Share Dialog
Reading through sprawling newsletter fragments from August 4-6, 2025, from Monocle, Semafor, CoinDesk, NZZ Geopolitics, UBS Insights, Newsweek Geospace, ArtNews, and the Economist one encounters the familiar yet intensified contours of our civilizational moment—what Zygmunt Bauman would have recognized as the deepening "liquid modernity" where "all that is solid melts into air" (Marx, 1848/1992) but now with accelerated velocity and heightened stakes. The constellation of events catalogued here—from trade wars and geopolitical fractures to cultural institutions under siege and democratic norms eroding—reveals not merely a series of discrete crises but what Karl Polanyi (1944/2001) diagnosed as symptoms of the "great transformation" now reaching a new inflection point.
The newsletters' very form—a rapid-fire succession of global snapshots mediated through digital platforms—embodies what Jürgen Habermas (1962/1989) analyzed as the structural transformation of the public sphere, where the careful deliberation of an informed citizenry gives way to the fragmented attention economy of media consumption. Yet within this fragmentation lie patterns that demand theoretical excavation, for as Hannah Arendt (1958/1998) observed, "the trouble with lying and deceiving is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide" (p. 251). The truths hidden within these apparently chaotic global developments reveal deeper structural dynamics at play.
The collection reads like a compact atlas of contemporaneity: shifting great-power gestures (Helsinki+50; China–Russia drills), emergent circuits of cultural capital (Qatar’s Art Basel entry; museum governance experiments), market re-alignments (Gulf capital into China, OPEC+ output decisions), the micro-politics of everyday life (a Washington restaurant that doubles as a political salon; Portugal’s retention of talent), and technological accelerants (LLMs shaping scientific language; states re-engineering communications platforms). The pieces are discrete but, read together, they reveal recurring dynamics: (1) the instrumentalization of culture for geopolitical ends; (2) the re-embedding of economic decisions in political strategy; and (3) the compression of public life by new technological and institutional forms. These dynamics are present across the newsletter, from the quiet ambivalence of Helsinki+50 to the performative conviviality of Butterworth’s.
The newsletter snippets weave together threads of economic resurgence, cultural preservation, geopolitical friction, and human resilience. As a reflective commentary, this piece interprets these fragments not as isolated vignettes but as interconnected nodes in a global network, echoing Arjun Appadurai’s concept of “scapes” in Modernity at Large(Appadurai, 1996), where ethnoscapes (flows of people), technoscapes (technology and innovation), and mediascapes (narratives and images) converge to shape contemporary realities. Analytically, these snippets reveal causal interrelations: economic policies drive migration patterns, cultural narratives influence social cohesion, and media representations amplify geopolitical tensions. Theoretically, they align with Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach in Development as Freedom (Sen, 1999), emphasizing how economic growth must enhance human freedoms to be meaningful, while also resonating with philosophical ideas from Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition (Arendt, 1958), which underscores the interplay of labor, work, and action in sustaining societies amid uncertainty.
The piece on the Helsinki+50 commemoration shows how memory of prior settlements can become both a template and a test: the Final Act of 1975 is invoked as normative lingua franca (rights, territorial integrity), yet the present geopolitical moment exposes the limits of ritualized commemoration when material interests and asymmetric power persist. Institutional memory—what Pierre Nora would call lieux de mémoire—can summon moral vocabularies, but it cannot substitute for the material preconditions (trust, credible enforcement mechanisms) that undergird durable settlements (Nora, 1989). The Helsinki vignette therefore illustrates a recurrent modern paradox: ritualised norms become meaningful political resources only when positional power and institutional capacity converge to make them enforceable. (see Nora, 1989).
The contemporary failure of Helsinki-style replay also resonates with analyses of authoritarian revisionism: where regimes have invested in a revised grand narrative and coercive capacity (the Kremlin in recent years), multilateral norms are easily sidelined (Snyder, 2018). This suggests a twofold causal linkage: (a) memory-politics supplies moral resources that publics and diplomats can mobilize, but (b) normative revival needs concrete incentives (security guarantees, credible multilateral pressure, transactional payoffs) to convert rhetoric into settlement. (Snyder, 2018).
The coverage of Qatar’s Art Basel in Doha and Gulf investment in trophy assets points to the continuing use of cultural institutions as vectors of soft power and reputational engineering. Joseph Nye’s concept of “soft power” helps interpret these moves: artworks, museums, and art fairs are instruments by which states reconfigure international esteem and economic partnerships (Nye, 2004). Yet the coverage also invokes the ethical dissonances that come with such investments—labor conditions, “reputation laundering,” and scandals like “Qatargate.” The causal logic is clear: states with petro-rentier revenues have the means and motive to buy access to the symbolic economies of the West; culture becomes convertible capital (Nye, 2004).
This is not purely geopolitical: within the field of taste, these moves reframe markets and institutional curatorship. Bourdieu’s argument about cultural capital clarifies how institutional holdings (museums, acquisitions) produce distinctions that then translate into class and diplomatic advantage (Bourdieu, 1984). Gulf museum endowments and Art Basel expansions therefore operate simultaneously as diplomacy and as repositioning within transnational cultural markets.
The Butterworth’s profile is a small-scale laboratory for studying polarization and social life. At first glance it’s a sociological curiosity—an ostensibly partisan space that nevertheless traffics in social mixing. Read through Bourdieu and Habermas, it becomes a test case for how taste communities mediate political divisions. Bourdieu shows that gastronomic preferences, aesthetics and leisure are markers of class and group identity; Habermas’s notion of the public sphere invites us to ask whether such convivial spaces can be sites of rational deliberation or merely of performative sociability (Bourdieu, 1984; Habermas, 1989). The newsletter suggests that some forms of sociability—well-cooked food, staged informality, high sensory affect—can trump ideology in micro-settings, producing frictionless socialities that coexist with macro-polarization.
Causally, this indicates a feedback loop: high-quality cultural consumption (restaurants, galleries) produces cross-cutting social networks that can blunt overt political segregation, but they do not dissolve the structural inequalities or media ecosystems that drive polarization. In short: conviviality is not reconciliation; it is a symptom of differentiated civic life that may attenuate—but not remove—political cleavage.
The newsletters carry multiple items about museums and cultural governance—the Tate’s attendance debate, the National Gallery’s NG Citizens initiative, the fragility of China’s private museums, and the Whitney/ISP controversy. Together they indicate a double crisis: (a) museums are under pressure to justify their curatorial choices to broader publics and (b) their funding models (private patrons, sovereign wealth, corporate sponsorship) expose them to reputational and political risk. The National Gallery’s attempt at participatory governance gestures toward a more deliberative institutional model, yet such mechanisms can be captured or co-opted if they do not address structural questions of power and funding (Habermas, 1989).
At the same time, the precariousness of private museums in China (closures, state constraints) shows how cultural infrastructure is sensitive to macroeconomic retrenchment and political tolerances. Here the causal chain runs: economic rollback among corporate patrons + shifting consumer demand + political constraints on “unapproved” art = closure and contraction of a nascent institutional ecology. The policy implication is that cultural ecosystems require diversified, stable funding and norms of institutional autonomy to thrive—conditions unevenly distributed across polities.
Two technological strands in the newsletter deserve synthesis. First, the study reporting that a sizeable fraction of biomedical abstracts show signs of LLM authorship signals a linguistic and epistemic transformation of science—one where rhetorical markers and the performative cadence of abstracts may be influenced by generative models (newsletter excerpt). This phenomenon raises methodological and ethical questions: how do we police authorship, ensure epistemic integrity, and calibrate peer review in an age of synthetic text? Scholars writing on AI’s sociopolitical effects—e.g., Bender et al. (2021) on the dangers of large language models as “stochastic parrots” and Zuboff (2019) on surveillance capitalism—supply conceptual tools to map risk (Bender et al., 2021; Zuboff, 2019).
Second, the reported Russian plan to pre-install a state messaging app and the record of internet outages fit into a broader story about digital authoritarianism. Arendt’s and Foucault’s accounts of power—administrative rationality and disciplinary regimes—remain useful: technical architectures are being repurposed into tools for social control (Foucault, 1977; Arendt, 1951). The causal link is straightforward: state capacity plus legislative levers plus platform dependence = new vectors of surveillance and censorship. That normative-trust deficit reverberates back into international relations (e.g., how states view cross-border data flows) and into cultural life (self-censorship, creative constraint).
The note about Syrian heritage and the possibility of renewed engagement (with lifted sanctions) gestures to another long-standing theme: cultural patrimony as a site of post-conflict repair and contested memory. The work of scholars in heritage studies shows how restoration projects are simultaneously technical (conservation), political (who controls the narrative) and ethical (who funds and for what purpose). Here, the potential easing of sanctions opens a narrow policy window: funding and expertise could assist restoration, but they will almost certainly be embedded in geopolitical bargaining and legitimacy-seeking by regimes and patrons. That double logic—restoration as both moral imperative and diplomatic tool—appears repeatedly in the newsletter.
Cultural institutions and events (museums, art fairs, national day songs, theatrical production) have become hybrid instruments: simultaneously economic assets, diplomatic instruments, and domestic legitimacy tools. This hybridity produces both opportunities (soft power, jobs, creative economies) and pathologies (reputation laundering, censorship capture). Technological change (AI, platform consolidation, state digital projects) amplifies existing asymmetries: it both accelerates diffusion (LLMs shaping scientific rhetoric) and strengthens tools of cohesion and control (state messaging apps). Institutional response—standards for authorship, stronger peer review, clearer data governance—must be calibrated to these asymmetries. Micro-publics (restaurants, workplaces, neighborhood cultural infrastructures) matter politically because they form rubbing points where social capital is formed and optionally re-wired. They do not, however, substitute for macro-institutional reforms. The Butterworth’s case invites deeper ethnographic investigation into how everyday conviviality coexists with, and sometimes softens, polarized political ecosystems.
The newsletters mention Trump's latest round of tariffs—reaching as high as 39% on Swiss goods—which represents not merely economic policy but what Antonio Gramsci (1971) would recognize as a hegemonic project to reshape both material relations and common sense. The very language deployed—"America First," the characterization of trade as "war"—suggests what Benedict Anderson (1983/2006) analyzed as the mobilization of "imagined communities" through nationalist discourse, yet now operating within the constraints of global capital flows that neither Trump nor his counterparts can fully control.
Paul Krugman's (2009) New Trade Theory, which earned him the Nobel Prize, helps illuminate why these trade conflicts emerge with such ferocity despite their apparent irrationality. As Krugman demonstrated, when increasing returns to scale matter, trade patterns become path-dependent and politically contested. The newsletter's mention of companies "stockpiling goods" and "exploiting workarounds in customs law" reveals what Polanyi identified as the "double movement"—society's self-protective reaction against the destructive effects of an unleashed market system. Yet unlike Polanyi's 19th-century context, today's "countermovement" is not social democratic reform but authoritarian nationalism.
The theoretical puzzle here connects to what Norris and Inglehart (2019) diagnosed as "cultural backlash"—the reaction of populations experiencing what they term "cultural anxiety" as traditional sources of meaning and identity erode. However, their framework understates the material dimension. As Pierre Bourdieu (1986) would argue, what appears as "cultural" backlash is simultaneously a struggle over different forms of capital—economic, social, and symbolic—in which Trump's tariffs function as both economic redistribution and symbolic politics, promising to restore American "dignity" through the reassertion of sovereign control over economic flows.
The documentation of similar dynamics in other contexts—from Brexit's continuing reverberations to various nations' desperate attempts to negotiate favorable terms with Washington—suggests we are witnessing not merely American exceptionalism but a broader crisis of the post-war liberal international order. Francis Fukuyama's (1992) "end of history" thesis, which proclaimed liberal democracy's final triumph, now reads as a historical curiosity, yet Fukuyama himself has partially acknowledged this, arguing that the liberal democratic state requires not just elections but effective governance and rule of law—criteria that many ostensibly democratic societies, including the United States, increasingly struggle to meet.
Portugal’s descent from Europe’s top emigration spot to fifth place, as detailed in the snippet, signals a reversal of brain drain trends, bolstered by a 1.9% GDP growth in 2024 and safer urban environments like Lisbon’s award-winning streets. This shift causally links to broader economic stabilization, where improved domestic opportunities retain talent, contrasting with high outflows in 2013 amid austerity. Theoretically, this mirrors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s argument in Why Nations Fail (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012) that inclusive institutions foster growth by incentivizing local investment over exodus. Portugal’s pivot from UK-bound migration to Switzerland and Spain reflects changing ethnoscapes, per Appadurai, where economic booms in neighboring nations pull skilled workers.
Comparatively, the China-India economic juxtaposition highlights divergent paths: China’s pre-reform investments in human capital (literacy and state capacity) enabled its 1980s boom, while India’s focus on elite higher education amid weak infrastructure hampers similar leaps. Andrew Batson’s analysis aligns with Sen’s capabilities framework, where basic education expands freedoms, explaining China’s rapid urbanization versus India’s slower virtuous cycle. Uganda’s coffee export surge to $2.22 billion, driven by high global prices and investments since 2017, exemplifies how commodity booms intersect with policy: Trump’s tariffs could redirect trade flows, benefiting African producers like Uganda under lower duties (10-15%). This causal chain—climate-induced shortages in Brazil/Vietnam boosting African yields—echoes Jared Diamond’s geographic determinism in Guns, Germs, and Steel (Diamond, 1997), where environmental factors shape economic fortunes, yet policy (e.g., farmer training) amplifies them.
Socially, sub-Saharan Africa’s modest well-being rise (15% “thriving” in 2024 vs. 8% in 2007) per Gallup data underscores uneven development, with poverty and conflict lagging behind Latin America’s 45%. This disparity invokes Frantz Fanon’s postcolonial critique in The Wretched of the Earth (Fanon, 1961), where neocolonial structures perpetuate inequality, though increased life expectancy signals incremental freedoms.
Particularly striking in the newsletter is the extensive coverage of cultural institutions under pressure—from the Tate museums defending their declining attendance to the Whitney's suspension of its Independent Study Program amid political controversy. These developments cannot be understood merely as isolated cultural phenomena but rather as manifestations of what Habermas analyzed as the colonization of the lifeworld by system imperatives.
The Tate's defensive response—arguing that critics should compare current attendance to "pre-Covid" rather than peak years—reveals the institutional acceptance of diminished public engagement as the new normal. Director Maria Balshaw's emphasis on shows featuring "Pablo Picasso, J. M. W. Turner, Tracey Emin" suggests a retreat into canonical safety, what Bourdieu (1993) would recognize as the mobilization of already-consecrated cultural capital rather than the risk-taking that defines a vital cultural field. The disgruntled reader's complaint about the absence of "pulse-racing" contemporary art points to what Walter Benjamin (1936/2008) identified as the "aura" that mechanical reproduction and, now, digital mediation threatens to destroy.
More revealing is the case of the Whitney, where the termination of Sara Nadal-Melsió's position following her public statement of "transnational solidarity with the Palestinian people" exemplifies what Gramsci called "transformism"—the way hegemonic institutions absorb and neutralize potential challenges through bureaucratic procedures that appear politically neutral but serve to maintain existing power relations. Nadal-Melsió's account reveals the operation of what she terms "the institutional playbook" of "Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) that keep most of us in the dark about how often power protects itself through concealment."
This dynamic extends globally, as evidenced by the newsletter's report on China's private art museums facing a "wave of closures and cutbacks." The South China Morning Post's analysis points to "corporate backers tightening their belts" and the government's "unwillingness to provide backing for art that does not fit in with the range of artforms that the Communist Party condones." This parallel crisis of cultural institutions across different political systems suggests that the commodification of culture operates regardless of whether the dominant force is market fundamentalism or state control.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer's (1944/2002) analysis of the "culture industry" anticipated this dynamic, arguing that under late capitalism, cultural production would be systematically organized according to the logic of exchange value rather than use value. Yet their framework, developed in the context of mass media, requires updating for an era where cultural institutions face pressure not just from market forces but from the polarization of digital public spheres where cultural and political positions become increasingly indistinguishable.
Cultural preservation emerges in the Parisian newspaper hawker Ali Akbar’s knighthood and Singapore’s National Day song “Here We Are.” Akbar’s persistence amid digital pivots symbolizes resistance to technological disruption, aligning with Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities” in Imagined Communities (Anderson, 1983), where print media forged national bonds—now evolving into digital anthems like Singapore’s songs, commissioned since the 1980s to unite migrants. The song’s role in nation-building causally stems from post-independence relocations, fostering camaraderie through “community singing,” a policy tool for social cohesion.
The Picasso debate—whether Les Demoiselles d’Avignon drew from African masks or Iberian/Catalonian sources—reignites cultural appropriation discussions. Historians’ dismissal of singular inspirations (“Picasso was always looking, absorbing, appropriating”) invokes Edward Said’s Orientalism (Said, 1978), critiquing Western art’s exoticization of non-European forms. Associatively, the podcast Mistresses reframes maligned women like Wu Zetian, challenging misogynistic histories: “women get the benefit of the doubt” (as described). This narrative shift parallels Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (de Beauvoir, 1949), exposing patriarchal lenses in historical accounts.
Indian weddings’ $50 billion industry, blending modernity (dating apps) with tradition (caste-sorted matches, “gifts” as dowries), reveals social contradictions. Samir Varma’s anecdote of familial resistance despite progressive backgrounds causally ties to demographic pressures, echoing China’s gender wars in gaming, fueled by the one-child policy’s male surplus. Katrin Büchenbacher’s analysis of “Revenge on Gold Diggers” games links to incel cultures, theoretically backed by Raewyn Connell’s Masculinities (Connell, 1995), where economic insecurity breeds hegemonic backlash against feminism.
The coverage of political developments—from Bangladesh's upcoming elections to the various forms of democratic backsliding documented across multiple countries—must be understood in relation to the technological transformation of political communication. The report on Russia's mandatory installation of the "MAX app" for state monitoring of communications represents the extreme end of a spectrum that includes more subtle forms of digital surveillance and manipulation documented in democratic societies.
Habermas's (1962/1989) analysis of the public sphere was predicated on the existence of a common civic culture sustained by print media that allowed for rational-critical debate among equals. The newsletter's very form—rapid-fire global updates optimized for digital consumption—embodies the fragmentation that makes such deliberation increasingly difficult. As Habermas (2022) has recently acknowledged, the digital transformation has led to "expansion and fragmentation of the public sphere" in ways that threaten "the traditional role of the public sphere in discursive opinion and will formation in democracies."
The specific case of Bangladesh, where Muhammad Yunus announced February elections after student-led protests toppled an autocratic leader, illustrates both the democratizing potential and the limitations of contemporary political mobilization. As the newsletter notes, this represents "the first poll since a student-led uprising," yet the context suggests the fragility of such democratic openings. The analysis pointing to this as potentially "Dhaka's 'final exit ramp before careening off democracy's cliff entirely'" captures the precarious nature of democratic transitions in an era where, as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (2018) have shown, democratic breakdown more often occurs through legal means than military coups.
The broader pattern of democratic stress documented in the newsletter—from Poland's institutional conflicts to various forms of authoritarianism emerging across different contexts—suggests what Larry Diamond (2015) has termed "democratic recession." However, this framing may understate the depth of the transformation. As Wendy Brown (2015) argues, neoliberalism has systematically undermined the conditions for democratic practice by reducing citizens to consumers and subordinating political rationality to economic calculation. The newsletter's documentation of these dynamics across multiple contexts suggests not merely democratic recession but a more fundamental crisis of the democratic imaginary.
The extensive coverage of geopolitical tensions—from the U.S.-Russia conflicts over Ukraine to China's expanding global presence—requires analysis through multiple theoretical lenses. The classical realist framework, exemplified by Hans Morgenthau (1948/2006) and updated by John Mearsheimer (2001), would interpret these developments as evidence of inevitable great power competition driven by the anarchic international system and the security dilemma. From this perspective, the various alliance formations and proxy conflicts documented in the newsletter represent rational responses to shifting power distributions.
However, liberal institutionalist theory, developed by scholars like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1977/2011), points to the ways in which economic interdependence and institutional frameworks constrain pure power politics. The newsletter's documentation of continued trade flows even amid political tensions—China and India's resistance to U.S. secondary sanctions on Russian oil purchases—illustrates these complex interdependencies. Yet the increasing willingness of states to weaponize economic relations suggests what Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman (2019) have analyzed as the transformation of networks of interdependence into tools of coercion.
More fundamentally, the constructivist approach pioneered by Alexander Wendt (1999) draws attention to how the identities and interests of states are socially constructed rather than given by material conditions alone. The newsletter's coverage of various cultural and diplomatic initiatives—from China's Belt and Road projects to the U.S.'s democracy promotion efforts—reveals these identity construction processes in action. The competition is not merely over material resources but over the terms within which global political and economic life will be organized.
The specific case of the Middle East, with its complex intersection of great power rivalry, regional conflicts, and resource competition, illustrates the limitations of purely structural approaches. The newsletter's report on the Gaza conflict, Saudi Arabia's maneuvering between the U.S. and China, and the various regional realignments suggests what Michael Barnett (1998) has analyzed as the intersection of systemic pressures with regional dynamics and domestic politics. The outcome cannot be predicted purely from structural analysis but requires attention to agency, contingency, and the construction of meaning within specific contexts.
Media snippets—IShowSpeed’s Shenzhen visit, Adam Tooze’s Yunnan marvels, NYT’s critic reassignments—depict shifting perceptions. China’s “hot summer” in US media counters censorship narratives, yet Ben’s report on dismantled US public diplomacy (“We are losing this war badly”) highlights policy failures. Trump’s tariffs (e.g., 39% on Switzerland, threats on semis/pharma) causally escalate volatility, as markets claw back losses amid AI capex booms ($500bn projected for 2026). This aligns with Joseph Stiglitz’s globalization critiques in Globalization and Its Discontents(Stiglitz, 2002), where protectionism disrupts flows but spurs innovation (e.g., African coffee gains).
The Gaza backpack story evokes raw empathy: Scott Alexander’s “heart of hearts” desire to “kill everyone… if it would give that kid his brother back” philosophically invokes Arendt’s distinction between emotion and reasoned action, urging grief’s transformation into ethical policy. Kuwait’s citizenship revocations (108 fraud cases) and Dubai’s marriage incentives (700+ unions) reflect policy responses to demographic strains, echoing Michel Foucault’s biopolitics in The History of Sexuality (Foucault, 1976), where states manage populations through welfare and identity.
The scattered references to climate and environmental issues—from extreme weather in Asia to discussions of renewable energy transitions—point toward what has become perhaps the most fundamental challenge of our era, even when it appears as background to more immediate political and economic concerns. The concept of the Anthropocene, developed by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer (2000) and elaborated by scholars like Clive Hamilton (2017), suggests that human activity has fundamentally altered Earth's systems to the degree that we have entered a new geological epoch.
Yet the political implications of this transformation remain contested. The newsletter's brief mention of solar energy markets responding to policy changes illustrates what Andreas Malm (2016) has analyzed as the contradiction between the urgency of climate action and the continued dominance of fossil capital. Trump's "tax credit phaseout" for renewable energy, documented in the newsletter, exemplifies how short-term political calculations systematically undermine long-term collective interests—a dynamic that Garrett Hardin's (1968) "tragedy of the commons" analysis anticipated but that requires updating for the global scale and temporal complexity of climate change.
The theoretical challenge here connects to what Bruno Latour (2017) has diagnosed as the inadequacy of modern political categories for addressing what he terms "the new climatic regime." The continued organization of politics around the nation-state system, documented throughout the newsletter in various forms of nationalist mobilization, appears increasingly dysfunctional when confronted with planetary-scale environmental challenges that transcend territorial boundaries and operate on timescales that exceed electoral cycles.
Naomi Klein's (2014) analysis of the intersection between climate change and capitalism provides one framework for understanding these dynamics, arguing that meaningful climate action requires challenging the growth imperatives and power structures of the current economic system. However, the newsletter's documentation of continued economic nationalism and geopolitical competition suggests the difficulty of achieving the level of international cooperation that such systemic transformation would require.
Returning to Bourdieu's theoretical framework provides additional insight into the cultural and educational dimensions of the various crises documented in the newsletter. Bourdieu's (1986) analysis of cultural capital—the knowledge, skills, education, and other cultural assets that enable individuals to mobilize and navigate social hierarchies—helps illuminate why educational and cultural institutions have become sites of such intense political conflict.
The coverage of various educational and cultural controversies—from university funding cuts to debates over museum programming—reflects what Bourdieu would analyze as struggles over the reproduction of class relations. The dominance of standardized metrics and market logics in evaluating cultural institutions (attendance figures, revenue generation, "impact") represents what he termed the conversion of cultural capital into economic capital, a process that fundamentally alters the nature of cultural production and transmission.
The global dimension of these struggles, documented across different national contexts in the newsletter, suggests that the crisis of cultural institutions cannot be understood as merely local phenomena but as manifestations of what Bourdieu analyzed as the emergence of a global field of power. The increasing dominance of English-language cultural products, the standardization of educational credentialing systems, and the mobility of cultural and academic elites all contribute to what he termed the "internationalization of cultural capital."
However, Bourdieu's framework requires updating to account for the digital transformation of cultural production and distribution. The newsletter's documentation of various forms of online cultural activity—from social media-driven political mobilization to digital art forms—points toward new mechanisms of cultural capital accumulation and conversion that operate according to different logics than the traditional institutional forms that Bourdieu analyzed. The "influencer" economy, referenced in the newsletter's coverage of Gulf states regulating social media content creators, represents a new form of cultural entrepreneurship that bypasses traditional gatekeeping institutions while creating new forms of inequality and exploitation.
Snippets on Samsung’s inaugural chief design officer, Mauro Porcini, and Singapore’s Ministry of Design’s “The Workshop” illustrate how design transcends aesthetics, fostering innovation and morale. Porcini’s role, akin to Jony Ive’s at Apple, emphasizes holistic branding, causally linking design to competitiveness in electronics markets. This resonates with Richard Florida’s “creative class” theory in The Rise of the Creative Class (Florida, 2002), where urban environments like Lisbon or Singapore attract talent through quality-of-life enhancements.
Cristina Celestino’s Milan-based collaborations (e.g., with CC-Tapis) highlight material innovation rooted in cultural heritage, such as Renaissance-inspired lights. Associatively, this connects to Robert Wilson’s opinion piece, where he blurs art and design boundaries: “A line is a line. Space is space. You have to decide how to arrange them” (as quoted). Wilson’s “Mother” installation, blending light and sound with Michelangelo’s Pietà, philosophically echoes Martin Heidegger’s Building Dwelling Thinking (Heidegger, 1954), positing design as a mode of dwelling that reveals being. Policy-wise, Singapore’s workplace redesigns counter remote work’s isolation, promoting collaboration via tactile spaces, which causally boosts productivity amid Asia’s hybrid economies.
The coverage of migration flows—from the U.S.-Mexico border dynamics to European migration policies to various "deportation deals" between countries—illustrates what Saskia Sassen (2014) has analyzed as the crisis of the Westphalian system of territorial sovereignty. The traditional model of discrete nation-states exercising exclusive control over defined territories becomes increasingly problematic when confronted with global population movements driven by economic inequality, political persecution, and environmental degradation.
The specific mechanisms documented in the newsletter—from Rwanda's agreements to accept U.S. deportees to various forms of "burden sharing" among European countries—represent what James Hollifield (1992) has termed the "liberal paradox": liberal democratic states' simultaneous dependence on and resistance to migration flows. The economic logic of capital accumulation creates demand for mobile labor, while the political logic of democratic legitimacy depends on clearly defined communities of citizens whose interests can be represented through electoral processes.
The emergence of what the newsletter documents as "safe third country" agreements and various forms of externalized border control reflects what Wendy Brown (2010) has analyzed as the proliferation of walls and barriers in an era of supposed globalization. These developments suggest not the disappearance of sovereignty but its transformation and strategic redeployment. Rather than exercising direct territorial control, states increasingly operate through networks of agreements, technologies, and intermediary institutions that extend their reach while obscuring their operation.
The humanitarian dimension of these policies, touched on in the newsletter's coverage of various refugee crises, points toward what Giorgio Agamben (1998) analyzed as the production of "bare life"—populations that exist outside the normal protections of political membership. The creation of detention centers, refugee camps, and various forms of liminal legal status represents what Agamben terms "states of exception" that become permanent features of the contemporary political landscape rather than temporary departures from normal governance.
The items on technological developments—from AI advancement to digital surveillance systems to social media regulation—requires analysis through what Gilles Deleuze (1992) anticipated as the emergence of "societies of control" that operate through continuous modulation rather than the disciplinary confinement analyzed by Michel Foucault (1975/1995). The documentation of Russia's mandatory messaging app, China's social credit systems, and various forms of digital surveillance suggests the emergence of what Shoshana Zuboff (2019) has termed "surveillance capitalism"—the extraction of human experience as raw material for predictive products that serve market interests.
However, the technological transformation documented in the newsletter cannot be understood purely as a top-down process of domination. The various forms of digital resistance, cultural innovation, and political mobilization also documented suggest what Henry Jenkins (2006) has analyzed as "participatory culture"—the ways in which digital technologies create new possibilities for creative expression and collective action. The tension between these potentials and their capture by surveillance and marketing systems represents one of the defining conflicts of our era.
The specific case of artificial intelligence development, mentioned throughout the newsletter in various contexts, illustrates the complexity of these dynamics. The concentration of AI capabilities in a small number of corporate and state actors suggests the potential for unprecedented forms of social control and economic domination. Yet the same technologies also create possibilities for democratizing access to information, education, and creative tools. The outcome depends on political choices about how these technologies are developed, regulated, and distributed—choices that the newsletter suggests are increasingly being made without meaningful public deliberation.
What emerges from this survey of global developments is a picture not of discrete crises but of what might be termed "liquid crisis"—borrowing and adapting Bauman's concept to describe a condition where multiple forms of instability intersect and amplify each other without resolving into clear alternatives. Unlike the "solid" crises of earlier eras, which often pointed toward specific institutional reforms or systemic transformations, the current moment is characterized by what Fredric Jameson (1991) might recognize as a crisis of representation itself—the inability to "map" the totality of relations within which we are situated.
The newsletters' very form—a rapid succession of apparently disconnected global developments mediated through digital platforms—embodies this condition. Yet theoretical analysis reveals patterns within this apparent chaos. The trade conflicts, cultural wars, democratic backsliding, migration crises, and technological transformations documented throughout represent different dimensions of what Polanyi (1944/2001) analyzed as the "great transformation"—the subordination of social relations to market logic—now reaching a new phase of intensity and global scope.
However, unlike Polanyi's analysis, which focused on the emergence of market society, the current transformation involves the interaction between multiple systemic crises—economic, political, cultural, environmental, and technological—operating at different temporal scales and spatial levels. The result is what Edgar Morin (2008) has termed "complexity"—emergent properties that cannot be reduced to their component parts and that require new forms of theoretical and practical engagement.
The task for critical theory in this context is not simply to diagnose these developments but to identify points of potential intervention and transformation. The newsletter documents not only systems of domination but also forms of resistance and alternative construction—from grassroots political mobilization to cultural innovation to technological experimentation. As Gramsci (1971) observed, "the old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born"—and it is within this interregnum that political and cultural work must be undertaken.
The contemporary challenge is to develop forms of analysis and practice capable of operating across the multiple scales and timescales within which these various crises unfold. This requires what Donna Haraway (2016) has called "staying with the trouble"—developing capacities for sustained engagement with complexity and uncertainty rather than retreating into nostalgic fantasies or apocalyptic despair. The newsletter's documentation of various forms of creative adaptation and collective problem-solving suggests that such capacities exist, even if they remain fragmented and insufficiently connected.
Ultimately, the theoretical task is to help develop what Raymond Williams (1977) termed "structures of feeling" adequate to our historical moment—ways of experiencing and understanding that can orient effective action despite uncertainty about outcomes. This requires combining the analytical tools of critical theory with attention to emerging cultural forms, technological possibilities, and political experiments that may prefigure alternative futures. The newsletter provides raw material for such work, but the theoretical and practical construction remains to be undertaken.
These snippets collectively portray a world in flux, where economic policies (tariffs, investments) causally intersect with cultural narratives and social fabrics. Theoretically, they affirm Sen’s view that true development enhances capabilities, from Portugal’s retained talent to Africa’s well-being gains. Philosophically, Wilson’s light-sound mastery reminds us, per Arendt, of action’s power to illuminate shared spaces amid darkness—like the Gaza child’s grief or China’s lonely gamers. Yet, as global volatility rises (e.g., Fed uncertainties, AI-driven markets), resilience demands inclusive institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson) and empathetic narratives (Said, de Beauvoir). In echoing world literature—such as Gabriel García Márquez’s magical realism in One Hundred Years of Solitude (García Márquez, 1967), blending progress with haunting traditions—these fragments urge a holistic gaze: progress is not linear but interwoven, demanding vigilant, capabilities-expanding responses.
[Supporters can find the bibliographical information at this link: https://ko-fi.com/post/Powers-New-Playbook-Wielding-Culture-Weaponizin-N4N41JJKJM?fromEditor=true.]
[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Research, Perplexity, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Grok, xAI, tools (August 11, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (August 11, 2025).]
[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs/tip.]
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (August 11, 2025). Power’s New Playbook: Wielding Culture, Weaponizing Economics, and Warping Public Space. Open Culture.
https://horyzontypolityki.ignatianum.edu.pl/HP/article/view/2626
http://spatial-economics.com/eng/arkhiv-nomerov/2020-2/958-SE-2020-2-019-038
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110629460-004/html
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/e78dac6c-728d-4f1c-a736-81206a81b777/download
https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ber/article/download/18757/14685
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ITPD-02-2019-003/full/html
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/aepr.12276
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/74493/EUI_RSC_2022_36.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/krugman_lecture.pdf
https://online.norwich.edu/online/about/resource-library/key-theories-international-relations
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/habermaspublicspheredemocracy.pdf
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/chapter-3-trade-agreements-and-economic-theory
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1906597_code1696318.pdf?abstractid=1900399&mirid=1
https://opentextbc.ca/mediastudies101/chapter/habermas-public-sphere/
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-4438-9738-9-sample.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161893825000250
https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/2025-May-IFS-Annual-Lecture-Trade-Wars-Crowley.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925527323003523
https://cdn.prexams.com/8978/International Economics Theory and Policy Book 9th Edition.pdf
https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-world/geopolitical-tensions
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f0b63ad9e5223c36b1577d8d3c8fb18deeb39fa4
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781317828082/chapters/10.4324/9781315822174-11
https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/1115
https://journals.scholarpublishing.org/index.php/ASSRJ/article/view/14848
https://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/jams.11.1.35_1
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/01914537231214451
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2023.965428/pdf
http://repositorio.ual.pt/bitstream/11144/4187/3/EN_JANUS.NET_VOL10N1_art02.pdf
http://www.journals.vu.lt/sociologija-mintis-ir-veiksmas/article/download/6066/4974
https://periodicos.pucpr.br/index.php/aurora/article/download/20653/22507
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244020927414
https://criticallegalthinking.com/2023/04/25/benedict-andersons-imagined-communities/
https://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-2/anderson-on-the-nation-as-imagined-community
https://www.scielo.br/j/bpsr/a/3FTzr4sFS54xYgkzdvBZKfN/?lang=en
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB32722C7BB8B19A0FC005CAFD02B
https://uw.pressbooks.pub/mediacriticalapproaches/chapter/6-1-habermas-the-public-sphere/
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/cultural-backlash-trump-brexit-and-authoritarian-populism
https://scindeks-zbornici.ceon.rs/Article.aspx?artid=proc-00282401261K
https://www.shs-conferences.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316302016
http://www.emerald.com/books/edited-volume/13906/chapter/84736055
http://cultureandhistory.revistas.csic.es/index.php/cultureandhistory/article/download/118/401
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1285&context=ce
https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/JER/article/download/12385/10636
https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2023/12/shsconf_icssed2023_02016.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/21582440211010739
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/1467-9566.13028
https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/qss_a_00232/2073070/qss_a_00232.pdf
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-cultural-capital-definition-examples-theory.html
http://ddugu.ac.in/ePathshala_Attachments/E_PS788209@41557951i.pdf
https://www.simplypsychology.org/cultural-capital-theory-of-pierre-bourdieu.html
https://www.thecollector.com/antonio-gramsci-cultural-hegemony/
https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/bourdieu-on-social-capital-theory-of-capital/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Condition_(Arendt_book)
https://home.iitk.ac.in/~amman/soc748/bourdieu_forms_of_capital.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0099133323001210
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/theoretical-review/1982301.htm
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9e28dc00a1524558611a64bf7db120d93f17fd79
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511581380A011/type/book_part
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00213624.2022.2061801
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ordo-2023-2003/html
http://epsjournal.ilch.uminho.pt/index.php/eps/article/download/62/16
https://journals.openedition.org/interventionseconomiques/pdf/274
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03085147.2014.898824
https://ojs.journals.cz/index.php/CBUIC/article/download/746/pdf_31
http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/56973/1/belvedere_2018_004_005-018.pdf
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03085147.2014.895540?needAccess=true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_(book)
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-2-191
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11614-019-00328-5
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-liquid-modernity
https://newcriterion.com/article/francis-fukuyama-and-the-end-of-history/
https://thebrooklyninstitute.com/items/courses/new-york/karl-polanyi-the-great-transformation/
https://www.scitepress.org/publishedPapers/2018/99394/pdf/index.html
https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-history-francis-fukuyamas-controversial-idea-explained-193225
https://repository.graduateinstitute.ch/record/3444/files/Servet.pdf
https://revisesociology.com/2016/08/09/zygmunt-bauman-liquid-times-summary/
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-end-of-history-revisited/
http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/WEA-ET-5-1-Zaman.pdf
https://giuseppecapograssi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/bauman-liquid-modernity.pdf
Pablo B. Markin
Support dialog
