An examination of Catholic identity and Ignatian character in Jesuit ...

An examination

of Catholic identity

and Ignatian character

in Jesuit higher education

FALL 2002

VOLUME 6

NUMBER 1

FALL 2002

VOLUME 6

NUMBER 1

exploreexplore

IN THIS ISSUEIN THIS ISSUE

Letter from the Director 1Globalization and

Localization: New Dilemma for National Culturesby Emile G. McAnany 4

Globalizing the World: Linking Integration and Solidarityby Paul Locatelli, S.J. 12

Reflections of Globalizationby Robert Finocchio 18

Sweatshops in a Global Economyby Patricia Adams 24

Can Globalization Greenthe World? Reflections on Globalization and the Environmentby Leslie C. Gray 28

Globalization and Development: SomePersonal Reflectionsby Michael Kevane 32

The Akbar Project: Ritual Observances and Religious Pluralism in Contemporary Pakistanby David Pinault 36

Call for Grants 43Bannan Grants 44Coming Events

Conference:Globalization as Seen from the Developing World 45Santa Clara Lectures 46Bannan Visitor 46

Next Issue 47

Call for Grants 43Bannan Grants 44Coming Events

Conference:Globalization as Seen from the Developing World 45Santa Clara Lectures 46Bannan Visitor 46

Next Issue 47

Letter from the Director 1Globalization and

Localization: New Dilemma for National Culturesby Emile G. McAnany 4

Globalizing the World: Linking Integration and Solidarityby Paul Locatelli, S.J. 12

Reflections of Globalizationby Robert Finocchio 18

Sweatshops in a Global Economyby Patricia Adams 24

Can Globalization Greenthe World? Reflections on Globalization and the Environmentby Leslie C. Gray 28

Globalization and Development: SomePersonal Reflectionsby Michael Kevane 32

The Akbar Project: Ritual Observances and Religious Pluralism in Contemporary Pakistanby David Pinault 36

BANNAN CENTER FOR JESUIT EDUCATION

3explore FALL 2002

Dear Friends,

Globalization is the word at Santa Clara this year. The wholecampus will be reflecting on the significance of this integrationof the world’s economies and cultures in a year long series of

speakers, courses, and special events in the Institute on Globalization. Weasked some of the key players in this discussion to write for this issue. Inthe spirit of Jesuit education, they raise key questions about this complexprocess: Can this integration be made more humane, or is it beyond human control? Will the newtechnology integrate the world or divide it in mutual suspicion? Will the wealth that it generates go toonly a few or will all people benefit from it?

An internationally known scholar in thefield of communications, SCU’s Emile G.McAnany, examines the global impact oftelevision. As international broadcastingemerges, will local cultures generate theirown programming or will they view onlywhat the wealthy countries produce? PaulLocatelli, S.J., asks how this world-spanningintegration of economies and culture can create moral solidarity among peoples, particularly the threebillion who have so far missed out on its prosperity. Robert Finocchio, Santa Clara trustee and Dean’sExecutive Professor of Management, draws on his extensive experience in international business to chartthe promise of globalization as the best way to alleviate poverty. Patricia Adams ’02 examines the issueof sweatshop labor, which she and other members of Santa Clara Community Action Program havebeen actively engaged in. Leslie Gray, from political science and environmental studies, describes theimpact of globalization on the environment and the constructive role of non-governmental organiza-tions. Michael Kevane, from economics, gives us an “on the ground” report of how the process affectshis village friends in Burkina-Faso, one of the world’s poorest countries. Finally, David Pinault ofreligious studies reports on his trip to the Muslim communities of Lahore, Pakistan, in the aftermath ofthe 9/11 attacks.

In Sept. 2002, Fr. Locatelli and Bob Finocchio and I went on SCU’s annual faculty/staff trip to ElSalvador. We saw a microcosm of globalization’s impact: campesinos whose coffee no longer competesin the world market leaving their plots to work in factories set up by international corporations; churchleaders and politicians who either heralded or feared the process. Can globalization get a human face?Read on and join the conversation.

William C. SpohnDirector

3

LETTER FROM THE CENTER DIRECTOR

William C. Spohn

In the spirit of Jesuit education, this issue’scontributors raise key questions about the

complex process of globalization: Will the newtechnology integrate the world or divide it in

mutual suspicion? Will the wealth that it generates go to only a few orwill all people benefit from it?

4 BANNAN CENTER FOR JESUIT EDUCATION

Globalization and

Localization: New Dilemma for National Cultures

BY E M I L E G . M c A N A N Y

Walter Schmidt Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University

5explore FALL 2002

INTRODUCTION1

Arjun Appadurai some years ago arguedthat globalization posed a series of dis-junctures among what he identified as

five fundamental aspects of this process.2 Thesewere defined as flows, indicating a dynamic andever-changing system of connections amongpeople, technologies, finance, media, and ideolo-gies. His argument was that these flows weremore complex, unpredictable, and difficult totheorize than previous explanations of globaliza-tion had understood. His conclusion was thatalthough all of the flows were intimately related,nevertheless, there was more disjuncture andcontradiction to the process than the Enlighten-ment clarity of preceding theories had proposed.Many of these theories argued for trends towardhomogenization of culture and domination ofeconomies by capitalism that Appadurai thoughtwere overly simplistic and lacking in nuance.Rather, he called for a more postmodern thinkingabout globalization that would grant the disjunc-tures and play up the differences while recogniz-ing some trends toward a greater interconnected-ness of people around the world.

In this essay, I begin with the recognition ofcomplexity and even contradiction in theprocess, but I will attempt to make some senseout of the process by concentrating on only threeof Appadurai’s five flows or scapes as he calls them:mediascapes (flows of mediated messages),technoscapes (flows of technologies to carry thosemessages) and ideoscapes (ideas that are con-tained in the messages and whose impacts onpeople are often at the heart of the cultural con-troversies over globalization). I will argue thatthe process of globalization is not as thoroughlyhaphazard as Appadurai seems to posit but thatthere are some clear trends in the growth of globalcommunications that have a logic and a strategythat can be identified.

IS THE WORLD MORE CONNECTED TODAY?

We are all aware of how mediatedcommunication, especially electronicmedia like telephony, radio, film,

television, and the Internet, have made the worlda smaller place. Historically, we have knownglobalization in mostly military, political, andeconomic forms, from the Roman empire to thecolonial empires of the 16th through the 19th

centuries, and all of these encompassed commu-nication as a basic form of governance and con-trol.3 Yet it is only in the last century that peopleall over the world have been incorporated into asystem of mostly one-way communication that isunprecedented in history. It is not only that theelectronic media have made messages more uni-versally available, but the diffusion of these mes-sages has been potentiated in the last forty yearsby a series of sophisticated technologies. Televi-sion, for example, has become less a land-basedmedium with limited geographical ranges aroundmajor cities and more a deterritorialized, satellite-based medium that can reach a third of the earth’ssurface with its signals. Add to satellites a digitalcapability and you have a distribution system thatcan carry the Internet medium as well. Thus, themedia and their changing distribution technolo-gies have transformed global communicationinto a more common experience for most of theworld’s populations today.

What these changes mean for peoples’ livesinvolves the third element identified by Appadu-rai in his globalization model, the flow of ideasand ideologies. We may consider the ideas or ide-ologies as content plus impacts on people whoare exposed to the messages that the media andtheir distribution technologies bring. There maybe disagreement as to whether content can beequated with ideology in this context, but for thesake of brevity, I will use content to include not


Television, for example, has become less a land-based medium with limited geo-graphical ranges around major cities and more a deterritorialized, satellite-basedmedium that can reach a third of the earth’s surface with its signals. Add to satellitesa digital capability and you have a distribution system that can carry the Internetmedium as well. Thus, the media and their changing distributiontechnologies have transformed global communication into a morecommon experience for most of the world’s populations today.

only the information contained in the messagesbut the intentions of the senders who approachaudiences who must interpret and perhaps actupon the messages. In short, there are conse-quences for people and their cultures in receivingthese mediated messages.

The diffusion of media and their messages is dra-matic and unique, and it is this difference histor-ically that makes recent globalization distinctfrom previous historical experiences and, there-fore, the ideological aspects more troubling. It isimpossible to describe in detail this process ofmediated message diffusion over the past century,but it helps to remind ourselves that the creationand diffusion of telephones, movies, radio, televi-sion, and the Internet are all the inventions ofabout 100 years. To take an example, the diffu-sion of television is not only indicative of thistransformation of peoples’ daily lives, but its cen-trality in many societies has made it more impor-tant in some senses than other media innovationsof the 20th century. Television began as a massmedium only in the 1950s when it created anational audience in the United States. It reachedsignificant audiences in Europe and elsewhereover the next three decades. In the last twentyyears, however, it has added millions, even bil-lions, of regular viewers. China, for example, hadonly 19 million television sets in 1980, but sev-

enteen years later in 1997 it had 400 millionsets,4 making it an almost universal medium forthe 1.25 billion viewers in that country. Indiahad 3 million television sets in 1980 but 63 mil-lion by 1997, a more than twenty-fold increase inthose years for its almost 1 billion people.5 Icould cite other dramatic increases in the spreadof television, but China and India are representa-tive of the huge numbers of people incorporatedinto this global mediascape in the last decades ofthe 20th century. The consequence is that todaya medium like television has become a criticallink in the global communication system, linkingpeople together in an unprecedented way.

SATELLITES AS THE GLOBAL SUPERNETWORK

Incorporation of a medium such as televisioninto a national system does not mean thatIndians and Chinese have access to only local

content (that distinction goes to radio which hasremained basically a local medium6). In the lastdecade of the 20th century, communicationsatellites have become the most compelling sym-bol of the increasingly interconnected world, car-rying not only global advertising but bringingglobal popular culture into the homes of audi-ences around the world. To illustrate how satel-

7explore FALL 2002

lites have impacted globalization, let us reflect onthe experience of India. In late 1991 a major steptoward the globalization of television took place.A Hong Kong-based company launched a refur-bished C-band satellite with a signal that couldcarry its five television channels to the approxi-mately 2.6 billion people in Asia. The owners’intention was to reach at least the wealthiest fivepercent of this vast audience who could afford tocapture its open broadcast signal—and buy theconsumer goods offered by its global corporateadvertisers. Star TV immediately caused a stirthroughout the region.7

THE HISTORY BEHIND THE LAUNCH

Despite the best intentions of its owners,Star TV was not an immediate eco-nomic success. What was important

about its launch, however, was that it challengedlegal and cultural barriers that had kept satellitetelevision from expanding beyond nationalboundaries for more than two decades. In prac-tice, although certain programs like the OlympicGames and World Cup soccer had been regularlycarried by international satellites since the 1960sto global audiences, any signal reaching a givencountry’s population had to be approved bynational telecommunication authorities whopulled the signal down and redistributed it overnational terrestrial systems. What Star had donewas to send out television programming on a reg-ular basis to potential audiences in countries whohad not asked for or authorized its reception. Forindividuals or middle class communities whocould afford a relatively cheap antenna dish (aslittle as $400), the five channels could be cap-

tured for home viewing. To fully understand thepolitical and cultural impact of the launch of StarTV, we need to return to two decades before thisevent.

The first communication satellite to operate on acommercial basis was Early Bird, which hadbegun with a historic television broadcast in1965 between Europe and the United States.Some would even date the beginning of the era ofglobalization from that moment, although EarlyBird and subsequent satellites of the Intelsat sys-tem were mainly used for telephony and datatransmission. The USSR quickly followed withits own Sputnik system that connected the social-ist countries, again chiefly through telephony anddata transmission. At that time in the Cold War,the U.S. and USSR competed intensely over thedevelopment of satellite technology, includingpowerful spy satellites. But the USSR and someother members of the United Nations in the late1960s were beginning to worry about anotherissue. By this time television had been broadlydiffused in many Western countries and even toa great extent in the USSR. The video tape tech-nology (developed in California in the early1960s) had made the export of television pro-grams to other countries feasible and, in thethinking of the USSR, posed an ideological andcultural threat to the Socialist bloc as well as tothe Third World. In 1968 when satellites carriedthe Olympic Games from Mexico for the firsttime to the entire world, some nations becamealarmed at the prospect of a future when Holly-wood programs might arrive uninvited into thehomes of audiences around the world. A littlemore than two decades later, Star TV broughtthat threat to reality. By then, however, the worldhad changed and the USSR was history.

Despite the best intentions of its owners, Star TV was not an immediate eco-nomic success. What was important about its launch, however, was that itchallenged legal and cultural barriers that had kept satellite television fromexpanding beyond national boundaries for more than two decades. In prac-tice, although certain programs like the Olympic Games and World Cup soccer had been reg-ularly carried by international satellites since the 1960s to global audiences, any signal reachinga given country’s population had to be approved by national telecommunication authoritieswho pulled the signal down and redistributed it over national terrestrial systems.


The history of the debate in the United Nations,however, illustrates something about the develop-ment of globalization as an attitude among politi-cians and world audiences. The USSR at the endof the 1960s sensed that a Direct-to-Home(DTH) satellite technology would spell ideologi-cal trouble for socialist countries. Even thoughthe technology itself was years away from com-mercial development, the USSR was proposing amoratorium on further steps toward DTH unlessUN members agreed on an international treaty tocontrol the development and deployment ofdirect broadcast satellite technology. The U.S.and its allies wanted no limits on the furtherdevelopment of satellite technology, but when itcame to concerns about television signals beingcarried by satellites beyond a country’s border,even European countries had second thoughts. Ina crucial vote at the UN, the U.S. lost by anunprecedented margin of 101 to 1.8 The upshotof the debates in the early 1970s over satellitetelevision was never a clear victory for either side.Although no formal agreement was created by theUN, member nations accepted the internationalpractice of gaining permission of other nations tobroadcast within their borders. That is, until StarTV was launched and simply ignored the priortwenty years of international legal practice.

Satellites had become increasingly important totelevision during these two decades. They hadbeen a key to the innovation in cable television inthe U.S. when Ted Turner had used existing com-munication satellites in 1975 to create his cableempire and begin to make cable competitive withthe networks, first with his TBS super channeland later in 1980 with Cable News Network(CNN). His use of satellites for this 24-hournews service inadvertently began to carry CNN’sunscrambled signals to audiences in theCaribbean and Mexico because of satellitespillover. By the mid-1980s Turner began toexploit this technological accident and createdagreements with governments around the worldto receive CNN news (an early customer ironi-cally was the USSR). By the time of the 1990Gulf War, CNN had a major advantage inreporting the conflict not only to U.S. but toglobal audiences. Many date the globalization oftelevision news from the time of that conflict.

Also by the late 1980s Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp. had launched a satellite system intendedsolely for the distribution of television programswithin the European Union, which had clearedthe way legally for such an adventure. So by thetime of the launch of Star in 1991, much hadchanged for policy makers concerned aboutpolitical and cultural sovereignty and satellitetelevision, but even more was about to change forglobalizing the television system.

A NEW CULTURAL STRATEGY FOR GLOBAL TELEVISION

The old strategy of exporting U.S. popularculture already created for its own audi-ences was the governing wisdom in 1991

and Star TV’s originators assumed that it wouldwork for them as it had for Hollywood for morethan 60 years. It had been assumed by Star’s man-agement that the elite five percent in all Asiancountries would be strongly attracted to Holly-wood products and would prefer these to theones offered in its own language. Second, it wasassumed that English would be widely spoken bythese elite audiences and no dubbing of the fourEnglish language channels was called for. Third,the elite would buy the international productsadvertised and eventually would be willing to paya fee for these premium channels. Finally, mostAsian governments in the post-Cold War erawould not restrict satellite dish ownership. All ofthese assumptions proved wrong. But before allof this became entirely clear, Rupert Murdochhad purchased Star TV from its original ownersin 1993 for $950 million and proceeded to putmillions into making the Asian satellite a key partof his global television empire. This strategy con-sists of not only owning the products or contentof television and film media but of controllingthe distribution systems as well, in this case aglobal network of satellites. It has taken Murdocheight years and approximately $650 million morein losses and investments to turn around hisAsian satellite television business to what hehopes is finally a winning strategy.9

The strategy is an important turning point in theglobalization of television. Murdoch’s current

9explore FALL 2002

approach turns on its head the former thinkingabout pushing Hollywood exports to global audi-ences. Unlike the assumptions of Star’s originalowners, Murdoch now believes in producingmore local programming. It is not that Murdochhas suddenly accepted the thinking behind thecultural imperialism arguments that had been atwork in the debates of the 1970s and 1980s.Rather Murdoch recognizes that in order to pen-etrate the mega markets of Asia such as China,India, and Indonesia, he needs to appeal to theinterests of national audiences in language- andculture-appropriate programs. Warmed over anddubbed over Hollywood product cannot attractthe kinds of numbers he needs to succeed eco-nomically.

The longer-term strategy of Murdoch containssome important lessons about how global corpo-rations operate successfully as both global andlocal actors. To examine this, we can look at howStar TV went from being an outsider in India in1991 when it arrived uninvited to some primitivecable systems to producing 40 of the top rated 50locally made television shows in India at the endof 2001.10 We can examine briefly some of theimportant practices of Murdoch’s new strategy tobetter understand how globalization works in thiscase. First, historically, Star’s satellite signalshelped to transform India’s primitive cable systeminto its primary urban distribution system with

multiple channels for millions of viewers. Later,Star was allowed to compete on the ground withother commercial television companies, bothlocal and foreign. Clearly, Doordarshan, the orig-inal government monopoly, had already begun totransform India’s television into a commercialsystem with the aid of its own national satellite,but Star was the critical foot in the door to setthis transformation onto a more global level. Itcan be argued that without Star, Indian televisionmight have remained a state monopoly withmuch less commercialization and far fewer pro-gramming channels.

Second, the business of making and marketingtelevision products was greatly influenced by thepractices of global companies like Star TV, AOLTime Warner, and Disney. Geetika Patania, anIndian scholar, mentions many of the Westernbusiness practices that were introduced into theIndian environment within the first three years ofglobal television companies’ presence: “bundling”of programs and even of cable channels, changinglocal tastes in programming to suit globalstandards, promoting global brands in advertis-ing and adapting U.S. formats like Wheel ofFortune or Who Wants to be a Millionaire toIndian contexts.11

Third, Star and other global firms as well as theirnational competitors seek the same narrow audi-

What is the future of satellite-based television and how might it affectthe global and local mix of content for local audiences? One of thefactors that is key to understanding globalization is the sheer size of the top five or tenglobal entertainment and information companies. In the past ten years or so the U.S.and to a lesser extent Europe have all experienced the growth of huge global companieslike AOL Time Warner, Disney, News Corp., Viacom, Vivendi, Bertlesmann, and a fewothers. Among these, there are a few such as News Corp. and AOL Time Warner thatcontrol distribution systems (satellites, cable, and increasingly the Internet) as well ascontent.


ence of middle- and upper-class viewers to setthe norm for program popularity since it is thisaudience that can afford the consumer productsadvertised and to whom program creators directtheir programs. Additionally, the ultimate strategyfor Star is an audience that will pay more fortelevision service, either on a premium cablechannel basis or in a DTH system. The strategyof “windowing” or reselling a number of times asingle film or television program is part of thegeneration of maximum revenue that globalcompanies seek and a practice introduced intoIndia by Star. Global companies seek those whocan afford to pay extra to see films or televisionprograms and eventually separate them out fromthe broad mass audience.

Fourth, the “language of advantage” strategy thatStar has pursued since 1993 targets large lan-guage groups like speakers of Chinese, Hindi,and Indonesian and programs in those languages.This has implications for India and elsewhere inthis satellite age. It means that the large culturallinguistic groups will get programming aimed atthem (or at least their consumer elite) while thosefrom smaller cultural and linguistic groups willnot be served by global companies.

Fifth, a critical strategic factor for Star and otherglobal companies is that they have deep pocketsthat permit them to invest large amounts ofcapital to make sure their strategies succeed inthe long term. They can outspend their nationalcompetitors and can afford to wait longerfor success. Few other companies and certainlyno other national ones in India could haveafforded to make the investment of hundred ofmillions of dollars that Star has made sinceits purchase in 1993. The power to succeedbecomes more difficult for smaller local compa-nies when they are in competition with hugeglobal corporations.

CONCLUSION: FUTURE OF AGLOBAL TELEVISION SYSTEM

The basic lesson of television in India isthat when global companies competewith national companies, the global

often win. In the analysis of program productionand business strategies, I have used Star TV inIndia as an example that has applications to othercontexts. I recognize that India is a unique caseand its experience cannot easily be generalizedbeyond its historical circumstances, but I wouldpropose that global companies like Star TV havesimilar strategies and goals in the many otherlocales in which they work. On the broadest levelthere is no one who does not recognize the vastchanges in the production of television culturethat have taken place in India since 1991. Indiantelevision has been totally transformed in the pastnineteen years since the launch of their nationalsatellite, but the speed and, I would argue, thedirection of that transformation has been affect-ed by the first arrival of Star TV’s satellite signalsand even more so by the presence of Star as amarket leader in Indian television today.

We can ask the question we began with onceagain: What is the future of satellite-based televi-sion and how might it affect the global and localmix of content for local audiences? One of thefactors that is key to understanding globalizationis the sheer size of the top five or ten global enter-tainment and information companies. In the pastten years or so the U.S. and to a lesser extentEurope have all experienced the growth of hugeglobal companies like AOL Time Warner, Dis-ney, News Corp., Viacom, Vivendi, Bertlesmann,and a few others. Among these, there are a fewsuch as News Corp. and AOL Time Warner thatcontrol distribution systems (satellites, cable, andincreasingly the Internet) as well as content.Some have speculated in the past that the trend

Ironically, the challenge for many countries is how to best compete for theirown domestic market with global companies.The struggle is not only economic butcultural. It asks the question: who should be responsible for creating the content for a culturaland political dialogue with a given audience through one of the most powerful mediumsavailable for reaching people?

11explore FALL 2002

toward concentration would lead to just a fewcompanies that would control much of our infor-mation and entertainment content that audi-ences receive12 and that trend has continued andpromises to continue into the future.13

Size is only one aspect of this phenomenon. Asothers have pointed out, there is a certain kind oftreatment of content that is also critical. Local ornational interests do not and cannot dominatethe thinking of global players whose concern isprimarily economic and not political or cultural.The economics of dominance of global film andtelevision companies in the past has favoreddirectly exporting content that they have pro-duced elsewhere (often in the U.S.) to nationalsystems as an important secondary source fornational programming, as the evidence fromEurope, for example, has shown.14 The case ofIndia shows a new strategy for globalization ofmedia production and distribution: a global cor-poration localizing content and becoming theprimary source for national audiences as Star TVhas done recently. Ironically, the challenge for

E N D N OT E S

1 Parts of this article are taken from a longer paper: “Global-ization and Satellite Television: New Technology and CulturalDominance,” given at the Conference on International Rela-tions and Cultural Communication, Beijing BroadcastingInstitute, Beijing, April 14-15, 2002.

2 Arjun Appadurai. “Disjuncture and Difference in theGlobal Cultural Economy.” In Mike Featherstone (ed.).Global Culture, Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity(New York: Sage Publications, 1990).

3 The Canadian economist Harold Innis argued that theRoman Empire had a critical interest in communicating withits conquered subjects, but he pointed out that each kind ofcommunication medium (whether it be roads, a mail system,or forms of writing) contained biases that had political andeconomic consequences. See his Empire and Communication(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950) and The Bias of Communica-tion (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1951).

4 Unesco Statistical Yearbook 2000 (New York: 2000).

5 Ibid.

6 Because of satellites, even radio is beginning to lose its localflavor in the U.S. “All the great things about radio, includingidentity and community, are being devalued [by satelliteradio].” Edna Gundersen. Article in U.S.A Today (June 5,2002).

7 Margaret Scott. “News from Nowhere.” Far Eastern Eco-nomic Review (Nov. 28, 1991), 32-34.

8 Paul Laskin and Abraham Chayes. “A Brief History of theIssues.” In Russell Wills (ed) Control of the Direct BroadcastSatellite: Values in Conflict. (Palo Alto: Aspen Institute Programin Communication and Society, 1974). Also, Emile McAnany.“Reflections on the International Flow of Information.” Ibid.

9 Mary Hyland, “Star Turns for Young Murdoch.” AustralianFinancial Review, Jan. 23, 2002.

10 Ibid.

11 Geetika Patania. When Global Companies Localize: AdaptiveStrategies of Media Companies Entering India. (Austin: Univer-sity of Texas, PhD dissertation, 1998).

12 Ben Bagdikian. The Media Monopoly. (Boston: BeaconPress, 2000, 6th edition). Edward Herman and RobertMcChesney. The Global Media: The New Missionaries ofCorporate Capitalism. (London: Cassell, 1997).

13 M. Wolf. “Media Mergers: The Wave Rolls On.” Wall StreetJournal, Feb. 2, 2002, 6.

14 Else de Bens and H. de Smaele. “The Inflow of AmericanTelevision Fiction on European Broadcast Channels Revisited.”European Journal of Communication. 16 (2001), 51-67.

many countries is how to best compete for theirown domestic market with global companies. Thestruggle is not only economic but cultural. It asksthe question: who should be responsible for cre-ating the content for a cultural and political dia-logue with a given audience through one of themost powerful mediums available for reachingpeople? The answer in this debate is in the handsof both policy makers and audiences in eachcountry, but the dialectic of local versus global isbeing redefined by outside forces as the discussioncontinues.

By Emile G. McAnanyWalter Schmidt Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University


G lobalization has emerged as the major ethical issue of this new century. Eventhough globalization means different things to different people, at this point inhistory it has captured the attention of people across the spectrum: investors and

corporate executives, workers and environmentalists, politicians and educators, nations andpeople in every walk of life. The ethical question is whether the process of global integra-tion can be guided to make the planet a more humane place.

World leaders have been calling attention to this process for some time now. When PopeJohn XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council in 1962, he spoke of God “guiding ustoward a new order of human relationship.” At the beginning of the 1990s, PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush called for “a new world order.” Recently, Kofi Annan urged: “If glob-alization is to succeed, it must succeed for poor and rich alike. It must deliver rights no lessthan riches. It must provide social justice and equity no less than economic prosperity andenhanced communication....”

PA U L LO C AT E L L I , S . J .

President, Santa Clara University

Globalizing the World:

Linking Integration and Solidarity

13explore FALL 2002

In discussions of globalization the term “integration” is emerging to describe thesocial and institutional infrastructure that supports world-wide interconnection.

The December 2001 World Bank report, “Globalization, Growth, and Poverty:Building an Inclusive World Economy,” opens with the statement that “societiesand economies around the world are becoming more integrated.” The reportmakes integration virtually synonymous with globalization. The World Bank’srecipe for improving societies and overcoming grinding poverty is “global eco-nomic integration.”

In Aspen, Colo., at the Fortune editors’ invitational Brainstorm 2002, PresidentClinton foresaw integration as critical for broad institutional cooperation in thatthe process of globalizing requires new structures of cooperation among nationstates to achieve international security against terrorism, help developing coun-tries move toward liberal democracy, encourage wealthy countries to initiate anew Marshall Plan to eradicate poverty and curb the AIDS epidemic, and addressenvironmental issues and economic development.

In a speech at Santa Clara University to educators from the 28 American Jesuitcolleges and universities, Father Peter Hans-Kolvenbach, S.J., the Superior Gen-eral of the Society of Jesus, used an even more comprehensive concept than inte-gration. “The whole person of solidarity in the real world”1 is now the new goal

for Jesuit education. Solidarity recognizes a moral ecosystem that binds each per-son to all of creation and humanity in the global common good. Solidarity is anactive disposition, a readiness to support all who make up this moral ecosystem.

Integration, the new institutional connectedness, and solidarity, the new personalconnectedness, require fresh thinking about the 21st century world. First, inorder to make the process of globalization more humane, we have to make con-nections that we used to ignore. Economic and political policies have to includeexplicit attention to ethical and civic responsibility. Market capitalism dependsless on democratic elections than on stable legal systems and widespread accessto education. The issues are too complex and symbiotic to be grasped in theperspective of a single economic or political system or academic discipline.

Second, our vision of the world must be global in its reach and at the same timerespectful of local cultures. Globalization should not mean standardization of cul-ture. Our private vision of the world can unconsciously place us at the center andmake the rest of the world subordinate to our interests and ways of doing things.This temptation is hard to resist for those who have great power and wealth, buttoday no perspective is adequate that is blind to the poverty, disease, and socialand economic instability that plague the people of developing countries nor to

The justice that is based on the biblical tradition of love sees people first andforemost not as individuals but as members of a community. Justice grows outof appreciating the dignity of all who make up this community. Society is not an aggregate ofcompeting individuals but a community brought into existence by God that seeks to preserveand deepen the bonds among its members by establishing just institutions and social structures.


the plight of the hungry, homeless, and disenfranchised in the United States. Inthe global moral ecosystem, their problems are our problems.

Third, globalization demands a new kind of justice. Jesuit education is grounded ina faith commitment that all God’s children are equally valuable brothers and sisters.Our teaching and research have to give intellectual grounding to that compassionby finding ways to learn from those whose lives are at risk around the world.

Although the language of solidarity is recent, it is rooted in the biblical commandto love one’s neighbor and was made more explicit by the Second Vatican Coun-cil. The Council called upon church members to make their own “the joys andhopes, the griefs and anxieties of the people of this age, especially those who arepoor or in any way afflicted.” It went on to say that the community of faith offers“no more eloquent proof of its solidarity with the entire human family....thanby engaging with it in conversation about these various problems...of hunger,poverty, illiteracy, oppression, war, international rivalries, and the whole purposeand meaning of human existence.”2

The Hebrew and Christian scriptures call for this vision because they teach thevery radical notion that justice is ultimately founded on a genuine love—on a lovethat brings harmony among people and nations. As Roberto Goizueta writes, “Inorder to truly serve the neighbor, that love must be born out of an identificationor solidarity with the neighbor in his or her joys, suffering, and struggles.”3

In this vision, justice is not based primarily on inalienable rights, even though eachperson has irreducible dignity as created by the hand of God. Furthermore, justice isnot based ultimately on self-interest—the position of John Rawls, the most widelyrecognized American social philosopher. Rawls presents a version of social con-tract theory in which the original members of society freely agree to certain socialconditions. In this hypothetical situation, all the parties, not knowing what theirposition in society will be, protect their self-interest by consenting to structuresof society that will not unduly penalize them and will give preference to those ingreatest need. Citizens agree to enough restrictions on their liberty to maintain aminimum of social equality.

For Rawls, the original condition of humanity is like a mildly regulated market, acompetition of fairminded strangers, rather than a community. If you start fromself-interest, however, you get a very different notion of justice than if you startfrom that love of neighbor which is discovered in the search for the common good.

The justice that is based on the biblical tradition of love sees people first andforemost not as individuals but as members of a community. Justice grows out ofappreciating the dignity of all who make up this community. Society is not anaggregate of competing individuals but a community brought into existenceby God that seeks to preserve and deepen the bonds among its members byestablishing just institutions and social structures.

Justice, therefore, is not restricted to fairness or the minimum protection neededto preserve our property and rights from the threat of others. Justice is the waythat love is shared, even with people we do not know but with whom we sharethe common life of society.

15explore FALL 2002

If justice is seen primarily as a means to defend my interests, getting from justiceto solidarity will be a long journey indeed. If, however, justice is generous lovebringing about the institutional means for a new order of human relations,the journey from justice to solidarity is only a short step. Solidarity reveals thelove that is the foundation of justice by affirming that justice arises from anempathetic identification with others in society. Solidarity turns love into anactive compassion, insists on the virtue of human interdependence, and finds itsopposite in the indifference or fear that excludes others from participating in thecommon good of society. Living in solidarity, therefore, is as the ancient prophetMicah urged, to “love and act justly.”

For Father Kolvenbach, solidarity is the virtue that links us to “the real world.” Itis not a private feeling of empathy or friendship with people who are just like me,but a perspective that identifies with the whole world—from the chair of theboard to the suffering mother in Rwanda or hungry child in East San Jose, fromnature all around us to humanity in all its promise and tragedy.

Since compassionate justice has such an enormous scope, we have to rethink thenotion of the common good. How do we get people to recognize that we are allin this together? The events of September 11 forced Americans and the rest of theworld to realize for better or worse that we are connected. Around the worldpeople responded to the attack and its aftermath with an outpouring of grief andsympathy. Their concerns were based not only on our common vulnerability butalso on a genuine empathy for the thousands of innocent people who were killedin order to make an ideological point. It was a time of strengthening the fabricthat holds us together as a human community.

Education in solidarity cannot be an abstract process, but must be generated byactual contact with people and regions different from ourselves. The great moralfigures of history have expanded the concept of the common good to include allcreation, acknowledging that if anyone or anything is diminished, they them-selves are diminished. In light of this, sociologist Saskia Sassen contrasts theglobal north that experienced a decade of unprecedented peace and prosperitywith the global south that experienced a decade of increasing indebtedness andunemployment along with deteriorating health, social services, and infrastruc-ture. Recognizing that such a continuing deterioration is not conducive toglobal solidarity, she insists that the scope of the common good is global: “No

The logic of global capitalism and the demands of justiceclash when we hear that the net worth of the world’s richest200 individuals exceeds that of the world's poorest 2.5 billionpeople. It also clashes when we realize that 82 million of the 83 millionpeople added to the world population each year are born into poverty.


matter how far away geographically, we in the rich countries can no longer fullyescape or ignore poverty, wars, and disease in the global south...”4

Renowned economists, including Dani Rodrik, Jeffrey Sacks, Amartya Sen, andJoseph Stiglitz, recognize the need for global solidarity, arguing for modificationsto the market system that would promote the common good. Perhaps not quiteemploying “love of neighbor” as the basic assumption, these economists nonethe-less advocate global integration of economic policies and political intervention,social and civic stability, cultural and environmental preservation, and ethicalprinciples. They are deeply concerned about the millions of people who areusually ignored in discussions of globalization, and they propose economic devel-opment policies that seek to make globalization more humane and just.

Some questions to consider for making globalization more humane and just:

1. How do we develop an ethics of globalization? As Bryan Hehir has said, theproblem with globalization is that it has a logic (principally economic logic) butnot an ethic. Consider the debate over the findings of the World Bank reportwhich concludes that globalization helped reduce poverty in the poorest coun-tries when they were most integrated into the world economy. While the reportclaims global inequality has declined since 1975, others cite empirical evidence aswell as the World Bank’s own data to draw the opposite conclusion. Regardless ofhow that debate turns out, the logic of global capitalism and the demands of jus-tice clash when we hear that the net worth of the world’s richest 200 individualsexceeds that of the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people. It also clashes when we real-ize that 82 million of the 83 million people added to the world population eachyear are born into poverty. What economic policies will begin to actually solvethese kinds of problems when it is self-evident that neither “free” market funda-mentalism nor anti-globalization anarchism has the answers?

2. How do we achieve global integration with justice when so much of theworld’s population has no access to learning technologies and minimal oppor-tunity for education? Access to technology and education is critical for achievingglobal integration and solidarity. Yet, the facts are glaring: less than 1 percent of

What do we do to preserve the fragile environmentand prevent global warming that is jeopardizingour planet and humanity itself? As Vinod Thomas andTamara Belt argue: “In the main, the experience of rapidly grow-ing countries has been to grow first and clean up later. However,this neglect of the environment has resulted in irreversible lossesand high cleanup costs.” An American uses seventy times asmuch energy as a Bangladeshi, and twenty times as much as aCosta Rican.

17explore FALL 2002

Africans have used the Internet and there are more telephones in Tokyo than inall of Africa. Forty percent of Latin Americans cannot read or write, and only asmall percentage of them consider the Internet for cultural and educational pur-poses. The educational deficit is compounded by gender inequity: 70 percent ofthe world's 1.3 billion poor are women.5 Improved literacy for the poor, guar-anteed human and civil rights for women, and access to learning technologiesand education are the best, perhaps the only, path to global integration. Has thereever been a genuine democracy in a population that could not read or write? Whowill take responsibilities for the policies and allocating resources to expand bothlearning technologies and educational opportunities to those currently left out?

3. What do we do to preserve the fragile environment and prevent global warn-ing that is jeopardizing our planet and humanity itself? As Vinod Thomas andTamara Belt argue: “In the main, the experience of rapidly growing countries hasbeen to grow first and clean up later. However, this neglect of the environmenthas resulted in irreversible losses and high cleanup costs.”6 An American uses sev-enty times as much energy as a Bangladeshi, and twenty times as much as a CostaRican. During the next decade it is estimated that India and China will each addabout ten times as many people as the United States to the planet. As these twocountries become more globalized, it is expected that their demand for energyand neglect of the environment will put great stress on the global ecosystem andcut a deep hole in the ozone layer, contributing to global warming. Will thenations of the world ever be able to effect or enforce global cooperation throughinstruments like the Kyoto agreement?

To solve these and the many other difficult questions in a humane way, we needmore than simply discussion among the experts. What is needed is a dialoguewhere the G8 leaders, economists, and business leaders sit at the same table withthe people who will be affected by the decisions. Women working in Malaysianfactories and Mayans growing coffee in the highlands of Guatemala have to par-ticipate. If we think of globalization as a matter of “winners” and “losers,” theseproblems will be intractable. But if experts have direct contact with those who bearthe burdens of their policies, it may engender that solidarity, that sense of radicalhuman connection, which will be the basis of a humane globalization.

E N D N OT E S

1 Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J. “The Service of Faith and the Promotion of Justice in American JesuitHigher Education,” The Santa Clara Lectures (October 6, 2000), 10.

2 “Gaudium et Spes, #1,” in Documents of the Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., ed. (New York:Herder and Herder, 1966).

3 Michael Downey, ed. The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,1994), 906.

4 Saskia Sassen. “Globalization After September 11.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 18,2002).

5 Data from “2000 State of the Future—At the Millennium.” (American Council for The UnitedNations University), 20, 21.

6 Vinod Thomas and Tamara Belt. “Growth and the Environment: Allies or Foes?” Globalization andthe Challenges of a New Century, Patrick O'Meara et al., ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,2000), 382.

Paul Locatelli, S.J.President,Santa Clara University


BY R O B E R T F I N O C C H I O

Dean’s Executive Professor of Management, Santa Clara University

Reflectionsof

Globalization

19explore FALL 2002

As a businessperson and unapolo-getic practitioner of globalization,educated in the Jesuit tradition ofSanta Clara University, I share thedeep concerns for poverty, oppres-

sion, threatened cultures, and the environmentexpressed by globalization critics. Nevertheless, Iam perplexed and frustrated by much of thecurrent debate.

Let me begin by asserting that globalization isinevitable. There is no technology that can ulti-mately prevent the free flow of ideas and infor-mation across borders. Satellite television andradio, the Internet, fax machines, and cell phoneshave allowed contemporaneous, uncensoredglobal communication. Modern informationtechnology has effectively enabled and greatlyaccommodated the free flow of capital amongnations. Only fortified borders and large armiescan control the flow of people. Modern trans-portation has rendered historical geographicbarriers nearly irrelevant. There has been asignificant trend toward reduction of tradebarriers.

Global society has evolved beyond the pointwhere any permanent walls can be built aroundanything, real or virtual. Political leaders can nolonger count on deriving substantial power fromcontrolling information. Human, intellectual,and economic resources are increasing in fluidity.Consequently efforts to stop or reverse the forcesof globalization are fruitless, and as I will arguelater, most probably harmful.

There are very strong empirical, theoretical, andethical arguments that the forces of globalizationactually contribute to the common good. Poverty,suffering, and oppression have plagued humansociety from the beginning of time. But the mostsuccessful economic and societal environmentsthat reduce poverty, feed people, provide publichealth, and minimize political oppression arethose that reflect the key forces of globalization:freer markets, freer trade, rule of law, privateproperty rights, and democratic governance.Such environments allow and encourage thegrowth of income and the creation of wealth andopportunity. Economists argue that free tradeallows the most efficient allocation of resourcesand maximizes the productivity of thoseresources. Countries with these environments aremore humane and less likely to attack theirneighbors. All of this falls within (at least my)definition of the common good.

Transcending the economic argument there isperhaps a stronger argument that any idea of thecommon good must include basic human freedomand liberty: the unencumbered rights of people totrade their labor, income, wealth, intelligence, orcreativity in transactions they believe make them-selves better off. These freedoms must be part ofthe molecular structure of justice and aggregateinto the common good. Forces of globalizationhelp make these freedoms real for more people.

Frequently it is hard to follow the arguments ofthe critics of globalization and even more difficultto know what exactly they would propose to do.

Globalization is inevitable. There is no technology that can ultimately prevent the free flow of ideas and information across borders.

Satellite television and radio, the Internet, fax machines, and cell phones have allowed contemporaneous, uncensored global communication. Modern information

technology has effectively enabled and greatly accommodated the free flow of capital among nations.


Globalization critics decry the horrendous poverty,suffering, and oppression that exist in the world.They then note that because globalization existsat the same time there must be some kind ofcausality, when in fact, virtually all empirical evi-dence shows that the forces of globalization onthe whole are perhaps the only methods thatactually help reduce these problems.

There is substantial rhetoric about the haves andhave-nots and about the gap between the richand the poor. If we really care about the poor weshould care about making the poor less poor andnot be obsessed with making the rich less rich.We need to ask: What policies allow the poor toearn income and build wealth? Are there freetrade, property rights, rule of law, and a stabledemocratic government? Are the poor trapped ordoes the economic system have the infrastructureto encourage the migration from the state ofbeing a have-not to the state of being a have?When market forces cause individual dislocationdoes the economic system allow, encourage, andsupport the free flow of peoples’ resources (theirlabor, expertise, property) to more productiveactivities? State-driven redistribution of wealth byfiat has never resulted in a stable, permanentsolution to the problem of poverty because itdestroys wealth and resources and more impor-tantly the human spirit. Why do the critics refuseto acknowledge what works?

It is particularly galling to hear the frequent sanc-timonious calls for trade protectionism. Protec-tionism almost always hurts the people it is pur-ported to protect as well as hurting potentialtrading partners. Is the United States contribut-ing to the world common good by imposingtight import restrictions on foreign sugar causingU.S. consumers to pay higher prices and depriv-ing poor people of the world the opportunity toearn income and build wealth? Are milk pricesupports helping feed the children of the poor?The recent United States tariff increases on steeland wood are an embarrassment that compro-mised principle, diminished credibility, and putour motives in question.

Protectionist policies of rich nations are hobblingefforts of poor countries to solve fundamentalproblems. We should question not just the eco-

nomics but the morality of restricting free tradewith developing nations. What ethical basis isthere to keep African and Asian textiles out of theU.S.? Further, it is easy to be stunned by thehypocrisy of businesspeople whom I would call“asymmetrical globalists.” These are business-people who are strident advocates for free marketswith one condition: they want free access tosomeone else’s market but want to be protectedfrom competition from that market because intheir view it may not be “fair.”

Thomas Friedman’s “Olive Tree” metaphor helpsus better understand the concerns with globaliza-tion’s impact on our cultures. The olive tree is“everything that roots us, anchors us, identifiesus, and locates us in the world.”1 And, thebiggest threat to the olive tree is globalization,“the anonymous, transnational, homogenizing,standardizing market forces and technologies.”2

These are tough, disturbing, unsettling issues.But I propose they will be dealt with in aninevitable free market for culture. I do find par-ticularly disturbing the infringement of individ-ual liberties by cultural elitists in the name ofpreserving their various olive trees. For example,should cultural elitists in France prevent its citi-zens from eating McDonald’s hamburgers if theychoose to? This is no more outrageous than arestriction of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.Should some government agency specify thecountry of origin for the music citizens listen to,movies they watch, books they read, Web sitesthey visit, plays they perform, art they view, winethey drink, and poems they recite? The elitistsmay claim noble motives, but at best this is verydangerous territory, at worst immoral and inhu-man. There is no alternative but to let peoplevote with their ears, eyes, pallets, and feet. A cul-tural free market must be better than the elitistalternative. The diversity of world cultures shouldbe studied and preserved, but it cannot possiblybe ethical for any authority to restrict peoplefrom choosing to enjoy the benefits of globaliza-tion and trap them in some Disneyland-type,artificially insulated society for the benefit ofacademics, cultural elitists, tourists, and well-meaning humanitarians. The most evil, cynical,and exploitive use of cultural elitism is govern-ments driving their nations to war to “protect”their olive trees.

21explore FALL 2002

Global corporations are the targets of manyanti-globalization activists. According to Jean-Bertrand Aristide, global capitalism is a “machinedevouring our planet” with the poorest 20 per-cent of the world “reduced to cogs in themachine, the bottom rung in global production,valued only as cheap labor, otherwise altogetherdisposable.”3 I can appreciate Aristide’s concernfor the poor but his analysis may be faulty and hisrhetoric not constructive. Corporations are sub-ject to the laws of the countries wherever they dobusiness. Whether global or not, they are run bypeople, staffed by people, owned by people, andsell their products and services to people. Partici-pation is voluntary. A corporation is not aninhuman entity. Most corporate leaders I knowand have known have a genuine, human concernfor their employees, feel a real responsibilityto their shareholders, customers, and other con-stituents. This is good business but it is also theright thing to do. Making global corporationshobgoblins of the debate is exploitive and irre-sponsible. It is a distraction from the real issuesfacing the poor and their governments. Lashingout at corporations may galvanize people but itwon’t feed them.

Labor standards in trade agreements have beenfrequently proposed as a means to help develop-ing countries; such standards are almost alwaysopposed by developing countries. Dartmoutheconomist Douglas Irwin calls the U.S. emphasison labor standards “an enormous and unprof-itable diversion from the true task of helpingdeveloping countries to improve their economicperformance.”4 Friedman notes that jobs createdby globalization in Sri Lanka pay less than jobs inSeattle but then asks the right questions: “Arethe jobs created…better than the alternatives of

grinding poverty or child prostitution? Absolutely.Are they the first and necessary steps out ofpoverty? Absolutely.”5 If we were truly con-cerned for the poor in developing nations wewould fight to keep our markets totally opento those nations. Global corporations more fre-quently raise the demand for labor and increasethe wages and working conditions of the poor.

There are legitimate concerns for globalization’simpact on the environment. Empirical data showthat countries with the most wealth tend to havebetter preserved environments. So, if we want tosave the planet, let’s build wealth. The difficultissue of how we prevent the exportation of pollu-tion from wealthy countries to poor countriesremains. According to Irwin this is better dealtwith by treaties, establishment of clear public andprivate property rights, and rule of law than bytrade restrictions, which, like labor standards can“expand the allowable rationale for trade barriers,thus undermining the liberal trading systemwithout generating compensating benefits.”6

We in the West must be careful with our heavyhand. The World Health Organization estimatesthat 30 to 60 million people have died frommalaria since we deemed DDT was harmful tothe environment and banned it in 1972.7 Cer-tainly the morality of these kinds of decisionsshould be debated.

One of the challenges of any discussion of glob-alization is dealing with its impact on individualsat the grass roots level. The benefits of globaliza-tion are widely dispersed and frequently not evennoticed or acknowledged by the beneficiaries.However, it is not hard to find people who aredisplaced, hurt, and suffering because of the

Corporations are subject to the laws of the countries wherever they do business. Whether global or not, they are run

by people, staffed by people, owned by people, and sell their products and services to people.

Participation is voluntary. A corporation is not an inhuman entity.


forces of globalization, even though the commongood may have benefited. One of the extraordi-nary attributes of Silicon Valley is the fact thatthe benefits of globalization are widely visible atthe grass roots level. In my twenty-five years hereI have seen countless immigrants, by virtue oftheir hard work, break the cycle of poverty andbuild wealth creating a very different future forthemselves and their children. This was possiblebecause, perhaps more than anywhere else onearth, Silicon Valley is an environment of meri-tocracy, a free market of labor that rewards peoplewho create value independent of where they camefrom, what they look like, and what they hadwhen they got here. But even in Silicon Valley,there are poor. What can and should we do?

I have observed that globalization critics rarelypropose workable alternatives. Clearly hooligandemonstrators burning buildings and breakingwindows do not contribute to either constructivedebate or the development of any solutions. We allagree that poverty and suffering are bad whethercreated by globalization forces or not. Critics ofglobalization do not have a monopoly on compas-sion. Likewise no group has a monopoly on greed.We businesspeople should cede no moral superior-ity to elitists who abhor wealth but are as greedyfor power and control as Gordon Gekko on hisworst day. Thankfully most of us agree that a justsociety has an obligation to take action.

Some efforts, while perhaps founded in compas-sion, may actually hurt people. When I drive upto Peet’s Coffee and Tea in my BMW and buy“fair trade” coffee, what is really happening? Imay feel good and noble but the maintenance ofartificially high prices for coffee to protect thelivelihood of poor coffee farmers is resulting inthe maintenance of too many resources devotedto coffee production. Supply will always exceeddemand. More coffee will be grown than shouldbe grown. Less efficient growers will displacemore efficient growers. Our good will is trapping

the farmer in an uneconomic activity. We at besthave briefly deferred the negative effects of thereality that the demand isn’t there or that thereare more economically efficient ways or places togrow coffee. It would be more humane to helpthe farmer transition to an economically efficientactivity rather than get him addicted to distortedmarket conditions. If we really care about thefarmer we will send money, technical help, buildinfrastructure, provide education and publichealth assistance, and develop some real alterna-tives for how he feeds himself and subsequentgenerations of his family. We will make sure ourmarkets are open and opportunities are available.

It is fair to ask the globalization advocate to pro-pose a course of action that can make progresswith the very real issues of poverty, oppression,displacement, and injustice we confront in thisdebate. Here is my prescription:

n More globalization: more free trade, openmarkets, free flow of capital and information.Wealthy nations should lead the reductionsin barriers to trade. This generates wealth,creates opportunity, and reduces poverty.Labor and other resources become moreproductive. The size of the pie is not fixed.

n Wealthy countries should encourage theadoption of free and open markets, rule oflaw, private property rights, and democraticgovernance. Government’s job is to maintainthe infrastructure that enables the creation ofwealth. We in the West should practice whatwe preach. Encourage economic policies thatallow wealth to be built and discourageredistribution by government coercion. Tothe extent the World Bank and the IMFwant to give “advice” they should stayfocused on these principles rather thanmacroeconomic micromanagement. Encour-age local entrepreneurship. Finance microlending. Fight corruption in all ways possible.

Globalization is creating a global free market for reputation, letting people choose with whom they want to do business based on

(among other factors) the consumer’s view of social responsibility. Globalization allows corporate reputations to be built or

destroyed at the speed of light.

23explore FALL 2002

n The people of wealthy countries should pro-vide economically effective assistance: educa-tion, public health, physical, communica-tions, and IT infrastructure to the poor ofother nations. Deal with our own poor withsafety nets, education, and charity. Publicand private safety nets should enable andencourage the poor to enter the process ofmigration to the state of being a “have,” andminimize economic distortion as well asdependency on the state. Charity shouldhave sound bases in economics and science;otherwise we can drift into compassion-based self-indulgence. Our charity shouldreflect compassion with competence.

n Our focus should be on aiding the poor. Ifactions we take to help the poor also help therich we should live with it. Eliminatingpoverty must be more important to the com-mon good than the ideological issues somecritics have with the existence of rich people.What rich people choose to do with theirwealth is an issue for their consciences. Leavethose discussions to moral philosophers andtheologians. If we really want to feed people,allow wealth to be built.

n Let the flow of information fueled by global-ization provide the right set of incentives forglobal corporations to behave. Globalizationis creating a global free market for reputa-tion, letting people choose with whom theywant to do business based on (among otherfactors) the consumer’s view of social respon-sibility. Globalization allows corporate repu-tations to be built or destroyed at the speedof light.

Yoweri Museveni, President of Uganda recentlywrote: “We Africans are no longer looking forhandouts. Rather we are asking for the opportu-nity to compete, to sell our goods in Westernmarkets, to be considered for private investmentfunds, and to participate more fully in theglobal trading system. In short we want to tradeour way out of poverty and ask that the U.S. andother developed countries support us in thiseffort.”8 Museveni is an example of a leaderusing globalization to help solve his nation’sproblems.

Let me conclude by reasserting my belief that theforces and principles of globalization are moral,ethical, and contribute to the common good,even though the process does cause displacementand suffering to some people as progress is made.In a just society we have an obligation to helpthose people, but help them in ways that areeffective, not just in ways that are politicallyexpedient or make us feel good. The personalfreedoms embodied in free trade must be part ofour definition of justice. Trade cannot be fairunless it is free. More people are “left behind” intoday’s world because of oppressive politicalregimes than because of global economic forces.Only compassion with both competence andconscience will allow us to make progress.

E N D N OT E S

1. Thomas L. Friedman The Lexus and the Olive Tree.(New York: Anchor Books, 2000), 31.

2. Ibid., 34.

3. Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Eyes of the Heart. (Monroe,Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), 6.

4. Douglas A. Irwin. Free Trade Under Fire (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 2002), 233.

5. Friedman, 362.

6. Irwin, 22.

7. “The Life and Deaths of DDT.” The Wall Street Journal(June 14, 2002).

8. Yoweri Museveni. “How America Can Help Africa.” The Wall Street Journal (May 24, 2002).

Robert Finocchio, Dean’s Executive Professor of Management, Santa Clara University


BY PAT R I C I A A D A M S ’ 0 2

2001-2002 Associate Director, Santa Clara Community Action Program

The term “sweatshop” is used to describe working situations in which the condi-

tions violate one or more universally accepted human rights. Among the common

characteristics of sweatshops is a culture of fear and intimidation in which the

rights of workers—to earn a livable wage, to organize and collectively bargain, to take

leave in the case of illness, and to protect their own privacy, among others—go generally

unacknowledged. Additional characteristics include unsafe and unsanitary working condi-

tions and the presence of toxins that pose equally dire threats to the wellbeing of both

people and the environment. Despite the implications of the term “sweatshops,” they can

exist outside of the factory setting. One primary example is “sweatshops in the fields,” a

phrase which refers to the oppression that agricultural or farm workers face in the United

States and abroad.

Sweatshopsin a Global Economy

25explore FALL 2002

Sweatshops are not new. They did not begin withthe signing of NAFTA in 1994. Nor are theyconfined only to the U.S. or the U.S.-Mexicanborder, but rather exist within the U.S. as well asthroughout the entire world, especially in LatinAmerica and Asia. Sweatshops have, however,enjoyed considerably greater success in thedecade or so since globalization truly became theNew World Order. This is mostly attributable tothe mobility and advantage afforded to interna-tional corporations who can afford to continu-ously relocate in search of workers willing tolabor for the lowest pay, thus creating a race tothe bottom for the world’s workers.

Sweatshops are an intrinsic part of the globaleconomy. Smaller, developing countries areforced into cash cropping by their lack of naturalresources. In order to participate fully in theinternational market, they must have somethingto sell in order to afford to buy. Thus, smallersubsistence farmers are pushed out to make wayfor large (normally foreign) corporations to con-trol the land for cash cropping. This shift forcesthe small farmers to look for other means of sur-vival. This is where sweatshops come into the pic-ture. At the same time that lands are being takenover for cash cropping, many areas become opento industrialization by Free Trade Zones, whichoffer outside corporations tax-free facilities inwhich to produce their goods for export. Thedisplaced farmers are forced into industrialareas—like Tijuana, Mexico—in order to findwork to survive. Thus a viscious downward spiralis created on both personal as well as politicallevels. Individuals are forced into lower andlower-paying jobs because the alternative ishomelessness and greater poverty. Countries areforced into a cycle where they must exploit theirhuman and natural resources in order to securetheir spot in the global market economy. Theonly winners are the corporations and the eco-

nomic elite. The losers are everyone else, includingthe environment.

The most common form of sweatshop is themaquila, a term referring to factories that origi-nated in Mexico in the early 1960s after theBorder Industrial Program (BIP). The maquila isa low-cost production facility situated inside aFree Trade Zone, which usually produces or fin-ishes goods imported from an American corpora-tion that, upon completion, will be shipped rightback to the U.S. for sale. In this way, the localeconomy receives little to no financial benefitfrom the factory—beyond the meager wagesearned by the workers, most of which go back tothe factory owners in the form of “union” taxesand to pay for food in the factory cafeteria. Themajority of the profit remains in the hands of thefactory owners and the companies who havecontracts at the factories.

The most common question that arises in thisdiscussion is: What is the alternative? Withoutthese jobs, many economists argue, the workerswould be unemployed and thus suffer more thanthey may be suffering now as sweatshop workers.Would the anti-sweatshop advocates rather theseworkers be jobless altogether? Clearly I (and mostsweatshop opponents, though I do not speak forall of them) do not wish unemployment on anyof these workers. What I wish for, and what Iwork for, is a critical evaluation of how theseworkers arrived in their current state of econom-ic and political marginalization. I also wish andwork for fair and equal access to the kinds ofresources that all people should have. Mostnotably, these include the right to organize andcollectively bargain, to work in safe and sanitaryenvironments, to take leave when personal orfamily situations demand it, to work reasonablehours, and—perhaps most important—to earn awage that allows for a stable lifestyle, including


access to food, clothing, shelter, health care, andeducation. None of these is particularly extreme.None of these is a “special privilege.” In fact, if wevalue the United Nations Declaration of HumanRights, all of these and more should be a part ofevery person’s daily reality.

In fact, we know that is not true. If we are livingwith eyes wide open we know that the standardof living in the United States is far superior tomost of the rest of the world. We know that ourlives and our realities are vastly different thanothers’. However, if our eyes are indeed open,we must also realize that in fact our lifestylesdirectly impact those of the rest of the world. Thechoices we make impact their lives, just as theproducts they make impact ours.

The danger we are facing is not globalization.Globalization itself need not be destructive orexclusive but rather can be inclusive and empow-ering. Social globalization is a powerful thing,helping to unite people and struggles that havehistorically faltered from their lack of cohesion. Itis, however, the particular breed of corporate glob-alization, which is characterized by undemocraticand woefully short-sighted structures and policies,that strikes fear into the hearts of humanists,activists, and all politically- or globally-consciouspeople. It is this economic/political/social forcethat is perpetrating the sort of globalization thatmakes ever-more popular and profitable the pro-liferation of sweatshops throughout the globe.

Trans-national organizations, such as the WorldTrade Organization (WTO), are quite powerfuland do play a key role in the continuous homog-

enization of global markets, which most oftenresults in a race to the bottom for wages and liv-ing conditions. Nonetheless, such organizationsare not in and of themselves powerful. They donot have minds of their own. They were createdand are controlled by people, who are in turnsupported by other people and institutions.Regrettably, such support is what allows themthe virtual free-license they currently enjoy.

Fortunately, many of these supporting institu-tions are (in theory) accountable to us, you andme, the average citizen, and therefore each ofus has a responsibility. Herein lies the greatestdanger of our time, one that existed long beforeglobalization but that facilitates the processperfectly: rugged individualism. The culture ofthe United States encourages us to believe thatwe are autonomous, that we have complete con-trol over our lives and our destinies and each ofus has the potential to achieve The AmericanDream: to be a self-created and self-determinedwoman or man.

This individualism, on a global scale, translatesinto the kind of reality we are shaping every day,one in which we are not concerned with theimpact of our choices on our neighboring coun-tries, or even on our neighborhoods, but ratherfocus only on ourselves. When coupled with theoverwhelming power of the globalization of mar-kets, this individualism is becoming fatal. Itallows us to turn our backs on our brothers andsisters. It permits us to dismiss the cries of lower-income communities of color when they protestthe placement of yet another toxic waste dump orlandfill in the heart of their neighborhoods. It lets

Among the common characteristics of sweatshops is aculture of fear and intimidation in which the rights ofworkers—to earn a livable wage, to organize and collectively bargain,to take leave in the case of illness, and to protect their own privacy,among others—go generally unacknowledged.

us ignore the news that another one of ourfavorite brands—like Nike or Reebok or Gap orSafeway or Starbucks or Taco Bell—is activelycomplicit in the abuse of both human and natur-al resources.

In short, this notion of individualism to whichwe cling steadfastly makes us equally accountableperpetrators of global injustice. Maybe not asdirectly as the factory manager who asks for visu-al proof that a young female worker does in factneed menstrual leave. Perhaps not as directly asthe government of a developing (or “ThirdWorld”) country who is so desperate for moneythat they allow a U.S. company to pay for theright to import toxic waste and deposit it intoone or another of their ghetto communities. Per-haps not even as directly as the millions of com-panies that hire contracted employees and offerthem no benefits, vacation or sick leave, fire thembefore their tenure would have guaranteed themsome sort of job security or benefits, and rehirethem the next day as an unskilled worker. No,perhaps we are not personally doing any of thosethings. But we are accountable. We do businesswith these companies, this government representsus, and we are educated people who have beentaught to question the status quo and the ramifi-cations of our decisions. Indeed, we are implicated.

This thought should not depress but ratherinspire us. We are not helpless. The situation is nothopeless. We have power, and infinitely more themore we work together. There are numerousexamples of the ways in which ordinary humanshave begun to use their power. One notableexample was the WTO protest in Seattle in 1999.

Another is the ongoing work of organizations likethe United Students Against Sweatshops(U.S.AS), whose campaigns have successfullyencouraged participation and accountabilityfrom companies like Nike, the Gap, and NewEra, which produces all the caps for MajorLeague Baseball. Social globalization has helpedto make these campaigns as successful as theyhave been, in part because it has made possiblethe exchange of information that promotesunderstanding, which in turn allows for the con-nection of all the global struggles, including thoserelated to labor, environmental, or class struggles.

The power we have is our ability to act together,in community—to affect change within our-selves, our families, and the communities andinstitutions of which we are a part or to which weare connected. The biggest mistake we make isrelying on ourselves, acting in solitude when weshould be acting in solidarity. It is time that wemake globalization work for us.

27explore FALL 2002

Patricia Adams ’022001-2002 Associate Director, Santa Clara Community Action Program

If we are living with eyes wide open we know that thestandard of living in the United States is far superior tomost of the rest of the world. We know that our lives and ourrealities are vastly different than others’. However, if our eyes are indeedopen, we must also realize that in fact our lifestyles directly impact thoseof the rest of the world. The choices we make impact their lives, just asthe products they make impact ours.


T he overwhelming perception of globalization and the environment

is negative: trade and economic growth have led to increasingly

severe environmental degradation. Indeed, the last half of the 20th

century saw not only unprecedented increases in world trade and global

interconnectedness (travel, communication, movement of peoples, etc.),

but also saw severe crises of pollution, the largest species die-off since the

dinosaurs, and new global environmental challenges of climate change and

ozone depletion. Many of these environmental challenges are intrinsically

connected to processes of global industrialization. On the bright side,

though, new institutions of global environmental governance have

emerged that in the long-term have the potential to solve many of these

environmental problems. Whether they will succeed depends on the par-

ticipation of governments, international institutions, business, and civil

society in creating solutions rather than roadblocks. One of the most

interesting developments is the role of non-governmental organizations in

forcing governments and businesses to reform practices.

BY L E S L I E C . G R AYDepartment of Political Science and the Environmental Studies Institute, Santa Clara University

Can GlobalizationGreen the World?

Reflections on Globalization and the Environment

29explore FALL 2002

These issues were brought home to our localcommunity this year with Silicon Valley ToxicsCoalition’s (SVTC) report “Exporting Harm:The High Tech Trashing of Asia.” The authorsfound that electronic waste—mostly from obso-lete computers and televisions—collected forrecycling is not recycled domestically. Instead,from 50 to 80 percent of electronic waste isexported to developing countries in Asia. Manyof the components of computers involve chemi-cals such as lead, beryllium, mercury, cadmium,and other toxics. Although this trade is termed“recycling,” materials are frequently disposed ofin ways that pose threats to human health. Theyinclude open burning of plastic, dumping of tox-ics into river systems, and general dumping nearvillage communities. Toxic chemicals then maketheir way into the air, water, and soil resources ofcommunities in countries such as China, India,and Pakistan. The health and environmentalcosts of this trade are not borne by manufactur-ers, consumers, or traders of electronic waste butby the poor men, women, and children whoinhabit the environments where this material isbeing dumped.

This report illustrates the importance of watch-dog groups. SVTC’s exposure of the practices ofvarious corporations has helped to make thepublic aware of the offshore environmentaleffects of Silicon Valley, shamed corporationsinto making changes, andmost importantly, spurredthe legislative process. Thesewatchdog groups are clearly acrucial voice in the process ofbringing to light environmen-tal injustice and bad corporatepractice. Indeed, Californialegislators are fashioning legis-lation that would requireelectronics manufacturers tobe responsible for taking back materials after con-sumers have finished with them. This would ide-ally lead to more responsible design of computersand reduction of hazardous materials, changesthat are already being made in Europe and Japan.However, the electronics industry is intransigentin opposing any kind of new legislation andexcept for a few voices, there is no widespreadcall for change. Local governments, increasingly

alarmed by the filling of local landfills, recognizethe need for this type of legislation. The federalgovernment stands steadfastly behind the inter-ests of business.

This example illustrates what critics of globaliza-tion have long argued: governments and corpora-tions willfully ignore the detrimental effect ofenvironmental pollution, actively promotingpolicies that take pollution offshore. Electronicwaste is increasingly finding its way to poorercountries because of low labor costs, lax environ-mental and occupational regulations and the factthat, in the United States, exportation of haz-ardous wastes has no controls. Examples suchas this lead to the perception that industry hasundue influence on governmental action, andthat governments, particularly the United Statesgovernment, will protect them from the environ-mental costs of doing business.

Alliances between business and government thatnegatively affect the environment were demon-strated more broadly by the recent reluctanceof the Bush administration to ratify the KyotoProtocol, an international agreement that wouldhave reduced greenhouse gases by reducing fossilfuel emissions. The accumulation of greenhousegases in the atmosphere is thought to be leadingto climate change and global warming. Becausethe United States consumes 25 percent of the

world’s energy, any meaningful solution toreductions in greenhouse gases must have theU.S. on board. While initial criticisms of theprotocol were based on the inconclusive nature ofthe science of global warming, recent evidencehas led the Bush administration to acknowledgethat global warming is occurring and that thecauses are fossil fuel emissions and other humanactivities.

From 50 to 80 percent of electronic waste isexported to developing countries in Asia. Many ofthe components of computers involve chemicals such as lead,beryllium, mercury, cadmium, and other toxics. Although thistrade is termed “recycling,” materials are frequently disposed ofin ways that pose threats to human health. They include openburning of plastic, dumping of toxics into river systems, andgeneral dumping near village communities.


So why are both the Senate and the currentadministration so against Kyoto? Nominally, thecurrent administration argues that the treaty isflawed because developing countries such asChina and India are not required to decreasetheir greenhouse gas emissions in the first phase.At this point, these countries do not contributemuch to overall global greenhouse gas emissions,but with their growing populations and theireven faster growing economies, they will at some-time in the future. However, these objections bythe United States appear to be a smokescreen forother more pressing issues—the strong objectionsof the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industryis not only a big supporter of many politicians,but it has mounted vigorous lobbying and adver-tising efforts designed to discredit mainstreamscientific conclusions. Again, industry and gov-ernment work hand in glove to block meaningfulenvironmental solutions.

Another realm of concern for environmentalistsis trade policy. Critics of globalization argue thattreaties such as the North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA) weaken existing environ-mental laws. One NAFTA provision, Chapter11, has been repeatedly used to challenge hostcountries’ environmental laws. Chapter 11 wasdesigned to protect multinational corporationsfrom government actions that result in direct andindirect corporate takings. The result of this isthat a foreign corporation can seek monetarycompensation when it feels that a host countryhas expropriated its investor rights. MetalClad,an American waste disposal company, used thisprovision against the Mexican government whena local municipality denied a license for a toxicwaste dump that the company had been operat-ing and declared the site part of a larger ecologi-cal zone. MetalClad sued for $90 million and waseventually granted $16 million. Likewise, a U.S.

company, Ethyl, was awarded $13 million for acase that challenged the Canadian government’sregulation of an environmentally damaging gaso-line additive, MMT. The United States has beensued by a Canadian company, Methanex, whichargued that California’s ban of MBTE, a chemi-cal that has been shown to cause cancer andmoves into groundwater, was an illegal corporatetaking.

These cases demonstrate how under NAFTA,local environmental regulations can be chal-lenged and undermined by corporations. In thecase of MetalClad, the Mexican national govern-ment supported MetalClad’s challenge eventhough it ultimately had to pay the compensa-tion, illustrating how Chapter 11 pits federaleconomic interests against local environmentalsovereignty. Under NAFTA’s Chapter 11, corpora-tions are given permission to pursue profits at anyenvironmental cost. It seems that this provisionof NAFTA will be expanded to other free tradeagreements such as the Free Trade Area of theAmericas as corporations and national govern-ments are generally in favor of it.

Loss of local sovereignty, the exporting of pollu-tion, and undue influence of corporations are theenvironmental dark side of globalization. Is thereanything to be optimistic about in the globaliza-tion and environment nexus? Fortunately, thereare some very optimistic trends, mostly in thecreation of institutions of global governance ofenvironmental problems. The last several decadeshave seen successful treaties and conventionsconcerning transportation of biohazards, trade inendangered species, biological diversity, andozone depletion. Undoubtedly the most success-ful of these agreements has been the MontrealProtocol for the reduction of CFCs, whichdeplete stratospheric ozone. Ozone layer deple-

If we look at the success of the Montreal Protocol and compare it to Kyoto efforts to tackleglobal warming, there are a couple of key elements that have led to success. First was the scien-tific certainty and perceived urgency of the problem. Stratospheric ozone was beingdepleted, the cause was clear and the implications, such as higher skincancer rates, were also clear. This prompted a sense of urgency that enabledcountries to undertake the tough political decisions. Compare this to the globalwarming debate, where the science is becoming clearer, but is unable to predict certainoutcomes.

31explore FALL 2002

non-governmental organizations can be in forc-ing policymakers and corporations to considerthe environmental costs of their actions.

Indeed, the environmental movement has bene-fited more broadly from globalization, particular-ly in the creation of new communication net-works. Non-governmental organizations havebeen able to link up with new technologies suchas the Internet, giving what was a diffuse move-ment new levels of organization and influencein international environmental policymaking.Protests against World Trade Organization meet-ings in Seattle illustrated how important thesenon-governmental forces are becoming, bringingthem both a voice and potentially a seat at thetable. Globalization in this way is truly a double-edge sword.

R E F E R E N C E S

French, Hilary. Vanishing Borders: Protecting thePlanet in the Age of Globalization. (Washington,D.C.: WorldWatch Institute, 2000).

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and The BasalAction Network. Exporting Harm: The High TechTrashing of Asia. (San Jose and Seattle, 2002).www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/technotrash.pdf

tion is associated with increased skin cancers andother health risks. Most of the CFCs have beenreleased into the atmosphere by the industrializedcountries of the North, but the big challenge ofthe treaty was to bring developing countries suchas India and China on board. These poor coun-tries were hesitant to ban chemicals that couldaid in development. Finally, funding from differ-ent governments and multilateral institutionsallowed these countries to move to less harmfulchemicals, with minimal impact on their eco-nomic growth.

If we look at the success of the Montreal Protocoland compare it to Kyoto efforts to tackle globalwarming, there are a couple of key elements thathave led to success. First was the scientific cer-tainty and perceived urgency of the problem.Stratospheric ozone was being depleted, the causewas clear and the implications, such as higherskin cancer rates, were also clear. This prompteda sense of urgency that enabled countries toundertake the tough political decisions. Comparethis to the global warming debate, where thescience is becoming clearer, but is unable topredict certain outcomes. Second, the industrythat produced CFCs was in favor of the changes,had other replacement options, and was in anycase a very small sector of the economy. Withthe Kyoto accords, the petrochemical sector has alot to lose and is proportionally a much largerpart of the economy. Finally, the wealthiernations, including the United States, were able tobring along the poorer nations of the world byproviding them with subsidies. With Kyoto,European nations see the political necessity andjustice in postponing the participation of thedeveloping world, but the current U.S. adminis-tration does not.

So in a world where corporations have undueinfluence over the political process, what is thesolution? Recent events such as the World TradeOrganization meetings in Seattle have shownthat pressure from non-governmental organiza-tions is crucial in getting governments and inter-national organizations to take the environmentinto account. Non-governmental organizationshave brought lawsuits, been visible critics of theprocess, and argued vociferously for more trans-parency in decision-making. The Silicon ValleyToxics Coalition example illustrates how crucial

Leslie C. GrayDepartment of PoliticalScience and the Environmental Studies Institute, Santa Clara University

Globalization and

developmentSome personal reflections


G lobalization and development were put on the balance in

Béréba village, Burkina Faso, this summer. I’ll tell you which

one was heavier in a minute. It happened like this. I was hav-

ing a couple of beers with Koura Bemavé, Donkoui’s father. Donkoui

has been a friend in the village ever since 1995, when I first went there

to do research. Donkoui is a proud animiste, as he puts it in French,

and his father is one of the important elders of the village. You might

meet Bemavé in the forest, riding his jalopy of a moped, wearing flak

jacket and rifle, wild cat hanging from the handlebar, with a pipe jut-

ting from the corner of his mouth. Bemavé is a veteran of the French

army. When the lieutenant went to pick men for a mission, he always

wanted Bemavé near, explaining, “He’s not afraid to shoot.” Donkoui’s

father wanted to talk about the Test Of English as a Foreign Language

(TOEFL) exam. Would Donkoui pass the next time? Could Donkoui

get to America? Five million people in Burkina Faso are ready to get on

a plane tomorrow if they could. The population is only about twelve

million. We chatted some more and then Donkoui walked me home

in the very dark night. Heavy clouds drifted past, just above the trees,

with their occasional jet-black protrusions threatening to drum the tin

roofs of the village.

BY M I C H A E L K E V A N E

Department of Economics, Santa Clara University

33explore FALL 2002

Laurent and Yazouma were arguing and Donkoui stopped to listen and translate.“They are asking who has the better life,” he said, “Laurent because he is mar-ried, or Yazouma because he has money.” Laurent asks who will mourn Yazoumaif he dies with no wife or child. Yazouma asks whether Laurent can go to a restau-rant and pay money to eat. “Why should I go to a restaurant when my wife cancook?” Laurent proudly replies, and ups the ante by asking who will helpYazouma to work in the fields. This brings a quick retort that without a womanat home he does not have to go to the fields in the first place. An audience ofyoung men, themselves tired from working in the fields all day, listens seriously.Yazouma finally delivers his spectacular argument: “Imagine a balance. I am onone side, with my P50 moped, and you are on the other side, with wife and child.Who will weigh more? Who! Me, of course!” Hoots of laughter, and much shout-ing follow, but Donkoui and I move on. Donkoui cannot shake the balancemetaphor. “You see, Michael,” he asks, “the banality of village conversations?”This is indeed the kind of conversation people have all the time, and after visit-ing Béréba for many years, and having spent several years before that in Sudanesevillages, I know exactly what he means. People take the banal conversations veryseriously; they are a substitute for something that we must have in Westernsocieties, but I am not sure what.

“La balance,” Donkoui repeats the French word for scale. We mull over themetaphor as we head through the night up to the house on the hill. As we con-tinue to interact over the week, we find ourselves looking at each other every hour


or so, in the course of our interactions with people in the village, exchangingknowing glances and mumbling la balance. Friends want the insider jokeexplained. Suddenly la balance is everywhere. Who in the village is ascending?Which foods are the better ones to eat? What is the best road to Tougan, in thenorth? Every conversation we encounter, it seems, involves people making relativejudgements using some criteria, and the criteria may as well be la balance. Funny,though, how Donkoui, now a schoolteacher in a village on the edge of the Saharadesert, has become a stranger to his village, like me.

Perhaps conversations elsewhere, though, are not so different. I realize that Donk-oui and I, and non-villagers like us, are just as prone to use measurement imageryto make our point. Globalization and development. Has one gone too far? Isthere not enough of one? Which is proceeding faster? We may as well be sayingthat one weighs more. Let us then use Yazouma’s balance to weigh globalizationand development in Burkina Faso. On one side we can put Yazouma’s P50 mopedagain. We add anti-malarial drugs, tampons, and glossy magazines. The Burkin-abè are busy watching a Brazilian soap opera, dona Chiquinha, about a liberated

female piano composer in turn-of-the-old-century Rio who wants tointroduce popular idioms into theclassical repertoire of the elite. Wecan put that on the globalizationside. On the other side, we put theheavy wooden masks of owls andantelopes, and the leaves and vinesfound in the forest that villagers usein the ritual ceremonies in thespring. Maybe we should throw inall the children standing quietly inthe bush, behind the family’s cattle,quietly absorbing the sounds ofgrasshoppers and dragonflies, andthen the shooting stars that followin the night. What shall we callthese things. Hmmmm. Aren’tthese the wonderful moments oflife that we should be developing?Let us call them development. Notthe normal usage, but then, la bal-ance is about weighing unexpectedthings. La balance tilts towardsdevelopment, in my mind. Are youobjecting? Do you have your ownbalance in your head? Do you wantto relabel the items on each side ofthe balance? Perhaps you are morelike Laurent and Yazouma than youthink. Something to remember thenext time you see an image on tele-

35explore FALL 2002

vision of a haggard Congolese woman, with two children standing close, emerg-ing from a forest into the waiting plastic blue tents of a refugee camp. You andshe could weigh yourselves on the balance. Would you know what to think if ittilted one way rather than the other?

I decide some weeks later to ask Bako Maurice, in Ouagadougou, to explain lamondialisation, using the French word for globalization. He gives a small smile,“Well, I can say that it is a word that I don’t know what it means, but we hear iton television all the time when some learned person or politician is talking.” I askhow he can hear a word and not know what it means. If I asked him what a don-key was, couldn’t he tell me? “Well,” he says slowly, “I can say that when I hearthe word on television I immediately stop listening, because I know that the per-

son talking is just saying some conneries.” He uses the untranslatable French wordfor damned, stupid, insulting untruths. Maurice and I met on the train to Oua-gadougou seven years ago. He was returning from Cote d’Ivoire. His father wasdead, he could not continue his schooling, he had no money. He gave me his seaton the train, which I gave to my travelling companion, Lazare, who was travel-ling with his baby. Maurice and I stood and chatted the whole train ride. Overthe years Maurice got poorer and poorer. A rich person in Burkina lives on abouta dollar a day, Maurice probably lived on 25 cents. The security guard standingoutside the health clinic where we were sitting earned about 25,000 CFA, or 35dollars per month, which he might share with his wife. Maurice was now on hisway up; he had been admitted to the police academy, and so would start earninga salary. La balance was working for him.

People in the clinic where we spoke were the elite of Ouagadougou. They camein to be treated for malaria, amoebic dysentery, tuberculosis, and AIDS. Theywere the lucky few of the unlucky many. In Béréba the clinic is up on the hill,close to my house. The nurse practitioner, Somda, walks the dusty hallway. Foampadding pokes out of the doctor’s examination table. A chair is carefully proppedagainst the wall, since it only has three legs. In the maternity ward, twins lie onan iron bed. They weigh about three pounds each. The women milling aroundlook sceptical, the mother sour. They know what the likely end is. One in fivechildren dies before reaching the age of five in Burkina Faso, and the odds areworse out in Béréba. Dona Chiquinha also knew what early death was, inold Brazil. Maybe that is why the show is popular. I can’t think of any Americantelevision show that reminds us how good it is not to have death be a neighbor.I suppose I should put that on la balance.

Michael KevaneDepartment of Economics, Santa Clara University

I decide some weeks later to ask Bako Maurice, in Ouagadougou, to explainla mondialisation, using the French word for globalization. He gives a smallsmile, “Well, I can say that it is a word that I don’t know what it means, but we hear it on tele-vision all the time when some learned person or politician is talking.” I ask how he can hear aword and not know what it means. If I asked him what a donkey was, couldn’t he tell me?“Well,” he says slowly, “I can say that when I hear the word on television I immediately stop lis-tening, because I know that the person talking is just saying some conneries.” He uses theuntranslatable French word for damned, stupid, insulting untruths.

The AkbarProjectRitual Observances and Religious

Pluralism in Contemporary Pakistan


B A N N A N G R A N T R E P O R T

BY D A V I D P I N A U LT

Department of Religious Studies, Santa Clara University

The "Horse of Karbala" procession, Heera Mandi district, Lahore, during the 2002 Muharram season.Bystanders touch the horse as it passes to honor the Imam Husain and the other Karbala martyrs.Garlands of flowers are placed atop the saddle as an act of veneration.

37explore FALL 2002

The idea for the Akbar Project (as I named it) came to me from

studying the lives of the Moghul emperors of sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century India. I was fascinated by two Muslim

noblemen in particular: Akbar the Great and his great-grandson Dara

Shikuh.

Akbar is famous (or infamous, depending on one’s view of his life’s

work) as the emperor who established the Din-e Ilahi, the “divine reli-

gion” that synthesized Islamic belief and Hindu principles. The Din-eIlahi was influenced by Sufism, an Islamic spiritual discipline that cul-

tivates the individual worshipper’s direct and ecstatic experience of the

divine presence.

Among the practical and social effects of Akbar’s program was the concept ofsulh-e kull (“universal reconciliation”), entailing a policy of state-sponsored reli-gious tolerance and the abolishment of discriminatory taxes on non-Muslims.Akbar was opposed by many of the empire’s ulama (Muslim scholars learned inIslamic law and Qur’anic scrip-ture), but the emperor’s rewardwas the loyalty of India’s Hin-dus, who comprised the major-ity of the population subject toMoghul rule.

Like his great-grandfather, theyoung prince Dara Shikuh wasan enthusiastic disciple of Sufism. As was the case with Akbar, Dara Shikuh’s tastefor mystical speculation led him to spiritual explorations beyond the denomina-tional boundaries of Islam. He welcomed both Jewish scholars and Jesuit prieststo his court, but it was Hindu thought, and the prospect of demonstrating theunderlying unity of the Qur’an and the Vedanta, that became his spiritual focus.For this purpose he learned Sanskrit, and with the help of Hindu pundits hetranslated the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita into Persian.

As the eldest son of the emperor Shah Jahan, Dara Shikuh was heir to theMoghul throne. But ulama who were loyal to his younger brother and rival,Aurangzeb, issued a fatwa targeting Dara Shikuh with a proclamation of takfir

For me the lives of Akbar and Dara Shikuh areimportant because their work represents alegacy—a legacy that has been largely overlooked inrecent years—of initiatives for tolerance and religiouspluralism arising from within the Islamic tradition.



(the denunciation of someone as a kafir, a non-Muslim infidel). According to theulama’s legalistic understanding of Islam, Dara Shikuh had degenerated into anapostate, a spiritual renegade. The result: the murder of the mystically mindedprince, and the rise to power of Aurangzeb. The latter nullified the Akbarian tra-dition of sulh-e kull, persecuting both Hindus and Muslim religious minorities,especially the Shia denomination. To this day Aurangzeb’s name is a byword inSouth Asia for ferocity in the name of religious orthodoxy.

Muslim opinion on Akbar and Aurangzeb and what they represented remainsdivided (as will be seen below). For me the lives of Akbar and Dara Shikuh areimportant because their work represents a legacy—a legacy that has been largelyoverlooked in recent years—of initiatives for tolerance and religious pluralismarising from within the Islamic tradition.

The goal I set myself in pursuing the Akbar Project was to assess the prospects incontemporary South Asian Muslim societies for the development of what I call“humanistic Islam.” By this I mean a form of the Muslim tradition that respectsthe individual’s spiritual autonomy and that sees diversity in religious thoughtand practice as a good in itself and as a source of strength rather than as some-thing to be feared.

For the initial stage of my project I returned to a city I had not visited for years:Lahore, the cultural capital of Pakistan’s Punjab province and formerly one of thegreatest cities of Akbar’s Moghul empire. In Pakistan today the struggle over tol-erance and religious pluralism is manifested especially in conflicts between theSunni and Shia denominations. The Shias of Pakistan are a minority communi-ty, as they are in most Muslim countries; in Pakistan they constitute 20 percentof the population.

In March 2002, I visited Lahore and Islamabad to study the annual lamentationrituals associated with the Islamic month of Muharram. These Muharram ritualscommemorate the martyrdom of Imam Husain ibn Ali, the Prophet Muham-mad’s grandson. Although all devout Muslims agree in revering Husain as adescendant of the Prophet, Muharram is for the most part an observance domi-nated by Shias. Throughout Pakistan in recent years Muharram rituals have been

March 2002 was an important time to return to Pakistan, for two reasons. This was the firstMuharram season since President Parvez Musharraf announced a crackdown on both Sunni andShia militant organizations. Furthermore, this was the first Muharram sincethe September 11 terrorist attacks on America. I regarded this Muharram season,typically a time of heightened devotional fervor and intensified awareness of sectarian identity,as an opportunity to learn to what extent recent events had caused Pakistani Muslims to reflecton issues of communal tolerance, the implications of martyrdom, and the use of violence in thename of religion.


39explore FALL 2002

marred by violence between Sunnis and Shias. Much of this violence involvesassaults on places of worship masterminded by militant sectarian organizations.

Since 1989 I have been studying Muharram rituals in various parts of the Indiansubcontinent. But March 2002 was an important time to return to Pakistan,for two reasons. This was the first Muharram season since President ParvezMusharraf announced a crackdown on both Sunni and Shia militant organiza-tions. Furthermore, this was the first Muharram since the September 11 terroristattacks on America. I regarded this Muharram season, typically a time of height-ened devotional fervor and intensified awareness of sectarian identity, as anopportunity to learn to what extent recent events had caused Pakistani Muslimsto reflect on issues of commu-nal tolerance, the implicationsof martyrdom, and the use ofviolence in the name of reli-gion. I also set out to gauge theextent of Pakistani support forMusharraf ’s policies.

The Shia denomination arosefrom a dispute concerningleadership of the ummah (the“community of believers”) afterthe Prophet Muhammad’sdeath (AD 632). Most Mus-lims accepted the notion thatthe caliph (the Prophet’s suc-cessor as leader of the ummah)would be elected via a processof consultation and votingamong a council of elders.Such Muslims were later iden-tified by the name Sunni(those who follow the sunnahor “exemplary custom andlifestyle” of Muhammad). Aminority of Muslims, however,supported the candidacy of Aliibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’scousin and son-in-law (Alimarried Muhammad’s daugh-ter, Fatima). This minoritybecame known as Shi’at Ali,“the partisans of Ali,” or simplythe Shia. A riderless stallion is led through the streets of the Gawal Mandi

district, Lahore, during the 2002 Muharram season. The horserepresents Zuljenah, the mount ridden by the Imam Husain at thebattle of Karbala.



Ali ruled briefly as caliph but only after three other men from among the Sahaba(the Prophet’s “companions,” who supported Muhammad in the dangerous earlydays of Islam) had been selected successively to rule. A number of the Sahaba hadcontested Ali’s right to the caliphate. After Ali’s death in 661, his supporterstransferred their loyalty to his sons, first Hasan, and then, after Hasan’s death, tothe younger son, Husain. Shias developed a theory of hereditary leadership basedon family kinship linked to the Prophet Muhammad, restricting the role of rulerto a line of Imams or spiritual leaders descended from Ali (revered as the firstImam) and Fatima.

Husain was killed at the battle of Karbala (which took place in the month ofMuharram, AD 680), fighting the unjust rule of a tyrannous caliph named Yazid.The latter’s soldiers had besieged the Imam Husain and his family in the Iraqidesert, inflicting torments of thirst on the Imam’s family in hopes of forcing theirsurrender. Husain chose death instead. Although a political failure, his revolt ishonored today as a spiritual triumph.

Every year in Lahore, as in many other cities where there are substantial Shiapopulations, Shias commemorate Husain’s martyrdom through “Horse ofKarbala” processions. A riderless stallion caparisoned to represent Zuljenah (“thewinged one,” Husain’s battle-steed) is paraded through the city streets. The sightof Zuljenah triggers among participants ritualized expressions of grief in honor ofthe Karbala martyrs. Among these expressions: zanjiri matam (self-scourgingwith flails, razors, and chains), in which the shedding of one’s own blood expressessolidarity with the sufferings of the martyrs. Thousands of people crowd thestreets to watch as Zuljenah and its attendant flagellants pass through eachneighborhood.

Most Sunnis I interviewed in Lahore voiced disapproval of zanjiri matam, claim-ing that it violates Islamic norms of self-restraint and decorum. But Sunnis dis-agreed with one another on other points. The most militant Sunnis, for example,members of the SSP (Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan, “the soldiers of the Prophet’s com-panions”), claim that Shias dishonor the Sahaba. The SSP has helped inciteattacks on Shia places of worship and has tried (unsuccessfully, so far) to passlegislation that would target Pakistani Shias with the charge of takfir and reduceShias to the status of kafirs. The SSP is among the militant organizations thathave been banned as part of the Pakistani government’s recent campaign againstviolent sectarian groups.

Precisely those sectarian militants who condemn “heterodox” rituals and who are quick to labelfellow Muslims kafirs also support a pan-Islamic caliphate. The Taliban, too, when they ruledAfghanistan, made use of caliphate rhetoric. Common to such groups is the suppres-sion of religious diversity so as to consolidate power in the hands of thoseleaders who claim to be the sole authentic representatives of Islam.


41explore FALL 2002


Islampura district, Lahore, 2002 Muharram season: children at a sabil or “refreshment stand” offer waterto passersby to commemorate the thirst suffered by the Imam Husain's family at the battle of Karbala.

Most Sunnis I interviewed, however, told me that even though they applaud theSSP’s goal of “guarding the Sahaba’s honor,” they disapprove of the use ofviolence. And like the Shias I met, they strongly support Musharraf ’s crackdownon sectarian militants. Moreover, despite the disapproval they voiced concerningself-flagellation and Horse of Karbala parades, many Sunnis nevertheless turnout to watch the Muharram processions: tamasha deikhne ke lie, as one Sunniexplained to me, “to watch the spectacle.” And some Barelvis (adherents of arelatively tolerant form of Sunnism that is influenced by South Asian Sufism)told me of a Muharram observance engaged in by Sunnis as well as Shias. OnAshura, the day of Husain’s death, Muslim families set up a sabil or “refreshmentstand” before their homes and offer water, tea, and sherbet to passersby to com-memorate the thirst of the Karbala martyrs.

After concluding my fieldwork in Lahore I drove to Islamabad and gave a lectureon the topic of Shia-Sunni reconciliation. While there I visited the Shah FaisalMosque and was given a leaflet being distributed at the mosque’s entrance. Theleaflet’s authors belong to the Harakat al-Khilafah (“the caliphate movement”),which condemns the present government of Pakistan and advocates the re-estab-lishment of the caliphate. This notion, which is also supported by adherents of


both the SSP and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, rejects the concept of nationalidentity and argues for a pan-Islamic government (the caliphate) that would besupported via global religious solidarity among Muslims. It is not irrelevant thatthis caliphate-leaflet cites approvingly the emperor Aurangzeb and his program ofkilling Hindus who “dishonored” Islam.

While in Pakistan I noted with interest the following point. Precisely thosesectarian militants who condemn “heterodox” rituals and who are quick to labelfellow Muslims kafirs also support a pan-Islamic caliphate. The Taliban, too,when they ruled Afghanistan, made use of caliphate rhetoric. Common to suchgroups is the suppression of religious diversity so as to consolidate power in thehands of those leaders who claim to be the sole authentic representatives of Islam.

To judge by the people I spoke with in Pakistan’s Punjab, most Pakistanis rejectcaliphate talk. Newspaper editorials and posters on walls in Lahori neighbor-hoods use the term Pakistan ke dushman (“enemies of Pakistan”) to describesectarian militants. While caliphate-supporters belittle the concept of nationalidentity, many Muslims I met linked Shia-Sunni tolerance to the notion of aPakistani patriotism that transcends sectarian differences.

One way to test the on-the-ground limits of pluralistic tolerance is to be a con-spicuous foreigner in attendance at public religious gatherings. I witnessed dozensof Muharram rituals during my time in Lahore, as I walked about the neighbor-hoods and chatted with participants and bystanders. As may be imagined, Iattracted attention. Questioned (as I was repeatedly) about my presence, Iexplained that I was an American and a Christian. At no point did anyone showhostility. Just the opposite: people on the street welcomed me and invited me tovisit their homes and neighborhood shrines.

To illustrate my point: in Lahore’s Gawal Mandi locality, on the fifth of Muhar-ram (March 20), I tried to photograph the Zuljenah stallion but had trouble get-ting a clear shot because of the crowd. One of the men leading Zuljenah spottedme. At once he halted the horse and motioned me up close. And in fact the entireprocession stopped, and onlookers and marchers waited patiently, while Isnapped my pictures. Hospitality, not hostility, was what I had the good fortuneto experience during my time in Akbar’s city of Lahore.

David PinaultDepartment of Religious Studies,Santa Clara University

One way to test the on-the-ground limits of pluralistic tolerance is to be a conspicuous foreignerin attendance at public religious gatherings. I witnessed dozens of Muharram rituals during mytime in Lahore, as I walked about the neighborhoods and chatted with participants andbystanders. As may be imagined, I attracted attention. Questioned (as I was repeatedly) aboutmy presence, I explained that I was an American and a Christian. At no pointdid anyone show hostility. Just the opposite: people on the street welcomed meand invited me to visit their homes and neighborhood shrines.


43explore FALL 2002

GRANTS

BANNAN GRANTS

Scholarly grants may be used to support or devel-op a scholarly project that relates to the Institute’smission. Research assistance, travel, scholarlyresources, and conferences are some types of activ-ities the grants will support.

Pedagogical grants may be used to support ordevelop a pedagogical project that relates to theInstitute’s mission. Course development orenhancement, the support or development of co-curricular activities that further the Catholic andJesuit character of Santa Clara, and faculty, staff,or student development workshops are some ofthe types of activities the grants will support.

Grants may not be used to replace full-time facul-ty in the classroom. Moneys must be used withineighteen months of the time the grant is awarded.

DIALOG AND DESIGN GRANTS

Dialog and Design grants support the develop-ment of scholarship focused on efforts central tothe Jesuit mission and identity of Santa ClaraUniversity. This “seed” funding encourages andsupports the early stages of creative and collabora-tive scholarly projects by faculty.

Faculty group applicants will identify themes fornew scholarship inspired by the Jesuit missionand identity which are linked to current facultyinterests and competencies. These themes wouldspark mutual interest among several faculty and

would likely have a larger scope than individualscholars can address. They are likely to be embry-onic and not yet sufficiently developed to attractgrant funding.

Funding might support activities such as regularluncheon or dinner meetings over a quarter; off-campus Dialog and Design conferences orretreats; bringing in resource faculty from otheruniversities to support the discussion and plan-ning; a regular series of "working papers" withdiscussion and group commentary; funding forbooks or other media products pertinent to thecommon effort; or any other collaborative effortsby the faculty group to address their chosentheme.

APPLICATION DEADLINES

Deadlines for submission for both types of grantproposals will be November 1 and May 1. Grantswill be announced by December 1 and June 1respectively.

For complete grant information and guidelines,please visit www.scu.edu/bannancenter/grants.htmor call Paul Woolley at 408-554-4383.

CALL FOR GRANTS

The Bannan Center offers two categories of grants for faculty, staff, and students:Bannan Grants and Dialog and Design Grants. Proposals in both categories will becompetitively reviewed, and grants should support the mission of the Bannan Center.


GRANTS

DIALOG AND DESIGN GRANTS

Spiritual Modeling and Transformation—$5,400Tom Plante, psychology departmentThis grant will support several lunch meetingswith scholars from Stanford University, UCBerkeley, and Santa Clara University as well asseveral people from community service organiza-tions. The group will integrate the expertise fromfaculty in Psychology, English, Sociology, Reli-gious Studies, Public Health, and other fields inorder to develop a research program that will seekto better understand the mechanisms of spiritualmodeling and transformation.

Vocation Identity: Renaissance Models of Lifeand Meaning for Today’s College Students—$3,988.25 Diane Dreher, English departmentThis grant will support the development of aresearch questionnaire and reveal strategies forpromoting healthier vocation identity in today’scollege students. Dreher’s research will combineinsights from Renaissance saints, artists, scientists,and humanists with advice from spiritual direc-tors, psychologists, career counselors, and resi-dence life directors.

BANNAN GRANTS

Hopkins and Bridges—$1,100.00Ron Hansen, English departmentThis grant funds a research project to study thecollected materials related to the life and work ofthe poet Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J. Hansenplans to write a historical novel based on the liter-ary friendship between Gerard Manley Hopkinsand Robert Bridges. The historical, psychological,and spiritual basis of the friendship between Hop-kins and Bridges can be best conveyed through

the interpretive and far more accessible mediumof fiction and provide a wider audience for theirworks.

The Crucified Jew: Mark Rothko’s Christological Imagery—$2,153Andrea Pappas, art departmentThis grant funds travel to Los Angeles to examinea newly available group of documents associatedwith Mark Rothko. This primary research will beincorporated into a scholarly article that is alreadyin progress. Tentatively titled “The Crucified Jew:Mark Rathko’s Christological Imagery,” the articletreats religious and ethnic identity as a centralfactor in the successful reception of the work ofone of the core members of the large AbstractExpressionist movement.

Making Connections VI: Bridging the Divide –Connecting Activism and Academia throughSocial Justice—$1,500Barbara Molony, history departmentThis grant will partially fund the stipend andtravel for Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, the keynotespeaker for the National Biennial Conference ofthe National Association for Women in CatholicHigher Education (NAWCHE) being held atSanta Clara University. NAWCHE is an organiza-tion made up of faculty, administrators, staff, andstudents from Catholic colleges and universitiesaround the country.

ABOUT THE GRANTS

The Bannan Institute offers two kinds of grants(see page 43). Both are designed to encouragefaculty, staff, and students to pursue the BannanInstitute mission “…to assist the University inmaintaining its Catholic and Jesuit character atthe center of the educational enterprise.” The nextdeadline for proposals is November 1, 2002.

2002–2003 bannan center gRANTS

At its May meeting, the Bannan Center Steering Committee approved five grants totaling$14,141 for the first of two funding cycles in the fiscal year 2003.

45explore FALL 2002

COMINGEVENTS

Globalization as Seen from the Developing World

An International Conference on Globalization for Leaders in Jesuit Institutions of Higher Learning

NOVEMBER 7-10, 2002

WHAT IS GLOBALIZATION?

The process of globalization is the increasinginterconnection of nations and cultures that isprimarily driven by market forces augmented bytechnology, capital transfer, and internationaltrade structures. In addition to economic integra-tion, globalization refers to the impact on all cul-tures of the liberal, individualistic free enterprisevalue system that predominates in the developednations.

GOALS OF THE CONFERENCE

n To examine the phenomenon of globalizationfrom a faith and justice perspective thatemphasizes Christian moral obligations

n To discuss how globalization is having animpact on the various societies in whichJesuit universities are located

n To explore ways in which a Jesuit universitycan positively influence the basic factors ofglobalization through research and curriculum

n To provide the framework for the interna-tional connections that will foster this collab-oration.

This conference will approach globalization fromthe normative perspective of the faith that does

justice, a perspective rooted in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures and enunciated in the con-temporary documents of the Society of Jesus. Thisperspective pays particular attention to the impactof globalization on human dignity and the com-mon good, especially in regards to the poor andmarginal.

Experts from the international network of Jesuitinstitutions of higher education will gather toevaluate the moral and religious significance ofglobalization, particularly as it is experienced inthe developing world. Scholars from Jesuit insti-tutions in the developed world will join theconversation to establish scholarly collaborationand explore institutional connections.

Conference participants will examine the differ-ent perceptions of globalization in developing anddeveloped nations from the criterion of the Soci-ety of Jesus’ commitment to the integral principleof faith that does justice. This examination willnecessarily consider contrasting views of justiceas well as the contributions that other religioustraditions can make.

For complete information about this conference,please visit: www.scu.edu/BannanCenter/JusticeConference/GlobalizationFlyer.htm

NOTE: This conference is part of a broader Institute on Globalization at Santa Clara University during the2002-03 academic year. The purpose of the Institute is to engender greater campus and public understanding ofthe dynamics of globalization. For more information on the Institute, please visit: www.scu.edu/globalization/


COMINGEVENTS

2002-03 SANTA CLARA LECTURES

In 1994, through the generosity of the Bannan Institute for Jesuit Education and Christian Values, the Department ofReligious Studies of Santa Clara University inaugurated the Santa Clara Lectures. This series brings to campus leading

scholars in theology, offering the University community and the general public an ongoing exposure to debate on thesignificant issues of our time. Santa Clara University will publish these lectures and distribute them throughout theUnited States and internationally.

Bannan Visitor Fall 2002

JOHN DEAR, S.J., is a Jesuit priest, pastor, peace activist, organizer, lecturer, retreat leader,and author/editor of 20 books on peace and justice. He will speak on “Globalization, milita-rization, and nonviolence” on November 6, 7:30 p.m., Sobrato Hall Commons.

MAX L. STACKHOUSE“Globalization and the forms of grace: Redeeming the principalities, authorities, and dominions”January 26, 2003, 7:30 p.m., Sobrato Hall Commons

Drawing from his 3-volume series, God and Globalization, Stackhouse will use key Biblical termsto identify and discuss the decisive socio-historical “Powers” (Principalities, Authorities, Domin-ions) that are shaping the emerging global civil society. As he argues, “these Powers can rebelagainst the laws and purposes of God and thus damage the human future, or they can be drawninto structures of responsibility to aid the flourishing of faith, the well-being of humanity, and theappropriate transformations of nature, society, and personal or group identity.”

MAX L. STACKHOUSE is Stephen Colwell Professor of Christian Ethics at Princeton Theolog-ical Seminary. He was the H. Gezork Professor of Christian Social Ethics at the Andover Newton Theology School. Heis the author or editor of numerous articles and 12 books, including God and Globalization, 3 Vols., with P. Paris, andChristian Social Ethics in a Global Era, with P. Berger et al. He is studying religious and ethical developments that areshaping globalization—the economic, technological, and related developments that both disrupt traditional life and faithand provide a possible basis for a new transnational civilization and a trans-cultural value system.

LISA SOWLE CAHILL“On being a Catholic feminist”April 27, 2003, 7:30 p.m., Sobrato Hall Commons

Catholic women growing up in the United States at the time of the Second Vatican Council havea different experience of Catholicism and society than those of young adults today. While thosewomen have strong roots in a cohesive Church, they also came of age in a more repressive societyand in a religious community with separate, hierarchical gender roles. While these two groups ofwomen have different experiences of sexuality, gender, and the home/work conflict, they can sharea feminism based on Catholicism’s strong traditional commitment to social justice and to a sacra-mental understanding of faith, reappropriated for a newly global and participatory Church.

LISA SOWLE CAHILL ’70 has taught at Boston College since 1976, where she is now the J. Donald Monan, S.J., Pro-fessor of Theology. She is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She is a past president of both theCatholic Theological Society of America (l992-93), and the Society of Christian Ethics (l997-98). She earned her M.A.and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago Divinity School. She was a Visiting Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics,Georgetown University, in l986; and a Visiting Professor of Catholic Theology at Yale University in l997. Her booksinclude Family: A Christian Social Perspective; Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics; ‘Love Your Enemies’: Discipleship, Pacifism,and Just War Theory; and Between the Sexes: Toward a Christian Ethics of Sexuality.

explore is published two times per year

by the Bannan Center for Jesuit Education at

Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real,

Santa Clara, CA 95053-0452.

408-551-1951 (tel) 408-551-7175 (fax)

www.scu.edu/bannancenter

The views expressed in explore do not

necessarily represent the views of the Center.

We welcome your comments.

Founded in 1982, the Bannan Center for

Jesuit Education at Santa Clara University

assists in maintaining the University’s Catholic

and Jesuit character. The center offers grants

for faculty, staff, and students. It sponsors

retreats, lectures, and conferences, and brings

religious scholars and leaders to the University

to engage in educational activities.

EDITORWilliam C. Spohn

MANAGING EDITORElizabeth Kelley Gillogly ’93

DESIGNERAmy (Kremer) Gomersall ’88Art in Motion

BANNAN CENTERFOR JESUIT EDUCATION

DIRECTORWilliam C. Spohn

ASSISTANT DIRECTORPaul Woolley

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSDavid J. ArataMargaret M. BradshawLouise Bannan CarrollAndré L. DelbecqTracey KahanPaul Locatelli, S.J.Gerdenio M. Manuel, S.J.Teresa B. NallyDennis Parnell, S.J.Mario J. Prietto, S.J.

The word “vocation” is related to the Latin

words vocatio, meaning summons, vocare,

meaning to call, and vox, meaning voice.

While vocation is often defined as a call to a religious life, it can have broader

applications. One can feel called to be anything: a lawyer, mother, artist, or

business executive.

In our April 2003 issue, we will explore the idea of vocation in the many

ways it manifests itself. Members of the SCU community will share their

thoughts on vocation in law, engineering, business, campus ministry,

activism, the Jesuit order, and other areas.

next issue:

Santa Clara University, a comprehensive Jesuit, Catholic university located in California's SiliconValley, offers its 8,080 students rigorous undergraduate curricula in arts and sciences, business,and engineering, plus master's and law degrees. Distinguished nationally by the fourth-highestgraduation rate among all U.S. master's universities, California's oldest higher-education institutiondemonstrates faith-inspired values of ethics and social justice. More information is on line atwww.scu.edu.

An examination of Catholic identity and Ignatian character in Jesuit ...

Documents

Transcript of An examination of Catholic identity and Ignatian character in Jesuit ...