Evelin Lindner's Concept of Globalization & Egalization

• English version
• Deutsche Version
• Norsk versjon
• Version francais

 

Globalization & Egalization

The term "egalization" (or "egalisation") has been coined by Evelin Lindner, in order to introduce more stringent differentiations into the globalization debate ("egalisering" in Norwegian, "egalisation" in French, and "Egalisierung" in German).

The introduction of the term "egalization" has the advantage of untangling positive and negative trends embedded into what is usually termed "globalization." The "coming together" aspect in globalization entails a host of aspects that are beneficial for humankind (for example, a heightened awareness for humankind's joint responsibility for the maintenance of their tiny home planet) and ought not to be discredited in its entirety.

Introducing the term "egalization" allows for "freeing" the positive aspects in globalization, by placing its problems into another social process that occurs at about the same time as globalization, namely egalization, or the struggle (currently unsuccessful), by the human rights movement, to increase equal chances for everybody in this globalizing world and diminish humiliating living conditions.

If we imagine the world as a container with a height and a width, globalization addresses the horizontal dimension, the shrinking width. Egalization, on the other hand, concerns the vertical dimension. Egalization means that the container shrinks in height, with masters at the top and underlings at the bottom moving closer together. The ultimate goal of egalization is a flat container with everybody at about the same height of equal dignity, as defined in human rights. Globalization and egalization, together, describe a shrinking of our "world," both horizontally and vertically.

Globalization occurs "automatically," propelled by technology, but egalization requires deliberate and committed ideological decisions. Globalization can very well occur without egalization. This is precisely what appears to be happening at present when we consider that the gap between the rich at the top and the poor at the bottom is growing, both locally and globally. Globalization without egalization is a story of the container getting narrower and higher.

"Globalization-critics" do not oppose the coming together of humankind in a globalizing world. They oppose the lack of egalization. Globalization critics want our world not only to shrink in "width," but also to become "flatter.

Globalization entails a push toward egalization, albeit with a painful time lag and in a hurtfully uncoordinated way. In his last book, Thomas Friedman describes how the current round of globalization (he calls it Globalization 3.0) contributes to making the world "flatter."

In sum, the introduction of the term egalization allows for correctly differentiating the beneficial and destructive trends at the current historic juncture: globalization, understood as the coming together of humankind entails many beneficial aspects and needs to be honed carefully, not rejected in a wholesale-manner. It needs to be combined with egalization, which means giving all citizens of the world equal changes for building dignified lives. The introduction of the term egalization is therefore crucial if we wish to forge more effective analysis and action.

The concept of egalization links up to current scholarship on dignity, decency, and humiliation. Avishai Margalit wrote The Decent Society, a book, in which he calls for institutions that do no longer humiliate citizens - just societies no longer suffice; the goal should be decent societies that transcend humiliation. Decency reigns when dignity for all is made possible. Decency calls for a joint effort to attain the goals of the United Nations Millennium Declaration of September 2000. In line with Margalit's work, Lindner calls for a Moratorium on Humiliation.

In her book Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict (2006, Praeger/Greenwood), Lindner writes:

"Globalization is powered by technology and our use of it, while what I call egalization is driven by our day-to-day moral sentiments and moral decisions. Egalization is about our relations with others and ourselves, whether we deem it right to look up or down on others and ourselves or believe we should treat all with equal respect. Egalization is about whether we use fear as the "glue" for coercive hierarchies or prefer to live in creative networks held together by mutual respect as defined by human rights ideals of equal dignity for all. I coined the word egalization to differentiate it from words such as equality, equity, or egalitarianism because the main point is equal dignity. The term egalization avoids claiming that there are no differences among people. Egality can coexist with functional hierarchy that regards all participants as possessing equal dignity; egality cannot coexist with hierarchy that defines some people as more valuable than others."

Michio Kaku (2005), renowned physicist and leading expert in string theory, concludes his book on Parallel Worlds with the following paragraph:
The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization [meaning that humankind manages to build a sustainable planet, both ecologically and socially] or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one. The choice is ours. This is the legacy of the generation now alive. This is our destiny (Kaku, 2005, p. 361).

References:

Friedman , Thomas L. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kaku, Michio (2005). Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday.

Lindner, Evelin G. (2006). Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict. Westport, CT, London: Praeger/Greenwood.

Margalit, Avishai (1996). The Decent Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Globalisierung & Egalisierung

Kürzlich ist der Begriff "Egalisierung" von Evelin Lindner geprägt worden, mit dem Ziel, strengere Differenzierungen in die Globalisierungsdebatte einzuführen ("egalization" oder "egalisation" auf Englisch, "egalisering" auf Norwegisch, und "egalisation" auf Französisch).

Die Einführung des Begriffs "Egalisierung" hat den Vorteil, die positiven und negativen Tendenzen zu entwirren, die eingebettet sind in was gewöhnlich "Globalisierung" genannt wird. Globalisierung umfasst eine Vielzahl von Aspekten, die förderlich sind (zum Beispiel, ein gesteigertes Bewusstsein für die gemeinschaftliche Verantwortung der Menschheit für die Erhaltung ihres winzigen Heimplaneten). Dieses "Zusammenkommen" der Menschheit sollte nicht diskreditiert werden.

Die Einführung des Begriffs "Egalisiering" erlaubt es, die positiven Aspekte in Globalisierung freizusetzen, und zwar indem die Probleme in einem zweiten sozialen Prozess lokalisiert werden, der zur gleichen Zeit wie Globalisierung stattfindet, nämlich Egalisiering. Egalisierung bezeichnet den Kampf (momentan oft eher erfolglos) der Menschenrechtbewegung, gleiche Chancen für jeden in dieser globalisierenden Welt zu vermehren, und demütigende Lebensbedingungen zu verringern.

Wenn wir uns die Welt als einen Behälter mit einer Höhe und einer Breite vorstellen, entspricht Globalisierung der horizontalen Dimension und Egalisiering der senkrechten Dimension. Globalisierung bedeutet, dass der Behälter in seinem Radius kleiner wird, Egalisiering bedeutet, dass er in seiner Höhe schrumpft. Das Ziel von Egalisiering ist ein flacher Behälter, in dem jeder Menschen sich auf gleicher Höhe befindet, mit gleicher Würde, so wie es in den Menschenrechten definiert wird. Globalisierung und Egalisiering zusammen beschreiben eine Schrumpfung unserer "Welt," sowohl horizontal als auch senkrecht.

Globalisierung findet "automatisch" statt, angetriebenen durch Technologie und ihre Entwicklung (zum Beispiel des Internets). Egalisiering dagegen erfordert zielgerichtete ideologische Entscheidungen. Globalisierung kann sehr gut ohne Egalisiering stattfinden. Dies ist genau, was im Moment der Fall ist. Der Abstand zwischen reich und arm wächst, sowohl lokal wie auch global. Um im Bild des Behälter zu bleiben, bedeutet Globalisierung ohne Egalisiering, dass der Behälter enger und höher wird.

"Globalisierungskritiker" kritisieren nicht das Zusammenkommen der Menschheit in einer globalisierenden Welt. Sie kritisieren den Mangel von Egalisiering. Globalisierungskritiker wollen unsere Welt nicht nur horizontal schrumpfen, sondern auch vertikal.

Globalisierung fördert Egalisiering, obgleich mit einer schmerzhaften zeitlichen Verzögerung und in schmerzlich unkoordinierter Weise. Thomas Friedman beschreibt sehr gut in seinem letzten Buch wie die gegenwärtige "Runde" von Globalisierung (er nennt sie Globalisierung 3,0) die Welt "flacher" macht.

Um zusammenzufassen, die Einführung des Begriffs Egalisierung erlaubt es, richtig zu unterscheiden zwischen den förderlichen und zerstörerischen Tendenzen, die den gegenwärtigen historischen Zeitpunkt in dem wir leben kennzeichnen: Globalisierung als das Zusammenkommen der Menschheit enthalt viele förderliche Aspekten und muss vorsichtig gefördert und nicht rundheraus abgelehnt werden. Globalisierung muss mit Egalisierung kombiniert werden, um allen Bürgern der Welt gleiche Chancen für ein würdiges Leben zu geben. Die Einführung des Begriffs Egalisierung ist daher sehr wichtig, und entscheidend, wenn wir wünschen, effektiver in unserer Analyse von Globalisierung zu werden und wirkungsvollere Interventionen zu entwickeln.

Der Begriff der Egalisierung ist aus der gegenwärtigen Forschung über Würde, Anstand, und Demütigung / Erniedrigung entstanden. In seinem Buch The Decent Society [Die Anständige Gesellschaft] verlangt Avishai Margalit Institutionen, die nicht länger ihre Bürger demütigen - es genügt nicht, eine gerechte Gesellschaft zu entwickeln; das Ziel muss eine anständige Gesellschaft ohne Erniedrigung sein. Anstand herrscht, wenn Würde für alle möglich gemacht wird. Anstand verlangt eine gemeinschaftliche Bemühung, die Ziele der Millennium Deklaration der Vereinten Nationen vom September 2000 zu erreichen. Im Geiste von Margalits Forderung, verlangt Lindner ein Moratorium für Erniedrigung.

In ihrem Buch Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict (2006, Praeger/Greenwood) schreibt Lindner:
"Globalization is powered by technology and our use of it, while what I call egalization is driven by our day-to-day moral sentiments and moral decisions. Egalization is about our relations with others and ourselves, whether we deem it right to look up or down on others and ourselves or believe we should treat all with equal respect. Egalization is about whether we use fear as the "glue" for coercive hierarchies or prefer to live in creative networks held together by mutual respect as defined by human rights ideals of equal dignity for all. I coined the word egalization to differentiate it from words such as equality, equity, or egalitarianism because the main point is equal dignity. The term egalization avoids claiming that there are no differences among people. Egality can coexist with functional hierarchy that regards all participants as possessing equal dignity; egality cannot coexist with hierarchy that defines some people as more valuable than others."

Michio Kaku (2005), berühmter Physiker und führender Experte in der string theory, schließt sein Buch über parallele Welten mit dem folgenden Zeilen ab:
The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization [meaning that humankind manages to build a sustainable planet, both ecologically and socially] or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one. The choice is ours. This is the legacy of the generation now alive. This is our destiny (Kaku, 2005, p. 361).

 

Globalisering & egalisering

Begrepet "egalisering" har blitt skapt av Evelin Lindner ("egalization" eller "egalisation" på engelsk, "egalisation" på fransk og "Egalisierung" på tysk). Egalisering betyr at likeverd, som menneskerettigheter definerer det, blir introdusert inn i "globaliseringen." Begrepet er viktig fordi det introduserer strengere differensieringer inn i globaliseringsdebatten.

Termen "egalisering" har fordelen av å differensiere de positive og negative trendene som begge er del i hva vanligvis er kalt "globalisering." For eksempel, aspekten av "å komme sammen" er fordelaktig (for eksempel, det er fordelaktig at forståelsen for menneskehetens felles ansvar for deres knøttliten hjemplanet blir høynet). Denne aspekten i globaliseringen bør ikke diskrediteres.

Det å introdusere termen egalisering tillater å "frigjøre" de positive aspektene i globaliseringen ved å plassere dets problemer inn i en annen sosial prosess som utfolder seg på samme tid som globaliseringen, nemlig egalisering. Egalisering betegner kampen (for tiden often heller mislykket) av menneskerettighetsbevegelsen å skape like sjanser for alle i denne globaliserende verden og redusere ydmykende levekår.

Om vi forestiller oss verdenen som en beholder med en høyde og en bredde, så angår globalisering den horisontale dimensjonen, den krympende radiusen. Egalisering, på den annen siden, angår den vertikale dimensjonen. Egalisering betyr at beholderen krymper i høyden. Det ytterste mål av egalisering er en flat beholder med alle på det samme nivået av lik verdighet, som definert i menneskerettigheter. Globalisering og egalisering, sammen, beskriver en krymping av vår "verden," begge horisontalt og vertikalt.

Globaliseringen forekommer "automatisk," drevet av teknologi (Internett, for eksempel), mens egaliseringen krever bevisste ideologisk avgjørelser. Globaliseringen kan meget godt forekomme uten egalisering. Dette er nøyaktig hva som skjer ved det nåværende tidspunkt når vi betrakter at gapet mellom rik og fattig vokser, begge lokalt og globalt. Globalisering uten egalisering betyr at beholderen bli smalere og høy.

"Globalization critics" kritiserer ikke det at menneskeheten kommer sammen i en globaliserende verden. De kritiserer mangel på egalisering. Globalization critics vil ha vår verden ikke bare krympe i "bredde," men også bli "flatere.

Globaliseringen fremmer egalisering, men med en smertelig tidsforskjell og i en pinefullt ukoordinert måte. I hans siste bok beskriver Thomas Friedman hvordan den nåværende runden av globaliseringen (han kaller det Globalization 3.0) bidrar til å gjøre verdenen "flatere."

I sum, introduseringen av termen egalization tillater oss å riktigere differensiere de fordelaktige og destruktive trender i den nåværende historisk tidspunkt: globaliseringen, eller det at menneskeheten kommer sammen, inneholder mange fordelaktige aspekter og må fremmes forsiktig, ikke forkastet i sin helhet. Globaliseringen må føres sammen med egalisering, som betyr å gi all borgere av verdenen like muligheter til å bygge et verdig liv. Introduseringen av termen egalization er derfor kritisk om vi ønsker å utvikle effektivere analyse og tiltak.

Begrepet egalisering bygger på fersk forskning på verdighet, anstendighet og ydmykelse. I sin bok The Decent Society [Det Anstendige Samfunn] krever Avishai Margalit institusjoner som ikke lenger ydmyker borgere - det er ikke nok med å bygge et rettferdig samfunn; målet må være et anstendig samfunn uten ydmykelse. Anstendighet hersker når verdighet for alle er mulig. Anstendighet krever en felles innsats for å oppnå målene av den Forente Nasjonenes Millennium Erklæringen av September 2000. I tråd med Margalits arbeid, krever Lindner en Moratorium for Ydmykelse.

I hennes bok Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict (2006, Praeger/Greenwood) forklarer Lindner begrepet som følgende:
"Globalization is powered by technology and our use of it, while what I call egalization is driven by our day-to-day moral sentiments and moral decisions. Egalization is about our relations with others and ourselves, whether we deem it right to look up or down on others and ourselves or believe we should treat all with equal respect. Egalization is about whether we use fear as the “glue” for coercive hierarchies or prefer to live in creative networks held together by mutual respect as defined by human rights ideals of equal dignity for all. I coined the word egalization to differentiate it from words such as equality, equity, or egalitarianism because the main point is equal dignity. The term egalization avoids claiming that there are no differences among people. Egality can coexist with functional hierarchy that regards all participants as possessing equal dignity; egality cannot coexist with hierarchy that defines some people as more valuable than others."

Michio Kaku (2005), kjent fysiker og ledende ekspert på string theory, avslutter sin bok Parallel Worlds med følgende paragraf:
The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization [meaning that humankind manages to build a sustainable planet, both ecologically and socially] or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one. The choice is ours. This is the legacy of the generation now alive. This is our destiny (Kaku, 2005, p. 361).

 

Mondialisation & egalisation

Récemment, le terme « egalisation » a été inventé par Evelin Lindner, afin d'introduire des différenciations les plus rigoureuses dans le débat de mondialisation ("egalization" ou "egalisation" en anglais, "egalisering" en norvégien, et "Egalisierung" en allemand).

L'introduction de terme « egalisation » a l'avantage de dénouant des tendances positives et négatives mélangées dans ce que par d'habitude est nommée « la mondialisation. » Dans la mondialisation il y a un grand nombre d'aspects qui sont avantageux pour l'humanité (par exemple, une conscience relevée pour la responsabilité commune de l'humanité pour leur petite planète). Ces aspects positifs ne doivent pas être discrédités.

Introduire le terme egalisation « libère » les aspects positifs dans la mondialisation, en plaçant ses problèmes dans un autre procès social qui arrive au même temps comme la mondialisation, précisément l'egalisation, ou la lutte (actuellement souvent plutôt infructueux) par le mouvement de droits humain d'augmenter des chances égaux de vivre une vie digne pour tout le monde et diminuer les conditions humiliantes.

Si nous imaginons le monde comme un récipient avec une hauteur et une largeur, la mondialisation adresse la dimension horizontale, la largeur rétrécissant. Egalisation, d'autre part, concerne la dimension verticale. Egalisation signifie le récipient rétrécit dans la hauteur. Le but ultime de egalisation est un récipient plat avec tout le monde à la hauteur pareille de dignité égale, comme défini dans les droits humains. La mondialisation et egalisation, ensemble, décrire un rétrécir de notre « monde, » les deux, horizontalement et verticalement.

La mondialisation arrive « automatiquement, » propulsé par la technologie (par exemple, l'Internet), mais egalisation exige des décisions intentionnelles et dévouées idéologiques. La mondialisation peut bien arriver sans egalisation. Ceci est précisément ce qu'a l'air d'être la situation en ce moment quand nous considérons que l'écart entre les riche et les pauvres grandit, localement et globalement. La mondialisation sans egalisation est une histoire du récipient devenant plus étroit et plus haut.

Les « globalization critics » n'opposent pas que l'humanité vient ensemble dans un monde globalisant. Ils opposent le manque de egalisation. Les « globalization critics  « veulent que notre monde non seulement rétrécisse dans la « largeur, » mais aussi devient « plat. »

La mondialisation représente une force qui pousse vers l'egalisation, bien qu'avec un décalage pénible et dans une façon offensivement désordonnée. Dans son dernier livre, Thomas Friedman décrit comment le « rond » actuel de mondialisation (il l'appelle la Globalization 3,0) contribue à faire le monde « plat. »

En somme, l'introduction du terme egalisation tient compte de différenciant correctement les tendances avantageuses et destructrices à la jointure historique actuelle : la mondialisation, ou le fait que l'humanité vient ensemble, signifie beaucoup d'aspects avantageux et a besoin d'être soigneusement aiguisé, pas rejeté. La mondialisation a besoin d'être combiné avec l'egalisation, qui signifie donnant de chances égaux à tous citoyens du monde pour construire des vies dignes. L'introduction du terme egalisation est donc cruciale si nous souhaitons créer des analyses et des actions plus efficaces.

Le concept d'egalisation est connecté avec les études actuelles sur la dignité, la décence, et l'humiliation. Avishai Margalit a écrit The Decent Society [La Société Décente], un livre dans lequel il sollicite des institutions qui non plus humilie des citoyens - c'est ne suffit non plus d'avoir des sociétés juste; le but doit être des sociétés décents qui transcendent l'humiliation. La décence règne quand la dignité pour touts est fait possible. La décence demande un effort commun pour atteindre les buts de la Déclaration de Millénaire de Nations Unie du 2000 septembre. En ligne avec le travail de Margalit, Lindner sollicite un Moratoire pour l'Humiliation.

Dans son livre Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict (2006, Praeger/Greenwood), Lindner écrit :
"Globalization is powered by technology and our use of it, while what I call egalization is driven by our day-to-day moral sentiments and moral decisions. Egalization is about our relations with others and ourselves, whether we deem it right to look up or down on others and ourselves or believe we should treat all with equal respect. Egalization is about whether we use fear as the “glue” for coercive hierarchies or prefer to live in creative networks held together by mutual respect as defined by human rights ideals of equal dignity for all. I coined the word egalization to differentiate it from words such as equality, equity, or egalitarianism because the main point is equal dignity. The term egalization avoids claiming that there are no differences among people. Egality can coexist with functional hierarchy that regards all participants as possessing equal dignity; egality cannot coexist with hierarchy that defines some people as more valuable than others."

Michio Kaku (2005), physicien renommé et principal expert dans la string theory, conclut son livre sur les mondes parallèles avec le paragraphe suivant :
The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization [meaning that humankind manages to build a sustainable planet, both ecologically and socially] or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one. The choice is ours. This is the legacy of the generation now alive. This is our destiny (Kaku, 2005, p. 361).