Towards the end of our session yesterday evening, a question
was raised regarding the possibility of a single unified government to lead all
the people on Earth. Frankly, the thought
of a global government does not sit well with me. I’m not talking about organizations like the
United Nations or the International Criminal Courts, or any of the
international platforms discussed in our first group presentations. I’m referring to the idea of one governmental
body ruling the entire planet, a complete organized unification of the
countries and cultures we know today.
While Hobbes would probably flip somersaults at this ultimate culmination
of his Contract Theory, I want to offer my personal cautions in fighting for
such a unipolar world.
In order for the contract to work at such a high echelon,
there must be a threat greater than anything we know in the present world, a
threat so imminent and dangerous that it threatens the most basic way of life
(ie – aliens, as Professor Shirk so suggested), encouraging us to join together
and give our covenant to a defined leader or group of leaders. From my window of the world, I don’t see
people uniting against such a threat anytime soon, certainly not in my
lifetime. Additionally, our world is
currently so divided any total unity seems like an unrealistic dream.
Even if some sort of global “peace” and unity was to be
achieved I highly doubt it would last very long. Historical examples that come close could
include Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and Great Britain (back in their
heyday, of course). They ruled such
large portions of the world, but as soon as certain leaders died, the power
structure immediately shifted and changed.
In my humble opinion, Hobbes’s Social Contract works better at
relatively smaller levels. It may not
eradicate all conflict, but it’s more realistic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCourtney, I agree. While we need some global organization to provide a framework for negotiation and a means by which to keep us from destroying each other, without diversity in governance our perspective would be limited. You will enjoy Intercultural Communication and reading Edward T. Hall. He speaks very specifically to our lack of understanding one’s own culture without stepping outside it. I think the same is true for all aspects of it– political, economic, social, psychological, physical. The more insular we are, the greater tendency we have to think anything that is different from what we do - how we say things, the rules we impose, and so on - is weird or inappropriate or, worse, terrifying. The greater the exposure, the less likelihood of fear and conflict that arises from it.
ReplyDeleteI do not think we will ever have an entirely peaceful world. We are human. But, I do think we can move closer to that ideal without having to sacrifice the crazy, beautiful, nuanced stuff of humans that keeps us thinking and exploring and discovering – and messing up now and again.
Still, as you might have gathered from my blog, I also think we need to do a better job through our international organizations by granting them some power to more effectively address non-compliance with states that do not act within the bounds of reason.
I do think there is one imminent threat we share now that can only be addressed on a unified front and immediately – that of global warming. It is heartening to know that language was honed in Paris sufficiently to come to some agreement and that China and the United States came together this month to formally commit to it. Reason seems to be working in this regard, at last. For the agreement to go into effect requires ratification of 55 countries representing 55% of emissions. But, there is still legwork to do. With Brazil’s ratification two days ago, we are still only at 28 countries and 42%. The U.S. and China constitute almost 40% of that and Brazil, over 2%. Most of the others are island nations, though, believe it or not, North Korea ratified in August.
Which leads me to an area in which I think reason does not work: WMD proliferation, whether nuclear, biological, or chemical. Add one sociopathic leader to the mx and we have a huge problem. That the DPRK has conducted five nuclear warhead tests in defiance of the world community is absurd. The UNSC strengthens sanctions to no effect. Where the act of defiance is, by all accounts, egregious, the world as a community needs a means by which to respond with action and urgency appropriate to the offense.
I'd like to echo Kirstin's comment on Intercultural Comm and Edward Hall. I think that course works extraordinarily well in conjunction with some of the topics covered in this class. I say this because, like you all, I concur that we are very far from achieving a level of global unity that would create an organization that is sovereign over all of humanity. Culture, as the origin of and in conjunction with, the present system of sovereign nation-states, will separate us until there is an 'other'. This 'other' is one of the key concepts that Edward Hall and the Intercultural Comm (IC) class discuss. Without travelling to a foreign culture, or in some way observing a foreign culture, we as humans cannot know our own culture. It's the notion that you cannot perceive color without contrast. In any case, this all comes around to suggesting that I believe natural threats such as global warming (when it becomes sufficiently menacing [aka, in our faces]) and the possibility of a large asteroid could temporarily unite the disparate nations of the world in common cause, but not common identity. Critically, the common identity part, is necessary for a lasting global government to form. The Romans achieved that to a certain extent in their Empire, as did the British, but then, they had outside threats (cultures) to which they could form their identities against (Persians, French, etc.). In the case of humanity as a whole, until we discover a foreign culture (intelligence extraterrestrial life), I find it highly doubtful that we will have the ability to form a common global identity.
ReplyDelete