Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Jihad vs. mcworld
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Jihad vs. mcworld
In the article “Jihad vs. McWorld” written by Benjamin R. Barber, the main discussion is about the comparison of the Jihad world of “a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture”(Barber, 1992, page 1) to the McWorld of economic and political globalization. This idea is based off of the concept of Barber stating that there are “2 possible political futures”(Barber, 1992, page 1); the idea of seperation for every nation to have its own state, and the idea of it all becoming one. The contrast for these is that each nation cannot survive, as states some simply aren’t large enough. However the idea of becoming a single nation would not be as efficient either, because the amount of governing parties that …show more content…
McWorld is talked about by the four imperatives that make it up (Barber, 1992, page 2). These imperatives are the Market, Resource, Information-Technology, and Ecological. The Market imperative is talking about the global need for a free market, the downside to this is that it requires a common language and common currency (Barber, 1992, page 3). A failed demonstration of this could be the Euro, however they do not share a common language. If the world were to indulge in having a single currency, they would need to agree on the language to be used, and while most of the First World uses English, this is not the same for those peripherary states.The Resource imperative is as Barber puts it: “Democrats once dreamed in societies who political autonomy rested firmly on economic independence”(Barber, 1992, page 4). The problem with this imperative is that every nation requires something another nation has and some nations have almost nothing they need (Barber, 1992, page 5). This can be seen most prominently in Africa, states failling due to being incapable of running a state without the assitance of major states, like United States, or Russia. The following imperative is Information-Technology; this imperative is the idea of technology becoming universally used. The drawback to
The reason I picked this book is because I have always been curious about terrorism. Truthfully, I really didn’t expect the book to take the stance it did, which focused mainly on the religious implications of what influences people to commits acts of terror. I liked the fact that the book takes new angles in approaching the search for truth, by focusing on case studies and performing interviews with the people who have committed terrorist acts. This is like getting the insiders view of the inner workings and frame of mind people have before, during, and after they have unswervingly performed the acts of violence.
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different ci...
Realism hasve hazy contoursa hazy contour and offers only difficult choices in the new world. Globalization has three forms: economic globalization, which has become a cause for inequality among and within states. and tThe concern for global competitiveness limits the aptitude of states, and other actors and institutions to address this problem; cultural globalization, which offers either unification (also Americanization) or reaction against it, takitakesng form in a renaissance of local cultures and denunciation of an arrogant “imperialist” Western culture; political globalization, which is the preponderance of the West and its political institutions, or as Huntignton defines it- the “Davos elite” as Huntington defines it. These forms of globalization, mostly creating resistance rather that integration, it can be inferreddeduce that globalization is far from making history’s end, refuting the thought idea of a universal modern world. (Hoffman,
According to the Quran and supporting Islamic texts, jihad means striving. However, there are several words and phrases, that when coupled with jihad, display a variety of sentiments. The phrase fi sabil Allah, "in God's path," can be interpreted as fighting for the sake of God. When paired with the word ribat, jihad is related to warfare or pious doings/activism (Bonner 2006). Jihad represents a fight that has provided Muslims with a solid base of military efficiency demonstrated historically in early Islam.
Ajami argues that universalism of Pan-Arabism derived from the universalism of the Ottoman Empire had disappeared after 6 decades. There is no longer a collective Arab crisis and nation states have alternate nationalistic goals. A case in point to support his argument would be the example of Egypt. The country has pertinent political and economic issues to concern itself with. Many face unemployment and the country is on the verge of bankruptcy....
...NATO aggression and occupation and the West’s expedient support of one or another oppressive indigenous or regional force. “The United States,” RAWA commented on this occasion, “wants the world to know that it is responsible for the establishment of order in the world and [that] nothing in the world changes without its will so it can extend its presence in the region by bringing together our enemies of different species and tightening their leashes in its hands.” The group went on to say that the United States “can create a regime that is much more mafia, dependent, corrupt, anti-people and more ridiculous than the current one in our homeland; and after the expiration date of its dirty creations, it will take each by the tail and throw them aside like mice. … These “insultingly painful games,” RAWA said, “are played with our suffering nation.…” However, they said,
One of the ten practical principles of Islam, Jihad, is literally defined as “hardship, endeavor, exaggeration in work, reaching the height of something and capability”, while in the Sharia of Islam Jihad is sacrificing one’s life and property primarily for the sake of Allah, elevating and sustaining Islamic beliefs and standpoints. In this sense, Jihad is the act of Defending the Islamic territory against the assaults and intrusions of outsiders and invaders. The essence of Jihad lies in Defense, thus any violence which is shown with the intention of invading a country or a nation’s lives, property, etc. and for manipulating their economic potentials or human resources, not only is not called Jihad but also considered as the overt manifestation of injustice and cruelty which is strongly rejected in Islam.
The victims will continue to live in fear and hatred for those that want to destroy them and their land.
The world, however, will not work solely on one side of the McWorld-Jihad spectrum. The solution, according to Barber, is the ideology of Nationalism1. Barber goes on stating that, "Nationalism established government on a scale greater than the tribe yet less cosmopolitan than the universal church and in time and birth to those intermediate, gradually more democratic institutions that would come to constitute the nation-state". Additionally, Barber says that the present day society is currently striving to recreate a world in which our only choices is either McWorld or Jihad, when in truth both have lost their democratic virtues1.
...arly lead to the rivalry of superpowers being replaced by the clash of civilizations. Conversely it then makes it evident that in this particular new world global politics then become the politics of civilizations whereas local politics become the politics of ethnicity (Huntington, 1996).
While some may argue that a state-centric international system is apt for non-state actors, since to attain a foreseeable future, they need to comprehend the state system and how to operate within it. This structure is weakening as non-state actors are increasing their influence in conflicts and challenging the international order founded upon the power of states. The openness of commercial markets and the weakening territorial sovereignty has limited the state’s monopoly of power asserted by structural realists. In Structural Realism After the Cold War, Kenneth Waltz alleges that, “If the conditions that a theory contemplated have changed, the theory no longer applies.” Theories and traditions in international relations must become more comprehensive if society intends to tackle the conflicts of the 21st century more effectively in the future.
Political uprisings in the Middle East, especially in Muslim nation states have placed Arabian politics back on the focus point of international politics. Political events in certain Arab countries had an excessive impact on the political development of other neighboring states. Resistances and anxieties within different Arab countries triggered unpredictable actions, sometimes sorely to observe and believe. The authoritarian governments of Arabian countries led from various dictators have created a precarious situation for their people, especially in providing national security and maintaining peace in the region. Jack Goldstone argues that the degree of a sultan’s weakness has been often only visible in retrospect; due in part to the nature of the military-security complex common across Middle East states (Goldstone 1). In addition, the existence of various statesmen with political affiliation is concerned in faithfulness of its armed forces. Usually, the armed national forces of several states, mainly those in Arab countries are loyal and closely affiliated to their leaders, which have a major role in state regimes. Arab uprisings in their early spreading appeared legally responsible and with concrete demands from representatives’ peoples, calling for a more open democratic system and reasonable governance. Even though, the system in which popular frustration with government imposes alters considerably from one state to another. These public revolts against different authoritative governments didn’t halt just in Arab states, but they sustained also in the Far East and in the Eastern Europe. Can we say that the popular uprisings in Arab countries could be attributed to the term of globalization? In fact, globalization is a multi...
In conclusion, Huntington's approach of outlining the cultural differences between the West and Islam doesn't entirely explain the present world Jihadist terrorism and response of the US and its allies to it. The inclination of his paradigm is that one culture must win and another must lose. His hypothesis thus promotes political actors, policy makers and citizens to understand cultural dissimilarities as devastating and to support such differences. Consequently, his civilizations approach may not provide a standard paradigm, but it may add to realist and liberal approaches to explain international relations. – 3
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
A question raised here that why we called the world as a Global Village or what does Globalization mean in real? If we look few years back, I was very difficult for people to get them connected or make contact with their dear ones who lived in far areas, people just knew about the famous food of any country but didn’t have availability to have it. People didn’t get full information of any news at the time, what’s going on other countries; they didn’t have any access to make them updated with all this stuff. But now a day, the scenario gets change with the help of new scientific inventions in media sector. Communication is one of the basic elements which play an important role in flourishing the process of globalization in all over the world. Technology is the basic extension of increasing communication at same time in different places. Technology eliminates the concepts of space and distance; it becomes easy for anyone to get connected with anyone at any corner of world through using internet, social websites and technological tools. New inventions in communication and media