WORLD FUTURES 2022, VOL. 78, NOS.2-4, 87-100
Brad Bullock
Randolph College, Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Abstract
Zia Sardar’s “Welcome to postnormal times,” pub- lished over a decade ago, accurately describes how a confluence of conditions driving global trends pre- dict the future. His observations foretell, and bring some coherence to, 2020’s unprecedented U.S. presidential election and its aftermath.
Zia Sardar’s article “Welcome to postnormal times” (Sardar, 2010) is a prescient work I return to time and again. With characteristic efficiency, Sardar first condenses the concept postnormal– developed in the 1990s by a British philosopher and an Argentinean mathematician to explain the evolution of modern science – and then extends it to describe most everything. Sardar argues that all natural and social systems, including epistemology, now operate in postnormal times “characterized by uncertainty, rapid change, realignment of power, upheaval and chaotic behavior ... an in-between period where old orthodoxies are dying, new ones have yet to be born, and very few things seem to make sense” (p. 435).
For Sardar, postnormal times have become the world’s zeitgeist, palp- ably felt; it’s our new environment, undermining previous notions about how humans strive to secure a brighter global future. Even those not pay- ing close attention perceive the world as increasingly unstable, one evolv- ing rapidly in incomprehensible ways. The main ideas in his article – that the driving forces of our postnormal times are “complexity, chaos, and contradictions” – remain particularly insightful. For example, more than a decade after publication, Sardar’s assessments bring coherence to 2020s divisive and unprecedented U.S. presidential election and its aftermath.
Complexity
Sardar’s analysis of the postnormal nature of complexity provides a valuable backdrop for current events that seem eerily familiar: e.g., a world economic crisis featuring the U.S. economy (circa 2008) and a deadly global pandemic, rapidly spread by global travel, requiring massive efforts in health education (swine flu, 2009). He stresses that things will only get progressively more complex because all major issues are now global in scale and systematically intertwined, so that when one nation acts, it necessarily affects other nations: “globalization enhances complexity not simply by making us interdependent but also by increasing our interconnections. In a globalized world, everything is connected to everything else” (p. 437).
Sardar also notes that globally interconnected developments, in both the economic and geopolitical realms, increasingly happen simultaneously and with greater speed. For example, he specifically mentions how quickly Russia, China and India have risen, all at once, to test a world order established by US hegemony. He argues that “no single model of behav- iour, mode of thought, or method ... can provide an answer to all our interconnected, complex ills. The ‘free market’ is as much a mirage as the suggestion that science or liberal secularism will rescue us from the cur- rent impasse” (p. 437). Such circumstances, he posits, create big chal- lenges that come thick and fast, challenges that require coordinated, multifaceted solutions applied with extraordinary urgency.
The trends Sardar described back then are even more pronounced today. Imbalances inherent in the global capitalist system continue to extend the gap between economic haves and have-nots, both between and within nations. Russia, still under Vladimir Putin, is more determined than ever to regain its superpower status in a perceived zero-sum game with the U.S., while China and India are bolder in challenging the eco- nomic and political dominance of the U.S. and the West. We’re thor- oughly more interconnected by, and dependent on, social media than a decade ago. At present, an even deadlier global pandemic, COVID-19, and a worldwide economic crisis are indeed happening simultaneously. And, there are similarities between the U.S. election of President Barack Obama in 2008 and Joe Biden in 2020 – e.g., the country’s swing away from the conservative party to the more liberal one.
The interim, however, features a distinct and important difference: the unmistakable, malignant rise of nationalist populism around the world. Trumpism represents but one, especially virulent form of such populist movements. In contrast to Donald Trump, a would-be autocrat, the faux populist construction of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, seems innocuous and almost quaint (1). Since President Obama’s tenure, the international spread of far-right populist movements and nationalist regimes (2) played a part in empowering Trump in the first place, including Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.
New innovations and shared, multifaceted solutions often can, and now arguably must, emerge from complex times of uncertainty. This is one side of the dialectic produced by postnormal times. But, as is usually the case historically, uncertainty also unleashes passionate tendencies to retreat backward, to protect a real or perceived status quo, to reject the need to collaborate or the inevitability of change itself. In retrospect Sardar’s propositions predict the rise of this worrisome global counter-trend, if not its exact form. Finding effective ways to stem the damage produced by the spread of nationalist populism is the most urgent challenge now faced by all forward-looking people, since it compromises international cooperation toward solving existential, multinational problems like global climate change.
Chaos
Postnormal times are likewise characterized by chaos produced by complex, interconnected and digitized systems. Sardar featured the instantaneous nature of financial trades pushed by computer algorithms, the exponential growth of web-based information systems and social media, and the advent of a 24-hour news cycle. He says potential “for things to multiply rapidly and dangerously in geometric progression, is enormous ... A computer virus, a strike, a single resignation, can set off a chain reaction that can bring a nation or the whole world to a grinding halt” (p. 438). Information has become the premier economic commodity and political necessity, leading Sardar to suggest that national security will increasingly mean cybersecurity. And indeed, the cold war today is primarily waged in cyberspace, with new levels of spying, hacking, and use of disinformation campaigns.
Sardar also ponders ways the web and social media have forever altered social protest movements so that – for good or ill – they can rapidly create chaos. He observed: “When demonstrators start to behave as a network and create positive feedback through the use of the web and mobile phones, they swell their numbers rapidly and acquire a self-perpetuating momentum” (p. 438). This phrase presages the Arab Spring protests just months later. It likewise predicts the form of right-wing protests against COVID restrictions in 2020 and, in 2021, the shocking mob attack on the U.S. Capitol building – a failed attempt by angry Trump loyalists to stop official certification of his rival, Joe Biden, as the duly elected U.S. President. Trump’s use of social media to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories against his perceived enemies is unrivaled. His role in using social media to organize the January 6 protest and then to incite loyalists to violent action resulted in procedures by the U.S. Congress to impeach him for a second time. Sardar’s phrase, “In postnormal times, the world can really be laid to waste by the actions of a few toxic individuals” (p. 439), fittingly captures Trump and his loyal extremists.
Sardar’s observations foresee future revelations. Consider the case of Russian hackers offering digital dirt to the 2016 Trump presidential campaign about his opponent, Hillary Clinton, including stolen emails hacked from Democratic operatives. Add false social media accounts, evidentially tied to the Russian government, that spread misinformation and conspiracy theories against Clinton in what many experts conclude was a successful effort to help elect Donald Trump. Russian cybersecurity forces again sought to sow chaos through digital attempts to disrupt the 2020 U.S. presidential election and hack into voting rolls and election systems. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign made bold requests for them to aid in smear tactics against Biden, including a bid to promote unsubstantiated accusations against Biden’s son involving illegal dealings in Ukraine.
Contradiction
The final condition of Sardar’s postnormal times is contradiction. He singles out contradictions that proceed from the nature of change and knowledge, stressing particularly an accelerating pace of change (Toffler, 1970) (3). Sardar marvels at how quickly information technology has increased in power and capacity while simultaneously becoming cheaper and more accessible. For comparison, he mentions how sequencing the genome for HIV took 15 years versus only 31 days for the SARS virus (extending his comparison, sequencing COVID took only 3 days). Yet, this vast power has vastly benefited the powerful, leaving swaths of the poor and uneducated even further behind. Acquisition or use of knowledge itself is unequal, speeding forward in some quarters and remaining mostly static in others. We can infer from this condition fertile ground for future populist movements, which thrive on negative portrayals of educated “elites” and xenophobic stereotypes of immigrants – hallmarks of Trumpism. Sardar notes, “The increase in xenophobia across the world is not only alarming but an indication of deep ignorance” (p. 439); it’s this acknowledgement of ignorance, he contends, that holds the key to constructive collaborations. Indeed, he submits that we must face “the ignorance of our ignorance, the in-built ignorance of the potential risks of recent developments, and the ignorance generated from information overload” (p. 440). The world, therefore, must embrace uncertainty, and from there engage in a consensual dialogue “involving a whole range of perspectives and interests including those of experts, lay adults as well as children, people of different social and cultural backgrounds, different ethical notions, and even consideration of the needs of nonhuman species” (p. 440).
Sardar couldn’t be more on target, but his views form the antithesis that fuels nationalist populism. The speed of change in a postnormal world, with its chaotic, complex contradictions, is an inherent advantage to conservative causes everywhere. Those attracted to Trump and Trumpism embrace American exceptionalism and calls to “put America first” – not international, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic collaborations led by “elites.” Trumpists mostly despise the UN and insist on pulling out of climate change accords. Like dictators or autocrats everywhere, Trump sews division against the perceived enemies of populist causes, a strong-man who confidently offers false and simplistic assessments of problems and even simpler, one-dimensional solutions (e.g., Trump sold the false “reality” that hordes of illegal immigrants – criminals, rapists, and drug dealers – are swarming across U.S. borders and stealing jobs from ordinary Americans. Solution? Build a wall!).
In postnormal fashion, the cult of Trump is the unintentional result of decades of Republican Party efforts to hold onto power by nurturing fear and anxiety among their populist base. Their overarching strategy cultivates division, practically requiring them to undermine bipartisan compromise. Post-election, Trump employed social media and similar tactics to belittle and threaten former Republican allies who refused to promote his delusional claim that he won. He equates true Republicanism with loyalty to himself and suggests that, through his base, he could steal the Republican Party. Trump’s son, Donald Jr., made this clear at the rally that inspired the storming of the Capitol; to those Republicans who refused to stop certification of President-Elect Biden, he remarked “This gathering should send a message to them: This isn’t their Republican Party anymore. This is Donald Trumps’ Republican Party” (Mastrangelo, 2021).
Writers often speak of democracies as living, breathing things – they are vulnerable, fragile; without constant care they can easily sicken or even die. Since its founding, the U.S. has defined and embodied liberal democracy, but now it more resembles a very sick patient in urgent need of treatment, to the glee of its enemies. Many intellectuals, Sardar among them, understand the importance of nursing U.S. democracy back to health, because the future of the U.S. is inextricably tied to better or worse futures for the entire world.
Diagnosis, Prescription
As diagnosis, Sardar’s comments remain spot on. Conditions in postnormal times predict and explain events surrounding the 2020 U.S. presidential election, one defined by chaos and contradiction. Those conditions created an opening for Trump’s rise to power, and Trump’s behavior and character neatly reflect and embody chaos and contradiction (while his appeal lies in ignoring or dismissing complexity). Contributing to fears of additional chaos, the election took place while cases of deadly COVID-19 were surging. By all verifiable evidence the 2020 election, which set records for votes cast, was perhaps the smoothest and fairest in U.S. history – despite cries about various irregularities, especially from Republican and Trump partisans who could not rely on traditional means of voter suppression to tip the scales in their favor. It’s supreme irony that chaos from a tiny microbe Trump dismissed for months ultimately helped defeat him and deliver full control of the U.S. government into the hands of the opposition.
Sardar’s propositions identify forces that continue to unravel democ- racy. Free market capitalism is, indeed, neither unbiased nor benign; it tends to augment inequalities that undermine the democratic spirit. Especially in times of uncertainty, the rich just get richer. And, undoubtedly, a failure of modern liberalism helps explain antidemocratic, right-wing populism. Modern liberalism suggests its bureaucratic and technocratic power structures result from neutral, value-free judgements based on science and facts, magically transcending political and cultural differences to promote rational debate. Given how science and inquiry operate, the more exponentially we apply the method, the more complexity and contradiction inevitably appear. Then there’s the unavoidable complexity of the facts themselves, requiring more inquiry before reaching a general consensus that they are facts. Science and inquiry, of course, are never value-neutral; neither do they produce absolute truth. “Knowing the truth” is part of an ever evolving, ongoing process involving multiple perspectives. Pluralist, liberal democracies, like those modeled on the U.S., thrive when a majority of citizens are educated and encouraged to accept this truth about truth. But especially in postnormal times, many people desperately seek truth as a certainty, the sort of certainty offered by populist leaders.
According to Sardar, the prescription for postnormal times is for the world to accept the shortcomings of modernism and its universal prom- ises of progress, to embrace uncertainty, and then, collaboratively, to solve our interconnected problems guided by “age-old virtues: humility, mod- esty and accountability” (p. 442). I concur, wholeheartedly. This would be wonderful medicine for the world and a tonic for democracy. The complexity of our intertwined problems should teach us humility. Recognizing the chaos and contradictions integral to postnormal times does require modesty and entail personal and social responsibility. Internalizing and teaching these virtues, especially to our young, is needed if we wish to avoid dystopia. But all this won’t be sufficient, because postnormal times have already spawned a substantial and growing class of human beings unwilling to swallow the essential treatment.
Consider Trump and Trumpism. Trump displays a persona that’s the direct opposite of humility or modesty, and it’s never been near personal or social responsibility. His unflinchingly faithful, populist base would have it no other way. As Trump makes clear in word and deed, cooperat- ing with others, especially those outside of your tribe, is a sign of detest- able weakness. You insult and humiliate those who disagree with you: it’s your standard approach to the world (4).
“Value neutral” notions stemming from modernism naively ignore something critical: people must understand themselves and the rest of the world through a shared, cultural story. The history and cultural know- ledge we ultimately choose for constructing this story matters profoundly. Combining the material and the ideal, people can create and populate competing or conflicting stories. Nationalist populism is as much about cultural identity as it is about jobs. For the admirable virtues Sardar invokes, one must ask: virtues for whom, by whom? Postnormal times have, foremost, created a universal, global dualism. People everywhere seem to have grouped into two camps: those for whom progress is for- ward and unknown, and those who, in vain, hope to go backward. What sickens U.S. democracy and its body politic isn’t that conservatives and liberals can’t work together; instead, the contentious gridlock emerges from their occupying divergent and diametrically opposed “realities.” The U.S. Capitol riot represents not just an attack on American democracy, but a fierce rejection by populists for an idea of an America they’ve been emboldened to hate. The healing of America and U.S. democracy, if it happens, will require prolonged treatment using large doses of stronger medicine.
Prognosis
Many Americans across the political spectrum express hope that, following Biden’s inauguration, partisan rancor and political theater will die down and we can return to some semblance of normalcy. After four years of the Trump administration’s attempts to undo “deep state” government institutions, blow up established norms of governance, and replace career experts with poorly-qualified toadies, perhaps now the gears of government will turn again, however slowly, toward tackling serious, real-world problems with policies informed by science and real facts! The U.S., entering 2021 with a badly compromised economy and leading the world in confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19, desperately needs such hope. Unfortunately, given the ongoing realities of postnormal times and the well-established dualism that tugs the country in opposite directions, this scenario seems unlikely. In fact, without a noticeably different regi- men, it would be unfair to expect the Biden administration, or any administration, to restore us to health.
I’m led to predict the likelihood of further entrenchment into two dif- ferent constructions of America, even if one is substantially built on lies and misinformation. The disaffected and angry who swell the ranks of right-wing populism are unappeased and going nowhere. They’ve been weened for decades on divisive Republican messages about how information from the other side – career politicians, scientists, experts, educated “elites,” and the press – should be rejected outright as untrustworthy. Consider the transfer of power deliberately compromised at every step by Trump while, for months, nearly the entire Republican Party enabled Trumpists to inhabit an alternative universe. A vast majority of Republicans continue to express support for Trump – a demagog by any reasonable definition – either for real or perceived political gain. The very day Trumpists ransacked the Capitol building, a vast majority of Republican representatives chose to uphold Trump’s false narrative, refus- ing to accept Biden’s certified electoral votes. Cult fealty is reflected in the recurrent, disingenuous defense of Trump’s behavior by Republican lawmakers, finally prompting an exasperated U.S. Representative, House majority leader Steny Hoyer, to declare to them: “You’re not living in the same country I am” (Baker, 2021).
The gaping sociopolitical divide, in fact the rise of Trump himself, isn’t something that just happened: it’s the direct result of divisive politics by both major parties. Republicans, however, have made an art of villain- izing those on the other side, starting with the Southern Strategy, used effectively by Nixon’s campaign in 1968 – i.e., using divisive issues like race, abortion, and gun rights to peel white voters away from historically Democratic strongholds. Republican President Ronald Reagan is famous in the 1980s for discrediting trust in government itself. In the 1990s, House Speaker Newt Gingrich made a Republican tradition of shutting down the federal government and established partisan, obstructionist practices perfected in this century by Mitch McConnell – a formidable tactician who during the Obama presidency earned for Republicans a nickname: “The Party of No.”
The United States is literally at war with itself, as the Capitol insurgency illustrates. The ominous political and cultural climate resembles that which precipitated the American Civil War of the 1860s. The sight of a Confederate battle flag paraded around inside the U.S. Capitol – something never witnessed during or after that war – was a jarring symbol of insurrection tied to white supremacy and racial hatred. It’s tempting to blame President Trump, who has steadfastly refused to condemn white supremacists among his base, for the recent rise of racial hate-crimes and anti-immigrant views. But these are standard fare for nationalist, populist movements, and the U.S. version has been carefully nurtured and ridden to success by the Republican Party long before Donald Trump. This time, in going along with Trumpism, Republicans went much further down the road to demonizing the “liberal” version of America (5).
What can we attribute to Trump? His unprecedented attacks on the press and, worse, on truth itself. This constitutes the most serious damage to U.S. democracy. Whenever the “mainstream” press reported unsettling but reliable accounts from scientists and experts – for example inconvenient facts about universal issues like climate change or a looming pandemic – Trump’s response was to assault the press as liberal stooges who deliver only “fake news.” First, Trump sought either to ignore or remove “liberal” journalists from traditional press conferences, then reduced press conferences, then finally stopped appearing at press conferences altogether, preferring instead to issue unchallenged opinions to his fan base via the social media platform Twitter. His interactions with any sort of press were primarily, and symbolically, limited to Fox News or Fox network talk shows, reliable conservative echo chambers. Since the elec- tion, loyalists have been leaving the Fox network in favor of farther-right outlets that idolize Trump, while Trump and his followers – restricted or banned by established social media organizations since the Capitol insurrection – are heading to new platforms on the radical right (Hochschild and Einstein, 2015). (6)
Trump’s brand of populist rule dangerously moves America into the “post-factual” era (Sardar, 2015; Steffey, 2017). (7) His base not only accepts, but admires his disdain for facts and his willingness to make up his own truths. Some acknowledge Trump is a chronic liar, but he’s their liar; a champion who boldly stands up for “their America.” Trump gave legitimacy to making truth a matter of belief. His followers are encouraged to ignore norms of civil disagreement and to replace unwanted facts with their preferred version of make-believe.
Trump’s unbridled willingness to lie or sell conspiracies, to construct and inhabit his own false versions of “reality,” is a lifelong habit. During his Presidency, this presented a real problem for America and the Republican Party. Trump’s aide Kellyanne Conway infamously uttered newspeak by insisting Trump’s obvious untruths were merely “alternative facts.” With the death of truth, we banish shame. Without some agreement about what’s true, based on objective facts, we also kill constructive debate and murder irony, even as ironies abound.
Bringing down government while also standing for “law and order” is the prevailing contradiction of fascism and nationalist populism. Insistence by right-wing Christians that America and its laws conform to their own religious notions contradicts the unquestionable intention of America’s constitutional founders to protect religious freedom by separating church from state. Instead, their views resemble the fundamentalism of Sharia law in theocracies like Iran. Somehow, Trump’s base claims they must protect America’s Constitution while also standing behind an insurrection by “patriots” who attacked the Capitol to stop a solemn pro- cedure mandated by the Constitution. A matchless irony appears when Trump’s alt-right (8) loyalists, e.g., Republican senator Josh Hawley, invoke Orwell’s 1984 to describe consequential reactions to their roles in lending substance to Trump’s obviously nonreal claims of a stolen 2020 election. The day after Twitter permanently banned Trump’s account for dangerously misusing it, Donald Jr.’s Twitter post declared “free speech no longer exists in America ...we are living in Orwell’s 1984.” This Orwellian reference is itself Orwellian (Szalai, 2021).
Granting permission to construct reality from belief, and then double- down against facts that conflict with your story, is Trump’s legacy. Trump’s far right supporters routinely refer to themselves as “patriots,” a term promoted also by those who seek to exploit them. Instead, they are nationalists. They prominently display nationalist symbols to validate their cause. When at rallies and protests they habitually wave the U.S. flag, it represents for them an America carefully selected from the past or, quite truthfully, an America that’s never existed. No amount of facts, appeals to virtue, or even “patriotism” will alter the current dynamic because the U.S. flag they wave is for a country different from the official one. They prefer to deny the America described by facts from the 2020 decennial census: a country that’s not predominantly white, nor racially segregated, nor rural, nor Christian, nor male dominated. This factual country threatens not just cherished values: at stake is U.S. cultural identity, the national story about where we’re going. It’s unsurprising, then, that Trump’s administration repeatedly pushed for changes to the 2020 census that would undercount recent immigrants, documented or otherwise. Trump continues to assert baseless claims, believed by his supporters, that widespread voting by undocumented immigrants stole the election from “real” Americans.
The current Republican Party – that of Trump and his populist base – appears comfortable with a one-party “democracy.” Given his admiration and tacit support for dictators and autocrats around the world, is it fair to equate Trump to infamous nationalist or totalitarian rulers from history who rose on the tide of populist movements? Perhaps not. Yet, Hannah Arendt’s (Arendt, 1976) statement in The Origins of Totalitarianism is chillingly descriptive of Trumpism and Trump’s base: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist" (p. 474).
It’s premature to declare U.S. democracy terminally ill, while reports about its death are greatly exaggerated. Yet there’s no doubt that in the U.S., as around the world, postnormal times pose health threats to democracy. It’s not exaggeration to suggest that liberal democracies everywhere face an existential crisis and that previous ideas about what works must evolve.
Alternative Medicine
So, what’s to be done now in The Divided States of America? Changes required to undo the anger and frustration behind nationalist populism must be substantial and material, (9) but Sardar is right to suggest the biggest battles ahead are cultural ones, fought in the realm of ideas. Instead of appeals to virtue, however, we must find a way to reattach people to fact-based truths. That will require a lot of activist work on the ground (Bullock, 2018) (10).
First, we must reframe the overarching challenge as one of competing belief systems. Sardar’s call for respectful, transformative dialogues provides few details for how to bring them forward. Liberalism generally rests on the naïve notion that if only the facts are carefully collected and rationally presented, good policies and sound decisions will follow. Fascism is about certainty. Right-wing, conservative Christianity is like-wise about certainty. Nationalist populism is an anti-modern reaction in process, a movement uninterested in discussing fact-based issues (Hetherington and Weiler, 2009) (11). It represents nothing less than all-out cultural warfare (Mishra, 2017, p. 14) (12) over distinctly different national visions, buttressed by beliefs that are unassailable through argument. Such movements don’t want to go forward, but backward. Proudly, Trumpists wear clothing and hats touting Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”
As for belief systems, conservative Christians overwhelmingly identify as Republican and continue to support Trump, despite his decidedly non-Christian behaviors. White supremacists overwhelmingly identify them- selves as Protestant, evangelical Christians. The most powerful predictor of whether someone claims a Christian identity in the U.S. (including Catholics) is not church attendance but whether they post high scores on a racism index (Jones, 2020) (13). For many, “patriot” simultaneously signifies a place in God’s army – modern-day Crusaders against creeping secularism, sacred warriors fighting for America as a (white) Christian nation, designated by Providence to preserve “God’s Kingdom” around the world.
Second, only activism to promote a different worldview is likely break the crippling dynamic of dualism. In 2009, Sardar expresses reservations about activism: “Spontaneous self-organising activism, such as global anti- capitalist protests ... is self-selecting ... Such movements can dissipate as quickly as they spring into life without their activism necessarily being transformative” (p. 442). He continues, “it is in the nature of many... self-organising networks ... to confound the times by offering sim- plistic, single issue, one-dimensional prescriptions and thereby increase the toxicity, animosity and dissatisfaction of society as a whole” (p. 442). In response, there is considerable difference between social protests and sustained grassroots movements.
The 1960s Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. exemplifies a sustained movement to dismantle systematic racism in America, one delivering lasting changes. King’s brilliance was in employing the same political and religious documents cited by White supremacists to construct a different vision for America, a “dream” for the future that ultimately gained supporters across a wide spectrum. But that vision became real, and thus transformative, only when courageous activists took it into streets and public spaces. Feminist and Gay Rights move- ments represent similar and subsequent examples of successful, sustained activism. In recent times, the Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements appear likely to deliver significant and lasting change, along with the Youth Climate Movement. Maybe it’s too early to include Greta Thunberg’s “school strikes for climate” movement as genuinely transformative, but already it qualifies as sustained activism offering an alternative world vision. To Sardar’s critique, perhaps these movements are successful precisely because they tend to focus narrowly on one part of postnormal complexity. In just two years, Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight Action movement to contest voter suppression among people of color effectively delivered the U.S. Senate to the Democrats when Georgia elected its first black and Jewish senators ever.
Sardar does acknowledge, prophetically, that postnormal forces can also create grassroots campaigns that promote division and hatred: “self-organising networks and movements can as easily be motivated by panic, fear and xenophobia, a recipe for populist mobilisation and fascist activism, as demand for social justice” (p. 442). Launched in 2009, the year Sardar delivered these words, the alt-right Tea Party movement steadily and successfully pushed the Republican Party to the right, and their members have essentially morphed into Trumpists.
What nationalist populism, evangelical Christianity, and white supremacy offer is a grand vision for millions of Americans who, with some justification, feel frustrated by an economy that undervalues them, a government that ignores them, and a secular culture that mocks them or is indifferent to leaving them behind. The Democratic Party is still failing to capture more reasonable members of the populist movement: common workers with very real grievances that threaten their lives and livelihoods.
For now, postnormal is the new normal. The world over, right-wing, nationalist populism offers certainty, significance and purpose in the face of uncertainty and chaotic times of rapid change. It also represents a powder keg with a short fuse. Those who seek to thwart and dismantle nationalist popu- lism must engage in sustained activism that builds a powerful and inclusive counternarrative. After the 2020 election, the challenge for forward-looking Democrats and others is to present a vison of the future – a compelling cultural story – for Americans who presently see no place for themselves.
Notes
Though we should not forget the post-9/11, highly-nationalist policies of that administration and the invasion of Iraq, using false narratives and false intelligence.
China is an autocratic regime by design, while Russia and India (led by Narendra Modi) currently operate as nationalist, autocratic countries.
A revelation made famous years earlier by Alvin Toffler in Future Shock.
In How Democracies Die (Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018), criteria for authoritarian leaders include denying legitimacy of opponents, tolerating violence, and
attacking the press.
Now their own party faces an internal crisis from Trump loyalists who
feel betrayed.
Hochschild and Einstein argue that social media has encouraged political
activism, but mostly by those they describe as “the active misinformed.”
Sardar (2015) foreshadows this later, writing: “Perhaps the most fundamental shift that postnormal times will usher will be in the power to define” (p.37). See Steffey (2017) for an exposition on how Republican elites
define “elite.”
Alt-right best encompasses “hard right” conservatives, libertarians and
radicalized extremists like the Capitol insurrectionists.
Biden’s immediate proposal for a nearly $2 trillion stimulus package is a
substantial step in that direction.
For a fuller argument, see Bullock, 2018.
See Hetherington and Weiler on how discussing issues is replaced by
divergent “world views” and the right’s penchant for authoritarianism.
All authoritarian regimes foment populist anger: “An existential resentment of other peoples’ being, caused by an intense mix of envy and sense of
humiliation ... ”
R. Jones, White Too Long.
References
Arendt, H. (1976). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt.
Baker, P. (2021, January 14). Armed soldiers in the halls and anger in the air. New York Times, A1, A13.
Bullock, B. (2018). Big, bad Trump. Critical Muslim, 28, 53–64.
Heatherington, M., &Weiler, J. (2009). Authoritarianism & polarization in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
Hochschild, J., &Einstein, K. (2015). Do Facts Matter? University of Oklahoma Press.
Jones, R. (2020). White too long: The legacy of white supremacy in American Christianity. Simon & Schuster.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
Mastrangelo, D. (2021, January 6). Trump Jr.: Trump supporters in DC ‘should send a message’ to GOP ‘this isn’t’ their party anymore. The Hill. https://the hill.com/homenews/532886-donald-trump-jr-gathering-of-trump-supporters-in dc-should-send-a-message-to-gop.
Mishra, P. (2017). Age of anger: A history of the present. Straus and Giroux.
Sardar, Z. (2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures, 42(5), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028
Sardar, Z. (2015). Postnormal times revisited. Futures, 67, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.02.003
Steffey, G. (2017). Nox populi. Critical Muslim, 24, 46–57.
Szalai, J. (2021, January 14). It’s an all-purpose insult? How ‘Orwellian.’ New York Times, C6.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. Random House.