Who is afraid of globalization?

/web cafe /talk of the best
search port	news
CONTACT * NEWSLETTER * HOME

"Bush, Berlusconi, and cohorts know that if a huge mass of humanity gains sufficient knowledge, hope, and confidence, we will force new and more participatory relations against the tide of their preferred elitist globalization. Bush, Berlusoni, et. al. have therefore decided to try their usual recourse, violence."

"Emerging-market countries that are highly globalized (such as Poland, Israel, the Czech Republic, and Hungary) exhibit a much more egalitarian distribution of income than emerging-market nations that rank near the bottom of the Globalization Index (such as Russia, China, and Argentina). There are some exceptions: Malaysia, for instance, is more globalized but less equal than Poland. But the general pattern of higher globalization and greater income equality holds for most countries, both in mature economies and emerging markets".

"I do not deny that people who speak the same language, were born and live in the same territory, face the same problems, and practice the same religions and customs have common characteristics. But that collective denominator can never fully define each one of them, and it only abolishes or relegates to a disdainful secondary plane the sum of unique attributes and traits that differentiates one member of the group from the others. The concept of identity, when not employed on an exclusively individual scale, is inherently reductionist and dehumanizing, a collectivist and ideological abstraction of all that is original and creative in the human being, of all that has not been imposed by inheritance, geography, or social pressure. Rather, true identity springs from the capacity of human beings to resist these influences and counter them with free acts of their own invention. (...)

The fear of Americanization of the planet is more ideological paranoia than reality. There is no doubt, of course, that with globalization, English has become the general language of our time, as was Latin in the Middle Ages. (...) But does this mean that English necessarily develops at the expense of the other great languages? Absolutely not. In fact, the opposite is true. The vanishing of borders and an increasingly interdependent world have created incentives for new generations to learn and assimilate to other cultures, not merely as a hobby but also out of necessity, since the ability to speak several languages and navigate comfortably in different cultures has become crucial for professional success. (...) Globalization will not make local cultures disappear; in a framework of worldwide openness, all that is valuable and worthy of survival in local cultures will find fertile ground in which to bloom. (...)

Contrary to the warnings of those who fear globalization, it is not easy to completely erase cultures—however small they may be—if behind them is a rich tradition and people who practice them, even if in secret".

Who is afraid of globalization?

"... Seeing corruption everywhere - (and everywhere, but ourselves!) - is part of the problem. ... if we lived the culture we are supposed to be defending, we wouldn't fear of getting global - and to the degree that we live it, we don't fear indeed ..."

TO J. ATTALI, globalization seems like a global but unstable prevalence of the Western values - a temporary prevalence which is determined to lead in moral decay and the surrender of power to drug dealers and the Mafia! A globalised free market will destroy not only democracy, but even any sense of liberty and humanity! The end of free market, according to Attali, will not be communism but chaos. West will devour the whole world in a last, suicidal, dinner! He himself gives his view the name of "apocalyptic scenario". Attali's fear of globalization resembles (or is indeed) just a fear of capitalism as such - the West being identified more or less with capitalism!

Our question is: even if this scenario proves right, should we really blame "the Western values"? That means: if the market were not free or our values were not western and global, would corruption be impossible? If not, then its real and prime cause should be sought elsewhere... Unless we are not interested in the cure, it is this cause that matters. But, let's suppose for argument's sake that western values are just trash: what's the alternative? The very discussion of a probable alternative is only possible inside a Western conceptual framework. If we accept that there is a variety of values, often contradictory, in the Western culture, then we must stop talking about the corrupted like they had arrived from Mars!

Seeing corruption almost everywhere - (and everywhere, but ourselves!) - is part of the problem. We can work to advance democracy, if we want it, if we still keep traces of trust in human nature - not to say in the Western treatment of this nature. We can and should protect the poor and unable, something to which globalization seems rather beneficial. Identification of the "Western values" with only some of them, self-ignorance, is a serious part of the problem, as well as ignorance of our history, and, in this case, especially of the history of capitalism and technology in general. Inability to recognize the simple fact, that beauty and all technology can not be - and wouldn't have been - created, if the people envolved are in it just for the money, is part of our problem and a serious one. To assert that all politicians, scientists, parents who labour to sustain their families, students and scholars, businessmen, artists - almost everyone and at least the vast majority of the inhabitants of this planet will let the Mafia soak up everything, is like asserting that our civilization has such a strong self-destructive will, that renders impossible any kind of future, whether global or not...

People more prudent than Attali talk about different ways of globalization (Genoa protesters themselves talked about "their globalization"), they don't dismiss the concept and project, they keep it - not as unavoidable, but as desired, for various reasons. We can discuss those reasons, we can improve, alter, add or remove some or many of them, we can totally change them, we can protest, in riots or not, to encourage a discussion, but it is self-contradictory, stupid and useless to use the internet, our international magazines, e-mails and mobile phones to talk about the benefits of localization...

In any case we don't need to be fatalists: we create this thing, it can not be created without us. We can shape it, we can let others shape it, we can deny it and if and however it may prevail, we can still fight and change it. There is something indeed that can't be changed, and this is whatever is destined to die, whatever we generate with an sickness-unto-death.

According to some variations of the anti-globalization trends, local traditions, languages, cultures, etc, are in a great danger. Let's be specific: is the study of Plato in danger because of globalization? Is globalization the reason why Greeks themselves must go to Oxford in order to learn ancient Greek? Was globalization the reason why Athenians, centuries ago, let Plato be a captive or killed Socrates? For Attali, maybe yes, since he doesn't hesitate, e.g., to consider Protestantism as a product of the printing press!.. Think of how sad is the agony of the French trying to protect their cinema, and how vain the fight, in the belief that Holywood is the enemy!.. This reminds us of the x-files: "the truth is out there", which also means: "the enemy is out there". It is not out there. On the contrary, it is very inside. The question is simple: shouldn't we, maybe, start seeing the evil inside ourselves, individually, and not in the, global or local, conditions of life? At least since the Revolt of the Masses we know, that even "in the presence of one individual" we can have a mass. And for those of us who believe in Christ, wouldn't be of some profit to recall, that the very birth of our faith happened in a time of general syncretism and melting of cultures, even in persecutions, without being hindered because of this?... Do we still believe that evil needs globalization to appear or that, if it appears, we can't defeat it? If we lived the culture we are supposed to be defending, we wouldn't fear of getting global - and to the degree that we live it, we don't fear indeed...

A culture can not be held in a tube: we would have nothing to do with it, nothing to make of it! Our efforts will not succeed, if we fail to understand that culture is based on freedom and greatness - it is not something that can be taught and it is not something that gazes equally upon everyone. Democracy is desirable, because society, so far as it denotes a balance of interests, regards everyone: but most people just don't care for culture save only in instinctive modes and lower levels - e.g. they stick to certain food recipies, inherited "ideas", etc participating in culture almost like they participate in a common nature. Moreover, culture in its highest and decisive forms does not depend to any kind of government, because it springs from within and not from, voluntary or not, obedience. If such a dependence existed, we would have stopped arguing on such matters ages ago... I was talking with a learned priest and professor of the catholic church and he was surprised upon my claim that some ways seem to be reachable only by few. It may be sad, but it is real. It has been proved in history, it is being proved every day and it is declared to be true by Christ himself. To ignore this fact is to transform culture into a conformity with a quasi code-of-living, something that is by its nature against culture. The doctrine is fixed and the Church powerful, however, atheism, implicit or explicit, prospers... We have our classical texts in splendid critical editions and our music in authoritative recordings, but it still remains hard to find people who really understand and admire a poet or a composer, even harder to find people that lead a poet's life. This means that hypocrisy and arrogance has become something like an ultimate core for those who claim that they want to 'serve' or even 'save' culture in the hearts of the multitude. To strive for a "national culture" where we should be most happy and grateful if we had a chance and were able to stand by and support just a single person in his fight for love, hope and faith - this is our hypocrisy and arrogance. And it is ironic, how in this way we work against culture, by neglecting the only factor that makes any culture possible. It is like watering the leaves of a tree by burning its roots...

If there is something now, in our Christianity or in whatever other tradition of ours, our language included, that can not endure globalization, then let it melt and disappear - the sooner the better... Otherwise we can only and we will only hate it, as we hate whatever ought to have died. We can not protect a culture, we can only become a culture ourselves!..

Globalization is and will be a great test to all cultures, a hard but very welcome personal test, above all. A culture is being borne, generates us and spreads by the will to communicate, by caring not for any tradition whatever, but just for life! We don't need to protect our language: we need to have something to say - and only in this will our language is formed. We don't need to protect our literature or philosophy: we just need to have feelings, experiences and questions - literature will follow naturally, discussion with our past will follow naturally and according to the measure of our will to think and understand... We will be creative and useful, if we turn into ourselves and work inside us, instead of imagining and planning The Safest Cultural Condom Of All Ages.

This will make ministers of culture lose their jobs, but what culture has to do with ministers and prime ministers?... In fact, they are dangerous, and the most dangerous they are in the very move and ambition to strengthen it! Try to protect a culture and you will create a vampire...