| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Redefining the Globalisation Debate |
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
By Farooq Khan
farooq.khan@newcivilisation.com
This essay is taken from a forthcoming book entitled ‘Redefining the Globalisation Debate’. | |
| |
| |
| |
The context of globalisation
At this moment in time the parameters of this debate have so far been discussed in a secular context. The political and intellectual classes from all spectrums of western political philosophy have arrived at some conclusions about how to manage this revolutionary change but there are more unresolved questions than there are answers, and this has created much upheaval amongst thinkers in the western world. Indeed these debates are as profound as the debates that gave rise to the modern nation state because globalisation is forcing us to re-evaluate our conception of identity, politics and state. One could also argue that these debates are as profound as the debates of the renaissance because globalisation is complemented by revolutionary scientific advances that provide us with new insights into human nature and how we as a species can progress. After all it is our conception of human nature that shapes political philosophy. Steven Pinker illuminates this reality in his book, ‘The Blank Slate’ in which he describes how our views of human nature define the political nature of the state. John Locke’s theory of empiricism exemplifies this concept since it was his theory of empiricism that became one of the conceptual foundations of liberal democracy. So the debates of this age are revolutionary and there is a struggle between the western intelligentsia to come to some ideological consensus about how to meet these profound challenges.
This is apparent across the western world as the battle lines are being drawn between the left and the right. In America the philosophical issues are exacerbated by the political reality of her status as a superpower and how she should project that power. While in Britain and the rest of Europe 20th century political traditions and conceptions of the nation state which were still very much the defining idea of conservative politics is increasingly challenged. This has brought the conservative traditionalists into conflict with new progressive conservatives who have grasped the opportunities and challenges of redefining conservatism in a globalised world. Philip Bobbit perhaps best embodies the philosophy of the progressive capitalists who can see beyond the outmoded concepts of 20th century political paradigms. They have sensed how the constitution of the state has to evolve to meet the new realities of globalisation and a post-industrial world. This is further accentuated by the vast migration of peoples continent to continent since it has changed the face and structure of western societies. Thus the defining idea of nationalism that shaped the modern nation state of the 20th century is clearly no longer viable. In a collection of essays published by the Foreign Policy Centre entitled, ‘Reclaiming Britishness’, British thinkers attempt to address these complex issues. Mark Leonard, director of The Foreign Policy Centre said, “What are British Values – and will they help us make these decisions? When conflicts arise, the political class searches for ties that bind. Both David Blunkett and Peter Hain recently declared that immigrants need to be ‘more British’ – but their invocation of ‘British values’ merely highlighted the extent to which there is confusion about the content of British identity”.
These debates starkly demonstrate how nationalism is incompatible with the reality of life because globalisation transcends ethnicity. What this means is that nationalism was always philosophically deficient and therefore has always been unsuitable as a basis for defining one’s identity. Why do I say this? The subject of identity is the central question for every human being and nation because it not only defines who we are but also how we should live. This has meant that nations particularly in the western world have not solved this profound question correctly. Consequently thinkers such as Philip Bobbit recognise that the state has to redefine its constitution and encapsulate the new dynamics shaping the world today. He describes this state as the ‘Market State’ while British diplomat Robert Cooper describes it as the ‘Post-Modern State.’ Both terms encapsulate the need to adapt western political philosophy and the need to redefine a nation’s political identity. However despite this evolution in thought we still find that they are unable to completely abandon nationalism as the basis of a nation’s political identity, which is evident by the fact that nations still exist as independent entities. Bobbit’s thesis for a market state goes someway to address the multicultural reality of western society by defining political identity upon a set of values that embrace diversity of cultures and race. He says, “We will inevitably get a multicultural state when the nation state loses its legitimacy as the provider and guarantor of equality.” He goes on to say, “the market state is classless and indifferent to race and ethnicity and gender…the market state is accessible to all societies.”
This philosophy gives some fresh perspective to the subject of political identity. If not satisfactorily it does stipulate the central tenants to its creed whereby every human being participates in the affairs of state through the market i.e. “In the market-state, the State is responsible for maximising the choices available to individuals. This means lowering the transaction costs of choosing by individuals and that often means restraining rather than empowering governments.” It is defining political identity upon ‘pure’ capitalist concepts, a belief in the ideology of the state rather than a state defined by its ethnicity. However this does not solve the problem of identity satisfactorily because what then determines whether a state is American, British, French or for that matter European? If the secular and capitalist values are the sole basis of a nation’s identity then why should there be more than one government? After all, the western nations all believe in secularism. This point becomes clearer when we examine the transition to a European constitution. The European states aim to integrate their economies and forge a constitution that will define the governance of the European Union. However nations remain resistant to completely giving up their political sovereignty to the European Union on the basis of preserving the nation’s interests. This disparity reveals the underlying problem facing the western nations and the world. That is to say western political philosophy has not been able to construct a wholly rational solution to answering the most fundamental question of life. Consequently it is not political philosophy that is the impetus behind closer European integration rather it is political and economic interests which is forcing western philosophy to adapt itself. Centuries of internecine fighting on the European continent between Europe’s great powers and the political and economic forces of globalisation are forcing nations to take these historic steps, and not a philosophical view of our existence. It is an important point to highlight because it demonstrates the intellectual problems of western philosophy. Not only is western philosophy the reason for these problems but also its concepts and values are proven to be incompatible with human progress. This is evidenced not only by the erosion of nationalism as a political philosophy but by every facet of the secular creed and capitalist economic system that dominates the world.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Page 3 of 6 pages
| |
|
|
