The 'anti' globalist image.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/544786.stm

Frequently, when we see reportage of 'world' meetings (WTO meetings, G8 meetings, etc), we hear and see on TV also of reports of 'antiglobalist' protesters, surrounded by heavily armed riot police and images of shouting, agressive behaviour, people dressed in 'messy' fashion typically with balaclavas or scarves, caricatured effigies of world leaders, burning 'things' (flags, effigies, etc), breaking windows, and other largely unpleasant looking images of the goings on. It all seems a bit outrageous and certainly not as dignified nor 'presentable' as the well dressed formal leaders meeting in these meetings. These 'violent' protestors aka troublemakers, need to be controlled and kept away from the goings on and we the 'public' need to be protested from their violent actions. How can they be against globalisation? idiots. ....well if only this image of them were true.

While I've not doubt that amongst the gathered groups of citizens from around the globe that there exist some elements of anarchic bent who feel so alienated from the world around them that causing distruction to all they see carries with it little of the accompanying guilt or shame that the 'ordinary' person may feel, and that some of these people may well be 'anti' many of the modern global trends to such an extent that they resort to violent response when given a chance, the vast majority of gathered people are actually there in peace. I would also call into question the labelling of such groups as being 'anti-globalisation' ....rather they are best described as 'alternative' globalisation supporters. But what is 'globalisation' anyway? The definition is rather important ,as without one, to label someone 'anti' it is unworkable. So what do the mainstream media define as 'globalisation'? In academic circles its accepted that its a very difficult thing to define as a 'noun', and that its best described rather as an adjective....a word that describes a series of unconnected events that have led to the current world we live in, and further develop our world. Something to do with time, and space. Im ardently resisting the academics urge to cite sources here. But if the globalisation is defined by merging markets, free trade, floated currencies, spreading of private enterprises, retreat of the state, etc etc, then perhaps they are 'anti'.

But actually there are no 'pro-globalisers' and 'anti-globalisers'. Its not possible to be either really. Many different groups of people with numerous agendas populate the arena and to lump them into two groups is misleading. I hope for an alternative world, and I dont like the WTO and neo-liberal agenda, but Im far from supporting violent protest either. Whenever did arguing for change by proposing different ideas become such an unacceptable practice? And why are 'we',the passive(?) viewers and consumers of mainstream media reportage, so willing to accept the view presented without questioning? Is it that those clamouring for an alternative world just have an image problem to be rectified? Someone once said, in order to see change in the world you live in, you must be the change yourself. Which brings me onto another topic, personal agency, which is a topic for the next post i suspect.