In a world of globalization, modernization and urbanisation our horizons are growing bigger and simultaneously our worlds are getting smaller. A global network has emerged giving birth to such great offshoots as an International Economy, a global political culture with such a prestige-holding institution as the United Nations and wide-spread acculturation.
Globalization is not Imperialism, it's not Colonialism, globalisation is not the imposition of one supposedly superior culture onto many diverse cultures, contemporary history will recognise it simply as a massive intergration, but with history there is usually an untold side most often belonging to a marginalised voice, and this marginalised voice may just see globalisation as the imposition of one supposedly superior culture onto many supposedly inferior diverse cultures.
If we stick to history's definition, then Globalisation is not like Imperialism, Globalisation does not celebrate a superior culture and attempt to get the whole world admiring , aspiring to live that culture. But if it's certainly not Imperialism, why does Western Civilisation approach and implement Globalisation with the mentality of Imperialism and Colonisation?
Edward Wadie Said wrote in his 'Orientalism' in 1978 of the ongoing 20th Century prejudices against Asia and the Middle East which dated back to the start of the British Empire and the emergence of colonialism. Asia was perpetually objectified as 'the other' and any attempt at understanding the culture and civilization of the East and particularly the Islamic World was mediated through a pompous rattification of European identity and motivated purely by a political incentive to further colonial ambitions of Europe.
Ania Loomba who is Professor of English at the University of Illinois, and has researched writers of the Colonialist period seems to affirm Said's criticisms, indeed Loomba went furthermore to iterate that the process of denouncing the cultures that European ships were 'discovering' was not simply rooted in a cultural arrogance but infact a feeling of cultural inferiority.The English Nation particularly, seeking to establish itself as a great European power, had to quickly form a strong and impressive English Identity in order to be recognised as any potential political power, and the best way to anounce yourself as superior is by denouncing all else as inferior. Many writers during the 17th Century were writing complaints on the state of English culture and the lack of unification in the Nation, the same Century saw the gradual emergance of a Standard English Language, language being a fervent symbol of a unified culture.
But Said and Loomba were writing about the past, and particularly Loomba was writing about a different era in European history. Even if much of the perceptions and myths accumulated by the West on their colonies could last, the modern era which has paid attention to migration and multi-ethinicity and access to a global media seems to have educated the West on a phenomenon which they have strenously try to supress: diversity.
English, as a language is now the most widely spoken in the world, it has come to be the official language in over 50 countries, which is not so much an onset of Colonisation but a product of Globalisation. But if language is so intrinsically connected to culture, can it remain isolated from a person's culture? Or must that person adopt the culture that language brings along with it?
The World Bank, established in 1944, helps fund education in third world countries but many of the governments they fund prioritise the teaching of English, a poignant marker of how the English language is now institutionally recognised as a propeller into the Global Economy. Researchers have recently warned that by 2050, 90 percent of the world's languages could dissapear. Nigel Vincent, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Manchester has been quoted as saying "when we lose a language, we lose something of the world's diversity" in 2002. The effect of acquiring a global language is the loss of many other languages and therefore the loss of many cultures that promote global diversity.
What is perhaps most saddening is that many nations, especially those that are underdeveloped, readily accept the hegemony that English language has acquired over them. Globalisation has told them that English language is superior, and what is more, the culture which the language carries is superior. Unlike Colonisation, Globalisation has not used force in its expansion, but even more dangerously Globalisation has artfully persuaded the external world to succumb to it and Globalisation has managed to do it silently.
The implications of Globalisation are no the corrolaries similiar to that of Imperialism, but the mentality of those sitting in the higher position has not changed too drastically either. The exoticisation and objectification of former colonies and infact any culture which is not part of Western history is still prevalent in the assumptions and preconceptions of modern Western Culture to the point that I have had many friends from parts of the third world complain that tourists visiting their countries make them feel as though they are being observed in a zoo. An appreciation of culture usually starts with a fascination of it, but more often than not that fascination is based on a fundamental belief that one culture is superior and the other inferior.
During my last term of study, I had the unfortunate oppurtunity of meeting an Officer who worked at the Special Branch of the Police dealing with National security threats who came to speak in a class on U.S Foreign Policy.When asked whether he believed if torture of detainees was ever justifiable he replied with pursed lips "Well in Pakistan conditions are much worse, they torture you in prison, not that they have a great police system". What the Officer was suggesting was that Pakistan was morally inferior, and even culturally inferior, what he was implying was that the U.K was morally superior. A belief in Western morality as apart of a superior Western Culture can be linked back to times when African tribes were considered barbarians. The belief in Western moral superiority fuels much of the Foreign Policies of many Western countries, it has given basis to many choices to invade and occupy many countries which they need not occupy, but some might say moral superiority has been a major pretext used to occupy these countries.
In a time when the belief in a superior culture is rather distasteful to refined current affairs readers, moral superiority has seen its moment to shine, moral superiority makes people believe that their actions are good, even if evidence suggests otherwise because under the guise of moral superiority, the West have seen very immoral acts beng carried out. Moral superiority is that which denounces any system of government which is not akin to the dominant cultures' values and moral superiority is a major part of globalisation.
Globalisation has promoted a consensus, which is the basis for the United Nations and nobody denies that the UN is a good thing. But Globalisation much like the uber-powerful World Bank has bodies of influence, and those bodies of influence can only be those that assert their superiority, and the West seem to have a history of doing just that.
No comments:
Post a Comment