From the amount of education I have received, my understanding has come to be that the modern states we see today have evolved from the world's prior experiences. Following these experiences humanity has learned what has worked and what has not. States did not suddenly appear from thin air, they were mustered up from collectives. The modern state's origins lay with feudalism, absolutism, and constitutionalism. Under these three organizations people have banded together for a common value- protection. Over the centuries this protection has gone from simply territorial protection to the protection of rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The problem with this purpose of protection is that it hammers in the concept of fear to each generation, the idea that outside states or cultures might encroach upon the coveted rights of a nation. This fear in turn is a self-fulfilling prophecy. States begin to fear intrusion and therefore go and intrude upon others to ensure self-protection. Which shows a somewhat ridiculous ideal in the modern day; to ensure one's safety one must relieve another state of their safety.
Some may consider me an idealist, but I don't believe the continual fear that leads contemporary states to military force is necessary or justified. The solution to the problem that is safety is not simply statehood nor by extension force. Instead the world's solution relies on past practice, a realization of prior mistakes and the willingness to not repeat them. In this case we should expel the fear and realize we are of one people, of one nation- mankind. Under this one “state” there is no bound territory for sovereignty, we are all here and must realize that violence truly serves no purpose. If we are to reach deep within ourselves and pull out our best features; kindness, compassion, empathy, and general consideration we can stop the unnecessary division into states. The solution ultimately nullifies the problem. The world would begin to reconcile the idea that we must accept each other as people which would in theory expel racism, antisemitism, stereotyping, and the majority of vices in contemporary society.
If we are to truly consider our modern world as one of liberation then our contemporary practices are outdated. States should by now be deemed useless. Why must one person/state make global politics into an issue of “us” and “them” rather then humanity? Humans are an interesting species, we are the only creature that will go out of its way (even in danger) to help another of our species. If we are evolutionarily programmed to do this, why must we divide ourselves? We have the intellectual capacity to figure out what will provide for peace within a territory, so why wouldn't humanity be able to do so if the territory was expanded to include the whole world? Humans have it within themselves to construct a government that works for all, but this can only happen when individuals begin to realize the true meaning of community in regards to globalism instead of the localism the world currently seems to believe in.
“First comes thought; then organization of that thought, into ideas and plans; then transformation of those plans into reality. The beginning, as you will observe, is in your imagination.” -Napoleon Hill
"The problem with this purpose of protection is that it hammers in the concept of fear to each generation, the idea that outside states or cultures might encroach upon the coveted rights of a nation. ... Which shows a somewhat ridiculous ideal in the modern day; to ensure one's safety one must relieve another state of their safety."
ReplyDeleteChris, I found your post extremely thought-provoking; when I first read it, I naturally wanted to agree with your every word, and to support your optimism. However, as I continued to read, I wondered what the implications would be for a collective "human" state, or if its creation would even be possible. Would the world's many nations be willing to assimilate under one umbrella term of humanism? Would the nationalism we've discussed in class become an issue; would former nation-states' nationalism cause internal conflict within the new human state?
I think your comment above is insightful and rightfully accuses global society of perpetual fear-mongering. However, even though we may recognize this fear as a hindrance to the development of humankind, I believe that Machiavelli would once again cite the "ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving" character of man. It is much easier to fear something or someone, to have a subject upon which blame can be laid, than to accept what is different and choose to peacefully coexist beside it. Perhaps that is the reason why our current global order so heavily emphasizes the supremacy of nation-states, because they allow us to interact with one another to an extent, but remind us that there are inherent differences that should cause us alarm.
I see the concept of a "human state" to completely possible. Think about this- the size and diversity of a nation may prove to be issues that governments must deal with (but that is the point of public policy), however, mankind has proven to be ready to take on such challenges. The size and diversity of states has risen as time has passed. For instance, the majority of hunting and gathering societies were relatively small. In the modern world an example of my point would be the United States, it has a substantial amount of territory and an extremely diverse population. Both of these issues have proven to be substantial over the course of the history of the nation during such times as the Civil Rights movement. Still, the nation was able to (arguable) solve the issues. Therefore the question is, if the United STates can do it why not humanity as a whole?
ReplyDelete