Back time
We grew up with the idea of continuous progress, with the expectation that things are always moving forward and improving, even though there might be ups and downs, accelerations and setbacks. That's why what is currently disconcerting and anxiety-inducing is having to conclude that the world is generally and continuously regressing in practically every area. Even major technological advances are viewed with fear, if not as complicit in the rest of the material and moral setbacks.
Put this way, it may seem that I'm exaggerating, making an excessive and reductionist generalization. And in part, that's true: there are always signs of hope if you look carefully. However, at least at first glance, the picture painted by the media is bleak. We can talk about the quality of democracy, currently threatened both globally and in our own communities. The rise of more authoritarian political proposals, even in countries that were admired just a few years ago, is undeniable evidence. Or, if you prefer, we can talk about the threat to freedom of expression, a freedom increasingly curtailed from both the right and the left of the political spectrum, whether through censorship or cancellations, stemming from an authoritarianism and moral puritanism reminiscent of not-so-distant times.
We must also discuss the setbacks regarding the threat of wars and armed conflicts. After years in which available data showed a reduction in their scale and diminishing consequences, they are now growing in both scope and virulence. This is dragging the world into rearmament, which will strain a significant portion of the budgets allocated to social welfare. And, incidentally, to make it more palatable for society, the rhetoric is being spread, as is happening in Europe, that those who don't join in or resist demonstrate indolence and a lack of leadership, which is a subtle way of saying they are cowards. In fact, if Europe was born to protect us from future wars, it is logical that it has not developed the culture of war that is now being demanded of it.
The list of setbacks would be long, but I can't help but point out another area that should be a cause for concern. I'm thinking of the emergence of irrational postulates that favor the spread of absurd conspiracy theories, the cultivation of old, and especially new—and often ridiculous—everyday superstitions, and, of course, the distrust in scientific knowledge. As I have argued on other occasions, ours is not the critical society we had imagined, but rather one that is increasingly credulous and docile in all forms of deception.
It is very difficult, in this area, to distinguish between perception and reality. I mean that it is impossible to measure with sufficient objectivity the magnitude of this regression. I recognize that, in part, it may result from a perception conditioned by the frustration of excessive expectations. But in light of the majority social reactions that are observed, I believe that the reality of this bleak outlook can be strongly asserted. For example, when we observe the many fears that fuel our reactions, the processes of cultural and identity isolation, the temptations to exclude difference and the distrust of novelty, the populism that seems to seek charismatic and authoritarian leaders, and, above all, the allure of apocalyptic futures.
All of this translates into a reactionary and authoritarian wave stoked by extremism on both the right and the left, in a polarizing and anti-system logic that arises from diverse reasons but coincides in promoting a radical and irreconcilable fragmentation. If we add that neither the parties nor the thinkers of the more moderate and dialogue-oriented positions are capable of offering attractive and credible horizons in which we can trust, the panorama is devastating. Reaction replaces proaction as the driving force of society. Prophets of doom are taking over the new spaces for preaching, namely social media, while spaces for serene reflection are shrinking, mostly occupied by profiles increasingly marginalized by an ageism as sterile as it is senseless.
This global scenario forces us to ask unsettling questions. Is this a wave that, after reaching the height of reactionary reaction, will recede and give way to new hopes? Will the wait be very long? Who or what will stop it, or at least be able to contain it? What is the most intelligent way to respond without fueling it, to protect ourselves without succumbing to it? Is it possible to glimpse signs of a new, more serene era? For now, the answers have more to do with the mood of the person responding than with any conclusive evidence.
