural and creative products for home consumption were in high demand, others tangible creative goods like arts, crafts, fashion and design products sharply contracted. Many artists and creatives had no option than to experiment on work in digital spaces, since they had to go global from home.
Despite the fact that 4.5 billion people (60% the global population) use internet, the availability of affordable broadband access is a pre-condition to use and benefit from the opportunities provided by digital tools. This applies to both producers and consumers of cultural and creative digital content. Currently, videos account for 80-90% of global digital data circulation, but at the same time Latin America, the Middle East and Africa together represent only around 10% of world data traffic. This evidence points to digital asymmetries that are being aggravated. Creativity only is not enough to transform ideas into marketable creative goods or services if digital tools and infrastructure will not be available.
The pandemic also had a strong impact on education and learning. Re-thinking education was already a topic on the agenda of many countries in order to respond to the realities of the jobs market in the 2020s. Besides the need to adapt methodology and pedagogical practices, many believe it is necessary to bring an interdisciplinary and applied approach to curricula with focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), preferably also integrating arts (STEAM). In any case, the education system has been forced to quickly adjust to remote learning. Globally over 1.2 billion children are out of the classroom in 186 countries. In Latin America schools are closed and around 154 million children between the ages of 5 and 18 are at home instead of in class. Furthermore, access to school-related inputs is distributed in an unbalanced manner; wealthier students have access to internet and home-schooling while the poorer have not. Young people are losing months of learning and this will have long-lasting effects. The loss for human capital is enormous.
On the positive side, continuous e-learning became a trend and a necessity. Innovation and digital adaption gave rise to a wide-range of on-line courses. Millions of learners are upgrading their knowledge and skills in different domains through distance learning, whether through language and music apps, video conferences or software learning. Some are free others have to be paid for, but what is absolutely transformative is that access to knowledge became more democratic. Independently of age or field of interest, learners from different parts of the world can have access to prestigious universities or practical training. E-learning, where teaching is undertaken remotely and on digital platforms already existed, but demand has sharply increased during pandemic and this might be a point of no return.
Over these critical 9 months, there are growing signs that the 2020s will face a new set of challenges and life will not be back as usual. The future will be very different when compared to the recent past. Hope and fear are likely to co-exist for a certain time. There are new values, new lifestyles, new social behaviour, new consumption standards, and new ways of working and studying. The pandemic has imposed a deep ethical and moral re-assessment on society. This turning point is leading to a deep socio-economic renovation and hopefully to a more inclusive and sustainable society.
E. Dos Santos-Duisenberg (2013) – Tempo livre, lazer e economia criativa, Revista Inteligência Empresarial (37), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazilhttp://www.epapers.com.br/produtos.asp?codigo_produto=2455
When Fundamentalists Come to Power, Women Lose
As the United States mourns the loss of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we find ourselves in crisis over women’s rights in the United States. Justice Ginsburg’s nominated replacement, Amy Coney Barrett, would be a disaster for women’s equality. Legally, Barrett opposes reproductive rights, LGBTI equality, and access to comprehensive health care; personally, she advocates that women should be subservient to their husbands. Barrett, and her ilk, are part of a global trend of religious fundamentalists seeking to dismantle modern egalitarian gender policies.
Barrett, and the majority of conservatives that she will join on the Supreme Court, will be a grave threat to the progress we’ ve made on gender equality in the United States. Here, and around the world, when religious fundamentalists come to power: they roll back women’s rights, degrade human rights standards, exacerbate discrimination, and stoke violence. People may mistakenly believe that women’s rights is on a natural trajectory towards progress in the U.S. and other liberal democracies. Yet, evidence around the globe demonstrates that when religious fundamentalists take power, the human rights of half the population are severely denigrated.
In countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Brazil, and India when religious fundamentalists come to power, progress on women’s rights unraveled. In Iran, before the 1979 revolution, women were doctors, lawyers, university, and political leaders. When religious fundamentalists took power was one of the first issues to attack and repeal was progress for women. Similarly, in Afghanistan, when the mullah’s took power, rollbacks to women’s rights were first.  Looking at these two countries today, it is easy to forget the progress that was dismantled. My Afghan friend at the University of Washington recently showed me a picture of her mother and father sitting in a park holding hands in the 1970s in Kabul. The picture could have been taken in London; both of them are wearing summer clothes and holding hands. Less than a decade later, many of their individual liberties, from clothing- choices to public displays of affection, would be banned. In India and Brazil, Prime Minister Modi and President Bolsonaro are part of a growing global trend of national leaders who openly belittle women with little recourse. Worldwide, progress is precarious for women’s rights.
Western societies are not immune from these threats. In Poland and Hungary, leaders have recently closed gender studies departments of national universities; banning classes and research on gender studies. Polish leaders are actively repealing women’s reproductive rights, and established new “LGBT-free zones.” Emboldened by religious doctrine, right-wing leaders re-assert male dominance in national policies. As in the U.S., the current president even jokes about sexual assault towards women.
Women’s rights should not be narrowed to the limited scope of abortion. Maternity leave, political representation, universal childcare, equal pay are all critically important policies for women’s equality. And yet, choice, and reproductive rights can be a barometer for how women are treated in a country. When abortion is illegal, it is the single largest cause of death in countries for women of child bearing age. Leaders have asserted anti-abortion campaigns in Chile and Argentina as a “cultural value”, disregarding the danger for vulnerable women and human cost of not having access to reproductive health care. When abortion is illegal, women die. This may be the reality of American women in the near future, when fundamentalists such as Barrett rise to power.
Women were not ‘given’ the right to vote; they fought for it. Historically, women are not given anything, rather they worked for decades in advocacy, protest, and building public support for progress on an issue, such as equal pay in the work place.  As RBG once said, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” Around the world, women have fought hard for their rights. These rights are often the first targeted when conservatives come to power. American women have lost a lot of ground over the last four years during the Trump Administration. Barrett, and other fundamentalist leaders, could derail decades of progress for women in the United States. I hope readers actively think about how they will vote, and support the local, national, and global battle for women’s equality.
The views in this article are the authors alone and do not reflect the views of any institution.
Ahmed-Ghosh, Huma. “A history of women in Afghanistan: lessons learnt for the future or yesterdays and tomorrow: women in Afghanistan.” Journal of international Women’s Studies 4, no. 3 (2003): 1-14.
 Helms, Elissa, and Andrea Krizsan. “Hungarian government’s attack on Central European University and its implications for gender studies in Central and Eastern Europe.” FeminaPolitica–ZeitschriftfürfeministischePolitikwissenschaft 26, no. 2 (2017).
Król, Agnieszka, and Paula Pustułka. “Women on strike: mobilizing against reproductive injustice in Poland.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 20, no. 3 (2018): 366-384.
Korolczuk, Elżbieta. “The fight against ‘gender’and ‘LGBT ideology’: new developments in Poland.” European journal of politics and gender 3, no. 1 (2020): 165-167.
Graff, Agnieszka, RatnaKapur, and Suzanna Danuta Walters. “Introduction: gender and the rise of the global right.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 44, no. 3 (2019): 541-560.
Wade, Michelle, and Susan Fiorentino. “Gender Pay Inequality: An Examination of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Six Years Later.” Advancing Women in Leadership Journal 37 (2017): 29-36.
Coronavirus and the Female leaders of the World
The entire world is handling the novel coronavirus pandemic. One thing which has emerged in these months is that the countries led by female leaders are handling the pandemic, lockdown and exit strategy of the lockdown better than their male counterparts.
The global Covid 19 pandemic has brought the existing world communities to their knees. According to Johns Hopkins University’s Covid-19 tracker, as of October 14, a total of 38,642,377 Covid 19 cases have emerged across the world. The coronavirus pandemic has affected 1,094,399 lives in the world. Countries across the world imposed lockdown measures to reduce the spread of viruses. Countries are not just dealing with the pandemic but also with the additional crisis brought forward due to the pandemic and unplanned response to it. which include slower economic growth, unemployment, digital divide, increasing cases of domestic violence, etc.
Let us look at how some of the female led countries responded to Covid-19-
Angela Merkel – Germany
Germany has witnessed a far lower death rate compared to its neighbours, Italy, France and Spain. A scientist herself, Angela Merkel, considered a variety of different information sources in developing Germany’s coronavirus policy such as South Korea’s successful testing programs, epidemiological models, etc. Germany’s response to coronavirus began as early as March in which ICU beds were started to be freed up so that the hospitals do not get overburdened like Italy or Spain. As the country’s leader, Angela Merkel herself provided the weekly updates to Germany’s citizens.
Tsai Ing Wen – Taiwan
Under the leadership of Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan has recorded 7 deaths due to coronavirus. Taiwan was also hit hard by the previous SARS outbreak, and had used the lessons from that experience to tackle the novel coronavirus. As response to the pandemic, Taiwan implemented quarantine of foreign travellers from Wuhan since December 2019 itself. With increased testing facilities and harnessing technology to connect travellers to community care support management systems, Taiwan has emerged as the global example for other countries.
Mette Frederiksen – Denmark
Denmark’s approach to dealing with the coronavirus pandemic could be best summarized by saying “Act fast and act with force”. With the first case of Covid 19 on February 27, lockdown measures were taken in March with its borders closing on March 14. Under Mette Frederiksen’s leadership, preventive measures were taken much earlier compared to the UK.
When the coronavirus cases were increasing worldwide in April, Denmark started its systematic plan to bring the country out of lockdown, becoming one of the first European states to announce the gradual and controlled easing of restrictions. As of October 13, Denmark registered its lowest number of new Covid-19 infections for over a month
Jacinda Ardern – New Zealand
New Zealand was one of the country’s to announce lockdown and take this new disease seriously. When the first man outside of China died due to Covid 19 in February, New Zealand started banning entry of people returning from China. Thereafter, the country closed its foreign travel when it had only about 100 cases. On the other hand,
Fast forward, on June 9, it was announced that New Zealand is free of covid 19 and they marked August 9th as the 100th day of virus elimination. With the second wave of coronavirus hitting New Zealand, the country has increased their testing capacity to combat it through effective public communication.
Other countries which have received praise on their handling of coronavirus include Iceland, Finland, Bangladesh, under the leadership of Katrín Jakobsdóttir, Sanna Marin, Sheikh Hasina. Iceland adopted the strategy of aggressive testing and coordinating between various government agencies to enforce quarantine rules and contact tracing. Finland had one of the lowest infection rates in Europe. Finland adopted the approach of not shutting down everything during lockdown and used the lockdown period to amp up its preparedness. Compared to other countries, even though Bangladesh had a higher population density, it fared better than the Philippines and Pakistan in terms of deaths.
Female leaders are handling the coronavirus pandemic better than male leaders
According to the Centre for Economic Policy Research and the World Economic Forum’s study, countries led by female leaders are handling the coronavirus far better than their male counterparts. The research paper reasoned that this may be due to “the proactive and coordinated policy responses” adopted by female leaders.
Empathy and decisiveness are the two key traits that have allowed female leaders to succeed through the coronavirus crisis. Empathy allows these leaders to quickly grasp the severity of the situation, while timely decision-making means action is taken quickly. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, professor of business at Harvard Business School remarks, “Women don’t have a monopoly on these skills, but they might be less likely to let their egos get in the way, or play politics with the crisis.”
More females required in workforce
According to the World Bank, women’s participation in the workforce has dropped since 1995. U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed noted that more than a third of female 15-to-24-year-olds aren’t in school, jobs or training, more than twice the proportion of their male counterparts.
While these female leaders are inspiring women around the world, there is a long way ahead to reduce the gender gap. Out of 193 countries of the world, 21 countries have a female head of state. The pandemic has not only been a health crisis but also exposed the already existing socio-economic disparities. The United Nations had warned that the pandemic is exacerbating gender inequities.
The leadership qualities and values shown by the female leaders have the potential to change the perception of leadership itself. This could shape the leadership in future especially with the new challenges coming ahead due to climate change.
Nagorno-Karabakh: Will the Landscape Change following the Latest Unrest?
The situation surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, which has deteriorated dramatically in recent days, has clearly demonstrated that it is becoming increasingly impossible...
Violence, COVID-19, contribute to rising humanitarian needs in the Sahel
A surge in armed violence, coupled with the economic and social fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, are contributing to worsening...
Energy Research Platform Takes Central Stage under Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship
After the Ufa declaration in 2015, BRICS, an association of five major emerging economies that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China...
War in the Caucasus: One more effort to shape a new world order
Fighting in the Caucasus between Azerbaijan and Armenia is about much more than deep-seated ethnic divisions and territorial disputes. It’s...
A Recipe For The War
Authors: Zlatko Hadžidedić, Adnan Idrizbegović* There is a widespreadview that Germany’s policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina has always been friendly. Also, that...
India-ASEAN relations under Vietnam Chairmanship of ASEAN
India has very recently come out with India-ASEAN Action Plan 2021-2025 alluding to the objectives for furthering its relationship with the...
COVID-19 has given a fillip to biodiversity
The COVID-19 outbreak caused many problems for the world, but in return gave the planet’s environment and biodiversity a chance...
Economy2 days ago
Bangladesh: The Rising Economic Power
Defense2 days ago
Hidden Traces in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Сonflict
New Social Compact3 days ago
Of Here and Now: Pandemic and Society in 2020
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Nagorno-Karabakh: A Frozen Conflict Rethawed
East Asia2 days ago
Nepal-China Boundary Treaty: An example of peaceful Himalayan frontiers
Defense2 days ago
Germany continues to expand its military presence in Lithuania
Economy2 days ago
Future Economy: Upskilling Exporters & Reskilling Manufacturers
Human Rights3 days ago
Bolivia elections, an opportunity to defuse extreme polarization