This kind of links back to my first blog post about non-state actors. Most people argued in some capacity or another that states had an obligation to maintain territorial sovereignty. I suppose I'm using this post to posit a question: what does the existence of supranational organizations mean for protecting this sovereignty?
Some would argue the US essentially "invaded" other countries through the extension of soft power. Does a state have an obligation to maintain their fundamental "state-hood" and uniqueness in the face of the onslaught of McDonalds and MTV? Many argue that globalization is bad because it destroys individual cultures. This fits into that strain of thought.
I personally don't have much of an answer to provide. I feel that territorial sovereignty is not violated at all when the subjects of the state voluntarily choose to accept this "soft power." Cultures are not annihilated or assimilated into the global order; rather, they seem to be turned into a syncretic blend of several popular cultural norms while still maintaining elements of their own being (i.e. McDonalds didn't kill Ramadan in the Middle East). I found them to be interesting questions that I hope come up in the next class/comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I strongly agree with you, that despite the wild cries that the world is losing its diversity, in fact the entire world, despite having McDonalds is not America. I believe the emergence of a global culture is actually causing more people to be aware of the uniqueness of their heritage and traditions. People now have two cultures and identities to partake in, one usually nation based and another globally based. Of course in regards to which of these identities is preeminent, I would have to agree with Jasmine’s reflection that nationality comes before “globality” in this day and age.
Okay...you asked a lot of questions...let’s see:
I absolutely agree with you as far as the failing of realism in addressing non-state actors (you sort of implied this), and that the existence of supranational actors can play a significant role in “aggressively cultural diplomacy” (as I believe PTJ put it). I suppose that one of the values of liberalism is that it addresses this significant matter. But anyways, while I do think that the exportation of culture can be an effective and preferable alternative to more violent means of attaining security. I think that there is definitely a counter argument; that globalization can alienate other peoples. I am really disagreeing more with Silence Dogood’s suggestion that globalization gives one a choice between national culture and a broader global culture, because I think that globalization can subversively disintegrate key aspects of national character. This is an excerpt from a comment I left to Emily a while ago on this very subject:
“While I do absolutely agree that the world perspective, that globalization allows, is incredibly valuable, there are certain major drawbacks that must be considered; specifically, cultural identity.
You cannot disavow the importance, at least that many feel, of having a cultural heritage. Though it may be easy for you and I to say that we appreciate the effects that globalization has had on society, there are many people, in other countries who feel as though their cultural framework is disintegrating. In France for instance, globalization is resulting in an alteration in the vernacular. Traditionally, the French phrase for blue jeans would be "jeans bleu" (adjective follows the noun), but now it is becoming increasingly common to refer to jeans as "bleu jeans" (adjective precedes the noun, like in English). Many elder members of French society see this as a harbinger of the destruction of their great language (still, I think, the third most spoken in the world), and while they do seem persnickety, who can blame them for their desire to keep their history?”
For the rest of the post...and there is not much more, see https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1151076454817362945&postID=3690359912148116375 (I totally fail at computer things, and this is refusing to allow my HTML tag, so whatever).
Post a Comment