Many a time I have heard the word globalization in a context which makes it a good thing or at least not a bad one. And I have been appalled. By globalization I mean that which has been made possible by the present state of technological development and, in particular, mass communication media. I would like to state that I'm not a philosopher nor a sociologist and that I'm ready to accept an argument which will make me change my mind. My fear is this: globalization goes against cultural diversity. Not so much of a statement as a question hereby formulated by me. I know the Greeks lived in a geographical environment which put barriers among its different peoples. Later, European civilization was born in a landscape populated with rivers and mountains. Consider Europe is one of the places with most geographical accidents in the world. Only watch the gigantic coast development, another feature of Greece. These barriers were never so strong as to obliterate the propagation of ideas but, for certain, they slowed it down. One communication media was the courier and, if the horse had to cross a river, the time involved in the trip would be greater than if plain terrain. However, civilization in Europe, during the past five centuries, could see the incredibly fast development of science. Communication was the secret? Look at Greece. All geographical accident, too. But in the course of a century there developed what someone called the matrix of western wisdom.
The degree of isolation imposed by geography depends upon technological development. A mountain is not an obstacle for communication by satelites. So we need a time frame of reference, and I choose the XVIII century. This is the time of Frederick the Great, Newton, Voltaire, Goethe. And in this century Beethoven's impressionable youth was nurtured. We have now time and space, and we could do the following question. Was the lack of planes, trains, telegraph, satellites detrimental to Bach's musical output? I don't think so. By pursuing this argument further, I know my initial question would necessarily take us to this more fundamental one: Is progress a good thing? To this I do not answer. I guess it is.
Let's return to globalization. In the time I've chosen there lived great men, perhaps the greatest Europe has ever seen after the fall of the ancient world. And ideas, uses, news, everything that needs motion or propagation, had to move slowly, much more slowly than at present day. We live in a time where the opposite happens. A little scientist publishes a paper, and the following day it is known to the whole scientific community. Is this good? Maybe. Let's speak about something more basic: language. After all science needs language for the expression and communication of scientific ideas. There was a time where all of Europe spoke a single language: Latin (late Roman Empire). Is this good? I do not think so. Imagine a world speaking only English. What would you thing about its cultural diversity?
I have the point of view that globalization tends to homogenize the medium, be it humanities or the scientific realm. My point is very easy. Once the language is uniformed, everything else must follow suit. So the question may now be put like this: does homogenization represent a danger to the destinies of mankind? If you listen to the biologists, lack of diversity is a bad thing. Can this be transliterated onto the higher aspects of human behavior? If it can, I have myself answered the question and globalization stands for the greatest evil of our time.
The degree of isolation imposed by geography depends upon technological development. A mountain is not an obstacle for communication by satelites. So we need a time frame of reference, and I choose the XVIII century. This is the time of Frederick the Great, Newton, Voltaire, Goethe. And in this century Beethoven's impressionable youth was nurtured. We have now time and space, and we could do the following question. Was the lack of planes, trains, telegraph, satellites detrimental to Bach's musical output? I don't think so. By pursuing this argument further, I know my initial question would necessarily take us to this more fundamental one: Is progress a good thing? To this I do not answer. I guess it is.
Let's return to globalization. In the time I've chosen there lived great men, perhaps the greatest Europe has ever seen after the fall of the ancient world. And ideas, uses, news, everything that needs motion or propagation, had to move slowly, much more slowly than at present day. We live in a time where the opposite happens. A little scientist publishes a paper, and the following day it is known to the whole scientific community. Is this good? Maybe. Let's speak about something more basic: language. After all science needs language for the expression and communication of scientific ideas. There was a time where all of Europe spoke a single language: Latin (late Roman Empire). Is this good? I do not think so. Imagine a world speaking only English. What would you thing about its cultural diversity?
I have the point of view that globalization tends to homogenize the medium, be it humanities or the scientific realm. My point is very easy. Once the language is uniformed, everything else must follow suit. So the question may now be put like this: does homogenization represent a danger to the destinies of mankind? If you listen to the biologists, lack of diversity is a bad thing. Can this be transliterated onto the higher aspects of human behavior? If it can, I have myself answered the question and globalization stands for the greatest evil of our time.
Comment