At a time there was much talk about a bifurcation between the United States + followers and China + followers. Later this was called decoupling.
In this post I will use the term bifurcation in another more overarching meaning: the emerging fundamental difference between more and less politically declined nations and two corresponding ways of viewing the world. The post is about world development, but mostly about the working of this blog.
I will commence with the latter. If somebody reads my posts, he or she should be aware that my comments are on three levels. They have different rooms for discussion, criticism and revision both from me and from the audience:
1} The basic theory, often described in earlier posts, can simplified be stated this way:
• Different civilizations with lifetimes of at least 1500 years develop in parallel with homologue stages and developments, just displaced in time from each other, some earlier, some later.
• Every civilization has its own character or culture.
• Coincidences and contexts co-shape the development of each civilisation.
These basic assumptions can hardly be doubted.
2} The next level is my analysis, that is the application of the theory on specific developments and events in one or more civilizations, often in the form of comparative analyses.
Such applications can be challenged, and others can be proposed.
3} On the last level are the attitudes expressed in this blog.
Here the reader is absolutely free to have other opinions.
Obviously, other analysts can make significant contributions to our understanding based on other theories. In practical terms, I like others often mix analysis and attitude.
So far so good. We have three categories of statements with different degrees of truth. But the bifurcation introduced above adds two further categories. Half of the world is in one condition or phase of historical development, an earlier but sustained one. The other half is in the next phase. The phases are of course ‘mature’ and ’declined’ modernity respectively. This is what constitutes the new bifurcation. It does not in any way challenge the basic theory. On the contrary, such differential developments are easily understood and predictable. As argued in earlier and recent posts, rule-based countries with sharing and controls of power from East Asia to Europe and elsewhere belong to the mature world. Countries where such systems are broken down and executive power is being concentrated in one authoritarian or autocratic leader belong to the declined world. They are everywhere. That the United States has joined this club is of enormous historical importance. If we have a leader of this type in a major power, he can be called an overlord. Of course, the picture of the division of the world is more complex. Many nations are somewhere between mature and declined or shift between the positions following elections.
This bifurcation makes a big difference on the levels of application and attitude. It results in a doubling of these. In the present time we have two frameworks within which to analyze and relate to developments, events and politicians.
The world has become a split personality. So has this blog.
If you see things through the glasses of declined modernity, they look very different from what you see looking through the glasses of mature modernity.
Both viewpoints or frameworks are predictable parts of the present time. They are both valid in the corresponding parts of the globe. One framework can be used to relate to its own corresponding part of the world or to evaluate the other part. As an analyst I must always be aware of which framework I use and for what. We all must.
Thus, presently we have two cultures of politics and analysis on Earth. It is essential for commentators and actors to bear this in mind. Too often, politicians and the media try to understand phenomena in the other part of the world as if they were in their own part. If these phenomena go against the way the world ‘should function’, then they are seen as wrong and dangerous. Most typically, people in the old mature world try to evaluate and handle politics and decisions in the declined world in the old manner. They often see these new developments as the end of the world or as transient anomalies or as mere results of the psychology of a president. Surely, the good old days and ways will soon return. They will not.
To return to the categories through which we can relate to the world, they can be summarized in this figure:
p
Frame
|
Mature
|
Declined
|
Attitude
|
|
|
Analysis
|
|
|
Theory
|
|
|
Note that the bifurcation or dichotomy has nothing to do with political left vs right. These wings exist in both parts.
As said, the two frameworks characterize two different parts of the present world and the corresponding two ways of analyzing and judging events and politics. As the basic theory is difficult to challenge seriously, it is the common foundation, not only for the two present frameworks, but for all developments in all civilizations. Therefore, it is marked in black in the table.
Thus, there are four possible ways in which I can comment events and developments, and which may be challenged and revised:
Mature analysis and attitude
Declined analysis and attitude
These ways characterize different portions of politicians and populations on Earth. And indeed, they apply to any commentator. But the latter must know which category of viewpoint he currently uses to see things. And he should lift himself above them and try to make a synthesis.
As stated above, both frameworks are legitimate. It is okay that JD Vance views rigid old Europe with contempt. It is just as okay that Europeans see the current presidency in America as a disastrous attack against rule, order and power sharing. Correspondingly, I may criticize the destruction of controls of the executive. I can also praise the pragmatic approaches of an overlord. To understand what is going on and to where it is leading, we must see both political cultures.
What marks the difference between the mature and the declined framework is primarily the lack in the latter of respect of ideals, true politics, rules, traditions and organizations. Personal will replaces rules.
But despite the split between the two types of rule and viewpoints, certain goals exist which are common for them: Every country must be governed well and consistently. People should become united, and suffering be reduced.
Also for leaders without ideals and rules, these goals are important in order to strengthen and sustain their nations and their own power.
This is the common denominator which can be used to comment both mature and declined phenomena.