Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Conventional Wisdom? Checking Globalization

Writing in 1967, the [sociologist Peter Berger](https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/bios/berger.html) argued with force and persuasion that the world was on the verge of complete secularization. Much of the modern academy agreed, and over the next 30 years, interest in the study or discussion of religion decreased markedly.

In 1999 – even before the attacks of 9/11 – Berger recanted his earlier position. He admitted that, to a considerable extent, because of the secular disposition among academics, scholars had tended to overlook countervailing evidence that raised doubts about the secularization thesis. How scholars interpreted the data – what was viewed as salient and worthy of recognition – appeared to be influenced by a subterranean assumption about, even preference for, a certain outcome. What generally went unexamined, as a result, were the reasons for those preferences.

Today, the secularization thesis might be on the wane, but the globalization thesis has risen to take its place. One can hardly spend a day at Georgetown without being told in excited tones that one of our main missions is to prepare our students for a global future. A main ambition of new programs, centers and research support is to explore the global interconnections in a host of areas – business, religion, medicine, development and so on.

There is certainly much evidence to suggest that the world is becoming smaller, doubtless accentuated by the fact that our university is located in the capital of the empire, and thus draws people from across the globe as moths to light. But is our unquestioned commitment to a preparation for an inevitable future of globalization another instance of wishful thinking that obscures our ability to see opposing evidence to this supposedly inevitable process? Can we be so certain that we are examining our inevitable future and not – as was likely the case with secularization – actively engaged in the effort to promote a particular outcome? Are we engaged in research or cheerleading? Would we recognize the difference?

Just over a year ago there was considerable evidence that the world was actually getting bigger. As the price of oil reached nearly $150 per barrel in July 2008, the world witnessed a reduction of airline routes, a decrease in travel, a new attention to living closer to family and where people worked. Shipping and trucking activity decreased, and local production began to be seen as a more affordable alternative.

Even after the decline of the price of oil as a result of the economic downturn, a new movement in local food production was sweeping the land, aided in part by a combination of E. coli poisoning and critiques of industrial agriculture by [Michael Pollan](https://www.michaelpollan.com/) and [Wendell Berry](https://www.wendellberrybooks.com/).

In the wake of the downturn, people began to find ways to generate income, commute and entertain themselves in ways closer to home and without great expense. Growing numbers of communities stopped using dollars and instead replaced them with local currencies in order to keep wealth from leaving their localities. Conservatives and liberals alike began opposing the spread of Wal-Mart and the destruction of local businesses. In short, looking at the entire record, there is at least as much evidence to suggest that our future is one of localization.

Critical thinking demands that we ask the source of our certainty about globalization’s inevitability. I would submit that it has as its same sources in the very political and philosophical commitments that animated secularization theories. Born of 19th-century progressivism, there was a widespread belief among the philosophical vanguard – thinkers such as Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, among others – that a new era of human consciousness would be achieved by eliminating antiquated religious belief and overcoming forms of parochialism, custom and tradition.

The human propensity to prejudice and selfishness was attributed to a set of living arrangements, not the inheritance of our fallen condition. It was believed that by liberating humanity from the limits of religious belief and local attachments (including family, community and even nation), that a new Utopian era of cosmic consciousness might dawn. One hears definite echoes of these beliefs in many of our leaders who today insist upon our global future.

There’s a reasonable chance that globalization is no more inevitable than secularization, but rather that it is promoted instead thanks to a set of philosophical commitments. One might ask, however: Given evidence to the contrary, what are we doing to prepare our students for a more local future? Are we encouraging them to learn about local agriculture, watersheds, cultures? Are we preparing them for a future of less mobility, of more local commerce and more expensive energy?

Indeed, the positive benefits of such a future – including a less profligate and wasteful way of life, and one with a stronger set of roots, memory and felt sense of mutual obligation – could be worthy of active promotion at a university like Georgetown.

Patrick Deneen is an associate professor in the government department. He can be reached at deneenthehoya.com. Against the Grain appears every other Tuesday.

*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [opinionthehoya.com](opinionthehoya.com). Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*”

Donate to The Hoya

Your donation will support the student journalists of Georgetown University. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The Hoya