A Sample Position Paper

A SAMPLE POSITION PAPER Globalization A Transition to What? neaten, benzoin R. Introduction to jihad vs. Mc serviceman (New York Ballantine Books, 1996) Kobrin, Stephen J. Back to the Future Neo mediaevalism and the postmodernist digital World Economy, Globalization and Governance (London Routledge, 1999. After the bloody clashes mingled with anti-globalization protesters and the police in Genoa, globalization is once again on the humankinds order of business and it is here to stay.A dream to many and a nightmargon to new(prenominal)s, globalization is a widely debated issue among journalists and scholars, among intellectuals of all profiles, business people and decision-makers alike. Benjamin R. neaten, Walt Whitman professor of political science, and Stephen J. Kobrin, professor of multinational management, some(prenominal)(prenominal) join the discussion, each(prenominal) giving his own imaginativeness of what the post-modern future of this globalized world might to nus like. In jehad vs. McWorld Barbers fragmented and at the corresponding time integrated world is terminally post-democratic (20).It is pulled a ploughshare by two opposing forces disintegrating heathen hatreds and unifying mechanisms of global economy, none of which cares much for civic society and civilised liberties. In Barbers terminology Jihad stands for the blind parochialism of any kind, plainly gen termlly for tribal instincts that tear countries apart and cause bloody wars. McWorld epitomizes the world of consumerist capitalist economy corporate by commerce, entertainment and consumerism that knows no borders. Although Jihad seems like a more obvious threat to democracy, McWorld is no less dangerous because both are enemies of the sovereign nation produces and of democracy.Barber warns that democracy might be collateral damage from the confrontation between globalization and parochial fragmentation. opus Barber is primarily interested in the fate of democracy, K obrin gives a striking deal of attention to the problem of state sovereignty in the progressively integrated world. In Back to the Future Neomedievalism and the Postmodern Digital World Economy the key issue is the anticipated transformation of state sovereignty into new forms of political loyalty. Kobrin argues that sovereign state as we know it-firmly outlined within certain territorial reserve borders-is about to change profoundly, if non to pass off away.National markets are too small to be self-sustainable which challenges the meaning of territorial boundaries between states. Both authors acknowledge that sovereignty, defined as unambiguous authority, is threatened. Whereas Barber finds that alarming, Kobrin takes this as a historical inevitability modern state system, base on mutually exclusive jurisdiction, whitethorn be an anomaly earlier than a historically privileged form of political organizations. Kobrin argues that we should look at the medieval world for the ans wers to how the future might look like.Medieval resemblance offers a world of overlapping multiple authorities and absence of determined boundaries. It is a world of multiple political loyalties-to emperors, to the pope, to feudal lords-which are conglomerate rather than linear. Kobrins modern similarity is European Union, with its overlap of national, regional and supra-national authorities. The medieval metaphor seems attractive, but Kobrin forgets that the world of the Middle Ages was highly decentralized rather than unified, and in that sense radically different from our own.Medieval feuds, as scotch units, were self-sufficient and isolated-everything that modern markets are not. Kobrin himself argues that the integrated economy requires a inviolate central authority, perhaps not yet in the form of world government but certainly through stronger international organizations such as WTO. Clearly, this is a different kind of authority than a pope or an emperor might agree h ad in medieval world. Is medieval analogy applicable at all? If we follow Kobrins reasoning, it appears that the new world pull up stakes require more rather than less authority.Nation-states sovereignty may be eroding, but, as a result, we rush an increasing supra-national authority instead of a loose authority of the medieval type. Barber, on the other hand, may be launching an artificial dichotomy. While McWorld sounds like an apt metaphor for globalization, Jihad seems to be a superficial, emotionally charged term with multiple meanings. Barber draws on Yeats and Mary Shelly to define this heritage of race, the force of tribal instincts, antiquated hatreds, and fundamentalism. Although doubtless poetic, the concept of Jihad, as described by Barber, is confusing.He takes a few examples of ethnic conflict, such as Bosnia or Rwanda, and declares they are but a manifestation of the tribalisation phenomenon, but he does bantam to shop his thesis. Did Bosnia really fall apart bec ause of ancient, tribal hatreds? Barber overlooks the fact that peoples of Bosnia constitute been living peacefully with one another much foresighteder than they have waged wars. Reducing complex conflicts to an oversimplified, poorly defined phenomenon such as Jihad helps Barber support his shaky Jihad-McWorld dichotomy but does little to behave the reader that Jihad exists as such.Barbers and Kobrins views seem diametrically opposite whereas it may simply be that they are considering different issues. There is little plebeian ground between them in terms of problems they are interested in. They both take McWorld for granted, though. Neither challenges globalization nor tries to imagine the world as something other than globalized, digital, and integrated. Even Barber who laments over the destructiveness of Jihad admits that McWorld is the winner in the long run. Although they have different agendas, they are telling essentially one and the same thing-the future belongs to McWo rld.What with democracy, Barber asks? Everyone give be a consumer, but what will happen to citizens? For Kobrin, however, the problem does not exist just as we have civil societies within states today, in the future they will be replaced by global civil society with its mixture of state and non-state actors, NGOs, transnational movements. ar Barber and Kobrin debating at all? Their visions of the world in the future are not mutually exclusive. Barber comes up with a bold ruling that not even nations constitute main players today, but tribes.His description of balkanization, tribalisation and awakening of atavistic forces among peoples evokes images of dark Middle Ages. Barber warns that our civilization is origin to resemble medieval past in which the world consisted of warring fiefdoms unified by Christianity in our world, Bosnian Serbs and alike wage their ethnic conflicts time both the aggressors and the victims eat the same BigMacs, wear jeans and watch MTV. It seems that h e is overly looking at the world through medieval prism, albeit from its dark side. It is simply the dark side that Kobrin avoids confronting.He is intentionally focused on the practicalities of managing the world in the future so he lefts out of the picture the offensive details. Fragmentation is one of the issues that he chooses not to consider although he acknowledges that some authors, such as Kaplan offer a less optimistic vision of the world torn by refugee migration, private armies, collapse of nation state and civil order with it. Kobrins only response to this grim prophecy is little more than hope One hopes that such an age is not part of the neomedieval metaphor, hat a new and more terrifying barbarian is not on the horizon (183). Walled communities and private security forces that he admits appear increasingly today could be, Kobrin still hopes, only ephemeral products of a world in transition and not a permanent characteristic of the postmodern era (183). Barber, Benj amin R. Introduction to Jihad vs. McWorld (New York Ballantine Books, 1996) Kobrin, Stephen J. Back to the Future Neomedievalism and the Postmodern Digital World Economy, Globalization and Governance (London Routledge, 1999.