Sumber ilustrasi: Magnific
02 Juni 2026 13.26 WIB – Akar
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Desanomia [02.06.2026] If a reflective question were posed to you, what actually provides the justification for the existence of the word backward? Who created such a term? Why are there individuals, communities, or nations that come to be labeled as “backward”? Who has the authority to place one party in the category of backwardness while placing another outside it? Is such a category something natural, something that simply exists as it should, or does the label itself contain a particular intention and purpose?
Once such questions are given room to emerge, they are likely to occupy our minds. Consider a simple example. Do you remember the first time you sat in a school classroom? On that first day, if you had possessed the ability to reflect and question your circumstances, what would have become the object of your reflection? Could you have asked why you arrived at that desk? Who brought you there?
These reflective questions are not easy to accommodate. They may lead us into a world that is not entirely familiar. At that point, questions that initially appear ordinary may come to be regarded as dangerous to an order that is in the process of taking shape. In that world, it is true that parents or guardians physically bring a child to school. Yet behind that act lies a powerful idea. It is this idea that convinces families that a better future can only be achieved through formal education. This is what is referred to here as the idea of progress.
What is the idea of progress? How should it be understood? The idea of progress is the belief that human life can be improved through the advancement of knowledge, science, technology, social organization, economic development, and political institutions. Embedded within this belief is the view that history does not unfold as a series of isolated events, but rather as a movement with direction. Change is understood not merely as a transition from one condition to another, but as a journey toward a condition judged to be better than the one before it.
The position of the idea of progress within the modern world is fundamental. Nearly all major projects of modern civilization derive their legitimacy from this idea. Economic development, institutional reform, the expansion of education, technological revolutions, and various agendas of social transformation are grounded in the conviction that humanity can improve its condition through the accumulation of knowledge and the increasing capacity to manage the world more effectively.
At first glance, no significant problem appears. The difficulty emerges when one realizes that progress always requires measurement. Something can only be called more advanced if there exists a standard by which it is assessed. Economic growth, productivity, efficiency, technological mastery, organizational capacity, and educational attainment then appear as benchmarks that determine the position of individuals and societies within the trajectory of progress.
The issue does not lie in the existence of such measurements. The issue lies in their function as the basis for judging human beings and their development. Once the standards of progress become the primary frame of reference, people begin to be viewed according to their proximity to those standards. Ways of life that do not conform to them are easily regarded as backward. Knowledge produced outside the dominant framework may be considered less valid. Different modes of living are often treated as obstacles that must be corrected or transformed.
From this emerges a recurring tendency throughout history: the construction of hierarchies in the name of progress. The world becomes divided into categories such as advanced and backward, modern and traditional, developed and underdeveloped. Such classifications may appear descriptive, yet they often operate normatively. Those placed in a higher position acquire legitimacy to determine direction, while those placed below become objects of guidance, adjustment, or even intervention.
The history of colonialism clearly illustrates this mechanism. Political and economic domination was frequently justified through the language of civilization, education, and progress. Relations of domination gained legitimacy not merely through the possession of power, but through the claim that certain peoples understood the direction of history better than others. In this form, progress ceased to function as a shared aspiration and became instead a basis for regulating the lives of others.
The experience of industrialization reveals another dimension of the same problem. Productive capacity increased dramatically, transportation networks expanded, and economic activity grew on an unprecedented scale. Alongside these developments emerged concentrations of capital, labor exploitation, urban poverty, and widespread social inequality. These realities demonstrate that an increase in technical capacity does not automatically translate into an improvement in the quality of human life.
Such phenomena reveal a fundamental characteristic of progress: every expansion of human capability is usually accompanied by the formation of new structures of power. New knowledge generates new authority. New technologies create new centers of control. More complex organizations produce increasingly centralized decision-making structures. Questions about progress therefore concern not only capability, but also who gains control over that capability.
Contemporary attention to artificial intelligence may be understood within the same framework. The debate surrounding AI does not primarily revolve around its technical capacity, but rather around the new relationships it creates. AI opens vast possibilities in many areas of life, while simultaneously raising questions concerning the distribution of knowledge, influence over public opinion, and the concentration of decision-making capacities within particular institutions. Its emergence is best understood as a new manifestation of an older problem that has accompanied every major wave of progress.
An even deeper layer of the issue appears in the realm of knowledge itself. Every project of progress carries assumptions about what is considered true, important, and worthy of pursuit. No progress takes place without a framework of knowledge that defines its direction. The question of who has the authority to define reality becomes as significant as the question of who controls economic resources or technological infrastructure.
This perspective suggests that the human problems associated with the idea of progress do not originate primarily from machines, technologies, or innovations. The root of the issue lies in the tendency to elevate a single measure of progress into a universal standard for all human life. Once that occurs, the diversity of human experiences, forms of knowledge, and ways of living are gradually compelled into a single path of development regarded as the correct one.
The debate over progress is therefore not a debate about accepting or rejecting change. What is at stake is the position of human beings within that change. The main question is not whether humanity is becoming more capable, but whether the expansion of capability remains under the control of free human beings. Here lies the enduring paradox of modern history: human capacities continue to expand without limit, while the question of who determines the direction of that expansion remains open and has never been fully resolved.
What do you think? (njd)
Note: This article was made as part of a dedicated effort to bring everyday life around us to our minds.
