Defining globalisation - Buddhist Response to Free Market System

[Janet M Eaton]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/120502_Perspective/12May2002_pers57.html

Bangkok Post
May 12, 2002

Defining globalisation
A Buddhist response to the free market system

SULAK SIVARAKSA

Sometimes I feel that globalisation is not really an accurate
descriptor of the age we are said to be living in. The word
``globalisation'' is at best too socially neutral, at worse highly
misleading and deceptive. I prefer catchwords such as ``free market
fundamentalism'' and ``extreme modernism'' to ``globalisation''.

``Free market fundamentalism'' is a more accurate descriptor because
globalisation, which preaches the interdependence of nations, the
mutuality of their interests, and the shared benefits of their
interactions, has triggered the very opposite consequences, e.g.,
increasing dependence of ``developing'' states on ``developed
states'', increasing inequalities between the North and the South,
investors and workers, agro-businesses and peasants, widening income
inequalities within and between states.

As a result of the free market system, the natural environment in
large pockets of the world is also in ruins beyond repair,
threatening ecological equilibrium and human survival in general.

And despite these obvious consequences, we are told that the free
market system is still not free enough; there are still barriers to
trade; economies have to be further deregulated or restructured at
almost all costs; and so on. All these must be done in the name of
progress, prosperity, development.

If this faith in the emancipatory power of the free market system is
not akin to fundamentalism, then what is? It must be pointed out that
we are in a post-colonial world, not a post-imperial one.

``Extreme modernism'' is also a more accurate descriptor because we
are living in a world characterised by the intensification,
radicalisation, and universal spread of ``modernity''. One Thai
scholar has called this ``the age of extreme modernism'', whereby
``modernity now relies simply on its own justification and devours
all other forms of actualisation of human beings.'' Other forms of
human aspirations are degraded as inferior _ the products of weak and
abnormal minds. The implication is clear: there is only one way to be
sane and normal.

Decolonisation ``did not fully re-establish the equal value of the
cultures of the decolonised nations,'' writes Robert Young, a well-
known post-colonial theorist.

This is understandable, as the development concept of modernisation
is racially coded. Its intellectual precursor is none other than
Europeanisation.

The renowned syndicate columnist Thomas Friedman has even labelled
critics of globalisation ``advocates of a flat earth''. According
to Friedman, these critics are locked in the abnormal past, refusing
to accept the unilinearity of time.

If my criticism of globalisation makes me a flat-earther, so be it.
For all of us who are interested in freedom, justice, non-violence,
democracy, and environmental sustainability we should intensify our
activism, criticisms, and analyses _ not seal our lips, refuse to
think and disengage ourselves from the sufferings in the world.

Luckily, and here I may be overly optimistic, the term
``globalisation'' may be an overstatement, inviting resignation or
fatalism. We are in a globalising world as opposed to a globalised
one. As such, we all still have a chance to define its contours and
contents before the centre is occupied without our participation. It
is indeed empowering to feel that we all can still make a difference.

- Sulak Sivaraksa is a noted social critic and writer.

--
For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/