|
Dr Aqueil Ahmad ~ STWR Member Dr Aqueil Ahmad is a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina - Greensboro. Globalization, Without Global Consciousness Reflexive statement Since my involvement in the peace movement of the 1960s and 70s in the United States, I have actively pursued the value of 'unity in diversity' of humankind through teaching, research, and social action globally. This commitment is informed by the assumption that although strong national, cultural, and ideological attachment and pride are relentlessly promoted in almost all the nations and culture areas, they are the greatest sources of exclusion, parochialism, social distance, and violence in the world. I consider these sentiments counter-intuitive in an increasingly interdependent global society. They come in the way of spreading the benefits of globalization to the largest numbers of peoples and communities. Instead, globalization - for example, the global economy, is used to pursue local interests at the expense of those considered outsiders. The idea of 'global consciousness' is suggested as an antidote to the poison of parochialism that feeds and justifies mercenary globalism that is killing the promise of a truly 'global society.' My commitment to this ideal is constantly reinforced by the lives of the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mother Teresa, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela. Their examples shine as beacon lights for social and economic justice in an otherwise not so enlightened but physically interdependent world.
Introduction Mercenary motivations and attitudes of nations, corporations, and rich citizens dictate the current definitions and goals of globalization. The political and economic power of the core industrial nations is increasing at the expense and marginalization of the rest. Goskun Samli (2002:4-6) calls these global inequalities the "shame of progress of capitalism." It seems a worldwide movement is needed to let globalization serve human needs rather than the greed of the powerful elite who manage it (Ellwood 2000; Derber 2002; Held and McGrew 2002; Samli 2002). The purpose of this essay is to suggest such an alternative through a ‘global consciousness’ that would help counter privatization, parochialism, and exclusion that seem to have hijacked globalization for corporate and commercial interests. I will return to a more comprehensive definition of global consciousness and its promotion later in this discourse. Global society, or globalization, in its present form, is a system of growing world-wide material interdependencies and non-material cultural relations and connections. In terms of its material dimensions, it consists of globally interdependent economic, financial, environmental, and technological subsystems where knowledge, capital, raw materials, goods and services are produced, used, and exchanged across national boundaries. In terms of its non-material aspects, it has been reduced to mean “McDonaldization” or Americanization of the world according to internationally pervasive western corporate cultures (Ritzer 1996; Rothkopf 1997). Thomas Friedman (1999:112) observes Culturally speaking, globalization is largely the spread (for better and for worse) of Americanization - from Big Macs and iMacs to Mickey Mouse. Symbols of what Charles Derber (2002:255) calls “westoxication” abound in the culture of consumerism universally promoted by multinational corporations. During a recent Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, a group of Hajis was photographed sitting on the sand and lunching out of a Coca Cola box with a bottle of the ubiquitous brew sitting next to them. A banner superimposed on the picture proclaimed, “To Haj with Coca Cola.” Western lifestyles - music, movies, fast-food, fashions and gadgets are desired, imitated and enjoyed by millions of people all over the world. Global manufacturing, marketing, trade, and technology bring in their wake a culture of consumerism, commercialization, and greed. Although resented by many in some non-western cultures as invasive and offensive, this commercialization and consumerism is becoming the ‘opiate of the people’ in global society (Barnet and Cavanagh 1996; Garten 1998; Friedman and Ramonet 1999). Sadly, there is little recognition of our common humanity sharing a common destiny in addition to sharing a ‘common market.’ Reflecting on the situation in the United States, U. N chief, Kofi Annan (2002:A7), made the following observations recently: Americans are full of talk about global village as an acknowledgment....of growing interdependence of the nations of the world. But a global village implies international cooperation in the collective interest. And when it comes to international cooperation, America has fallen short. Cold War rhetoric and rivalries belied for half a century the prospect of a post WWII global society that might have helped unify a war-torn world. Regions and nations aligned themselves with this or that side of the great ideological divide. That ideological clash has now been replaced by cross-cultural denigration, racial and ethnic diatribe, violent regional conflicts, terrorism, and the ‘war on terrorism’ on all sides, not just the conflict between religious fanatics of all variety. This is not to suggest that there were no ethnic or regional conflicts before or during the Cold War (Sadowski 1998). But it can be argued that Cold War rivalries between the two super-powers provided the basic rhetoric and rationale of that age which momentarily suppressed or subsumed other types of conflict that threaten world peace and unity in more intractable and insidious ways today (Suny 1993). Territorial interests, political disputes, and big powers meddling in local affairs notwithstanding, the real problem seems to be that the warring sides do not consider each other equal in purely human terms. Each side’s pathological religious, ethnic, or ideological affiliation convinces them that God, truth and justice are on their side. So, while the world moves on toward a common techno-economic destiny, the Jews and Arabs, Hindus and Muslims, Hutus and Tutsies, Catholics and Protestants continue to defy international efforts toward peace and reconciliation, and deny their countries and regions full benefits of the modern age. Despite these conflicts, global interdependence in a finite physical world is increasing every day. Global warming is affecting weather and vegetation on the entire planet. Acid rain from pollution caused by industries in the United States can stunt Latin forests affecting rainfall and crops in the entire region (McKibben 1998; Mathews 1999). Water and food chain toxicity is no longer a local problem as fruits, grains, and vegetables are increasingly sold and consumed across national markets (Bright 1999). National economies instantaneously react to global political and economic upheavals. Events in the Middle East cause oil prices to jump everywhere. Stock markets dance in tandem. Currencies fluctuate together. So many diseases - Ebola, mad cow disease, AIDS, influenza, SARS - have been globalized due to the movement of people and products across nations. Over-population, poverty, hunger, war, and violence in some parts of the world threaten the entire world (State of the World 1999; State of the World 2000; State of the World 2001; State of the World 2002). Yet, disregarding this interdependence, national and corporate elite set their agendas for expanding their political and economic empires rather than cooperating to alleviate world problems through education, equitable distribution of resources, and sustainable economic development (Mander and Glodsmith 1996; The Siena Declaration 1998; Derber 2002). Some scholars see these postures as inevitable consequences of economic globalization, which has run amok because of the capitalist greed that drives it (Lappe and Collins 1978; Wellner 1994). David Korten (1996:15) bluntly declares: A global economy is inherently unjust, unstable and unsustainable...There is an accelerating gap between the rich and the poor. Widespread violence is tearing families and communities apart. And the planet’s ecosystems are deteriorating at an alarming rate. The concern for contemporary human and environmental conditions is well-taken, but to attribute them exclusively to globalization and the world economy is problematic. Inequality, exploitation and violence have existed in one form or another since the beginning of organized human settlements, due largely to clashing demands on meager resources as well as clash of collective identities and tribalism. The planet’s environment has been steadily deteriorating since the beginning of the industrial age some three hundred years ago. The only difference is the current speed and magnitude of deterioration due to increasing population and consumption levels almost everywhere (Brown 1996; Glantz 1999). Globalization is essentially acceleration and expansion of industrialization and integration of national into regional or global economies. It is not going to dissipate or disappear, no matter how much some of us wish it so. It can be contained, but that could lead to worldwide industrial and economic stagnation - hardly a solution to the problems of global poverty, inequality, and violence. Global techno-economic systems carry vast opportunity for large numbers of dispossessed people around the world (Ahmad 2001). The negative consequences of globalization are due largely to a purely commercialized and privatized perspective of both technology and economy by those who control them in the modern world, rather than seeing them as shared instruments for human development. This perspective is fueled by diehard provincialism or localism, which continues to see the world as 'Us' and 'Them' even when the physical reality dictates otherwise. A contradiction of this kind is analogous to what William Ogburn (1938) would call a perpetual “cultural lag” between techno-economic progress and non-material cultural change to sustain it. What seems to be lacking in global society is globalization with a human face to challenge both privatization and the perversity of mercenary globalism. Global consciousness is proposed as a new paradigm to help globalization acquire a human face.
Global Consciousness, a la Tagore The idea of global consciousness as proposed in this discourse has been informed and inspired by the philosophy of Indian scholar, sage and savant Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941). Other social reformers, intellectuals, and political and religious leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, and Albert Einstein (all of whom Tagore knew personally) held similar world views. Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela also emphasized bonds of our common humanity despite religious, racial, and political differences. Tagore was essentially a writer, poet and musician. His Collected Poems and Essays in English appeared in 1936. Gitanjali (celestial song) is his best-known work and earned him the Nobel Prize. Despite hundreds of published pieces ranging from poetry to essays, Tagore’s thought is relatively unknown in contemporary American scholalry circles. Growing up in a Hindu aristocratic family, Tagore developed an early interest in religion. But remarkably, his interest was quite different from what may be considered a traditional view of religion (Tagore 1931). On the occasion of Tagore’s 100th birth anniversary in 1961, a commemorative volume of his writings was published under the title, Rabindranath Tagore: Towards Universal Man. Tagore’s universal man (and woman) embodies global consciousness or, in his words, 'cosmic consciousness.' For Tagore, it essentially meant transcendence of narrowly defined religious identities. In his introduction to Towards Universal Man, his biographer, Humayun Kabir (1961:27) describes Tagore in the following words: Tagore at times described his religion as religion of man. What he perhaps intended to convey was that the human individual is a unit of consciousness in cosmic consciousness. As noted by Ahmad (1972), Tagore variously described cosmic consciousness as the essence of “the universal mind,” “the universal man,” the “supreme personality,” or even as “the god of humanity." His faith in humanity was so great that god and humanity for him were interchangeable concepts. In today’s highly materialistic and violent world, a mystical notion of “cosmic consciousness” may appear a bit too spiritual, other-worldly, and impractical. But interpreted slightly differently, it may be a very pragmatic way to address some of our most pressing dilemmas, suggesting how astonishingly modern Tagore’s thought actually was. Kabir (1961:32-33) further elaborates cosmic consciousness into practical terms of great significance for the modern, interdependent world: As Tagore’s vision and sympathies grew, he increasingly recognized that while one’s own native culture has an immediate appeal and value, it must find its place in the wider synthesis of a truly universal civilization. Tagore, along with Gandhi and other local leaders, was deeply concerned about the degradation of Indian people under the British rule. But his world travels and exposure to cross-cultural perspectives led him to conclude that “a bond of spiritual unity links the whole of mankind" (Nehru 1961:xv). Tagore felt that a universal civilization, however idealistic and impractical it might sound to twenty-first century citizens of a divided world, was not only possible but a very desirable goal for mankind. It is the essence of Tagore’s cosmic (or say, global) consciousness, not the transformation of cultural diversity into a universal civilization, that is the focus of this essay. Sociologically speaking, global consciousness has two principal meanings in this discourse: It means (1) extending the reach of Mead’s (1964) generalized other beyond the local to global frames of reference for definitions of self; and consequently, (2) a heightened awareness of our common humanity regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, ideology, or nationality. The greatest hurdle to achieving these goals is the continuing, even escalating, emphasis on exclusiveness and obsessive pride in one’s own culture and ‘tribe.’ The result is collective selfishness accompanied by disrespect, exploitation, even violence towards outsiders (Buddhadasa 1989). This is the attitude that dictates the behavior of corporate elite commanding the global economy and the resulting inequalities. Globalization with a global consciousness would attempt to destroy the very roots of corporate globalism. Global Consciousness: Antidote to Exclusion The cultural change lagging behind in globalization refers to predominance of local rather than global identities in an otherwise physically and materially interdependent world. Samuel Huntington (1997) attributes localizing tendencies to “clash of civilizations,” which essentially means two diametrically opposed visions of the world: The modern, secular, democratic, and one may add, the Christian West and the traditional, dogmatic, and totalitarian rest - with particular emphasis on Islam. Huntington says that closer contact among peoples and ideas due to globalization is increasing the fear of cultural pollution in some quarters and thereby hardening local identities instead of loosening them. And because of this “clash” there will never be a universal civilization. A World Values Survey by Inglehart and Baker (2001) reaches similar conclusions: Despite a universal march toward modernity, nations and regions continue to be either traditional or secular-rational in their cultural values. It is doubtful, therefore, “that the forces of modernization will produce a homogenized world culture in a foreseeable future.” Others, such as Bowen (1996), Sadowski (1998), and Said (2001) reject such bipolar constructions as unscientific, simplistic, and unrealistic. Said (2001:13) observes: “The clash of civilization” thesis is a gimmick like “The war of the Worlds,” better for reinforcing defensive self-pride than for critical understanding of the bewildering interdependence of our time. However, despite this “bewildering interdependence of our time,” there is little evidence of a unifying consciousness of a world community with common bonds of humanity above and beyond the lure of common markets, resources, and profits. Cultural exclusion and localization come in the way of building global consciousness and universalized self images. Cultural differences as outcomes of geography, religion, and nationality is one thing. But why do cultures have to clash instead of coexist? The answer to this riddle may reside in understanding how self image and self-to-other perceptions are constructed in one’s immediate social space, not in the vast and abstract domains of civilizations, contrary to what the “clash of cultures” thesis might suggest. For an average human being, the myth of personal and cultural uniqueness is perpetuated through socialization within the narrow confines of family and community (Linton 1945; McCall and Simmons 1966; Gergen 1971 and 1991; Charon 2001). We humans come into this world without any social or cultural baggage. The baggage begins to accumulate as soon as a name is given to us. That immediately separates us from others with different names. Next come gender identities--boys and girls considered not only physically but also intellectually and temperamentally different from each other (Cahill 1998). These differences are accompanied by identification with social and professional roles and successes and failures encountered in performing them. Other identities, far more important for this discussion, are acquired along the way. Class, race, religion, ethnicity, ideology, and nationality become strong defining characteristics of people everywhere. While such identifications, and feelings of pride and security that go with them, may be functional for the maintenance of social order, they are also the greatest sources of social distance, ethnocentrism, conflict and violence among people (Charon 2001:47-72 and 153-174). In their worst form, they lead to “enmification,” dehumanization, discrimination, hate, even genocide of the “other”considered not only different but inferior (Allport 1979; Rieber and Kelly 1991). To see others as fundamentally ‘different’ from ourselves because they look, live, eat, dress, and worship differently, is often the beginning of seeing them as our enemies and as a threat to our ‘sacred’ way of life. The more different they seem, the more threatening they become. Global/regional conflicts are essentially political and territorial, but the inhumanity and violence that often accompany them are rooted in rigid cultural identities and commitments. The stronger these identities and commitments are, the stronger will be the ferocity of these conflicts. As long as people continue to see themselves as irreconcilably different from each other, globalization will fail to deliver its promise, and there will not be a viable global society with peace and justice for all. One of the defining characteristics of a civilization (or a civilized society) is tolerance of diversity in all its forms and manifestations. Strong ethnic and racial identities, religiosity, and patriotism are dangerous emotions. When adherence to them becomes so absolute that any diversion is considered wrong and sinful, inter-group exclusion, exploitation, and violence are the most likely outcomes. This can happen within or across civilizations; or even within a single race, religion or nation. The history of conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims, Catholic and Protestant Christians, low and upper caste Hindus, Tutsies and Hutus, and Talibans and Mujahideens amply demonstrates this. One does not need a universal civilization to coexist with others. Our common humanity and common destiny should be enough reasons for that. Like Huntington (1997), Rosenau (1997) recognizes boundary-heightening processs of localization emerging in defense of boundary-expanding forces of globalization. But he also suggests that localization and globalization can coexist if we fully appreciate the facts of planetary interdependence and act accordingly. Global consciousness is meant to help create such an appreciation and coexistence. A New Awakening How can this gap between the material, cultural, and human dimensions of global society be bridged? How can a new consciousness be created to help universalize the true promise of globalization? In addition to restructuring the global economy through inter-governmental legislation, worldwide movements for creating and fostering this new consciousness will have to be launched. A few existing movements are relevant in this connection. Green Peace, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, Act Up, assorted anti-globalization activists, and a variety of other urban movements promote a unified world view and try to connect the ‘local with the global’ although they may not specifically use the metaphor of global consciousness in their campaigns (Shepard and Hayduk 2002). But globalization of education - both formal and informal - may offer the best hope for the future of global society. It must start at the elementary level and continue up through higher education. Curricula would have to be revised all across the board to teach traditional disciplines in an international context as well as to introduce new programs in global education. Children would be informed about global interdependence and taught the idea of citizenship in a global society. World history would become a required subject along with national histories. Learning foreign languages would be expanded and emphasized at all levels. Where understanding cultural differences is necessary, for example in business management and the social/behavioral sciences, respect for diversity would be emphasized. Evolutionary biology and genetics would be used to highlight the common core of humanity. Political activism asking for globalization of education will have to start within the academic communities. With its vast educational and cultural resources, the United States can play a leading role in this movement. The new information technology, such as satellites and the Internet, make it possible to disseminate global values and attitudes across the world as never before. If buying and selling products and services can be done on-line, why can’t the same technology be used to launch an e-movement for globalization of education and promotion of global consciousness? Look what MoveOn (www.MoveOn.org), starting with a local issue: opposing impeachment of President Clinton, could do in a relatively short time to mobilize local and international public opinion against the impending invasion of Iraq. The worldwide MovOn constituency wrote tens of thousands of email letters and memos of protest to the U.S. Congressmen and Security Council members. Similar efforts can be launched to mobilize international agency resources to bring about the necessary cultural change to humanize globalization through global consciousness. Ulrich Albrecht (2000) mentions the Culture of Peace Program of UNESCO as a means of generating international conflict resolution strategies. Promoting global consciousness could easily supplement UNESCO’s educational agenda for world peace. Some important changes toward globalization of education are already occurring on many college campuses in the United States, including my own. But they are slow and minuscule relative to the magnitude of the needed change. One reason is the diehard nature of academic disciplines and vested interests of academics in maintaining the status quo in which they are comfortably entrenched. The example of sociology - the discipline I know most about - may be instructive. Although it may be changing gradually, global society or globalization themes are still uncommon in sociology curriculums: Internationalizing sociology not only educates students about the global interconnectedness of social, political, economic, and environmental factors, but illuminates the relative truths of varying cultural experiences as well. Unfortunately, curriculum development in higher education has yet to keep pace with these developments, or (with) the problems created by the new interconnected global climate (Rousseau 1999:1). Furthermore, much of sociological theory and research have originated from European and later, American intellectual circles. Sociological curricula reflect these traditions. Heavily influenced by structural-functionalism, the basic unit of sociological analysis - the social system or structure, has been generally defined in a national rather than cross-cultural or global context. For American sociologists that essentially means American society, for Japanese sociologists, Japanese society, and so forth. Conflict and symbolic interaction perspectives are by no means immune to national(istic) bias either. Ignoring the global reaches of Durkheim, Marx, Weber, and Sorokin, the analytical frame of reference for 20th century American sociology stalwarts like Mead, Cooley, Parsons, Merton, and Goffman, was essentially American society, with marginal interest in the outside world. That frame of reference continues to dominate American sociology with scant attention paid to problems of global poverty, disparity, hunger, human rights, migration, population growth, environment, crime, ethnic conflicts, and terrorism - to name just a few (Armer 1990; Tiryakian 1990). Some studies by C. Wright Mills, Irving Horowitz, Edward Tiryakian, and Marshall Clinard may, however, be considered notable exceptions. For example, as far back as 1964, Horowitz (1964:32) commented tongue-in-cheek about the "myth extant that 'society' begins at Maine and ends at Miami Beach, begins again in New York and ends in California." Thirty-five years later, Immanuel Wallerstein (1999:3) reached a similar conclusion: Finally, in addition to these ambiguities which might be said to be a besetting sin of sociology throughout the world, there is an extra problem with U.S. sociology. Much of it has been written as if the U.S. were in fact the world. The data all tend to be drawn from research about the U.S., often without this fact entering into the analysis in any specific way. Applying the concept of social system or structure at the global level has serious conceptual and methodological difficulties, as those of us who teach 'global society' understand all too well. Systemic interdependence, functionality (or dysfunctionality) of social events and trends; the issues of class, race, and gender; notions of shared values, goals, norms, and identities - to name just a few core sociological concepts - are much harder to interpret and apply on a global than a national level. Similarly, because of the vast structural and cultural diversity in which they are embedded, global problems are not easy to define, classify, explain, and generalize about. Of course, there are books out on ‘global social problems’ but they lack globally relevant theoretical context and consistency for the problems discussed (Soroka and Bryjak 1995; Peterson, Wunder, and Mueller 1999; Moulder 2000). The instructor often needs to supplement these readers with non-sociological sources for a wider coverage of global issues. Dushkin’s Annual Editions on global issues and selections from the Congressional Quarterly Researcher are excellent non-sociological sources for such coverage and perspectives. But they suffer from the same problem as the sociological readers: lack of theoretical analysis and consistency for the problems discussed. A more serious problem is encountered in the general description, classification, analysis, and understanding of the structure(s) and processes of global society or globalization as a whole. There is hardly any book that could qualify as a basic text for the study of global society as a large and interdependent social system. A review of required and recommended readings in 28 syllabi included in the American Sociological Association’s guide to internationalizing sociology curriculums confirms this observation (Rousseau 1999). Almost all of the suggested literature exclusively addresses specific dimensions of global society or globalization, such as the global economy, global culture, global environmental and population issues, global inequality, global conflicts, international relations, comparative study of social and political systems, etc. None of them seems to present a wholistic view of global society affecting most, if not all of humankind. Leslie Sklair’s (1995 and 2002) works may be considered notable exceptions of limited scope. Joan Ferranti’s (1995 and 2000) texts try to introduce to beginners the subject matter of sociology and American society in a global context. But these are not basic texts in the study of global society or the multidimensional phenomenon of globalization. This matches well the type of courses listed in the ASA guide: Out of the 28 listings, only four may qualify as general introduction to, or discussion of, the subject matter of globalization per se. These difficulties could be gradually overcome if sociologists, educational institutions, and the publishing industry begin to take the reality of globalization and its problems and prospects seriously. But why will they unless pressed to do so, for old attitudes die hard? A university colleague is reported to have told a class recently that “globalization is a fad that will fade out quickly.” For a sociologist, the extant literature on globalization poses another serious problem. A disproportionately large portion of this literature is produced by economists and political scientists and, consequently, pays much greater attention to the political economy of globalization than to psycho-social and cultural issues. It is interesting to note that in nearly one hundred sources consulted for this work, the words ‘global consciousness’ appeared just once rather obscurely: Only by examining the extent and intensity of global consciousness is it possible to estimate the impact of global processes on more or less situated and vulnerable actors, and estimate the strength or fragility of global institutions (Lerda 2002:231). I found much of this literature to be repetitive anti-globalization rhetoric. Hard to implement re-structuring of the global economy and governance abound - from reforming and regulating multinational corporations, the Bretton Woods institutions, financial speculation, international movement of capital and labor, to community activism, “economic pluralism” and “global democracy” (Korten 1996; Mander and Goldsmith 1996; Rodrik 1997; Ellwood 2000; Derber 2000; Shepard and Hayduk 2002; Samli 2002; Held and McGrew 2002). Joseph Stiglitz’s (2002:214, 222) observations seem to rightly conclude this lengthy discourse: The problem is not with globalization, but how it has been managed.....We cannot go back on globalization; it is here to stay. The issue is how we can make it work. And if it is to work, there have to be global public institutions to help set the rules. The problem is, how can we create such institutions without an appropriate mentality and readiness at all levels to do so? Personal responsibility and non-governmental community action, in addition to educational reforms discussed above, seem to offer the best opportunity for bringing about the desired cultural change. Derber’s (2000) 25-point individual action program, Act Up types of community activism (Shepard and Hayduk 2002), and other movements to challenge globalization at the grass roots, such as those launched by Quaker International Affairs Representatives (Feffer and Garate 2002), deserve serious consideration by all those committed to humanizing globalization. The American media is another candidate for drastic reform. Barring NPR and PBS, there is little news, let alone analysis, of world events and conditions on American TV and radio. “World news” from the three national networks and CNN can hardly be called that. It pays some attention to world events only when American interests are involved. Otherwise, they are either ignored or covered through ‘ten second (often biased) bites.’ Newspapers and magazines like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time and Newsweek do cover some world events but only selectively and with a heavy American slant. Consequently, misperceptions about world events abound. BBC radio and television are currently the best sources of world news and views often ignored by the national networks. Abut six months ago my wife and I began to compare on a daily basis the news on developments in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, peace rallies, anti-American sentiments around the world, etc. on BBC and our national TV. Our observations indicate that the latter mostly focuses on the military aspects of these matters, often highlighting the hits ('enemy' arrests and casualties) scored by our men in uniform. American officials’ statements are presented uncritically as ‘news.’ American combat deaths and injuries, financial burdens of Afghanistan and Iraq, local insurgency movements, and the continuing chaos in these countries are summarily reported. Relatively little is said about the ‘other side’ of the stories and their larger social and human consequences, or about other important world events in general, all of which are normally discussed by the BBC. One is tempted to ask, why is there such a blatant neglect of events and conditions beyond the borders of a nation that claims to be the “leader of the free world?” Could it be due to our extreme parochialism and self-centeredness as a nation? The same goes for the American entertainment industry. It has a global reach but lacks a unifying global message. What it delivers to the world is American popular culture and the commercial side of globalism (Barnet and Cavanagh 1996; Garten 1998). Of late, however, the Chinese, Indian, Mexican, the Iranian, and Israeli cinema is bringing glimpses of other cultures to American audiences. The fashions, food, and music industry is in the forefront of popularizing the softer side of globalization, but at the risk of being substituted for global consciousness with larger political and economic implications. Parochialism is outdated but it is not dead - not yet Cultural diversity is heavily emphasized in many quarters today. Pride in, and identification with, one’s own country, culture, religion, race and ethnicity are the touchstones of multi-culturalism in contemporary pluralistic societies. Such pride and identification may sometimes be socially desirable and politically expedient. But when they convert into arrogance, self-righteousness, and exclusion of others, they lead to a fractured world full of strife and exploitation, even violence. Beliefs about cultural superiority and exclusiveness abound in the East and the West, North and South. Those who contribute to such counterintuitive sentiments ignore the fact of our common humanity and planetary interdependence. They ignite passions of obscurantism, exclusion, and divisiveness. Globalization under these circumstances is used to serve local interests at the expense of others instead of local action being mindful of global concerns. Global consciousness suggests that it is about time for the world to unfreeze the old attitudes and practices that have led to cultural and emotional compartmentalization of humankind and replace them with a new culture that embodies global consciousness, or what Robert Wright (2002) calls “ethos of moral universalism,” to accompany globalization for social and economic justice in a global society. For such replacement to occur, a degree of detachment from the local will be necessary in order to connect with the global or universal. The slogan, ‘think globally, act locally,’ must now be applied beyond economics and business management to the realms of education, culture, and human relations in general. Or else: One feature of a globalized society is that disaster can happen at the global level. So we’re in this process where either we grasp the moral and political implications of this increasingly shared fate we have with other people or very bad things will happen (Wright 2002:16). References Ahmad, Aqueil. 1972. “Can Science Lead the Way? - Profile of the Universal Man.” Journal of Human Relations 20:14-29. Ahmad, Aqueil. 2001. “Globalization and the Developing Countries, With Especial Reference to Cuba.” Globalization 1,1. (www.globalization.icaap.org/v1.1/aqueilahmad.html) Anan, Kofi. 2002. Quoted from William Raspberry, Washington Post Writers’ Group. P.A7 in The Herald Sun, Monday, August 12. Durham, North Carolina. Albrecht, Ulrich. 2000. “New Concepts of the UN in Maintaining Peace: A Discourse Analysis About a Producer of Texts.” Pp. 177-190 in Challenges for International Organizations in the 21st Century, edited by Martin Metzger and Birgit Reichenstein. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Allport, Gordon. 1979. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley. Armer, J. Michael. 1990. " The Deparochialization of American Sociology." Pp. 228-239 in The Group Portrait: Internationalizing the Disciplines, edited by Sven Groennings and David S. Wiley. New York: The American Forum for Global Education. Armer, J. Michael (Ed.). 1983. Syllabi and Resources for Internationalizing Courses in Sociology. Washington, D.C.: ASA Teaching Resources Center. Barnet, Richard and John Cavanagh. 1996. “Homogenization of Global Culture.” Pp. 71-77 in The Case Against the Global Economy, edited by Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Bowen, John. 1996. “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict.” Journal of Democracy, October:3-14. Bright, Christopher. 1999. “Invasive Species: Pathogens of Globalization.” Foreign Policy, Fall:50-64. Brown, Lester R. 1996. "We Can Build a Sustainable Economy." The Futurist, July/August:8-12. Buddhadasa, Bhikkhu. 1989. “A Socialism Capable of Benefiting the World.” Pp. 194-203 in Me and Mine - Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, edited by Donald K. Swearer. Albany, NY: The SUNY Press. Cahill, Spencer. 1998. “Fashioning Gender Identity.” Pp.26-33 in Inside Social Life, edited by Spencer Cahill. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. Charon, Joel. 2001. Ten Questions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Charon, Joel. 2001. Symbolic Interactionism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Global Issues: Selections from CQ Researcher. Washington, DC. Derber, Charles. 2002. People Before Profit. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Ellwood, Wayne. 2000. The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization. Oxford, UK: New International Publications. Feffer, John and Martin Garate (Eds.). 2002. Living in Hope. New York: Zed Books. Ferranti, Joan. 1995. Sociology: A Global Perspective. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Ferranti, Joan. 2000. Sociology: The United States in a Global Community. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Friedman, Thomas and Ignacio Ramonet. 1999. “Dueling Globalization: A Debate between Thomas L. Friedman and Ignacio Ramonet.” Foreign Policy Fall 1999:110-127. Garten J. E. 1998. “‘Cultural Imperialism’ Is No Joke.” Business Week, November 30. Gergen, Kenneth J. 1971. The Concept of Self. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gergen, Kenneth J. 1991. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books. Glantz, Michael. 1999. “The Global Challenge.” The World & I, April:24-31. Held, David and Anthony McGrew. 2002. Globalization/Anti-Globalization, Chapter 6. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Horowitz, Irving Lewis, ed. 1964. The New Sociology: Essays in Social Science and Social Theory in Honor of C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press. Huntington, Samuel. 1997. “The Many Faces of the Future: Why We Will Never Have a Universal Civilization.” Utne Reader, May/June:75-77, 102-3. Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne Baker. 2001. “Modernization’s Challenge to Traditional Values: Who’s Afraid of Ronald McDonald?” The Futurist, March/April:16-21. Kabir, Humayun (Ed.). 1961. Rabindranath Tagore: Towards Universal Man. New Delhi: Asia Publishing House. Korten, David. 1996. “The Limits of the Earth.” The Nation, July 15/22:14-16,18. Lappe, Frances M. and Joseph Collins. 1978. “Why Can’t People Feed Themselves?” Pp. 75-85 in Food First, edited by Lappe and Collins, New York: Ballantine. Lerda, Valera (Ed.). 2002. Which “Global Village”?: Societies, Cultures, and Political-Economic Systems in a Euro-Atlantic Perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger. Linton, Ralph. 1945. The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft. Mathews, Robert. 1999. “Climate Changes that Make the World Flip.” UNESCO Courier, November:10-13. McCall, George J. and J. L. Simmons. 1966. Identities and Interactions. Chapter 2. New York: The Free Press. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin. Annual Editions - Global Issues (series). Guilford, CT. McKibben, Bill. 1998. “A Special Moment in History.” The Atlantic Monthly, May:55-76. Mead, George Herbert. 1964. On Social Psychology. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Mohan, Raj P. and Don Martindale (Eds.). 1975. Handbook of Contemporary Developments in World Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Moore, Wilbert E. 1966. "Global Sociology: The World as a Singular System." American Journal of Sociology 71:475-482. Moulder, Frances (Ed.). 2000. Modern World: A Reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1961. “Introduction.” A Centenary Volume: Rabindanath Tagore, 1861-1961. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Ogburn, William. 1938. Social Change. New York: Viking Press. Peterson, Dean, Delores Wunder, and Harlan Mueller. 1999. Social Problems: Globalization in the Twenty-First Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rieber, Robert and Robert Kelly. 1991. “Substance and Shadow: Images of the Enemy.” Pp. 3-39 in The Psychology of War and Peace, edited by Robert Rieber. New York: Plenum Press. Ritzer, George. 1996. The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Rodrik, Dani. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far?. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Rosenau, James. 1997. “The Complexities and Contradictions of Globalization.” Current History, November: 360-364. Rousseau, Nathan (Ed.). 1999. “Introduction.” P. 1 in Internationalizing Sociology in the Age of Globalization: A Curriculum Guide. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Rothkopf, David. 1997. “In Praise of Cultural Imperialism?” Foreign Policy, Summer 1997:38-53. Sadowski, Yahya. 1998. “Ethnic Conflict.” Foreign Policy, Summer:12-23. Said, Edward. 2001. “The Clash of Ignorance.” The Nation, October 22:11-13. Samli, A. Goskun. 2002. In Search of Equitable, Sustainable Globalization. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Shepard, Benjamin and Ronald Hayduk (Eds.). 2002. From Act Up to WTO: Urban Protest and Community Building in the Era of Globalization. New York: Verso (New Left Books). Sklair, Leslie. 1995. Sociology of the Global System. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sklair, Leslie. 2000. Globalization: Capitalism and its Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press. Soroka, Michael and George Bryjak. 1995. Social Problems: A World at Risk. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stiglitz, Joseph E . 2002. Globalization and its Discontents, New York: W. W. Norton. Suny, Ronald. 1993. The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tagore, Rabindranath. 1931. The Religion of Man. London, UK: Allen & Unwin. “The Siena Declaration on the Crisis of Economic Globalization,” www.twnside.org.sg/title/sienna-cn.htm. Tiryakian, Edward A. 1990. "Sociology's Great Leap Forward." Pp. 179-195 in Group Portrait: Internationalizing the Disciplines, edited by Sven Groennings and David S. Wiley. New York: The American Forum for Global Education. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1990. “Sociology for Undergraduates: Social Systems as World Systems, World Systems as Historical Systems.” Pp. 196-206 in Group Portrait: Internationalizing the Disciplines, edited by Sven Groennings and David S. Wiley. New York: The American Forum for Global Education. Wellner, Pamela. 1994. “A Pipeline Killing Field: Exploitation of Burma’s Natural Gas.” The Ecologist, September-October:189-193;
Worldwatch Institute. 1999. State of the World. New York: W. W. Norton.
Worldwatch Institute. 2002. State of the World. New York: W. W. Norton.
Worldwatch Institute. 2001. State of the World. New York: W. W. Norton.
Worldwatch Institute. 2002. State of the World. New York: W. W. Norton. Wright, Robert. 2002. “My Minivan and World Peace,” from "Mr. Order Meets Mr. Chaos." Pp. 14-21 in Annual Editions - Global Issues, 02/03. Guilford, CT: McGraw Hill/Dushkin.
(Reprinted with permission from Humanity & Society, 27, 2, May 2003, pp. 125-142.) |
