A new global order

I’ve been observing with interest on TV the protests by Muslims around the world over that Z-grade anti-Muslim film, excerpts of which appeared on the internet.

I think there is a sub-text to the outrage over the film, and it relates much more broadly to the kind of world we want to live in.

It’s clear that the film has triggered broad hostility to the West. Here we should take into account that the media typically focuses on the violent and extreme fringes of protest – many, probably most Muslims would not accept a violent response to the issue. Nevertheless I think it is safe to assume that, at the very least, there is ambivalence towards Western society and its ways in parts of the world, tending towards outright hostility among many people.

These attitudes are understandable. I think of the experience of Aboriginal people here in my country, Australia. When the British colonised this land, beginning in 1788, they carried a supremacist attitude – the indigenous people were mere brutes who needed to be thankful for the advanced civilization they were being brought. An alien, Christian god was imposed to “save them”. Aboriginal communities still struggle with the aftermath of dispossession and destruction of their culture and traditional way of life. There is a sense that White society is critically at odds with indigenous values, which are deeply spiritual and connected to land. Aboriginal people somehow have to negotiate two very different worlds, and are faced with a constant threat of loss of culture, language and values to the broader White society. 

Shift your gaze to the Middle East and a similar process is at work. When the Ottoman Turks were defeated in World War I, control of the Middle East shifted to the British and the French. Most of the current states there – Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc – were created in the 20^th century by the colonial powers. A supremacist attitude of the superiority of European civilization and inferiority of Arab cultures went with the colonial project. Too little has changed since – America is now the overriding power, with Western culture dominant in a globalised world.

The “clash of cultures” thesis has emerged in recent times as a way of explaining the hostility in Islamic countries towards the West. But I think it misses a crucial point: there is no level playing field when it comes to cultural interaction in our world. For all its social and technological advances, for all the talk of democracy and freedom, power is at the heart of Western civilization. Power and domination has been achieved by the West through economic forces, and the entire world now dances to the tune of multinational corporations, banks and the IMF. Nations are successful to the extent they embrace the Western economic model and the materialist culture that goes with it: open their doors to foreign investment, integrate into the global financial structure, and channel the potential of their people and natural resources for economic production and consumption. China and South Korea are two success stories in this regard.

What happens, then, to those societies that cannot or will not fit in to the demands of the global system? What happens to societies where religion is still a dominant motivating force? Or indigenous cultures with priorities that are fundamentally different to the West? They are relegated to the margins and are ultimately unequal to those who accept and participate. I think this is at the heart of the resentment in the Islamic world: “choice” is an illusion where the true reality is “no-choice” acceptance of Western ways and ideals. Inevitably extremists emerge as a reaction to the pressure of cultural domination.

What is also happening is friction of different cultures in close proximity: the goading of Muslims through denigrating films and cartoons in the West is a typical response of fear and hatred of the Other that has been played out over countless centuries by various nations and groups.

I think the resolution, ultimately, will need to be a truly pluralist global order – one involving some withdrawal of power by the West and an opening of space for other cultures to flourish and grow. This respectful approach is already happening around the world in many interactions at the personal level – here in Melbourne every day people of dozens of nationalities relate to one another peacefully and harmoniously. Along with their own histories, their own customs and beliefs and whatever prejudices they may hold, there is an unspoken acceptance of common humanity.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the more enlightened social structures and ways of relating we experience now have come about after decades or centuries of struggle and conflict, superseding older and restrictive ways. This is the human journey. I believe that eventually the world will be guided by what is common to all of us and what is best for all of us, replacing the current global order of power and ego. It may take a long time, a lot more suffering and more social and environmental crises, but maybe that is how we will have to learn before we get it right.