The over simplification of a complex process; Globalization and human nature

The debate over globalization does seem to boil down too two overly simplified worldviews that reject and accept different aspects of the process of globalization and predict completely different futures. Globalization being a buzz word that is dominating a majority of the discourse that is being produced in today’s academia usually must be defined before a comprehensive model or explanation arises out of the arguments of today’s thinkers. Those definitions usually vary in their language and more often than not they emphasize desperately different parts of a whole movement that is sweeping the globe. However these thinker’s do want their thoughts to be listened to and do want to write their language in a manner that most communicates their meaning and so, if one commonality is to be found in the varying definitions of globalization, then it is simply that the process (or movement, epoch, trend, etc.) is complicated.

Studying the complex puts students of global affairs in a precarious position, we are regularly asked to intake competing definitions of the same process and explain away or reconcile the world as it is, as well as the world as others perceive it to be. Fortunately for us, human nature has a storied tradition of taking the complex and breaking it down in two, a right and a wrong, a good or a bad, a us or a them. Globalization is a complicated process that is directly changing human nature. Globalization is a complicated process that is a victim of human nature. Both are accurate.

I will not waste time discussing Globophiles or globophobes. I leave the work undone only because I think the message translates better when the reader of this (You) fit the pieces together. If you come into this reading with a basic understanding of where these two positions come from and what they believe or say about globalization then that is all you need. Human nature breaks down complicated arguments into simple positions that it rejects or accepts. As a human who reads and makes up his/her own mind we form our opinions by counting how much of something we can agree with versus what doesn’t sit well with us.

Well I submit a simple argument that answers a complex debate. The more arguments I make to defend my position the more opportunities a human has to judge and dismiss the entirety of my position based on the parts that sum up my whole.

The Cult of globalization

Many students today are afraid to study religion. Religion as a field in the social sciences is very different from the study of theology. The field of religion is a comprehensive academic study of not only the history of religion but the culture and existential how, and why of religion. Religion acts as a means to many ends in the organizational pattern of many cultures; studying religion is a most excellent entry point into understanding and learning about laws, cultural habits, and policy actions. However students aren’t afraid because of the material, I think it is because of the deeply political religious conflicts that they hear about on the news and the fear of offending or getting sucked into a messy argument over the existential rights and wrongs that exist between religions and what those differences mean.

I study Global Affairs which is not just the study of international relations or governance theories, although it does incorporate both of those disciplines in its discourse. It is more a concentrated study on the world and how it is being affected by Globalization.
So what is it? The going working definition that I will use is that Globalization is an idea that describes the ongoing process of the inclusion of a variety of ideas regardless of their origin on the hopes of future optimization (or truth) in spite of the short term conflict that occurs when two ideas of different salient origins meet. This definition is rough and generic however because it is an ongoing process that affects so many dimensions of reality, Globalization is unknowable, and subject to interpretation.

My definition of Globalization has conflict built into it because as an ongoing process conflict no matter the scale will be involved in the meeting of worlds. If the definition of conflict is a problem I will submit that conflict is a problem of miscommunication over basic identity that causes tensions which can escalate or not. Conflict can be resolved by a meeting of minds over mutual or shared interest that bridges the communication gap and allows for real progress for all parties involved.

The conflict that is storied between internationals over religion is so deep and rich because, while religions can share many things in common. Ultimately they disagree on the unknowable fate of one’s immortal soul and that is the deepest stakes that any conflict can seemingly achieve. This harsh truth was then paved over by years of violent history which has created a powder keg of newly violent super nationalists that are living in the shared ethnic traumas of the past and wrongly view globalization as THE problem which is endangering and explaining away their happiness (or lack there of) in this world, and what is worse it is threatening to take it away from them in the next world. They are in effect exorcising fault to an unknowable unstoppable, phenomenon (globalization).

I hope you have kept up, because I reframed this idea in this way because a broad-scope view of religion is exactly this. Religious faith more than usually involves the submission to a belief in the unknowable and the unstoppable (usually some form of god), and globalization is creating a new undefined cult of globalization where everyone believes, regardless of whether they hate it or love it. The global-philes and the global-phobes of this world are a perfect paradigm of the ultimate identity conflict over religious grounds. The only difference is that the religion over which the two conflicting parties are fighting over IS globalization. The sad part is no one realizes it.

I am not writing this to take away anything from religion. In fact I am not offering a value judgment what so ever on whom or what is right. However religious identity conflict in my opinion is being framed in the wrong way, and so is globalization. All of this in-group versus out-group, them or us paradigm is never going to be resolved until we can reframe the world’s viewpoint into seeing what the actual stakes of this conflict are. If you worship Globalization and drink the Kool-Aid© it does not matter what side on the debate you take. The stakes are peace or not.

Who is hungry?

I read about global affairs. I think about global affairs. I went to college to study and learn about global affairs, and sometimes I want to express my opinion about global affairs. So here (this blog, it is new, Hi.) is where that will go.

What do I think Global Affairs is? I think the field is appropriately named, because the study of Global Affairs is an equal parts mixture of globalization studies and current affairs. The discipline is heavily emerged in everyday ripped from the headline bulletins because Globalization has affected so much of the world by now, and it has become difficult to distinguish what comes from where. This leads me to feel that any one who stays up to date on what is happening in the world is in effect studying globalization.

I really don't know why but no other major at Mason is so constantly redefining itself and in need of justifying its existence. The skills I have taken out of my global affairs classes are in reading and writing about the world that I see, and thinking and writing about how the future will look like. I don't think that I am a terribly good writer, but I have strong opinions and sometimes I want to voice them. I am going to start doing that here, starting with a paper I wrote for a course I am taking on Globalization and religion.

P.S. I have always known that my nickname was just waiting to be turned into a pun I just tried to fight it for my entire life.