America's current conflict with Islamic fundamentalism has breathed new life into several nearly forgotten geopolitical metaphors, including Samuel P. Huntington's notion of a "Clash of Civilizations", Robert D. Kaplan's theory of a "Coming Anarchy", and Benjamin Barber's juxtaposition of "Jihad vs. McWorld." As discussed in earlier reviews, the first two, though problematic, seem to have some legitimacy, but the third, Barber's, is only accurate to the extent that it is misunderstood. If by "McWorld" Barber meant the liberal democratic capitalist nations of the West and meant by "Jihad" the totalitarian nations of Islam, then the image of these two worlds being in conflict would be true. However, he means something quite different, and he is quite wrong.
Barber's main concern is with something that he refers to as "participatory democracy" or "civil society", a kind of political system in which each individual takes an active role in nearly every decision of government. He sees both Jihad and McWorld as threats to this system, Jihad because it represents a cultural sectarianism "rooted in race" which :
...holds out the grim prospect of a retribalization
of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened balkanization
McWorld because it represents :
...onrushing economic, technological, and ecological
forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize peoples
In essence then, Jihad is a threat because it overemphasizes our differences; McWorld is a threat because it eliminates those differences. Never mind the fact that the U.S., where McWorld is most advanced, would seem to have ample diversity as it ranges from Anchorage to Honolulu to New Orleans to Miami to New York City to Boston, perhaps the oddest aspect of Barber's whole analysis is that, while he dislikes both, he actually favors Jihad over McWorld. He does so because he thinks that the peoples of Jihad are at least likely to be actively involved in their cultures, while the people of McWorld have become nothing more than passive consumers. But, at any rate, Mr. Barber is less concerned with the clash between these two systems than he is with the clash between each of them and the participatory democracy that he thinks we should have instead of either.
There are so many problems with Mr. Barber's understanding of the world that it is hard to know where to begin and impossible to address them all, but we'll try to take on a few of the bigger misconceptions. It may be that his biggest mistake is to view Jihad and McWorld as anti-democratic forces when, in fact, they are precisely the aspects of democracy which conservatives have for so long warned about. As far as Jihad, or sectarianism, is concerned, the Founders quite consciously set up a representative, rather than a direct, democracy, with extensive checks and balances and express limitations on the power of government, in order to protect minorities from what they well understood would otherwise be a tendency of the majority to impose its own ideologies and practices on unwilling dissenters.
Equally important, but less well understood, is the conservative tradition of criticizing democratic capitalism, not because it won't work, which is the Left's view, but because it will work so well that unless we cultivate other facets of the culture, the great mass of people will decline into a comfortable but meaningless affluence. It was the great Albert Jay Nock who perhaps put this best when he said :
[Edmund] Burke touches [the] matter of patriotism
with a searching phrase. 'For us to love our country,' he said, 'our
Nock's "economism" is something akin to Barber's "McWorld", a kind of unfettered consumerism. But where Mr. Barber assumes that this consumerism is somehow imposed from above by all-powerful multinational corporations that manipulate the people, Mr. Nock understood that, on the contrary, the people are likely to eagerly embrace this fate.
We see here the fundamental difference between conservatism and liberalism; where liberalism proceeds from the assumption that Man in the state of Nature was some kind of idyllic being, willing to share in the Earth's abundance while devoting himself to ethereal pursuits, conservatism accepts that Man, in the absence of societal restraints and institutions, is a selfish being wholly devoted to the self. Mr. Barber is correct that the McWorld we saw ourselves rapidly becoming in the 1990s was unlovely, but the fault lay with us, the American citizens, not with some dastardly multinational conglomerates. No one was forcing us all to obsess over stock prices and stock up on electronics and drink $4 cups of coffee. The burgeoning economy gave us a period of extravagant wealth and we chose to indulge ourselves. Not surprisingly, at a time when the livin' was easy, other concerns--the political, the cultural, etc.--were shunted aside while we spoiled ourselves rotten. I say not surprisingly because as a conservative I would have expected this behavior. Mr. Barber's problem is that, because he expects people to behave selflessly, he must find a culprit to blame when they act selfishly. And so, on the basis of little more than an apparently visceral dislike, he settles on multinational corporations as his villain.
In fact, Mr. Barber's repeated demonization of corporations as some kind of omnipotent antidemocratic force reflects a really disturbing failure to understand the very nature of the corporation, which is, after all, nothing more than a business owned by stockholders. And who are those stockholders? Increasingly, particularly since the advent of the 401k, we are all stockholders and, thus, all owners. Here again, Mr. Barber's quarrel should be directed not at the imagined antidemocratic nature of the corporation but at its actual democratic nature. Just as it is we consumers who choose to consume, it is we stockholders who choose what it is that companies produce, how they market these products, how they are run. And companies do not create demand, they chase it. They do not dictate to consumers; they slavishly follow popular tastes. Mr. Barber may be right, almost certainly is, that our entertainment has been dumbed down, our food homogenized, etc. But that has been a result of the demands of the consumers and, ultimately, of the decisions of stockholders, of democracy in action, however ugly that action may be.
Even if we set aside the issue of whether Man is naturally greedy or altruistic, we still have to question Mr. Barber's seeming belief that democratic government is an end in itself. He apparently believes that, in an ideal world, most of us would like to devote ourselves to governance and would like to participate to the greatest extent possible in every decision of government. But the American system presupposes the opposite, that government is a necessary evil, the less it impinges on our lives the better for all concerned. As Henry David Thoureau said in Civil Disobedience :
That government is best which governs least.
For Mr. Barber to place government at the very center of man's concerns seems to run counter to the very foundation of the American experiment, an experiment that has been working pretty well so far.
All of these errors are especially disappointing because, though he is very imprecise about solutions, he is very nearly right about threat that McWorld poses, not to democracy, but to our culture. McWorld--if we understand it correctly, as the demand for freedom generally and free markets specifically that is the driving force of globalization--is going to bring about global prosperity on a nearly unimaginable scale. It is going to require nations to become more democratic, more capitalist, more pluralistic, more free, but what will we do with that freedom? Will we be content merely to live in luxury, or will we also preserve a culture that offers "savour and depth"? If we do desire a culture that is "lovely" we must rehabilitate our badly damaged non-governmental (pre-democratic) institutions. We must restore the nuclear family, by making divorce more difficult, marriage more attractive, child rearing easier, etc. We must also bring back the extended family, by discontinuing government funded nursing homes. We must reprivatize education, to get parents back involved in the schools and schools back in the business of providing a moral education with a cultural grounding. We must turn charitable functions--like social welfare--back over to churches, making them central once again in all our lives. We must stop trying to impose standards of political correctness on voluntary organizations and let people, once again, associate with those they choose to, and exclude those they choose not to, in their private lives.
You'll have noticed that, counter to what Mr. Barber believes, nearly all of these measures involve reducing the role and importance of government in our lives. Government, particularly in the New Deal and Great Society years, became so enormous and extended its reach so far, with our eager acquiescence, that it made many of these institutions seem superfluous. The delusion that government could attend to our every need made it difficult for the traditional alternatives to compete. America was fortunate to have such an abiding distrust of government that we traveled a shorter distance down the road to statism than did many other nations, which is the main reason we've emerged from this period as the world's lone superpower. But make no mistake, we did incur some serious cultural damage. We would do well to start repairing that damage immediately. We need not Jihad but a reinvigoration of traditional Western culture. Not only would it be good for the health of our society, it is likely to make our economy even stronger, as government gives up duties that it has not performed particularly well and hands them back to institutions in the private sector that have historically been more efficient and successful.
Rather than limit himself to these kinds of entirely feasible reforms, though he does mention some things like this, Mr. Barber proposes what he calls a "Global Civic Society", modeled after the original Articles of Confederation, which preceded our current Constitution. This would apparently be a first step toward a kind of global government, though Mr. Barber's intentions remain awfully murky. Here again we run into one of the ways in which Mr. Barber has completely failed to understand the human experience. Despite the repeated crumbling of empires, from Rome to the USSR, he still seems determined that enormous social organizations have a future. This fallacy is one of the reasons he is so fearful of multinational corporations--he envisions a world that will be run, as in the movie Rollerball, by a few corporations that have replaced the nation-states. This vision has been a staple of science fiction for decades now, but is best confined to the realm of fantasy. One might recall that in 2001 : A Space Odyssey, a traveler uses a Bell Corporation telephone and the computer is a HAL, the acronym of IBM moved one letter to the left. Of course, by the time we reached the year 2001, "the phone company" had been shattered and IBM was in deep crisis.
Folks who keep making this prediction, like Mr. Barber, just can't seem to grasp that one of the defining characteristics of free market capitalism is what Joseph Schumpeter referred to as it's capacity for "creative destruction." Two hundred years ago one might have predicted that large land owners would rule the future. One hundred fifty years ago it might have been mill owners or colliers. One hundred years ago, the railroad barons ruled the roost. Then came steelmakers then oil men then military industrial complex then electronics manufacturers then chemical companies then PC makers then biotech and on and on--each of these seemingly dominant industries left on the scrap heap of history. Just as size and power did not make for efficient and successful governments, it has not made for efficient and successful corporations. In fact, where governments often enjoy a monopoly status that makes them difficult to change without revolutions, industries and individual companies can be, and are, destroyed by competitors with extraordinary ease.
In the long run, Jihad and McWorld are not the threats to democracy that Mr. Barber believes them to be. Instead they are the very democratic forces that will likely lead to a world where freedom is paramount (McWorld) but where cultural uniqueness is still treasured (Jihad). If we can find ways to balance these competing forces we may well find that we have created a society in which we have both prosperity and the "savour and depth" of a great culture. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished--and worked towards.
-AUTHOR SITE: Benjamin R. Barber
- WIKIPEDIA: Benjamin R. Barber)
-INTERVIEW: The civic engineer: Rampant consumerism nearly killed off civil society, says US political theorist Benjamin Barber. But the financial crisis offers us a chance to make amends (Saba Salman, October 8 2008, The Guardian) -Benjamin R. Barber (Bbarber@gvpt.umd.edu) (Gershon and Carol Kekst Professor of Civil Society and Wilson H. Elkins Professor Maryland School of Public Affairs and the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences)
-Bodies Electric LLC (Chairman, Chief Strategic Officer & Co-Founder)
-Benjamin R. Barber, "Time, Work, and Leisure in a Civil Society"
-ESSAY : Jihad vs. McWorld: The two axial principles of our age -- tribalism and globalism -- clash at every point except one: they may both be threatening to democracy (Benjamin R. Barber, March 1992, Atlantic Monthly)
-ESSAY : Beyond Jihad Vs. McWorld (BENJAMIN R. BARBER, January 21, 2002 , The Nation)
-ESSAY : Memo to the President (Benjamin R. Barber, September 21st, 2001, Rolling Stone)
-AUDIO INTERVIEW : Benjamin Barber: Governments will have to change their approach towards globalization (The Connection, September 2001)
-DISCUSSION : TAX DAY : Gwen Ifill talks with Amy Gutmann of Princeton University; Walter Williams of George Mason University, Rev. Robert Sirico, head of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and Benjamin Barber of Rutgers University about the philosophy of paying taxes (Online Newshour, April 16, 2001, PBS)
-LECTURE : THE FUTURE OF CIVIL SOCIETY (Benjamin Barber)
-ESSAY : Globalizing Democracy (Benjamin R. Barber, September 11, 2000 , The American Prospect)
-AUDIO LECTURE : The McWorld: Consequences of Economic Globalization (Aventis Forum, September 1999)
-LECTURE : Which Technology and Which Democracy? (Benjamin R. Barber, talk at the Democracy and Digital MediaConference held at MIT on May 8-9, 1998)
-ESSAY : Big = Bad, Unless it Doesn't (Benjamin R. Barber, New York Times, April 16, 1998)
-ESSAY : A Dissenting View: Living Inside The Book Of Disney (Benjamin R. Barber, Summer 1997, Forum)
-ESSAY : Benjamin Barber deflates the four myths of democracy. (Civnet, May 1997)
-ESSAY : Global Democracy or Global Law: Which Comes First? (Benjamin R. Barber, Fall 1993, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies )
-ESSAY : The Civic Mission of the University (Benjamin R. Barber, Higher Education and the Practice of Democratic Politics, Bernard Murchland)
-ESSAY : The Search for Civil Society (Benjamin R. Barber)
-REVIEW : of Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. By Robert D. Putnam (Benjamin R. Barber)
-INTERVIEW : The Making of McWorld : Benjamin R. Barber (Nathan Gardels, New Perspectives Quarterly)
-INTERVIEW : The Politics of Education : An Interview with Benjamin Barber (Scott London, Afternoon Insights, WYSO-FM December 14, 1992)
-INTERVIEW : Silence of the Lambs: Where Have All the Defenders of Democracy Gone? : An Interview with Dr. Benjamin R. Barber (Mark Compton, June 2001, Geneforum)
-PROFILE : Global Thinker : Benjamin Barber's Ideas on Capitalism and Conflict No Longer Seem So Academic (Megan Rosenfeld, Washington Post, November 6, 2001)
-PROFILE : Benjamin Barber (Ghost in the Machine)
-ESSAY : Citizenship, Democracy and the Changing World Order A Review Essay by Scott London
-ESSAY : F A L L E N A R C H E S : Reports that American cultural imperialism has enforced a Pax McDonald's turn out to be greatly exaggerated. (James Poniewozik, April 5, 1999, Salon)
-ESSAY : Anti-American sentiments rooted in history, globalism (Kay Miller, Star Tribune, Sep 22 2001)
-LINKS : McWorld vs. Jihad Links
-ARCHIVES : "benjamin r. barber" (NY Review of Books)
-ARCHIVES : "benjamin barber" (Find Articles)
-ARCHIVES : mcworld (Find Articles)
-REVIEW : Jihad vs. McWorld (Gary Rosen, First Things)
-REVIEW : Jihad vs. McWorld (Brian C. Anderson, The Crisis)
-REVIEW : Jihad vs. McWorld (Darold Morgan, Christian Ethics Today)
-REVEW : Jihad vs. McWorld (STEVE WASSERMAN, LA Times)
-REVIEW : Jihad vs. McWorld (David P. Fidler, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies)
-REVIEW : of THE TRUTH OF POWER : Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House. By Benjamin R. Barber (Alexander Star, NY Times Book Review)
-REVIEW : of Truth of Power (Alan Caruba)
-REVIEW : of My Affair with Clinton: An Intellectual Memoir (Benjamin R. Barber (Matthew Cooper, Washington Monthly)
-REVIEW : of A Passion for Democracy: American Essays, by Benjamin Barber and A Place for Us: How to Make Society Civil and Democracy Strong, by Benjamin Barber (Loren Lomasky , Reason)
-REVIEW : of A Place for Us: How to Make Society Civil and Democracy Strong By Benjamin R. Barber (Scott London)
-REVIEW : of A Place for Us (Anne Kornheiser, Civnet)
-REVIEW : of A Place for Us (Ralph Stone, Montana Human Rights Network)
-REVIEW : of A Place for Us (Jerry Kloby, National Housing Institute)
-BOOK LIST : The Communitarian Bibliography (Communitarian Network)
The phrase global village disrupted a more natural flow of social economic influences. Instead of thinking global and acting local in a reasonable fashion- step by step- all of sudden the world was rushed into a new world order that has no basis in history. The new fields and study of geopolitics was introduced over 50 years ago and gathered history, geographics, regional, cultural, economic influences into a study of particular situations. There are no global villages. There are regional settings with individual needs needing to be balanced accordingly.
In economics, too many things play out differently in different places. Attempts to universalize all these factors are impossible. History proves that decentralization offers a better balance in working out things in particular geopolitical settings. When one size fits all thinking starts controlling these settings, a radical friction is created almost automatically.
The concepts of local value added economies tailored to geopolitical regional settings was smashed apart artificially by the new "ism" of Globalism and Free Trade. The elder President Bush announced the new world order right about the time the initiatives of so called Free Trade were activated. There was no historical reference for any of this. There was talk about a new world order after WW1 and somethings were enforced on the losers of that war only to ignite a worst war. The League of Nations ganged up on Germany and that evolved into totalitarism going wild. After WW2, the victors were more mature and used things like the Marshall Plan to rebuild the local economies in Japan and Europe. These local value added economies were reasonable success stories and the world should have taken notice that there was something good about this approach. However, things changed and there seem to be a new forced march to a new world economy that had no basis in fact or history. Free Trade is not trade as historically defined. The term implied the trading of products but the priority changed to moving production, factories and outsourcing jobs to the cheapest labor markets of the world. Somehow this was supposed to ignite the new world economy for everyone. However, instead of any real successes, the USA suffered the most massive dislocation of jobs in its history. A working poor class was created in the USA and other nations that tried to do the same thing. Destitute working classes were created outside the more prosperous nations. The working poor classes are now finding out that they can no longer even afford to buy the cheaper imports while the destitute working classes who make the products can not afford to buy the very things they make let alone have any money left over to buy the things the USA and other nations have left to sell. The net result was a terrible loss of local value added economies that supported the geopolitical settings. Now nations are finding the pillars of their social economic and entitlement structure being knocked away. Economies are like orchestras missing the beat of drums chopped up into parts that once were whole. Then Globalism reared another ugly trend. Nations found that they had to protect their interests across the globe. Wars and terrorism followed. For more information see Tapart News and Art that Talks at http://yestapart.bizland.com/tapartnews or shorter url address is http://tapartnews.filetap.com Read America in Terror by Chuck Harder, worldwide radio host of For the People, House of Cards economy by Paul Donovan from the U.S. National Steelworkers Magazine, The Silent Depression and we are shopping our way out of our jobs by Ray Tapajna plus other related articles. View the Cross 9/11 Tangle of Terror artwork by Ray Tapajna asking who will now untangle the terror Globalism has bred. A background newspaper story reference featuring the American Dream is Burning, Locked out workers bearing their cross and The Clinton Years- The American Dream Reversed is at http://tapsnewstory.filetap.com Also note all the editorial art from Tapart News can be found in one place at http://arklineart.fotopages.com
- Tapart News Editor
- Feb-05-2004, 13:48
Copyright 1998-2015 Orrin Judd