Non viva la difference?

Looking around the world just now, it is hard to dispute Alain Touraine’s thesis that we are heightening our differences as communities try to assert identities against the impact of globalisation. Of course, it won’t work because competition between assertive communities only serves to strengthen competitive market and military pressures, together with the technological change they bring along with them, and so feed globalisation. But apart from that there is a further warning for those radicals who may think they help the cause of emancipation by pushing the ‘politics of difference’. (It is strange how many radical intellectuals spend energy fighting liberalism, and liberal notions of rights, when liberalism itself – other than the market economics bit – has such limited influence.)

Some forms of differential treatment in respect of differences are hardly controversial (and therefore not involved in politics); such as disabled access, remedial training or, indeed, treatment of inherited diseases. But these things are about correcting disadvantages so as to enable people to live a decent life and be treated with common respect. When it comes to assertion of difference between groups, and more especially ‘communities’, there is far more danger of an opening to those megalomaniacs who want to claim they are superior to others. Curiously little attention was ever paid to this aspect of the warning from apartheid, when the very term ‘apartheid’ meant ‘separate development’ – in theory each racial culture going their own way on a valid basis. Needless to say, such theory soon turned into subordination and oppression. The ‘politics of difference’ is a hazardous road for those who find themselves disadvantaged and marginalised, and those who claim to support them should watch carefully in case they do just the opposite.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Non viva la difference?

  1. Hi Stephen,

    Very interesting, thank you. Are you suggesting that, as these competing communities diverge, they will create new markets, leading to greater globalisation? If so, I can see the correlation between difference/variety and markets/consumerism, but why wouldn’t within-community homogenisation (in orthodox religious communities, for example) result in less difference/variety overall?

    • Many thanks for your response – a question, although WordPress identifies it as a ‘comment’! In modest part, I do mean what you suggest about competing communities creating new markets. But my principal point is that even if within-community homogenisation occurs, it is likely (not a necessary result in every case, but one which will often happen) that tension with other communities will heighten military and economic rivalries, thereby stimulating globalisation. Consider Iran or India for example. The process can be reversed for a time as it was after the First World War, but the international tensions associated with national self-sufficiency (fascism) or ‘socialism in one country’ (Stalin’s Russia) and of democracy in relation to each of those made the within-community homogenisation (explicitly intended by the regimes concerned) highly unstable. After another world war and massive technological change, we returned to a global economy. In a sense that does mean less variety overall, but in the sense that we all end up with the globalisation. Again, thanks and regards. Stephen O’Kane. PS – how are you doing these days?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s