It’s a rather common
misconception these days that “globalization” entails the dissolving of borders
and the institution of a “new world order.” Nevertheless,
the events of this past half century certainly do exude signs of a coming
globalized world order. But, in what way
will globalization ultimately take shape?
I’ll make the argument below that globalization is, more or less, of an economic nature—not nationalistic. In other words, well-defined
national borders are not going anywhere[1]; however, the movement of currency will likely continue to flow unimpeded.
“The
accelerated worldwide economic and cultural universalization that has marked
the move to post-Fordist types of production since the early 1970s is said to
be trampling the borders of the nation-sate and making sovereignty increasingly
irrelevant. In some ways this is true,
but it is important to see that the
nation-state has been one of the primary promoters of this process. Globalization is, in part, the hyperextension
of the triumph of the universal over the local, on which the nation-state is
founded” (Cavanaugh, 39; emphasis added).
In
many respects, William T. Cavanaugh (whom I quote above) has the nature of
globalization, and the nature of how many of us today perceive globalization,
nailed down. We, today, see the current
state of the global economy, with its freedom from the impediment of
nationalized divisions, and we assume that this trend is indicative of the
collapse of well-defined borders. This
assumption is wrong, however—at least in part.
The economy is indeed globalizing, and the nation-state can do little to
stop this process. However, far from this scenario being a problem for the
nation-state, the opposite is true. In
fact, the nation-state often supports the freedom of cash flow, and it
willingly sacrifices portions of its sovereignty for the sake international globalization (Cavanaugh, 40).
What
we see going on today is nothing more than the continuation and inevitable result
of the co-development of capitalism with nationalism. Both the nation-state and the capitalist
economy have co-existed, and mutually benefited from their conjoined support for each other, ever since their simultaneous emergence in the 16th-17th
centuries. It is in the spirit of this
mutualism that the nation-state now supports the globalized economy, and vice
versa. But how is this so?
“Capital is
now more mobile than ever, and nation-states have very little power to contain
the flow of money and information across their borders. Corporations have become increasingly
transnational, discarding loyalties to any particular locations or communities
and moving to wherever cheap labor and unrestrictive environmental laws can be
found” (Cavanaugh, 40.)
.jpg) |
| Don't worry. I'm no conspiracy theorist. |
It seems as though corporations
and economic elites are the true benefactors of globalization. Nevertheless, the nation-state yet remains in full support of globalizing efforts. Why? The
reason is simple: “Capital is free to
move where it wants, but labor is not”
(Cavanaugh, 40; emphasis added). Corporations
fully support the nation-state and its borders because these borders, though
they do not restrict the flow of money, restrict
the flow of workers. “[N]ational
legal systems remain as the major, or crucial, instantiation through which
guarantees of contract and property rights are enforced” (Saskia Sassen qtd. in
Cavanaugh, 41). To this end, the
nation-state, with its labor laws, citizens’ rights, etc., makes the global
economy more profitable for corporations.
Think about it this way: Why
would a major corporation shut down its factories in the US and set up shop in
Mexico or in China? The answer is fairly
straightforward. Labor laws in the US are
far less conducive to maximum profits than the labor laws elsewhere. Therefore, in order to make more money, transnational corporations seek out and exploit sources of labor where worker's rights are few and far between.
The
continued existence of the nation-state makes the globalization of the economy
more profitable. Because money is
unimpeded by borders, yet labor and labor rights remain constrained by borders,
transnational corporations can easily take advantage of workers who live in
countries where few, if any, civil and human rights exist. Herein, therefore, lies the real danger of
globalization: not that some new tyrannical
globalized international political power is arising, but that a self-interested
and non-ethically restrained globalized international economy is arising, and
has already arisen. In continuation with
the past trend of nationalism and capitalism being co-supportive, in the wake
of this globalized capitalist economy, the nation-state, by its very nature,
has done, does, and will do little to stop the free flow of money[2]—not
that the political apparatus could do much to control the globalization of the
economy anyway; especially at the present time, since nation-states have already given
up so much of their sovereignty to international corporate
interests.
What This Means for Us Christians
All
of this information could understandably seem completely trivial and academic
to some readers, but I would argue that this information has very real and
tangible implications for Christians.
First and foremost, I think, in light of globalization being economic,
and not so much political, we ought to spend more time paying attention to the
economic interests of transnational corporations than we do to the nationalist
interests of states[3]. As things currently stand, many of these
transnational corporations are the biggest drivers of slave labor and unjust
labor practices. Many might argue that
the globalization of the economy, since it is not mirrored in its globalization
by nationalistic political powers, serves as the leading cause of
oppression in the world today. If such
is truly the case, Cavanaugh warns us that "looking to the nation-state to
defend the common good against the often-brutal consequences of globalization
does not appear promising” (41). The
nation-state is simply too self-interested[4]. The church catholic, I think, is the one institution
that has the greatest ability to fight the oppressive forces of this
non-restricted globalized economy[5]. The church itself is a transnational body,
and, thus, that which is most capable of reaching out to and saving those taken
advantage of by globalization. Such is
the case primarily because the church is, unlike the nation-state, not
self-interested, but self-giving[6].
Practical Implications
While
I did not expect to go this route with my argument, perhaps what I’m about to
propose is not that far off from a practical example of how we as American
Christians might, at least in a rather small and superficial way, fight the
globalized economy’s abuse of foreign labor. I propose that we could consider only
buying products or goods which have been fairly traded[7]. What I’m merely suggesting is that we start
paying attention to what we buy, who we buy from, and whether injustice was in
any way, shape, or form a part of the process by which product “X” got from
point A to point B. As Christians, it is
our calling to look beyond our national interests toward the transnational
mission for which God has set us apart. Isn’t
it ironic that we expend so much energy worrying about minor quibbles between
Republicans and Democrats that we neglect to worry about the impact Nike has on
child laborers in China? If indeed what I suggest about the nature of globalization is true, then Nike, and other such corporate entities, are the real world powers with which we ought to demonstrate our greatest concern.Source:
- Cavanaugh, William T. Migrations of the Holy: God, State, and the Political Meaning of the Church. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. Print.
[1] Though the nation-state will likely remain in
place for quite some time to come, it may be that with the passage of time, and with
the increasing influence of globalization on the market economy and our
day-to-day lives, that a reshaping of the international political sphere may
yet occur sometime in the future.
[2] Please be aware that I’m not trying to assert
that a free-market economy is somehow intrinsically bad. I think capitalism has great potential to do
good in this world, but only if it can be restrained and guided by Christian
ethics.
[3] We should, of course, not ignore nationalist
interests. Nation-states still play a
very prominent role in international goings-on.
Take, for instance, the current state of affairs, as of this writing,
between Russia and Ukraine. This
situation obviously has serious implications that highlight the prominence of
nation-states in world events.
[4] It’s commonly asserted that the state exists
to serve and protect the interests of the individual, a la John Locke and
Thomas Hobbes. Unlike the Lockian and Hobbesian
models for whence the state derives its authority—that being from the consent of the governed vis-à-vis
a “social contract”—the reality is more complex and nuanced. It’s safe to say, however, that the state
derived its authority, both by force and by competition, prior to the a posteriori
philosophical construct of the social compact between governments and governed as imagined by Hobbes and Locke.
[5] I don’t mean to refer here to Roman
Catholicism, but to the universal church in general, sans denominational
divisions.
[6] I would highly recommend reading Suffering by Arthur C. McGill, if you
would like to learn more about what self-giving may actually entail for the
Christian.
[7] Obviously we should do more than only buy
fairly traded goods. I’m only offering
this as one, rather small example of what we can do.
No comments:
Post a Comment