Globalization, Conflicts

& Terrorism

The United States, often called the “melting pot”, is the home of many different races, ethnicities, and cultures. It was the flow of immigrant entrepreneurs and workers at the beginning of the 20th century, which turned the U.S. into a leading industrial power in the world. Today, although centuries later, diversity still remains one of the biggest dilemmas in this country.

Identity may be influenced by different values such as family, society, culture, etc.; however, religion is a very strong tool to build identity. On the other hand, individuals tend to hold their identities even under extreme pressure — whether be social or psychological — otherwise it would not be considered real identity. Conflicts arise among groups with different values and identities, which will be more threatening to the minorities and out-groups, and may eventually lead to terrorism.

We hardly see a random act of terrorism, perhaps because terrorism could be analyzed as a form of communication. Even if the victim is randomly selected, an act of terrorism usually intends to send a planned message. Thus, it is crucial to understand the context in which terrorism has emerged.

Globalization appears to be leading into declination of diversity and elimination of some groups, Dr. Moghaddam further believes; thus, this is the threat to the “identity” of minority groups. It is fear of losing identity that triggers violence and terrorism — be it Muslim, Kurd, Jewish, Christian, etc. This fear, then turns into the idea of “Them v. Us”, and that “them” trying to destroy our culture and identity.

Globalization may be, in fact, fueling terrorism, which in turn, triggers communicating through violence. The violent communication consists of “anger” as a reaction to insult; and “hatred” as a result of anger and fear.

Thus, the rapid growth of the diverse population in the U.S. requires adoption of policies to manage cultural and linguistic diversity. Eventually, Sherif says, “even if all 12–15 million illegal immigrants either become legal or leave the country (an unlikely event), effective policies are still urgently required for managing inter-group relations among the enormously diverse population of over 300 million Americans, which today includes 37 million legal first-generation immigrants.”

A few theories have been suggested to manage diversity and prevent conflicts in the process of globalization. One theory aims to eliminate differences among the groups, while another theory intends to celebrate differences based on the assumption that this will lead to openness and embracing other groups’ differences.

The opponents of these theories, however, believe that these approaches may make the minorities feel being singled out or may even lead to profiling. While even insignificant factors may become basis for differences, eliminating them may make the minorities feel being differentiated. Thus, theory of eliminating differences doesn’t seems to be practical. On the other hand, there is no evidence that celebrating differences will lead the to openness and be accepting toward the minorities.

Facing problems with these two theories led to further social research of inter-group relations, leading to the rise of the theory of Omniculturalism. In this theory, emphasize will be placed on the groups’ commonalities such as their goals and identities, while intergroup differences will be considered at the next stage. This theory focuses on the similarities amongst the groups before highlighting their differences.

Is there any evidence of success of the last theory? Not really, but it is another theory that may or may not work.

While immigration and illegal immigrants are both government and public issues, managing the diverse population remains a challenge that demands close attention. It seems like the policy makers look at the immigration/illegal immigrants issue as if it is a cancer tumor. While realizing the urgency of the situation, yet they don’t want to touch it, because it may opens up and cause other issues. Thus, they leave the tumor undisturbed, thinking that It’ll eventually either burst or go away; if it goes away (highly impossible) then the problem is solved, Amen; but if it bursts, then we get to it.