pols 374 foundations of global politics global politics and the state lecture october 25, 2005

POLS 374 Foundations of Global Politics

Global Politics and the State Lecture

October 25, 2005

Global Politics and the StateBiswas: W(h)ither the Nation-State?

Basic argument: Author disagrees with those who believe the nation-state is in crisis or is somehow in danger of disappearing or being replaced.

At the same time, author does agree that something is happening and that the nation-state as we currently know it is not impervious to change


Key Points First, notes that most scholars who believe the

nation-state is in crisis focus on two inter-related processes.

The first is pressure from below, or the forces of fragmentation, and the second is pressure from above, or the forces of globalization.


Key Points Biswas notes that these scholars also assume that

the forces of fragmentation and globalization are part of the same process, a process that operates according to a very strict logic.

In this view, the state is seen largely as a passive object, pushed and pulled in different directions by forces over which it has little or no control. The end result is the demise of the state.


Key Points Second, Biswas argues that a big problem in many

contemporary analyses is based on an analytical mistake. Specifically, the author argues that many writers confuse the related, but separate processes of nation-building and state-making.

But nation-building and state-making, according to Biswas, are analytically separate processes. To be sure, they overlap, but this does not mean that they are the same.


Key Concepts Nation-building relates the construction of a

common identity, or a form of “cultural community.”

State-making, on the other hand, refers to the creation of a particular type of political institution with the authority to make and enforce decisions on behalf of a political community.


Nation-building and State-making: Conceptual Issues There is, as I’ve already suggested, a tendency to

conflate concepts of nation-building or state-making--that is, to see them as largely one-in-the-same. This is a mistake.

To understand why, and to understand why it is dangerous to conflate the concepts, we need to take a step back. In particular, need to consider what the concept of “nation-building” really means.


National Identity and Nation-Building Biswas suggests that we cannot discuss nation-

building without understanding that it is, first and foremost, a process of creating a “national identity.”

As we have learned from our textbook, “national identity” is a powerful force in global and international politics.


National Identity and Nation-Building: Key Points Biswas argues that there are no “natural” nationalities.

Instead, all national identities are, in an important sense, socially constructed or created. This is what is meant by nation “building.”

Example: Consider the case of Iraq today. One of the biggest problems facing the country right now is the lack of a cohesive, unifying “national identity.” Instead of one Iraqi identity, there are multiple, competing identities: Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds. The situation in Afghanistan is even more complex and volatile.


National Identity and Nation-Building: Key Points Some scholars use the concept of an “imagined” political

community to describe the process of nation-building.

Nations are imagined “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (quoting from Benedict Anderson)


National Identity and Nation-Building: Key Points Second Point: Biswas argues that state-building is often

premised on nation-building, and vice versa; that is, once a national identity is created, members of the nation want or demand their own state.

At the same time, nation-building has always been a project of the state. That is, most states are deeply concerned with building and then maintaining over time a national identity.

But this raises an important question: Why do states need nations? (Discuss)


National Identity and Nation-Building: Key Points

States need nations …

because claims to “nationhood” give the state authority over its people as well as international standing within a larger system of states.

Nationhood is the way for states to seek and ensure legitimacy within a system of states in which the ideal of the nation-state is a universal organizing principle for collective identity.


Globalization and Fragmentation Coming back to the author’s main argument:

Biswas does not dispute the argument that states are subject to two competing pressures: fragmentation from below and globalization from above. And, he does not disagree that these are important forces operating in the world today. What he believes, though, is that the consequences and implications of these forces are not as clear cut as they may appear. Consider fragmentation …


Globalization and Fragmentation There is plenty of evidence to show that states are

fragmenting. All one needs to do is look around the world: from obvious cases such as Bosnia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia, to less obvious places such as Spain, Canada, and even Hawaii.


Globalization and Fragmentation: Hawaiian Independence? “THE STORY IS a familiar one: a small nation with a distinct ethnic

and cultural identity, struggling against a dominant and oppressive overlord. But this is not Kosovo or Tibet. It's a favorite travel destination: Hawaii, where an aggrieved native population is demanding a change after a century of U.S. rule. While the rude cry of "Haole, go home" is seldom heard, virtually all Native Hawaiians want to repair or even reverse what they see as the unjust and illegal U.S. military-backed overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.”

For more, go to: http://www.hawaii-nation.org/flag.html and

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/


Globalization and Fragmentation To Biswas, the real question is not so much

whether fragmentation is occurring (of course it is!); rather the question is: What are the implications of fragmentation for the future of the nation-state?


Globalization and Fragmentation

To answer the question, we need to understand, first and foremost, that fragmentation is really only a threat to the existence of particular states, not the system of nation-states as a whole.

This is an important observation, for, if correct, it tells us that fragmentation, rather than challenging the ideal of the nation-state, is actually a testament to its success.


Globalization and Fragmentation The logic here is simple: People challenge existing nation-

states because they no longer consider the state that supposedly represents their interests legitimate.

This may be because the state has marginalized or subordinated their identity or excluded them from the political process. The best solution, then, is to create their own state.


Globalization and Fragmentation Repeating Key Point: From Biswas’ perspective,

we can see that the forces of fragmentation do not, in any fundamental way, undermine the legitimacy of states as a whole; if anything, just the opposite is the case: Fragmentation, paradoxically, reflects the continued importance and significance of the state.



What about the forces of globalization? What effect is globalization having on states? Is the effect positive, negative, or something else? (Discuss)



Biswas agrees that globalizing forces are having a “negative” effect on states, but this doesn’t mean that states will ever disappear.

To understand the logic of Biswas’ position, we need to recognize that there are at two distinct aspects of globalization: economic and cultural.



Economic globalization: The basic argument among those who see the coherence of the state slipping away is that the shift from the internationalization of economic activities to the globalization of economic activities has reduced the ability of states to control and influence their own domestic economies.


Globalization and Fragmentation Biswas does not disagree with the basic story, but

it is important to understand that states are not dinosaurs. That is, states have a great capacity to change and adapt as the environment in which they make their decisions changes. Plus, unlike dinosaurs, states play a key role in shaping the environment of globalization. In other words, states are an agent of globalization--not simply a passive object.


Globalization and Fragmentation To put it simple, while states may no longer be

able to fulfill exactly the same role they have for the past 100 years or so, it is likely that they will develop new roles to play and in different forms.

Consider, in this regard, the European Union, or NAFTA, or other type of state-based organizations.


Globalization and Fragmentation We must also remember that states, however

imperfect they may be, will continue to be the site where ordinary citizens seek protection from some of the effects of global corporate capitalism.

In this regard, we should not forget the “lesson” of the 1920 and 1930s--that is, when capitalism began to fail, states had to step in to rework the system in major way. Without massive state intervention, capitalism--and globalization--may well have died right then and there.


Globalization and Fragmentation Cultural globalization: Refers to the

globalization of a common or shared set of ideas, beliefs, and values. These include: democracy, human rights, the nation-state, consumerism, and so on.



Main point: Cultural globalization is a process that simultaneously brings the world together (an homogenizing affect) and splits it apart.



Homogenizing aspects: Cultural globalization is largely responsible for the universalization of the appeal of the nation-state as an ideal cultural-political form of collective identity.



The global system of nation-states is based on global norms that define external and internal sovereignty

This aspect of cultural globalization, therefore, reproduces and sustains the nation-state system.


Globalization and Fragmentation Consumerist homogenization is another aspect of

cultural globalization, although it tends to pull the world in many different direction. Symbolized by the phrase, McWorld versus Jihad.

McWorld is global consumer culture, which may, on the surface, create a sense of transnational loyalty, but on the other hand, the invasion of corporate symbols tends to create the impetus to “rescue parochial identities.”


Globalization and Fragmentation Heterogenizing aspects of globalization: We are

increasingly living in a world where we have an expectation and even right of uniqueness

This leads to even more claims for national self-identity, which can lead to more fragmentation, because people expect the state to be the primary means by which their uniqueness is promoted and protected.



Given these contradictory tendencies, what is the future of the nation-state? How does Biswas answer this question?



The real question is what national identity or state identity will mean in the face of globalization and fragmentation. Here, too, the answer is unclear.



There is a possibility that these identities will broaden and be based more on supranational entities, such as the UN or the EU. But the author doesn’t think this can go too far – i.e., there almost certainly will never be a world government.


Globalization and Fragmentation At the same time, the author does see more of a possibility

that national identity may become a less meaningfully tied to specific territories (that is, a nation-state); if this happens, a whole new world of possibilities will emerge.

If this happens, it will be much easier to ask questions about those things that transcend national borders—human rights, the global environment, a non-national political community, alternative modes of democratic governance, and so on.



Concluding Point: Although the author does not say so, the path we take ultimately depends on the role that people play in global politics.

Global Politics and the StateBeck: “Beyond the Nation-State”

Basic Position: Beck focuses primarily on neoliberal globalization or the economic aspects of globalization and how this has affected local control, largely in negative terms.

According to Beck, what is globalization doing to most societies? (Discuss)


How do you think Beck would respond to the argument being made by the authors of Global Politics as if People Mattered? (Discuss)


Beck’s position is well-reflected in the following statement:

“The debate must begin on how responsible globalization can be politically molded and achieved. The age of globality should bring not the end of politics but a new beginning, through the growth of transnational states, such as the European Union, the development of international law, the rise of trade unions and consumer groups that cut across national boundaries, as Greenpeace and Amnesty International do. The paradoxical principle for states is one of self-empowerment through self-deprivation of power. Only by co-operating with others can post-national states renew and expand their capacity to influence events.”

pols 374 foundations of global politics global politics and the state lecture october 25, 2005

Documents

state biswas

nationbuilding biswas

state lecture

key concepts nationbuilding

international politics

key points biswas notes

concepts of nation

national identity