Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tom M's avatar

“To me, “the polycrisis” feels like a bit of a hedge, an idea careful not to say too much but also wanting to say everything at once, hesitant to make a confidant series of predictions or interpretations that could make one look mistaken or even foolish.”

I think the point of polycrisis, if taken seriously (which I’m not sure that I do), is that the only tenable prediction is the collapse of civilization. It’s not a philosophy of containers barely able to cope, as you put it, but the proposition that none of the containers we have, and indeed no container of which a human mind is able to conceive, are at all able to cope with the present and near-to-medium term future. The breadth and complexity of problems we face are beyond our ken, and we have little choice but to ride out the havoc they’ll wreak and hope some of us survive. This is of course an incredibly bleak worldview, and if Tooze and co are reluctant to spell it out it’s probably out of either fear of reckoning with what it really means or desire not to be accused of pointless doomerism. It’s a concept that’s probably been better fleshed out in science fiction than social theory (William Gibson’s model of the apocalypse as a series if overlapping crises that aren’t fully apprehended until it’s too late to stop them in The Peripheral is an example).

Does that amount to a Hegelian concept? Not my area at all, but to take a stab: if it feels like none of the assorted factions on the left, the liberals, or even the current right wing autocrats are confidently ascendant domestically or internationally, polycrisis would explain why: none of their programs are adequate to the current situation, and even achieving a Gramscian hegemony to seriously pursue one of them would be basically impossible.

I think you’re right to closely identify the concept with Keynesian liberal technocrats. I am one of those, and I and a lot of people I know have flirted with the polycrisis idea as a lot of the mechanisms of the machine we operate seem to break down. Is that just us catastrophizing as the world shifts away from a paradigm that favoured us? Probably, we’re not known for our sense of perspective. Anyway, I hope so.

Expand full comment
Samuel Mather's avatar

This is very good. For me "polycrisis" has mostly been an acknowledgement that problems that were in some way foreseeable 30 years ago - conflict with Russia, climate disasters, pandemics, strains in the American constitutional structure, emergence of rival global powers - are now *here* in a way that they weren't 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. Like, it's a way of imposing the structure of "prelude" up until 2016 or 2020 and then "thick of it" for the present. (I think this does imply, as another commenter says, that collapse has become much closer to us). So for me mostly a matter of convenience and perspective, situating the present in a narrative/arc (a crisis emerges and then resolves! Either in collapse or triumph. This resonates both with Tooze's Keynesianism and with the I think general sense that the intensity of the last few years is not totally sustainable). I honestly hadn't even really considered it as a concept so this is good to think about

Expand full comment
25 more comments...

No posts