Blurb from Noam Chomsky, most-cited thinker alive: Front—"Fantastic piece of work Back—"Conventional estimates of economic power rely on national accounts, primarily GDP. But these measures have lost their significance in the new age of globalization, this compelling study persuasively argues, showing that by the more realistic measure of ownership of the global economy, US power has reached astonishing heights.
These carefully documented conclusions undermine laments about American declinism and the rise of China. A major and original contribution to understanding the actual distribution of power in the world order". All the attributes of God are now extrapolated to western man.
Universal truth beyond time and space, privilege access to the laws of the Universe, and the capacity to produce scientific knowledge and theory is now placed in the mind of western man. The "point zero" is the point of view that hides and conceals itself as being beyond a particular point of view, that is, the point of view that represents itself as being without a point of view. This epistemic strategy has been crucial for western global designs. We went from the 16th century characterization of "people without writing" to the 18th and 19th century characterization of "people without history", to the 20th century characterization of "people without development" and more recently, to the early 21st century of "people without democracy".
However, as Enrique Dussel has reminded us, the Cartesian "ego cogito" "I think, therefore I am" was preceded by years since the beginnings of the European colonial expansion in by the European "ego conquistus" "I conquer, therefore I am". The following examples can illustrate this point. Moreover, the concept of capitalism implied in this perspective privileges economic relations over other social relations.
Accordingly, the transformation in the relations of production produces a new class structure typical of capitalism as opposed to other social systems and other forms of domination. Class analysis and economic structural transformations are privileged over other power relations. I do not pretend to speak for or represent the perspective of these indigenous women. What I attempt to do is to shift the location from which these paradigms are thinking. The first implication of shifting our geopolitics of knowledge is the recognition that what arrived in the Americas in the late 15th century was not only an economic system of capital and labour for the production of commodities to be sold for a profit in the world market.
This was a crucial part of, but was not the sole element in, the entangled "package.
This matrix affects all dimensions of social existence such as sexuality, authority, subjectivity and labour Quijano The 16th century initiated a new global colonial power matrix that by the late 19th century came to cover the whole planet. The "colonial power matrix" is an organizing principle involving exploitation and domination exercised in multiple dimensions of social life, from economic, sexual, or gender relations, to political organizations, structures of knowledge, state institutions, and households Quijano It is not derivative from, or antecedent to, modernity.
Coloniality and modernity constitute two sides of a single coin. Given the hegemonic Eurocentric "common sense", the moment we use the word "capitalism" people immediately think that we are talking about the "economy".
It is an important one, but not the sole one. One of the most powerful myths of the 20th century was the notion that the elimination of colonial administrations amounted to the decolonization of the world. This led to the myth of a "postcolonial" world. We continue to live under the same "colonial power matrix". Herein lies the relevance of the distinction between "colonialism" and "coloniality". Peripheral zones remain in a colonial situation even though are no longer under colonial administration. Quijano distinguishes between colonialism and coloniality.
Japan is the only exception that confirms the rule. Japan was never colonized nor dominated by Europeans and, similar to the West, played an active role in building its own colonial empire. China, although never fully colonized, was peripheralized through the use of colonial entrepots such as Hong Kong and Macao, and through direct military interventions. Thus, "coloniality" is entangled with, but is not reducible to, the international division of labour.
In this conventional definition, coloniality is reduced to the presence of colonial administrations. However, as the work of Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano , , has shown with his "coloniality of power" perspective, we still live in a colonial world and we need to break from the narrow ways of thinking about colonial relations, in order to accomplish the unfinished and incomplete 20th century dream of decolonization. This forces us to examine new decolonial utopian alternatives beyond Eurocentric and "Third Worldist" fundamentalisms. However, the critical insights of both approaches emphasize different determinants.
However, the two camps in general are still divided over the culture vs. This is partly inherited from the "two cultures" of western knowledge that divide the sciences from the humanities, premised upon the Cartesian dualism of mind over matter. With very few exceptions, most postcoloni al theorists come from fields of the humanities such as literature, rhetoric, and cultural studies.
Only a small number of scholars in the field of postcoloniality come from the social sciences, in particular from anthropology. I have emphasized the disciplines that predominate in both approaches because I think that these disciplinary boundaries are constitutive of some of the theoretical differences between both approaches. Postcolonial criticism characterizes the capitalist system as a cultural system.
They believe that culture is the constitutive element that determines economic and political relations in global capitalism Said, Cultural and political relations are conceptualized as instrumental to, or epiphenomenon of, the capitalist accumulation processes. Thus, both literatures fluctuate between the danger of economic reductionism and the danger of culturalism.
bargeschvawisra.gq: The Political Consequences of Anti-Americanism (Routledge Studies in Globalisation) (): Richard Higgott, Ivona Malbasic: Books. The Political Consequences of Anti-Americanism (Routledge/Warwick Studies in Globalisation) [Richard Higgott, Ivona Malbasic] on bargeschvawisra.gq *FREE*.
I propose that the culture vs. This legacy implies the division of the economic, political, cultural and social as autonomous arenas. But it is an incomplete, unfinished critique. This trinity stands in the middle of the road, in granite, blocking our intellectual advance. Many find it unsatisfying, but in my view no one has yet found the way to dispense with the language and its implications, some of which are correct but most of which are probably not.
All of us fall back on using the language of the three arenas in almost everything we write. It is time we seriously tackled the question [ It is urgent that we begin to elabourate alternative models. This is precisely the kind of interpretation Wallerstein attempts to avoid in his critique of the three autonomous domains. Democracy, as we know it, is intrinsically linked to the territorial boundaries of the nation state and its key political institutions.
William Connolly correctly notes that "it is probably impossible even to imagine a form of democratic politics today that breaks entirely with this model [of the territorial imaginary]. While such a project may well be impossible to imagine today, Connelly points in a promising direction. He approaches democracy not only as a set of political institutions, but also, and perhaps even primarily, as an ethos, a cultural disposition. This ethos, Connolly stresses, needs to "foster a recurrent problematization of final markers" - foundational norms which continue to reinstate themselves.
Necessary as well would be a more generic promotion of transparency and an awareness of the political dimensions of representation, that is, sensitivity to who or what is excluded and included, and why. But this does not mean that they cannot engage political problems and criticise, say, issues related to economic governance or North-South relations.
In fact, the process of convincing others across political, cultural and linguistic divides is the very subject of politics. Indeed, the most effective target of activism in the information age may well be the people with the spending power to influence politics. Comfortably installed in front of their television sets, this target audience does not usually suffer from unequal globalisation. In fact, they are the ones who profit from existing political dynamics. Media attention, in turn, focused often on these violent incidents, leading to a relatively uneven representation of the overall protests.
The latter, violent episodes have attracted by far the most media attention, overshadowing both the substance of the protests and the presence of an overwhelmingly violent majority of dissidents. The violent nature of recent protests against globalisation pose a number of key questions for both social movement agency and politics in general. What is the exact nature and impact of violence?
To what extent can violence be justified as an act of dissent? Is violence an effective way of promoting social change? How can peaceful activists who engage in nonviolent protests or civil disobedience co-exist with those who advocate violence as a revolutionary strategy?