When I first started thinking about the world I wondered if my ideas and conclusions about it were right. I needed to confirm them. Then I happened upon philosophy where I discovered thinkers who had similar ideas to mine. That’s one thing I like about philosophy. It confirms things.
One of the first ideas that popped into my head when I started contemplating our world is that it is full of contradiction. Not only that, we blindly and deliberately encourage contradiction. I noticed that we praise and promote one thing with great vigor and conviction and then proceed to do the opposite. For instance, we extol the virtues of democracy but then we turn around and promote with equal vigor and conviction an often-undemocratic institution like capitalism. Though these two systems manage to coexist with each other they often clash and cause friction. To my mind this contradictory relationship under scores a need for a measure of institutional conflict in our lives. We reside, then, in a polemic world. Not only do we need it but also as we have progressed this contradictory, polemic nature has increased. We revel in it. Hegel is the one who put me on the path of unraveling this mystery.
Hegel’s critical thinking basically took place in the field of contradiction when he spoke about change, conflict and the dialectic The dialectic is the process of contradictory ideas clashing and transforming each other. Change is the inevitable outcome of the dialectical process. Conflict is the inevitability of contradictory ideas engaging each other in the dialectic. Hegel is the thinker who confirmed my deeps feelings about the world being the product of contradictory elements.
Why did I focus on contradiction in the first place? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I am an Aquarian, the most contradictory sign of the zodiac. Seriously, though, perhaps it has more to do with my being a creative person. Creative people have this intuitive understanding about contradiction and how contradictory items and opposites mingle with each other to create things. For instance, an architect can create a building space because he understands the relationship between the contradictory elements of length, height and depth. A writer creates interest and tension by bringing together contradictory emotions. An artist draws on the same principle to create a picture, in the same way Nature has draw on contradictory, binary opposites to create and sustain itself. In the contradiction, like in the dialectic, things become animated and alive. Perhaps the real reason I focused on contradiction is because I, like everybody else, live in it and am made of contradictory parts just like everything else is in the universe. It is at the heart of everything. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclites confirmed this when he said, if you do away with contradiction you do away with reality.
The contradiction I am really interested in is that which relates to human governance. A “Young Hegelian”, Francis Fukuyama, who explained why Democracy triumphed over Communism, sparked this interest in me. What registered with me is his writing about Democracy having two components, capitalism and democracy, capitalism being its essential economic branch and democracy the political branch. (I use “Democracy” as one would use “Day” to describe a phenomenon made up of two separate parts of it, night and day.) Basically his argument boiled down to this, Communism collapsed because it wasn’t composed of two separate branches, branches that could have counterbalance and energized the other and the whole. Democracy won out because it took Nature’s course of incorporating two separate and contradictory aspects of itself. Hegel said that humankind needs conflict, and its reflection, to remain alive and awake. He could just as well have being talking about human governance. Communism certainly didn’t have the stimulating conflict of opposing and competing ideas that may have kept it alive and awake.
Ironically, it was a Russian philosopher who first took issue with the need for contradiction in human governance. This philosopher,Berdyaev, was tossed out of the Soviet Union by Lenin for his insight. As someone described it, he foresaw the inevitable dangers of attempting to build a society in accordance with a single theoretical principle. Of course, he was talking about Communism, which was based on a single minded, non-contradictory principle. He predicted that such a government would lead to a totalitarian regime. He was right.
Why do we need institutional polemics and the conflict/change it engenders? I will rely on something Kant said to answer that question. He said that humankind is inherently lazy and complacent. From personal experience I know what he means. So my answer is this: We need it because it’s agitating and motivating. The conflict and change polemics springs upon us creates new situations that challenges and keeps us active and busy. It forces us to think and seek new solutions. Without this polemic churning we would atrophy and not remain alive and awake.
Here is an interesting observation that somebody made: A sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas while still functioning well. There is something salient in that. Our grappling with and balancing contradiction has helped us grown smarter and more capable.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Friday, July 01, 2005
The Collapse of Globalism
John Ralston Saul, author of “Voltaire’s Bastards”, thinks there is a wrong-headed assumption out there, amongst those who are running the world, that economics is the foundation of Civilization. He believes this assumption has damaged and perverted the world.
He expresses this view in his book “The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinventing of the World”. Notice that he uses the term ‘globalism’, not ‘globalization’. There is a difference. Globalization, and he acknowledges this, is something that has been occurring since the beginning of Civilization. That event is about the world growing smaller and more interdependent as a result of people and nations engaging each other in common pursuits, such as trade, travel and communications. It’s also due to the expansion of Civilization. Columbus’ discovery of the New World was an act of globalization. Globalism, though, is something else. Saul uses the -ism suffix to distinguish and portray this event as an ideology, like a religion. Globalization is a natural, evolutionary process. But globalism, as he sees it, is the manipulation of this process by zealots and ideological wonks who think they know best how to run and organize the world. This ideology is based on the idea that, you guessed it, economics is the foundation of Civilization. Advocates of this ideology have peddled it as a cure-all for what ails the world. They believe that the market forces of globalism are the answer to everything, as though it was the holy grail of human governance. However, Saul feels very strongly that the imposition of this ideology on the world has gravely injured it and is not the panacea it has been made out to be. He sees it as a failure and its collapse as a sign that the world might be coming to its senses in rejecting it.
I understand Saul’s peeve. If you have read any of his books and articles you may also understand where he is coming from. I wouldn’t quite call him a conspiratorial thinker but I get the impression that he thinks that we have been misguided by a number of influential philosophers and tacticians about what direction the world should take, as we have been misled about globalism. This thinking of his became apparent to me when I read his book Voltaire’s Bastards. From Voltaire’s play “Candide” comes the notion that we live in the best of all possible worlds and all is for the best, a belief expressed by Dr. Pangloss, Candide's teacher. This is how I see it: Saul believes this notion prevails and he faults it for making the world vulnerable to all kinds of misadventures in human governance, like globalism. He thinks this attitude has left the world with few guide lines about how it should proceed and conduct itself because it projects a laisser faire, anything goes attitude. He thinks that this worldview has given carte blanche to all kind of hair-brain ideas about how the world should be run. He thinks Pangloss’ worldview supplanted the more sensible Enlightenment worldview which believes that the world can be a better place. It beat out the Enlightenment because Pangloss’ worldview is more alluring, simpler to understand and easier to consume, like fast food is. Enlightenment ideals are sophisticated ones, requiring reflection and hard work to implement them. Had the Enlightenment philosophy been followed instead, the world would be a better place. However, Pangloss’ philosophy prevails and Saul believes this has left the door open to charlatans and snake oil sales men to ply their less than credible grand theories about how the world should be run. This is how the world got saddled with globalism. Saul thinks that things would have been much better if we had followed the Enlightenment vision of how things could be instead of Dr. Pangloss’ vision of how things are.
Saul see globalism as something like a business plan, hatched in some back room solely to profit from the world. Behind globalism is privatization and free market economics. He thinks the world has been dubbed into thinking it is the best thing for what ails it. It’s all about market reform and he sees this being done at the expense of democracy. In his book, “The Doubters Companion”, Saul lists a number of ideas and concepts that have been infused in us without our being aware. And people have accepted them as given, without challenging them. One concept is “corporatism”, an autocratic, fascist institution that he says has replaced democratically elected governments as the principle form of governance. He defines it as an institution that “has been for some time the only real threat to democracy”. Well, he sees globalism in the same light. They are synonymous. Globalism is corporatism on a worldwide scale.
In Voltaire’s Bastards there is a chapter entitled “The Hijacking of Capitalism”. I found this chapter ironic because it seems that Saul is playing both sides of the street. I would have expected him to be against capitalism, especially with his anti-globalism stance. But he isn’t, according to this chapter. However, he is incensed with modern day capitalists because they contradict themselves. It is quite apparent that Saul believes in the original meaning of things. And he believes in the original meaning of capitalism which espouses laisser faire, free market economics. In this chapter he takes capitalists to task for betraying this concept because today’s capitalists believe governments should intervene and bail them out when things go bad for them and capitalism. Modern day capitalists seem to want things both ways, Saul says. What a bunch of hypocrites! The irony is that Saul supports capitalism in it original form but he doesn’t support globalism which is a manifestation of capitalism’s original intentions. However, it is quite possible he dislike globalism because he thinks it is a bastardization and a distortion of capitalism?
As for Saul’s belief that economics is not the foundation of Civilization, I think he is very wrong. Why, without this discipline being dealt with first nothing much else is possible. It is husbandry of humankind, and Civilization. It is the only disciple that furnishes us with the essentials to survive and continue. It is the only endeavour that puts food on the table, cloths on our backs and a roof over our heads. The institutions of corporatism and globalism which Saul despises have evolved to insure that the economic foundation of Civilization is maintained and that the economic imperatives of the modern world are met. These institutions may have despicable features about them, and I for one know, but as Dr. Pangloss' wisdom suggests, they are the best possible institutions for humankind's most essential task, considering the idiosyncratic characteristics and circumstances of humankind. And if the world is reinventing itself, as Saul suggests in the title of his book, it is reinventing itself in its own image. That means more globalism. Perhaps, though, this time it will have a friendlier face and a more enlightened disposition. Globalism is here to stay. It is the byproduct of the inevitability of globalization. It is the facilitative economic arm of globalization.
Intellectuals generally have a disdain for economics. For them it seems to be an imposition perpetrated by an elite bunch who think they understand the true nature of the world. They feel it gets in the way of the finer things of life. However, little do they realize that it is what affords the finer things of life, and life itself. Some intellectuals seem to think economics is irrelevant. Fortunately they are not running the world. However, intellectuals are essential people too because they reminding us that there is more to life besides economics. As the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone.
He expresses this view in his book “The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinventing of the World”. Notice that he uses the term ‘globalism’, not ‘globalization’. There is a difference. Globalization, and he acknowledges this, is something that has been occurring since the beginning of Civilization. That event is about the world growing smaller and more interdependent as a result of people and nations engaging each other in common pursuits, such as trade, travel and communications. It’s also due to the expansion of Civilization. Columbus’ discovery of the New World was an act of globalization. Globalism, though, is something else. Saul uses the -ism suffix to distinguish and portray this event as an ideology, like a religion. Globalization is a natural, evolutionary process. But globalism, as he sees it, is the manipulation of this process by zealots and ideological wonks who think they know best how to run and organize the world. This ideology is based on the idea that, you guessed it, economics is the foundation of Civilization. Advocates of this ideology have peddled it as a cure-all for what ails the world. They believe that the market forces of globalism are the answer to everything, as though it was the holy grail of human governance. However, Saul feels very strongly that the imposition of this ideology on the world has gravely injured it and is not the panacea it has been made out to be. He sees it as a failure and its collapse as a sign that the world might be coming to its senses in rejecting it.
I understand Saul’s peeve. If you have read any of his books and articles you may also understand where he is coming from. I wouldn’t quite call him a conspiratorial thinker but I get the impression that he thinks that we have been misguided by a number of influential philosophers and tacticians about what direction the world should take, as we have been misled about globalism. This thinking of his became apparent to me when I read his book Voltaire’s Bastards. From Voltaire’s play “Candide” comes the notion that we live in the best of all possible worlds and all is for the best, a belief expressed by Dr. Pangloss, Candide's teacher. This is how I see it: Saul believes this notion prevails and he faults it for making the world vulnerable to all kinds of misadventures in human governance, like globalism. He thinks this attitude has left the world with few guide lines about how it should proceed and conduct itself because it projects a laisser faire, anything goes attitude. He thinks that this worldview has given carte blanche to all kind of hair-brain ideas about how the world should be run. He thinks Pangloss’ worldview supplanted the more sensible Enlightenment worldview which believes that the world can be a better place. It beat out the Enlightenment because Pangloss’ worldview is more alluring, simpler to understand and easier to consume, like fast food is. Enlightenment ideals are sophisticated ones, requiring reflection and hard work to implement them. Had the Enlightenment philosophy been followed instead, the world would be a better place. However, Pangloss’ philosophy prevails and Saul believes this has left the door open to charlatans and snake oil sales men to ply their less than credible grand theories about how the world should be run. This is how the world got saddled with globalism. Saul thinks that things would have been much better if we had followed the Enlightenment vision of how things could be instead of Dr. Pangloss’ vision of how things are.
Saul see globalism as something like a business plan, hatched in some back room solely to profit from the world. Behind globalism is privatization and free market economics. He thinks the world has been dubbed into thinking it is the best thing for what ails it. It’s all about market reform and he sees this being done at the expense of democracy. In his book, “The Doubters Companion”, Saul lists a number of ideas and concepts that have been infused in us without our being aware. And people have accepted them as given, without challenging them. One concept is “corporatism”, an autocratic, fascist institution that he says has replaced democratically elected governments as the principle form of governance. He defines it as an institution that “has been for some time the only real threat to democracy”. Well, he sees globalism in the same light. They are synonymous. Globalism is corporatism on a worldwide scale.
In Voltaire’s Bastards there is a chapter entitled “The Hijacking of Capitalism”. I found this chapter ironic because it seems that Saul is playing both sides of the street. I would have expected him to be against capitalism, especially with his anti-globalism stance. But he isn’t, according to this chapter. However, he is incensed with modern day capitalists because they contradict themselves. It is quite apparent that Saul believes in the original meaning of things. And he believes in the original meaning of capitalism which espouses laisser faire, free market economics. In this chapter he takes capitalists to task for betraying this concept because today’s capitalists believe governments should intervene and bail them out when things go bad for them and capitalism. Modern day capitalists seem to want things both ways, Saul says. What a bunch of hypocrites! The irony is that Saul supports capitalism in it original form but he doesn’t support globalism which is a manifestation of capitalism’s original intentions. However, it is quite possible he dislike globalism because he thinks it is a bastardization and a distortion of capitalism?
As for Saul’s belief that economics is not the foundation of Civilization, I think he is very wrong. Why, without this discipline being dealt with first nothing much else is possible. It is husbandry of humankind, and Civilization. It is the only disciple that furnishes us with the essentials to survive and continue. It is the only endeavour that puts food on the table, cloths on our backs and a roof over our heads. The institutions of corporatism and globalism which Saul despises have evolved to insure that the economic foundation of Civilization is maintained and that the economic imperatives of the modern world are met. These institutions may have despicable features about them, and I for one know, but as Dr. Pangloss' wisdom suggests, they are the best possible institutions for humankind's most essential task, considering the idiosyncratic characteristics and circumstances of humankind. And if the world is reinventing itself, as Saul suggests in the title of his book, it is reinventing itself in its own image. That means more globalism. Perhaps, though, this time it will have a friendlier face and a more enlightened disposition. Globalism is here to stay. It is the byproduct of the inevitability of globalization. It is the facilitative economic arm of globalization.
Intellectuals generally have a disdain for economics. For them it seems to be an imposition perpetrated by an elite bunch who think they understand the true nature of the world. They feel it gets in the way of the finer things of life. However, little do they realize that it is what affords the finer things of life, and life itself. Some intellectuals seem to think economics is irrelevant. Fortunately they are not running the world. However, intellectuals are essential people too because they reminding us that there is more to life besides economics. As the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)