JATHIKATHVAYA AGAINST GLOBALISATION
(1999 September 15)
Globalisation is not a recent phenomenon. It started way back in the fifteenth century. The day Vasco de Gama
went round Africa the globalisation began. As a phenomenon it has passed through several stages and today we are
experiencing a stage, which has been named globalisation. The so-called globalisation is only the name given to
the stage in which people both in the west and the non-west directly experience the process of globalisation.
Globalisation is a western phenomenon or rather it is a European phenomenon. In fact it could be called a British
phenomenon. The west is nothing but an extended Europe with the Europeans physically occupying the lands in America
and Australia. The British took with them their culture, politics and economics to these countries and were able
to establish themselves after almost annihilating the indigenous populations. In the rest of the world either they
were not able to do so due to various reasons or perhaps did not want to settle down in some of the countries they
came across.
The colonisation was the beginning of globalisation. The old European colonial countries can be divided into three
groups. The southern Europeans meaning the Spanish and the Portuguese belonged to one category. They were prepared
to mix with the local people and establish their dominance through their political institutions. The so-called
Latin American countries were established as a result of this type of colonisation. The British colonisation was
different. If they could, they massacred the indigenous populations as they did in north America, Australia and
New Zealand and were not interested in general in mixed marriages or mixed cultures. They established their hegemony
through the political institutions and the educational systems they created in the colonised countries. The British
culture was transplanted through trade, politics and education. The others like the French colonialists adopted
a policy that was in between those of the British and the Southern Europeans.
The Europeans came to Asia, Africa and the Americas not only for trade. They came with the gun in one hand and
the bible in the other hand. The gun represented the political power and the bible the European culture, more than
the preaching of Jesus Christ. The political, economical and cultural components were there from the day one in
colonialism that was later developed into imperialism. In the beginning all the three components were equally important
but however as the nation states became stronger the economic and the political components came into prominence
superficially.
From the very beginning Britain more than any other colonial power had understood the phenomenon of globalisation.
It was a case of implanting their political institutions, their economy and their culture in the colonial countries.
In other words they had tried to bring the whole world into one system with a common economy, common political
institutions and a common culture. Globalisation is not merely having a world trade organisation and a world economy.
It is also a matter of bringing the whole world under one culture. It was the British model of colonisation, which
triumphed eventually, with the United States of America playing a bigger role after the so-called second world
war.
It has to be remembered that European (British) colonisation began before the advent of capitalism. British and
European colonisation, which is the first stage of globalisation, is more fundamental than capitalism. British
colonisation differs from the previous invasions in the history of the world that had taken place for centuries.
While the Spanish and Portuguese colonisation were not much different from the previous invasions in the sense
that the cultures of the coloniser (invader) and the colonised were allowed to mix explicitly, the British colonisation
wanted to make it a one way process explicitly. The colonised were given the culture of the coloniser but the coloniser
took the culture of the colonised in a discrete way. The coloniser took only those parts of the other cultures
that were beneficial to them while giving the colonised all aspects of the culture of the coloniser irrespective
of the wish of the colonised. It was the beginning of cultural imperialism. British colonialism added the most
important component of cultural imperialism into their structures. Under normal circumstances parts of the other
cultures are absorbed into a particular culture or in old colonisation processes a new culture common to the coloniser
and the colonised is created. In the case of cultural colonialism or cultural imperialism these two alternatives
are ruled out. The colonised is forced to adopt the culture of the coloniser irrespective of the wish of the former.
British colonialism was followed by the French and the others though not with the same success. British colonialism
in particular and European colonialism in general were associated with what is now known as modernity. Modernity,
meaning European (western) modernity, is not something that was begun with the enlightenment, as the western intellectuals
would want us to believe. European (western) modernity like globalisation started in the fifteenth century. European
modernity, globalisation, western science are all interconnected. Copernicus and Newton would not have been as
"modern" as Einstein and Dirac, the famous British Physicist. But they were "modern" (in a
European sense) in their outlook when compared to Aristotle, Socrates and Plato. Enlightenment to European modernity
is as same as imperialism to European (British) colonialism. Enlightenment was only a stage, though a very important
stage, in the process of European (western) modernisation. Descartes did not start rationalism and western science
though he separated the observer from the observed outlining the ontology of western science.
Though the Chinese had created a vast system of knowledge that can be described as Chinese science and though they
were aware of the compass, gun powder and the printing press, the ingredients for navigation, gun and printing
the bible, the Chinese neither created a science in the western sense nor went on to colonise the world. Joseph
Needham asked the question as to why "western science" was not created in China and he himself gave an
answer. He said that it was due to the absence of capitalism in China. However that is not a satisfactory answer
as then the question arises as to why capitalism was not created in China.
Capitalism in Europe did not appear overnight. It took several centuries for British to develop capitalism. France
had to wait even longer and the creation of capitalism there was a long process though sometimes the impression
is given that it happened almost overnight with the French revolution. Capitalism was not the cause of western
science, and it could be thought that western science and capitalism are associated with western modernity, which
together with globalisation has a deeper foundation. Colonisation, globalisation, capitalism, western science,
rationalism etc., all arose as a result of the Chinthanaya of the Europeans in general and the British in particular.
The attitudes and the philosophies of the European Judaic Chinthanaya in general and the worldview are given in
an appendix to the "Mage Lokaya".
As I understand it the chinthanaya of Amarasekera is a concept that is at a deeper level than the paradigm of Kuhn
and the episteme of Foucault. The modernisation of Europe consists of two parts. Firstly the British and the other
Europeans acquired the Judaic Chinthanaya if they were already not in possession of it. Secondly the Europeans
were able to absorb the knowledge that had been created in the east and the Americas into their culture based on
the Judaic Chinthanaya. It is now accepted that most of the mathematics including Leibnietz's and Newton's calculus
and the sciences that are supposed to have been created in Europe were known in India in the fifteenth century.
Even the helio centric theory of Copernicus was known to the Indians or rather the Bharatha Puthras and the Puthris.
Having absorbed the knowledge of the other cultures into their culture the Europeans were able to create a new
system of knowledge with original theories and concepts, which is now called the western sciences, from Physics
to Sociology, based on the western Judaic Chinthanaya. The process still continues and at certain stages the European
intellectuals have made attempts not only to absorb the knowledge based on the other chinthanayas but the chinthanayas
themselves, though not with success.
The rationalism and the other ingredients of European modernism can be found in the European Judaic chinthanaya.
With Descartes rationalism and the two valued logic were crowned within the European culture. The enlightenment
that gave so much prominence to reasoning was not due to the philosophy of Descartes or any other seventeenth or
eighteenth century western philosopher but was only a stage in an evolutionary process that was started in the
fifteenth century. In the eighteenth century reason was elevated to an "unreasonable" position within
the European culture. Foucault in an article entitled "What is Enlightenment", referring to a paper by
Kant, has the following to say on reason. " We must note that the German word used here is rasonieren; this
word, which is also used in the Critiques does not refer to just any use of reason, but to a use of reason in which
reason has no other end but itself............Kant in fact describes enlightenment as the moment when humanity
(Kant had no business to refer to humanity in general. He should have used Europeanity or some such concept. Over
generalisation and over abstraction are also parts of the European chinthanaya. In fact globalisation follows from
generalisation - NdeS) is going to put its own reason to use, without subjecting itself to any authority; now it
is precisely at this moment that the critique is necessary, since its role is that of defining the conditions under
which the use of reason is legitimate in order to determine what can be known, what must be done, and what may
be hoped." I am sure that Mr. Ashraaf will agree with me that the Kalama Suthraya does not condone that type
of reasoning. I must also add, to Foucault modernity was only an attitude and that he would not have agreed with
the views on modernity expressed in this article. However in sympathy with a western post modernist condition,
he was against forms of generalisation, as we would see later.
Capitalism followed colonisation and evolved as a part of western modernisation. During this time the nation states
also grew in strength both politically and economically. Lenin identified imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism.
However this was not to be the case as capitalism continued to evolve. During the stage that was identified by
Lenin as imperialism the political and economic components of colonialism were the prominent. However with subsequent
evolution the cultural and the economic components, in that order have become stronger than the political component.
The nation state is withering away politically though not in the sense of Marx and Lenin. The present stage of
colonisation can be categorised as world imperialism, with strong cultural and the economic components, where the
power is distributed over the whole world. It is very difficult to pin point the centres of power. The power is
everywhere and not concentrated at a point. In a sense power in the present phase of imperialism is more like a
quantum "particle" that seems to be everywhere, than a Newtonian particle that can be tracked down. Globalisation
is a characteristic of world imperialism, which attempts to enforce a common culture and a common economy to the
entire world. It is the cultural component that is the strongest as can be seen in Serbia and East Timor. The western
powers are not interested in the market of East Timor. They are more interested in the culture of the East Timor.
The western civilisation has to overcome two other important world civilisations in order to fulfil the dream of
giving the western culture to the entire world. Though there may not be a Buddhist civilisation, as such, common
to the entire world there are Buddhist cultures in various different countries. Then there is the much stronger
and more aggressive Muslim civilisation. The other civilisations are not spread over the whole world and confined
mostly to the countries of origin. The Chinese civilisation though very strong is not a world civilisation as such.
Therefore it is not surprising that in the evolution of western civilisation and in its desire to enforce it on
the whole world it has decided to concentrate on the Muslim civilisation and the Buddhist cultures. Serbia and
East Timor have to be seen in this context as far as Muslim civilisation is concerned. It is unfortunate that the
Tamils have allowed themselves to be used against the Sinhala Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka.
Globalisation and related world imperialism cannot be defeated based on western theories including Marxism. Marxism
is part of globalisation in the sense that it recommends and justifies a common culture whether it is called the
proletariat or not, to the whole world. The so-called proletarian culture is nothing but a western culture. Globalisation,
which stems from generalisation that is found in the western culture, cannot be defeated by using theories that
are based on generalisation. Foucault has said in the above mentioned article that "the historical ontology
of ourselves must turn away from all projects that claim to be global or radical."
With or without Foucault there is only one way to defeat globalisation and that is to evolve programmes based on
the jathikathvas of the different countries. The jathikathva like Hinduthva cannot be translated
into English. It is neither nationalism nor nationality. If we do not have a programme based on the jathikathva
it is very likely that all of us in this part of the world will continue to suffer under world imperialism which
is only the present phase of a process that was started five hundred years ago.