The succession of interrelated Human Agency
Originally published by Illumination on Medium
https://www.adamtabrizmd.com/post/from-ethnocentric-friction-to-socioeconomic-globalization
The human being is the living thing of all convolutions. We are all born as soul being. Still, we hold that inherent tendency of falling back in our collective conscience, searching for those set of shared beliefs, notions, and moralistic stances that unify us within the core of our societies. Then, habitually, we gradually trust our comfort zone and expand that society vaster, hoping that our fellow social mates will do the same. The collective approach is theoretically convenient; however, it carries inevitable downfalls. That is why in real life, not infrequently, we witness the paradox of such intention.
Collective consciousness or awareness, In general, does not necessarily apply to a particular moral scruple. Instead, it pertains to a common belief within societies. Many sociologists have identified various forms of what defines “Collective Consciousness” in up-to-the-minute communities. Within their findings, they have applied the concluding phrase to any notion from solidarity stands- to extreme deeds like group-think, herd behavior, or collectively shared experiences during collective rituals and dance parties.
Instead of existing as separate selves within the collective ecosystem, people appear as progressive groups to share support and knowledge. It has also happened to recite how a whole community grows together to share the same values. Often thought of as termed “hive mind,” “group mind,” “mass mind,” or “social mind.”
A collective society comprises various cooperative groups, such as the family, community, organizations, regions, nations. It possesses agential capabilities to think, judge, decide, act, reform on everyone’s behalf, conceptualize self-identity and others as well as self’s actions and interactions, and finally, reflect.
“Collectivism, Collective Conscience, Federalism, Globalism, and Universalism may seem convenient and efficient for circumstances such as small communities and limited individual expectations.”
Individual Tendency to Follow the Crowed
Although every individual is unique and has an inherent desire to stay independent, he conveniently strives to build, join, or follow a crowd similar to their particular trait.
Not surprisingly enough, generally we favor liking people similar to us, because of having something in common. Nevertheless, there is a discrepancy between really having a lot in common with someone and merely assuming that we have a lot in common. These two forms of associations are unquestionably related, although they do not precisely and invariably apply to the same circumstance. Frequently, they can be used interchangeably by someone or entity to convince you that you have a lot in common with another person or a group to take on the action or belief. The latter is a dangerously slippery slope. For instance, only because an entire country speaks the same language and watches the same national news does not necessarily mean everyone holds equal value. In such a scenario, you might initially believe you’ll have a lot in common with a person you don’t know well enough, only to find out that you’re not literally on the same wavelength once you get to know each other. This phenomenon, or as I call it, individuals’ weakness, is that we tend to like people similar to us, something if left unaddressed can smoothly progress to Ethnocentrism, Fascism, and even Racism.
But, at the same time, Human Beings tend to follow the Crowed.
We are all social beings; thus, most of us interact with others daily, consuming large portions of our wakeful person-hours in some form of communication. In the natural biosphere, we do not have much control over our cognition and behavior as we deem. Unconscious or not, We all take suggestions from our environment, especially other people, to behave. The latter is the fundament of polarization, the creation of factions, and diverse communities.
In group polarization, like-minded people augment each other’s perspectives and strengthen each person's opinions in the crowd. Based on the latter notion, then comes; it must be good for me too if other people do it! We see too often in the media to anything from Fashion, Politics, Healthcare, and more.
There is a heuristic or trial and error method in human nature that determines what to do, think, say, and buy as the principle of social reasoning. To learn what is correct, we tend to look at what other people are doing or what politicians are assuming to follow. That is another slippery slope for human beings skidding away from autonomy.
People from highly collectivist cultures, such as China and middle eastern countries, think of themselves as profoundly related to other people in their lives. That contrasts to countries like the United States, where historically adhere to a strong sense of individuality. However, with the increasing immigration from collectivist societies into the united states, the true meaning of Individualism is becoming more than ever vague.
While collectivist culture is undoubtedly a sophisticated space, it does appear that social neuroscience will improve the insight of the degree to which the context can mold cognitive functions.
Ethnocentrism is Self-Centered and often even Narcissist
There are many similarities between Narcissism and Ethnocentrism. As merely an exciting coincidence, some researchers are now investigating the concept that Narcissism and Ethnocentrism are similar. Still, personal narcissism plays a vital role in determining the likelihood of subscribing to ethnocentric belief conformity.
It appears that, although distinct, the two constructs share many characteristics. It is evident; their relationship is neither merely analogous nor mutually exclusive. Narcissists, by trait, put their interest before the gain of their groups. But they also set the interests of their group over the interests of other groups.
Collectivism is a Prerequisite to Fascism
Collectivism is merely referent to one of several forms of social arrangements in which the individual is recognized only as being subservient to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism driven by collective conscience- is in contrast with Individualism, in which the rights and interests of the individual are maintained.
Collectivism has gained diverse expression lines in the 20th-century through movements such as socialism, communism, and fascism.
The most trivial collectivist of those is the “social democracy,” which endeavors to subdue the inequities of unshackled capitalism via government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems, collectivism is carried to its furthest extreme, with a minimum of individual control and a preponderance of the planned economy.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French Philosopher and author of “Du Contrat social, of 1762,” Stated once:
“The individual finds his true being and freedom only in submission to the “general will” of the community.”
The early 19th-century German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel also argued that:
“The individual realizes his true being and freedom only in unqualified submission to the laws and institutions of the nation-state.”
To Hegel, this was the highest expression of social morality.
Later, Karl Marx provided the most concise description of the collectivist viewpoint of the importance of social intercommunication. He said-
“It is not men’s consciousness, which determines their being, but their social being, which determines their consciousness.”
Irrespective of how we philosophize human sovereignty, one thing is evident that collectivism is the common ground for social bonding, consolidation, and grouping, which are the shared traits between Socialism, Globalism, Fascism, Nationalism, etc. and Racism.
Universalism is the effect of Collectivism
Universalism has a philosophical and theological root believing that some views or needs have universal application. Light of one essential fact is another significant belief in Universalism.
A Universalist see the real revelation as more far-reaching than the national, cultural, or religious boundaries.
Universalism has impacted modern-day Hinduism as reflected through the “Rigveda collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns,” influencing modern western spirituality.
Unitarian Universalism highlights that religion is a universal human essence and focuses on the universal principles of most religions inclusively, or “religious pluralism.”
Most of us may understand the concept of “Universalism” within the context of faith and religion; however, the end applies to many other aspects of our lives.
Universalism is the belief that We can utilize ideas and practices everywhere without alteration. Other concepts, such as particularism, are the dogma where happenings dictate how We should practice ideas and exercises.
A Universalist follows the concept of communitarianism. Meaning- In contrast to Individualism, where people see themselves as individuals, people consider themselves part of a crowd in communitarianism. However, the size and scope of the public or group define its complexity. Hence it establishes the applicability of Universalism in the modern states.
Building a Community based on the Collective Conscience
The phrase “community” has become more than ever-varied in the course of the past few decades. Our understanding of a community had grown significantly from when almost everyone thought of the city as an intimate group of individuals who had the opportunity to socialize with one another whenever they needed it, into large metropolitan populations or even state and country. Since, with the advent of such humongous communities, individuals are failing to share common values, thus recently, Individuals have found ways of creating their communities in other means such as the Internet or social media.
The conflict of individuality and inherent attraction towards collectiveness is becoming more and more expressive and repulsive. For instance, citizens across various states in the united states are pressing for universal solutions such as welfare and Healthcare. Still, not everyone throughout different countries shares the same qualities and values. Application of global solutions within every individual locality may be practical, nonetheless as the community grows, such collective decisions may face significant clash and community segregation. Something that we witness today.
Smaller communities can usually find shared interests with less difficulty that can be more beneficial for everyone within that community, unlike larger societies where individuals can slide into the rifts or do anything to circumvent association with others.
A community stands for building and growing within individuals and the atmosphere. They balance each other correspondingly. I feel this can be better attained within a smaller town such as city and county than a larger one as a state or country.
The Contemporary Federalism is Universalist
Global Federalism, in literal terms, denotes a political philosophy affirming the separation of powers between two or more government institutions. The latter is typically between the central global governance and the forces of federated societies. By splitting political power into several levels, multinational Federalism avails from the benefits of both Universalism and localism by allowing the application principle of self-government and preserving the identity of every assemblage to a plurality of hubs of an independent authority that is consistently and democratically regulated. Based on the federalist principle, every citizen is consequently subordinate to two powers. Every citizen must unconditionally accept the law of “uniqueness of decision” thanks to the instrument of subsidiarity.
Federalism proposes a democratic rather than diplomatic union of states, according to which all political legislators are directly elected to a law-making assemblage by the people.
The United States has moved from an actual federalist state towards a more universalist system throughout the past few decades. The federal government has been perpetually meddling in state affairs by passing executive orders and bills universal to all “states” without consideration of individual state or community interest or position. Few examples are the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and discussions around Universal Government-run healthcare coverage for all. Although, in the latter case implementing universal coverage statewide or even county level may be more practical, however, the conventional liberal belief is that the Healthcare coverage for all only applies to the whole country. These trends and trends alike are expected to contradict the idea of separation of power. Modern-day Federalism is, in reality, nothing but the Globalization of socioeconomic and political power only at a nationwide scale. In other words, Federalism, today, is an attempted step towards real socioeconomic Globalization, which started after the fall of communism.
Globalism is correspondingly Universalist
Globalization and Universalism are considered to be persuasively synonymous. The Global Village composes one of the popular catch-phrases, which most politicians and alternate activists use to draw the populace's awareness. It sure has rhetorical value and sounds glamourously attractive. Nonetheless, its sustainability in the long term and credibility have come under attack from many scholars.
For decades we have been whispered a sympathetic, encouraging theme about the benefits of Globalization. Many globalists have perpetuated the cascading benefits of the interconnected world with a bit of grasp for its jagged advantages.
Despite living in a world ever more entwined, the increasing divides between Globalization’s winners and losers, such as prominent corporate executives vs. populace, are unfolding.
The so-called losers or the populists are becoming more vocal, principally now that it significantly impacts the developed world.
The political, social, and economic gaps are widening as Universalist globalism is failing. The confrontation between winners and the losers augments the conception of “us” separate from “them,” just as collectivists falling against other collectivists.
Globalism has given birth to corporate Neofeudalism and new Nationalist factions. It has caused administrative disapproval between states within the U.S. as well as dissatisfaction between world administrations.
Among many political scholars, Ian Bremmer, the American Political scientist, demonstrates how globalism encourages hatred and cynicism as the rich get richer and the poor get more disadvantaged. While Bremmer regards some perceived economic reforms, as globalism creates winners and losers, a more substantial portion does not benefit from the overall economic growth.
“The rise of environmental and economic protectionism is the consequence of globalism.”
As we observe from recent trends, the influx of refugees and immigrants provoked physical boundaries in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East. Global economic measures transpire a barrier to change too. Despite acknowledging the latest problems, still, protectionism and nationalism are inevitable, as Bremmer describes. In terms of future global stability and security, he recognizes interests surpassed by damages for the many.
Globalization of Healthcare System is Obverse
Amidst socioeconomic Globalization through the philosophy of collectivism, Health and Healthcare have faced their particular double-edged sword, just like the one we are currently experiencing with the Coronavirus pandemics. As an example, according to a study, although advocates see a definite necessity to create an international arrangement for health and wellness, they still are concerned about rising certain unhealthy habits in certain parts of the world that seems to be the direct outcome of Globalization. The report shows overwhelming evidence that Globalization has resulted in higher tobacco consumption, notably in poorer countries (WHO, 2001), and higher alcohol use, especially among younger individuals (Kuo et al., 2003). On the other hand, based on our observation, even most developed countries experienced a shortage of certain essential supplies due to the halt of export/imports that transpired by the COVID-19 Pandemic.
While the Globalization of Healthcare contributes to immense possibilities for virtue, such as a rapid response to emergencies, it also can give rise to a new concern, such as a faster spread of disease. Likewise, in practice, it is subject to monopoly, corruption, and failure.
Corporations stand for Globalizations
The implements of economic Globalization are causing the most fundamental redesign of the global social, political, and commercial orders. They are constructing a power shift of immense proportions, moving existing economic and political influence away from national, state, and local régimes and communities toward global banks, corporations, and the global officialdoms these have formed. That brings catastrophic moments for community control, democracy, national sovereignty, native culture and economy, and the natural realm.
Economic forces that were backed by the new trade laws, through global arrangements, affected them strictly where they lived and broke down a previously autonomous community-based diverse farming system. What you get from that is scarcity and, from time to time, violence and disorientation.
Many whines; the Mexicans are coming across the border to the United States, yet many of them are coming because large corporations have purchased the land of formerly self-sufficient farmers and workers in the globalization process. Since they are inept to compete with large firms like Amazon, those folks have to go somewhere. If not able to immigrate, demand independence from the elite by embracing populism. And then we’re annoyed at them for migrating to the U.S.
The United States populace is also not resistant to globalization maleficence, like small business job losses to big corporations or damage of independent medical clinics to managed care systems. The latter is the quintessential example of the conflict between Socioeconomic Globalization, small local businesses, and ethnocentrism.
The establishment of corporate personhood over a century ago and the recent emergence of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as a global congress to disseminate multi-national corporate affairs has significantly changed the international political landscape. It points out that the corporate world is no longer merely a collection of separate entities. Instead, corporations have become players of foreign political culture. The implication of this is that the emergence of the corporate cartel has already invented new global bodies and agencies through which they dictate their economic power, compounding the real core of the phrase “Corporate Globalism.”
Corporations are for Neo-feudalism
One of the alarming trends of recent decades has been the success of the giant tech monopolies at devising their exclusive systems of law and shielding themselves from public regulation. While citizens are guarded against irrational explorations and apprehending by constitutional constraints on government surveillance, the tech moguls know far more about us, often with our “approval,” than the government does. Of course, recently, to overcome the barrier Administration, and legislatures have discovered various ways of accessing the data mined by corporations merely through partnering up with them.
The big tech industry, at times, has fought off the government’s efforts to regulate their use of personal data. Or- Instead, companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have invented their jurisprudence, buried in unclear standings of service, to govern the consent of users to the commercial use of personal data. If they fail to cut governments’ hands-off their valuable data, they partner with the governments by any chance. Again one prominent example of such a partnership in Healthcare is Part D, Part C Medicare programs, and the famous Affordable Cate Act. Or Implementation of “All of Us Program” by the National Institute of Health (NIH)
The tech monopolies have also superseded producing a proprietary legal regime to govern their relationship with their actual or potential commercial contenders. They have stacked the card in its favor. Amazon, for example, has contracts with 2.5 million 3rd-party traders, who use its site for marketing their goods. The pharmaceutical industry is a stronghold of privatized law despite the reality that most drug discoveries are eventually underwritten by taxpayers, either through NIH grants or increased health insurance premiums.
If we look back into history, we can observe the reincarnation of Feudalism (or better phrase it as the Neo-Feudalism). Except, in this case, the lords are the corporations and people the serfs.
The Good Club or Corporate Lords intending to Save the World
According to the British Newsagency The Guardian, The Good Club is a name given to the tiny global elite of billionaire philanthropists who newly held their first and highly secret meeting in New York City. Among its members were Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller, and Ted Turner. But there are others, to name as well, who participated in the meeting, like business giants Eli and Edythe Broad.
When news of the secret meeting flowed via the seemingly mysterious source of an Irish-American website, it sent crashing blows through the worlds of philanthropy, development aid, and even diplomacy.
According to the independent Global Policy Forum report, the Good Club uses its endless wealth and influence with political and scientific aristocracies. They intend their organizations to advance solutions to global predicaments that may undermine the United Nations (U.N.) and other international organizations.
The Conclusion
Even though an overwhelmingly idealistic attitude towards a collective consciousness and human beings are social creatures, we are still all born as individuals. As selfish as it may sound, the fact is that we are all individuals first. It is also true that we also enjoy the company of others, especially those who are similar to us; that is why we chose a community based on those sets of shared beliefs, notions, and moralistic stances that unify us.
We also concede that there is no perfect scenario on how we live together because if there were, we would not be having this conversation. Nevertheless, one thing that is important to take home is that Collectivism, Collective Conscience, Federalism, Globalism, and Universalism may seem convenient and efficient for circumstances such as small communities and limited individual expectations. But, it will potentially expose the most profound flaws of the system and invites corruption as the size of the intended community grows. It will make one group dependent on the other and one person sub-servant to an entity or person, undermining the essence of humanity.
All-in-all- Socioeconomic Globalization will be a strenuous task since communities are growing more diverse, expectations are starting to skyrocket, and mass media is becoming more unilateral and fascist.