"From Tectonopoly to the Genosphere: Rewriting the World Order"

06.16.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Friends,

What some refer to as "chaos" in the international system or what pseudo-political scientists and economists attempt to categorize is, in fact, the result of a historical transition: from the post-Cold War world order to what I call the “Genosphere”. This transitional era, which I define as “Tectonopoly”, represents a crucial phase humanity must inevitably pass through. The initial disorder we are witnessing is already beginning to take on the contours of a new order.

How is this happening?

What appears to be chaos in international relations is not a collapse into meaninglessness—it is a phase transition. We are moving from a late liberal world order, which crystallized after the Cold War, toward a post-global paradigm—the Genosphere—characterized by existential co-structurality, plurality, and a textured world order. In this sense, chaos should be understood not as the opposite of order, but as a transitional form of order.

The chaos we observe at the macro level—across politics, economics, technology, and identity—is not devoid of structure. On the contrary, it is entropically productive, serving as a matrix from which new forms of co-organization emerge. “Chaos” is better understood as a symptom of a tectonic shift rather than its essence.

We are witnessing:

* The collapse of previously dominant universals (liberal hegemony, the universality of human rights, dollar-centricity),

* The emergence of multiple centers of power (China, India, the UAE, Turkey, the Global South),

* The fragmentation and regionalization of value chains,

* And, significantly, the **epistemological destabilization** of Western modernity’s monopoly on truth.

These dynamics mark the emergence of Tectonopoly—an era of geopolitical and civilizational shifts where the traditional world map no longer reflects the actual territory.

The Genosphere, far from being merely a personal concept, is an emerging ontopolitical reality. Even amid today's perceived disorder, we can identify the formative structures of a new global order:

1. “Multilateral Architecture”: Stable alliances and blocs—BRICS+, SCO, UTG, ASEAN+3, the African Union—are forming, not subordinate to a single hegemon. They function through “asymmetrical conjugacy”: cooperation without uniformity.

2. “Civilizational Self-Awareness”: States are beginning to act based on “civilizational subjectivity”—concepts like the “Russian World,” “Middle Turkic Civilization,” or “Indian Dharma”—moving beyond the constraints of the Westphalian model.

3. “Mediation via AI and Cyber Networks”: The emerging order is textured through artificial intelligence, digital platforms, networked agents, and cognitive power. Neural network systems are becoming the new intermediaries of political and economic behavior.

4. “Networked Economy”: The global economy is shifting from hierarchical institutions (like the WTO and IMF) to regional and network-based agreements, based not on static rules but on dynamic interdependencies and logistics corridors (e.g., IMEC, ITC, CPEC, the Middle Corridor via the Caspian and Turkey).

Tectonopoly is thus an objective necessity. It acts as a form of anthropohistorical compression—the spring pressure that shapes new subjectivities. Some states experience demodernization (e.g., Russia's institutional erosion), others undergo reverse modernization (e.g., China, Turkey), and still others pursue ontological rewriting—the construction of new civilizational codes and development philosophies (e.g., Kazakhstan, India, Iran).

Chaos, then, is not an anomaly. It is an intermediate regime—a space of renewal, a latent structure within instability. It signals the breakdown of old control codes and the emergence of a heteronomous world: one with multiple ontological centers, interconnected by shared meanings, identities, technologies, and logistic systems.

I argue that humanity has already entered the post-global birth phase of the Genosphere. This transition doesn’t eliminate conflict but transforms its nature—from geopolitics to cognopolitics, from hegemony to co-creation, from unitarity to civilizational pluralism.

Let me briefly explain how this process of ontological rewriting has occurred—and is occurring—in various civilizations:

1. Turkey provides a modern precedent. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, Turkey underwent an ontological revolution: abandoning the caliphate, imperial sacredness, and its role as the Islamic world's center. The Kemalist Republic was a unique case of civilizational self-destruction for rebirth—a rational, centralized redefinition typical of modernity.

2. Armenia is now undergoing identity re-editing in the era of Tectonopoly. Its constitutional decision to exclude Artsakh is not merely a political concession—it marks the abandonment of a messianic narrative centered on land and memory. Armenia is entering a stage of civilizational humility, building statehood based on survival, not myth. This is not modernity; this is Tectonopoly.

3. Iran remains caught between sacred ideology and pragmatic realism. A potential deal to abandon its nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief may indicate the reprogramming of Shiite identity—from eschatological resistance to civilizational realism. Though hesitant, Tehran’s very consideration of this path reflects Tectonopoly’s influence, where chaos gives way to a new, emergent logic.

These are not signs of weakness. They are signs of civilizational maturity—the ability to re-edit meaning in response to historical pressure.

The world is no longer progressing through linear modernization. It is entering the Genosphere, a realm where the texts of identity are being rewritten.

A Note on Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan, too, stands on the threshold of ontological transformation—a reality both the government and the public must recognize.

Unlike countries marked by war or existential collapse, Kazakhstan is in a favorable multilateral and polysociocultural condition. It retains its ethnocultural core, is not isolated, and has not experienced traumatic rupture. This provides a historic opportunity: to be the first state of the Tectonopoly to rewrite itself not through catastrophe, but through conscious design.

To seize this opportunity, Kazakhstan must:

• Abandon outdated colonial codes,

• Move beyond post-Soviet ambiguity,

• And craft its own civilizational formula—a practical ontology of the future.

If it succeeds, Kazakhstan will enter the Genosphere as a subject, not an object.

In this new era, the future will not belong to those who cling to the old script. It will belong to those bold enough to rewrite it amid tectonic uncertainty.