World War I and the End of the "Globalized World"
Today marks the 100th anniversary of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination in Sarajevo, a watershed event that is often considered the beginning of World War I. After a century, it is perfectly justified that many have forgotten the significance of the event, especially given that modern-day Sarajevo itself has been quickly turned into a virtual American protectorate in the aftermath of the Yugoslavian Wars and ethnic genocides that followed. But upon closer look, it can easily be argued that WWI marked the end of an era that the modern world is struggling to return to...and the repercussions are still extremely important today.
That era, to put simply, is that of a globalized world. Prior to WWI, the world was one dominated by multiethnic empires, many of which espousing the ideals of ethnic harmony and side-by-side coexistence under tolerant autocrats. Travels between nations are often devoid of today's hassles, with passports being not needed or simply relegated to status of self-identification. The freedom of movement for both capital and labor, at least on the European continent, created global intellectual movements that are not associated with particular cultures or nations as they often are in today's world.
And despite the being under different sides of opposing alliances that ensured balance of power to make international warfare too costly, states such as Germany and Britain were major trading partners, boasting commercial percentages equal or superior to those among modern states. But the power of international commerce was not enough to halt political animosity from enlarging themselves into open conflict. The War saw triumph of nation-states over multiethnic empires, greatly assisted by the idea of "ethnic self-determination." "One race, one state" became an international ideal to be pursued for the sake of humanism.
The ethnocentrism of international politics were further boosted in the War's aftermath. The unfair arrangements of Versailles led to formation of extremist ideologies stressing ethnic superiority, and the heavy restrictions in travels and commerce led to sharp decreases in international communications and interactions that used to form the very basis of cultural understandings. In terms of "global-ness," the world never rebounded from WWI. And the very international institutions that were created in the years and decades after the War prevents the modern world from returning to that high level of international openness.
From the perspective of a globalist like the author himself, such development is lamentable, to say the least. Having traveled across many neighboring nations in places like Europe and Southeast Asia, the author has always been amazed that just how people who live a hour or two by plane away can know so little about one another's cultures. The norm of nation-states and more drastically, "cultural homogeneity" that persisted after World War I at least ought take partial blame for this phenomenon. If people can travel more easily to other countries and do not face subtle discrimination there, mutual ignorance would not be as widespread.
In contract, unfortunately, the strength of modern nationalism promoted by national governments across the world has made a global culture to nitpick tiny differences between similar cultures to emphasize and magnify differences in identities. Slight discrepancies in food, holidays, dress, and whatnot, in the eyes of the common people, have become identifiers of ethnic separateness, and in more extreme terms, cultural superiority, at regional and national levels. The author's frequent conversations in Taiwan with locals on how it differs from China, Japan, and Korea can be considered an obvious example.
In the author's mind, at least, such phenomenon would be at a minimum in the pre-WWI world. A multiethnic empire will put in much effort to stress how component cultures of a single political entity share many similarities. It will encourage use of certain lingua franca and intellectual exchanges among people of different races in academic and social environments. Free movement of people led to rapid mutual understanding of cultural differences, and sight of foreigners in one's own country would not have drawn anything more than a fleeting glance and accompanying nonchalance.
Had World War I not have happened, it could be extrapolated, discussions about how France differs from Germany, or how Japan differs from Korea, would be completely irrelevant and most likely quite absurd. After all, modern discussions of such are filled with speculation and stereotypes. Those half-truths would not breed to become mainstream if most people of all such nations have frequent exposures to their neighboring countries, both at the personal and systemic levels, afforded by freedom of international movement. If everyone is deeply familiar with a locality, ethno-cultural separateness would not even be a viable concept.
That era, to put simply, is that of a globalized world. Prior to WWI, the world was one dominated by multiethnic empires, many of which espousing the ideals of ethnic harmony and side-by-side coexistence under tolerant autocrats. Travels between nations are often devoid of today's hassles, with passports being not needed or simply relegated to status of self-identification. The freedom of movement for both capital and labor, at least on the European continent, created global intellectual movements that are not associated with particular cultures or nations as they often are in today's world.
And despite the being under different sides of opposing alliances that ensured balance of power to make international warfare too costly, states such as Germany and Britain were major trading partners, boasting commercial percentages equal or superior to those among modern states. But the power of international commerce was not enough to halt political animosity from enlarging themselves into open conflict. The War saw triumph of nation-states over multiethnic empires, greatly assisted by the idea of "ethnic self-determination." "One race, one state" became an international ideal to be pursued for the sake of humanism.
The ethnocentrism of international politics were further boosted in the War's aftermath. The unfair arrangements of Versailles led to formation of extremist ideologies stressing ethnic superiority, and the heavy restrictions in travels and commerce led to sharp decreases in international communications and interactions that used to form the very basis of cultural understandings. In terms of "global-ness," the world never rebounded from WWI. And the very international institutions that were created in the years and decades after the War prevents the modern world from returning to that high level of international openness.
From the perspective of a globalist like the author himself, such development is lamentable, to say the least. Having traveled across many neighboring nations in places like Europe and Southeast Asia, the author has always been amazed that just how people who live a hour or two by plane away can know so little about one another's cultures. The norm of nation-states and more drastically, "cultural homogeneity" that persisted after World War I at least ought take partial blame for this phenomenon. If people can travel more easily to other countries and do not face subtle discrimination there, mutual ignorance would not be as widespread.
In contract, unfortunately, the strength of modern nationalism promoted by national governments across the world has made a global culture to nitpick tiny differences between similar cultures to emphasize and magnify differences in identities. Slight discrepancies in food, holidays, dress, and whatnot, in the eyes of the common people, have become identifiers of ethnic separateness, and in more extreme terms, cultural superiority, at regional and national levels. The author's frequent conversations in Taiwan with locals on how it differs from China, Japan, and Korea can be considered an obvious example.
In the author's mind, at least, such phenomenon would be at a minimum in the pre-WWI world. A multiethnic empire will put in much effort to stress how component cultures of a single political entity share many similarities. It will encourage use of certain lingua franca and intellectual exchanges among people of different races in academic and social environments. Free movement of people led to rapid mutual understanding of cultural differences, and sight of foreigners in one's own country would not have drawn anything more than a fleeting glance and accompanying nonchalance.
Had World War I not have happened, it could be extrapolated, discussions about how France differs from Germany, or how Japan differs from Korea, would be completely irrelevant and most likely quite absurd. After all, modern discussions of such are filled with speculation and stereotypes. Those half-truths would not breed to become mainstream if most people of all such nations have frequent exposures to their neighboring countries, both at the personal and systemic levels, afforded by freedom of international movement. If everyone is deeply familiar with a locality, ethno-cultural separateness would not even be a viable concept.
It is an alarm bell of present world...Germany and Britain had shown that closely trading relationship is not enough to avoid conflict!
ReplyDeleteindeed, lets hope nuclear weapons are enough of a deterrent to prevent open warfare.
ReplyDelete