Problems of Globalization

“Globalization, Desire, and the Politics of Representation” by R. Radhakrishnan states quite clearly the problem that I have with America’s current foreign policy. However, he states with equal clarity the problem that I have with most other options presented by philosophers and politicians today. The root of the problem on both fronts is that the world seems to see international relations only through modernist glasses – as relations of power. While power struggles are inevitable and need to be dealt with, there is another stage on which foreign relations can be set as well. That is the stage of interdependence and solidarity. However, this stage will remain darkened as long as we continue to seek the solution to disparity in the relativistic scenery of modernist thought.

Radhakrishnan forwards the concern that globalization is actually nationalism in disguise, a system in which the powerful nation-states force the rest of the world into conformity. To build his case, he uses the so-called “benevolent” actions of the G7, the IMF and the World Bank toward “third-world” countries. Such benevolence, Radhakrishnan argues, is not intended to help lift third-world countries into the realm of independent nation-states and equal partners in the world community. Rather, it is intended to keep these countries in a continuous state of “dependence and heteronomy.” Radhakrishnan makes a great point – that you never hear politicians speaking of “human” jobs. They are always speaking of “American or Canadian or Mexican or Indian jobs.” Radhakrishnan asks, “When was the last time that an American president showed concern or altered foreign trade policy in response to dire job losses in Mexico or in the Philippines?” Recently on CNN, I almost heard President Bush express such a concern. Defending himself against criticisms that he was promoting unemployment in America by opening the door wider for American companies to take jobs overseas, Bush commented, “I understand that unemployment is a problem in America, but I don’t see that as a valid reason for retreating from the world market.” A Bush supporter could certainly make the argument that his ambiguous phrase meant that American economic might should be spread out to benefit people of the entire world. However, I don’t think suspicion that Bush is really looking out for American big business interests would be too paranoid. Radhakrishnan makes another valid point using nuclear weapons as an example. Powerful nation-states punish “subaltern” (weaker, subordinate) countries for wanting the same things that dominant nation-stages “have successfully monopolized.” I agree with Bush to the extent that I really don’t want Muslim dictatorships or oligarchies to have nuclear weapons. After all, the self-stated purpose of Islam is to conquer the world for Allah. However, it strikes me as odd that there should be comfort with any country having nuclear weapons. These weapons by their very nature are antithetical to the ideologies that America claims to stand for. The argument is often made that the dominant nation-states have proven their right to have nuclear weapons because of the restraint they have shown in their use. However, if the right to have such weapons is proven by not using them, then why have nuclear weapons at all? This is a clear example of hypocrisy (a word that is too often misapplied, but really does fit in this case).

Radhakrishnan forwards the philosophical bedrock for a possible solution. Third-world countries continue to be victimized by the dominant nation-states because they imagine that a relationship with the dominant powers within the context of globalization will eventually given third-world countries what they want – a piece of the power pie. However, the dominant nation-states are influenced by a technological progress vision of the world (which I take to come from enlightenment philosophy’s ideal of progress), in which power is seen as an end-sum game. The only way for third-world countries to gain power would be for the leading countries to lose power. Since this is undesirable for the countries who dominate the process of globalization, their-world countries are hoping for the impossible. Radhakrishnan claims that third-world countries need to shift their philosophical outlook. They need to reject the technological progress model and instead embrace a postmodern philosophy. According to such a viewpoint, there is no objective definition of reality. “Reality” is not a single entity, but a complex interaction of a multiplicity of realities. Therefore, definition of reality is dependant on the perceiver of reality. It is “important that people invent their own realities rather than dwell passively and reactively in realities invented by others.” So how do people interact when their perceptions of reality differ? Radhakrishnan states, “But the real and intricate challenge is how to imagine one’s reality not in egocentric isolation, but relationally with other imaginings.” In other words, we have to find a way to allow our reality to harmonize with other realities, without passively sacrificing our reality for theirs. One suggestion for doing this on the world stage is for third-world countries to stop seeing themselves as “developing” nations, a term forced on them by the technological viewpoint of progress. In its place, they need to find their own self-definition and their own reality. Radhakrishnan recommends that third-world countries see themselves as “suffering” nations, rather than “developing” nations. They should become “a representation of the victims of man-made suffering everywhere in the world and in all past times.” They could then unite themselves to others who suffer throughout time and space, dissolving the geo-political limitations that define them as “developing nations” and instead defining themselves as people who suffer. They could then relate to globalism on their own terms, seeking relationships of “reciprocal rehabilitation” with the dominant countries. They could direct the efforts of globalism toward a new kind of utopia in which each member would be free to find its own reality in harmony with the realities of other members, and therefore in which suffering would be eradicated.

Does the postmodern perception of reality really have the power to do this? The greatest mystery of postmodernism is where the moral imperative for harmonious coexistence comes from in the ebb and flow of individual realities? If the dominant nation-states see power as an end-sum game, and believe that the harmonious coexistence of realities demands that they act as stewards of the power and look out for their subordinate brother-countries, who is to say that their vision of harmonious realities is any worse than the vision of reciprocal rehabilitation? I understand that the latter fits the postmodern worldview better than the former, but if reality is really so fluid then there can be no standard by which to judge opposing realities. Fortunately, I don’t believe that it is necessary to believe in postmodern deconstruction of objective reality to see that Radhakrishnan’s practical solution is a good one. However, it would be necessary for me to find a new philosophical groundwork to lay it on.

That philosophical groundwork begins with the objective answer to Radhakrishnan’s question, “If going global means acknowledging a certain connectedness, what is the basis for such a connectedness?” Radhakrishnan argues against the basis of “blood” – or nationalism. However, there is a legitimate basis for connectedness. We must first understand that nationalism and globalism are subjective “imagined” associations. However, they are human attempts to satisfy the objective reality of the need for human connection. Historically, this need was satisfied on a local level. Human beings banded together into communities to make it easier to meet each other’s needs, and because humans are naturally drawn to community. Here we find the authentic bases for all human connection: interdependence and solidarity. Nations took this local sense of connectedness and attempted to expand it over greater geographical areas. While there are benefits to doing this, there are also detriments. Human beings do not naturally bond with people that they do not have regular personal contact with. To make nationalism work, artificial bases for association had to be created. Cultural commonalities, national pride, a sense of “us” vs. “them,” and an organizing government all added to the natural sense of interdependence and solidarity to expand the “village” into a “nation.” Likewise, in globalization artificial bases for association will have to be added to the authentic bases in order to bind together people who do not share the same culture or language. The key to success for nationalism and for globalization is to put more focus on the natural, authentic bases for association than on the artificial ones. Nationalism goes astray when national pride or cultural ideologies trump interdependence and solidarity as the nation’s teleology. The same will be true of globalism. The problem Radhakrishnan points out is an authentic one. America and the other dominant nations are using globalization to forward nationalistic agendas to the detriment of “subaltern” countries. However, if the dominant countries remember that international relationships need to reflect the authentic bases for human association, they should begin to act for the authentic good of all human beings, not simply for the good of their own ideologies and political and economic constituencies. An appeal based on the demonstrable objective reality of human association has to be more powerful than the groundless appeal to harmony between individually perceived realities.

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas