I will break the ice with a little comment on one of the debates i'm most interested on. That about globalization. What is this? Is it good or bad? God or the devil?
One of the existing views which has elaborated a critical conception of what globalization is, has been the so-called "anti-globalization" movement. It is really and ambiguous and equivocal concept; it could be curious to know which idea comes to the mind of each of us when we read or heard this word. Anti-Globalization. How is your first thinking? Is it good, or bad?
A logically linked and interesting question could be: where does our idea of what anti-globalization is come from? (shit, for sure i wrote this question in a horrible English!! how would you say that?? SOS) You could notice easily to what extent our meanings of "anti-globalization" are meanly filled by the mass media. For most of us it is not common to hear our relatives or friends talking about the "anti-globalization" movement, and too often we haven´t read nothing or not too much about it in different sources than the conventional channels or newspapers. To sum up, for most of us "anti-globalization" is just a small and blurred piece of reality drawn by these very little pluralistic corporations (the media). Whose interests, it is to say, are far away from a commitment with transparency and objectivity. The problematic question is that this movement, often presented as a radical and even violent left-wing group of people, is something quite different from this: a very eclectic and plural conglomerate of ideas, denunciations and demands coming from a huge amount of people from all over the world. Movilised, making democracy, they are shouting that our hitherto unheard-of rich, technologic, and forward-looking world cannot continue fomenting mass poverty, hate, war, environmetal degradation or women oppresion.
It can be stated that there is a high degree of utopic thinking in the idea of removing all this huge problems from our world. Utopism can be a strenght as an a ideal to be pursued, or a hindrance, if it impedes us to look to the ground we are walking on. On the other hand, they denounce that we are witnessing an inexcusable stagnation or even the deterioration of these undesirable dynamics. Thus there would be a great scope for action in order to reach crucial changes: "Another world is possible", it is said. Of course, another necessary question would be: How?
The term "anti-globalization" fits with a biased representation of this questions which discredits the whole "movement of movements", lying to the citizenry and distorting the public opinion. A better idea is given by the more correct term of "alter-globalisation". It has two main advantages. Firstly, it widens the meaning of "globalization": it is not a question of globalization or not globalization (in favour or against, as often presented), but a question of which kind of globalization. Secondly, it covers a wider range of groups of people and ideas which have hope in the possibility of a better world. Ecologists, feminists, NGO's and thousands of many kinds of popular associations around the world with one thing in common: this hope and their effort to find a better world.
A few days ago in Brussels I was having a walk and I saw some papers advertising a demonstration with the occasion of a Global Day of Action, the 26th of January. I saw it too late to take part, it had already finished. I enter in the webpage of the World Social Forum 2008 (more info here) and I find a map which shows some of the coordinated actions which were happening this lasts weeks around the whole planet. It is something absolutely exceptional in the history, not a group of brainless saying stupid things. It is much more. But what? What is going on? Why are they protesting? what are they demanding? I think we should, at least, take a chance to know it better.
"From the Zapatist uprising in 1995 and the Seattle demonstrations in 1999, a worldwide alliance of movements against neo-liberal globalisation, war, patriarchy, racism, colonialism and environmental disasters appeared." (WSF2008.net). The World Social Forum meets in January, coinciding with and protesting against the World Economic Forum which usually takes place in Davos. In this second one, the most powerfull governments and private groups meet to "talk about their issues", issues which are the concern of everybody but are not solve democratically at all. Thousands of people are having their say on that. What about you?
Saturday, 9 February 2008
Globalization
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well you certainly manage to pick quite an intricate topic to start off with, but we'll soldier on nevertheless.
I'm not going to go into every aspect here because, to be quite honest, I'm not fully versed in the subject matter. I will, however, entertain the question with regard to the nature of globalisation. (I ask you to forgive my use of British English as a matter of personal preference).
What exactly is globalisation?
- Is it the increased interconnectivity on different levels (i.e. supranational, international, intranational, etc.)?
- Is it the increasing power wielded by international organisations, such as the G8, which shape the relations amongst states and the living situation for peoples across the globe?
- Is it the increase in awareness amongst individuals that our actions not only have consequences on a regional scale, but also on a global scale?
A million other possible question come to mind, but for the sake of brevity I will refrain from typing them all out in a single comment.
The position I wish to take to start off a possible debate is the following:
Within the globalisation movement (yes, I hereby acknowledge its existence without delimiting it) I would make a distinction between two groups.
One of these I shall simply label as anarchists, those who believe there should be no increase in interconnectivity and who desire the downfall of, at the very least, those organisations that wield power supranationally.
The second are not so much anti-globalists as they are different-globalists. Their desire is not necessarily to halt the increase in interconnectivity, but to create conditions under which every individual, or every state has the opportunity to profit equally from such a process. I would like to note that profit in my opinion may also include goals such as decreasing pollution and improving the environment.
Whilst I can sympathise with the second group, I find the first highly hypocritical. They claim to be 'anti-establishment' and seek to disturb organisation at several levels because the oppose increased interconnectvity amongst other things. The fact of the matter, however, is that these individuals disseminate information with regard to protests, the 'propaganda' of the G8 end other things via one of the pinnacles of interconnectivity, namely the internet. They are thus attacking the very foundations they built their own movement on.
Can't think of anything more to say at the moment, but I believe this may lead to some interesting discussions already.
Sincerely,
Ivo
Ouh!! I just extended my post, and now I realize you had post a reply. COOoooool!!! I think your point is really interesting. I totally agree with your perspective, and is very important to distinguish that. I definitely dislike that actual and minoritarian violent side, often called themselves anarchists. And I think they are allowing to create this distorted image which links any kind of demonstration against the the G8 performance, the World Bank and so on, with a violent movement.
PD: I loooove your British ENglish, truly!! ; )
... to be continued...
A first post which looks like basic propaganda... Not the best first post possible (imo).
About the anti/alter/left/movements I will just say that the Internet (google map and wikipedia are so hype ! 'I'm lovin' it!') seems to be a great tool for them in order to look important and credible... At least it makes a balance with the biased (and insufficient) coverage provided by the so-called “mass media”, we agree on that fact.
[Unfortunately I did not read the links, only the posts.]
I think we should first try to explain and define what is globalisation, before to write about anti-globalisation (we could do that, but i will be a kind of reductio ad absurdum (can't say that in English, sorry), funny...). Because you just talk about anti-globalisation, which is finally no more that a reaction to globalisation. But globalisation is a concept (and a reality in such extend) which covers a large variety of fields, even the fact that I am currently writing this answer to your text is a part of this phenomenon. Is it evil ? Certainly not. Is it the angelical face of the devil ? Hum, I guess it could be.
Why did I write that your writing is biased ? Because you try to make the anti-globalisation movement “glamour” and “attractive”... You might be right, maybe these “anti-globalist” are not 'radical and even violent left-wing group of people'. If you are right, I think they are wrong... To be a nice association, with feminist and ecologist people in order to look good and democratic is probably not (imho) the best way to lead this movement. If you want to change a system and stay under the rules of this system... It is like trying to see a house's façade and staying inside this house, it is a kind of stupid. But it is not a part of the subject.(ik rookte teveel wiet. Ik ben niet begrijpelijk... sorry).
It's about time I went to bed... So I will just speak about your end line. You consider the world economic forum as a place where (bad) people make profit at the expense of the rest of the world... Damn, it is not nothing what you say, but is it really serious ? You say that the purpose of this meeting is very important (but you do not say anything about it :( )with 'issues which are the concern of everybody but are not solve democratically at all. Thousands of people are having their say on that.'. It is why I think that you have too many hopes regarding democratic interest in the western societies.
... But I am sure that the next debate will be better. ++
On the one hand, it was not my intention to write "the best first post possible". On the other, the fact that it seems to you "basic propaganda" makes me think that my post perfectly served to its end: create debate. The more controversial my post is, the harder and more interesting the debate will be... Anyway, since you think "that the next debate will be better" I'm just waiting for your new wonderful topic.
I think there isn't any problem in the fact of talking about the "anti-globalization" movement without defining globalisation. You are doing the same. On the other hand, I think Ivo shown some possible, useful meanings of the concept. It is to say that "Wikipedia", for example, is a phenomenon with close linkages with the idea of "free knowledge", which is on the basis of one of the streams within the alter-globalisation movement(rather than "anti" as the media called them). As I explained, they are not against THE globalisation, but against THIS globalisation. There isn't just one possible globalisation, as you seem to think, but many possible possible ways of "globalising", it is, increasing any kind of relations among the globus. Some are good (to travel, to know other cultures, to cooperate), other are horrible and disgusting (isolation of huge populations from wealth flows, environmental deprivation, war).
First of all: I think the argument you used to say that my writing is biased is absolutely meaningless. You could have argued that my writing is biased in many good ways; of course it is. But your way of biasing is really amazing!! Please, don't say that I said what i didn't say! I never said that the World Economic Forum of Davos is a place "where (bad) people make profit at the expense of the rest of the world". Even if they were doing such a thing, I didn't say that. And, what do you mean with that??: "I think that you have too many hopes regarding democratic interest in the western societies".
I will try to answer to that, as far as I understood your statement. In sum, my argument is that you fall in the distorted image the mass media spread about the "anti-globalisation" movement. Doing such a thing, you are, as the media do, deligimising a huge movement which contains a wide variety of ideas, some of which you will otherwise agree. Finally, my argument is that the rather called "alter-globalisation" movement is mainly a democratic expression.
I think the people (or rather, the major part of the people) who is mobilized under ecologism, feminism, pacifism, egalitarianism or whatever ideal, are try to have their say. It is, make democracy demonstrating, organising campaigns to inform, denounce... make democracy beyond our formal political systems in which once each X years you choose a paper (vote) whose value is minimal (although crucial). Many people concieve democracy as something you have or you don't: "one" or "zero". But democracy stills in its infancy. We are on "one", but we should pursue "one hundred". Of course is not easy!!
Instead you, as many people do, equate "anti-globalisation" with "no more than a reaction to globalisation". But of course it is much more than this!! This is what I consider relevant and the reason why I wrote about the "anti-globalisation" movement: I think this equation is absolutely misconcieved, and a product of the mass media which you, consciously or not, have internalized. Doing such a thing, reducting it to a mere "reaction", you, as the media, are distorting many (and plural, confliting and interesting) hopes and ideals contained in the broad and wrong category of "anti-globalisation". Of course, for many people the concepts of "hopes" and "ideas" mean anything. It's sad.
I don't know how much I want to directly engage what people have already said, it seems like the debate hasn't reached that point yet, so I'll throw in some of my own thoughts to muddy the waters a bit more. :)
Globalization is a word. Globalization is a very powerful word, it is attached to very complex conceptions of very real things that happen in the world today, but it is still only a word. It is a word that so much thoughts and dialogues centre around today - but that is because people have chosen to invest the word with great significance. I think that this word is abused very often, used to capture thousands of complexities and reduce them to a single simple idea. As a result of this abuse we think in terms of "globalization" and "anti-globalization" etc. without bothering to put globalization into context. So many other things are going on in the world today, so many other things are shaping 'globalization' as we know it, other things represented by other words. Should we not pay these words some heed?
Words like Industrialization. Modernization. Secularization. Urbanization. Regionalization. Localization. Fragmentation. Dehumanization. Americanization. Westernization. Alienation. Environmental Degradation. These are just words off the top of my head.
What do they mean, in relation to globalization? It is tempting to see globalization as some independent and inevitable process, rampaging through the world and causing other things to happen. But it is more realistic to see globalization as a cumulative effect rather than a great single cause, and as a medium between interacting processes rather than the father of all.
Alas, without simplification it is very difficult to talk. I can't organize my thoughts in so short a time and in such small a text box, so I'll just ramble and leave order to arise on its own.
Industrialization and urbanization are two of the most commonly thought of processes that promoted the development of what we call the modern world, with great big cities full of people working in great big unfriendly factories producing goods for a vast and complex society under a sovereign nation-state. Technology and wealth allowed people to travel great distances, communicate over great distances, extend their military and economic might over great distances, etc. The protestant ethic helped to create the insatiable desire for profit that is the heart of the capitalist drive.
And that's globalization. Right? It's just what we can't help but see because it's so obvious. Globalization has more subtle aspects. People of different cultures, nationalities, religions, languages, ethnicities, classes, political ideologies, etc., have been interacting with one another throughout history. What has happened in regards to these interactions in the last 100 years? How has it affected how people identify themselves? How do these interactions help to form the strategies of different groups? How have people changed as a result of living in their new, urban, industrialized nation-state environments?
What about the 'globe' itself? We obsess ourselves with the happenings of humanity, but we are only a small part of the biosphere, and all of the life on this planet constitutes a relatively thin layer of organic goo on the surface of this great rock, which is merely a space pebble floating around a star we hope to be stable. We often forget how small we are, how easily we could be destroyed if we tinker too much with the roots of this living world and destroy our biological foundations. All of these things we humans do have an effect on our environment, and as much as we see nature as something to conquer and tame we must always submit to it in the end.
What am I getting at? Nothing. With great purpose! Mainly I am trying to say that we should try to discuss globalization without using the world globalization, we risk being too superficial if we are not willing to delve into a discussion of the things that make globalization what it is and push/pull us to conceive of it as we do.
But also I want to say that we have choices to make as a species. Within this grand invincible framework of globalization we choose to see ourselves in we have infinite choices. How should we spend our money? How should we treat our fellow human beings? How should we think about life, humanity, reality? How should we earn a living? How should we participate in politics? Depending on how we answer these questions, globalization could take on a thousand different forms.
A fully globalized world could consist of a single state ruling a single nation, brutally homogenized through various capitalist devices, through cooperative corporations who care only for their own profit. Some parts of the world might be very poor, some might be a bit better off, but every part would have a class of people with enough money to do whatever they want in the world that is their playground.
A fully globalized world could consist of eight regional organizations each consisting of many smaller nation states sharing sovereignty and combining their economic specialties to be competitive in the global market place. Cultures and national identities could be protected by various means, indeed they could be protected to the extent that any cross-cultural interaction would be purely economic.
We could all join one big religion and unify ourselves under the leadership of some guy with a weird hat. We would all be perfectly happy to serve him and do his bidding because he has a lot of good promises for the afterlife. And since this weird-hatted guy happens to be absolutely benevolent, we luck out.
Or the guy with a weird hat could be a big asshole and kill 90% of us.
We could stir up a nuclear war and survive in isolated mountain communities for a couple thousand years until things calm down again, at which point we can climb down the hills, fight one another and start the whole process up again.
We could become a global tribal society where rights and duties are tied not to territorial states but to transnational tribes that share territory and interact with one another peacefully in a complex power-sharing system that gives no entity greater power over anyone else and facilitates unanticipated freedom and prosperity for individuals and groups alike.
We could abolish the idea of governance altogether and live together in an anarchistic fashion. Cooperation would satisfy all of our needs, material or otherwise. Universal compassion would be able to deal properly and intelligently with the consequences of any crimes it had not already rendered unnecessary.
We could develop telepathy and become one great mind and then go on to explore the universe in peace and harmony.
We could take the concept of globalization, break it apart, decide what we do like and what we don't like and then proceed to enhance the things we do like while fighting against the things we don't like.
Post a Comment