The chapters and article this week show the push-and-pull of how people have reacted against globalization. That of a closing circle of nationalism or a more unique option. Subcommandante Marco writes on the "basement of Mexico", and how the Zapatistas refuse "To be accomplices in the unjust delivery of poverty and pain,"(pg 61). What a powerfull line! The Zapatistas and their stated goals of protecting the environment and gender equality blend well with counterhegemonic globalization. The Zapatistas have actually reached out to global organizations, and like Evans argues in chapter 70, used the corporate carapace that encapsulates the global economy to its advantage. By using the same framework, it is easy to have the local rise to global.
On the other hand, there’s this sentiment of pervasive, pessimistic panic that has led others to “pull the ladder up after them”. As Misha argues in chapter 77, globalization has brought into public view visions of prosperity and massive disparities in ‘wealth, power, education, and status’. I can easily see how the points Mishra makes here feed into a rise in nationalism. This disparity has brought fear, and when people are afraid, they want to protect themselves and their community. When you have nowhere else to turn to but despotic leaders who “get it”, the pipeline from nationalist to extremist gets much easier. It’s important to recognize that no one is immune to propaganda. However, it is interesting to compare the Zapatistas and nationalists. While their issues stem from the same root, they have arrived at vastly different conclusions. I think it’s important to note that the Zapatistas have started out as a group “with nothing left to lose” while nationalists are the opposite, or at least might consider themselves that way – with everything to lose. I think that has helped shape how they’ve turned out.
No comments:
Post a Comment