I have to congratulate David Brooks for having the daring to even bring up this subject. Granted, he chickens out after a while, but I believe it’s an interesting subject nonetheless. Especially in a time when it feels as if Globalization has taken on a mind of its own.
But the question of cultural identity and the establishment of “the other” has been an issue as far back as I can remember. Why do groups form? More importantly, why is the establishment of a group based on the establishment of the “other”? Cultures and groups tend to base their identity – their very power and reason for being – on establishing an outsider and an inherent exclusivity. At the very base of establishing organizations and groups, it is in setting up a group of people who do not belong that define the organization.
Globalization is – in theory – a unifying force. By dropping trade barriers and establishing a world market-based system, then cultures, economies and people will become dependent on one another. And yet, the development of globalization has shown a remarkable backlash.
Nationalism – the catalyst to so many wars in the past 150 years – is not just prevalent, but growing. And we don’t see Nationalism just in developing nations in Africa or in countries like China, but in the United States and in Europe as well. The argument is always along the lines of “We, Country A, are being hurt by the policies of Country B. Country B is therefore very bad while we, Country A, are correct and righteous.”
Brooks’ article deals with issues that are at the forefront of problems we’ll be facing with for the next 50 years. We are just beginning to see a globalization backlash and an attempt to hold on to any vestages of exclusionary identities. Radical Islam is a perfect example, but so are the Anti-Japanese protests that took place in China over the spring of 2005. So are the Anti-EU protests that have been taking place for the past 10 years in Europe. So is the Anti-French sentiment we’ve seen in the United States and the general “Us against them” mentality is a perfect example of exclusionary identity politics.
Globalization asks the world to specialize and to become dependent. Left unchecked, borders would come to matter less and if a worker in Hyderabad does the job better than someone in Seattle, then it’s time for the person in Seattle to specialize in something else. But the world doesn’t work like that, nor does it seem that the world wants to work like that. This is the oncoming clash – not a clash of cultures or of civilizations – but a clash of nationalism against globalization.