1 / Deglobalization?

2 / Change in our political systems and ways of life?

3 / Change of mentalities and ideological paradigms?

 

Ortega y Gasset (1959)warned we base our existence on infra-intellectual beliefs, such as the street will be there when going out the door as it always did. With global coronavirus pandemic, the use of the street ,something natural we all took for granted, as we do with other social uses, was suddenly no longer possible, at least for a time. A surprising development consequence of our actions – this of gigantic proportions -,  a CAD (Consequential Amazing Development, in Devjani Roy and Richard Zeckhause terminology), has knock our lives (Kuhlicke, 2015, p. 239).

«The biggest surprise can happen exactly when what we were told was going to happen happens» – writes Slavoj Zizek (2020). The obvious question – this philosopher asks – is the following: «Why did we not really believe it would happen», when virologists and epidemiologists had announced it, when such influential people as Bill Gates had placed it as the greatest danger we would face in the future, even greater than nuclear weapons? At the time of writing this post scriptum for my book Ignorant Modernity (Amazon.com 2020) , the unforeseen global expansion of the new coronavirus is inexorably advancing. Almost three million people from more than 180 countries in the world have already been diagnosed with covid-19 and more than 200,000 have lost their lives. The pandemic constitutes a global phenomenon, which possible transcendent consequences on the globalization model and for our modern civilization, whose cognitive aspects I have been analyzing in  the books La modernidad ignorante y  Agnotología (Sociología de la Ignorancia ,ignorancia de la Sociología. Amazón .com).

The risk society (Beck, 1988) or society of ignorance faces this crisis with the emergence of a global insecurity, that, even though has parallels with previous phenomena, such as  the  fallouts of the 2008 international economic crisis and the international terrorism arrival (following Lehman Brothers collapse and Twin Towers  attack)  it could have greater relevance indeed, and become transformative for our daily lives, for global affairs management and for democracy itself (Ortega, 2020).  Perception of risk and insecurity feeling,  as well as the correlative demand and need for trust to  live with these new mindsets , have to do  up-front with  modernity awareness  of ignoring central social processes affecting our personal and collective life. This fundamental conclusion set forth in the Ignorant Modernity is being corroborated by current global pandemic  .

As Ivan Krastev (2020) pointed out “these are strange days we are living in. We do not know when the Covid-19 pandemic will end; we do not know how it will end; and, at present, we can only speculate about its long-term political and economic impact”. Regarding the cognitive aspects of globalization and ignorance role in today’s societies (the ignorant  modernity subject)  this lack of knowledge is very relevant . We have here more questions than  answers. Therefore, along this post scriptum , I only try to offer a first outline on the extent to which the effects of this global pandemic  may affect trends I have been pointing out throughout my books; and, based on some of the analyzes carried out so far in the media, I´ll try to describe the challenges and questions we are faced with, which  may be even more interesting than the answers.

The former director of the Newspaper El País, Juan Luis Cebrián (2020)  wrote that “the Spanish Minister of Health, a philosopher, could well remember the Socratic maxim “I only know that I know nothing” to talk about the government performance regarding the pandemic. «In fact, almost nobody knows anything about this coronavirus;  Socrates memory of his own ignorance -he added- would help the minister to recognize his mistakes without the need to endorse them to others in the name of scientific evidence, a concept attributed to Kant and discussed by Wittgenstein”. Ignorance, like the virus, does not distinguish between scientists, politicians, sociologists, and ordinary people.

Having established these premises, there are, however -regarding globalization, modernization, and their consequences on cognitive models- three questions the  coronavirus  pandemic may have an impact on :

 

1 / Will it entail a deglobalization process? Will it involve greater control of our lives and environments, a de-escalation of ignorance from global sceneries to local ones?

 

2 / What changes may it  cause in our socio-political systems and ways of life? Will citizens’ knowledge or ignorance on global and state governance increase or decrease? What will happen to the information available to political leaders about private citizens data?

 

3 / Will it bring about a mentality change and the emergence of new ideological paradigms? Will the end of the idea of ​​progress be reinforced or it  will be there a new historical teleology emerging? What about social and international confidence and sense of risk ? It will increase or decrease?

 

1.- DEGLOBALIZATION?

 

CONTRADICTORY GLOBALIZATION / DEGLOBALIZATION PROCESS: MERCHANDISES INTERCONNECTION DECREASE VS  THOUGHTS CONNECTION GROWTH

 

With postcoronavirus world, a contradictory globalization /deglobalization process may occur at the same time.  We may expect , on the one hand, a decrease in goods global interconnection and their distant production; and, to a certain extent, of people flows (tourists, artists, athletes and emigrants), caused by the contraction of airline industry and tourism sectors and by the medium-term effects of current borders closure. “The airline industry will shrink as people travel less. Harder borders are going to be an enduring feature of the global landscape » (Gray, 2020).

For Ivan Krastev (2020) it is already clear that Covid-19 “is an anti-globalization virus, and that the opening of borders and mixing of peoples will be blamed for the catastrophe. …The coronavirus crisis has justified the fears of the anti-globalists: closed airports and the self-isolated individuals appear to be the ground zero of globalization”. “It is ironic– highlights Krastev- that the best way to contain the crisis of individualistic societies was to ask people to wall themselves in their apartment. Social distancing has become the new name for solidarity”.

On the other hand, an opposite analysis  points out to  a possible increase (through the internet network) of digital communications and ideas, so that we would go towards “reduced globalisation (deglobalisation), less centred on physical supply chains and more on their digital counterparts.”(Ortega, 2020). In favor of this second trend, it should be noted that, as a consequence of the current crisis, we are witnessing the production and consumption of a greater volume of international news and analysis; as well as of leisure ,political, ideological and cultural amenities transmitted by digital means. The current confinement of people ,therefore, may lead very likely to an improvement of the Internet infrastructure required  for this demand; not only for teleworking but  for teleconsumption as well.

This  digitalization process  is taking place jointly with a greater scientific cooperation at the international level; specifically with regard to  medical sciences (vaccines or medical treatments), but also in others fields, such as climate change or social sciences analysis (Olivié & Gracia, 2020), including supposedly smart articles  as this one. On the other hand, in favor of the idea of ​​greater intellectual globalization, it can be argued that digital platforms  offering all kinds of stuff  (cultural, artistic, technical, scientific, ideological) will not be affected by borders closure. On the contrary,  they will benefit in the next years from a greater  cross border consumption of telework, teleinformation and tele-documentation.

In any case, it should be examined, taking in mind the  ignorance subject-  in which extent this increase in digital and communicational transactions will affect the exponential growth of knowledge, specialization,  audiences fragmentation and infoxication (intoxication by an information excess, Cornella, 2000).  Will knowledge and ignorance (lack of control and uncertainty) stored in the internet increase at the same rate? How will this exponential growth of information in the world net affect its wicked features (its superficiality, instantaneousness, iconic and emotional character); and, consequently,  the increase or decrease of ignorance? The first impression is that the pandemic consequences will accelerate both trends, an explosion of knowledge and ignorance. It can also happen, nevertheless, that  people digital immersion lead societies to speedily  set social and legal regulations, smart filters, in order to separate fake news from true ones, useful knowledge from useless, quality content from intellectual rubbish.

 

A GLOBAL DECREASE OF GOODS AND STANDARD OF LIVING

 

One of the conclusions articulated in  the book Ignorant Modernity pointed to the existence of significant doses of people uneasiness in the face of transformations  experimented by the flow of goods, values, knowledge and fluid social relationships (all of them with programmed obsolescence), which has changed identity, intimacy and personal lives. These changes have their origin in an artificial world growth, full of merchandises (black boxes), whose complexity makes it increasingly unknown. An authentic second nature interposed between the natural world and the human being has emerged. Technology development (science plus industrialism) has led to super-specialization, as well as to a multiplication of available goods and objects in the world market. This make us to live in a biosphere of ignorant specialists and consumers.  We are surrounded by black boxes built of  parts produced almost automatically whose structures even their producers  ignore, since they simply assemble them (Bauman, 2003).

Social agents ignorance in modern  societies would be, according to what has been exposed so far, a consequence of an artificial world inserted between nature and ourselves; a world, whose complexity makes it increasingly unbearable and individually unmanageable and uncontrollable by people. Then, an immediate question would be whether or not ,driven by coronavirus pandemic, the slowdown in conspicuous consumption and in the international goods number could reverse this trend, having, as a consequence, a new approach from the consumer to the producers and their products.  An approach that,  even though should continue to be mediated by new technologies (digitization and automation) would take place  now in local environments, where it can be easier to control and understand all the things surrounding us.

By the same token de-globalization  process regarding merchandises, migration and tourism, as well as people collective experience to be able to live weeks and months without compulsive consumption (purchases in shopping malls) and deprived of means of massive distraction (football and mass spectacles), could lead to a global decrease in the demanding of these  kind of services and objects; and, therefore, to a significative reduction in the amount of manufactured items(black boxes, Bauman’s 2003).

As a consequence, we could be witnessing the end of  an increasingly growing global standard of living (a decrease in the World Gross Domestic Product), what is compatible with an increase in World Gross Happiness, and in the digitalization process. Nevertheless, this could, at the same time,  entail  processes of daily life fragmentation around social spaces delimited by cultural, ideological, political and technical like-minded cells  with sharp borders (groups organized through internet); as well as the production of new virtual, intellectual, artistic, ideological objects and services, as referred before.

On the air remain the question posed by Marcuse to all of us in the sixties of last century about what could happen with the mere suppression of all kinds of advertisements and all the indoctrinating means of information and leisure along a  single day in which everyone would to stay at home without television. “To take an (unfortunately fantastic) example: the mere absence of all advertising and of all indoctrinating media of information and entertainment would plunge the individual into a traumatic void where he would have the chance to wonder and to think, to know himself (or rather the negative of himself) and his society. Deprived of his false fathers leaders, friends, and representatives, he would have to learn his ABC’s again. But the words and sentences which he would form might come out very differently, and so might his aspirations and fears”(Marcuse, 1993, p. 274). That imaginary day without television has become in 2020 a gigantic and global exercise  for the humankind. Ivan Krastev (2020) has argued ,in this regard, that  “epidemics provide a sampling device for social analysis. They reveal what really matters to a population and whom they truly value. Every known epidemic has been framed and explained not simply as a public health crisis but also as a moral crisis”.

We can say ,as pointed out by Harari (2020b) ,that with the coronavirus pandemic  “we are carrying out huge social experiments with hundreds of millions of people: entire industries have gone to work from home; universities and schools have switched to online teaching; governments are injecting billions into the economy and considering aspects such as universal basic income ”. It seems as if all of us would have been sent “to our rooms to reflect on what we are doing to our planet; not to mention – writes Matthew Stadlen (2020)- how we treat each other and the other species with which we share it. We are learning, as one writer put it, that we are only as healthy as our neighbor”. Stadlen also mentions a new  very remarkable development behind what is happening, namely that “generations that have never experienced the hardship and horrors of war have, overnight, been suddenly and savagely shocked out of a rigid complacency”.

In any case, the prospect of a constant increasing  in standards of living and the illusion of never-ending black boxes  flowing  on a global scale seems to be fading with this crisis; not only because “it is likely that the salaries of both private and public employees will fall, which, together with high unemployment, will hamper recovery in demand” , but  because “a change may occur, an adaptation in the hedonic pattern. Spending that is not strictly necessary, and certainly conspicuous spending, will be cut back for some time” (Ortega 2020).

On the other hand, less goods will be manufactured and fewer will be exchanged globally; “patterns of consumption will change for a prolonged period. Consumers will put more emphasis on purchasing goods originating from within their own country’s borders” (Ortega 2020). There will be a decrease indeed in the number of things modern civilization has surrounded our lifespan. The question is whether this process will lead to a decrease in the number of objects and, consequently, in our ignorance about their operational features, reliability, origin, property, legitimacy and necessity. Here again the initial impression is that a reduction in the number of objects will necessarily imply an increase on the control and knowledge  we may have over them, and,  consequently, a decrease in our ignorance. The extent and modes this  process may reach remains to be seen to properly assess its impact.
A PARADOXICAL SIMULTANEOUS PROCESS: STATALIZATION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION

There is another conclusion emerging from the Ignorant Modernity hypothesis :  today, more than ever,  is the system (a dynamic structure, an intelligent society)  who governs  all of us; information, knowledge and power are dispersed over it; this structure is, only to a limited extent, a Runaway World (Giddens, 2006); since, in fact, we all are creating it and shaping its global dimension. What consequences may have the  current covid-19 pandemic crisis for this molding process?

The current globalization, understood as the removal of social relations from local interaction contexts and their restructuring through time and space,  makes people organize their lives according to processes and arrangements  they do not know. People has been confronted during the coronavirus crisis with a sudden awareness that fundamental aspects of their security depend on distant and perhaps unattainable supplies facilitated by unknown intermediaries. From international business to financial organizations  all seems far beyond their control. As a reaction to this situation, in the future we will witness compatible and simultaneous paradoxical trends of nationalization and internationalization  regarding certain aspects of our lives.

In John Gray’s view, for example, “a situation in which so many of the world’s essential medical supplies originate in China – or any other single country – will not be tolerated”. “Production in these and other sensitive areas will be re-shored as a matter of national security. The notion that a country such as Britain could phase out farming and depend on imports for food will be dismissed as the nonsense it always has been”. “Governments will have to do a lot more in underwriting scientific research and technological innovation”(Gray, 2020).

“The process of deglobalization was already under way and has gained pace with this crisis- Andrés Ortega writes – . A collapse in international trade has already occurred, which will become evident as things recover. Demands for policies involving greater national (or at least European in our case) control (sovereignty) of supply chains are starting to become widespread, not only in terms of healthcare equipment but all manner of industrial products. There are trends pointing to greater economic nationalism and protectionism” (Ortega, 2020). Olivie and Gracia have also highlighted that “this crisis increases the assessment on the risk  posed by geographic dependence on China, which may lead to a developing of strategies for geographic diversification of suppliers, which may not adversely affect trade in aggregate terms, or may affect a trend of relocations towards countries of origin with  a consequent reduction in the commercial exchanges quantity”(Olivié & Gracia, 2020). This renationalization of industries and  manufactures essential for survival will most likely coexist with divergent social trends. The coronavirus impact on the world may lead to new efforts of  international cooperation in fields going beyond  public health; for example,  those linked to the economic and social consequences of this crisis (international financial system restructuring).

As John Gray points out, with this crisis “other sources of authority and legitimacy re-emerge. The Nation State is reaffirming itself as the most powerful force to drive action on a large scale. Facing the virus requires a collective effort that will not be mobilized for the good of humanity …other sources of authority and legitimacy are re-emerging. ..the nation state is increasingly the most powerful force driving large-scale action. Dealing with the virus requires a collective effort that will not be mobilized for the sake of universal humanity. (Gray, 2020), since it seems clear that global problems – as Yuval Noah Harari (2020) emphasizes -“ do not always have global solutions ”.

Harari acknowledges that geopolitical divisions at this moment exclude «anything that may bear any resemblance to a world government and, if it existed, current states would compete to control it.» It is true that “you cannot protect yourself by permanently closing your borders” because “epidemics spread rapidly even in the Middle Ages, long before the age of globalization” and “long-term isolationism –Harari stated -will lead to economic collapse without offering any real protection against infectious diseases. Just the opposite” since “the real antidote to epidemic is not segregation, but rather cooperation”(Harari, 2020). All of this is  undoubtedly true over the long term- as  Ortega  also states  (2020)- we´ll  need “for global governance mechanisms to make the world more resistant to systemic threats”, but “there is no guarantee of this”. What underlies behind all these proposals are good and very reasonable purposes, however all of them lack of proofs  and  well-grounded arguments;  they  belong more to a prescriptive scope  than to a descriptive  or scientific prognosis.

In favor of the idea that international cooperation will prevail it can be argued that protection against pandemics does not require exercise of power over other states, but with other states. Public health is not a private, collective or club asset, but a network asset and, as Carreiras and Malamud point out, «network assets are precisely those whose utility increases with their dissemination: the more users have them, the better for all ”(Carreiras, Helena; Malamud, Andrés, 2020). Therefore, this impartial trend is likely to preserve solidarity and internationalization of public health goods making our future to include “better state capacities, less nationalism and more functional international cooperation (scientific, health and financial) and, hopefully, more democracy ”, although Carreiras  and Malamud, (2020) recognize  this is only  “a normative judgment” .

Former US Secretary of State Madaleine Albright has also noted, abounding in these  wishful thoughts, that “there is something childish about the belief that, in our era, one can be safe behind a wall, a moat or even an ocean. The principal threats we face, even beyond pandemic disease, do not respect boundaries. They include rogue governments, terrorists, cyber warriors, the uncontrolled spread of advanced weapons, multinational criminal networks and environmental catastrophe. These perils cannot be defeated by any country acting alone, and any country would be foolish to try (Albright, 2020). The problem with this  is that nonsense is a virus that humanity has not yet eradicated.

On the other hand, the fresh concept of national defense, which from now on will include more rigorously facets related to food ,health and cybersecurity, will play an essential role  on the development of internationalization or renationalization trends. Carreiras and Malamud have distinguished in this regard between high politics, that refers to the survival and security of the States and low politics that refers to everything else (such as commerce or culture). In their opinion «the pandemic has turned public health into an area of ​​high politics.» (Carreiras, Helena; Malamud, Andrés, 2020). The same may happen with other  economic sectors, such as the agriculture necessary for survival and self-sufficiency. The basic sectors of life will become central in public management.

It seems unquestionable we will witness a strengthening of national security systems increasingly including  tasks associated with food , health security and cybersecurity. If the limits of growth are eventually accepted-  writes John Gray -it will be because governments make the protection of their citizens their most important objective. Whether democratic or authoritarian, states that do not meet this Hobbesian test will fail.  (Gray, 2020). The renewed dependence on online activities –both economic and social–  writes Andrés Ortega -will lead to greater emphasis being placed on cybersecurity in all countries. It will also focus attention on the possibility of biological attacks and bioterrorism, and the need to defend against them(Ortega, 2020).

Olivie and Gracia have pointed out ,in this regard ,the potential expansion of the armed forces international functions. Although the  data report on global presence prepared periodically by Elcano Royal Institute shows that “in principle, a direct link between the coronavirus crisis and the military dimension cannot be expected”, it is clear that “the army has acquired an important role in managing the health crisis in practically all countries and “it cannot be ruled out that in the future international missions aimed at managing specific flare-ups of the health emergency in specific and particularly developing countries may be launched ”(Olivié & Gracia, 2020). The transformation of state actions is, therefore, at the order of the day.

 

In any case, the question is that re-nationalization processes of basic sectors of life have more to do with the return to state societies than to national societies;  what is at stake  is efficiency and control more than ethnic or national membership. The re-nationalization taking place will rather be a re-statalization in favor of cohesive and performative social structures. “In a general sense  -Andrés Ortega writes- there is going to be a questioning of the way states operate. In Spain there is the prospect of a crisis involving the system of autonomous regions; in the case of healthcare, this has revealed some operational failings owing to a distribution of powers in which the central government was unable to ascertain the medical resources possessed by the regions, which are responsible for them, or impose rules until the state of emergency had been declared” (Ortega, 2020).

“The pandemic has strengthened the power of the states while increasing their interdependence. How can you be stronger and more dependent at the same time?”- Carreiras and Malamud wonder – . The pandemic paradoxical effect comes, basically, from the fact that although overcoming  it requires international cooperation, its immediate fight incites national isolation.  This isolation, nevertheless, is not equal to more nationalism , the return of the state does not necessarily imply the return of nationalism. «The state is an instrument (of collective action), the nation is a feeling (of collective belonging)» (Carreiras, Helena; Malamud, Andrés, 2020). What could be strengthened,  as a result of this pandemic, together with the idea of ​​belonging to a state society, are the strong neighborhood ties with small territories where people  feel at home. The coronavirus – writes Ivan Krastev (2020)- will strengthen nationalism, albeit not ethnic nationalism but a type of territorial nationalism. In TV reports and in governments’ announcements one can see that that co-nationals travelling from corona-infected areas are as unwelcome as any foreigner”.

Therefore, although we will not go back to tribes or pre-modern nations- which trends will prevail? statalization or  internationalization?  How will  the resulting scenario affect citizens perception over their  level of control of political institutions  ;  their knowledge about power mechanisms and their degree of  information  over state or international institutions? How will the militarization of public health affect the accessibility to essential citizens biometric data? Will control of citizens and their knowledge increase or that of institutions and new powers? These are questions difficult to answer at the moment, but again here the impression is that the return of competences to socially efficient environments does not have to be incompatible with an improved model of globalization. It can, instead, increase the knowledge and control  by citizens over their rulers, more than  their ignorance.

 

GEOPOLITICS AND GEOECONOMICS CHANGES

 

Along the Ignorant Modernity text  it has been underlined that «we do not know who governs us or what information  about our lives have those who govern»; as well as the idea that,  due to an increasing complexity and explosion of data and information, ignorance is not an exclusive  patrimony of the  ignorant ruled, but also of the equally ignorant rulers. “The message from us, the subjects, for the State power – writes Slavoj Zizek (2020) – is: “we voluntarily follow its orders, but these are its orders ,and there is no guarantee that our obedience to them will guarantee a positive result. The power of the State is in panic, because it knows not only that it does not control the situation, but also knows that we, its subjects, know it: the impotence of power is revealed «, its ignorance, which is to say, the  impotence of an ignorant modernity, aware of the lack of control, both in geopolitics and geo-economics, what is having, as a consequence, a crisis of representative democracies.

It has been also highlighted how general ignorance on the operating rules in the globalization complex financial structure represents another feature of these times. Producers and consumers of goods are  today largely unaware of the market and its periodical crises mechanisms. The economy digitalization has not prevented these turbulences nor the economic wars. This coronavirus pandemic – Olivie and Gracia write – erupts precisely “at a time when part of the international community questions the pillars on which rest the world since the end of World War II, and particularly, its multilateral governance … In short, it is an irremediably global health crisis that breaks out in a context of booming national identities”(Olivié & Gracia, 2020). This geopolitical confusion makes it difficult to understand who is exerting power and which their goals could be.

All of the aforementioned leads us to ask whether with the emergence of coronavirus crisis we will  be facing an in-depth geopolitical change, which can accelerate the replacing of the US and the European Union by China and other  Asiatic countries as leading centers of the globalization and modernization process; or, on the contrary, we would find ourselves before a different scenario:  facing an increase in the dispersion and ungovernability of the world system; that is,  a setting of general ignorance about the trends that will finally prevail in the new world order.

It seems unmistakable that USA leading role, which had already been weakened by a combined action of China emergence and American leadership decay ( its political system decline as a symptom) may be accentuated with the current crisis. As Harari has written, “trust in the current U.S. administration has been eroded to such an extent, that few countries would be willing to follow it. Would you follow a leader whose motto is “Me First”?” – (Harari, 2020).

Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics, warned from the New York Times (2020), «American democracy may be dying.» the economy may finally recover, but in his view, democracy once lost will never come back.» This distrust in the West is not exclusive to the United States, it can also be seen in the European project, which with Brexit and the rise of nationalisms is in a critical phase. “Putting one’s own country first will predominate, even without Trump, at least in the short term”-stated Andrés Ortega (2020), analyzing expectations on presidential elections, and wondering if it will it be  as well a case “of ‘Europe first’ rather than the member states”.

It does not seem difficult to coincide with Harari’s opinion regarding these dilemmas. From his point of view “the void left by the U.S. has not been filled by anyone else. Just the opposite. Xenophobia, isolationism and distrust now characterize most of the international system.”(Harari, 2020). As a result of the current epidemic, prospects for savage capitalism, according with Zizek (2020), seem  not very rosy either. His standpoint es that, it will prevail “a new barbaric capitalism: many old  and weak people will be sacrificed and abandoned to die, workers will have to accept a much lower standard of living, digital control of our lives will continue to be a permanent feature, class distinctions will become (much more than now) a matter of life and death … «. Another line of interpretation of what happens, coinciding with the analysis on West weakness, comes to emphasize a preeminence of the East based, mostly, on the fact that their cultures prioritize the collective over the individual.

“The most successful responses to the epidemic thus far– writes Gray-  have been in Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. It is hard to believe their cultural traditions, which focus on collective well-being more than personal autonomy, have not played a role in their success. They have also resisted the cult of the minimal state. It will not be surprising if they adjust to de-globalization better than many Western countries. (Gray, 2020). This same idea is expressed by Andrés Ortega for whom there can be an acceleration of the de-westernization process which was already under way owing to the rise of the East. ”We will become more Asiatic in general, more communalistic, less individualistic?» (Ortega, 2020).

Unfortunately -writes Ivan Krastev, making an additional point for China’s preeminence- the coronavirus could increase the appeal of the kind of big data authoritarianism employed by the Chinese government. One can blame Chinese leaders for the lack of transparency that made them react slowly to the spread of the virus in December 2019, but the efficiency of their response and the Chinese state’s capacity to control the movement and behavior of people has been impressive. In the current crisis, citizens constantly compare the responses and effectiveness of their governments with those of other governments. And we should not be surprised if, the day after the crisis, China looks like a winner and the United States looks like a loser.”

On the other hand, Carreiras and Malamud have pointed out another possible byproduct of the current situation, since in the absence of political leadership technical institutions may prevail, both nationally and internationally. «Technical cooperation -they underline- proved to be more useful and more effective than political cooperation … the bifurcation between the political and technical dimensions may lead to a decoupled globalization, in which the spheres of influence of the United States and China will not be distinguished by ideological alignments but by regulatory ones, with incompatible technical standards and technological developments. We can be on our way to a world divided not between liberalism and authoritarianism, but between something like ‘Mac and PC’ ”(Carreiras, Helena; Malamud, Andrés, 2020).

“Recovery from the coronavirus crisis could give rise to a society with more structured organizations –  writes Andrés Ortega along this  line of thought – possibly this time more vertical and hierarchical, with the real ability (one that is facilitated) to channel specific and practical demands to the upper reaches of public decision-making. This could lead to greater proximity between the Third Sector (civic society organizations, NGOs, charities, etc), the Third Pillar as Raghuram Rajan refers to it, and state power. First, because the public sector has been overwhelmed in its efforts to manage a crisis on such a scale (bereft of any alternative, the private sector not being up to the task). Secondly, because the national strategies also require an agreed and coordinated implementation at the local level to achieve the desired results as quickly as possible, and to save transaction costs”. ”(Ortega, 2020).

In short, , we would have, therefore, three possible scenarios: 1 / substitution of the West and USA. by the East and China; 2 / dispersion of geopolitical power and 3 / acceleration of non-state organizations and technical business sector.

Although during the coronavirus crisis this increasing role in public management of technical private organizations and institutions may be based on some companies and  foundations activities it does not seem to happen this way  with international specialized institutions behavior, begining with World Health Organization, whose deeds do not seem to have been too much effective.

Andrés Ortega writes- likely more as a hope this will happen a good day than as a prediction- that “a new internationalism cannot be ruled out, like the one Woodrow Wilson tried but failed to achieve and that Franklin D. Roosevelt did succeed in establishing even before the end of the Second World War, this time with health as its basis”. The unpleasant truth is that, as Ortega himself acknowledges, in this crisis, “the UN has been completely absent. Only a restoration of trust among the great powers will be capable of establishing the centrality of the Security Council. The WHO has proved inadequate; a Global Health System is needed”( Ortega, 2020). The problem is that the international system continues to be dependent on real powers exercised by USA  and other the great powers, so the agenda to reform priorities and structures of multilateral and global entities may not be on the agenda of our current leaders.

Behavior  of Institutions of international economic governance  do not seem exemplary either.  The virus -as John Gray has pointed out – has exposed fatal weaknesses in the economic system that was patched up after the 2008 financial crisis. Liberal capitalism is bust” (Gray, 2020) and “there will be a need- Ortega points out- to agree a restructuring of the taxation system, a new and fairer mix within each country and between countries (tax havens, including those operating in the EU). But this, as Andrés Ortega recognizes- “ in a context of capital movement facilitated by new technologies is not possible without robust transnational institutions(Ortega, 2020).

 

From his point of view “the crisis is highlighting the need for multi-level and inductive governance (national, international and global), in other words, more complex, with diverse actors –states and organizations of states, companies, citizens, NGOs, etc– taking part, because the state sector on its own is not enough (Ortega, 2020). But this, again, is nothing but a normative and prescriptive opinion rather than a prediction or a prognosis based on objective facts. More an  aspiration than an explanation.

As pointed out, our geopolitical future, after American decline, could  well lead to a certain disorderly balance of middle-grade powers, toward an «acceleration of global disorder». “Although power is also relative, in absolute terms -writes Andrés Ortega- all states or groups of states are going to emerge weakened from this crisis. We may witness greater or lesser geopolitical rivalry, but based on weaker powers, possibly with temptations, but with reduced abilities to act on them (Ortega, 2020).

All these possibilities are open; and, for now, they are equally uncertain. The ignorance about «who governs the world», which has been discussed throughout the Ignorant Modernity text, cannot therefore be more up-to-date. The dispersion of power in response to the coronavirus would be a typical example of the ignorant modernity paradigm, a society that does not know its future and realizes this.

 

2.- CHANGES IN SOCIO-POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND WAYS OF LIFE?

 

Ignorance of  the suggested archetype ,the homo ignorans ,has to do with the emergent devices progressively interposed between the human being and a second artificial nature. Technology has gotten out of hand, which explains some fears of a digitalized world in which robots and artificial intelligence will dominate us. Effects of coronavirus global pandemics can go precisely in that direction; strengthening remote digital relations and automation. Another consequence of the current crisis could be, alongside generalization of telework, tele-friendship or even tele-love, an increase in automation processes driven by the methods now adopted to avoid close  social interaction.

All this will have an impact on our daily life, on our ways of life. Flexibility and impermanence present in our lives, as discussed in chapter IV of Ignorant Modernity (due to speed of changes in social relationships , new fields of ignorance about our destiny at work, inside the family , at leisure, in our communities of belonging) may be affected by the new scenario.

There is a firm possibility that the inevitable role of public health and social safety systems (well-being system, police, army, public administration) in the fight against the coronavirus  could lead to a greater economy socialization; even though there is also a contradictory trend in this regard: On the one hand, there may be greater state powers, but, on the other, we may also see an increase in the role of intermediate organizations (companies, foundations, NGOs); that is to say,  we could witness an authentic socialization of power (not a simple  growing statehood), which  by the same token may call into question the capacity of current parliamentary democracies, as we know them, to manage competition and discrepancy in the resulting new socio-political game.

In chapters I, II and III (Ignorant Modernity ), reference was made to the increase in lack of control derived from crisis of representative democracy, the new complex geopolitics and geo-economy, the global dispersion in information and data ownership; and, generally speaking, to the uncertainty and ignorance growing  environments regarding our future. A lack of knowledge  related with sociological ignorance – the recognition of limits for the social sciences analysis and the lengthening of space and time -globalization – having as a result that nowadays  societies are more unaware of their own past and future. All these factors lead us to wonder to what extent the changes caused by the covid-19 pandemic may affect our control (knowledge) or uncontrol  (ignorance) about  central aspects of our systems and daily lives.

 

DIGITALIZATION, AUTOMATIZATION AND FRAGMENTATION IN EVERYDAY LIFE

 

«Our lives are going to be more physically constrained and more virtual than they were”, writes John Gray. » A more fragmented world is coming into being that in some ways may be more resilient. … Technology will help us adapt in our present extremity. Physical mobility can be reduced by shifting many of our activities into cyberspace. Offices, schools, universities, GP surgeries and other work centers are likely to change permanently.” In his view, a surprising fact is taking place: “Virtual communities set up during the epidemic have enabled people to get to know one another better than they ever did before” (Gray, 2020).

Andrés Ortega also agrees with this analysis, since “the lockdown and remote working policies have boosted digitalization and many people’s digital skills. This could entail permanent changes in working habits and arrangements ( Ortega, 2020). The question, however, is whether or not, as Gray optimistically  seems to think, people  is going “to get to know one another better than they ever did before” or, on the contrary, digitalization will contribute to “depersonalization” and social “fragmentation” in sealed compartments of different anxieties.

Another new behaviors coronavirus pandemic may generate is pointed out by Ivan Krastev (2020), “Covid-19 – Krastev writes – will have a strong impact on intergenerational dynamics. In the context of debates about climate change and the risk it presents, younger generations have been critical of their elders for not thinking about the future seriously. The coronavirus reverses these dynamics: now, the older members of society are much more vulnerable and feel threatened by millennials’ visible unwillingness to change their way of living”.

In any case, Zizek (2020) has a  point saying that we should not spend much time on spiritual meditations on the new era, on how the virus crisis will allow us to understand what our lives really are, and so on and so forth. “The real question will be: what social form will replace the New World liberal-capitalist order?”

 

¿A SOCIALIZATION PROCESS?

 

Although, as already mentioned, we can witness the destabilization in the current style in public management of public goods and services (through non-governmental organizations, NGOs, foundations and large private companies participation) there seems to be a general coincidence among analysts on a possible socialization trend due to the need to fix the paralysis and hibernation of the economies.  Provided that sanitary confinement  continues for many months, the shutdown will demand an even larger socialization of the economy. “Digging ourselves out of the pit will demand more state intervention not less, and of a highly inventive kind ”, states Gray(2020).

”We are already seeing -Andrés Ortega writes -an effort by states to save companies. In some strategic cases, which could end up in nationalizations, this is to save them or to prevent them falling into the hands of undesirable foreign owners cashing in on their weakness. This is something that the Spanish measures, among others, allow for. All states are taking steps to streamline and facilitate loans”(Ortega, 2020). In his view there is already “a reversion to the state, to all things public, to the welfare state as a safety net and to public policy. This is the case both in terms of combatting the disease, offering a safety net for those who lose employment and income and salvaging the viability of companies and the economic system”(Ortega, 2020).

The paradox of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, writes Ivan Krastev in this regard, is that  “many observers believed that crisis-born mistrust in the market would lead to greater faith in the state” , but in fact it did not lead to demand for greater government intervention, meanwhile now, – underlines Krastev- “the coronavirus will bring the state back in a big way. Covid-19 made people rely on the government to organize their collective defense against the pandemic, and they rely on the government to save a sinking economy”.

The ways in which these processes  may affect ignorance or social knowledge  on basic aspects of our lives will depend on the degree of transparency and competence reached by social organizations; and on the capacity of  adaptation by liberal democracies to control and put in play  new state  an social powers.

 

¿CHANGES IN DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND PRIVACY?

 

Covid-19 pandemic may lead to changes in democratic systems, not only on nationalization or socialization, but on freedom of expression and privacy, due to the new powers bestowed to  governments for pandemic control through citizens cyber surveillance , Internet network monitoring software and  scrutiny of mobile phones. «How much of their freedom people will want back when the pandemic has peaked is an open question «, writes John Gray,  but the answer could be «they may happily accept a regime of bio-surveillance for the sake of better protection of their health”(Gray, 2020). Andrés Ortega refers to this trend as the possible displacement towards a “reinforcement of techno-authoritarianism, under the guise of personal control measures for monitoring the virus, with losses of privacy and ongoing rather than temporary instruments of control” (Ortega, 2020).

Carreiras and Malamud agree with this idea that «the pandemic will foster the strengthening of state power, but underline that «there are two types of power that can be increased: despotic and infrastructural”. «Despotic power is the capacity of the State to act coercively without legal or constitutional restrictions. Infrastructure power is its ability to penetrate society and organize social relations. Again, it is about the distinction between power over others and power with others”.  In their view the states that will be most effective will be, those operating  “with an intelligent opening, and not those that maintain the closure in a more martial manner» (Carreiras, Helena; Malamud, Andrés, 2020). The most effective companies will also be those succeeding to find competent socialization formulas (not necessarily within the state) in the management of essential public goods.

The other side of  the strengthening  of states powers has to do with the weakening of their counter-powers, the press; due to the existing crisis of independent media and their companies . This is  another terrible consequence of current pandemic. Andrés Ortega writes in this regard that there may be a “weakening of the independent press (the Fourth Estate, essential in democracy), which was already under way (the 2008 crisis and competition from the Internet) owing to the steep decline in advertising to the benefit of states, governments and the Fifth Estate, the social media and similar platforms, where misinformation may receive a fillip.”(Ortega, 2020). Whether these trends are counteracted or not will largely depend to a big  extent  on the evolution  will have ignorance factor in post-coronavirus societies.

 

 

3.- WILL MENTALITIES AND IDEOLOGICAL PARADIGMS SHIFT?

 

The questions raised so far lead us to ask a final question about the changes may occur in mentalities and ideological paradigms in today’s societies. In summary, there would be two ideas (two open questions), already exposed in Ignorant Modernity, and that seem to come out reinforced with the consequences of coronavirus pandemic.

 

On the one hand, a generalized awareness of the end of the idea of ​​progress (the coronavirus pandemic has made it clear that civilization can indeed face unknown dangers that  could make it go backwards).On the other,  the idea of ​​the universal need for trust not only in experts (doctors, biologists, virologists, computer scientists, etc.), but also from some countries toward others; a trust that, inevitably, has to be given when direct and sure knowledge of the object of that trust cannot take place; that is, in contexts of growing fields of ignorance.

In the midst of the inability to satisfactorily explain what is happening, sociological perspectives, such as those of Bruno Latour and his actor-network theory, also come into play. According with Latour in order to understand the human world it is necessary to give an active agent role to the materiality that our action faces and, especially, to nature. Latour (2020) has pointed out that the coronavirus crisis is a dress rehearsal for the forthcoming climate change. In his view  with next crisis, “the  changing conditions of life will pose challenges for all of us, as well as all the details of everyday life that we will have to learn to solve with care. ”

In his opinion, in the midst of a lasting and global ecological crisis, the new coronavirus imposes on us “the sudden and painful understanding that the classical definition of human society does not makes sense”. “The society depends at all times on the associations between many actors, most of whom do not have human forms. This is true for microbes, as we know it from Pasteur, but also for the Internet, the law, the organization of hospitals, state logistics and the climate”.  This is also the point of view of Slavoj Zizek (2020) for whom «the epidemic is a combination in which natural, economic and cultural processes are inextricably intertwined». The problem is then to be able to answer the question on how we can succeed in deciphering that inextricable complexity of interconnections between the human and the material.

 

 

GLOBALIZATION OF RISK AND UNIVERSAL NEED FOR TRUST

 

Along the Ignorant Modernity pages it has been emphasized the importance of the appearance of new dangers created by the human being; risks involved in its technological action on the environment, as an expression of new fields of ignorance. In this regard, it has been pointed out that, paradoxically, the increase in specialization and multiplication of information, knowledge and data, would simultaneously be generating an increase in the perception of ignorance by social agents and a need to trust expert systems – specialists – that produce knowledge. We live, each time more and more, as Giddens (2007) has written, in a world of manufactured uncertainty or in Beck words (1988), in a society of risk, terms closely associated with that of ignorance.

In this sense, it has been underlined  how in current societies there are mixed feelings of security and insecurity regarding ordinary people, specialists,  and  ignorant sages who snub everything other than their field of specialization ( Ortega y Gasset ,1966) . It has been also observed, following Beck’s thoughts,  how the risk and dangers of modernity, unlike the old class economic divisions, are democratic.  They affect everyone equally. Risk management becomes an essential element for social structuring.

The usual tendency of governments and public powers has traditionally been to reduce public feeling of concern and fear about modern societies dangers; however now, with coronavirus crisis, as Ivan Krastev (2020) has pointed out, the exact opposite may happen:

“ Do not panic is the wrong message for the Covid-19 crisis. To contain the pandemic, people should panic – and they should drastically change their way of living. While all previous crisis of the 21st century – 9/11; the Great Recession; the refugee crisis – were driven by anxiety, this one is driven by pure fear. People fear infection, they fear for their lives and for the lives of their families”. “ But for how long could people stay home?” he asks.

In Ignorant Modernity it is stated that  homo ignorans ( nowadays societies archetype) like all human beings, has a philosophical-scientific ignorance (impossible to destroy ); but, unlike most of their ancestors,  he tends to be more aware of this lack of knowledge (living without religion). This greater awareness of ignorance would thus constitute one of the main characteristics of his epistemology. Descartes’s offered (1939), to give up everything he knew in exchange for only half of what he did not know; this deal would make full sense to the homo ignorans. Knowing nowadays is for this archetype, more than ever, knowing how to ignore.

Coronavirus outbreak and its associated social and health consequences, that some analysts consider as one of the most important social events in human life in the 21st century, once again confronts the homo ignorans with an unknown future, questioning their beliefs and their disbeliefs. As Kaleteh Sadati has pointed out “what made this outbreak different is the worldwide sense of fragility of human biological life and their demand of “sterile society”, safe from any hazards”(Ahmad Kalateh Sadati, 2020). That is, the longing for permanence and security, a permanent and unsatisfied  human desire. Matthew Stadlen (2020) reminds us, as Plato explained in his Protagoras, that we often give undue weight to the prospect of immediate gratification, to the detriment of a more distant but more significant good”.  In his view “we are, most of us, blinded – I’d argue wilfully so – by the trappings of our lifestyles. We prioritize travel, meat eating, convenience and money over our long-term safety and security. Coronavirus isn’t itself about climate change, but it is an arrogance-shredding, hubris-busting warning to us all of our communal and individual fragility in the face of life-and-death challenges”.

Will our identity as beings who can coexist with doubt, uncertainty and ignorance be reinforced with this crisis, or will we replace these attitudes and feelings with religious beliefs as already we did in ancient times? Will provisional and incomplete scientific knowledge or metaphysical and religious knowledge-feeling become reinforced? These are again questions that have no answers for now.

Another conclusion from Ignorant Modernity has to do  with the loss of a  blind faith in  progress , the disappearance of a great univocal historical narrative; and, consequently, our feeling of ignoring the future (being recognition of Sociology and social prognosis limits part of it ) .This would have resulted in the extension of an epistemology based on acknowledgement of our ignorance and uncertainty, which has deepened following Kant’s discourse on criticism of reason and Karl Popper’s (1980) on falsification. The coronavirus teaches us again – as John Gray points out – “not only that progress is reversible – a fact even progressives seem to have grasped­, but that it can be self-undermining. To take the most obvious example, globalization produced some major benefits – millions have been lifted out of poverty. This achievement is now under threat. Globalization begat the de-globalization that is now under way” ( Gray, 2020).

Finally, regarding risk, ignorance and trust, the point is that, as Harari puts it, “humanity faces an acute crisis not only due to the coronavirus, but also due to the lack of trust between humans”; a lack of confidence that has given way to a necessary and almost automatic need to trust technicians. How will the current coronavirus pandemic affect these feelings of trust? Will the interindividual confidence among people and international trust among nation-states be strengthened, or, on the contrary, it will be  reinforced only our confidence on technicians and scientists?

In Zizek’s (2020) opinion, we must resist «the temptation to celebrate the disintegration of our trust as an opportunity for people to self-organize locally outside the state apparatus», since «an efficient state that gives up power and can be at least relatively reliable is now more necessary than ever. ” In his view «the self-organization of local communities will do its work only in combination with the state apparatus … and with science.» Zizek states that «today we are forced to admit that modern science, despite all its hidden biases, is the predominant form of cross-cultural universality», and that «the current pandemic offers a good opportunity for science to assert itself in this paper». Ivan Krastrev (2020) also underlines this same idea of ​​increasing trust in specialists, in technicians, in scientists: “We don’t trust experts was the winning cry of the populists- he writes- but in the current crisis, professionalism is back. Most people are very open to trusting experts and heeding the science when their own lives are at stake. One can already see the growing legitimacy that this has lent to the professionals who lead the fight against the virus. The return of the state has been made possible because trust in experts has returned”.

“History indicates -Harari writes -that real protection comes from the sharing of reliable scientific information, and from global solidarity. When one country is struck by an epidemic, it should be willing to honestly share information about the outbreak without fear of economic catastrophe – while other countries should be able to trust that information, and should be willing to extend a helping hand rather than ostracize the victim”. «To defeat an epidemic- also points out Harari  -, people need to trust scientific experts, citizens need to trust public authorities, and countries need to trust each other. Over the last few years, irresponsible politicians have deliberately undermined trust in science, in public authorities and in international cooperation. As a result, we are now facing this crisis bereft of global leaders that can inspire, organize and finance a coordinated global response (Harari, 2020).

A similar conclusion was reached by  the former president of the government of Spain, Felipe González (2019) – as the reader  of ignorant modernity will remember – when analyzing the tribulations of our time. But if that is our problem, then why is precisely that our problem? Should we trust more technicians and scientists? This seems to be the most reasonable alternative, but for now there are more questions than answers, more ignorance than knowledge,  not only regarding this interrogation, but all the questions raised by coronavirus pandemic. This should not be  something desperately worrying, because, after all, our greatest treasure of wisdom remains, precisely, inside our own questions and the accurate way in which we succeed in asking them.

 

Agustín Galán Machío

Lisbon, April 26, 2020

 

 

 

Bibliography

Albright, Madeleine  (20 de Abril de 2020) Coronavirus Should Be a Wake-Up Call for World Leaders to Work Together. Time

 

Ahmad Kalateh Sadati, M. H. , Mohamad Hossein B Lankarani  and Kamran Bagheri (20 de Marzo de 2020). Risk Society, Global Vulnerability and Fragile Resilience; Sociological View on the Coronavirus Outbreak. Shiraz E-Med J.

 

Bauman, Z. (2003). Modernidad Líquida. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

 

Beck, U. (1988). La sociedad del riesgo. Hacia una nueva modernidad. Barcelona: Paidos.

 

Carreiras, Helena; Malamud, Andrés. (14 de Abril de 2020). Geopolítica del Coronavirus. Público.

Cornella, A. (2000). Cómo sobrevivir a la infoxicación. Obtenido de http://www.infonomia.com/:http://www.infonomia.com/img/pdf/sobrevivir_infoxicacion.pdf

 

Cebrian, Juan Luís (20 de Abril de 2020) La humildad de los políticos. El País.

 

Descartes, R. (1939). Discurso del Método (3º ed.). (M. G. Morente, Trad.) Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

 

Galán Machío, A (2020) La modernidad ignorante  Amazon.com

 

Galán Machío, A . Agnotología. Sociología de la ignorancia, ignorancia de la Sociología. Amazon.com

 

Giddens, A. (2007). Un mundo desbocado, los efectos de la globalización en nuestras vidas. México: Taurus.

 

Gray, J. (12 de Abril de 2020). Adiós globalización,empieza un mundo nuevo. O por que esta crisis es un punto de inflexión en la historia. El País.

 

González, F. (8 de Septiembre de 2019). Entrevista con el ex-presidente del Gobierno Felipe González. El País.

 

Harari, Y. N. (13 de Abril de 2020). El antídoto contra la epidemia no es la segregación, sino la cooperación. El País.

 

Harari, Y. N. (19 de Abril de 2020 b) Hay que controlar qué hacen los políticos en este preciso momento .La Vanguardia

 

Krastev, Ivan ( 20 de Marzo de 2020) The seven early lessons of the global coronavirus crisis

The new anti-globalist moment could weaken populist political actors who, even when they have a point, do not have a solution. NewStatesman

 

Krugman, Paul (10 de Abril de 2020) American Democracy may be dying .The New York Times.

 

Kuhlicke, C. (2015). Vulnerability, ignorance and the experience of radical surprises. En M. Gross, & L. McGoey, Routdedge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. London & New York: Routdedge International Handbooks. Taylor and Francis Group. Kindle Edition. Retrieved from Amazon.com.

 

Latour,Bruno (2020)  Is this a dress rehearsal? CriticalInquiry https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/is-this-a-dress-rehearsal/

 

Marcuse, H. (1993). El hombre unidemensional . Barcelona: Planeta Agostini .

 

Olivié, I., & Gracia, M. (14 de 4 de 2020). ¿El fin de la globalización? Una reflexión sobre la crisis del COVID-19 desde el Índice Elcano Global. ARI (Real Instituto Elcano)(43).

 

Ortega, A. (8 de Abril de 2020). Coronavirus: tendencias y paisajes para el día después. ARI . Real Instituto Elcano.

 

Ortega y Gasset, J. (1959). Ideas y Creencias. (8ª ed.). Madrid: Revista de Occidente

 

Ortega y Gasset, J. (1966 ). La Rebelión de las masas. Obras Completas Tomo IV (1929- 1933) ( Sexta ed.). Madrid: Revista de Occidente.

 

Popper, K. R. (1980). La lógica de la investigación científica. Madrid: Técnos.

 

Stadlen Matthew (12 de Abril de 2020) Coronavirus is a moment to change our way of life. NewStatesman.

 

Zizek, Slavoj (12 de Abril de 2020) O encontro em Samarra: novos usos para velhas piadas. Publico. Lisboa.