Interview by René Lefort, director of the UNESCO Courier
Radical French farmers’ leader José Bové holds an impromptu press conference.
|
War and peace For me, the culture of peace and the humanist
values that I insist on are one and the same thing. Naturally, the culture of peace
includes the idea of the absence of war. That’s essential because in a sense peace
has become the luxury of developed societies. These societies have managed to eliminate
war from daily life, but only recently. My generation, now reaching the age of 50,
is the first in European history which has not set about killing each other. But
war hasn’t disappeared from everywhere in Europe—look at the former Yugoslavia. And
certainly not from the rest of the world, which is torn by dozens of armed conflicts
which the media only occasionally report on. We, the developed countries, are no
longer at war, but the world’s poor people are. The culture of peace is first and
foremost about ending war because war isn’t an abstract problem for most of humanity. M.C. |
Social change is bound to come. But because political systems are no longer capable of spearheading it, it will come from outside, from these movements which share humanist ideals and organizational innovations
Spanish
sociologist Manuel Castells* thinks violence aggravated by globalization will trigger
a new wave of planet-wide opposition
You predict that a multitude of what you call ethical-pragmatic movements will
gradually join hands until they’re strong enough to counter the negative effects
of globalization. Do you think they’ll grow into a kind of worldwide “grand coalition”?
First, the word “coalition” here shouldn’t be understood in an organizational sense.
I don’t see a sort of huge international solidarity organization emerging to replace
old-style working-class and political organizations. But tools like the Internet
could enable these multifarious movements to keep in touch far more effectively without
coming under the kind of bureaucratic control which organizations inevitably develop.
I envisage stronger and more regular interaction between active grassroots communities.
By being perfectly in tune with their own environments and at the same time connected
by the Internet, these communities will be capable of precisely targeted activities,
while still focusing from time to time on major international efforts.
What is the basis of your prediction?
A process of elimination. History shows that injustice and oppression always
provoke a reaction. We live in a very creative world, where the wealth of information
is growing exponentially, but also in a world that is increasingly unjust, oppressive
and absurd. There is a huge contrast between the current widespread violence and
the universal harmony we could achieve. So there must be a potential for revolt.
Also, the political tools and organizations we’ve used over the past century, especially
governments, have lost their legitimacy. The vast majority of people no longer trust
them to do anything except follow initiatives originating elsewhere.
Collective mobilization against injustice and oppression is not only inevitable but
is already taking shape—individualism and cynicism are definitely not universal;
social change is bound to come. But because political systems are no longer capable
of spearheading it, it will come from outside, from these movements which share humanist
ideals and organizational innovations.
But doesn’t the idea of people coming together conflict with the general trend
towards individualism?
Yes and no. Yes, as far as the dominant ideology of our advanced societies is concerned.
No, because if you take the world as a whole, this grouping of forces is in tune
with vast grassroots movements of community solidarity based on spiritual values
and sense of identity. On the other hand, this collective force is radically different
from insular groups or movements based on exclusion of others. Even if it only acts
on a one-off basis it can find a place for anyone who shares universal values or
who believes in solidarity between humans and human solidarity with nature. In fact
that’s its hallmark.
Will it be strong enough to foster a strategy to counter the current shortcomings
of globalization?
I don’t think a united, coherent, long-term strategy based on a kind of counter-programme
is going to emerge. That would just be harking back to old-style militancy, an attempt
to put new wine in old bottles, something which an overwhelming majority of these
new movements’ members reject. They will organize highly symbolic gatherings, like
that which took place during the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle in
December 1999. But basically, they will continue to act in an unco-ordinated way,
focusing on issues that are sometimes local and sometimes global. By global, I mean
everything from saving whales to fighting against slavery.
These movements are having an undeniable effect on the process of globalization.
The public mood, at least in democratic societies, is playing a key role. Basically,
their most immediate action is to change the prevailing values of public opinion.
They manage to get traditional political forces and governments to adopt these values,
even in a somewhat mangled form, because movements use them as a kind of common currency
at election time. “Adopt these values and we’ll urge people to vote for you,” they
say. Take the example of ecological values. They have emerged from a changed perception
of our relationship with the environment. They have ended up influencing the political
system to such an extent that it has markedly changed its ways in the last 10 or
15 years, something it would never have done on its own.
So the state’s role will still be crucial?
Definitely, and that’s one paradox for these movements which distrust the state
so much. Another paradox is that if they were to give priority to pressuring states
to change their policies, they would fail because they would lose their influence
in society. The transmission mechanism does not run from these movements directly
to the state, but from the movements to the society and from the society to the state.
Basically it’s through awareness-changing in society that they can make their mark.
So are we moving towards a politics which is increasingly fragmented and fluid?
Yes indeed. And one in which political parties will, at best, become intermediaries
instead of the initiators they once were. They’ll be reduced to taking the pulse
of social movements and translating them into options for government. Parties unable
to do this will be swept away by the democratic system because the control and monopoly
of information are getting weaker all the time. Contrary to the received wisdom,
the media will increasingly report on everything that’s going on in society because
of the emergence of countless networks of alternative information. The end of the
monopoly on information also means the end of government’s monopoly on action.
* Mr Castells is professor of sociology and city and regional planning at the University of California at Berkeley (USA). His trilogy about information technology and the global economy, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, has been published by Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
The 3 volumes are: The Rise of the Network Society (1996), The Power of Identity (1997) and End of Millennium (1998).