Globalization

(First of two parts). Globalism is one of those notions much kicked around and little understood, shrouded in hysteria and knee-jerk cant. People with a host of grievances against technology, multinational corporations and capitalist democracies have made globalism a dirty word, at the same time that many social scientists and economists argue that the equitable spread of technology and a free-market economy is the planet's best hope. Either way, September 11 makes it clear that globalization - pitting fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance - is one of the most important issues in our lifetimes.

In fact, as British political scientist Anthony Giddens writes in his eerily prescient book Runaway World: How Globalism is Reshaping Our Lives, the conflict now underway between the United States and some extremist fundamentalists was inevitable. Cosmopolitans welcome technology and cultural diversity, while fundamentalists find it disturbing and dangerous.

In a globalizing world -- one of its cornerstones being the Net -- technology, information, culture, money, business and imagery are routinely transmitted across the world. Boundaries mean different things now, including the inescapable fact that they are highly porous. This enrages political, social and religious fundamentalists, as we are hurriedly learning. They turn to religion, ethnic identity and nationalism to build "purer" traditions -- and a few turn to violence.

So despite the fact that there's no consensus on exactly what globalism is (my dictionary defines it as the process by which social institutions become adopted on a worldwide scale), the questions torment us: is globalism a force to ease poverty and inequality, by bringing higher standards of living and new technologies to poor and distant regions? Or merely an unprecedented vehicle for promoting the greed, conformity, environmental destruction and profit-at-all-cost ethos of multinational corporations? Perhaps it's both.

Giddens' predictions are coming true before our eyes. The conflict is here, and we seem to be unwilling and unknowing combatants. We, along with our leaders, are astonished at just how much we seem to be hated out there. We see our popular and technological culture despised in much of the world. Fundamentalist extremists have declared a holy war against it, one that may continue for years with bloody and uncertain consequences.

It's not an oversimplification to say that technology is the prime battleground. Technologies from movie cameras to TV sets to the Net are the means by which culture and wealth travel from one part of the world to the other. Fundamentalists have declared war on technology as much as on anything. And from anthrax to passenger jets as missiles, they've shown a sophisticated grasp of how technology can be used to devastating effect against its creators, who revel in making it but not thinking much about it.

In this conflict what Giddens calls "the cosmopolitan approach" is the choice of the people who are reading this column and working in the tech universe. We value free speech, religious freedom, scientific exploration, open communications, cultural choice and diversity. Such tolerance is closely conected to democracy.

Yet democracy and fundamentalism are both spreading world-wide, two seemingly irreconcilable ideologies colliding head-on. As Giddens points out, globalism creates a paradox: democratic cultures are its most enthusiastic proponents, yet globalism doesn't seem to promote democracy so much as corporate profits and practices. In fact, you could argue that globalism seems to expose the limits of democratic structures: Can governments preserve the environment, keep work secure and equitable, ensure fair wages, control capitalism, distribute new technologies equitably, respect diverse cultural values, contain greed and restrict the imagery that Americans love but that frightens and offends large segments of the world population?

In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)

Comments

Globalization - We didn't vote for it.

[Anton Anatopopov]

Most people I know are against globalization. Even Americans who stand to gain the most. In the last 20 years, we have seen Europe replace its cafes and coffee shops with McDonalds and Starbucks.

Local forms of clothing have been replaced with baseball hats and blue jeans.

And religion has been replaced with shallow consumerism. This all makes sense from the point of view of Global Capital. But let us not forget it was capitalists who ended slavery in order to have a bigger market for their goods.

The real problem of globalization is the American attitude which puts individual freedom above just about every other principle.

In Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Japan, Russia etc our values are different. We put family and religion first. We do not care about your profit motive.

We will eventually win, because we will eventually stop buying into your culture of greed. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but it will happen. And then your IRAs and pension funds will be worth nothing.

Re:Actually...

[Bouncings]

That's wholey absurd. "Why do they hate us?" "How can we make them like us?" "What can we do to earn their trust?" -- all of these questions are signs of ignorance. Why do the Slashdot trolls post comments about hot grits? WHO CARES! The only things we need to learn about fundamentalists is what will help us DESTROY them, not appease them!

This is a long explanation, but I think the anti-globalization argument is connected to "But why do they hate us argument." They are both equally ignorant points of view. If you are ready for some patriotism, read on. Otherwise, go back to Berkley!

Did we ask why Hitler hated Jews? No. Would it have helped? No.

The Blame America First Club (tm) has made it a mission to explain to the masses of compassionate Americans why their wealth, their entertainment, and their freedoms have made so many others unhappy. They say we should share are wealth to be loved around the world. Let's see how that would work:

The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is about 10 trillion dollars a year. Let's say we gave away 1/4 of that, destroying our economy and impairing our ability to contribute in the future. That would be 2.5 trillion dollars, divided by the population of the earth (6 billion), that comes down to $416 we could give to each person around the earth. They could then piss away that wealth because they don't understand how to invest it or use it to earn more wealth.

Or, we could allow capitalism to create wealth around the world. Yes, the minimum-wage-labor bigots would cry that we are exploiting 3rd world countries. If we ignore them, they will eventually accumulate wealth, understand the value of currency, and create wealth themselves.

Simple facts: They hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent, educated, and yes, free. Nothing but the destruction of all of these will quench their thirst for destruction. And yes, we can and will kill all the terrorists.

"You know what the great thing about martyers are? They're dead." -- Mike Rosen

Re:Actually...

[Spankophile]

(we actually are just about the only country actually actively trying to influence peace in that region)

You're kidding right? Just about the only country trying to influence peace? What about Canada? WHat about Britain? The US's idea of influencing peace is to deal arms evenly around an area to make sure no one can uprise enough to take a big enough peace of the pie to be happy.

Oh yeah, and feel free to mod me down for trolling if you don't like my opinion. We can always use more heads in the sand.