Ref. :  000001730
Date :  2001-08-29
Language :  English
Home Page / The whole website
fr / es / de / po / en



Everyday we sink further into a morality of ‘globalisation’, which it is high time that we get out of. Indeed, most of the endless economical, political and media debates about it have this in common, whatever their apparent contradictions, that they all centre around the same level of morality as summarary as it is instrumental, for which, when all is said and done, it will only be a question of saying if this thing –singular – is good or bad. Thus we perpetuate on its behalf a positive or negative simplicism, which takes centre stage and will not hear of leaving it. A profound convergence between ‘adversaries’ and ‘partisans’ who, beyond a façade of opposition, literally stifle the debate to the detriment of a just appreciation of its complexity. Such a ‘morality’ is harmful, it devastates, not only because it fulfils a continual confusion whose resources are situated elsewhere, but also because it prevents you from conceptualizing the processes concerned and progressing in their elucidation.

So, how do we get out of the present impasse?
Firstly, by ceasing to invoke incantatorily the idol ‘globalisation’, and by diffusing the plural usage of the concept – i.e. by developing an interest in globalisations. Why? Because the different processes denoted under the blanket of ‘globalisation’ are neither homogenous nor univocal, but on the contrary multi-faceted and polysemous, even when they appear comparable. Thus, between the globalisation of the cement industry, globalisation of humanitarian information, globalisation of vaccines and ‘the globalisation of poetry’, the links remain to be drawn – they are problematic, neither evident, nor unlikely. This plural declension is not anecdotal: for, faced with ‘globalisation’, the debate always seems to be reduceable to a positive or negative opinion, however, how could we be ‘for or against globalisations’?

It is clear that it would be nonsensical, because the multiple incites prudence! Because it invalidates in advance all positivist or negativist reduction. But the plural declension of globalisations has another advantage: that of facilitating their ‘appropriation’ by all citizens. Indeed, if we know that they are disillusioned by the media leitmotiv of ‘the globalisation of the economy’, how could they not be interested in the globalisation of the sector in which they work (say bio-dietetics?), in their favourite pastime (football?) or of what their child comes across at school (Internet training)?

Thus, it appears inevitable to define the concept every time it is used – a minimal demand, which is rarely respected. But how to pretend to formulate a relevant discourse if we take the liberty of using ‘internationalisation’, ‘globalisation’ and ‘mondialisation’, or even ‘cosmopolitanism’ as pure equivalents? Would a language be so accessory that it would not have serious reason for distinguishing words and precising concepts? The common heritage of accepted meanings for these concepts is it so negligible that you could get rid of it, without another form of binary morality, and, doing so, generate the violence of a confrontation which denies its origins the demands that this would presume; the effort to briefly resituate 'globalisatio' that we see in its cultural and historical dimension; a rigourous attention to 'the words to say it' would contribute to getting the current debate out of chaos.

Finally, no ‘globalisation’ in History appears as an irreversible process that you could, one moment, be happy to approve or reject. On the contrary, ‘globalisation’, in the image of ‘democracy’, could not have been anything other than what we made it, individually and collectively. And, like democracy, it depends closely on the definition that we give it, the objectives that we pursue and the means that you use to achieve them. It is not ‘one thing’, nor a phenomenon that will impose itself on men from above, but it denotes – in the diversity of its faces – the means that men use to achieve certain aims. And if something must be questioned, it is firstly these aims: the original intentions and resolutions, finalities of those who participate most actively in globalisations, of those who are, under various titles, its principle promoters and distributors.

Thus, in the same way that it is odd to complain or to rejoice in the functioning of democracy, if you do not take part in public life, globalisations demand that you be interested in them and in a new way – in particular, if you intend them to take the route of general interest rather than that of private interests. As ever, it is a matter of learning, educating and formulating. Evaluating from different points of view – for example, those of philosophy, human and social sciences and the arts – the different processes at work, the relationships between them, the diverging interpretations that they arouse, the consequences that might be projected. It is also necessary to educate people to look without prejudice on ‘the new world’ in mutation – to exercise thought to open onto an intrinsically complex world. Finally, globalisations in professional and skilled work (from college teacher to the boss of a factory and union workers, via lawyers and businessmen) must be taken into account (with all possible means at our disposal).

It is only by this that we will be able, not to abusively reconcile citizens on ‘the meaning of globalisation’ (the ‘right one’) – in the name of a new morality of substitution –, but to give them access to some keys to these mutations which concern everyone and about which everyone has the right to possess a shared or personnel opinion.

(On the same problem or on connected issues we recommend the following articles in French by the same author : Pour une ''philosophie des mondialisations'', Mondialisation : la loi du plus fort ?, De la mondialisation aux mondialisations : domination ou partage du monde ?, Problématique des mondialisations)

Rate this content
Average of 180 ratings 
Rating 2.42 / 4 MoyenMoyenMoyenMoyen
Same author:
 flecheLeçons de la « Grippe espagnole » de 1918-1919
 flecheL’intelligence de la bibliothèque publique
 flecheTriomphe de la post-citoyenneté
 flechePublication de L'Homme post-numérique
 flecheCharlie : comment répondre au défi ?
 flecheDigital Domination
 flecheAcerca de los Megaproyectos en Uruguay
 flecheEurope, Maghreb, Machrek : Que faire ensemble du monde euro-méditerranéen, maintenant et pour les dix prochaines années ?
 flecheWhy the need for a Universal Declaration of Democracy?
 flecheThe meaning of “carnage”?
 flecheLa « culture numérique » : à problématique « nouvelle », approches et solutions différentes ?
 flechePiratage (Modifier l'approche du ---)
 flecheDiversité culturelle et dialogue interculturel : confusion ou exigence ?
 flechePiratage (modifier l’approche du ---)
 flecheRéévaluer « l’économie de la création » à l’âge de la dématérialisation numérique
 flecheAbstract of a keynote speech at the "Dialogos da Terra no Planeta Agua" (November 26-28, Minas Gerais - Brazil)
 flecheCosmopolitical approach to Water
 fleche« Fin d’un monde » ou crise de son modèle ?
 flecheLa culture pour rendre le monde vivable
 flecheTransparence (Révélation de l’opacité, mondialisation de la --- ?)
 flechePour une éducation à la diversité culturelle et au dialogue interculturel
 fleche10 Thesis about the present meaning and orientation of Global research
 flecheTravail et emploi : la confusion permanente
 flecheCultural diversity
 flecheLa Convention sur la diversité culturelle reste à mettre en œuvre!
4 tâches prioritaires pour la société civile

 flecheCultures et mondialisations : les sons de la diversité

 flechePhilosophie des mondialisations et mondialisation de la philosophie

 flecheLaw of Globalization and/or globalization(s) of Law ?
 flechePauvreté et Violence
 flecheDiversité culturelle : un projet cosmopolitique
 flecheFor an offensive concept of cultural diversity
 flecheCultural diversity, globalisation and mondialisations
 flecheLa Puissance du rituel mondial
 flecheWord Social Forum n°5 : A trial of truth
 flecheComercio de la democracia, democracia del Comercio
 flecheOMC : la refondation ou la fin ?
 flecheFor a reassessment of the concept of cultural diversity
 flecheWar, the supreme stage of poverty?

 fleche‘Fight against poverty’: for a new order

 flecheGlobal and mondial
 flecheTowards a philosophical pedagogy of NICTs
 flecheThe critical sharing of globalisation(s) could be achieved by appropriate intercultural education and training
 flecheAway with "anti-globalisation"
 flecheJohannesburg (Le risque de...)
 flecheQue peut être "l'exception culturelle" ?
 flecheLa diversité culturelle : du consensus mou au projet politique
 flechePrivatisation or sharing of cultural identities and diversity?
 flecheMorale et politique
 flecheTemps fragiles
 flecheDématérialisation de l’argent, déresponsabilisation du sujet politique
 flecheDématérialisation de l’argent
 flecheLe GERM : un laboratoire de la diversité culturelle pour comprendre «la globalisation» et les mondialisations
 flecheLa Bonté des maîtres du monde
 flecheProblématique des mondialisations
 flecheLe Monde est-il un village ?
Et peut-il être une Cité ?

 flecheLe cas Napster
 flecheLa controverse de Gênes
 flecheEconomie de la matrice, cosmopolitique de la diversité
 flecheLe cheval de Troie des Amériques
 flecheThe Napster affair
 flecheRien de nouveau sous le Soleil noir de la mondialisation
 flecheDe la mondialisation aux mondialisations : domination ou partage du monde ?
 flecheLe Monde en perspective
 flecheGlobal Village
 flecheFractures (résorber les --- )
 flecheGlobalisation : the law of the strongest ?
 flechePour une ''philosophie des mondialisations''
Keywords   go
the articles