Globalization in a Peace Perspective

549 words, 2nd of March 2005

The Globalization in a Peace Perspective
by Torbjørn Wikestad, Studentnettverk for fred

I am no expert on the topic of Globalization, I assure you, but I think everyone standing in the information flow of our time can give some valuable reflections on the topic. My own focus is that the aspect of economic globalization is the most prominent in a general conversation about the topic, meanwhile as the social globalization, the formation of a global village, is the aspect of the highest value, that would benefit all of humankind the most.

My use here of the term 'humankind' is intentional – it is not gender biased as 'mankind' and I prefer it to the term 'human race', which I think is signifying a naturalistic-objective stance, while any discussion of humanity have to occur between humans and thus negate a postulated objectivity. Furthermore, the term 'humankind' positively signify an essensial kinship (as 'the human family') between all human individuals.

Imaging an universal kinship might not be the highest obstacle towards a social globalization, the stance is almost self-evident in the evolution theories and explainations. The biggest obstacle is that of culture (or civilization), and the boundaries made between people at all levels of society. There exist boundaries among families, socio-econimic classes, nations and civilizations, to name a few.

The social boundaries rise out of the cultural notion that members of our own group are more dear to us than others. This might be natural, but not acceptable, naming the abolishiment of apartheid as one example. This mode of thinking is self-evident in both history as well as in the present world. In its extreme form, in the eyes a unified group, this cultural notion of “high-us and low-them” may deprieve 'The Others' their full humanity, and furthermore, if such a group of “most worthy” have supreme military or economic power, they may inflict mayhem upon others, as the nazis did in the 20th century.

I try to imply here that the social and economic injustice in the world of today is caused by social boundaries that are drawn up through cultural conversation up to present time. If this is just partially right, then more focus should be drawn upon the power of the media, schools and other social institutions to deflect the cultural conversation into a culture of supremecy and violence. An intelligent eye have to be kept directed towards the communication of ideas. The presentation of the present world affairs as a clash of civilizations could be interpreted as a “distortion of events” from some whose interest is to upheld the existing social boundaries on a global scale.

The bottom line here is that a “real” Globalization have to involve a process of unmasking cultural differences and boundaries, and finding instead commonalities to build and make general a culture of humankind (Culture of Peace/Philosophy of a Global Ethic?), in which individuals primarly define themselves as belonging to humanity. It is unreasonable to think that we may archieve a world without nations, religions or social-economic classes, and it may be futile to work for such goals, but if instead social categories are made secondary to the category of humankind (as a global community, family or spirit), the struggle toward universal human-rights may proceed and succeed in the end.