The shifting nature of the state under the era of globalization is argued upon by several scholars and is a part of various public discussions. This article explores neoliberalism and globalization, and its impact and process on the post-colonial Indian state. There are certain characterizations of neoliberal states that have been commonly accepted. With the understanding and comparison of two government-sponsored developmental programs that belong to different epochs, the intension is to formulate a perspective that might give us a reason to rethink these characterizations.
In exploring the markings of modern power, Michel Foucault coined the term “governmentality” – a concept meant to open up enquiry into the myriad of more or less calculated and systematic thoughts and actions that seek to shape, regulate or manage the way people conduct themselves by acting upon their hopes, circumstances and environment.1 He was of the opinion that governing a state is most effective when it colonizes modes of thought. Foucault’s own work examples in “The Subject and Power”, discuss a number of struggles of resistance that have developed over the past few years such as “opposition to the power of men over women, of parents over children, of psychiatry over the mentally ill, of medicine over the population, of administration over the ways people live”.2 Despite their diversity, these struggles were significant for Foucault because they share a set of common points that allow us to recognize them as local forms of resistance to governmentality. These oppositional struggles focus on the effects of power experienced by those individuals who are immediately subject to them.
While neoliberal governmentality seeks to minimize state power as much as...
... middle of paper ...
... of capital and communication. The era of globalization has challenged these theories and questioning the territorial sovereignty of the nation-state. The increased mobility of capital, representation and people has made national borders more porous and states’ control of regions increasingly insubstantial. These increasing alliances and networks, allow us to decode particular aspects of the nation-state, thereby raising questions on the inclusion of them onto the social space.
Works Cited
1. Foucault 1991, 1997; Barry et al. 1996; Dean 1999; Inda 2005; Suzana Sawyer and Edmund Terence Gomez 2008;
2. Gupta and Sharma 2006
4. Joerg Knieling and Frank Othengrafen, Spatial Planning and Culture
5. Corrigan and Sayer 1985; Fuller and Benei 2000; Mitchell 1999; Gupta 1995; Hansen and Stepputat 2001; Herzfeld 1992; Joseph and Nugent 1994; Scott 1998; Steinmetz 1999)
As nomadic societies evolved into cities, then city-states states, and eventually empires, established borders slowly began to take shape. From the Sumerians around 4000 BCE to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 what was first nothing more than a loosely guarded line of demarcation eventually became the firm geographic borders used around the world today. Diener and Hagen detail how these borders have been used as both unifying and dividing forces since the beginning, but as globalization continues to sweep the planet the idea of borders and how they are used must be reevaluated. In their final paragraph the writers summarize their argument by expressing as globalization continues to move forward it is important to reevaluate modern understanding of borders and the impacts they have on the world community (Diener & Hagen, 2012).
Zhang, Y. B., Harwood, J., Williams, A., Ylänne-McEwen, V., Wadleigh, P. M., & Thimm, C.
Titsworth, W. L., Abram, Fullerton, J. A., Hester, J., Guin, P., Waters. M., Mocco, J. (2013).
Tackett, J. L., Lahey, B. B., van Hulle, C., Waldman, I., Krueger, R. F., & Rathouz, P. J. (2013).
Bethesda, B. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, [Online]. Available: http://www.nih.gov [02/22/14]
Ed. Kathleen Daniel et al. Austin, TX: Holt, 2003. 282-86. The. Print.
Theory: Michel Foucault argues a number of points in relation to power and offers definitions that are directly opposed to more traditional liberal and Marxist theories of power. Foucault believed that power is never in any one person's hands, it does not show itself in any obvious manner but rather as something that works its way into our imaginations and serves to constrain how we act.... ... middle of paper ... ... Giddons, A. (2007). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'.
“Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse compartments may be realized.” (Foucault)
At this point we can determine the purpose of Foucault’s question, “what is critique”? Foucault’s definition of critique provides a tool to find cracks in power-knowledge relationships by analyzing the genealogy of a power knowledge relationship. Foucault states “we have to deal with something whose stability, deep rootedness and foundation is never such that we cannot in one way or another envisage, if not its disappearance, then at least identifying by what and from what its disappearance is possible” (65). Foucault believes that using his method of critique a power and knowledge relationship is not permanent. Questioning and knowledge can be used to remove the leash from authority.
Although it already existed long before through primitive trade and migration, globalization has become a major factor in the world organization since the twentieth century. With the creation of transnational companies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, political and economic associations appeared new powerful actors that cannot be left apart in states’ decisions and whose influence may, according to some, threaten the authority of nation-states. Indeed it can be thought that globalization is causing the end of borders between countries and what is more that it is creating a sort of universal society in which states’ sovereignty is not the main authority anymore. However this essay will try to demonstrate that globalization is not undermining state sovereignty but that it is in fact leading to its transformation and to a new variety of nations. In order to prove it I will first define the main key words and will then focus on the different arguments about the effects of globalization and finally I will demonstrate that globalization has led to a transformation of the concept of state sovereignty.
Web. The Web. The Web. 04 Dec. 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21663987
Stohr, M., Walsh, A., & Hemmens, C. (2013). Corrections: A Text/Reader (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Why and how did globalization occur? Different perspectives have different explanations as to why and how globalization evolved. Realists argue that international trade is most effective when there is hegemony in the world market, whereas liberalists believe that it is a matter of how countries use the idea of reciprocity in their decision about trade. I agree with the realist perspective because hegemony allows the global economy to enhance and international trade functions the best when a hegemon dominates the world market.
Colonialism was a concept of superiority of one territory over another; it was a concept that originated centuries ago. Colonialism had been put into action throughout a long line of history and did not end after World War II in 1945. Even with resistance and efforts from independent states after the war, colonialism did not disappear and continued as a dominant system. It remained and changed its form, resulted in the process of globalization, which continued to control over newly independent states following World War II. Globalization, a form of colonialism, maintained power for the system over states or regions through economic terms with the development of the World Bank, and its derivation of structural adjustments. This financial institution was formed and contributed to colonialism; it assisted in the economic affairs of colonized nation(s). Along with class, professor Manfred B. Steger's book, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, and I.B. Logan and Kidane Mengisteab's article, "IMF – World Bank Adjustment and Structural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa," discussed the indirect rule of colonial powers through globalization.
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...