Borderless Generation:
On Nationalism and the Cyber Revolution
C. Cocuzza | August 2017

Prologue. In the following discourse, broad topics are initially pinpointed and probed in individual sub-sections. Namely are the topics of nationalism, historical revolution, resistance to change, and borders. Each of these is a substantial and complex topic for discussion, and the devoted sub-sections below serve to open up, and perhaps diagnose, the most relevant issues within each topic. After this, I attempt to synthesize those insights into a framework for understanding why we are seeing some concerning trends in demeanor, worldwide. Such trends include exaggerated social tensions, hostile rhetoric, and a general abandonment of civility.
In writing this, and compiling related material (embedded throughout), I have two affiliated aims. Firstly, to traverse provocative and interrelated notions. I am of the mindset that we should not shy away from nuanced and complicated subject matter. This has the additional benefit of being fertile ground for input from you, the reader. There are many perspectives and examples not considered here; these are heartily welcomed. Secondly, I aim to uncover hidden cognitive biases that may be unique to modern times. If nothing else, it is exciting to think that we are still capable of novelty, even if it is cognitively based.
Nationalism. On its surface, this word implies an ideology centered around where one lives; the nation one calls home. That seems relatively harmless. After all, who isn’t proud of, or primarily concerned with, their country; their home? To some, though, the word nationalism implies an era of rapidly increasing political grandstanding through divisive rhetoric that preludes harsh international tensions, and moreover, all-out war. That does not sound harmless. In the latter perspective, nationalism is seen as an evil ideology; entirely harmful. So, which interpretation of the word is correct? Is nationalism simply home-turf pride and citizenship-centric thinking, where one innocently ignores the issues of other nations? Or, is nationalism a war-provoking disposition; an exigent call-to-arms to boost your countries’ well-being, at the expense of others?
There is no single, strict delineation of nationalism and its sociological roots; there is even some debate on the matter. For the sake of clarity, though, let’s consider nationalism to mean prioritizing one’s nation first. However, this simple notion has a tendency to become quickly energized and gain momentum; often morphing into a distinct movement or cultural basis, for better or worse (a primer on the flavors of nationalism, here).

In the innocuous version, we might consider cheering for your country at the Olympics a nationalist sentiment. In a looser example, ignoring global news, perhaps to prioritize where you live and what impacts you directly, is also a nationalist action (albeit passive). The Olympics and only reading your nation’s news are innocent and relatable examples of nationalism. Moreover, even in times when nationalism precedes war, the motivations are not always sinister. For example, the American Civil War of 1861 was in itself a fight for nationalism; to decide how the country is defined, both ideologically and geographically; and to define the rights that participating states should have.

This was essential for the U.S. to continue forward, and most think that the victor had ultimately beneficent motives. Likewise, there are examples throughout history of nationalism being deployed malevolently, as was the case for the National Socialist Party (e.g., the Nazis). They used perverse eugenics, totalitarian rule, and genocide for what they considered to be in the best interest of Germany.
Thus, historically, nationalism has been both innocuous and foreboding; both necessary and senseless.
History is complex, though. Antebellum movements can be confusing and colored by the intentions and emotional palate of those in power. And as we all know, us humans can be manipulative, fickle, reactionary, and selfish. In more complex circumstances, initially-admirable nationalist movements can be co-opted, such as the winding events and leadership that propagated the French Revolution.
And even more complex still, leaders can use propaganda and carefully sculpted narrative to downplay (or sometimes, exacerbate) the implications of their nationalist tone, while acting in direct contradiction “behind the scenes”. For example, a leader may pull out of global agreements and sermonize isolationist motivations, along the lines of: “we should be concerned with our nation’s business only”, or as the saying goes, “get our house in order first”. This dilution of nuance gives the people a sincere impression; it is a simple and easy-to-agree-with narrative. In reality, though, those actions might be inciting global, and perhaps civil, unrest. This is where we find ourselves today.
Revolution. This term is more familiar. We all know that power shifts and ideologies come and go. Often this is hard-earned, but nonetheless change underpins our history as much as time itself. In his seminal work on scientific paradigm shifts, Thomas Kuhn wrote:
“Ever since prehistoric antiquity one field of study after another has crossed the divide between what the historian might call its prehistory as a science and its history proper”
While this insight specifically discusses shifts in scientific thinking, we may extend this notion; the change process pervades all arenas of life. Let’s focus for the moment on widespread cultural epochs. Recalling middle school history lessons, examples of such time periods include: The Middle Ages, The Renaissance, The Age of Enlightenment, and The Industrial Revolution. Each of these has a story. Each of these had a series of events, well-defined as well as ambiguous, that culminated in a new way of thinking, interacting, and ultimately, living. When the tipping point occurred — the time when we officially transitioned from old ways to new ways — is often unclear.
The Industrial Era fully came to fruition in the early-to-mid 19th century, and can be boiled down to technical innovation allowing for mass production in industry. This supplanted the older way of individual, hand-made production, which had an immense influence on society and our way of life. From mechanized processing of textiles, to high powered steam-engine transport, this era was critical for ushering in the way of life we have now; industrial, machine-driven, massive, and product-rich.
We are now in the midst of another widespread revolution. You guessed it: The Cyber Revolution. Some call our time The Information Age; The Computer Era; The Digital Age.

How this time will be termed on the pages of history books aside, it seems we are finally over that vague tipping point. The cyber revolution is now just our way of life. It has been in the making for over half a century (or longer, depending on your view), but one would be hard-pressed now, in 2017, to find someone who has never touched a computing device, who has never heard of the internet.

We have an entire generation of young adults who have never known a world without the internet (so-called gen Z or iGen). Fastened as we may be in the cyber era, it is still fresh; it is still the early years.
Growing pains. There is a precedent for growing pains in the early years of a revolutionary era. Even though change is a clear and knowable part of human history (we may even call change inevitable), it seems that most tend to resist change (an overview of explanatory theories, here). At the risk of employing some circular logic, it is important to note that exactly how change is resisted, depends on the context of what is happening. While there are some ideological and political battles that seem to pop up again and again throughout history (for example, taxation systems), those who resist the tide of a given revolution will likely do so in a way that is directly centered on the issues of that time.

During the Industrial Revolution people were smashing machines so often that machine breaking became a punishable and illegal act in England. Literally raging against the machine was a time-period-specific and apropos manifestation of growing pains during that era. While imagining an adult smashing a loom in a fury might make us chuckle, the conviction behind it is rather grave.
During the early years of the Industrial Era, people’s livelihoods were being upended. Imagine you came from a long line of artisans; perhaps you and your family hand-spun fabric, blew glass, cobbled shoes, or tended to a farmland (often with one main crop). To emphasize this point, there were places around the world where your family’s trade was even your last name. Perhaps you and your ancestors are called Smith. This may be because there were many blacksmiths, or swordsmiths, or shoesmiths, in your family. Hand-crafted and individuated trade was a deeply ingrained part of a family’s identity. A skillset was a type of family heirloom. Then, along comes industry; along comes machines. To survive, many had to abandon their family’s trade. This often meant earning significantly less than they did previously, as the implementation and incorporation of industry did not financially benefit everyone equally. To make matters worse, there were inadequate protections in the early years, and children were often harshly exploited. Not to mention historical blights rearing their ugly heads, such as indentured servitude and slavery. Socioeconomic issues and debates on class division were not new, but there was a massive new variable to consider: machines. With all that in mind, the image of the worker smashing the loom is a bit more heartbreaking. With every revolution, there is that main, imposing variable being introduced. And at its introduction, its inception, we respond in kind.
Borders. So, what say we, the cyber generation? What is the undercurrent of our revolution? The obvious answer is the internet. Advanced computing plays a role as well (e.g., Moore’s Law), but the ability to instantaneously connect with computer networks around the entire Earth is undoubtedly the most profound variable of the digital age.

We can socialize or do business with someone on the other side of the world immediately through email, personal messaging, social media, video calling, and the like. We can order products from all corners of the world and have them delivered to our doorstep within a week. We can read news of far-away places, giving us easier and more nuanced access to the everyday life of other nations than ever before. We can toggle between all of the above tasks in a black brick that fits in the palm of our hands, all at computing speeds that would make Ada Lovelace’s head spin, and all while making our morning coffee and playing candy crush.
With all of that in mind, I sometimes look at modern maps and scoff. Our maps, like maps of the past, have thin, dashed lines delineating one territory against the next. Where I live, New Jersey in the U.S., I see those dashed boundaries between say New Jersey and New York, and it just does not seem correct anymore. Subjectively, it feels off and misrepresentative of our era. Interacting with people in New York is as immediate as interacting with people in New Jersey, there is no pragmatic division between the two in my everyday life (aside from perhaps the Hudson River crossing toll costs). Provincial or state divisions are trivial examples, as you can freely travel over them because they are part of the same nation. But what of divisions between nations themselves? Perhaps the new, imposing variable of our cyber revolution is not the internet itself, but what it has done to our sense of borders; eliminated them.
A synthesized proposition. Bringing this all together; nationalism, the cyber revolution, growing pains, and borders; we can begin to construct a theory. Many leaders around the world are rallying their people, fixating on borders as the imperative talking point (analysis and real-world examples here; and a related synthesis of ideas here). This, as explored here, is a nationalist concern. There are varied narratives around this concern.
Some call for stricter nation lines, in the form of physical walls, to ensure the safety of current citizens. This version of safety, as a leveraged concept, is manifold. Foremost, safety can literally mean being safe from invaders or people who would otherwise do us physical harm, on our soil. Notably, I call this narrative because it is a devised story that ignores some harsher truths (likely intentionally). Ultimately, with the technological advancements of our age also extending to weaponry, a wall will not keep a nation safe from large-scale attacks. This is not to discount smaller-scale safety, which has been highlighted recently by attacks in Stockholm, Paris, London, and Barcelona, to name a few. It is violence on this scale that walls promise to protect us from, as the narrative goes. The rationale is that we are less vulnerable to a one-on-one (or one-on-some-dozens) violence, if we keep out people born in other nations. Again, this is narrative because (1) it ignores the many other means of getting into a country, and (2) there is a hard-lined assumption that people of other nations are the main threat (in terms of small-scale violence), which is statistically inaccurate. People have noted that, in the U.S., “homegrown” terrorists have killed more people than foreign terrorists. This underscores the point on statistics, but we can take that logic a step further. Turn on any local news station and it will become evident that everyday violence occurs between people who know each other, who share the same community and citizenship; this, it seems, is a dark but enduring truth of human nature. The idea that a physical blockade to foreigners effectually keeps us safe from small-scale violence is starting to unravel. So, let’s look at the other narratives supporting such walls.
Some say that exacting boundaries protects our jobs and social programs. This is quite nationalistic and appeals to the many who are just trying to get by. In the U.S., this means that the harder it is for one to relocate here, the harder it will be for them to get a job here; a job that might otherwise be yours. This is also narrative; and one that plays on our insecurities. Like all effective political rhetoric, it has a kernel of truth; it would technically be easier to get a job if there were less competition. However, this simplified rationale (e.g., protecting jobs) ignores (1) which jobs are being protected (e.g., usually not highly skilled trade), and, (2) the mass outsourcing that is being done by companies themselves, regardless of walls. In the latter case, regulating corporations would be the more compelling course of action in the nationalists’ view, not building a wall. So, why does this gospel work so well? Let’s delve even deeper into the narrative.
Some walls are put up to impose a physical boundary between different classes of people. These classes can be socioeconomic, political, or in some cases, morally-based. In these scenarios, walls promise to protect against those who have or want different things out of life. In extreme scenarios, walls promise to “keep the peace” between neighboring people with such diametrically opposed ideologies that they are told it would be dangerous to freely mix together. Moreover, it would be dangerous to allow children to be influenced by the opposing people. The logic behind this rhetoric is weaker than anything mentioned thus far because walls of this kind are clearly more symbolic and domineering than they are functional. But like the notion of job security, it simultaneously exploits our insecurities while bolstering our sense of nationalism. Why then, is the call to fortify national bounds louder than ever? Why is this flavor of nationalism spreading so furiously by leaders, worldwide?
Let’s circle back to the growing pains of our cyber revolution. I pointed out that the most drastic change to our way of life is the immediateness and connectedness of people around the world; in-effect eliminating our sense of borders. It follows that, as the worker smashing the loom in the industrial era, we are acting out against this change. In a book related to this notion, Joshua Copper Ramo likewise discusses isolationist tendencies in an increasingly connected world. While this work offers unique insights that relate our discourse to network theory, this text focuses most on how to navigate our era in a successful way. I think we can probe deeper still into why the border-obsessed form of nationalism is supported by such large numbers of people. As was the case with the industrial revolution forcing some to abandon a long history of trade, we are being forced to abandon a long history of borders. Importantly, the deeper the roots, the harder it will be to pull up the plant. National borders, or civilization borders, go back thousands of years. This modus operandi will not be uprooted overnight.
More still, the idea of boundaries is deeply embedded into how we process information. Consider the notion that the universe is infinite. We might shy away from thinking about this too seriously; it is difficult to imagine what infinite space might be, but it is also impossible to imagine a boundary on the universe — something must be on the other side! If these thoughts bring you discomfort, or dissonance, you are not alone. We make sense of things by defining them, outlining them, giving them boundaries. When asked to conceive of something without boundaries, it becomes difficult to maintain a steady notion of what that thing is. We prefer to have steady and consistent definitions. This does not apply directly to national borders, because we are still terrestrially bounded. Therefore, the dissonance is not as severe if asked to conceive of a world without borders. However, it seems that our preference for delineation; for ontology; for steady definitions, would almost always win out against ambiguity. Thus, the majority of us share an unconscious narrative for why borders are good. This is so firmly anchored into our thought processes that we may not even need politicians to convince us. While the dust is just now settling on our cyber revolution, I suspect the nationalistic backlash, however unconscious its’ roots may be, is just beginning.
Open questions. There are pressing questions to be addressed in this discourse. Importantly, now that we are analyzing our tendencies, is there a way to use these insights to help us? It is critical to pinpoint a limiting cognitive bias (e.g., why we are clinging so ardently to borders), but it should not stop there. We should further ask if there is a way to overcome that bias and reconcile our cognitive dissonance. Once we start to do that, discourse on borders being beneficial versus harmful would be less colored by historical precedent. Perhaps there is a peaceful way to maintain a bordered world alongside the internet’s borderless-ness; perhaps even a way for them to complement each other?
Another question that may have occurred to some readers relates to the notion of a globalized society. It is not clear to me how useful that topic is in this conversation, as it is often touted by what some call “conspiracy theorists”. To be more concrete, the idea is called a New World Order (NWO); based loosely on the idea that we are moving towards a globalized society, one without borders. After that, the logic tends to quickly fall apart and propose nonsensical (and often bigoted) views (more on this here). However, it is worthwhile to consider a future scenario where, despite our current trend of nationalism, we do eventually employ an “open border” scheme to citizenship. Impacts of this may extend to: monetary systems, language, cultural identity, religious identity, and of course, governing style at such a large scale. These aspects of the NWO conversation should be pursed, but with caution!
Lastly is what I consider to be a glaring elephant in the room: war. I noted how nationalism is often an antebellum political device. Given that we are seeing an upsurge in nationalist rhetoric (worldwide, not just in the U.S.), this is quite concerning. While I think a healthy dose of “remembering history” is sage advice, I also know it can be debilitating to give in to these fears. War is not inevitable; we can work together to get through this shift.