Globalism and localism: resolving the paradox
Has the COVID pandemic put an end to globalisation? Are we indeed descending in the new middle ages, where barbarians can see nothing beyond state boundaries? These questions give no other choice but to consider globalism and localism as binary oppositions that have been clashing for decades now.
However, what if we are mistaken? What if localism shouldn’t be associated with lack of mobility or something outdated? What if these political narratives were never contradictory? It seems improbable, but the fact is that universalistic and indigeneity-focused standpoints are two halves of the same whole.
- The more we are standing for global governance as a network of countries, the more knowledgeable we become about distant societies and their living standards. That, in turn, makes us aware of our local issues with which we should deal before they turn into big problems.
- On the other hand, once we are bogged down in territorial confines, we lose sight of crucial for planetary future dreams and, despite our whereabouts, we keep searching for opportunities to transcend far away from boring givenness.
Is there any explanation for this paradox?
Let’s revise Kant’s views on history, its main goal and obstacles in the way towards the kingdom of ends — a society, in which every individual is regarded as a personality, but not as a tool to indulge egoistic whims.
In the article “Idea for a universal history from a cosmopolitan point of view”, Kant uncovered the downside of human nature and came to the notion of unsocial sociability — an aggressive feature that brought about social progress and enforced people to get united into communities.
But a man also has a strong propensity to isolate himself from others, because he finds in himself the unsocial characteristic of wishing to have everything go according to his own wish.
At the same time
Men, good-natured as the sheep they herd, would hardly reach a higher worth than their beasts; they would not fill the empty place in creation by achieving their end, which is rational nature.
In terms of practical life, savage instincts are the only root of our aspirations to be god-like creatures as well as to get access to the social world and be recognized as a microcosm. And if not for this self-centeredness, we would have never strived for a better life or obeyed the rules of different collectives, such as family, a company, and a nation.
How does this point help to clarify the tension between local and global levels?
Until the onset of the quarantine and complete digitalization of every aspect of life, the one way to live as free as possible was to join offline communities. They provided their members with a bunch of material and immaterial goods: food, shelters, traditions, a link to supernatural dimensions — whatever we were looking for.
Of course, you can argue that people could have lived on their own thousands of years ago, but they didn’t have such extraordinary abilities to stay safe from chaotic perils or rationalize every single minute we have. Instead, humanity had to bring sacrifices to numerous gods in vain hope of reaping crops in the next autumn.
Dating back to the twentieth century and up to the emergence of the internet, one way to survive and stand a chance for a prosperous future was to join the most beneficial country that gave access to public services. And that was a quite accepted principle of industrial societies, the main feature of which was the cult of machinery. Like no one couldn’t take a step away from their workplace in a factory, no one was able to break connections with their surroundings.
Beyond that, time flies faster than we can conceive, and flows of online content blurred the distinction between the far and the near. While people who are still mentally drifting in the industrial order define themselves through classical ideologies (religions, nationalism), the most successful ones are almost not dependent on national fate or any other forms of local unification. Even more, nor are they longing for membership in communities (no matter what advantages the latter ones offer).
So, what’s going on? Is localism just a benign illusion that clouds minds of the working poor? Why is it bound to dissipate, and what trend will reset social communications despite fierce resistance?
Technologies and self-sustainability
Thanks to the rise of technologies, nowadays we don’t need to forge and maintain relationships, following survival instincts.
- Why should we go across half a city to buy something, whereas it is easier to order the same items online?
- Why do we have to rush to offices every morning, whereas we can get remote jobs, frequently tempting with higher salaries?
- Why are we supposed to wait in infinite queues to pay bills, whereas we can make use of online banking?
At this point, I am not trying to play down the importance of reality with face-to-face contact, but rather to stress the unprecedented existence of the alternative networking society with its head-turning speed and evidently capitalistic approach.
Furthermore, it becomes increasingly clear that we not only embraced Zoom and messengers as a part of communication channels but also are facing a fundamental restructuring of our selves and societies in accordance with the rules of the digital universe. In particular, the online realm somewhat liberates us from people around and cultures hovering above. On top of that, it gives a wealth of new no-place identities.
The self and kaleidoscope of identities
We are used to taking in the news from the mainstream media, which throw light on particular countries, cities or provinces. In this case, despite our inability to admit it explicitly, each of us antecedently attaches ourselves to an imposed community.
On the contrary, digital/social media inclines to perceive you as an individual. Whatever race or nationality we belong to, the internet cuts across all continents and enables us to put ourselves in someone else’s information spheres and get fulfilled with common ideas. This flexibility is rooted in the network’s universal nature: however strong and long-lasting interests you have gained from real empirical experience, virtual ones can replace them.
Hence the shift towards global fandoms and transnational social movements is inevitable: and that is what we come across when we analyze various cooperative platforms ranging from Youtube to The World Economic Forum.
So, here are only two poles: your self plugged in the internet and the entire planet with 7 billion humans, myriads of gliding virtual communities, plus countless fragmentary narratives.
Is individualism a consequence of globalization? Presumably yes, as long as globalization causes outsourcing and we must compete on the international market. For better or for worse, the essential division between us occurs only by one category — quality of content in our minds. So, all we can do to better a future and be really successful is adopt global values, choose all-inclusive objects (inequality, climate changes, infrastructure, human rights, innovations, etc.) and improve that situation wherever we can.
