b$ and mc chat it up about life, politics, and pop culture
|
|
| a blog a day b$ and mc chat it up about life, politics, and pop culture |
|
|
Friday, December 27, 2002 Inaugural Address from B$ (that's "B-money," not "B.S.")Wow, so I guess I'm the first to post here! The lovely and talented MC dreamt up this little project wherein she and I will exchange blog entries re: politics, culture, and other BS, similar to the Slate conversations where people like Robert Wright and Will Saletan exchange thoughts on war or whatever. Ms. Plunkett wants to sharpen her rhetorical teeth against the tough hide of yours truly, and I'll try to give as good as I get. So, just to force her out into the open, I'll start off with something I know she knows well and feels strongly about: What's wrong with globalization? What's the deal? I say this both as a skeptic and as an ignorant layman. For one thing, I don't even know what the term refers to -- is it globalization of capital, of culture, of government, all three, something else? Like a good classical liberal in the Mill-ian tradition, I'm tempted to say that unless there is demonstrable physical harm, we ought to err on the side of liberty, meaning that if people want to build or work in a factory, open or shop at a store, broadcast or watch a tv show, join or ignore the UN, well, unless they're doing me direct physical harm, that's their right. The idea of "cultural imperialism" is interesting, and at times I find it quite compelling (I aced my "Post-colonial Lit." class by writing convincing essays about it even though I've never totally bought into the idea, which may say disturbing things both about me and the UGA English dept.). But at other times it sounds like the old communist idea of "false consciousness" (the proletariat doesn't know it's being oppressed because the bourgeoisie has tricked them...), which, if taken seriously, leads logically and frighteningly to fascist "revolutionary vanguards" who don't feel compelled to try their ideas in the court of public opinion. Not to tar the anti-globos with guilt by association, but the hardcore Islamists who want to literally bomb the West out of their countries seem emblematic of this kind of guerrilla activism. But perhaps the anti-globalization movement isn't trying to forcibly prevent, say, corporations from setting up shop abroad. Maybe they're just trying to turn the tide of public opinion so that the market (in the form of ethically-conscious shoppers, voters, and investors) will exert pressure on companies, governments, or cultural forces (?) that "globalize." So the second question, after "What is globalization and what are the putative harms?" is "How do you intend to stop it?" This is, I think, a real thorny question. Forcibly compelling people to buy, sell, or vote in any particular way (when there's no immediate threat of physical harm, e.g. food poisoning and other safety concerns) is, or ought to be, beyond the pale, and I'm not sure what else we could do to stop people from patronizing McDonald's or Britney Spears or Microsoft, if that's what they want. The only strategy for fighting "cultural imperialism" seems to be more cultural imperialism (nationalism, really, which hasn't traditionally been a force for liberalization), i.e. people in other places need to be persuaded to prefer their own culture to ours, their own employers, their own products, etc. It's a perfect parallel to the Mill-ian argument against censorship: if someone publishes a popular book declaring that women ought to be treated like objects, his (or her -- you never know) opponents ought to counter-publish, and generally speak out against the book, but not ban it. So all of this is pretty facile, and no doubt looks it to MC. The term "anti-globalization" is, I imagine, hyper-simplistic. My guess is that there's good globalization and bad globalization, and that "fighting globalization" is like fighting gravity: things will globalize as inexorably as things will fall, but some things falling in some ways ought to be prevented. An architect isn't anti-gravity, and a good economist/environmentalist/political scientist/sociologist shouldn't be anti-globalization, but rather ought to think of ways to design social institutions and forces so that globalization works with us rather than against us. But maybe I'm wrong. So, set the record straight, MC. What's going on, here? :) posted by Brandon | 1:41 PM |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||