One could justifiably argue that trying to make sense of what is going on in the world, even if confined to the human world, is a hopeless task given the enormous complexity of human interactions. Yet, this has never stopped religious leaders, philosophers, historians, and, more recently, social scientists from attempting to do so. Nor, I should add, has it prevented anyone from developing their own take on what is happening around them, more or less influenced by other people’s views. Everyone holds a particular view of the world, however fragmented or coherent, superficial or profound, informed or misinformed, clear or unclear, rational or irrational, consciously or unconsciously. Arguably, given the development of their brains, humans cannot function and live without interpreting the world around them. Doing so in a way that makes sense and gives meaning to their lives may be a fundamental human need. People are influenced in their behaviour and actions by their views of the world, even if not always consciously.
Here, I present my take on the world based on a set of six themes. I use the term theme rather than forces, factors, variables, causes, or drivers, as all these latter terms are too specific. Themes are rough sketches of the collective challenges or issues that humans have faced throughout history in all societies or social groupings in which they have been organised. Each theme involves a range of interacting factors that can produce (very) different outcomes, as they have in different societies and times. Examining societies and history through themes highlights enduring issues and challenges that humans are likely to continue to face. As such, they can be seen as facets of the human condition or predicament. They are never definitively solved but are addressed in different ways, more or less effectively and/or satisfactorily, by societies over time.
However, this does not mean that it is unimportant how people and societies approach these issues. It matters a great deal. Throughout history, there have been relatively good and bad times, stable and peaceful times, and times of deep conflict and war. While the notion of happiness is culturally fraught, it seems plausible that people and societies have experienced relatively happy periods, living their lives in ways they deemed satisfactory and/or (individually and socially) rewarding. Although hunger and famine may be triggered by natural (environmental) events, they are exacerbated or mitigated by how societies collectively respond to them. In the same vein, poverty, ill health, inequality, exploitation, crime, cruelty and oppression have been familiar themes throughout history, but have afflicted societies differently because of the political-economic systems that existed. Humans do not have to accept the conditions under which they live as “natural” and unchangeable. Much depends on who holds power and who is responsible for societal decisions (presumedly collective).
The six themes identified and briefly discussed here can provide a basis for thinking (and action) about how the human condition could be improved. While being a source of enduring problems, issues, and challenges, they are subject to human agency (choice) and the exercise of power. Even if people may disagree on what is important or desirable, what choices should be made, and what kind of changes should or must occur to create better societies, and hopefully a better world, this is no reason to reject the idea that societies can collectively steer themselves in a direction that most people deem desirable or even necessary.
What does it mean to be human?
The first theme is arguably most often blamed for the problems and misery that humankind suffers. It is linked to the idea that, by nature, humans are selfish and aggressive/or that, at their core, they are inherently bad and inclined to be nasty toward one another. This view has been captured by the notion of original sin, the idea that, at an early stage, humans forfeited living in paradise because they did not respect God’s laws. Others attribute the problem to human biology and genetics. However, not everyone agrees that humans are fundamentally nasty. It has been argued that humans are a social species equipped with a capacity for empathy and an inclination to cooperate rather than compete. There is also the view that human nature is malleable and that socio-cultural values, norms, and patterns are at least as important, if not more so, than human biology in shaping human behaviour, a discussion often referred to as the “nature versus nurture” debate. While some emphasise the similarities in genetic make-up between humans and other species and suggest that much of human behaviour has its roots in biology (socio-biology), to the point of referring to humans as “naked apes”, others see and emphasise unique human capabilities (notably that of reasoning) that set us apart from, or even above, the rest of nature. Others regard the concept of human nature as flawed and unnecessary, arguing that humans can and do shape their capabilities, including through technological means. This view opens the door to what has been referred to as Transhumanism, the possibility of enhancing humans to create a species made by humans, arguably without any flaws.
This theme is highly important to any effort to make sense of what is happening in the world. If there is a reality to human nature, it will have (had) its effects, and possibly more or less autonomously. Yet it is also clear that there is no agreement on the nature of human nature or on the ways and extent to which it explains what happens in societies. Nonetheless, throughout history, interpretations of human nature have significantly shaped and justified societies’ institutions, rules, and practices, including hierarchy, slavery, and the roles of men and women. This is as relevant today as it was in the past and will be in the future. Within a particular (societal) context and timeframe, a particular interpretation of human nature tends to dominate, with important repercussions for societies and individuals. In many countries, and arguably worldwide, the currently dominant view of human nature is fundamentally flawed and poses a danger to humanity and to the rest of nature.
Social integration and fragmentation
The second theme concerns the observation that living in groups has always posed challenges, both within and between them. Although humans are commonly referred to as a social species, this does not necessarily mean that they always get along well with one another, even in the smallest groups. Throughout history, there is ample evidence of groups and societies that did not live in harmony but tore themselves apart and waged war with one another. The fundamental question this raises is what binds people together. Arguably, from the earliest stages, kinship has played a key role in this respect. Throughout history, people have banded together in extended families, small (village) communities, tribes, and, increasingly, in larger groups referred to as societies, (nation-)states, or empires. However, it is clear that this banding together has not always been voluntary; more often than not, people have been forced to live together, especially in larger groups. More generally, as people grow up within groups, they are not typically given a choice and are socialised as members of one or more groups. History, tradition, language, and institutions provide a degree of cultural continuity. Societies cannot exist without a minimum level of loyalty and social integration grounded in shared values. However, what those values are, or should be, is subject to contestation, and cultures are subject to (more or less gradual) change. This can significantly affect people’s sense of belonging (identification). It may erode the social (support) basis of groups and societies, undermine the rationale for their existence, and lead to social and political disintegration.
Given the relative continuity of cultures and societies, this theme may not have posed a problem for long periods in many societies. Yet throughout history, societies and cultures have disintegrated, collapsed, and disappeared, while new ones have emerged. Social integration has arguably become an increasingly significant challenge with the emergence of pluralist societies, the growth of individualism, and globalisation. It raises questions about what, if anything, still holds societies and states together and about viable alternatives to the prevailing systems. Although modern nation-states are relatively recent phenomena, it is sometimes argued that their importance for social integration has eroded. However, this view is also highly contestable and problematic, as evidenced by the continuation and even revival of nationalism.
Power and inequality
The third recurring theme concerns issues of power, inequality, exploitation, and oppression. Throughout history and around the world, many people have been oppressed and exploited by a relatively small number of others. Although it is sometimes argued that this is due to the hierarchical nature of the human species, this is contestable. Although it is remarkable that, in many societies, people appear to have accepted the existence of sharp inequalities and their own exploitation, and to have regarded the prevailing order as immutable and a matter of God or fate, they may have done so because inequalities of power gave them little, if any, choice. Nonetheless, at times, people have rebelled against oppression and exploitation, and the view that these phenomena are natural and unchangeable has been increasingly contested, while the ideas of democracy and equality have gained ground.
Yet, inequality, exploitation and oppression have remained prevalent phenomena. This raises the question of how they can be contained and reduced. Unavoidably, this implies revisiting the matter of power, especially its distribution and concentration within and across societies. Addressing this question requires examining power structures and the mechanisms by which power is allocated, accumulated, and concentrated within political-economic systems.
Political-economic systems are, as the label suggests, combinations of political and economic systems. The former may be categorised as more or less democratic or authoritarian, while most economic systems can be classified as capitalist, socialist, or a hybrid of the two. The variability of oppression and exploitation depends primarily on the prevailing political-economic system. While some systems may facilitate the accumulation and concentration of power, others contain constraints and hurdles that limit this process. This, of course, raises the question of whether societies have (some) influence or control over the political-economic systems that are in place and whether, or under what conditions, such systems may be changed, including through the agency and mobilisation of the power of groups in society (or societies).
Different ways of seeing the world
These questions extend to the fourth theme, which concerns how people and societies perceive the world. If the dominant (socio-cultural and political) beliefs entail that it is natural or ordained by God that societies are ruled by monarchs, elites, or strong leaders and that inequality in income and wealth should be seen as “natural”, contesting existing political-economic systems becomes very difficult or near impossible. For much of history, the idea that some people are born to be members of a superior class or elite and/or to be leaders has been dominant, supported by religious belief systems and/or political ideologies. Rulers and ruling classes have long been aware of the importance and power of beliefs and ideas to undergird the legitimacy of their rule, and heretics have tended to be treated harshly.
Nonetheless, in Europe, since the Age of Enlightenment, new and often radically different ways of seeing the world have emerged. While the development of science helped erode the grip of traditional worldviews, new interpretations of religious teachings and bold ideas about the perfectibility of humans and societies were advanced. This led to battles for the minds, with counterparts in violent social and political conflicts. When successful, revolutions led to significant political and economic changes, including the adoption of liberal-democratic and socialist systems.
Although it has been argued that, with the emergence of a technocratic class in highly “developed” countries, and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the era of ideological contest is over, this is itself an ideological ploy aimed at dismissing the idea that there are alternatives to the prevailing political-economic order and vested interests. Yet no political-economic system is permanent, and different views of the world and of what constitutes a “good society” continue to exist and compete with one another. However, what can be discerned is that the power to influence or even shape people’s minds has become increasingly sophisticated and concentrated due to the development of hard and soft technologies and the ongoing accumulation and concentration of (different forms of) power. This has also led to speculation, or perhaps a growing likelihood, that all members of society are manipulated into accepting a particular (harmonious or “happy”) view of the world. Arguably, this possibility offers a “solution” to the social disintegration afflicting many societies and is embraced and promoted by dominant elites.
The environmental challenge
The fifth ongoing theme that humanity has been struggling with is the environmental challenge. Humans are the only species that lack a distinct ecological niche and are not biologically programmed to behave within the constraints provided by that niche. Instead, humans are biologically unspecialised and manipulate and change their environment to meet their own material needs, which are largely self-defined and unlimited. Arguably, they have become increasingly blind to environmental processes and limits, blundering through and destroying the environment in their pursuit of continuous economic growth and development. Yet ignoring environmental processes, systems, and limits is unsustainable, has contributed to the collapse of societies, and poses a threat to the survival of humankind and numerous other species.
Since the beginning of the environmental era in the 1960s, this imperative has been increasingly recognised, and one may argue that much has already been done to address environmental issues. However, it has also become apparent that, in general, these efforts have been ineffective, and environmental problems and pressures continue to intensify. This raises the question of why societies, and the world as a whole, are failing the environmental challenge. Not surprisingly, seeking answers to this question brings us back to the four themes mentioned above. The ongoing problems described under these themes contain many of the obstacles to meeting the environmental challenge more effectively. Arguably, this makes this challenge too big, complex, and unresolvable. What is required is the integration of environmental imperatives into all aspects of human thinking, action, and institutions. However, it is hard to see how this can be achieved without a comprehensive overhaul of the socio-cultural and political-economic systems that have been established.
Bully states and global anarchy
The sixth theme is that, throughout history, some groups (tribes or states) have been more powerful than others and have used their power to impose their interests and/or will upon others, including through the threat and use of violence, conquest and colonisation, imperialism, and the creation of self-serving institutions. Not surprisingly, such practices and efforts provoke conflict, resistance, and wars. The modern (nation-)state system has been no different in this respect, leading to increasingly destructive conflicts and wars provoked by, and often between, “bully states”. Although these developments have led to efforts to increase cooperation and create a rule-based global order, they have not fundamentally altered the enormous inequality among states or the practices and rivalry of bully states.
Processes of internationalisation and globalisation have not ended the rivalry between states, and states remain crucial to the roles they play, to democratic aspirations, and as international actors. Notwithstanding this, the strengthening of supra-national institutions and even the establishment of a limited form of global sovereignty are prerequisites for creating the conditions for long-term collective security, human and societal well-being, and environmental sustainability. Maintaining a balance between (semi-) autonomous states or macro-polities and a legitimate and functional global order will be an ongoing and difficult challenge.
Linkages
These six themes are interrelated. This means not only that it is difficult to avoid overlap in their discussions, but also that we can only gain a better understanding of what is happening in the world by examining their interactions. In combination, I argue, these six interrelated themes can help us better understand humanity’s predicament. I do not claim that the picture I paint in these pages explains the state of the world, or of any particular society, at any point in time. The dynamics created by the interactions between people, systems, and environments arguably make it impossible to identify ultimate “causes”. Under each theme, one can identify numerous factors that interact and combine in different ways to produce idiosyncratic outcomes, depending on the particular country or context. Common or similar patterns of connections can perhaps be distinguished within each theme; however, I believe that it is neither possible nor desirable to develop a general scientific theory or model of how the world works. Science cannot provide “solutions” to any of the challenges mentioned above. How these issues are addressed is foremost a matter of values-based political choices. Science can help develop means to implement these choices. But at the core of all six themes lie values-based questions that, throughout history, have been “answered” by the most powerful in societies. A better understanding of why and how this has happened and continues to happen holds the key to addressing these ongoing challenges in ways that are not just more effective but, most of all, considered (more or most) desirable.
I hope these pages contribute to a better understanding of the barriers that prevent societies from addressing these ongoing challenges more satisfactorily. This may sound too modest an aspiration, but given the intractable nature of these challenges, it is probably the best we can hope for, and it would already make a big difference to most people in most societies. Given the (often unique) social, cultural, ecological, geographical, historical, economic, and political contexts in which human interactions occur, understanding how these themes play out requires examining specific countries (or polities) and their interactions. Given the role of human agency and my belief that the choices that people make matter, especially at the collective level, developing a better understanding of how these themes play out in existing (nation-) states is likely to be the most realistic and promising basis for steering, democratically, toward what are deemed to be more desirable societies. In this respect, although I do not believe that humans and societies can be perfected, the project undertaken here firmly fits within the Enlightenment tradition.