Aimeriez-vous frisez avec cela? Você gostaria de fritar com isso? Zou u van frituren met dat houden? Would you like fries with that?

In considering Hardt and Negri’s “Empire” the issue of globalization becomes not only prevalent within the text, but integral to the reading of the text itself. If globalization does indeed create a “new world order” as Hardt and Negri posit…how has this order manifested itself within the sphere of popular culture? Well, one potential answer to the aforementioned appears to be situated in between two sesame seed buns.

Indeed, McDonalds has become a global brand; recognized internationally with its iconic logo, standardized mode of production, and identical taste regardless of location. George Ritzer produced a critical analysis of the impact the McDonaldization of society has made on human interaction. The process of McDonaldization demonstrates the ways in which the chain is dominating not only sectors of the American society but has stretched globally as well. It is imperative to understand the concept as not simply the chain itself, but the chain being used as a way of representing the world as a fast food restaurant. The socially structured form of fast food has become the organizational force representing and extending the process of rationalization further into the realm of everyday activity; traditional modes of thinking are replaced with efficiency. We no longer have to go to the chains. They come to us.

If globalization attempts to unite the world into a homogenous culture, can we look at the thesis of McDonaldization as exemplary of this role or as a SINGLE culture which tries to localize itself within a broader context? McDonaldization, like globalization, drives the humanity out of work. The process and means of production are dehumanized and machines can now replace workers. This decreases the opportunity for creativity and instead submits us to a realm of homogeneity. There is a loss of artisanship; now workers are only responsible for a small piece of the production and therefore are seen as a cog in the wheel of the machine. Are these increasing interactions creating a world of SAMENESS where one place is indistinguishable from another? Or is the premise that McDonaldization is a manifestation of globalization too simplistic?

With an increased emphasis on efficiency (self-serve soda, drive-up windows), quantity over quality (would you like to supersize that?), and predictability (menu will taste the same regardless of location) we are able to experience every day interactions as if on auto-pilot or cruise control. We understand daily activities and can engage in them with such ease because they are standardized; like fast food chains. A mall will have the same stores and layout, the layout of the grocery store is standardized regardless of company, and the menu at Taco Bell in Kentucky is the same as the menu in Fairview Mall in Kitchener. If globalization makes the world more interconnected, it also makes the world more limited. Our choices become pseudo-freedoms. The appearance of freedom evident but the realities are heavily regulated options. Since globalization is a process by which cultures become integrated into the networks including circulations of ideas through cultural commodities, perhaps a good site to consider is the effect of the fast-food format being applicable at a global scale. Could the McWorld be seen as a type of New World Order? A structure of rule where standardized means of production are favoured? Where the world becomes an assembly line? Have we found ourselves submerged in a McWorld?

Self-Help & Questioning Modernity

This week I found the Giddens article most intriguing. Although I had heard the term “modernity” before and generally knew what it meant, I never really considered its relation to reflexivity. Growing up in this generation, I never questioned the vast amount of available self-help literature; I just assumed individuals had been teaching themselves ways of coping from the beginning. When Giddens described how individuals “help actively to reconstruct the universe of social activity around [struggles with intimate problems]” (p.12), I began to realize that this had not always been the case. In fact, now I would even go as far as saying with modernity came the gradual backing away from society as a collective toward the focus on oneself/the individual.

The connection between modernity and personal identity strikes me as an odd one because before having read this piece, I never would have put those two terms together. As Giddens explains, with modernity came the need for autonomy, or at least the feeling of needing to be autonomous. In the past, if someone were struggling with intimate problems, he/she would usually consult a professional such as a priest or counselor for advice; however, in today’s society, individuals increasingly turn to themselves for help. With the vast amount of self-help literature available, it is no surprise individuals feel the need to investigate and try to “fix” their own problems first. Giddens affirms that modernity is reflexive and the expansion of lifestyle manuals and self-help guides demonstrate this. Giddens ends by asserting, “The altered self has to be explored and constructed as part of a reflexive process of connecting personal and social change” (p.33). This illustrates the reliance on ourselves to continually adapt to changes, and improve our self and sense of well being in order to go along with the changes brought about as a result of modernity.

Additionally, when Giddens notes the “reflexivity of modernity actually undermines the certainty of knowledge” (p.21), I immediately thought of how the world was once “proven” flat, but as the years passed and society became more modern, this “fact” was overturned. It makes me wonder how many other “things we know” will eventually become invalidated. While teaching Research Methods last semester, we discussed the concepts of ontology (what we know) and epistemology (how we know what we know). To me, the terms did not signify a great deal then, but their importance is much clearer now. Although we heavily regard science as objective, and producing factual and reliable results, we must entertain the notion that due to our evolving world, these facts can change in light of new evidence. Therefore, it is critical that the certainty of knowledge Giddens speaks about is continually tested and not simply taken for granted as true and irrefutable.

Political Uses of New Media and Democracy: Reflections on the "Empire"

I think it might be meaningful to start my first blog here by analyzing the role of new media in the constitution of the new world order, based on what Hardt & Negri (2000) discussed in their profound book, Empire.

According to Hardt (see interview), this book unveils the worldwide network of power through the observation of US imperialism. There are three forms of power function in a cooperative way: monarchical power such as the pentagon, aristocratic power such as corporations, democratic power such as media and NGO who claim for the people.

More than ten years after the publishing of this work, is it still true that news media are tools of moral intervention and are conspiracies of the Empire?

From the perspective of cyber-optimists (see Pippa Norris’s classification), new media (see the discussion of new media) such as the internet, promised to facilitate democracy. For example, “domestically the Internet is fundamentally changing Chinese society and putting a lot more pressure on the government to enhance transparency and accountability.” There are many websites that aim at disclosing the dark-side of the social control, e.g. Democracynow. As such, the internet and the weblog are often related to words like free, inclusive, organic, cooperative, and innocent.

However, the political uses of the internet can lead to democratization; or go the other way too, as it is claimed by Evgeny Morozov (see video: How the net aids dictatorship). Many scholars also doubt the democratic possibility of blog as a deliberative platform. I find one empirical test very interesting. It used a dataset derived from a content analysis performed on blogs from three Canadian partisan blogrolls in October 2005. The result showed that this discussion is often characterized by inequality of discussion, a focus on non-substantive issues, and unconstructive engagement between bloggers (See Political Blogs and Blogrolls in Canada: Forums for Democratic Deliberation?). What’s worse, the ubiquitous blocks on the internet in China reveal the fact that democracy enabled by new media is only a fantasy deliberately designed by the government.

Just as it is elaborated in “Empire”:
“The Empire’s powers of intervention might be best understood as beginning not directly with its weapons of lethal force but rather with its moral instruments. What we are calling moral intervention is practiced today by a variety of bodies, including the news media and religious organizations, but the most important may be some of the so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which, precisely because they are not run directly by governments, are assumed to act on the basis of ethical or moral imperatives.” (p. 35-36)

I find an interesting parallel between the new media and the NGOs. They both seem to be free of political controls; however, they are the most hidden and solid arenas of interventions in turn, in the constitution of the Empire.

The Risks in Modern Social Life: The Issue of Privacy on Facebook

High modernity is characterized as “the recognition that science and technology are double-edged, creating new parameters of risk and danger as well as offering beneficent possibilities for humankind” (Giddens, 27). While doing research for my MRP, it is common to come across articles discussing the safety and privacy concerns with respect to Facebook. Similar to the way in which globalization has presented new challenges to national security, Facebook illustrates these very same challenges. While Facebook is often praised for its ability to connect friends and family from all over the globe using a “community interface”, these benefits are coupled with a considerable amount of risk. The website, “Love to Know” (http://socialnetworking.lovetoknow.com/Facebook_Risks) outlined the potential risks of Facebook such as identity theft, stalking and teen predators and it provided useful tips for people to minimize such risks. While people may choose not to participate in social sites such as Facebook, the internet plays such an integral role in contemporary society that people are exposed to these risks regardless (e.g. shopping online).

Living under the conditions of modernity can be understood as “a matter of the routine contemplation of counterfactuals” (Giddens, 29). There is a counterfactual character evident in Facebook as users are constantly updating their privacy settings to ensure that they are minimizing the potential risks that are associated with the site. For example, only allowing “friends” to see one’s pictures and information is a way to reduce the possible risks. Furthermore, the continuous scrutiny regarding Facebook’s privacy policies which include the media and the government’s Policy Commission illustrates the anxieties surrounding the issue of privacy. Canada’s Privacy Commission sets privacy standard and monitors compliance on an ongoing basis. Since Facebook is accessed by people from all over the world, it is challenged to comply with each country’s regulations in order to operate legally. The standards set by these various laws along with Facebook now give users numerous security options to ensure that their privacy is not violated or compromised. Facebook’s comprehensive privacy settings truly reflect the level of risk that exists in a global deployment of any social network site.

Unsolicited Humanitarianism: The Right of Intervention

In Taryn’s blog it is interesting how she relates the self-reflexivity of Facebook as a symptom of modernity. Her discussion of Facebook supports the theory of modernity and its repercussions in the present moment.

Sophie brings up a significant point about the confusion and difficulty with the discourses of 'just war' and activisim. Also her mention of moral and militant initiatives is a good segue into my discussion of the "Right of Intervention".

The development of a ‘new world order’ as a result of Empire means a unification and homogenization of nations dictated by one “world and universal state”(Negri&Hardt 5). By imposing one notion of ‘right’, according to “a universal community superior to the particular states”, the Empire enforces an organization of humans based on one “supreme ethic idea” (Negri&Hardt 5). The question is what defines the supreme and superior states, and what particular states will be ‘enveloped’ within one juridical system. Negri and Hardt in their “Political Constitution of the Present” chapter bring up one point in that leads me to a current issue or example of the problematic nature of one ‘supreme ethic idea’. The discussion of the “Right of intervention” constitutes the reconfiguration of the nation-states domestic law by a supranational law. In other words, dominant forces of the Empire’s ‘world order’ have the right to “intervene in the territories of other subject in the interest of preventing or resolving humanitarian problems” (18).

This right reminds me of America’s entry into third world countries. This intervention is reminiscent of imperialism, as superior nations enter uncivilized countries to teach them how to take care of themselves. With this humanitarianism, there is an assumption that one way of living is superior to another. This is a real life example of the problematic nature of the Negri and Hardt’s Empire. In this case America is the superior nation who intends to impose Western Ethics on a country that has been heavily rooted in religious and historical tradition. A world order is already in place, suggesting that America and the Western Nations are the supreme/superior universal state and the third world countries are the particular states enveloped within Western supreme ethics.

According to Negri and Hardt this ‘right’ to intervene is legitimized by a set of Universal Values; however, coming to a universal value would mean one of two things. One; the superior states and all other states must come to a consensus or two; the superior states must impose the dominant ideologies of their society onto the other states. The very fact that there is a superior state negates the possibility of equal consensus, therefore the “right to intervene” is not legitimized because it is impossible to come to an fair universal value. As articulated in “The Political Constitution of the Present” the right of intervention is no longer just for maintaining peace, but by consensus, supranational forces can intervene more freely with “superior ethical principles” (18).Under the theories of Empire according to Negri and Hardt, America enters third world countries with humanitarian intention, but were ultimately imposing the superior ethics of Western Culture.

"The Self Becomes a Reflexive Project": Modernity and Facebook

In his chapter “The Contours of High Modernity”, Anthony Giddens discusses the reflexive nature of modernity. Under the conditions of modernity –fast paced communication, technological change, distrust, doubt and risk – “the self becomes a reflexive project” (32). Modernity is characterized by an obsession with the self, something that needs to be found, assessed, reformed, understood and continually reinvented. Ironic, that in a world where it is so easy to connect that people have seemingly never felt so lost. So where and how does one situate “the self” on the global scale?

I can make a number of connections to Facebook. Facebook promotes the self as a reflexive project in the sense that users are required and encouraged to construct an identity, and to continually build upon that identity. Post your best picture, untag the ones you hate, fill out “what’s on your mind?”, decide what you “like”, “write something about yourself”, sort through your friends, your groups, your events. If Facebook isn’t telling you what constitutes your online identity, your fellow users are by their comments, their “liking”, their “reporting”, their “tagging” and sometimes they even confront you in real life, harassing you to post your most recent photos. Part of Facebook’s success is that everyone is wrapped up in everyone else’s identity construction and thus who you are on Facebook is dependent upon others, as the photos that they post or the comments they write help to construct your image.

Facebook also leads to the second major feature of mediated experience in modernity: “the intrusion of distant events into everyday consciousness” (Giddens 27). I’m not just talking about that “*Awkward Years! LOL!*Good Times in Middle School!! Heart Symbol!” album that your friend made, but rather how Facebook allows you to experience things that you wouldn’t normally every day, like knowing where that girl you went to camp with once went for reading week, or knowing that Mike is “at the library” without having even spoken to him. But even more so, Facebook, under the conditions of modernity, constructs a reality instead of mirroring it. Is your online self the real you? The social you? The photoshopped you? Did that picture capture a spontaneous moment or did you create it? Facebook allows for one to situate “the self”, but to what extent?

As Jacob Scheier asks, are users addicted to the voyeuristic aspects of Facebook, or to the continuous reinvention of our online selves? Are we committed to maintaining our online friendships, or dedicated to preserving our consistent, reprogrammable, controllable online self? Step into hyper reality, where a daily dose of Facebook is sure to cure your modernity malaise.

Pacifism as Weaponry?

The argument regarding the role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) as key actors of 'just war' in Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's book, Empire is one I find challenging to digest. Hardt and Negri's proposition that “moral intervention often serves as the first act that prepares the stage for military intervention” (37) is troubling for someone who has found herself on the frontlines of social change. It is difficult to imagine that by drawing attention to social injustices, NGOs can also elicit responses from corporations and State agencies that often result in ‘just war’ and corporate-run foreign development initiatives.

Yet, the discourses surrounding this ‘first act’ by NGOs does in fact have a strong correlation to the concept of ‘just war’. For example, in drawing awareness to the mistreatment of women in Afghanistan, "The Afghan Challenge", supported by NGOs such as MEDA, successfully elicited a global response. However, the U.S. military’s defensive response seems to be inconsistent with the campaign’s initiatives of peace and equality for Afghan women. As such, is there a way to disrupt the relationship between activism and just war?

In my attempt to answer this question, Naomi Klein’s book, Fences and Windows (2002), came to mind. Through her analysis of anti-globalization efforts, Klein suggests that there may not be an immediate solution to the flux and flow globalization has brought to nations around the world. However, Klein does assert that:

“Despite all the attempts at privatization, it turns out that there are some things that don’t want to be owned. Music, water, seeds, electricity, ideas—they keep bursting out of the confines erected around them. They have a natural resistance to enclosure, a tendency to escape, to cross-pollinate, to flow through fences, and flee out open windows” (2002).

Fences and windows are all around us, inviting some to partake in global phenomena while refusing access to others. I find Klein’s use of the terms enclosure, escape and flow to be consistent with many of the themes presented in Part One of Empire. Although writing from an anti-globalization perspective, Klein positions the discussion of globalization in the realm of civil society, which is an important aspect of Hardt and Negri’s argument.

As we continue to analyze the various aspects of globalization, it will be interesting to see how these aspects involve themselves in the day-to-day happenings of the local, national and global spheres of life.