Departure from Zero-Sum Game④
ファイナル終わりました。
お疲れ様です。
ちょっと時間もあるので、いつもより真面目に説明付けようと思います。
では以下、第四部。
=======================================================================
How can we unmask the reality of identity that people are supposed to possess? Annick Wibben defines ‘identity’: national, ethnic, racial, gender, class, sexual and religious. He also says it gives us a sense of belongings and it is the marker of our tradition, history and heritage. Does it represent social status and is it constructed socially or biologically? In the real world, it is hard to say that identity has equitableness. For instance, gender which is one of the elements of identity is considered to show unjustness worldwide. Historically speaking, politics is thought to inhere to men. Wibben says “Experience in partnerships, friendships, the workforce or the marketplace, they discovered systematic patterns of male domination in all of these areas. (Wibben, p74) Once such concept took root, it gets hard to pull out because it comes to be shared as a common sense in a society.
As well as gender, race also has unfair aspects. Both gender and race are biologically created that there are no space to either change or choose before birth. Do we have a right to consider it as a privilege? “Privilege is a structure of unearned assets that we take for granted and that are considered ‘normal’. The privilege of some is always premised on the denial of advantages to others, but we are not encouraged to see this.” (Wibben, p78) Majority of us has noticed that it is not a privilege but was socially constructed. “Whereas identity used to be thought of as having its roots in nature or some sort of spiritual or anthropological essence, most scholars today subscribe to some variant of the idea that identity is socially constructed. Identities are seen to be constructed in a process of social, cultural and political struggle, rather than given by nature.” (Wibben, p 82)
Now, I would like to think back a little bit on what Huntington argued. As his title says, his main argument is that several civilizations are colliding. Within one civilization, same culture is shared amongst them. Then, how can we think about the incident of Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda? They spoke the same language, shared similar customs and frequently intermarried. In spite of sharing the same culture, there were brought down genocide in the end. Given that fact, I can say that the cause of contemporary conflicts is too complicated and “civilization” is not surely enough to give an explanation for the whole picture.
In the first place, complexity of our modern world makes almost impossible to get hold of the whole picture. What is a nexus of its complexity? Without any question, it is ‘globalization’ as I have underscored over again and again. What change has it brought into a world? Innumerable changes but, believe it or not, it has changed the entire world all at once spatially. In an attempt to demonstrate an easy-to-understand example, I would like to vouch prominent journalist Thomas Friedman.
His well-know book “The World is Flat” covers the issue in depth. The inspiration occurred to him, when his friend told him “Tom, the playing field is being leveled.” He realized that developing countries are now able to compete for global knowledge work as never before- and that developed countries had better get ready for this. He meant that stream of capital is in the process of change at a tremendous pace.
He analyzes and segments globalization into three phases. At present, he asserts globalization had reached at phase 3 and gone to a whole new level in which individuals gain newfound power to collaborate and compete globally. There, not horsepower nor hardware but software in conjunction with the creation of a global fiber-optic network that has made us all next-door neighbors is given much importance.
Alongside Huntington’s argument, he goes so far as to say “Because it is flattening and shrinking the world, Globalization 3.0 is going to be more and more driven not only by individuals but also by a much more diverse- non-Western, non-white- group of individuals.” (Friedman, p11) He sums up that country, muscles, multinational companies or other conventional actors no more remain power.
He warns Americans, “No matter what your profession- doctor, lawyer, architect, accountant- if you are an American, you better be good at the touchy-feely service stuff, because anything that can be digitized can be outsourced to either the smartest or the cheapest producer, or both. Everyone has to focus on what exactly is their value-add.” (Friedman, p14) Although there is a difference of degree between both sides, to me, both Huntington and Friedman seem to be conservative as before in a way that they try to draw wealth from all over the world into their side. In this world of globalized era, there does not exist “sides” any more. We need to try to perceive the world with broader perspective. Here again, we are highly hidebound by traditional ways of thinking, that is to say, ‘zero-sum game’.
Zero-sum game describes a situation in which participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant. If we apply this theory to the world that we are living, we can acknowledge the existence of it everywhere. There are gaps everywhere in terms of affluence and wealth. These days, polarization into haves and have-nots has been accelerated on a parallel with globalization. Absolute amount of pie of global capital is always constant. In that sense, states are playing a game named “export competition”, fighting for the pie. Prosperity is established in the exchange for those who succumb to such game and suffer from famine.
A series of exploitations have created a variety of social distortions. For example, immigration issue is serious nowadays, especially in the United States. Even though she had been building up its history by boosting the immigration intake, there is something strange going on with its traditional tide. I would like to reconsider this matter, citing critical points from Huntington’s other work “The Hispanic Challenge"
(to be continued...)
===========================================================
（簡潔な説明）いつもより真面目に書いてみます。
まずアイデンティティの定義を。
生物学的な側面ももちろんあるが、それ以上に社会的に構築されている印象が強い。
いくつか例示してみる。
人種やジェンダーは特権なのか？
ルワンダの民族闘争にフォーカスしてみたとき、ハンティントンのアーギュメントは揺らぐ。
やはり、複雑化した現代でその渦の中心にあるのはグローバリゼーションである。
あまりにも有名になったフリードマンの「フラット化した世界」を参照してみたい。
彼に言わせると、グローバリゼーションにもフェーズがあり、現代は第三段階に突入したらしい。
そこでは国家というよりも個人の重要性が尊重される。
そして欧米や白人じゃなくともチャンスが訪れる。
彼はアメリカ人に警鐘を鳴らす。アウトソーシングに備えよと。
程度の差こそあれ、どうもハンティントンもフリードマンもやや保守的に聞こえる。
両者もいかに自分のサイドに富を引き寄せるかに固執している。
もっと広いパースペクティブでとらえないと結局はゼロサムーゲームにはまってしまう。
国際政治におけるゼロサムゲームを克服するのは限りなく不可能に近い。
国家が存在する限り。
問題なのは現状においてそのゼロサムゲームが公平になされていのかということである。
多くの国（多くは貧国）が締め出されていたり、搾取にあっていたりする。
あらゆる搾取が社会的歪みを生み出している。
例えば、アメリカにおける移民の問題がそれである。
ハンティントンの他の著作「ヒスパニック・チャレンジ」を参照しながら考えてみたい。
(⑤に続く)
次で終わりです。
ワンクリックを。
にほんブログ村
お疲れ様です。
ちょっと時間もあるので、いつもより真面目に説明付けようと思います。
では以下、第四部。
=======================================================================
How can we unmask the reality of identity that people are supposed to possess? Annick Wibben defines ‘identity’: national, ethnic, racial, gender, class, sexual and religious. He also says it gives us a sense of belongings and it is the marker of our tradition, history and heritage. Does it represent social status and is it constructed socially or biologically? In the real world, it is hard to say that identity has equitableness. For instance, gender which is one of the elements of identity is considered to show unjustness worldwide. Historically speaking, politics is thought to inhere to men. Wibben says “Experience in partnerships, friendships, the workforce or the marketplace, they discovered systematic patterns of male domination in all of these areas. (Wibben, p74) Once such concept took root, it gets hard to pull out because it comes to be shared as a common sense in a society.
As well as gender, race also has unfair aspects. Both gender and race are biologically created that there are no space to either change or choose before birth. Do we have a right to consider it as a privilege? “Privilege is a structure of unearned assets that we take for granted and that are considered ‘normal’. The privilege of some is always premised on the denial of advantages to others, but we are not encouraged to see this.” (Wibben, p78) Majority of us has noticed that it is not a privilege but was socially constructed. “Whereas identity used to be thought of as having its roots in nature or some sort of spiritual or anthropological essence, most scholars today subscribe to some variant of the idea that identity is socially constructed. Identities are seen to be constructed in a process of social, cultural and political struggle, rather than given by nature.” (Wibben, p 82)
Now, I would like to think back a little bit on what Huntington argued. As his title says, his main argument is that several civilizations are colliding. Within one civilization, same culture is shared amongst them. Then, how can we think about the incident of Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda? They spoke the same language, shared similar customs and frequently intermarried. In spite of sharing the same culture, there were brought down genocide in the end. Given that fact, I can say that the cause of contemporary conflicts is too complicated and “civilization” is not surely enough to give an explanation for the whole picture.
In the first place, complexity of our modern world makes almost impossible to get hold of the whole picture. What is a nexus of its complexity? Without any question, it is ‘globalization’ as I have underscored over again and again. What change has it brought into a world? Innumerable changes but, believe it or not, it has changed the entire world all at once spatially. In an attempt to demonstrate an easy-to-understand example, I would like to vouch prominent journalist Thomas Friedman.
His well-know book “The World is Flat” covers the issue in depth. The inspiration occurred to him, when his friend told him “Tom, the playing field is being leveled.” He realized that developing countries are now able to compete for global knowledge work as never before- and that developed countries had better get ready for this. He meant that stream of capital is in the process of change at a tremendous pace.
He analyzes and segments globalization into three phases. At present, he asserts globalization had reached at phase 3 and gone to a whole new level in which individuals gain newfound power to collaborate and compete globally. There, not horsepower nor hardware but software in conjunction with the creation of a global fiber-optic network that has made us all next-door neighbors is given much importance.
Alongside Huntington’s argument, he goes so far as to say “Because it is flattening and shrinking the world, Globalization 3.0 is going to be more and more driven not only by individuals but also by a much more diverse- non-Western, non-white- group of individuals.” (Friedman, p11) He sums up that country, muscles, multinational companies or other conventional actors no more remain power.
He warns Americans, “No matter what your profession- doctor, lawyer, architect, accountant- if you are an American, you better be good at the touchy-feely service stuff, because anything that can be digitized can be outsourced to either the smartest or the cheapest producer, or both. Everyone has to focus on what exactly is their value-add.” (Friedman, p14) Although there is a difference of degree between both sides, to me, both Huntington and Friedman seem to be conservative as before in a way that they try to draw wealth from all over the world into their side. In this world of globalized era, there does not exist “sides” any more. We need to try to perceive the world with broader perspective. Here again, we are highly hidebound by traditional ways of thinking, that is to say, ‘zero-sum game’.
Zero-sum game describes a situation in which participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant. If we apply this theory to the world that we are living, we can acknowledge the existence of it everywhere. There are gaps everywhere in terms of affluence and wealth. These days, polarization into haves and have-nots has been accelerated on a parallel with globalization. Absolute amount of pie of global capital is always constant. In that sense, states are playing a game named “export competition”, fighting for the pie. Prosperity is established in the exchange for those who succumb to such game and suffer from famine.
A series of exploitations have created a variety of social distortions. For example, immigration issue is serious nowadays, especially in the United States. Even though she had been building up its history by boosting the immigration intake, there is something strange going on with its traditional tide. I would like to reconsider this matter, citing critical points from Huntington’s other work “The Hispanic Challenge"
(to be continued...)
===========================================================
（簡潔な説明）いつもより真面目に書いてみます。
まずアイデンティティの定義を。
生物学的な側面ももちろんあるが、それ以上に社会的に構築されている印象が強い。
いくつか例示してみる。
人種やジェンダーは特権なのか？
ルワンダの民族闘争にフォーカスしてみたとき、ハンティントンのアーギュメントは揺らぐ。
やはり、複雑化した現代でその渦の中心にあるのはグローバリゼーションである。
あまりにも有名になったフリードマンの「フラット化した世界」を参照してみたい。
彼に言わせると、グローバリゼーションにもフェーズがあり、現代は第三段階に突入したらしい。
そこでは国家というよりも個人の重要性が尊重される。
そして欧米や白人じゃなくともチャンスが訪れる。
彼はアメリカ人に警鐘を鳴らす。アウトソーシングに備えよと。
程度の差こそあれ、どうもハンティントンもフリードマンもやや保守的に聞こえる。
両者もいかに自分のサイドに富を引き寄せるかに固執している。
もっと広いパースペクティブでとらえないと結局はゼロサムーゲームにはまってしまう。
国際政治におけるゼロサムゲームを克服するのは限りなく不可能に近い。
国家が存在する限り。
問題なのは現状においてそのゼロサムゲームが公平になされていのかということである。
多くの国（多くは貧国）が締め出されていたり、搾取にあっていたりする。
あらゆる搾取が社会的歪みを生み出している。
例えば、アメリカにおける移民の問題がそれである。
ハンティントンの他の著作「ヒスパニック・チャレンジ」を参照しながら考えてみたい。
(⑤に続く)
次で終わりです。
ワンクリックを。
にほんブログ村