Neo-Solidification of Modernity, Far Right and Meaning Crisis

There are many theories that try to describe our social realities through different perspectives. This particular one is particularly clever and it offers some really good explanations for the radical changes that we're currently experiencing.

Zygmunt Bauman's analysis of social, political and economical systems in Western modernity uncovered a common foundational logic and a trend that saw the society shift from "solid" to "liquid".

These are metaphors to describe how our modern life is becoming more fluid, unstable and non-deterministic.

For Bauman, the overarching concept is Liquid Modernity and then he further identifies Liquid Life, Liquid Love and Liquid Fear. He also address the idea of Liquid Identity and Liquid Work.

Solid Modernity

In Solid Modernity - society, politics, economy - all solid. When we say solid - we convey reliability, logic and certainty.

A solid plan, solid evidence, solid argument, he's a solid guy… If we imagine solid - that's metal, concrete, a bowling ball, a wall, a Mercedes car…

In the world defined by solidity - structures are stable, determinate and rational. They are built to be durable and persistent. Strategic is favoured over tactical, long term planning over short term planning. The outcomes are predictable. Promises lead to fulfilments.

The idea was that the world could be run like a tight ship — orderly, efficiently, and always under control. There's a captain, officers and rules. - Everyone knows their job and there's a chain of command and individual responsibilities. The ship is clean, well serviced. It leaves and arrives on time. It doesn't leak. All the sailors wear uniforms and follow the "tight ship" paradigm - the one they were taught at the Nautical School.

In this sense, society was seen as a system of a certain complexity, a problem that could be rationally solved.

Swiss bank is a nice example of Solid Modernity. Given the choice - everyone would have kept money there. Locked into its own logic and seemingly immune to international efforts to make it part of international logic and answerable to it. Dependable secrecy, numbered accounts, neutrality, safe and stable… Someone you could trust because their reputation was everything!

By prioritising secrecy of individuals over international pressure it signalled that principles are of higher order than the dynamics of power. People believed that explicit rules are a faithful insight into how systems implicitly worked.

Other symbols of Solid Modernity were gold standard, universities, gender roles, religion, public service broadcasters…

The core ideological and philosophical idea behind solidity was a genuine belief that social order is like a machine that can be perfected and optimised to be just and universally useful. As the world saw science make mince meat of old paradigms, our faith in it grew. The belief in collective progress and rationality pushed humanity forcefully towards the utopian future.

On the psychological and sociological level, what I'm really trying to articulate here is that people in the West believed that the society was broadly operating along the lines of good faith. There were polarisations and different ideological positions - but it looked like competing scientific theories and we trusted that the best one will win. Because, it makes sense. A healthy competition that would ultimately lead to the emergence of superior systems.

We thought that the best films in the world are the ones that win Oscars. The best books are the bestsellers. Cream always comes to the top - logic wouldn't allow sub-standard to win over superior.

Liquid Modernity

While being hurled through decades at neck-breaking speed - the time got compressed. It became apparent that if we were to pursue the logic of opportunity maximisation in the service of growth - we had to become more flexible and reactive.

What frustrated progress was the solidity of the old world. It threw obstacles in the way of risk-taking and limited the scope of what could be achieved. The processes designed to force accountability, honour promises and dissuade irresponsibility also restricted tapping into new opportunities.

Unwilling to invest into permanence (Bauman used phrase - mortgage future) in the world which was now increasingly impermanent- we decided to quietly drop the structure.

In the 1980s - Liquid modernity came onto the stage - to coincide with Post-Modernism. Grand narratives were challenged and objectivity reduced to a social construct. Neolibralism marched on and promoted the concept of Globalisation. We saw power detach from politics and go global.

Why liquid? Because we melted the solid in order to re-mould it. It becomes shapeless, undefined and vague. We could even say that it set itself free from the form. It flowed out of the cage of structure and becomes agile.

Bauman says “In liquid modern life there are no permanent bonds and any that we take up must be tied loosely so that they can be untied again, as quickly and as effortlessly as possible, when circumstances change.”

This paradigm led to a widespread erosion of fixed structures and institutions. In solid modernity there was a prominent place reserved for nation state, church, family and the entire society imposed clear moral, legal and social obligations. Liquid modernity weakened these and made everything more ambiguous, less coherent and ultimately less predictable.

Expansion of credit and loosening of lending rules nicely illustrates the move towards liquid. In Solid modernity credit was regulated and long-term oriented. Borrowers were assessed for creditworthiness and debt conservatively collateralised. Neoliberal economics gave us the concept of deregulation and banks started looking at devising ways of making money more creatively. The real innovation was bundling and repackaging debt and credit evolved from social tool to financial commodity.

One particularly stark example are Mortgage Backed Securities and Collateralised Debt Obligations. These financial products were highly speculative and inherently risky, yet credit agencies gave them AAA rating. It wasn't the loan repayment that mattered anymore - it was the loan itself that had a value on its own.

Focus on short-termism was further cemented by the commission culture that rewarded mortgage brokers for risk taking. It all blew up in the 2007-2008 crisis, banks got bailed out…

Liquid Fear

I believe that the transition from "solid" to "liquid" has had some profound negative psychological consequences and has undermined our trust in the society.

The questions we increasingly ask ourselves are: who owns the society and whose interests it's supposed to serve. Our confidence in progress is not as unshakeable as it once was. While the system is trying to "mystify" itself and hide its deficiencies - it's got to the point that it's simply impossible to plaster over the cracks anymore.

The biggest impact seems to have been on our mental health, the phenomenon that Bauman called Liquid Fear. It is described as the ambient anxiety. We face constant uncertainty because there are no solid reference points that unambiguously make us know whether we're doing the right thing or whether the system itself is capable of discerning what is right and wrong. Is the letter that we've just received some unforeseen legal correspondence or a fine? Has someone hacked into our

Meaning crisis, existential security and mental health are all fed by this existential anxiety. Varvaeke refers to it as the erosion of meta-narratives and enduring worldviews. We're increasingly individual and vulnerable. Our share of personal risks now seems total.

Liquid Modernity, Post Modernism and Existentialism

Liquid Modernity evolved from a broad ideological and intellectual background and it is easy to see how it connects with the thoughts of Existentialist and Post Modernist thinkers.

When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" - he predicted the collapse of traditional values and morality. Instead, they become subjective and interpretative. As the world no longer gives meaning - it must be created by us.

Kierkegaard wrote - "Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom". Liquid modernity offers endless choices and little restrictions. The side effect of freedom is that our identity and the place in the world is constantly negotiated and we experience it as the state of permanent anxiety.

Camus suggested that "The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world". He seems to suggest that without structure, we loose the meaning too. Some sort of framework for the relationality with the rest of the reality needs to be shared, otherwise life becomes absurd.

Similarly, post modernist authors reflected on the ever increasing liquidity of the world and the consequences.

Baudrillard said - "We live in a world where there is more and more information and less and less meaning". This perhaps touches on the limits of our sense-making given that coherent narratives can be created relatively easy to represent various perspectives and world-views while contradicting each other.

In the Postmodern Condition - Lyotard wrote - "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives". There's a breakdown of collective certainty and universal truths. We float as individuals, choosing what we want to believe in.

Foucault wrote - "Power is everywhere … because it comes from anywhere". In line with Bauman's assertion that power has detached from politics - Foucault sees it as a decentralised force that give control.

40 years on

We're now roughly 40 years after modernity softened up its stances and became liquid. If we compare liquid modernity to solid modernity across most measures - we'll find that systems defined by flexibility, globalism and individual freedom have clearly outperformed the rigid and solid ones.

Those systems who adhered to solid principles — such as long-term responsibility, trust, and institutional stability suffered competitive disadvantages. Accordingly, those who behaved more opportunistically often thrived.

While there are many positive aspects of liquid modernity - it is also marked by uncertainty. Many citizens feel like they are unable to successfully navigate societal complexities anymore. It feels like the rules that were once relatively straightforward, logical and deterministic are now unpredictable. This dissatisfaction presented an opportunity that far right movements moved to fill.

Some of the very foundations of the Western world are now being threatened. Democracy, traditional alliances, liberalism, freedom of speech, standing for justice…

Recent developments in the AI have a potential to further polarise people by replacing humans with machines. The power and wealth of billionaire technocrats, already independent of politics, risks installing them into de-facto rulers of the world.

China as a model of a (more) solid system

Under Xi Jinping and the watchful eye of the Chinese Communist Party, China represents a good example of a more solid system. Instead of drawing inspiration from communist doctrine or the liberal west - it picked Confucianism instead.

Coherence is at the heart of China's system. Long-term strategic vision is at the heart of China's system and presents its solidity to the changing winds of uncertainty. The government's mindset spans decades - we work inside electoral cycles.

Rather than approach international politics through short-term diplomacy and opportunistic deals - it chooses to engage the world through complex projects that make little sense for us.

Belt and Road Initiative is a neo-colonial architecture of soft power that has been conceptually rejected by everyone on account of either being exploitative, unfeasible or unprofitable - yet it seems to work for China.

Main characteristics of their brand of solid are order, hierarchy, responsibility and centralised governance.

The rise of far right as a sign of neo-solidification

Without wanting to delve really deep into why Trump came into power - I'll just propose that it was an opportunity. A vacuum left by the demise of the structure, absolution of accountability and introduction of "just-in-time" thinking

This resulted in many contradictions that can't be justified logically.

For example, why would the Trade or Industry Minister be supporting domestic manufacturing and sales of cars and at the same time Environment Minister trying to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality and promote sustainable transport?

Countries continued adhering to the 1951 Refugee Convention, 1967 Protocol or Common European Asylum System when it became obvious that immigration was being weaponised by the far right. By putting noble ideals before the people in democracy is a good example of a damaging paradox.

Governments promote family values and encourage us to have children, but they make childcare expensive and parents culpable.

Nation claims to be a climate leader - yet maintains fossil fuel subsidies and expands airports.

Far too often politicians get into power promising to do one thing and then elegantly choosing to abandon the pledge. This created an opportunity for someone to establish a brand based on making difficult choices on behalf of the people. In a profoundly conflicted system, that requires breaking norms (and laws).

Trump's rise in the USA is emblematic of this trend. He got elected on the promise that he'd build walls, "make America great again" and despite rolling back the progress - he does appear to be

Unlike the liquid system which ignored contradictions and frustrations - Trump specifically sought out to profit out of them.

Nationalism, traditionalism, and protectionism are all part of the same "solidifying" theme.

Back to Coherence

Both social systems (institutions) and individuals have compulsion to maintain coherence. Incoherence can psychologically look like rot and decay - leading to death. We react to these signs of impending death by disassociating ourselves and that results in the loss of optimism and idealism. We’re sad and grieving good that’s about to disappear.

So, systems, societies, institutions, communities and individuals all care about incoherence (or coherence) - the loss of idealism in collective structures results in corruption, in individuals - meaning crisis.

Systemic corruption and human corruption are the signs of distress, like people walking over each other trying to escape a sinking ship. You have no faith in the boat anymore, so your existential needs come to the fore. Even your own humanity gets suspended as you try to be the one that will survive on account of someone else drowning.

We seem to be seeing a strong trend of “neo-solidification” of the world. The rise of China, far right movements and Trumpism, meaning crisis, the death of Agile in software design and finally the techno utopianism of Musk and Co can all be logically attributed to it.