Independent in All Things, Neutral in Nothing

A global or a local future?

with one comment

Looking back on history, we sometimes find a temptingly simplistic path from one age to the next. We seem to witness inevitable forces sweep across the story of history — forces like liberty, the rule of law, or democracy. Today, that unstoppable force — anticipated for decades, if not centuries, and now prepared to forever alter the course of humanity — appears to be globalization.

As proof of its inevitability, nearly all discussion on globalization focuses on whether it will cause mass benefits or misery for mankind. For nearly a decade, I cannot recall ever reading a article questioning it as a future, sweeping phenomenon.

Enter Patrick Deneen, a professor of political theory at Georgetown University. In his article “Conventional Wisdom? Checking Globalization,” he questions the inevitability of globalization. Now, I love this piece simply because it thrust before me an idea so contrary to my own thinking; it forced me to re-evaluate whole assumptions I had made for more than a decade.

Professor Deneen does an admirable job making a cogent argument that the trend of history may in fact turn toward localization, and not in the direction of a globalized world. In the last year, how many farmers markets have opened in major cities? How many ‘buy local’ (however ‘local’ is defined) campaigns have begun, perhaps as misguided notions to restore health to the local economy, but also perhaps as a reaction to people buying everything from everywhere but here. Certainly, Deneen’s evidence does not overwhelm. It leaves a dull sense in the reader that the matter needs greater exploration.

Does the answer matter? Who cares if we live in a more local or global world? While I cannot articulate reasons now, my sense says yes, it does matter. More thoughts on this later.


Written by Russell S.

October 24, 2009 at 4:27 am

Posted in Globalization

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Globalization may not be inevitable, as Dr. Deneen posits, but it certainly is a good thing. That is, globalization in the neutral sense, meaning simply “international integration.” I personally don’t know of anyone against international integration, per se. I’m sure Dr. Deneen probably isn’t. The problem is the specific modality of economic integration that has appropriated the term “globalization” that creates issues; that’s the reason we’ve heard the calls for a greater focus on local and domestic issues. What’s being called “globalization” does in fact harm domestic production for domestic needs. But there’s no reason that should be the case.

    Benjamin Seghers

    October 24, 2009 at 8:51 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: