Nation-States: An Arbitrary Institution?
Globalization has perpetuated the flow of people, ideas, capital, and technology which has blurred borders and redefined the way we view the world. Along with the increase in the poverty gap within countries, areas, and cities, this transformation begs the question: given the immense stratification of wealth, lifestyle, and culture within borders, are nation-states becoming an arbitrary institution? And if nation-states are obsolete, what shift in ideology created created the new institution of a “global world system” and how do they reinforce one another?
To address the questions stated above, we must first examine what specifically created the poverty gap as well as the flow of people, money, and ideas across borders. Although the rise of globalism is complicated and involves many nuanced historical developments, technology can be identified as a key component in globalization and the decline of the nation-state. Post-feudalism, Europe saw the rise of the accumulation of wealth and property (Robinson). In conjunction with the mercantile system, the upper class of Europe was able to invest their wealth in new modes of production and exploration which in turn increased their wealth and the advancement of European society exponentially. This wealth was then used to further oppress new areas of exploration (the colonies) which led to what we know today as the Core-Periphery paradigm (Frank). Essentially, wealthy nations extracted resources at a very high labor and low (or non existent) wage rate, then processed the goods at a low labor and high wage rate due to their mechanization, and then sold those goods back to the colonies at a high price. This created a position of superiority over the undeveloped colonies, as well as creating a relationship of dependency of the colonies on the imperial powers. The important implication to recognize is that the Core-Periphery model led to globalized poverty; essentially cementing the identities of poor countries and rich countries that differed starkly in development.
As technology progresses however, it led to “the shrinking of time and space.” With continuous advancements in both transportation, communication, and the economic system, from the printing press to the iPhone 5, from the mapping of the world to G6 jets, the distance between countries is seemingly non-existent. This phenomenon supposedly led to the “flattening of the world” and the homogenizing of cultures through the sharing of ideas, experiences, and interests.
The international flow of capital is the most prevalent example of the use of technology to connect nations. The rise of international corporations and international trade of goods and stock, as well as the ability to fund any group across the world has connected the world like never before. The interests of American business men are now the same as the interests of their business partners across the ocean. This transformation has led people to question the government’s influence over the economy and over the course of history because so much of it is being dictated by companies with influence world-wide (Appardurai).
Immigration in itself has completely changed the identity of countries across the world, as America is no longer the only “melting pot”. Beyond the mix of cultures, immigration has also redefined the justice system: even illegal-immigrants are extended certain rights once they step foot in certain countries, regardless of citizenship, such as the right to due-process (Sassen). With such a variation of types of people, culture, as well as the question of rights, one might start to wonder: can we lump all of these different people together under the same tent of a “nation-state”? And does the government of these nation-states have the ability to make decisions for the benefit of the entire nation if there is little relation between its citizens other than geography?
The travel of technology has also changed the nature of the Core-Periphery model by exporting the oppression complex to a smaller scale within nations, as well as introducing what is known as the “semi-periphery” of Asian countries with massive production but little improvement in the quality of life for its citizens. When the developed nations exported their technology and mechanization to less developed countries, they introduced the stratification of wealth within communities. This fracture within countries, communities, and all the way down to the city level has created a disjuncture within a country of class, lifestyle, and identity that skews the national identity and coherence of nations (Sassen). This increasing gap in wealth is what development scholars refer to as the “UN Paradigm” (Thérien).
Since the introduction of the idea of the “UN Paradigm”, humanitarian aid has begun to change to target certain demographics, instead of certain geographic areas. Some NGOs are focusing on “human centered development” which looks to aid groups like women, child soldiers, and other marginalized groups, instead of just “sending aid to Africa.”
This transition in humanitarian aid leads us to the discussion of the relevance of constructivism in the context of globalization and nation-states. Since the way we define and divide the world is largely a social construct, we must question what ideology influenced the construct of “nation-states”, what ideology led to globalization, and how that institution reinforced said ideology. The division of nation-states originally had to do with authority, jurisdiction, and monarchies or governments seeking to increase their wealth. Interestingly enough, the wealth they acquired, instead of reinforcing the institutions of nation-states led to the technology which led to globalization and the deterioration of the definition of nation-states. While it is nearly impossible to specify what came first, the idea to globalize or the actual creation of a global world system itself, it is certain that constructivists would argue that the flow of ideas, capital and people, reinforce global sentiments that permeate every aspect of our society (especially at AU) which turns around and increases globalization all the more. This perpetual cycle of reinforcement is the cycle strong enough to deconstruct a centuries old idea that the world is divided geographically.
While the skepticism surrounding the validity of the idea of nation-states is seemingly increasing, the impact of this perspective shift is yet to impact daily life in a visible way. It is true that the impact of international governing authorities such as the IMF and the UN has become more and more prevalent, but think about our daily lives: at AU we still identify by the country we are from, we still mark our race and ethnicity in bubbles on standardize tests, and we still choose our “area of study” in SIS by geographic region. Before the nation-state takes a back seat in our view of the world, a new perspective on world systems must be introduced. Theories that the new line between people will be defined by class or lifestyle, as well as looking at the world through the lens of the economy have taken center stage in fields of both development and IR, however we are yet to see a dominant prediction or theory emerge.
Works Cited
Appadurai, Ajun. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Duke University Press, Print.
Frank, Andre Gunder. The Underdevelopment of Development. University of Antioquia.
Robinson, William. Beyond Nation-State Paradigms. N.p.: Springer, 1998. Print.
Sassen, Saskia. Cities in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 2006. Print.
Saskia Sassen on Citizenship in the Age of Globalization. Cast Roller, 3 Aug. 2009. Web. 7 Oct.
Thérien, Jean-Philippe. Beyond the North South Divide. Taylor & amp; Francis, Print.
Wow, I am really impressed by this article. Very thoughtfully and carefully argued. I particularly enjoyed your use of the UN Paradigm to further your globalization argument. However, if we were to look at this from a realist point of view, globalization would in many ways be irrelevant to IR. Your post completely contradicts the Realist view that states hold all the power and thus are the driving force of IR. Would you argue that constructivists are right and that the globalization will naturally, and increasingly, undermine the power of nation states, or would you argue that as those same states currently hold all the power, they will do whatever it takes to hold onto it?
ReplyDeleteHey Victor, thanks for the comment!
ReplyDeleteYou are completely right in your statement that the post is contrary to Realist thought in almost every way. I tend to lean toward the constructivist view point in this context, just because I think that Realists would've taken more precautions to protect their sovereignty by limiting the transnational flow of people, ideas, and capital. However, it is possible that a realist would argue that having a hand in markets across the world, as well as utilizing the ideas, people, and investments of other countries for the benefit of the nation-state was actually increasing the security of the nation through securing their position as a key player in the new game of a globalized market and world system.
I hope that answered your question, and feel free to ask for any further clarification.
Great post Julia. My only question is that if power is indeed shifting away from nation-states, what might that look like in the future? Do you think that one day we may actually stop identifying ourselves by what country we come from? Furthermore, do you feel that the fact that we still distinguish ourselves by our race and divide the world up into geographic regions is necessarily proof that the power of the nation-state hasn't declined?
ReplyDeleteHey Jeremy, thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteIn the future, I think that nation-states will be smaller players operating under the authority of international organizations. If I had to make a prediction, I would say that these international organizations would be primarily market based, because the transnational flow of capital is the main component of the rise of globalization.
Great observation in regard to race. I would answer by saying that if globalization were to continue on the same track, the international flow of people would spread people out so that race would no longer be geographic. In all honesty, I doubt we would ever get to the point of an equal mix of races within a state due to cultural norms and the threat of the diluting of heritage.
I hope this answers your question! Thanks again.
This is a very intriguing post, as our trend towards globalization is constantly increasing. I really liked your analysis of the topic through the lens of constructivism. Throughout your post I saw many ideas of world systems theory/Marxism as well. You point out several times that materials are driving the relevance of nation states – you stated that, “The division of nation-states originally had to do with authority, jurisdiction, and monarchies or governments seeking to increase their wealth. Interestingly enough, the wealth they acquired, instead of reinforcing the institutions of nation-states led to the technology which led to globalization”. Do you believe that globalization can be explained through materials or that it is better analyzed through constructivism?
ReplyDeleteHey Anwen, thanks for the comment.
DeleteI believe globalization can be better described through constructivism and this is why: the movement of material and people has been in the works since the rise of imperialism, certainly not the the degree that we see today, but there was certainly a trend towards a more globalized world per se. And yet, the people of the time didn't label the process and study it extensively, analyzing the effects and predicting the direction imperialism was going. It was purely about the transfer of goods and people: materials.
However, now, we see not only an increase in the movement of materials, but also, a change in the mindset and perspective of businessmen, politicians, and citizens alike toward "globalization." We also are seeing the rise of international institutions that both perpetuate this global perspective and are reinforced by that same global outlook.
So I think constructivism is the most appropriate lens mainly because it better explains why we are seeing both a shift in the movement of materials and the rise of the global mindset and institutions.
Thanks again!
Thank you for your post and for your helpful responses to comments. The topic of globalization and how it affects personal identity as the idea of nation states deteriorates is a thought-provoking issue of debate today. What comes to my mind is the work of Thomas Geoghehan, who wrote “Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?” He proposes that globalization has led individuals to identify more with cultures and institutions that they favor from anywhere around the world based on their principles and practice than with their own backgrounds of citizenship or heritage. Instead of the deterioration of the concept of nation states, as your post suggests, individuals are identifying with foreign states without adherence to geographic limitations. Do you believe that we are more likely to become a society of people who identify with different cultures and institutions around the world despite their location, or a society that is homogeneously mixed with international citizens?
ReplyDeleteHey Emilie, thanks for the comment.
DeleteI do not think we will become a homogenous society for a few reasons.
While globalization is one of the strongest forces at play in the IR world right now, one force that is equally if not stronger is that of cultural norms. While some people who are displaced may assimilate to their new culture, the globalization trend has actually caused a backlash in the assimilation of cultures for a few reasons. Primarily, cultural norms change the way people receive ideas through what Appadurai calls mediascapes. For example, if the people of Ghana only see 3 different American television programs, one televangelist program, one reality TV show, and one soap opera (this was true in Ghana in the early 2000's) then they see Americans as a society comprised of largely hypocritical values, one the one hand the value of sex and money from the reality TV, and on the other, the value of religion from the televangelists. This creates a resistance within the Ghanian people in regards to the American culture. Another issue is that through the movement of people, there is the idea that a country's culture and identity can become diluted and therefore less marketable for tourism. For example, if the Filipinos have an influx of Chinese who sway their culture, the Philippines are more difficult to market to tourists as a culturally homogenous and historical place.
So while it is true that many cultures are becoming Americanized, especially within the 5 Asian Tigers which comprise the semi-periphery and are therefore closer to the core and the US, there will always be cultural norms and pride to check the effect of globalization on identity.
What it comes down to is that identity is formed under threat. People feel the need to defend their cultural identity much more when the movement of goods and people has the potential to sway that identity, for example a Coloradan in Washington DC living with roommates from New York might feel the need to assert his or her state pride much more than usual.
If you have time to read the Appadurai article it will give you a lot of insight into the stance I took on this post. I do concede that globalization has had a profound effect on identity, but in my mind homogeny is out of question.
Thanks again.