Accepting a euro break-up

16/05/2012 Comments Off on Accepting a euro break-up

Tyler Cowen points to his own 2005 post and this statement:

It would be ironic if the strongest argument against the Euro was simply the eventual need to dissolve it.

I immediately thought of Slavoj Zizek’s commentary about Jean-Pierre Dupuy on climate change: the only way to deal with climate change is to accept that it is our future. As long as it is but a potential, one future amongst many, it is a mere potentiality that we can conveniently ignore. If, however, we begin to think of it as our destiny, then we can push against it.


the way we act is determined by our anticipation of the future and our reaction to this anticipation.

He then quotes Dupuy:

The catastrophic event is inscribed into the future as destiny, for sure, but also as a contingent accident: it could not have taken place, even if, in futur anterieur, it appears as necessary.

From that perspective, it is only by accepting the certainty of a euro break-up that Eurocrats can paradoxically begin to create plans to avoid it. Thus, the ‘need’ to dissolve the euro might become the strongest argument against it, but might also motivate efforts to save it. As long as break-up was unthinkable (just a few months ago), then the parties involved were not willing to take the necessary steps to ensure its survival. Now, perhaps, they may try.


Tagged: , ,

Comments are closed.

What’s this?

You are currently reading Accepting a euro break-up at Groping towards Bethlehem.


%d bloggers like this: