The Ingredients for Social Change

I am a glocalist: an internationally-minded national citizen. Why? Because I truly believe glocalism is the perfect recipe for social change. By recognizing the global flows of responsibility, we are able to direct our actions in a way that will lead to long-term and sustainable living. Similarly, we must also acknowledge our locality: our identity is fundamentally explained by the region we live in, and it is the best method of political organization. Hence, glocalism fuses our two identities; it means adopting a global conscience whilst recognizing the local nuances in the way we act and think. And with the melodic and slightly self-contradictory soundtrack of “Feed the World” (otherwise know as “Do you know its Christmas time?” to the music fanatics among us) gently playing in the background of our childhood, I’d even argue that us Generation Z(oom)ers have been genetically-programmed into the idea of a glocal solution.

Arguably, one of the key strengths of glocalism is its call for a global coalition of nations to enact change. This is because COVD-19, climate change and conflicts are proving that social issues are no longer limited to the nation-state, but yet a complete global political order is both ineffective and unethical. To me, this inevitably calls for some form of pseudo-world governance. Yes, nations still remain the most effective vehicle for enacting local policy to stop virus spread (we turn to them first, after all). And yes, the organizations that already unknowingly embrace the glocalist identity to solve global problems, such as the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change, are relatively ineffective. But, to turn the tide on these global social injustices, it simply doesn’t make sense to rely on a nation-based system. The glocal system indulges the need to belong to a nation-state and to act locally, whilst encouraging global cooperation. In fact, adopting a truly glocal system may not just reduce global injustices; it may finally give an ear to the excluded.

However, there is one vital line that Band Aid conveniently forgot to write in: how can we feed the world without first feeding ourselves? Maybe it wouldn’t quite fit with the tune of the hit song, and it would definitely jar with the message. To spare the ears of 11.7 million loyal fans, let’s instead illustrate the contradiction in a more ubiquitous manner. Countries always take care of their own populations first, because of our tribal urge to take care of our ‘own’. Even if this means going to war, or environmentally devastating another nation, the health of the globe comes second. This is The First Manageable Conflict of Interest: at what point should we put the needs of other nations above our own?

Admittedly, I don’t quite know the answer yet. Nevertheless, I do know that glocalism doesn’t mean sacrificing the pursuit of national interests for wide global change- we don’t need to neglect global health in order to take care of our own. In fact, I’d argue that local needs often align with global goals. For example, lessening the impact of global climate change starts with you turning the lights off when you leave the room, or separating your rubbish into recyclable and non-recyclables. The impact of COVID-19 slows when we begin to wear masks in public, with transmission rates reducing by more than 95%. Solving global issues stems from alterations in local actions. Therefore, our actions need to transition from local to glocal. That is to say, instead of “feeding the world” we should aim at “feeding the world, one nation at a time”. Not quite the same ring to it, I know.

Here, some glocal-haters may present The Second Huge Conflict of Interest; How can we impose glocal actions if some citizens have never experienced the global identity? For an American student who enjoys one of the best education systems in the world, you are constantly given the opportunity to learn about climate change. Attempting to change your electricity plan to the eco-efficient version is more inconvenient than impossible. But, try explaining to the dirt-poor subsidence farmer in the high hills of Nepal that his traditional method of aquifer exploitation will eventually lead to the desertification of the Aral Sea. In short, there is an inherent privilege that prevents many of people in the world from being glocal citizens.

However, I do believe there is one principle of glocalism that partially alleviates this problem of privilege. That is, we can instill global principles in these isolated communities by drawing on local identities. Imagine this Nepalese farmer again. We could propose this issue of climate change in a different manner, using Buddhist ideals that state ‘we should avoid abusing the Earth’. Perhaps, we could suggest he collect rainwater instead of draining the aquifer, which appeals to his local culture and is also more sustainable. That would be much better than outright accusing the farmer of being a Climate Change Despot. By teaching social issues in the local framework, we may be able to re-connect the Global North and South. Now, I know this doesn’t solve ‘The Second Huge Conflict of Interest’, but it does take a step in the right direction. If we are able to recognize that the Global South may just not be that Global, these otherwise alienated communities would be finally given the opportunity to connect to the global imaginary, strengthening the world community.

Yet, the image and understanding we have of another nation is invariably influenced by our own local identity; introducing Gargantuan Conflict of Interest Number 3. Consider one of the USA’s most controversial decisions. In my own travels to South Korea, the locals painted a frightening picture of the nation I thought I understood. In order to spare South Korea from the all-consuming hand of Communism, the US government purposefully funded the presidency of the kleptocrat Syngman Rhee. What we aren’t told is that before his rule, around 30% of the South Korean population was Buddhist. By the end, 5–7% were. Perhaps the USA wasn’t aware of this pseudo-genocide, and it truly thought it was helping mitigate the spread of evil communism. But, if you asked the South Koreans, Rhee’s authoritative rule pushed them more towards communism than before; the USA’s actions weren’t necessary. This is just one example of the US, or other Western Nations, imposing what they consider to be socially just on societies that may not agree. Essentially, the issue is that glocalism brings in multiple local identities. Each locality will have a different viewpoint on global order, and these are often contradictory (like the US and South Korea).

I’m sure you’re now wondering how I’m going to rebut this conflict with glocalism’s strengths. Truth is, we can’t. However, maybe these past experiences such as the South Korean regime change won’t take place in the era of glocalism, because vulnerable countries would be given equal standing with the global kingpins of China and the USA. Say glocalism did take over. A world coalition where every nation would be given equal voice- no matter its size, population or political clout- would be established. Hence, by maintaining local perspectives, we would avoid creating a homogenous society (which has many problems onto itself), and be able to progress on the immovable issues that still plague our world today. Perhaps, South Koreans would’ve been able to argue their perspective more resolutely, and thus have more say in the future of their own nation. Some may object saying that in this relatively meritocratic world system, nations that have worked hard to extend their influence have earned the right to a higher political standing. But, this may be the very issue preventing an equal society; nations know what’s best for themselves. If we were to give a secure voice to the left-behind, this conflict of local perspectives would be diminished, catalyzing an unprecedented wave of social change.

So, it is now with great trepidation that I call all you glocalists to arms. Whilst some of you may be internally cringing at yet another proposal for ‘big think’ nebulous concept, and some of you may dismiss its potential because of the conflicts outlined above, I still believe that glocalism is the middle ground that may just be good enough to drive widespread social change. There is a need for a cadre of glocal citizens to reshape today’s society; you (and your counterpart in the plains of Mongolia) are the beginning. It is about time we begin to “feed the world, one nation at a time”.