Customer Reviews

Jihad vs. McWorld: Terrorism's Challenge to Democracy

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

Well-respected political scientist and prolific writer Benjamin Barber's "Jihad vs. McWorld" illuminates probably the most profound and compelling argument facing us today, tribalism vs. mass consumerism. Jihad vs. McWorld is the pulling of two major socia-political forces upon the citizenry of the world, jettisoning democracy precariously towards extinction.

"Jihad" as articulated in the book represents extremist tribalist nature of fundamentalist cultures. It is the study of self-serving groups, whether they be of religious factions, nation-states, or various political ideologues. Their only goal is to secure the preservation of their culture and to influence those from outside their belief system. The result is warring tribes, i.e. the feuding ideologies of the Serbia-Croat battles, the plight of the Middle East, Northern Ireland's "religious" war, and the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal State building. "Jihad" leaves no room for a free-thinking civil democracy and absolutely abhors influences from outside it's realm, hence it's ardent distrust of Western consumerist ideology - McWorld.

McWorld is the term coined to define the mass consumerist ideology of global marketing. McWorld is not so much a place but is a consumerist behavior. McWorld crosses all cultural boundaries whether they be open free markets or closed sacrilegious cultures. McWorld has not a human face but a bullish influence. McWorld's ultimate goal is to integrate every nation, every country, every person, every thing into a global market, whether they be mass consumers as pompously displayed as the obesity of the "West" or as manufacturers such as in the Nike corporation's child-labour sweatshops in Thailand. Jihad vs. McWorld provides profound insight into the use of multi-media and global communications for McWorld to spread it's influence.

Jihad vs. McWorld is eloquently written and provides hard, factual insights without becoming alarmist. Benjamin Barber provides the reader with though! t-provoking questions that we as a society have been too lax in addressing and bold solutions that our present political systems can't seem to accommodate. An excellent book, I strongly recommended it.

The subtitle of the book is a bit incorrect; it might be more aptly described as terrorism's challenge to capitalism. Barber sees an interdependent human civilization with two emerging powers, the power of global capitalism (McWorld) and reactionary tribalism (Jihad). He correctly sees both of these forces as antidemocratic and indeed anti-nation state. Essentially, the main conflict is between the emerging postmodernity and its critics. Some of what I thought were the most fascinating sections were where Barber describes as "Jihad via McWorld" were motifs of tribalism become sucked into the market machine. He does seem a little bit down on capitalism in general, although he does stress that it works very well within the confines of a democratic nation-state. Barber does seem to lean left, if only because he seems to tackle his discussion of McWorld with much greater energy than his discussion of Jihad (although I concede that may just be my rightward bias).
I think this is superior in many ways to competing explanations that emphasize political culture (such as the Clash of Civilizations) because it stresses economic factors and, more importantly, stresses the interdependence of the modern world. Barber aptly describes how the world becomes more united even as it becomes more divided.
I would give this 5 stars, but I am unsatisfied with Barber's solutions. He's keen on democratizing world institutions, but such institutions have proven to be ineffective against both McWorld and Jihad.
Many reviewers have already pointed out that despite Barber's use of the word "Jihad" his focus is not Islam. In fact, the chapter ostensibly devoted to Islam focuses more on reactionary tribalism in the United States (which is worthy of discussion, but deserves its own chapter). It is disappointing he doesn't deal with the Middle East, not only for the obvious instances of Jihad but also the elites striving to be players in McWorld (notably in Saudi Arabia).

This is something of an alarmist book in many ways, but it is nonetheless valuable, not least because five years after it was first published many of the author's arguments still stand. Barber can probably be additionally criticized for employing two catchy but overly simplified buzzwords to describe the complex problems surrounding globalization and the reaction to it. Also, even though he by no means exclusively or even primarily singles out Islamic fundamentalism as a peril to the world order, just his use of the term `Jihad' as a metaphor for the new, anti-modern nationalisms and religious intolerance seen worldwide nevertheless indicates a measure of Orientalism. Most of the shortcomings derive from that fact that the author is a political scientist who specializes in issues of democracy and civil society rather than fractious nationalism and global economics - the two main topics of the book. Thus, in his discussion of the post-communist states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, he often resorts to the now tired and superficial platitudes of `tribalism' or `ancient hatreds' to explain the rise of recent ugly incarnations of intolerant nationalism in this region (he even goes so far as to echo the mass media's favorite `Balkans expert' Robert Kaplan by citing Dracula-writer Bram Stoker in a description of modern Romania). Barber makes the additional mistake of assuming that the nationalist movements are driven by simplistic ideologies aimed solely at tearing apart existing nation-states; even if this is often the end result, most if not all of these movements claim as their objective the overthrow of foreign tyranny as they see it and the creation of some form of popular democracy. Even so, Barber correctly points out the danger of new or renewed nationalisms and divisive calls for self-determination (a very loaded and ambiguous concept), a danger that's still very prevalent in international politics. Barber is best when he points out that free markets do not necessarily mean democracy, in contrast to free market gurus, Cato Institute libertarians and Jeffrey Sachs, the chief proponent of `shock therapy' in transitional economies. He offers the examples of market economics failures in Russia and the former East Germany as damning evidence to support his argument. "Jihad vs. McWorld" has a number of flaws, but the author's arguments are coherent and it is an often useful cautionary text.

Benjamin Barber's "Jihad vs. McWorld" is popular political science at its best - an important book first published in 1995, but only now, in the aftermath of September 11, getting the attention it deserved all along. One reason for this attention now is the catchy title, which seems to offer relatively easy-to-comprehend answers to questions on peoples' minds like: "why do they hate us so much" and "is this just an isolated incident or part of a broader phenomenon?" And, to a large extent, Barber succeeds in providing answers (or at least in asking the right questions), in neither a "dumbed-down" fashion nor a too-theoretical-for-anyone-but-political-scientists style. In sum, "Jihad vs. McWorld," is an important, timely, serious book that is also highly readable.

What does "Jihad vs. McWorld" have to say? Well...a LOT, and far too much for any Amazon.com review! So, I'll just try to summarize a few of Barber's main points.

First, let's start with "Jihad." As Barber employs it in his book, "Jihad" is not specific to Islam or even to terrorism, but instead is used as a metaphor for the "anti-Western, anti-universalist" struggle against "McWorld" (I'll get to that one in a minute). Although it's interesting that, at the moment, most of the opposition to "McWorld" appears to be coming from the Muslim world, "Jihad" as Barber uses it is not specific to Islam, but exists everywhere, including the American "heartland." Thus, in Barber's view, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Aryan Nations, "militias," and Al Qaeda are all manifestations of the same anti-modern, anti-cosmopolitan, anti-democratic phenomenon, and in a way are natural allies (except that - luckily -- they detest each other more than they detest "McWorld"). Jihad is not just for extremists, though, but for any group of people that sees "McWorld" (correctly) as a threat -- to their common identity, to their sense of belonging, to their "elementary justice and morals," to human dignity, to tradition, etc. Unfortunately, though, Jihad is fatally flawed (anti-democratic, narrow, provincial, exclusivist, even racist) in Barber's view. And, in the end, it's probably doomed to defeat by "McWorld" anyway (as the Borg in Star Trek would say, "resistance is futile!"), although in the short-run it can do a great deal of damage (i.e., September 11).

OK, so what about "McWorld?" Barber spends most of his time building the case against (and then bashing away at) "McWorld," which is what he appears to know best, since of course that's the world he lives in. Plus, it's so EASY to bash "McWorld," and in a way it would almost be fun if it weren't so serious (and malignant). Thus, Barber takes aim at: fast food, Hollywood, MTV (sex, violence, misogyny, consumerism, glorification of youth), Disney ("a cultural Chernobyl"), malls, suburbia, consumerism, materialism, technology and "laissez-faire" capitalism run amok, among other things. All easy targets, almost like shooting fish in a barrel, and it's been done by many other authors (see "Fast Food Nation," "Suburban Nation," "Technopoly," "Bowling Alone," etc., etc.), but Barber generally does an excellent job at describing "McWorld" - and trashing it! Barber's weightiest criticism of "McWorld" is that it is an anti-democratic, totalitarian system that leads to all kinds of bad outcomes, not the least of which is reducing us all to mere consumers (as opposed to citizens, for instance).

Ultimately, though, Barber's book really isn't so much McWorld vs JIHAD as McWorld vs, democracy, the "common good," and civil society (the "domain of citizens" which mediates "between private markets and big government"). Barber presents the values of democracy (slow, active, engaged, requiring education, valuing words, ideas, patience, and an informed, mature citizenry concerned with some "higher good") as directly antithetical to those of "McWorld" (fast, mindless, impatient, image-driven, impulsive, infantile, "gimme, gimme, gimme!"). Barber pushes his argument a little too far and too hard here, in my opinion, with little real proof that democracy is dying, and even less that it is dying BECAUSE of "McWorld's" depredations. Still, it's interesting stuff, and personally I think there's a lot of truth here.

In the end, Barber concludes that the only way to effectively fight Jihad and McWorld is by promoting and nurturing democracy and civil society. Barber believes that we could - theoretically at least -- use institutions already in place (the state, international organizations and legal frameworks) to do so. Sadly, though, Barber believes that at the moment the necessary institutions are either non-existent or have been severely weakened. So, having laid out both the world's bleak alternatives at the moment (Jihad, McWorld) as well as the possible solutions (democracy, civil society), Barber in the end comes out as basically a pessimist. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean he's wrong; after September 11, we can only wish that he were!

The title of the book may deceive some readers. Barber does not refer to Jihad as the supposed 6th pillar of Islam and call for a holy war on the Big Mac and the infidel Ronald mcDonald who corrupts Muslims as a new prophet who revelas his message in happy meal boxes. No. This book uses Jihad as a metaphor for reactinary movements that are looking ever more inward to their traditional cultural and tribal structures to fight the globalization process symbolized the world over by Mcdonalds. In short: Consumerism vs. Religious and Tribal revivalism. let's hope the world doesn't choose any of these options on the menu. The book is also an analysis of the new post cold war order and the anarchy that seems to be spreading. It's somewhat dated as it exagerates the threat from Russia, which is steadily improving and has become a staunch ally of the West almost to the point of joining NATO, while not emphasizing enough the threat of fundamentalism from the east and religious revivalism everywhere. I enjoyed it however.

This book came out in 1995, but it has never been more relevant than today. In describing the world situation as a battle (or, more accurately, dialectic) between "Jihad" and "McWorld," Benjamin Barber has not merely invented a catchy metaphor; this is indeed the direction much of the world is moving. Jihad as used here is not, of course, merely the Islamic holy war, though it certainly includes this. It is any reactionary, tribal movement that sees modernization and the Western world in particular as evil. McWorld is the opposing movement --the ever-expanding globalization that brings McDonald's, Walmart and American cinema to every corner of the globe. Barber's most important insight is that both of these forces, violently opposed to each other as they are, are incompatible with any meaningful concept of democracy. Jihad, of course, whatever form it takes, sees freedom and democracy as inseparable from corruption, immorality and greed. McWorld, on the other hand, embodies the most amoral aspects of Western civilization, sometimes giving credence to the fears of Jihad warriors. The multinational corporations who are colonizing the world have little regard for traditional cultures and native environments. The problem with Jihad is that, instead of offering a constructive criticism of McWorld, it retreats into a violent reactionary mode and blindly condemns everything modern. And when the devotees of Jihad act out in a truly violent manner, this in turn makes the superficially benign forces of corporate capitalism seem civilized by comparison. Barber also points out that the two often exist side-by-side in the same region --sometimes in the same individuals, strange as this seems. Throughout the book, Barber describes the two forces as a dialectic. As he says,

"...Jihad stands not so much in stark opposition as in subtle counterpoint to McWorld and is itself a dialectical response to modernity whose features both reflect and reinforce the modern world's virtues and vices --Jihad via McWorld rather than Jihad vs. McWorld."

Barber also reveals that Jihad is very much active in modern Western democracies. In America, for example, armed militias and groups such as Aryan Nations are attempts to overthrow the moral corruption of modern capitalism. Less extreme but in the same vein are fundamentalist Christians who believe Judgment Day is imminent, and perhaps welcome it. Many will recall the reaction of Pat Robertson and other fundamentalists after the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack --it was, they said, God punishing an immoral, Godless society. Overall, Jihad vs. McWorld is an important book because it puts the chaotic world situation into meaningful perspective. His analysis shows the dangers of oversimplifying things and invites us to look at the complexities of this rather tragic modern dialectic. As Barber tells us, if either Jihad or McWorld is allowed to triumph, the world of the future will not be very free, sane or pleasant.

I tried to embrace this book--I really did. It was tempting to want to have at last found a piece of academic writing that deftly encapsulates and explains this clash of titans: jihad and globalism. Barber's main title is, however, more tantalizing than explanatory. This book demonstrates the dangers of allegiance to dichotomies; there are other forces at work in society that grapple with the headline-stealing titans.

This is an important book at least insofar as it captures a growing sentiment among academics interested in the socio-economic forces that compel current events. It is not, therefore, an easy read for the layman (particularly the last part of the book) which is ironic given his call to grassroots citizen action.

Barber asserts--really insists with an uncomfortable brand of academic arrogance--in almost narrowly political overtones that the world is immersed in a battle of opposing ideologies: the corporate, amoral and homogenized one that really is without ideology and the local, or tribal, and rigidly moral and fragmented one that is part ideology, part myth-making.

Unfortunately, in his earnestness to construct and defend his convenient dichotomy, he conforms exceptions to his rule. The jihadists--whether ethnic hatemongers or terrorists--have for Barber retained some residue of moral dignity while the globalist--whether gullible, materialistic and indifferent consumers or manipulative, multinational executives--have altogether lost their moral compass.

His solution (which he fails to outline, thus making his work more of a polemic and manifesto rather than manual for change) is an activist citizenry fully appreciative of their need and ability to shore up the civil sector of modern societies. Here again Barber is remiss, revealing that writing from one's desk rather than the field has its limitations. He fails to acknowledge, for example, the extent to which the lack of a civic tradition in such nations as Russia and China impedes social progress of the sort he pines for. And the following further indicates his lack of awareness of Chinese cultural resiliency: "What is striking is that even here where a native culture might be thought to have its greatest chances against the children of the Western Enlightenment, McWorld seems irresistible."(190)

Aside from this concern, and his lack of concrete solutions and elusive, often inaccessible writing style, Barber tends to exaggerate the extent to which corporate influence is mitigated by both government and civic organizations, especially in the Western democracies. He is undeservedly far too pessimistic in this regard and fails to note the many ways in which a bygone American lacked a collective sense of civic duty. Moreover, his analysis is flawed, as I believe you will also discover, by his apparent aspirations to global citizenship. Nor, as other reviewers have noted, has he given due credit to the government and business sectors in creating a climate for a civic society to exist, must less flourish with some degree of autonomy. The symbolic assault on McDonald's is both tedious and unfair. While guilty of promoting unhealthy diets to some extent, it is a zealous stretch to accuse this and other multinationals of single handedly distorting the cultural landscape of developing nations. And even in the U.S., McDonald's has played a civic role via the Ronald McDonald House, it's management hiring practices and provisions for inner-city employment.

This book, perhaps like this review, could have been thought out more and condensed considerably. For a far better articulated review of this book see Gary Rosen's piece online from the journal First Things.

The first part of the book is true, but what did I learn from it that I didn't already know from experience? The second part is unconvincing: too much propaganda and too little hard analysis. The aim of the book is certainly worthwhile, but the book itself is so poorly written that I hesitated for over a year before reworking and posting this review. A far more useful and reliable source of information, based on real experience with the IMF and world Bank, is Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz's book „Globalization and it's Discontents".

The choice of title is very catchy (Coca Cola und Heiligerkrieg, in the German translation) but the title will turn some readers off automatically, post 9/11. The theme, however, is not at all Islam per se, but more generally tribalism and fundamentalism vs globalization of capital, labor and production via deregulation of markets. By tribalism in this context is meant any ethnic group that still is bound together culturally and geographically, in contrast with the destabilizing influence of unregulated free markets on a global scale where the dominant idea is that everything should be for sale with as high liquidity as possible („deregulation"). E.g., I live most of each year in a relatively tribal area, Tirol. I see "tribal" as something positive, as a synonym for cultural stability. Much of Europe is still tribal in this sense, in contrast with the US where, since the Reagan-Friedman era and the consequent right wing revolution of 1994, everything goes. Maintaining tradition („social stability"), in contrast, requires the drying up of liquidity. It requires rules (either written or understood) against unlimited trading and therefore against unlimited development. It requires rules stating that a meadow or beach cannot be sold to a hotel or to a condo developer. Simply ask yourself: why do Houston and Gatlinburg look and feel so different than Oslo and Garmisch-Partenkirchen, e.g., or (closer to home) why do Telluride and Ruidosa look and feel so different than Silverton? The answer is: some degree of tradition has been maintained in the latter places via rules against development. People who think that Gatlinburg is „normal" and that Silverton is „backward" will not understand the main point of Barber's book, or of this review.

Globalization via deregulation (or, simple, "globalization") based on rapid communication has led to the abdication of responsibility. E.g., I suggest trying to reach Ford with a question about your car. You will reach a woman who can answer the telephone, but who cannot answer any technical question whatsoever, nor can she find anyone else who can answer your question. She represents a dead end, anaolgous to Kafka's „Castle". Global capitalism is like „The Castle", or like a huge thermodynamic heat bath: it influences and controls everything that it touches but is itself subject to no reactive influence. This lack of responsiveness, which also feeds on economic ignorance, is the breeding ground for religious fundamentalists to become terrorists.

The propagation of globalization via deregulation as „progress" is based on an implicit belief in the reliability of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. The Invisible Hand purportedly stabilizes markets and brings them into equilibrium. We know now, empirically, that unregulated free markets are dynamically unstable. In contrast with reality, textbook economics still successfully propagates the mythology of ‚equilibrium`, the absolutely noncomplex idea that supply can generally rise to match demand. Were this true, then in the absence of all regulations there should be no unemployment, e.g.. Real markets are not like that. Real unregulated markets are lawless because there is no social-economic analog of physics, of natural mathematical law. The only law of the marketplace is man made law. Deregulation therefore leads to unexpected new problems that are worse than the ones it purports to solve, as is illustrated by the recent economic histories of Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and a host of other Third world countries. Unfortunately for Europe, the EU is a relatively dictatorial, mainly financial, body whose main function is apparently to replace globalize the EU countries, but this is not adequately discussed by Barber either. And the US? The outlook is hopeless until people wake up and realize that they've been taken for a bad ride, that they''re on a collision course led by ideologues who want that collision.

I read this book prior to the September 11 attacks but returned to it for perspective on the situation. I quickly realized that Barber's analysis was both prophetic and relevant to our current crisis.

In essence, Barber demonstrates that what we consider to be good in the industrialized world -- specifically, an ever-expanding capitalist, consumerist lifestyle -- is viewed with deadly suspicion by many in the non-industrialized world. That's because the wholesale acceptance of our culture is perceived by many of the world's poor as a threat to their traditional lifestyles.

The author points out that capitalism originally took root and flourished because of Western democracy's ability to curb the excesses of unfettered profit-making. But today's multinational corporations are no longer restrained by democratic forces in many parts of the third world. There, capitalism works in the name of absentee investors as a predatory force, stripping communities of their material and cultural resources, creating a branded, homogenous "McWorld" that too often leaves multitudes of impoverished people in its wake.

Such conditions breed anger and resentment against Westerners in general and often against the American symbols of global capitalism in particular. In the worst case scenarios, negative energy is manifested by terrorism. So as the multinationals connect the world more closely together with sophisticated communications and production systems, "tribal units" such as terrorist organizations strive at the same time to tear this world apart.

Somehow, "global democracy" needs to catch up with economic globalisation, the author reasons, to secure a more stable "global civil society". Such a world should more equitably balance the needs of people with capitalism. Barber believes that if people were truly empowered as citizens they could reshape their communities to better serve their own needs. In the end, this would effectively diminish the attractiveness of joining in the ultimately self-destructive world of "Jihad".

Furthermore, the long-term growth of capitalism itself also requires stable markets. Barber points out that unless we more equitably share the benefits of capitalism with so-called emerging market countries, the instabilities that are created will eventually undermine our own success too.

As policy makers struggle to learn how we can prevent another attack from happening, we would do well to consider the intelligent analysis in this outstanding book.

Benjamin Barber wrote this book which has become the foundation of Globalization awareness for many of us today. Barber has an extensive and well-put vocabulary. One does not have to read this from beginning to end, but by various chapter by chapter throughout the entire book. There are tons of empirical data, research, and historical footnotes in "Jihad Vs. McWorld." He provides and accurate and objective picture of what our world is transforming into today: the world is becoming smaller and more culturally homogenous. Barber doesn't focus on negative or positive aspects but on the over-all ramifications. What are the motivations? The causes? This book lists many. Transnational corporate makeups, international job allocation, and consumerism in many areas of the world, can lead to diminished liberty and political and cultural autonomy, and lesser quality of life. "Robert Murdochization," the daily extinction of languages, and massive destruction of our environment are occurring. Overpopulation is one of the major causes.

One of hundreds of examples is the 1994 Chinese auto-mobilization policy of 1994. what would be the effects of a nation of 1.3 billion people acquiring mass ownership of cars? The global mineral and fossil fuel supply would be exhausted in about 5 years. Can developed nations tell LDNs not to acquire automobiles when they themselves produce, export, and use them daily? Who is the biggest energy user, and waster in the world? The United States. Yet we must however, tell other nations' what they "should and should not do," because of the negative effects on the environment. Those in former Communist countries risked their freedom to read certain works to forsake them for MTV, Coca-Cola & Baywatch. It shows that the needs and wants have changed now that "freedom" is more available. This book is not anti-consumerist nor anti-mass consumption. Read it.