continuing the discussion...
hmm..we seem to be getting somewhere with this one...i am going to post the comments that i received for the previous post here and post my response in the form of a blog post.
Alex says "It depends on what connotation one gives to Globalisation. The middle class tend to gain from this integration. Creative destruction is an inevitable by product of this phenomenon. National identities are compromised with. It results in a dilution of identities.
shreya says "kinda ironic, coz there is another theory (hypothesis?) going around about how it (globalisation)actually results in a sharp delineation between ethnic (not necessarily national) identities, and leads us deeper into a religious fundamentalism...
in my experience, there is more to be said of that theory than the dilution one...
perhaps later in the cycle (i see it as a cycle), there will be a dilution of national/cultural/ethnic (in that order)identities, but for now, no...
case study in question (again, in my opinion) would be the caribbean, especially trinidad and tobago...
and then of course you may be talking from a solely indian perspective, and i dont think i can comment on that...
hmmm...."
well, shreya...even if we are talking in the indian context..we are seeing an upsurge in an assertion of a very perverse kind of nationalism...for example the VHP kind of naitonalism...which in one sense is an assertion of one's ethnic identity...now obviously we cannot equate this ethnic identity with a national identity...
again we have examples of a greater assertion of one's ethnic or religious identity in countries other than india...case in point being the london bombings...
or for that matter the French protesting against the Arcelor bid...
alex..if we are talking about dilution of identities...well, yes..one can talk about the increasing demand for dual citizenship as an example of dilution of identities...it's national identity for convenience...the LN Mittal brand of national identity...
but then again..here is a question that i raised in the debate..can globalisation be necessarily held responsible for the dilution of national identities? (remember.. i had to speak against the motion, "globalisation has diluted unique national identities)if we are to define national identity as the sense of belonging to a nation and striving towards its spelt out goals...then there are enough and more instances wherein we can say that the State itself has been responsible for alienating its citizens and hence diluting their sense of national identity. there are enough and more examples of seperatist movements both in and outside india which prove this. and then of course how do we define national identity...if that itself is defined by a narrow section or class, then how do we even expect the term national identity to hold good for the whole country? for example, the naxalite movement is still seen as a law and order problem..the Narmada Bachao Andolan was dubbed by a wide section of the media as going against the national interests...
can we see it as a class assertion which might be finding vent in the form of ethnic or religious assertion as well?...but am not entirely sure...sir could you help??
posted by Vibha @ 9:07 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Well Vibha,
Like you mentioned, it depends on what definition we give to national identities.
It is tru that some have diluted their identities while some fundamentalists have become more heard and strong in their identity.
This might cause more of a problem as this will result is a stark inequality in identities in the same society, which will result is all sorts of fracas.
Globalisation has had a large part to play in it along with changes in the attitudes and preferences of the populace.
PS Vibha, It would be nice if you linked our names with our respective blogs. :)
man, I feel so dumb. all these changing the world type discussions on your blog, and I happen to be dealing with severe jet-lag.
who's GOT THE POWER!!!!!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mirchi,
dont feel that. Coz all we are saying is some huge mumbo jumbo about 'nothings' we dont completely understand.
guys, what you call "dilutions of identity" is what i call "evolution of identity". Your arguments hold good if you assume identity is a stamp someone is born with (like religion) but identity is dynamic.
These "gotcha!" examples that you call "case in point" are not cases in point.
Secondly, 'Globalisation' is essentially ownerhsip of cross country factors of production. NOT just trade!
Identity is a very complex concept. We take all liberties to make sweeping statements about identity, which like the human body has evolved over the years and is still evolving... to blame a phenomenon, which affects a lot of people (i agree) in hugely disproportionate manner and the net effect- positive minus negative- to each is even more varying, is like blaming hair gel for the changing human anatomy. Think about it.
So if you can replace "Globalisation" with "Information Boom" in your argument and still have a logical flow, then your argument does not hold water.
Mirchi, more mumbo jumbo!
ok mirchii...
sweets!! you don't have to feel dumb or anything like that...and really we aren't trying to change the world or anything...with this blog...am just thinking aloud...
and by the way where are you?? one phone and you have disappeared??you still in india or back in canada??
and schazeb..of course identity is dynamic...and we really hold multiple identities at the same time...and that is precisely what i tried to question..has the State allowed people to retain their multiple identities? and more importantly in the context of my debate topic, can we really blame globalisation alone for a dilution of national identities? (dilution need not necessarily mean a bad thing, like you said it could mean an evolution)
anyway...mumbo jumbo or not...we (or at least I am) just questioning...of course i don't completely understand...but what else would we question for if not for a better understanding.
anyway...
Schazeb...yup. hair gel example is super...but the question wasn't so much about identity per se, but about national identity...which is more qualifiable than the word "identity".
but i agree...too many more factors at play, hard to "blame" (is that what we are doing?) globalisation...
and vibha. i think using the word "dilution" carries with it an automatic moral judgement. if you know what i mean. in purely linguistic terms...
anyhow, my two bit. what is this, if not pure entertainment? ;)
and everyone tells me to pay for cable!! tut tut!
hehe shreya
like always, well put.
and i agree on the national identity bit. I didn't exactly talk about it, but one can extend from the general idea. oh shit! damn!
yeah well schazeb, if only there were two "cuttings", and a million machchars to compliment this conversation!!
thats my sense of "national identity" for you!! ;)
'complement', you mean.
bitch!
blah blah
Hmmmmm, National identity..I think is a political expression... just an expression... or is it a concept?? well may be a concept but then, I will argue then, that it's a fluid category and this fluid nature has to be taken at the core of what we call ``national identity'' And the fluidity is as much in terms of time as in space...
There has been an attempt, in the capitalist context, to internalise this fluidity in the space sense of the term by way of seeking to legitimise something called multi-culturalism... but don't we notice that this large project is crumbling... the uglyness we see across Europe and the US of America against the Muslims....
Well, I think the forces of globalisation are also at work to universalise the identities and in that sense, I look at instances of assertion of identity (ethnic and otherwise) as a counter...
Am I making sense Vibha???
Post a Comment
<< Home