Introduction
Contemporary disputes over globalization, the state, and political violence are more than just a clash of facts. They represent a profound conflict over the unity of justification in a world where technical efficiency is displacing mutual understanding. This article analyzes the mechanisms of defensive nationalism and Karl Polanyi’s "double movement" triggered by innovation. You will explore the architecture of an order based on Rabinowitz’s three worlds: objective facts, social norms, and subjective authenticity. You will learn how to rebuild community through specific informational, economic, and legal standards.
Defensive Nationalism and Schumpeterian Innovation
Defensive nationalism is a configuration of practices in which community identity is built in a defensive mode against external forces, such as unchecked globalization. Unlike creative nationalism (constructive) or consolidating nationalism (stabilizing), the defensive version is a reaction to Schumpeterian innovation. This innovation plays a catalytic role—driving progress while simultaneously disrupting the fabric of social certainties, triggering a double movement: the market's drive for expansion and a societal counter-reaction demanding protection.
In this dynamic, globalization shatters the unity of justification, shifting decisions from the level of public debate to the technocratic sphere. Rabinowitz suggests that the solution lies in returning to the architecture of the three worlds. Only the nation-state, as the sovereign guarantor of order, can forge disputes over facts, norms, and authenticity into universally binding rules, protecting the lifeworld from colonization by the logic of pure efficiency.
Aporias of Defense and Resilience Economy Standards
Both left-wing and right-wing variants of national defense encounter aporias. The left often ignores the fact that the modern economy relies on transnational networks that cannot be confined within borders. The right, in turn, falls into the trap of building unity on genealogy instead of citizenship, which invalidates corrective procedures. The answer to these contradictions is the resilience economy—a model of embedded liberalism that protects sectors with high social added value from external shocks without abandoning the principles of competition.
In the sphere of communication, informational responsibility is essential. The author proposes the principle of inverse transparency: the burden of proof rests on the platforms that control the algorithms. Simultaneously, an early warning system against proto-fascism must be operational. It monitors indicators such as the legitimization of violence, the dehumanization of enemies, or the undermining of electoral procedures, triggering a state response before physical aggression escalates.
Legitimacy Tests and Dialogic Patriotism
For regulatory systems to be stable, every intervention must pass legitimacy tests: communicative necessity, deliberative proportionality, and reversibility. Such an approach promotes dialogic patriotism—an alternative to exclusion based on the critical competencies of citizens and the "unforced force of the better argument." In this model, the state does not merely manage; it ensures the material conditions for participating in debate, remembering that without social safeguards, the market becomes a tool of degradation.
Summary: Vigilance as a New Form of Reason
The foundation of the proposed order is vigilance as meta-rationality. It is the readiness to continuously correct errors across three orders: truth (data transparency), rightness (revision of norms), and authenticity (relinquishing the identity shield). Reconstructing the rules of the game does not eliminate conflicts but makes them visible and workable. It teaches us to process the raw energy of rebellion into the conscious co-creation of rules, where the boundary is always the dignity and safety of those who have the courage to speak up.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF