The Digital Implications of Global Transformations
As we face unprecedented global crises, it is essential to understand these complex dynamics and their implications.
In today’s rapidly evolving world, the intricate relationship between global transformations, politics, and digital technologies has become a pressing concern. In our latest Digital Pilgrims podcast episode titled “A World in Crisis,” we delve into the central questions surrounding these issues to better equip social science researchers in navigating this new terrain.
In this thought-provoking, 10-minute episode we invite you to reflect on these critical questions and consider how they can contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex issues at hand:
- How do global transformations and political changes challenge traditional models of coexistence, and what impact do they have on our societies and digital environments?
- Drawing on the theories of renowned thinkers like Zygmunt Bauman, can we predict the potential collapse of globalization, and how might this affect international alliances and conflicts?
- What role does energy play as a crucial asset in shaping the emerging world order, and how can social science researchers consider this in their work?
- How can digital technologies be harnessed to better understand and address the complex relationship between global transformations and politics?
Listen to “A World in Crisis” on the main platforms and share your thoughts and experiences with the Digital Pilgrims community. Together, we can navigate the complexities of global transformations and their impact on social science research, helping to shape a more inclusive and resilient world.
We look forward to your insights and contributions to this important discussion.
Listen on all the main apps:
Read the episode transcript here:
Episode 14: A World In Crisis
We live in turbulent times. In recent years, we have seen social upheavals happen more frequently in different parts of the world. Many of them have had an impact on local and regional political structures. It feels like there is always an active conflict somewhere, which we hear about thanks to protestors who upload pictures and videos from the scene of the events. Social networks reflect discontent, and traditional media outlets repeat those expressions.
In recent years, for example, we have seen huge popular uprisings. Those that took place in Hong Kong, Chile, Colombia, and the United States even challenged the political fabric in each country. Some of these uprisings led to a change in government or even sparked the process of transforming a country’s constitution. One of the reasons we stay up to date on these conflicts is because they are movements with high levels of organization and efficiency when it comes to making themselves visible and having an impact on the public sphere, both in the Natural and Digital Environments.
While some protests are focused on a particular territory because they are making demands of the governments of their own countries, there are other transversal movements that, like the feminist movement, environmentalist youth, and protests against war or in favor of refugees, cannot be thought of in terms of a single country or region. Where can we say these tensions are expressed? In the Natural Environment, where hun dreds or thousands of people come together in a public space? Or is it really in the digital realm, where messages are multiplied thousands of times, and the repercussions of every image or video are multiplied millions of times? Is it possible that these events are phenomena that take place in both environments at once? If that is the case, it is interesting to consider how or why they move from one environment to the other and what that tells us about the connection between conflicts and underlying social structures.
The situations that trigger these expressions of discontent are often specific episodes that awaken a great power. An increase in transportation fares for students, a teachers’ protest, a union’s demand, a tax hike, the passage of a law, or the murder of a racialized person appear as the visible tip of an iceberg that brings together current grievances, historical struggles, and urgent demands. The problems caused by on-demand economic models, regressions in terms of human and identity rights, imbalances in the global economy, the energy crisis, and environmental collapse come together in a situation of conflict for which there appear to be no answers. The odd thing about the current moment is the feeling that all these episodes are related in some way. But is that really the case? Is this a global crisis? Are we staring down an imbalance in the models of coexistence?
At times, the prevailing feeling is that many of the organizational systems that structure our society no longer fit the needs of the people we have become. Failures in the economic system, the crisis of civil representation, new uses and habits developed in the Digital Environment, and the spread of fake news are possible symptoms of a crisis of representation. Traditional models of coexistence are no longer enough to express our identity, be productive, live together in an organized way in habitable spaces, or feel politically represented. As it becomes necessary to unpack the explanation and causes of these movements, not only because are they not obvious at a glance but also because it is difficult to clearly analyze a historical moment while it is happening, there is one thing that is clear and right in front of our faces: the emotions that the current moment causes in people. Confusion affects all of us. We seem to be controlled by the feeling that we lack a cohesive ideological framework or a clear structure that organizes the events we are experiencing, one that could comfort us and bring order to our reality. We constantly feel adrift.
However, at this moment with few certainties, there are some schools of thought that try to explain the changes we are seeing and dig deeper into different questions and hypotheses. Is modern society collapsing? Did the world change, or did we change?
The crises of the present and the political and social situation can be understood through the lens of various frameworks. In his book Liquid Modernity, published in 1999, Zygmunt Bauman described modernity as flexible, precarious, exhausting, and temporary. He used the word “liquid” to show a contrast with the idea of a past that was solid, with values associated with stability, tradition, and trust in enduring institutions. In Bauman’s view, the fluid and volatile nature of the current historical moment has devastating effects on identity. In this sense, a society based on individualism and constant change gives rise to such existential distress that individuals feel powerless, unable to innovate and produce.
Rather than explorers of unknown seas, Bauman sees us as shipwrecked sailors in an ocean of uncertainty. The sociologist maintains that the labor market is one of the areas most strongly affected by this liquid condition. Years ago, at a solid job, one could choose a career and, when they reached their desired position, rest in the certainty that they would be able to retire from that same position if they wanted. A job was enough to develop a professional career and even a social identity. Although Bauman’s text is a few years old, the idea of a contrast between solid and liquid societies permeated our culture and is still relevant.
When Bauman stated at the end of the 20th century that the model was failing, he was pointing to a crisis of the system that began during the Industrial Revolution. The appearance of mass society, held up by the factory model and the introduction of machinery in processes that up until then had been agricultural and performed by hand, brought with it a structure of habitability in which the city was at the center. Industrialization organized consumption around a new economic and productive linchpin. These transformations had their counterpart, in terms of a mutual influence, in the new scientific theories of the day, changes in productive processes, and even the political and violent conflicts of that period.
What Bauman identifies as the fall of industrial models can also be interpreted as the end of globalization. This view allows us to analyze the events of recent years like Brexit, Trump’s election as president of the United States, and the armed conflict in Ukraine, through the lens of a paradigm change in the world order.
The end of the Cold War, when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union was dissolved, made way for the globalization of the industrial era. An economic, technological, political, social, and cultural process, globalization meant, among other things, growing communication and interdependence between different countries around the world. The so-called Digital Revolution opened up new possibilities in this dynamic process that has marked the last four decades of human existence. With digital technologies, the world became a global village in which all of us could be connected to one another. For some things, there no longer seemed to be any borders. This period saw international organizations like the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank flourish, with the goal of coordinating economic and social policy around the world. We could even associate globalization with the world imagined by leaders of the digital movement in the second half of the 20th century.
That model seems to be in its final stage today. In this sense, we can appreciate the relevance of Brexit as a fracturing of the European economic bloc, and of Donald Trump’s loud and controversial presidency in the United States. Perhaps we can use these events as a jumping-off point to think about how the United States, one of the greatest winners of the Second World War and the Cold War, hopes to change the playing field to continue to ensure its dominance in the next stage. So far, the United States, along with continental Europe and China, has presented itself as a world power through its manufacturing might and the technological developments achieved through automation. But the turn of the century brought with it a new reality: the most important asset is energy, and the United States knows it.
Shale gas deposits, made accessible to extraction through fracking, allowed the United States to self-supply its own energy. This is also a world in which technological advances created a new habitable environment where a large part of our existence occurs and which is completely dependent on electricity. Energy sovereignty is vital to any power that hopes to lead change.
In this context, countries with energy capital have a rare competitive advantage. This could explain why two large powers like the United States and Russia, which not only have weapons of mass destruction but also compete with regards to technology, find more common ground today than they do differences. In this new structure, both have surplus energy, and this could become one of the largest sectors of interest for both countries when it comes to possible allies. We could even imagine unlikely alliances that include other countries in this position, like those in the Middle East or Venezuela.
This paradigm shift emerged and impacted the Natural Environment in March 2022 in Ukraine, when it took on an unexpected scope of conflict. In the future, the South China Sea may even be a possible stage for a similar situation. And the Digital Environment, of course, is not separate from these movements of pieces around the board.
In the next episode:
Discover how digital technologies and politics impact each other and how the United States, Russia, and China are deploying strategies that reshape the globe.
Digital Pilgrims is a podcast based upon the book “Digital Pilgrims. Towards a Quantum Humanity”.
