TED Author Misses the Boat on ‘Global Values’
In the face of backlash, it’s clear that globalism must serve people to survive.
I can forgive this TED author, who seems like an earnest, intelligent person. Chris Anderson’s post decries the problems facing the world today, and in particular, the problems facing the liberal idea of an interconnected world of shared values.
I can also sympathize with Chris, because I share many of the values of interconnectedness — breaking down barriers, putting an end to hate, standing up for human dignity for all.
What is impossible to ignore, however, is that Chris’s idea of “global values” is impossible for millions — if not billions — of people around the world. He talks of globe-trotting to TED conferences and meeting exciting young people with fresh ideas. He speaks of the exuberance of the younger generation for these connections and exchanges and his experience as a globe-trotting young man.
The key may be to stop framing this dream as a top-down system driven by faceless global elites who tell us all what to do, but instead as a flourishing of human possibility that’s happening right here on the ground. People from all corners of the globe connecting with each other and discovering to their delight that they share so many hopes and dreams, and also have so many remarkable things to learn from each other, and to be amazed by each other.
But the reality for many in the world is that however much young people crave finding others with shared interests, that interconnectivity can happen, at best, on the glass screen of a mobile internet connection, or at worst, only in their dreams.
We live in a time of twin dangers — one, immediate, and one underlying. The immediate danger is that people who “have not” are angry. People who feel left behind by globalism are voting to withdraw — either democratically, like Britain and the GOP primaries, or apathetically, or violently.
The underlying, far-reaching danger is something that Chris briefly touched on, but quickly brushed aside: the future of work and mass disenfranchisement of large parts of the world population.
Businesses have always run to low wage areas like water runs downhill. I live in the northeastern United States, where mill jobs were plentiful — until cheaper, non-union labor could be found down South. Then, those mill jobs left the South for overseas. Next, those jobs are becoming automated. The result of this trend has been gutted, depressed communities that undergo great hardship while trying to create a new identity and stay afloat. There are some success stories — places like Northampton, Massachusetts, Providence, Rhode Island, (and, frankly, Brooklyn, New York) — but there are also communities that are still reeling from industries lost decades ago.
These communities face a tough fight — keeping the community from unravelling, and families from unravelling, too. Families struggle when members lose work, or cannot find employment. Pathologies rise, and even the most morally-upright among them cannot escape the hard choices that poverty and low-income impose. There are no trips to TED conferences contemplated in these settings — not to Sydney, not to London, not even to the coliseum 45 minutes away.
I’m in favor of a global, interconnected world — because that’s how we can fight for dignity for our neighbor down the street and our neighbor across the pond. But that interconnected world rings hollow when it’s about jet-setting for those who have already found success in the knowledge economy.
An interconnected world is valuable not in itself, but for what it promises for real people — greater knowledge, greater opportunity, and freedom from want and oppression. We’re failing at this vision in the United States and we’re failing at this vision around the world.
Until we have a plan that embraces the folks whose financial and community situations limit their access to this global world, we will have a world of “haves” and “have nots” even if the “what” we have or lack changes. As long as this situation continues, there will be anger and resentment and we will not be able to convince people (or even truly convince ourselves) of the value of globalism.
Look at the Middle East’s ‘Arab Spring.’ It was broadcast over youtube and smart technology — a real example of technology promoting progress. But, without a commitment to dignity and shifting real political and economic power, that technology did nothing more than give more people greater access to the pain and suffering happening there. The hard work comes once the problem is exposed — that is something we have not mastered yet.
The same is true even in the United States. Technology cannot save all old milltowns without an investment in its people. Technology can also shed a light on injustice in poor and urban communities — like drawing attention to racial violence — but again, it won’t solve the problem until we focus on what we can do for those who are disenfranchised and marginalized. We need to put our energy into empowering and providing opportunity for all.
What will make globalism and ‘openness’ a more potent force? Saying ‘yes’ to trade deals — but only when they benefit working people and promote human rights. Expanding public access to globalism’s resources — perhaps even subsidized or free internet access as part of ‘infrastructure investment’ since it is often the way to give people access to the knowledge economy and it also acts as a major tool of commerce.
Right now, it seems like the biggest champions of globalism are those who it most caters to — the people who can attend conferences and globe-trot. Instead of upper-middle-class navel-gazing, we need a movement that focuses on the good of the many and empowers the many economically and socially — more like Walter Reuther than Mark Zuckerberg.
If you like what you just read, please hit “recommend” below. For more, please follow The Fireside on Medium, Facebook, and Twitter.
