The Irony of Fighting Globalization

Where have Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri Prakash been all of these years? The authors of “From Global to Local: Beyoun Neoliberalism to the International of Hope,” present a convincing argument that shows the problems associated with Globalization. Globalization, once a popular fad, is causing a powerful local fight for flight.

No one anymore wants to be global. Whether that means that globalization is going to be criticized from the locals or even the once-global-leaders, there is going to be distrust. “Even the most single-minded and ambitious free trade advocates cannot fail to recognize the social and human costs of the politics they are promoting.” No one can truly think global. Even organizations that claim to be global cannot be global. They have to have a home base somewhere, and that in turn helps shape their outlook. “Global proposals are necessarily parochial: they inevitably express the specific vision and interests of a small group of people, even when they are supposedly formulated in the interest of humanity.”

Few can deny that globalization is not always the best force in society. Global solutions cannot solve the local problems. This is especially true for the case of TB. When a global effort to banish TB from local societies, especially in developing countries, was established, the plan backfired. Doctors did not prescribe the correct dosage and the patients did not take the full treatment plan. This in turn caused the infectious disease to become even more powerful than even before. With the mutation of the strain to become MDR-TB, no drugs could cure the disease.

However, the efforts to reduce the force of globalization in the past have not encountered much success. Esteva and Prakash claim that “until now, … most of the social movements of campaigns trying to resist the new “global” phenomena have proven to be highly ineffective. Some of them are even counterproductive.” The problem is that humans are limited. Local forces are tiny compared to the massive global strength that sits as the opposition. Before, there seemed little hope of reducing the force of globalization.

Now, there is hope. Everywhere around the globe, there is a general push towards acting locally as opposed to globally. Esteva and Prakash claim that people “are trying to abandon the global thinking with which “industrial eaters” enter their local grocery stores: buying “goods” from any and every part of the earth, motivated solely by the desire to get the “best” return for their dollar.” In order to fight the global force, opponents fight with understanding. There is now a generally thirst for local knowledge. People want to know where their food comes from, and learning that the food is not local has started to pose a greater threat than ever before. Local forces can act together. “The local peoples often need outside allies to create a critical mass of political opposition capable of stopping those forces.” Though the coalition of local forces is not always as powerful as that of the global leaders, it is a start.

Globalization is something that needs to be changed. It is moving society in a direction that is abysmal. These authors make such a good argument. Ironically, it will need a global force of local organizations the fight the global power.