The newsletters from Monocle, Bloomberg, Semafor, Newsweek, ArtNews, CNBC, UBS Insights, the New York Times and Economist from September 18-21, 2025, present not a mere collection of headlines but a fragmented mirror held up to a world in profound, often contradictory, transition. From the Slavic culinary colonization of Dubai to the weaponization of late-night comedy in a newly authoritarian America, from the quiet death of a Hong Kong dim sum institution to the feverish race to build AI data centers that may never turn a profit, these snippets coalesce into a portrait of a global order where capital, culture, and coercion are inextricably entangled. This commentary will explore these interrelations, drawing on a lineage of critical thought to illuminate the deeper currents at play.

The snippets paint a vivid tableau of a world in flux, where geopolitical tensions reshape migration patterns, economic policies grapple with inflation and tariffs, and technological advancements intersect with cultural and social anxieties. These fragments reveal interrelations between global migration, AI-driven innovation, art markets, and political crackdowns. They evoke a sense of interstitial spaces: Dubai’s Russian-infused neighborhoods as microcosms of hybrid identities, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s rate cuts as responses to labor market precarity, and the Ig Nobel awards as whimsical counters to AI’s ominous potential. Analytically, these threads interconnect through themes of displacement, power asymmetries, and adaptive resilience, echoing interdisciplinary scholarship on globalization’s uneven impacts. As Appadurai (1996) argues in Modernity at Large, cultural flows in a disjunctive global order produce “imagined worlds” that transcend national boundaries, a concept resonant here in the remaking of urban landscapes and digital frontiers.

The seemingly disparate collection of snippets weaves a compelling, if fragmented, narrative of our contemporary world. It is a world defined by the intricate dance of capital, culture, and conflict, where the currents of globalization are constantly being reshaped by the undertows of nationalism and technological disruption.

It is a diagnostic of several overlapping currents — cultural circulation and soft power, the geopolitics of talent and technology, the political economy of corruption and protest, and the dissonances of contemporary capitalism (monetary policy, markets, and culture).

The most arresting narrative is that of Dubai’s transformation into a “suburb of St Petersburg,” a haven for Russians fleeing the consequences of their nation’s war in Ukraine. As Inzamam Rashid observes, the city operates on a “different wavelength,” where “politics is replaced with transaction.” This is not merely a real estate boom but a case study in what sociologist Saskia Sassen might term a “global city” functioning as a node of “expulsion” (Sassen, 2014). Dubai, in its relentless pursuit of capital, becomes a sanctuary that actively suspends the moral and political reckonings of the outside world. The dining room, once a site of intimate political debate, is recast as a neutral zone of “pragmatism,” where Ukrainians and Russians coexist over borscht.

This dynamic resonates with Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “worldlessness” of the modern refugee, who is “expelled from all human communities” (Arendt, 1951, p. 293). Dubai offers a peculiar solution: it does not grant a new political world but a purely economic one, a world of pure exchange value where identity is a commodity to be consumed (the “heartfelt food” of Babushka) rather than a source of conflict. This is a form of what political theorist Wendy Brown has diagnosed as “neoliberal reason,” which “economizes every sphere of life” and “transforms every human domain and endeavor… into a question of economic value” (Brown, 2015, p. 31). The Russian restaurateur’s success is not a story of cultural diplomacy but of capital’s ability to create a frictionless, apolitical bubble—a luxury that is itself a product of the very geopolitical instability it seeks to escape.

The opening vignette on Russian restaurants proliferating in Dubai exemplifies how geopolitical disruptions—such as the Ukraine war and sanctions—catalyze cultural and economic hybridization. Borscht and pelmeni edging into mainstream menus signal not just culinary export but a broader remaking of social spaces, where “politics is replaced with transaction,” as the piece notes. This mirrors the “transnationalism” described by Basch et al. (1994) in Nations Unbound, where migrants forge multi-local identities amid global crises. Dubai’s pragmatic welcome of Russians, Ukrainians, and others based on “bank balance” underscores a neoliberal ethos, akin to Ong’s (1999) “flexible citizenship” in Flexible Citizenship, where capital mobility trumps ideological divides. Yet, this hybridity is precarious: the snippet warns of Dubai’s unforgiving restaurant market, where over half of new concepts fail, highlighting economic vulnerabilities in migrant entrepreneurship.

Interrelatedly, Poles buying Spanish properties amid drone incursions reflects a parallel flight from insecurity, blending economic calculus (cheaper utilities in Valencia) with existential fears (3,500 km from Moscow). This “safety migration” connects to broader European anxieties, as explored in Bauman’s (2000) Liquid Modernity, where uncertainty prompts fluid relocations. Economically, the 25% surge in Polish purchases bolsters Spain’s real estate amid depopulation trends, yet socially, it risks exacerbating local resentments over foreign investment—a theme in Sassen’s (2014) Expulsions, which critiques how global capital displaces communities. These snippets interlink with the art market’s tariff woes: Christie’s shifting consignments to U.S.-sourced Chinese furniture due to Trump-era duties illustrates how protectionism ripples through cultural economies, forcing adaptations that privilege provenance over innovation.

World literature amplifies these dynamics. Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (1878/2000), with its portrayal of Russian society’s internal fractures, resonates with Dubai’s Slavic enclaves as spaces of nostalgic reinvention amid exile. Non-fiction like Kapuściński’s (2007) Travels with Herodotus explores migration’s cultural translations, much like Dubai’s “laboratory for Russian culinary soft power.”

A prominent thread running through the newsletter is the theme of displacement, not just of people, but of capital and culture. The lead story on Russian restaurants in Dubai is a poignant illustration of this phenomenon. The influx of Russians into the UAE, a direct consequence of the war in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions, is not merely a demographic shift; it is a cultural and economic transformation. The author notes that “geopolitics reshapes migration patterns,” a simple statement with profound implications. This is not the classic narrative of refugees fleeing persecution, but rather a story of affluent individuals and entrepreneurs seeking a haven for their capital and a space to continue their lifestyles, unencumbered by the political turmoil back home.

This phenomenon can be understood through the lens of what sociologist Saskia Sassen (2001) terms the “global city.” Dubai, in this context, functions as a quintessential global city, a node in the global economic network where capital and talent converge. However, the article adds a crucial nuance: Dubai is a “transactional” space where “politics is replaced with transaction.” This creates a curious social dynamic where Ukrainians and Russians can coexist peacefully in a Russian restaurant, a stark contrast to the bitter conflict raging elsewhere. This transactional nature of the space, however, comes at a cost. It creates a society where one’s value is primarily determined by their “bank balance,” a reality that can be both liberating and profoundly alienating. This echoes the sentiments of Georg Simmel (1907/1978), who in The Philosophy of Money, presciently analyzed how the abstract and impersonal nature of money can dissolve traditional social bonds and create a new social order based on economic calculation.

The piece on Polish citizens buying property in Spain further reinforces this theme of seeking refuge from geopolitical anxieties. The desire for a “postcode so far west” is not just about the weather; it is a search for a space insulated from the perceived threat of Russian aggression. This speaks to a broader European anxiety, a continent still grappling with the ghosts of its past and the uncertainties of its future.

The technology section presents a starkly contrasting narrative to the “no politics at the table” ethos of Dubai. Here, the global flow of talent is not met with open arms, but with suspicion and paranoia. The piece on Chinese entrepreneurs in Vancouver highlights the growing “fears of industrial espionage” that are leading to the tightening of vetting processes and the rise of a “climate of fear.” This is a direct consequence of the escalating technological rivalry between the United States and China, a rivalry that is increasingly framed as a “zero-sum arms race.”

The irony, as the author points out, is that “innovation thrives on global connections.” The very openness that fueled the West’s technological dominance is now being threatened by a resurgent nationalism and xenophobia. The case of Chinese students having their visas canceled is a particularly telling example of how legitimate security concerns can bleed into discriminatory policies. This situation is reminiscent of the historical anxieties that have often accompanied technological advancements. As the historian Yuval Noah Harari (2018) argues in 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, the rise of artificial intelligence and biotechnology will likely exacerbate global inequalities and could lead to new forms of social and political conflict. The newsletter snippet provides a real-world illustration of this very concern.

The article on the high-speed travelator offers a lighter, yet still insightful, commentary on the promises and pitfalls of technological progress. The dream of a “street of the future” with moving walkways, a staple of mid-20th century science fiction, has been slow to materialize, not because of a lack of technological know-how, but due to “mechanical and financial problems.” This serves as a reminder that technological innovation is not a linear process, but is often constrained by economic realities and practical challenges. It also speaks to our enduring fascination with the future, a fascination that is often tinged with a sense of disappointment when reality fails to live up to our imagined utopias.

The dispatch on Russian restaurants in Dubai uncovers a deceptively simple tableau — cafés and Slavic bakeries proliferating in Dubai Hills — that is in fact a condensed case of how migration, capital and culinary culture reconfigure urban life (Rashid, newsletter). The piece stresses three linked facts: (i) the demographic movement is geopolitically conditioned (sanctions and war driving migration); (ii) the city’s logistics and wealth make culinary entrepreneurship viable; and (iii) Dubai’s social ordering privileges transaction over ideology — politics can be “parked at the door.”

Read relationally, this vignette exemplifies what Arjun Appadurai called the “scapes” of globalization: flows of people (ethnoscapes), capital (financescapes) and commodities (mediascapes/ideoscapes) that re-form local cultural fields (Appadurai, 1996). A second theoretical frame — Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and taste (Bourdieu, 1984) — helps explain why Russian cuisine is no longer merely “expat nostalgia” but a register of social distinction in a cosmopolitan market. When Russian pelmeni appear on delivery apps and Slavic fine dining aims at metropolitan palates, cuisine migrates from private memory to public taste, converting immigrant identity into marketable cultural capital (Rashid).

Two political-ethical implications follow. First, “parking politics” at the entrance to commerce is not the erosion of political life so much as a reconfiguration of conflict into market transactions — a neoliberal modality where safety, residence and social acceptance are purchasable (Sassen, 1991). Second, soft power can be built by food and everyday commerce in ways that are oblique but durable: culinary visibility often precedes deeper cultural acceptance. This helps explain why the newsletter calls Dubai a “laboratory for Russian culinary soft power” — a useful phrase for scholars of diaspora and public culture because it ties gastronomy to geopolitical consequence.

In stark contrast to Dubai’s transactional neutrality stands the United States, where the public sphere is being actively policed and constricted. The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, following criticism from the FCC chair and pressure from station owners seeking regulatory favor, is a chilling vignette of what Jürgen Habermas once theorized as the “refeudalization of the public sphere” (Habermas, 1989). The public realm, once a space for rational-critical debate, is being recast as a stage for a new aristocracy of political and corporate power, where speech is tolerated only insofar as it serves the interests of the ruling regime.

This episode is a direct manifestation of what Timothy Snyder, in his prescient work on authoritarianism, calls the “politics of inevitability” giving way to the “politics of eternity,” where the past is a tool for the present and the future is a perpetual crisis to be managed by a strongman (Snyder, 2017). The attack on Kimmel is not about the content of his jokes but about establishing a new norm: that criticism of the leader is not protected discourse but a fireable, censorable offense. It is a move that seeks to collapse the distinction between the state and the private corporation, turning media conglomerates into de facto arms of the government. This is a world away from the “hybrid” cultural spaces of Dubai; it is a world where culture is not a commodity but a battleground for control.

Subscribe

Snippets on free speech crackdowns—Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, art professor firings over Charlie Kirk remarks—reveal a chilling political climate, interrelated with Trump’s media threats and tariff aggressions. This “exertion of political pressure” (as per The New York Times) connects to Habermas’ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, where media independence is vital for democratic discourse, yet here, it’s eroded by regulatory intimidation. Socially, it fosters self-censorship, echoing Orwell’s (1949/1984) 1984, with its surveillance-state warnings: “Who controls the past controls the future” (p. 37).

Culturally, the Bayeux Tapestry’s delayed restoration amid French strikes highlights heritage’s vulnerability to labor unrest, while Ben & Jerry’s co-founder’s exit over Gaza criticism underscores corporate muting of activism. These interlink with Philippines protests over corruption, where leaky flood defenses symbolize governance failures, as Chambers notes—a motif in Rizal’s (1887/1997) Noli Me Tangere, critiquing colonial-era graft in Filipino society.

Economically, Fed’s 25bps cut amid labor softening ties to broader instability, with Piketty (2014) in Capital in the Twenty-First Century arguing that inequality widens without redistributive policies (p. 571). The “de minimis” loophole’s end for FedEx illustrates tariff ripple effects, constraining e-commerce’s cultural democratization.

Amidst these grand geopolitical and economic shifts, the newsletter is punctuated by quieter, more personal notes of loss. The closing of Metropol, Hong Kong’s iconic dim sum restaurant, is a microcosm of the fragility of cultural heritage in the face of relentless change. The Japanese family’s seven-generation stewardship of an authentic Chinese culinary tradition speaks to a form of cultural transmission that is patient, embodied, and place-based. Its closure is not just the loss of a business but the severing of a living thread connecting past, present, and future—a thread that cannot be replicated by a transaction in Dubai or a policy decree in Washington.

This loss finds its echo in the planned demolition of Ford’s Glass House in Dearborn. As the newsletter’s design writer laments, this is a blow to “corporate modernism as a vital but overlooked era in architectural history.” It is a stark reminder that our current obsession with the “new” and the “disruptive” often comes at the cost of our architectural and cultural memory. This resonates with the arguments of architectural historian Dolores Hayden, who has long championed the preservation of “ordinary” urban landscapes as crucial to a democratic public life (Hayden, 1995). The decision to demolish a functional, iconic building in favor of a new, more “efficient” campus is a physical manifestation of a society that has lost its sense of historical continuity, a society that, in its rush toward an AI-driven future, is willing to bulldoze its own past.

The reporting on protests in the Philippines — centered on failed flood-mitigation projects and allegations of corruption — connects civic anger to structural governance failure. The newsletter notes $10bn spent on projects that are “substandard or non-existent” and the symbolic timing of protests on the anniversary of martial law (Marcos Sr) — a volatile conjuncture that renders grievance both material and symbolic.

From a theoretical standpoint, this is a canonical case of state capture and erosion of institutional trust (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). Where public procurement becomes a channel for rent extraction, legitimacy is undermined, and protest becomes a corrective mechanism — but not always an institutional one. The newsletter’s detail that flood-control spending was suspended for 2026 captures a common political economy reflex: freeze spending to demonstrate seriousness, but without structural reform this is only a short-term palliative.

Comparative literature on clientelism and corruption (Acemoglu & Robinson; Hellman et al.) suggests the risk is path-dependence: countries that permit systematic graft often lock themselves into cycles of under-investment and populist backlash. The Philippine case shows how environmental risk (climate-vulnerable monsoon infrastructure) and governance failure compound each other; the result is not merely protest but delegitimation of governing coalitions.

Several snippets record and interpret the Fed’s 25-basis-point cut as a “risk-management” move — cautious, modest, and signalling a committee split between data dependency and political pressure (files on Fed commentary and market reaction). The newsletter reproduces Powell’s emphasis that the cut is cautious and that employment risks have risen.

This moment is analytically fertile because it shows monetary policy as performative — not merely technical — and as embedded in politics and expectations. Hyman Minsky’s account of financial fragility (Minsky, 1986) reminds us that policy interventions occur within unstable financial structures; a “risk-management” cut can stabilise markets now while creating moral-hazard dynamics later. The newsletter’s market interpretation — equities barely moved, markets read the cut as hedging rather than a return to full easing — fits a Minsky-informed cautionary frame.

AI’s dual-edged role permeates the snippets, from Web Summit Vancouver’s hype-doomsday dichotomy to ISIS potentially weaponizing it for attacks. Joanna Chiu’s opinion piece critiques Western xenophobia toward Chinese tech talent, warning that visa denials risk ceding innovation ground. This echoes Zuboff’s (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, where she argues that “instrumentarian power” thrives on data monopolies, but here, geopolitical suspicions fragment global collaboration: “The future of geopolitical power will rest less on armies than on technological prowess” (as Chiu notes). Interrelated with Newsweek’s alert on AI-enabled jihad, this suggests a dark convergence—AI as both cure and weapon—reminiscent of Harari’s (2018) 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, which cautions that “algorithms might create digital dictatorships” (p. 87), amplifying non-state actors like ISIS.

Politically, U.S. fears of Chinese espionage intersect with economic updates on Fed rate cuts, where AI is dismissed as a scapegoat for youth unemployment. The snippet’s analysis—that U.S. patterns reflect a “hiring freeze” rather than tech displacement—aligns with Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s (2014) The Second Machine Age, positing that automation enhances potential but exacerbates inequalities without policy interventions. Socially, the “AI psychosis” debate, where chatbots induce delusions, explores human-AI interrelations, drawing from Turkle’s (2011) Alone Together, which warns of technology’s erosion of empathy: “We expect more from technology and less from each other” (p. 280).

In literature, Kafka’s (1925/1998) The Trial evokes the disorientation of AI-altered realities, while non-fiction like Crawford’s (2021) Atlas of AI dissects power imbalances in tech ecosystems, linking Vancouver’s stalled visas to extractive data practices.

Joanna Chiu’s column documents the narrowing aperture through which Western tech ecosystems now view foreign talent — especially Chinese researchers and students — and how security logics are displacing older cosmopolitan practices in innovation ecosystems (Chiu, newsletter). The reporting describes cancelled partnerships, visa denials, and an atmosphere where “suspicion… reveals insecurity.”

This is a classic illustration of the tension Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff described in the “triple helix” — that universities, industry and the state co-produce innovation but their logics can diverge (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). Where the economic payoff of openness is clear, the securitizing state can close doors in the name of IP protection. Richard Florida’s earlier argument — that cities rise by attracting creative talent — remains useful (Florida, 2002): the policy implication is blunt: defensive visa regimes risk eroding the human capital base that undergirds innovation. If the newsletter is correct that Western universities now “step up efforts to recruit” even as the U.S. tightens visas, we see a geoeconomic balancing act: states hedging between economic gain and perceived national security threats.

A further interpretive layer draws on scholarship about scientific nationalism and knowledge flows. Historically, American openness was a strategic asset in the Cold War; today’s retrenchment may therefore produce a strategic paradox: insulating against theft by excluding collaborators may weaken long-run technological leadership (Appadurai, 1996; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). In short: guarding the frontier of AI can become self-defeating when the guardposts prevent talent from crossing.

The newsletters are saturated with the language of AI as an unstoppable, world-altering force. Nvidia’s trillion-dollar valuations, the race to build data centers, and the promise of AI to cure all ills and eliminate all jobs create a potent narrative of technological determinism. Yet, beneath this hype lies a profound uncertainty. The article “The canary in the data center” exposes the potential for a massive bubble, where “lighting hundreds of billions on fire may seem preferable than losing out to a competitor, despite not even knowing what the prize ultimately is.”

This is a classic case of what economist William Janeway has described as the “waste” that is necessary for innovation in a capitalist economy—a waste that is only justified in hindsight if a breakthrough occurs (Janeway, 2012). However, the scale of this potential waste, coupled with its immense environmental cost in water and energy, raises a more fundamental question about the sustainability of our current growth model. The AI boom, for all its promise, may be the ultimate expression of what philosopher Byung-Chul Han calls the “burnout society,” a society of “achievement-subjects” who are driven to “exploit themselves” in a futile race for an ever-receding horizon of productivity and profit (Han, 2015).

The art market, as depicted in the newsletters, is another arena where the forces of globalization and nationalism are playing out. The sale of Ole Faarup’s collection and the continued interest in Asian art despite economic challenges highlight the art market’s resilience and its status as a global repository of capital. The astronomical prices fetched for works by artists like Peter Doig and Chris Ofili are not just a reflection of their artistic merit, but also of the vast sums of wealth circulating in the global economy. As the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1984) argued in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, the appreciation of art is not a purely aesthetic endeavor, but is deeply intertwined with social class and the accumulation of “cultural capital.” The art market, in this sense, is a theater where the global elite perform their status and power.

However, the art world is not immune to the political currents of our time. The controversy surrounding the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry to the British Museum, a gesture of “bilateral relations” that has been met with concerns about the artifact’s fragility, speaks to the complex politics of cultural heritage. The decision to delay the tapestry’s restoration due to national strikes in France is a reminder that even the most high-minded cultural exchanges can be derailed by domestic political turmoil. This incident also touches upon the long and often fraught history of cultural exchange between nations, a history that is littered with instances of cultural appropriation and the unequal distribution of cultural power.

The report on the race to save artifacts in Gaza from destruction is a stark reminder of the devastating impact of war on cultural heritage. The loss of these artifacts is not just a loss for the people of Gaza, but for all of humanity. It is a tragic illustration of how conflict can erase the past and impoverish the future.

The newsletter’s auction and Asia Week coverage — prices for Gaitonde, Tyeb Mehta and shifting consignments — foregrounds how high art markets are simultaneously globalised and geopolitically sensitive (tariff effects, consignments shifting because of tariffs). The art market’s volatility and the re-sourcing of collections reveal how capital flows reconfigure cultural patrimony and museum strategies.

Bourdieu’s framework on cultural fields helps again: art markets convert aesthetic distinction into economic value; collectors and institutions adjudicate worth but do so inside global circuits that are sensitive to financial, legal and political disruption (Bourdieu, 1984). Don Thompson’s economic sociology of the art market (Thompson, 2014) offers empirical grounding: scarcity, provenance, and reputational signalling drive the ultra-high end, while tariff regimes and geopolitics shape availability and the calculus of buyers and sellers.

These snippets cohere into a polyphonic narrative of interconnected crises and adaptations. Migration’s cultural infusions (Dubai, Spain) interrelate with tech’s geopolitical frictions (AI bans, visas), while economic policies (rate cuts, tariffs) underpin political repressions (speech crackdowns). Exploratively, they suggest a world where, as per Wallerstein’s (1974) world-systems theory in The Modern World-System, core-periphery dynamics evolve through tech and trade wars. Yet, resistance emerges: Ig Nobel’s bat-drinking study whimsically counters AI doomsaying, evoking Feynman’s (1985) Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, celebrating curiosity amid uncertainty. Ultimately, this mosaic urges reflective engagement with globalization’s ambivalences, fostering interdisciplinary dialogues to navigate them.

Taken together, the newsletter snippets map a world where flows (people, capital, ideas, and culture) are increasingly governed by circuits that are simultaneously open and securitized. Dubai’s transactional cosmopolitanism coexists with Western technopolitical retrenchment; global art markets boom even as tariffs and geopolitical frictions bite; central banks manage downside employment risk while markets price in AI-driven upside. The recurrent theme is ambivalence: openness (to cuisine, talent, capital) produces innovation and soft power; closure (visa denials, tariffs, corruption controls that freeze spending) produces security or discipline but at the cost of dynamism and legitimacy.

If there is an ethical-political lesson here for scholars and policy makers, it is this: governance that treats people and knowledge as either pure assets to be exploited or threats to be neutralized will produce brittle systems. The challenge is to craft institutions that protect collective goods (IP, public infrastructure, public health) while preserving porous channels for culture, talent, and exchange.

Support

The newsletters reveal a world operating under multiple, often contradictory, logics. In Dubai, capital creates a space of apolitical refuge. In America, the state weaponizes capital to silence dissent. In Hong Kong and Dearborn, the past is discarded in the name of an uncertain future. And everywhere, the promise of AI offers a techno-utopian escape from the very real social, political, and environmental crises that our current systems have created. These are not isolated events but interconnected symptoms of a global order in flux, where the old certainties have collapsed, and the new ones are being forged in the crucible of power, profit, and fear. To navigate this world, we must move beyond the headlines and understand the deeper structures—the economic, cultural, and political—that shape our reality.

The newsletters, in their eclectic and seemingly random collection of stories, offer a powerful snapshot of a world in flux. It is a world where the forces of globalization continue to connect us in unprecedented ways, while the resurgent forces of nationalism and conflict threaten to tear us apart. It is a world where technological advancements promise a utopian future, while simultaneously fueling our deepest anxieties. And it is a world where culture, in all its forms, continues to be a site of both connection and contestation. By reading these snippets through the lens of scholarly and literary inquiry, we can begin to see the deeper patterns and connections that lie beneath the surface of our daily news, and in doing so, gain a more nuanced and insightful understanding of the complex and often contradictory world in which we live.

Share

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace & World.

Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1994). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. Gordon and Breach.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W.W. Norton & Company.

Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

Feynman, R. P. (1985). “Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a curious character. W.W. Norton & Company.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)

Han, B.-C. (2015). The burnout society (E. Butler, Trans.). Stanford University Press.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Spiegel & Grau.

Hayden, D. (1995). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. MIT Press.

Janeway, W. H. (2012). Doing capitalism in the innovation economy: Markets, speculation and the state. Cambridge University Press.

Kafka, F. (1998). The trial (B. Mitchell, Trans.). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1925)

Kapuściński, R. (2007). Travels with Herodotus. Knopf.

Minsky, H. P. (1986). Stabilizing an unstable economy. Yale University Press.

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.

Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Duke University Press.

Orwell, G. (1984). 1984. Signet Classic. (Original work published 1949)

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press.

Rizal, J. (1997). Noli me tangere (S. Locsin, Trans.). University of Hawaii Press. (Original work published 1887)

Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press.

Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press.

Simmel, G. (1978). The philosophy of money. (T. Bottomore & D. Frisby, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1907)

Snyder, T. (2017). The road to unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books.

Thompson, D. (2014). The orange balloon dog: Bubbles, turmoil and avarice in the contemporary art market. Aurum Press.

Tolstoy, L. (2000). Anna Karenina (R. Pevear & L. Volokhonsky, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1878)

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Gemini, Google, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Qwen, Alibaba, and Grok, xAI, tools (September 26, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (September 26, 2025).]

[Support the Open Culture Blog: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (September 26, 2025). Dubai’s Slavic Culinary Exile, the Politicization of Late-Night Satire, and AI’s Geopolitical Mirage in a Disjunctive World Order. Open Access Blog.

Support dialog