Which Globalization?

     Probably the first “Globalization” in History was that one by Alexander the Great, in fourth century B.C., when he spread the Hellenic Culture. After that, there were several others.

     So, the first Globalization is not that of the end of the 20^th century, and is not the last… In that occasion, people used to think that the “glamourized Globalization” was the solution for everything. But, after 1999 several movements against it appeared.

     Fifteen years ago, Stiglitz wrote about “Globalization and its Discontents”, focusing on the growing opposition to globalization in developing countries. Recently he wrote in the “Project Syndicate” that this opposition spread to other groups of countries, even the developed ones. Through the article he explains this kind of thing by many arguments and citing other authors.

     Anyway, we can see that something is not working in matter of that kind of Globalization. At same time we can also see that internet is also a kind of globalization that is working and improving its functions in society. There are also other globalizations working, even in economy, but maybe not under the “Globalization” flag…

     Maybe the word Globalization must be replaced by another one, or it is not working anymore because we are living in an after-postmodern time, when we can make the questions: Which globalization we want? Which globalization we need? Which globalization is possible?

  

Crises, archetypes and after-postmodern...

     Historical crises are moments for archetype strengths to emerge.

     Archetypes are Jungian concepts that he got from the philosopher Plato about the supposed perfect ideas of things in an ideal world out from this one.

     For Carl Gustav Jung archetypes are psychological potentialities that everyone has to develop and live with building his own self. One common example is “the hero archetype” very studied by the anthropologist Joseph Campbell. Every human culture has heroes that help each one to develop certain characteristics of personality to face the problems of life.

     Since the last period of postmodern era, several people and nations were compelled by the rise of ancient and communal archetypes after the beginning of the most recent “globalization”.

    Nowadays it happens again in different directions and targets. Some nations want to be “more isolated”, some others want to bind to others, and so on…

   In after-postmodern times they are trying to find their own historical and cultural identities, individually and in common with their own people.

     There is no simple answer to this quest…     

  

"Multi, Inter, Trans-lateralism" and after-postmodern times

     From time to time the associations of countries in the world follow some logic of coalitions that are determined by affinities of objectives by one side, and looking for some kind of strength against real or in some way symbolic “enemies”. But, in after-postmodern times, at same time that all of these factors are in the game, it seems that there are several types of “channels, nets, grids”, alliances following Complexity.

     Complexity Philosophy started in Postmodernity or even in Modern Times; however its application was something distant from reality or strange. Nevertheless, the translogical thinking of after-postmodern times is finding its own space after the weakness of old efficiencies.

     Nowadays the link among countries is not only under multilateralism, but also under “interlateralism” or even a “translateralism”. Transversal connections are crossing nations and building “cross-culturalities” in a similar way to interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.         

Panama Papers and after-postmodern journalism

The investigative journalism focusing on the Panama Papers is a kind of after-postmodern journalism with more than 300 professionals around the world in a new kind of globalization, a globalization of transparency, a new step focusing on human values. Even discussions about “legal and illegal” things is part of a new after-postmodern exercise of citizenship.  

Are “Panama Papers” signs of “Macroshift” and “After-Postmodern” Era?

The things now named as “Panama Papers” maybe were “normal”, or “regular”, or “not so important” in postmodern times when “pragmatism, efficiency and results” were the more important criteria of values. So, something has happened in the beginning of the 21^st Century that is difficult to know exactly, but it seems an irreversible wave: the pendulum of history…

Among several crisis that show the end of old efficiencies, “Panama Papers” constitute a phenomena that has a kind of unpredictable “butterfly effect” over a once dreamt kind of globalization at the end of the 20^th century…

Crisis or not crisis: the big picture is the “Macroshift”

Professor Nouriel Roubini has written in the “Project Syndicate” about seven reasons for economic difficulties in 2016, although he does not agree that the 2008 crisis is back. 

If we look to all the historic events that happened since 2008, maybe we can recognize connections among several factors in many different countries in a way that we can use the Ervin Laszlo concept of “Macroshift”. 

Oil, sustainability, wars, stock markets, etc., all those things are showing that postmodern period of history is ending, or is even just past. 

What “after-postmodern era” means, we are still trying to understand, maybe we are more in a kind of transition "inside the Macroshift" than properly in a new era. 

Is there ambiguity about the after-postmodern environmental issues?

The post-modern efficiency is gone with the end of the 20^th century.

At those days environmental issues had been seen as “dreamer issues”.

The efficiency of those days was good enough to look at the environmental issues as something not useful, against the progress, even with some international agreement about it.

Nowadays, the world look for new efficiencies, the world has much more scientific knowledge than before, environmental issues does not seem so unrealistic.

Nevertheless, some ambiguity is still around…

We see new agreements, too much talking, but we feel yet something insecure in the air…

Is this ambiguity an ironical “residual matter” of post-modern era? Or it can be a signal of new ways to solve the environmental matter?

We do not have the answer for while…