Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Technology and Super-National Affiliation
In a recent essay, Henry Kissinger noted the potential of economic globalization to upset traditional paradigms of nationality and statehood.
The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.
Kissinger notes this in passing, and deliberately limits his perspective in this article. He refers only to the global economy, ignoring the many other ways by which the world has become ever smaller; not only financially and militarily interdependent, but also socially interactive at the level of individual citizens.
I would like to expand that view to ask a broader question: How has technological innovation changed what it means to be a nation? Are national identities and national governments as practically significant as they were a century or two ago?
Ricochet members have argued in the past the United States of America were more culturally and politically distinct from one another in the late 18th century, before the establishment of national media like radio and television. Railways, telegraph, highways, and air travel also normalized interaction between citizens. Telephones and cheaper mail delivery facilitated daily communication between distant friends and business associates. Largely as a consequence of these inventions, regional differences have been diluted in the wake of common experience.
It’s easy to forget how recent many of these changes are. Many Baby Boomers remember sharing a phone line with neighbors, so one might have to wait until a person down the street was done talking before being able to use one’s own phone. They remember when few people owned televisions, and only three channels were available. Most highways were constructed in their lifetime. How ubiquitous and advanced must such technologies become — and how many decades must pass — for them to homogenize various peoples into one culture and one political audience?
Today, we have internet and smart phones. A business can have employees in Switzerland, Israel, and Australia who only communicate online. It might identify its “home office” with a particular country only for tax purposes. People enjoy products and media from around the world. They socialize every day with foreigners and form organizations which defy national boundaries.
As conservatives with respect for the immutable nature of Man and the inevitability of social conflicts, we know that this technological innovation is not paving a path to Utopia. It will not lead to global harmony and the elimination of cultural differences. But there will be effects. What are those effects? Might technological innovation force a fundamental restructuring of political bodies?
Image Credit: “City Lights of the United States 2012” by NASA Earth Observatory – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=79800 for GeoTIFF original file.http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/8247975848/in/set-72157632172101342/ for quicker access to the jpeg. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
Published in Culture, General
On second look, the dark parts of the map more likely reflect mountain ranges, swamps, deserts, even farms, and such, where fewer people actually live. So while the folks in the “dark” may or may not be more free, the darkness on the map highlights that there are fewer lights, and not so condensed to be visible from space.
Tom Meyer added the picture. And yes, it’s great.
Absolutely, citizens are generally more free away from major cities. There is certainly corruption and power wrangling in smaller towns and rurals areas, like anywhere. Good ol’ boy networks are stronger because there is less turnover in political and bureaucratic positions. But, generally, city politicians and residents are more interested in legal micromanagement. To some extent, that’s because big cities face greater political challenges.
In a roundabout way, this demonstrates why our technological Renaissance is not leading to political freedom. Modern democratic politicians can micromanage citizens and act upon a multitude of individuals simultaneously as no king or emperor ever dreamed. Bureaucrats will concoct ever more reasons to fine law-respecting citizens, and technology will let them to fine us by automatic billing. Politicians can speak to millions of citizens at once, uniting them in enthusiastic fascism.
Technology has given average citizens access to incalculable information. That can be liberating, but it can also ease manipulation through misinformation, spread confusion by inability to process so much, and discourage debate by enabling intellectual sequestering. We can more easily discover and highlight corruption these days, but the corrupt can still spin and evade as always.
Inventions and discoveries have also made it more difficult for fellow citizens to understand each other and unite, because our day-to-day experiences vary ever more. What do a farmer and a software engineer have in common? Why should they unite politically?
More often than not, technology does not solve problems. It shifts problems or complicates them.
Here is a picture link to entice others to check out JW’s link to
Cohen’s pictures are gorgeous. Our modern urban light pollution does steal a beautiful natural wonder from our experience. Makes me long for the good ‘ol freedom days of candle light and star light! As Aaron says, technology doesn’t always solve our troubles. Even if it makes our lives easier, sometimes it can complicate our lives and rob us of critical experiences. [Says the hypocrite I am, as I write this on my computer and submit it via DSL.]
I recall a book published in Europe circa 1912 that argued that war was impossible because nations were too interdependent, or something.
Oops. I forget the title, not that it matters, because it turned out to be complete nonsense.
So go ahead and dream that the nation-state is going away, for whatever reason or none at all, because reality argues otherwise.
In my opinion we’re living in the twilight years of the Pax Americana, just like Europe was living in the twilight years of the Pax Britannica in 1912. The entire post World War II international order- based upon the preeminent wealth and power of the United States- is collapsing right before our eyes.
Technology doesn’t change that nor does it change human nature. We can order items from China just like an Englishman could order items from Germany prior to World War I, but that doesn’t mean we can never go to war.
Alas.
But you can drive an hour out of NYC and experience that. I grew up in the country. While a appreciate the silence, I don’t find much magical of a clear starry sky. Both the city and the country are great, and depending on who you are you can find a great deal of freedom in both places.
FYI, had my parents not gotten a building permit from our local town clerk they could not have built their pool. All’s not to free in the country either.
I don’t believe the nation-state is going away. But I do believe Kissinger is right about a growing conflict between national loyalties and international interests.
People have always interacted with citizens of other nations, mostly through trade. But that interaction never occurred as frequently, as immediately, and as powerfully as it does today.
I’m sure Kissinger is correct, but I’m also sure it doesn’t matter. I recall another book with a title I do recall, War and the Rise of the State, which described a nation as a dialect with an army. I find that an apt description.
I expect that the conflict between national and international loyalties will eventually result in (roughly) a sorting of people by their cultural affiliation.
For example, if you’re a Christian in the Middle East you’ll eventually be driven out, if you haven’t already. If you’re an Islamist infecting the House of War, you’ll eventually get the choice to flee or die, a choice the Christians of the ME have already been given.
Failing that, geographic boundaries will adjust to match cultural boundaries.
Likely that will be an unpleasant confrontational process that will sew the seeds of future conflict.
I respectfully disagree – they give up power because the possible alternative is worse i.e. et tu brute. Rome and many Greek city/states were democracies. Democracy isn’t a new invention and technically we are a representative democracy not a “true” democracy. I think the Warlock In Spite Of Himself (a fantasy book) explores the limits of democracy.
Sure but there are economic advantages with size i.e. economies of scale, larger armies, spread costs over larger tax base/group of ppl. Also power tends to be consolidated and this consolidation leads to larger size. I would like utopian communism to work but history shows us it doesn’t. Small communities that live in harmony with each other and nature is a pipe dream.