This war must have a purpose. Perhaps my thinking is mystical, but history seems to show that changing the course of human development sometimes requires catastrophe, and so the optimist in me would like to believe that this war is actually a means to a (better) end. Could it be that all this death and destruction may have some constructive purpose?
In the social sciences, much has been written over the past 3-4 decades about humanity’s apparently ongoing shift to “post-industrial society” (Daniel Bell), about the “third wave” of development (Alvin Toffler), about western society’s transition to “postmodernism” (Francois Lyotard). Globally, how wealth is generated is transforming: away from industrial production to services. In Ukraine, for the past two decades over 60% of GDP has been generated by services.
The global shift away from industrial production has altered the ways we structure organizations. Hierarchy is out, teamwork is in, as a new “creative class” (Richard Florida) emerges demanding change in the way companies and organizations are managed. In the political sphere, Moses Naim has pointed out a trend towards an “end of power” in the traditional sense, and growth in importance of informal influence. As humans entered the third millennium, the hierarchic “bureaucratic” (Max Weber) nation-state – the foundation for large-scale organization – was repeatedly undermined by (no less bureaucratic) international alliances and unions.
Throughout Europe and the West, the industrial revolution of the 19th century spawned a particular way of life in the 20th century: power relations between classes and states, globalization, mass consumption, individualist values and norms, stable rule systems… Three decades into the 21st century, that civilizational system is obviously changing. Could Russia’s disastrous war in Ukraine provide a clue as to the direction and/or outcome of that change?
So far, this war can be described as a contest between a large hierarchical, bureaucratic (corrupt), large war machine against a smaller, idealistic, nimble network of determined citizens. The Ukrainian side has benefited from more advanced (western supplied) weaponry, but this is only part of the story of its success: the early victories of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are largely attributable to the “flat” network structure of their organizational structures. These proved to be highly effective against the large invading columns of Russian soldiers.
Ukraine’s “team of teams” structures (described by General Stanley McChrystal) seem to permeate all of society, not just the Army. Nominally, the leader of Ukraine is President Zelensky. In practice, groups organize spontaneously into small, highly-mobilized teams in which everyone seems to know exactly what to do without being told. We first observed this phenomenon during the Maidan protests, but now it seems to have become pervasive. And it may be one of the keys to Ukraine’s success in this war.
The “secret sauce” that makes Ukrainian citizens’ networks effective seems to be idealism, rather than economics or material interests. On the battlefield and behind the lines in volunteer support organizations we are witnessing the power of an idea – namely, freedom from the oppressor/invader – activated by a consolidated identity. In line with accepted wisdom, this was not supposed to happen in a supposedly ethnically, linguistically and regionally divided Ukraine.
According to the classic description of the historical emergence of nations (Anthony D. Smith) the development of “nationalism” in Europe followed one of two possible models. In Western Europe and North America, national identity arose in an inclusive “civic” version, centered on allegiance to state institutions and symbols (flag, territory, Constitution, etc.) that allowed for membership regardless of race, creed, background. By contrast, in Central and Eastern Europe and (particularly) pre-war Germany, “nation” was identified in a much narrower scope: according to ethnicity, language, and accepted historical myth. Throughout the 20th century, the “ethnic” conception of nation was associated with violence, expansion, xenophobia, and intolerance. The civic identity model was said to promote institutional patriotism but eschewed radicalism and was rarely politicized.
The notions of “nation” that have emerged as a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine (beginning in 2014) are atypical for Eastern Europe and defy the accepted dichotomy of identity models. As a multi-ethnic polity, the Russian Federation should have adopted a civic national identity. Instead, Moscow has propagated a quasi-fascist, expansionist ideology that seeks to “protect” Russian-speakers in the near-abroad. Strangely, the “Russian world” imperialist project is being realized in Ukraine by soldiers who are not ethnic Russians. These Chechens, Buryats, Tatars, and multiple other ethnicities that make up the Russian Federation fight (murder, pillage, rape) in the name of “liberating” Russians in Ukraine – people who identify themselves as Ukrainians, but whom the Kremlin considers to be ethnic Russians. So much for “civic” identity…
On the other hand, in Ukraine, whose leaders have been accused of officially tolerating “far-right” nationalist groups who adopt questionable symbols (e.g. Azov), a civic identity that is inclusive of both Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers has developed. This new Ukrainian identity is deliberately blind to ethnic background, religious affiliation or linguistic preference. It is this allegedly depoliticized civic identity that has rallied the country’s vast network of volunteers and soldiers into a resistance movement. So much for civic identity having weak mobilizational potential…
When we prevail, this war will be studied not only by social scientists, but also by historians: as a time when humanity underwent a fundamental transition from its outdated industrial-era paradigms that fostered hierarchy, to a new “communitarian” heterarchic principle of organizing social life in which identity plays a new and powerful role.
I wonder if Ukraine’s heterarchic political culture and our newfound models of solidarity might be part of the essence of our contribution to civilization; our nudge of humanity towards a new phase of development. Understanding the grand narrative of what we are experiencing doesn’t necessarily make our current tragedy any less appalling, but it may provide some comfort to understand that through sacrifice on multiple battlefields, Ukrainians are contributing (if not leading) the developmental shift required for the next phase of the evolution of European (western) civilization.
That may give this mindless war a purpose.
