The Inevitability and Desirability of Globalization
Host: Walter Anderson

Opening

(Richard Farson) Welcome all of you to our new conference on globalization. A special welcome to Walter Truett Anderson, who will be our conference leader. As those of you who met and heard him at our annual meeting already know, Walt is a distinguished political scientist and social psychologist, president of the World Academy of Art and Science (he followed Harlan Cleveland into that job) and the author, most recently, of All Connected Now: Life in the First Global Civilization. I've known Walt for thirty years, and have discovered over and over again what a remarkable thinker he is, always on the cutting edge. We are in for a great ride, full of challenge and learning. So, a warm welcome to you, Walt. (Richard Farson)

(Walter Anderson) I proposed to Dick that we title this conference not just "Globalization," but "The Inevitability and Desirability of Globalization." I'll try to make my reasons for this clear as we proceed. For now let's just set the framework, and be sure we're all talking about the same thing. I have often thought that the weakness in so much of the dialogue (if you can call it that) about globalization is that people not only have different opinions, but are frequently talking about two different things: some are talking about the increasing integration of economic systems (I have books in my library that define globalization entirely in economic terms), and some are talking about a much larger process. I'd like for us to talk about the larger process. That doesn't prevent us from talking about its economic dimensions.

My favorite standard working definition of globalization, which comes from an Australian sociologist, is "a social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding." Another writer says that we are entering "an age of open systems," in which connections are made among systems that were once relatively separate, and in which boundaries often change, move, or disappear. I think this is correct, and that it applies not only to economic systems (economies), but also to political systems, cultural systems (cultures or communities), and ecosystems.

If this general view of things is correct -- and if it is a process that shows no signs of stopping or even of slowing down -- what do we do? How would we think about US foreign policy in such a context? What can we do about various environmental threats, or the well-being of people in poor and/or relatively isolated areas? Those are just a couple of questions we might consider, and as we do I hope we can also flesh out our vision of globalization itself.

U.S. Foreign Policy/Role as a Superpower

(Walter Anderson) If this general view of things is correct -- and if it is a process that shows no signs of stopping or even of slowing down -- what do we do? How would we think about US foreign policy in such a context? What can we do about various environmental threats, or the well-being of people in poor and/or relatively isolated areas? Those are just a couple of questions we might consider, and as we do I hope we can also flesh out our vision of globalization itself.

(Participant) Walt- Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to explore this topic under your well-informed leadership. Your initial comment regarding the general view of globalization clearly points to endless ramifications for society. I would like to add to your list of potential topics, as a subtopic under US foreign policy, the implications - for ourselves and others, of our current role as "world leader."

(Participant) Walt: great to have your hand on the helm again! I have only one starter question/idea. I hope it fits into your parameters for this discussion.

I am a full believer that globalization is here to stay, is inevitable, and can be turned into something good for our threatened planet. I am seriously disturbed that Bush treats it as a lever for his power, backed up by his feeling that our military is invincible. I also am concerned that the majority of our citizens are against our headlong move into Iraq but have been muzzled in ways that I don't fully understand.

In short, I am guessing that our visible national policy is dangerously out of sync with globalization and our role as a super power. If this is relevant to your plans for this session, it might be a good place to start.

(Walter Anderson) The comments from Patricia and Don indicate a strong interest in thinking about how this theme relates to what's currently in the headlines -- and on everybody's mind -- and, although I hope we'll get into other issues as the conference continues, that's a good place to start.
I don't think the current administration really grasps globalization at all.
I think an administration based on something like the view of the world that I suggested above would be really serious about multilateralism -- not just shopping for allies to follow its own view of national interest and security, but doing everything possible to build a global system of institutions based on the rule of law. It would recognize the importance of global public opinion, and the inevitable porosity of borders.

Question for general consideration: what might be some of the specific steps that would be taken if the US should decide to lead the way into a global civilization?

(Participant) My own approach to this topic differs from that suggested by Don. I expect that Walt will reconcile them!

The time factor is, I think, critical to this discussion. We might evaluate our options now and reach reasonable conclusions about which of them is, or might be, constructive. And, smart as we are, we might be wrong. I'd rather imagine, and discuss, the global relationships that we would like to see ten years down the road, and then consider our current options as promoting (or not) those results. (Does this sound familiar Dick?)

My concern is, of course, that we'll "shoot ourselves in the foot" by doing things quickly that we'll wish later that we hadn't done.

Why, Walt, did your Australian source not include economics along with social and cultural arrangements?

(Participant) I am ready to follow Walt's lead. But for different reasons. My concern is that the big WE is leading us on a course where we will shoot ourselves -- but in more fragile parts of our body than our feet.

Seriously, I think that there has seldom been a time when ideas coming from a group like ours -- no matter how small -- could be more important.

(Participant) I just returned from a week in Hawaii, my first vacation in years, to find this conference already fascinating and provocative. My question to all of you is based on what I perceive to be the main resistance to acting responsibly as nations in this inevitably globalized world, and that is our fear of losing power to the group. That is not a foolish assumption, of course, because, as we have seen in the push to get Bush to accommodate to the UN agenda, we are as a nation less able to act on our own (or perhaps should be) as we recognize our allegiance to international bodies. But is it possible that the same dynamic that occurs in management, wherein leaders distribute authority but lose none of their own--possibly even gaining power--could happen in international relations? That is, can we see the possibility of increasing our national influence by granting more authority to international organizations?

(Walter Anderson) Dick, welcome back. I think you come to the core of what I am trying to get at -- and your last statement relates strongly to my conviction that we need a vision or agenda uniting national aspirations with the emergence of a global system based on the rule of law and the recognition of ever-growing interdependence. The US has a considerable history of creating international organizations -- the UN, the system of alliances that were formed during the Cold War -- but is currently better-known for resisting the creation of new bodies such as the International Criminal Court.

(Participant) The Feb 3rd issue of Business Week carries front cover headlines "Is your JOB next? A new round of "GLOBALIZATION" is sending upscale jobs offshore. They include chip design, engineering, basic research-even financial analysis. Can America lose these jobs and still prosper?" The center spread article goes on to describe the world of outsourcing carried on by major US companies. GE already employs 20,000 people in India alone for example. China and India both had more college graduates than the US in 1999 one chart shows. "If foreign countries specialize in high-skilled areas where we have an advantage, we could be worse off." says Harvard University economist Robert Z. Lawrence, a prominent free trade advocate. "I still have faith that globalization will make us better off , but it's no more than faith."

Where do you come down on this, Walt?

(Walter Anderson) Doug, I think that in the long run globalization will prove to be -- at least to some extent -- an equalizing process that reduces rather than increases the wealth difference between, say, the US and India. It could conceivably, if you believe the techno-optimists, make us better off at the same time. That's only one scenario, but whatever happens we have to recognize that the head-start into the global economy that the US had after WW II has reached the end of its course, and that there will be more competition -- which means that (as Robert Reich pointed out years ago in The Wealth of Nations) every American worker has potential competitors all over the world. What do you think?

(Participant) It would seem to me that globalization, although it increases interdependence and therefore vulnerability among nations from long range missiles and other harms, would be a force for multilateralism. Yet we are on the brink of activating a strategic policy that is designed to establish absolute supremacy for the US. How might globalization have contributed to this development?

(Participant) Doug, I see no end to the kind of competition that you are describing. We will continue to lose markets to these countries, just as we lost the manufacture of television sets to the Asians. But we invented television, and innovation continues to be our strength. It remains to be seen if these other countries can beat us at that. College degrees are not sufficient to produce innovation. The question for me is whether or not, in our scandal-ridden, increasingly risk-averse society, bent on accountability, we can sustain that innovative edge.

(Walter Anderson) Dick, one piece of the answer to your questions about how we came to be where we are is that globalization brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union and therefore cleared the way for the emergence of the US as the single superpower. What is happening now is not, I submit, so much an inevitable consequence of globalization as a policy choice taken by the present administration in this context. I think we could as readily proceed in a much different direction, and this other direction (the path not taken? or not taken yet? or not yet seen?) is what I would like us to try to imagine.

(Participant) One aspect of globalization is happening right here at home within our boundaries. Our citizens are increasingly becoming ethnically a globalized mixture. Most of our citizens have difficulty in defining their own ethnic mixture. "Whites" in Calfornia are already a minority. Or, to put it differently, the only majority left in the US is, or soon will be, a mixture of ethnics.

What will this mean for us in the future. For one thing, I think we had better redefine our role as a "global" leader. We are acting more on the pattern of the British when they were the one power on which the sun never sets, and all others were either of no consequence or are colonies.

It will be interesting to see if, by tomorrow, some of the above will be redefined!

(Walter Anderson) Don, I think you're right about the globalization of America, which is at least as pronounced as the Americanization of the globe.

(Participant) This may be a bit off the good path that Walter has described for us, so I'll be brief.

As the world shrinks before the electronic and transportation impact of technology, we increasingly recognize a need for some regulatory world government. Just a few examples: regulation of transportation, banks, commerce, terrorism, satellites.

At a far lower level of technology, was this not the impetus for establishing federal government as we wrote the Constitution? Were not the pro and con arguments for state vs. federal authority similar?

Can you imagine England needing (or at lest considering) approval of a world organization before colonizing India?

I would hope that today we could consider this need in a collaborative, problem solving format rather than totally with chauvinistic patriotism.

(Walter Anderson) Don, the subject isn't off track at all -- thinking about governance in the world, and how we want it to change -- is one of the main things this conference is about.

I think we discussed this a bit in Harlan's "nobody in charge" conference, where I said that I don't think a world government is the way to go. One reason is that I don't see any sign that it's about to happen. The other is that I don't believe it should happen. I think that what we have now is a very complex, multileveled and multi-centric system of governance processes and institutions, and that what we need to do is understand this, think about how to make it better. Maybe we should all spend some time fleshing out various alternative visions of a global system -- world government, multi-centric, nation-dominated, etc.

(Participant) Walt: World GOVERNMENT may be a misleading word, but it does seem to me that the proliferation of global agencies in health, transportation, banking, military (NATO) and so many other activities is an increasing kind of public service government-like structure. I also think (while admitting my lack of experience compared to most of my colleagues here) that it is a far better trend than to see our own nation assume the mantle of supreme world power.

Kip: your paragraph about getting to appreciate people of different religious beliefs with serious interaction is certainly true IF the interaction is consciously collegial and not adversarial.

(Participant) I finally figured out what the problem is with the current U. S. approach to "globalization", i.e. empire building with America in charge.

I believe it is correct to say that this is the first administration, perhaps ever, to be run by business leaders. I think Bush is the first businessman president. Is that right? All the others, to my knowledge, came from the professions--law, military, education, politics, diplomacy, arts, etc. A few were gentlemen farmers.

There is an important difference between those people who are called to professions, and those who enter business. No one is called to business. It doesn't carry the humanitarian notion of service. The forces motivating business leaders are therefore very different from those motivating professionals. I'll admit that they are overlapping more and more as professions become commodified, but the initial interest is distinctly different. I suspect it is no accident that we have always preferred professionals as our presidents.

Business leaders are schooled in unfettered capitalism. They engage in aggressive, sometimes brutal, competition. They believe in rewards and punishment. They are oriented toward expansionist growth, and desirous of control of the market. They think in terms of short term results. They constantly feel compelled to rid the organization of its weakest members. The medium of exchange is money. Those values, perhaps necessary for a market economy, just go with the territory, and as we know, are not softened much by humanitarian concerns.

But those are not at all the values and motives of people who want to enter the professions. In many ways, the professions are just the opposite. So today I don't see our current situation so much as a division between conservative and liberal, as between business and professional.

So it is natural for the current leaders of our country to believe that the best way to do everything is by putting it all in the competitive marketplace (note the last move to make prescription drugs only available to those who will join for-profit plans). They believe the best way to lead is to take charge. The best way to succeed is to win.

I fear that business is not the proper background for presidential aspirations. And probably not a proper background for joining collaborative efforts in coping with globalization.

Lest I be misunderstood as casting the business leaders as villainous, my experience is that senior executives are often very decent to their colleagues, perhaps more than college professors are. Moreover, they often perform charitable acts. And I think that the market economy is necessary for democracy and for reaching the material standard of living that we enjoy. So just because you are CEO is no sure sign that you will spend eternity suffering in flames

(Participant) Dick, your observation about business vs. professionalism is very interesting. Business strikes me as being concerned with the survival of one's own group (sort of tribal) where the professionalism is more concerned with the survival of all groups. Certainly today those who are part of Bush's group are faring very well indeed, while those who aren't in his tribe are paying the price. It's as though the Arthurian drama constantly replays itself. Tribalism to collective to tribal over and over again.

(Participant) As Kip says tribalism seems unavoidable. As Harlan says, the aim is to live with our beliefs without crowding each other. As Walt noted, organized groups relying on faith for guidance seem usually to be the ones that get in the way of mutual understanding. My question is, what can we do about it?

Do we have to reform human nature to have a peaceful world? If not, how do we get those of "true faith" to agree to live and let live? I suppose that is the underlying question of this conference. We know that belief systems are inculcated by leaders who gain the devotion of followers. Can we figure out a belief system--like live in peace and honor your neighbors--that we can promote? Kip says it nicely: tribalism to collective to tribalism. How do we get out of the cycle?

Some days I think the answer is sufficient truthfulness in the media, in the schools, and the agencies of our society, that the consequences of our actions can be seen for what they are. Hutus and Tutsis manage to kill off over a million of each other, but where is the meaning of that event shaping our understanding of the need for a better idea about putting the world together? Sorry to be fussy. I want answers, and while I admit that making sure we understand what is going on is crucial to making the answers good, when will be get to discussing the policies that might rescue us citizens of the world from our bad habits?

(Participant) Hallock, I have the very strong idea that we can't get out of it - it's built into us as genetic behavioral strategies. The strategies survive because they are effective. And even if they ever prove ineffective it will take a long time for them to disappear from the gene pool. Probably this is another one of those dilemmas which Dick describes - you know, where we can't change it, we can only manage it more effectively. Tribalism isn't wrong nor is collectivism good - they both have weaknesses and excesses. In a sense it may be that the whole purpose of governing is to maintain some kind of equilibrium over time.

(Participant) This, coming in a bit late, is picking up on the dialogue with Don. I'm all for governments. I only want to make the point that governments never did have a monopoly on governance -- what political scientists usually define in terms of such things as policy-making, allocation of resources and resolution of disputes -- and have even less of a monopoly now with so many other kinds of players. All I have reservations about is the idea of a single global super-government, even if democratic and federalist. I use the word governance to keep it in view that governments don't do all the governing.

(Walter Anderson) Dick, I think we're on the same page as to how globalization should develop -- through international institutions based on the rule of law -- but I don't think the present US policy is accurately described as imperialist. Unilateralist would be more like it.

(Participant) Walt, when we explicitly say, in our strategic plans, that we intend to have a dominating military force so great as to be unchallengeable by any other, deployed around the world to make certain that no other nation develops weapons of mass destruction and to protect our interests and to support democracy and human rights, fighting pre-emptive wars and engaging in nation building, I think that "imperial" is more accurate than unilateral. Maybe not colonial, but imperial. Unilateral is bad enough for globalization, but imperial is really awful.

(Walter Anderson) Globalization is not being done to us by the people in power. If anybody is to be held responsible, I'd point to Marconi, Bell, and the Wright brothers. Those who hold disproportionate power in this context -- Bush and Saddam, for example, have not created the context and have very limited understanding of it.

Next Page

top