Byung-Chul Han makes the argument in the The Burnout Society that the world has moved from an “immunological” point of view to one of mere “difference”. What he means by this is that the dominant perspective of humans in the “immunological” age mimics that of our immune system. On a societal level, we think in strong, us vs. them points of view. There is “us”, or the Self, and there is “other”, or the outside. Contact between these two produces an immunological response often denoted by hostility.
The new point of view is puts forth appears to be rooted in the post cold war rise of globalism. In this era, countries, international alliances and broader societal groups no longer view foreign people as “other”, rather only as “exotic”. This shift collapses the immunological framework into a softer way of being, characterized by most profoundly by consumption. New places, cultures and people, are something to see, experience and sample.
Years after the book was published, this appears to be more true than ever, while also wildly wrong. It is true that the technology, social media, and economic policy has brought the world closer together for the average person and lowered the barrier to safe, predictable interaction with what would have once been seen as a dangerous “other”. But it is also true, as we move closer to the mid 21st century, that there appears to be just as much immunological thinking as ever. Brexit, Trump, Isreal/Palestein, US vs. China Trade wars, AI arms races, energy crises, etc. Are all contemporary examples of immunological thinking.
In fact, Han makes this point again when he analyzes news headlines in our modern world. He asks, “What do phenomena such as the battle against a new resurgence of an epidemic, opposition to an extradition request for a foreign head of state accused of violating human rights, the strengthening of barriers in the fight against illegal immigration, and strategies for neutralizing the latest computer virus have in common?” Not much, except that they are all distinguished by an immunological perspective. They are an Internal vs. External dilemma that requires a protective solution.
Connections
Link Explanation: I’ve linked these notes because I think that Byung-Chul Han, forces this immunological premise on the reader so that the rest of his arguments in the book have a leg to stand on. However, as discussed, I believe there are plenty of examples of this point being wrong, or at least incomplete. Han is forcing this view of the world to prove his emotionally driven perspective is correct and analytical, when it is not.