How to Reach a Global System


            In our last module we discussed the possibility of a global public sphere. Our conclusions, while varied and ironically, inconclusive, did agree on one point. We do not currently exist in a such a system. If we do not now, how would we as humankind reach that end? Our readings for this module and basic logic offer two possible answers. Option one, a single hegemonic power rises, gradually taking over the control of all other territory, through means physical, economic, or digital. Option two, something vaguely along the lines of the United Nations arises as governing body for the world. Whether that governance is entirely equal is something for socialist thinkers to argue over.
            The rise of a single, hegemonic power is a favorite topic in today’s sociopolitical circles. It is easy to imagine similar conversations occurring, though perhaps at a lower volume in both senses of the word, when Rome, England, the Huns, and the Ottomans lost their respective grips on their lands. This is of course not a complete listing of historic empires, and we must keep in mind that we lack written records for others in less Euro-Mediterranean-centric locales. However, today’s debate encompasses more territory than ever before, particularly when you consider economic control. China, to continue beating a dead horse of a topic, has substantial investments in projects in many African nations, and recently became more overt in their efforts to insert themselves into South American spheres. Could this be the way to rise above the near-century of American control? Further still, could this be the route to a single hegemon’s control of the international system, thus creating a kind of global system in which trade and relations are determined by Chinese will?
            Perhaps the answer lies in my second theory, a quasi-equal international governance that slowly blurs the lines between nations. The European Union is the closest we have to a visual for this, and with Brexit the long-term applicability of the system had been called into question. Loudly. Brexit really drives home the ‘fall’ part of ‘the rise and fall of the great powers’. It is a good reminder to consider the consequences of such a fall. Sometimes in the past another power rises to fill the gap, as China has done while America turned her face inward. In other cases, usually due to outside interference, there is a splintering effect. See the former British colonies and the regrettably thoughtless parsing of Ottoman Empire. Different yet again, the void left behind by the British when they left/were forced to exit India pushed together many formerly independent states into one mostly cohesive nation. India’s current internal situation can be a topic for another day.
            One point to note regarding all these divisions is they tend to result in bloodshed at some point or another. As we watch the British stumble through their Brexit negotiations and China, America, Russia, and other nations vie for the position of international top dog someone should at least ask what would happen should a global public sphere fall.

Comments

  1. AnonymousAugust 6, 2018 at 3:20 PM

    Hey Emma, I will play devil's advocate here and suggest that indeed we do live in a global public sphere. I do not believe that a global public sphere requires a strict set of rules which are uniformally enforced by some leviathon. Rather, a global public sphere is evident in alternative methods for influence on a state from the outside. Minority groups within a nation can reach out to well-formed international institutions to gain legitimacy and aid. This of course is not a perfect equation and irregularities exist, but I think it is the beginning of a global sphere where individuals can transcend national boundaries to effectuate change. Of course this is the constructivist/liberal side of me speaking. What are your thoughts regarding this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHAugust 9, 2018 at 8:48 PM

      I think you definitely have a valid viewpoint. I agree, to an extent, that we have a global public sphere, but I see it more as the beginning of one. I think throughout the next decade as the internet reaches further across the globe we will be closer to your ideal of minority groups truly having their own voice.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousAugust 8, 2018 at 11:04 AM

    Thank you for your response. While I believe that it will me difficult to avoid confrontation between nations, for many reasons, I think it is natural for countries to want to compete against each other. Even as individuals, it is common for one to try to improve oneself. In the global arena, however, self-improvement might cause problems for the global order and any harmony that may exists amongst actors . For example, the U.S.’s attempt to break away from the current systems in place will affect everyone else, better for some and worse for others. I believe the same is true for Brexit. However, the difference between division and conflict experiences in the past and present day is the way we face changes. I believe in the present and in the future we will (hopefully) experience less bloodshed and violence in the face of change. Those seem like the preferred strategies of the past. Today, I believe actors are more fearful of technological disturbances (data hacking) and economic sanctions. Regardless, power transitions and hegemonic stability seem inevitable because we are human and to reach a perfect multi-polar seems highly unlikely, at least in my time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHAugust 9, 2018 at 8:51 PM

      I stand in complete agreement Alex. To me, the global public sphere is more of an ideal than a reality. I think Austin's point that a global public sphere doesn't necessarily have to be a single, perhaps hegemonic, leadership system is a good way to frame our readings for this bloc and apply it to real-life situations.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Balance of Power Theory is Not All Encompassing

There are several theories that attempt to explain the rise and fall of great powers. In reviewing the theories it appears that no single theory can account for every situation that has occurred in international politics at least the way in which these theories are currently elucidated. This is especially true concerning the balance of power hypothesis, which claims that international stability is created when there is an equilibrium among state actors, especially concerning militarily capability. However, findings show that hegemonic stability may ensue in a multi-state system. While the balance of power theory may account for some of the outcomes in world politics, to some extent, the theory loses credibility through its inability to account for variations between states and the rise and fall of great powers. The balance of power theory certainly does not hold true in the case of the United States. In my view, the US is the current hegemon and thus, we are living in a unipolar w...
Read more