'World power re-distribution a must' - Social Anthropologist

by Afreeha Jawad

Though scientific and technological advancement in its ideal state is well positioned into mitigating if not annulling human divides, regretfully such divisions are being fostered into global chaos and disarray - seemingly a result of the global economy's political control. The forces of globalisation, and transnational institutions tend to present their vision of what the world should be in order to get to the hegemonic platform. Thus, divides are more importantly a fall back state and the greater the divides the bigger the chances of being up there.

"But people want peace. In everyday life people may not like each other but they don't fight each other all the time", said Jonathan Spencer Professor of Anthropology, Edinburgh University at a recent interview with the Sunday Observer. If people have peace and security to get on with life, then conflict is less likely."

Professor Spencer's expression could be argued on the basis that conflict itself is needed when one single party is motivated towards a one man show into global supremacy. So, there's no better way to keep conflicts alive and kicking other than through the fostering of existing divides. Going by the Professor's utterances it is not difficult to conclude how divides are promoted into conflicts which in turn brings in what is cosmopolitan and pluralistic. Colombo for instance is becoming more and more pluralistic. London is largely cosmopolitan. It's the politics that turns neighbours into enemies. Politicizing communities within nations and among nations have brought on ethno/religio/cultural/economic marginalization - the end objective of politicization itself being fanning existing divides to get to whatever intended marginalization.

While politicizing the global economy has brought on marginalised countries, politicization in the local scene sees deprived classes in a hand to mouth existence state.

"The world today is dominated by one country with huge military and economic power. It has to be redistributed. Economically it is true there are shifts. For instance China and India are emerging world powers. In 40 or 50 years the distribution of economic power will be different followed by political power. The west has now ceased to be the only kind of comparison. People are looking to music and art as well which is not coming from America. Indian music and Chinese art are much sought after which the west cannot give which is what people are looking for."

Significantly the power balance that once was is no more. World hegemony in one single hand is being increasingly resented. The dangers of hegemony are not without the concern of the world populace. Social anthropologists' involvement with social development revolves round understanding development from a people's view point. People being at the receiving end of all initiatives demands that they be consulted at all times. This even brought to writer's mind the numerous global protests against the US invasion of Iraq and the WTO's unfair trade practices. These voices ought to be heard.

According to Professor Spencer it is important to give not what policy makers want but what people want. Yet as counter argument would have it, will this be wishful thinking considering one single power's heavy leanings towards mono cultural/economic existence.

Listening to him one could infer how people lose control of their lives when externalities are imposed on them. For instance the imposition of the nation state, donor agencies wanting third world developmental plans to drum their tune, trade agencies such as WTO that insist on a single trade policy, giant multi-national corporate ventures even deciding for the world's populace what they should eat drink and dress are among the long list of attempts into homogenity out of heterogenity.

In a world of heterogenity the world's diversity (of people lived harmoniously in their respective surroundings - obviously then the chaotic whole coming off impositions goes without saying. Arising out of this were the accrued benefits enjoyed only by some - inequity being the end result.

Significantly, poverty areas are now conflict areas he said. Rural areas experience less growth than the urbanized areas. Responding to a question on the accepted notion of barbarism among early man he laughingly added, "You see, the real barbarism is today. Primitive man could not kill thousands as modern governments do. Bombs kill hundreds."

Going by his pronouncements one could infer the socialisation process itself that triggers off whatever divides. For instance racial/religious segregation of schools are interventions that make it hard for people. It's a world phenomenon - the rectification of which is absolutely urgent to produce a citizenry with a very universatistic outlook."

Certainly he said a mouthful for it was the social constructs that bring in greater divisions among the social whole if not for which the global political economy itself would be a non-entity. His solution for a way out is to take stock of everyday qualities in people. "Interventions where people lose control of their lives should be avoided. Academics, journalists and writers can certainly help in this", he concluded.