Globalization versus Localism
Richard Bailey has a very interesting post on the Forward blog in which he picks at some themes of internationalism, public relations and its history. In the last theme he states that “there is no alternative to globalization except for a retreat into localism.”
But how far is globalization coming along? When we talk commercially quite far, but when we talk culturally not so much. The economic collaboration undeniably spurs cultural collaboration, but countries tend to cling to their identity, a theme I explored before:
George Orwell keenly observed that there always has to be an “us” versus “them” in order to guarantee the permanence of the current world order, which he worded as, “war is peace.” In the same manner, the everlasting existence of “us” versus “them” guarantees the permanence of the concept of a nation. Even in the unified region of the European Union, national identity is regaining importance; as populations are afraid to loose their power (us) in the immigrant flow (them) and the increasingly centralized European government.
In regards to economic development, the European Union doesn’t like to look at Europe as a cluster of countries, but rather as a group of regions. These regions are usually historical regions such as the Basque region in Spain and France and the Brabant region in the Netherlands and Belgium. The EU uses these regions to more precisely target economic development, as these regions are smaller and more specific than the countries in which they are located. This structure stimulates a regional identity of its residents, who might see themselves not as nationals but rather regionals; an economic and cultural policy that promotes regionalism comes very close to localism. This is not a criticism, but rather an observation.
On the other hand, there is an emphasis on internationalism with supranational organizations such as the EU and the NATO. So we have a pull for both regionalism (or localism) and globalization, but as an alternative to one or the other we have a little bit of both in a flexible partnership with each other.
The internationalism has some issues of its own. Economic, political and ideological differences between the collaborating states and other collaborating states create larger power blocs. Historically these have included the Warsaw Pact versus the NATO and currently the Western world versus the Islamic world.
In between all these indefinite and ever-changing relationships of countries, regions, supranational organizations and power blocs, I believe, in the end, it all comes down to the individual and his or her place in the world; the individual in a partnership with humanity. This doesn’t mean I don’t identify with a country or countries, regions, places and family, but it all starts with the individual and it ends with the world.
Leave a Reply