The Consequences of Group Mentality

            In the grand scheme of things, I am not a fan of globalization. In the past, I have seen it do more harm than good, and I fear for the future of society as it becomes increasingly more globalized every day. Though I acknowledge there may be some benefits to the process, I believe its function is no good for our world as a whole, due to its impact on the increasing ability to share information. This leads to people thinking less for themselves and more as part of a ‘group mentality’, and then they subconsciously follow the status quo, and ultimately making mindless decisions.

            Though I am not suggesting that we must fear another Holocaust, we certainly need to acknowledge that anti-Semitism still exists in different yet very harmful forms today, as Franklin Foer mentions in his book How Soccer Explains The World. Today. With social media and peoples ability to give and receive all types of information instantly, as well as see what other people are doing, I believe individuals have begun to lose their individuality and ability to think for themselves and have learned to rely on what they learn from others to guide their actions, because they can so easily see them. Foer’s description of how spectators treated the Tottenham soccer team is a clear example of this, as people thought it was okay to cheer “crude slurs” at them, even ones referencing the Holocaust. By partaking in this and cheering “Yiddos”, even if joking, the spectators were partaking in a group mentality, and ultimately sacrificing their individuality and possibly their moral beliefs because they got caught up in what everyone else was doing. He explains that this anti-Semitism very well may have been unintentional, “just an inherited custom without thought”, but this is what makes it so deadly—the fact that it is so careless.

People do scary things when they are masked or backed up by groups, and that is arguably how the Holocaust was able to occur. This is why I fear globalization.

            Globalization means people will be able to rally together more, think like groups more, and in my opinion, eventually lose their individuality. Diversity and uniqueness challenge society and are what force it to progress in a steady and appropriate pace. However, if we lose these central tenants of society, with the increase of globalization and flow of information, I fear we will see a day when people no longer think for themselves but turn to one, single person for all the answers.

How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization (Franklin Foer, 2004).

Argentina, Soccer and Globalization

When I began reading Foer's How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization I was certain that my home country would be mentioned several times, particularly in the begining sections about the hooligans and corruption. However I was surprised to find that Argentina was barely mentioned in the book despite its prestigious reputation on the soccer field and as a once major economic super power ruined by corruption and political failures. In fact, Argentina's exclusion from the book proves just how far it has fallen since its heyday in the early 1900's to its current obscurity.
The world has certainly become a more globalized place and as Foer states soccer has been a part of it, as most of the world religiously follows the sport. Yet Argentina has remained closed off to this globalization and while some would argue that this is a symptom of failures, I believe it is one of the major players in its decline.

Soccer has always been extremely important in Argentina and the situation I grew up witnessing was not unlike what Foer described in Serbia where the clubs had gangs of fans called barras bravas. There have been over 256 deaths related to these hooligan groups and the control much of the money that is generated from the sport. Corruption runs rampant throughout the sport and the power of the soccer clubs is such that the president of the soccer organization in Argentina (AFA) has been known to grant meetings with the President, Christina Kirchner and not the other way around. The fans of Argentine football are some of the most passionate in the world and yet the domestic league has declined along with the nation. The money is no longer flowing into Argentina as is never transitioned its economic power stemming from grain and meat exportation into a global economy. It had one of the fastest growing economies once upon a time, but political turmoil lead to the borders closing down and investors jumping ship. And as the economy declined so did its soccer league until it is a shell of its former self, all its players leaving for wealthy European teams as soon as the can. Today Argentina continues to struggle, heavily limiting the good that enter the country in a desperate attempt to create jobs while trying to stabilize its rapidly devaluing currency.

The solution I believe is to embrace the globalization and open up trade as much as possible. At first it will be worse but then it would greatly help the people and ultimately could allow Argentina to recover from its free fall. Unfortunately Argentines are always the pessimists as can be seen from the politics and soccer scandals that have plagued the country. The infamous Falklan Island conflict was followed up by the Hand of God scandal, wherein an Argentine player eliminated England from the World Cup by cheating. He later admitted to it but claimed it was the same as stealing an Englishman's wallet and that any Argentine would have done the same. This is because their mentality is to take or get taken. This cultural skepticism and lack of trust is common in Argentina and it will prevent them from opening up their economy and trusting other nations the way they would need to to become a bigger part of the global economy of today.

Sources:
http://www.dw.de/los-hooligans-más-peligrosos-del-mundo-están-en-argentina/a-2816440-1
Foer reading How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization

Increased Nationalism in a Globalized World

As technology develops and society evolves, we are hearing more and more about the presence of globalization (the interdependence of nations through trade, services, products, cultures, etc.) in our world.  In the last century, overarching structures like the United Nations and the European Union have been established in order to promote this kind of international integration, and while many see this as a necessary step to world order, others have many criticisms. One of the biggest arguments against globalization is that it minimizes nationalism. Many fear that the more we try to integrate countries together, the more culture and country pride we lose in the process. However, in the final part of Foer’s book “How Soccer Explains the World”, he looks to soccer as a representation of the world to refute these criticisms, and show how even in a situation where you have all these countries coming together for a common purpose, there is still room for nationalism.

This idea of whether or not globalization promotes or demotes country pride is an interesting argument to look at. To start, look at humans for example. It’s often a common misconception that in a relationship, the more time a couple spends together, the more of their individuality each of them loses. The argument is similar with countries in globalization. People feel that the more dependent countries become on one another, the more they will lose of their culture. And while it’s true this can sometimes be the case, it is also commonly said that in healthy relationships, couples bring out the best in each other. And I think this proves to be true in globalization as well. Foer uses the example of the world cup to show how when the entire world comes together for one purpose---to play soccer, the end result can be an outpouring of national pride and passion.

While most people see the main point of the World Cup to play soccer, it really has proven to be much more than that. It is also a time where each country is given a chance to show off all they are proud of. During the World Cup this past summer, fans all over the world were given the chance to see the country of Brazil in a whole new light through the passion of its people, the richness of its culture and its never ending spirit. Similarly, when cameras turned to Germany after they won the cup, we got to see the energy of a completely different country with an equal amount of pride in their culture. What the World Cup did was bring the entire world together to put on display the best of their country. And isn’t that what globalization is? Each country putting what they’re best at on the table in order to maximize global efficiency? 

I believe Foer’s portrayal of soccer in respect to globalization works to show how, if anything, globalization only increases nationalism. Obviously, no country is perfect and you will find bad things in every country on this planet. However what globalization does is take the best aspects of each and put them on display for the entire world, giving every country’s citizens something to focus on and be proud of. Just as there are a lot of bad aspects of each country, I’m sure there are plenty of bad soccer players in each country as well. But what both professional soccer and globalization have in common is their ability to bring together the best of each country to portray a nation every one of its citizens can be proud of.

Globalization and Americas Response

Globalization has been going on since the 1500s with the European explorations and the rise of global trade. Today not only are goods traded in globalization but also economic, social, political and technological ideas. Globalization has created a platform for nations to influence other nations in various sectors. World leaders like the United States haven been on the forefront of spreading their principals throughout the globe.

            The United States has a great influence in globalization and we see this play out with the economic dependency countries have established through trade and the spreading of cultures through media. But after reading Franklin Foer How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization I agreed with Foer’s conclusion that globalization has created a divide between those in the U.S.  There are those who believe the American culture should be globalized by European ideas and those who believe that globalization will taint the American identity. Globalization can limit the individuality of states because there is pressure from world powers to conform. But I do believe the US is not feeling the pressure to globalize, instead they are pressuring others.

            The idea of globalizing to other nations culture and values is not one that will taint the American culture and poltics. America is based on the melting pot of different ideas, cultures and identities. Foer poses the idea of the divide with the position soccer has in the U.S. According to Foer “aside from Latino immigrants, the professional classes follow the game most avidly and the working class couldn’t give a toss about it.”(Foer) Some believe that soccer is part of the European culture and is not American.

            Soccer is not only part of the European culture but is part of the global culture. The U.S. and maybe a select few other countries do not have soccer as their most popular sport. Most countries have globalized and soccer is a huge part of their sports culture. As a Latina I grew up watching and playing soccer, and I am the exception to the American example that only the professional class cares about soccer. But like most immigrants in this country, soccer is the connection to their native roots. I do not believe that because I favor soccer over Americas past time, baseball, that I am tainting the American culture.  

            Those who are divided on this issue, should understand that the influence of other nations that are not world powers are not always harmful and can have benefits. If the U.S is globalizing other countries with the American culture, why shouldn’t America take away some of the culture concepts of others? Globalization is good on the improvement on all countries despite if you are a world power or not. It allows for a blending of cultures and gives opportunities for economic and technologcal  improvements through trade.

Celebrating Israel in a Globalized World

       The process of globalization is one with many advantages. It allows for the interchange of ideas, products, and world views between many different nations. It also lets these nations communicate with each other in a much easier way. But one of the disadvantages of globalization is that it often discourages individuality within a nation’s culture. Whether it is intentional or not, globalization often results in the spread of western ideas and culture. Many countries around the world have lost their individual culture in favor of a more westernized one. This is what makes the country of Israel so impressive.

       In an age of globalization, Israel has managed to build up their individual culture. The Jewish people were often criticized for failing to have a nation-state, but have formed one in the most difficult of times. Israel was founded as a Jewish state in 1948, and while it does not fit the usual definition of a nation-state, it has the essential elements of one. Not only has Israel built up their cultural identity, they have blended the benefits of globalization within that culture. There is no doubt that Israel is one of the most democratic and free states in the Middle East. They are an incredibly successful democracy, all while maintaining close proximity to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is very impressive that the people of Israel have managed to build such a successful democracy, all while maintaining their individual cultural identity.

       In his book How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, Franklin Foer dedicates an entire chapter to what he calls the “Jewish Question”. He quotes University of Chicago political theorist Mark Lilla, who said, “Once upon a time, the Jews were mocked for not having a nation-state. Now they are criticized for having one” (Foer, 84). Many globalized Europeans cannot understand the concept of Israel as a nation. They do not understand how the people of Israel could be proud to be a nation-state. This is one of the problems with globalization. People who step outside of the bounds of the process are thought of as odd. Others don’t understand why they would be proud to be different. They think that the globalized way is the only way, but Israel is proving that it is not.

       Foer also explains that there is a hint of irony with the Europeans’ misunderstanding of Israel. European soccer clubs like Tottenham and Ajax are thought of as “Jewish” clubs, but still think of the Jews in Israel as outsiders. It’s almost as if globalization brings about resentment of one’s historical past. While this process certainly has its benefits, we can see how some might question some of its results. In this age of constant globalization, we have to celebrate Israel for what it has accomplished.

Source: How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization (Franklin Foer, 2004).

Nuclear Weapons: The Ironic Necessity?

            The arms race has built up drastically within the past half century due to the immense progress in creation of nuclear weapons across the world. As nuclear weapons have become more powerful over the years, having the ability to kill thousands of people and tremendous portions of land at once, some people have become fearful of the threat the weapons may pose to the future of mankind. Some have proposed the idea of a world with complete nuclear disarmament, implying that a “nuclear-free” world would be a safer world. However this plan concerns me and I do not believe it would make us safer, but in fact hurt us and force us to lose all trust for other states, and live in a “nervous world”, as Thomas C. Schelling argues in his article, A world without nuclear weapons?

            In a situation where someone, such as the United Nations, attempted to create some type of system to eliminate all nuclear weapons, I believe it would ultimately eliminate all allies and positive international relationships between states. I completely agree with Schelling's argument in his article, which states that this is because everyone would always be in constant fear that other states secretly had weapons, and they would persistently accuse one another of possessing them, without any way of knowing true facts. Every state would always turn against each other, and the world would very well possibly end in some colossal war due to lack of trust. As Schelling further suggests, “Just as today’s intelligence agencies and their clandestine operators are devoted to discovering the location of terrorist organizations and their leaders, in a non-nuclear world the highest priority would attach to knowing the exact locations and readiness of enemy nuclear mobilization bases.” (127) 

            Though obtaining nuclear weapons may not have been a necessary defensive safety tactic a hundred years ago, they have been created and their existence is inevitable. The safest scenario is to leave the arms race untouched and let those who can obtain nuclear weapons keep them, because assuming all states will act rationally with the proposed movement is not a reliable strategy, since everyone defines ration differently. I often classify myself as a constructivist, and this is a clear example of a topic where I take a quite constructivist stance, as I argue that all state actors have had different experiences and, in this case, different experiences with nuclear weapons, and therefore may all have different ideas of what acting rationally means when it comes to things like atomic bombs.
            This claim I make that relying on states to act rationally is not dependable can be further illustrated by the prisoner’s dilemma, which ultimately suggests that when two criminals are being held captive, they will both “rat” each other out because they will not trust each other because they won’t know what the other will do. Similarly, in a nuclear-free world, all states will essentially constantly be “held captive” of one another, not knowing if the others will secretly obtain nuclear weapons or not, and will lose all trust for each other. Eventually, I believe we would end up in a much less safe place than we are now, for every state would solely be focused on “ratting” each other out, or getting ready to fight. We would live in constant fear, similarly to how people may have felt living during the Cold War during the beginning of the nuclear arms race, or how Israelis and Palestinians live every day not knowing what the other party has planned. But even Schelling admits when describing a nuclear-free world, “I believe that a “responsible” government would make sure that fissile material would be available in an international crisis or war itself. A responsible government must at least assume that other responsible governments will do so.” (126)

            Though a world free of mass destruction may seem utopian, unfortunately nuclear weapons have already been invented and instead of trying to fight against them as a society, we must accept the fact that they have a place in the future of our society. We must focus on sensible negotiation plans to enhance international relations, and focus on re-building international trust. We cannot change the past, but I believe there is hope for the future. 


Work Cited: Schelling, Thomas C. “A World without Nuclear Weapons?” Daedelus 138, no. 4

(2009): p. 124–129. (ELMS)