As I read Marx's "The German Ideology" I cannot help but think that the effects of globalization have rendered much of his predictions of a "world-history" as invalid. Marx predicts that as the world becomes interconnected through the "intercourse" of nations--specifically through trade--history would shift from a nationally biased, categorized, and manipulated history into a "world history." It is my belief that the obstacles to a truly world-history absent of manipulation and biases are even more extreme in our modern world of categorization.
While many would argue that the effects of globalization have caused our ever increasing interconnected world to be brought together, I argue that increased interaction has actually highlighted our differences, reinforcing our ideas of categorization and ethnocentrism. At the onset of "The German Ideology" Marx asserts that it has not occurred to any previous German philosopher to look into "the relation of their criticism to their own material surroundings." In the world we live in today, one constantly thinks of schools of thought, nationalities, political views, and religious views that might contribute to a certain way of thinking. If anything, the inter-connectedness of our world has fueled the movement of thinking in terms of concepts, abstracts, religion, and politics, which is not the proper empirical method in Marx's view of thinking in terms of material and "intercourse". When we listen to a commentator on tv, we think to ourselves "That is a very Republican way of thinking" or "Of course the French would say that" or we assert that a person comes to a conclusion because of a certain religious or ideological thinking. One of Marx's main objections stems from the idea of placing groups of people into "a mere category"; however, Globalization has brought forth a differentiation among people from different nations, creeds, language groups and ideologies rather than bringing us together.
Further, Marx envisions that "if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact." He objects to current documentation, or in his view manipulation, of history as he feels that "They forget all other nations, all real events, and the theatrum mundi is confined to Leipzig book fair and the mutual quarrels of criticism". Thus, one can understand that Marx's belief is that the mere interaction between states will act as a catalyst for the end of nationally influenced history and foster a movement towards an over-arching "world history". It is obvious that this is not the case in our world today, as one event is depicted in thousands of different ways. For every group of people who see a person as a terrorist, there is undoubtedly a group who sees the person as a hero. My main problem in trying to apply Marx's assumptions to reality is that it is impossible to get beyond our world of politics, ideology and religion--a goal of Marx.
If anything "history is made the goal of earlier history....history receives its own special aims" is even more true today. National leaders and heads of trans-state terrorist networks look at an event from a certain ideological, religious, or political perspective and use it for a certain aim. Thus, I argue that the inter-connectedness of the world has brought forth an even further manipulation of history fueled by evident differences in belief systems.
Yes, we as a global community are more aware of world events, but the categorization and portrayal of these events is different from one state to the next, one religious center to the next, and one cultural group to the next.
No comments:
Post a Comment