 |
 |
|
Cultural Fundamentalism is a Cultural Universal Globalization has been around since the first traders. It was practiced by the Vikings who sailed northern Europe and the Mediterranean in search of new places to trade their goods for things they could not produce. Globalization continued during the Renaissance when the mighty European powers sent explorers out into the world to claim lands rich in natural resources that were scarce or did not exist in their homeland. Globalization appeared again in the Japanese conquest of eastern and southeast Asia in order to acquire raw materials for their war economy. Throughout history globalization has been occurring, although never has it progressed so quickly as it has since the fall of the Berlin wall. When the Berlin wall fell, it brought down a wall over 40 years old that separated communism from democracy. What it really did though was bring down the wall between Capitalism and Socialism. Until this point in history, corporations were bound by their sovereign homelands to only trade in countries that shared favorable foreign relations. American companies were excluded from doing business with China, which today is one of our most important trade partners. The end of the cold war ushered in an era with billions of new consumers previously unexposed to American culture and consumerism. Just as important to corporations as new free and open global market were the great advances made in technology. Three in particular changed the world forever. The first to take off was the Internet. The Internet created a worldwide information network where anyone could get any piece of information they needed 24 hours a day seven days a week. Simultaneously created was a market place with the potential to reach any and every consumer in the world. Electronic mail was also born, a means of sending written communication across the world instantly with sound and video. Another important advance was the proliferation of satellite technology. Until, the late 1990's owning a satellite dish was expensive, because program providers constantly rescrambled their signals so that satellite dish owners would have to pay for expensive descrambler upgrades. In the late 1990's however, subscription satellite service was born. This enabled consumers around the world to tap into American and international programming for the cost of local cable television. This ended the era of local broadcasting, now all the major networks are pitching to a global audience. (Barber) Another important new technology is the cellular phone. The cellular phone allows the consumer to never ever have to leave contact with their digital world. Their phones can retrieve their emails, and take messages. Most importantly though it makes them available for contact 24 hours a day 7 days a week, no matter where they are or what they are doing. These three technologies have changed the world forever. The world is a much smaller place because of them. Corporations now have the potential to reach the entire world with their products and marketing every time they post a website or run a commercial, even in countries that publicly ban foreign products and television, such as China. Cellular phones have made the seclusion a thing of the past. A person never has to be alone again, not even in a crowd, because they can always pick up the phone and call someone. For the first time in history people are volunteering to be on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week by wearing a cellular phone. All of these technologies allow a person to potentially never have to leave the comforts of their homes or interact with other people as a public. The end of the cold war and these tremendous advances in technology has created the greatest era of globalization the world has ever seen. Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree defines globalization as, …is not static, but a dynamic ongoing process: globalization involves the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before--in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations, and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is also producing a powerful backlash from those brutalized or left behind by this new system (Friedman 1999:9). To put it more simply, globalization is the integration of local markets into a global market through Internet and Satellite technology. Globalization does not stop at the market though; it is working to create one global homogeneous materialistic culture. Barber argues the medium used by globalization to best sell this culture is “empty-V”. He points out that MTV is offered by all cable providers outside of Africa, Cuba, and the Middle East, although MTV is viewable by anyone with a satellite dish. MTV has the largest audience in the world and is entirely made up of commercial programming to promote American goods. Gillette Chairman Zeien commented “kids on he streets in Tokyo have more in common with kids on the streets in London than they do with their own parents.” “Children have been known to drown in just a few inches of inches of water: television's shallows are more perilous still” (Barber 112). It used to be that producers worked to meet the needs of consumers. We are advancing towards a world where consumers consume to meet the needs of producers (Barber). It is essential that globalization create demands in consumers for their product that producers need to sell. MTV is a means for multinational corporations to convince the adolescence of the world that would what they want more then anything else in the world is American brand name products. Barber points out that democracy & Human Rights are as unnecessary as environmental regulation to multinational corporations. He argues that Multinational corporations are willing to accept the line “Shut up and I'll let you get rich” (Barber 1850). Time and time again Multinational corporations have been willing to do business in undemocratic societies. A common economic principle is that the higher the risk the higher the return, in the case of Russia, China, and other developing democracy's multinational corporations have been willing to do business, despite the risk from crime and corruption, because the potential pay offs with less regulation and taxes are so great. Barber's point is that since demanding democracy and human rights will not increase profits, you cannot depend on business to do this as some argue. Thomas Friedman is one such person that has argued that for all the evil globalization causes, it does even greater good. Friedman argues first, that people want globalization; because they like American goods. He goes on to argue that people want globalization in their country to create more jobs and bring in American goods. He also contends that people want globalization because it is better then having no opportunity to achieve the American dream. He also argues that international projects like Vision 2020 can bring economic salvation through globalization. The first argument that people want globalization because they like the goods is not a strong one. Just because a person wants something does not make it a good thing. A crack addict wants crack, but that is not the best thing for them. MTV, Baywatch, and Home Alone are not things a person needs, they are merely wants. To his second argument that things are better now in developing democracies then they were under communism, Barber strongly disagrees. The poster child of the developing democracy is the former U.S.S.R. Today 40% of Russians live below the subsistence line. 15 million Russians are unemployed compared to less then a million under communism. 40% of the Russian GNP is crime related. These are not the statistics of a developing country; these are the statistics of a disaster. Friedman points out that the World Trade Organization and World Bank are just one of a few organizations made possible by globalization to fight poverty. In fact, in India at this very moment a very real globalization debate is raging over such a project, Vision 2020. Vision 2020 is a planned, large-scale transformation away from dependence on small and medium sized, predominantly subsistence farming in the state of Andhra Pradesh in southern India, towards an agribusiness model of intensive export-orientated agriculture. The plan will encourage farmers to plant GM (genetically modified) crops… (Hines 2001:35). Vision 2020 is a global issue because the majority of the funding for this project is coming from the UK and World Bank. The UK is donating 100 million dollars to this project making up 60% of their total aid budget to India. (Hines 2001:35) Despite this tremendous global support, there are many opponents of Vision 2020. There are about 75 million people in this Indian state. It is expected that this project will unemploy 20 million people, which is over 25% of the state's population! (Hines 2001:35) The Vision 2020 plan provides no solutions for the potential problems with unemployment. There is also concern that these crops could cause long term damage to the soil and cause famine. These new crops also will require 3 million new wells in an area already dealing with a terrible drought, further diminishing the output of the remaining subsistence farmers as they have difficulty obtaining water. Lastly, even if you ignore all of these problems and justify this program purely on its investment potential, it still fails. Many experts have noted the fact that European markets are reluctant to purchase GM modified foods. Therefore, as they are the greatest market for food, this project ought to be abandoned simply on the grounds it will not be profitable. Vision 2020 is just one example of many such projects going on around the world to fight poverty. Vision 2020 is doomed to failure because it fails to follow the market guidelines it was instituted with to make money. Projects like these frustrate the laymen who feels powerless next to the tremendous amount of international money influencing their government. Jihad is the buzzword Barber uses for cultural fundamentalism. A very common response to the negative symptoms of globalization, including increasing economic stratification, cultural homogenization, and unemployment, has been a strong increase in cultural fundamentalism. Barber argues that cultural fundamentalism and globalization need each other. He argues that McWorld has to actually market cultural fundamentalism in order to keep and attract new consumers. Because, the homogenous culture of McWorld does not provide for many human needs that cultural fundamentalism can provide. On the other hand Barber also points out that cultural fundamentalism needs McWorld in order to be promoted, if no one is aware of anything but culture McWorld, there could be no other culture and there would no new members to keep the culture alive. Cultural fundamentalism and Globalization may need each other, but since 9-11 that is not something, humanity can afford to live with any longer. The problem is, no one is sure exactly how to identify, root out, or even stop these fundamentalists, because you cannot police thoughts. Every person has the potential to be a fundamentalist, a certain ideology is all that is necessary. In America, we are socialized to believe that grouping people together because of physical traits is wrong. Therefore, we try our hardest not to associate fundamentalists with physical attributes. The problem is, there are billions of potential fundamentalists that fit the profile even when you do not make any physical distinctions and rely completely on non-physical traits like income and religion. The paradox is fundamentalists single out their enemies by physical traits. They understand that you cannot peer into someone's mind and really know what they believe. Therefore, they focus on what is easily recognizable. According to The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, this could all be natural. In his book, Wright argues that there are cultural universals and there is more to human nature then simply socialization. He points out that we believe that our physical attributes are determined by our genetics through natural selection. Then could some of our basic mental faculties also be genetically determined by natural selection? Wright makes a strong case that they could indeed be genetically determined by natural selection by examining cultural universals. Some of the universals pointed out by Wright are family, friendship, politics, courtship, morality, social status, and gossip about the same sorts of things. Wright goes on to point out that there are even emotional universals like gratitude, shame, remorse, pride, honor, retribution, empathy, love etc. All of these things together indicate there is indeed a genetic connection to some of our moral and cultural beliefs. I think there is another cultural universal that could be added to Wright's list, cultural fundamentalism. Barber gives numerous examples of cultural fundamentalism all over the world, from California's militant anti-immigration politics, to Germany's revival of the Fascist party, to the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, to the genocide committed by the Hutu's. The fact that cultural fundamentalism is happening all over the world gives some credit to the notion that it could be another universal. Another important aspect of Wright's book is the fact that he demonstrates that these universals are beneficial to procreation. Cultural fundamentalism especially in the form of genocide does not seem like it would be naturally selected in because of its procreative advantages. On the other hand, though, this cultural fundamentalism is the strongest when the greatest threat is presented to that culture. That is why you see varying degrees of fundamentalism. In California, you saw a mild case of cultural fundamentalism, when Californians went to the polls and voted to deny government services to illegal immigrants during the last recession. On September 11 th 2001, we saw an even greater degree of fundamentalism by people who felt completely powerless and oppressed by multinational corporations and lashed out violently in the only way they knew. When the Nazi party came to power in Germany in he 1930's, we saw the greatest degree of fundamentalism ever seen in History. The Fascist Nazi party came to power because Germany was a country completely crippled, inflation was sky high, unemployment was rampant, and there was no hope in sight. The Nazi's gave the people of Germany something to blame. The common thread to all of these illogical overreactions is, the common belief that if we just get rid of the infidels, we can go back to the way things were before the trouble. Throughout his book, Wright argues that if you want to understand how something was selected into humans you need to look at how that trait fit into a hunter-gatherer society. In the case of cultural fundamentalism, this could be seen as a natural response to encroachment on a hunter gatherer societies limited resources and that if they did not force the competitors out they were doomed to starvation and would have been selected out. Cultural Fundamentalism is a cultural universal that was selected in as a means of defending resources. If we accept the idea that cultural fundamentalism is a cultural universal, then we can no longer work towards wiping it out as a solution. We will need to find a way to allow it to exist, while at the same time suppressing any violent actions. Globalization and cultural fundamentalism are both potentially very detrimental to the future of human society, could there be an answer for both? Globalization and cultural fundamentalism share one particularly important trait they both attack the sovereignty of their state. Globalization wants an unregulated free market, while cultural fundamentalists are demanding independence. On one hand, you have the external borders being dissolved in the other you have the internal borders being destroyed. One answer commonly thrown out and discussed by Barber, to help control multinational corporations is globalize law! Barber makes the argument that like the U.N., WTO, and World Bank, an international code of law is just not feasible. A global code of law would have the same problems as current international organizations. Simply put, the powerful nations would not relinquish any of their power and if these powerful nations do not support the law, there will be no one to enforce it. Barber is more then just critical of the idea of international law, he offers another solution. Barber makes the bold suggestion that what is needed to control the multinational corporation is a global confederacy. Barber points out that the U.S.A. started out as a confederacy with the articles of confederation. Barber argues that the nations of the world should sign into a confederacy. He argues this bottom up approach allows every nation to keep their sovereignty yet gives the little states a voice. He gives a very powerful quote from the U.S. Articles of Confederation Article 3: The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade or any other pretense whatsoever (Barber 289). This kind of a confederacy would have the collective to power to control problems that span borders. This would take away the ability for cultural fundamentalists to hide across borders. This would also hold multinational corporations accountable in whatever border they did their business. This would also make any fight for independence much less of a big political issue since the new state would still be a member of the larger political body. Cultural fundamentalism is a cultural universal. If we are going to continue to move at the speed of light with globalization. We desperately need to start regulating multinational corporations. If we do not stop their rampant abuse of the environment and the poor, cultural fundamentalism may consume everything and bring it to a grinding halt. I agree with Barber that a global confederacy is an essential first to gaining this control over the multinational corporations. “Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal did as much to save capitalism from self-annihilation as it did to save the American people from capitalism's social ruthlessness” (Barber 238) Once a Global confederacy is in place, it will then possible to institute a global bill of rights just like Roosevelt did with the New Deal. This bill of rights would address concerns such as employment, the environment, and terrorism. Barber goes on to say that not only is a confederacy a good way to handle international problems it is also the first towards a global democracy. Barber reminds us that the American brand of democracy has taken over 225 years to develop and it is unrealistic to believe that a democracy on a local scale let alone global scale is going to happen overnight, although a confederacy is a good first step in the right direction. Barber ended his book with the following and I believe he did a great job summing up the idea of a global confederacy: In a nation at war, Abraham Lincoln saw in democracy a last and best hope. On our paradoxical planet today, with nations falling apart and coming together at the same moment for some of the very same reasons, and with cowering national governments and toothless international law hardly able to bark, let alone bite, democracy may now have become our first and only hope. A global confederacy is indeed our first and only hope to combat multinational terrorists and corporations. |