Another step into the 21st century

Towards the end of 1999, Time magazine published a special edition that looked ahead to the new millennium. Among others, it contained an article that summarised the projections of a variety of thinkers, writers and scientists approached by Time for their considered prognoses and expectations concerning the new millennium. Judging by the article, they had been asked to respond to the question: What do you think will be the issues that are most likely to dominate the 21st century?

If my memory serves me correctly, all these responses were brought together by Time‘s editorial staff under four very telling headings, namely:
1. Globalisation;
2. Ecological issues;
3. Religious fanaticism; and
4. Tribalism.

As far as the first goes, it was no stroke of genius to prognosticate the continuing importance of globalisation at various levels, namely the cultural, the political, the economic and even the juridical (in international law, for instance).

There is a growing body of literature on globalisation that explores the phenomenon in all its ambivalence. The best of these is, to my mind, the work of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (mainly Empire and Multitude), in so far as it highlights the pitfalls as well as the opportunities opened up by globalisation.

To take just one example, in the realm of communications technology (part of what they call the “informatisation” of society) they locate two countervailing forces that operate in the sphere of the internet. On the one hand, these are forces that represent the attempt, on the part of the dominant world order (what they call “Empire”), to extend and maintain control over people’s lives at all costs, for economic and political reasons, and on the other hand there are those forces (what they call “multitude”; the counterpart of Marx’s “proletariat”, but different from it in crucial respects) that continually strive to maximise human freedom and democracy.

At the level of the internet (and media generally) the forces bent on “vertical” or “top-down” control are termed “oligopolistic” by them, while those intent on optimal freedom are regarded as being properly democratic at a “horizontal” level (that aspect of the internet commonly associated with open-source information).

This struggle is set to continue growing more intense, in my judgement, and I don’t see it being resolved either way — in some or other form, the tension will continue to exist between forces aimed at control (through political, economic and bureaucratic means, for instance), and those struggling for freedom. Sometimes the struggle is disguised, and not easily identified as a struggle, for example the present looming confrontation between representatives of medical-aid societies (representing the side of economic freedom) and the private hospitals in South Africa (representing the forces bent on economic domination).

There is no doubt that the second theme from Time, ecological issues, is high on the agenda in the world today, and deservedly so, because the well-being of all living creatures on the planet is in the balance (Al Gore’s first book on this is appropriately called Earth in the Balance).

Before the Stern report in Britain highlighted the economic implications of global warming, one did not see much movement on the part of industry and technology to combat the phenomenon (not surprisingly, only when their economic condition is threatened, do people usually sit up and take notice), but since its appearance there have been a host of indications that even these domains of human inventiveness are becoming greener — a welcome development, which is set to continue, and not a moment too soon. And with the oil price surpassing $100 a barrel, one would hope for the acceleration of the development of alternative energy sources and, correspondingly, of vehicles to utilise such energy.

Time was vindicated as far as the third issue, religious fanaticism, is concerned, early in the new millennium, with the occurrence of what is now referred to as 9/11, and since that date, the world has witnessed the manifestation of internecine religious struggles motivated, paradoxically, by religious groupings usually claiming allegiance to a doctrine of universal love in some or other way. Not that this should surprise anyone — the 30-year war between Protestants and Catholics in the 16th century was similarly motivated by fanaticism, despite both sides claiming to worship a God of love.

One would have thought that the fourth issue, tribalism, would — by the 21st century, at least — be of less importance than the tendency, on the part of all the diverse cultural groups on the planet, to recognise a common humanity as the decisive factor binding people together. Not that cultural differences are unimportant — on the contrary.

One of the gains of post-modernity has been the recognition of the value of particular differences among cultures, but it should not be at the cost of the recognition of the important insight (of modern provenance), namely the universality of humanity across all cultural and social barriers. And yet, again Time seems to have been vindicated — there have been a number of symptoms of a resurgence, if not simply a continuation, of tribalism in various quarters, the latest being indications that there is a strong tribal dimension to the strife accompanying the recent Kenyan election.

Hence, it seems to me that the four themes identified by the respondents to Time magazine’s question, referred to above, are by no means abating in importance, even if one could hope that they might do so as far as their more destructive aspects are concerned.