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

Re: Actually...

[jdgreen7]

If you were to study your history a little more before siding with whatever sounds good on TV, you'd know that the profit Muhammed (sp, I know) himself started a war during Rammadan in the 800's. In the Koran, if a warrior fights during Rammadan for the right cause, he will be rewarded greatly. So, with this aspect in mind, America should be rewarded, not yelled at for bombing for a month!

Don't be so quick to judge. We are bringing justice to a people that have no concept of what justice really is. Should we really wait for a month to go by before attacking again? That gives them a chance to regroup and launch another September 11th.

Re:Actually...

[Bouncings]

A few observations.

• 
  Americans of today are disliked because they strive for homogeny; they want to always have access to their Starbucks lattes and their McDonalds' happy meals. Americans want to drive their SUVs, shop at malls, watch Must-See TV, and rely on others to make crucial decisions for them. Most importantly, Americans always want to blame someone else.

Do you know what the most popular restaurant in Paris is? McDonalds. The only reason SUVs don't sell well in Europe and Asia is the price of gasoline is higher. Every nation has shopping malls, and Must-See TV is syndicated around the world.

America isn't perfect. We have our Christian fundamentalists (abortion clinic bombings anyone?), we have poverty, we need to work out more and eat better (which again, would be a sign of consumerism and wealth), we even have a legislature that is showing less and less willingness to preserve the Bill of Rights. That said, it's still a pretty decent place to live.

I admit I am feeling pretty nationalistic after 9-11. I'm a libertarian, I don't support capitalism at all costs, but I don't sing along with the brainwashed-politicly-correct Madison/Berkley/MIT dogma. That dogma being, no matter what the facts, you can feel good about yourself if you Blame America First.

I'm sorry, but you're living in a fool's paradise and I don't want to die in your fool's paradise.

Re: Actually...

[bwt]

bombing and retaliation will not bring that about.
that will only escalate the violence such that more
people will die on both sides.

This argument is crap. It's a classic pyramid scheme. Unless both sides have infinite resources, "escalating the violence" is a process with a finite duration.

I'm worried that we aren't escalating the violence enough. We are faced with a choice: suffer perpetual attack from a culture that cannot accept peaceful coexistence or destroy it.

You are postulating that the enemy can never be destroyed. You are wrong. That argument would have lost WWII, where we faced a much tougher set of opponents.

The Taliban has 45,000 soldiers, entrenched in bunkers, willing to die in suicide attacks. At Okin awa, the Japanese had 100,000 soldiers, entrenched in bunkers, willing to die in suicide attacks. We defeated the Japanese Empire at Okinawa, we will defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. But not with token bombing raids.