SPACIALITY MATTERS

There is a very interesting analysis of world affairs, in particular relating to Europe, by Misha Glenny, entitled Continental Divides, on BBC Radio 4, which can be found at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m0023dqb

 

What it seems to reenforce is the notion that speciality matters. There is a lecture given by Professor Netta Cohen (https://videolectures.net/videos/sscs06_cohen_us) entitled Understanding Spaciality from 25^th February 2007, which deals with Spacialty in the brain and which in effect provides a theory or outline of what appears to be going on. It is a means of getting to grips with the notion of Complexity and understanding the features of complex systems. In referring to the system in the brain, she posits that “A single protein can change the macroscopic state of the system; a single perturbation can cause some gene expression which then causes some cascade which completely changes your system”

 

What causes me to bring these two lectures together is the notion that spaciality is of significant importance in trying to understand just what is going on politically. Currently there does indeed appear to be a move towards the right of the political spectrum. Much of this has to do with that single perturbation which can be labelled migration.

 

Throughout history there have been large movements of immigration from a variety of significant disturbances in one area, causing people to move to what they believe is a healthier, wealthier and more secure area in which to live. It would seem that in the current state of the world significant numbers of people from eastern Europe, the middle east, the far east, Africa, and the America’s south of the Rio Grande, are trying to find some form of safety, peace and equilibrium in their disturbed lives. They are therefore moving in substantial numbers towards western European countries and the United States. They do so very often at great risk to their own lives; and, given the nature of western European democracies at the present time, it has become very difficult for these countries to accommodate the numbers.

 

In what might have been a more fluid period of migration, refugees were accepted into societies and were, over time and with the assistance of the indigenous population, assimilated into the population, and acclimatised to the prevailing culture. There was space for them to blend in. Initially they gathered in sections of cities, towns and villages that were predominantly occupied by people who were of their own background. They gradually disbursed and amalgamated into the general population and became part of the system.

 

As the various countries grew and developed the system began to change and develop. More people were drawn from rural area to the wealthier urban cities, around which grew substantial suburbs. There grew up a liminal space between the city centres and rural spaces, that green belt surrounding the city. The system thus created a wealthier urban class, able to afford the higher demand and price for accommodation. The less affluent could only afford spaces in the suburbs surrounding the centre, and the even less affluent and poor lived in the space that was left between the rural and urban, that threshold, which now comprised housing estates, and council accommodation for those less able to afford more central urban properties. This liminal space between the urban, suburban and rural area is where the problems arise. More crowded and dense, more dependent on the state yet somehow far less influential. It is in these areas that those on the right of the political spectrum have gained momentum, gathering up the support of people who believe they have been left out and neglected despite the efforts of the state to offer them support. A strange dichotomy.

 

It is to these outlying areas that migrants are steered, creating threshold communities at the lower end of the economy, attempting to assimilate with a local lower economic society. Such an increased density of population, rather than bringing about closer relationships, in effect brought about division and resentment. The city of Paris and its greater area outside the peripheriques is a clear example of this. Other cities in western Europe have the same problem.

 

This influx of immigrants into these areas is rather like that single perturbation causing that cascade disturbing the system. Some resentment is felt by those living within those liminal spaces, and those on the periphery, towards this seeming invasion, and this is exacerbated by the rhetoric of right wing politicians. This is what is disturbing the equilibrium.  In the United States there has never been such violent verbal abuse towards migrants as has emanated from the likes of Trump and his acolytes. The intensity has not stopped since he lost the 2020 election. It has been relentlessly and recklessly promoted by him and adopted as a major concern causing serious division. Oddly, similar vilification has emerged in the United Kingdom from the likes of Braverman, Patel and other first generation British immigrants.

 

As a result of all this, the right has swept up the attention of the population on this threshold, and seems to be blagging its way to power. They offer no solution other than deportation, which even if successful will not change the economic circumstances in any way of the people whose support they have garnered. That is the strategy and the tragedy of the current political climate. This fantasy solution offered by people who are no better than snake oil sales persons. They offer nothing in exchange and never will.

 

It is unfortunate that this type of disturbance of the system, rather than leading to more civility and democratisation will only lead to rigidity and repression. The current violence around the present world is already evidence of that change, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East, with leaders, and would be leaders, of Governments who put themselves above the well-being of its people. When the world needs so much more coming together, the separatists of the right are pushing division. My thinking may be complete nonsense and I would love some comment.

 

At the risk of appearing hypocritical, Trump et all, should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. An ancient American custom for dealing with his ilk. Vote for Kamala instead.