Geopolitical disorder through the lens of expanding interdependence – and human consciousness
We inhabit an era marked by profound systemic turbulence. The signs are unambiguous and universally visible on a daily basis: the return of authoritarian governance models, intensifying strategic competition among great powers, the fraying of multilateral institutions and the gradual erosion of democratic norms. From Europe’s eastern flank to the Indo-Pacific, geopolitical fragmentation is no longer a risk—it is a reality. And yet, beneath this visible turbulence lies a deeper, less acknowledged transformation. One that is not captured in security briefings or market forecasts, but which may ultimately prove more consequential: the gradual but unmistakable expansion of the collective field of human consciousness.
This is not merely a poetic flourish, nor an esoteric abstraction. It is a civilizational undercurrent—a shift in the perceptual, moral and existential frameworks through which human beings make sense of themselves and the world. Increasingly, societies around the globe are becoming aware—often uncomfortably so—of the profound interconnectedness of all life. This awareness is not confined to any single ideology or spiritual tradition; it is emerging organically in response to the complex systems we have built and the planetary crises they have unleashed.
The modern world system has been built on a foundational assumption of separateness. The liberal order, for all its achievements, is premised on sovereign actors pursuing their interests in an anarchic international system; economics has long been framed as the allocation of scarce resources among competing agents; even the Enlightenment conception of the individual privileges autonomy over relationality.
But this worldview—atomized, mechanistic and adversarial—is increasingly incompatible with the complexity of the 21st century. Ecologically, the climate emergency has shattered the illusion of national isolation. Technologically, the hyperconnectivity of digital networks has dissolved old boundaries between local and global, private and public. Existentially, humanity is beginning to encounter its limits—not just in terms of resources, but in terms of the underlying narratives that have guided its political and economic trajectories for centuries.
As this awareness deepens, it gives rise to a new ontological paradigm—one that transcends the binary logic of dominance and subordination, of competition as the primary driver of progress. In its place emerges a worldview rooted in relationality: the understanding that no system, organism, or polity exists in isolation. This emerging paradigm does not merely ask how states should act; it redefines the ontological ground on which concepts like state, power and security are built.
It forces a fundamental reconsideration of what constitutes progress: Is it perpetual growth, or systemic harmony? It challenges the prevailing notions of power: Is it the ability to coerce, or the capacity to co-create? And it reconfigures planetary stewardship, not as a matter of managing externalities, but of participating in the regeneration of the living systems of which we are a part.
This transformation remains uneven, embryonic and fragile. But it is real. And it is increasingly acting as a silent but potent force beneath the visible surface of world affairs. To ignore it is to misread the deeper arc of geopolitical evolution now unfolding before us.
From separation to interbeing
The climate crisis, the limits of growth, the fragility of global supply chains, the growing interdependence of defense structures—these are not isolated challenges confined to the domains of ecology, economics, or security. They are symptoms of a deeper systemic condition: The breakdown of a worldview that treats the world as divisible, controllable and mechanically ordered. What they reveal is a single, increasingly undeniable truth: The fate of each is now inextricably bound to the fate of all.
This truth confronts the dominant assumptions that have governed global affairs since the industrial and geopolitical revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. The nation-state, as a container of sovereignty and agent of interest, no longer maps cleanly onto the transboundary nature of today’s risks. The global economy, long celebrated for its efficiency and scale, now reveals its brittleness under the weight of cascading disruptions. Even technology, once hailed as a neutral driver of progress, is now a battlefield of contested values and asymmetric dependencies.
In this context of unraveling certainties, a new mode of consciousness is beginning to surface. It does not arise from ideology or from the institutions of the status quo, but from a widening recognition—across disciplines and cultures—that the world is not best understood as a collection of discrete, self-contained entities, but rather as a dynamic, interdependent web of relationships.
In the language of systems theory, this marks a shift from linearity to complexity, from causality to emergence. We are not operating within closed systems where inputs yield predictable outputs. Instead, we inhabit open, adaptive ecologies—biological, cultural, informational and geopolitical—that evolve through feedback, co-influence and nonlinearity. Interventions in one domain reverberate across others, often in unforeseen ways. The local and the global are entangled. The individual and the collective are co-constitutive.
This systems-based, relational worldview stands in stark contrast to the extractive logic that has underpinned much of modernity. It suggests that sustainability is not merely a matter of resource management, but of consciousness alignment—of learning to perceive ourselves as embedded participants in living systems rather than detached managers of inert matter. It implies that true resilience—whether ecological or geopolitical—emerges not from control, but from coherence, reciprocity and distributed intelligence.
Such a shift carries profound implications. It challenges the very epistemologies through which we analyze global affairs. It calls for a reinvention of political economy, security doctrine and institutional design—one that is attuned to the patterns, flows and relational dynamics that characterize the real operating system of our world.
The expansion of this consciousness is still in its formative stages, often dismissed as peripheral or idealistic. But like the first glimmers of heliocentrism in a geocentric age, it signals the beginning of a profound reorientation—one that is no longer optional, but necessary for planetary continuity.
Consciousness as a (key) variable in world affairs
To speak of consciousness in the realm of international relations and geopolitics is still considered unorthodox—to put it mildly. The discipline has long been anchored in materialist assumptions: power, interests, institutions and rational choice. Yet to ignore the interior dimension of world politics is to overlook one of history’s most consistent patterns: that enduring geopolitical shifts are invariably preceded—and shaped—by transformations in human thought and collective worldview.
The Peace of Westphalia, often cited as the birth of the modern state system, did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed a period of religious upheaval, philosophical reformation and the slow secularization of European consciousness. The Industrial Revolution was not merely a technological event—it arose from a reconfiguration of time, labor and nature itself in the human imagination. Likewise, the great decolonization wave of the 20th century was catalyzed by an ethical and existential reevaluation of dignity, agency and the universality of rights.
In each case, shifts in the material structure of the world followed—or were made possible by—shifts in the architecture of meaning, as a result of expanding consciousness. Today, we are witnessing a similar inflection point. But unlike previous epochs, where the axis of transformation was primarily institutional or ideological, the current moment is ontological. It concerns the very foundations of how reality is perceived, narrated and engaged with—by individuals, societies and states.
The geopolitical polarizations we are witnessing today—from Ukraine to the South China Sea, from the Balkans to the Sahel—are not merely clashes of interest or ideology. They are, in a more fundamental sense, collisions between divergent stages of consciousness. Between a worldview shaped by fear, scarcity and control and one that is beginning to anchor itself in interdependence, resilience and mutual becoming. This is not to romanticize one side or demonize the other. Evolution, whether biological or cultural, is rarely linear or harmonious. Regressive forces often emerge as part of the dialectic of transformation. They serve, paradoxically, to crystallize the necessity of the next step. The challenge is to interpret these crises not only through the lens of strategy and security, but also as signals of deeper transitions in the collective psyche.
Read also: Cooperation on the road to victory: what the Tour de France tells us about great power competition
On one side, there is a growing—if still nascent—movement of individuals, communities and even some policy innovators who are operating from an emergent awareness of interbeing: the idea that all life is fundamentally interconnected, and that wellbeing is co-generated, not zero-sum. These actors are not defined by geography or ideology, but by orientation. They are developing regenerative economic models that prioritize resilience over growth, piloting forms of governance that privilege participation over hierarchy, and pursuing diplomacy that seeks not only alignment of interests, but alignment of intentions. This emerging paradigm does not naively assume harmony; rather, it recognizes that complexity and difference are constitutive of life itself. What it rejects is the framing of those differences as threats to be subdued, rather than relationships to be understood and navigated.
On the other side, however, a counter-current is gaining force. Faced with the disorientation provoked by rapid technological acceleration, cultural pluralism, and planetary instability, many are retreating into hardened identities and atavistic narratives. This manifests as the resurgence of ethnonationalism, the romanticization of authoritarian control and the instrumentalization of fear in political rhetoric. The erosion of traditional structures—whether religious, national or economic—is experienced by some not as an opportunity for renewal, but as a loss of existential anchoring.
The defensive retrenchment we are seeing—whether in the form of reactionary populism, repressive technocracy or militarized sovereignty—is not simply a political phenomenon. It is a psychological one. It reflects a collective nervous system under stress, struggling to metabolize the implications of a world that is no longer governed by the certainties of the past.
Looking at all current fighting in the world, the most important geopolitical battleground of the 21st century may not be territorial or material at all. It lies within the human interior—within our capacity to shift from a consciousness of division to one of unity in diversity.
This polarity—between a rising consciousness of mutuality and a regressive impulse toward separation—is now one of the defining fault lines of our age. It cuts across borders, ideologies and institutions. It is not a conflict between civilizations, but within them. Indeed, within each of us. Understanding this dynamic is crucial. For it is not by force or persuasion alone that the global order will be reconfigured, but by the deeper currents of meaning through which people and societies orient themselves in a time of existential transition.
The global future will be determined not solely by material capacities or institutional arrangements, but by the stories we tell ourselves about who we are and how we relate to each other. In this sense, consciousness is not a peripheral variable in world affairs—it is the ground upon which everything else unfolds. And the quality of that ground—its openness, coherence and depth—will shape the possibilities for peace, resilience and shared flourishing in the decades to come.
Implications for leadership and policy
So why do many of our leaders and policy makers fail to see this; and fail to lead us effectively through this period of great transformation? Because they have been educated and trained as planners in a cultural context that assumed social engineering would be a linear process. As a result, they are very experienced in dealing with complex structural realignments within a certain paradigm, but not in guiding shifts in the very nature of human awareness.
A transitional epoch as the one we live through today requires a different kind of intelligence in leadership, based on wisdom that is not data-driven—but soul-aware. Strategic foresight, in this context, must evolve beyond scenario planning and predictive analytics. It must become a practice of deep sensing—of tuning into the subtle signals emerging from the edge of systems, societies and consciousness itself. Understanding the inner landscapes of both individuals and collectives—the fears, aspirations, traumas and worldviews that drive behavior—is essential to designing policies that are not only functional, but truly transformative.
Read also: Europe’s moment: taking the helm of the “free world”
Policy-making—particularly in the West, where technocratic rationality has long reigned supreme—must evolve beyond the constraining logic of efficiency, optimization and short-term return. Traditional metrics—GDP, military expenditure, technological dominance—are increasingly insufficient for capturing the contours of a world undergoing ontological transformation. They measure outputs, but not depth. They register power, but not meaning. What the world calls for now is not more control, but deeper awareness. Therefore, new forms of assessment must enter the foreground. Measures of ecological vitality, social cohesion, emotional well-being and relational integrity are not secondary—they are now central to long-term geopolitical stability and the well-being of humanity. A society’s ability to regenerate its ecosystems, cultivate psychological health and foster trust across differences may prove more predictive of its future viability than its arsenal or its growth rate.
The task of public governance is no longer to preserve the known, but to steward the unfolding. This reorientation does not negate traditional tools of statecraft—but it places them in a broader, more integrated frame. One that recognizes that the future will not be won by those who dominate the old game, but by those who dare to reimagine its rules in light of a deeper, more connected understanding of what it means to be human in a shared world.
