Talk on Construction of A Global State

Posted on 27/1/2014

Talk on Construction of A Global State

EVENT DETAILS

On 27th of January 2014, Pearl Institute (Formerly known as Anatolia Cultural & Dialogue Centre ) hosted one of the Professors from Zhejiang University in China.

Dr. Zhang Quanyi is an associate professor of political science at Zhejiang Wanli University and a guest researcher at the Center for the Study of Non-traditional Security and Peaceful Development at Zhejiang University and he gave a talk on Global Identity.

In his talk, he discussed wide variety of subjects regarding different aspects of our life. He gave examples from our material life and also from state beyond the matter.

He summarized his subject as;

The arguments are designed revolving around the four assumptions:

1) The challenges of an interdependent world which people are facing ranging from security issues to environmental crisis.

2) The possibilities for constructing human social nature and social identity through education, communication and developed cognitions.

3) The evolution of human spirit construction towards an ideal world upon which the national states as well as religious entities are pushing or sharing.

4) Last but not least is the evidence of our human world as a self-organizational mechanism or body taking a purposeful track for making such identity of world state come true as witnessed by the increasingly integrated global economy and politics.

Some Parts from his talk and book;

Scholars in the social sciences have done a great deal of studies, arguing for the organization of our current society as well as that of the future. Regardless of Godism or anti-Godism, politicians, scholars and religious leaders all share a teleological premise that human beings will evolve into an ideal society in terms of heaven, paradise or even communism. However, regarding the track or means of reaching such an ideal world, there are different arguments or preferences.

For students of international relations, there are two key schools of thoughts, which I call them pessimism and optimism. They are both attempting to interpret the future based on their perspectives or methodologies.

Pessimism mostly sides with realism, which could be traced to Thucydides in ancient Greece and Machiavelli in 13th century of Italy, two famous philosophers, who saw human beings as ‘dirty’ and ‘selfish’ in nature.

Following such idea, the American political scientist Hans J. Morgenthau (1948) and Kenneth Waltz (1979, John Mershermer (2001)generated this classical realism as neo-realism or offensive realism, saying that states would never stop struggling for power because of the continuous pursuit of their national interests. Accordingly, big powers would persistently defend their positions against any rising and challenging powers, like that the US regards China as a rising power to contain or stop.

Subject to realism, any states are always seeking a ‘balance of power’ to achieve safety or reduce security dilemma. Realist concludes either states will fight to each other among wars or after wars or governed by an empire through hegemony when all states have to succumb or submit their sovereignty to its hegemonic governance.

On the other hand, there is a theory called liberalism. There are diversified idealism or liberalism theories which I label them as optimism.

For the time sake, I only favor talking about assumptions of moderate Constructivism. Whose key representative Alexander Wendt advocates the integration of both realism and liberalism.

Constructivism agrees that states are living in the anarchic system on one hand, and highlights the role of ideas on the other. As Wendt famously argued, ‘anarchy is what state makes of it.’ To be frank, I prefer constructivism for our human future.

Based upon such an optimistic perspective, I argue the global collective identity could be constructed through human efforts and value integrations, thereby most likely generating a global identity or world state.

What is world state? You may ask? Can we find any existence or evidence for supporting such a scenario of world state in our current world?

World state shares a unique characteristic that human interests are interdependent whereby global interests of national state will succumb to or be mingled to each other. If I give you a physical image or conception, that means all the human beings share a value consensus over governance under diversified ‘sovereignties’.

And you may ask, where can we see that, are there any practices in our current political system?

My answer is “Yes”. See the running of the United Nations. Even though states are trying to maximize their interests under such “anarchy”, having more concerns over geopolitics or national interests, sovereign states are never giving up trying to peace-seeking, peace-talking and peace-building. From middle east to Africa,North Korea, international society are always working for peace and development. And UN is still progressing for renovations or reformations.

See the growing trend of the integrated global economic and political entities, the European Commission, the ASEAN, The Africa Economic Community, The American Markets, even although they are still experiencing challenges or facing difficulties, the development always brings us a confidence for a future evolution of a global markets or political enteritis.

You may wonder, these arguments are not enough? I agree, so that’s why I’m standing here putting forth my arguments based on my four assumptions followed.

Four assumptions

First, on an interdependent world what we are facing, such is a well-known in theory and practice, which I don’t need to extend here. The reality makes sovereign states have to succumb to their national interests to global interests.

Our world is not separated. Like Shakespeare said “The world is a stage, like it or not, you’re one of them”. History taught us we are now living in an international society other than a time of sovereign era.

Back to the early 15th century, states were really isolated and unconnected; people knew little about the world beyond their own sphere, and a king or queen could proudly say ‘L’Etat, c’est moi’ (I am the state). That means the state was totally under the control of a sovereign, who was often considered holy and had absolute power.

But the 30 years war (1618-1648) generated our modern sovereign state since then, especially from 1793, as put forth by the late famous Historian Stavrianovs in his Global History, From Prehistory to the 21st Century , the world has been totally reshaped and reorganized, not mentioning the technology development has brought our world untouchable. Of course there are always some suspicion or doubts over the trend or reality of the globalization, in China even in 1980s, scholars were arguing the “ globalization legitimacy ”.

But see what we are experiencing the changing pace of a globalized world; the concept of a global village is already a reality. Comparing our life to that of a decade ago, our world is sharply different; We are now truly living in an interdependent world, whereby we are all citizens of a global village, being interactive, vulnerable and sensitive in almost all fields.

To be a strong aware of interdependence reality, we human beings have to face or solve at least the two pending issues otherwise we may face the destruction of states or catastrophes of our human civilizations.

1) The ecology issue: Human beings are truly experiencing global warming now. No one will deny that the ozone layer is being destroyed, the ice on the two poles of the earth is melting, sea levels are rising, resulting in disasters.

This also results in unnatural diseases such as AIDS, SARS, Hoof-and-mouth disease, Bird’s flu, and other unknown diseases we may face in the future.

More living issues as food, house-built…

Sadly, despite major breakthroughs brought by advanced technology and the incessant efforts to explore our universe, we human beings still haven’t found a second earth, so how to save our home is a true issue.

It is high time for human beings to use technology and money to avoid “a sharp rise in temperatures” that “would wipe out species, raise ocean levels, wreak economic havoc and trigger droughts” other than perusing national interests alone.

2) Favoring or promoting the soft power. On the surface, co-existence or living together is still a problem for nation states. Since the Second World War, sovereign states only draw little lessons, and there are states which still dreams of regaining imperialism. States also learn little experiences over the ending of the Cold War. States never stop attempting to maximize their power in pursuing their relevant powers, fighting from land and sea to the universe.

The ending of the Cold war did not bring us ‘the end of history’ or ‘democratic peace’; ridiculously it followed an era of terror in which suicide bombings have become a daily topic.

We also face the dangers of mass spreading of nuclear and biological weapons, not mentioning we states are condemned being responsible for economic equality, financial crises, democracy, and human rights.

Shall we be pessimistic that the states will never cease pursuing the hardpower for resolving the security issue? Of course, not!

We need be progressive or constructive, as in evidence, sates are now preferring gaining soft power than hard power. We must realize whatever advanced technology states may pursue; perpetual peace will not come about through seeking ‘forced submission’.

What we have to think is how to advocate and in what means to take advantage soft power for benefiting our human world?

Joseph S. Nye (2003, 2005) has argued ‘soft power’ for the management of conflicts and reconciliation of values, yet we need ask whose ‘soft power’ should be succumbed to?

We have to pay attention to two problems, one is the distribution of soft power players, that is not only we pay attention to big power players but the second layer countries. ‘soft balancing’ are different, although they are related in essence. ‘Soft balancing’ involves the formation of limited diplomatic coalitions or ententes among second-tier powers.

The other is the balancing of soft-power itself, whose soft power? Chinese philosophy Confucianism and Taoism are enlightened for mediating differences.

Now let’s turn to my second assumption that is human nature can be constructed.

You may wonder, how nature of biological human beings are constructed, I would say this refers social character. No one would deny as a being, our human consciousness and ethics have been greatly improved collectively, I means as a collective entity in terms of organization, state or system.

This is because studies of human nature are always a good starting point in probing into the social sciences. Most of the leading writers in philosophy, sociology, psychology and anthropology agree that human nature is significant in understanding the essence of human beings. The great philosopher Aristotle once said that human beings are political animals. Even Marxism is in good company with this analysis of human nature. I would argue that the nature of human beings can be constructed regardless of being ‘good’ or ‘evil.’

My understanding largely centers on the following premises:

First, Human beings are social animals. The innerness or characteristics of social animals are of intelligence, rationality and morality. On the long path of human evolution, the human brain became capable of learning, observing and perceiving, allowing humans to use their brains to guide their behavior for a purpose, which is unique to human beings.

Some may argue that apes or chimpanzees are also intelligent and capable of learning and observing, yet scientists have experienced and observed that they are quite different in level and complexity.

Apes or chimpanzees might be educable, but are incapable of complicated labor. What’s more, human beings can intentionally use their brains for a purpose, and gain knowledge through intentional labor, of which non-human animals are intrinsically incapable. Human beings are moral animals with an awareness of wrong and right, good and evil.

This idea also matches to Confucianism conception, which argues what human beings are different from that animals lies on human beings’ awareness of benevolence, justice, intelligence and fidelity. Other ancient philosophers from east and west agree to this as well.

Second, human beings not only share similarities in their genes but also in their cultural orientations, which are exemplified in the forms of different civilizations or religious ideas. Further, Cultures are compositions of human spiritual products such as the arts, literature, fashion and architecture.

Religion too; regardless of their focus on different ‘gods,’ religions all share common features such as teaching kindness, consideration and the abandonment of revenge. Therefore interfaith activities are possible and practicable. The well-known anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn argued that anthropology provides human beings with a big mirror, through which they can peer at the endless changes humans have experienced.

In this regard human beings have a common ‘gene’ for understanding cultures, despite cultural divergences. No God but God, no clash of civilization but concord or harmony of civilizations.

My third assumption on constructing a global state is of social Norms can be constructed.

This argument is actually part of above premise or consistent support to that social norms to some degree reflect the essence of human nature. Human needs will motivate people to make rules, regulations and principles. Establishing norms is a basic task of human activities, as the development of norms to some extent reflects the development of human society and plays a significant role in generating the progress of human history.

By this principle, I would argue that norms are developmental or evolutional, constructible through human effort.

To say that norms are developmental or evolutionary means calling our attention to the fact that norms are not inborn or natural.

If we apply human construction of human organization to the development of norms construction, we would find state or country turns not only principal agent or creator of human being but also the evolution of norms themselves. As in the very beginning human beings had no states. Instead they followed a holy man or a divine leader, later a king or a queen. So we had the Westphalia system, we had nationalism and modern states; these facts are very clear to us and I need not go further into their development.

As such a state can be regarded as a ‘person’ too, that’s what is called a ‘human state.’ States have acted to construct norms in two functional aspects: first the state has the ability and administrative functions to make and enforce norms, so the state acted as both an inner and an outer force in establishing norms.

Regarding the internal aspect of establishing norms, this refers mostly to the sense of duty, or of what a citizen ‘ought’ to do. For example, the state calls upon its people to follow traffic rules to protect the social order. If there were no regulations about green and red lights, no rules about the credit framework (for example, the use of Letters of Credit), no protections for diplomatic personnel or war prisoners, society would fall into turmoil and trouble.

On the other hand, states can use their capability to enforce the rules. They have mechanisms to maintain the norms, we now have millions norms available in the globe, which allow our word into order, peace and development.

We also need paying attention to the roles played by religious forces, Rafi Y. Aliyev, a religious professor from Azerbaijan, advocates good interactions between power, society and religion. Martin Luther King Jr. told us: Religious community could help a divided nation find common ground by moving to higher ground; If we make good relations, religion will not fall neatly into Right and Left categories, True religion symbolizes justice, equality and responsibility, which accord with state purposes for constructing norms.

Now, Let me now turn to my fourth assumption, Social Identity can be constructed, which is the last but the least argument.

How social identity construction theories apply to state or global identity construction?

First, I would like to invoke you an example over the development from childhood to adulthood in terms of identity extension.

In terms of social psychology, when an infant is born, he or she has no consciousness of identity. In the process of growth, the infant begins to have a sense of feeling for “other”. Usually the first person the newborn baby contacts will be the infant’s mother, or someone such as a nurse or babysitter, Of course some studies also show that “ the other” might be produced when the infant or baby see himself or herself in the mirror. Such cognitive perception might be further extended when the baby becomes conscious of his or her surroundings, of strangers, or people with special features, for example people with glasses, facial birthmarks, moustaches and so on.

When the child grows older, his or her perception will further extend, and gradually the child will be able to identify people as male or female, and have some preference over certain persons or foods. These developments will amplify when the child goes to school, where they will cultivate or be directed toward their hobbies, interests in certain subjects or fields, which in the following years will help develop their future identities such as being an experts, scholar or other professionals.

The development of human beings from infant to adult can be taken as one of examples proving the process of identification. Further, the development or progress or human organization makes us believe human beings are working toward a collective identity. As argued previously, human beings are instinctually social animals.

Saying that human beings tend to be socially oriented emphasizes their group orientation, its tendency to bind themselves to a group so as to enlarge their identification. This innate ability of identity extension has existed thousands of years.

Our ancestors at very beginning formed groups and tribes in hunting wild animals, they elected tribe leaders so as to guide them for more efficient living, they circled their hunting fields to keep their ‘territory’ guarded; they made rules that females would raise children and males would do hard labor; they initiated systems of pairing and mating, moving from polygamy to monogamy in order to ‘normalize’ their lives, systems of labor and society.

Later, as family-based societies emerged, they made rules for marriage, for constraining women (feet-binding in China, for example) and so on. With the expansion of families, there evolved the ideal ‘society of agriculture’ and later city states, religious states and nation states. Hence, human beings, as social animals, form families, tribes, groups, teams, villages, city states and states, national state and common market and global state.

To emphasize, that’s why Wendt argues state can be a person, the state will naturally amplify collectively in the process of being globalized when human beings have to share or enjoy one identity in the form of a world or global state, let alone various forms of ‘world ’ we are experiencing, which has been mentioned above.

Conclusion

The above mentioned four arguments of the reality of the interdependent world, the construction of human nature, social norms, social identity have been served for supporting my argument that a global collective identity can be constructed. Human society is teleological rather than static. Our world has made much progress compared to 500 years ago so the “world state” can be possibly realized eventually.

On the other hand, in the process of global identity construction, the state as a key agent in the current world have to pay attention to the growing roles played by democratic forces, as NGO, institutions, and regimes, realizing that power, society and religion can interact and help each other.

On the system level, one culture can’t override another culture, east and west, oriental and occidental have share one identity and interests, we are human beings with eventual purpose of seeking happiness and development.

Hence, why not an evolution of world state or world citizenship in the future?

Let me conclude this presentation by quoting Ervin Laszlo’s argument:

“The evidence of science tells us our human world will eventually evolve into a global society of one social, cultural and technological system if we don’t face certain disasters; this system of world society will be composed of different levels, from small villages, countryside, communities, towns, districts, provinces to the subcontinent and all federal states as well as the whole Earth. Each regime will coordinate in good order whereby the information, energy and materials will flow naturally and run well around the globe. So this is our future.

After the talk all guests has welcomed to have refreshments.

Invalid Displayed Gallery

The views and opinions expressed on this posts/pages are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Pearl Institute, its staff, other authors, members, partners, or sponsors.