Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:48:37 -0500
From: Don Socha <socha1de-AT-cmich.edu>
Subject: Re: two solutions - a question


>all
>
>"In today's circumstances of unprecedented intermixing of 
foriegners on 
>earth, two extrme solutions are taking shape. Either we are 
heading 
>towards global united states of all former nation-states: a 
process that 
>could be contemplated in the long run and that the economic, 
scientific 
>and media-based development allows one to assume. Or else 
the humanistic 
>cosmopolitism shows itself to be utopic, and particularistic 
aspirations 
>force one to believe that small political sets are the 
optimal 
>structures to insure the survival of humanity...." 
(Kristeva )
>
>often on this list I get the feeling that the latter more 
post-modern 
>approach contains the fears and theoretical directions that 
people 
>imagine as being correct... as being the reasonable way out 
of the mire 
>that constitutes our society. Yet if you accept the latter 
are you not 
>also losing the ability to argue for "rights" ?
>
>s

Hello, Steve.  I'm new here, so I just want to take a rather 
innocent crack at this.  As I see it, the former proposal 
seems more likely to endanger the rights of individuals.  If 
we have a "global united states," whatever that means, I see 
an increase in homogeneity, or a flattening out, if you will, 
of values, expectations, and therefore, human rights.  

Perhaps this is not necessarily the case, but what I 
personally dread is a worldwide competition for goods and 
services, the most politically influential winning out (even 
democratically).  This has the potential to obliterate the 
smaller, less competitive ventures that originate in a very 
particular environment and under unique cultural influences.  

Cosmopolitanism, on the other hand, seems to suggest 
something more along the lines of "acting locally and 
thinking globally," if you'll pardon the perhaps over-used 
expression.  For me, this means that individually people will 
find ways to influence not the whole world, but local 
issues.  I suppose that the danger you see in this is that of 
petty tyrants taking control of these smaller populations and 
forcing them to work against their own best interests.  But 
if there are no worldwide riches, power, and influence to be 
attained, the elimination of which I see as more possible 
with particularistic aspirations than world-unity, perhaps 
the motives to behave in this way could itself be quelled.  

Personally, I think the threat of increased homogeneity is 
the number one enemy of the future of humankind.  And 
weighing your invisible friend (be it god, wealth, or 
military might) against mine without tolerance steps in this 
direction.  

Now I'm not arguing for isolationism.  Perhaps a balance 
between the two possibilities you offer is best.  But I am 
arguing for a turn away from the sort of "political" answers 
to global dilemmas, as have been the "answer" of choice since 
the "impossibility of socialism" has become so 
generally "understood," and a return to economic theory.   

For all intents and purposes, the West appears determined 
to "sell" "modernity" to the rest of the world.  This means, 
in part, providing "freedom" and other "goods" even to those 
who may never have realized they needed it.  I want to 
suggest that rather than filling a void, such concepts can 
also create a sense of emptiness that wasn't there in the 
first place, and this, to my mind gets at the heart of any 
and all future, political dilemmas of necessarily dire 
consequence.  

Surely, if one thing must be spread among people at every 
corner of the globe, that thing is peace of mind.  Certainly, 
everyone must be provided with the basic necessities.  But we 
also need to be protected from the most influential among 
us... from anyone at all, in fact, who can make us feel that 
we need more than what we have, or worse, that we might 
obtain some advantage either for ourselves or for our people 
that overshadows the advantages of others.  

Well, tear it apart if you will.  This is the best I can come 
up with at this stage, and it was a fun concept to try and 
tackle.  I do look forward toward refining these views 
further.  

Best, Don Socha