In the early 1990s, two influential political science books were published that sought to make sense of the nature of global politics in the post-cold war era.
Francis Fukyuama’s “The end of history and the Last Man” argued that liberal democracy was the ideological “end point” of human history. By this he meant that there was no viable sustainable alternative to liberal democracy as a form of government. Global politics, for Fukyuama, would be the progressive realization of this end point in practice throughout the world. (globalization, free trade, liberalism etc..)
Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” put forward a radically different argument: History wasn’t over and democracy was not the final form of government, he said. Rather, the post-cold war period would be dominated by the politics of culture. There would be a new set of faultlines: global politics would be about conflict between different cultural groups, which he called “civilizations.”
While there is a lot to say about this debate, I want to focus on one key point. There is an underlying theoretical disagreement between each vision, which concerns the relationship between technology/modernity, political systems, and culture. The End of History (EoH) argument is based on a theory of history and human development that sees technological change as the fundamental driver of political change. According to the EoH theory- technological change (which is “autonomous”) leads to economic change, which in turn produces political change. (If this sounds to you like Marx, you’d be right – Marx’s vision of the “end” was just slightly different) Technology produces economic industrialization/capitalism, which eventually gives way to liberalism and democracy.
The forces behind political change may not be purely determined by economics, but there is a strong link. This is why, according to the EoH argument, North America and Europe developed liberal democracies: They experienced early industrialization and modernization. When the ‘non-west’ is exposed to the forces of globalization and modernity, the EoH theory predicts, liberalism and democracy will follow. Of course, the transition may not be pretty. As for “culture”, the EoH theory says that it will still pervade things like language, dress, religion, and food, the forces of modernization will erase “authoritarian elements”.
For Clashers, this vision of history and political change is completely wrong. Politics and culture are not driven by economics; rather, the opposite. Culture, a common set of underlying beliefs, practices, and perceptions shape political institutions, they would say. For example, Huntington would argue that the reason why the “West” is both industrialized and liberal/democratic is that liberal democracy comes from Christian culture. It just happened to be the case that the Christian part of the world industrialized first. What this means is that countries with authoritarian cultures, like Iran, Russia, and China, might not give way to liberalism and democracy just because they are becoming more economically prosperous and modern. Their underlying authoritarian cultures are not only compatible with modernity, but it is culture, and not economics, that shapes institutions and politics.
Why do I bring this up? I think these two perspectives partially underlie current debates about immigration, accommodation, and multiculturalism in the west. Take the issue of Islam and the West; Clashers, who believe in the primacy of “culture” will likely be of the opinion that the authoritarian aspects of Islamic culture can survive, and even spread, in a liberal democratic environment. EoHers, like myself, argue that liberal democracy, as the ultimate end point, will eventually put an end to the authoritarian aspects of other cultures. All the more quickly, I might add, If people from authoritarian cultures move to “end of history” countries (parts of Europe; the Anglo-West). In the long run, EoHers might believe, there is really no danger to Western culture from multiculturalism and immigration. Clashers are far less convinced. They even see multiculturalism as a threat to western civilization. Moreover, they may even see authoritarian cultural groups as particularly dangerous.
Depending on the view that one holds, different immigration policies follow. For EoHers, who believe not only in the virtues of free markets and in the inherent pull of liberalism and freedom, more immigration is better. People benefit from trade, and the exchange of ideas. Barriers to the free movement of labour persist in most places as an impediment to prosperity. In other words, more immigration will only increase the spread of liberalism and the end of history. For Clashers, immigration policies would be more restrictive in order to protect western institutions from authoritarian and illiberal influences that may eventually undermine them.
AM:
ReplyDeleteDon't you often argue that authoritarian and illiberal influences cannot possibly undermine the prevalent drive towards capitalism and 'the inherent pull of liberalism and freedom'? Your prime example always seems to be the full integration of the second, third and so forth generations of muslims in the UK - yet they havent integrated at all. Sure, they speak the language, and share some common traditions - probably fish and chips and 'riding the underground' more than anything - but these are the same people chanting allah akbar in the streets during the recent riots, spray painting over signs showing scantily clad females, and spouting dangerous, violent and racist dogma from their mosques; these are not first generation immigrants.
In addition to that, the argument you make for immigration seems to be solely monetary. Are there not other factors that come into play, such as maintaining our own culture, ideals and a total sense of reason and rationality?
Just when we were starting to change the culture of the west away from Christianity, Catholicism, and the rest, just when religion is finally fading, we are being bombarded by islam and are even discussing the merits and demerits of sharia law - something that shouldn't even be discussed in our secular, rational and scientific society; it is akin to discussing the merits of letting the Lizard people share our resources.
I for one do not want to bring openly religious peoples to MY country; I think we've had enough of them already - let them continue to ruin their own.
Case in point: Your spell checker wants me to capitalize allah akbar - not on my watch! I guess that makes me a clasher?
Let the day come where we no longer have the inane need to capitalize the word god.
Amen Anon! Well said.
ReplyDeleteEoH theory is probably right about liberal democracy being the "end", but I completely disagree that open immigration is the logical conclusion to this.
You assume authoritarian cultures will shed ALL of their beliefs and customs by embracing modernity, and by using multicultural integration as a yard stick, I'd say this strategy is not working. In fact, many 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants in Europe feel a stronger tie to the "motherland" that they have never even been to, instead of their country of birth. Yet another example of failed integration.
Are Muslims waiting to embrace modernity when modernity embraces Islam? That seems to be the case. I think this undermines the EoH argument because modernity itself will be redefined to include authoritarian cultures. In order for them to join modernity and reach "the end", just about most of their culture will have to be left behind. Do you really expect that to happen?
Also, the modern state system does not allow for open immigration as a "right", states are sovereign and can close or open borders as they please. I prefer this autonomy and self-determination of the state to a system of open borders for all individuals. If a state determines democratically to have open immigration, fine. But I don't think we have a "right" to be anywhere we wish to be on the planet.
Do 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation immigrants integrate? That's an empirical question... I would assume that integration rates are highly correlated with generations. THere may be a few radicals who go back to their old identities, of course, but that is hardly something to worry about. Anyway, i don't know the answer but i'm highly skeptical of your claims that 3rd and 4th geners are radical.
ReplyDeleteRJ: the EOH argument would say that one cannot modernize and be illiberal in the long run. Authoritarian values are not compatible with global capitalism. Not only that, technology, and economic change exert democratizing pressures on authoritarian groups.
I think with radical Islam, what you are seeing is the transition stage. Radicalism is a bit like identity crisis. It's more likely to occur in those people caught between old and new. German radicalism, was also arguably a transition stage in this manner. Fascism was partially an attempt to mix up the authoritarianism and technology into a political system. But there contradictions there. You see that none of the radical Sunni groups have offered a viable alternative form of government in the Middle East. They are just a symptom of a clash between old and new.
And while it is true that open immigration is not a right, neither is free trade. It is a fact that states control borders and can close them if they so choose, but probably not a good thing for human prosperity, which thrives in conditions of freedom.
ReplyDeleteAnon: if you want to protect culture via immigration restrictions, do you also want the government to restrict foreign trade in the name of cultural protection?