Last night was the first part of Zygmunt Bauman's three-part Ralph Miliband lecture series at LSE, and there's now a transcript available online. Very briefly, his argument ran as follows...
We now witness a globalisation of justice, not in the sense that the world is a just place, but that the question of justice or injustice is an unavoidably global one. We can no longer claim that we don't know of foreign injustices, nor that they are not our responsibility. We can only claim that we are helpless to do anything; we suffer from a "tools crisis". Bauman's argument, as contained in books such as In Search of Politics, is that politics and power have become divorced from one another, and that the most urgent project for the 21st century is their reunification. Until this happens, politics will continue to be dogged by 'Titanic syndrome': the fear that civilisation can at any moment collapse into apocalyptic and primal chaos. Inevitably he referenced Hurricane Katrina - on which note, this link to Durkheim is also interesting. Meanwhile, individuals are dogged by the Weakest Link/Big Brother syndrome: that they alone will become excluded, and be left to fend for themselves. Domestic politics then becomes preoccupied with securing us from one another, through construction of barriers, containment of disorder and ever more sophisticated anti-crime initiatives (see also Polly Toynbee's excellent piece today on the function of crime as an idea in contemporary politics)
I'd encourage anyone to go along to the other two lectures, especially week three when he promises to come up with some possible ways forward for politics. In Bauman's view, "democracy and freedom may be made secure on a planetary scale - or not at all". But he veered rapidly into dangerous territory by saying that 'international law' was inadequate, only 'global law' would suffice. There's something immediately and obviously disquieting about this - what do we do if politics leads to bad global laws, or an oppressive global constitution? Move to Mars?
Liberals may like the idea of universality of rules, but in a strange way this becomes anti-liberal as soon as it becomes actualised in any particular State (as Hegel believed it had in the form of the Prussian State). For instance, would 'we liberals' all have such fond feelings towards the UN if it were remotely capable of delivering on its moral objectives? Could Kofi Annan still be a folk hero if he weren't also the under-dog? Liberals tend to be opposed to unilateralism, more favourable to bi-lateralism, and best inclined to multi-lateralism. But what Bauman seemed to be suggesting - though he didn't draw out the implications - is a form of (if my Latin serves me correctly) omni-lateralism
Comments