Fragmenting the noosphere cedes noopolitik to Russia.

Our earlier work warned that, while some state and non-state actors might find noöpolitik attractive, they might care less about the emergence and construction of the noosphere. In the hands of a democratic leader, noöpolitik might then amount to little more than airy, idealistic rhetoric with little or no structural basis; whereas in the hands of a dictator or demagogue, noopolitik could be reduced to manipulative propaganda and perception-management. Narrower versions of noöpolitik might be also attempted for private gain — in the commercial worlds of advertising and public relations, this already occurs when companies field media blitzes and plant testimonials to “spin” public opinion. These were among the risks that may have to be faced, we warned long ago.

Unfortunately, that warning has been borne out, for noopolitik has been largely co-opted by dark actors. Today, despite its promise, noopolitik is not alive and well in the environment in which it should be most thriving: the United States, where now even “soft power” is ailing as a strategic concept. Instead, America’s state and non-state adversaries — notably Russia, and until lately, al Qaeda and ISIS — have developed their own versions of noopolitik, albeit by other names, and they’ve applied it effectively against the United States and its allies and friends. As noted earlier, these new circumstances mean we are now living not only in the worst of times for noopolitik, but also in the most pertinent — and urgent — of times for revisiting the promise of the noosphere and the prospects for noospolitik.