Globalization and Hybridity: Where Thomas Paine Meets Jalaluddin Rumi

It has been asserted that globalization is a homogenizing phenomenon. In the words of an eminent historian, it is ‘willed homogeneity’. The implication here is that power is implicated in both the phenomenon and processes of globalization and that homogeneity allegedly ‘inherent in globalization redounds to the power structures catalyzing globalization. This homogeneity allegedly is ‘bad’ for the cultural diversity that defines the world and militates against ‘authenticity’.Even the gory saga of September II is explained by some by this: it is alleged that September II constituted a reaction against the allegedly homogenizing effects of globalization. Cultural conflicts, separatism in some instances, tribal reaction to homogenizing processes also fall under this explanatory rubric.

Best encapsulated by the eminent Benjamin Barber’s work, ‘Jihad Versus McWorld’ , this thesis asserts that the globe is increasingly divided into two spheres: one wherein the forces of economic globalization underpinned by capitalism lead to a consumerist culture dissolving the atavistic forces that come in its way; and the other wherein forces of tribalism react and assert themselves against this onslaught. This, in the Barberian schema and formulation, has a negative impact on democracy and democratization. Barber concludes by positing that it is McWorld that may emerge as the winner out of this dialectic?

This raises a set of questions: Are the homogenizing effects of globalization really as powerful as the thesis purports? Is globalization leading to ‘One World wherein cultural and tribal differences are melting away? Are the forces of globalization dissolving culture, diversity and that anthropological unit, the tribe? Or is the phenomenon termed ‘hybridity’ in post colonial literature emerging albeit in a different permutation and combination? And can hybridity be a more enduring and salubrious phenomenon than tribalism inherent in the nation state and diversity that multiculturalism entails?

Globalization apparently does lead to homogenization to the untrained eye. The food courts in shopping malls across the world, the ubiquity and sameness of airports, the western dress supplanting traditional clothing globally perhaps best encapsulated by the ubiquitous blue jeans and the Coco colonization of taste lends credence to this. The reality, however, is more complex. The Indian techie, for instance, benefiting from globalization and living in the Silicon Valley starts his day seeking a blessing from the money goddess and sends off donations to back home to the fanatical Hindu nationalist party. Or for that matter, the allegedly ‘modern’Muslim wearing jeans and T-shirts emblazoned with a Michael Jackson insignia and a baseball cap is in reality, a devout Muslim who twists his cap while turning to the Mecca and offering prayers. The point here is that culture and religious impulses that move people and anchor their identities are rather existential matters. It is these cultural wellsprings that give meaning to people’s lives. While the forces of globalization may or may not lead to superficial change in demeanor, it is the forces of culture and religion that are deep and enduring. What meets the eye can be deceptive. The so called homogeneity implied and inherent in the globalization is then only skin deep. The primeval forces of culture, religion and tribalism, to the contrary are more enduring.

What then is happening? Is the churn and massive movements of people made possible by globalization static and not affecting people? The answer is a clear cut no. Globalization is indeed altering some of the psychical dimension of people’s lives. This is more salient and pronounced in the domain of identities. People’s primary, secondary and tertiary identities are naturally being altered by the forces and logic of globalization. This entails a mutation that can perhaps best be encapsulated and caught by the term ‘hybridization’ or mongelization. Roughly speaking, a person can , for instance ,be a Kashmiri , Indian and an Australian at the same time. The tension that the co-existence of identities entails can be positive. It can unchain the spirit and lead to a fruitful synthesis. This hybridity can potentially be benign given that the obsession with ‘roots’ and the attendant socio cultural and political problems can be given short shrift. It can also lead to societies and polities wherein the best ideas get implanted in hybrids on a give and take basis. In this sense, it is then better than multiculturalism which emphasizes ‘the narcissism of small difference’, and leads to fragmented and ghettoized societies and polities. Who would , for instance ,argue against the spread of human rights into non western cultures or for that matter the spiritual ethos imbued in Sufism to western societies? Or in prosaic words, who would argue against the marriage of Thomas Paine with Rumi and Sadi? Who would want to forsake this choice?

Globalization is here to stay. It has staying power and a momentum that can only be derailed by cataclysmic events like wars and pestilence. The logic of choice is inherent in globalization as is freedom and liberty. If this is catalyzed by the multinational corporations in pursuit of profits or by a powerful state like the United States for ends that serve its interests, what is the harm? It is the end result which matters. This end result is the expansion of choice(s)- economic, cultural and political-, freedom and liberty. Hybridity and fluidity are the name of the game. It therefore behooves on all to nurture globalization and turn the potential pregnant in it to the benefit of the world. Let the golden arches of McDonald’s grace every nook and corner of the world and let the music emanating from the rabab- a sufi musical instrument- and the melodious wail of the Muezzin co exist with the smiling visage of Ronald McDonald.. The fruits of this synthesis can only be fruitful and salubrious. Let haste be made slowly and a world that corresponds to this vision be built from scratch. We , to repeat the Marxist dictum, have nothing to lose but our chains.