Being a Global Society

Tom Peters wrote a most reflective and thoughtful post today on globalization. In it he says that the "guiding premise of ubiquitous Globalization, of which I have been among the most vociferous champions, is under assault." Among others thoughts, he wonders if...

The world has become normal again. The years immediately following the Cold War offered a tantalizing glimpse of a new kind of international order, with nation states growing together or disappearing, and increasingly free commerce and communications. ... People and their leaders longed for 'a world transformed.' ...

But that was a mirage. The world has not been transformed. In most places, the nation-state remains as strong as ever, and so, too, nationalist ambitions, the passions, and the competition among nations that have shaped history. ... Nationalism and the nation itself, far from being weakened by globalization, have now returned with a vengeance.

This was my initial thought:

The beauty of In Search of Excellence is the implementation of the small things that transform the whole. Perhaps globalization did not consider this. Hence, the bloated unwieldiness of its core corrupted. The core wasn't small and essential, but massive and viral. Should the mass not grow out of the small? When the small transforms it is felt by all and its single voice understood.

What is the single voice of globalization besides everybody can do it? But what is the it? Be rich? When transformation occurs through massive viral markets, perhaps corruption more readily destroy unawares. Globalization through massive economic means may not affect the sense of ethics at all, though it brings more people into social classes that enable them to provide for themselves.

There are many such examples of globalization, for example, in India where women have developed small cell phone businesses that afford them a better lifestyle. This is good. But this will probably not affect whether larger companies in India or America will behave justly and honorably, neither will it probably lessen the desire of people in various countries the strong sense of nationalistic pride. Is this a negative? In fact, I wholeheartedly believe in nation states. I wholeheartedly believe in cultural differences. I wholeheartedly believe in variance. But these beliefs need not trample yours.

David Porter wrote very effectual words on my blog where the topic was "Being a Paper Society." He writes:

'For those of us who believe in an abundance vs. a scarcity mentality, such a world is possible. One in which a reasonable rate of return is achieved, leading to more investment capital, and where employees are paid a fair wage well above the poverty line, then allowing those employees to purchase the goods at the store or the cars from their Big 3 employers etc. I think it hearkens back to your earlier post on 'Enough.' I am afraid we haven't yet solved that calculus but thoughtful discussions such as this at least put the questions before us.'

The fact that TP questions himself after all of these years of service is fantastic. The fact that we are having such "thoughtful discussions" on this blog on some many relevant topics give us hope that we will have a collective consciousness that will require individual actions in our various communities, work environments, and nation states. (Nation states will probably never change. And even if it does, there will undoubtedly be factions within it. The "Power to Will" as Nietzsche understood well will probably not change.) Small change is the only kind of change that takes root nationally, affecting the masses for good globally.

What do you think?