So there's a lot of interesting concepts discussed in the lecture and literature of this module but what is most striking to me and what most intrigues me is the EU. For the longest time, I thought that the EU was just trade agreements, free movement across borders and common money. I gave no thought to how it emerged, where it's authority comes from or what individual countries may think of it. With the "Brexit" in the news and knowing a couple of Brits and their views, I now see the EU as a massive social experiment that, if successful, could move the world toward the kind of international federation of science fiction.
Consider - the identity of the EU is a social construct. People who once thought of themselves as only German or Swedish or Greek now also have to think of themselves as members of the EU. As Europeans as well as German, Swedish or Greek. As was pointed out in the McNamara piece, some of them also identify themselves by their region, so they are Bavarian, German and European all at once (for example). I understand that one because every American that I know sees themselves as from (insert state here) perhaps residing in (insert state here) and American. For example, I am from Wyoming, I reside in Texas and I am an American. That's how I identify myself. But what if I also saw myself as and concerned myself with Europe? What would I be then? Wyomingite, American, Western Hemispherian? And remember, these identities may only seem strange for one generation. Children growing up in European EU states may find it normal to consider themselves by their nationality and their continent, whereas their grandparents may not have understood that. And if the EU works out, who is to say that there may not be (perhaps far, far in the future) a conglomerate of Asian countries? Or a united Africa? As each region becomes united under a social construct that then exerts its will over the member countries, then globalization may be just a few generations away. Perhaps the stuff of science fiction could become reality (like the Motorola flip phone before it was taken over by the iphone). I find it funny that before this class, I would not have thought such things possible, but as we've had more and more discussions, I can see how it could happen. All it would take is time - time for the radical to become normal. If it can be considered normal to open a device and connect to an informational network spanning the globe and use it to watch funny videos of cats, then there is nothing on this Earth can can not be "normalized" by humanity.
Perhaps the United States was the first major social experiment, now the EU emerges and gets to deal with its own growing pains and hiccups (as the US struggles with the rise of the Trump and the perceptions our international friends now have of the majority of Americans). Perhaps, if successful, other regions will take note. I maintain that no one really wants to use their nuclear weapons or start WW3, so perhaps after years we'll see cooperation as a better alternative. Or we'll be taken over by alien warlords, you know, whatev's.
All kidding aside, it's fascinating to see how social constructs evolve and eventually are taken for granted. I had no idea the passport system emerged after WWI. It's so normal to need one to travel abroad that I had never given it another thought when applying for one. I only found it weird when one was required for travel to Canada.
When considering the public sphere, deliberation and how states define themselves, the possibilities for study are endless. I especially found it an interesting point to ponder when the professor reminded us that not everyone has access to the internet (what cat-less lives they must lead) and so when we think of the citizens of the world, who are we really thinking of? Internet users? The vast amounts of poor and underprivilaged of the world or just those who have enough money to be heard? What could actually make a difference in world politics (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Twitter hashtags really don't do much outside of the internet)? Do the people have any actions that would impact a state? Or are we simply at the mercy of the elite?
I thought this topic was huge as well. It really brought us back to the question of if and how much the international environment could be remade. Your point about the US reminded me of what Professor Jackson said in Module 3 (I think) about the US being the only case of "collective intentionality" in history and the EU possibly being another case of this. It would be huge if this happened with the EU because each of the separate identities that make up Europe are much stronger than they were for the US. Whether or not the EU is successful in the long run will be very telling. Also, regarding some of your questions at the end, it's true that governments have the ability to implement "banal" traditions that can build identities and even change our perspectives of time and space by decreasing or increasing mobility. On the other hand I think we should also consider the impact ideas born out of the public in the form of religion and philosophy can have on influencing governments and in turn also shaping identity. I think there is really a back and forth dynamic between the state and the public when it comes to identity formation.
ReplyDelete