Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Jihad vs. mcworld
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Jihad vs. mcworld
In the article “Jihad vs. McWorld” written by Benjamin R. Barber, the main discussion is about the comparison of the Jihad world of “a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture”(Barber, 1992, page 1) to the McWorld of economic and political globalization. This idea is based off of the concept of Barber stating that there are “2 possible political futures”(Barber, 1992, page 1); the idea of seperation for every nation to have its own state, and the idea of it all becoming one. The contrast for these is that each nation cannot survive, as states some simply aren’t large enough. However the idea of becoming a single nation would not be as efficient either, because the amount of governing parties that …show more content…
McWorld is talked about by the four imperatives that make it up (Barber, 1992, page 2). These imperatives are the Market, Resource, Information-Technology, and Ecological. The Market imperative is talking about the global need for a free market, the downside to this is that it requires a common language and common currency (Barber, 1992, page 3). A failed demonstration of this could be the Euro, however they do not share a common language. If the world were to indulge in having a single currency, they would need to agree on the language to be used, and while most of the First World uses English, this is not the same for those peripherary states.The Resource imperative is as Barber puts it: “Democrats once dreamed in societies who political autonomy rested firmly on economic independence”(Barber, 1992, page 4). The problem with this imperative is that every nation requires something another nation has and some nations have almost nothing they need (Barber, 1992, page 5). This can be seen most prominently in Africa, states failling due to being incapable of running a state without the assitance of major states, like United States, or Russia. The following imperative is Information-Technology; this imperative is the idea of technology becoming universally used. The drawback to
...taken the form of universalization of those same structures across the world through reforming measures or through discourses in the Muslim world, thus creating conflicts as noted by Majid. The main weapon of this power relationship is observing and differentiating between good and bad, thus ingraining binary oppositions with the western values at the superior end. Thus, the western hegemony is like a beauty myth which is an unattainable western standard which is not only undesirable but harmful for the non-west. Still, they are coerced to adopt this standard due to a constant gaze and pressure from the West. Therefore, there is a need to revert this gaze and dismantle the western hegemony and power structures through the proliferation of ideas; ideas that take root not merely from the power elite or existing structures but stem from individual and provincial needs.
The concept of Jihad was not widely known in the western world before the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Since then, the word has been woven into what our media and government feed us along with notions of Terrorism, Suicide Bombings, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and now, Jihad. Our society hears exhortations resounding from the Middle East calling the people to rise up in Jihad and beat back the imperialist Americans. Yet, if we try to peel back all of these complex layers of information we can we attempt to find out what Jihad really means. Webster’s Dictionary defines Jihad as “a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty or a crusade for a principle or belief” (1). Often, media depicts Jihad in the same manner—as a vicious clash between two very different peoples, each of whom believes that righteousness, and in many cases God, is on their side. From this interpretation and our daily media intake, one may reasonably assume that Jihad refers to nothing more than violent acts, or “holy wars.”
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different ci...
Realism hasve hazy contoursa hazy contour and offers only difficult choices in the new world. Globalization has three forms: economic globalization, which has become a cause for inequality among and within states. and tThe concern for global competitiveness limits the aptitude of states, and other actors and institutions to address this problem; cultural globalization, which offers either unification (also Americanization) or reaction against it, takitakesng form in a renaissance of local cultures and denunciation of an arrogant “imperialist” Western culture; political globalization, which is the preponderance of the West and its political institutions, or as Huntignton defines it- the “Davos elite” as Huntington defines it. These forms of globalization, mostly creating resistance rather that integration, it can be inferreddeduce that globalization is far from making history’s end, refuting the thought idea of a universal modern world. (Hoffman,
According to the Quran and supporting Islamic texts, jihad means striving. However, there are several words and phrases, that when coupled with jihad, display a variety of sentiments. The phrase fi sabil Allah, "in God's path," can be interpreted as fighting for the sake of God. When paired with the word ribat, jihad is related to warfare or pious doings/activism (Bonner 2006). Jihad represents a fight that has provided Muslims with a solid base of military efficiency demonstrated historically in early Islam.
One of the ten practical principles of Islam, Jihad, is literally defined as “hardship, endeavor, exaggeration in work, reaching the height of something and capability”, while in the Sharia of Islam Jihad is sacrificing one’s life and property primarily for the sake of Allah, elevating and sustaining Islamic beliefs and standpoints. In this sense, Jihad is the act of Defending the Islamic territory against the assaults and intrusions of outsiders and invaders. The essence of Jihad lies in Defense, thus any violence which is shown with the intention of invading a country or a nation’s lives, property, etc. and for manipulating their economic potentials or human resources, not only is not called Jihad but also considered as the overt manifestation of injustice and cruelty which is strongly rejected in Islam.
Ajami argues that universalism of Pan-Arabism derived from the universalism of the Ottoman Empire had disappeared after 6 decades. There is no longer a collective Arab crisis and nation states have alternate nationalistic goals. A case in point to support his argument would be the example of Egypt. The country has pertinent political and economic issues to concern itself with. Many face unemployment and the country is on the verge of bankruptcy....
...NATO aggression and occupation and the West’s expedient support of one or another oppressive indigenous or regional force. “The United States,” RAWA commented on this occasion, “wants the world to know that it is responsible for the establishment of order in the world and [that] nothing in the world changes without its will so it can extend its presence in the region by bringing together our enemies of different species and tightening their leashes in its hands.” The group went on to say that the United States “can create a regime that is much more mafia, dependent, corrupt, anti-people and more ridiculous than the current one in our homeland; and after the expiration date of its dirty creations, it will take each by the tail and throw them aside like mice. … These “insultingly painful games,” RAWA said, “are played with our suffering nation.…” However, they said,
The victims will continue to live in fear and hatred for those that want to destroy them and their land.
The world, however, will not work solely on one side of the McWorld-Jihad spectrum. The solution, according to Barber, is the ideology of Nationalism1. Barber goes on stating that, "Nationalism established government on a scale greater than the tribe yet less cosmopolitan than the universal church and in time and birth to those intermediate, gradually more democratic institutions that would come to constitute the nation-state". Additionally, Barber says that the present day society is currently striving to recreate a world in which our only choices is either McWorld or Jihad, when in truth both have lost their democratic virtues1.
Political uprisings in the Middle East, especially in Muslim nation states have placed Arabian politics back on the focus point of international politics. Political events in certain Arab countries had an excessive impact on the political development of other neighboring states. Resistances and anxieties within different Arab countries triggered unpredictable actions, sometimes sorely to observe and believe. The authoritarian governments of Arabian countries led from various dictators have created a precarious situation for their people, especially in providing national security and maintaining peace in the region. Jack Goldstone argues that the degree of a sultan’s weakness has been often only visible in retrospect; due in part to the nature of the military-security complex common across Middle East states (Goldstone 1). In addition, the existence of various statesmen with political affiliation is concerned in faithfulness of its armed forces. Usually, the armed national forces of several states, mainly those in Arab countries are loyal and closely affiliated to their leaders, which have a major role in state regimes. Arab uprisings in their early spreading appeared legally responsible and with concrete demands from representatives’ peoples, calling for a more open democratic system and reasonable governance. Even though, the system in which popular frustration with government imposes alters considerably from one state to another. These public revolts against different authoritative governments didn’t halt just in Arab states, but they sustained also in the Far East and in the Eastern Europe. Can we say that the popular uprisings in Arab countries could be attributed to the term of globalization? In fact, globalization is a multi...
In conclusion, Huntington's approach of outlining the cultural differences between the West and Islam doesn't entirely explain the present world Jihadist terrorism and response of the US and its allies to it. The inclination of his paradigm is that one culture must win and another must lose. His hypothesis thus promotes political actors, policy makers and citizens to understand cultural dissimilarities as devastating and to support such differences. Consequently, his civilizations approach may not provide a standard paradigm, but it may add to realist and liberal approaches to explain international relations. – 3
“The world is a global village”, is a metaphor that was coined by the Canadian scholar Marshall McLuhan to describe the perceived experience of a smaller world resulting from the effects of modern technology, faster communication and improved transportation, despite geographical boundaries (1). The various processes that have produced this phenomenon can be called globalization. There are many definitions of the term globalization; Delbruck 1993 defined globalization as "a process of denationalization of markets, laws and politics, in the sense of interlacing people and individuals for the sake of common good"(2). Fidler 1996 aptly described globalization as a complex process of, “political and economic intercourse between different sovereign states” on the premise that such interdependence will result in states being better off and as such building stability, peace and order in the international scenario(3). Globalization has resulted in a gradual erosion of the traditional distinction of national and international activities through political, social and economic interaction between different countries, leading to a fusion or overlap of domestic and foreign policies(4). However, globalization differs from internationalization, the latter referring to a process where each country attempts to fulfil their national interest by co-operating with other countries in areas where they are incapable of achieving desired outcomes on their own(3) . Its key points are co-operation between states, while preserving sovereignty. Globalization on the other hand entails co-operation and undermines the sovereignty of nations.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
...arly lead to the rivalry of superpowers being replaced by the clash of civilizations. Conversely it then makes it evident that in this particular new world global politics then become the politics of civilizations whereas local politics become the politics of ethnicity (Huntington, 1996).