Final Readings

The first article on postnationalism argues that increased globalization decreases the emphasis on culture restricted by national boundaries. Postnationalism began to rise in Europe after the nationalist driven World War 2. Peace was maintained through a guarantee of interdependence and the dilution of sovereignty. In the United States, instead of replacing nationalism with postnationalism, the US developed a new form of imperialism, as a desire to fill a power void arose with the end of the Cold War. The author of the article views this philosophy as irrational. The imperial state and the overdeveloped state stand in the way of globalization and postnational culture. From a political structure, we need to consider modals of partial control. There are four types of postnational solidarity: spiritual, material, humanist, and life-emancipatory. These four solidarities represent freedom.

The second article on apprehending transnationalism discusses the relationship between globalization and capitalism. Free market and trade are essential components in globalization. Global trade can be traced all throughout human history. Some critics however, see the Americanization associated with free market as endangering national cultures, rather than bringing disparate peoples together. The article goes one to talk about the effects globalization has had on national film production. Instead of forming a postnational era of cinema, we are in a transnational one.

The third article dealt with the neoliberal globalization in the Mercosur Region. This article discussed the idea of cosmopolitan democracy. Giving the increasing globalization, we must rethink the political community in which democracy can be realized. Before entering discussion, the authors take time to offer their definition of globalization, civic public space. They then go on to describe the effects of globalization, claiming that it created a widespread adoption of the neoliberal ideology, and created public spaces in Latin America that transcend state borders. The author describes the cosmopolitan response to neoliberal globalization, and calls for an attempt to change social relations on a regional basis. The Mercosur integration process has been influenced by the EU's trans-regionalism model. However, the fact that there has been little transnational co-operation between Mercosur political parties should be taken into account before there is an attempt to copy EU-like institutions into a different historical context. Because of the differences, copying the EU institutional design in the Mercosur region is unlikely to be successful.

I found the final article to be most interesting. It is intriguing that a Latin America region would respond to globalization by attempting to model after the European Union. Despite the Eurocentrism, there exists a desire to embrace global democracy and reject the hegemonic ideas of the United States. This is yet another example of a distain for the power that the United States holds. I find it interesting to view this from other nations' perspectives. Having lived in a hegemonic US my entire life, I do not understand what it is like to live outside a hegemony. Perhaps if I did, I too would want more to see an increased global democracy rather than a dominating hegemony.

For discussion, do you think that the Mercosur region will succeed in establishing institutions similar to the EU, or will the differences of the region keep them from doing so?