Globalization: Our Poor Excuse for Sacrifice

After reading through the April edition of The Antlantic, listening to the various subjects of interest on NPR, and giving attention to Obama’s recent world tour, I can not think of a more giddy subject for American political analysts than globalization (even amidst our current economic crisis). This also ties into an article in the January edition of The Economist, on the concept of “sharing” through internet networks like Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. Amidst all the abstractions and romantic musings on this new exciting wave of chatter, it is really hard to identify what exactly is “globalization”. Of all the identifications given, Robert Wright seems to offer the clearest example of what the term “globalization” might connote in most circles. .

In his article, "Why God Loves Globalization", Wright focuses on the big question we all implicitly want to get at when we present “globalization” as a subject of discussion. Religion always seems to be looming in the background when we treat the subject. Understandably, westerners really want to see how we’re all going to get along at the end of the day, even if proselytizing is a goal religious westerners seek. In Wright’s view, values, within our religious traditions, will have to form given the practical demands of the difficult circumstances we find ourselves in. If I were to analogize Wright’s words: we all want a piece of the same pie, but particular cultures and religious groups will have to develop values to tolerate the other cultures who want a piece for themselves. Wright sees this increasing tolerance of other ethnicities and faiths as an ever-developing reality sense the Stone Age, and he attributes this cause to our ever-expanding network of trade and urbanization. The concept driven home presents “globalization” as something we might be able to grab, and that is “mutual understanding” while we all try to acquire the diverse ends we seek for ourselves.

I would agree that in many cases our improvement in communicative technology has allowed us to interpret and empathize with other cultures and religious traditions without resorting to an inarticulate battle of force. Although, it really is hard to mark a point of progress, given the amount of bloodshed spilled in the 20th century. At the face of things, this expanding “social” network would seem to allow for recognition of and respect for cultural dividing lines and barriers. Yet, through all the internet networking and shoddy treatments of other cultural distinctions in the media, the best we seem to produce is sentimentality. And what we mean by “social” when describing these social networks is really rooted in a fundamentally different notion of “social” than traditional and ancient notions.

In Roger Scruton’s book, Modern Culture, Scruton criticizes the substitution of “sentimentality” for “sympathy” in much of western high culture. Sympathy, Scruton argues, requires the sacrifice of an individual to develop a particular form of character in recognition of ideals existent outside of herself. Sentimentality is not open to this capacity for development as a necessary goal, because it is self-interested. The sentimental culture does not look above itself for any ideals or any rites of passage into adulthood, referencing no prescribed moral criteria for its development. It prescribes its own development.

Because this culture has no reference above itself, it is, instead, self-referential. I would argue that it creates its own concept of space, even, and consumes everything it wants from the rest of the world within this ever-expanding space it creates. Our current western culture has gone so far as to presume that nothing exists outside of its own form of language. And this is when Derrida truly hits the tip of the iceberg. Here, concepts like God and love and space and time are trapped in a world of language with no reality to reference outside of this self-enclosed linguistic world. We, essentially, create the space we want to work within. There is no moral space outside of us to subject ourselves to or discover. The motive of most internet networking is to create a space where all the pleasant feelings consumed in friendships are available for our selective consumption, without having to engage the people and cultural ideals providing these consumed pleasures. In the same way, we can control our own individual expansion, selectively treating the world as a market for our individual goals and appetites. We are able to withdraw or “sign out” or “log out” when we face a potential tragedy or conflict or moral demand. This form of “socializing” is hand-picked and resolves into marketed consumption. While the word “social” remained before our eyes, its definition was entirely substituted before we were able to put a finger on it.

As globalization develops, networking and increased international media coverage will never make a demand on us to see the world we do not want to see. So far, the concept of globalization has been cast under the umbrella of international diplomacy, communication, and global awareness of cultural diversity. Yet, we have never stopped to ask why this increased understanding is a good, and, if it is a “good”, where did that “good” come from? So far, we have only increased our desire to feed our own economic self-interest, while cooperating with other cultures pursuing that interest. In the meantime, tension is caked over with glamorous political smiles and cordial gestures. As long as we do not identify a moral space which demands our genuine sympathy, we will be trapped within our own selfish worlds along with our networking toys to provide us pleasure. And all this will be under the fantastic pretense that we are sympathizing, when really we are only reaping the sentimental pleasures derived from sympathy. Genuine moral values can not develop out of self-interest for their grounding, as Wright suggested in his article, because self-interest has no interest or demand outside of itself.