The global context of social, political, and economic transformation were taking place within different parts of the world. They came to surface after 1989. It is said that the reasons for the transformation of the global context is because of the reintegration of civil society in the 1970’s and 80’s in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Globalization is somewhat of a new concept within the civil society realm since 1989. Civil society is no longer restricted to the borders of the territorial state. Civil society is linked with a rule-governed society based largely on the consent of individual citizens rather than force. Yet, the fact that civil society was territorially bound meant that it was always contrasted with coercive rule- governed societies and with societies that lacked rules.
The undermining territorial distinction between civil and uncivil is a result of the end of the Cold War and growing global interconnectedness. These new developments have opened up new possibilities for political emancipation. This also brings new risks and great insecurity. A question dealing with a global civil society is that the global civil societies are in the process of helping form and re-form the global system of rules and underpinning the overlapping inter-governmental, governmental and global authorities. However, the new form of politics is both an outcome and an agent of violence that spills over the borders so there it is no longer possible to contain war.
Interpretations of the Global
Globalization refers to the spread of global capitalism and an assortment of political views. It is suggested that the spread of global capitalism is leading to a single global community and the dwindling nation-state. There is some debate on the specific definition of globalization, but by reducing the term globalization to global capitalism, we grant the unstoppable logic of market forces. A second definition of globalization is the growing interconnectedness in all fields- political, military, economic, and cultural. This version of the definition is the notion that people’s lives are ever more shaped by events that take place far away. Technology is an important element of this definition and the ways in which changes in technology, especially in air travel and new forms of information and communication technology, have led to the narrowing of distance. The new technologies have created new horizontal communities of people.
According to Paul Virilio, this has changed the forms of social differentiation: the ‘haves’ and the ‘have not’s are the sorted out between those who live in the hyper-real shrunken world instant technology and those more disadvantaged than ever, who live in local villages, cut off from worldly forces. The growing political interconnectedness, expressed in the growth of international organizations is changing the character and role of states. States are losing their autonomy in making and enforcing rules. The power to shape regulatory frameworks and policies affect their societies and their membership of various regional or global arrangements.
Lastly, a third definition to globalization refers to the emergence of a common global consciousness on a world scale. This is an increasing awareness of the entirety of human social relations as the largest constitutive framework of all relations, although all of these remain in complex and overlapping ways within global society. This definition places more emphasis on human agency and defines the global as something more than spatial. The key factor is the way in which global conflict has constructed a shared communal memory. The wars in the 20th century produced global consciousness. They shaped the experiences of all people around the world creating huge international and transnational communities of struggle. The 20th century is not just seen as a century of war, but a century in which there was a dramatic increase in peace oriented concepts and institutions as well as in the development of human rights norms. The spread of global capitalism resulted in the burst in the nature of international political relations that is a result of the end of the Cold War.
A starting point of globalization is the reactions against the state in the 1960’s and 70’s. In the post-war period, the state was more interventionist than ever before, reaching out into nearly all aspects of everyday life not only in the totalitarian societies, but in the Atlantic regions as well. The reactions to the state took a couple of form. The neoliberal reaction is the argument that state intervention in the economy had overreached itself and created inflexibility that suppressed the market against innovation and efficiency. Believers of the free market came to power in Western Europe and North America in the 1980’s and helped to provide the situations to accelerate spread of global capitalism. The other was the democratic reaction, the opposition to paternalism, authoritarianism and war. The new social movements that came into concern about global issues was to inform the waves of democratization in Southern Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, and eventually Eastern Europe and was to provide the basis for global civil society. Whereas the neoliberals were concerned to limit and roll back state power, at least in the economic arena, the new social movements were more concerned about accountability and participation.
Changes in the Patterns of Governance
Liberation and deregulation at the national level actually involves reregulation at a global level as transnational companies attempt to create the conditions for a global market. Pressure from social movements and NGO’s also promotes interconnectedness. What has changed after 1989 was the opening up of both states and inter-governmental organizations to NGO’s and other citizens groups operating in the global arena on a scale different from what went on before. Inter-governmental organizations merely reflect the inter-state system, in which the primary actors are states. The key characteristic of the modern state was its control of violence within a given territory. Domestically, the modern state provided security for its citizens both through force and supervision and through the extension of the rule of law. The modern state emerged as part of an inter-state system in which sovereignty was mutually recognized and war, waged according to certain rules could be justified. The first wave of accelerated interconnectedness depended on the stability provided by the inter-imperial order. States controlled large amounts of territory and provided a framework within which international regulatory agencies could function. The second wave of accelerated interconnectedness depended on the stability within the borders, but a fundamental break within the inter-state system. The bloc system became the border power containers, which means that the integration of military forces meant that members within the bloc had no longer the capacity to wage war unilaterally. This provided the outline for the development of systems of multilateral agencies regulating global economic relations. Therefore, civil society needs a framework of security; hence the growing pressure or an international framework of law to be applied in local situations where the state unravels. What is seen now is not so much the authority based on territory, but the authority based on issues. Civil society is a voluntary principle that is open to all individuals that offers the possibility of participation and deliberation at global levels.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well what can I say, you covered pretty much everything. Even so I think that I will elaborate a little bit more on the Interpretations of the Global and globalization itself and hopefully relate it to how it has helped us to form our global civil society with one another as individuals and communities alike.
First things first, globalization can be connected tom, or symbolize many different things; it can be considered the spread of capitalism which comes with sub-branches of methods or ideals that are placed on a community (liberalization, deregulation, privatization and so on). Globalization is ultimately changing the world communities into one global consolidated interaction and in return leaves the idea of the nation state behind. Globalization can also be considered the ever advancing of an interconnected political view and the growth of declarations, organizations, and political members who are involved in it.
I guess what it described as happening is the recognizance or memory that has been experienced on a global level is giving people and societies as a whole a social understanding or meaning that is common between them. Wars or any type of conflicting or measurable altercations or meetings between global societies have effected the way in which globalization is headed. According to Mary Kaldor, ‘globalization is, at root, a political process, an outcome of deliberate human agency.’ So in conclusion Mary describes what the global civil society has become I today’s world, “But 1989 marked the beginning of what might be called global civil society, that is to say, the moment when war and war-making started to become much less important in determining the relations between states and when individuals and citizen groups began to find genuine political openings at a global level.” Basically instead of war, we try to understand our differences and build on the aspects that cause controversy and try to formulate a way in which all sides can thrive. We move away from war and focus on a more humane way of coexisting with in a global society.
**The author of the original post did an excellent job and since Chris covered “Interpretations of the Global,” I will try and cover “Changes in the patterns of governance.”
Without a doubt, capitalism and global civil society have contributed to the growing of “political interconnectness.” Countries are having to actually having to change their ways of governing their people to have to conform to a broader worldview to accommodate other countries, as well as social movements and NGOs. Countries are being held accountable by organizations and movements that are multinational and cross-continental. Counties are still able to make war; however, they now have to “mutually” agree with other nations and conduct its military operations by a certain set of rules. Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind for examples of this because the US needed “backup” and support by Britain. The UN security said “no” and the US said to hell with it and did it anyways. This shows the political connectivity between modern nations.
The framework put up by a nation was to protect its own citizens. Now, countries are trying to put up a security framework designed to accommodate the ever-increasing pressure from the international community. The international community is largely doing this because they are trying to look out for the rights of those in oppressed countries. The example of Yugoslavia is mentioned in the text so that there can be aid given to the people of the war-torn nation and serve justice to those who inflicted pain and suffering. The only problem with this is that what the international community may feel a country or people need may not actually be what they need. The international community is acting for the people, but to serve itself. There should also be some sort of representation and deliberation offered by the people in need.
Post a Comment