The world is in turmoil, and nobody sems to have an idea on where this will end or how this will develop. We are at a point where critical decisions will need to be made to avoid serious problems or if we don’t make such decisions as often happens in such situation, mostly because a lack of quality leaders, we wait for a crisis to happen. As a matter of fact in situations like this we see leaders emerge that have a total lack of being able to address the very complex issues that are emerging at such time. Based on thousands of years of history that is usually what happens. Humans are not good in avoiding a crisis but when there is a crisis those incompetent leaders are put aside and suddenly new more capable leaders are emerging, they are than able to get people to come together to pull themselves out of a crisis. Such crises however, often take several years to overcome.
I read an interesting article on Philosophy Now written by Audren Layaux who had an interesting analysis on this. He concentrates this around the idea that humans have this quest for freedom.
Going back in history we see the ultimate authoritarian powers of kings, emperors and religious leaders, with very little room for individual freedoms. At that stage there are also no ‘nations ’as we have them now. Hundreds of small rulers fought each other in hundreds of bloody wars mainly for land, more land in those days meant more money and power. Religion often assisted in keeping the populus domicile and obedient. Interestingly as we will see later – based on the philosophy of William Reich – because of sexual repression.
During the period of the Enlightenment, we see the first modern developments in relation to nation states based on reason rather than ideologies and doctrines. Philosophers such Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Adam Smith played an influential role in these developments. Envisaging nation states to reign in the violence between the local rulers and making violence become a state monopoly with rules to avoid the barbarian levels of violence from previous periods,
Within such new modern structures, you also see the notion that education could play a rule to build up coercion and discipline to civilise the people. This further developed into institutions with rules and regulation how to rule these nation states. Coercion and discipline both in families and social and religious structures make more obedient people which are easier to control and direct. Sexual repression was seen by the philosopher William Reich as a useful tool to establish authority and create more docile societies, strategies used both by religious and authoritarian rulers. Suppressing desires and emotional through strong discipline and punishment and using that cropped up energy urges towards other forms of energy (violence). Under such ideologies ‘purism ‘is promoted as a value and anything not conforming to that is seen as derogatory that needs to be stamped out if necessary, through violence.
However, the carnage of WWI showed that these developments didn’t result in a more rational society, medieval barbarism be it in a more modern setting was on full scale display. Coercion and discipline had not delivered the sort of regulated state violence that was envisaged furthermore it created unrest, frustration and alienation among the populus.
After this war it had become clear that reason rath than emotional should be at the base of international relationship. In that sense it was thought that by creating more individual freedoms linked with individual responsibilities that would be a better direction. Among other things, it was thought that education needed to be changed to put students more central to the system and make them active participants in the learning process. However, this was at that stage not much further developed, the more traditional forms of discipline, punishment and coercion remained central to the education system (the cane only fully disappeared in Australia in the 1980s).
Also, the Versailles Treaty process following WWII was still based on morality, moral judgements (punishment) and discipline. As we know this didn’t go will over the longer time. WWII could not be avoided but at least after that war a more rational process was established by the international order avoiding the Versailles Treaty mistakes.
Another interesting observation here is when socialism started to emerge (Marx) to make life of the workers better as they were total exploited by the new emerging economic elite. Marx and others had never envisaged that ‘the workers’- at that stage 80% of the population – would follow leaders that would be totally going against their own interest, as was very visible with the emergence of fascism.
However, a more rational approach started to work better after the war. A Global Order developed ted by the USA. They became the policing force in securing the peace between (European) nations. Trade barriers were slashed, money was made available the economy boomed, and strong economic policies were developed, putting at least at the start of the rebuilding after the war ,the state in full control of the economy.
However, what this globalisation also meant that more international institutions were needed to guide these global processes both in relation to war and peace as well as the global economy (UN, NATO, IMF, World Bank, EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, a range of global treaties on many subjects, etc).
At the same time, we see that the focus on the individual finally stared to shape. However not based on national policies or strategies but from a grassroot level. The Sixties saw a resistance to the traditional way societies and families were structured, we talked about the generation gap between our parents and us (the youngsters born after WWII). The old 19th century structure that the ’old’ leaders wanted to recreate after WWII was overthrown in the Sixties. This was the start of the full developments of ‘the Self’. This generation was clearly against war, barbarism, fascism, authoritarian rule and so on and wanted a better world for all.
Back to the Global Order, this created the boom in globalisation that delivered untold economic benefits across the world healthcare, education improved worldwide, unprecedented levels of wealth were achieved, poverty disappeared here. The number of international conflicts decreased dramatically. Add to these positive developments the ‘Self ‘to this and we see that consumerism developed and thrived. The ‘80%’ were this time kept in control through consumerism made possible through globalisation.
With globalisation the role of nation states altered dramatically. They were no longer fully in charge of their economies, finance and national identities. Global (American) economic powers wanted to further decrease national powers instead advocated smaller governments and used the economic doctrine of neoliberalism to advance their economic influence.
The nation of differences between states became less importance, however in that context the difference started to focus more internally between groups based on race, gender, religion. Internal violence – especially in the 1990s – such as terrorism and organised crime increased within national borders. At the same time the development of freedom for the individual Self lead to a splintering within local communities. Resulting in minority groups who all wanted more freedoms and rights (and money) for their specific needs with rules and regulations for protection, these developments were assisted by international exposure to images, ideas and identities through our interconnected web. However, to facilitate all of that more rules and regulations are needed – a sort of forced liberty – often leading to greater uncertainties from ‘others’ regarding their place in such a changing society as well as confusion about society in general and this leads to increased frustrations and anxieties.
On top we can add the uncertainties created by the turmoil in the world : Syrie, Afghanistan, Middle East, Ukraine and Africa and tensions between the USA and China, all of this daily shown on our TVs.
As the western economies are rapidly aging, migration is essential to maintain the levels of lifestyle created during the period of globalisation. The geopolitical tensions creates large numbers of refugees they are added into the mix of rapidly increasing migrants numbers and this leads to further social disruption in local communities.
Add to this the now prolific use of electronic media and we see the emergence of a further splintering of local communities often more embedded in a globalised network facilitated by modern technology. This is disrupting the traditional fabric of often closely knit communities which leads to further frustration, resentment and anxiety.
Individual freedom has been a driving force behind all of these developments, and this has certainly been successful. Personal freedoms especially in the western societies is at an all time high and has delivered significant benefits, however this has been at the costs of creating cohesive societies and individual responsibilities towards a cohesive society. There is less political will to retreat somewhat from the emphasis on personal freedom in favour of a more cohesive society. Politicians in charge fear the backlash of large parts of societies if they would create a more balanced outcome between the individual and society.
We now see the backlash as the current situation is creating frustration, anxiety and social unrest, concentrating around splintering communities within the globalised networks. While there are certainly also positive technological developments that will assist us in finding solutions for the complex problems we are facing, social media is also adding oil to those frustrations and anxieties, creating unrest among those people who feel most negatively effected in the current society.
We again see that people will follow leaders -often without any leadership qualities at national or international levels -who actively operate against their interest of this group. They are able to exploit the frustration and the anxiety of these people by appealing to nonconscious basic instincts and projecting the emotions that are thus created externally, finding scapegoats and blaming others. Such emotions can easily be manipulated towards violence as we have seen even in recent times.
Of course, history never repeat itself, however, we can point to similarities in previous situation.
Through this analysis I hope to achieve a background to the current economic and political turmoil, not just within nations but also internationally. Understanding the situation, the reasons why can assist in finding solutions to avoid crises and direct our reason and emotions towards positive solutions. The quest for personal freedom is backfiring and we need to swing the pendulum back more towards the middle.
Society in Turmoil: How Did We Get Here, and Where Are We Going?
The world is grappling with widespread turmoil, marked by uncertainty and a lack of clear direction. History shows that humanity often waits for crises to unfold before responding, as ineffective leaders fail to address growing challenges. Yet, these moments of upheaval also reveal patterns: crises eventually give rise to capable leaders who can unite societies and drive recovery. It can to a large extend be argued that the current global unrest is rooted in humanity’s legitimate quest for freedom. So where has this gone wrong? The article investigates the developments that brought us to where we are now. It also highlights the urgent need to understand the historical cycles so we can better navigate the complexities of our time. Despite the turmoil there are solutions where individual freedoms and societal needs can be more in balance. To put the complexities in context, when I was born the world has 2.5billion inhabitants, now we have over 8 billion people. We can see what – in many different ways – the impact of this has been on our beautiful Blue Planet and the societies we live in..
Society in Turmoil: A Critical Juncture
The world is in turmoil, and there seems to be no clear vision of how this will end or evolve. We face critical junctures that demand decisive action to avert crises, but history teaches us that humans are rarely proactive in such situations. Instead, crises often serve as catalysts for change, as incompetent leaders give way to capable ones who can unite people and guide them out of chaos. Yet, these recoveries take years, sometimes decades, and come at a significant cost.
Audren Layaux, writing in Philosophy Now, offers an intriguing perspective on this turmoil, suggesting that humanity’s perpetual quest for freedom lies at its core. This observation resonates deeply with me as I have been part of a significant part of the period in question. To understand today’s unrest, we must explore how cycles have unfolded and how the interplay of freedom, control, and societal structures has shaped our world.
A Historical Perspective: Freedom and Control
Throughout history, power was concentrated in the hands of kings, emperors, and religious leaders. These rulers exerted authoritarian control over societies with little regard for individual freedoms. Territorial wars raged across hundreds of fiefdoms, driven by the pursuit of land as a source of wealth and power. Religion, as Wilhelm Reich argued, played a central role in keeping populations obedient—often through sexual repression and guilt, which they used to coerce the population in conformation and redirect the cropped up emotional human energy towards their own selfish purposes often leading to violence and conflict.
The Enlightenment marked a turning point. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Adam Smith envisioned a new order where reason replaced ideology and violence was confined to state monopolies. Nation-states emerged to tame the chaos of local conflicts, relying on education and discipline of the people to instil order. Yet, this system also demanded conformity and obedience, often at the expense of personal freedoms.
The Failures of Coercion and Discipline
The devastation of World War I exposed the limits of this model. Far from fostering rational societies, coercion and discipline had bred alienation and unrest. The Versailles Treaty exemplified a reliance on morality and punishment, rather than reasoned negotiation, ultimately sowing the seeds of World War II.
The post-war period offered a more pragmatic approach. The United States led the creation of a Global Order, fostering economic growth, reducing conflicts, and establishing international institutions like the UN, NATO, IMF, World Bank, EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, as well as a range of global treaties involving many aspects of society. This era saw unprecedented improvements in living standards, education, and healthcare, across the world, as well as the rise of globalisation. Yet, even this success had unintended consequences.
The Rise of the “Self” and the Fracturing of Society
I am a child of the Sixties and was part of a cultural revolution. Grassroots movements challenged traditional hierarchies, promoting individual freedom and dismantling old societal structures. Also in my family we experienced these challenges. For the first time, personal liberty became a central value, which I personally felt very strongly about. The level of personal freedom and increased wealth was also driving innovation and consumerism. However, as individualism thrived, communal bonds started to weaken in the 1980s. The emphasis on “the Self” fragmented communities, creating minorities who all demanded recognition, and their own rights, and resources; a form of forced liberty. These shifts were amplified by globalisation, which blurred national boundaries and eroded the power of nation-states.
The Role of Technology and Media
Technological advancements and the proliferation of electronic media further reshaped society in the recent decades. Social media platforms, in particular, have become double-edged swords: they democratise information and foster connections, but they also deepen divisions, spread misinformation, and fuel anxieties. Communities that were once tightly knit now exist in fragmented, globalised networks, where shared values are often replaced by competing identities.
Migration, Geopolitics, and Globalisation’s Backlash
Aging populations in the West have made migration essential to sustain economies and lifestyles. Yet, geopolitical conflicts—such as those in Syrie, Afghanistan, Middle East, Ukraine and Africa and tensions between the USA and China – have produced anxiety and waves of refugees, exacerbating tensions in local communities. These migrations intersect with rising nationalism, economic inequalities, and fears of cultural erosion, adding to societal unrest.
The Pendulum Swings Too Far
Paradoxically, the freedom that underpins modern progress has also undermined societal cohesion. The relentless focus on individual rights has left many feeling alienated and uncertain about their place in an increasingly fragmented world. Leaders who exploit these fears thrive by offering simplistic solutions and scapegoating vulnerable groups, even when their policies work against the interests of the people they claim to represent. They are appealing to nonconscious basic instincts and projecting the emotions that are thus directed externally. Such emotions can easily be manipulated towards violence as we have seen even in recent times
Personal Reflections and Lessons from History
Reflecting on these developments, I see echoes of past cycles of turmoil and renewal. The quest for freedom, while noble, has often swung too far, creating imbalances that lead to unrest. The failures of Versailles, the rise of fascism, and the cultural revolutions of the 1960s all offer lessons about the need for balance between personal liberty and collective responsibility. Yet, we seem trapped in a familiar pattern: waiting for crises to force us into action.
Conclusion: Rebalancing Freedom and Responsibility
The societal turmoil we face today is the culmination of decades of unchecked individualism, globalisation, and technological disruption. These forces have brought immense benefits but also deep fractures in our social fabric. The pendulum has swung too far toward personal rights, entitlements and freedoms, at the expense of communal cohesion and shared responsibility.
To move forward, we must recalibrate. Leaders must rise who can address the complexities of our interconnected world with vision and empathy, inspiring unity rather than division. Global corporations should show more social responsibility, and technology needs to be directed toward societal benefits. Technology van be used as a key tools to assist us in addressing the very complex challenges we are facing. Societies must embrace a more balanced approach, where individual freedoms are harmonised with collective well-being. This requires not only political will but also a cultural shift—one that prioritises community, accountability, and a shared sense of purpose.
The challenges are daunting, but history offers hope. Crises, while painful, often catalyse the emergence of solutions and leaders capable of guiding societies toward renewal. By learning from the past and acting with foresight, we can transform today’s turmoil into a foundation for a more equitable and cohesive future.
Paul Budde