4 ms·
Up front I just have to say that this comment is not meant as a criticism of the choice. These are just my loose thoughts on the particulars of this prize. Wit
by arrrg 7y ago
Up front I just have to say that this comment is not meant as a criticism of the choice. These are just my loose thoughts on the particulars of this prize.
Without wanting to say anything about this year’s winner (if only because of a lack of my personal knowledge which, to be honest, is probably embarrasing): The prize has sometimes been awarded in a very aspirational way, i.e. not so much for past work, but more as an encouragement based on not so much past work. I view giving the award to Obama in that way, for example.
I do think that’s a valid and potentially valuable approach to giving out the prize. I’m not sure giving the prize to someone decades after they did something important is very useful, especially for such an overtly political prize. I do think that the Nobel Peace Prize has to dare to be brave and also dare to be wrong. It should not pick safe choices where a wide consensus has already formed.
Of course I also can see the other side, too: If you are wrong too often you risk becoming a joke and irrelevant, all encouragement is for nothing. So this is a hard problem to solve. But still: overall I think being daring is the right approach for a prize such as this. That the goal is to say with the prize: “We want to support the great work this person is doing right now, right in this moment!”
In that light I’m quite tolerant to some missteps if the Peace Prize is willing to be brave and get right into the fray, also of things that are still hotly contested.
- mcv 7y agoOther Nobel Prizes sometimes do get awarded decades after the research they're rewarding, in order to see the impact of the result, whether it actually turned out to be true, etc. I wouldn't mind if they did something similar with the Peace Prize. Obama's prize, for example, was clearly too early. Although it would have worked if it had been given to the American voter instead. To elect a black president in a country with such a history of extreme racism against black people, that's a fantastic step forward. But it was the voters who did that. Awarding it for getting elected, or even for that nice speech that Obama made, it feels like that's a bit of a thin reason. Similarly, I know a lot of people would like to have seen it go to Greta Thunberg, and it would have been a lot more deserved than some other recipients, but I still think it's better to wait a year, to see the real impact she's had. I also imagined that if Greta had gotten it, she might have given an angry speech that she doesn't want awards, she wants people to act, and I would have agreed.
- vidarh 7y agoObama's prize was basically a collective sigh of relief of him not being Bush more than anything. The amount of celebration over Obama's win by non-Americans was at a level I've never seen before. Expect a similar sigh of relief once Trump goes, though perhaps a bit more muted because we're more cynical about what will come next by now.
- arrrg 7y agoBut I would argue that because of the political nature of the prize (and the deliberate political nature of it) the Peace Prize is unlike the other Prizes and should maybe be awarded differently, i.e. while being less certain about whether the choice is a good one. But I can also see and understand your point of view. It’s just a different (and also valid) idea of what the Prize is supposed to be.