We praise democracy most of the time, but we practice it as if we had accepted every argument against it, as if we believed it must depress the level of culture and of public life
Quote of the day
 Avaaz/Mugabe Petition Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
NavigationThe World
|
 |
A World Without the West
I just love reading articles that actually make you think, and then make you re-evaluate how you think. I first read this article a few days ago and quickly found myself completely absorbed by the original thoughts contained in it, I have since read it a few more times. The ideas in it touch on many of the ideas floating around here such as individualism, relativism, globalization, etc., but the main idea itself is fascinating and well worth discussing, if anyone's interested.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/NewEra/pdfs/Barma_WorldWithout2007.pdf
Submitted on Fri, 2007-08-24 17:07
I DO take exception
Chris, You're quite right. A most intersting article. I happen to hold a view rather distinctly opposed to the author's basic take. I could, and I have, written a good deal more or less relevant to the matters discussed at my blog site. However, I will limit myself here to a short version of my core point of view. If I am right, and - needless to say - I believe I am - the it knocks the pins out from under the authors thesis. The modern world is born of the nexus between human creativity and the discoveries of modern science and technology. That nexus has created, and is creating, a world that prospers no longer by the sweat of our brow and the strength of our backs, but by the educated creativity of people. Let me be clear, by ‘educated creativity’ I mean the creativity of people with, at a minimum, the ability to read, write, and do simple arithmetic. That empowers them to participate in a technologically advancing market place, where the discoveries of modern science and technology throw up a cornucopia of opportunity for human creativity, as both invention and enterprise, to feast upon. As feast it has.A world of broad based prosperity is realized, a world that prospers by the kind of work you can no longer stand over people with a whip and get. Instead you have to cut a good deal, which is to say populations secure in self-governance, rich in opportunity for innovation and its implementation, and able to project a satisfactory life for all. Societies creating that ‘good deal’ will prosper, those failing will be eclipsed. And the average man and woman get to look forward to a life in which they can earn enough to marry, raise a family, educate their children, and retire with a measure of comfort and security. 
A ronr327 blog?
I was just wondering if ronr327 could kindly give us the link to his blog. I'd be interested in reading it.
Many thanks.
Convergence or not?
Excellent article, thank you Chris. Whilst I have sympathy with Ronr327's view that the worst excessives of certain regimes would not be tolerated in a global society with sufficient communication for people to see that it is not a necessary requirement, I think that to extrapolate this to a view that there will be a convergence on a US style of running the world is simplistic. It is really not very likely that the best or only methods of improving people's lots is necessarily that which is employed in the USA. The USA system is also unlikely to be the only way that a socio-economic system can evolve, despite the retro-fitted ideas of some economists. There is no doubt influence and pressure from the pre-existence of a "successful" state, but there is also many forces against such a system being followed. And how "success" today may be adjudged to be a model for the future is highly debatable. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that the socio-political model currently exhibited by the USA is an optimum and if it were, there would be no point in politics at all. Given that most people would accept that there has to be something better, how can it be thought that any change would only come about via a slow evolution from the US system. Such changes in the past have not been this way because such systems have inertia and are resistant to disturbances. This is not to say these well developed systems are without influence, but they do not tend to aid radical change and therefore rarely does such change evolve from within. I would like to think that there will be a give-and-take adaptation to a new world order but would be concerned that this has not happened without much turmoil in past times.Convergence et al
Courtney Hamilton, I have posted it here before, but am pleased to do so again. http://blogs.salon.com/0001185/ I would suggest you start with the 'Science and Modernity' piece at the bottom of the page, then the two items immediately above it. After that the thinking is by no means the only thing I write about, but it plays through much of what is there in many many ways. You might look at 'The Problem' [posted recently] especially its conclusion. Thanks for your interest! Englishman, Will write more later, but I want to make it clear my objection is to the author's principle thesis centering on an 'alternate source' of international cohesion that rests on 'manufacturing capacity, resource endowments and incremental innovation'. Consent of the governed is 'bought off' with material well being. I believe the nature of the work by which the modern world prospers requires a kind of engagement that must be genuinely and freely given, and that prosperity will be compromised if that is not so. In the long run, this will have to involve a meaningful participation in the whole of the governance of a society. The one other time, in my view, such a vast transformation has occurred - the transition from tribal societies to 'civilizational' ones - saw a vast range of different cultures giving rise to unique civililzational entities. But the structures arrived at held striking similarities. They were top down authoritarian, with power in the hands of a narrow stratum of military, governmantal, and religeous elites. Coercive force was pretty much decisive. The ultimate evolved form was an imperium. What is ofen missed in that last regard is that the ones we remember as truly 'successful' (and thereby admirable) were also the ones most intelligently and equitably governed, e.g. the Chinese and Roman Imperiums.
Many thanks...
Thank you once again ronr327 - I'm always interested in people who have weblogs, especially those who have something interesting to say in them.
Best wishes.
Ron,
I'm not sure I
Ron, I'm not sure I understand what your objection is. The main idea, as I see it, is that there are legitimate alternative approaches to governance and state relationships in the world, regardless to what we might think in the West. The 'power resources', which you allude to, are being used by the world without the west to protect their alternative values, not as a means to buy off their citizens. Broader consideration of 'The World Without the West'
Englishman and Chris,
Indulge me at the start. I will begin with a slightly amended version of my initial reply to Englishman – a bit clearer, I hope. I want to make it clear my objection is to the author's principle thesis centering on an 'alternate source' of international cohesion that rests on 'manufacturing capacity, resource endowments and incremental innovation'. Consent of the governed is 'bought off' with material well being. I believe the nature of the work by which the modern world prospers requires a kind of engagement that must be genuinely and freely given, and that prosperity will be compromised if it is not so given. In the long run, this will have to involve a meaningful participation in the whole of the governance of a society. The one other time, in my view, such a vast transformation has occurred - the transition from tribal societies to 'civilizational' ones - saw a vast range of different cultures giving rise to unique civilizational entities. But the structures arrived at held striking similarities. They were top down authoritarian, with power in the hands of a narrow stratum of military, governmental, and religious elites. Coercive force was pretty much decisive. The ultimate evolved form was an Imperium. What is often missed, in that last regard, is that the empires we remember as truly 'successful' (and thereby admirable) were also the ones most intelligently and equitably governed, e.g. the Chinese and Roman Imperiums. Generally good and substantive accomplishment also applies to the British Imperium, but the British Empire straddles both the older era and the modern one. In the modern world consensus, not imperial domination, becomes the optimally productive norm. Trying to establish, or maintain, an empire is a loosing proposition. What is coerced will fail. So Chris, I'm not sure I understand what your objection is. The main idea, as I see it, is that there are legitimate alternative approaches to governance and state relationships in the world, regardless to what we might think in the West. The 'power resources', which you allude to, are being used by the world without the west to protect their alternative values, not as a means to buy off their citizens. I take that to be a part of the main idea. When they define the particular ‘alternative approach’ they have in mind, it is: . . . MANUFACTURING capacity, resource endowments and incrementalinnovation make up the material foundation of this political order . . . and “One man, one vote” becomes “one man, one cell phone”—with the goal to create wealth and express one’s individuality through consumption. The point of controversy they raise by this is that an alternative new world order emerges that can thumb its nose at the West’s concerns over human rights. My point is that human creativity (and scientific discovery is a prime creative endeavor) becomes the core element to success in the modern world, and you won’t get much creativity out of people who are deprived of any meaningful say their governance. Or at least, over time, you will not get nearly enough of that creativity, and your society will languish. The whole of the life of any society is a more complex and important matter than can be satisfactorily dealt with over time by a plethora of ‘cell phones’. The ‘dirty little secret’ in all this is that if you begin to prosper as it is now possible to prosper, the governance of the society gets ‘mouse trapped’ into a situation where real power has to devolve to the people at large or the prosperity will wane. The rest of the worlrld does not have to ‘copy’ the American model, but, more or less, it probably will. Why re-invent the wheel? Understand various re-imaginings are likely to emerge, and are likely to be understood to be ’critical’ to some particular societies' acceptance of a new paradigm - and we should welcome such re-imaginings - but I believe they will all define: “populations secure in self-governance, rich in opportunity for innovation and its implementation, and able to project a satisfactory life for all.” [As an aside, given the Chinese cultural history centering on ‘the mandate of heaven, it may prove to be as difficult to change a regime in China as it is to change the American Constitution. No matter! It will still be government in consultation with and by consent of the governed.]Englishman wrote: I would like to think that there will be a give-and-take adaptation to a new world order but would be concerned that this has not happened without much turmoil in past times. I hope for this as well, but share your fears. I close off the statement of my core position with: "It seems obvious, to me at least, that over the next one hundred years or so the human race will make such choices as will define our future for the next several hundred years, or perhaps even our entire fate as a species - in so far as that is ours to determine. We can either chose a path of comity and cooperation, of peaceful resolutions to tensions, opening the way to a full flowering of our (now demonstrably) enormous constructive and creative powers. Or we may choose a path of persistent and pervasive contention, lashed to the wheel of conflict, trapped in the exchange of murderous stroke and counterstroke, and opening ourselves to all the impending disasters. I believe in people, in both their ability and desire to make wise and constructive choices. But this is rendered likely only in a world at peace. Threatened, we too easily become creatures of our fears and not our hopes. This transformation can work to beneficent ends, but the passage is hazardous. It is for us, now, rather to facilitate that passage, to seek its realization with ever diminishing pain. To do all we may to assure emergence of what can be a far richer and more hopeful world than any we have known. It would be my hope that, from the perspective herein, we come to engage this process consistently, creatively, compassionately. We have seldom had a greater or more urgent task, or more golden an opportunity"[As a second aside: The western ‘fixation’ on the individual is a bit of an illusion. George Bush may believe freedom is God’s gift to mankind, but what he means by ‘freedom’ is the freedom of self-responsible individuals within a framework of democratic self governance. The obligations to family and society are not blown off, but willingly accepted as a personal responsibility a point of honor. Unfortunately for Bush’s overly simple view, too many of the world’s cultures comprehend ‘freedom’ as license and anarchy: Do what you want, and the hell with anybody else! We are social creatures and anarchy will not DO.] Hi Ron, I would've gotten
Hi Ron,
I would've gotten back to you sooner but I've been unable to log in since Sunday. Anyways, I think you need to re-read the article because I still think you've got some of the ideas wrong. The alternative approach being put forward by the authors is '"state determination" as compared to "self-determination" or individual political rights', and a rejection of "modern" liberal internationalism and particularly any notion of global civil society or public opinion justifying political or military intervention in the affairs of the state'. The reference to manufacturing capacity, resource endowments and incremental innovation isn't presented as being unique to the world without the west by the authors, as they clearly point out that these things are 'traditional sources of political-economic power', but to highlight that these sources of power are being used as a means to 'attain their interests'. Your objection that the world without the west rejects creativity or scientific advancement isn't true, and clearly isn't one of the claims trying to be made by the authors. What they are trying to argue is that the world without the west have values outside of Western liberal thought (as I quoted above) which are being advanced in the world without the west (not in a thumbing of the nose kind of way, but in a we'll make our own choices thank you very much) upon a foundation provided and protected by their power resources. Clearly this is the interesting part as the West would love to make the world into its own image, hell some like Mike even think it's our god given duty to do this, no doubt he would have been the first to carry the flag bearing the Christian cross during the crusades. Unfortunately, for these ideologues, the world without the west has become so empowered that the West, and Western Ideas, have lost influence in much of the world without the west almost to the point of irrelevance, at least that's what I think is being argued in the article.Author's intent
Chris, I can agree several of the points you make in your first two paragraphs, but there would be no 'state determination' without a means to attain the viability of that state. It is the possibility of an alternative 'manufacturing capacity, resource endowments and incremental innovation' approach to the internal arrangement of societies that opens the door to a new basis for an external alliances. You write: Your objection that the world without the west rejects creativity or scientific advancement isn't true, and clearly isn't one of the claims trying to be made by the authors. They don't make the claim (e.g.: 'incremental innovation'], but neither do I. My claim is that repressive policies in regard to civil liberties (and, ultimately, governance in consultation with and by consent of the governed] will mitigate - and likely mitigate severely - against creativity.
Curious aside. I access the site on two different computers. Your latest was found on only one of them??? Ron, The presupposition
Ron, The presupposition that civil liberties are as valued in China as they are in the US is one of the ideas being challenged by the authors. What you interpret as being repressive policies may not be what others perceive as repressive policies, thus the argument that creativity is hindered by repressive policies becomes pretty much irrelevant.
['Curious aside. I access the site on two different computers. Your latest was found on only one of them???']
I'm not surprised, and frankly I'm tiring of the technical challenges posed by this new site as simply posting a message has become a real inconvenience on my time.
See...something as simple as trying to use italics becomes a hassle.
Relevance
Chris, The presupposition that civil liberties are as valued in China as they are in the US is one of the ideas being challenged by the authors. What you interpret as being repressive policies may not be what others perceive as repressive policies, . . . And that is the point of all those 'cell phones' adduced by the authors.
. . . thus the argument that creativity is hindered by repressive policies becomes pretty much irrelevant. I have always thought Jefferson's 'pursuit of happiness' to be wonderfully felicitious. We do not live by bread alone, and most mature adults come to know that their 'happiness' is not some exercise in sybaritic indulgence, but is inalienably interwoven with the health and happiness of those they love. Ultimately life is too complex, and each of us embodies too many facets, to be satisfied by mere 'goods'. In the long run I believe people will not be content - or very creative - without substantive control over in how all of their lives are lived, and how the whole of their society is run. It isn't, in the end, that some other paradigm can't function, or even be viable for a while, but that over time it will not be as productive. Note the dependence of the author's 'new' paradigm on resources, chiefly oil, which will run out in time. Sooner or later you are going to have to 'mine' the creative energy of your people. Chris, I have a busy week-end coming up at the US Open Tennis and may not be able to get back quickly. Ron, After reading your
Ron, After reading your Science and Modernity essay- which BTW should really be reduce down to one page - I now better understand your objection to the above article as apparently you're a full fledged subscriber to the bipolar paradigm being challenged by it.
"We can either chose a path of comity and cooperation, of peaceful resolutions'…or to endless cycles of violence" Ron
However, your objection still manages to miss the mark as the primary argument being put forward is that it is a mistake to view future American/Chinese relations through these preconceived notions.
Your argument seems to be that the option being presented in the article can't possible be plausible because a culture which doesn't achieve 'a strong flow of educated creativity' cannot prosper, and that an educated creative population comes from populations 'secure in self-governance, rich in opportunity for innovation and its implementation, and able to achieve a satisfactory life for all', not from a people 'systematically repressed, suppressed, and exploited'.
The problem is that China is prospering- right now, how do you explain that? How do you explain that?
Chris, Thanks for checking out the web site. The problem is that China is prospering- right now, how do you explain that? Did you miss this from the post immediately above?: "It isn't, in the end, that some other paradigm can't function, or even be viable for a while, but that over time it will not be as productive. Note the dependence of the author's 'new' paradigm on resources, chiefly oil, which will run out in time. Sooner or later you are going to have to 'mine' the creative energy of your people." As for reducing the 'Science and Modernity' essay, I could sacrifice the 'historical context' business and leave only the central point, which you picked out (kudos!], but the whole thing is only around 2000 words. By no means a tome - or, I hope, burdensome. . . . as apparently you're a full fledged subscriber to the bipolar paradigm being challenged by it. I am a full fledged subscriber to a point of view contrary to the authors of 'A World Without the West', but I do not recognize my view, or theirs, as exactly 'bipolar'. They are offering a possible variety of alternate paradigms, while delineating one such. And I don't consider my conceptualism to be limited to something readily identified as 'American'. I would not be surprised to see a wide variety of forms which, nevertheless, manifest 'populations secure in self-governance, rich in opportunity for innovation and its implementation, and able to achieve a satisfactory life for all'. There were, after all, many distinctive, quite different, civilizations, whose overall paradigm could be fairly described in terms of what I would propose as variants on a general theme, i.e. top down authoritarian governance from a narrow base of military, governmental, and religeous elites. Ron, I categorize your
Ron,
I categorize your stance as bipolar because you view the future Chinese/American relationship as an either-or proposition, which the authors argue, quite persuasively I might add, as being an outdated international-relations theory.
The importance of this is immediate, because it changes the way in which you approach your relationship with China. While Western hawks, doves, and those in between spend their time struggling to craft a foreign policy based on an out dated model, China is quietly out pursuing relationships and building alliances that will one day not challenge American hegemony - nor adhere to it, but simply circumvent it.
Bipolar?
Chris, What I am proposing is a paradigm which is optimal for a world that prospers by the kind of work that you can no longer get by standing over people with a whip: the educated creativity of people. The paradigm involves populations secure in self-government, rich in opportunity for innovation and able to project a satisfactory life for all. Other paradigms may work, but, I contend, not as well. And, over time, not nearly as well - circumvent as you will. Note, however, I explictly reject imposition of anything. This idea, almost by definition, only really works if it is freely adopted by those attempting it. What is coerced ultimately fails in the modern world. And recourse to armed conflict, in a world that fights with Weapons of Mass Destrucition, becomes dangerous in the extreme. Interesting stuff but I'll
Interesting stuff but I'll have to re-read it a bit before casting comment.
W. Excellent, I'll look
Excellent, I'll look forward to it.
Post new comment |
|
50.50Podcast: Women and Memory, a report from Egypt In the blog: Positive Anger, Zainab Magdy Elections Most discussed articles... |
Posts: 942
Joined: 2005-11-22