In an Era of Globalization

Private property and economics for Rousseau led to civil society and then the end of that which is perfection; it represents the eaten apple that expels Adam and Eve from the Garden of Edan. We spoke of how the nation-state is very symbolic to the early modern and is Rousseau's civil society on an international scale. In this modernity,however, politics is not about allies and enemies, but of the interest of the sovereign state. In today's state interaction globalized economy has, in fact, transcended the modern nation state. Nationalism has come second to economic power, which explains the foundations of such entities like the EU. Could business lead to a global citizenry? We would not be Monads, but a peoples who have reached capability of identification and who have set it aside for the common good of humanity.

As technology and economics makes the world a smaller place, one where sovereign borders begin to fade, Are we headed back towards the Rousseau-ian paradise-the state of nature? Rousseau clearly affirms that there will be no opportunity to return, however that raises questions as to where peoples of experience, collective awareness are heading. Rousseau speaks of a taint the lies on actions in this economic world, so i feel that it is safe to say the any international action for the global good, he would perceive as an egoism. It is not something of self reflection, but of show to be identified and judged by others.

But does it ultimately matter? a consequentialist would look at the outcome not so much the intention or the means by which it was achieved. I think for Rousseau there is a basic flaw int that way of thinking.

to be continued...

I suppose I should back track a bit. When speaking of the modern nation, we are speaking of a large collective claiming a piece of land, "this is ours", and connecting it to a cultural history. Much like how Rousseau believes it to be the moment of the entrance into civil society on an individual level ("this is mine"), thus the modern concept of nation-state is the global equivalent.The neo-realism thread of thought, I feel has the same conceptualization as Rousseau. Sovereign states will inevitably be in competition and those who are weaker will have to succumb to the power of the stronger. No decision made on the international level is done without self interest. So basically a neo-realist believe that an entity, like the UN, will not maintain efficacy and that global can never become a transcending term.

I am sure that neo-realist theory is still being used and developed today, but It seems to me that with globalization the social contract is shifting to one addressing humanity.Does that hold no weight to the positivity of amour propre?