Global identity crisis: the inability to cope with the changing world
OPINION — LONG-READ, May 2017
My professor of international relations and ethics used to argue that the key to many of today’s world problems is identity. But is identity really the root cause? I believe that the roots of the problem lie deeper, namely the inability to adjust old social structures to the current technological advancements and the opportunities created by them.
1 — Technology and change: historical overview
Never in history has the world changed so much in such a short time as in the last 100 years. In 1917, for instance, agriculture was still practiced using almost the same techniques and tools as in ancient Egypt. The reason for this rapid change is technology and throughout history, technological inventions have typically been followed by social changes, because human conduct and perception of the world and its possibilities are limited by technological limitations and new inventions therefore expand these. A few illustrations:
- In the 15th century, the Europeans discovered the mathematics, the translations of ancient writings and the astrolabe of the Arabs, which lead to the renaissance and the age of exploration.
- In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Dutch explored human anatomy, Copernicus and Galileo invented astronomy, the ancient philosophers came to be studied properly and world exploration was in full force due to the improvement of maritime and military technology, which lead to the questioning of Christian dogmas and hierarchies, heralding in the era of enlightenment and leading to the American and French revolutions.
- The invention of the steam engine in the early 19th century facilitated many other inventions, such as the light bulb, telephones, cameras, radios, etc., which lead to a change in the nature of work (from agricultural to industrial) and social structures, a simplification of production and an increase in availability of goods, but also to increased mobility due to the invention of the train.
- After WWII, the television was invented, the microwave was invented, tractors, combines and automated machinery replaced workers and the airplane, the car and high speed trains became common forms of transport, which lead to increased mobility and contact all over the world, more international relations and international trade, an intermingling of peoples and cultures, as well as more calls for individual rights and the end of prudishness and hierarchy.
- Before the invention of the space vehicles, people hardly ever thought about other planets and extra-terrestrial life. Today, space travel is deeply imprinted in the public imagination and made people aware of the fragility of the earth, leading to the green revolution we are currently in, but it also facilitated telecommunication and wireless internet.
Today, we are living in the era of the Digital Revolution. The internet is part of the same trend as the other inventions mentioned, expanding humanity’s living environment from villages to regions, to nations, to the entire world. Globalism is, therefore, a logical result of the technological advancement. In the year 1017, an average European’s social sphere would be limited to his fellow villagers, while today, people travel all over the world. As an illustration, my Facebook friends list contains people of at least 47 nationalities (not even counting all of the complex mixed backgrounds).
“Globalism is a logical result of the technological advancement”
2 — Identity
Human beings are social beings, and therefore identity is an important feature of a person’s psyche, since it defines one’s relationship to other humans. Everyone wants to belong somewhere, feel important, useful and appreciated, so they look for a group that provides these securities. That is the power of motor gangs, hooligan clubs and religious sects, but also the armed forces, student societies and even certain professions.
In the past, there were structures (boxes) that divided people into groups and ranked the group in different grades of superiority. Those who did not fit the criteria were regarded inferior. Examples are race, religion, sexuality, gender, nationality, language/dialect, family, political views, social status, age, profession, etc. These boxes often provided for people’s identities.
However, the more people discover the world and other cultures, the more they realise that people are all as human as they are and that simply fitting inside a certain box is no longer sufficient for respect to be based on. The old identities are gradually being replaced by universal identity, based on the notion that everyone is equal. People are no longer dependent on the political preference or profession or social status of their parents, nor the religion of their village or the old national prides or grudges against other countries. If anyone wants to be of more value, he should earn it through his own personal actions and achievement in life.
“simply fitting inside a certain box is no longer sufficient for respect to be based on”
Yet, there is a down-side. A society that bases identity and personal value on achievements in life does tend to leave behind those who do not have the capacity and/or opportunities to do so. These people, usually the less well-off, naturally oppose the universal identity, because they do not feel important, useful or appreciated within the system, and therefore they start to look for a different system or group in which they are appreciated. This leads to the rise of Islamic extremism, problems with the integration of immigrant communities, the rise of xenophobia, homophobia and populism, growing membership of hooligan, drugs or motor gangs, the increasing support for separatism, increasing Euroscepticism, a record number of people believing in conspiracy theories and the ‘emergence’ of the angry and forgotten voter. So instead of trying to achieve personal success (whatever that may be), many tend to fall back on the old early-20th century boxes to derive their identity and value from.
3 — Root causes: money and work
Are these people to blame? No. If a system does not benefit you, it is only natural that you do not identify with it and that you long for change of your situation. This situation is primarily the financial situation. Today, value and identity is largely defined by income. Money is not simply a tool for trade, it also represents freedom; the freedom not to worry about being able to afford the bills, the freedom to buy goods and experiences, such as doing sports, playing an instrument or going on holiday. Not having money/freedom creates a feeling of unhappiness, and unhappy people tend to make bad decisions and look for something or someone to blame. I am convinced that if people had not had financial problems, the issues concerning immigration, integration, the EU and identity - which I do recognise exist - would not have been as magnified as they currently are.
“if people had not had financial problems, the issues concerning immigration, integration, the EU and identity would not have been as magnified as they currently are”
The technological changes are also affecting the nature of work and income. Mechanisation, and digitalisation make many traditional jobs irrelevant. For instance, if you wanted to transfer money 15 years ago, you had to go to a bank office and someone behind the reception desk would do it for you. If you needed lodging 5 years ago, you would book a small overpriced hotel room that was barely cleaned by the underpaid cleaner. Today, AirBnB provides entire houses or flats for rent, often for a very reasonable price, putting pressure on the hotel industry. The same goes for Uber taxis. And there are even jobs that could be automated today, but which does not yet happen, due to employment considerations, limiting the technological advancement.
With traditional jobs and fixed hour contracts are disappearing, and not everyone being able to be retrained into IT specialists, the whole notion that a job can provide a sufficient income is starting to fade and with it the opportunities for people to ‘achieve great things’ in life and derive their identities from it.
4 — Change: framework and application
So if politicians want to solve the discontent in society, they need to address the employment issue. But it is not as simple as that. No politician or economist can make today’s economy work the way it did in the early 20th century, simply because, as was concluded earlier, technology has changed people’s perspectives, opportunities and behaviour. That is where the parallel with identity comes in.
Social change can be divided into two aspects: the actual application of the change (i.e. being able to rent a flat via AirBnB) and the framework (i.e. the accepted idea that lodging should be provided by hotels). If the two do not coincide, problems arise, which is our current situation. Our modern technology provides lots of new opportunities, including meeting new people and new cultures, be informed about things that happen on the other side of the world, share information, use creativity to its utmost, making purchases easily and quickly and internationally, book cheap and easy lodgings and taxis, play online games (that graphically look very realistic) with people from all over the world, vote digitally, apply online for licenses, attend meeting while working from home, etc.
However, we cannot benefit from these opportunities if we are not prepared to also change the framework within which society operates. This means that we must rethink the old frameworks that are based on the 20th century reality, such as representative parliamentary democracy, the position of limited legal persons (companies), privacy, the traditional work place and working hours, education and the concept of the sovereign nation state.
But most importantly:
- we must change the framework of the old boxes being the sole source of identity and value;
- we must redefine from what personal value can be derived, no longer just being based on income;
- and we must rethink the traditional economy within which work is the primary source of income (and we must perhaps even consider something like the basic income).
“we cannot benefit from these opportunities if we are not prepared to also change the framework within which society operates”
It is, obviously, difficult for people to cope with so many changes in such a short time. However, it is necessary if we want to make the world a better place for all. Many of our current frameworks are based on a world that no longer exists. It is time for a forward looking generation that can shape the new frameworks, so the world can benefit most from the opportunities that lay before us.
N.L. Berendsen
Student at University of Groningen, formerly University of East Anglia
May 2017
