The potential for a more participatory and democratic system of global governance lies today more in the future evolution of these expanding networks of people and institutions — rather than in blueprints for world government or institutional re-engineering. To read the entire
article click here: Also compare the idea in this article with Hans Kung's article --
A Global Ethic as a Foundation for a Global Society (Ch. 6). Include what was discussed in the class on 09.15.05 in your deliberations as you reflect on the subject.
The potential for a more participatory and democratic system of global governance lies today more in the future evolution of these expanding networks of people and institutions — rather than in blueprints for world government or institutional re-engineering. To read the entire article click here: Also compare the idea in this article with Hans Kung's article -- A Global Ethic as a Foundation for a Global Society (Ch. 6). Include what was discussed in the class on 09.15.05 in your deliberations as you reflect on the subject.
12 Comments:
I think the article "A Global Community," and Kung's "A Global Ethic," are written from an unrealistic viewpoint, and both writers would do well to take off their rose tinted glasses.
Though both mention to the inequalitiy of globalization, they kind of skip over how big of a problem it is and that more countries are left out of it than not. In the "global community?" article, it states, refering to expanding interaction, "In all cases, they are marked by expanding public dialogue and public participation." Expanding public dialogue? Perhaps in the wealthy countries, but what about the masses of 3rd world countries who have no political representatives, or if they do would have no idea who it was or the time and money to get a hold of them. Or in that case, whose main concern would be clean drinking water, and not what foreign stock to invest in.
It sounds cliche', but over and over again the impoverished countries get skipped over as a glitch that needs to be fixed but isn't very important in the over all global economy. It seems that as long as the money is flowing, even if it is between the same 10 countires, it is enough for the big whigs to be satisfied.
As for Kung, he seems to think that if we all just followed the general principles of kindness we learned in kindergarten, all of the world's problems would be fixed and we could all get together for a planet wide tea party.
Personally, the "clash between civilizations" resonantes for realisiticly with me, because I feel that no matter how much you study a culture or their religion or daily lives, you can never fully understand what it is like unless you actually visit. We can look at pictures and here horror stories or stories of need or stories of good, but we can never appreciate it fully unless we are there. And even if visiting, it is hard to understand a society unless you spend a good amount of time living there, immersed in their culture. My point is, although globalization brings us closer together, it distorts our ideas of how close we are and how much we can understand other people and other cultures. As much as I think good hearted people may try, it is more difficult than it seems, unless you have one on one contact.
In general, I think we have a LoNG way to go before we can live in a global society where we can interact without disagreements and cultural clashes. Perhaps it can happen one day, but we need to make more of a consientous effort to get out of our American view bubbles and respect and learn about other cultures so we can avoid conflict, and have the a peacefully functioning "Global Community."
-Lauren Guzzi
Sept. 14
While "A Global Community" addresses participatory issues in global governance, and how to better devise a blueprint for globalization's future involving all sects of society; I found nothing profound in either Kung's "A Global Ethic" or "A Global Community." In Kung's "everyone should get along" article, he never ventures to offer a concrete solution. Rather, "respect eachother" and "keep an open mind." I thought there was already a Universal Decleration of Human Rights?
Conversely, I agreed with The Globalists's stance on "increasing dialouge among state and non state networks." Better communication up and down the social and political spectrum would take in account everyone's thoughts and concerns. This is only positive. As far as a "global community" where there is greater participation among the masses and a consensus among all classes....I'm not sure. Let's start with Europe.
Globalization is reality. We really have no out on that point anymore. We are moving into a global world where what we do personally, effects the world globally. “Mom and pop corner stores” are becoming a thing of the past and we are finding ourselves in a world where unless you go global, or at least form an alliance with someone who is themselves active in the global market, you will fail. But how exactly is this economic globalization effecting our political world? It is really hard to tell. Will the United States allow that freedom? Will other nation-states allow that freedom? We built our country on the basis of democracy; that “we the people” can choose the laws that govern our daily lives. We succeeded in creating the most powerful country on the earth. But power comes in many forms, and the upcoming economic powers in the Eastern World are providing quite and admirable “foe.” Our nation, like most other nations, is designed as a pyramid, where the ultimate power lies in (the most part) the hands of a national governing body. For a long time, we have been able to keep this balance within and without our system because we were the world superpower, economically and politically. But as the dependence on other nations economically increases, so does our dependence politically. We have trouble bargaining with countries who do not like “us” and are coming to the realization that this dialog that is talked about in the article, IS our best chance. We cannot isolate ourselves politically for too long. Professor Khan made an interesting statement in class on Tuesday. He said that without a common enemy, we lose our strongest allies. We have to realize now that our enemy is not globalization itself, but the strength that it will provide to those who embrace it closest. Will we allow ourselves to extend our political pyramid (so to speak) and give up some of the sovereignty that we fought for so many years ago? Really, I’m not sure that we have a choice. It may seem like all I want is power for the United States, and while yes, I admit, I am happy to be living in this country as opposed to say, Rwanda, it isn’t just gaining more power that I think we need. Once we open this dialog, with the people, and with the world, maybe we can allocate wealth based on a global responsibility of kindness. I know people may find fault with the point that Kung is trying to make in his article but we have already seen some of the things that he is talking about. We have created the United Nations, which is quite flawed, I agree, but it does have a built-in message of national and global responsibility. Some nations just cannot do this alone and if we open this dialog to all, maybe some of this help that we haven’t been giving will be made possible. Or maybe, the developing nations will have a chance to take it for themselves.
The article "Toward a Global Community" talks about how government policies and beliefs are not responsible for global communities. It talks about how communication and idea sharing are the main sources of global culture. In the article there is talk about how political ideas, beliefs and power struggles separate the states and non-states. Which is very true, for instance in France, they hate our president and they hate our government yet they speak English, they listen to American music and use American products. It is not the American they hate it's the government they hate. Same in England, it's not as though they make fun of American citizens everyday, it's the president they are making fun of. They still have Starbucks and a McDonalds on almost every corner. So even with political turmoil states and non-states can still share cultural ideas and grow and develop. Now it’s just a matter of better communication with the more underdeveloped areas to make a true GLOBAL culture.
I do not believe in the "Star Trek" future for humanity. In case you are wondering, the "Star Trek" ending is when humans are able to put aside their differences and unite politically, economically, and linguistically (everybody speaks English). Then we go into space to find new planets to fight with. I would have to say the author of "Toward a Global Community" and Hans Kung believe humanity can over come their differences and achieve some sort of global utopia. The idea is appealing, but I do not know that it is compatible with human nature. The idea of a "global ethic" (Kung pg 44)is a noble one, and no one could argue with the "ethical imperitives" (Kung pg. 47) on which this "global ethic" is to be built upon. In fact I really like the "ethical imperitives", they sound like four of the Ten Commndments. But as a wise bumper sticker once said "mean people suck", and I do not understand how mean and evil people will be eliminated or stopped from sucking by a "global ethic". As much as love and tollerance are human traits, so are greed and coruption, and all the "consensus building" (Global Community article) in the world can not stop greedy companies or individulals. I am by no means an expert on globalization, but my understanding is that it has been profitability that has fueled the "flattening" of the world, not a desire to spread noble principes. Is not money the reason why governments have allowed globalization to erode their national sovereignty? How would "systematic dialogues", "consensus building", or "global ethics" make the IMF more transparent? Ultimately I think it comes down to this; can altruism beat greed? I do not think altruism has a chance.
Sorry. The above was posted on 9/20.
Just as with time itself, globalization can only move forward. This immediately eliminates regression as a solution to problems caused by the process of globalization. In "A Global Ethic as a Foundation for a Global Society", the auhtor appears more as ideal visionary who for the first time has realized the potential for peaceful coexistence between religions and therefore the billions of followers of these religions, completely unaware or unwilling to recognize the complex realities of the world. There are definietly core values that are shared among the world's great relgions, but this has been acknowledged for years and is an extreme simplification of the problem at hand. However, globalization itself is the problem because while some may say that everyone is better off because of it, the rate at which the people of the world are prospering varies tremendously without even going into the fact that many people are worse off. The problem is not agreeing on a global ethic, its enforcing it. The powerful make up the rules for the weak to follow, whole they in turn break them. Do as I say, not as I do. In the "Global Community" article, the author also appears as a wide-eyed optimist with an undeveloped sense of where globalization is taking the world. The talk of 'systematic dialogue' and 'consensus building' sound nice, but it seems to fail to take into account how significant the of economics of world trade has become in the world now that military action has become less and less realistic. In class on the 15th we discussed NGO's and IGO's which help to create a global civil society , linking the world and empowering citizens of the world. While this is generally accurate, financial institutions and the powerful states that for the most part control them, as well as multinational corporations, still make the world run. Money is the oil of the global economy. Those with money hold the power, those without lose out. As long as financial institutions like the WTO still allow inefficiencies and inequalities in the world economy to perpetuate, power will continue to leave the hands of people and states and into massive corporations.
posted 9/20
Globalization is part of our society today. Ranging between anything from restaraunts to fashion, we have access to cultures across countless borders. But a global ethic and culture will not exist. There are too many differences in the ideologies of the world to ever have one happy global family. This isnt to say that we can not co-exist with other cultures. Countries and cultures will always have allies, but they will also always have enemies somewhere in the world. If there was a global community, there would be members of this community like Ghandi, but there would also be members of the community like Bin Laden.
One must remember that all groups have extremists and peaceful members. We can not label an entire culture on the actions of one section. For one example, is it possible to liken the Christian crusades to the terrorist attacks today? There might not be a war for territory, but there is a war going on for the minds and hearts of the world. Whether fear in christian and western minds means victory for extremists, or conversion of muslims to christianity or western ideology means victory for christians and westerners, a crusade of the cultures is underway.
posted 9-21
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home