Zygmunt Bauman: Well, let’s imag­ine our­selves sit­ting on a plane, up there in the sky. And sit­ting very com­fort­ably. Some of us are read­ing, some of us are drink­ing, some hav­ing a nap. Some play the com­put­er games. Some sim­ply antic­i­pate the plea­sures of the [indis­tinct] which will meet them after landing. 

But sud­den­ly, the news comes in that the very pleas­ant infor­ma­tion com­ing on through the loud­speak­ers inside the cab­in had been record­ed quite a long time ago, so it is that there’s no one actu­al­ly speak­ing to you. And then you dis­cov­er that the pilot cab­in is emp­ty. And that the auto­mat­ic pilot, prob­a­bly leads you to some air­port, but you learn as well that the air­port in ques­tion is still in the plan­ning stage, or rather on the draw­ing board, because the appli­ca­tion has­n’t been sub­mit­ted yet to the prop­er authorities. 

It’s a fright­en­ing image, real­ly. But it is rough­ly, in a nut­shell, what our con­tem­po­rary fears are like. They are fears of noth­ing being in con­trol. Or first of all being igno­rant of what is expect­ing us. Not real­ly know­ing what will hap­pen next moment. And sec­ond­ly, even if we do, we sus­pect that there’s very lit­tle we can do about it to stop the dan­ger and to get out of the trouble. 

No one is in con­trol. That is the major source of con­tem­po­rary fear. The fears are scat­tered. The fears are dif­fused. We can’t pin­point the sources where­from they are com­ing. They seem to be ubiq­ui­tous. They seem to apply as much over pri­vate life as the life in com­mon, the social life, all sorts of things may hap­pen. It could be a tsuna­mi. It could be Hurricane Katrina. It could be anoth­er earth­quake. It could be sud­den clos­ing up of the fac­to­ry in which you worked for twen­ty years. Or a hos­tile merg­er between two offices and you are los­ing your job. It may be col­lapse of the stock exchange and you’re los­ing your old-age pen­sion and the sav­ings you made for many many years. It could be anoth­er ter­ror­ist attack. It could be sud­den street riots and [indis­tinct] and your shop is destroyed and burned. Your car is stolen or burned. And so on. 

In oth­er words, it seems that we are liv­ing on quick­sand. Every move­ment which you want to make to sta­bi­lize our posi­tion may have quite the oppo­site con­se­quences, like in quick­sand. You may sink even deep­er than before. And [it is] pre­cise­ly because this fear, this con­tem­po­rary fear, is so poor­ly locat­ed, I would say unpin­pointable, that it is so frightening. 

The ques­tion is why it is so. Wherefrom this feel­ing of absence of con­trol? We are not in con­trol, but not just that we are not in con­trol. No one seems to be in con­trol. Things seem to be hap­pen­ing at ran­dom, sur­pris­ing, tak­ing you unpre­pared. The ques­tion is where­from it comes. 

Well I sug­gest to you that there is one essen­tial rea­son from which oth­er rea­sons are deriv­a­tive. This one rea­son is what I would call the sep­a­ra­tion, com­ing very close to divorce, between pow­er and pol­i­tics. Power is the abil­i­ty to have things done. And pol­i­tics is the abil­i­ty to decide which things are to be done. 

Now, both abilities—the pow­er and the politics—were until quite recent­ly, until less than half a cen­tu­ry ago, unit­ed in one place. That place was called nation-states. State gov­ern­ment has both. It has pow­er to do things, and the polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions to decide which things are to be done. There were of course polit­i­cal right, polit­i­cal left, as always, but both sides of the polit­i­cal spec­trum agreed on one point. That if we win, if our con­cept of what is to be done, is on the top, then we know who will do it. Because the state has pow­er to do it. 

It was nev­er a full truth, but in a way it was a rea­son­able expec­ta­tion, that if pol­i­tics is decid­ed then pow­er is able to put it in oper­a­tion. It’s no longer the case, because pow­er has evap­o­rat­ed from the lev­el of the nation-state up there into the cyber­space, or as Manuel Castells calls it, the space of flows.” But the pol­i­tics remained where it was for a num­ber of cen­turies already. Namely, on the local lev­el. It is still as local as before. There is noth­ing to con­trol the pow­er which lib­er­at­ed itself from polit­i­cal con­trol and emi­grat­ed into the space of flows. 

Finances, cap­i­tals, the trade, infor­ma­tion, ter­ror­ism, crim­i­nal­i­ty, weapon trade, the drug traf­fic. Everything which ignores the bound­aries of nation­al sov­er­eign­ty, which ignores and is free to ignore and be unpun­ished for doing that. Ignores the local cus­toms, local pref­er­ences, the will of [indis­tinct] and so on, that is already glob­al. But the pow­ers which could even­tu­al­ly con­trol them are still local. And there­fore there’s a big gap, grow­ing hia­tus, between the abil­i­ty to do things and the abil­i­ty to decide, to coerce, the pow­er­ful agen­cies to do what needs to be done.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.