Jihad vs. Mcworld the Nature

Jihad vs. McWorld

The Nature and Dynamics of Jihad and McWorld and the Formation of the Confederalized Representative System

In the article, "Jihad vs. McWorld" by Benjamin Barber, the issue of emerging and prevailing practices of globalization and tribalism was confronted. Specifically, Barber looked into the relationship of these two movements with democracy, arguing that the increased prevalence of McWorld and Jihad movements could result to the endangerment of democracy among societies in the world.

In arguing his thesis, Barber asserted crucial points that demonstrated how both globalization and tribalism are potential threats to democracy. In discussing the increased prevalence of globalization, the author used the model of McWorld, which is the kind of society that prevailed in societies influenced by the principles of capitalism and free market. In the McWorld model, Barber discussed how globalization becomes a threat to democracy when societies allow the free market machinery to control not only the economy, but also the society and politics.

Similarly, the rise in tribalism, reflected in the Jihad model, demonstrated how strong nationalism was also as detrimental as the strong presence of capitalism in the society. In the Jihad model, Barber reiterated his point on how nationalism can cause social and political factions and rifts, which furthers conflicts between societies, ultimately defeating the purpose of democracy.

This paper puts into focus the nature and dynamics of the McWorld and Jihad models. In discussing these models, their relationship with democracy will be analyzed. In the discussion and analysis contained herein, it is argued that the Jihad and McWorld models of modern societies act as threats to democracy because these movements serve the interests of specific groups with specific agenda, specifically, capitalist institutions and socio-religious groups. These self-serving socio-political models, because of their inadequacy, led Barber to develop the confederalized representative system -- simply translated as a return to the ideal conceptualization of a civil society.

The nature and dynamics of the McWorld model, according to Barber, is made up of different "imperatives," which include the market, resource, information-technology and ecological imperatives. These imperatives, if addressed collectively, actually make up the nature of the postmodern society: technology-driven and capitalism-oriented. This means that the McWorld model thrives in a society wherein technology plays a primary role in determining people's roles and activities, and capitalism is the sole basis for the development of the society. The McWorld model is a threat to democracy because of the dominance of the economic system, wherein the large and dominant economic societies dictate social order and structure in terms of the capitalist objectives. As Barber countered in the article, "[a]ll national economices are now vulnerable to the inroads of larger, transnational markets..." This increased dependency of society on markets and economic societies result to greater dependence also on changes in the technology and policies regarding capitalist endeavors and free trade.

The McWorld model showed that the capitalist economic system, with its competitive nature, tended to threaten democracy because of its self-governing nature. As popularly contrasted against socialism, the McWorld model trivializes the role of government and society in the inner workings or operations of this kind of society.

The Jihad model, meanwhile, affects societies socio-politically as the McWorld model, but in a different manner. While the McWorld model called for cooperation to eventually make itself self-sustaining and -regulating, the Jihad model was already self-sustaining from the center. The objective of the Jihad model was to isolate one society from the other, and strengthen the society in effect from this isolation. Just like the nature of Jihad, or "struggle" or "holy war," societies under this model was in a constant state of war with other societies, driven by their differences in religion, political structure, or simply, in culture. In this particular model, war becomes "not as an instrument of policy but as an emblem of identity, an expression of community, an end in itself."