CWM's Network of Theological Enquiry

Theological and ethical issues in the age of globalisation

Julio de Santa Ana

Certain periods of history are characterised by certain dominant features. When the Second World War ended, the main issues in international debate were about democracy and human rights. During the emancipation of the former colonies in Asia, Africa and the Pacific, 'liberation' became a key word in the political debate, influencing other areas of human thought and action, including theology. 'Development' became a crucial concept in the 1960s and the l970s. These concepts point to important historical facts and processes. They become common words in everyday language. They are indicative of a certain 'common sense' that prevails at a given moment in history.

This is also the case, since the second half of the 1980s, with the word "globalisation". The majority of the public now uses this term, although it is understood differently by different people. This contributes to the confusion which already exists about a process which is experienced by people in different ways. This is probably because arguments about globalisation are developed from different perspectives.

One of these viewpoints sees social reality as a geopolitical system where nations play the key role. It is an international system where nations interact, each trying to satisfy its interests according to its possibilities and power. Here it is preferable to talk about an 'international economy' rather than a 'global' one: the nation-state is the main actor. Nation-states have created an important instrument to regulate their relationships: the United Nations Organisations. All aspects of social reality are understood from this geopolitical perspective.

Another point of view gives more importance to economic aspects of reality than to the political ones. It takes into account the scientific and technological developments which helped create an international market where economic corporations act across national boundaries. Besides nation-states there are transnational corporations, whose activities cannot be dissociated from the economic growth experienced by the world during the last few decades. But more importantly, this perspective suggests that economic growth goes hand-in-hand with an increasing integration of certain markets at a global level. As with all systems, this one is highly hierarchical: there are centers from which the whole system's operations are organised. The rest works according to the rules of this organisation, which works through trade structures, international division of labor, prices, etc. A few people accumulate wealth and many do not receive what they deserve because of the economic transactions are organised. The prevailing economic system is not equitable, and the process of globalisation confirms this systemic trend.¹ The difference between this approach to social reality and the previous one is that the economic level of social life is understood as something which has to prevail over political interests. Economics dominate.

However, it is also necessary to recognise that technological improvements contribute to other developments which do not belong specifically to the economic realm. For example, the media shape different kinds of communication networks through which people express their concerns, defend their convictions, promote their social interests and the like. People's associations are increasingly joining their efforts at the international level to defend and promote human rights, to defend the natural environment, to promote the rights and interests of women, etc. Networks of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are being shaped, and an international civil society is emerging at the global level. From the point of view of those involved in this process, 'globalisation' is seen as a construction of networks of mutual support and solidarity. Therefore, 'globalisation' has a different meaning than those stated previously.

It is important to note that there is another point of view from which a different understanding of 'globalisation' is developed. It is shaped by people who experience it as a threat to their cultural identities. The process of economic integration leads to cultural homogenisation that is a consequence of the scientific and technological progress that has taken place in the field of information and communications. They claim that they have the right to be different, and to be recognised as such. It is an expression of resistance to the centers of power which seem to be imposing a dominant culture. The global reality cannot be reduced, according to this point of view, to a single version.

The global reality is not homogeneous, they say, but characterised by the cultural varieties existing among different people. Attempts at diminishing the importance of factors which mark differences among human beings (culture, ethnicity, gender, social class, etc) are seen as violations of human dignity: the 'different' is not recognised if the differences are not respected. Furthermore, the trend to impose a single way to understand the global reality, without looking at the diversity which exists in it, does not take into account the complexity of the globe in its entirety. From this point of view (which, expresses the understanding of many people who, from different situations, converge through this perspective), the geopolitical and the economic understandings of 'globalisation' should be criticised because they are reductionist. They are not sufficiently holistic.

Part of the confusion that people experience when they argue about 'globalisation' is due to a combination of these four perspectives. Some of them are compatible up to a certain point. However, it is clear that the opposition between the fourth perspective and the first or the second cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, all the viewpoints show an awareness that a process of integration is taking place. We call it 'globalisation', although it is not perceived and valued by all in the same way. So it seems necessary to clarify the ways in which people talk and argue about this concept today.

Firstly, the majority of people (no matter whether they express positive or negative judgements about 'globalisation') accept that the basic elements enabling this development are the scientific and technological changes involving information technology and communication. Thirty years ago most people would not have envisaged, or even suspected, that they could work with computers, faxes, the Internet, cellular telephones, etc. In a very short period of time, and through an accelerated process, relations between human beings and nature, as well as among human beings themselves, have changed. Our sense of space and time is being transformed, and this influences work rhythms, production processes, etc. Different people, across the world, find that their actions, intentions, expectations and interests can be quickly combined in ways that few years ago were totally unforeseen.

This type of interaction is mainly virtual., it does not really develop personal relationships. Depersonalisation characterises this realm of contacts. Human persons are involved in this process up to a certain point. However, human lives are strongly affected by this evolution. It is necessary to recognise that the new media is expanding very quickly, and any increasing number of people everywhere wish to have access to the new media. So two things must be pointed out: firstly, that certain fields of human activities are being integrated, and secondly, that it is a process of depersonalised integration.

Secondly , at the economic level new technological inputs enable the accelerated integration of certain markets. Financial markets and their derivative products are the most spectacular part of this and are characterised by soaring capital flows: "turnovers of up to 1,500 billion US$ circulate on the foreign exchange markets around the world every 24 hours, whereas bank resources amount in total to about 650 billion US$. Only 2-3 per cent of that vast floating capital is linked to transactions in the real economy (such as production, services and foreign direct investment)." Global financial markets are dominated by speculative money, leading to the term 'casino finance'.² Computers are programmed so that financial dealings operate practically non-stop for twenty-four hours a day, achieving huge profits. It is said that markets should be free from any foreign intervention, especially the State for them to achieve the highest performance. The assumption is that the market is self-regulatory and does not need any interference from outside. Those who share this position about 'globalisation' claim that the integration of markets is a process which takes place by itself, naturally, spontaneously.³

But not all markets are integrated. For example, the labor market, which is a key one, is not integrated at all. It is characterised by notable differentiations. Furthermore, exclusion increases while financial markets become more integrated: more and more people have no place in the production system. And their ability to consume is so limited that they are negligible: their expectations don't count. They are dispensable, not needed either as producers or consumers. Exclusion challenges human solidarity to express itself in new ways. The interests that drive the world economy affirm that they are concerned about its global dimension: the priority is to develop a system which works better and better at the global level. However, such concern "is not helpful to the poor of the world. People, for the powers that rule the market, only matter when they have high levels of consumption. So the 'globalisation' of the economy does not take the poor into consideration. The rationality of the world market, managed by 'free economic interest', does not aim to have all people participate in the benefits that are generated by commercial transactions."⁴

This needs to be repeated: while some markets are integrating through economic globalisation, a vast number of people are excluded from the benefits of the world economic system.

Thirdly, as mentioned previously, an 'international civil society' is emerging. Public, non-governmental associations join their efforts across national boundaries to promote common interests. 'Civil Society' has no substance per se. It is an analytical concept which distinguishes the sphere of social reality related to the State and the political organisations which revolve around it (the 'political structure') from the sphere of people's organisations, which also act at the public level, but which are not part of the State and do not aim at winning political power. They are not part of the 'economic structure'. Sometimes they can promote some economic interests, but most of the time these public non-governmental people's associations are trying to defend their interests against the invasive economic powers.

New information technologies help develop links between NGOs at an international level. This process allows people to participate more in public matters, giving new possibilities for democratic development. Some anti-systemic movements are building networks of solidarity (eg groups that defend and promote human rights; women's groups; associations committed to defending the environment; movements that support the interests of ethnically-oppressed people; the labor movement; etc). Nevertheless, although these networks are coming into being, they tend to relate only with others who have similar concerns. There is some integration among those in the same 'sphere',⁵ but there is little integration or complementarity among different spheres. So, there are strong limits to integration.

Fourthly, the overwhelming impact of 'globalisation' has made many people think that it is the way to the fulfilment of human history. If human societies are looking to the future, the path which opens the gate to it goes through the affirmation of 'globalisation'. They state that globalisation is an irreversible process. The benefits that it produces at the economic level for the wealthy and the economic growth that it helps create are important consequences which legitimise it.

Two points, must now be mentioned. Firstly, that the utilitarian morality dominates and has an impact on the thinking of the world's masses, leads to the creation of a 'common sense' that 'globalisation' is the way to follow. Secondly, to reach these seemingly good results, 'globalisation' must be steered in a clear direction which is provided by the economic thinking of neoliberation. Neoliberalism is an ideology which underlines the needs of the 'free market'. Consequently, the economic interests prevail upon political ones, and the influence of the State is reduced. This is a precondition for the expansion of private self-interests which compete among themselves. Neoliberalism is making competitiveness a fundamental criterion for success. Those who are unable to pay the necessary price to become competitive will be left out, excluded, sacrificed by the rationality of the system. They are the losers: there is no future for them.

Ideologies are not restricted to the field where they were first developed. Neoliberalism is no exception. So it is not a surprise that it has become a part of the cultural stream. Those who follow it affirm that it is the only frame of thought which ensures success for human societies. It is the instrument which can shape an economy, it is a culture, a life-style that can help people eliminate scarcity by the accumulation of things. This ideological understanding of 'globalisation' gives more importance to possession rather than to being ­ to have rather than to be. According to those who preach the gospel of 'globalisation', neoliberalism is the only valid universal paradigm to which all people must adjust. In French, this affirmation is called 'la pensée unique'. I am convinced that this ideological understanding of 'globalisation' has become very powerful. It is strongly supported by many of the instruments of mass media around the world. It is not only mighty, but it bewitches because it is about power: it legitimises the power of those who direct the process and reap the benefits. It also makes the losers wish they could be as successful as the powerful ones.

Fifthly, it is therefore not a surprise if people, who find that their own cultures are not recognised, their traditions ignored or even despised, and thus are ideologically colonised, resist the threat of cultural globalisation. As said previously, when they feel that they are culturally invaded, they claim to be different and stand against globalisation, at least at the ideological level. This is the attitude of people who refuse to be broken and who struggle against losing their cultural identity. For them, 'globalisation' is not good. It is a dehumanising process. It is about power, capital, domination..., things that they do not have. There are people who refuse to be part of the 'globalisation' process. Not being recognised, they are not integrated into the process.

Read the second half of the paper