Posted
7th July 2001
Is Commerce All That Matters?
by
Jeremy Rifkin
When President Bush meets with the other leading industrial
nations at the G8 conference in Italy in July, weighty topics,
including economic development, trade and Third World debt,
will be high on the agenda. What's equally interesting, however,
is the agenda of tens of thousands of protesters from around
the world who are expected to gather in Genoa. They want to
talk about the various ways global corporations like Monsanto,
AOL-Time Warner and McDonald's are undermining cultural diversity
and destroying the viability of local communities. Protests
are becoming a familiar part of world political and economic
forums. But, although the attention often goes to the relatively
few violent protesters, there is a bigger message worth listening
to.
The fact is, we are witnessing the first stirrings of a cultural
backlash to globalization whose effects are likely to be significant
and far-reaching. Local cultures are reawakening everywhere
in the world. In India, consumers recently trashed McDonald's
restaurants for violating Hindu dietary laws. In Germany, there
is a heated debate over what is German culture in the era of
globalization. In France, angry farmers uprooted Monsanto's
genetically engineered crops, claiming that they are a threat
to French cultural sovereignty over food production. In Canada,
local communities are fighting to keep out the giant Wal-Mart
retail chain for fear it will replace traditional small-town
culture with suburban super malls. Globalization is changing
the cultural landscape in other fundamental ways.
In Europe, native languages are giving way to English, the language
of globalization, and observers predict an English-speaking
continent from Calais to Moscow by the end of the present century.
The increasing disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots"
is forcing a great human migration from east to west and from
south to north, resulting in a clash of cultures as people wrestle
with how to preserve their cultural identities in an increasingly
borderless commercial world. The official agenda being readied
for the G8 summit makes little mention of this emerging worldwide
cultural activism, and herein lies the core of the problem.
The powers that be have long believed that the world is divided
into two spheres of influence: commerce and government. Now
organizations representing the cultural sphere--the environment,
species preservation, rural life, health, food and cuisine,
religion, human rights, the family, women's issues, ethnic heritage,
the arts and other quality-of-life issues--are pounding on the
doors at world economic and political forums and demanding a
place at the table.
They
represent the birth of a new "civil society politics" and an
antidote to the forces pushing for globalization. In the weeks
leading up to the G8 conference, we should take a sober look
at the differing ideological visions that lie at the heart of
the impasse between commerce and government on the one hand
and the newly emboldened civil society movement on the other.
The advocates of globalization would argue that free and open
trade and an expansion of commercial relationships and activities
of all kinds are the keys to a brighter future for all. The
flaw in this premise lies in the misguided assumption that commerce
spurs culture when, in fact, the exact opposite is more often
the case. The new cultural activists would argue that there
is not an example in history where people first create commercial
relations and then establish a culture. Commerce and government
are secondary, not primary, institutions.
They
are derivative of the culture, not the progenitors of it. People
first establish a common language, agreed-upon codes of behavior
and a shared sense of purpose--to wit, social capital. Only
when cultures are well developed is there enough social trust
to support commercial and governmental institutions. If the
G8 leaders are united in their support of global commerce and
trade, the civil society movement groups are just as committed
to the idea of preserving local identity and enriching both
biological and cultural diversity. Unfortunately, today, the
cultural sector exists in a kind of neocolonial limbo between
the market and government sectors. Only by making local culture
a coherent, self-aware political force will it be possible to
reestablish its critical role in the scheme of human society
once again. Indeed, it may be time to establish a World Cultural
Organization to represent diverse cultures around the globe,
and give the "WCO" an equal footing with the WTO (World Trade
Organization) in international affairs.
Some people worry that a resurgent interest in local cultures
must inevitably lead to xenophobia and ultra-nationalist sentiment.
That doesn't have to be so. If people everywhere come to think
of their own cultural resources not as possessions to defend
but, rather, as gifts to exchange with one another, then the
great human migrations of the 21st century could spawn a cultural
renaissance and create the conditions for a truly humane globalization
of commerce and trade. The ability of political leaders to identify
with and promote both the interests of the civil society and
cultural diversity will be critical to ensuring their relevance
and viability in the coming century. This was the lesson being
taught by the protesters assembling on the streets of Seattle
18 months ago. It's a lesson that is likely to repeat itself
on the streets of Genoa in July. The question is, will the heads
of state who assemble in Italy take the time to listen carefully
to the message coming from outside their windows? If they don't,
the escalating frustration is likely to play into the hands
of the growing number of violence-prone extremists, with untold
consequences for the world's future. ..
|