University of Minnesota Law School

Scholarship Repository

Minnesota Journal of International Law

2000

Globalization and Its Metaphors

John Miller

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjil

Part of the Law Commons

Recommended Citation
Miller, John, "Globalization and Its Metaphors" (2000). Minnesota Journal of International Law. 186.
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjil/186

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota
Journal of International Law collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
lenzx009@umn.edu.
594 MIAw. J GLOBAL TRADE [Vol. 9:589

Globalization and Its Metaphors

John Miller*

As we move into the twenty-first century, no question

promises to be more complicated or to have larger implications
for the lives of Americans and non-Americans alike than the im-
pact of globalization. That Jim Chen has approached this issue
with such verve and insight in his essay "Globalization and Its
Losers" makes it all the more important that we consider his
argument carefully and clear-mindedly, lest we be dazzled by its
erudition and too easily succumb to its logic.
Many of Chen's observations and assertions are convincing
and helpful. The powerful impact of the American mass media
and "cultural machine" make resistance to them in many coun-
tries and regions difficult, if not impossible. Television, as he
notes, has become a great leveler, and there is a tendency for
place to become irrelevant in our modern, media-saturated soci-
ety. Schumpeterian "creative destruction," while often wreaking
havoc with traditional economies and societies, has, on the
whole, been economically beneficial for the people affected by it.
Liberalized trade has generally redounded to the overall eco-
nomic benefit of countries on both sides of the equation. In con-
sidering the costs and gains generated by globalization,
environmental claims should be separated from economic ones.
Small-scale communities often are less humane in taking care of
people and more dangerous to the environment than are large-
scale ones. All of these points, and many others, help clarify our
situation and enable us to think better about our predicament.
My major concern with Professor Chen's argument relates
to his central metaphor-Darwinian evolution. More specifi-
cally, the author seems especially enamored of the extinction
metaphor, contending that just as various species lose out in the
battle for survival in the biological realm, various groups and job
descriptions will inevitably lose their reason for being in our
new, globalized economy. My objection lies not in the use of met-
aphor as a persuasive device, for by now we all understand that
the sciences-including economics-are heavily rhetorical in na-
ture. 1 The problem lies not in metaphors, as such, but rather in
*
Professor of History, South Dakota State University.
1. JOHN S. NELSON, ALLAN MEGILL, AND D.N. MCCLOSKEY (EDS), THE
RiETomc OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES: LANGUAGE AND ARGUMENT IN SCHOLARSHIP
AND PUBLIC AFFARMs (1997).
20001 COMMENTARY 595

their relevance and applicability. Economic discourse is inher-

ently metaphorical; what we need to determine 2
is whether the
ones being used are good ones or bad ones.
A variety of metaphors have been suggested to enable us to
better understand the phenomenon of globalization. Chen lik-
ens it to a "steamroller." Others compare it to a "false dawn"3 ; to
a "wondrous new machine" that "reaps as it destroys" 4 ; to a
turbo-charged vehicle 5 ; and to a Lexus factory which coexists in
6
a world where battles rage over olive trees.
Applying the metaphor of biological evolution to the global
economy is not entirely inapt. The marketplace is constantly
changing. Competition marks relationships within and across
national boundaries; there are always winners and losers. And
frequently the losers do not merely suffer; they lose their pur-
pose for being as new technologies emerge, they lose their ability
to compete in the marketplace, or new constraints emerge to put
them out of business. The similarity between what happens in
the international marketplace and what happens in the biologi-
cal realm makes the application of the metaphor helpful, in a
certain restricted sense, but, when pushed too far, it can also
mislead and distort reality. I think that is what is happening in
this instance.
Our natural reaction to hearing the biological metaphor
(and especially the extinction metaphor) applied to the economy
is to recall the problems with and the ideological burdens sur-
rounding the development of "social Darwinism" during the late
1800s. 7 Certainly aware of this and wishing to head off critics
who might try to equate his ideas with that hoary concept, Chen
notes its "sorry history" and implies that his use of the evolu-
tionary metaphor is not subject to the same mistakes. His ac-
ceptance of the idea of large, governmentally-mandated wealth
transfers, to cite one example, certainly distances him from lat-
ter-day Spencerians and Sumnerians, but his willingness to al-
low long-established traditions and ways of life to be

2. D.N. McCLosKEY, THE RHETORIC OF ECONOMICS 13, 40 (2". ED. 1998).

3. JOHN GRAY, FALSE DAwN: THE DELUSIONS OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM
(1998).
4. WILLIAM GREIDER, ONE WORLD, READY OR NOT: THE MANIC LOGIC OF
GLOBAL CAPITALISM 11 (1997).
5. EDWARD LurrwAK, TURBo-CAPITALISM: WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE
GLOBAL ECONOMY (1999).
6. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, THE LEXUS AND THE OLWVE TREE 26-29 (1999).
7. RICHARD HOFSTADTER, SOCIAL DARWINISM IN AMERICAN THOUGHT (rev.
ed. 1959); MORTON WHITE, SOCIAL THOUGHT IN AMERICA: THE REVOLT AGAINST
FORMALISM (1949).
 MNN. J GLoBAL TRADE [Vol. 9:589

extinguished in the wake of market-driven social and economic

change reunites him with the social Darwinists, who were ready
to sacrifice entire categories of people to the steamroller of eco-
nomic growth and development.
What is wrong with the evolutionary metaphor, as Chen
employs it? In the first place, it lacks consistency. For example,
his willingness to contemplate large wealth transfers as a way of
"buying off" losers or providing some minimal justice for them
seems inconsistent with the realities of "tooth-and-claw" compe-
tition in the biological realm where losers die off and do not be-
come the beneficiaries of well-intentioned "do-gooders."
Secondly, biological evolution depends upon random varia-
tion and the consequent advantages these variations confer on
individuals in their struggle for survival. The evolution of
human societies, on the other hand, is heavily influenced by the
intelligence, skills, and knowledge that are gained over time-
the accumulation of "human capital" that Theodore Schultz and
others have done so much to elucidate.8 Human societies do not
have to evolve blindly, but their development can be guided by
human intelligence. 9
A third problem with the evolutionary metaphor involves
the level at which it is said to operate. Jim Chen applies it first
to individuals, who, because of lack of skills or because of being
in the wrong industry or the wrong place, are no longer viable;
in consequence, whole categories of people and occupations be-
come expendable, e.g., cotton sharecroppers, traveling sales rep-
resentatives, and Linotype operators. While switchboard
operators and piano players in silent movie houses will never be
demanded anywhere, many occupations become outmoded in
particular places because they can no longer compete with more
efficient producers elsewhere. The author would like to add
large numbers of American farmers and automobile workers to
the obsolescent category, for they have been beneficiaries, in his
view, of misplaced federal subsidies and trade intervention. At
the societal level, he argues that many institutions and cultural
practices will have to accept victim status during the evolution-
ary process.
The question that arises here is at what level should the
evolutionary metaphor be applied-that of the individual, the
firm, the economic region, or the nation-state? Different consid-

8. THEODORE W. SCHULTZ, INVESTING IN PEOPLE: THE ECONOMICS OF PoP-

ULATION QUALITY (1981).
9. LESTER F. WARD, DYNAMIC SOCIOLOGY (1883).
2000] COMMENTARY 597

erations operate at different levels. While it may be acceptable

to eliminate the jobs of individuals in weakly competitive indus-
tries and individual firms within industries, factors may be op-
erating at the national level why at least a certain minimum
level of production should be maintained in those industries.
The interests of nations encompass more than purely economic
considerations. For reasons of safety and security, for example,
it is desirable for the United States to maintain steel, petroleum,
and agricultural production. For other nations, too, becoming
totally dependent on other nations for certain basic goods is
risky.
A fourth problem with the evolutionary metaphor relates to
its applicability across different sectors-the economy, language
and culture, religion, etc. The author makes some persuasive
arguments for the irresistible force of memes in obliterating lo-
cal variants and replacing them with new, standardized speci-
mens-of economic production, cultural output, language, and
spiritual manifestations. The logical conclusion to such imperi-
alistic assumptions would seem to lead in the direction of some
kind of utopian/distopian world in which all local variations
have been replaced by single, overwhelming, and unopposable
ideas and powers-"Brave New World" incarnate.
It may be true that American cultural productions have
overrun much of the world, that many foreign languages are en-
dangered, and that traditional religious beliefs are under chal-
lenge from new developments in science, technology, education,
and communication. But there is plenty of evidence on the other
side, too-the power of ethnicity and "multiculturalism," the rise
of religious fundamentalism in many countries, and the persis-
tence of high levels of religious belief in the United States it-
self.' 0 What may be truer in the economic realm, as
multinational corporations gobble up their competitors and pow-
erful integrative forces pull the world into an ever tighter weave,
remains much less true in the realms of culture, society, and
politics. Strong tendencies toward differentiation and local vari-
ation remain powerful. Extinction of these variations does not
appear to be imminent.
The ultimate problem with the biological metaphor lies in
its lack of a standard of value by which to judge the results of
the process. Biological evolution makes no distinction between
good and bad results. What happens, happens; what is, is.

10. ARTHuR M. SCHLESINGER, THE DISUNITING OF AMERICA (1992); BENJA-

MIN BARBER, JIHAD VS. McWoRLD (1995).
598 MIN. J GLOBAL TRADE [Vol. 9:589

"Higher" and "lower" are not acknowledged. In the end, survival

is the test. If bugs and microbes outlast humans, they win the
prize. As a member of humanity, I am ready to assert the supe-
riority of my own over other species-not only its importance
but its desirability. Man is an animal, but one created just "a
little lower than the angels."1 1 If that be classified an article of
faith, it must also be acknowledged that the evolutionary meta-
phor, as well as the "big bang" theory, quantum mechanics, and
any number of other "scientific" truths, are articles of faith,
2
too.'
Human beings are economic actors, seeking their own wel-
13
fare. But they are also social, cultural, and spiritual beings. If
any economic proposition is well-established, it is that money
does not necessarily buy happiness. 14 Most people have "set
points" regulating their level of satisfaction. It is certainly true
that human beings crave change and movement, and Ameri-
cans, of all people, may be the most restless.15 The biographies
of successful men and women almost invariably include a move
away from one's place of birth and, after that, a disproportionate
number of further moves. There is even a certain amount of
truth in asserting that "the losers stay put," but this also ob-
scures a basic reality-that a major value of human life is a
16
rootedness in place.
To observe that the modem mass media and global economy
have a tendency to obliterate place does not necessarily mean
that place has become irrelevant. Places, it is true, have become
increasingly similar over time, and people certainly have become
more mobile. But attachment to place is a value that has in-
creasing salience in recent times. Yi-Fu Tuan, Tony Hiss, James
Howard Kunstler, 17 and others have been educating us about

11. PSALMS 8:5; compare Peter Singer, ANIMAL LIBERATION (2d. ed. 1990).
12. THOMAS KUHN, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (2d ed.
1970).
13. HANS GERTH AND C. WRIGHT MILLS, CHARACTER AND SOCIAL STRUC-
TrRE: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS 10-15 (1953); E. TORY HIGGINS
AND ARIE W. KRUGLANSEI (eds), SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: HANDBOOK OF BASIC PRIN-
CIPLES (1996); RENE DuBois, So HUMAN AN ANIMAL (1968).
14. J JEREMY SEABROOK, WHAT WENT WRONG? WHY HASN'T HAVING MORE
MADE PEOPLE HAPPIER? 9-14 (1978); ROBERT SAMUELSON, THE GOOD LIFE AND
ITs DISCONsTENTS: THE AMERICAN DREAM IN THE AGE OF ENTITLEMENT, 1945-
1995 3-4 (1995).
15. GEORGE W. PIERSON, THE MOVING AMERICAN (1975).
16. EUGENE V. WALTER, PLACEWAYS: A THEORY OF THE HUMAN ENVIRON.
MENT (1988).
17. YI-Fu TUAN, TOPoPHILIA: A STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION, AT-
TITUDES, AND VALUES (1974); TONY Hiss, THE EXPERIENCE OF PLACE (1990);
2000] COMMENTARY

what we have lost in making automobiles our god, letting inter-

state highways run roughshod over the environment, and pav-
ing over the countryside with McDonalds restaurants, Wal-
Marts, and twenty-four-screen multiplexes. It all happened so
fast that few people paid much attention to it until it was almost
too late. We needed a Lewis Mumford or a Henry David
Thoreau to remind us of our connection to the wild and to
human-scale community. Now, as we find ourselves increas-
ingly ensconced in cookie-cutter suburbs, parking lots, mega-
malls, and edge cities, forward-looking thinkers are trying to
show us back to where we came from.
For many millennia of human history, people understood
the importance of place in the quality of their lives. Few
things-besides, perhaps, physical survival and one's relation-
ship with God-were considered more important. It is easy to
forget how recently physical place came to be seen as unimpor-
tant in defining human happiness. Not until the twentieth cen-
tury-with the rise of the automobile, air travel, mass media,
and the computer-did the possibility of separating ourselves
from place become conceivable.
What is wanted and needed is not a reversion to a position
where one is defined by the place one has been born or finds one-
self in currently. Rather, we need a rational reassessment of the
qualities and things that make life livable. A place that pro-
vides economic opportunity, has aesthetic distinction, supports
cooperative community, and sustains active political involve-
ment is one of the things we long for. Quantitative measures of
economic production and consumption are certainly desirable,
but they form only one part of the equation. By establishing bi-
odiversity and environmental quality as the highest priority,
Chen stakes out the high ground. But in relegating culture to a
subordinate position and in being willing to sacrifice it to global
economic growth, he takes a wrong turn. We need to continue to
grow, but we also need to understand when we have enough.
Chen takes account of this when he halfheartedly notes the de-
sirability of wealth redistribution, but it is essential in address-
ing questions like those being discussed here to get back to
basics.
We need to ask, "What is an economy for?" This inevitably
is bound up in questions of value. We need to inquire into the
good life and into what kinds of physical, social, cultural, and

JAMES HowARD KUNSTLER, HoME FROM NOWHERE: REMAKING OuR EVERYDAY

WORLD FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (1996).
600 MINN. J GLOBAL TRADE [Vol. 9:589

political-as well as spiritual-conditions sustain and promote

it. Economic considerations are important, but while necessary,
they are not sufficient. And as Michael Polanyi notes in The
Great Transformation, the market economy ineluctably erodes
traditional social relationships and threatens to destroy the very
institutions upon which it rests.' 8
Perhaps other metaphors could serve better in approaching
the subject than that of biological evolution. How about a house-
hold? Using it, we would have to consider, in addition to produc-
tion and consumption, the qualities of personal interaction,
community, and relationship to place. Just as the academic dis-
cipline of home economics went wrong when it turned its focus to
food and clothing production and home finance, rather than tak-
ing a more holistic approach to the quality of relationships in the
family and to philosophical questions of what constitute a good
life, we today go wrong when we focus too exclusively on eco-
nomic matters to the exclusion of moral and social
considerations.
Or why not take the theater as metaphor? "All the world's a
stage," Shakespeare said, and we all play a myriad of roles on
the stages we inhabit. We enact many more roles than simply
the economic. We are family members, citizens, neighbors,
friends, community residents, helpers, facilitators, leisure par-
ticipants, artists, questers, seekers, and dreamers. If we can't
build a good life with twice as much, four times as much, eight
times as much stuff as our ancestors had, can we realistically
expect to become happy in the future with two times, four times,
eight times as much as we consume now?
Or why not think of ourselves as a sports team? A baseball
team has nine players on the field at any given time. Each per-
son has a specific role to play. The players on the bench have
their assigned duties, too. Different teams have different char-
acters. One may rely on home run hitting, another may win
with singles hitters, and a third one with speed and defense.
Once again, variety rules. All are not forced into the same mold.
Local differences matter.
Finally, consider education as a metaphor. Wouldn't a
school serve at least as well as evolutionary biology for explain-
ing what goes on in the global economy? Chen's argument es-
sentially boils down to this: Globalization inevitably renders

18. See MICHAEL POLANYI, THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION 150, 163 (1944);
See also DANIEL BELL, THE CULTURAL CONTRADICTIONS OF CAPITALISM 15, 21-22
(1976).
20001 COMMENTARY 601

many occupations and activities extinct; get used to it. In a

school, we study the world and seek to find ways to adapt to it.
Rather than simply accepting or celebrating the destruction that
accompanies globalization, we try to learn what impacts are en-
tailed, what their costs and benefits are, what kinds of alterna-
tives are possible, and how we might implement those
alternatives. The education metaphor operates on the under-
standing that there are many goods, that economic goals should
not be given carte blanche, and that human beings can imagine
and implement new alternatives in the process of adjustment.
In conclusion, while acknowledging the importance of the
challenge Professor Chen has thoughtfully posed for us and the
validity of many of his claims, I doubt the relevance of his cen-
tral metaphor and urge the consideration of other metaphors
that might open new perspectives and be more useful to us.