
By way of further explanation: A non globalised country is dominated naturally by warriors (loot, land, triumphs) and religious (stability, population) elites. Artists/Entertainers of various stripes have their place. Merchants, scientists/magicians are generally on the fringe.
Globalisation throws these elites and their counterparts from other nations together. This has a synergistic effect for the merchants (trade), scientists/magicians (flow of ideas) and cultural elites (bigger audiences). They become more important to the nation and their prestige increases. The once dominant elites falter. Warriors are effected as war becomes more ritualized and its outcome more predictable and less profitable compared to trade. Religion suffers also. Different customs and beliefs makes people question the ones they have been taught. Exposure to different self contained religious systems causes doubt to take place and allows for atheism and agnosticism to take root. The faithful that do remain are generally less committed than their predecessors despite momentary reactions.
The new elite then conspire with their counterparts in other nations to their mutual benefit. Globalisation then increases not necessarily because it now benefits its host nation but because it benefits those who are most advantaged by globalisation that already exists. Nations are powerless to stop this because to reduce globalisation dramatically has drastic and dire consequences. (See Smoot-Hawley, Great Depression, WWII)
Consider the two great eras of globalisation in world history: late antiquity and the past couple of hundred years. How well does this match their pattern?
1 comment:
Just a small addendum. A common religion across nations does benefit from globalisation and it usually just by existing promotes the beginning of an international order. Example: Christendom, Islam etc.
Post a Comment