Globalism vs. Nationalism as a Jedi

  • Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 1 month ago #275155 by
Globalism vs. Nationalism as a Jedi:

Let's start the factual definitions of each word for context...

Globalism - "the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations."

Nationalism - "a sense of national consciousness...exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

The worldview of a Jedi, in my opinion, should be one based out of love and compassion for all living beings first and foremost. In understanding the inherent value of all living beings regardless of geographic location. However, in what is probably my naive and limited understanding, I have come to the belief that Nationalism inherently defines one individual as more worthy than the other, therefore conflicting with the way of the Jedi.

Why should we prioritize the well being of an individual within our geographic location over that of an individual somewhere else?

This new trend of a deeply devoted sense of nationalism is unsettling, and it has led to the appearance of a society that only cares for what they perceive as "their own" and will further "their own" at whatever cost to any other individual separate from them. Yet, this sense of nationalism is actually masqueraded as a method of global progress. Simply put, we are told that once "our own" people have achieved a certain standard of living we will then be more capable to help others. This is of course regardless of the fact that enabling the achievement of the specific standard of living within that one country comes at detrimental costs on a global scale...

I see value in nationalism simply as a method of maintaining cultural differences to emphasize diversity within humanity, but as a policy and worldview? I am uncertain, so I ask for your thoughts...

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago - 7 years 1 month ago #275159 by Adder
Definitely globalism out of those choices for me. Nation states to me are best seen as just particular legal structures. The nation being the activity and members of that state, while patriotism being its members relate to the history and trajectory of it. The fictional Star Wars Republic perhaps could be seen as a 'transnational state' by contrast. And to stick with the fiction the Jedi seemed to serve ideals which bridged across national boundaries such that they aligned with the idea of the Republic. So then nationalism by my terms is some sort of social group defining itself by its patriotism, which would seem to have larger scope used internally but great for things like sports when used externally.

Globalism is an interesting topic I'd love to know more about, and I guess its at its crux a mix of economics and security issues. Other factors like immigration, the environment are probably more and more important but also with the advent of IT we have a broader range of legal interaction across national borders then which might have otherwise been possible. So the issues of globalism are really now in the 21st century being driven by population mobility, population growth, and information interconnection just as much as trade and resource dominance was in the 20th. The 'West' won the 20th century 'race'... but the landscape is always shifting and changing. It is hard to know what the heck needs to be done most of the time!!! It's even harder when ones relationships and therefore responsibilities are more complex. The obvious [strike]solution[/strike] approach, and easiest to sell, is to make them less complex, but I'd imagine the overarching responsibility is security to ones own nation and therefore also the world - and that is really a question of who has what, what can that do, and then going from there who is who and what might they do (in terms of ensuring ones own security). Ideally a nation state would like to be able to ensure its own security without involving itself with another nation. Hopefully the world has discarded economics out of that equation, and by having distinct states means we each can have our own laws, so that now really only leaves ideology as the trigger. Though its not hard to imagine resource greed emerging from increasing population pressures again towards the end of this century, so.... fun times for the developed world :S
I do wonder if society will shift back to economic 'classes' if globalism takes off... in which case the whole dynamic might reset :pinch:

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 7 years 1 month ago by Adder.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago #275166 by TheDude
From those two definitions, I'd say that globalism is superior. However, I wouldn't describe myself as a globalist. My political philosophy sees human beings as free and happy in the state of nature, without the bonds of government and the idea of "nations" in general. However, based on the research I've done I believe that human beings are at their happiest within smaller communities. Recent research I've seen points towards living in densely populated areas as a risk factor for developing depression and anxiety disorders (which may explain, in part, the increased prevalence of those illnesses today).

We live in an age of information overload. Seeing tens of thousands of people in passing every day is not, in my opinion, a good way to develop empathy. The bystander effect is well documented. Could it be that the origin of the bystander effect lies in an increased population? If human beings were to live in a population of, say, 400 people or so, everyone would know everyone else. I think that would increase the likelihood of the average person feeling empathy towards others, and would lead to changes in interpersonal behavior and relationships that much more accurately reflect the value of compassion. As it is, when someone crashes their car the average person doesn't stop their own car to help the other person. To them, the other is just a random face, someone they may not ever see again in their lives. But if they know the person, maybe they would be more likely to help. And if they spent their entire life living that way, then if they see a stranger broken down on the side of the road, I'd be willing to bet that they would be more likely to help the stranger. Human beings are, after all, habitual animals.

So while I think the globalist idea is good as you presented it, it doesn't really jive with my beliefs. I think that increasing globalist tendencies will only result in more of what I talked about before. Obviously there are things like humanitarian aid that are good, but in practice globalism seems to just propagate capitalist practices which may lead to extreme problems in the future if tied to such a large scale. For example, suppose a company like McDonalds were to become so globally widespread that it starts taking out the small businesses in the food industry all over the world. In the US this has obviously happened to a great extent already. But if that company were to start having a significant effect on small businesses all over the planet, in every country, we would see the same problem with it as with the banks which are "too big to fail" today. If that company were to go out of business, it would have a massive effect not only on the economics of one country but all over the planet. It would be catastrophic.

Just my $0.02.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Locksley, Alexandre Orion,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 1 month ago #275167 by
You're in the ideal path if:

Your religion is Love

Your political view is Freedom

and Your nation to be Earth, as a whole Planet residing in Sun system of the Milky Way Galaxy.

There is nothing wrong with you. The Force has taught you the right path. The Dark Side will never corrupt you with their superiority and greed that they use with the Current Leaders of our Society here in this Planet. I say press on with your belief.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 1 month ago #275168 by
Kiiro_Infactoid, thank you. Your guidance is appreciated.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 1 month ago #275174 by
My personal take on it is that as a Jedi globalism kind of shadows my views. My obligation is to all those within the Force. My decisions therefor shadow the decisions a globalist might make.

But on the same side of that I realize that nationalism is a tool that works well most of the time, and it's something that is suited for those who don't have the same obligation that I hold myself to. People who are more considered with the day to day operations of their personal/family life would likely make decisions that shadow a nationalists.

And as a Jedi I'm not innocent of having to take care of that same personal/family life, because for the random chance of birth I AM a citizen of one nation or another, and occasionally my decisions will have to take that into consideration. But from the realm of my faith, it will nearly always favor the globalism.

It's something that's got me thinking, so thank you for that Nicholasos, I think I might mull these concepts over a bit more.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago #275177 by Cyan Sarden
"the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations."

per this definition, I'm in favour of globalism. However, I don't believe that true globalism exists. From my experience, "globalism" as it is lived by individuals, global corporations and institutions is as this: "milk the resources of the world at the expense of others to further my own interests".

The same can be said for "nationalism", of course - it's rarely about the true interest of a country and its people; it's mostly about the interests of a handful of individuals.

Do not look for happiness outside yourself. The awakened seek happiness inside.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Brick, ,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago #275181 by Reacher
Good question, and one worth exploring carefully and comprehensively. I hesitate to choose either, frankly, because I think the world's needs ebb and flow through time and the devil is always in the details...

So let's take a look.

First a question - are we talking the sentiment of Nationalism vs. Globalism, or the reality? Globalism as a sentiment is clearly more appropriate for a Jedi, but we don't live in a world of only sentiment.

I suppose which is more appropriate depends somewhat on what school of ethics we're viewing the problem from. I know there are many schools, but for the sake of simplicity let's go with the triangle of ethics described in this article:

Ethical Decision-making using the Ethical Triangle

It isn't inspired, comprehensive, or totally accurate, but I think it can serve some illustrative purpose here.

Principles-based ethics are a bit Kantian in concept, meaning that we required to act as though every action you take will become a universal law of nature - if an action or position is the slightest bit 'wrong', the outcome doesn't matter. The thing is wrong. I see a lot of principle-based ethical opinions in the thread postings above.

Virtue ethics are less prescriptive in action, and focus more on a set of qualities one aspires to cultivate through thought and action. What decision would a good person make? A person filled with love, compassion, empathy? These are the kinds of questions a virtue-centric person asks when posed a question like the original.

The last is consequence-based ethics. What actually RESULTS from the choices made? What is the net gain and loss in the outcome, and for whom? At a glance this may seem inherently ruthless and counter to the Jedi way, but we might also need to consider the real-world consequences of our philosophies.

Also, try not to think of these in singular terms or clearly defined lines. While many of us have our default leanings, most of us will exercise JUDGEMENT when weighting the triangle to achieve the greatest outcome - the truth of the matter is more of a shifting position than a person seated firmly in any camp.

Nationalism has actually been around for quite a while - it traces its direct roots to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This is when the major European powers gathered to end a series of wars and establish an international system of sovereignty meant to establish a peaceful coexistence among a community of nations. It was designed to establish precedent for which country owned what land and resources by default. Except now with clear lines of demarcation, it set the stage for a massive drawing of resources for the purpose of expeditionary warfare. Why is this important? Before the concept of a nation, war was waged not by nations, but by feudal lords. Most shied away from extended expeditionary warfare because even if they won against a distant neighbor, it cost the victor nearly as much in resources. Beyond displays and skirmishes, wars were pretty clunky and indecisive. Once those lines were set down, though...economic and social systems aligned to draw the resources in VERY effectively. Nationalism sprang out as a social system meant to take advantage of Westphalian sovereignty. Has it caused serious problems throughout history? Absolutely. When nationalism springs up in a region, you will often see violence follow for a time. But as it matures it also sets a defined system of balance in place, which offers some benefit in the long term.

Globalism, in principle and sentiment, seems more appropriate for a Jedi. The reality may be more chaotic in practice, however.

One of the effects of a globalizing world is the intertwining of our economies. This is generally a positive thing, but a trend on the rise is the marginalization of sovereign governments. Companies and corporations are becoming more powerful and agile than many nations - and these are entities neither sworn nor beholden to anything beyond profit margins. That's a little bit of an unsettling thought. It is also no coincidence that trans-national terrorism is on the rise as well. When a violent organization is strewn across all hemispheres on the planet in umpteen countries, bringing a single nation's full resources to bear to address the threat becomes a very tricky proposition. It is giving rise to what some political theorists are calling Neo-feudalism - and even the most powerful countries are grappling with how to address these developments. If the reality of globalization eclipses Westphalian sovereignty and reduces to Neo-feudalism, we might well see an epic and violent collapse in the global economic and political systems. That is...inadvisable, to say the least.

Like I mentioned at the start, the devil will be in the details. I like globalism as a sentiment and I think there is a right way to coax it into a positive reality. I also think we should lend due consideration to some of the potential pitfalls of advocating for it in the wrong ways.

Jedi Knight

The self-confidence of the warrior is not the self-confidence of the average man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and calls that humbleness. The average man is hooked to his fellow men, while the warrior is hooked only to infinity.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Locksley, rugadd, Brick, Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 1 month ago #275184 by
Good thread :)

Nicholasos wrote: I see value in nationalism simply as a method of maintaining cultural differences to emphasize diversity within humanity


Why is this inherently valuable? The practice of artificially "putting up walls" to prevent the natural flow of this into that into the other... to me that is a great way to introduce untenable stagnation, isolationism and, ultimately, conflict. How much better to celebrate diversity by welcoming it in, letting it inform and educate us? How much better to take the best of all and produce a future which is mutually respectful and beneficial? Diversity is wonderful but can it flourish amidst segregation? I'm not convinced... those nationally, culturally, spiritually pocketed gene pools are evolutionary dead ends.

As you might guess, I fall strongly on the "globalism" side of the debate...

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago - 7 years 1 month ago #275186 by Brick
This is always a difficult one for me. I'd have to take issue with your definitions though (I fully appreciate you probably got them from a dictionary, but I find them both to be at the extreme ends of what I consider to be a political spectrum). Nationalism for example - I take great pride in being British, and i love my country of origin dearly. Which is a nationalistic attitude. But I don't by any means think that I, or Britain in general, is better or 'superior' than any other person/country.

tzb wrote: Why is this inherently valuable? The practice of artificially "putting up walls" to prevent the natural flow of this into that into the other... to me that is a great way to introduce untenable stagnation, isolationism and, ultimately, conflict. How much better to celebrate diversity by welcoming it in, letting it inform and educate us? How much better to take the best of all and produce a future which is mutually respectful and beneficial? Diversity is wonderful but can it flourish amidst segregation? I'm not convinced... those nationally, culturally, spiritually pocketed gene pools are evolutionary dead ends.


In an ideal world I would agree with Stu's statement in it's entirety. However, in the world that we live in, I disagree with one small part of it, that 'those nationally, culturally, spiritually pocketed gene pools are evolutionary dead ends'. I'd have to agree with the OP in 'maintaining cultural differences to emphasize diversity within humanity'. The issue I take with the last part of Stu's statement is the same issue I take with Blue Mink's 'Melting Pot' - from a socially progressive/world peace front it's fantastic! It would eliminate racism, xenophobia, *insert any kind of discrimination here* (an ideal world), but from a survival front, it's a terrible idea!

We'd be making what is already a relatively small gene-pool even smaller. To the point that we would actually all be genetically identical, all we'd need would be one particularly strong strain of the common cold and our entire species would be wiped out over night. In order for survival, we need as much diversity as possible. And IMO the same applies to 'those nationally, culturally, spiritually pocketed gene pools', there maybe an event that occurs on a global level that posses a threat to our survival and the only reason that some of us survive is because they have some kind of cultural/spiritual practice that somehow makes them better adapted than the rest of us.

The irony in the definitions provided is that, in some (admittedly rare) cases, the best policy for placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations, may actually involve each nation placing primary emphasis on the promotion of its own culture and interests.

Then again, I might just be giving an opposing opinion for the sake of it ;)

Apprentice to Maitre Chevalier Jedi Alexandre Orion

Moderator | Welcome Team | IP Team

IP Journal | IP Journal 2 | AP Journal | Open Journal

'The only contest any of us should be engaged in is with ourselves, to be better than yesterday'

- Knight Senan
Last edit: 7 years 1 month ago by Brick.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Edan,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi