Mini-Lecture Part 1

DOCUMENT by: Bob Hassenger
Subject: Mini-Lecture Part 1

Barber's case came into sharper focus on September 11, 2001. At least, for most of us. Prior to the attack on the United States, it seemed that the forces of modernization--what Barber would call "secularist materialism" (and he would get no disagreement from Belllah et al.) were clearly winning. There were, to most American eyes, these unfortunate pockets of resistance around the world, but the real threats, the nuclear holocaust of the Cold War years and after, were safely in check. Capitalism had won. Everyone wanted what we have.

Barber makes the argument, not only that modernization is threatening to many people, but that America Triumphant is perhaps a greater threat to world justice and peace than ever before. He is not anti-American. He is deeply concerned that our present economic system, at which America has been more successful than any other country, has led to the widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots, and one of the results of this is the appeal of terrorism to an increasing number of people, in various parts of the world.

One of the first to posit a contemporary clash of cultures was Samuel Huntington . You might be interested in chasing down his arguments. Almost anything from the prolific late Senator Daniel P. Moynihan is also useful

What is it about "modernity" that those espousing Jihad hate? What does "modernity" represent for those who are comfortable with globalization/McWorld?

To understand Barber's argument, you should be able to explain how "...Jihad against McWorld is not a clash of civilizations but a dialectical expression of tensions built into a single global civilization as it emerges against a backdrop of traditional ethnic and religion divisions, many of which are actually created by McWorld" (p. xvi). Of course, you need to read much more, and enter into the discussions, before you will be comfortable with your explanation of the author's position. But that is really what the book is about.

Later in the 2001 "Introduction," Barber has a rather less romantic view of the U.S. of a century ago than did Bellah et al. On what matters do they most differ? Later in the book, you may wonder if they are really so different.

Isn't a bit simplistic to seem to blame globalization for the private vices and public wrongs (crime, drugs, prostitution, etc. ) that have somehow characterized every society about which we've kept score?

What does Barber mean by the "ideology of privatization"? Is this another version of the individualism examined by the authors of Habits?

The original "Introduction" was written a decade after Bellah et al., but a half decade before 9/11/2001. It is interesting that, although Barber insists on the dialectic of McWorld and Jihad, his complaints in the 1990's had primarily to do with his perception that McWorld was "winning." Its expansion seemed inexorable. The 2001 "Introduction" takes a very different tone--one that is, on balance, more even-handed. He hasn't changed his position, but the dangers of "imperialism and economic colonialism" are given a different slant. The introductions are not inconsistent with each other; but, as with most of us, one set of dangers seems to be more salient at one time than at another.

It's time to take stock. As we enter the last month or so of the course, this might be a good time to reflect on how your understanding of "social change" has evolved, or become more confused, since the course began. Any reflections you care to enter into the Discussion Area, or questions you might have for "Talk to the Professor," are encouraged. You'll get at least some answers from your fellow students; no such claims are made by "the professor."

Click here to go to the discussion for Module 6: Tensions in Community: Globalization

If you have any questions about this material, please click on the ASK A QUESTION link below. Now go to the next document to continue this module.