This is in response to Gautam's post on The IB and US Cultural Politics. Gautam raises several points that were difficult to respond to in the comment format, so I'm making a fuller commentary on his post here (and later).
First, about what happened in Pittsburg, I promise to write about that soon.
Second, about the new DG for IBO. I’m another one who gasped a little when I
saw Mr Beard’s CV: head of Novartis’ corn division, chief operations officer
for Syngenta. I mean, organizations like those practically wrote the book on how
to flatten the world through the green revolution, GMOs and the eradication of
land races. (If you need a rant, see ETC Group; I’m moving on to my next
point.)
Third, I think Friedmanitis is another manifestation of the desire for people to oversimply when they are too uncomfortable with complexity. In the 90s (long before 9/11) we had The Clash of Civilizations and Jihad versus McWorld. More recently we’ve had reds versus blues, and now worlds flat and spiky (If you haven’t yet, please read The World is Spiky by Richard Florida (caution: the link is to a large pdf file).
The flat world hypothesis somehow struck a chord in the blogosphere, and I think the cache of Friedman’s name and the catchiness of the phrase resulted in usage that far exceeds an understanding of the underlying reality. Sort of like “globalization”, another catchy, pointless term used to oversimplify just about anything. Click on the image to see the relative distribution of these terms:
I’ve been to lots of places in the world, and have yet to
find a country, a city, or even a mountain village in Guatemala that
was not simultaneously global and local, and simultaneously jihadist
(reactionist) and mcworldly (assimilationist). Somebody ought to just ban dichotomies outright so we can try looking at
reality instead of black and white caracatures of it.
Comments