The MOST Phase II website is available at: www.unesco.org/shs/most.
|
| You
are in the MOST Phase I website (1994-2003). The MOST Phase II website is available at: www.unesco.org/shs/most. |
Mr. President
It is a great honour for me to address this gathering today, especially as the addresses at the previous Intergovernmental Council meetings have been given by two of the most prominent contemporary social scientists: Alain Touraine and Neil Smelser. My distinguished colleagues drew the Council’s attention to the great social transformations of our time, and spoke of the challenges which face local communities, national societies and indeed humanity in general. In my address today, I aim to do two things. First, I wish to draw your attention to nine fundamental contradictions that are typical of our time. This number is, of course, arbitrary, and the problems are so closely linked that they cannot always be clearly distinguished in practice. All the same, I believe that these categories are useful in analysing globalisation, and the problems it creates. Second, I will focus on just one aspect of global
change – the recent rapid growth in international migration – and use it
to illustrate each contradiction. Why give migration such prominence? Because
it plays a key part in most contemporary social transformations. Migration
is both a result of global change, and a powerful force for further change
in migrant-sending and receiving societies. Its immediate impacts are felt
on the economic level, but it also affects social relations, culture, national
politics and international relations. Migration inevitably leads to greater
ethnocultural diversity within nation-states, transforming identities and
blurring traditional boundaries. If the MOST Program can help the world
to better understand and manage migration, then it will have achieved something
very important.
1. The contradiction between inclusion and exclusion I refer to the tendency for global linkages to embrace every geographical area and every human group, while at the same time differentiating between these human groups: some become full members in the new global order while others are marginalised. This fundamental issue of inclusion and exclusion is a central aspect of all the other contemporary contradictions. In the new economic order, subsistence production by families and communities breaks down, and is replaced by participation in national and international markets. Individuals or groups who possess the characteristics necessary to fit into global markets, whether for labour, capital or cultural goods, are included into the global order as citizens, with civil, political and social rights. Individuals and groups who do not fit are excluded, and may be denied even the most basic rights, such as the right to work and the right to food security. International migration is closely linked to these processes of inclusion and exclusion. Since 1945, and especially from the 1970s, there has been a burgeoning of international population movements, involving every geographical region. People may move to a neighbouring country, or half-way across the world. They may be migrant workers, professionals or refugees. Increasing numbers of both economic migrants and refugees are women. Although experts try to distinguish between the various categories, this is not always possible, for migrants’ motivations are complex and multidimensional. Most migration takes place within transnational social networks, which link families and communities across long distances. Migratory chains, once started, may develop in unpredictable ways. Whatever the original intentions of migrants, employers and governments, migration usually leads to family reunion, settlement and formation of new ethnic groups in receiving countries. Well over 100 million people live outside their countries of birth today. Some 20 million of them are refugees. That is only a small proportion of the world’s population, yet migration has much greater effects than such numbers suggest. In countries of emigration, families and local communities experience deep and enduring changes. Emigration is one aspect of the dissolution of traditional economic and social structures resulting from globalisation. Whole countries may develop "cultures of emigration", as in Italy half a century ago, or the Philippines today. Many emigrants perceive their situation in terms of economic and social exclusion: they are forced to leave their countries, because there is no place for them there any more. They may even see themselves as excluded from the national community. Similarly, in countries of immigration many
communities are drastically changed. Immigrant settlement may reshape the
national economy, transform cities and force the re-examination of social
and cultural values. The immigrants may experience exclusion here too,
through economic disadvantage, denial of rights or discrimination. In older
receiving countries, immigration has become a key issue in debates on social
relations and national identity. The same will no doubt also happen in
time in newly industrialising countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa.
2. The contradiction between market and state The process which includes some and excludes others appears to be the result of anonymous market forces. No individual, institution or state, therefore, seems to bear the responsibility for developments which may impoverish millions. The triumph of the market, both at the national and international levels, means that many of those in power no longer see gross inequality as a problem, but rather as vital to the efficiency of the economic system. This insistence on unfettered markets is a new trend, although it does hark back to the 19th century. The traumatic experiences of the first half of the 20th century – class struggles and two world wars – led to the emergence of welfare states in the core industrial countries. Attempts to extend welfare and state intervention to the developing world were linked to the system struggle in a bipolar world. But the collapse of the communist alternative in the 1980s has made it possible to proclaim the interests of global capital as the interests of all humanity. So although there is no central force steering the world economy, there are powerful sanctions against those who question the new market rationality. The Structural Adjustment Programs of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been powerful forces for creating open market economies in up to 80 countries. Such programs have forced governments to abandon measures designed to protect the living conditions of their people, resulting in informalisation of labour, dismantling of welfare systems and increased unemployment. The contradiction between markets and states is very marked in the field of international migration. States of origin often oppose the emigration of highly-skilled people as a "brain drain" and a loss of educational investments. Employers in receiving countries, by contrast, are eager to welcome skilled migrants. For the unskilled the reverse applies: the governments of sending countries encourage them to leave, because this will bring remittances and ease social pressures. Governments of receiving countries are increasingly unwilling to admit unskilled migrant workers, but may turn a blind eye to illegal entry if employers need labour. If governments try to stop migration, a new market
comes into play: a global migration market, organised by labour recruiters
and migration agents, who can make a profit out of migration, whether legal
or not. This market is linked to the informal social networks which develop
within the migratory process. Together, the migration networks and the
migration industry may be more powerful in shaping population flows than
the polices of states. International migration is an essential part of
globalisation. If governments welcome the mobility of capital, commodities
and ideas, yet try to stop the mobility of people, they are unlikely to
succeed. Realistic policies may help shape migration in the public interest.
Prohibitions, by contrast, are unlikely to stop migration, and may simply
change legal movements into illegal ones.
3. The contradiction between growing wealth and impoverishment As Robert Reich (1991: 196-207), Labor Secretary in the first Clinton Administration, pointed out, income inequality in the USA grew sharply in the 1980s: the rich got richer, there were more poor people, and the middle classes were eroded. This trend applies in virtually all the older industrial countries. The decline of welfare states has exacerbated the social polarisation. Growing inequalities in wealth can also be found in newly industrialising countries. Economic development under conditions of free markets and non-interventionist states seems inevitably to lead to greater inequality. Modernisation theories claim that higher living standards will "trickle-down" to disadvantaged groups, but it is far from clear that this is happening. But the most glaring inequality is still that between the industrial countries (both old and new) and those areas which have not been able to achieve sustained economic development. In many areas of Africa and Asia, real incomes are falling. This means declines in educational opportunities, health standards, and even in life expectancy. Whole nations are being excluded from the new global order. The fault-lines of conflict have shifted. The old divisions were between workers and capitalists; and between the liberal-democratic and communist models. Today’s patterns are more complex: within each country, there is division between those included in mainstream economic and social relations, and those who are excluded. In the old industrial countries, sociologists speak of the replacement of class society by the "tow-thirds society", in which the majority is still included, but a growing minority is not. In less-developed countries it is still the majority who are excluded. Such internal divisions are overlaid by an international division between rich and poor countries. But this is no longer simply the North-South divide: rich centres have emerged in the South, while parts of the old communist bloc in Europe are in crisis. All these forms of exclusion are overlaid by differentiation
based on group membership; women, ethnic and racial minorities, indigenous
peoples and youth experience discrimination and disadvantage. Again, migration
plays a key role. Virtually every western country now has new ethnic minorities
which have arisen through the migrations of the last fifty years. In some
cases, the descendants of immigrants may remain non-citizens even if born
in the country of residence. Even those who are citizens may experience
discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion. Newly industrialising
countries which import labour are trying hard to prevent the emergence
of new minorities. Yet settlement often takes place anyway, leading to
situations of marginalisation, impoverishment and social conflict.
4. The contradiction between the Net and the Self One of the key problems of modernity is the tension between the principle of rational economic and political organisation, and the infinitely varied desires of individuals and groups. As Professor Touraine pointed out in his MOST address in 1994, it was above all Nietzsche and Freud who showed how human life is ruled by this tension between society and individual, or between system-rationality and identity. In a recent work, the sociologist Manual Castells (1996:3) has analysed the new character of this old contradiction. He argues that "our societies are increasingly structured around a bipolar opposition between the Net and the Self ". He emphasises the role of new information technologies in creating global networks of wealth, power and images. These networks can "selectively switch on and off individuals, groups, regions and even countries’ according to their relevance in fulfilling instrumental goals. This system is economically efficient but incapable of giving meaning to people’s lives. To escape such abstract universalism, people increasingly seek meaning through particularistic identities based on ethnicity, religion, regionalism or nationalism. This explains why many contemporary conflicts are not concerned primarily with "rational" economic and social interests. The defence of local or sectional interests against globalising forces may be based on cultural symbols connected with dignity and identity. Many individuals and groups have had the experience of being dispossessed or excluded on the basis of interests portrayed as rational and general. Resistance movements may appear particularistic, and even backward-looking, because the appeal to an alternative universalistic project has been blocked by the monopolisation of discourses of rationality by globalising forces. The conflict between the Net and the Self applies on two separate levels with regard to migration. Firstly, the rise of anti-immigration movements, often of a racist character, is observable in many countries. The underlying motivation of such movements may be fear of the disruption brought about by globalisation and economic restructuring. Immigrants become the target, because they are the most visible symbol of these changes, while the real causes are invisible, complex and difficult to influence. Many anti-immigration groups are essentially identity movements based on myths of homogeneous and autonomous societies. The other level is that of the new ethnic minorities
themselves. Their frequently marginalised and discriminated position puts
a premium on personal and group identity. This can take two quite distinct
forms: one is separatism and fundamentalism, which his usually the result
of the experience of isolation and racism. The other is a mobilisation
within democratic societies to achieve both equality of rights and recognition
as a distinct cultural group. As in the case of young people of North African
origin in France, this gives rise to a call for a "new citizenship" based
on participation and cultural openness.
5. The contradiction between the global and the local The contradiction between the global and the local is one of the key issues addressed by the MOST Program. What appears rational at the global level can have devastating effects on local communities. If global integration and economic growth is to benefit people, ways have to be found to give local communities a powerful voice in decisions which affect them. Market mechanisms are inherently incapable of doing this, while states – even democratic ones – often neglect the local in favour of overriding "national interests". International migration is generally analysed at
the national level, yet its strongest effect are felt locally. In communities
of origin, the departure of large numbers of working-age people may disrupt
agricultural and handicraft production. Gender relations and family structures
undergo dramatic change. In receiving countries, there is frequently a
conflict between the central state, which controls immigration policy with
an eye to macro-economic consequences, and regional or local authorities,
who generally are more aware of possible social costs and tensions. Local
dimensions of migration need to be treated as central issues in research
and political action.
6. The contradiction between the economy and the environment This too has become a central issue of our age. Continual economic growth means ever-greater stress on natural resources and ecological systems. Market forces cannot prevent environmental degradation, because decisions of individual market players do not take account of long-term aggregate effects. National regulation is inadequate too, because deforestation, air-pollution and resource depletion are not constrained by borders. There can be no doubt of the need for supranational regulation, but the world has been slow in developing the necessary institutions. In certain areas migration flows are a direct result of environmental degradation. Deforestation, desertification, declining soil fertility, droughts and floods all force people to move. Less directly, pressure on resources and eco-systems may lead to economic competition, political conflict and warfare, destroying productive assets and causing mass flights. The classical political refugee is being joined by the new "environmental refugee". Immigration can also cause environmental strains,
by encouraging uncontrolled urban growth, or putting pressure on overused
resources. It is not only long-term movements which cause concern: tourism
is an often neglected threat to the natural environment and to cultural
heritage. Again there is a need for global co-operation in understanding
and managing population mobility.
7. The contradiction between modernity and post-modernity Some contemporary theorists interpret the current situation in terms of the painful transition from modernity to post-modernity. The project of modernity was based on the Enlightenment notion of history as a grand narrative of progress towards a good society. In contrast, post-modernity is based on the notion of fragmentation of politics, cultures and identities. Post-modernism rejects the grand narratives: there is no common human pathway towards a better life. Pessimism and relativism rule. Yet this view of the current situation seems problematic. It can be argued that the grand narrative is stronger than ever. The globalisation of markets is an all-embracing if one-sided realisation of the Enlightenment project. The technologies of production, control and communication are universalistic. Moreover, economic and technological changes are linked to the global diffusion of values based on western notions of rationality. Globalisation – as both a cultural and an economic phenomenon – is a true product of modernity. What is missing – and here some post-modernists are right – is the political and social project of modernity: the idea that a strong democratic state should intervene in the social realm to achieve equal rights and a good life for all. Here the fragmentation is really taking place – in the name of free markets. Thus globalisation means a modern integrated economy, but a post-modern fragmented political sphere. This contradiction is clearly visible with regard to international migration. Neo-classical economists argue that free circulation of labour maximises the utility of human capital and leads to an equalisation of wage rates across countries. But such positive consequences do not take place in the absence of political frameworks to ensure that the human rights and social needs of migrants are respected. Highly-skilled migrants may have enough market power to secure economic and social rights, but unskilled migrant workers and refugees do not. Far from an equalisation of wages, migration leads to new forms of inequality between and within countries. However rational and efficient they may be, markets do not bring about equality and social balance. Nor can transnational problems be effectively regulated by nation-states. Even where supranational forms of regulation are emerging, the result is the creation of new lines of inclusion and exclusion. The European Union, for instance, has done much to improve the rights of the roughly 5 million people who have moved from one member country to another, but has done little for the 10 million or more residents originating outside the European Union.
The great historical achievement of the nation-state model was the democratic citizen: the individual member of society who was not only a bearer of rights, but also an active participant in the process of law-making and governing. Democratic citizenship has only been achieved in a minority of countries, and then generally only with limitations. Yet it is an aspiration shared by most of the world’s people. However, there is an ambiguity in democratic citizenship: as membership in a nation-state, it denotes both civic belonging in a political community and cultural belonging in a national community. In the political community, all citizens are seen as equal, and their personal characteristics (such as gender, ethnicity and religion) are irrelevant. The national community, by contrast, is based on shared possession of supposedly unique cultural characteristics. Yet the process of nation-formation has generally involved conquest and incorporation of other ethnic groups. These had to be assimilated into the nation, either through obliteration of their cultures, or by a long process of forgetting difference, as the French historian Ernest Renan put it (1992). The goal of cultural homogenisation was always problematic, because minority cultures proved much more resilient than expected. However, the difficulty becomes much greater in today’s ‘age of migration’. Porous borders and the growth in ethnocultural diversity makes cultural homogenisation impossible. Today, many people commute between countries, and maintain family, social and economic links across borders. Such people have multiple identities and transcultural competencies. Many hold two or more citizenships, even if governments try to prevent this. Cultural interchange and cross-cultural marriages add to the hybridity of consciousness. There is no longer enough time to ‘forget difference’ – even if people wanted to! Such experiences still only applies to a minority
of people, but are an essential aspect of globalisation and will continue
to proliferate. The principle that each person should belong politically
and culturally to just one nation-state is becoming unworkable. We need
a new model of global citizenship, which will break the nexus between belonging
and territoriality: people need rights as human beings, not as nationals.
This model must be multicultural, in the sense that it should recognise
ethnic diversity and multiple identities. But multiculturalism also means
protecting local diversity against the flattening effect of global cultural
industries.
Such developments are a long way off, and there is no point in peddling utopias. However, it is clear that the current state of affairs is dangerous and unstable. The main ray of hope is the activity of millions of people all over the world, who are seeking ways of counteracting the harmful effects of globalisation, while maximising its positive aspects. The voices of local communities are making themselves heard through "civil society organizations" in many places. These include citizen’s initiatives against environmental degradation, rural development movements, women’s groups, labour unions, indigenous peoples movements, immigrants’ associations and many others. What is new about many of these civil society organisations is that they are developing a global consciousness, even if they act locally. Moreover, they are learning to use the information technologies which are part of globalisation as a tool of resistance. New forms of communication have often been an instrument of control and homogenisation, but their character as decentralised networks makes them suitable for quite different purposes. For example, ‘electronic democracy’ based on the Internet could be used to include a broad public in complex decision-making processes. This leads on to my final contradiction:
Globalisation has so far mainly meant the imposition of drastic changes on local communities by powerful forces from above. The development of countervailing forces of ‘globalisation from below’ is the main hope for a more equal world, in which economic and social change does not mean exclusion and impoverishment for so many people. From the activity of thousands of local movements and civil society organization is emerging a new notion of citizenship. It is based on multilevel action for a global dream of sustainable development (Decanay, 1997). If the UNESCO-MOST program can help to facilitate the work of such groups, and to link them into the work of national and supranational organisations, then it will have carried out a very worthwhile task.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford: Blackwells. Dacanay, M.L.M. (1997) ‘Citizenship in an era of globalisation: a view from the Philippines’ paper presented at the Conference on Globalisation and Citizenship, Melbourne: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development and Swinburne University of Technology. Reich, R.B. (1991) The Work of Nations, London: Simon & Schuster. Renan, E. (1992) Qu’est-ce qu’une nation? et autres essais politiques (introduced by Roman, J.) Paris: Presses Pocket, Agora. |
To MOST Clearing House Homepage