In a wide-ranging essay renowned German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk argues that humans are intrinsically tribal and explains why globalization has caused an increase in populist discontent.

Human beings are by nature, tribal creatures. Globalization disrupts this.

In recent months, a seemingly archaic parlance has been seeping through the sedimentary layers of contemporary discourse. Words and concepts, once confined to history books, are re-emerging in the media. Familiar market Anglicisms, such as "shareholder value" and "outsourcing," that once represented the lingua franca of our globalized world, are being replaced by a more durable set of words and phrases that can, and indeed, want to be, used as a tool for coming to grips with the present day. A modern lexicon is coalescing, both ancient and contemporary with its roots reaching all the way back to antiquity and the beginning of human society.

A long time ago, in 1993, I wrote an essay titled, "Where are we when we listen to music?" It was, of course, a reference to the political theorist Hannah Arendt. In that piece of writing, I put forward a general concept that I referred to as "percussion." As listeners, we live in a world of subtle, stirring rhythms. The philosopher Hegel occasionally referred to a state of "trembling" that can affect a subject. Similar to Arendt, I base my theory on the assumption that thinking is a function of a hiatus - or that it is, at least, a result thereof. A hiatus is the rift that opens between humans and their environment once a critical individual begins to make use of his ability to problematize.

To problematize is to look at a particular topic in a different way. Topics, as they have been since ancient times, are the result of discursive contemplation. The ancient Greek orator Gorgias is said to have entered the fully occupied theater in Athens and bellowed to the audience: "Proballete!" Or: "Give me a topic!" With this, he wanted to prove his virtuosity, which allowed him to speak about every conceivable subject. He demonstrated the fallacious art of seeming to overcome one's suffering by articulating a treatment. "Perceiving problems," is a manifestation of surplus energy and freedom. As the Austrian essayist Egon Friedell put it: "Culture is a wealth of problems."

Where are we when we think of the “social?” As creatures of the hiatus, we are in a space created by problematization. Problematization is a special case according to the definition of the linguist Louis Hjelmslev, who regarded it as a third primary function of language, after content and expression. Indeed, "thinking" comes from the extensive use of this third speech function, within the hiatus.

A human is a rational animal because, above all, the more civilized he is, the more he is able to explain his world. As if in a dream, this shuts down action theory as well as interventionism.

What is called "freedom" is the positive rebranding of our disconnection from smaller tribal groups.

Here we have the opportunity to clarify the fact that terms such as "society" and "social" are nothing but frozen metaphors derived from the Latin word "socius," which translates roughly as "companion" or "helper." The fact that this gave rise to the key term "social science" - or "social physics" - demonstrates, for one, the efficacy of the metaphor.

On the other hand, it betrays the real metamorphosis of the word “companionship” - from defining the notion of simply being together in a small space, such as in the matrimonial bed, referred to as the "Socius Lectus" by Ovid, or in a temple, for example, "Socium Templus" – right up to the formation of organizations, whether a religious-political order such as "Societas Jesu," a joint stock company, such as "Société Anonyme," or the concept of "Society" or "Société."

Since the 18th century, these last two concepts have had double meanings. They have been used to define what is commonly referred to today as "the 1 percent," otherwise known as the "happy few,” and they are also used to signify the "people" vis-à-vis the state.

At the last stage of the development of the word, we are confronted with a system-theoretical construct. In German this is the "Weltgesellschaft" or global community. In the terminology of a German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, this refers to the last horizon of systemic interaction; it is the reason why any credible social theory may only refer to "society" in its singular form. When we think of being social under modern conditions, an initial answer presents itself. Like it or not, we find ourselves in the gulf between the primary grouping – that is, the horde, tribe or clan - and the global community. The first describes the microcosm of the tribal. A person is a member of the group insofar as he belongs to a quasi-organic, collective body.

In a fully developed tribe, direct interaction with up to 148 people is possible. This is known as Dunbar's number, after the British anthropologist Robin Dunbar. The number, according to the theory, represents the maximum number of stable social relationships a person can maintain at any one time. "Social intelligence" emerges spontaneously in small groups when people are close together. In Roman times, this was known as "Familiares" - a term that encompassed blood relatives as well as friends and acquaintances. The coexistence of people in highly developed, political contexts makes long-term training and abstract learning necessary.

All higher cultures answer this with literacy and education. The sociologist and cultural theorist Heiner Mühlmann recently published his insights into the persistence of tribalism. As far as I know, the term "tribal constant" can be traced back to this author. He points to the always evolving tribal element, which is present even in complex societies. I say "always evolving" because even in large societies, people never completely let go of their habits, as creatures whose natural environment is in small groups.

A man from the Stolo tribe in Canada demonstrates against plans to pass the Dakota Access pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in the U.S.

At the apex of large collectives one finds macro-structures like organized internationality and regulated global travel. As the sociologist Luhmann has shown, an individual can only "participate" in such systems from the outside. It is impossible to belong to the global community as an organic tribal member. The subject of "belonging" only arises in sufficiently alienated - read: modern - societies. Populations may be regarded as modernized once they have achieved high levels of individualization and juridification. What was called "freedom" after 1789 is the positive rebranding of a negative matter of fact, namely that an individual exists in a non-inclusive relationship to these comprehensive systems. In the old German sociological tradition, realizations like this one were discussed under the mantle of the "Birth of Freedom from Alienation," by Arnold Gehlen.

Against this background, the widespread unease with globalization can be explained: The position of the individual today - meaning in the modern sphere - is defined by a swathe of inclusions and exclusions. On the one hand, we, as humans, are still preset to live in a tribal dimension. On the other hand, we must navigate oceans of globalized communications. We exist with social relationships, which we base upon companionship and belonging – as precariously as always - yet we can never ignore the phantom monster that is the global community, which systematically excludes individual members.

One of the complications of being a part of a society today is the fact that modern nation-states, which we reside within, with a mixture of faith and disbelief, represent a hybrid of tribalism and cosmopolitanism. The concept of a nation-state entered the world as a great metaphor for tribal existence, usually led by a chieftain who had been elevated to the status of king. In reality, however, these large collectives had long been trans-tribal bodies that were "represented" by the projection of family archetypes – for example, the king as the father of his people, the queen mother as the grandmother of all Britons, the chancellor as the "Mutti," or mama, of all Germans, the pope as the paternal head of a religious community.

The modern nation state is based on a combination of infantilism, familyism and paternalism, fortified by a healthy dose of xenophobia and political paranoia.

Collective regression has always been a prerequisite for the psycho-semantic construct of the "people" as the population of any one nation-state. It is based on a combination of infantilism, familyism and paternalism, fortified by a healthy dose of xenophobia and political paranoia.

This syndrome has been institutionalized by armies, the media and diplomats, all of whom nurture this notion of hostility with great care.

So, where are we when we think of the "social?” The position of the thinker is not only determined - or left undetermined - by the gap between the tribal and the globalized community, it is also characterized by the reality of the nation and all of its contemporary confusions. We are all, as soon as we set one foot outside, citizens of three worlds - the tribe, the nation and the global community. This does not negate the risk of being an outsider in all three worlds.

It's no wonder then, that countless people share feelings of alienation. Such feelings spread especially quickly wherever the lines between the individual and the tribal system blur. Indeed, the cohesive power of primary groups such as the family, the horde or the clan, has declined in the modern age. More and more individuals are being confronted with the perplexing contradiction that the concepts of family and home are indispensable and intolerable – at the same time; and in many cases, unachievable. "Organic," pre-individualistic "communities" are pushed back to individualization by contractual societies.

This pushback likes to masquerade as freedom but in fact, it is nothing other than alienation.

13 p51 Key Figures for Globalization 1-01

Loneliness is no longer a spiritual issue but a condition that is increasingly perceived as involuntary, spread by modern living. In some cities in the Western hemisphere, single-person households make up as much as 60 percent of the resident population.

Here, as Hannah Arendt recognized in her critique of totalitarianism, the individual sees himself in direct confrontation with large political organizations and the invasive mass media, all without the help of their community. The result is that he is stripped of his tribe and succumbs much more easily to the temptation of para-tribal constructs, such as parties, ideologies or sects. The "tribal constant" ensures that these programs will be formatted to fit the illusion of community.

Suppose we accept "foam" as a metaphor for modern social structures. How could social order and society even be conceivable then? The term "foam" has the advantage that it can be used both literally and metaphorically. One can think of real foam - such as soap foam, wine foam, sea foam and bread foam, stone foams, ceramic foams and metal foams. Or one could think of mass gatherings, favelas, big cities - indeed suburbia as a whole - and swarm phenomena of all kinds, be it fan clubs, festivals or church congresses. While the metaphor of a "web" articulates the complexities of contacts - points, lines, channels, addresses - the term "foam" brings to mind all types of spatial diversity- things like cavities, interiors, connected but isolated hollows, archipelagos.

To me, it seems fruitful to redefine modern society as an aggregate, a system of multiple spaces. The reason behind this: "Society" can now be understood as an architectural phenomenon, rather than one based on the law and telecommunication. But it can be understood as this without negating the legal and telecommunication elements of the "social." From a legal perspective, the building blocks of society are the individuals who act socially inside their homes, workshops and offices.

A global community? Pope Francis addresses the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit.

According to "foam" theory, "society" is the result of organic architectural processes, or rather life forms that are partially architectural and partially not. These exist in a social space that encompasses both the expected and the surprising.

It is in the nature of things that "society" - as an aggregate of life forms and rituals - must incorporate distance at the same time. Societies are modern when, due to their size and internal differentiation, they are no longer able to be corralled into one small space. When this happens, the spatial distance outweighs interpersonal association. This condition was first identified in ancient "empires" that invented the first forms of telecommunication and remote dominion, and it has become the status quo in modern states.

The contemporary "society" is, therefore, never and nowhere - whether it is at the Nuremberg Rally, the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games or in parliament. In order to coalesce the ideas about "people," "society," or "social movement," media and organizations are needed, to create a sufficient degree of association among the disassociated. Examples of these kinds of organizations include political parties, tax offices and social security and pension schemes. Media, at least for the last 500 years, has included literature; for 200 years, it's also had the daily press; for 80 years, radio; for 60 years, TV; and for two decades, the internet - which, admittedly, has unleashed more centrifugal tendencies than centripetal ones.

A nation isn’t educated by its military, it is educated by its journalism.

In my essay, "Der starke Grund, zusammen zu sein" - in English, "Important Reasons for Togetherness" - published in Frankfurt am Main in 1998, I described modern societies as a psycho-acoustically-sensitive groups that are transformed to synchronicity by mass media. The transmission of commonalities within a region occurs daily in the news media, using the mother tongue. A nation isn’t educated by its military, it is educated by its journalism.

The artificial product that is “the nation" doesn't require a daily dose of war, but it does require constant communal sensation and stress as well as their antidotes, namely distraction and entertainment, as a sign that everything is OK.

By the same token, a nation is more than just a daily plebiscite, as the French essayist Romain Rolland remarked. It is a daily struggle between a state of alarm and the all-clear. Let us accept the view that societies at war, or after a terrorist attack, tend to collectively focus on the military front, while relaxed societies tend to produce a carnival featuring multiple topics.

The "foam" metaphor allows us to describe neighborhoods that are spatially crowded but not intimate. Apartment complexes by the Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier, known as "Unités d’habitation," provide an illustrative example. Inside them, residents live wall-to-wall, but in separate worlds. Foam is the perfect embodiment of what architects from the Morphosis group called "connected isolations" around 1970. As far as I can see, there exists no better definition for the way modern societies are.

The modern world must become a training camp: School children attend a yoga session during a week-long camp in Ahmedabad, India.

My work on reality and modern life, especially in my book, "You Must Change Your Life," has one thing in common: These topics are at best regarded casually and, at worst, neglected by sociological, psychological and anthropological theories.

Until now, in many ways, they have been non-issues. The importance of this becomes apparent when one thinks about cartography before the invention of the weather map. Older maps were all based on an abstraction of meteorological realities. The weatherless sky could always be found floating above globes of the past; they said nothing about the sociology below.

Back then nobody considered that social groups have a climatological component. Every small and medium-sized social unit experiences its own weather patterns - regional storms, sunny days and all.

In both situations I would argue that for beings like us, corporeality and the environment around us – “atmospheres” - is ultimately more real than anything else.

I have had the advantage of being able to follow Heidegger's reflections on the primacy of "moods." Furthermore, this talk of the prevailing psychological climate - which in ancient Greek were literally "spheres of gas" - provides an ideal opportunity to move on to a general theory of spaces that are round on the inside. Spherology is about people and space. If you are in the world, you are always in a sphere. Traditionally, existentialism has always been a doctrine of the external - evoked by the notion of "existence," since "existere" literally means to "protrude."

Existence, however, has another aspect that deserves more attention: Existence takes place both in interior space and internally, whether that is perceived or not. The late Heidegger addressed this in his musings on "living." The founder of New Phenomenology, Hermann Schmitz, elaborated on that with his work on inhabited atmospheres that oscillate between cramped and vast. So far, unfortunately, his work has not found adequate resonance in the international philosophical community.

On the other hand, as far as the theory of practice is concerned, I mean to enter new territory both philosophically and sociologically. Why? Because conventional doctrines of human activity have almost unfailingly addressed only two kinds of the "vita activa," namely working and communicating. The third dimension of human activity, self-improvement, has been ignored virtually everywhere - excluding a sparse line of stoic maxims in which asceticism has been emphasized as the decisive moment of an active life; which is why Christian monasticism was able to latch onto the stoic idea of work. In my book, "You Must Change Your Life," the practice is, for the first time, in the foreground. This is not so much to advocate an "acrobatics of the ego" or a spiritual workout, but to explain why the modern world must become a training camp in which the subject is the carrier and coordinator of his own skills and discipline.

Humans must prepare for the inevitability of change through coexistence. Not everyone is ready to accept the new paradigm, since they perceive it as robbing them of their identities.

Today, the whole world is talking about the necessity for "further education," indeed a "lifetime of learning." Hardly anyone has bothered to mention the retrospective character of education. Individuals are now surrounded by virtual trainers on all sides and they must decide for themselves which one - or how many - to pick. The gods have made a comeback as life coaches.

In this light, life itself can be understood as a competition sport or ongoing exercise. One can “exercise” and improve in many areas, in fields as diverse as rhetoric, religion, sport, therapy and art. The explication of exercise in human existence will, in time, produce strong impacts on philosophy and epistemology. Future thinking will have to be gymnastic, elastic and, more than ever, open-minded in order to achieve a pass in the polyathlon of competing and cooperative disciplines.

I was lucky in these explorations though, because shortly before I began my project, authors like Pierre Hadot and Michel Foucault had already shone a light on the subject. There's nothing worse for an author with philosophical and anthropological ambitions than to be the solitary voice in the desert.

When we ask how the metaphor of "Spaceship Earth" impacts on our understanding, we touch upon a hotspot in contemporary sociology. When social science and environmental science - environment being about the natural ties that bind us all - collide, a great, new narrative emerges: The appearance of the concept "Anthropocene" - the geological age marked by humans - shows how current theories are about to be argued again. As this happens, the atmosphere of the planet rises to become a topic. Past emissions remain in the air for centuries. They should not only be measured, but also examined, as a story in and of themselves.

Through this, the meaning of social existence changes fundamentally. What was formerly known as "world history," now turns into a great narrative about an involuntary family gathering. With the start of the age of globalization, the era of the anthropological diaspora comes to an end. History tells us that the human exodus from Africa about 80,000 years ago scattered us across the planet until we grew estranged from one another, linguistically, ethnically, biologically, bio-aesthetically and politically. The discovery of the “one earth” means that all of us will eventually agree on the only possible conclusion: That we all inhabit the same Earth.

Spaceship Earth: A computer illustration by the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art shows how inventor Buckminster Fuller's Fly's Eye Dome will look when installed on museum grounds in the summer of 2017.

This seemingly simple concession to history radically changes each individual culture, each ethnicity and each religion. The human condition is imbued with the evidence people have a separate past, they arrive with their own identities. However, humans must now prepare for a future imbued with the spirit of commonality, and from this point on, respond to the inevitability of change through coexistence. The formula - "separate past, shared future" - reduces the complexity of the problem but it can also be a positive slogan for a work in progress.

It illustrates that politics of identity are unrealistic without an evolutionary or futuristic component. It's long been apparent that identities isolate themselves by voting for the formula "separate past, separate future."

The elegant metaphor of "Spaceship Earth" has already served its inventor, Buckminster Fuller, in 1969, when it encouraged him to develop the missing operating manual for the unwieldy spaceship. It seems to me that the big family gathering at the end of the anthropological diaspora, in which globally connected science plays a crucial role, will eventually lead to a questioning of the process of the post-diaspora era by many of those affected. Apparently, not everyone is ready to accept the new paradigm, since they perceive it as a way of robbing them of their identities.

The corresponding articles of the operating manual will therefore inevitably include some sections devoted to those who deny the modern age. Spaceship Earth will have numerous national parks which will protect certain ethnic and cultural zones. There is a serious irony here. Forcing anyone into modernity is forbidden. Anyone who wants to change later may do so: The doors remain open.

We pay tribute to the idea of heterochrony. The oldest and the youngest can coexist in the same zone. Humanity as a whole is migrating, that is more about time than distance. The formula, "emigration into a shared future," is the equivalent of what was formerly known as "destiny."

Anyone who claims that migration is the most important issue of our time is not a prophet, just a rational observer of current migratory trends on our planet. The end of the anthropological diaspora was marked by the mobility of the European colonists in the wake of Christopher Columbus’ discovery. They "discovered" unknown tribes all over a planet that was explored by them only. The discoverers, however, often exercised more than just a visitation, as discussed by Immanuel Kant, in his essay, “Perpetual Peace.” They also derived a right to stay, occupy and exert power. This offensive migration of Europeans was disastrous for some, in particular the inhabitants of North and South America as well as Africa. A permanent guest from a technically superior culture brought along the means to enslave this newly discovered world.

It has become increasingly clear that migration will inevitably overwhelm the capacities of the destination countries.

The waves of transnational migrations that will shape the 21st century are a completely different story. They largely consist of refugees driven by either poverty or war, or because they are victims of local political repression. Although it is accurate to say that most of these migrants are often simply trying to remove themselves from danger, it is important not to overlook the current trends in migratory movements. Movement usually occurs outwards, from a position of cultural inferiority.

Post-colonial studies call such a situation "subaltern." This term designates populations outside of the hegemonic power structure of the colonial homeland. As a rule, migrants enter regions with above-average prosperity that exert political and cultural magnetism. The migrants don't just want aid from the asylum laws in their new host countries, they also wish to participate in what Branko Milanović called "Ortsrente" - the notion that just residing in a rich, liberal region shaped by an awareness of human rights automatically leads to benefits that would have been unachievable in their home countries.

It seems all the more absurd when ethnic ghettos are formed in host countries, where newcomers insist on their right to remain as they were in their home country. Separatist subcultures of Turkish and North African immigrants in Germany illustrate this contradictory phenomenon clearly. It should be noted that the most tremendous migrations occur in a manner that is hardly perceptible to most people. That’s because they take place in the world’s largest countries. This occurs most notably in places like China and India, but also in large countries fractured by enormous internal inequities, such as Indonesia and Brazil.

The global trend toward urbanization and de-agriculturalization, which began in Europe and is now taking place globally, remains somewhat hidden to observers in the over-urbanized worlds of the West. It only becomes apparent once migration crosses borders and tests the capacities of the target countries for the absorption of immigrants. By now, it has become increasingly clear that the migration will inevitably overwhelm the capacities of the destination countries.

The refugee crisis has been motivated largely by wars in the Middle East. The crises of the future will be driven by the population explosion of sub-Saharan Africa.

In the long run, the target civilizations can do nothing other than offer help to develop tolerable living conditions in the countries of origin, in order to prevent unwanted and undesired mass migration. This is a Sisyphean task, since the two main means of binding people to their homes - peace and prosperity - are not easily exported.

Moreover, recent populist movements in Western and Central Europe as well as in the United States show just how precarious the conditions within the "Crystal Palace" (I revisit Dostoevsky’s metaphor to describe existence in a prosperous sphere in my book "In the World Interior of Capital: Towards a Philosophical Theory of Globalization") are about to become. There, the losers of modernization are increasingly resisting existing political and economic standards.

One of the paradoxes of the situation is that the "poor" within the system and the poor "outside" the system are not in solidarity with one another. They can't be, because the poor within the "Crystal Palace" are still perceived as prosperous by those suffering outside. The residents of the palace, who earn low or average incomes, see the influx of migrants from impoverished regions as a threat to their own prospects, sometimes even as an attack on their "identity."

Up until now, the refugee crisis has been motivated largely by wars in the Middle East. The crises of the future, however, will be driven by the population explosion of sub-Saharan Africa. With this in mind, there is no reasonable riposte for the time being other than to attempt to defuse the demographic bomb.

The US president-elect, Donald Trump, recently delivered a brilliant example of cynicism when he stated that he could gun down a man on 5th Avenue without any consequences.

Please do not forget: I belong to a generation that grew up in a time of Marxist critical theory. This school of thought was politically resigned, yet culturally aggressive. Alongside this theory, and in opposition to it, a militant Leninist-inspired neo-Marxism developed in Europe after World War II, which in the 1970s picked up on the doctrine of the necessity of "armed struggle." Since its defeat, armed revolt is now called "terrorism." As a side note: In order to facilitate successful communication between all parties involved in this field, I would strongly recommend taking a closer look at the metamorphosis of the word “terrorism” in the 20th and 21st centuries.

In short, this constellation belonged to the key experiences of my younger years: Theory without practice is rewarded, while practice without theory is punished. In order to live up to this, it seemed appropriate to develop a theoretical work that wouldn't be merely theoretical and that sought the closeness of practice. With this in mind, almost all of my books can be read as ethical exercises.

I was never a supporter of Margaret Thatcher's neo-fatalist thesis that there is no alternative. Contemporary fatalism is closely related to cynicism. Even back in my 1983 book "Critique of Cynical Reason," I had denoted cynicism as a perversion of realism. Its tenor is collaboration with a morally unacceptable reality. It contains a sadistic component, inasmuch as it flees into an open and aggressive amorality from a masochistic submission to factuality. It combines the desire for passivity with the desire for open profanation of seemingly holy laws.

The U.S. president-elect, Donald Trump, recently delivered a brilliant example of this when he stated that he could gun down a man on 5th Avenue without any consequences. Apparently he has adopted the ethics of Mexican drug lords before he reinforces the Mexican border. The no-nonsense ethics of the present and the future are presented with the task of continuing the critique of cynicism in an adequate analysis of globalized corruption, guided by the assumption that corruption is always one step ahead of decent behavior - just as secrecy is always one step ahead of transparency. With that in mind, a pinch of irony won't hurt as long as it doesn't lead to collaboration with evil.

Irony provides an effective antidote to a feeling of powerlessness. The most appropriate attitude of the theorist, however, should be that of a humorist. According to philosophical aesthetics, humor is an ability to see the lowest things from a higher position and the highest heights from the lowest point. Whether this form of philosophical enlightenment - defined as an elucidation of a situation - will serve as a guide in future conflicts, remains to be seen.

To contact the author: [email protected]