Political Humanism

on Wednesday 28 April 2010

Political Humanism

In this essay I wish to introduce a new political theory that I have named Political Humanism. This theory is my response to one of the dominant political positions of our time, Nationalism. If the dynamo of Nationalism is the love for one’s nation, than consider the engine of Political Humanism to be the love for humankind.

Before becoming a political humanist, one has to go through three different stages. In the first stage, he will have to abandon the love for one’s homeland and replace it by the love for humankind as a whole. He will no longer feel part of one specific nation, but a part of the race of men. I am talking about a drastic identity shift, a change in the way one feels about himself and how he relates to the world around him. In the second stage, the individual, who is no longer a part of a specific nation, but considers himself now to be a world citizen, will reach an inevitable conclusion: the mere existence of nations is absurd and nationalities are artificial devices that pits men against men, that leads them to kill each other to rape the next man’s wife, for the greedy to steal from the innocent and for the strongest to enslave the weakest. Reaching this conclusion, and understanding the true nature of nationalism and its consequences, the individual will understand that nations are enemies of every men in this planet. This epiphany will show him the path that will lead to a third stage of enlightenment, where the individual will become a true political humanist and leave older ideologies and allegiances behind. He will understand that the only way to extinguish nations and protect men from the scourges of nationalism is to create a republic for all men.

The voyage towards Political Humanism starts by questioning one's own identity. Slowly, one ceases to identify himself with his nation, and starts to identify with the whole of mankind. He is no longer part of one group of people, instead he becomes part of the people of the Earth, of a brotherhood of men. He no longer feels any closer to the man who share his nationality, he starts to feel an irresistible love for mankind, for each man, woman and child in this planet. He no longer feels in terms of “us” and “them”. No such thing separates men now. He is born again and recognizes the people of the earth as his, and he sees each man as his brother.

The very notion that he is different from a certain group of men because he was born in a different place and speaks a different language is abandoned. He sees further now, and a new world is unfolded in front of him. He understands that the things that unite us are much more important than the things that separate us. Although we might have a different skin color, all men love in the same way. Although we may speak different languages, we all prefer peace rather than war. Although we might have been born in different cities, we all live in the same dying planet. We have to unite, because only that way can we face the challenges ahead of us. Only then can we effectively fight global terrorism and preserve our freedom and the rule of law. Only them can we start saving our planet, instead of continuing to destroy it. Only them can we prevent the wars of the future and the many millions of deaths that will ensue. The political humanist is born from the ashes of a past where Men were always afraid of other Men, and he pledges himself to the cause of a brotherhood of Men, united in the pursuit of the goals that are dear to us all, Peace, Freedom and Justice.

Hollywood takes over the world

on Thursday 1 April 2010

Hollywood takes over the World

Two of America’s biggest channels of cultural influence are its film industry and its television networks. They are the quintessential manifestation of the American culture. They also onstitute the greatest marketing enterprise history. American movies are broadcasted in movie theatres all around the world, and they are having a tremendous impact on national cultures. Television has become America’s best friend and is telling the world that it should be like America. When I think of America and its might what first comes to my mind are American movies and television shows.
Hollywood has seduced the world, but national cultures are now afraid of what the outcome of this romance might be. National governments are aware of the cultural force of cinema, and measures like screen quotas have been introduced in many countries such as Mexico and South Korea. Screen quotas is a legislated policy that enforces a minimum number of screening days of domestic films in the theater each year to protect the nation’s films. When Mexico abandoned this system in 1994 its film industry collapsed. On the other hand, when South Korea adopted this policy in the 1990’s the quality of its cinema was dramatically increased by an inflow of new capital into the Korean film industry.
Although around the world different political ideas make up large-scale ideological clashes (democracy/totalitarianism, liberalism/authoritarianism, capitalism/socialism, secularism/fundamentalism), and people follow different religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc), our “global village” is united by a constant and uniform inflow of movies and television shows that portray one dominant culture. Television and more recently Internet are the portals through which American movies and television shows penetrate foreign cultures eventually dominating and changing them. These movies and TV-shows are the carriers of an American way of living that includes liberal and democratic views, English as the spoken language, a consumerist life-style, American fashion, American Fast-Food and everything else that makes up American culture.
Globalization is not Americanization but in today’s world there is little difference between the two. The fundamental differences that divide the peoples of the world still exist, and these are probably going to be the fuel for the wars of the future, but Americanization is nevertheless imposing its culture worldwide through a steady flow of cultural output. In the modern world people spend a great deal of time in front of televisions and computers and whenever they do so they enter an American world. While the real world is multi-polar because there are so many different identities that descend from ancient cultures, the virtual worlds of Television and Internet have only one hegemonic core which is Hollywood’s America.
In the same way, while people were once shaped by books now they are shaped by movies, songs and TV-shows. The world’s youth is growing up in front of a TV that broadcasts American shows and movies. Teenagers of all over the world listen to the same rock bands, either British or American. New singers in non English-speaking countries sing in English because that is the language of the arts. It has become so.
America’s power is not only based on its military or its economy, it is equally based on the cultural influence it has over foreign cultures. Societies around the world are being modeled after the American, where movie stars, rock gods and professional athletes have reached the top of the social pyramid. We have developed a culture of celebrities where artists and athletes have become close to being divine and all the society spins around this circus. This is not American anymore, it is global. Consumerism has become the zeitgeist of our times and cultural production has become professionalized, industrialized and put to serve a decentralized, economically motivated, cultural imperialism. This dynamic has not been planed or is actively supported by the American government, but is a product of one of the biggest and most profitable markets in the world, the market of culture, in which the goods are not refrigerators or cars but music albums, movies and TV-shows. This is the world we all live in, this is who we are, and each day that passes we become more americanized.

On the Purpose of the State

On the Purpose of the State

Although it is rather hard to thoroughly understand the specific circumstances that give birth to a nation, there are some characteristics which are common to the birth of almost every nation-state. Arguably the most important of these circumstances is the creation of an army. This is the most important characteristic of the nation-state and, in fact, the very creation of a nation usually comprehends the creation of an army, because it provides the protection that any community most desperately seeks. Without an army the nation cannot be truly sovereign because sovereignty implies having the means to defend itself and not being forced to act or to be acted upon against its will. A community without an army or with a week army will always be exposed to scourges such as mass- murder, mass-rape or slavery, as it has been observed several times throughout history. Therefore it is logical to say that the most important role of the state is to provide protection against aggressors, and establishing the army is usually simultaneous to the birth of the nation state. It is nevertheless ironic how in a world such as ours, made up of armed nation-states designed to protect its citizens from aggression, the human kind as a whole is constantly exposed to war and destruction. There is nothing capable of controlling the nation-sates and therefore a balance of power is created in which the strong are likely to attack the weak, but in which sometimes even the strong are subject to the attack of other strong states, either alone or in coalition with others. The international order is an anarchic system where there is no supreme law except the law of the strongest, and in which every state is always susceptible of being attacked and its citizens are liable to suffer violence from citizens of rival nation-states. The anarchy of our international order leads to a situation of constant fear of war and sporadic outbursts of violent struggle between the people of the world. The international order today is, in fact, Hobbes’ state of nature. However, it is not possible to conceive a community that is independent for a long time and that does not have an army or it is not protected by another state. Whenever an external threat exists, people tend to agree on an arrangement capable of providing mutual protection, henceforth creating an army. It is true that some people are violent, and that often these people combine their efforts to attack other people, therefore forcing the latter to create mutual defence systems, creating by this process an army and a nation-state. The escalating nature of this process leads to the formation of more and more nations that are essentially created to protect their founders from other nations. As time passes, nations tend to become bigger and bigger in order to survive and small nations feel encouraged to form federations, confederations or alliances. This creates a system of anarchy, in which nations permanently seek to achieve a balance of power, never being so weak that they cannot protect themselves against stronger nations. This also means that, theoretically no nation is allowed by the others to hold an exceptional power, unless it is seen as a benign super-power and not regarded as a threat to their security. When we talk of sovereignty, we should in fact be talking of the army. Being sovereign is in effect not to be coerced by others. And the only way to achieve this kind of independence is to be immune of coercion, and as such having a standing army. All the powers of the state are mere derivations of the right of being independent that is guaranteed by the army of the nation. So when looking at a nation’s institutions, the first one to be looked at must be the one that sustains all the others and that institution, for any sovereign nation is its army. The nation is therefore constructed upon its army, and its vital role is to guarantee the protection of its citizens. But there is another function that the nation performs: easing the cohabitation of its citizens. I believe it not to be the most important function of the state, and I certainly think that it is not the reason why citizens create a state. If the nation is founded via a contract, I believe it is the agreement to unite in an armed force destined to assure protection for all. The ease of cohabitation is, even if an important function of the state, not the primary reason for its existence.