Governing the World One Map at a Time

It’s no longer a question whether or not governance will move beyond the state, because it already has. Governance was once almost solely at the discretion of individual countries and their leaders. Now the state shares that responsibility with industry, the media, civil society and even technology.

The aspect that I find the most interesting is technology that plays a role in governance, particularly in developing areas where you wouldn’t expect technology to play such a large role. Usually technology is a tool wielded by NGOs.

Livingstone brings up the great example of Ushahidi. Ushahidi is a free and open source software that began in the wake of Kenya’s 2007 political unrest that collects data about ongoing violence that is submitted through e-mail, social networking sites and text messages Then the information is all compiled to essentially digitally map the area and keep people informed about what’s going on where. And even though Ushahidi started in Kenya, it’s now been used worldwide in 128 countries, in all kinds of conflict zones and natural disasters. From earthquakes in Japan and Haiti to violence in the Congo, and even right here in DC during the blizzard in 2010, Ushahidi was used as a tool. 

In this case, it is a combination of technology, an NGO and regular citizens that act as the players in governance. Without the people who send in information, Ushahidi would not work. It’s fueled by crowd sourcing. The one player Ushahidi does not need to function is the state.

So we’ve established that Ushahidi takes the state out of the equation, but what makes it governance? Livingstone uses this definition of governance: “complex of formal and informal institutions, mechanisms, relationships, and processes between and among states, markets, citizens and organizations, both inter- and non-governmental, through which collective interests on the global plane are articulated, rights and obligations are established, and differences are mediated. (Weiss and Thakur, 2010).” Ushahidi fits this definition perfectly. It is a mix of formal and informal institutions, relationships and processes between citizens and organizations, in this case non-governmental. Collective interests are articulated and differences are mediated, in addition to public safety being provided for. Ushahidi and other technological tools like it are great examples of a new form of governance. 

Reactions to activism

This week’s post is going to be a little stream-of-consciousness as I try to wrap my mind around the week’s current events and class discussions. One of the more notable events was the expansion of the Occupy Wall Street movement to cities including Washington and Baltimore. Mainstream media have done a less than stellar job of covering the protests. The movement continues to grow rapidly. Some of my friends have even participated. But I still don’t know what it’s about. I’m not sure if anyone really does.

One of my classmates attended the protests in Washington. He was quoted in the Irish Times as saying, “I think the main goal [of the protests] should be reform of the financial sector.” In other words, he was there and still didn’t know what the goal actually was. It seems to be about protesting anything and everything that’s wrong. In a piece for the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell said real activism is about organizing and assembling. Gladwell criticized social media activism as being based on “weak-ties” and inarticulate goals. That’s also how I would describe Occupy Wall Street, but that doesn’t mean it’s not activism. It’s just a different kind.   

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to knock any Occupy Wall Street participants or their beliefs. A lot of frustration has been building up in this country for a myriad of reasons. I understand the desire to rally for change. I’m just suggesting that activism itself is changing. While globalization has made international communication easier, it has also made communication less personal, less organized, and less direct.

Dismissing the people who tweeted about Iran or Tunisia as “slacktivists” is cynical. Sure, it could be that some of those people were couch potatoes who pretend to embrace causes to feel better about themselves. Or it could be, as I believe, that most of those people were actually concerned about events in the Middle East and wanted to spread awareness. Maybe they are occupying Wall Street as you read this blog. No one can attend or financially support every cause. We have to choose. Luckily, we can be involved in other ways. It’s not the same as being in the thick of it, but it’s not nothing.

Globalization: A Term Worth 1,000 Words

It was brought up in our class discussion that under the term “globalization” many have surmised that information and communication technologies in particular have a globalizing affect that spans across varying nation-states. This is true in the sense that John Sinclair characterized it – the sheer volume of information flow between countries has rapidly increased, but the reasons for this increase can be extremely different.

In my opinion, globalization is a multi-faceted term. It can be attributed to political discourse, economic interest, trade of services and goods, financial propositions and job outsourcing. It can also be viewed under a cultural lens, where we are exposed to foreign regions of the world we may never have been able to witness before (think global news networks, Skype, social networking, international NGOS, etc).

With the term encompassing such a large swath of meaning, we came to the questions: does it really mean anything, and, if it does, is this good or bad?

These are tough to tackle, but Assistant Professor at UCLA Ramesh Srinivasan took an interesting take in the Washington Post’s Five Myths by honing in on one particular aspect of globalization: social media.

The last of Srinivasan’s five myths of social media is that it creates a global village. According to Srinivasan, “Bridging disparate cultural and political backgrounds remains a challenge for social media. To learn from differing viewpoints, the technologies and cultures of social media must evolve so that they bring people together rather than keeping us in digital silos.”

Srinivasan brings up the now infamous Arab Spring, which is widely believed to have come about from the collective efforts of average citizens utilizing social media to spread the message of revolution. However, according to Srinivasan, less than 5 percent of Egypt’s population uses Facebook, and less than 1 percent uses Twitter. In our class, we briefly mentioned this particular example, and how many of the posts and tweets that fueled the fire of the Arab Spring were located in developed countries and acted as a megaphone to the conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa.

This puts globalization in a negative light, but I think it also rings truer than what many utopian viewpoints have suggested. We are certainly not living in an age where ALL of us have the world at our fingertips, as our reading from The Information Revolution and World Politics section on the Digital Divide has proven. As we marvel at the numbers of people using the Internet or social networking worldwide, we seem to forget that there’s a large gap between the wealthy and privileged and poverty-stricken in many countries. Our reading uses India’s burgeoning IT industry and simultaneous proliferation of slums as a perfect demonstration of this gap.

So, for all of the accolades globalization may have garnered, there are many pitfalls as well. In my opinion there has been too much entertainment of globalization as a completely positive or completely negative term, and I would like to see a more complex and developed interpretation of the it as we move into an even more integrated world.

Globalization: Eating Dutch Mexican food

Globalization is always a hot-button topic. People argue about it on the most basic level, and argue about whether it even exists or not. Even for those who have determined that it does exist, there is still often a lot of controversy. One of the biggest disagreements revolves around whether globalization results in more heterogeneous societies or more homogenous societies.

Those who believe globalization acts as a homogenizing force tend to subscribe to the theory of cultural imperialism. These people believe that developed nations (most often in the Global North) push their values, culture and ideals on developing nations (usually Global South) and that is labeled as globalization. So they believe that instead of all the global cultures mixing and combining, that developing nations are losing their cultures and just becoming like the developed nations that are exerting an influence in their country. Many people refer to this as the Americanization of the world, as the U.S. has a large cultural and advertising presence in many places. In John Sinclair’s “Globalization, Supranational Institutions and Media,” he tackles the communication side of this issue. He refers to this as media imperialism, which he describes as Western states pushing their media culture on developing countries. He says media has the power to influence with their content and act as a homogenizing ideological force.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that globalization allows for a eclectic and interesting mix of global cultures that can thrive in different places all over the world. It means countries can keep their national cultures, but combine them with other facets of other cultures. This could mean eating sushi for Christmas dinner in Paris or trying on traditional saris in India while listening to Britney Spears.

Most people who believe in either side of the argument believe in it pretty adamantly and absolutely. I think that it can depend on the culture. There are possibly places where cultures have become more homogeneous. When you see streets in Mexico plastered in American advertising, it can be easy to lean this way and see globalization in a negative light. But I think there are also places where globalization creates an interesting and new culture. I think I lean more towards this viewpoint, although I can see both sides. A great example of this is the popularity of ethnic food in Amsterdam, due to its large immigrant populations. When I was living there, I thought the fact that I could go to a restaurant run by Mexicans, hear Spanish being spoken and get better enchiladas than I have found in DC yet, was pretty great! 

The question I pose is this: What differentiates between the outcomes of globalization? Since I believe both viewpoints have valid points, what is it that makes some globalization a positive, heterogeneous force and other globalization a negative, homogenizing force? That’s a study of which I would be interested in the results. 

There's no "me" in globalization, or is there?

Globalization is a process. This point was briefly touched on in this week’s class. People have always traveled and explored. The desire for international connections is not a new phenomenon. Now it’s just easier. Journeys that previously took months to complete now take hours. We can maintain relationships with friends we’ve made on the other side of the world.  

Sinclair writes that the globalization process has brought increased interdependence and more exchanges among nation-states. This is mainly due to extreme advances in technology. Global trade transactions that Marco Polo could have only dreamed of are now not only possible but also practically instantaneous. Technological efficiency is something that we have arguably perfected. What we are nowhere near perfecting is cooperation.

Supranational organizations arise as an attempt to meet a common goal. Their success is hampered by an inability to compromise. The nation-state is still the major player in these organizations. Every action or law is considered in terms of its effects on each state. As each state considers its own interests, the greater good gets lost. 

http://www.romanoprodi.it/articoli/estero/europe-must-have-a-single-and-powerful-voice_2441.html

The European Union, established in 1993, is a relatively young supranational institution. On the surface, the benefits seem great – easier financial transactions and more convenient traveling.  Right now the EU is struggling with a financial crisis. Critics have wondered whether the euro is to blame. Somewhat unsurprisingly, there is a lack of consensus on how to resolve it. Economic powerhouse Germany isn’t all that interested in bailing out its weaker co-members. Germany isn’t alone.

Globalization in practice is actually a system of mutual selfishness. It’s an economic reality but a superficial sentiment. The U.S. is also an interesting case study. Sinclair mentions Sony as an example of a global corporation whose success proved that the U.S. is also subject to globalization. I’m not sure the U.S. is thrilled with competition from overseas manufacturers.  

Three years ago President Obama said Americans should be buying American cars to boost the ailing auto industry. Recently he said the U.S. needed to improve trading agreements. “You see a whole bunch of Korean cars here in the United States, and you don't see any American cars in Korea.” The goal is to spread one’s products far and wide, but not necessarily to be accepting when other states do the same. While some activists and scholars try to see globalization as a means to development, in reality it remains a game dominated by powerful political players.