------

century, theon paths tak th century: during the upcoming aggres of th , Globalization and , Globalization and 20 th What I see as the common traits the of enlisted moments, zational patterns which the vigilant Scottish Enlighteners observed in the transformation their of “lifeworlds” during the century, late 18th and pinpoints these observations on the the of emergence Smithian society” “great (Smith [1759] book part 1976, 1976, II, section II, chapter iii; Smith [1776] LivingI, chapter ii). in the context modernity’s of great so ciety—butcourse of nevertheless also in the various small groups like the village, family, parish, clubs—has or a put DISCONTENT WITH GLOBALIZATION: WITH GLOBALIZATION: DISCONTENT IS THIS TIME DIFFERENT? Why are so many citizens—in and the also West elsewhere —currently turning their back the liberal on of order glo balism? Thisquestion of course is anythingit could new, but posed very was) at been diversehave (and junctures during the 19 nationalismsive in the late 19 amid or and in Germany post-1933, en in Russia post-1917 the anti-globalization the at turn movement the to new mil lennium. What has happened the since since US 2016—in the presidential election, in the UK since the Brexit refer endum,and in Central and Eastern Europe since the emer the of gence new so-called “illiberal democracies”—could either in be put the tradition the of rup aforementioned tures, could or require a “this time is different” interpreta tion.Let us explore these twopotentially diverging (but not mutually readings. exclusive) despite all obvious historical is their heterogeneity, shared revolutionary a further quest preclude to unfolding—or to even trigger rollback—of the liberal of a complete order mo dernity. “Modernity” is understood as here the set civili of alism”. Regardingalism”. the ruptures putting among “Austrians”, Boettke’swarning call that “liberalism is liberal” (Boettke in the context the of 2017) two megatrends that can make it effectiveeven more today for tomorrow. and ------Gesellschaft “Ge and and “Gemeinschaft” , and what this could mean for demarcation line. goal My in the Gemeinschaft (Tönnies 1887) to capture to (Tönnies the 1887) duality living of in

Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft The core of The core this revisitspaper this fundamental tension

the theory and policy Boettke’s of Hayekian “learning liber paper is examine to the how two megatrends our of time, globalization and digitalization, reinforce may the logics of tional splits and ruptures current about issues like migra that arewell reconstructabletion 2015), (Horn along the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft this and order its sub-orders them interdependent present selves. In a parallel both on “Austrians” sides development, theof Atlantic recently have experienced serious institu Western democraciesWestern both on the sides of Atlantic have experienced truly traumatic their events for liberal order since least) fragile a new 2016—including sense how of (at legitimacy in the minds theof citizenry. as presents itself it in our global-digital age, especially as Hayek’s mainHayek’s concerns in hissocial philosophy: theHow logic the of small group continuously threatens and chal thelenges logic the of extended regarding order the latter’s tion what Boettke of has called elsewhere “mainline econo mists”least at (Boettkesince the Scottish 2012) Enlighten Andment. this duality doubtlessly A. constitutes F. of one sellschaft” communitya and living in society,a this duality is certainly Tönnies’ invention—instead,not has it occupied the atten order, a tension which a tension humanshad ever endure to order, have since modernity. entered While we famously depicted by Ferdinand Tönnies with theterms focusspecific one on aspect which I believe is crucialF. for A. reception Hayek’s today: the perennial between tension the logic the of small group and the logic the of extended (Boettke 2018) on one of the of liberal one most on complex (Boettke think 2018) theers of 20th century. reviewed As I have the the plenty of in thisbook essay elsewhere 2019a), I would (Kolev like to INTRODUCTION Boettke Peter has written trulya multifaceted book Email: [email protected] http://www.hwwi.org/ueber-uns/team/autor/stefan-kolev.html Web: Digitalization Digitalization KOLEV STEFAN F. A. Hayek, A. Hayek, F. VOLUME 7 | ISSUE 5 + 6 2020 7 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 42 COSMOS + TAXIS

significant strain on our mind ever since, as both logics can gardless of the sustainability of this boom, the political sys- be portrayed in diametrically different categories: 1) while tems in almost all Western democracies are experiencing the small group ensures concrete interactions with the sur- an extremely demanding “stress test” grounded in polar- rounding, directly visible individuals, the great society is ization and ever-stronger extremes. In line with so-called full of abstract exchange, often in complete anonymity and “horseshoe theory” (Faye [1972] 2004; Backes 2006), today’s invisibility; 2) while in the small group a high degree of extremes also show tendencies of coalescing (“les extrêmes homogeneity prevails, a cornerstone of the great society’s se touchent”) against an ever-weaker center (Economist prosperity is heterogeneity across individuals, for exam- 2013; Craiutu 2017; Kolev 2019b). ple regarding religious or ideological attitudes; 3) while the Still, this “conspiracy” is not unique if we look back at the small group’s composition is usually fairly static, the great past two centuries. What makes things “really” unique, is society can be dramatically dynamic. Important for this in- the nature of the technological ruptures which have taken terpretation, the historical junctures mentioned above share place in the past three decades since the World Wide Web one particular pattern: the construction of group identities. began transforming our world starting in the 1990s. These From the construction of “rankings” of nations or races in ruptures, their effects, and the possibly necessary policies the 19th century, of class-based and race-based mentalities will be at the center of the rest of this essay. in Russia and Germany, of the “Global South” or of national anti-establishment mentalities: These processes are, above DIGITALIZATION AND KNIGHT-POPITZIAN all, about belonging to a community. Large or small, real or “ORDER UNCERTAINTY” virtual: When aiming to belong to a community, one can easily derive his or her identity from differentiating oneself To begin with, any definitive judgment about the nature from other communities, as well as from mobilizing forces and effects of digitalization is certainly premature and can- 43 within the newly found mental home against the abstract, not be anything but a very tentative “groping in the dark”. cold, anonymous, invisible exchange processes of the great And this is one of the fundamental differences to globaliza- society. tion: We have had exposure to waves of globalizations for So much for the commonalities. What might be specif- centuries if not millennia, while our exposure to digitaliza- ic about the most recent backlash against globalization? To tion is only few decades old, and there are indications dis- COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS begin with, it seems rooted in both material and ideation- cussed below that digitalization may be qualitatively differ- al causes, constituting a paradigmatic Millian “conspiracy ent from the triggers of earlier industrial revolutions. This of interests and ideas” (Mill [1845] 1991, p. 503). The speed section looks at digitalization by combining two notions: and scope of globalization since the 1980s have produced a “uncertainty” as understood by Frank Knight (Knight sizable proportion within the citizenry of Western societies [1921] 1964), and “order security” as understood by German who see themselves as losers of globalization. Whether this sociologist Heinrich Popitz (Popitz [1986] 2017). is factually true or not, as heatedly debated among econom- Liberal political economists are sometimes (too) quick to ic historians (Piketty 2014; McCloskey 2016): Since David simply declare that we are facing in digitalization another Hume ([1742] 1987, part I, essay V) and Walter Lippmann example of Schumpeterian creative destruction. Howev- (1922), we can plausibly claim that it is subjective opinions er, already today two rather specific traits of this peculiar rather than objective facts that are decisive for the “politi- Schumpeterian process are discernible: 1) its forces are im- cal” in political economy. And here the material transfor- pressive in the scope of domains they hit, and 2) the speed mations following the globalization-related surge of trade, of its unfolding is breathtaking. Liberal political economists investment, and migration combine with powerful ide- are generally open-minded to such processes and their in- ational forces stemming from public intellectuals like Jo- herent dynamics—but only under the dual condition that seph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Greta Thunberg, or Slavoj the process takes place within an efficient humane order Žižek: With different arguments, they reinforce the opin- (Eucken [1940] 1950, pp. 315-317; Eucken [1952] 2004, pp. ion that globalization is above all a rigged game producing 372-374). This condition is the real issue here: To what ex- exploitation, inequality, and environmental damage. This tent do our judgment standards for an order have to change “conspiracy of interests and ideas” has proved rather explo- when so many interdependent societal suborders are simul- sive so far: Even though in 2019 many Western economies taneously undergoing the transformation from analog to produce the best macroeconomic figures imaginable, re- digital? Can this peculiar Schumpeterian process destroy

F. A. Hayek, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Globalization and Digitalization

------Ge Ge Gesell - AND AND logic. In Gesellschaft can be pre Gesellschaft Gemeinschaft Gemeinschaft GEMEINSCHAFT : THEORY AND POLICY RÖPKE ON logic the of small group continuously counter can be explained as follows: In the eyes many of demarcation line. Although their theoretical systems Ina preliminary comeback of today’s conclusion, mula of the “extended order” (Hayek 1988), for Röpke it was it Röpke for mula1988), the of (Hayek “extended order” precisely this modernity that as saw he a process with con siderable destructive human for even explosive or force co Röpke’s 7-20). 1960, pp. [1958] Röpke existence 1947; (Röpke stance only is not reminiscent modern of communitarian also but Hirschman’s of ism thesis (Renner 2002, 217), p. feudalof blessing, according which to traditional modes of reciprocity exchange be to socially could prove “useful” if schaft resemble each other in many ways, they are diametrically opposed each to other along this line: the As at mentioned great Hayek’s outset concern the of is that paper, the meinschaft acts even disrupts or the rules the of contrast, is driven Röpke the by the quest how coordi of nation mechanisms the of small served from the dangers a predominant of inwhoserole modernity constantly expands, possibly the at cost the of logic community. of So while identified Hayek earlymodernity on as well asits great society asthe central 1948,building pp. his block of theory order [1945] (Hayek and reframed3-5), them in his towards late work the for promising here: It willpromising It here: beharnessed not as a meticulous ex egesis dogmas, of will but instead focus identifying on the urgently necessary theorizing our global-digital for order of age. VS. HAYEK GESELLSCHAFT F. order The A. Hayek Wilhelm theoriesand of Röpke can also be juxtaposed precisely along the a quantitative sense, instead but can interdependently rein themselves force and categorically change the vs. order cha os perception reality of the of individuals affectedby digita lization, pushing towards it chaos. meinschaft citizens, the has become world “too dynamic”. If this di agnosis is correct, the therapy seems obvious: order The it somewhat put to livestatics”we in“more mustor, offer clearof precisely, “fixedi.e. elements more the points”, in stitutional framework that assist the individuals lose to not orientation amid their “too dynamic” By the provi order. fixedof sion points, perception of the chaos aforementioned can give a new recognition to way and order its of principles through newlyenabled learning. could suchhow ther a But A history about? come apy economics of seems approach ------manner since its effectson capability learn to characteriz qualitative subjective

changing because encompassing of and fast change in

A genuinely novel challengeA genuinely novel associated with digitization Thisquestion concerns both levels of “rulesthe the of the the different sub-ordersof societysimplyup add not do in to some objective some to measure transformation of set an by al legedly neutral scholarly digitalization and observer, 2) af fectsthe in order a are worth underscoring: the ability 1) adapt to is intimately connectedone’s to ing those individuals affectedby digitalization, opposedas any from principles their order of lifeworld, as they fail to catch with up the velocity learning of required the by or properties transformation. sucha development of der’s Two the objective reality, the danger increases that citi some zens start may perceiving their lifeworld as permanently chaotic. In that case they be extract to able longer no may political (“pattern prediction”) economy and social phi (“thelosophy state as gardener an of English garden”)— are (Boettke 2018, pp. 81-88). If one’s subjective perception of If one’s (Boettke 81-88). pp. 2018, patterns—a truly notion fundamental Hayek’s only not for also but his for 2017), psychological inquiries [1952] (Hayek transition every and process to psychologically. it However, cognitive process this of kind necessarily takes time, as it requires something essential any liberal for learning order: liesin its speed. Everyhuman sensory order—and the asso ciated transition perception from chaos order— to in one’s presupposes that has one the cognitive abilities grasp to this economic policy can fortunately resort existing to best practices. tentially threatened. In a certain sense, this is still categor icallycomparable with the effects that are already known from the globalization-related structural change, which for individual and social capital the of be to “writ group have ten off”.Those individuals andhave who become groups as a result“obsolete” digitization of can exis therefore feel about theirabout future: When entire industries and professions disappear, high proportions both of human capital the of tion states. important more Even be may the impact the on moves. The radicalaforementioned of forces digital change can the plunge into an players equally radical uncertainty inthe significant of event changes in processes the encased theby rules. is also It that plausible rules the of enforcement in the digital will world become less probably easy na for game”As the far and of the of game”. as “moves the rules areconcerned, digitalizationundoubtedly means perma a pressure constantly to nent and set to new ones reconsider, orders withoutorders creating new ones, as seen from the percep tion the of affected individuals? VOLUME 7 | ISSUE 5 + 6 2020 7 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 44 COSMOS + TAXIS

they precluded the destruction of socially necessary norms “uncompromising” libertarians like Murray Rothbard or (Hirschman 1982). Hans-Hermann Hoppe who saw his program as being close Modernity is an extremely young product of Western civ- to what a social democrat would argue for (Rothbard 1980; ilization in comparison to human history, and it is a phase Hoppe 1994). which can be depicted by two central characteristics: 1) This paper provides a specific perspective on the provi- the differentiation of the societal suborders instead of the sion of social security, again along the Gemeinschaft-Ge- merged lifeworld of the traditional village, and 2) the in- sellschaft demarcation line. To begin with, the attempt of crease in abstract-anonymous interpersonal relationships some liberals to ban the state from conducting social pol- instead of exchange with concrete-known persons in local- icy and to delegate it exclusively to the voluntary coordina- ly narrowly defined areas. Hayek’s decades-long quest for a tion mechanisms of the various community contexts (fam- “Constitution of Liberty” aimed precisely at finding those ily, church, neighborhood, etc.) is inconsistent with Hayek’s sets of rules in which the modernity-related logic of the ex- encompassing plea for the comprehensive validity of an ex- tended order could be brought closer to legitimacy in the tended order logic. The extended order would have a highly eyes of the citizens, having experienced that they often find problematic “open flank” if it did not itself offer solutions this logic counterintuitive or even absurd because of their for cases of social hardship, but instead depended on what ancestors’ millennia-long existence in village communities. Hayek called “atavisms” of the millennia-long life in com- Röpke’s efforts to establish and preserve a “Civitas Hu- munity, and that at such a neuralgic point. Theorizing the mana” go in exactly the opposite direction, i.e. towards the liberal welfare state brought Hayek little sympathy: Apart rooting of the individual in the traditional and manageable from the libertarian voices mentioned above, the book and nature of coordination mechanisms in small groups, aim- its policy proposals were also criticized from some of his ing to counteract the, in his view, highly problematic pro- closest contemporaries (Mises [1960] 2008; Robbins 1961; 45 cess of “massification” and the disorientation of modernity. Viner 1961). Similarly, Röpke’s counter-proposal of provid- These different approaches clearly show the rather different ing security above all in the community also received mul- leitmotifs of the individual and of society in Hayek’s and tiple critiques and has been described as naively conserva- Röpke’s thought. Historically, liberalism in its many fac- tive (Burgin 2012, pp. 139-146; Gregg 2010, pp. 173-181) up ets has certainly not developed a consistent and consensual to the recent characterization as a “retro utopia” (Solchany COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS position on these fundamental questions. However, it may 2015, p. 570). Paradigmatic for Röpke’s leitmotif to solve be precisely this richness of facets that often makes liberal cases of social hardship is his model of the small town—or, thinkers stimulating for later generations—even though, at more generally, of small units in economy and society—as the same time, misunderstandings about fundamental po- the ideal environment for human existence and association. sitions across different liberal currents can hardly be denied It almost sounds as a version of the “small is beautiful” mot- and often also not resolved or reconciled. to that became so popular in the decades after Röpke’s pass- Such diverging order-theoretical positionings also entail ing in 1966 (Schumacher 1973) and has been aptly termed direct order-political consequences: I will focus here on the a “liberalism from below” (Sally 1998, p. 131). Röpke’s vi- provision of social security. In Part III of his “Constitution sion of an “economic humanism” (Christ 2018, pp. 44-48) of Liberty” (Hayek [1960] 2011), Hayek outlined a program is based on personal independence and, given the interper- of liberal social policy, the core being to transfer the gener- sonal visibility in such a context, on interpersonal solidar- ality principle of the rule of law (and of Freiburgean “Ord- ity, while he saw social policy coming from the state with nungspolitik”) to social policy, i.e. to organize the various suspicion and as a threat to disintegrate the traditional policies and measures through generalizable rules (Fritz community, potentially putting the individual’s indepen- 2016). With this, he implicitly argued how the provision of dent existence into the position of a “comfortable stall-feed- a social security minimum that equally applies to all mem- ing” (Röpke [1958] 1960, p. 170) by the “pumping engine” of bers of the jurisdiction is not only not necessarily a contra- the welfare state targeted at full employment (Röpke [1942] diction to the liberal understanding of the state, but that it 1950, p. 171; Röpke [1958] 1960, p. 157). can be understood as a vitally necessary component of the So even though regarding the central duality of this paper extended order (Kolev 2017, pp. 265-270). As it is widely Hayek and Röpke opted for diametrically opposed prima- known, this book—and here especially Part III—brought cies—Hayek for Gesellschaft, Röpke for Gemeinschaft—their him the biting critique of self-proclaimed “consequent” or concern about the provision of security, from Gesellschaft or

F. A. Hayek, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Globalization and Digitalization . ------Gesell and Gemeinschaft appears vin , are, rejected by or Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft Gesellschaft Gesellschaft certainly has effectson indi —so far skepticism Hayek’s towards Gemeinschaft appears vindicated. In this perspective, glo Gemeinschaft . Global competition leads the to permanent necessi Inboth globalization and digitalization, can one also ics in our lifeworlds, their but parallel coexistence can also instability createmore through positive feedbacks that am plifythe respective logic of This couldlead to an increased polarization for the citizen’s mind confronted with the the of tensions two logics, mak ingthe pre-digital living of tension in moderna society and in communities difficult even more to handle cognitively. vidual and also behavior, applies—in a modifiedform—to virtual communities, although certain forms reputation of and trust-building themselves show differently here than in the immediate interactions individuals of in a concrete geo graphical area. recognize the dangers that and identified Hayek Röpke in the conflict between logics the of schaft ty learn to and adapt, as well as constant to occupational mobility within the country across or countries, which can serioushave disadvantages the for and new formation of, the embeddedness in, families and local communities—so skepticism fartowards Röpke’s dicated. Social media, the on other hand, can lead the to formation groups which of often turnto be homo out so geneous that the pluralistic discourse modernity of hardly takes place anymore. In the course time, of of the content the social media group can thus turn increasingly extreme and one-sided, the to point tolerance, where plurality, and so diversity, indispensable for this new Gemeinschaft balization and digitization only dynam not lead more to even more difficulteven more to bearandcreate a sense of anxiety vis- anonymous internationalà-vis one’s competitors. the At same2) time, in the face digitizationof which is es sentially caused the by decline in communication costs inventions to and due innovations our everydayin life IT, is increasingly characterized using by applications so of cialmedia. They enable the individualjust be longer no to also but mediaa consumer, of which,producer a content, in addition the to effectof a growing fragmentation in the media space, entails that the individual form to able is now genuinely new virtual communities infinitesimally at low cost, example for Facebook groups WhatsApp. on or In ad dition, applications like Skype give us back the visibility which so many bemoaned the be to to lost due competitive pressure of mobility work-related amid globalization. This comeback of , ------AND AND Gemein Gesellschaft : POLARIZATION : POLARIZATION . Let illustrate me this by GESELLSCHAFT relate to the to relate claim regarding our Gemeinschaft GEMEINSCHAFT , can still be read in a unified In read the way. Gesellschaft and

ymous interactions which make the competitive pressure ket game—along with making us richer and giving us an increasing number options, of things often taken for grant andperceived ased—is more more taking place in anon so far—is seen as having globalization, promoted visible examplefor in the currently strong anti-migration senti both on ments the sides of Atlantic. In addition, the mar by theby abstract these many, rules the of To extended order. rules appear own today control, lead as being beyond one’s ingfundamental to ruptures in the political system that— if compared earlier to decades with their intensity lower of globalization. Each individual is pressured understand to that is she partor he globala of process structured and run These levels of two companiescompetition—for lo for and cations—simultaneously affect the existenceof individuals as and an as employee a citizen, and the pressure has grown in transportation and communication costs, is permanent ly intensifying the competitive pressure com only not for panies,also but locations for as jurisdictions worldwide. ization and digitization: competition, social and 2) 1) me The deepeningdia. specialization 1) of the international di vision labor of and knowledge, essentially the to due decline tain comeback of depicting which, two according sub-phenomena the to current state affairs, of a play central bothfor role global rect:Essential traitsglobalization of can be understood as a reinforcing the dominance the of logic of while in much the process digitization of can lead a cer to schaft global-digital age that social policy today should primar ily aim providing at fixed relation The points? is quite di OR SYNTHESIS? does thisHow historyeconomics of exercise on LIVING IN GLOBALIZED LIVING IN GLOBALIZED DIGITALIZED a subjectivea sense security of is an essential prerequisite for life-long abilityone’s and willingness learn. to tion of order is retainedtion order of and the individual’s ability learn to is preserved—insteadand adapt (Boettke 81-88) pp. 2018, tippingof into a perception chaos. of In this interpretation, As discussed in the earlier sections, such fixed points as ele the of ments institutional framework are crucial in the “too dynamic”times that experience, some so that the percep Gemeinschaft ing this the of paper, security provision can be interpreted as caring the about indispensable provision of fixed points: VOLUME 7 | ISSUE 5 + 6 2020 7 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 46 COSMOS + TAXIS

However, this is not the inescapable conclusion from the ily fall out of the dynamic division of labor and knowledge, interaction of both megatrends. One can also examine the the state would offer via social policy temporary stability in thesis that both processes—precisely because of their si- the sense of “statics” and enable them—not only by alimen- multaneity—behave to each other as complements, and tation, but even more by requalification and by assistance thus partly cancel out their potentially undesirable effects. to regain trust in one’s own autonomy and learning capa- The argument would go like this: While it is true that in bilities—to return to an emancipated, humane life based on times of globalization individuals probably have to become self-responsibility. As always, this provision of social secu- more mobile in their “real life”, digital technologies enable rity can certainly be complemented by assistance stemming them in their “virtual life” to partially compensate the so- from the diverse voluntary associations of Tocquevillian cial uprooting and the loss of embeddedness. Today’s circle civil society—and its institutions will certainly profit from of friends is no longer tied to a specific time and place to the new digital opportunities for self-organization, visible the extent it was in the pre-digital world decades ago. And in practices like crowdfunding. It seems nevertheless un- while it is true that digitalization in “virtual life” can lead likely that civil society will be able to substitute the com- to more “echo chambers” in which the content can radical- parative advantage of the state, which is to provide a general ize due to the sourcing of information within self-imposed level of security for all, as opposed to the specialized assis- “filter bubbles”, in the increasingly global “real life” we are tance for specific hardships provided by civil society chari- constantly confronted with diverse cultures, ideologies, and ties. But it is quite likely that, in line with Václav Havel’s ways of life. In such a reading, the antithetic coexistence in vision (Havel 1995), digitalized civil society may be able to a globalized Gesellschaft and in many digitalized Gemein- find solutions for more and more issues which in the past schaften suddenly appears as a curious form of synthesis. were either classified as common-pool resource problems, In case this optimistic reading turns out to be valid, is i.e. solvable within a community but entailing substan- 47 there nothing left for policy? Does such a global-digital sys- tial internal coordination efforts (Ostrom 1990), or even as tem regulate itself completely automatically, in that the an- public good problems that, in the pre-digital age, were only tithetical logics of community and society are synthetically deemed solvable if the state stepped in. neutralized and offset due to the simultaneity of globaliza- tion and digitization? As pointed out in the beginning of CONCLUSION COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS the essay, it is certainly too early for such comprehensive forecasts due to our far too short exposure to digitalization. This paper presented Hayek as a representative of the “think- But at least it makes sense to point to this possibly of com- ing in orders” tradition in political economy and addressed plementarity: Perhaps such a reading could resemble the al- a crucial aspect of his order theory: the primacy of Gesell- leged contradictoriness of the doux-commerce thesis on the schaft over Gemeinschaft in Hayek’s comprehensive plea for one hand, and the self-destruction thesis of the market on the logic of modernity’s extended order. The two Tönnie- the other, which Hirschman (1982) summarized in such a sian forms of association are mapped to the two megatrends way that the system-stabilizing and the system-destroying of our time, globalization and digitalization, claiming that power of anonymous market relations can work simultane- globalization tends to reinforce the logic of Gesellschaft, ously and one must focus on preventing the dominance of while digitalization may amplify the logic of Gemeinschaft. the destructive elements. Before discussing the possible antithetical or synthetical ef- The necessity of “more statics” via fixed points remains fects of globalization and digitalization on the individual’s an important plea resulting from this analysis. As the glob- perceptions of this central tension of modernity, a common al-digital age continues to unfold, what needs to be ob- property of both megatrends: Each of them, and even more served with particular attention is how the “market-state- so in combination, tends to produce a sense of ever-increas- civil society triad”, and here especially the “division of ing order dynamics. The central plea of the paper is that this labor” among the three, may change and transform. Mar- burden for the individual’s sensory order in the global-dig- kets obviously become more and more dynamic if we main- ital age must be taken seriously by Hayekians, both when tain their present institutional framework and if the world theorizing order and when searching for adequate policies. evolves (halfway) peacefully. In the Hayekian interpreta- A sense of an order being “too dynamic” can prove high- tion of this paper, the state could become the guarantor and ly detrimental for the polity, as citizens start classifying as liberal provider of social security: For those who temporar- chaos what was previously seen as order. To preclude such a

F. A. Hayek, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Globalization and Digitalization . Berlin: https://

. . In: Bartley, W. . New York: . New York: . . Tübingen: Cheltenham: Éditions . , Vol. 1. Chicago: 1. , Vol. Frankfurter Berlin: Springer. . Chicago: University of . Chicago: University of . . 7(1): 67-93. . 7(1): . Paris: . Chicago: University of Left-or Neither. Right-Wing? WU Vienna University of November 26, 2017. November 26, 2017. . Journal of Economic Literature Journal of Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & . . 69: 35-50. ORDO Risk, Uncertainty and Profit The FoundationsHistory The Economics:of and The The Economist Langages totalitaires Essays Moral, Political, and Literary . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. , May 17. Living Economics: and Today Yesterday, Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik The Constitution Libertyof The Sensory Order and OtherWritings on the Faces of Moderation. The Art of Balance Agein an of Politische Extreme. Eine Wort- und Begriffsgeschichte und Extreme. Wort- Politische Eine The GreatPersuasion. Reinventing Free Markets 2013. Is 2013. Toward a Civil Society:Toward SelectedSpeeches and Writings Wilhelm Röpke’s Political Economy Political Röpke’s Wilhelm Neoliberale StaatsverständnisseNeoliberale Vergleich im Der Hayekianische Wohlfahrtsstaat im Licht Review Austrian of Economics The CollectedWorksF. Hayek A. of . London: Palgrave Macmillan. . Oakland: The Independent Institute. . Prague: Lidové Noviny. TheFatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism . Philadelphia: University Pennsylvania of Press. F. A. Hayek.F. Economics, Political Economy and Social . Accessed 8 September 2019. Individualism Economic Order and [1952] 2004. [1952] 1988. . 2017. . [1952] . [1960] 2011. . . 2017. The Challenges. 2017. Facing Liberalism in 21st Century.the . 2018.

A Critique. Zeitung Allgemeine Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Augustus M. Kelley. Gruyter.De We ConsiderWe Ourselves to Be in the ‘Radical Centre’. September 3. Theory in the Analysis of Economic Reality Mohr Siebeck. Hermann. gegenwärtiger Sozialstaatsforschung Economics and Business, Master Thesis. Elgar. Edward 1990-1994 A. (ed.) Chicago Press, 1-32. pp. Foundations TheoreticalPsychology of Chicago Press. Chicago Press. III (ed.) W. University Chicago of Press. Civilizing, Destructive, Feeble? or 20 (4): 1463-1484. von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart Ruprecht. Tomorrow Economic Education for Foundation fee.org/articles/the-challenges-facing-liberalism-in-the-21st- century/ Philosophy Depression the since Methodological Heresy. Extremes

Horn, Die K. rechte 2015. Flanke der Liberalen. 1987. Hume, [1742] D. 1964. Knight, H. [1921] F. S. 2017. Kolev, Economist, The. 1992. [1940] Eucken, W. 2004. [1972] Faye, J.-P. Fritz, R. 2016. Gregg, S. 2010. 1995. Havel, V. 1948. Individualism: A.Hayek, [1945] F. and True False. In Hayek, F. Hirschman, A. 1982. O. Rival Interpretations Market of Society: Hoppe, H-H. A. 1994. Hayek Government on F. and Social Evolution: REFERENCES Backes, 2006. U. Boettke, J. 2012. P. Burgin, A. 2012. Christ, A Measure K. 2018. Judgments—Wilhelm of Röpke’s Craiutu, A. 2017. - - - - . Gesellschaft

order’s logic of order’s 2019—could fail the at very point identifiedby Boettke as epistemicthe Hayek’s of liberalism: core the individual’s ca pability and willingness learn to and adapt the to extended and knowledge. Otherwise theextended our of globorder al-digital modernity—palpably fragile as presents itself it in tialstablea prerequisite of that liberal one must be order, provided the by institutional framework in when moments the individual temporarily the of drops out division labor of ifthese fixed pointsprovided be Hayekianby a may welfare state, a civil by society, simultaneously or both, by I claim that the sense subjectively of sufficient security is an essen cessfully handle uncertainty”, the prevalent “order a notion coined inthe enhancing paper by Knightianuncertainty security. withorder concept of Regardless Heinrich Popitz’s perception, the paper recommends considering the notion fixedof points,of i.e. elements the institutional framework that assist the individual lose to orientation not and suc to VOLUME 7 | ISSUE 5 + 6 2020 7 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 48 COSMOS + TAXIS

. 2019a. Review of Peter J. Boettke, ‘F. A. Hayek. Economics, Political Economy and Social Philosophy’. Œconomia — History / Methodology / Philosophy forthcoming. . 2019b. Besieged by the Left and the Right: The Order of Liberal Globalism. Review of Austrian Economics, doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11138-019-00473-w. Lippmann, W. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. McCloskey, D. N. 2016. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mill, J. S. [1859] 1991. On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mises, L. v. [1960] 2008. Liberty and its Antithesis. In Mises, L. v. (ed.) Planning for Freedom: Let the Market System Work. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 111-116. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Popitz, H. [1986] 2017. Phenomena of Power. Authority, Domination, and Violence. New York: Columbia University Press. Renner, A. 2002. Jenseits von Kommunitarismus und Neoliberalismus. Eine Neuinterpretation der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft. Grafschaft: Vektor. 49 Robbins, L. 1961. Hayek on Liberty. Economica 28 (109): 66-81. Röpke, W. [1942] 1950. The Social Crisis of Our Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. . 1947. Das Kulturideal des Liberalismus. Frankfurt: G. Schulte- Bulmke. . [1958] 1960. A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market. Chicago: Henry Regnery. + TAXIS COSMOS Rothbard, M. N. 1980. F. A. Hayek and the Concept of Coercion. ORDO. 31: 43-50. Sally, R. 1998. Classical Liberalism and International Economic Order. London: Routledge. Schumacher, E. F. 1973. Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. New York: Harper & Row. Smith, A. [1759] 1976. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . [1776] 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Solchany, J. 2015. Wilhelm Röpke, l’autre Hayek. Aux origines du néolibéralisme. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Tönnies, F. 1887. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Abhandlung des Communismus und des Socialismus als empirischer Culturformen. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag (R. Reisland). Viner, J. 1961. Hayek on Freedom and Coercion. Southern Economic Journal. 27 (3): 230-236.

F. A. Hayek, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Globalization and Digitalization