This panoramic view of interlocking crises and innovations—military, economic, technological, and cultural—underscores the complex fabric of contemporary global society. In what follows, I explore four thematic strands—geopolitics and humanitarian ethics; economic sanctions and market power; technological transformations and social imaginaries; and cultural memory and mobility—drawing upon scholarship in social theory, political economy, and world literature to illuminate their deeper implications.

Thanks for reading The Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

It is a world grappling with resurgent geopolitical fissures, the relentless advance of technology with its attendant economic and social recalibrations, and profound cultural dialogues concerning identity, truth, and the very fabric of societal cohesion.

The newsletters highlight significant geopolitical realignments. Britain’s freezing of trade talks with Israel over the Gaza conflict and the imposition of new sanctions on Russia by Britain and the EU underscore the use of economic leverage as a policy tool in international relations. This echoes the concept of “soft power” as described by Joseph Nye, where a nation’s cultural and economic influence can shape global outcomes (Nye, 2004). The failure of Donald Trump’s call with Vladimir Putin to yield progress on Ukraine, and European leaders urging America to follow suit with sanctions, points to a fractured Western alliance and the complexities of multilateral diplomacy. Russia’s insistence that it “would not bow to ultimatums” further illustrates a defiant stance against external pressure.

The report on Britain’s suspension of trade talks with Israel over Gaza, coupled with threats of targeted sanctions, highlights enduring tensions between sovereign prerogatives and international humanitarian norms. The French philosopher Michel Foucault’s notion of “biopolitics” (Foucault, 1978/2003) illuminates how state power regulates populations—permitting or denying access to life-saving aid based on strategic calculations. Britain’s call for “humanitarian access” can be read as an assertion of a liberal sovereign’s role as guardian of life, yet echoes Arendt’s warning that bureaucratic distance often enables “the banality of evil” (Arendt, 1963), as civilian suffering becomes abstracted into policy levers.

Britain’s decision to freeze trade talks with Israel over its military campaign in Gaza is a move echoed by threats of sanctions from Canada and France. This stance recalls the late 1990s ideal of “ethical foreign policy” championed by Robin Cook under Tony Blair, who argued for a diplomacy rooted in human rights (Cook, 1997). Yet, as the snippet suggests, such principles often collide with economic pragmatism, a tension explored in Hufbauer et al.’s Economic Sanctions Reconsidered (2007), which notes sanctions’ mixed efficacy and unintended fallout (Hufbauer et al., 2007). The simultaneous sanctions on Russia’s shadow oil fleet by Britain and the EU, juxtaposed with Donald Trump’s stalled response post his call with Putin, underscore this duality—alliance politics meets national interest. Snyder’s Alliance Politics (1997) frames this as a classic dance of coordination and autonomy among states (Snyder, 1997). Philosophically, this evokes Kant’s vision of perpetual peace, where moral law guides international relations, yet the reality aligns more with Hobbes’ Leviathan—a world of self-interested sovereigns (Kant, 1795/2003; Hobbes, 1651/1996).

The newsletters paint a grim picture of international relations, characterized by escalating conflicts and strained diplomatic ties. Britain’s decision to freeze trade talks with Israel over its military campaign in Gaza, alongside threats of sanctions from Canada and France, underscores a growing impatience within Western allies regarding the humanitarian crisis. This situation evokes the enduring tension between Realpolitik and ethical foreign policy, a dilemma extensively explored by scholars like Hans Morgenthau, who in Politics Among Nations (1948) emphasized the centrality of power and national interest, sometimes at the cost of idealistic considerations. The displacement of civilians and blocking of aid directly challenge the principles of international humanitarian law, a body of rules that, as Geoffrey Robertson argues in Crimes Against Humanity (2006), seeks to temper the worst excesses of conflict but often struggles against the exigencies of state sovereignty and military objectives.

Simultaneously, the continued conflict in Ukraine sees Britain and the EU imposing new sanctions on Russia, while European leaders urge a hesitant America under Donald Trump to follow suit. Russia’s insistence that it “would not bow to ultimatums” resonates with historical patterns of great power defiance. This scenario reflects the complex dynamics of alliance cohesion and the challenges of enforcing international norms, themes reminiscent of the Cold War era, though now played out in a multipolar world with different ideological underpinnings. The “shadow oil fleet” targeted by sanctions is a modern iteration of blockade-running, illustrating how states adapt to economic pressure, a testament to the “cunning of history” that Hegel saw in the unfolding of world events.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain a flashpoint, with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accusing America of “outrageous” demands and American officials insisting on the cessation of all uranium enrichment. This standoff, a recurring motif in international affairs, highlights the security dilemma where actions taken by one state to increase its security are perceived as threatening by others, leading to an escalatory spiral. The dialogue is further complicated by the discourse of “rights” – Iran insisting its program is for energy – versus the existential fear of nuclear proliferation, a fear that has haunted global consciousness since the atomic age, as powerfully depicted in literature like Nevil Shute’s On the Beach (1957).

Further East, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te speaks of a commitment to peace with China while strengthening defenses, a delicate balancing act in the face of Beijing’s non-recognition of its sovereignty. This echoes the precarious existence of states in contested geopolitical spaces, where, as Thucydides observed in the Melian Dialogue, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” However, Taiwan’s strategic importance in the global tech supply chain adds a modern layer of complexity that Thucydides could not have envisioned.

The newsletter also touches upon shifting dynamics in the Middle East, where President Trump’s diplomatic efforts are seen to usher in an “age of self-determination for the region”, suggesting a recalibration of US influence and a greater role for Gulf states and Turkey in shaping their future. This pursuit of regional autonomy, while potentially empowering, also carries the risk of new power vacuums and regional rivalries, a theme explored by scholars of post-colonial theory like Edward Said, who in Orientalism (1978) critiqued Western constructions of the East and by extension, the complexities of genuine self-determination free from external frameworks.

The discussion of Iran’s nuclear talks and accusations of “outrageous” American demands reflect a persistent challenge in non-proliferation efforts. The desire for energy versus the fear of nuclear weapons development resonates with the perpetual tension between national sovereignty and international security, a theme explored in critical international relations theory. Similarly, the potential for a “new Cold War” between the US and China, with analysts arguing for the potential start of a “Chinese century” due to US policies and China’s technological investments, brings to mind the historical cycles of great power competition and the Thucydides Trap (Allison, 2017). This shift is further evidenced by China’s efforts to “ring-fence” its economy, focusing on domestic consumption to offset the impact of US tariffs.

The renewed ties between the UK and the EU post-Brexit, aiming to “reset” relations through agreements on fishing rights and defense funds, signal a pragmatic approach to repairing strained alliances. This move, allowing UK citizens to use e-gates at more European airports, touches on the lived experience of policy decisions, where large-scale political shifts have tangible impacts on individual freedoms and convenience.

Similarly, the liminal status of Afghan nationals facing deportation underlines the fragility of asylum regimes. Hannah Arendt’s reflections on statelessness in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) remain hauntingly relevant: the “right to have rights” dissolves when legal protections lapse, reducing individuals to nonpersons. The looming July 14 deadline for Afghan protections thus exposes how state sovereignty and humanitarianism collide in the limbo of administrative grace.

The deportation threat to 11,700 Afghans in America, despite their service alongside U.S. troops, lays bare the human cost of policy shifts. Boswell’s The Ethics of Refugee Policy (2005) critiques such exclusionary turns as moral failures (Boswell, 2005), while Kristi Noem’s “national interest” rhetoric evokes Camus’ The Stranger—a cold detachment from the Other (Camus, 1942/1989). In contrast, Google’s AI and VR upgrades at its developer conference herald a technological sublime, yet Wu’s The Master Switch (2010) warns of monopoly’s shadow over innovation (Wu, 2010).

The economic and technological narratives are dominated by the promises and perils of innovation. The surge in CATL shares after its Hong Kong IPO, the largest globally this year, despite its US blacklisting as a “Chinese military company”, highlights the decoupling of economic spheres and the fierce global competition in strategic sectors like EV batteries. This tension between national security concerns and globalized markets is a defining feature of the current economic landscape. CATL’s denial of military links and its fundraising to build a factory in Hungary show a company navigating a treacherous geopolitical environment, reminiscent of how multinational corporations have historically adapted to shifting political alliances and trade blocs.

The global economic outlook presented in the newsletter is one of “defying gravity,” with global stock markets nearing all-time highs and unemployment remaining low, despite “shaky public finances, political pressure on immigration and growing fears about AI’s impact on jobs”. This apparent resilience, juxtaposed with underlying anxieties, reflects a complex economic landscape. The downgrade of American debt and renewed tariff warnings from Washington highlight vulnerabilities in the global economy and the potential for trade wars to destabilize markets. Trump’s “tariff war” and the prospect of surging US debt from tax cuts raise concerns about protectionism and fiscal stability, themes often debated in works on political economy (e.g., Piketty, 2014).

The surge in CATL shares following its Hong Kong debut, making its $4.6 billion public offering the largest in the world this year, points to the immense capital flowing into the electric vehicle battery sector and the broader energy transition. This economic momentum is contrasted by Honda’s decision to cut EV investment due to “slowing demand,” suggesting a more nuanced reality in the transition away from fossil fuels. The ongoing shift towards renewables and falling energy prices, with crude potentially entering a “low price cycle,” signifies a structural change in global energy markets.

Economically, the newsletter captures a world in flux. CATL’s 13% stock surge after its $4.6 billion Hong Kong IPO signals China’s ascendancy in the green tech race, despite U.S. blacklisting. This mirrors the “sixth wave” of innovation—sustainability-driven progress—posited by Moody and Nogrady (2010), where resource efficiency reshapes markets (Moody & Nogrady, 2010). Conversely, Honda’s slashed EV investment reflects the uneven path of disruptive innovation, a concept Christensen (1997) articulates as both revolutionary and faltering (Christensen, 1997). These snippets paint a dual portrait: optimism for clean energy tempered by market volatility.

Culturally, this resonates with Goethe’s Faust, where the pursuit of progress—here, electrification—teeters between ambition and overreach (Goethe, 1808/2008). Economically, it questions whether global capitalism can sustain such transitions without exacerbating inequality, a theme Piketty (2014) probes in Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Piketty, 2014).

The “whizzy upgrades” are presented as a potential distraction from legal woes, a strategy not uncommon in corporate public relations. Meanwhile, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella envisions AI writing a third of Microsoft’s code, yet still foresees a need for human developers, albeit with a greater emphasis on “curiosity and creativity” over mere technical ability. This vision echoes historical shifts where technological advancements transformed labor rather than eliminating it entirely, yet it also brushes against anxieties about widespread job displacement, a theme explored by thinkers from Karl Marx to contemporary economists like Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo, who study the race between technology and education. Nadella’s aim for Microsoft to become “everywhere and nowhere” – an invisible infrastructural layer – is a powerful metaphor for the ambient nature of modern technology, subtly shaping our reality.

The global economy itself is “defying gravity” with stock markets approaching highs and unemployment near lows, yet facing shaky public finances and fears about AI’s impact on jobs. This paradox of surface-level stability masking underlying anxieties is a recurring theme. The purchasing-managers index, while still pointing to growth, has moderated, suggesting a cautious optimism that could easily be upended, especially with renewed tariff warnings from Washington and concerns over surging US debt. This fragility calls to mind John Maynard Keynes’s observations on “animal spirits” in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), where he noted that economic decisions are often driven by spontaneous optimism rather than purely rational calculation.

Google’s unveiling of updates to its AI models and a VR-focused Android OS occurs against a backdrop of strong financial performance but also significant antitrust challenges. This juxtaposition reflects the core tension of the digital age: the immense innovative power of Big Tech versus concerns about monopolistic practices and their societal impact. Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019) provides a critical lens, arguing that the business model of such corporations relies on the expropriation of human experience as free raw material for behavioral data. The launch of an AI feature in Google’s search engine, a “total reimagining of search”, signals a further entrenchment of AI into daily life, raising questions about algorithmic bias, the future of labor, and what James Bridle in New Dark Age (2018) calls “computational thinking” and its limitations in addressing complex human problems.

The discussion of Google’s AI upgrades and its antitrust cases highlights the immense power and scrutiny faced by technology giants. The concern that AI-powered apps threaten Google’s core search function, coupled with rulings of illegal monopolies in digital advertising and search, points to the challenges of market dominance and the need for regulatory oversight in the digital age. This struggle between innovation and regulation, and the concentration of power in few tech behemoths, resonates with Shoshana Zuboff’s concept of “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff, 2019), where data becomes a commodity and market control is paramount.

The proposed rail service in the UAE, aimed at contributing significantly to GDP and enhancing “connectivity, productivity and quality of life,” exemplifies large-scale infrastructure projects designed to spur economic development and improve living standards. However, the questions regarding its adoption by locals and expats who prefer private vehicles, and the importance of “first-mile and last-mile connections,” bring to light the social and behavioral aspects of infrastructure planning. This aligns with urban planning theories that emphasize human-centered design and equitable access to services.

Economic sanctions emerge as a recurrent instrument of statecraft and corporate strategy. Britain and the EU’s measures against Russia’s shadow oil fleet, following failed diplomatic overtures by the U.S., reveal sanctions not merely as punitive but performative acts—signalling normative boundaries in international relations. Cynthia Enloe’s work on gendered militarism (Enloe, 2000) invites us to question the often-masculinist narratives justifying “economic warfare” and to consider the gendered impacts of energy blockades on civilian workers.

In the corporate sphere, CATL’s HK$4.6 billion IPO and Honda’s retrenchment on electric-vehicle investments illustrate the volatility of “transition capitalism.” Here, Karl Polanyi’s concept of the “double movement” (Polanyi, 1944) is instructive: market-driven imperatives to decarbonize clash with social and political forces demanding stability in employment and energy prices. Honda’s pivot to hybrids—projected to comprise only 20% of sales by 2030—signals how technological promises are tempered by consumer demand, regulatory environments, and corporate risk aversion.

Several snippets reveal ongoing social and policy debates. The threatened deportation of Afghans in America, despite many having fought alongside US troops, exposes the ethical complexities of immigration policy and the human cost of geopolitical interventions. Kristi Noem’s insistence that allowing Afghans to stay would be “contrary to the national interest” highlights the tension between national security concerns and humanitarian obligations. This situation evokes philosophical discussions on justice, duty, and the responsibilities of states to those displaced by conflict.

The Qatar prime minister’s dismissal of bribery allegations over a $400 million jet offer to Trump unveils the murky waters of diplomacy. This echoes Hoffman’s The Oligarchs (2002), which dissects how wealth and politics intertwine, albeit in a different context (Hoffman, 2002). Sheikh Muhammad’s framing as “normal” alliance behavior suggests a realpolitik where gifts blur into influence—a nod to Machiavelli’s counsel in The Prince that power thrives on perception (Machiavelli, 1532/2003).

Socially, this raises questions of transparency and trust in governance, while economically, it highlights the Gulf’s strategic pivot toward soft power, leveraging wealth to shape global narratives. The personal Trump-MBS bond in the Middle East tour snippet further underscores Kissinger’s “summit diplomacy,” where individual rapport drives policy (Kissinger, 1994).

Spain’s order for Airbnb to remove thousands of illegal listings due to concerns about the housing crisis and overtourism underscores the social impact of the gig economy and the regulatory challenges it poses. This reflects a broader global debate on how to balance economic innovation with community well-being and equitable access to resources, a topic frequently addressed in urban sociology and policy studies.

Spain’s crackdown on 65,000 Airbnb listings reflects a cultural and social pushback against the sharing economy’s excesses—housing crises and overtourism. Berinato’s “The Airbnb Effect” (2016) critiques this disruption’s toll on communities (Berinato, 2016), aligning with Lefebvre’s right to the city, where urban space belongs to its inhabitants, not transient capital (Lefebvre, 1968/1996). Meanwhile, the staggering 27 million COVID-19 falsehoods deleted by Facebook and Instagram spotlight the digital age’s misinformation plague, a phenomenon O’Connor and Weatherall (2019) unpack in The Misinformation Age as a social contagion (O’Connor & Weatherall, 2019).

These snippets bridge policy and culture: Spain’s regulatory stance seeks to reclaim local agency, while social media’s moderation battles echo Orwell’s 1984, where truth is a casualty of power (Orwell, 1949/1989). Philosophically, they probe Arendt’s “banality of evil”—misinformation’s mundane spread as a societal threat (Arendt, 1963/2006).

The concern over “falsehoods about covid-19 that Facebook and Instagram deleted” points to the ongoing struggle with misinformation and its societal implications. This ties into contemporary discussions about media literacy, the role of social media platforms in shaping public discourse, and the challenges to truth in a post-truth era (McIntyre, 2018).

The news of the “Enhanced Games” promoting performance-enhancing drugs sparks a controversy that touches on the very “spirit of fair play” in elite sport and raises concerns about health risks and societal normalization of drug use. This challenges the traditional ethos of sportsmanship and achievement through natural ability, bringing to mind debates on human enhancement and the boundaries of athletic performance, as explored in bioethics and the philosophy of sport.

The newsletter’s coverage of Google’s AI upgrades and Alphabet’s antitrust struggles, alongside the launch of AI-powered glasses and Gemini updates, speaks to the accelerating fusion of digital intelligence with everyday life. Shoshana Zuboff’s diagnosis of “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff, 2019) elucidates how user data becomes raw material for predictive algorithms, reshaping not only markets but subjectivities. The “whizzy upgrades” heralded by Google are thus emblematic of a broader technocratic imaginary that valorizes innovation while sidestepping questions of autonomy and democracy.

World literature, too, offers cautions: J.G. Ballard’s The Crystal World (1966) portrays technology’s potential to ossify lived experience, turning our environments into static monuments. The rollout of AI in search and VR interfaces risks similarly crystalline effects—flattening the richness of human encounter into curated data flows.

The newsletter snippets reveal a society grappling with truth, memory, and identity. The publication of Original Sin, a book detailing President Biden’s perceived decline, and the alleged media “cover-up”, touches upon the politically charged nature of public image and the contested role of the press. The book’s focus on aides camouflaging incoherence and the use of slow-motion videos speaks to what Guy Debord in The Society of the Spectacle (1967) described as a world where authentic social life is replaced by its representation. The narrative implicates not just the individual but the “decline of the Democratic Party” and “of the press”, suggesting a broader crisis of institutional trust.

The book Original Sin by Tapper and Thompson offers a poignant lens on Joe Biden’s decline, with aides using cinematic tricks to mask frailty. This performative politics recalls Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent (1988), where media and power collude to shape narratives (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Culturally, it’s a modern tragedy—Biden as a faltering Lear, his aides scrambling to uphold the illusion (Shakespeare, 1606/1997). Socially, it questions democratic accountability: how long can a facade persist before trust erodes?

The book Original Sin detailing President Biden’s alleged decline and the Democratic Party’s and the press’s perceived failure to address it, reflects on the cultural and political implications of leadership, transparency, and media narratives. This raises questions about public perception, the performativity of political leadership, and the role of the media in a democratic society.

The return of lost artworks and the proactive repatriation efforts by museums signify a shifting cultural paradigm, moving towards ethical considerations and recognition of provenance in the art world. The example of the National Museum of Mexican Art returning a Mayan frieze for “ethical reasons” and the Smithsonian repatriating looted Chinese manuscripts underscores a global trend towards decolonization of museum collections and a re-evaluation of cultural heritage. This aligns with postcolonial theory and discussions on cultural restitution, as seen in works by scholars like Bénédicte Savoy.

The plight of Afghan nationals in America facing deportation as their protected status lapses raises profound ethical questions about national responsibility and the human cost of geopolitical expediency. Many had fought with or worked alongside American troops, making the assertion that allowing them to stay would be “contrary to the national interest” a stark example of political calculation overriding moral obligation. This situation evokes the tragic ironies often found in post-conflict scenarios, where allies are abandoned, a recurring theme in literature of war and its aftermath, such as Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner (2003), which explores themes of betrayal and redemption in the context of Afghan history.

The debate surrounding the Whitney Museum’s cancellation of a performance about Palestinians and the Gaza conflict highlights the fraught intersection of art, activism, and censorship. The artists’ claims of censorship and the museum’s counter-accusation of promoting violence bring to the fore the enduring tension between artistic freedom, institutional responsibility, and political sensitivities, especially concerning highly charged global events. This is a contemporary manifestation of debates on art’s role in social commentary and the limits of artistic expression, echoing historical instances of artistic suppression.

The art world, too, is a site of contestation. The Whitney Museum’s cancellation of a performance about Palestinians due to one artist allegedly “valorizing specific acts of violence” sparks a censorship debate. This incident highlights the perennial conflict between artistic freedom and institutional red lines, particularly when art intersects with sensitive geopolitical issues. It raises questions about who decides what constitutes acceptable discourse, a problem Michel Foucault explored in his work on power and knowledge, particularly how institutions shape and control narratives. Concurrently, the proactive return of artworks to their places of origin by museums, such as the National Museum of Mexican Art returning a Mayan frieze, signals a growing, albeit complex, movement towards post-colonial restitution. This trend reflects a broader societal reckoning with historical injustices and the ethics of collecting, as discussed by scholars like Bénédicte Savoy and Felwine Sarr in their report on the restitution of African cultural heritage.

Even sport is not immune to these re-evaluations. The “Enhanced Games,” which will encourage performance-enhancing drugs, challenges the very definition of fair play and the “spirit” of sport. Supported by tech billionaires and Donald Trump Jr., it aims to disrupt established norms, raising dystopian echoes of a future where human limits are aggressively pushed through biochemical means, perhaps reflecting a certain societal drive towards optimization at all costs, a theme critically examined in Michael Sandel’s The Case Against Perfection (2007).

Culturally, the newsletter shines with stories like the British couple’s discovery of a Thomas Lawrence masterpiece—a serendipitous echo of Mould’s The Art Detective (2009) (Mould, 2009)—and museums repatriating artifacts, reflecting Procter’s Returning Heritage (2020) on restitution’s ethical imperative (Procter, 2020). These acts reclaim narratives, challenging colonial legacies, much as Said’s Orientalism (1978) critiques Western domination of the East (Said, 1978).

The notion of “rasquachismo” as an “aesthetic sensibility” that subverts “ruling paradigms” and seeks collective change offers a profound cultural insight. This Chicano art concept, emphasizing a “bawdy, spunky consciousness,” provides a framework for understanding artistic and social movements that emerge from marginalized experiences, aiming to redefine American culture from a less nationalistic perspective. This concept resonates with critical race theory and cultural studies that explore identity, resistance, and the power of art to enact social transformation.

Cultural debates—Airbnb’s crackdown in Spain, museum repatriations, and the opening of a migration-focused museum in Rotterdam—reveal shifting notions of belonging and heritage. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1986) helps unpack how regulatory regimes (e.g., removing 65,000 illegal listings) seek to demarcate legitimate cultural practices and tourist economies. Yet these measures also reflect deeper anxieties about space, community, and the commodification of home.

The Rotterdam migration museum, housed in a former warehouse, resonates with Toni Morrison’s Beloved (1987), which foregrounds the materiality of memory in architecture and objects. By situating refugee testimonies alongside interactive art, the museum enacts what Svetlana Boym (2001) calls “constellational memory”—a plural, dialogic process that refuses monolithic narratives of national identity.

The newsletter snippets collectively paint a picture of a world in constant motion, marked by geopolitical tensions, economic opportunities and anxieties, evolving social norms, and deep cultural reflections. From the intricacies of international diplomacy and trade wars to the ethical dilemmas of migration and the transformative power of technology, these brief glimpses offer fertile ground for examining the complex interplay of forces shaping our contemporary world. The connections to scholarly works, world literature, and philosophic ideas reveal that many of these contemporary challenges are, in essence, re-enactments of enduring human struggles concerning power, justice, identity, and the pursuit of a better future. The ongoing dialogues between nations, markets, societies, and individuals, as captured in these snippets, underscore the continuous need for critical analysis, empathy, and informed engagement to navigate the multifaceted realities of the 21st century.

This newsletters are a microcosm of our era—geopolitical chess, economic gambles, cultural reclamation, and technological leaps, all threaded with human stories. It recalls Eliot’s The Waste Land (1922/1971), a fragmented mosaic seeking meaning amid chaos (Eliot, 1922/1971). Policy oscillates between ethics and expediency, economies between innovation and instability, societies between inclusion and exclusion. As Camus wrote, “Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is” (Camus, 1951/1991, p. 11)—a fitting epitaph for a world wrestling with its own becoming.

The world depicted is one of dynamic tension and profound contradiction. It is a world where technological marvels proliferate alongside deep-seated anxieties about their control and societal impact; where economic indicators may signal growth even as structural inequalities and geopolitical risks loom large; and where cultural dialogues are increasingly polarized, grappling with the very nature of truth, justice, and collective identity.

The snippets collectively suggest a global system under immense strain, characterized by fragmentation yet interconnected by shared vulnerabilities. The call by Donald Trump for Republicans to pass his “big, beautiful bill” that includes massive tax cuts while risking a bond crisis epitomizes the high-stakes gambles and ideological divides shaping policy. The “figure of the day” – 27 million falsehoods about COVID-19 deleted by Facebook and Instagram – serves as a stark reminder of the infodemic age, where the battle for truth is as critical as any physical conflict.

As we navigate this labyrinthine present, the insights from history, philosophy, and literature offer vital frameworks for understanding. Whether it is the enduring wisdom of Thucydides on power, the critical perspectives of Foucault on discourse, or the cautionary tales of Orwell on truth, these intellectual traditions provide tools not for easy answers, but for deeper questioning and more nuanced reflection on the complex currents shaping our shared future. The newsletter, in its fleeting glimpses of a world in motion, invites precisely such a critical engagement.

Across these domains, a common thread emerges: the tension between abstraction and lived reality. Whether through sanctions that disrupt civilian life, AI that reframes human agency, or cultural policies that redefine belonging, contemporary power operates through layers of representation and mediation. In the words of Albert Camus (1947/1955), “In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer”—an affirmation that critical reflection and human solidarity can endure amidst systemic pressures.

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (Various years). Research on automation and labor.

Allison, G. (2017). Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace.

Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.

Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. Viking Press.

Arendt, H. (2006). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1963)

Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. Éditions Galilée.

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

Berinato, S. (2016). The Airbnb effect. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-airbnb-effect

Boswell, C. (2005). The ethics of refugee policy. Ashgate.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The forms of capital.” In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

Boym, S. (2001). The future of nostalgia. Basic Books.

Bridle, J. (2018). New Dark Age: Technology and the End of the Future. Verso Books.

Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Alfred A. Knopf. (Original work published 1947)

Camus, A. (1989). The stranger (M. Ward, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1942)

Camus, A. (1991). The rebel: An essay on man in revolt (A. Bower, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1951)

Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.

Cook, R. (1997). Mission statement. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Debord, G. (1967). The Society of the Spectacle. Buchet-Chastel.

Eliot, T. S. (1971). The waste land. In The complete poems and plays, 1909–1950 (pp. 37-55). Harcourt Brace. (Original work published 1922)

Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women’s lives. University of California Press.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Gallimard.

Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76 (D. Macey, Trans.). Picador. (Original lectures published 1978)

Goethe, J. W. von. (2008). Faust: Part one (D. Luke, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1808)

Habermas, J. (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Luchterhand.

Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper.

Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harper.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1837). Lectures on the Philosophy of History.

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.

Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan (R. Tuck, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1651)

Hoffman, D. (2002). The oligarchs: Wealth and power in the new Russia. PublicAffairs.

Hosseini, K. (2003). The Kite Runner. Riverhead Books.

Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., Elliott, K. A., & Oegg, B. (2007). Economic sanctions reconsidered (3rd ed.). Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. Chatto & Windus.

Kafka, F. (Various dates). Collected Works.

Kant, I. (2003). To perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch (T. Humphrey, Trans.). Hackett. (Original work published 1795)

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Macmillan.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown.

Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster.

Lanier, J. (2010). You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. Alfred A. Knopf.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Trans. & Eds.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1968)

Machiavelli, N. (2003). The prince (R. M. Adams, Trans.). Norton. (Original work published 1532)

Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital.

McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-Truth. The MIT Press.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill.

Moody, J. B., & Nogrady, B. (2010). The sixth wave: How to succeed in a resource-limited world. Random House Australia.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.

Morrison, T. (1987). Beloved. Alfred A. Knopf.

Mould, P. (2009). The art detective: Fakes, frauds, and finds and the search for lost treasures. Viking.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York University Press.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics. PublicAffairs.

O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. (2019). The misinformation age: How false beliefs spread. Yale University Press.

Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker & Warburg.

Orwell, G. (1989). 1984. Harcourt Brace. (Original work published 1949)

Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Éditions du Seuil.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press.

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Viking.

Procter, A. (2020). Returning heritage: Repatriation, restitution, and reparations. Hurst Publishers.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Robertson, G. (2006). Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice. Penguin Books.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.

Sandel, M. J. (2007). The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Belknap Press.

Sarr, F., & Savoy, B. (2018). The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics.

Shakespeare, W. (1997). King Lear (R. A. Foakes, Ed.). Arden Shakespeare. (Original work published 1606)

Shakespeare, W. (Various dates). Collected Works.

Shute, N. (1957). On the Beach. William Morrow and Company.

Snyder, G. H. (1997). Alliance politics. Cornell University Press.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton & Company.

Thucydides. (c. 431 BC). History of the Peloponnesian War.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Wu, T. (2010). The master switch: The rise and fall of information empires. Alfred A. Knopf.

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 ChatGPT, OpenAI, Grok, X Corp, and Gemini, Google, Alphabet, tools (May 21, 2025). The in-line book links have been generated as part of Amazon Affiliates Program. The featured image is generated in Canva (May 22, 2025).]

[Support the Open Economics Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (May 22, 2025). Humanitarian Ethics, Social Imaginaries and the Search for Meaning. Open Economics Blog. Retrieved May 22, 2025 from https://oeb.hypotheses.org/1611.

Thanks for reading The Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Support dialog