Franz J. Hinkelammert
Today we have a consciousness of globality that places humanity with a responsibility for life on earth as an ethical obligation as a condition of possibility of all life futura. Lo útil y lo ético se unen frente a este desafío. La globalización es otro proceso, que es de carácter más práctico: globalización de los mensajes, de los cálculos, de los transportes, con la consiguiente disponibilidad del globo, instantáneo en lo digital y a un mínimo tiempo de transporte físico. Esto ha permitido constituir mercados globales, redes de división social del trabajo planificadas por burocracias privadas multinacionales y por empresas de producción global.
Frente a estos hechos, enfrentar las amenazas globales es ciertamente un problema político, pero no se puede tener éxito sin desarrollar una cultura que permita y motive la responsabilidad. La universidad is the key in the formulation and promotion of this culture of responsibility based on a culture of hope.
The word globalization is ambiguous. There is much arbitrariness in their interpretation. However, we must need in order to discuss the problem of the university today in front of her. Because in a sense to be specified, now need to analyze the university in the context that we call globalization.
The world has gone global. In the most general sense we can say that technological development has led to a situation in which we are forced to become aware of the global of our land. It is certainly a very long historical process, but this process led to a consciousness of globality, that today we often forget when we talk about globalization. This is an experience of wholeness, which has involved a historical and is to distinguish our present and future history of all previous human history.
We then have a sense of the word whole, we must bear in mind in any discussion of globalization. Implies a fundamental transformation of all human life, which noted the first time in 1945 with the launch of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
Then began a new awareness of the totality of human life and the very existence of the planet that was globalized in a new way. If humanity wanted to live, had to assume a responsibility that previously only could have dreamed. It was the responsibility for life on earth. This responsibility then appeared as an ethical obligation, but at the same time as a condition of possibility of any future life. The ethical and the condition of possibility of life united in a single requirement. Useful and ethical united, notwithstanding any positivist tradition that has long had separated.
But in a sense, the atomic bomb seemed still something outside the everyday human action. It seemed that if you managed to avoid its application in ways that correspond to the policy of the States could continue living as usual. However, the new globalization played again at the door. This time with the Club of Rome limits to growth, which went to advertising in 1972. The Limits to Growth expressed in a new way the earth is round, his character balloon. Earth again became more round. Only now that the threat came from everyday human action, not of any specific instrument could be controlled by external means apparently. All human action from companies, states, and action of each, were involved in their daily work. Appeared again human responsibility for the globe. Although this time with more intensity. Humanity had to give answers to everyday effects of their own daily actions. All channeling of human action by the calculation of earnings (interest) and the maximization of profits in the markets, was now in question. This then became critical condition for human life itself, and also ethical requirement. Again, useful and ethical joined in a unique experience.
Followed by new experiences of the round and therefore, global land, such as the experience of limits to possible growth of the population.
In the eighties there was again a big impact when he appeared in biotechnology. Life itself had been transformed into an object of a new human action more than once daily presence. Reappeared the threat of the globe, and appeared again the need for accountability across the globe, only this time it came directly from the method of empirical science. To develop knowledge of basic elements of life, the traditional method of empirical science, treatment its purpose by its bias, made it appear a threat to the globe that goes back to the roots of modernity. It is no longer possible to make a clear distinction between the development of knowledge and its application. In the science of life, and therefore in biotechnology, development of knowledge and is its implementation. Can not develop knowledge about human clones without them. The question was now not so much the maximization of profit in the markets, but the perception of the scientific. Again shown the need for human responsibility towards the land round. But this time it's a responsibility for the purposes of scientific method itself.
regard to all these global threats has led to a general crisis of human coexistence. The collapse of human relationships, which is ongoing, concerns the very possibility of coexistence. The more shows the growing exclusion of sectors of the human population, the inevitable inhuman behavior in relation to these excluded spreads and is absorbed in the mutual behavior among those included. Do not see a polarization between the included, who retain the ability to live together, against exclusion, those who lost, but the loss is transformed into a general loss. The pole of the dissolved including their ability to live together to a degree perhaps greater than the pole of the excluded. This is far from the last global threat, which may result in the end the worst, because disabling against the need to confront the others. It appears, therefore, the responsibility to one's ability of human coexistence.
This overall responsibility against global threats is somewhat compulsive, even though it is not something that happens automatically. We live rather a time of rejection of such liability against which there is no neutrality. When a friend who will travel gives us a valuable item to keep, we reject this responsibility on grounds. The friend, then must find another to save it. Our attitude in this if not irresponsible, but rather may be an expression of responsibility. The responsibility for the conditions of possibility of life, however, is not of this type. We are responsible even if they want. If we reject this responsibility, we do not get lifted. We are so irresponsible, but we can not get out of the dilemma. Or are we responsible for global balloon, or are involved in their destruction.
life course has become global in a new way, as never before in human history. Humanity can not live without accepting the responsibility for the globe. This is reflected in the lives of everyone, knows about living in a chain of generations. For that we or our children can live, we must accept this responsibility. We are globalized, like it or not.
global status of land, imposed on us by global threats, is the product of biased scientific method itself and the application of their technical development results, guided by a cost-benefit calculation totaled. The technical development therefore meets its target limit given by the global threats.
Globalization as capital accumulation strategy
The same technological development, resulting in global threats to human life or even for life on earth led to a growth in access to all the riches of the land by companies, which are formed from the II. World War as private transnational bureaucracies. This is the globalization of messages, calculations, transport and the consequent availability of the globe. In this sense, it speaks of the "global village." The messages and the calculations have been done virtually instant, and from anywhere in the globe can reach any other place in less than a day of commuting time. The globe has been made available.
That has made it possible to establish global markets, including financial markets. But it is also now possible to build networks social division of work planned by private multinational bureaucracies that have globally. Displayed global production companies, who not only bought and sold worldwide, but carry out a production process in their sides also distributed worldwide. Before there were also buying and selling companies worldwide, but now appear these companies are global production. A clear example is the maquila, through simple steps that the final product are distributed worldwide. The use of this globalization of messages, calculations and transport pervades our lives today. However, it has imposed a globalism capital accumulation strategy globally, we now call globalization policy. This globalism is by no means a necessary result of globalization of messages, calculations, means of transport, but a unilateral use of it in terms of an aggregation of the markets. In Latin America it is what is often called the neoliberal policies of structural adjustment. These adjustments are the conditions imposed on the world to run this economy of global accumulation of capital. These adjustments expressed with great accuracy the performance requirements of global manufacturing companies. It is an accumulation strategy new capital, which is named globalization strategy.
Our language on globalization is very unilaterally to the globalism of capital accumulation strategy. The globalizing of this strategy hardly speak of the entirety of the land we do this by global threats. Although they can not deny, put themselves blind to them. The timid attempts to answer are quickly withdrawn, as happened recently with the Kyoto agreement and frivolity in its repeal by the current U.S. President Bush
This strategy and its blind pursuit, has something of a religious fundamentalism of the market. Religions often develop blind fundamentalism when their basic beliefs are put seriously in doubt, the religion of the globalizing market is not different. The degree to which it became apparent that the global threats that now hang over us, are closely linked to the development and application of new technologies as a cost-benefit criterion totaled, neoliberal market fundamentalism not call for caution but more radical extremism. This explains the fact that after they appeared these global threats has intensified with open eyes the destructive process is deriving from the indiscriminate application of technological development itself. Fundamentalism neoliberal fundamentalism of the Taliban is the religion of the myth of infinite growth.
increasingly is noted that the exclusive focus on application of technologies for cost-benefit calculation sets a limit decisive for the possibility of dealing with global threats. Therefore, this neoliberal fundamentalism leads to extremes of destruction not seen before.
That has changed the nature of capital investments in general. Appears much more capital than it would be possible to invest in productive capital. Then, an increasing share of the available capital must be invested speculatively. But the speculative capital must be at least the same return as productive capital, hence is now hunting opportunities for profitable location of speculative capital. And those possibilities are speculative investments particularly in sectors of society that have hitherto been developed outside the scope of performance criteria: schools, kindergartens, universities, health systems, roads, energy infrastructure, railways, postal services, telecommunications, other means of communication, etc. Its transformation into location field of non-productive capital is the easiest way to find places for the application of speculative capital. This is especially the activities of the state, which can be transformed into areas for this capital, including activities in the field of education and health. Without taking these state activities, speculative capital is hardly the location. This explains the global pressure for the privatization of state functions in order to find areas of non-productive investment. The capital now devours human beings: it becomes a cannibal. Any human activity has to be transformed into a sphere of capital investment to speculative capital can live. The anarcho-capitalist dreams go even much further. Even the police, the function legislative and judiciary and the government itself, is to transform them into areas such capital investment. The human being receives a license to live and participate in any sector of society, only if you pay taxes on speculative capital for the form of interest. Overworld appears which is the necessary sacrifices to pay taxes to acquire the right to live.
The university and the culture of responsibility
Facing global threats is certainly a political issue. But it comes down to it. College is not a political body and has the task of carrying out these policies needed, but this confrontation has dimensions that go far beyond political action: our culture and civilization are involved. Unable to confront the global threats without developing a culture that allows and push the responsibility for these global threats. However, no responsibility can push it in the field of great hope. Responsibility presupposes that hope. If you realize that, it appears a key role, compliance with which is exclusively to college, but that depends in large part of it. The university is a key place in our society because it is formulated and developed our culture. The function that appears to the university is the promotion of a culture of responsibility, based on a culture of hope.
There is a formula developed specifically for the current policy that denies the university place as one of the key areas of our culture, and which is gaining more and more: it is the one about "a new model of development based on human capital. " It's a formula that gives me chills me personally because it is similar to the one that tried to indoctrinate me as a child in Nazi German society, which constantly spoke of "human material" and its importance for the development of human society.
Today is a global strategy, led by the Bank World to reduce all education, but especially the university, a place of production of human capital, considered as a means of production. Education itself is transformed into an investment in human capital, the student into someone who invests in itself, as owner of himself as human capital. The company, which later hired him, it being now a recipient of human capital, which pays an income to the owner of human capital. This income is now considered the profitability of human capital, which is the person hired. All education, including university, is then seen as a place of production to the performance of this circuit. Therefore, this education as a production of human capital must continue performance criteria (1).
There is then room for any culture other than to make a contribution to production or implementation of their own human capital.
If this project succeeds, it will mean to Western culture. It dissolves in the business. The man himself is dissolved in the transformation, part of a giant gear movement endless economic growth without destination. Appears then the problem of loss of meaning of life, which has no solution for the simple fact that human capital life has no meaning, the meaning of life is to live, but human capital does not live his life. Live the life of the capital, which itself lacks a proper sense (2).
However, if we analyze these trends in relation to the ongoing globalization process, we need to stress another dimension of such a reduction of human to human capital. We had seen so far in its two dimensions: first, in its dimension of global land, which is present to us by global threats. Is the dimension of the need for human responsibility for the very future of human life and nature. On the other hand, the dimension of unlimited access to the plundering of the earth and humanity part of private bureaucracies of the transnational ruling today, which set the strategy for unrestricted capital accumulation, which is now called globalization strategy.
strategy is a complete irresponsibility against global threats that require our responsibility (3). However, this strategy requires human irresponsibility as irresponsible as the strategy itself is. In the degree, which is able to reduce the human being to human capital, manages to instill the necessary human being is irresponsible to continue with the strategy.
But the responsibility can only assume human beings capable of seeing. Only a culture of accountability can open eyes to the problem. Without a culture of accountability no responsibility policy. That brings us back to the problem of the university as a key to the creation of culture. We need this university as a place of culture building to be a place where this culture of responsibility can grow. It is the only place. The whole education system is involved, and not only the education system, our whole way of life has to be penetrated by a culture of accountability. However, the university has a special role that culture can not develop if it is accompanied by deep thoughts, which have so far been more prominent place in universities.
This culture of responsibility, of course, is critical. But the accent is not criticism, but the responsibility that demands to be critical. The culture of responsibility leads to resistance. But, again, the emphasis is on endurance, but in responsibility. That and the fact that it is the responsibility of leading the resistance.
In this sense, it is not only a recovery of the humanist tradition of Western universities and conservation. This tradition has been undermined by the improvisation of the criteria for human capital formation. We need to recover, but, I think, that's not possible but as a dimension of culture of accountability.
Of course, the university has to train professionals to serve in their respective professions. But this formation the university must insert an interest in creating a culture whose meaning goes beyond training to the exercise of a function, and must be trained from the creation of this culture.
With that, the university is located in an area that goes beyond what he conceives the current project to reduce the formation of human capital production. This is an area that should not be unlimited subject to the calculation, both the profitability and economic growth, but one that questions the current tendency to self aggregation of these calculations. Not only does it on behalf of some values \u200b\u200bto be valid in itself and simple statement, but these values \u200b\u200bwould already be sufficient reason to make this question, must do so on all in the name of responsibility, which the totality of the world- is present to us with irresistible force through global threats, imposed on us.
However, from responsibility, comes the need for values. Securities to which must be submitted any calculation income (or interest or cost-benefit). Common good are values \u200b\u200bwhose validity is established before any calculation, and that lead to a conflict with the calculation of profitability and performance. Are the values \u200b\u200bof respect for the individual, his life in all its dimensions, and respect for the life of nature. Are values \u200b\u200bof mutual recognition between human beings, including in this survey to be natural for every human being and recognition of human beings towards external nature to them. Not justified by measurable benefits in terms of utility or interest. Nevertheless the foundation of human life, without which it is destroyed in the most elementary word.
These values \u200b\u200bare questioning the system, and its name is required in order to transform resistance and intervention. Without this questioning of the system these values \u200b\u200bwould be nothing more than moralism. The common good is this process which values \u200b\u200bthe common good are faced with the system to challenge them, transform it and intervene. In no way should be understood as a body of natural laws facing positive laws. Is questioning, not prescription. So it should not try to offer natural institutions or natural law, as part of the existing social system to transform to the values \u200b\u200bof welfare, in relation to which any system is the alternative. But the values common good are not laws or rules, the criteria on laws and regulations. Emanating from the responsibility. Consequently, its strength is the resistance. Only in the context of this reality, and subsidiarity to it, can take place cost-benefit calculation. Accept this reality, is responsibility.
But responsibility is not a direct product of fear. Pure Fear paralyzes and only increases the aggressiveness of the system. Hope assumes responsibility. Da only hope this Archimedean point, from which fear can be transformed into responsibility. The fundamentalism of the system is a fear that has lost hope.
What we need is this responsibility a world gone global, threatened by the capital accumulation strategy called globalization. We must protect the global world of deadly attack of the globalists. Of this responsibility are the alternatives.
Notes:
* Master Class Opening of the Academic Year 2005 at the Universidad Bolivariana.
(1) There is a well-documented in John Saxe-Fernández, with this strategy: Saxe-Fernández, John: Globalization, Power and Public Education. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Neo-Liberalism: Critical Approaches and Alternatives "organized by the Seminar" The Modern World "by the Center Interdisciplinary Research in Sciences and Humanities, March 10-13, 2000.
(2) This is reflected in a best-seller that is now read a lot in Europe: Houellebecq, Michel: Extension du Domaine de la lutte. Nadeau. Paris, 1994. This book does not reflect the facts, but presents a perfect reflection of man made human capital.
(3) See Jonas, Hans: The Principle of Hope. Testing of an ethics for technological civilization. Book club. Barcelona.
F. Hinkelammert
is an economist, social theorist and German theologian, doctor of economics at the Free University of Berlin, a researcher at the Ecumenical Research Department San Jose and author of several books. Published in Journal Polis, Santiago Chile, Volume 4 Number 11, 2005. Posted on our website on 19 December 2005. Reproduced on our site solely for informational and educational.
http://www.globalizacion.org/biblioteca/HinkelammertGlbzUniversidad.htm
social networking
0 comments:
Post a Comment