The Global Community
A political commentator spoke recently of the global community. It was presented as if no one would question its validity, any more than we question whether the Earth is a sphere. They were criticising the President of the United States for undermining the so-called global community with his threats and policies. He may well do, if not, already has done.
My consternation, however, is directed at the phrase global community. What and who were they referring to? Not the world I live in, the one most people live in. It’s a laudable hope, but it is certainly not a reality. Community is based on proximity, relationship, mutual benefit, and love, and we don’t see a lot of the latter being fostered amongst the nations - the ubiquitous global community. Some countries do co-exist in some harmony with one another, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Words are constantly being co-opted for purposes they traditionally weren’t established for. In one sense, this is culturally/sociologically normal as language does change in that which it signifies. But some words appear torn out of context, a context that gives them meaning, and are employed to validate a very different vision. Because a word, commonly known and understood, is used in a new context, it brings with it an authority that is bound up in its meaning. Love, for instance, used to refer to action (what we did for others), then to feelings (how I feel about someone, and oneself), and now to validate whatever we want love to mean (my preference). And you will be heavily censured if you suggest that love is not always love.
In this instance, the inclusive language of global community is naïve and, worse, deceptive. It is children who pray for all nations to get along and become one big happy family, not adults.
What then defines the global community? The fact that nations exist side by side says nothing about community, if community means anything except for an unrealized wish that everyone gets along.
In this regard, the UN is probably the best we can do, and it’s fractious enough. Its value is that it is a means of trying to moderate humankind’s tendency to want to dominate one another via international laws; laws that we hope everyone adheres to. This is never a bad thing if it adds restraint, salted with a little international guilt. But community, not so much. And community is the last word I’d use to describe Chinese, Russian, Islamic, and, it appears, some American expansionism. No community happening amongst these. Aggressive agendas of self-interest, yes, community, hardly.
Maybe the idea of a global community, or regional cooperation (at least), is at heart really about trading. In this case, it isn’t about community – it is about economics, economic growth, and we have seen where the economy as the basis to determine political philosophy has gotten us. Economic growth as a foundation for peace is like giving a bear as a pet to your child – it will bite, sooner or later. Wealth has built-in mechanisms by which nations go to war. When goods are withheld, or oil/gas is turned off, or sanctions imposed, international civility and/or peace treaties fail. After all, war is little more than unrefined acquisition. We will get what we want by means fair or foul.
The idea of global community also comes with the insistence that any form of nationalism must be erased to foster international harmony. What folly. People must be able to celebrate and prefer their differences – not pretend they mean nothing or are somehow, and of necessity, toxic.
Simply, we aren’t a global community, nor anything near one. It is deceptive, short-sighted, and wishful thinking to posit this as a fact when it isn’t feasible.
In the meantime, peace should be sought and valued, pessimism should be rallied against, and a hope for better behavior should be encouraged, because it is possible. But hiding our heads in the sand that the world is a functional global community does not help – one iota.