We have long been accustomed to seeing the world as a global system of nation-states.

In this view, the word “international” refers to relations between and among nation-states.

Today, however, that term is used less often. It has given way to the term “global,” signifying the momentous emergence of a new world system that operates according to its logic and principles.

Such a system has no interest other than to reproduce itself, whatever the consequences may be to the environment or to the future of humanity itself.

This global system arose from the need to cope with the growing complexity of human affairs.

Unlike previous forms of human society, however, global society recognises no pre-ordained hierarchies, and is indifferent to traditional identity markers like race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or religious affiliation.

Instead, it differentiates only according to “function”—meaning, the specific need or purpose that is served in the broader social system.

At the level of the individual, for instance, this means that one’s career path is no longer determined by where one comes from or who one knows, but only by what one can do, and what level of professional training one possesses.

In such a world, someone like Barack Obama, whose father was African, could become the first Black president of the United States. Likewise, Rishi Sunak, born of immigrant Indian parents, could become British prime minister.

What they bring to their positions is a personal quality that has nothing to do with their racial or ethnic background.

This is not to say they are not sometimes subjected to occasional racial slurs in their own countries.

Traditional identities die hard, and, even within modern society, they may easily be mobilised to generate certain outcomes.

Today, the world is going through a reactionary phase.

Nation-states are resetting their boundaries in various ways. Dormant memories are being awakened and placed in the service of new goals, and outmoded identities are reactivated to oppose a global order that seeks to flatten the old distinctions and hierarchies.

What we are seeing, in short, is a backlash against globalisation and its consequences.

People are quick to note the flow of immigrants from distant shores, whom they see as stealing their jobs and social benefits and taking over their communities.

What they don’t notice as much, or see as clearly, is the rise of a corporate-driven global order dominated by faceless economic entities that fatten themselves at the expense of ordinary working people and the environment.

These entities have no loyalty other than to their owners and shareholders and recognise no value other than profitability.

The reaction we are seeing takes the form of generalised populist resentments that induce a powerful clamour for politicians who can articulate these fears and grievances.

US presidential candidate Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, Trump’s personal choice for vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party, are prime personifications of this populist backlash against globalisation.

They have found a common cause in their strident anti-immigrant and isolationist stance. Yet, they could not have been more different from one another in terms of personal background.

Unlike Trump who grew up rich and privileged, Vance came from an impoverished and dysfunctional family in a blighted working-class setting. He rose from these circumstances by joining the Marines and later earning a degree from Yale University.

In another era, Vance could have been the perfect leader of a socialist working-class party.

But his working-class origins, which he eloquently lays out in a touching memoir titled “Hillbilly Elegy”, have been displaced by a right-wing nationalism that seeks to protect America from the influx of immigrants, shield the US economy from foreign competition, and disentangle America from its costly defence commitments to longstanding allies.

The looming possibility of a second Trump presidency, borne on the wings of a resurgent inward-looking nationalism, marks the reversal of the effort to develop global institutions appropriate to a modern functionally differentiated world.

I like to think that this will mostly be felt in the least developed political subsystem of global society, where the United Nations and its agencies have barely managed to enforce the tacit understandings of a global society.

But, in other functional domains—science and technology, education, the economy, mass media, art, etc.—it is hard to imagine how globalisation and its imperatives can be ignored.

Like many developing countries, the Philippines is heavily invested in globalisation.

The earnings of its overseas workers, now estimated at $2.88 billion per month, constitute a sizeable portion of the country’s income. However, it can rely on overseas Filipino workers’ remittances only for as long as its workers can comply with the minimum criteria set by global employers.

The urgent need for the country’s educational system to level up to global standards cannot be overstated.

Despite current setbacks, the global system is here to stay.

For sure, not everything about it has brought positive outcomes for our people.

Globalisation is not a normative choice but a new terrain we need to learn to navigate on our own.