Global Public Sphere on Trial

            While reading McNamara, it seems that there was a lot of energy towards the European Union with regard to a changing of the old guard. Nearly a decade later, it seems like the global public sphere is still wishful thinking that we seem unable to obtain. The EU seemed to be the best visualization of such an idea, yet nationalism and increased fractionalization has thrown this image into question.
            The public sphere doesn't seem to be sustainable as an idea in our current state of world politics. Even within the United States, the idea of integration is being questioned by current political trends and a growing divide in ideas of what our future should look like. It seems we have become so disenfranchised with out neighbors, that slavery seems to be on par with gay rights as legitimate things to discuss within the public sphere. Radicalization has thrust our nation into stratified chaos. If the US can't keep its own borders at bay, what does this say about the EU? We may have some degree of geological atunement, but our ideas seem even more impermeable.
            The EU tried to create a framework for nations to share in a greater picture. This union seems to be questioned more and more, however, as the years pass. When the PIGS countries emerged, debt was the number one question of atunement for the EU. Why would I pay for someone who isn't my kin? Fast forward this sentiment, and we have Britain exiting the EU, and countries like Italy bashing the ideals (while having benefited from its bailouts). Nationalist sentiment will be the largest threat to the global public sphere based on these observations.
            When countries don't have to focus on just basic necessities, it becomes harder for these countries to see eye to eye on other issues. Why should I care about your human rights if my water is dirty? Why should I worry about your pollution when my factories are getting regulated? It is hard to get one country, or even one union to agree, let alone the world. The global public sphere suffers from a deference of authority that nations seem unwilling to give up as long as they are not forced to. If the EU was the best example of the global public sphere thriving, then our world is not ready to come together for the public good.
         

Comments

  1. AnonymousJuly 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM

    The leaders of the post World War era understood that life could not continue in a world plagued by bloodshed. Thus, European heads of state formed the EU because they understood that in order to achieve peace amongst men an overarching institution must to be formed to prevent the return to chaos and a violent the past. The EU is a way to ensure that the lines of communication are open between member states. The structure was based upon shared values, agreements to make life smoother between actors, and there were ground rules which they all should adhere by for the greater good of the the people of Europe. If the laws and regulations it enforces are violated the deviant member states will be penalized. So, the EU also works as a system of checks-and-balances among its members. This is good because being held accountable to a higher authority and institution where there are strict rules and punishments diminishes member’s desire to behave aggressively towards a neighbor within the union. Not only is there the threat of sanctions but the fact that you will upset many partners is something greatly taken into consideration. In this globalized world it is almost a given that anything you do, or don't do, affects actors beyond your territory. And thus, the actors within a body such as the EU tend to be more thoughtful about their actions because the consequences are that much greater.

    As for the rise of nationalism, I would like to believe that it is just a momentary thing and something that will pass. I think the EU has been around long enough that too many member states and the public sphere will be afraid to leave it. While some people may be unhappy with Brussels I think the risk of leaving brings about more fear because of the uncertainty and risk it poses on individual member states. I think the majority of Europeans understand the benefits that mutual understanding and cooperation bring to their countries. If there is no overarching authority checking state actors then it’s back to a free for all and were reverting back to the political landscape that existed before WWII. Also, I think that nationalism is on the rise because of the number of refugees/migrants flooding into Europe. The public sphere is being heavily influenced by extreme politicians and the media about the cause of trouble in their perspective countries who are unwelcoming and placing blame on the EU. Thus, many people are taking out their frustration on the institution itself. Instead, I think instead of threatening to leave the EU they should be talking about ways to control the situation.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more