Foer uses different examples of
different teams and nationalities, particularly the Barca Club in Spain, to prove that
liberal nationalism is still relevant in a globalized society. While Foer seems
to believe that globalization has not significantly weakened nationalist
tendencies, there are others who argue that nationalism and cosmopolitanism are
mutually exclusive and that globalization has instead resulted in a general
decrease in the sense of nationalism. In reality, globalization both
strengthens and weakens nationalism in different ways.
A common argument is that the
emergence of an increasingly globalized society where countries are
economically interdependent has led to a blending of cultures that makes
nationalism less relevant. Because globalization has made international
cooperation both easy and necessary, individuals must be able to look beyond
their own national identities to successfully live in a global community. The
presence of international organizations, such as the World Bank, International
Monetary Fund, and the United Nations significantly facilitates this necessity.
The reduction in trade barriers and the increasing presence of transnational
corporations has created a global marketplace where multiple nations can reap
the benefits of a new invention or idea.
Additionally,
the problems we face in the 21st century are increasingly becoming
known as problems facing humanity and this planet rather than problems facing
individual nations. Examples of this new reality include climate change, the
economic crises, and national security threats such as terrorism and nuclear
weapons. To face these issues, a cosmopolitan view of the world is necessary.
There is no way to prevent (or mitigate the effects of) climate change for just
the United States exclusively. Instead, collective action with other nations is
necessary for everyone to receive the same collective benefit.
In other ways, however,
globalization has actually strengthened nationalism. As the world becomes
interconnected and people are exposed to the identities and traditions of
others, they become more aware of their own cultural identities. Whenever there
is some sort of international crisis, people will turn to their own countries for
safety and security. Furthermore, when exposed to new cultures and identities
via either communication technologies or in-person because of migration,
xenophobia can significantly increase. A result of such xenophobia is the
further emphasis on the “self” vs. the “other,” which increases the need to
rely on those who are of the same nationality.
The argument that is most relevant
to what Foer presents is the idea of people turning to nationalism as a way to
combat the changes that occur due to globalization. A historical parallel to
this argument is the industrial revolution, where groups that ended up being
displaced in their old careers and forced to move into the cities turned to
nationalist aspirations to maintain their identities. A modern example would be the recent Scottish
independence movement. Although the referendum ultimately failed, some in
Scotland were turning to national pride as a way to reclaim their identity,
which they viewed as lost due to the decline of industrialism that largely held
the main institutions of Scotland in place.
Ultimately, globalization and
nationalism are complex topics used to describe a complex world. Foer uses
soccer teams and matches on a microcosmic level to explain that nationalism is
not incompatible with globalization. As to
whether one believes that Foer is correct or that nationalism is on the decline
completely depends on both the context and level of analysis they use. I don’t
think there is one concrete answer as to the impact of globalization on
nationalism. As more countries develop and the global community grows, it will
be interesting to examine the significance and presence of nationalist ideas
and movements.
Sources Consulted:
Foer, Franklin. How
Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. New York:
HarperCollins, 2004. Print.
I like how you introduced both the pros and cons to globalization's effect on nationalism, because I think there are both sides of the coin. The influx of technology has allowed for being to maintain contact with their family and keep a sense of identity. That being said, I think that a lot of the "nationalism" we see is usually in times of convenience for the people, and at other times nationalism is eliminated. Whenever major sporting events such as the World Cup or Olympics occur, people are all for showing their national pride. However at other times, national pride isn't so much at the forefront of the news. I think that it is important for people to maintain their sense of nationalism in a growing world that tries to integrate everything because people should remember their roots.
ReplyDeleteSo where do you think this topic will be in 10 years? Do you think we will have seen a full backlash into more conservative or nationalist ideals, or will it wash out into cosmopolitanism, or....?
ReplyDeleteI think nationalism is an interesting topic because it is so dynamic. People can feel differently about their own nationalism at different times, and people from the same nation can have vastly different feelings about globalization and their place in a global world. Therefore, it is hard to predict how these feelings will trend as time progresses, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great argument that addresses both sides. No matter how much a state hates another state, in order to survive when it comes to collective action issues such as climate change, they all have to work together and these can help bring states together ideally. For example in order to save the environment all states might agree to a treaty and follow through with it. Whether a state is powerful or not it requires everyone to work together.
ReplyDelete