Globalization and the Ordinary Virtue Perspective

Posted by on


    The phenomenon of globalization has been dominating discussions on an international scale for a significant portion of the modern era due to its pervasive and inescapable presence in today’s society and culture. These discussions of the impact of globalization are ultimately sustained because of the complex nature of the central question that globalization poses. The question lies in the debate about whether or not globalization is overall beneficial to both the international and local communities in which it directly influences. Geographers, activists, social scientists, and politicians alike have weighed in on the argument, incorporating relevant concepts such as underdevelopment versus undevelopment, homogeneity, and moral unification as key aspects that globalization encompasses. I would assert that the complexity of the discussion would appropriately yield an equally complex answer, in the sense that globalization is responsible for both positive and negative global effects. While I think that many of the current global issues proposed should be solved on a small and local level, I think that the various policies and advanced technological innovations behind the globalization process can be better utilized on a smaller, more granular scale.
On the topic of whether globalization is drawing people and culture together or tearing them apart, anthropologist James L. Watson asserts that,  “although homogenizing influences do indeed exist, they are far from creating anything akin to a single world culture” [ii]. Globalization is a complicated process that allows for both unification and transmission of ideology and resources, as well as the exposure to, and subsequent variation of, multiple differing cultures. Manfred B. Steger offers the explanation that, “globalization as a concept that refers to both the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” [iii]. Globalization is, in its most simplistic form, still not easy to define or analyze from only one approach. When trying to decipher the pros and cons of globalization, and whether or not there is a clear answer to the question of its integrity and benefits, it is important to factor in a global perspective as well as a critical lense in which to explore the effects of the globalization process.
As Andre Gunder Frank would claim in his renowned work The Development of Underdevelopment, “a largely erroneous view is that the development of these underdeveloped countries and, within them of their most underdeveloped domestic areas, must and will be generated or stimulated by diffusing capital, institutions, values, etc. to them from the international and national capitalist metropoles” [iv]. This example of a flawed explanation of globalization suggests how commonly oversimplified it is, and how often it’s omitted that underdevelopment stems from constant capitalist intervention. The development status of certain regions are directly influenced by the contact it has with another region, with one region ultimately dominating the other for sustenance and expansion under a system dictated by capitalist ideals. John Kelly states that, “geographers today consider local actions and global processes as mutually constitutive. While flexible accumulation and globalized commodity chains and capital flows allow development to happen in some places where it had not occurred before (e.g., Ireland and parts of India and China), it still must happen in some places and not in others” [x]. The capitalist agenda of the modern world encourages the principle of constant expansion as a ‘spatial fix’, or a solution to the issue of limited area and space. In addition, it enables a permanent division between the developed and the underdeveloped because of concepts like path dependency, which is the idea that the history of a given region structures and potentially limits its future opportunities.


Source: [i]

At the core of globalization is the disruption of past patterns, spaces, methods, and structures. Globalization demands for constant change and evolution. While many geographers ponder the integrity of globalization and its ability to unite us morally, the important question to ask is how to maintain civility and decency when the global structures, both good and bad, are constantly susceptible to change. In his book “Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World”, Michael Ignatieff travels to various continents and cities around the globe researching whether globalization brings us together morally. Ignatieff concludes that, “globalization has, in fact, shaped certain fundamental aspects of the moral reasoning of his interlocutors. The spread of democracy and of the idea of human rights universalized the notion that citizens have a right to be heard”  [i].However, the protection and respect of human rights is not guaranteed by democracy. Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu, for example, convinced the military dictatorship of Myanmar to convert peacefully to her political party. While Westerners perceived this as an example that the desire for democracy, freedom, and human rights is universal, it ultimately proved otherwise. San Suu now presides over a regime that persecutes its Muslim minority. In order to determine the reasoning behind this case of failed democracy, Ignatieff explains that, “Myanmar is a plural society that never answered the primal question of who is “us,” and who “them.” Majority rule thus unleashed resentments that autocrats had suppressed...in fact, globalization had not only failed to overcome an ancient divide but had widened it, for now local Muslims were seen as the advance guard of a mighty wave” [i]. As a result of this defeat, a religious war between Buddhism and Islam occurred.  While not all politics are local, political responses are always rooted in local allegiances and friction.
In conclusion, the problems that are seemingly large-scale issues are actually derived from more personal, local discontentment. As a result, these smaller scale issues require a magnifying glass, and demand a willingness to evaluate local institutions that end up influencing individual thought and behavior. Ignatieff discusses the idea of ‘ordinary virtues’ as a human given: a moral order and sense of kinship experienced universally that serves as the foundation for loyalty and trust and provides a sense of meaning beyond the mere struggle to survive. The same goes for universal human vices. The variable is what lies outside, as in institutions in the context of a larger social structure. The ordinary-virtues perspective asserts that institutions are the most significant factor in determining morality because they shape private behavior. In conclusion, globalization, while not entirely harmful, can’t solely provide solutions to these universal issues and conflicts. Technology, religion, democracy and anything else that is universally experienced cannot be relied on to provide answers. As Ignatieff resolves, “there are only small, local answers, though they may well incorporate the technologies or policies dreamed up by the benevolent globalizers” [i].






Comments

Post a Comment