This blog post is inspired by Donald Trump’s April 2016 declamation: “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism.” When this statement, with its combined affect of simple steadfastness and poetic heroism (a combination that is a common quality of folkish ethno-nationalist movements), resurfaced in the aftermath of last week’s Brexit vote, it drew my curiosity. I mentioned it to a couple of people and one said, “what is this word ‘globalism,’ when the correct word is globalization?” Despite considering these two words side by side for the first time in my life, I found myself fluently defending globalism’s integrity, and difference from globalization. Globalization, I said, captures the practical structures and processes of global movements, trade, communication, and so on. Globalism captures a culture, an ethos, an epistemological framework, a way of understanding the world, I said. The two words stayed with me because something about them seemed to be central to political disturbances in the United States and throughout Europe, with related-but-different expressions in other parts of the world.
I’ve heard globalization a lot more frequently, often hailed by politicians and business leaders as both the driver and result of economic growth and technological progress. With globalization, the world becomes a single marketplace of commodities, ideas, cultural aritifacts, and people. Governments manage globalization across national boundaries, building trans- and multinational infrastructures to streamline processes for inflows and outflows. But these are not globalism, and the apparently comprehensive marketplace of globalization is not the same as a community marketplace of symbolic exchanges, affective ties, and social contracts. The lived world of social contracts and affective ties is still shaped primarily by ethno-nationalist categories and the sentimental content of associated mythologies, certainly for my over-50 generation, and lags behind the structures of globalization. As a result ethno-nationalist rhetoric is still very potent in rallying disaffected people, and “globalist” rhetoric does not yet have discursive or affective depth on a wide scale. I looked up globalism (on Wikipedia, of course, as the lexicon of common knowledge, whether “correct” or not) and found that globalism has been used as a generic term for global ideologies (such as “justice globalism,” “market globalism,” “jihadist globalism,” etc.), but it seems not to have any full or textured content of its own. And yet, Trump’s “false song of globalism” evokes something coherent and complex, a world of symbols, images, ideas, and relationships that competes with (the songs of) ethno-nationalism. The benefits of globalization tend to accrue to well-off people; for them (including people like me) globalism, though largely unnamed, is developing mythological and affective depth. But for the majorities who relatively benefit much, much less (even when some sub-proportion benefits in absolute terms), globalization and its accompanying “false song of globalism” are elitist and exploitative. If globalism is to be a new framework for social contracts, symbolic meaning, and democratically legitimate politics, it needs a concerted and accelerated coagulation of new global language, mythology, structures, and actions that deliberately include the beauty and struggles of local and regional communities, not merely alternations between the pragmatics of globalization and the articulations – sometimes sublime, often shrill – of aging ethno-nationalisms. So all this mulling has led me to ask: What would it look like to have a politics of globalism? What could a new politics of globalism look like? Not globalization. Globalism. Not multilateralism. Perhaps not even a new kind of federalism. This I believe is the gauntlet that Brexit and Trump, as expressive moments, throw before our political imaginations. I don’t have an answer and I don’t think we’ll come up with an answer in the near future. Perhaps our descendants will see an answer retrospectively in fifty to a hundred years. But I believe that these are the paradigmatic political questions of our times.
4 Comments
Joe Damond
6/25/2016 02:45:57 pm
A thoughtful piece. There have been at least two attempts to inculcate some sort of "globalist" culture, if you will. The first was the Socialist International, built on the solidarity of the global proletariat across borders. This was indeed both a cultural and a political project. It came to an abrupt end in 1989. The second of course is the EU project itself, with the aim of creating Europeans instead of British, French, Germans. It never really took deep roots. For lots of reasons, national identities and cultures -- even after two horrific wars -- remain strong in Europe. But come to think of it, Americanism itself has been the great leveler of national identities, in a way Europeanism has not (as of yet). Is that a culture of globalism -- perhaps not -- but America's experience shows that things are both lost and gained culturally. As for the benefits of globalization -- yes, unequal, but given the fact that something like 500 million Chinese alone are living at standards unimaginable by even a generation ago-- I don't think it's confined to the elites in rich (or poorer) countries.
Reply
Meenakshi
6/25/2016 04:15:13 pm
Thanks, this is exactly the kind of commentary/discussion I would hope for. I think that, for the most part, the cultural components of the Socialist International ended up being either rudimentary or propagandist. I would argue that when you got richer or more socially embedded cultural production it happened despite, or in deliberate defiance of, the official Socialist project. The EU, I agree, is a prototype for a wider globalism but apart from the historical vulnerabilities that you mention, it also remains fundamentally tethered to ethno-nationalist conceptions and architecture. Your point about the US is very interesting. I’m not sure I see globalism as a leveler of national identities (perhaps supersession rather than leveling?), but perhaps there is something about US multiculturalism at its best that can inform conceptions and politics of globalism. India is another modern experiment that would be interesting to examine, though, like the EU, it relies on ethno-nationalist conceptions and architecture. Fascinating stuff for us to engage in directly and to see our children engage in!
Reply
Meenakshi
6/26/2016 01:53:19 pm
A comment from Gloria Sandvik (being added here with her permission):
Reply
Meenakshi
6/29/2016 09:46:42 am
"What is clear is that the current EU is corporate and undemocratic and the eurozone is a disaster.”
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMeenakshi Chakraverti Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|