Just over a year ago, I wrote a blog entitled Tribalism versus the Global Village: https://timboatswain.wixsite.com/website/post/something-big-is-comingillage
I was trying to explain through evolutionary psychology the swing towards populism and a form of nationalism that is now often described as 'nativism'. I laid the blame for this trend, which I characterised as a negative consequence of insecurity and fear of loss of identity, on tribalism, that has fostered a 'conservative' sense of belonging, shared views, and, sadly, prejudiced certainty in the uncertainty of a fast-changing world where identity, customs, and mores are being eroded by the changes brought about by multi-nationalism, multiculturalism, and migration.
It seems that nativism, which at one level might be perceived as initiating positive policies of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants, is too closely linked to tribalism to overcome xenophobia - a hostile attitude to the 'others': aliens and immigrants.
The promise of the Global Village, a consequence of technology, was to sweep away petty nationalism encouraging the flow of capital, goods, and people across national borders. It would promote internationalism through multiculturalism, erode racism, and foster tolerance. One belief was that there would be a new world order which would bring people together to tackle international issues like peace, inequality, discrimination, and climate change. However, the rational promise seems to have faltered, if not failed, in delivering more open, welcoming pluralistic societies. The irrational side of human nature, in this case, tribalism, is holding humanity back.
It seems that communities have actually become more disconnected and that hide-bound 'patriots' have turned to a narrow form of nationalism, seeking a shared but prejudiced, and often imagined, past with slogans like, "Make America Great Again". These nostalgic historical narratives of chauvinistic 'golden ages' have often fuelled antipathy both to past enemies and new menacing migrants.
Linked to sets of defensive attitudes whole sections of society, not equipped for fast-changing international modernity, feel left behind while detached global elites have reaped the benefits of 'the village' when they have not. At the same time it appears that the 'establishment', as well as the traditional advocates for the more disadvantaged sections and classes of society, have not been listening to their members; for example, in the UK, the collapse of the so-called 'Red Wall' support for the Labour Party at the 2019 election.
Some time back there has been a developing sentiment of fracture across societies which was accelerated by the financial crisis of 2008. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 it appeared to herald the triumph of capitalism over command economies and their totalitarian leaders. However, a decade on, the severe worldwide economic crisis, caused by a laissez-faire system of capitalism, tarnished any sense that free and liberal monetary politics would lead to redistribution of wealth and equality, creating a fairer society.
What has been described as 'the rhetoric of resistance against cosmopolitan elites and technocrats' has emerged, where experts were told to curb their 'arrogance' (a reference to Michael Gove's infamous comments). Trust across societies has been fundamentally undermined by such attitudes - if you can't trust the experts who can you trust? (cf. my blog on the issue of trust during the pandemic: https://timboatswain.wixsite.com/website/post/trust-coronavirus-and-human-behaviour)
A depressing consequence of the failed new world order of the Global Village has been the attacks on democracy and across the world a series of anti-democratic and repressive measures have and are being applied with totalitarianism in the ascendency: for example, President Tayyip Erdogan, has purged Turkey of over 60,000 opponents, including 6,000 'disloyal' academics; Putin has established a virtual 'life-long presidency', removing all political opposition, his latest victim being Alexei Navalny; the leader of 'the world's largest democracy', Narendra Modi, has introduced anti-Muslim laws into India; China has 'cleansed' Hong Kong, removing 'anti-Chinese' books from the libraries and has arrested 3,000 students, while rattling sabres in the South China Sea; the army has carried out a coup in Myanmar, locking up elected leaders and is killing its own protesting citizens; even in democratic Europe extreme nationalist movements are rampant, especially in France and Italy; and Hungary and Poland have legislated against an independent and impartial judiciary; and, sadly, there are plenty more examples of anti-democratic actions. At the same time some democratic politics, rather than organising around open belief systems, manifestos and specific policies, or party affiliation, is being reduced to a person's identity: gender, race and nationality.
So what are democracies to do to counteract these totalitarian, dictatorial limiting nativist tendencies? Democratic nation-states should be looking to achieve some international, progressive goals that bring benefit to the free world. After the ultra-nationaltist policies of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, as President of the US, now has a chance to set the right example in dealing with global issues, like inequality, racial discrimination, and stateless refugees. Let's hope he can make this happen so that other democratic nations will follow.
Comments