The Globalization of Paris Syndrome - Part 2

This fracturing of national identity extends beyond residents and into tourism, where we now see a global crisis of misplaced expectations. The concept of Paris Syndrome (パリ症候群, Pari shōkōgun) is a perfect example: when tourists—especially from East Asia—visit Paris, they expect a city of romance, beauty, and refinement, but instead encounter a reality that does not match the postcard image. The disappointment can be so extreme that it triggers psychological distress, anxiety, and even hallucinations.

But this is no longer just about Paris—it is becoming a universal phenomenon. As migration reshapes national cultures, tourists travel expecting to experience a certain version of a country only to find that the identity they associated with that place no longer exists. Visitors might come to London seeking "British culture" but find instead a disjointed mix of micro-communities that do not reflect a unified national character. This is not the fault of any one group—it is the result of a country that has failed to define and preserve its own identity while adapting to change.

As people experience disappointment in real-world destinations, they increasingly seek to recreate idealized versions of those places at home. This explains why cities in Asia have begun curating their own versions of global landmarks. In Macau, for example, developers have constructed a replica of the Eiffel Tower outside The Parisian Macao, allowing visitors to experience a version of Paris without ever leaving Asia. Similarly, Tokyo Tower was inspired by the Eiffel Tower, yet built in a way that integrates seamlessly into Japan’s aesthetic.

This trend highlights a fundamental shift: instead of traveling to experience authenticity, people are opting to construct the elements they admire from other cultures in their own controlled environments. This speaks to a larger truth—when the real versions of places no longer meet expectations, people manufacture their own.

While this might seem like an inevitable adaptation to globalization, it is ultimately an unsustainable model. As migration continues to be unregulated and disconnected from national identity, we are heading toward a world where only a small number of countries will retain cohesion and functionality, while others dissolve into cultural and economic instability.

If this imbalance continues, some countries will thrive as structured societies with purpose-driven migration, while others will become diluted and directionless—places where people live, but without a unifying vision of what they stand for. The issue is not diversity itself, but rather the absence of a shared identity and purpose within increasingly fractured nations.

To prevent this from spiraling further, migration needs to be intentional and structured. Instead of simply moving populations around without consideration for cultural and economic alignment, countries must ensure that those entering align with the aspirations and goals of the society they are joining. Without this, we risk a world where nations lose their coherence, travel becomes an exercise in disillusionment, and societies become places where people merely exist rather than belong.

England’s situation serves as a warning: sovereignty alone does not build identity. Without an intentional approach to cultural continuity, a nation can easily go from standing strong on its own to losing itself entirely—one diluted drop at a time.