In his last speech to the U.N.’s General Assembly in
September, 2016, U.S. President Barak Obama pointed to a world more prosperous
yet with political and security crises.[1]
He called this combination a paradox arising from globalization—the converging
of political, economic, and social systems around the world made possible by
advances in technology. I contend that globalization is not the primary cause
of the massive changes going on in some societies but not others (and in parts
of a given society), hence Obama’s diagnosis and prescription fall short. In
short, parts of some societies, and some societies as a whole were going
through massive, deep changes that were reinforcing the tendency of
traditional forces to resist and stay put. It is the widening of the gap, both
within some societies and between them that is the real cause of the strife.
“A quarter-century after the end of the Cold War, the world
is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet
our societies are filled with uncertainty and unease and strife,” Obama said.[2]
“As people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and
tensions between nations become more quick to surface.”[3]
He cited the Middle East in particular, where “basic order has broken down.”[4]
More generally, the rise of terrorism had become a significant de-stabilizing
force. The world’s powers share in the blame, for the approaches to
globalization had ignored the inequities they had generated. Accordingly,
Obama’s prescription includes “creating a fairer global economy, enhancing
democratic governance, rejecting fundamentalism and racism, and increasing
international cooperation.”[5]
None of these feats would come easily.
In terms of a fairer global economy, power would have to be
used to level the playing field whose slant has benefited the more powerful
interests. So the problem is how to avoid the problem of how less powerful
actors can take on the more powerful actors, including governments and
corporations. In terms of enhancing democratic governance, the problem
immediately encountered would be how to take on domestic corruption. For
instance, Putin’s United Russia party was at the time accused of massive
electoral fraud—so much so that the party would be able to unilaterally amend
the Russian constitution. It would surely not be an easy task for the global
powers to constrain Putin’s party within Russia.
Regarding getting rid of religious fundamentalism, it has
tremendous staying power in the short- and medium-terms because it represents a
reaction against the spread of progressive values made possible in part by the
forces of globalization. Yet even without this process, the inroads of
progressivism, such as “progress” in gay marriage, abortion, and pot
legalization, lengthens the distance between societal segments that view
“progress” as real progress and traditionalist segments that have stayed in
place. With the greater distance—at least through the medium term, comes more
strife because basic assumptions are no longer shared. By analogy, the more the
forces behind a tectonic plate build up pressure against another plate that is
staying still, the greater the force possible in an earthquake.
Therefore, I submit that Obama’s agenda for the world can be
viewed as relatively superficial, as it is tied exclusively to globalization,
which I submit is just one of the causes for the tremendous changes in parts of
societies and parts of the world. Corruption and traditionalism are two things
that have a way of staying put, even as other forces deemed in the forefront by
many people (or in some societies) move further and further away. Even debating
whether pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, and whether to legalize pot represent
progress becomes problematic.
In short, during the time of globalization from the last
quarter of the twentieth century, those forces and others, which are tied to
the logic of a progressive movement in motion, the world’s societies are
becoming less and less similar. The question is perhaps whether traditionalism
will end up giving some ground, with the societies coming closer together. I
believe the answer is: very gradually, and then only after some substantial time.
Parts of societies, and even parts of the world, were on the move at the time
of Obama’s last address, and this dynamic is not just caused by globalization.
1. Carol E. Lee, “Obama Urges Course Shift for World in Conflict,” The Wall Street Journal,” September 21,
2016.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
