In looking back at our journey through The World is Flat and the discussions it has provoked, I couldn't help but notice somewhat of an underlying theme throughout it all. It seems that many of the topics we have discussed examine the issue of identity in one form or another. Early on, Friedman expressed his view of the necessity for a new identity in the flat world when he told us to become ‘The Untouchables’. Also in our discussions, many of the topics we covered did not directly relate to this theme but certainly could be connected to it if you dug deeper: our strengths of adaptability and resourcefulness could be seen as an identity of our generation, terrorism as a result of humiliation could be viewed as resulting from the vulnerability of one’s identity, or even the success of review-based consumption could be attributed to the fact that our trust emerges from some shared identity with the reviewers. From my perspective, it seems that our discussion was continually based on the changes the flat world has caused in how different groups perceive some aspect of their identity. At the end of our last class, Dr. Tapia brought up the critical question, “What is the right stance for the US to plan for in this new ‘flat’ world?” Since much of what has emerged thus far in our cogitations on the flattened world have been rooted in identity, perhaps taking a look at the future from this perspective might lead us to an answer. After reading Dan’s post Global Futures 2030, examining identity with regard to the one scenario we have continually returned to in these past few weeks, Fragmentation, seemed to be the most logical exercise. This idea is one of the “three main scenarios for what the world would be like in 2030” as proposed by the Global Futures commission, and therefore, a useful jumping point for thinking about the future of our national identity.
As Dan described for us, Fragmentation “is characterized by a de-emphasis on international collaboration. Focus will move towards Asia and away from the Western World and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations will lose their bearing.” Now we have spoken about the amazing adaptability of our generation but I’m not so sure we can accept such a dramatic identity change as this. We have never known a world where we are not the superpower. Now whether that is a good or a bad thing is another issue, but altering our perception of the world as drastically as this could cause a major identity crisis for us as a nation. We have grown up in a climate of ‘American exceptionalism’ so could we stomach being second best? I’m not so sure.
To get a bit more insight, I thought examining how the British national identity was affected during our shift into power might help unravel this issue. I uncovered an interesting article in the American Historical Review, which examines the identity crisis seen in British literature during our quest for independence. Although it was not exactly the time frame of our shift to hegemony, I felt it still provided some useful insight.
“The consequences of this [conflict] . . . led to intense pressures on received understandings of identity and to an insistent preoccupation with its constitution: its inherent versus contingent traits, its natural foundations, its boundaries and their possible permeabilities . . . Ultimately, this situation created a sense of an urgent need to counteract the ever-more-apparent inadequacies of familiar notions of identity with new, more reliable ways of conceptualizing differences between people.”
Now the article cites many examples in literature as to why this claim can be staked but it holds that the American Revolution did cause an identity crisis for the British people. If the same power shift envisioned in Fragmentation were to occur, I think we need to take a nod from history and say that we would have our own national identity crisis.
In trying to get a handle on what this might mean, I decided to look deeper into our identity as it currently stands. During this search, I came across an interesting video interview with esteemed scholar Noam Chomsky on the topic. While he had many insights to bestow, the one that struck me most acutely was his notion that American identity has been marked by “a strong element of fear . . . that we are about to be destroyed by a horrifying enemy.” I think this is certainly true of our identity today. I would venture to say that, among other things, this fear consists of the idea that our reign is ending, our grasp is slipping, and our top seat is about to be pulled out from under us. However, Chomsky went on to say that this fear is also marked by the fact that “at the last minute, a super weapon is discovered or a great hero arises . . . that somehow saves us.” So what happens if no one save us this time? What if the chair does get pulled and we fall to the ground? I’m beginning to think this would cause an identity crisis that, to quote the American Historical Review article once more, will force us “toward a new and largely angst-ridden sense of what identity [is] really all about to begin with.”
So after looking at what our national identity has been and what it could be given what experts say, perhaps our best stance for the future is a double-edged sword. It might need to entail searching desperately for that hero that will pull us back to our height while preparing ourselves and our children for the fact that this time there might not be one.
Jennica you are very astute in your observation about identity, and I think you are correct in saying it is the overarching theme that links together many of Friedman's ideas. Noam Chomsky brought up an interesting point in his interview in that since America was founded, we have always had to have some kind of national "myth" to believe in. Often a part of this myth is the belief that there is some kind of enemy that is going to destroy us if we don't destroy them first. Whether it was the Native Americans in the 17th century or the Soviets in the 20th century, having an enemy has allowed America to have a rallying point and play down internal conflicts. Since enemies have come and gone, many mythologies have come and gone with them. That is why I feel like we are currently in a stage of transition as try to find a new effigy to rally around as we identify what the major players will be in the flat world.
ReplyDeleteFor our generation the fear of terrorist attacks was very real as we experienced these a young children. When Osama Bin Laden was killed in May of this year, psychologists noted in "Growing up in the Shadow of Terrorism" that it was young people who had the strongest emotional outpouring. While terrorism is by no means gone, we have now lost one of its most iconic leaders.
Now our only real "threat" comes from developing Asian countries. And unlike previous enemies they are now challenging us at our own game. While this is in some ways unique, I think it should be viewed as positive stabilizing force rather than a negative one. In response to my Global Futures 2030 blog this would us more down the road of fusion and not fragmentation. Such a path would lead to more collaboration and in turn more innovation. That's not to say that we shouldn't have rivals, as they often give us motivation to work a little harder, we just shouldn't paint them as some unstoppable force that will prevent us from actualizing our own world dreams. I firmly believe the way we view ourselves often does become a self-fulfilling prophecy, so it's important we view ourselves as front-seat nation rather than a back-seat one.
Link to "Growing up in the Shadow of Terrorism"
(http://search.proquest.com/docview/882618193/fulltextPDF/131E39164923A4BBE82/3?accountid=13158)
Jennica, I think that you are spot on in your one-sentence summarization of the overarching theme of Friedman’s analysis. Our nation’s identity, in one way or another, will dictate our future as we begin to compete in a flat world. However, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon with identities as they relate to people. Often times what an individual perceives their identity to be conflicts with the way others view that individual. In other words, who a man thinks he is isn’t necessarily what others think he is. I would argue that this occurrence holds true with countries, especially with a polarizing country like us.
ReplyDeleteAsk an American what he or she believes the stars and stripes stand for and I would assume answers along the line of “leaders in democracy” or “global superpower.” Ask that same question to someone in an Islamic country and the answers could not be any more opposite. My question to you, and to whoever else sees this comment, is “what matters more: our own perception of identity or others perception of our identity?”
You mention fear of not being the world hegemon as part of our identity and I would have to agree. Just look at our defense spending in any given year. In 2008, the United States spent $607 billion on defense while the next closest country, China, spent $61 billion. This is about 4% of our GDP. Such a high amount of spending is not a new occurrence either. Military spending reached 9% during the 1960s and hovered around 6% when Ronald Reagan was in office.
Tying this back to my question about identity, is fear something we realize or is it something others sense about us? I would say there are very few Americans who would realize this and that most other nations are aware of it.
Information on defense spending: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/05/how-does-u-s-defense-spending-compare-with-other-countries/
The main thing about this identity is that it's based off what nation you live in or adhere to. Another is that it's ultimately based in material standing. In many ways, this identity is based off who is number one in the dollars, networking, and resources. Why do nations always have to base themselves off their material conditions? Why can't it be based off how the country interacts with the world and how it treats its people? In my opinion, a country with an identity as a place where people live a good life, and the country is not fighting other countries is better. This creates a more secure place for that country to grow in the world.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, this identity shift for the United States might actually be a good thing. My one friend always remarks that he would rather be the Vice President than the President. How many people do you see blaming Obama as opposed to Biden, who is also in the thick of the same national issues? Our country has tremendous resources, a large yet not gigantic population, and with enough clout to still not get shoved around. While I concede it is in national interest to keep the dollar standard and some other things, we should makes our identity more in line with our original vision. A vision where people are free to explore and pioneer, and a self-sufficiency and "can do it" tact.
The fear that our country has that you outlined is precisely right. Our national attempts to infiltrate other countries with our military and ideals show an insecure national mentality. Bills passed after 9/11 show our paranoia with the wiretapping of our own people and many other intrusions. Our intelligence culture, while admirable for the saves they do make, always casts a leery eye to everyone.
If we were to slip off the top of the mountain, I think China will be vulnerable to the same mentality (if not more so) since it already shows a fearful mindset of its own people. With accelerating change, world economic domination by one country may cycle every few years instead of every few centuries like back in history.
Jennica: your analysis of our imminent identity crisis is very thorough! I was particularly intrigued by the way in which you linked British perceptions of their own identity around the time of the American Revolution to the way that Americans perceive themselves now, in light of the rise of China and the sense of insecurity surrounding another potential terrorist attack. I think this sensation of fear that Chomsky attributes to the potential for the U.S. to lose its place as the global hegemon can actually be explained by a theory in International Relations called the Power Transition Theory, aptly named because it describes how global powers react when they are faced with the possibility of moving up or down the global totem pole.
ReplyDeleteThe Power Transition Theory states that whenever a rising global power and a waning global power are competing for the position of global hegemon, the rising power will do whatever it can to overtake the waning power, while the waning power will attempt to undercut the rising power on its course to the top. Oftentimes, this results in conflict, which can ultimately lead to war.
While the U.S. is one of the most militarily well-equipped nations to go to war, I know that war is the last thing this country needs right now. With all of the challenges our country currently faces—a recession, severe unemployment, mounting budget deficits, energy insecurity, and not to mention pulling out from our current wars abroad—the added volatility of an impending conflict (and the economic and social consequences of war) would not only cripple the American government, but also the psyche of the American people. Therefore, the U.S. needs prioritize its own needs and work to rectify the situations that are currently detracting from the American identity as a land of opportunity, innovation, and prosperity. At the same time it should keep other global powers in its peripherals and consider possible ways to preclude conflict in the international realm.