Cities and Nations: from Emancipatory Forces to Global Challenges

José Manuel Gómez Giménez

Jul-Dec, 2023

MUSIC:

The tremendous challenges faced by global society point to an increasingly unsettling uncertainty, where traditional dynamics seem insufficient to address problems that transcend borders and local contexts. In this scenario, the outcomes of recent elections in several Western countries have revealed the citizenry is increasingly more disoriented. The very region of the world that once spearheaded the political and economic institutionalisation of globalisation is now faced with its own severe contradictions.

Today’s challenges are unprecedented in their complexity, and their consequences unfold across multiple levels, impacting local and global spheres alike. The national identity frameworks nationalism offers are not only proving inadequate for these challenges but also active constraints to chances for collective action. Once enablers of the extensive welfare systems backed by the post-war social democratic consensus, European nation-states have gradually evolved into institutional structures that show clear signs of exhaustion. Designed to be as rigid as seemingly perfect, these models currently lack the broad consensus that urgent, complex reforms demand. Thus, society stands at a crossroads: either opening spaces for bold discussion capable of acknowledging the urgent need for structural change or facing the dire consequences of postponing it once again.

Photo_ Guilhem Vellut_ CC BY 2.0

The rise of populist, oversimplifying, and identity-driven political alternatives is a symptom of the failure of many Western countries to develop educational systems genuinely oriented towards broadening and strengthening democratic values. These systems have proven insufficient in cultivating a self-critical citizenry equipped with a sense of global responsibility—one capable of analysing complex processes from a multidimensional perspective. This deficiency is particularly evident in the excessive compartmentalisation of knowledge, an educational approach still burdened by nineteenth-century legacies and committed to perpetuating learning methods based on uncritical memorisation. The sociocentrism embedded in national curricula not only narrows students’ perspectives but also weakens their capacity to respond to global challenges—which demand more integrated and flexible thinking. In such an interconnected world, it must strike us as equally disconcerting that prevailing global educational and cultural paradigms promote empty competitiveness—devoid of humanistic values and a genuine commitment to the common good [1][1] Rizvi, F., y Lingard, B. (2013). Políticas educativas en un mundo globalizado [Educational policies in a globalised world]. Madrid: Ediciones Morata..

Nation & Solidarity

Since the late 18th century, nations have played an undeniably transformative role. They consolidated themselves as political units through which citizens contributed to sustaining state bureaucracies and their interests while actively participating in public life, demanding dignified living conditions and increasing levels of social welfare. National sovereignty emerged as one of the fundamental principles upon which citizenship rights and responsibilities were built within democratic systems. In the European context—while recognising the multicausality and specificities of each socio-historical setting—this process was key to the development of welfare states. These were conceived as instruments of redistributive justice, constructed in response to their citizens’ collective demands and struggles.

The West acted irresponsibly in imposing its political and economic model on other territories without guaranteeing the same levels of respect for human rights or the construction of welfare systems similar to those achieved in the colonising metropolises.

This nationhood not only strengthened cultural identity and social cohesion but also became the framework within which citizens developed a sense of belonging and a shared vision of economic and social progress. Nations, indeed, became guardians of their respective cultures and values but also protectors of the common good. This role enabled cohesive societies to unite around a project of social justice and welfare—an especially notable phenomenon in Europe, where welfare states became pillars of economic growth.

However, it is necessary to point out that this narrative primarily reflects a socio-centric perspective tied to the experiences of Western nations. Having benefited from the comparative advantages granted by their early development during the technological revolutions, these powers shaped the international system as we know it today. In its global expansion, the West irresponsibly imposed its political and economic model on other territories without guaranteeing similar levels of respect for human rights or constructing welfare systems comparable to those of the colonial metropolises. This duality—between the rights secured in the “centre” and the asymmetries imposed on the “periphery”—remains a stark reminder of the structural rifts that persist to this day.

City & Freedom

The development of cities was a key phenomenon in human progress, enabling an ever-growing number of people to free themselves from subsistence economies and access new economic and social opportunities. Although migration to urban environments does not always occur under ideal conditions—and has often been driven by forced displacement from places of origin [2][2] Davis, M. (2007). Planeta de ciudades miseria [Planet shanty town]. Madrid: Foca.—in the collective imagination, it remains closely linked to a path toward freedom and the possibility of social advancement. Since their inception, cities have embodied a promise of emancipation: spaces where individuals can break away from traditional structures and forge a more prosperous and freer future.

This process of urbanisation has deep historical roots. With the emergence of agriculture in the Neolithic period, the first food surpluses allowed for the establishment of permanent settlements. These early urban centres consolidated around joint enterprises, giving rise to progressive professional diversification and becoming hubs of cultural, commercial, and intellectual exchange. However, life in these first urban nuclei was also marked by violence, conquest, and exploitation, shaping them up to be defined by both creation and conflict. Over time, successive technological revolutions—from the agricultural to the industrial—spurred new forms of production and social organisation, drawing increasing amounts of capital and labour toward urban areas. Cities became genuine innovation engines in scientific fields as much as in developing new productive models, which, like Fordism, transformed economic structures and gave rise to a new labour culture [3][3] Mumford, L. (2002). La ciudad en la historia: sus orígenes, transformaciones y perspectivas [The City in History: its Origins, Transformations and Perspectives]. Logroño: Pepitas de calabaza. (Originally published in 1961)..

Urban growth also posed a gradual liberation from old feudal and religious structures, constituting a relatively autonomous space where notions like social justice began to take root. In these settings, citizens found an environment favourable to organising, voicing their demands, and fighting for their rights, ultimately giving rise to workers’ movements and early ideologies that aimed at expanding human rights. Over time, these movements eventually contributed to the rise of welfare states, which reflected their collective aspirations for justice and solidarity. Cities evolved from mere centres of power and commerce into political and social spaces where inhabitants demanded dignified living conditions while promoting a strong civil society and associative systems to articulate their demands for greater equal opportunity.

The duality between the rights guaranteed in the “centre” and the shortcomings imposed on the “periphery” continues to be a reminder of the structural inequalities that persist to this day.

Thus, the city became the workshop for sociopolitical institutions that would advocate for intergroup solidarity and promote social reforms. From its very beginnings, urban life has been a catalyst for human progress—not only in economic terms but also in the cultural, social, and political spheres.

National Sovereignty: From Solidarity to Irresponsability

Those same nations that once represented emancipatory and cooperative advancement today magnify the formidable global challenges we face. In our current international framework, rather than acting as a principle that strengthens cooperation and the resolution of global problems, national sovereignty has become an obstacle to addressing urgent planetary issues such as climate change, persistent hunger, and underdevelopment. The fragmentation of sovereignties and the lack of harmonised fiscal systems hinder the implementation of coordinated, effective responses [4].[4] Díaz-Salazar, R. (2011). Desigualdades internacionales ¡Justicia ya!: hacia un programa mundial de justicia global [International Inequalities. Justice Now!: Toward a Program of Global Justice]. Barcelona: Icaria. Borders and territorial jurisdictions, which historically safeguarded the independence of nations, now serve as insurmountable walls in an inevitably interlinked global context whose problems demand shared responsibility. On a planet shaped by ecological and socio-economic imbalances, preserving the biosphere and guaranteeing fundamental rights depend on collective actions that transcend the compartmentalisation of a world divided into 200 jurisdictions. As García Picazo [5][5] García Picazo, P. (2010). Sistema Mundial: perspectivas políticas y sociológicas [World System: Political and Sociological Perspectives]. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. suggests, the only truly indivisible society should be humanity as a whole.

Yet this ideal of global cooperation and solidarity becomes thwarted by inter-state competition, obstructing the expansion of universal values such as human rights, social cohesion and justice. The efforts of international organisations and transnational agreements to counter these trends have failed to halt a dynamic in which financial growth is prioritised over the common good. Centred on competition, competitiveness, and purely economic values, this paradigm perpetuates inequalities and deepens the divides between the groups and nations that make up our planet.

Sketch about Les Étoiles d’Ivry_ Gabriel Mateu

Moreover, the relationship between the two hegemonic actors in globalisation—sovereign nation-states and the global capitalist system—presents inherent issues in itself. This dynamic has shaped the international stage according to a rationale of exchange and production aimed at the ideal of absolute economic freedom—which remains a myth in many respects. Both state sovereignty and market freedom have been built on idealised theoretical constructs that are hardly sustainable in practice. These concepts have served to justify self-deception and maintain specific power structures more than to reflect viable realities . States have never been fully sovereign, as international interference has always existed in various forms. In an increasingly interconnected world, though, clinging to absolute sovereignty may prove as impractical as dangerous: unilateral decision-making, far from promoting global well-being, can worsen living conditions in other societies, accelerate environmental collapse, and hinder progress for future generations. However, these have not been the actual motives behind historical violations of sovereignty—nor behind contemporary ones—as the interests underlying such interventions remain fundamentally economic and geopolitical.

Any socio-economic system that institutionalises inheritance inevitably tends towards the concentration of property and power.

Likewise, the concept of “market freedom” is also illusory. Any socioeconomic system institutionalising inheritance and lacking structural transformation will inevitably trend toward power and property concentration. A free and competitive market stands on an extremely delicate equilibrium, one that could only be sustained under the oversight of an exceptionally astute and diligent arbiter. In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill anticipated that with the advancement of civilisation, property and knowledge would be distributed more equitably, thereby enabling shared decision-making and more significant economic redistribution. However, the contemporary reality illustrates the opposite: exponential and unequal accumulation, along with a limited meritocracy, calls into question the very notion of individual freedom in today’s market—one far from constituting a space of equal opportunity.

In this context, many analysts warn of an alleged decline in state power in the face of the global market. However, a closer examination reveals that both elements reinforce one another. The nation-state model has proven functional and complementary to the contemporary model of globalisation, serving as an essential component in the rules that govern the modern world system [8][8] Braudel, F. (1984). Civilización material, economía y capitalismo Siglo XV-XVIII. Vol. III: El tiempo del mundo [Material Civilisation, Economics and Capialism, Centuries 15th-18th. Vol.III: The Time of the World]. Madrid: Alianza; and Wallerstein, I. (2016). El moderno sistema mundial IV: El liberalismo centrista triunfante, 1789-1914. [The Modern World System IV: The Triumphant Centrist Liberalism] Madrid: Siglo XXI. (Originally published in 2011).. The universalisation of these fundamental actors responds to a “realist nation-state globalism” rooted in Western modernity and its methodological nationalism. The values underpinning this state-centred ideology in the international system are closely associated with those of a “libertarian market globalism.” Within this framework, the lack of coordination between states is not an accidental weakness but rather an intrinsic feature of the current economic system’s inner workings.

From an ontological perspective, contemporary societies are undergoing an accelerated convergence, although they all take off from vastly different institutional, cultural, and material realities. Despite expectations of convergence toward greater equality, reality shows that each historical-social context shapes both the pace and direction of change [9][9] Del Pino Matute, E., y Rubio Lara, M. J. (EDS.). (2013). Los Estados de bienestar en la encrucijada [The Crossroads of Welfare States]. Madrid: Tecnos.. This levelling process often trends downward, limiting development opportunities—especially in disadvantaged regions.

This environment has replaced national solidarity with an international framework in which Western societies are more concerned with protecting their privileges than building social democratic coalitions for universal welfare. Faced with challenges such as migratory flows and the transformations of demographic transition—which place increasing pressure on welfare systems in ageing societies—nation-states have responded by doubling down on a logic of irresponsible competition. Despite symbolising our triumph over subsistence economies and technological success, the demographic transition poses new challenges linked to territorial imbalances and migration as an individual adjustment mechanism. Humanity has achieved extraordinary technological feats, yet anthropologically, we remain underdeveloped—constrained by socio-centric paradigms of competition, otherness, and fragmentation, which hinder collective responses to global problems.

Global Cities: From Freedom to Innocence

The lack of coordination between states is not an accidental weakness, but an intrinsic and necessary feature of the functioning of the current economic system.

Today, an ever-growing proportion of the world’s population lives in sprawling metropolitan areas, organised around some 2000 global cities that exert decisive influence over our economic system. These urban centres not only concentrate wealth, opportunities, and access to services but also illustrate the contradictions inherent in an incrementalist model of consumption and sustained growth . In a system that depends on continuous economic development to uphold welfare, technological solutions have been the main gamble in trying to compensate for limited resources and space. However, so far, these solutions have failed to halt the negative environmental impacts of our way of life. The intensive energy and raw materials consumption, coupled with the pollution generated by urban processes, exposes a model that is unsustainable and deeply reliant on extractivistic dynamics. Moreover, global metropolitan areas mirror the socio-spatial fractures that traditionally separated regions and countries, now replicated at an urban scale via the so-called “neighbourhood effects” . This phenomenon entrenches social exclusion and limits opportunities for the most vulnerable populations, deepening inequality within the cities themselves .

In most cases, the governance structures of today’s metropolitan areas lack comprehensive and effective systems, which inevitably complicates urban planning and service management. Urban mobility, for example, becomes a critical challenge in the peripheries of most large cities, where dependence on private means of transportation increases, fostering traffic congestion and pollution and making it challenging to balance work and family life. In this context, mitigation policies implemented exclusively by central municipalities often exacerbate existing problems by failing to address the root causes of peripheral urban sprawl. Urban life has evolved into an accelerated and competitive environment that prioritises excessive consumption and reinforces structural inequalities while failing to adequately respond to the environmental and social challenges facing humanity.

Studying urban inequality and residential segregation is essential in order to comprehend emerging spatial rationales—driven by increasingly complex territorial processes concentrated in large metropolitan areas. However, these phenomena continue to be addressed with outdated tools and through policies that, rather than tackling inequality, appear to have accepted it as an inevitable structural feature. Administrative boundaries and jurisdictional divisions—poorly aligned with the actual functions of urban space—commonly act as territory-fragmenting barriers and, in doing so, prevent responses from raising up to the task.

Photo_ Jeanne Menjoulet_ CC BY 2.0

In light of these challenges, it is imperative to rethink governance and adopt planning practices that reflect a cross-cutting and integrative understanding of territory. Policies must overcome the disconnect between urban planning and citizenship, between spatial organisation and the social, economic, and territorial processes that shape urban life. The increasingly expansive and densely populated metropolitan peripheries [13] face enormous challenges in tackling urbanisation due to administrative fragmentation. Rational planning for these areas remains an unresolved issue. Moreover, the absence of effective planning and management instruments has allowed urban development to proceed in a fragmented, dispersed manner, lacking cohesion. Such fragmented expansion typically aggravates social segregation and the absence of public facilities and services, degrading the urban space rather than promoting it as a place of integration and opportunity.

Without relevant changes to standard metropolitan management, patterns of dispersed growth will persist, generating cities where fragmentation and inequality are both stark and unmanageable. Metropolitan governance requires an approach that ultimately gives up competition rationales, embracing an integrated vision of sustainability and collective well-being. If this path is not tread, global cities—rather than centres of opportunity—will become epicentres of the social and ecological fractures that define our century.

Discussion

Global cities, which should be nodes of opportunity, will become epicentres of the social and ecological fractures that define our century.

Throughout history, cities and nations have played a fundamental role in advancing emancipation and improving living conditions for broad sectors of humanity. However, today, these same structures have also become obstacles to addressing our global socio-ecological challenges. The urgency of economic sustainability and social justice demands transcending current political bonds as much as a profound redrafting of our institutions in order to build a truly equitable and sustainable future. In this context, it must be noted that the inability of current political mechanisms to prevent the concentration of power and wealth aggravates inequalities, deteriorating natural settings, and spearheading the regression of democratic values—factors that place the well-being of future generations at risk. Many leftist intellectuals and ideologues remain hellbent on producing complex conceptual frameworks to assign blame for these current trends [14]. In reality, however, it all comes down to a widespread lack of necessary commitment to a shared future and the absence of effective mechanisms to prevent the endless replication of power and oppression networks. As noted by Nobel laureate José Saramago, the alternative to the economic structure of today’s world system lies in a global awareness of humanity’s common future. In our era, the perpetuation of inequality through inheritance and the accumulation of economic power foretell a future in which social divisions will become increasingly difficult to reverse. The scarcity of cooperation projects aims to transcend the limits of nation-states and rise up to these challenges is striking.

This situation calls for a decisive commitment to redistribution mechanisms, guaranteeing rights and welfare: free education, public healthcare, social housing, child support policies, and even universal basic income and basic inheritance schemes. As a historical phenomenon, social mobility has only been effective through periods of structural and economic change. It now needs to be repurposed to ensure well-being within a framework of desirable economic balance. Furthermore, it is imperative to develop genuinely democratic governance systems that break free from the “Iron Law of the Oligarchy” [15], guaranteeing constant and effective control over power. However, these efforts will prove futile if democracies fail to increase their legitimacy through profound, long-term changes rather than limiting themselves to the short cycles of electoral politics.

The values underpinning neoliberal thought and the current international system are built upon myths of freedom and sovereignty, promoting notions of personal and national autonomy that bear little resemblance to the realities of an interdependent world. This framework has led to unrestrained competition and individualism, prioritising profit at the expense of social responsibility, contributing to exclusion and the depletion of resources. This mismatch between the scale of global challenges and the limited scope of existing governance models prevents an effective response to climate change, social justice, or ecosystem balance. Migrations—as a historical driver of change, shaped by economic, geopolitical, and environmental factors—and ecosystem services both transcend the artificial limits of state borders, demonstrating that current political structures are ill-suited to the territorial dynamics of a globalised planet.

We are facing a pivotal moment of accelerated transformation, in which the impact of human activity on the Earth system has reached planetary repercussions. The magnitude of global change—understood as the environmental transformations resulting from human activity within the Earth system—has become the greatest medium-long-term threat. Our imprint on geomorphological and climatic processes provides clear evidence of a significant ecosystem disruption driven by technological advancement, the massive flow of materials and energy, and excessive consumption patterns—although this disruption carries a distinct historical component of unequal responsibilities.

Territories require coordination policies on a bioregional scale that favour the use of short-distance consumption cycles.

In this context, urban areas are undergoing profound transformations and present an urgent need for governance frameworks that respond to current realities. Traditional urban planning approaches, which divide the territory into urban and rural zones, are no longer sufficient: territories now require coordinated policies at the bioregional scale, promoting short-distance consumption cycles and multiscalar, integrated governance. Despite contemporary systems of multilevel coordination, territorial dynamics continue to replicate inequality rationales and generate negative environmental externalities. Achieving greater socio-territorial cohesion thus demands adopting a vision capable of understanding the interrelation between the various scales of action.

Addressing these issues requires identifying the factors driving today’s inequalities: speculative and overstressed real estate markets in major urban centres; fragmented planning in peripheral areas; real estate development used as a source of quick revenue by peripheral municipalities; the lack of adaptation in metropolitan transport systems; and the growing dependence on private automobiles. As we confront the compounding and intensifying effects of global change—defined by accelerated warming, an unsustainable energy model, and environmental degradation of alarming proportions—socioeconomic inequalities are also intensifying. Meanwhile, the international system and various local ones remain fragmented into hundreds of sovereign units, perpetuating a competition scheme that frequently sacrifices social and environmental protection.

It is now clear that we simply lack the governance mechanisms—both at global and local levels—necessary to confront the colossal challenges of our time. Without a meaningful review of the political and economic institutions governing our national and urban societies, these problems will only worsen. The key lies in building a governance system capable of addressing the realities of global change while committing to fair redistribution and responsible resource management, preserving a viable future for all life forms on the planet.

Please check your email to complete de process.