Jihad vs mcworld examples

Answer each question in 1-4 complete sentences

Barber (1995). Globalization-Jihad Vs. McWorld

1. Define the terms ‘market imperative,’ ‘resource imperative,’ ‘ecological imperative,’ and ‘information-technology imperative’ using examples from the text.

2. Barber writes that democracy has a darkening future. Give two reasons for his justification with specific examples from his Jihad Vs. McWorld comparison.

3. This article was written in 1995. Do you feel as if the conditions that inspired this article have changed in the last twenty years? If so, how? Give examples to support your opinion.

4. Here I encourage you to provide your own response to the readings, ask questions for clarification, or pose questions that you would like to discuss in class.Barber, Benjamin. 1995. "Jihad Vs McWorld" in Braving the New World: Readings in Contemporary Politics, pp. 17-27. © 1995 Nelson Canada. Jihad V s. McWorld Benjamin Barber Since World War II, up until the end of the 1980s, two military superpowers dominated tile world scene. In addition, multinational (or perhaps more descriptively "transnational") corporations became major international actors, some having larger annual sales than the entire gross domestic prod uct of many state economies. Now there is only one superpower left, and it exercises enormous influence not only because of its military strength but also because of the cultural and economic leverage it possesses. comitant decline of state power, even as states still struggle to emerge and be recognized. In this widely read article, Benjamin Barber sets out the two principal forces of the postCold War world: universalizing, globalizing State-to-state diplomacy now takes place within a changed context, in which the old rules of the game no longer apply, and in which a key development is the "globaliza- forces of technology, information, and trade; and parochial, tribalizing forces of nationalism, ethnicity, and religious identity. The two sets of forces combine to bring us together and drive us apart simUltaneously. Barber addresses a couple of themes worth noting at the outset. The first is the degree to which globalizing forces bear an American cultural imprint Is technology noncultural or does it inevitably carry with it American cultural lionn of national antecedents? The second theme is the anti- J economies and a con- ust beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures-botb bleak, neither democratic. The first is a rerribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a tbreat- democratic or anti political character of both forces. This is a powerful and provocative piece: it challenges the reader to think in global terms. The reader's main task is to first ask, as always, do I understand the relationships that Barber presents: the four imperatives of McWorld, the elements that make up the cimtrifugaJ forces of Jihad, and the antipoliticaJ nature of both? Second, Barber uses a vocabulary that will be familiar to political scientists, but not necessarily to the general reader. He uses terms such as comity and community, sectarianism, ethnocentrism and,confederalism, which will have to be discussed and thought abou~ not merely glossed over. ened Lebarionization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe-a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdepen- III denee, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic muwality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and rhat mcsmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast \ food-with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing n;Hions into one commercially homogeneous global network: one Me-World tied wgether by tcchnology, ecology, communications, and commercc.