Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook“We are all magical beings, but we keep ourselves small by operating from fear rather than commitment… those who have sold out their dreams will do anything to shut down those who dream.”
- Douglas Cardinal, Canadian Architect
The social implications of globalization have so far been seen as an afterthought, or as an unfortunate consequence of progress. The ability to continue to think and feel and dream seems somehow threatened; there is a sense that the new global paradigm can somehow shut down our full capacity to be human. This shutting down, or submission to what are perceived to be inexorable and inhuman forces, is contrary to the true promise of globalization. The imperative exists, then, continuously to rethink and reinvent it.
The reality globalization brings is hardly a neutral one, affecting the lives of individuals and populations in dramatically different ways. It is also a malleable reality. Our task, then, is to shape globalization with human hands, rather than allow the impersonal forces impelling it to determine our lives. In essence, the promise of globalization can be crisp and provocative, like the stunning photographs of our planet that are taken from the depths of space.
The Promise of Globalization
The promise of globalization is captured in three related possibilities: First, the decline of the nation-state could allow more complete development and expression of both individuals and communities. Liberated from its centralizing power, regions and communities would affirm themselves. Unnecessary constraints on individuals would be lessened, and their potential would be more fully realizable. Information and communications technology, shared among individuals and communities, would extend the breadth and scope of each one of us. Our sense of individual possibility would joyously leap forward.
Second, the rise of civil society as a powerful force stepping into the vacuum left by the decline of state dominance could accentuate the sense of community.
Third, because community can be local, regional and worldwide, global institutions would flourish. And, to the extent that civil society and individual development would have affirmed themselves as the nation-state declines, there would be a strong link between international civil society and global organizations.
One of the first prophets of globalization and of the modern communications revolution was the Canadian media theorist, Marshall McLuhan. Writing in 1964, McLuhan argued that “as electrically contracted the globe is no more than a village. Electric speed in bringing all social and political functions together in a sudden implosion has heightened human awareness of responsibility to an intense degree.” Now, in large part because of the Internet, this heightened human awareness has grown exponentially, and political discussions and debates can be held simultaneously in all corners of the globe.
Referring in the 1960s to individuals who had experienced a similar feeling of being disenfranchised as do those who currently protest at global forums, Marshall McLuhan noted that these groups “can no longer be contained, in the political sense of limited association. They are now involved in our lives, as we in theirs, thanks to electric media.”1 These words highlight the true promise of globalization: both its friends and critics, as well as those who have yet to form an opinion, can participate in its continuous reinvention.
The Reality and Challenge of Globalization
In contrast to the promise of globalization, we find its current reality to be determined by: concentration of capital and wealth; the unprecedented rate of technological change; the paradox of concentration of information in few hands, with an almost infinite capacity to disseminate it; and the decline of the nation-state. Untrammeled and unshaped by the conscious and deliberate touch of human hands, the social implications of globalization could be as negative as recently described by Le Monde Diplomatique: “Private conglomerates are now despoiling the environment on a gigantic scale… Heedless of the democratic process and unchecked by universal suffrage, these informal powers are the Earth’s de facto leaders, deciding overridingly on our collective fate, with no counterweight to correct, amend or oppose their decisions, since the traditional checks and balances (legislatures, political parties, the media) are too parochial or all too complicit.”2
Yet the impact of these realities need not be perceived as uniformly negative. For example, the decline of the nation-state in Europe has led to stronger affirmation of local communities and regions, which may now feel less dependent on the hegemony of central government. And in much of the developing world, village councils and local organizations are assisting human development in ways that national and international structures cannot. As the centrality of political decision-makers in our national capitals has eroded, and the power to dispense information appears to have been monopolized by a new elite, there rests an opportunity for new dialogue. A possibility presents itself for civil society to be heard, and for empowered communities (be they real or virtual) to express themselves.
The principal challenge of globalization, then, is how to shape it to a human purpose. It has reached a point of no return for national governments: we must attempt instead to link civil society directly and forcefully to global processes, to remodel existing institutions, and to devise new ones which can better represent the realities that we ourselves are willing to create. Indeed, to mediate between international civil society and global organizations is the raison d’etre of the State of the World Forum. This human interaction is what will ultimately decide the fate of globalization.
