What is a ‘global event’?

Global events can be defined as a sudden, unpredictable change in the order of things that

forces to contest and remodel the current system. They are fundamental, re-shaping the world and

people’s understanding of it. Global events break the current system in unpredictable ways. Their

impact extends beyond the initial location and time constraints. They evoke a variety of different

responses and lead to the search for new structures along with the re-evaluation of previous

understandings. Examples of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, European refugee crisis and the

reactions to Syrian civil war show the nature of global events and the variety of their forms.

Overall, global events cause unpredictable, decisive changes, are vague in terms of time and space,

cause a multitude of reactions and lead to new knowledge and evaluations.

Global events are sudden and dramatic changes (Ingram 2019a: 19) that cannot be

predicted. As Sewel (1996: 843) explains, small changes can be absorbed by the system, whereas

events are “ruptures” that force the system into a new state. Global events mark a decisive shift,

creation of a “new virtual reality” (Kaiser 2012: 1048) – a new world. These changes are

unpredictable and sudden. Representationalist scholars argue that there are “linear timelines”

(Kaiser 2012: 1046) – clear progress of causes and effects – that predetermine the event. However,

these timelines cannot necessarily be anticipated. Sewell (1996: 843) argues that though events are

a consequence of gradual developments, their transformative effect is unpredictable. Badiou (Shaw

2012: 624) goes beyond that, stressing that since events happen when “inexistent objects” appear,

they are not identifiable from their context. Thus, an element of surprise is what makes an ‘event’.

For example, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 was an unforeseen shock. The global effect

of the disaster was especially dramatic and unpredictable. Due to Chernobyl, around 200,000

people were forced to migrate, 150,000km2 of land in three countries is estimated to be polluted,

1
while radioactive contamination affected agricultural products in countries like Sweden and

Britain long-term (Gray 2019). Consequently, Chernobyl can be correctly described as a “global

catastrophe that absorbed huge numbers of people” (Shramovych and Chornous 2019). Therefore,

global events are turning points that “bring something new into the world” (Bassett 2008: 895)

without prior warning.

This turning point, nevertheless, is hard to define since global events are vague and

imprecise. It is difficult to tell the concrete start and end of events (Rajchman 1991, quoted in

Kaiser 2012: 1047) as they contest the traditional boundaries of time. It can be argued that some

events – such as the Chernobyl disaster – may have a concrete beginning. However, the end of the

event can rarely be defined – events can cause a ripple effect, producing more events worldwide

(Kaiser 2012: 1048) and thereby, according to Deleuze, merge with other events to form “an

Event” (Williams 2009: 98). Therefore, the nature of events is to expand their influence beyond

the boundaries of time and space (Ingram 2019a: 27-28). As opposed to Chernobyl, the beginning

of the European refugee crisis is unclear. While some may name a concrete year – 2015 - particular

date cannot be singled-out as the crisis was a combination of increasing number of smaller events

– multiple arrivals of migrants crossing the Mediterranean (Spindler 2015). Furthermore, the

impact of this event spread from countries initially receiving refugees to the entire European

Union, causing the rise of restrictive asylum policies (Skleparis 2017). Finally, the influence of

both the refugee crisis and the Chernobyl continues indefinitely – in 2018, EU president Antonio

Tajani stated that the refugee crisis “threatens to destroy the EU” (Tajani 2018), while the victims

of cancerous diseases linked to radiation caused by Chernobyl increases with time (Gray 2019).

Thus, one can argue that global events cannot be tied to a particular time or location; they are

borderless, which is exactly what makes them ‘global’.

2
 However, vague and shocking nature of events can be contested as global events are

received differently by different people (Ingram 2019a: 30). There are multiple perspectives from

which to view an event (Woodward 2010: 330-331); therefore, the same event will inevitably

receive varying reactions. Contrary to the first claim – the surprising nature of events – some may

argue that an event was nor spontaneous, nor shocking (Woodward 2010: 334). Furthermore, some

groups may not react to an event (Ingram 2019a: 20) as it does not affect them personally, and thus

not consider it as an event overall (Ingram 2019b). Additionally, as argued by Philo (2017: 256)

there is a “chrono-logical gap” between when an event happens and when it is grasped by people.

Events like disasters cannot even be fully grasped and thus produce new ways understanding the

world (Clark 2014: 21-22). For example, Wendy Pearlman describes the changing reaction of the

locals to the development of the Syrian civil war. The gradual change of the type of fear – from

silencing to nebulous (Pearlman 2016: 21) – shows the disruption of the war through a variety of

perspectives, which changed with time. Thus, it can be seen that the interpretation of the event

differs, and that interpretation is never solid, changing with time.

Alongside evoking reactions, global events cause the search for new rules, models and

theories, thereby remaking the current system. Since an event disrupts the current world state, the

system needs to accommodate the new variables (Shaw 2012: 622-624). This can mean, for

instance, new cultural practices, political systems or regulations (Bassett 2008: 905). Woodward

(2010: 335) takes a different approach, emphasizing that events may not create new systems, but

encourage responses to systems that were not apparent initially. For instance, due to the refugee

crisis, EU implemented new strategies of dealing with the migrants– inter-state relocation schemes

(Spindler 2015) and intra-state policies on assimilation. However, the current state is also altered

through “reassembling” events (Kaiser 2012: 1047) – reconsidering the evaluation of past events.

3
Emphasis must be placed on “present pasts” – another proof of the ambiguous temporality – the

notion that events are always present and re-evaluated through “cultural forms, cultural practices,

geopolitics” (Toal 2008: 340). One way to do it is through art, which causes communities to view

past events from a different angle (Ingram 2019b). This can be seen in the most recent re-

evaluation of the Chernobyl disaster by the HBO TV series “Chernobyl” released in 2019. The

series has attracted global attention, becoming the highest-ranking show on the IMDB (Peplow

2019), thus showing the remaining interest in the disaster despite the time. The TV series

questioned the cause of the accident and its impact (Peplow 2019), even resulting in officials

banning the series in Russia (Ross 2019), fearing the consequences of such re-evaluation.

Therefore, events are “always ongoing” (Williams 2009: 107), challenging one’s senses and

understanding, thereby causing the rise of new knowledge.

A global event, essentially, “ends the world and begins it turning anew” (Clark 2014: 22).

Global events are crucial parts of the progress of the world, disrupting the current structures and

forcing to create new ones. This process is continual and expanding, not restricted to the

boundaries of space and time, giving rise to over events, causing changes in unexpected locations.

Significantly, global events involve psychological change – the variety of reactions that are

transforming according to individual perspectives and the attempts to re-evaluate the event.

Therefore, one can see that a single description cannot apprehend every event. Rather, there are

multiple descriptions of the same global event, and they all have to be accounted for when

assessing its true nature and legacy.

4
Bibliography

Bassett, K. (2008) ‘Thinking the Event: Badiou’s philosophy of the Event and the example of the
Paris Commune’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(5), pp. 895–910. doi:
10.1068/d5707.
Clark, N. (2014) ‘Geo-politics and the disaster of the Anthropocene’, The Sociological Review,
62(1_suppl), pp. 19–37. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.12122.
Gray, R. (2019) ‘The true toll of the Chernobyl disaster’, BBC Future, 26 July. Available at:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll
(Accessed: 16 October 2019).
Ingram, A. (2019a) Geopolitics and the event: rethinking Britain's Iraq war through art, Hoboken:
Wiley.
Ingram, A. (2019b) ‘Rethinking geopolitical events: to understand Britain’s Iraq war, turn to art’,
Geography Directions, 27 August. Available at:
https://blog.geographydirections.com/2019/08/27/rethinking-geopolitical-events-to-
understand-britains-iraq-war-turn-to-art/ (Accessed: 8 October 2019).
Kaiser, R. (2012) ‘Reassembling the event: Estonia’s ‘Bronze Night’’, Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space, 30, pp. 1046-1063. doi: 10.1068/d18210.
Pearlman, W. (2016) ‘Narratives of fear in Syria’, Perspectives on Politics, 14(1), pp. 21-37. doi:
10.1017/S1537592715003205.
Peplow, G. (2019) ‘How Chernobyl quietly became a huge TV hit’, Sky News, 5 June. Available
at: https://news.sky.com/story/how-chernobyl-quietly-topped-the-tv-charts-11732879
(Accessed: 19 October 2019).
Philo, C. (2017) ‘Less-than-human geographies’, Political Geography, 60, pp. 256-258. doi:
10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.11.014.
Ross, C. (2019) ‘Chernobyl: Russian communist party calls for ‘disgusting’ HBO show to be
banned’, Independent, 14 June. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-
entertainment/tv/news/chernobyl-hbo-ban-russia-tv-series-communist-party-response-
a8958536.html (Accessed: 19 October 2019).
Sewell, W. (1996) ‘Historical events as transformations of structures: Inventing revolution at the
Bastille’, Theory and Society, 25(6), pp.841–881. doi: 10.1007/BF00159818.
Shaw, I.G.R. (2012) ‘Towards an evental geography’, Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), pp.
613–627. doi: 10.1177/0309132511435002.
Shramovych, V. and Chornous, H. (2019) ‘Chernobyl survivors assess fact and fiction in TV
series’, BBC Ukrainian, 12 June. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-
48580177 (Accessed: 16 October 2019).

5
Skleparis, D. (2017) ‘European governments’ responses to the ‘Refugee Crisis’’, Southeastern
Europe, 41, pp. 276-301. doi: 10.1163/18763332-04103004.
Spindler, W. (2015) ‘2015: The year of Europe’s refugee crisis’, UNHCR Tracks, 8 December.
Available at: http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/12/2015-the-year-of-europes-refugee-crisis/
(Accessed: 19 October 2019).
Tajani, A. (2018) ‘The migration crisis threatens to destroy the EU. We must not let it’, The
Guardian, 27 June. Available from:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/migration-crisis-destroy-eu-
collapse-schengen (Accessed: 19 October 2019).
Toal, G. (2008) ‘Derek Gregory's the colonial present (Oxford, Blackwell, 2004)’, Political
Geography, 27(3), pp. 339-343. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.11.001.
Williams, J. (2009) ‘If not here, then where? On the location and individuation of events in Badiou
and Deleuze’, Deleuze Studies, 3(1), pp. 97-123. doi: 10.3366/E1750224109000506.
Woodward, K. (2010) ‘Events, spontaneity and abrupt conditions’, in Anderson, B. and P.
Harrison (eds) Taking-Place: Non-Representational Theories and Geography, Surrey:
Ashgate, pp. 321-340.