From things to non-things

In chapter 1 “From things to non-things” by Byung-Chul Han (2021), we find a fascinating critique of contemporary society, the changes brought about by the information age, and what the future holds for human individuality and freedom.

Liquid modernity, the current stage of society, is laden with constant change, uncertainty and a lack of solid structures — with no possibility of long-term planning and complete instability. It stands in contrast to solid modernity, where social structures and institutions offered stability, predictability and clear norms that regulated individual behaviour.

Han (2021) draws on the concepts proposed by Zygmunt Bauman and focuses on the internet of things to develop his reflection. He places particular emphasis on how “non-things” (that is, the digital world and information) have displaced things (the material), distancing us from human stability and existential meaning.

Temporality and extreme flexibility

According to Bauman, liquid modernity is characterised by individualism, extreme flexibility, instability, temporality and rootlessness. I believe that, of these concepts, the most visible in the chapter presented are temporality and extreme flexibility.

Temporality, in that everything has an expiry date and is considered provisional. People no longer want to dedicate time to actions that require effort and that are considered formulas for emotional stability — such as lasting relationships, commitment, responsibilities. It becomes preferable to acquire the latest software technology (not so much hardware, since we are in the era of non-things) than to maintain consistent behaviour with long-term goals.

Technology, identity and emotional disconnection

Sherry Turkle (2017) has researched how digital technology affects relationships and the construction of personal identity. In her work Reclaiming Conversation, Turkle describes how constant digital connection has replaced deep and meaningful conversation — a crucial element for introspection and the development of a coherent identity.

She argues that technology allows people to adopt multiple online identities, which fragments the self and leads to emotional disconnection. This coincides with what Han describes as the era of non-things, where meaningful interaction is replaced by fleeting and depersonalised experiences. According to Turkle (2017), this fragmentation prevents people from developing a solid sense of who they are, just as in Bauman’s liquid society, where everything is provisional and transitory.

The post-factual society and post-truth

Byung-Chul Han (2021) refers to a post-factual society when alluding to post-truth, due to informational chaos. That is, a world in which it is considered that there are no limitations on truth. Feelings and short-term efficacy replace truth, in the sense that immediacy and fleeting emotions acquire greater value than sitting down to research a topic or wanting to analyse arguments.

This can be observed today in a vast number of situations. We are a society that consumes information, yet we neither process nor retain any information in our heads.

The superficial freedom of choice

The transformation of freedom of action into a superficial freedom of choice, as Han suggests, implies that people become passive consumers of prefabricated options, which undermines true autonomy.

Turkle (2017) offers a complementary perspective by showing how this apparent freedom is actually a form of social control, where the multiplicity of options disguises a lack of real agency. Ultimately, digital society does not merely redefine freedom — it reduces it to a series of prefabricated options that require neither deep commitment nor genuine reflection.

Critical thinking in crisis

I found the author’s critique remarkable, because for years we have been able to observe that people are losing — or have lost — the capacity for critical thinking and tolerance. A community in which reading scientific research books is considered equally valid to watching a reel of someone claiming that the conclusions of those studies hurt their feelings.

I have observed this in controversial and so-called “contentious” topics, such as transsexuality, the oppression of women, surrogacy exploitation, sexual exploitation and many other issues. Where researchers have been cyberbullied for wanting to call for professional ethics from practitioners who choose to turn a deaf ear to the irreversible psychological consequences their practices have on people.

Is there truly freedom of choice in a society that thinks everything is valid, regardless of arguments and consequences? Does human intelligence exist if AI is used even to consult about human values, with access only to the bias generated within that application?

The transmodern paradigm

Regarding post-truth, Rodríguez Magda (2021, pp. 25-26) references Bauman’s liquid modernity to analyse what she calls the transmodern paradigm. She explains that beyond the political and legislative interests of the queer perspective, the conceptualisation of fluid sex fits with the transmodernism of our era.

This suggests a prevalence of the trans model over postmodernity, driven by Big Data, the hegemony of the sign over the referent, narcissism and consumption. Fulfilled in a transmodern paradigm that surpasses basic pillars of modernity: the political in the transnational, nature in the transgenic, sex in the transgender, and the human being ultimately in transhumanism. Speaking also of a paradigm shift, not merely an era of changes.

Identity, commodification and censorship

José Errasti and Marino Pérez Álvarez, in their book Nadie nace en un cuerpo equivocado (2022), address the question of gender ideology and the medicalisation of identity, reflecting on topics such as surrogacy exploitation and hate culture.

From their perspective, the growing acceptance of surrogacy and the relaxation of gender norms respond to a tendency to satisfy individual desires without fully considering the psychological and social consequences. According to Errasti and Pérez Álvarez, surrogacy can lead to the commodification of the female body, objectifying the process of gestation and transforming a profoundly human experience into a commercialised service.

Furthermore, they argue that the discourse on “tolerance” and “acceptance” can become a form of “hate culture”, where any questioning of these practices is seen as aggression or disrespect.

In this way, Errasti and Pérez Álvarez highlight the risks of liquid postmodernity in which everything seems negotiable and where the imperative of acceptance becomes, ironically, a form of censorship. Like Byung-Chul Han and Zygmunt Bauman, they criticise how ideology and the manipulation of values can restrict freedom of expression and critical thinking, resulting in a culture that avoids any deep debate about the ethical and psychological implications of these practices.

The player-human and the end of history

Whoever acts breaks with what exists and brings something new into the world, something completely different. To do so, they must overcome resistance. Play, on the other hand, does not intervene in reality. To act is the verb of history. The player-human, manually inactive, of the future represents the end of history. (Han, 2021)

The player-person completely disconnects from reality and produces no real-world impact. Social activism is set aside in favour of having to be tolerant of any thought and action — even if that action leads to the violation of a human right.

But this will not be recognised by individuals, since according to today’s society, “we live informed”, even if it is through fake news or one-minute videos summarised by influencers. As we have learned in Professional Ethics, the aim is to homogenise thought in an irrational manner. Placing first the supposed values belonging to everyone (largely created through media manipulation), the supposed “tolerance”, above real facts, over activism for a better future.

And if a person decides to question these values, they become the “intolerant” one, the one who doesn’t adapt and who supposedly transmits a “hate culture”.

Final reflection

Reading Byung-Chul Han’s text has allowed me to deepen my understanding of my own feelings of frustration in the face of the apparent lack of freedom of thought in our current society. We live in an era that, ironically, presents itself as an age of information and communication, yet in which it seems increasingly difficult to hold contrary opinions or express thoughts that challenge the dominant consensus.

From the perspective of professional ethics, this represents a significant challenge: how can we, as professionals, advocate for critical thinking and intellectual freedom in a context where any contrary opinion is considered intolerance?

Professional ethics demands a commitment to promoting truth and objective analysis, without succumbing to external pressures that seek to homogenise thought. Our ethical responsibility lies in ensuring that knowledge and truth do not become mere consumer products, but rather foundations for genuine dialogue and free thinking, however uncomfortable that may be.

References

Baudrillard, J. (2006). El otro por sí mismo. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Errasti, J., & Pérez Álvarez, M. (2022). Nadie nace en un cuerpo equivocado: Éxito y miseria de la identidad de género. Deusto.
Han, Byung-chul (2021). No Cosas. Quiebras del mundo de hoy. Barcelona: Taurus.
Rodríguez Magda, R. M. (Coord.). (2021). El sexo en disputa. De la necesaria recuperación jurídica de un concepto (Foros y Debates, N.º 19). Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Turkle, S. (2017). Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. Penguin Books.