Global Problems in Asian Nationalism: Some Thoughts

Arif Dirlik

University of Oregon

Organizers' statement for this workshop juxtaposes globalization to nationalism as the central problem to be taken up. I will follow their lead here. I have expressed unease with globalization as concept in the past, because, while it carries a certain plausibility in terms of contemporary economic, cultural, social and political processes, it is also an ideologically loaded term, that serves the interests of those who promote it. There is also some question as to whether it refers to contingent processes, or describes long-lasting secular trends. It is possible to argue, for instance, that the two decades from roughly 1980 to 2000 witnessed strong globalizing trends(and gave rise to the discourse of globalization), while presently we see once again the reappearance of old-fashioned imperialism and nationalism.

With these provisos, let me briefly put forth some problems that I think call for discussion: (a)The issue of sovereignty: Whatever globalization may be about, I think there is a good case to be made that the Westphalian notion of state sovereignty that has entered our conceptions of the nation has been called into question more severely than ever before by primarily economic and cultural, but also social and political developments. There is a dramatic contrast to the preceding century in the willing compromise globally of economic sovereignty in global participation in transnational corporate activity. The latter has a social dimension, as it also invites us to think about the emergence of a transnational class. The social transformation is not just a matter of a ruling class. It also includes many others in a world population that seems to be on the move, following markets of one kind or another(labor as well as petty commodity). Culture has been a most conspicuous aspect of globalization with new media and communications. Finally, while they may be powerless before imperial policies of the US, international organizations have been intervening more and more in the internal affairs of societies globally. So sovereignty is in question-even if it does not lead to something called globality, (b)New constituencies: Globalization has created its own contradictions, more often than not by drawing into the political and cultural arena those who had been marginalized in an earlier period. Ideologies marginalized under Eurocentric modernization have been empowered by globalization itself, generating new supra-national loyalties. We all know about the emergence of "new ethnicities" as intra- or supra-national entities. What needs more attention, I think, is the manner in which economic transnationalization and cultural globalization have also drawn into the political arena populations outside of major centers of urban modernity, bringing with them varieties of nativist orientations, contributing to overall ideological regression in a worldwide demotic transformation. Right-wing ideologies are on the surge globally, which makes an earlier period with its radical aspirations as little more than a transient phase expressing, perhaps, the birth pains of a new repressive order-now attached to a certain religious populism that also seems to be on its way to appropriating democracy. This surge, while it claims supranational ideological affinities, is also expressed through national loyalties, giving rise to the contradictory phenomena we witness all around us. In both these senses, Asian nationalisms need to be viewed in terms of both local and global processes that generate these contradictory phenomena.