In my mind, the so-called culture wars that took on mainstream awareness in the wake of the Brexit vote in the UK and Donald Trump’s election as US president (both in 2016), are another way of describing a collective need to feel more secure in a world that is – to appearances, at least – increasingly unpredictable.
The recent public debates about political correctness, diversity, immigration, history and national pride are the offspring of the introspection in the West, after 9/11, arising from the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq. Essentially it is a continuation of the redefinition of what it means to be a liberal society in the 21st century.
The financial crisis represented a kind of watershed and an evolution in this process. Side by side with the creeping realisation that future generations would not, for once, be able to count on being more well off than their predecessors, was a sense that globalisation and federalism had taken away an individual’s power to shape the world they lived in. Until the crisis, people assumed if they could become wealthier, own their own home and give their children access to education and health care, then all would be well. Then just as this paradigm was crumbling, technology leapt forward to give any person more agency as an individual, separate from wider society, than they ever had before.
Give an angry person a megaphone and you see what happens.
Technology companies have achieved a scale that has dwarfed governments, meaning any genuine momentum to tackle the economic malaise drifted. So, we are stuck in a never-ending loop, trying to talk the angry person down, but by focusing on their loud voice we continue to be distracted from actually fixing any problems.
The polling company Focaldata conducted research across the UK, US, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Ireland on the rise of the far right and social issues that come with clear economic trade-offs such as immigration and the push to net-zero carbon emissions. Focaldata’s James Kanagasooriam has labelled this “culturenomics”.
He wrote in The Times this month: “The tussle for supremacy over Britain’s institutions, history and identity seems endless. In a parallel world, a separate conversation takes place about Britain’s doom loop of high interest rates, high inflation, low rates of housebuilding, creaking public services and low birth rate. The exam question in this other world is: how do we become rich again?
“These debates – heart and head – have tended to be conducted semi-independently. But there’s good evidence now that the next phase of our politics is going to involve an uncomfortable fusion of Britain’s cultural and economic clashes. Culturenomics, if you will. And that this will have a stronger influence on how we vote than purely economic or social issues in isolation.”
It is fascinating to stop and consider that in 2024 any major issue could be decided without properly factoring in the economic ramifications. But that is what has been happening for nearly a decade. The promise that this is now changing is an exciting thought. Regardless of our feelings, when we allow ourselves room to understand who might have to pay the bill for our decisions, emotions tend to dampen enough to have a more rational discussion.
Typically, investors are put off by negative sentiment just as much as by an unattractive rate of return. To become rich again, or at least to have the opportunity to do so, requires extra funding. Otherwise how can job and wealth creation hope to be kindled?
The Gulf, and the UAE in particular, is having a moment where investors are attracted by both a welcoming landscape and the potential for making money. It is no coincidence that the majority of debates, cultural or otherwise, that happen in this region – in private and public – will usually put economic opportunity and cost high on the agenda.
This has been driven, in part, by the necessity of diversifying away from a reliance on oil and gas revenues. Another reason has been the need to attract talent and capital in a highly competitive global marketplace.
The region is always starting on the back foot because of a less-than-perfect understanding of the day-to-day, on-the-ground realities on the part of those living outside. The news headlines – especially this month – describe a Middle East that is riven by conflict and instability. We who live here know that is a simplistic analysis. However, perception is also reality.
To overcome the inherent discount applied by investors simply because of the geographic location of Gulf countries like the UAE, the outcome of the culturenomics applied in the region must always be powerfully compelling and primarily lucrative, rather than – in the West’s definition of the word – populist.
