Does Globalization Erode State Sovereignty? A Perspective in Nationalism Studies

Introduction

Changes in economic structures are often concomitant to changes in political and cultural structures. From Marx’s “historical-materialist dialectic” to the insights provided by Catholic social doctrine, one cannot ignore the interconnectedness between work and culture. The world has, according to Friedman (2005), become “flat”: borders are transcended as the Internet forms a common, global repository of information. Innovation in business and other social spheres is now facilitated internationally and the “global playing field is being flattened,” to use the words of one of Freidman’s Japanese associates.

Hence globalization, defined as a “journey” towards “the globalized world” (Wolf, 2001, p. 178), that is to say, a world which is no longer defined by national borders, is a topic of much controversy. On one hand, it can signify a world where individuals can interact with one another and work together towards progress and innovation (Friedman, 2005); on the other hand, it can also evoke images of a one-world government along with the dethronement of the nation-state as the basic unit in international relations. Terms such as “globalist” have often been used as a catch-all pejorative to refer to those not in favor of protectionist economic policies or strict border control.

The Globalist Dream

The globalist dream, as Wolf (2001) notes, is a world “in which neither distance nor national borders impede economic transactions. This would be a world where the costs of transport and communications were zero and the barriers created by differing national jurisdictions had vanished” (p. 178). This, he admits, is not an attainable dream, but it remains for him one worth striving for nonetheless. He argues that globalization does not destroy states, but in fact, necessitates them. He denies that globalization would impede the state’s ability to “tax, regulate, or intervene” in its economic life (p. 189). Rather, he asserts in no uncertain terms that factors such as the rule of law, sense of belonging, and internal stability within a state are essential to a globalized world order. In other words, a state which can govern itself internally and represent itself externally, i.e. a sovereign state, remains necessary for the success of a globalized order. 

Wolf (2001) seems to treat the State as the basic unit for a globalized world order, and focuses on international trade rather than cultural globalization per se. Habermas (1999), however, also notes that economics is not the only sphere of consideration in this problem. He made mention of cultural and political dynamics which also contribute to the “ongoing erosion of borders”. He also notes the national origins of the modern State, which as this paper will explore is crucial to addressing the issue of whether or not globalization would erode State sovereignty.

The Cultural Origins of Statehood

Statehood for many countries originated in the personification of a ‘nation’ in the person of the King (de Jouvenel, 1949). The ancient order involved a certain dependence on the part of kings to their subordinate lords for the stability of their rule, especially in times of war. The age of absolutism came about when kings undermined the power of the aristocracy by raising commoners to important social positions and solidifying a court personally loyal to him alone. The age of absolutism saw the consolidation of political power into the hands of one monarch, who acted as the sole representative of the people in his realm. After the French Revolution, state actors consolidated even more power by invoking the name of the nation—a personification of the subject population (de Jouvenel, 1949).

Gellner (1983) noted that while the ancient order was replete with local low-cultures and an aristocratic high-culture, the Industrial Revolution meant that provincial men were ‘atomized’ from their locale and brought towards the urban centers. This meant that there was suddenly a need to keep the workforce in check as a cohesive, unified force. The industrial State opted to, in the name of local cultures, impose a ‘high culture’ through the public education system, as a way to bind the workforce to the public authority. Both Anderson (2006) and Deutsch (1962) have noted that trends in industrial society, such as print-capitalism and mass communications, have led to an expansion of the scope of social consciousness amongst ordinary people. 

The consequences of this are twofold. Firstly, the State’s foundations were laid squarely at the nation-concept. Furthermore, the new sense of nationality, as Gellner (1983) notes, replaced local cultures and communities. In some way, this would act as a sort of result of early globalization, something similar to what Friedman (2005) would call “Globalization 1.0” and “Globalization 2.0”. Some political commentators have also noted parallels between globalization and nineteenth century nationalism (Keep, 2022). For this reason, threats to a country’s national identity risk eroding the conceptual, or even political, stability of the State, in a manner similar to how the Industrial Revolution fundamentally changed the dynamics between local cultures and communities vis-a-vis the national culture and state. Hence, one may observe a resurgence of both populist nationalism and state consolidation in the United States along with certain European countries currently undergoing a ‘migrant crisis.’

Conclusion

In conclusion, globalization will have lasting consequences on the internal stability of a state and its sense of cohesion. As Wolf (2001) himself notes, states with a homogeneous population often perform better in a globalized economy due to greater internal cohesion founded on a shared idea of nationality. But globalization also brings forth significant consequences in the economic, cultural and social spheres, which can threaten or damage the internal cohesion of a state. While it is possible for the concept of “state” to adapt to a multinational solution, as was often the case before modernity, such an adaptation would require a drastic and volatile change in the internal composition of a state. This would, in turn, make the erosion of state sovereignty as we know it inevitable, insofar as it compromises the state’s internal stability and the foundations of its legitimacy.

References

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso Press.

Friedman, T. (2005, April 3). It’s a flat world, after all. The New York Times Magazine. 

Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism: new perspectives on the past. Blackwell. 

de Jouvenel, B. (1949). On power: the natural history of its growth. Beacon Press.

Deutsch, K. (1962). Nationalism and social communication. MIT Press.

Habermas, J, (1999). The European nation-state and the pressures of globalization. New Left Review, 0(235), 46-59. 

Keep, F. (2022, April 19). The empire of lies and ‘Filipino’ identity. Pillar of Liberty. 

Wolf, M. (2001). Will the nation-state survive globalization? Foreign Affairs, 80(1), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/20050051