Philosophical Views of Globalization and Technology

Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

1813

Abstract

military power that inflicted European culture on other cultures. Today’s globalization must be assessed in terms of the legacy of colonialism, but there is more openness from the “West” toward other cultures, and there is less, though still too much, denial and suppression of other cultures. Still, the ethics of cultural appropriation must be considered. What right do Western people and companies have to use and profit from the cultural creations of non-Western people? Economic exploitation of workers in “third world” countries is still a significant problem. Marx’s critique of 1800s European capitalism seems more true than ever when we consider the plight of workers in East Asian and Latin American countries.Some philosophers predicted problems associated with the pace of change and globalization. As early as 1927, John Dewey warned that it is difficult to organize the public sphere when it does not stay in place and that this would have negative effects on democracy. Heidegger in 1950 expressed concerns that technology was dehumanizing us, successfully predicting that television would soon come to dominate all communication. Canadian cultural critic Marshall McLuhan (1911–1980) wrote about the coming “global village” in which humanity is connected by technology. However, McLuhan predicted bad consequences, saying that the technological medium by which a message is transmitted would become more important that the content of the message. Anyone who didn’t think of social media when they read that sentence is not paying attention.Indeed, the moral issues of social media and social networking are the subjects of a very new but very important field in philosophy. Phenomenologist and existentialist Hubert Dreyfus (1929–2017) in his paper “Nihilism on t

Options

he Information Highway: Anonymity Versus Commitment in the Present Age” (written in 2004, before Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), observed that the anonymity and distance allowed by electronic media meant that online interactions intrinsically lacked exposure to risk. Dreyfus says that we are not fully bodily present on electronic media, so we are shielded from the social risks of our behavior being disapproved of by others. Without risk, he said, there can be no true meaning or commitment in the social media realm. The Internet is, he says, like Kierkegaard’s aesthetic sphere — promising us new and exciting experiences, and to be whoever we want to be, but without a chance of gaining a history and authentic self that is founded on firmness, balance, and steadiness.It is not all negative. British-Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah (1954- ), who has written primarily on moral philosophy, has addressed globalization with his theory of “cosmopolitanism.” In his book, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (2006), Appiah defines cosmopolitanism as “universality plus difference,” meaning that we don’t ignore cultural diversity but that our universal humanity always takes precedence. Cultures matter, but people also matter. Cultural differences are to be respected, but only insofar as they do not harm our universal concern for people. We should first and foremost understand ourselves as citizens of the world. He goes on to say that our obligations to others go beyond sharing citizenship. We have a responsibility to learn about the practices and beliefs of others and their identities. Appiah is critical of all ethnocentrism, both the Eurocentrism of white supremacy and the Afrocentrism of some radical black philosophers of race.</article></body>

The effects of what is considered “progress” are important to assess.

We are becoming one world, though some nationalists still resist the long trend of increasing interconnectedness among the people of the world. Technology has enabled communication, trade, and travel to become quicker and easier. Anyone can converse with anyone anywhere in real time. The Internet has empowered people to access incredible amounts of information, learn almost everything about anything. People instead just watch videos of celebrities and post stupid memes. Too cynical? Well, like Nietzsche, some philosophers who have high hopes for humanity look at our global age of technology and are rather disappointed by people’s behaviors.

Globalization has implications for political philosophy. Plato, Aristotle, and the modern political philosophers all held the view that states were relatively isolated and homogeneous. Not that states in prior centuries didn’t have trade and immigration, but the idea of distinct societies with distinct cultural, if not geographical, borders was considered the norm. Globalization has forced people to give up the notion of cultural isolation. Some have welcomed it; some have resisted it. Powered by technology, the wave of globalization will continue, shrinking our world and our distance from each other.

We need to differentiate the globalization of the 2000s from the type of globalization that occurred during the age of colonization. Colonialism was an expression of economic exploitation and military power that inflicted European culture on other cultures. Today’s globalization must be assessed in terms of the legacy of colonialism, but there is more openness from the “West” toward other cultures, and there is less, though still too much, denial and suppression of other cultures. Still, the ethics of cultural appropriation must be considered. What right do Western people and companies have to use and profit from the cultural creations of non-Western people? Economic exploitation of workers in “third world” countries is still a significant problem. Marx’s critique of 1800s European capitalism seems more true than ever when we consider the plight of workers in East Asian and Latin American countries.

Some philosophers predicted problems associated with the pace of change and globalization. As early as 1927, John Dewey warned that it is difficult to organize the public sphere when it does not stay in place and that this would have negative effects on democracy. Heidegger in 1950 expressed concerns that technology was dehumanizing us, successfully predicting that television would soon come to dominate all communication. Canadian cultural critic Marshall McLuhan (1911–1980) wrote about the coming “global village” in which humanity is connected by technology. However, McLuhan predicted bad consequences, saying that the technological medium by which a message is transmitted would become more important that the content of the message. Anyone who didn’t think of social media when they read that sentence is not paying attention.

Indeed, the moral issues of social media and social networking are the subjects of a very new but very important field in philosophy. Phenomenologist and existentialist Hubert Dreyfus (1929–2017) in his paper “Nihilism on the Information Highway: Anonymity Versus Commitment in the Present Age” (written in 2004, before Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), observed that the anonymity and distance allowed by electronic media meant that online interactions intrinsically lacked exposure to risk. Dreyfus says that we are not fully bodily present on electronic media, so we are shielded from the social risks of our behavior being disapproved of by others. Without risk, he said, there can be no true meaning or commitment in the social media realm. The Internet is, he says, like Kierkegaard’s aesthetic sphere — promising us new and exciting experiences, and to be whoever we want to be, but without a chance of gaining a history and authentic self that is founded on firmness, balance, and steadiness.

It is not all negative. British-Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah (1954- ), who has written primarily on moral philosophy, has addressed globalization with his theory of “cosmopolitanism.” In his book, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (2006), Appiah defines cosmopolitanism as “universality plus difference,” meaning that we don’t ignore cultural diversity but that our universal humanity always takes precedence. Cultures matter, but people also matter. Cultural differences are to be respected, but only insofar as they do not harm our universal concern for people. We should first and foremost understand ourselves as citizens of the world. He goes on to say that our obligations to others go beyond sharing citizenship. We have a responsibility to learn about the practices and beliefs of others and their identities. Appiah is critical of all ethnocentrism, both the Eurocentrism of white supremacy and the Afrocentrism of some radical black philosophers of race.