Jihad vs MacWorld

According to Barber Jihad and MacWorld’s are two seemingly opposing paradigms that share a common trait; they both threaten democracy. In the meantime network based organisational structures, Jihad /Macworld belong to this category are thought to foster democracy. How would you unfold this paradox?


I would agree with Barber, both paradigms do threaten democracy, as the author so aptly captures, ‘their common thread is an indifference to civil liberty’ (Barber, 2003).Yet I find it difficult to reconcile how Jihad or MacWorld are fostering democracy. Perhaps if I consider them in isolation, I could fathom how they may foster democracy.In this article, I would like to argue that they offer an element of democracy in their respective structures but not in the greater sense that the question purposes.

With my argument in mind, I feel it would be prudent to consider, if MacWorld does foster democracy?Democracy is dependent on the majority of rule. If like Barber, we recognise MacWorld as the development and exploitation of technology, communications, economics and information, then we look to the structure of this, in how do we as members of Macworld contribute, do we have a voice and are the majority ruling? If MacWorld is becoming homogenised, then is this true of the ownership of such multinational corporations. Consider the leading institutes; Coco-Cola, Mac Donald’s, and media providers such as Star TV and Myspace. The latter are owned by Rupert Murdoch, he seems here to be an example of how the world’s leading media platforms are being bought by one man and his empire. Does this structure foster democracy? My initial reaction is to say no but let use delve deeper. Media products are consumed and bought, in that, there is a sense of a choice and the choice is our vote as the public. By Buying and consuming certain products, we are signalling an acceptance with the product and the provider. This seems to show how the majority is passing their rule. But are we consuming certain products because there is no alternative or are perhaps the alternatives harder to access? Or is it because of aggressive advertising? It would seem that they all play a vital role. The rub of the argument is suggesting that our choice in consumption is our vote and Macworld is giving us a voice albeit a limited one.

In terms of Jihad, I can perhaps conceive an element of democracy in that; democracy offers freedom of a political voice and the right to petition. Jihad does exercise thier right to political freedom, that is perhaps against the democrat governance from west.Here lies the paradox; jihad uses democrat functions against what it fears.In galvanising the tribal elements of Islamic culture there is a sense that a structure is being used to create something that has democrat elements,in that there is a hierarchy that is said to be protecting its people and ensuring their rights. Jihad is said to be opposed to Macworld, yet it utilizes MacWorld’s success such as the web , and living in societies that exhort MacWorld’s ideals . What I can deuce from this, is that , Jihad and Macworld inhabit the same spaces, employ elements of democracy as network based structures but they both at the same time undermine the principles of democracy.

Tracking Global Flows

Globalisation is considered to be a process whereby regions of the world are linked by economic or cultural flows. The process involves the expansion and contraction certain aspects of culture, in that one country may adapt certain tendency of another nation perhaps at the loss of a former tradition. The example banded about is that of the prevalence of Mac Donald’s throughout the globe.
Much thought has been given by academics as to the effect of an increasing globalised world. The findings have rendered both positive and negative outcomes. Noam Chomsky summates perhaps one of the negative aspects of globalisation;
‘The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term "globalization" to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental.’
Chomsky address a very important point, that globalization is a process that protects and supports the economic gain of certain investors, perhaps at the cost of many people’s cultures and traditions.

To offer further explanation, I shall consider the concept of outsourcing. Outsourcing is a practice used by many international corporations; it allows for a cheaper means of production, often a company will relocate to a country where labor is cheaper or there are cheaper natural resources. While this may offer the population of the relocated country employment, there has been reports exploitation of people and the natural recourses. Bearing this in mind, within the article ‘tracking global flows’ there is a clear identification of the types of cultural flows that have been shaped by globalisation. There are; images, capital, commodities, people and ideology.

The article clearly addresses the question does culture flow equally? In terms of globalisation and culture, there appears a one dimension flow, from the centre (the west) to the periphery (the east). This flow is regarded to be a cultural imperialism, where there is a domination of one culture over another. The domination of a few leading cultures, notably America is leading to a ‘cultural homogenization of the world’ (R., p. 15). What is described is how the dominant imposes on the peripheral culture, which leads to the peripheral culture is become an off shoot of the dominant culture. There is a fear that the loss of cultural differences will ultimately lead to a global culture that promotes sameness. However this does mean to suggest that the flow is solely one sided, rather is uneven, as the peripheral cultures do have a marginal influence on the centre, consider fast-food, while the west has exported Mac Donald’s in return we have received cuisine from a variety of places, Mexican Chinese, Thai and Indian are among many. This example can be extended to music and religion. It would be wrong to consider globalisation as merely westernisation as there is a far more interactive relationship between the centre and periphery. As the west becomes home to many migrants, they export their culture and adopt their hosts, what comes into play in interdependency, they feed into each other.

Globalisation is not uniform but is subject to limitations, the article coins the term materiality of the globe and awkward connections to identify the limitations. The former relates to governmental agencies, infrastructure and institutions, and how such powers allow for some entities to flow throughout the globe and other not to. While the term awkward connections relates to selectiveness of interconnection around the globe. To conclude the global flows are ever increasing but are very much bounded by an unevenness.