Social Theory, Jurgen Habermas, and the Rise of Nationalism in 2016
Jurgen Habermas
The Faces of 2016
Contemporary Social Theory, In Introduction, Anthony Elliott (2009)
This book began by telling a story of a young, ethnically Chinese woman who was an American citizen, yet lived in England, worked and France, and had a boyfriend in Finland. This story set the tone for the rest of the book, which often addressed the topic of globalization.
The concept of globalization (worldwide integration and development) is nothing new. Franz L. Neumann, of the first generation “Frankfurt School” wrote about the momentous political and legal transformations that were happening under globalization.
His successor, Jurgen Habermas, developed Neumann’s work further. Habermas conceived of a “cosmopolitan global government.” (Loc 4607)
Habermas states:
“The fiscal bias for social policies has steadily dwindled, while the state has increasingly lost its capacity to steer the economy via macroeconomic policy. Moreover, the integral force of nationality as a way of life is diminishing, along with the relatively homogenous basis of civil solidarity. As nation-states increasingly lose their capacity for action and the stability of their collective identities they will find it more and more difficult to meet the need for self-legitimation.”
As I read this, I wonder what Habermas thinks of 2016. There are so many places in the world that seems to be running from globalization. Here are some examples:
The Election of Tsai Ing-wen as the President of Taiwan.
In May of 2016, Tsai Ing-wen was elected as the President of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Not only is she Taiwan’s first woman president, she is the first non-married president, and the first president who has never held elective office. More importantly, she is the first president of the Republic of China who is not Han Chinese. She is a mix of Hakka and Aboriginal Taiwanese.
The significance of her election (a landslide with over 25 points above her opponent) is that her party, the Democratic Progressive Party, has taken a strong stand against the People’s Republic of China. This is significant because the Chinese Civil War of the 1950s never really ended. Mainland China continues to state emphatically that Taiwan belongs to them—and that they may take it over by force without notice. More realistically, Taiwan’s economy relies on a lot of contracts with the Mainland. The election of Tsai in Taiwan has caused a new wave of nationalism in Taiwan, even though it could possibly bring economic and political instability, even war.
The Election of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines
In May of 2016, another nationalistic president was elected. Rodrigo Duterte was elected as the president of the Philippines. Duterte was the first President of the Philippines who came from the island of Mindanao, which is traditionally known for violence brought form by with Muslim Jihadists or Communist Insurgents.
Duterte won in a landslide, primarily because of his hard stance against drugs. Nicknamed “The Punisher” by Time Magazine, human rights groups document the killings of over 1,400 drug dealers and drug users by his command, some of them being street children.
Duterte is an unabashed womanizer was largely criticized for 2016 his comments made in regards to an Australian missionary woman who was gang raped and killed. When he saw how beautiful her corpse was, he stated that he should have been the first to rape her.
Duterte’s nationalism has been in the news lately, he has made several public statements that he would like to end the Philippines longstanding alliance with the United States. His tirade of curses against President Obama caused the U.S. State Department to cancel upcoming meetings between the two.
The Brexit Referendum
On the 24th of June, 2016 citizens of Great Britain voted 51.9% in favor of leaving the European Union. There are many political, social, and economic factors that played into this. To this date, the exact consequences of this decision are unclear.
What is clear is that nationalism among the British people played a major role in this decision. Brexit seemed to be England’s movement away Habermas’ vision of increased globalization.
The Rise of Donald J. Trump
As of this writing, the U.S. Presidential election of 2016 has not happened. No matter who wins, the rise of Donald J. Trump in American politics is something that no one saw coming.
His announcement to run in 2015 was draped in controversy as he espoused a theory that Mexico was intentionally emptying their prisons to send us their murderers and rapists. For many in the media, his campaign was a circus act, following one outrageous comment after another, wanting to catch his downfall on live television. Instead, we watched Trump pull ahead of over a 15 other Republican contenders for the presidency, some with impressive resumes.
Donald J. Trump has given voice a nationalistic group of Americans who care nothing for political correctness. Many of his supporters have been politically inactive. This flag-waving, racially insensitive, misogynistic candidate has assembled a coalition who feels that the globalization of the world is leaving them behind. From foreign-trade to immigration, Trump’s supporters do not want a progressive, sensitive leader. They want someone who will fight to rebuild American status quo the past (AKA “Make American Great Again.”)
While Social Theory was a challenging read, it reminded me of the classis illustration of the pendulum. Just when social theorists have identified a trend, history changes. I am curious what Habermas will write in 2017.
About the Author
Stu Cocanougher
10 responses to “Social Theory, Jurgen Habermas, and the Rise of Nationalism in 2016”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you, Stu. I could add to that the Quebec sovereignty movement, and the recent Scottish referendums for independence. My heart soared like so many others when Mel Gibson cried “Freedom” in Braveheart.
Today I am in Grand Rapids. I flew over the Eastern Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming, the Dakotas and Minnesota and Wisconsin to get here. As I looked out of the plane at mostly farms I could not help thinking, “God Bless America!” This is the real America. The hard working people. Neither Trump nor Hillary have a clue who they think they say they are representing.
My thought as I read your post though was:
What about nationalism? What do you think? I love my country, but I have another “country” that I am looking forward to. We live “here” but “not here” I guess. Great post! I loved it!
So can I gently push back here, Mary? In North Dakota, the First people are having their sacred lands destroyed and their clean water threatened. So which ones are the real Americans? Whose rights and freedoms do we protect? One thing that I struggle with is the fact that nationalism is the voice that screams “not in our back yard” without caring much about what happens in other yards. It really isn’t so much about THE nation, but MY nation.
I also wanted to write about the Umbrella moment in Hong Kong, but it was before 2016.
Stu- your world history of politics is impressive. Thank you for sharing…I had no idea about the woman president of Taiwan. Your heart for the world missions comes through. What a disturbed individual who leads the Phillippians! I often wonder how people such as him comes to power. Very unsettling….
So true about your comment on trends. Almost as if no one knows but the Almighty. Glad we have Him as our friend and ruler. Fascinating post!
Stu – appreciated the post a lot, especially how you pulled all of these different world events together – making a point (intentionally/unintentionally?) that even the impulse to fight the globalization of our world is connected to what is going on in the rest of the world!
As I read your post, especially the part about Trump – but really all of it – I did continue to think about how all of these candidates are speaking to different societies if you will (using the framework of Natalie’s story)…. The society that Trump is speaking to or better the society that he seems to be speaking for, is not mine and it is so disparate from mine that I struggle to understand any of the appeal – but that works in both directions.
Have you read Hillbilly Elegy? I think it does a really wonderful job of painting the picture of what we might call ‘Trump’s America’ and how part of what is happening is a response to the disconnect many rural, poor, predominantly white people have felt from the dominant ‘society’ in our culture.
Good and challenging stuff.
I like the way you link the various world events together to discuss people’s reaction to globalisation. Mass immigration and the rise of multiculturism was a big driver in the Brexit vote, along with the desire for sovereignty. With the American presidential elections and the other events you mentioned, we are living in interesting times. It is good to get the background of this book to give us a better framework of understanding.
You went there.
Globalization is affected by the actions of one country. It can improve, stabilize, or destroy. Reading your post placed an incentive for me to be more in tune with the political climate in other countries. In some way, it will or can affect me.
Really well thought out post, Stu. My biggest problem with nationalism is that it usually becomes an excuse for violence. Sometimes the violence is understandable because people are pushing back against a colonizing oppressor, while other times, it is simply a tool for gathering power while marginalizing the “other.” Walls, armed borders, barbed-wire fences, and massive defense budgets seem to be the end result of rabid nationalism. When I taught history, I used to tell my students that we are a nation born of a war to declare ourselves free from an oppressor, and we have remained at war throughout most of our “life” for fear that another oppressor (or threat) might come along and take it all away. Lately it feels like something deeper. We are in an internal war for the power to decide which group of people gets to determine who the threat is that we should fight. It doesn’t feel very “national” at all.
Our world is in the midst of upheaval as we seek to find balance between local and global. And there must be a better balance than what we see currently. Local can be beautiful– community, dependence on one another, and caring for the place. But it can also turn ugly, as you aptly describe. Similarly, global connections can be positive– increasing international trade, investments and interests in developing countries, and connections with people on the other side of the world. But again, the danger is a tendency towards flattening the uniqueness of place (or McDonaldization), lack of consideration for place (environment), etc. We can fight and resist globalization (as in your examples), embrace it, or preferably, seek to hold local and global in tension. As Christians, we may be in the perfect place to do just that; balancing our local congregational identity with affiliation into the global Body of Christ (church & Church).
I am still processing the Multiethnic Church Conference that I attended last week. While I still believe that the Multiethnic Church in America is the church that our society of skeptics needs to see, I also understand that this movement can be accused of McDonaldization.