Globalization could complement diversity

This is the second of two articles dealing with the issue of globalization.

By Hilman Adil

JAKARTA (JP): The globalization process can be defined as the action of global forces broadly favoring uniformity with regard to substrates -- systems that are very heterogeneous given their different evolutionary or historical backgrounds.

When confronted by these global forces, however limited they might be by preliminary filters, like the forces of the nation- state, the only choice is to adapt or perish.

Adaptation, however, does not involve adopting a uniform model or a single way of thinking. Real adaptation must be based on the evolutionary, genetic, historical and cultural heritage of the system concerned.

It can only be tailored in accordance with the circumstances and particular situation. In a positive sense, adaptation can lead to systems of greater diversity in which regulation is achieved by the interaction of different elements.

Diversity might come from social systems' ability to assume a multicultural dimension, where integration does not assimilate to a monolithic norm, but interacts to preserve different identities.

Diversity may also come from economic systems based on the diversification of productive forces. What is needed here is regulation that has greater resilience and that takes into account the risk of surprises, unforeseen changes and extreme events.

On the other hand, adaptation can also lead to systems of low diversity: monolithic, poorly differentiated societies, with a one-way flow of information and production based on monocultures. This would also lead to government or private-sector monopolies and a lack of stimulus for small- and mid-sized companies, which are the most innovative enterprises that create the most jobs.

In technical terms, regulations are distinguished by redundance, i.e. the use of successive repetition of elements of the same type. These systems can be very productive for a certain period of time, but they are highly fragile and cannot withstand change in selective pressure, whether market pressure or the pressure of social aspirations.

At present, there is a tendency among governments in developing countries to lead their people to believe that the negative effect of globalization should be considered temporary, which can be overcome by a hypothetical new surge in economic growth.

The currency crisis now plaguing some ASEAN countries gives ample proof that it could lead to the collapse of their economic fundamentals. It could also lead to high unemployment, the degradation of ecosystems and the narrowing of options as a result of cultural diversity.

The positive aspects of globalization should also not be overlooked. First of all, there is the possibility that poor countries might not be burdened by excessive protectionism.

Secondly, there is the potential for better understanding between people, for greater acceptance of differences between people and for new information and communications advances that could mean a scientific and cultural payoff as well as a step toward the democracy of knowledge.

Globalization could also lead to rapid economic growth. That, in turn, could bring integrated development. Culturally, globalization could allow for a better understanding of other identities and an appreciation for the richness of other cultures, which could eventually lead to new worldwide solidarity.

From an environmental viewpoint, only broad international and global initiatives can solve problems such as climate change or the conservation and use of the world's biodiversity. Cultural and biological diversity are the basis for development and emphasize quality rather than undifferentiated quantity.

Even within a country subjected to strong migratory movements, social integration should not be confused with cultural assimilation. Creativity and originality, combined with technical skills and diversification of products, must be the main elements of sustainable development. Policies of mass production and an increase in consumption can only lead to the unreal satisfaction and irrational needs of a population.

On the other hand, we must be prepared for more disruptions, surprises and changes as we move toward sustainable economic development. But we can counter these negative impacts of excessive globalization with control mechanisms, like cultural diversity and a sense of community and belonging.

Excessive globalization can only lead to cultural uniformity and to lifestyles that lack the conditions for sustainability, bearing no resemblance to the cultural and historical heritage of the population concerned.

Furthermore, extreme competitiveness of globalization could force us to discard environmental considerations as that would increase production costs, not taking into account social costs inherent to certain forms of economic growth.

All of this negligence could lead to a highly unstable situation from a social and geopolitical viewpoint and could also harm the environment.

To achieve sustainable development, we must confront two things that are, at the same time, opposed and complementary: globalization and diversity. Whether globalization or diversity should be the foundation of sustainable development should not be the issue.

There is no opposition between them and a synthesis of the two is possible. In fact, it is preferable to choose an intermediate position, avoiding the extremes of both. Since we face a nonlinear and unpredictable future, the only viable response is to keep as many options open as possible.

We should not forget that a closed cultural identity and diversity that does not respect others' values can only lead to instances of exclusion, discrimination and rejection, as well as religious and ethnic fundamentalism.

The writer is director at the Center for Social and Cultural Studies at the National Institute of Sciences.