The newsletters from Monocle, Semafor, CNBC, Rest of World, Bloomberg, ArtNews, the New York Times and Economist from September 22-24, 2025, represent a mosaic of linked fragments — political dispatches, urban reportage, technology briefs, cultural vignettes — which can be read as mutually informing symptoms of a single constellation: late-liberal societies negotiating expertise, infrastructure, and the public sphere under conditions of intensifying technological capacity and political theatricality.

The collection of newsletter snippets presents not a random assortment of headlines but a cohesive, if fragmented, portrait of a world grappling with profound schisms. Reading them together is like examining the core samples of a civilization under immense pressure. They reveal a society simultaneously accelerating toward technological and political extremes while fostering a powerful, almost spiritual counter-current—a deep-seated yearning for durability, authenticity, and meaningful connection. Across these texts, we can trace the contours of a grand tension: the centrifugal forces of political fragmentation and techno-capitalist disruption versus the centripetal pull toward repair, heritage, and what the sociologist Hartmut Rosa might call “resonance.”

It is a tapestry of discord and adaptation, where the personal and the planetary collide amid the lingering shadows of a second Trump administration. The newsletters unfold like a postmodern collage—reminiscent of Italo Calvino’s If on a Winter’s Night a Traveler (Calvino, 1979/1981), where fragmented narratives invite the reader to co-construct meaning. Here, the causal threads are evident: Trump’s authoritarian leanings exacerbate urban-federal tensions in the US, while rippling outward to influence global trade, environmental policies, and cultural preservation. Socially, it reveals a world grappling with apathy (as in Italy’s political disengagement) and innovation (evident in AI investments and design revivals), theoretically underscoring Hannah Arendt’s warnings about the banality of administrative evil in fragmented democracies (Arendt, 1951). Philosophically, it probes Heideggerian notions of techne—technology as both revealing and concealing truth—amid AI’s ascent and climate’s exigencies, interrelating these through a lens of interdependence that echoes systems theory in Donella Meadows’ Thinking in Systems (Meadows, 2008).

The newsletters function less as a mere digest of current events than as a fractured mirror held up to a world in accelerated disintegration and reassembly. Its pages reveal a global order where the local becomes the last redoubt of agency, where technology promises liberation yet entrenches new hierarchies, and where the very categories of truth, statehood, and identity are being violently renegotiated. This commentary explores the newsletter’s interwoven strands through the lenses of political theory, urban sociology, media studies, and the philosophy of technology, drawing on a lineage of critical thought to illuminate the deeper structures beneath the headlines.

A central motif is the embattled American city. Andrew Mueller’s piece on mayors like Quinton Lucas of Kansas City depicts municipalities as sites of “defensive localism” against a federal executive weaponizing spectacle and fear. Trump’s demonization of cities as “hellholes”—a rhetoric steeped in what historian Rick Perlstein identifies as a “rural distrust of cities, sometimes for racist reasons”—resonates with Henri Lefebvre’s (1991) concept of the right to the city. Lefebvre argued that the urban is not merely a physical space but a social product, a site of collective appropriation and struggle. In this light, the mayor’s strategy of “controlling what they can” through hyper-local improvements is a tactical reassertion of this right, a refusal to cede the urban narrative to a national politics of division. This is a twenty-first-century iteration of what Jane Jacobs (1961) celebrated: the city as an organic, self-regulating ecosystem of social capital, now forced into a posture of political self-defense.

This urban-rural schism is not uniquely American. The Italian political apathy chronicled by Anita Riotta—where turnout for a citizenship referendum fell below 30%—suggests a crisis of the national political imaginary itself. Maurizio Caprara’s lament that “Italian politics is unappealing – it thrives on squabbles and propaganda” echoes the post-democratic thesis of Colin Crouch (2004), who argued that formal democratic institutions persist even as real power shifts to a managerial elite and a disengaged populace. The city, in contrast, remains a space of tangible action. The Parisian repair bonus scheme, which subsidizes mending clothes, is a microcosm of a broader “circular economy” ethos that privileges local craft and sustainability over globalized fast fashion—a practical manifestation of what David Graeber (2018) called “bullshit jobs,” a rejection of the meaningless churn of late capitalism in favor of meaningful, localized production.

The most immediate and jarring theme is the fracturing of the American polis. The lead opinion piece by Andrew Mueller, detailing a second-term Donald Trump administration’s war on primarily Black-led Democratic cities, is not merely political reportage; it is a dispatch from a cold civil war. The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles and the stoking of an ancient urban-rural divide speaks to a state of internal delegitimization. Historian Rick Perlstein’s observation that Trump succeeds by “amplifying American manias already extant” is key. This is not a new phenomenon but the culmination of a long-term political realignment where partisan identity has become a “mega-identity” that subsumes all others. As Lilliana Mason (2018) argues in Uncivil Agreement, when political, racial, and religious identities align, the opposing party ceases to be a mere competitor and becomes a moral and existential threat. The snippets about the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, the subsequent fusion of his memorial into a “part religious ceremony, part political rally,” and the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel for his commentary on the matter are flashpoints of this reality. Speech is not a medium for debate but a territory to be conquered; media is not a forum but an arsenal.

Andrew Mueller’s piece on U.S. mayors and the National Guard dramatizes what is now a familiar political choreography: the presidential performance as spectacle, and the city as both stage and scapegoat. The dispatch highlights how metropolitan governance is being forced into defensive, managerial postures while a national executive weaponizes fear of the city to shore up a rural-inflected base (Mueller, 2025).

Causally, this is not merely a rhetorical strategy: it reorganizes administrative capacity. When the executive directs paramilitary or federal resources into municipal spaces (or threatens to), it produces a dynamic in which local leaders must shift scarce political capital from long-term investments to short-term maintenance of public order. The result echoes classic arguments about urban marginalization and symbolic politics: the metropolis becomes both prize and villain in a contest over legitimacy (Jacobs, 1961; Sassen, 2001). In theoretical terms the episode stages the intersection of Guy Debord’s “society of the spectacle” (where image substitutes for argument) and Hannah Arendt’s concern with the shrinking of a deliberative public sphere that can adjudicate shared interests (Arendt, 1958/1998).

The newsletter pieces imply an inversion: cities remain the loci of demonstrable policy (public transit, repair economies, cultural programming), yet their successes are politically unglamorous and thus vulnerable to rhetorical denigration. The mayoral strategy Mueller relays — “all politics is local” — is empirically sound but normatively fragile when political authority is being centralized by spectacle.

The lead on US mayors resisting Trump’s ire—deploying the National Guard in cities like Los Angeles and targeting “black Democratic mayors”—evokes a causal chain from historical federal-state conflicts to contemporary urban autonomy. This antagonism, as historian Rick Perlstein notes in the snippet, amplifies “American manias” rooted in rural-urban divides, a social rift theorized in Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone (Putnam, 2000), where declining social capital fosters polarization. Perlstein’s observation that Trump’s tactics deploy “beefy, thuggish men” from rural areas to urban “hellholes” resonates with Edward Said’s Orientalism (Said, 1978), reimagined domestically: the city as the exoticized “other,” justifying intervention under racist pretexts.

Interrelatedly, Italy’s sinking political engagement—less than half engaging with news weekly, culminating in a failed citizenship referendum—mirrors this apathy as a philosophical retreat from the public sphere, akin to Jürgen Habermas’ critique of the “refeudalization” of discourse in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas, 1962/1989). Causally, such indifference stems from “low quality” politics, as Maurizio Caprara argues, fostering polarization or abstention, much like the US scenario where mayors like Quinton Lucas advocate localism (”all politics is local”) as a bulwark. This interrelation suggests a global trend: in an era of Trumpian showmanship, democratic vitality retreats to the municipal, echoing Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jacobs, 1961), where vibrant urbanism counters top-down control. Philosophically, it invokes Aristotle’s Politics (Aristotle, trans. 1998), positing the polis as the site of eudaimonia, yet threatened by tyrannical federalism.

The briefing on Italy’s plunging political engagement is a useful counterpoint to the U.S. spectacle. Low turnout and “indifference” are framed as consequences of poor supply — politics that offers squabbles rather than programmatic solutions — but the roots run deeper: capitalist restructuring, media fragmentation, and the commodification of public attention. Robert Putnam’s diagnosis of declining associational life (Putnam, 2000) resonates: civic infrastructures that once mediated between citizens and the state have attenuated, and new digital attention economies have not compensated for the loss of routine, place-based civic practice.

Philosophically, Italy’s malaise calls to mind Jürgen Habermas’ warning that the erosion of communicative rationality corrodes the public sphere’s capacity to generate consensus (Habermas, 1962/1989). Low turnout is not merely procedural decline; it is an index of collective decision-making rendered less persuasive by spectacles, managerialism, and a political culture that rewards disruption over deliberation (Caprara quoted in the newsletter).

Shifting to cultural snippets, the restoration of Beirut’s “Ardea Purpurea” fountain by Italian artists symbolizes cross-Mediterranean ties, a social balm post-2020 port explosion. This act of revival interrelates with Paris’s repair bonuses for clothing, reflecting a broader ethic of mending in a disposable world—causally linked to sustainability discourses in Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything (Klein, 2014), where capitalism’s waste accelerates climate crises. The philosophical implication? A Heideggerian “saving power” in technology (The Question Concerning Technology, Heidegger, 1954/1977), where repair shops preserve craft against fast fashion’s alienation.

World literature amplifies this: In Arundhati Roy’s The Ministry of Utmost Happiness (Roy, 2017), Delhi’s crumbling margins host resilient communities, much like Beirut’s cultural revival reaffirms Lebanese-Italian bonds amid instability. Associatively, the art world’s headlines—fires in Brooklyn warehouses, Gentileschi acquisitions in Denmark—highlight precarity and gender reclamation. The Nivaagaard Collection’s focus on female Baroque artists counters patriarchal canons, echoing Linda Nochlin’s seminal essay “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” (Nochlin, 1971), causally tied to museums’ post-#MeToo diversification. Interrelated with Sydney’s design week, where Powerhouse museums bridge urban gaps, this suggests a theoretical shift toward inclusive urbanism, as in Richard Sennett’s The Craftsman (Sennett, 2008), where making fosters social cohesion.

The “Vagina Museum” halting US shipments due to tariffs adds a satirical layer, philosophically critiquing protectionism’s bodily politics—resonant with Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality (Foucault, 1976/1978), where state power regulates the intimate. This interrelates with Kirk’s memorial fusing Christianity and MAGA, a social fusion Arendt might deem “totalitarian” in its ideological blend (The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt, 1951).

Support

Tech snippets dominate, with Nvidia’s $100 billion OpenAI investment causally accelerating AI’s infrastructural demands—10 gigawatts echoing the energy voracity critiqued in Vaclav Smil’s Energy and Civilization (Smil, 2017). Philosophically, this probes Nick Bostrom’s existential risks in Superintelligence (Bostrom, 2014), where AI’s unchecked growth interrelates with climate burdens, as in the Congo’s coltan ban amid Chinese dominance. Africa’s resource scramble, per the newsletter, reflects neocolonial dynamics in Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (Fanon, 1961/2004), where minerals fuel global tech at local cost.

This political disintegration is mirrored and amplified by an equally potent technological acceleration. The news items read like a litany of techno-fatalism and unbridled ambition. Nvidia’s staggering $100 billion investment in OpenAI to build data centers requiring the power of a small nation signifies the sheer material force of the AI revolution, a project so vast it reorders economies and energy grids. At the same time, we see the dual-edged nature of this progress. Scientists use AI to “design viruses to fight bacteria,” a breakthrough that concurrently hints at terrifying new frontiers in biological engineering and the “tantalizing possibility” of “AI-generated life.” This rapid, capital-fueled technological advance creates a new social reality, one that Shoshana Zuboff (2019) has termed “surveillance capitalism,” where human experience is raw material for extraction. The anxieties expressed by Derek Thompson about a “decline of thinking people” in the face of “thinking machines” reflect a deep-seated fear of human obsolescence—not just economically, but cognitively and spiritually. Our tools are remaking us, and the snippets suggest we are becoming more distractible, less literate, and perhaps less capable of the deep thought required to govern the very systems we are creating.

Trump’s H-1B visa hikes ($100,000 fee) causally disrupt talent flows, interrelating with India’s AI prompts and China’s clean-tech pledges. This protectionism, as Jamie Dimon laments, undermines innovation, echoing Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” (Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Schumpeter, 1942). Non-fiction like Parag Khanna’s Connectography (Khanna, 2016) posits connectivity as progress, yet tariffs fragment it—philosophically, a Platonic cave where shadows of nationalism obscure global interdependence.

Environmentally, Iceland’s lava-building and Kenya’s climate pleas interrelate with UN reports on fossil fuels, causally defying Paris Agreement goals. William Ruto’s optimism (”reality is going to beat us into an agreement”) resonates with Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (Beck, 1992), where global risks force cosmopolitanism. World leaders’ interviews—Ruto on African financing, Heine on Marshall Islands’ submersion—evoke Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (Carson, 1962), urging ethical stewardship amid Trump’s denialism.

Technology threads through the document as both a liberating and a controlling force. The AI-designed bacteriophages represent the utopian promise of technology to solve intractable biological problems, a vision akin to the techno-optimism of Ray Kurzweil (2005). Yet, this is counterbalanced by the dystopian reality of the H-1B visa fee, which uses economic policy to restrict the very global talent flows that fuel the AI boom. This creates a paradox: the US seeks to dominate AI while simultaneously choking off its primary source of human capital, a self-defeating logic that reflects what Shoshana Zuboff (2019) terms “surveillance capitalism,” where human futures are rendered as data to be mined and controlled, yet the humans themselves are rendered disposable.

The TikTok deal, with Oracle overseeing the US algorithm, is a perfect emblem of this tension. It is a geopolitical compromise that attempts to reconcile the global, borderless nature of digital platforms with the hard realities of national security and sovereignty. This struggle mirrors the theoretical conflict between the “network society” of Manuel Castells (1996), which transcends geography, and the enduring power of the nation-state. The deal is less a resolution than a temporary truce in a war over who controls the infrastructure of perception.

Two seemingly distinct items — the debate about raising pilots’ mandatory retirement age and the newsletter’s coverage of high-stakes AI and biotechnology research — converge on a shared anxiety about the relation between human expertise and technological systems. Tom Webb’s argument that veteran pilots embody tacit knowledge and crisis judgement (the “shock of white hair” as a proxy for experience) clashes with managerial logics that value predictability, throughput and cost-efficiency (Webb, 2025).

This tension is quintessentially modern: technologies extend capacities and reshape risk environments (Castells, 1996), but they also produce novel failure modes (GPS jamming; AI systems that behave deceptively). The newsletter’s short account of AI-designed bacteriophages — a frontier with salutary therapeutic potential but obvious dual-use risks — underscores how speed and capability outstrip governance frameworks (newsletter briefing). In normative terms, the problem is not to privilege “human judgment” romantically, but to rethink regulatory and institutional architectures so that competence (both tacit and codified) is preserved even as technologies scale (Bostrom, 2014; Latour, 1993).

This tension also plays out on the global stage, where the old order is being reconfigured. The snippets on international affairs depict a world in “geopolitical churn,” a state that political scientist Ian Bremmer (2012) might describe as a “G-Zero” world, lacking singular global leadership. We see the emergence of new trade arteries like the Chancay megaport in Peru and the “Polar Silk Road” through the warming Arctic—infrastructural projects that literally redraw the maps of global influence, often with China as the primary cartographer. In response, nations like Nigeria pursue “strategic autonomy,” refusing to be drawn into binary ideological conflicts. Amidst this reshuffling, the restoration of the “Ardea Purpurea” fountain in Beirut becomes a poignant symbol of soft power and enduring bilateral ties—a small act of creation and connection that stands in stark contrast to the grand strategies of superpowers. It suggests that even as empires contend, the work of cultural revival and human-to-human diplomacy continues.

Gregory Scruggs’ essay on Amtrak’s NextGen Acela exemplifies a recurrent theme in the newsletter: infrastructure as a mirror of state imagination and political will. High-speed rail becomes a cipher for what a polity chooses to prioritize — long-term, connective public goods versus short-term redistribution of resources to politically salient constituencies (Scruggs, 2025).

David Harvey’s account of neoliberalism provides a causal frame: the political choices that starve or invest in rails reflect hegemonic configurations of capital and state policy (Harvey, 2005). Yet there is also a cultural dimension: infrastructure produces temporal imaginaries — the promise of faster, more humane travel alters how citizens conceive of distance, community and possibility. Thus rail policy is simultaneously economic calculus and moral grammar about what counts as collective care.

The newsletters are saturated with the logic of the spectacle, a concept Guy Debord (1967/1994) defined as “a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.” Trump’s presidency is its apotheosis: a reality-TV star leveraging media to blur the lines between governance and performance. His threat to sue ABC over Jimmy Kimmel’s comments, and the subsequent suspension and reinstatement of the show, is a stark example of what Nancy Fraser (2017) terms the “crisis of hegemony,” where the institutional boundaries that once contained political conflict—the independence of the press, the Justice Department—are treated as mere obstacles to be bulldozed. The firing of a prosecutor for insufficient zeal in pursuing Trump’s enemies is not just a breach of protocol; it is a direct assault on Max Weber’s (1922/1978) ideal of the bureaucratic state as a realm of impersonal, rule-bound authority. It signals a regression to a patrimonial model of power, where the state is an extension of the ruler’s personal will.

This performative politics extends to the international stage. The Western recognition of Palestinian statehood by the UK, Canada, and Australia is, as the newsletter notes, largely “performative” in the face of Israeli intransigence. Yet, as Judith Butler (2010) has argued, performativity is not merely theatrical; it is constitutive. By uttering the recognition, these states are attempting to bring a new political reality into being, to shift the discursive frame of the conflict. It is a desperate, perhaps futile, act of what Antonio Gramsci (1971) would call a “war of position”—a battle for the terrain of common sense in the absence of a viable “war of maneuver” (direct political action).

Yet, woven throughout this narrative of fracture and acceleration is a powerful and persistent counter-narrative: a profound cultural turn toward repair, slowness, and material authenticity. It is a quiet rebellion against the ephemeral. In Paris, a city-supported ecosystem of tailors and cobblers thrives, incentivized by a government “repair bonus.” This is more than economic policy; it is a philosophical stance against the “fast-fashion cycle that has plagued the industry.” This impulse is echoed in the travel piece on taking a slow boat to Ayutthaya, a journey celebrated precisely because it is not the fastest way, offering instead time to meander and connect. It appears in the argument for keeping veteran pilots in the skies, valuing “accumulated flying hours and experience” over the churn of youth and cost-efficiency. It is the core of Wong Eng Geng’s Refuse handbook in Singapore, which reframes discarded furniture not as waste but as a repository of “overlooked material value.”

This is a search for what sociologist Hartmut Rosa (2019) calls “resonance”—a mode of being in which the subject and the world are mutually responsive and transformed. In a world of high-speed “mute” relations, where we scroll through feeds and consume disposable goods without genuine connection, the act of repairing a shoe, taking a slow boat, or appreciating an old-world bar becomes an attempt to re-establish a resonant relationship with the world. It is a conscious choice to slow down time and imbue objects and experiences with history and meaning. Even the preservation of deceased artists’ studios, like Tom Wesselmann’s in New York, speaks to this desire to keep a connection to the past tangible, to resist the erasure that modernity so often demands.

Scattered features on the newsletter — Parisian repair-shops, preserved artist studios, and Singapore’s dumpster-diving craft handbook — collectively articulate an ethic of repair and reuse against the throwaway logics of late capitalism. Richard Sennett’s account of craftsmanship (Sennett, 2008) gives this trend intellectual ballast: the revival of mending and local repair is not merely retro aesthetics but a moral-economic stance against extractive consumption.

Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital helps explain why these practices are being valorized differently across contexts: repair economies can be co-opted as boutique cultural capital in affluent enclaves while remaining survival strategies elsewhere (Bourdieu, 1986). The newsletter’s juxtaposition of falconry-laden first-class cabins and grassroots repair workshops is a useful reminder that heritage and commodity often interpenetrate, and that “tradition” can be mobilized either as exclusionary prestige or as inclusive ecological practice (falconry/aviation note; repair subsidy note).

Exploratively, these snippets form a causal mosaic: Trump’s urban antagonism fosters global recognitions of Palestine, as allies bypass US vetoes, interrelating with Beirut’s revivals as acts of resistance. Technologically, AI’s boom (MrBeast’s viralism, DeepSeek’s models) causally amplifies energy demands, clashing with climate imperatives, while cultural mending (Paris tailors, Icelandic architecture) offers counter-narratives of sustainability. Socially, apathy in Italy and priest shortages signal existential voids, akin to Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning (Frankl, 1946/2006), where meaning-making combats despair.

Theoretically, this newsletter embodies Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory (Reassembling the Social, Latour, 2005), where humans, tariffs, AI chips, and fountains entangle in hybrid assemblages. Philosophically, it questions Kantian cosmopolitanism (Perpetual Peace, Kant, 1795/1991)—can global peace endure amid Trump’s isolationism? Ultimately, these fragments invite associative leaps: from Calvino’s multiplicities to Meadows’ systems, urging us to rethink interrelations in a warming, wired world.

Taking the pieces together, the newsletter reads as a field report of liberal modernity under stress: political theatrics erode deliberative capacities; technological acceleration outpaces regulatory institutions; infrastructure decisions crystallize political imaginaries; cultural practices of repair both resist and are assimilated into market logics. What ties these motifs is timing: the political present is governed by short electoral cycles and viral attention economies, yet the problems we face — climate resilience, public transport, biosafety — demand long horizontals and patient expertise.

Two modest prescriptions follow from this reading. First, protect and institutionalize intermediating infrastructures (civic associations, municipal expertise, regulatory foresight) that can translate episodic spectacle into sustained policy. Second, cultivate an ethics of “temporal distribution” in policy: align incentives so that long-term public goods (rails, repair economies, robust oversight for biotech/AI) are politically legible and materially fundable.

Amidst the digital and political abstractions, a powerful counter-narrative emerges: a re-enchantment with the material world. From the Parisian cobblers to Wong Eng Geng’s Refuse handbook in Singapore, which teaches citizens to “harvest” discarded furniture for its “overlooked material value,” there is a palpable yearning for tangible, craft-based engagement. This is a direct response to the alienation of a digital, service-based economy. It resonates with the philosophy of Martin Heidegger (1971), who lamented the transformation of the world from a meaningful “earth” into a mere “standing-reserve” of resources. These acts of repair and reuse are attempts to restore a sense of care and connection to the objects that populate our lives.

This material turn is even more radical in Iceland, where architect Arnhildur Pálmadóttir proposes building with molten lava. Her “Lavaforming” project is a profound act of what Donna Haraway (2016) calls “staying with the trouble”—facing the existential threat of a resource-poor island by embracing its most violent, creative force: the volcano. It is a form of geo-philosophy, a recognition that our built environment must be in dialogue with, not in opposition to, the planetary forces that shape it.

Subscribe

The newsletters do not depict a stable world but a world in the agonizing, exhilarating process of becoming. It is a world where the old certainties of state, nation, and progress have fractured, leaving a vacuum filled by a chaotic interplay of local resilience, technological disruption, and performative power. The challenge for its readers—and for all of us—is not to seek a return to a lost coherence but to navigate this fragmented landscape with a critical eye and a commitment to the tangible, the local, and the human. As the Icelandic architect and the Singaporean dumpster diver both show, the future may not be written in code or decreed from a capital, but forged in the careful, deliberate act of making and remaking our immediate world.

Ultimately, the world depicted in these snippets is one caught between dissolution and resilience. The dominant forces of political tribalism and relentless technological disruption pull at the very fabric of social cohesion. However, the human response is not one of simple surrender. From a Parisian workshop to a Singaporean dumpster, from a slow river barge in Thailand to the shared grief and anger at a political memorial, there is an undeniable, persistent search for connection, for durability, and for meaning. These dispatches from the near future serve as a powerful reflection of our present trajectory, reminding us that for every force that seeks to tear the world apart, there is a countervailing human impulse to mend it.

Share

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Schocken Books.

Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition (original work published 1958). University of Chicago Press.

Aristotle. (1998). Politics (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published ca. 350 BCE)

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). Sage Publications. (Original work published 1986)

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.

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.

Bremmer, I. (2012). Every nation for itself: Winners and losers in a G-Zero world. Portfolio/Penguin.

Butler, J. (2010). Frames of war: When is life grievable? Verso Books.

Calvino, I. (1981). If on a winter’s night a traveler (W. Weaver, Trans.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (Original work published 1979)

Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Blackwell.

Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Polity Press.

Debord, G. (1994). The society of the spectacle (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Zone Books. (Original work published 1967)

Fanon, F. (2004). The wretched of the earth (R. Philcox, Trans.). Grove Press. (Original work published 1961)

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1976)

Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946)

Fraser, N. (2017). The crisis of hegemony. In The great regression (pp. 15–26). Polity Press.

Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit jobs: A theory. Simon & Schuster.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.

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

Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1954)

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.

Kant, I. (1991). Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. In H. Reiss (Ed.), Kant: Political writings (2nd ed., pp. 93-130). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1795)

Khanna, P. (2016). Connectography: Mapping the future of global civilization. Random House.

Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon & Schuster.

Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Viking.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell.

Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Nochlin, L. (1971). Why have there been no great women artists? ARTnews, 69(9), 22-39, 67-71.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Rosa, H. (2019). Resonance: A sociology of our relationship to the world. (J. C. Wagner, Trans.). Polity Press.

Roy, A. (2017). The ministry of utmost happiness. Knopf.

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

Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.

Smil, V. (2017). Energy and civilization: A history. MIT Press.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)

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 29, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (September 29, 2025).]

[Support the Open Culture Blog: https://buy.stripe.com/aFadR83MGgYm2T3fji3Ru00.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (September 29, 2025). Interweaving Fragmentation and Resilience: Political Spectacle, Technological Disruption, and the Cultural Impulse to Mend in a World Under Pressure. Open Culture.