anational globalism

[lemur]

re-posted from thread on pornography and prostitution

No need to restate. Everyone knows that people who are posting on the most international platform there is (the Internet) without being aware that there is a rest of the world talk about the US

What do you do if you want to be a globalist by resisting defining culture in terms of national differences? Won't people just always accuse you of being US-centric for failing to acknowledge "other nations?" How do you assert anationalist globalism if that's the perspective you want to take? (btw, I am going to repost this to a new thread).

[imatfaal]

An attitude of critical self-reflection. An understanding and open acknowledgement of the disparate cultures that come together on the internet. A reticence and moment of thought before making the assumption that something is a culturally undeniable. A willingness to invite comparisons and criticisms of one's own societal and political absolutes.

 

It is quite clear from even a quick reading of some articles and posts on the internet (no names no packdrill) that the writers lacks any comprehension of an alternative perspective, or if they do have this understanding dismiss it out of hand as unworthy of contemplation. I do not limit this to American posters - although I do recognize a breed of poster from Timo's comment above.

[lemur]

An attitude of critical self-reflection. An understanding and open acknowledgement of the disparate cultures that come together on the internet. A reticence and moment of thought before making the assumption that something is a culturally undeniable. A willingness to invite comparisons and criticisms of one's own societal and political absolutes.

 

It is quite clear from even a quick reading of some articles and posts on the internet (no names no packdrill) that the writers lacks any comprehension of an alternative perspective, or if they do have this understanding dismiss it out of hand as unworthy of contemplation. I do not limit this to American posters - although I do recognize a breed of poster from Timo's comment above.

I understand everything you're saying. What I'm asking is if there's some way to acknowledge cultural differences without attributing these to 'nations.' I.e. if you want to take a globalist standpoint that all humans are global creatures with multiple cultures, and thus you don't want to continually reference national categories because you believe that doing so undermines the spirit of globalism, how would you express respect for cultural differentiation and not get labeled as an American (US), which is in itself a national category? See the problem? Nationalism attacks globalism by attributing it a national category and thereby re-asserting nationality as a cultural universal.

Edited May 20, 2011 by lemur

[Edtharan]

I understand that many (probably the vast majority) see it this way. However, I have always thought that even with globalisation and the fast communication that the Internet brings won't actually eliminate cultural diversity.

 

Take a look at biology. Many bacteria can pass genes from one bacteria to the other (horizontal gene transfer), even between species. However, even among these bacteria, there is still different species.

 

At first, you might think "How could this happen?". Because if each bacteria can give out and take in genes from other bacteria, then evolution should select the best genes and only these should survive in the population.

 

Actually, having a genetically homogeneous population is bad for a species. It means that any change in the environment that would kill one, would kill them all. No variation leads to an unstable population.

 

Also, because the environments change over distance as well as time (eg: some might be in a hotter place than others) then there is no one set of genes that could be the best. Even the fact that there are other bacteria with the same genetic code means that it is advantageous for variation to enter into the population because these would either be better than the current and start to dominate, or become weaker and give the dominant population room to expand (a bit like what Spock says in Star Trek: the good of the many out way the good of the few).

 

And so it is with human populations. We live in different environments. Some have warmer climates, some have cooler climates, and out environments change over time (the history of a culture and the direction it is going in), and we have all this variation applied to our neighbour which means that the influences form the rest of the cultures of the world will effect the culture in question.

 

What this means is that there will be some cross cultural exchanges and it is not all one way (yes Japan got McDonald, but we also got Anime and such).

 

So, basically what I am saying is that the problem is actually a false one. The people who worry about the western world culturally infecting other cultures forget that western culture is also infected by theirs.

 

Yes. It will mean their culture will change. But it is going to change whether or not there was an exchange of ideas. A culture that doesn't change is a dead culture. The people who are in it won't be able to adapt to any change that occurs (even natural changes - and there are many examples of where this occurs - see the Greenland Norse as one example, or Easter Island).

 

What they think the problem is, is that the change is not going to make the culture the same as it is, or was. And yes, I know this means it wouldn't change, that is my point. It is change they fear, and they use the most obvious scape goat (a dominant culture) as the target of that fear.

 

Change is good. We should embrace change, and welcome exchanges of culture with other cultures.

[imatfaal]

I think in any lengthy and reasoned piece of writing it is unnecessary and unhelpful to regularly equate one's cultural community and ability to comment to one's nation state - this a dangerous form of self-stereotyping, often manifest in an overly apologetic embarrassment of one's background ("As an Englishman it is difficult to understand the suffering..." - self-satisfaction with one's own superior awareness).

 

how would you express respect for cultural differentiation and not get labeled as an American (US)

I don't understand this part - America has not yet reached the vaunted status of being held up as the most respectful of cultural differentiation.

In my experience Nationalists (not Nationalism) attack Globalism by saying that it doesn't work, that it destroys differentiations between cultures creating an amorphous mess, and that it's all a con trick perpetrated by international socialism/big business/the new world order (delete as applicable). And to preach Globalism one must be able to overcome theoretically/practically/emotionally the currently prevailing paradigm of nationality as an societal absolute.

[lemur]

I understand that many (probably the vast majority) see it this way. However, I have always thought that even with globalisation and the fast communication that the Internet brings won't actually eliminate cultural diversity.

 

Take a look at biology. Many bacteria can pass genes from one bacteria to the other (horizontal gene transfer), even between species. However, even among these bacteria, there is still different species.

 

At first, you might think "How could this happen?". Because if each bacteria can give out and take in genes from other bacteria, then evolution should select the best genes and only these should survive in the population.

 

Actually, having a genetically homogeneous population is bad for a species. It means that any change in the environment that would kill one, would kill them all. No variation leads to an unstable population.

 

Also, because the environments change over distance as well as time (eg: some might be in a hotter place than others) then there is no one set of genes that could be the best. Even the fact that there are other bacteria with the same genetic code means that it is advantageous for variation to enter into the population because these would either be better than the current and start to dominate, or become weaker and give the dominant population room to expand (a bit like what Spock says in Star Trek: the good of the many out way the good of the few).

 

And so it is with human populations. We live in different environments. Some have warmer climates, some have cooler climates, and out environments change over time (the history of a culture and the direction it is going in), and we have all this variation applied to our neighbour which means that the influences form the rest of the cultures of the world will effect the culture in question.

 

What this means is that there will be some cross cultural exchanges and it is not all one way (yes Japan got McDonald, but we also got Anime and such).

 

So, basically what I am saying is that the problem is actually a false one. The people who worry about the western world culturally infecting other cultures forget that western culture is also infected by theirs.

 

Yes. It will mean their culture will change. But it is going to change whether or not there was an exchange of ideas. A culture that doesn't change is a dead culture. The people who are in it won't be able to adapt to any change that occurs (even natural changes - and there are many examples of where this occurs - see the Greenland Norse as one example, or Easter Island).

 

What they think the problem is, is that the change is not going to make the culture the same as it is, or was. And yes, I know this means it wouldn't change, that is my point. It is change they fear, and they use the most obvious scape goat (a dominant culture) as the target of that fear.

 

Change is good. We should embrace change, and welcome exchanges of culture with other cultures.

Great, I agree with everything you say for the most part. Now my question remains how one can pursue the cultural project of viewing and treating humans globally as a single dynamic multicultural population without getting accused of universalism and therefore Americanism, and therefore associated with the US (nation). In other words, nationalism universalizes itself by strawmanning universalism to a single nation (the US). That way, it can always maintain the hegemonic idea that cultural diversity is and should be defined according to national identities. If you want to resist that, you have to discuss culture without reference to national identity, but then people will call you American for ignoring national differences. Do you see the ideological catch-22 here?

 

A: I am a citizen of the world - I am of no nation

B: only Americans can claim to be world citizens because they ignore other nations

A: but I do not recognize nations at all

B: then you are an American and the nations exist regardless of whether you recognize them

A: but I choose my own culture, that of anational globalism

B: you are not allowed to choose your own culture - you are subject to the culture of nationalism and the sub-cultures identified with the nation assigned to you. You must accept your national identity and acknowledge other nations as having different cultures. Resistance is futile.

A: are you the borg from Star Trek TNG?

Edited May 20, 2011 by lemur

[Moontanman]

What they think the problem is, is that the change is not going to make the culture the same as it is, or was. And yes, I know this means it wouldn't change, that is my point. It is change they fear, and they use the most obvious scape goat (a dominant culture) as the target of that fear.

 

Change is good. We should embrace change, and welcome exchanges of culture with other cultures.

 

At it's very heart religious terrorism (to use an extreme example) is an extreme fear of change, they fear change so strongly they will kill or die to prevent it but even what they fear most, change, happens to them and their movements over time as well. The USA is an easy scape goat for anyone who fears globalization but it's not US values that are taking over the world, it's western values. The US could disappear and Europe and Asia would still be part of and promoting western values. It's not so much globalization they fear it's the freedom of speech and that and other freedoms ability to ferret out the truth that terrifies them. The idea that my little clique, religion, country, or race or what ever is so superior that any change will only bring about disaster is at the heart of the fear of globalization.

 

This doesn't just apply to terrorists but to anyone who fears 'westernization" it's the fear of loosing ones way of life to another unknown way of life and the people who lead these anti-globalization people do their best to amplify that meme and down play the good things western values allow, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, self government, these things may be scary to some people but our entire western civilization is built on these things and the worlds first and only 1st world culture cannot exist with out them.

 

 

[

[timo]

re-posted from thread on pornography and prostitution

What do you do if you want to be a globalist by resisting defining culture in terms of national differences? Won't people just always accuse you of being US-centric for failing to acknowledge "other nations?" How do you assert anationalist globalism if that's the perspective you want to take? (btw, I am going to repost this to a new thread).

I don't even know what the terms "globalist", "resisting defining culture in terms of national differences", and "anationalist globalism" are supposed to mean ("anationalist" isn't even recognized by my spell checker, but "a nationalist globalism" wouldn't make sense to me, either). My statement is a simple observation, not political/social/ethical/discriminative/philosophical/whatever mantra.

[imatfaal]

My statement is a simple observation, not political/social/ethical/discriminative/philosophical/whatever mantra.

It wasn't when you made it - but it is now!

[lemur]

I don't even know what the terms "globalist", "resisting defining culture in terms of national differences", and "anationalist globalism" are supposed to mean ("anationalist" isn't even recognized by my spell checker, but "a nationalist globalism" wouldn't make sense to me, either). My statement is a simple observation, not political/social/ethical/discriminative/philosophical/whatever mantra.

Globalist = viewing things in a global context, imo, which means as part of a universal human discourse that includes all cultures, languages, and histories as part of a single "global" history and (multi)culture. "Resisting defining culture in terms of national differences" means that instead of always identifying culture in terms of nations, you treat culture as a human phenomenon, of which ethnicity/nationalism is just one part. "Anationalist" is just "nationalist" with the prefix "a," meaning "without." I.e. if you are a globalist who doesn't like national ethnocentrism, you could choose to forego it in favor of viewing culture as a global-mix. Most people who echo nationalist epistemology don't see it as an ideology but as objectively factual, which is what makes it so successful globally imo. Still, people don't HAVE to define everything in terms of nations - though when they don't they still get stopped at passport control stations and get stuck with one government's taxation while getting 100% exemption from the rest of the national governments that don't claim them as citizens.

 

 

 

[wucko]

i would describe it as Communism that comes after a worldwide thermonuclear carnage. Those who believe will know it as the reign of the Antichrist, those who dont, wil know it as the time in which they killed the believers, to wipe out all the ideology that 'caused' the WW III. It is also the age in which you will be given a commodity-code with which transactioning with other commodities (people) will be made possible. Without that, you will not be able to buy food (or anything). It will also be an age of great wonders and of great suffering. This is the 'extreme right' view of it, tragically it is new-testament proof too. The 'left-wing' version is the Utopia, called 'the communism with a human face', which in its essence is the exact same symbolical-ideological system as that of the Antichrist: materialism without a soul = communism with a human face. Being americans, you cant possible see it, yet you live it, and feel it. We lazy europeans know that about you. As usualy, suffering thru the 'other'.

 

Or as ŽŽk would have put it :

(if you say 'anational globalism' as in 'The Big Change' as in 'The end of History' as in 'The end of ideology' it can pay-off to watch the clip to the end. Ofcorse, if you are an American nationalist, you will be offended before it gets really good. Edited May 12, 2012 by wucko

[anotherfilthyape]

the concepts you should want are "cosmopolitanism" or "non-hierarchical globalization", globalization is currently hierarchical with the US dominating the picture...