Global Movements: Resistance, Islam, and Variations on Globalization
©Rachel C
Globalization is an ever growing force in the world today. Whether it is simply the growth and spread of ideas, or the opposition to globalization, political policy and the media seem to be concentrating on its effects more and more.
Globalization comes in many shapes and forms, from cultural synthesis to the spread of technologies. It is fueled by the desire of those in power to bring greater technology, educational services, and freer markets to their countries as they increase their global economic power. However, globalization has taken on a one-sided appearance, and is heavily weighted by influence from the West. Countries such as the United States, Great Britain, and many other powerful nations have a strong hold on the organizations in the forefront of the globalized movement. These countries, with the power of veto and international wealth, have their foot in the door to accept greater privileges and to, if they so please, take advantage of smaller, weaker countries in need of aid and support. Thus, globalization, by standard definition, has become a mass movement of Western modernization and political power that places strong pressure on countries it wishes to bring into the modern, free market world.
With the intense pressure placed on many Third World countries, there is a growing number of protests against this particular form of globalization. These protests range the globe, but the more highly publicized seem to be the demonstrations originating in Southeast Asia and North Africa, or the Middle East. These campaigns are often violent, and increasingly political, and are designed to preserve traditional Islamic and Arab values in society as well as in government organizations. The groups coordinating these movements are working to keep Islam in day-to-day government as well as to keep Western influence out of the minds of their citizens. Sometimes these parties are governmentally based, attempting to keep strongholds over entire nations, but more often than not, they are growing militant groups who endeavor to control the hearts and minds of the populace in an effort to rise up and overtake the standing administration. It is these organizations that are making head-way in the battle against Western globalization, and it is these organizations that will cause a major shift in the political and technological movements changing the world.
Of course, to understand these organizations, one must look at the origins of resistance, as well as question the standing characterization of globalization. One must look at globalization by definition, by current movements of resistance as well as of modernity, and by the rise of global movements in an effort to combat other global movements.
To begin, globalization my be defined—in order to understand the movement, one must define the movement. Noam Chomsky, in a recent interview conducted by Danilo Mandic, described globalization simply as “international integration”. Organizations such as the World Social Forum are examples of globalization at the human level—essentially, bringing people from every continent together in one forum who have “somewhat common concerns and interests”—that is globalization, he says (Mandic 1). There is nothing innately corrupt in this definition of globalization. The bringing together of peoples from all walks of life and all parts of the globe is generally seen as a good thing. But, when many discuss “globalization”, they are not discussing it on the basis that it is a “good thing;” because the movement many are referring to is not exactly “globalization” at all, at least not by this definition.
“The term has come to be used in recent years as a kind of technical term which doesn’t refer to globalization, but refers to a very specific form of international economic integration...namely based on the priority given to investor rights, not rights of people” (Mandic 1). This is how Chomsky describes what is typically understood as “globalization”. It is only called globalization because the people who are in control, the world powers, are in the position to impose their terms. An example is the former Soviet Union having the power to call Czechoslovakia and Hungary “People’s Democracies”, when in fact they were not democracies at all. The people who control the world economy have enough power to distort the term to fit their highly specific and tremendously doctrinal position. Chomsky uses NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, as a paradigm. This agreement is not an exemplar of globalization; it is an illustration of protectionism. The only reason this agreement went into effect was because of the consensus behind it. Powerful and elite, the agreement had the support of the corporate world and the full support of the media. Thus, NAFTA was passed and put into effect, despite the majority of North American opposition (citizens from the United States, Canada, and Mexico).
Chomsky is not the only one who sees that the best known form of “globalization” is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Naomi Klein, who contributed to A Movement of Movements: Is Another World Really Possible, described the reigning form of globalization as “McGovernment”. McGovernment is a “happy meal of cutting taxes, privatizing services, liberalizing regulations, busting unions...to remove anything standing in the way of the market” (Mertes 226). It is a force controlled by the most powerful, and sits largely on the belief that, if governments “let the free market roll”, right through their barriers, the “trickle down” theory will burst to life, driving everything else to fall into orderly place and all problems thusly solved (Mertes 226). So, it is not a global movement at all—in the sense that all communities of the globe are together in enforcing it—and is instead an imposition of ideas from elite, super power nations onto weak Third World countries in economic disaster.
If this is indeed the case, then it is relatively easy to understand why there is so much resistance to globalization. As Chomsky says, “the people who are opposed to their version of globalization aren’t opposed to globalization” (Mandic 2). Those people are instead calling for another form of globalization, instead of this “McGovernment”, super power controlled movement. People are looking for movements that will better prioritize rights of people, of future generations, even of the environment, as opposed to prioritizing the rights of those with concentrated wealth and power (Mandic 2). Movements calling for these forms of globalization are rising up all across the globe in what is a world movement against McGovernment globalization. However, there is no proof that the coinciding resistances are purposely aligned.
Naomi Klein does not believe that these movements are deliberately connected. She says, in A Movement of Movements, that these protests, and their protesters, happened into the global arena at the same time. It was, in effect, one very large coincidence: When protests like Seattle caught the camera lens of the global media, other protests across the world where suddenly eyes open to how broad the coalition had become. Various groups began their campaigns individually based on their own disputes concerning their treatment, and from there found a connection to larger movements working toward a similar cause, if through a different medium. Thus, global resistance movements are connected by their core objective, resistance to lopsided globalization, though each movement is working for a different cause.
One of these movements, and probably the most outstanding in the media and in the eyes of Americans and their government, is the resistance to globalization in the Middle East. The force of globalization on this region, often referred to as the MENA (the Middle East and Northern Africa), is much like a pressure cooker. Clement M. Henry, in his paper “Tensions Between Development and Globalization in the Middle East”, says developing nations are no longer viewed as “planes about to take off”, but as caught in this “global pressure cooker”, with developed nations bullying them to modernize (1). He says the Arab, Persian, and African countries of the MENA are doubly pressured because they must exist between regional forces of Arab nationalism and political Islam as well as manage the challenges of globalization.
Henry’s theory is supported in an article by Barry Rubin, “Globalization and the Middle East: Part One”, which was published to YaleGlobal Online, wherein Rubin outlines the rhyme and reason for such a strong resistance by the MENA. He says the region so desperately opposes globalization because of the little European, and Western, penetration in the region prior to the past few decades. He says that, though intersecting with the McGovernment and the “concentrated power” definitions of globalization, the most prevalent definition is a form of Westernized globalization, fueled by the spread of Western technologies, culture, and political ideals. Thus, globalization is confused with Westernization, which conflicts and contradicts Islam and Arab customs and law.
To understand further the conflict between Westernized globalization and the MENA, one must understand the aspects that work to separate the West from the MENA culturally and idealistically. There is a natural disparity between the Middle East and the West. Part of that conflict of opinion is indeed the lack of past Western influence. Certainly there has been some, but, quite unlike many of the world’s other emerging markets and powers, the amount of Western infiltration is unusually insignificant.
A principal aspect of this segregation is the religious differences between the two regions. The MENA is overwhelmingly Islamic, and Christianity—the religion most strongly associated with the West—has remained marginal throughout the region (Rubin 3). Islam has its own set of rules; it retains a claim to hegemony and sees itself as far separated from the global consensus. This religion maintains a claim to the proper order of society through specific law, which is not only preformed in the lives of devout Muslims through the reading of the Koran, but is also incorporated with law executed by the national governments of the region. The size and cohesion of the Islamic community builds a cultural, and now governmental, wall against many institutions of globalization, which are seen as threats to cultural traditions and instigators of cultural synthesis.
Part of this Islamic culture that reigns in the MENA is language. Arabic is the proclaimed language of Islam, and is spoken in every MENA country—excluding Iran, whose primary language is Farsi. The region is thus unified under one language, a language that is very unique and is not derived from European languages. Because the languages of globalization are primarily European in origin, there is a barrier between globalizing communities and the large and culturally powerful Arabic community.
A central aspect of the MENA cultural and social personality is the popular belief that, instead of becoming largely Westernized, the world should succumb to their way of life—rather than adapting to the world, the world should adapt to the Middle East. This is largely supported by many Arab nationalists, Islamists, and a hefty blend of the two who believe that they are still destined to emerge as a dominant region in the world (Rubin 4).
However, much of the region seems to have a severe inferiority complex. The MENA feels increasingly vulnerable and there is a sense of being left behind. They believe that any compromise will bring total absorption of Western ideals and doubt their ability to survive cultural synthesis because they fear that the emerging global system might be superior to theirs. Thus, they reject the entirety of globalization, which is usually accepted in other cultures and regions on the compromise that they keep their traditions, but just get to “add new features” thanks to modern technology and broader economic development brought by the West (Rubin 4).
“As a result of these and other factors, the basic elements of globalization are seen as more alien in the Middle East than elsewhere and are thus far more likely to be seen as hostile” (Rubin 3). Thus, the Middle East is rising up against globalization in a violent and political wave to keep what they have the way it has been for centuries. The MENA sees globalization as succumbing to the West, and, ultimately, as giving up everything that makes the region unique. If the Middle East compromises, there is a chance they as if they are giving in to something that completely contradicts their culture, traditions, religion, and social way of life.
As mentioned earlier, Islamic law has found its way into government institutions in much of the MENA. Government has an inevitable effect on how globalized the MENA community can ever become, because the region has managed a feat no Western government has. With the acceptance of modernization, European governments lost their autocratic regimes to democracy, whereas in the MENA, totalitarian regimes have managed to survive decades of modernization. Somehow, the Middle East has learned to keep their dictatorships alive and mobilize mass support of those governmental regimes (Rubin 4).
Mass espousal from MENA constituents is typically achieved by the harnessed power of demagoguery. To create a pervasive system which is used to sway the public into sustaining their governments, MENA officials convince citizens that anti-globalization is the only way of defending the Arab nation and Islam. They also incorporate anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments, which play to the populace’s patriotism. They present change as dangerous and compromise as surrender and are thus able to keep the support of their own people all the while discouraging them from supporting certain elements of globalization: democracy, free enterprise, civil and human rights. If allowed, those ideals could seep into the minds of the populace and cause an increased opposition to the current rulers which could lead to coup and the overthrow of those in power.
Continuing a tradition of repression, the MENA further suppresses those demanding democracy, free enterprise, and civil liberties by keeping the business class weak by the state’s domination of the economy and the intellectuals under the thumb of the state. They do this by maintaining middle class dependency on the state for its patronage or direct employment. Intellectuals are employed for state-controlled enterprises and are made the bearers of the state’s ideology. This process not only restricts citizens under these regimes, but also, through keeping state-control on the economy, sacrifices efficiency and wealth, all for power (Rubin 4).
Although MENA governments have a tight jurisdiction over their economies, they employ aspects of modernization which further tighten controls. Television and radio, as well as CDs and cassettes, are effective in carrying Islamist ideological lectures as well as popular forms of media. Satellite television, most notably al-Jazeera in Qatar, has been fervently cooperative to spread extremist doctrine (Rubin 5).
Benjamin R. Barber, in his book Jihad vs. McWorld, describes the inability to have neither Jihad nor McWorld without the other. In one instance, he declares that Jihad is the child of McWorld, because there could not possibly be culture “without the commercial producers who market it and the information and communication systems that make it known” (155). He goes on to say that Muslims can find information over the internet just as easily as modern Christian fundamentalists can access religious forums. Without McWorld, or, essentially, the aspects of modernization such as technologies and markets, Jihad, or the rebellion against modernization, could not exist. Thus, it seems the forces of globalization are working in the MENA to help the region combat globalization and its controversial aspects.
“There is just no way for these movements to be anti-globalization,” says Noam Chomsky, “they are perfect instances of globalization” (Mandic 1). Indeed, the forces rising against McGovernment, or globalization by concentrated powers, or Westernization, are moving in mass as a global movement themselves. They cannot, in this sense, be anti-globalization if they are a global community. The MENA is a fantastic example of globalization against globalization in the Jihadist movement, which is not only meant as a counter to Western globalization, but is also meant as the spread of Islam through the globe. As Frank Griffel, in his article for YaleGlobal Online, “Globalization and the Middle East: Part Two”, says:
"Islamic fundamentalism has been, in fact, strengthened by globalization. In the Middle East it is one of its driving forces. Muslim fundamentalism movements are benefiting from the increase in the flow of information, speed of communication, and mobility more than any other political movements in the region. Their vision of a globalized society, however, is quite different from the pleasure-seeking, profit-driven western lifestyle that is being promoted by the globalization that we focus upon the most. The Islamists’ ideal of a globalized society is the network-connection of all 'real' Muslims and their organizations in order to promote their definition of Islam, and what they view as 'Islamic'" (1).
With the attacks of September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda conveyed a message to its sympathizers, as well as its opponents, of the effectiveness of a globalized jihad (Griffel 2). The question derived from this, then, is whether it makes sense for a globalized movement or organization to fight globalization? Of course, when considering that globalization does not just mean Westernization, and is not just the implementation of ideas from wealthy and powerful minds, it is easy to see that other regions may seek their own forms of globalization. Indeed, as it was mentioned earlier, many of the protesters of McGovernment are simply looking for other forms of globalization.
Islam is just another group seeking a secondary form of globalization. Thanks to the movement of technologies and communications, along with Western aspects, Islamic and Arabic cultural characteristics have spread. At one point, each country—even each region of each country—of the MENA had its own, custom way of practicing Islam. However, because of an increase in exchange between MENA countries, as well as other regions around the globe, aspects of one practice can reach another through books, websites, or television programs. This trade leads to an increase in a particular type of Islam, unifying many countries and Muslims under the same practices. The widespread use of Arabic aides in the process of spreading Islam as well; adding to unity under one language, the traditional Islamic teachings promote a strong sense of unity and uniformity. Advances in transportation have supplied thousands of pilgrims with the means to perform the annual hajj to Mecca, increasing travel to the region.
However, the most important consequence of the globalization of the Islamic world “was the creation of a standard understanding for what the words ‘Islam’ and ‘Islamic’ mean” (Griffel 3). Before, what was considered “Islamic” in a society was decided on a local, regional, or national level. Each country, and essentially, each Muslim, was given the opportunity to decide for themselves how they would interpret the Islamic message. Yet, with the increase in conservative groups within the Islamist movement, this individuality has been exchanged for a more unified identity. Now local traditions are less relevant and are being replaced with a version of standards that appears to be a mix of Wahhabism and Islamic fundamentalism (Griffel 3).
Essentially, the Islamic movement, and its rebellion toward Westernized globalization, is not necessarily meant as a resistance, but is fundamentally MENA’s own version of globalization. Certainly the predominant idea of globalization is that of Chomsky and Klein’s definition, something along the lines of concentrated McGovernment wealth and power implementing its standards on the rest of the globe all for more international control. But, this type of globalization is only one form, and cannot overshadow the other types emerging as dominant in the globalized movement. If Barber’s McWorld, or Klein’s McGovernment, stay strong, the battles between Westernization and Islam fundamentalism will grow ever more violent and ever more enthusiastic. There must be a medium, found between the two. A compromise where both can exist. That, however, seems impossible; but, if nothing can be done, there is no hope for this society as it exists today.
