States and their borders, arbitrary as they are, have been the dominant institution for the past several hundred years. Nationality, along with religion, race, and gender, form the foundation for constructing our social identity. We identify with it as much as it identifies us. It provides a shared base of language, history, values, and relations that form a sense of "community" within its confines.
But in this modern, globalized world, where do we find the state? The collapse of space brought by advances in communication and transportation technology have weakened the sovereignty of the state, as borders become less meaningful and the community base expands its reach. What are the new identifying factors of the 21st century? What will be the new shared base of the world community?
In many ways the multinational corporation (MNC) is the state reborn in a global world. The concentration and conglomeration of industries has produced mega-firms that stretch across traditional boundaries. Corporate logos have become the flags, their slogans and jingles the new national anthems. We swear allegiance to brands (Coke vs. Pepsi, Nike vs. Adidas) and are willing to go to extreme ends to protect their names. With many multinational corporations holding as much economic clout as entire countries, the lines between business and state politics is becoming increasingly hazy. When government makes decisions to the benefit of business with little to no benefit (or even harm!) to the citizenry, the role of the state truly has been dissolved and business is really the driving force. As of now, the state still asserts its dominance on the world stage...but for how much longer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that both the roll of the state and the corporation is changing especially in the area of allegiance. Michelle Obama’s recent quote about being proud to be an American for the first time, or youth refusing to say the pledge of allegiance in school are both examples of falling nationalistic pride. (Please note that I loved Mrs. Obama’s quote and understand what she means).
The Third World is the most chilling example of the domination of business. Coke and Pepsi have divided the globe between them, as have cigarette companies and who knows what else. Also, because of their wealth, businesses are able to violate human rights (with sweatshops) and the environment (strip mining) in those states which do not have the resources or desire to protect their constituents.
In the First World, business no longer commits the crimes they formerly committed (child labor, slavery, deplorable working conditions) in the 18th and 19th centuries. And this was at the time when nationalism was at its highest. The state’s influence has declined from that period; however its laws and constituents still exert a good deal of control over corporations. However businesses still can manipulate the state within the law (ie Halliburton and others pushing for Iraq?) This business over state also involves your previous post about fines as just elements in a cost minimization problem. I remember Com Ed, the utilities company in Chicago, continued dumping its wastes illegally after fines were imposed because it was cheaper than disposing of them correctly.
However, I think that if the state is not as “in bed” with business as the current administration is, its strength could be reawakened. However, for the state to reassert some dominance, it will take many voters to outweigh the influences of lobby groups. So I guess in the long run, its up to us to decide who we want controlling the world. Politicians or businessmen, what a choice!
Post a Comment