Globalization

Empire

    Over the years we have seen an increase in the interaction and integration among people and cultures. Hardt and Negri said that we have witnessed an irresistible and irreversible globalization of economic and cultural changes. Along with the global market and gobal circuits of production has emerged a global order, an "Empire", which focuses on a new global form of sovereignty. Empire is the political subject that effectively regulates these global changes, the sovereign powers that govern the world (xi). Hardt and Negri sought to interpret how this order came into its formation. Against other theories, they came up with their own and claimed that sovereignty had taken a new form composed of a series of national and supranational entities unified under a single logic rule. This new global form of sovereignty is called Empire. Sovereignty of the nation-state was the foundation of the imperialisms that that European powers constructed throughtout the modern era. For Hardt and Negri, Empire is different form imperialism due to the boundaries set by the nation-states that were instrumental in their progression. Imperialism was just an extension of sovereignty of the European nation-states beyond their own boundaries. It policed the purity of its own identity and excluded others by constructing a Leviathan. But the Empire establishes no territorial center of power and doesn't rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is, however, a decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule that includes all the entire realm within its open, expanded frontiers. This unversal form has emerged from the declining of modernity.
    Hardt and Negri says that many locate the ultimate authority that rules over the processes of globalization and the new world order in the United States. They claim that many critics charge the U.S. of repeating the practices of old European imperialist, while others believe they're getting right what the imperialist got wrong. According to the authors' beliefs, imperialism is over and no nation will be world leaders in the way modern European nations were. They believe that although the U.S. does hold a privileged position in Empire, it's privilege comes from the differences rather than similarities of old European imperialist powers.
    Hardt and Negri says the concept of Empire lacks boundaries and has no limits. The concept of Empire posits a regime that rules over the entire "civilized world". Secondly, it must present itself as an order, suspending history and fixing the existing state of affairs forever. Third, the rule of Empire functions on all levels of the social order, extending down to the social world and presenting a paradigmatic form of "Foucalt's "biopower", regulating social life in its entirety. And finally, although the practice of Empire is continually bathed in blood, the concept of Empire is always dedicated to peace-a perpetual and universal peace outside of history (xv). Hardt and Negri's description of an Empire is that of an ideal world, a "utopian society". According to them, the Empire we are faced with wields enormous powers of oppression and destruction, but should not make us yearn for old forms of domination, for the access to Empire and its processes of globalization offer new possiblities to the forces of liberation.

The Clash of Globalizations

    The dominant tension of the decade was the clash between the fragmentation of states (and the state system) and the progress of economic, cultural, and political-in other words, globalization (Lemert, 603). Hoffman talks about the events of September 11 and implied that it was the beginning of a new era. He said that in the conventional approach of international relations, war occurred among states. But the events of 9/11 was carried out, as he described, by "poorly armed individuals, challenged, suprised, and wounded the world's dominant superpower. He believes that because of globalization, it made it easy for terrorists to commit this violent act. Globalization, which has various meanings, can be defined as interaction and integration among cultural and economic exchanges. Although globilization has its benefits, it can incite conflict and terrorism. Terrorism, although a complex term, is a violent act used to instill fear. Hoffman describes it as a bloody link between interstate relations and global society (603). With individuals and groups becoming more involved globally as "global actors", there is a sense of insecurity and vulnerability growing.

 Hoffman identifies three forms of identification, each with its own issues: economic globalization, which results from recent revolutions in technology, information etc. The main actors are companies, investors, banks, private service industries, as well as states and internal organizations. This form of globalization was foreseen as being an issue by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They believed it posed a dilemma between efficiency and fairness. The problem with economic globalization is an issue between the "haves and the have-nots". Cultural globalization leads to interaction and interconnectedness. It stems from the technological revolution and economic globalizing, which together promotes the flow of goods. Americanization and diversity are key choices.

The result is both a "disenchantment of the world" in (Max Weber's words) and a reaction aginst uniformity. The issue comes when the latter takes form in a renaissance of local cultures and languages as well as assaults against Western culture , which is denounced as a mask for U.S. hegemony (605). Political globalization is characterized by the domination of the United States, its political instituitions and a vast array of international and transgovernmental networks. The issue hangs over the fate of American hegemony, which faces significant resistance abroad  and is affected by America's own oscillation between the temptations of domination and isolation (605).

The Spirit of Terrorism

The 'mother' of all events, the attack on the World Trade Center, the pure event uniting within itself all the events that have never taken place.                                                                           

The moral condemnation and holy alliance against terrorism are on the same scale as the prodigious jubilation at seeing this global superpower destroyed-better, at seeing it, in a sense, destroying itself, committing suicide (Baudrillard, 4). For it is that superpower with too much power that stimulated the violence throughout the world and with our unconsciously terroristic imagination that lives in us all unknowingly. The fact that we dreamed of this event, that everyone without exception has dreamt of it because no one can fail to dream of the destruction of any power that has become so dominant. It is unacceptable to the Western moral conscience (5). Baudrillard says that we longed for it to happen. If we don't take it into account, then it's purely an arbitrary act, the murderous illusion of a few fanatics would then only need to be eliminated. But we know that this isn't how it is. It goes far beyond hatred for the dominant world power by the deprived and exploited, those who have ended up on the wrong side of the order. Allergy to any definitive order, to any definitive power is - happily universal - and the two towers of the World Trade Center were perfect embodiments, in their twinness, of that order (6). Baudrillard claims a rise in the power- increases the desire to destroy it. The symbolic collaspe of a whole system came about by an unpredictable complicity, as though the towers, by collasping on their own, by committing suicide, had joined in on the event by lending a helping hand in the action. The more concentrated the system becomes globally, ultimately forming one single network, the more it becomes vulnerable at a single point (8).


Discussion Questions

1. How is globalization transforming the meanings of culture in today's world? Is it a threat to cultural identity?

2. What impact does globalization have on developing countries?

3. How does globalization relate to terrorism?