From the Post-Ideological World to Transnational Politics

Introduction

In recent years, clear signs of entry into a Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy have become visible in many societies; a world in which politics is no longer perceived as a field of collective idealism, but rather as an ineffective, costly, and sometimes meaningless arena. For a significant portion of people—especially younger generations—the central question is no longer “How can the world be changed?” but instead “How can one survive and succeed in this world as it is?”

Under such conditions, organized political participation, membership in activist groups, and ideological commitment have given way to individual strategies oriented toward survival and wealth accumulation. Rather than investing emotional and temporal resources in collective projects, individuals prefer to channel their energy into personal advancement, economic security, and competition in material and symbolic markets. Gradually, politics is reduced from a meaningful collective action to a vague and even disruptive background presence.

This political apathy cannot be attributed merely to “indifference” or a “lack of awareness.” On the contrary, what we are facing is a profound transformation in the mode of political existence of contemporary human beings—a transformation rooted in the decline of grand ideologies, structural depoliticization, and the individualization of meaning in late capitalism. The concept of the “Post-Ideological World” is precisely an attempt to understand this condition: a condition in which ideologies no longer possess mobilizing power and politics has lost its future-shaping imagination.

Nevertheless, the process of globalization has created new opportunities for reconstructing politics at a transnational and human-centered level. Globalization expands national boundaries, highlights shared human issues, and enables the mobilization of individuals beyond identity-based divisions.

This article seeks to demonstrate how the trajectory of politics can be reconstructed from the limited world of the nation-state toward transnational politics, and how freedom and justice can be pursued on broader dimensions.

What Is the Post-Ideological World and How Did It Emerge?

To understand the current condition of politics and to explain the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy, we must first clarify what is meant by “post-ideological.” This concept does not by any means signify the complete end of ideologies; rather, it refers to a condition in which grand and classical ideologies have largely lost their capacity to generate meaning and mobilize collective action. In the Post-Ideological World, ideology still exists, but it no longer inspires sustained collective action. It should be noted that the Post-Ideological World primarily emerges within the framework of the nation-state; a space in which national–idealistic ideologies have lost much of their collective mobilizing power, and domestic politics has been reduced to the management of the status quo and technocratic efficiency.

In the twentieth century—the era of the flourishing of nation-states worldwide—ideologies played a central role in organizing politics. Liberalism, socialism, nationalism, and various revolutionary projects provided not only political programs but also horizons of meaning for individual and collective life. Individuals knew “which side of history they stood on,” and political action was regarded as a form of moral and identity-based commitment. However, developments over recent decades have gradually transformed this condition.

First, the collapse of large-scale ideological projects and the failure of many of their historical promises generated deep distrust toward ideological politics. The experience of totalitarian states, the failure of revolutions to realize justice and freedom, and the gradual homogenization of political parties within the framework of the global economy turned ideology from a liberating force into something suspicious and risky. As a result, many people preferred to maintain distance from politics.

In the next stage, politics gradually became technocratic and managerial. Instead of conflicts over values and alternative futures, politics was reduced to the realm of “managing the status quo.” Decisions were justified not on the basis of ideals, but through the language of efficiency, economic growth, and crisis management. This shift also transformed the role of citizens: the active citizen gave way to the spectator citizen—an individual who follows politics but does not perceive themselves as effective within it.

Within such a context, the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy gradually became a lived experience. People came to feel that genuine political differences had diminished and that their participation no longer had a meaningful impact on the overall direction of society. Consequently, long-term collective action, membership in parties and activist groups, and even ideological debates were replaced by a form of conscious withdrawal or pragmatic indifference.

At the same time, market logic and economic competition became the dominant framework for interpreting social life. In a world where politics has lost the ability to promise a different future, individual success and wealth accumulation become the only reliable horizon. Thus, the Post-Ideological World is not merely a world without ideology, but a world in which “money” and “personal security” have replaced meaning, ideals, and collective action.

With this explanation, a fundamental question arises: why has this condition led to an increase in political apathy, and how has it redirected individuals from collective action toward individual strategies? To answer this question, the next section will examine the roots and dimensions of political apathy in the contemporary world.

Political Apathy: From Collective Fatigue to the Conscious Choice of Withdrawal

Political apathy is one of the most prominent signs of the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy; yet contrary to common assumptions, this condition is not merely the result of ignorance or superficial indifference. Rather, what can be observed today in many societies is a form of conscious and calculative withdrawal from politics—a withdrawal rooted in accumulated experiences of failure, distrust, and collective exhaustion.

For many citizens, politics no longer promises change. Repetitive elections, unfulfilled promises, and the growing similarity of political discourses have reinforced the sense that “the outcome is already predetermined.” Under such circumstances, political participation is perceived not only as futile, but sometimes as harmful, since it requires the expenditure of time, energy, and even emotional capital along a path that yields no tangible return. For this reason, distancing oneself from politics becomes a rational strategy.

It should be noted that political apathy becomes particularly visible within nation-states, especially in the realms of elections and party-based action; citizens observe that participation within national boundaries has no tangible impact, and therefore prefer to devote their energy to personal life and the management of limited resources.

On the other hand, political apathy must be understood in connection with collective fatigue. Decades of economic crises, social instability, and structural pressures have eroded the psychological capacity of societies. In such a context, collective political action—which requires hope, trust, and a shared horizon—appears more difficult than ever. Individuals prefer to invest their limited energy in domains over which they perceive greater control, such as employment, migration, investment, or personal advancement.

In the Post-Ideological World, this withdrawal gradually becomes normalized and institutionalized. Avoidance of politics is no longer seen as a sign of social irresponsibility, but rather is presented as a form of realism or even personal maturity. Phrases such as “politics is dirty,” “they are all the same,” or “it has nothing to do with me” reflect this shift in attitude. As a result, political apathy transforms from an exception into a dominant pattern.

More importantly, this condition is accompanied by the individualization of social responsibility. Instead of questioning structures, institutions, and power relations, emphasis increasingly falls on individual choices. If someone is not successful, they should “try harder”; if inequality exists, one should “find a personal way through.” This logic reduces politics from a public issue to a marginal matter and further reinforces political apathy.

Nevertheless, political apathy does not imply a complete absence of social sensitivity. Many individuals remain aware of injustice, corruption, or environmental crises, but prefer not to transform this awareness into sustained collective action. Instead, responses are often episodic, emotional, and unorganized—reactions that emerge quickly and fade just as rapidly. This pattern constitutes another characteristic of political life in the Post-Ideological World.

Ultimately, political apathy should be understood not as absolute passivity, but as a redirection of action—an action that has shifted from the public sphere to the private domain and has been reduced from changing the world to managing individual life. It is precisely this shift that leads us to the next question of the article: if politics has retreated from the center of social life, what has taken its place?

In the next section, we will examine the role of wealth-oriented individualism and the transformation of money into a source of meaning and identity in the Post-Ideological World.

From Collective Action to Individual Wealth: When Money Replaces Ideology

In the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy, the retreat of politics from the center of social life has been accompanied by another phenomenon: the elevation of wealth as the primary source of meaning, security, and individual identity. When ideologies no longer possess the capacity to envision a different future, money becomes the closest substitute for addressing individual and collective anxieties.

In the past, participation in political and social projects was often accompanied by a sense of meaning-seeking. Individuals felt that they were part of a larger movement, and that their actions—even when costly—acquired significance within the horizon of history. In the Post-Ideological World, however, this long-term horizon has collapsed. The future appears vague, unstable, and unpredictable, and under such conditions, wealth accumulation becomes the most rational means of reducing uncertainty.

Within the nation-state framework, competition for resources and individual success has replaced collective political action; individuals are more concerned with improving their economic position within national laws and markets than with transforming politics and collective power structures.

At the same time, contemporary economic logic operates in a way that defines success as entirely individual. Progress is the result of personal effort, and failure is attributed to insufficient work or poor individual choices. This perspective not only conceals power structures and inequalities, but also renders collective action unnecessary. Why struggle to change structures when one can achieve success by “playing the same game better”?

Within this framework, wealth-oriented individualism becomes a dominant rationality. Instead of joining parties, unions, or activist groups, individuals focus on building personal brands, enhancing marketable skills, and identifying economic opportunities. Even values such as freedom, independence, and success are defined less in political terms and more through financial achievements and consumer lifestyles.

What is noteworthy is that this turn toward wealth does not necessarily bring inner satisfaction. Many individuals experience a sense of existential emptiness while pursuing economic goals. Yet in the absence of credible political alternatives, money remains the only thing that at least promises security and a relative sense of control over life. For this reason, even dissatisfaction does not translate into collective action and remains confined to the individual level.

At the same time, this condition leads to the weakening of social bonds. Economic competition replaces solidarity, and individuals are increasingly viewed as rivals rather than partners in a shared project. In such an environment, social trust declines and the formation of sustained activist groups becomes more difficult. The result is an atomized society in which each individual is considered responsible for their own survival.

Ultimately, it can be said that in the Post-Ideological World, money has become not merely a tool, but a criterion for valuing human beings. This transformation further marginalizes politics and reproduces political apathy. Yet the fundamental question remains: is this condition inevitable, or is it the outcome of a conscious process that can be challenged?

To address this question, the next section will examine the role of depoliticization and the collapse of political imagination in stabilizing the Post-Ideological World.

Depoliticization and the Decline of Political Imagination: Why Is a Different Future No Longer Imaginable?

One of the deepest layers of the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy must be sought in a process that can be called “depoliticization”; a process that operates not through the apparent removal of politics, but through emptying it of meaning, conflict, and the possibility of alternatives. In a depoliticized world, politics still exists, but it is no longer experienced as a sphere of collective decision-making about a shared future.

Depoliticization occurs when fundamental social issues—such as inequality, poverty, unemployment, or environmental destruction—are removed from the realm of political contestation and transformed into technical, individual, or inevitable problems. Within this framework, people are told that “there is no alternative,” and that the best possible course of action is to adapt to existing conditions. This logic gradually weakens political imagination—that is, the capacity to envision a world different from the one that currently exists.

In the past, ideologies performed precisely this role: they articulated alternative horizons and made the possibility of the world being otherwise imaginable and believable. In the Post-Ideological World, however, these horizons have collapsed. The future is no longer perceived as a field of hope and emancipation, but as a vague and sometimes threatening extension of the present. In such a condition, questions about transforming structures give way to the management of individual risks.

At the same time, depoliticization operates through a specific language. The language of politics is reduced to the language of economics, statistics, and efficiency. Decisions are justified not on the basis of values, but through market necessities and “realistic” constraints. This language renders citizen participation meaningless; for if everything has already been determined by “experts” and “global imperatives,” the role of the people is reduced to low-impact voting or symbolic expressions of opinion.

This depoliticization occurs primarily within nation-states; spaces in which governmental institutions and legal frameworks impose their own limitations and priorities, and where the horizon of collective change—especially at the national level—becomes narrow and predictable.

The result of this condition is the decline of political imagination. Individuals can no longer envision a collective project worth taking risks for. Even profound dissatisfaction struggles to transform into sustained political action, because there is no alternative horizon to give it direction. For this reason, social anger often erupts in explosive, short-lived, and fragmented forms, and then subsides without leading to structural change.

In the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy, this decline of imagination has far-reaching consequences. When a different future is no longer imaginable, the existing present—even if unjust and unstable—is accepted as the only possible option. Under such conditions, rational action for many individuals is not an effort to change the world, but to adapt to it as effectively as possible; the same logic that reinforces wealth-oriented individualism.

Nevertheless, depoliticization is never complete. Even in the quietest periods, tensions, dissatisfactions, and unanswered questions persist. The central question is whether these signs can lead to the reconstruction of political imagination and the revival of collective action, or whether they are absorbed and neutralized within the framework of the Post-Ideological World.

In the next section, we examine whether the return of politics and collective action is possible in the Post-Ideological World.

Does Politics Return? Globalization as an Opportunity for Reconstructing Transnational Politics

Although the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy are often interpreted as signs of the decline of politics, this picture does not tell the whole story. Alongside the weakening of national politics and classical ideologies, the process of globalization has opened new possibilities for rethinking politics on a broader scale. In other words, politics may not have died, but rather is changing scale and form.

Contrary to pessimistic narratives, globalization does not merely signify the expansion of markets or the dominance of global capital. This process has transformed political, cultural, and communicative boundaries and has extended the field of political action beyond the framework of the nation-state. Issues such as climate change, global inequality, migration, human rights, and new technologies can no longer be resolved within national borders. This reality compels politics to think in transnational and supra-state terms.

Within this context, politics can return to its original meaning: a collective effort to realize freedom and justice. The fundamental difference is that, this time, freedom and justice are defined not solely within the framework of a single nation, but on a human and global scale. Globalization has made it possible for individuals—regardless of nationality, ethnicity, religion, or identity-based ideologies—to mobilize around shared human issues. This form of mobilization relies on lived experiences and common concerns, rather than on classical boundaries of “us” and “them.”

From this perspective, globalization can contribute to the revival of political imagination. When political action is freed from rigid and closed national structures, the possibility of imagining new forms of solidarity emerges. Transnational activist networks, digital movements, and temporary yet expansive coalitions are examples of this transformation. Although these new forms of action remain fragile, they demonstrate that politics can regain meaning without reliance on totalizing or identity-centered ideologies.

What is crucial is that this emerging politics does not necessarily seek to reproduce the ideologies of the twentieth century. On the contrary, it creates space for the formation of human-centered ideologies—ideologies that emphasize human dignity, the right to a decent life, and shared global responsibility, rather than defining people through closed identities. Such frameworks can bridge the gap between extreme individualism and collective action, showing individuals that political participation does not necessarily entail total self-sacrifice or rigid ideological commitment.

In the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy, this turn toward transnational politics holds particular significance. Many individuals have distanced themselves from politics precisely because they perceive it as trapped in national power games and group interests. A politics redefined at a global and human-centered level can partially rebuild lost trust. When political action is directly connected to tangible life experiences—from the environment to social justice—the motivation for participation also increases.

Of course, this path is not without risks. Globalization can lead to the concentration of power in unaccountable institutions or the marginalization of local voices. Yet it is precisely at this point that transnational political action becomes crucial: as an effort to democratize globalization and prevent it from becoming a purely economic project. In other words, the issue is not rejecting globalization, but politicizing it.

Ultimately, it can be argued that the return of politics in the Post-Ideological World is possible, but not in familiar or classical forms. This new politics is likely to be transnational, networked, human-centered, and issue-oriented. Such a politics can provide a path for moving beyond political apathy and for reconstructing the bond between the individual and the collective on a broader scale—a bond that may once again bring freedom and justice back into the horizon of politics.

Conclusion: From the Post-Ideological World to Transnational Political Practice

This article has shown that the Post-Ideological World and Political Apathy are the product of several simultaneous transformations: the decline of grand ideologies, structural depoliticization, wealth-oriented individualism, and the erosion of political imagination. These processes have led collective participation, activist groups, and ideological commitments to be replaced by individual strategies and the pursuit of economic security. Politics, as a sphere for realizing collective ideals, has been pushed to the margins, and many people prefer to focus on managing individual life rather than investing energy in changing the world.

Nevertheless, globalization has opened new opportunities for politics. This process expands national boundaries and traditional identity-based limitations, enabling the formation of transnational, human-centered, and issue-oriented actions. Politics redefined within this context can pursue freedom and justice on a global scale and mobilize individuals around shared human concerns beyond classical divisions. The idea of human-centered ideologies—which reject narrow identities and emphasize dignity, responsibility, and global cooperation—demonstrates that politics can regain meaning.

In other words, political apathy and the failure of traditional ideologies do not signify the end of politics; rather, they create the conditions for its reinvention on a broader scale. Globalization, if properly politicized, not only compensates for past limitations but also enables innovative and networked forms of action, the reconstruction of social trust, and the creation of new pathways for collective participation.

In conclusion, the future of politics depends on our ability to reconstruct political imagination at a transnational and human-centered level. This path is still at an early stage, and numerous opportunities for research, action, and theorization lie ahead. In future articles, we intend to focus specifically on how globalization can be politicized rather than rejected, and to demonstrate how freedom and justice can be pursued on broader dimensions without reinforcing individualism or political apathy.