Nationalism, a boundary?

Syn.Ther. (@luna) 10 years, 9 months ago

I am currently doing research on cultural influences on communication in multinationals, as a study project. I always have been kind of a drifter, which I realize has been a privilege, as I grew up in a well to do environment, I had the opportunity to be adventurous and through this or maybe because of this I lack this sense of nationality, or belonging to a county, I am not a patriot. I do take pride in the virtues of my culture, I also recognize its vices, they also shaped me, however due to the technological development of the past decades the world has become more of an organism in my opinion, the digital generation crosses borders and has no regard for space and time in the sense their parents knew this. It is from that perspective and of course due to the vast number of disappointments the leaders of our world present me with that I believe the future of government will be more democratic then ever. The recent turmoil in the Middle East, largely possible because of technology, and the whole world is watching, waiting for leaders to react……
I believe the power of the digital connectivity and the lack of cultural misunderstanding as its relevance is diminished( you communicating from the comfort of your …. wherever you want.) will forge a new kind of society, and political and corporate governance.

My thoughts… roughly

What are your thoughts about that…..

February 26, 2011 at 1:45 am
Viev Please (4) (@dozmaster) 10 years, 7 months ago ago

I’m not so sure. Sure we’ve made technological advances in both space and time, and we’ve crossed the boundaries a little bit more, but that does not necessarily mean there is unity. Cultures and rules around the world are still radically different, as well as the people who live there and the living conditions. I think that all of America is by now collectively aware of world hunger and people dying in places like Africa, but if there were no boundaries, we’d consider these people to be our neighbors and help them, as we should and could. But we don’t, as a country (I would ><) because society turns a blind eye and says that "we are us, and they are them." If anything, the information and advances have made most cultures recede into their shells and stay the way they are, while only a few percentage of each take advantage of it to see, understand, and experience the world.

[Hidden]
Syn.Ther. (46) (@luna) 10 years, 7 months ago ago

Are our moral and ethical standards not woven into our cultures, and are those characteristics not just what make us human, able to adapt, overcome, evolve. There is only one planet to support us(at the moment) its resources, the entitlement to those resources….I can understand there is still a long way to go but in light of the recent turbulent regime changes, and in my opinion we are not even halfway through things can take a shortcut.

Force however will probably enable borders to be sustained, if only to enable current economical systems to survive….. it still is all about money.

But one day….. ;) maybe

[Hidden]
R.V. Star (151) (@rickvonstar) 10 years, 7 months ago ago

Are you talking about a sort of collectivity? Because I feel that that is the essence of democracy.

I understand that government is probably necessary, however to play the devil’s advocate: Is it not so that whoever places their trust in democracy is defering their own responsibilites for their own life and how to live? Why should I, a free individual, be subjected to how a majority thinks things ought to be?

[Hidden]
paul_g (21) (@paulg) 10 years, 7 months ago ago

@Syn.Ther. Hell yes, go world government! Wikipedia gives you good starters, try world/global citizenship, world government and UN democratization. For one of the best articles I have found see http://www.uni-leipzig.de/ral/gchuman/documents/bruchzonen_der_glob/publications/T193_JGH_Middell-Naumann.pdf. Also look at stuff by James Tully, http://www.spaceofdemocracy.org/word%20docs%20linked%20to/Uploaded%202009/Tully/The_Crisis_of_Global_Citizenship_James_Tully.pdf and http://www.soton.ac.uk/smrn/docs/tully_two_meanings.pdf . Also maybe Jan Aart Scholte and David Held, they’re more the pop stars of the field. As to middle east and “world is watching” I on the other hand rather agree with this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9415078.stm But yes, I think going supra -national would be absolutely beneficial (and of course I volunteer to be world’s first benevolant dictator:P )

[Hidden]
Syn.Ther. (46) (@luna) 10 years, 7 months ago ago

@ Keenan I guess collectivity could be a label for it, it should be the essence of democracy, as it also is the essence of communism and a variety of other governmental methodologies there is however a true collective, we are all eating from the same pie, fishing in the same pond, etc etc etc….. you get the point I guess. The necessity for government in any way shape or form only arises if there is a misunderstanding on the moral standards and ethics we collectively agreed upon. And taking the majority into account is a perfectly reasonable and social acceptable way of living a free life as an individual. You are not alone, and you are the same as everybody else.

We do however all want different things, objects, places to live, cars, etc, …. finding a way to accommodate all those individual wishes requires an understanding of the implications and some measuring system as to enable even distribution…. Exactly how the monetary and economical system was supposed to work…. somehow it all went wrong…..

Greedy people are the reason we need government, most of the greedy people are in the government or closely affiliated with it…

The weakest link is….. we

My 2 cts.

@ Paul Thanks for the links, I will read into it.

Peace

[Hidden]
Viewing 4 reply threads
load more