Beyond Borders: The Paradox of Globalisation in a Nationalist Age

In an era where the world was envisioned as a ‘global village’, the rising ‘nationalist’ fence is bringing up the realisation of a ‘borderless world’ to remain an elusive dream. 

Illustration by The Geostrata

GENESIS 

This ‘global village,’ a term coined by Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan, describes the phenomenon of the entire world becoming more interconnected as a result of media technologies. McLuhan’s concept, detailed in his books ‘The Gutenberg Galaxy’ and ‘Understanding Media,’ describes a world where the daily production and consumption of media would tie global audiences into a single, interconnected community.

This interconnectedness, driven by the digital age today, has fostered traditional commerce, migration, and cultural exchange.

Trends today possibly challenge this vision, creating divisions rather than fostering the global coexistence that McLuhan foresaw. The existence of political boundaries has been debated at various stages in recent history.

Two distinct concepts can be extracted out of this debate. One which represents the rising deterritorialisation and sees the idea of nation-states and borders as abortive; while the other, juxtaposing this idea with the additional predominance to localisation, isolation, and sovereign statehood.

The former idea, namely globalisation bends towards greater global closeness resulting from intensified international interaction. It involves sharing aspects with integration, interdependence, multilateralism, and openness. Globalisation can be understood as a process, a condition, and a discourse. 

As a process, it intensifies worldwide relations and social interactions beyond national boundaries. As a condition, it represents a new stage of modernity, experienced through travel, communication, and global strategies. 

As a discourse, it generates responses and shapes attitudes. From a critical angle, globalisation is seen as an ideology with political nuances, serving specific interests and displacing concepts like imperialism and neo-colonialism to get away with any opposition to its ideology. Although globalisation, in that sense, attempts to intrude into the so-called “national space” on many different levels, it can however, also contain tendencies that may provoke nationalism.

John Breuilly, an author and professor of nationalism and ethnicity, outlines the three main assertions of nationalism: the existence of a nation with a unique character, the supremacy of national interest and values over all others, and the pursuit of national independence, often requiring political sovereignty. Nationalism manifests in various forms. 

DIVISIVE FORCES

It can be cultural or political, ethnic or civic, and liberal or radical. It can serve as a unifying force, fostering a shared identity and legitimising modern nation-states. Conversely, it can also act as a divisive force that challenges state cohesion. In recent history, nationalism has contributed to the collapse of multinational states and threatens to fragment even small, newly established states. This fragmenting nature of nationalism has become even more prominent today, often seen as a primary challenge to the international order.

In the context of globalisation, a new dichotomy has emerged, distinguishing between classical, state building nationalisms of 19th-century Europe and the radical, fragmenting nationalism of the global era today.

Contemporary nationalism, which is to say, ‘neo-nationalism’ is often viewed as a reaction to globalisation, characterised by its particularism and localism. Neo-nationalism today is a response to the pressure of global economic integration and the influence of powerful, late-stage imperial interests. 

ANATOMY OF A SOCIETY

British sociologist, Anthony Giddens aptly describes how, “globalisation is the reason for the revival of local cultural identities in different parts of the world. Local nationalisms spring up as a response to globalising tendencies, as the hold of older nation-states weakens.” 

Evidently, the interplay between globalisation and nationalism has been a critical issue in political and social discourse, particularly as these forces often seem to pull in opposite directions. 

There exist two approaches that discuss the relationship between the two:-

The first one views nationalism as a crossed stage in the evolution of mankind, gradually giving way to other structures more suitable for the growing global connectivity. 

This approach suggests that, with growing emphasis on supranational entities and interdependence of various sorts, the idea of nation-state will become obsolete, and replaced by a more global, cosmopolitan identity.

Image Credits: Rightful Owner

The second approach on the other hand posits the argument that nations are the most potent and enduring political force- gaining strength-in response to challenges of globalisation. 

In that sense, the forces of globalisation provoke a nationalist backlash as individuals and groups seek to protect their economic policies, cultural identity and political autonomy from the homogenising pressures and inequalities of a globalised world. 

Both perspectives share the assumption that both the ideas are fundamentally opposed, existing in a state of constant tension and conflict. 

However, this binary opposition overlooks the complex and often complementary interactions between the two. A nuanced view acknowledges that nationalism is not solely a cultural or emotional phenomenon but is deeply political and geopolitical. 

The intersection of culture and politics explain how nationalism benefits through global networks in furthering its own national interests.

The resilience of the nation-states in the face of globalisation challenges the notions of its impending demise. Globalisation, in this context, does not come out to be a threat; rather, this international engagement becomes essential towards enhancing national identity and culture. Benedict Anderson’s concept of ‘imagined communities’ helps to explain this phenomenon. Anderson argues that nations are socially constructed communities, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group. This sense of belonging is often influenced by media and print capitalism, which create shared experiences and common narratives among diverse populations. 

Thus, globalisation, by facilitating this interconnected exchange of ideas, actually strengthens these imagined communities by enhancing the visibility of national identities and allowing them to evolve and interact with other cultures. Far from eroding national identities, globalisation helps to reinforce them, making them more dynamic and resilient. 

While a resurgence of nationalist politics is visible today with the global economic crisis being a potent factor towards this rise, where certain groups encounter a globalised marginalisation and a loss of status. Nevertheless, it is through states entering into strategic alliances to balance power, or engaging in global trade and technological cooperation in the purview of ‘national interest’, that it becomes evident how nationalism further gets a global lens.

Going back to Giddens when he states, “the revival of local nationalisms, and an accentuation of local identities, are directly bound up with globalising influences, to which they often stand in opposition.” This demonstrates how the coexistence of both ideas is not a battle in which only one is destined to emerge as the winner. It is rather a mutually beneficial coexistence of two perfectly compatible tendencies.

This relationship between globalisation and nationalism is far more complex than being a simple paradox. Understanding the dynamics of it becomes crucial towards analysing the contemporary political landscape and for developing policies that harness the benefits of both forces.

---

BY ANWESHA MUKHERJEE

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com